University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

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

(USC Thesis Other)

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

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content
SUCCESSFUL COMMUNICATION STRATEGIES USED BY URBAN SCHOOL
DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENTS TO BUILD CONSENSUS IN RAISING
STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT

by

Elena Heimerl

____________________________________________________________

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

May 2012

Copyright 2012 Elena Heimerl
ii
DEDICATION
I dedicate this dissertation to my family and friends who have always
supported my endeavors, regardless of how wild, crazy, and challenging they may
have been at certain times in my life. I am blessed to have had parents who value
education and the pursuit of knowledge, but most importantly who value the
authentic challenge of bettering one’s self and through this process, I’ve succeeded
in doing much of that.
I am blessed to have had such supportive family and friends committed to
seeing this through. Without the patience of Matt, Keaton, Nelly, Jimmy, and even
Gran’dad, and their many “we’re getting out of the house so Mom can work on her
doctorate” weekends, this accomplishment simply could not have happened.
Without the willingness of my friends Debi and Greg to offer a family friendly
retreat on a regular basis for my dislocated family because “mom is working on her
doctorate this weekend,” this accomplishment simply could not have happened.
Without the help of Marge who provided me with constant encouragement, quiet
retreat, and motherly advice in a time when I needed it and my mother couldn’t be
there, this accomplishment simply could not have happened. I am blessed to have
such extraordinarily selfless and giving people in my life and I will forever be
grateful.
Throughout this entire process, my parents have been there for support and
encouragement, and I only wish that my dad could have made it to see me finish in
iii
the end. I will miss you Dad, but I still feel your support and I know how proud you
would have been.
iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to acknowledge my dissertation committee members for their
support and encouragement as I completed each step of this process – my
dissertation chair, Dr. Rudy Castruita, for his immediate feedback and critical eye,
Dr. Pedro Garcia for his patience and encouragement, and Dr. Michael Escalante for
his mentorship, leadership, and flexibility. Furthermore, each of you have played a
significant role in my development as a leader, and for this I will forever be grateful.
I would like to acknowledge the many people in my life of education and their
constant willingness to collaborate, commiserate, and keep me on task. I am further
grateful to my Glendale Unified family of Trojans and Trojan supporters, for without
each of you, I would not have been able to see this journey to the end.
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Dedication………………………………………………………………………… ...ii
Acknowledgements………………………………………………………………. ...iv
List of Tables…………………………………………………………………….. ...vi
Abstract………………………………………………………………………….. ...vii
Chapter One: Overview of the Study………………………………………….. ...1
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature………………………………………. ...15
Chapter Three: Methodology…………………………………………………... ...44
Chapter Four: Findings………………………………………………………......53
Chapter Five: Summary, Conclusions, and Implications……………………....101
References……………………………………………………………………… ...112
Appendices
Appendix A: Web-Based Survey……………………………………... ...116
Appendix B: Interview Guide…………………………………………...124
Appendix C: Invitation to Participate Letter………………………….....125
vi
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Superintendent Gender……………………………………………... ...55
Table 2: Superintendent Ethnicity…………………………………………… ...56
Table 3: Superintendent Age………………………………………………… ...57
Table 4: Superintendent Educational Attainment……………………………. ...58
Table 5: Superintendents’ Total Years in Superintendency and Total………. ...59
Years in Current District
Table 6: Superintendent Career History……………………………………... ...61
Table 7: Importance of District Vision, Mission, and Priorities to Student…. ...64
Achievement
Table 8: Skills a Superintendent Must Possess in Order to Successfully……. ...71
Lead an Urban School District
Table 9: Communication as it Pertains to Each Leadership Skill……………....72
in Table 8
Table 10: Importance of Communicating the Vision, Mission, and…………......78
Priorities to the Stakeholders
Table 11: Importance of Communication when Implementing Change………....83
Table 12: Internal Stakeholders Included as Recipients in District Message…. ...84
Table 13: External Stakeholders Included as Recipients in District Message…...86
Table 14: Factors Impacting Student Achievement……………………………...89
Table 15: Messaging Strategies……………………………………………….. ...94
vii
ABSTRACT
The role of the superintendent has dramatically changed over the years. With
the latest demands for increased accountability measures and district transparency
from the state and federal governments, superintendents have had to increase their
skills and areas of expertise not just in the basics of leadership, but to include skills
in networking and building partnerships, translating complicated governmental
policies, negotiating with union groups, focusing on student achievement and closing
the gap between high and low performing sub-groups, while maintaining a sense of
transparency with internal and external stakeholders to establish and maintain trust.
This study explores how successful urban school district superintendents raise
student achievement through effective communication and communication strategies
to build consensus and implement school reform efforts. In addition to identifying
the internal and external stakeholders to which information must be shared, the study
also provides an analysis of effective messaging and communication strategies
superintendents employ to build consensus and raise student achievement.

1
CHAPTER ONE
OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
There has been much change in the role of district superintendent over time,
from being a glorified clerk for school boards early on, to more recently becoming
both the manager and the instructional leader of the district (Kowalski, 2005). With
the onset of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) with the high level of
accountability and the legislation mandating greater transparency, district
superintendents have had to become skilled at understanding the many facets of
policies and their implications for all members of a district, and masters in the art of
translating these policies for their boards, administrators and teachers. Most
recently, school superintendents have also had to develop the skill in communicating
these policies to their external stakeholders in a meaningful way.
In order to understand the context for this change, it is important to identify
how much of these changes came to be. In 1983, the National Commission on
Excellence in Education’s report A Nation at Risk, illuminated serious issues in
public education that according to the report, if not addressed, would contribute to
the erosion of public education in America (National Commission on Excellence in
Education, 1983). Once seen as a leader in education, producing individuals who
were innovative in the areas of commerce, industry, science and technology, A
Nation at Risk highlighted the reality that this was no longer the case. Explaining that
our nation’s schools were being called on to do much more than just educate our
students, but rather, that schools were now required to also provide education
2
regarding social, political, and even personal solutions that once were addressed at
home and through other means (National Commission on Excellence in Education,
1983). It was this report that brought to the attention of our nation’s leaders the
reality of the shortcomings of our educational system, and consequently, the urgency
to address the issues and make changes in the educational system that had, thus far
been successful in producing high functioning individuals – able to compete and lead
society in a global economy. A Nation at Risk made it clear that in order to regain
our place at the top of the global marketplace, our educational system would need to
be reformed to address the needs of all students and that for this to happen, schools
would need to focus their efforts on the learning of all students (Jorgenson &
Hoffmann, 2003).
The urgency put forth by A Nation at Risk, placed this notion of educational
reform at the top of the political agenda (Schwartz, Robinson, Kirst, & Kirp, 2000),
and in 1994, the Goals 2000: Educate America Act was signed into law. This
legislation set standards for, and provided support to, the states to focus on
improving academic achievement by raising academic standards, supporting high-
quality professional development for teachers, expanding the use of computers and
technology in classrooms, and increasing parental and community involvement in
education (Paris, 1994). Shortly thereafter, the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001
(NCLB) was implemented, requiring increased statewide accountability and allowing
more choices for parents and students with the intent to ensure that no child be
trapped in a failing school. With the onset of the NCLB legislation, states have been
3
held accountable to set high standards for academic achievement while identifying
gaps in student populations not reaching proficiency in these standards.
Additionally, and perhaps even more importantly, NCLB requires that schools
provide the necessary support to close these achievement gaps. Students attending
schools that show consistent failure to meet such standards within their student
populations, now have the choice to attend alternative schools that show success in
student academic achievement.
Currently, schools are not just expected to, but are being held accountable for
providing a quality education for the students who attend. As far as much of the
stakeholders in the public are concerned, the solution for any lack of student or
school performance is to hold local educators accountable for ensuring that all
students meet high academic standards, as measured by performance on standardized
tests (Datnow & Murphy, 2009). As a result, the practices of both administrators and
teachers have been scrutinized, as a way of identifying those best practices that will
move a low performing school toward the levels of proficiency that is sought (and
now required by NCLB). Furthermore, as a result of this scrutiny and as it has been
described in A Nation at Risk, it has become even more apparent that not all students
are receiving the same education or opportunities, and not all teachers are developing
professionally as educators. Uncovering this fact, has illuminated problems within
our classroom and school systems that may have existed since the onset of public
education, however now more than ever, are detrimental to our nation at large. This
bureaucratic accountability has forced professional accountability, which has
4
increased community accountability where schools are required to openly
communicate with the stakeholders and work together to form partnerships that
support student achievement, all of which is currently measured by a single, high-
stakes assessment. The question now becomes, how do educational leaders meet the
academic needs of each student so that the achievement gap continues to decrease,
while communicating to their stakeholders the confusing nuances of the bureaucratic
policies, the efforts being made to increase student achievement for all students, and
the successes in these efforts.
Historically, a successful superintendent managed the district finances and
avoided a financial crisis, selected competent personnel, survived tense labor
negotiations, and built a strong relationship with the local community (Fowler, 2009;
Hill, 2004). However, in order to manage these functions, it has been equally
important for a successful superintendent to have and maintain a strong relationship
with the school board, as it is this group, by communicating with the superintendent,
deciding on the allocation of resources and transacts the critical business facing the
district (Petersen & Short, 2001). As a result of the accountability movement, the
superintendent – the most visible and most influential position in public education—
is now being called upon to be a visionary leader, firm manager, shrewd politician, a
role model exemplifying ethical behavior, all the while maintaining the highest of
expectations while showing compassion for employees and colleagues (Kowalski,
2005; Kowalski, 2006). It should also be noted, that all of this must be executed
5
with an expected and required level of transparency; such transparency can only
happen through thoughtful and intentional communication.
Transparency is especially crucial in public education today because of the
many problems that have been uncovered through the recent accountability mandates
as well as the financial crisis that has erupted nationwide. Schools and districts are
being held accountable to provide an equitable education to all students, identify and
close the achievement gaps that exist within the various subgroups, and prove to
their stakeholders that the funds given them are being used for the benefit of the
students entrusted to them. Transparency, in this case, provides an open channel of
communication with the public that shows how decisions are being made and who
makes them, which in turn, it is hoped, will create a system that is less likely to be
corrupt or led by special interests (Brewer & Smith, 2006).
Although the importance of communication seems to be obvious in terms of
effective leadership, the culture of education has historically been one of isolation,
and scholarship in the field would seem to suggest, that this isolation has been a
contributing factor to low performance (Kowalski, 2005). Therefore, when looking
to reform a failing school, school leaders and superintendents are encouraged to
work collaboratively with colleagues, parents, and various stakeholders, while
including stakeholders in political dialogue, facilitating the creation of shared
visions, building a positive school district image, gaining community support for
change, and keeping the public informed about education. Once again, the hope and
6
intent behind such actions, is that by doing all of this, the culture of isolation will be
transformed to one of openness and inclusion (Kowalski, 2005).
While communication is an important component of effective leadership, the
way in which a leader communicates is equally important. A superintendent must
identify the various groups with whom communication is essential, then have a plan
for what needs to be communicated and how, in order to maintain a positive image
as this will lead to public confidence in schools as well as the school board
(Carlsmith & Railsback, 2001). Marzano and Waters (2006) explain that effective
superintendents include all relevant stakeholders, which include central office staff,
site administrators, and board members, in establishing goals for their districts,
which then need to be communicated with the various groups appropriately.
Statement of the Problem
The high accountability standards enacted by the No Child Left Behind Act
of 2001 have increased the demands placed on urban district superintendents to raise
student achievement and close the achievement gap between student subgroups.
Success of the urban district superintendent relies on his/her ability to enact large
scale, district-wide school reform initiatives. To bring about needed change urban
superintendents must create a vision and unity of purpose for the district focused on
raising student achievement. The implementation of this vision requires
superintendents to build political capital through effective messaging and
communication strategies. Superintendents have to be able to build support for the
vision from their school board, community groups, bargaining units, and local
7
businesses. All of these groups have specific political agendas that superintendents
must navigate in order to institute reforms that are effective and sustainable over
time. This study will evaluate the communication and political messaging strategies
used by successful urban superintendents to increase student achievement.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study is to examine how successful urban school district
superintendents raise student achievement through effective communication and
communication strategies that build consensus which better enables superintendents
to implement their school reform efforts. This study includes the various types of
information that is critical for the superintendent to communicate, as well as
identifies the internal and external stakeholders with whom such information must be
shared. Additionally, this study provides an analysis of effective messaging, and the
communication strategies employed by these superintendents.
Research Questions
This study is guided by the following research questions:
1. How do urban superintendents successfully communicate the vision of
raising student achievement?
2. How do urban superintendents successfully create a unity of purpose and
build consensus focused on raising student achievement?
3. When implementing change that will increase student achievement, who
are the various groups that a superintendent must consider when
communicating the vision?
8
4. What are the various messaging strategies successful urban
superintendents employ with the various stakeholders in order to raise
student achievement?
Significance of the Study
This study will identify the critical communication skills and strategies
necessary for an urban school district superintendent to effectively run an urban
school district with the purpose of increasing student achievement. The importance
of this study is that it will add critical information to the field literature regarding the
communication skills necessary for effective leadership in the public school system
that will ultimately increase student achievement. This study will analyze how
various communication and communication strategies utilized by superintendents
play an integral role in their success or failure of implementing school reform in
terms of stakeholder buy-in, support and student achievement.
Frequently, urban school district superintendents find themselves caught up
in the overwhelming day-to-day tasks of running a district such as collaborating with
various groups in setting goals for student achievement, maintaining positive
relationships with the school board and the local community, overseeing the budget
and monitoring the spending to maintain compliance, and working with the labor
unions to find ways to ensure that the students remain the focus of the efforts of all
involved. Many times it is assumed that in executing all these tasks, the urban
school district superintendent will also lead the charge in disseminating critical
information to appropriate stakeholders, and do so in the most effective manner.
9
Unfortunately, this is not always the case, and for all the effort needed to
successfully run an urban school district, it is important that the subject of effective
communication skills be addressed specifically, and not as an aside; this study takes
on that task.
The findings of this study will provide urban school district superintendents
with a framework of communication strategies that can be used to successfully
implement school reform efforts and increase student achievement.
Limitations
The following limitations are known to exist in this study:
1. Twenty urban superintendents were surveyed in this study. The study was
limited to superintendents based on voluntary participation.
2. The selected superintendents led large urban school districts with 15,000
or more students.
3. The data collection method based upon survey analysis, and open ended
interviews with participating superintendents, may have caused
unintended biases in the data utilized for this study.
Delimitations
1. The superintendents selected for this study were current or former
superintendents having either completed two years as a superintendent
(not necessarily in the same school district) or currently in their second
year leading a large urban school district.
10
2. The superintendents selected for this study led districts with more than
15,000 students.
3. The superintendents selected for this study have demonstrated consistent
measurable gains in academic achievement as measured by their
respective academic performance index (API) scores.
Assumptions
1. The chosen procedures and methods were appropriate.
2. The superintendents selected for this study provided honest responses to
all survey and/or interview questions making the data relevant and
pertinent to the discussion of this topic.
3. All gathered information through surveys and interviews was accurately
recorded and provide a true reflection of the interviewees.
4. The analysis of the data collected from the surveys and interviews would
provide useful information for all participants in education.
Definitions
Academic Performance Index (API) — Created as part of the Public Schools
Accountability Act, the API is a method of summarizing test score results into one
number that can range from 200 to 1000, with 800 being the state-defined goal. That
one-number summary—“API score”—is used to rank schools among all others in the
state of the same type (elementary, middle, high) and, separately, among the 100
schools most similar in student demographics, teacher qualifications, and other
factors. API scores are also used to set annual improvement goals (“growth targets”).
11
Accountability — The notion that people (e.g., students or teachers) or an
organization (e.g., a school, school district, or state department of education) should
be held responsible for improving student achievement and should be rewarded or
sanctioned for their success or lack of success in doing so.
Achievement Gap — The gap between the academic outcomes of different
groups of students most often used when comparing racial subgroups. However, it
can be used to compare any group of students based on common characteristics such
as income level, language development, race, gender, etc.
Achievement test — A test to measure a student's knowledge and skills.
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) — A set of annual academic performance
benchmarks that states, school district, schools, and subpopulations of students are
expected to achieve if they state receives funding under Title I, Part A of the federal
No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB).
Alignment — The degree to which assessments, curriculum, instruction,
textbooks and other instructional materials, teacher preparation and professional
development, and systems of accountability all reflect and reinforce the educational
program's objectives and standards.
Assessment — Teacher-made tests, standardized tests, or tests from textbook
companies that are used to evaluate student performance.
Average daily attendance (ADA) — The total number of days of student
attendance divided by the total number of days in the regular school year. A student
attending every school day would equal one ADA. Generally, ADA is lower than
12
enrollment due to such factors as transiency, dropouts, and illness. A school district's
revenue limit income is based on its ADA.
Benchmarks — A detailed description of a specific level of student
achievement expected of students at particular ages, grades, or developmental levels;
academic goals set for each grade level.
Categorical Aid/Categorical Programs — Funds from the state or federal
government granted to qualifying schools or district for specific children with
specific needs.
Content standards — Standards that describe what students should know and
be able to do in core academic subjects at each grade level.
Core Academic Standards — The basic academic standards that are assessed
in the statewide testing system for K-12 public schools.
Curriculum — The courses of study offered by a school or district. California
has developed a set of standards that are intended to guide curriculum and
instruction. The final decisions about school curriculum are the responsibility of the
local school board. (Ed Source)
Disaggregated data — The presentation of data broken into segments of the
student population instead of the entire enrollment.
Formative assessment — Any form of assessment used by an educator to
evaluate students' knowledge and understanding of particular content and then to
adjust instructional practices accordingly toward improving student achievement in
that area.
13
Intervention — The term refers to funds that schools receive for students who
are not learning at grade level. They can be used to fund before-school or after
school programs or to pay for materials and instructors.
No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) — The 2002 reauthorization of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). Originally passed in 1965,
ESEA programs provide much of the federal funding for K-12 schools.
Proficiency — Mastery or ability to do something at grade level.
Program Improvement (PI) — A multistep plan to improve the performance
of students in schools that did not make adequate yearly progress under No Child
Left Behind for two years in a row. Only schools that receive federal Title I funds
may be entered in Program Improvement.
School Accountability Report Card (SARC) — An annual disclosure report
for parents and the public produced by a school that presents student achievement,
test scores, teacher credentials, dropout rates, class sizes, resources, and more. The
SARC is required by state and federal law.
School Board — A locally elected group, usually between three and seven
members, who set fiscal, personnel, instructional, and student-related policies. The
governing board also provides direction for the district, hires and fires the district
superintendent, and approves the budget and contracts with employee unions.
School District — A local education agency (LEA) directed by an elected
local board of education that exists primarily to operate public schools.
14
Socioeconomically disadvantaged — Students whose parents do not have a
high school diploma or who participate in the federally funded free/reduced price
meal program because of low family income.
Standardized test — A test that is in the same format for all who take it. It
often relies on multiple-choice questions and the testing conditions—including
instructions, time limits, and scoring rubrics—these are the same for all students,
though sometimes accommodations on time limits and instructions are made for
disabled students. (Ed Source)
Standards — Degrees or levels of achievement based on grade level
curriculum.
Title I — A federal program that provides funds for educationally
disadvantaged students based on the number of low-income students in a school.
Urban School District — A school district located in a metropolitan area
serving a large population of students, where usually the majority of the student
population, are minority and/or socioeconomically disadvantaged students.
Urban Superintendent — The chief executive officer of an urban school
district.
15
CHAPTER TWO
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Introduction
The need for school reform and demand for increased accountability has been
one of the major components in the change in the role of school superintendency
over the years. In order to appreciate the complexity of the superintendency and have
a reasonably accurate understanding of the position and persons in the role of
superintendent, and how effective communication strategies utilized by the
superintendent are paramount to the organization itself in increasing student
achievement, it is important to understand previous efforts, and why current
accountability measures have been put in place in the present. The position and role
of school superintendent has evolved for over a century due to the range of issues
going on at a certain time, and continues to evolve as the need for different qualities
arises (Kowalski, McCord, Petersen, Young, & Ellerson, 2011).
This chapter provides a review of the literature in regard to educational
reform starting with the demands set forth by the report A Nation at Risk: The
Imperative for Educational Reform, and moving to the current No Child Left Behind
legislation, the current demands for educational organizations in an accountability
age, the historic roles of superintendency and the new requirements added as a result
of the current accountability era, and theories of leadership. It concludes with a brief
examination of the literature regarding the importance of communication strategies
utilized by superintendents to lead their organizations successfully.
16
Overview of Recent Educational Reform
Public education has been scrutinized over the years as a matter of regular
practice; however, when the National Commission on Excellence in Education
published a report in 1983 it created a sense of urgency in our country to
acknowledge the potential downfall of American society due to the erosion of our
public school system. This report, A Nation at Risk: The Imperative for Educational
Reform put public education in a negative spotlight so severe, that we continue to
debate the state of our educational system and put forth reform efforts to address the
findings almost thirty years later (Goldberg & Morrison, 2003). The report detailed
the reality our country would face in the global marketplace if we continued to allow
our public school system to function at a level below the international norm in regard
to student proficiency, particularly in math and science. As a result of under-
preparing our students, not only would we be unable to compete in the global
marketplace, but our nation’s standing would soon be compromised as well
(National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983). Regardless of whether or
not the findings reported in A Nation at Risk (1983) were as severe as stated, the
general agreement was that many schools were not adequately preparing students to
succeed in a modern, democratic society (Goldberg & Morrison, 2003). The call to
“dedicate ourselves to the reform of our educational system for the benefit of all –
old and young alike, affluent and poor, majority and minority” (National
Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983, para. 7), was heard.
17
The need to address our nation’s standing in the current and future global
marketplace moved public education to the forefront of national priorities which
would require a restructuring of the public school system. In 1989 the state
governors and President Clinton came together in Charlottesville in an effort to have
a serious discussion regarding the improvement of America’s schools. It was from
this summit that the idea of national performance goals, within which states could
focus their efforts, was created and began to take shape (Schwartz, Robinson, Kirst,
& Kirp, 2000). The agreement was that these goals would provide a common
direction for educational improvement in all states, yet still provide flexibility within
state and local communities to determine for themselves how best to achieve the
desired results (National Education Goals Panel, 1999). It was also the hope that
these goals would energize public opinion and continual reform efforts by creating
much higher expectations for all students and for the schools and learning systems
serving them (National Education Goals Report, 1993). Knowing that this vision
would be lost if there was no established process for holding the nation and states
accountable for attaining the national education goals, the National Education Goals
Panel was created to be at the center of the process (National Education Goals
Report, 1993). This Panel was an intergovernmental and bipartisan partnership
consisting of eight Governors, two senior national Administration officials, and four
members of Congress with an equal balance of Democrats and Republicans, and was
responsible for determining the indicators used to measure the national education
18
goals and for reporting progress toward their achievement (National Education Goals
Panel, 1993; National Education Goals Report, 1993).
The Panel adopted six goals to be reached by the year 2000, later expanding
to eight goals by Congress, which were as follows: all children in America will start
school ready to learn; increase the high school graduation rate to 90%; students
leaving grades four, eight, and twelve will show proficiency in English, mathematics,
science, history and geography in addition to being prepared for responsible
citizenship, further learning, and productive employment in our modern economy;
students in the U.S. will be first in the world in science and mathematics
achievement; teachers will have the knowledge and skills that they need; each adult
American will be literate and have the knowledge and skills needed to compete in a
global economy as well as exercise the rights and responsibilities of citizenship; each
school in America will be safe – free of drugs and violence and offer a disciplined
environment conducive to learning; and schools will promote parental involvement
and participation (National Education Goals Report, 1993; National Education Goals
Report, 1999).
The vision for creating these goals was to create a “world-class” educational
system from early childhood through adulthood (National Education Goals Report,
1999; Schwartz, Robinson, Kirst, & Kirp, 2000). As with any established goals,
there must be a way of measuring progress and attainment built into the system.
Recognizing this reality, it was understood that clear nationwide standards reflecting
our goals for student learning and abilities needed to be developed (National
19
Education Goals Report, 1993), and shortly thereafter, voluntary national education
standards were developed that described what all students should know and be able
to do (National Education Goals Report, 1999). The movement toward nationwide
standards was intended to change American education from one focusing on not just
access for all students, but quality learning for all students with high performance no
longer being the exception, but exceptional performance being the norm (National
Education Goals Report, 1993).
As states began to embark upon “world-class” standards for students, it was
realized that not only would there need to be reliable data sources that could be used
to measure educational performance outputs, but there also needed to be a consistent
nationwide record and data collection system used to measure proficiency rates, high
school drop-out percentages, as well as measure data on school violence (National
Education Goals Panel, 1993). In addition, the National Assessment of Educational
Progress (NAEP) was created because there needed to be criteria used voluntarily to
judge the developing nationwide standards (National Education Goals Report, 1993).
Many states also began to adopt statewide content standards, publishing
accountability reports, and aligning curriculum with their standardized assessments.
It was at this time that California began to implement a coherent state policy
regarding statewide standards (Schwartz, Robinson, Kirst, & Kirp, 2000). The
policy called for clear, high academic goals and strong instructional guidance from
the top of the system, coupled with a great amount of decentralization to schools and
communities to determine the best means of accomplishing the goals (Schwartz,
20
Robinson, Kirst, & Kirp, 2000). It was California’s curriculum frameworks, the way
the adoption policies pushed textbook publishers to align their texts to the
frameworks, their creation of professional development centers to assist teachers in
framework implementation, and the development of more rigorous assessments to
measure student learning against the frameworks that provided the necessary proof
that each state might be able to do the same, and that the nation could potentially
create a more coherent, aligned educational policy with a more centralized system,
similar to European and Asian countries (Schwartz, Robinson, Kirst, & Kirp, 2000).
The Goals 2000: Educate America Act was then signed into law in 1994.
Goals 2000 was designed in an attempt to partner with the states and channel federal
resources in support of state-driven systemic education reform (Schwartz, Robinson,
Kirst, & Kirp, 2000; U.S. Department of Education, 1996). More specifically, in
exchange for flexibility and minimal regulation, the states would be held accountable
for improvements in student performance across their school systems paying
particular attention to raising student achievement for all students and closing the
achievement gap for minorities, as opposed to focusing efforts on the disadvantaged
and children at risk of school failure alone (Jorgenson & Hoffmann, 2003; Schwartz,
Robinson, Kirst, & Kirp, 2000; U.S. Department of Education, 1996).
As states continued to define their individual academic standards, develop
assessments to measure student learning, and increase school accountability,
President George W. Bush signed into law the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001
which was the reauthorizing of the Elementary and Secondary Act of 1965
21
(Jorgenson & Hoffmann, 2003). The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 changed the
concept of public education in dramatic ways by bringing clarity to the value, use,
and importance of achievement testing or standardized assessments (Jorgenson &
Hoffmann, 2003). The No Child Left Behind Act shifted focus from provision of
service that ignored student outcomes, to student learning (Stecher & Kirby, 2004).
Student learning was brought to the forefront of national priority and as a result came
a new era of accountability, local control, and parental involvement (Jorgenson &
Hoffmann, 2003).
The goals of the No Child Left Behind Act are specific and have set the bar
very high for student achievement. Under the No Child Left Behind Act, all students
in all public K-12 schools must show proficiency in the standards set by the
individual states in their specific grade level by the year 2014 (Kim & Sunderman,
2005). From the onset of the No Child Left Behind Act, states were to set their own
minimum proficiency rates which were to increase yearly and each school until 2014
when all students – either within the majority of the population or within a subgroup,
must show proficiency within the state created standards (Kim & Sunderman, 2005;
Porter & Polikoff, 2007).
The No Child Left Behind Act outlined eligibility requirements for hiring
teachers – teachers were now required to be highly qualified according to federal
standards, states were to ensure that students made adequate yearly progress toward
their own set of implemented standards, districts were held accountable to show that
students within subgroups (minorities, socio-economically disadvantaged, English
22
language learners, students with disabilities) also reached proficiency or showed
progress toward standard proficiency, and districts were also to adopt and implement
curricular and instructional programs that were scientifically researched-based.
(Porter & Polikoff, 2007). While each of these are significant to the No Child Left
Behind Act, the cornerstone driving force was and continues to be, a performance-
based accountability system built around student test results with public
accountability for individual student learning (Jorgenson & Hoffmann, 2003; Stecher
& Kirby, 2004). The No Child Left Behind Act has tied funding directly to
accountability expectations and in order to receive this funding schools must ensure
that all students learn the essential skills and knowledge defined by the individual
state standards (Jorgenson & Hoffmann, 2003).
The No Child Left Behind Act requires three basic performance-based
accountability system elements: goals; assessments for measuring the attainment of
goals and judging success; and consequences in the form of rewards or sanctions for
schools that show student performance or lack thereof (Stecher & Kirby, 2004). The
goals to be reached by each student are embedded within the performance standards
implemented by each state. The intent is that schools and teachers use these
standards to both guide curriculum selection as well as instruction (Stecher & Kirby,
2004). Similar to an exam which a teacher administers upon the completion of a
unit, state assessments are developed to measure student learning and determine
whether students have mastered the standards. Schools and districts showing
proficiency or improved performance on the assessments are rewarded. This is
23
intended to reinforce effective practice and behavior. Schools and districts that fail
to show proficiency or adequate yearly progress (AYP) are required to show
improvement efforts and are subject to sanctions and harsh penalties which include,
but are not limited to, parent request to another school and/or supplemental
educational services from private providers (Stecher & Kirby, 2004). In addition,
schools that do not meet annual yearly progress toward goals for two consecutive
years are identified as needing improvement and become eligible for federal
improvement funds (Jacobson, Johnson, Ylimaki, & Giles, 2005). If schools
continue to make inadequate progress, they are subject to consequences increasingly
severe in addition to corrective action including reconstitution, replacement of staff,
or designation as a charter school (Jacobson, Johnson, Ylimaki, & Giles, 2005).
The Age of Accountability
The term “accountability” has been defined as “an obligation or willingness
to accept responsibility or to account for one’s actions” (Merriam-Webster, 2011)
embedded in the context of following rules and procedures (Elmore, 2002). This
concept of accountability has been utilized in education for decades (Stecher &
Kirby, 2004), and it is important to understand that this concept of “accountability”,
both definitionally and materially, has become the basis for public school reform in
our nation. However, with the onset of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001
(NCLB), accountability in the world of public education has taken on a different
perspective. At one point, reform efforts primarily focused on the provision of
services and inputs such as teachers, facilities, textbooks, specific practices and
24
programs (Stecher & Kirby, 2004). The NCLB legislation, as previously mentioned,
has modified the definition to include an entire accountability system built around
student test results (Stecher & Kirby, 2004). The current accountability system is a
reflection of the compromises made by policy makers wanting to bring more controls
to education by increasing parental choice, putting a greater emphasis on the
teacher’s role, linking standardized test performance to grade-level promotion, and
even including open-ended and constructed-response questions to the assessments
(Stecher & Kirby, 2004). This accountability system, while measuring student
outcomes, includes the concept of holding students, schools and districts accountable
for student achievement, or lack thereof. In addition to educators, school
administrators, and officials, this accountability movement has come to involve
legislators, governors, advocacy groups, professional organizations, and even
educational researchers in the process, making accountability and student
achievement a top priority (Elmore, 2002; Stecher & Kirby, 2004; Linn, 2003).
Burke (2004) suggests that the current accountability expectations imposes six
demands on officials serving public organizations: (a) they must demonstrate that
they are using their power properly, (b) they must show that they are working to
achieve the goals that have been set for their organization, (c) they must report on
their performance, (d) they must show effectiveness and efficiency and account for
their produced outcomes, (e) they must ensure the quality of implemented programs,
and (f) they must show that they are serving the needs of the public.
25
While it is important to understand the reasons for creating such
accountability measures, it is equally important to identify how this accountability
has changed the skill-sets needed for leaders to successfully run school
organizations. NCLB has forced our educational system to publicize data, detailing
results for all schools both high and low achieving, with the hope that by doing this it
will improve professional practices and public image. Because NCLB has created a
penalty for consistently failing schools by providing parents with the option of
transferring their children to another school, new power has been placed in the hands
of consumers (Stecher & Kirby, 2004), and directly impacts the way leaders must
approach school and district leadership, as public education has now become what
some would consider a competitive industry.
By providing this historic overview detailing the changes in public education
with the first publication of the Nation at Risk Report of 1983 to the latest No Child
Left Behind Act of 2001, the stage has been set for the current demands for
leadership in public education, more specifically urban school district
superintendents. As a result of the policies mandating transparency, accountability,
and community involvement, superintendents are faced with a myriad of challenges
in the attempt to meet the requirements set forth by the policies, as well as meeting
the individual needs of their staffs and communities to ensure that all students
succeed and are well equipped with the necessary skills to encounter life after high
school, whatever that may be. Successful leaders bring to life a sense of mission and
purpose and shared understanding of the means by which school community
26
members will be held accountable, and hold each other accountable, for helping to
achieve it. Successful leaders must have a clear sense of purpose, a deep
understanding of the role of the various and sometimes conflicting accountability
processes at work in schools, and a toolbox of effective strategies for change and
coordination amongst the work of internal and external actors (Goldberg &
Morrison, 2003). School leaders are currently charged with taking on the
responsibility for achieving educational goals and purposes through local reforms
and must somehow tie systems and accountability processes together, and
communicate a clear sense of where they are headed and who is in charge of getting
them there (Goldberg & Morrison, 2003).
Past, Present, and Changing Roles of Superintendency
For many years, effective superintendents needed merely to understand how
to work with their local school boards, manage district finances, select competent
personnel, and build community support (Fowler, 2009). Outside of these duties,
they could close their doors to the rest of the world and their districts would, for the
most part, continue to run smoothly. Kowalski, McCord, Petersen, Young, and
Ellerson (2011) describe more specifically the various duties and functions that the
superintendent role has taken on since inception. According to Kowalski et al.
(2011), in its beginning stages, approximately between the years of 1865 and 1910,
the superintendent was considered a teacher-scholar effective in teaching, answered
to the board, but was in a capacity considered to be above the principals and
27
teachers. The primary focus for the teacher-scholar superintendent was to implement
state curriculum and supervise teachers (Bjӧrk, Glass, & Brunner, 2005).
After 1910, with the Industrial Revolution and the classical theories and
principles of scientific management embedded within, the role of superintendent
took on the characteristics of business manager. This created an authoritative,
impersonal, and task-oriented set of values and beliefs within the position because
superintendents were assigned management duties that included budget
development, administrative oversight of operations, and personnel and facility
management, and at this time school boards became more focused on a
superintendent’s managerial skills than on his or her teaching skills (Bjӧrk, Glass, &
Brunner, 2005; Kowalski et al., 2011). The Industrial Revolution was replaced with
the Great Depression, as were the ideals of a business manager as superintendent.
Public education now needed an educational statesman – able to serve as a political
strategist and lobbyist who could rouse support for education, and to successfully
compete for scarce resources (Bjӧrk, Glass, & Brunner, 2005; Kowalski et al., 2011).
After World War II the education system needed to adjust to new
demographics which included population growth, school consolidation, and new
school districts in newly established suburban areas. Kowalski et al. (2011) cited
Bjӧrk and Gurley (2005), who explain that critics have argued that superintendents
had become overly idealistic and too focused on political philosophy rather than on
the emerging social science as a result of the post war demographics. This led to the
new superintendent’s role as that of an applied social scientist, which meant that
28
superintendents were expected to solve the greater problems in education, such as
understanding school districts as complex systems, as well as achieving social justice
for children by using applied social science theories (Getzels, 1977; Fusarelli &
Fusarelli, 2005, as cited in Bjӧrk, Glass & Brunner, 2005).
As superintendents perfected their roles as social scientists, in the 1980s
researchers found that poor communication was a crucial determinant in the
perception of administrator effectiveness (Richmond, McCroskey, Davis, &
Koontz,1980; Snavely & Walters, 1983, as cited in Kowalski et al., 2011) which
added to the need for the new role of the superintendent to be that of an expert
communicator (Kowalski et al, 2011). Currently, as a result of the accountability
pressures and the need to increase student achievement, today’s superintendents must
launch and sustain new reform efforts which require them to work in a collaborative
nature with principals, teachers, parents, and other taxpayers to create a shared vision
and work toward seeing the vision to its fruition (Kowalski, 2005). Communication
is vital to the superintendent role because it is a process through which members of
the school organization are able to express their collective beliefs in order to
coordinate behaviors and attitudes. Communication is instrumental to building,
maintaining, and changing culture because it gives meaning to work and creates
perceptions of reality (Kowalski, 1998 as cited in Kowalski, 2005). Furthermore, as
current policies demand transparency and accountability, superintendents must
understand politics and be able to involve stakeholders in meaningful political
dialogue, build a positive school district image, communicate the need for and garner
29
support for change from the community, and keep the increasingly diverse
community and public informed about educational matters (Kowalski, 2005). It is
also important to note that a superintendent’s communication and messaging
strategies are directly influenced by various factors including: (a) the need for
providing leadership in improving teaching and learning, (b) the need to change the
cultures within the district as a part of school improvement, and (c) the need to
access and use relevant information to solve problems of practice (Bjӧrk, Glass, &
Brunner, 2005). Understanding the importance of, and having the ability to
communicate effectively, is crucial to the role of superintendent as it is the
superintendent’s responsibility to work with local boards, parents, and other
community members to set district objectives and priorities, facilitate strategic
planning, spearhead fundraising efforts, and make decisions in regard to program and
curriculum (Bjӧrk, Glass, & Brunner, 2005).
Although each of these described roles of superintendents were more
pronounced during certain time periods, it should be noted that as the superintendent
moved into a different era and took on a different role, the previous role was not
abandoned, but instead it became part of the overall functions of the superintendent
(Bjӧrk, Glass, & Brunner, 2005). Today’s superintendent must balance the
diversification of their student and staff populations while maintaining responsibility
for student progress and achievement, interpret and meet the expectations of the
ever-increasing involvement from the federal government, maintain board and
community relations (Kowalski et al., 2011). Furthermore, s/he must stay in tune
30
with the explosion of technology and its impact on students while harnessing its
capabilities and creating realistic expectations for teachers to implement such
technologies in the teaching and learning process, as well as have a keen awareness
for, and working relationship with, the media (Kowalski et al., 2011). In order to
succeed at the daunting task of running a school district, a superintendent must also
remember to keep stakeholders in the informational loop (Edwards, 2007). So many
of these responsibilities seem to be student focused because, after all, they are built
around the public education of all students. However, in dealing with all these
factors impacting students and their achievement, it is easy to get caught up in the
process and lose sight of the focus. Therefore, it is important to remember that if a
superintendent can communicate not just through words, but through actions that the
focus should always be on students – while building and maintaining bridges
between school staff, parents, and community members, success is more likely to
follow.
Theories of Leadership
Urban school district superintendents are held responsible for all issues going
on in the district, including, but certainly not limited to, low student achievement,
high student dropout rates, dysfunctional operational systems, various facilities in
need of repair, labor and negotiation issues, and declining state and federal funding
(Quinn, 2007). Furthermore, with every era of new reform effort initiated to increase
student achievement and public opinion of our educational system, roles and
responsibilities of the urban school district superintendent dramatically increase in
31
their number, complexity, and demand. Not only are leaders expected to run school
organizations that are increasingly complex in student diversity with efficiency and
safety, but the curriculum standards, achievement benchmarks, and programming
and policy requirements continue to generate complicated and unpredictable
requirements for schools and districts (Liethwood & Riehl, 2003; Robinson, 2006).
Additionally, Bredeson and Kose (2007) explain that Superintendents are responding
to new external demands for accountability through various curriculum and
instruction priorities, budget increases to support these priorities, increased attention
to data analysis, and priorities in hiring assistants to support their work. The
increased demands for accountability have caused the contemporary role of
superintendency to be dynamic and malleable, shaped by both internal and external
environments (Bredeson & Kose, 2007). Liethwood and Riehl (2003) add that
school and district leadership must also respond to an increased diversity in student
characteristics and community demographics, including cultural background and
immigration status, income disparities, physical and mental disabilities, and varied
learning capacities, in addition to managing relationships and collaborating with
outside social agencies that also serve children. Bredeson and Kose (2007) suggest
that superintendents need also to develop transition leadership skills for negotiating
the occasionally chaotic and often unbalanced territory of internal and external
accountability systems within volatile and often times uncertain educational reform
environments. Furthermore, the rapid developments in technologies for teaching and
communication require adjustments in the internal workings as well as the
32
infrastructures of schools themselves (Liethwood & Riehl, 2003), all of which are
just a few of the current conditions that make the business of schooling and
educating children far more challenging than recent years, and strong leadership is
more essential than ever.
As the role of superintendent has been redefined over the decades of political
platforms and community interests, there has been more research describing the
leadership qualities and characteristics that today’s superintendent must possess in
order to navigate an educational organization through necessary reform efforts that
will close the achievement gap between low and high achieving student populations,
while increasing all overall student achievement successfully. Leithwood, Louis,
Anderson and Wahlstrom (2004) tie necessary leadership qualities to the belief that
leadership in and of itself is second only to classroom instruction. The following
practices, grouped into three broad sets, have been identified as important for
leadership success in almost all settings and organizations: (a) setting directions, (b)
developing people, and (c) developing the organization (Leithwood & Riehl, 2003;
Leithwood, Louis, Anderson & Wahlstrom, 2004; Jacobson, Johnson, Ylimaki, &
Giles, 2005). Setting directions includes developing a shared vision which serves as
the framework for goals, using the agreed upon goals to motivate people and create
meaning in their work, monitoring organizational performance, and being effective
in communicating the vision clearly and convincingly. Developing people requires
providing intellectual stimulation, support for individual needs, and appropriate
models and examples of best practices crucial to a well-performing organization.
33
Developing the organization includes development of one that supports the
performance of administrators, teachers, and students by strengthening district and
school cultures, modifying organizational structures, building collaborative
processes, and managing the environment (Leithwood & Riehl, 2003; Leithwood,
Louis, Anderson, & Wahlstrom, 2004).
Instructional leadership has also been included in the roles needed to
successfully lead a school district (Petersen, 2006). Effective instructional leaders
have a strong commitment to success for all students and improving instruction for
those students who are not performing (Petersen, 2006). The function of
instructional leader is separated into four roles for school leaders: instructional
visionary, instructional collaborator, instructional supporter, and instructional
delegator (Petersen, 2006). It is important that a superintendent be an instructional
leader able to articulate an instructional vision, create an organizational structure that
supports that vision, and assess and evaluate personnel and instructional programs
(Petersen, 2006).
Waters and Marzano (2006) conducted a meta-analysis that included five
responsibilities that effective superintendents maintain in order to keep a district
focused on achieving teaching and learning goals. These responsibilities are 1)
Collaborative goal-setting; involving all relevant stakeholders in the process of
setting district goals, 2) Non-negotiable goals for achievement and instruction;
ensuring that all staff members show action in reaching the student achievement and
classroom instruction goals, 3) Board alignment and support of district goals;
34
ensuring that the local board of education is aligned with and supportive of the non-
negotiable goals for student achievement and classroom instruction and that these
goals remain the primary focus of the district’s efforts, 4) Monitoring goals for
achievement and instruction; continually monitoring the progress toward these goals
and ensuring that district actions continue to be aligned with achieving these goals,
and 5) Use of resources to support achievement and instruction goals; ensuring that
the necessary resources such as time, money personnel, and materials are aligned
with achieving the district goals which could mean minimizing or cutting back on
specific programs that are not aligned to the achievement and instruction goals
(Waters & Marzano, 2006). Often, district leaders create goals and follow processes
that appear to have collaboration and a unity of vision, however, in order for these
goals to be adhered to by all relevant stakeholders, the superintendent must also
clearly articulate and communicate these goals to the senior management, principals,
and the governing board (Waters & Marzano, 2006). By communicating the goals
and explaining the district vision in achieving the goals, there will be a greater
understanding by all involved of the steps that will be taken to achieve such goals.
Furthermore, when cutting back on initiatives and programs that may not be aligned
to the goals, it is important for there to be a clear understanding by all as to why, so
that individuals do not feel slighted, as this can lead to a breakdown in consensus and
support.
Northouse’s (2007) findings parallel other research suggesting that leadership
has had, and will continue to have, many meanings and is difficult to define in
35
simple terms. He explains that leadership has been defined as the focus of group
processes where the leader is at the center of group change; a combination of special
traits or characteristics that are possessed in order to help facilitate and enable others
to accomplish tasks; and acts or behaviors that are used to bring about change in a
group (Northouse, 2007). Regardless of the difficulty in defining and
conceptualizing leadership, he suggests that the following components are central to
the definition: (a) Leadership is a process, not a trait or characteristic residing within
the leader, but a transactional event that happens between leader and follower; (b)
Leadership involves influence that affects and impacts followers; (c) Leadership
occurs in groups where a leader influences a group of individuals with a common
purpose; and (d) Leadership involves goal attainment where a leader directs energy
toward individuals whom are trying to achieve something together (Northouse,
2007).
Bolman and Deal (2008) explain that leadership is always positioned within a
context and a relationship. It is difficult to understand the complexities and be able
to manage organizations such as school districts, because they are ambiguous,
political in nature, and can be surprising and deceptive. Therefore, effective leaders
must possess qualities such as vision, strength, and commitment and have a clear
understanding that what has proven to work in one setting, may not work in another
(Bolman & Deal, 2008). Furthermore, leaders that have proven to be effective help
articulate a vision, set standards for performance, and have the ability to create a
focus and direction (Bolman & Deal, 2008). In order to do this, Bolman and Deal
36
(2008) suggest that leaders must navigate through this ambiguity and political arena
using a holistic approach presented in a four-frame model: (a) structural, (b) human
resource, (c) political, and (d) symbolic. The structural frame requires the leader to
be a social architect, understanding the goals of the organization, division of labor,
policies and procedures and an expectation that the leader, in this case the
superintendent, must have the ability to put the right person in the appropriate role
(Bolman & Deal, 2008). The human resource frame requires a superintendent to
believe in people and communicate their belief while being visible and accessible
(Bolman & Deal, 2008). Through this frame, a leader empowers employees by
involving them, the stakeholders, in the decision-making process instead of leading
or directing them by force (Bolman & Deal, 2008). Often, individuals take on the
role of leading an organization and neglect to identify just how political the arena
can be in accommodating the complex web of individual and group interests, which
speaks to Bolman and Deal’s (2008) political frame of leadership. This frame
requires the superintendent to understand that any organization is made up of
stakeholders or interest groups who have their own values, beliefs, information,
interests, and perceptions of reality and are competing for scarce resources, which
inevitably causes conflict. Strong political leaders build relationships and networks,
apply a realist approach, and maintain a clear focus as to what they can get, while
they persuade, negotiate, and coerce if necessary, to achieve their goals recognizing
that power is essential to their effectiveness (Bolman & Deal, 2008). Finally,
Bolman and Deal (2008) describe organizations as communities of faith, traditions,
37
myths, rituals, and ceremonies where stakeholders are connected by shared beliefs.
Because these attributes are so personal in nature, a leader who leads using the
symbolic frame can be very effective by creating meaning in an ambiguous
atmosphere and being an inspiration to those being led. Symbolic leaders run an
organization by using both actions and words that describe experiences. They use
symbols to capture attention and use compelling and meaningful stories that help to
define the vision, paint hopeful images of the future, while demonstrating courage
and commitment (Bolman & Deal, 2008).
Successful superintendents understand the importance of running their
organizations utilizing these frames of leadership. More importantly, they
understand complexities of the organizations that require such frames, and have the
understanding and ability to utilize multiple frames at one time as they relate to the
specific needs of their organization (Bolman & Deal, 2008).
Hoyle, Bjӧrk, Collier and Glass (2005) explain that from the 1980s to the
present, there has been a greater need in preparing principals and superintendents to
assume leadership roles in keeping with national education reforms, and numerous
scholars, associations, policy makers, and reformers have suggested changes in how
leaders should be trained in order to be successful in the current educational arena.
During the 1990s, the American Association of School Administrators (AASA)
Commission on Standards for the Superintendency, which was composed of
executives from the AASA and the National Policy Board for Educational
Administration (NPBEA), superintendents, professors of educational administration,
38
and a consultant from Educational Leadership Services, developed a preliminary set
of professional standards for educational leaders (Hoyle, Bjӧrk, Collier, & Glass,
2005). From this, eight standards were created that took the current knowledge base
in educational administration and integrated them with what research found to be
true regarding performance, competencies, and skills exhibited by effective
superintendents (Hoyle, Bjӧrk, Collier, & Glass, 2005).
The intent of these standards is to address and reflect the changing realities of
public schooling and superintendent leadership roles, modify and reform
superintendent preparation programs, provide a focus for staff development, offer
criteria for employment and continuing performance evaluation, and provide
guidance for state licensure, superintendent evaluation, and regional and national
program accreditation (Hoyle, Bjӧrk, Collier, & Glass, 2005). Because these
professional standards and indicators make up the framework for current
superintendent preparation programs, both the professional standard and a brief and
synthesized description of each standard is provided as described by Hoyle, Bjӧrk,
Collier, and Glass (2005). The eight professional standards and indicators are 1)
Leadership and district culture, where the superintendent is expected to demonstrate
executive leadership in developing a collective district vision, facilitate the
achievement of common goals, and shape school culture and climate; 2) Policy and
governance, where the superintendent is expected to work with the local school
board and develop and interpret policies; 3) Communications and community
relations, where the superintendent is expected to build consensus and be able to
39
articulate the district purpose and priorities to both internal and external
stakeholders; 4) Organizational management, where the superintendent is expected
to establish operational plans and processes that reflect an understanding of the
multiple facets of school finance and resource allocation; 5) Curriculum planning
and development, where the superintendent oversees the design of standards based
curriculum that enhances teaching and learning; 6) Instructional management, where
the superintendent implements a system of management that includes research
findings on various teaching and learning strategies and incorporates multiple areas
of curriculum and best practices; 7) Human resources management, where the
superintendent shows leadership by applying effective staff evaluation models,
understands the legal issues regarding personnel, as well as develops recruitment
systems; and 8) Values and ethics of leadership, where a superintendent must
understand and model appropriate value systems, ethics, and moral leadership.
These standards, created by the AASA for superintendents have embedded
within them the necessary leadership and management skills deemed necessary by
current professionals and researchers as previously cited. It should also be noted that
although effective communication strategies stand alone as an individual standard, a
superintendent must utilize effective communication strategies as an integral process
to achieve success in the requirements set forth in each of the remaining standards as
well.
40
The Importance of Effective Communication Strategies
Although the skills needed to run a school district effectively and
successfully are many, recent findings suggest that the need for effective
communication is a part of almost every critical skill, as well as having its own
specific and direct role in impacting student achievement; additionally, the ability to
communicate and overall effective leadership are becoming increasingly linked. In
addition, as school district leaders attempt to implement school reform initiatives to
increase student learning and achievement, much is being learned as to how
communication practices impact the success of any school reform. Kowalski (2000)
describes the waves of school reform initiatives over the last two decades as first
being directed at students where policies required increasing the length of the school
year and increasing high school graduation requirements. The next round of reform
initiatives shifted to the actual educators where the lens was focused on teacher
education curricula and licensing standards (Kowalski, 2000). In the early 1990s,
recognizing that neither of the previous reform efforts created significant
improvements, organizational configuration of schools became and remains the new
focus of reform (Kowalski, 2000), and in order to succeed, reform efforts must be
broad and address all aspects of a district’s organization (Childress, Elmore, &
Grossman, 2006).
Although research is limited in terms of exploring the direct nexus of
effective communication strategies utilized by superintendents to increase student
achievement directly, there is an increasing amount of research regarding the
41
importance of communication strategies as they pertain to the multiple facets of
policy, necessary leadership skills, and general reform efforts and their impact on
student achievement. Accountability and transparency required by the NCLB
legislation, as well as demanded by the current media savvy public, call for strong
communication between schools and their communities. Current research suggests
that supporting, practicing and modeling successful communication activities are
essential to student, educator, and organizational success (National School Public
Relations Association, 2007. In addition, public schools must have the support of
both internal stakeholders – those working for the school district, and external
stakeholders – those within the community in which they serve (Norton, et al., 1996,
as cited in Edwards, 2007) in order to reach success. Therefore, when working to
bring about change, a superintendent must establish and maintain reliable lines of
communication with everyone who wants to have a voice in setting school policy
(Edwards, 2007). Research also suggests that students perform better when families
and communities work together with schools and that superintendents must increase
lines of communication among stakeholders and allow for autonomy at the campus
level in order to have a positive impact on student academic achievement (National
School Public Relations Association, 2007; Byrd, Drews, & Johnson, 2006).
In 2004, the National School Public Relations Association (NSPRA)
established the Communications Accountability Project (CAP), which surveyed and
interviewed seventeen effective superintendents as defined by being named a state or
national superintendent of the year or cited in an equally impressive manner. Sixteen
42
of the superintendents surveyed chose leadership/vision/strategic thinker/problem
solver as one of the most important grouped skills for success as a superintendent,
with the second being communication and community relations (National School
Public Relations Association, 2007). However, each of the sixteen superintendents
also explained that that communication significantly impacts the success of moving
the district’s vision forward (National School Public Relations Association, 2007)
suggesting that communication strategies bleed into many other, if not all other
facets of school district leadership. The superintendents surveyed also felt that
effective communication strategies were essential to gaining voter approval for bond
initiatives, which have become increasingly vital to school organizations in the
current economic climate, as well as and during situations that required change for a
district such as new accountability requirements through the NCLB legislation,
curriculum changes, school closures, redrawing attendance boundaries, and grade
configuration changes (National School Public Relations Association, 2007). It was
also noted that the superintendents felt communication skills were essential during
bargaining with employee groups, as well as in building trust with internal and
external stakeholders (National School Public Relations Association, 2007).
Conclusion
Public education has gone through many changes since its birth, and will
continue to morph as we struggle to define “world class” schooling in this global and
quick changing society, and find the perfect method of providing this model to our
nation’s students so that each of them finds success. Within this context, the role of
43
superintendent has also changed dramatically. The NCLB legislation, in addition to
various educational reform efforts enacted to increase student achievement, an
increasing culturally and diverse population, and the media spotlight on internal and
external functions of school organizations have moved the previous roles of the
superintendent, put in terms of the “killer B’s” – buildings, buses, books, budgets,
and bonds, to the “crucial C’s” – connections, communication, collaboration,
community building, child advocacy, and curricular choices (Houston, 2001).
Superintendents in the 21
st
century will need to be able to facilitate and affiliate, act
as courageous champions for children who are willing and able to change the status
quo, and collaborate with boards, unions, and community groups to achieve their
visions (Houston, 2001), and in order to do any of these things, a superintendent
must be able to communicate effectively as persuasion is the ultimate tool for a
superintendent of education (Houston, 2001).
44
CHAPTER THREE
METHODOLOGY
Introduction
As current reform efforts mandate greater involvement and collaboration
between schools and various stakeholders including parents, community members,
administrators, teachers and students, and the need for greater transparency and
accountability are at the forefront of each reform effort, the need for clear and
concise communication has become exceedingly important.
Today public demands for accountability have forced educators to provide
more detailed information about schools in ways that are comprehensible to a public
that may not fully understand educational jargon and convoluted policies (Carlsmith
& Railsback, 2001). Furthermore, implementing reform that will result in increasing
student achievement often involves the need for a culture change, whether within the
school or in the district at large. Because communication is a process through which
organizational members express their collective beliefs, behaviors, and attitudes,
communication gives meaning to work and creates perceptions of reality (Kowalski,
2000), and as a result, communication is central to building, maintaining, and
changing culture, which is central to the reform and restructuring process.
The question now becomes, how do educational leaders meet the academic
needs of each student so that the achievement gap continues to decrease, while
communicating to their stakeholders the confusing nuances of the bureaucratic
45
policies, the efforts being made to increase student achievement for all students, and
the successes in these efforts?
While communication is an important component of effective leadership, the
way in which a leader communicates is equally important. A superintendent must
first identify the various groups for which specific communication is essential, then
have a plan detailing how to communicate the message in order to maintain a
positive image, as a positive image leads to public confidence in its schools as well
as the school board (Carlsmith & Railsback, 2001). Marzano and Waters (2006)
explain that effective superintendents include all relevant stakeholders, which
include central office staff, site administrators, and board members in establishing
goals for their districts which then need to be communicated with the various groups
appropriately.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to gather data that would identify the critical
communication skills and strategies necessary for urban school district
superintendents to utilize in order to successfully run an urban school district and
raise student achievement. The high accountability standards enacted by the No
Child Left Behind Act of 2001 have increased the demands placed on urban district
superintendents to raise student achievement and close the achievement gap between
student subgroups. Superintendents must create a vision and unity of purpose
focusing on raising student achievement and be able to build support for this vision
from their school board, community groups, bargaining units, and local businesses
46
through effective communication and communication strategies. Superintendents
must also keep in mind that all of these groups have specific political agendas that
they must navigate in order to institute reforms that are effective and sustainable over
time.
Research Questions
This study is guided by the following research questions:
1. How do urban superintendents successfully communicate the vision of
raising student achievement?
2. How do urban superintendents successfully create a unity of purpose and
build consensus focused on raising student achievement?
3. When implementing change that will increase student achievement, who
are the various groups that a superintendent must consider when
communicating the vision?
4. What are the various messaging strategies successful urban
superintendents employ with the various stakeholders in order to raise
student achievement?
Research Design
This project is designed as a mixed-method research study and was
conducted with superintendents who are responsible for building consensus and
communicating the district vision to both internal and external stakeholders in a
meaningful and comprehensive manner. By using a variety of sources and resources,
a researcher can build on the strengths of each type of data collection while
47
minimizing the weaknesses of any single approach (Patton, 2002). Quantitative
studies not only provide important data from a larger sample, but provide validity to
any qualitative findings as well (Gall, Borg, & Gall, 1996), and qualitative
methodology provides a more in-depth platform for identifying themes and making
relationship connections. Therefore, a mixed-method approach of survey responses
and data collected through intentional one-on-one interviews provided more
comprehensive data that can be used to more accurately analyze information dealing
with individuals and their actions. To better understand a superintendent’s value of
effective communication strategies, and the various forums that call for specific
types of communication among different stakeholders, the researcher used a mixed
methodology that included both quantitative and qualitative components to meet the
needs of this study. The quantitative component of this study was comprised of a
web-based survey sent via email to forty superintendents, while the qualitative
portion consisted of one-on-one interviews with five superintendents in an attempt to
gain information and insight on the strategies utilized by successful superintendents
to effectively communicate the district vision to the various stakeholders.
Population and Sample
The population of this study was limited to California urban school district
superintendents. The selection was based on the following criteria:
1. A superintendent leading a unified school district.
2. A superintendent leading a district with student enrollments of 15,000 or
more.
48
3. A superintendent leading a district with at least forty percent or more of
the enrolled students categorized as receiving free or reduced lunch.
4. A superintendent leading a district with at least thirty percent of the
student population classified as English Language Learners.
5. A superintendent leading a district showing two consecutive years of
increase in Academic Performance Index (API).
6. A superintendent leading a district for a minimum of two years, or
currently in his/her second year.
In order to allow for a broader sample range, the researcher included any
superintendent one or two years new to the current position, or any who may have
recently retired, provided s/he had previous experience as a superintendent in a
district meeting the above criteria during his/her superintendency.
Instrumentation
The quantitative portion of the study was completed through a 25-question
web-based survey (Appendix A) of dichotomous, continuous, and open-ended
questions separated into two parts: a) demographic data including but not limited to
gender, ethnicity, years of experience as a superintendent, amount of time spent in
current district as superintendent, and current district API score, and b) questions
specifically connected to the research questions previously stated.
The researcher used the criteria to identify and send the survey via email to
40 superintendents in California. In 2004, The National School Public Relations
Association (NSPRA) established the Communications Accountability Project
49
(CAP), a multi-faceted communications research project, with the purpose of
measuring, assessing, and promoting accountability in school communications. This
CAP project, along with the third standard (Communications and Community
Relations) of the professional standards for educational leaders developed by the
American Association of School Administrators (AASA) Commission on Standards
for the Superintendency, served as the background and frameworks for this survey.
It should also be noted that prior to sending the web-based survey to the
superintendents who met the criteria mentioned above, the survey instrument was
field tested by a superintendent also meeting the specified criteria. The questions
were designed to identify the communication strategies utilized by superintendents to
communicate the district vision to the various internal and external stakeholders, and
the researcher felt it necessary to field test the instrument to ensure that each
question was asked in a way that would provide useful data for analysis.
The researcher’s intent for the qualitative interview of five urban school
district superintendents was to provide a purposeful sampling in order to gain an in-
depth understanding of the various philosophies of each superintendent pertaining to
effective communication. Purposeful sampling, according to Patton (2002), allows
for in-depth study of information-rich cases, which the researcher is able to learn a
great deal about issues of central importance to the purpose of the research. The
qualitative portion of this research was completed through face-to-face interviews
with the researcher utilizing an interview guide (Appendix B). The interview guide
ensured that the same basic lines of inquiry were pursued with each superintendent
50
interviewed. According to Patton (2002), the advantage of an interview guide is that
it makes sure that the interviewer has carefully decided how best to use the limited
time available and it helps make interviewing a number of different people more
systematic and comprehensive by delimiting in advance the issues to be explored.
Patton (2002) also explains that the purpose of an interview is to allow the researcher
to enter into the other person’s perspective and by exploring the details going on in
that person’s mind allows for a more comprehensive story to be told.
The data from these sources and instruments were used to answer the four
research questions that guide this study, and allowed the researcher to create a
method of collecting, organizing and analyzing the data in order to “to gather
comprehensive, systematic, and in-depth information” (Patton, 2002, p. 298).
Data Collection Procedures
A mixed method research model of both quantitative (a 25-question survey)
and qualitative (superintendent interview) data were collected to allow for
triangulation, the use of a variety of data sources. Triangulation is ideal because it
“strengthens a study by combining methods” (Patton, 2002, p. 247). The researcher
collected, organized, and coded 20 surveys completed by superintendents in order to
facilitate data analysis. It should also be noted that the researcher mailed a Request
to Participate letter (Appendix C) first via email. If there was no response to the
request and the survey was not taken by a superintendent, the researcher sent a hard
copy of the letter and survey by post mail.
51
Each superintendent interview was audio taped with permission, and
recording was then transcribed. In addition, the researcher took notes during the
interview as non-verbal communication can be as informational as verbal
communication (Patton, 2002).
Data Analysis
The researcher collected the survey data and coded the information by
categorizing, classifying, and labeling the primary patterns and themes regarding the
interviewees’ use of communication strategies in imparting the district vision to the
various internal and external stakeholders. The qualitative analysis consisted of the
one-on-one interviews. The data gathered from these interviews and notes taken
were organized, classified and coded as well, in order to identify themes and patterns
in methods and philosophies of communication among superintendents. The data
from these surveys were further analyzed for a trend related to the successes in
regard to student achievement in each district, the length of time each superintendent
had been in their current role, and the length of time each superintendent had been in
the role of superintendent either in their current placement or other district.
Ethical Considerations
During the design, and through the course of this study, many ethical
considerations were made. The researcher adhered to the University of Southern
California Institutional Review Board (IRB) guidelines and procedures, and strict
confidentiality and steps taken to ensure anonymity were maintained for each
participant. In addition, informed consent was acquired from all participants prior to
52
the individual interviews, and all participants were informed of the nature and
purpose of the study, and each consented to participate. Furthermore, each
participant could have opted out at anytime during the stages of this study.
Summary
This chapter focused on the research designed, developed and used to
identify and study the critical communication skills and strategies necessary for
urban school district superintendents to utilize in order to successfully run an urban
school district and raise student achievement. A survey instrument was created, field
tested, and sent to forty superintendents within the state of California with a request
to participate. Next, five superintendent interviews were conducted to allow for
more comprehensive answers to the research questions than the survey alone would
provide.
53
CHAPTER FOUR
FINDINGS
Introduction
To understand the value of a superintendent’s effective communication
strategies, and the various forums that call for specific types of communication
among different stakeholders, the researcher used a mixed methodology that
included both quantitative and qualitative components to meet the needs of this
study. Data collected in this study consist of quantitative data obtained from
responses to survey questions and qualitative data obtained from both the responses
to open-ended questions as well as questions asked during individual interviews.
Each survey question included an open-ended component to provide the respondents
with additional freedom to add clarification and elaboration providing greater depth
to their responses beyond that of a simple numeric score. This chapter presents the
response rates of the surveys, demographic information of the respondents, and the
research findings resulting from the analyses of the quantitative and qualitative data.
This study was guided by the following four research questions:
1. How do urban superintendents successfully communicate the vision of
raising student achievement?
2. How do urban superintendents successfully create a unity of purpose and
build consensus focused on raising student achievement?
54
3. When implementing change that will increase student achievement, who
are the various groups that a superintendent must consider when
communicating the vision?
4. What are the various messaging strategies successful urban
superintendents employ with the various stakeholders in order to raise
student achievement?
Response Rates
The participants for this study were selected from a target population of
urban unified school districts located in the state of California with student
enrollment of 15,000 or more, a minimum of forty percent of the enrolled students
receiving free or reduced lunch, and a minimum of thirty percent of the student
population classified as English Language Learners. In addition, the selected
participants were to have either been in their second year or have completed two
years as a superintendent (not necessarily in the same school district), within districts
having shown a two year consecutive API growth district-wide. Forty surveys were
sent to superintendents meeting the qualifications for the study and twenty
superintendents participated resulting in a 50% return rate. Five superintendents
were selected from the twenty participants for a one-on-one interview to gain further
information and insight on the strategies utilized by superintendents to effectively
communicate the district vision to the various stakeholders.
Superintendents selected for the qualitative portion of this study will be
referred to as Superintendents A, B, C, D, and E. At no time during this study will
55
the superintendent be linked to his or her current district or previous district (should
it apply) to ensure anonymity.
Demographic Data
For this study the demographic data were disaggregated by gender, ethnicity,
age, educational attainment, years of experience as a superintendent as well as years
served in current district, and additional positions/occupations held either in
education or private industry. Of the twenty superintendents participating in the
survey, only one demographic question was skipped by one superintendent. As
stated previously, 20 superintendents participated in the survey, of these 12 were
male, while 8 were female making the sample population 60% male and 40% female.
While the percentage of male superintendent participating in the survey was over
50%, gender, as an independent variable was not analyzed for its possible
significance on communication strategies utilized by superintendents to increase
student achievement. Table 1 shows the gender breakdown of the demographic
portion of the survey.

Table 1
Superintendent Gender
Frequency Percentage
Male 12 60%
Female 8 40%
Total 20 100%
56
In terms of ethnicity, 15 of the participating superintendent responses were
white, 4 were Latino/Hispanic, and 1 was African American. Thus, of the
superintendents who participated in the survey, 75% were white, 20%
Latino/Hispanic, and 5% African American.
Table 2 shows an ethnicity breakdown of the demographic portion of the
survey.

Table 2
Superintendent Ethnicity
Frequency Percentage
African American 1 5%
White 15 75%
Latino/Hispanic 4 20%
Total 20 100%

The age of the participating superintendents spans 25 years from the youngest
to oldest. Of these, the two youngest superintendents fell between the ages of 40 and
45, and among the five eldest, the age range was between between 60 and 65. Four
participating superintendents revealed they were between 46 and 49 years of age and
nine superintendents reported their age to be between 50 and 59 years of age. Table
3 presents the age of the respondents.
57
Table 3
Superintendent Age
Frequency Percentage
40-45 2 10%
46-49 4 20%
50-59 9 45%
60-65 5 25%
Total 20 100%

Superintendents were asked to provide information regarding their highest
level of educational attainment. Upon review of this information, the researcher
found that, although it may not be a requirement of the superintendency to have
achieved high levels of education, over half of the participating superintendents had
been awarded degrees above that of a bachelor’s. Of the twenty respondents, 7
superintendents, totaling 35%, reported receiving their master’s degrees, and 13
superintendents, totaling 65%, have been awarded a doctorate. One superintendent
responded having earned an additional professional degree. Table 4 presents the
highest educational attainment of the respondents.
58
Table 4
Superintendent Educational Attainment
Frequency Percentage
Bachelors Degree 20 100%
Masters Degree 7 35%
Doctoral Degree 13 65%
Post Doctoral Work 0 0%
Total 20 100%
Other Professional Degree 1 5%

Of the participating superintendents, 9 have been in the role of superintendent
for up to 5 years totaling 45%, 5 superintendents totaling 25% have been in the role
for 6 to 10 years, 4 superintendents totaling 20% have been in the role for 11 to 15
years, and 2 totaling 10% have been in the role of superintendent for 16 or more
years. Although some of the superintendents have been in the position for many
years, the amount of years served in the current district varies. While 45% of the
superintendents revealed that they have been in the role of superintendent for up to 5
years, 15 superintendents totaling 75% responded that they have been in their current
district for 5 years or less suggesting that the superintendency is a fluid position.
Five superintendents reported to have been in the position for 6 to 10 years and 5
superintendents reported to have been in their current district for the same amount of
time. It has also been noted that while 6 superintendents reported having been in the
59
role for over 10 years, none of the participating superintendents have been in their
current district for over 10 years. The average number of years participating
superintendents have been in their current district is 4 years. Table 5 presents the
total number of years in superintendency reported by the participating
superintendents and the number of years reported in the current district in which s/he
serves.

Table 5
Superintendents’ Total Years in Superintendency and Total Years in Current District
Total years Years in Current District
Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage
5 or less years 9 45% 15 75%
6-10 years 5 25% 5 25%
11-15 years 4 20% 0 0%
16 or more years 2 10% 0 0%
Total 20 100% 20 100%

In addition to providing data identifying trend patterns in the career history of
superintendents, identifying previous experience in various roles, both inside and
outside a school district, can increase response validity and offer insight for the
interview responses overall. Of the 20 participating superintendents, 19 responded to
the question regarding previous positions held during his/her career, and respondents
60
were asked to include all positions as applicable. Therefore, the response
percentages indicated below, are calculated at 19 responses equaling 100 percent.
Seventeen superintendents totaling 89.5% responded that they had held previous
district administrative positions not including the superintendent position, 16 totaling
84.2% served as a school site administrator, 15 totaling 78.9% have served in the
certificated field of education, while 3 superintendents totaling 15.8% responded that
they have previously held positions in the classified arena of education.
Additionally, 4 respondents totaling 21.1% reported to have held positions in the
private industry during the history of his/her career. These respondents described
their private industry occupations as being a waitress, running a non-profit company,
serving as a personnel department assistant, consulting (exact field not mentioned),
and a serving as a police officer. These data were not specifically analyzed for
connections between communications strategies and superintendency. Table 6
shows the career history of the participating superintendents.
61
Table 6
Superintendent Career History
Frequency Percentage
School District Administrator (other than superintendent) 17 89.5%
School Site Administrator 16 84.2%
Certificated Employee (teacher, literacy coach, etc.) 15 78.9%
Classified Employee (clerical, custodial, instr. asst., etc) 3 15.8%
Private Industry 4 21.1%
Note. One participant omitted this question.

Research Findings
Research Question 1: How do urban superintendents successfully communicate
the vision of raising student achievement?
Although the skills needed to run a school district effectively and
successfully are many, recent findings suggest that the need for effective
communication, functions as an integral part of almost every other skill, as student
achievement and overall effective leadership are becoming increasingly linked. In
addition, as school district leaders attempt to implement school reform initiatives to
increase student learning and student achievement, much is being learned as to how
communication practices impact the success of any school reform initiative.
The ability to set a clear course and sense of direction, has been identified as
important for leadership success in almost all settings and organizations. Establishing
62
such a sense of direction includes developing a shared vision which serves as the
framework for goals, using the agreed upon goals to motivate people and create
meaning in their work, monitoring organizational performance, and being effective
in communicating the vision clearly and convincingly (Leithwood & Riehl, 2003;
Leithwood, Louis, Anderson, & Wahlstrom, 2004). Often, district leaders create
goals and follow processes that appear to have collaborative support and a unity of
vision, however, in order for these goals to be adhered to by internal and external
stakeholders, the superintendent must also clearly articulate and communicate these
goals as well as their role in reaching the goals to the district’s senior management,
principals, and the governing board (Waters & Marzano, 2006). By communicating
the vision and explaining the district mission, there will be a greater understanding
by all involved of the steps that will be taken in achieving the vision, which is
necessary for the success of any school reform initiative.
The question then becomes, how do superintendents create and define this
vision as it pertains to their individual districts, and how is this vision then
communicated with the various stakeholders? Research Question 1 was designed to
gain related data regarding the importance of having a district vision and
communicating this vision and is stated as follows: How do urban superintendents
successfully communicate the vision of raising student achievement?
The 20 participating superintendents were asked to rate the level of
importance of the district vision, mission, and priorities related to student
achievement on a Likert-scale from very important (4) to not important (1).
63
Eighteen of the 20 surveyed superintendents responded that the district vision,
mission and priorities were “very important” to student achievement, while two rated
the district vision as “important”, producing the average rating of 3.9 (Table 7). The
vision, mission, and priorities of a district serve as the foundation for student
learning and student achievement. While 18 of the participating superintendents
concur with this by giving it a very important rating, it is interesting that there are 2
ranking this as an important element of the success of a school district. A possibility
for this split in rating may be a direct result of the communication process as it
relates to the district vision, mission, and priorities and whether or not the
communication is sustained overtime. In other words, two participating
superintendents may feel that the goals of education in general are, or should be, to
increase student achievement. Therefore, while an individual district’s vision,
mission, and priorities might be important to student achievement, whether or not
they are articulated clearly or sustained over time may not be very important to
student achievement or have a detrimental impact if not articulated to the various
stakeholders or sustained over time.
64
Table 7
Importance of District Vision, Mission, and Priorities to Student Achievement
Very
Important
(4)
Important
(3)
Somewhat
Important
(2)
Not
Important
(1)
Average
Rating
Importance of district
vision, mission, and
priorities to student
achievement
18 2 0 0 3.90

Of the 20 participating superintendents, five were selected for interviews.
During the interview portion of this study, the five participating superintendents
agreed that having a vision is indeed an integral part of student achievement,
although each defined their visions slightly differently. For instance, Superintendent
B explained “we’re educating students to be productive citizens in the 21
st
Century
global society and global economy,” which is similar to Superintendent E explaining
his/her vision as “anything and everybody in the district is about student
achievement, and moving it into the 21
st
Century with 21
st
Century skills.”
Superintendent A explained the vision of his/her district as having “all students
achieve at the very optimal levels,” while Superintendent C stated the vision as being
short and concise and having to do with “ensuring that we provide a quality
education to all of our students.” Superintendent D stated his/her district vision as,
“Graduate all kids. Aid them to prepare for college and career.” Each vision is
slightly different in terms of how they were articulated by each of the participants;
65
however, the general theme remains consistent in each of the responses – student
achievement and student success. Superintendent B summed it up by stating,
“Vision is really the future perfect of the mission – mission meaning that our job [as
educators] is to make sure that all students learn.” The result of the survey and the
interviews suggest that in order to successfully lead a district, a vision for student
learning must be in place.
However, simply having a vision for student achievement or student learning
is not sufficient on its own. This vision must be clearly articulated for a district to be
unified in achieving the vision. Superintendent C explains that the vision provides
an anchor for employee ownership with regards to student achievement. More
specifically, s/he explains that the vision is “the catalyst for specific commitments
that we’ve all made….our commitment to collaboration or professional learning
communities” that will increase student achievement. During the interview process,
each of the five superintendents involved in the process, was asked if the various
stakeholders were aware of the specific vision of his/her district. Not only did each
superintendent explain that the stakeholders were in fact aware of the vision, but
each went on to explain the steps taken to ensure that the vision was communicated.
Superintendent D explained that not only do the employees need to know the vision,
but that s/he had personally gone to every school site and talked to the employees
about the vision to emphasize its importance. Additionally, Superintendent D made
the effort of personally communicating the vision to the parents and the students,
because as s/he explained, in doing this, “it ensures that every student is aware of
66
what they need and how to get it so they graduate.” Superintendent B explained that
communicating the vision is “less about what we post on the wall. It’s more about
how we operate and how we act. It’s about looking at the data together, looking at
the learning, identifying what was there and what was missing, celebrating the
accomplishments and identifying where we need to work harder.” Superintendent C
shared his/her method of communicating the vision by explaining the on-going
process:
Whether it was through visitations to school sites by me, the print forum that
we applied and placed, the web-site that now has that vision embedded in it,
the State of the District address, our news publication, or that we talk about it
practically every time we meet – with administrators, teachers, PTA groups,
or arts advocacy groups…we’re constantly looking at how we might improve
in that regard.

All of the superintendent’s responses indicate having a vision and
communicating the vision with all the stakeholders is important because if the vision,
mission, and priorities of the district are not consistently communicated with various
stakeholders and as Superintendent A explains, “they just become words on the
letterhead, on the bulletin, and on the things that go out.”
Research Question 2: How do urban superintendents successfully create a unity
of purpose and build consensus focused on raising student achievement?
Once in place, and once the various stakeholders understand the importance
of achieving the vision of student achievement, regardless of the exact words used to
state the vision, a superintendent must then create a process that allows for a uniform
understanding of how the vision will be realized in his/her district. Research
67
Question 2 was designed to gather data regarding the various ways that
superintendents build consensus, focused on raising student achievement: How do
urban superintendents successfully create a unity of purpose and build consensus
focused on raising student achievement?
In order to better answer this question, it is important to reiterate that leading
a school district requires superintendents to possess leadership skills that provide the
foundation for setting a vision and building consensus around the vision (Table 8).
The 20 participating superintendents were asked to rate the importance of being able
to work with the school board, as a critical skill in the success of a superintendent in
leading and urban school district. All 20 participating superintendents shared that
being able to work with the Board of Education was very important with an average
rating of 4. According to the participants, 18 superintendents found the ability to
build consensus for the district vision to be very important and the remaining 2
participants found it to be important giving it an average rating of 3.9. The ability to
lead change through the district had an average rating of 3.8 with 16 superintendents
finding it to be a very important skill and the remaining 4 finding it to be important.
The ability to manage crisis had an average rating of 3.75 with 15 superintendents
finding it to be very important and the remaining 5 finding it to be important. The
ability to shape school culture and climate had the lowest average rating of 3.45. Of
the 20 participating superintendents, 10 found this skill to be very important, 9 found
this skill to be important, and 1 found it to be somewhat important. Of the skills
listed, this skill had the greatest variance from the respondents. These data suggest
68
superintendents don’t believe they influence the school’s cultural climate, but rely on
site principals to focus largely on school restructuring and cultural change, which has
become a popular topic in school administration (Kowalski, 2000). Whether or not
the data from this response is indicative of the idea, that as superintendents are not
on school campuses on a regular basis, they might feel that is primarily the
responsibility of the site administration to create and shape school climate and
culture. However, this conclusion is conjectural, and not necessarily an empirical
indication from the data.
Respondents were then asked to rate the importance communication has in
each of these skills (Table 9):
• Ability to build consensus for district vision;
• Ability to shape school culture and climate;
• Ability to work with the Board of Education;
• Ability to manage crisis;
• Ability to lead change throughout the district.
Of the 20 participating superintendents, each shared that communication is
very important to both ability to work with the Board of Education as well as the
ability to lead change throughout a district giving the average rating for each area a
4. Implementing any school reform can require a great deal of change throughout a
district, and ensuring that the Board of Education is in agreement with the necessary
changes is important as this change can lead to push-back from union groups, which
can in turn raise questions with the board members which can then derail a reform
69
initiative geared at increasing student achievement. Eighteen of the respondents rated
the ability to build consensus for the district vision as well as the ability to manage
crisis as very important giving the average rating a 3.9. Similar to the level of
importance of possessing the skill for shaping school culture and climate as being
less important than the other necessary leadership skills, respondents shared that
communication as it pertains to shaping school culture and climate less important as
well with the survey yielding an average rating of 3.75. It should be noted, however,
that while shaping school culture and climate as a leadership skill necessary for a
superintendent to possess yielded a 3.45 average rating, the respondents consider
communication as necessary to shaping school culture and climate more important
with an average rating of 3.75.
The responses gathered in this study, from relevant indicators pertaining to
leadership skills necessary to lead a school district, are consistent with the
Communications Accountability Project (CAP) established by the National School
Public Relations Association (NSPRA) in 2004 where 95% of the superintendents
interviewed shared that leadership, vision, strategic thinking, and problem solving
are the single-most important grouped skills a superintendent must possess in order
to successfully lead a school district (National School Public Relations Association,
2007). Additionally, the findings from this study, pertaining to the importance of
communication to each of the other skills under discussion, are also consistent to the
CAP research findings, which revealed that the second most important skill a
superintendent must possess is communication (National School Public Relations
70
Association, 2007). The findings in this study are consistent with the CAP findings
as 18 of the 20 superintendents surveyed rated the importance of communication to
the ability to build consensus for the district vision, as very important; and two rated
communication as important. Sixteen superintendents rated communication as very
important to the ability to shape school culture and climate, 3 rated communication
as important to this skill, and 1 gave a somewhat important rating giving it an
average rating of 3.75. Having previously stated that current reform is focusing
largely on school restructuring, and that cultural change has become a popular topic
in school administration, the superintendent responses in this study, as previously
stated, thought that the development of a school culture to be a less important skill,
as compared to others. However, when considering the importance of
communication as it pertains to school climate and culture, the superintendent
responses in this study, were consistent with Kowalski (2000) who explains that
cultural change will not happen unless the leader implementing the process of
change utilizes necessary communication knowledge and skills. Tables 8 and 9
represent the response rates for skills necessary for a superintendent to possess in
order successfully lead an urban school district (Table 8) and the level of importance
communication is to each skill (Table 9).
71
Table 8
Skills a Superintendent Must Possess in Order to Successfully Lead an Urban School
District
Very
Important
(4)
Important
(3)
Somewhat
Important
(2)
Not
Important
(1)
Average
Rating
Ability to build
consensus for district
vision
18 2 0 0 3.90
Ability to shape school
culture and climate
10 9 1 0 3.45
Ability to work with
the Board of Education
20 0 0 0 4.00
Ability to manage
crisis
15 5 0 0 3.75
Ability to lead change
throughout the district
16 4 0 0 3.80
72
Table 9
Communication as it Pertains to Each Leadership Skill in Table 8
Very
Important
(4)
Important
(3)
Somewhat
Important
(2)
Not
Important
(1)
Average
Rating
Ability to build
consensus for district
vision
18 2 0 0 3.90
Ability to shape school
culture and climate
16 3 1 0 3.75
Ability to work with
the Board of Education
20 0 0 0 4.00
Ability to manage
crisis
18 2 0 0 3.90
Ability to lead change
throughout the district
20 0 0 4.00

During the interview portion of this study, of the five superintendents
interviewed, each acknowledged that the process of creating a unity of purpose and
building consensus for the vision, to be a necessary component in any attempt to
improve student achievement. Of the superintendents interviewed, four of them
either alluded to the need for, or described the actual process of creating, the vision
and unity of purpose as being a collaborative effort where various stakeholders were
included. Superintendent B, however, took a different approach. Superintendent B
spoke to the concept directly by explaining that the mission of education can be
defined as “purpose,” and the purpose of education is student learning.
73
Superintendent B explained that the question posed to the stakeholders should not be
“Do you agree with this mission?” or even “What should our mission be?” Instead,
the mission of student learning is clear and all employees should work in alignment
with the mission, and “if you’re not, you’d better go and get another job quickly.”
Superintendent B goes on to say:
In my brasher moments, when pushed to the level of frustration, I say, “Look,
the only reason you’re here, the only reason you have a job, or I have a job, is
based on learning for kids. And if the learning doesn’t happen, none of us are
here. We don’t need custodians, we don’t need bus drivers we don’t need
teachers, we don’t need any of us if the learning isn’t happening.”

This superintendent feels that the purpose and vision of any district should not be a
product of collaboration, and no consensus building should be entertained or even
necessary.
This being said, and understanding that there may be a bit of confusion
regarding the terms, as the differences are subtle, the majority of the superintendents
interviewed described a consensus building process for creating the vision or mission
for their individual districts, while some discussed the process of creating a strategic
plan which embedded both the creation of the vision and mission. Each of the
superintendents interviewed agreed that the vision, or purpose of education is student
learning. Four of the superintendents interviewed, shared the process that they had
gone through to build consensus to achieve the agreed upon vision. More
specifically, the superintendents described the process of creating the mission, or the
steps that would be taken in order to achieve the agreed upon vision. This process of
building consensus for the mission included a great deal of communication with all
74
the stakeholder groups involved in the process. Two superintendents described the
process of developing the mission statements as part of the process of creating the
strategic plan for their individual districts which required an abundance of
stakeholder input. Superintendent A explained:
The strategic plan was developed with a great deal of state input, classified
staff, certificated staff – a lot of involvement, and it was developed over
meetings that were held weekly over months, and the public vetting process
was pretty extensive…we had every employee in the system go through what
we call a world cap day experience where they were in small groups and they
really interacted with what the mission statement says to them, individually,
so they really got intimate with it.

This process of working together and building consensus for the way in which the
vision of student learning and achievement is to be realized throughout the district,
has a built-in communication component. First, by including each employee in the
process, s/he had the opportunity to internalize the mission and have a personal and
specific understanding of his/her individual role in each component. Superintendent
A went on to explain the process that had been used with both district administration,
teachers and parents:
We used a kind of “knee-to-knee” experience…where you put them in small
circles in a sense, and you give them the opportunity to participate in a
meaningful conversation with a reflective question that guides the
conversation. So that it was more than words. I think the launch was very
powerful.

According to Superintendent A, part of the consensus-building strategy with
the stakeholders embedded the communication component as it was assumed that
each participating stakeholder who attended the meetings would have a clear
understanding of the vision and mission of student achievement, and learning for the
75
district, and be able to share the process with others who had not been part of the
organized activities. Superintendent C shared a similar process in building
consensus for the mission of the district and explains:
It took about 6 months or so to do and there were a variety of stakeholders to
do that. We used school-site councils, PTAs, and we have an arts advocacy
group so we utilized them as well. We used site representation,
administration, board members, various civic organizations, and businesses
from the Commerce.

Superintendent C explained that the individuals in these groups became the
emissaries of the message for those not directly participating in the consensus
building activity. Superintendent E shared of a similar experience when describing
the district’s process of creating the strategic plan. Superintendent E explained:
We had a very comprehensive strategic plan process led by an outside
consultant and [an internal assistant superintendent]. There were students,
teachers, parents, community members, and administrators, because we
wanted to reach out to all our stakeholders. So there was a lot of discussion
about the vision, mission, motto, and the steps we’re going to take [in
achieving the mission].

In this case, the superintendent used an outside consultant to help guide the
stakeholders in building consensus for the purpose of increasing student
achievement. As part of this process, similar to the process undergone by
Superintendent A, communication was an integral part of the consensus building, as
various groups were represented, and in turn, these participants translated the goals
of the vision and mission to other stakeholders.
Once consensus had been reached and the vision, mission and priorities had
been created, in order for full implementation to happen, with the aim of increasing
76
student achievement, the information must be communicated to the various internal
and external stakeholders. The 20 participating superintendents were surveyed
regarding the most important stakeholders to be included as recipients of this
information (Table 10). The internal and external stakeholders, that were seen as
most important when communicating the vision of raising student achievement,
scoring an average rating of 4, consists of school site administration. This response
average is not surprising when considering the superintendent interview responses
discussing the importance of site administration sharing the vision for student
achievement at individual sites. Respondents rated communicating the vision with
the teaching and classified staff as 3.95 with 19 superintendents considering the
teaching and classified staff as very important in the communication process, and 1
responding with important. Although this may be insignificant, it seems inconsistent
to have even 1 response rating the teachers and classified staff, as being less than
“very important” in terms of communicating the vision of student achievement. It is
possible that this superintendent rated it as less than “very important”, because
classified staff members were included, and may not be considered a front line
participant in the process of student achievement, or even possible that this
superintendent felt it to be the site principal’s responsibility to articulate and
communicate the vision. The average rating for district office staff and parents was
the same at 3.75 with 15 superintendents rating each group as very important and 5
superintendents rating each group as important.
77
The greatest variance in responses had to do with community
members/partners, and the media. The average rating for community members and
partners is 3.5 with 11 superintendents responding that this is a very important group
to include in communicating the vision of student achievement, 8 responding that
this group is important, and 1 superintendent finding this group to be somewhat
important in communicating the district vision of student achievement. In an era
where the media plays such an important role in both positive and negative
communications regarding schools, districts and accountability for both, it is
interesting to note that when communicating the vision of student achievement to the
media, only 7 superintendents found the media to be a very important stakeholder to
receive information regarding the district vision, 7 found the media to be an
important group, and 6 found the media to be only a somewhat important
stakeholder. This variance may have to do with the level of interaction each
superintendent has had with the media in his/her school district. Some districts have
an abundance of media attention and staff reporters are in regular attendance at board
meetings and various school and district events, while other districts may have far
less interaction with the press.
78
Table 10
Importance of Communicating the Vision, Mission, and Priorities to the
Stakeholders
Very
Important
(4)
Important
(3)
Somewhat
Important
(2)
Not
Important
(1)
Average
Rating
District office staff 15 5 0 0 3.75
School site
administration
20 0 0 0 4.00
Teaching/classified
staff
19 1 0 0 3.95
Parents 15 5 0 0 3.75
Community members/
partners
11 8 1 0 3.50
Media 7 7 6 0 3.05

Many similarities exist with each superintendent in identifying the value of
stakeholder input as a part of building consensus for the vision and mission of raising
student achievement, as well as the process for building this consensus. It should
also be noted, however, that during the interviews, Superintendent A, C, and E
shared the difficulties in sustaining this interaction for the vision and mission within
the stakeholder groups over time. For instance, while the consensus building process
for the vision and mission can be eye-opening and a powerful communication tool in
and of itself, ensuring that this level of understanding and intentionality for the
79
vision and mission will be sustained over time, is not always the case, and sometimes
the process loses steam or can even be forgotten. Superintendent A explains that the
current district employees were not necessarily members of the district during the
last process for building the strategic plan. Therefore, s/he must provide a context
for and reminders about the agreed upon goals and mission. Superintendent A
explained that the parents in the district like the mission and vision statements that
had been created through the consensus building process, however, “could every
parent articulate what it means? I think the ones that were around the year we
launched could. The new ones – probably just words on the letterhead, on the
bulletins, and the things that go out,” and added later, “Don’t assume that because
you had a huge effort where everybody kind of owns the messaging that that’s
sustainable. It’s not sustainable if you don’t go back.” Similarly, Superintendent E
explains “I’ve done presentations to the management staff, where I lay out what I
feel is a clear vision to them. I’ve done it with the facilities, also the classified
employees, but am I one hundred percent confident that everybody knows [the
vision]? No, I’m not.” Superintendent A similarly explains:
If the vision and mission are not clearly articulated on a regular basis by me
as Superintendent to the cabinet, administrators, and the many new principals
gained after the many recent retirements, how will they know how to make
the connections to student learning and student achievement and then
articulate that message to their staffs? This is a communications challenge.

80
Research Question 3: When implementing change that will increase student
achievement, who are the various groups that a superintendent must consider
when communicating the vision?
Accountability and transparency required by the NCLB legislation, as well as
demanded by the current media savvy public call for strong communication between
schools and their communities. Current research suggests that supporting, practicing
and modeling successful communication activities are essential to student, educator
and organizational success (National School Public Relations Association, 2007).
Research also suggests that students perform better when families and communities
work together with schools and that superintendents must increase lines of
communication among stakeholders and allow for autonomy at the campus level in
order to have a positive impact on student academic achievement (National School
Public Relations Association, 2007; Byrd, Drews, & Johnson, 2006). According to
the research, communication is a key component in raising student achievement.
Because school reform and reform initiatives can and often do require significant
change within a district it is important that a superintendent be mindful not only of
how the message is communicated, but equally important are the recipients for
whom the message is intended.
Research Question 3 is designed to identify the various stakeholders that
superintendents include when communicating the vision of raising student
achievement in his/her district and is stated as follows: When implementing change
that will increase student achievement, who are the various groups that a
81
superintendent must consider when communicating the vision? In order to
understand the reasoning behind why certain groups should be thought of as
appropriate recipients for the district vision of raising student achievement and the
consequent reform initiatives for achieving that vision, superintendents were asked
whether or not they found communications to play a significant role in increasing
student achievement. In responding to how communication plays a role in student
achievement, Superintendent A explained that it is a very important piece:
The clarity of expectations is the most crucial piece, and one of the
challenges is that you have a complex organization that has many initiatives
in it… If it’s crystal clear what we’re expecting with in depth instructional
practice, about what it means to be a reflective learner, and how to use data,
then a teacher can put that into practice in that classroom. But if it’s
confusing because we haven’t been clear enough, then we shouldn’t be
surprised if it doesn’t look the way we hoped it would look.

Superintendent A suggests that if the expectations, or in this case vision and mission,
are not clear to the stakeholders, the actual results might differ from the intended
results. Therefore, not only should the vision and mission be clear, but each person’s
role in the process of achieving the mission should be clear as well. Superintendent
E agreed that communication does impact student achievement and shared “I would
say communication [needs to happen] through the principals down to the
teachers…some [principals] are more effective than others. But if you look at the
student achievement throughout the district, there is a constant improvement
[especially] where there is clear articulation of expectations.” Superintendent C
explained the impact of communication on student achievement in more detail:
82
It’s our visible thinking to our stakeholders…as it relates to student
achievement; we go back to the mission, for example. Our math scores are
the highest they’ve ever been in this school district, having just received our
scores a week or two ago. We can attribute that, or attach that to the mission,
so that there is this additional reinforcement of the mission in the vision,
taking the time…it’s all about fidelity. We knew we weren’t going to do it
overnight, but therein lies, again, that communication strand going back.

To gain an even deeper understanding of the level of impact communication
has on student achievement, the group of five superintendents were asked during the
interview, whether communication ever had a negative impact on student
achievement. Superintendent E explained spoke about the dynamics of the
contention between the teachers’ union and administration within his/her district.
The superintendent stated:
The negative communication between the administration and the association
[teacher’s union] has an ill affect on things, because it creates an atmosphere
of contention and mistrust, and no one likes to work in that environment. So
I do think that would have an overall affect on teacher effectiveness.

Agreeing that communication impacts the vision of each district to increase
student achievement, participating superintendents were then asked to rate the level
of importance communication plays in attempting to impose educational reform
requiring change throughout a district. Surveyed superintendents gave this an
average rating of 3.85 with 17 considering communication as very important to the
process and 3 superintendents considering it to be important (Table 11). Open-ended
responses revealed that superintendents feel that communications during reform
implementation is absolutely important and timely and that “without good
83
communications, the change could explode.” Furthermore, it was shared that
“people must understand your rationale whether or not they agree.”

Table 11
Importance of Communication when Implementing Change
Very
Important
(4)
Important
(3)
Somewhat
Important
(2)
Not
Important
(1)
Average
Rating
Communication and
reform efforts
17 3 0 0 3.85

Superintendents were asked to list the various internal stakeholders s/he
includes as recipients, once a message has been developed. The open-ended
responses are presented in alphabetical order (Table 12). Of the twenty
superintendents surveyed, 16 or 80% listed teaching and classified staff as internal
stakeholders chosen to receive a message developed by the school district, followed
by 75% listing site administration. The next most frequent listings were district
management with 70% of the superintendents listing this group as an important
component to the internal messaging string, and finally students are listed at a 50%
response rate. One superintendent listed Alumni as an important internal stakeholder
to receive communications regarding the district vision for student achievement.
84
Table 12
Internal Stakeholders Included as Recipients in District Message
Frequency Percentage
Alumni 1 5%
Board of Education 7 35%
Classified/Support staff 16 80%
District Management (Directors, coordinators, etc.) 14 70%
District Staff 9 45%
Parents 7 35%
Site Administration (principals) 15 75%
Students 10 50%
Teachers 16 80%
Volunteers 2 10%

Superintendents were then asked to list the various external stakeholders
included as recipients once a message has been developed. Responses were open-
ended and again, presented in alphabetical order (Table 13). Of the twenty
superintendents surveyed, 17 or 85% listed local business leaders or the Chamber of
Commerce as important stakeholders who should receive information regarding the
vision of the local school district. The next most frequent choices were Community
organizations (Kiwanis, Rotary, PTA, etc.), the media, and
parents/relatives/caregivers each having a 75% response rate, followed by
85
community members in general with a 65% response rate, and city government/city
council with a 55% response rate. Three superintendents listed local community
colleges and surrounding universities as external stakeholders to be included in any
messaging concerning the district vision of student achievement, one superintendent
listed surrounding districts, and one listed vendors.
During the interview, superintendents were able to elaborate on stakeholders
important to include in the district vision. Superintendent D explained, that all
stakeholders were included, then went on to say, “Parents, unions, the business
community, politicians, all elected officials, students, gang members, the drug
addicts…everybody.” When asked to elaborate on the inclusion of the gang
members, Superintendent D explained that sometimes there is a need to
communicate with the gang members, not necessarily the vision of student
achievement, but rather, to communicate the message, “It’s time to stop. Hands off
the school,” Superintendent D goes on to explain that students need to be and feel
safe in order to do well and achieve, and by reaching out to certain groups in the
community that may pose a threat to the students, and directing them to stay away,
students feel safer and can focus on learning.
86
Table 13
External Stakeholders Included as Recipients in District Message
Frequency Percentage
Chamber of Commerce/ Business Leaders 17 85%
City government/City Council 11 55%
Community College and surrounding universities 3 15%
Community Members 13 65%
Community Organizations (Kiwanis, Rotary, Faith-based
organizations, youth organizations, PTA, etc.)
15 75%
Media 15 75%
Parents/Relatives/Caregivers 15 75%
Surrounding Districts 1 5%
Vendors 1 5%

Research Question 4: What are the various messaging strategies urban
superintendents employ with the various stakeholders in order to raise student
achievement?
The vision of raising student achievement, while a seemingly simple concept,
can be more complex when deciding how to create the individual district mission
incorporating the various ways student achievement will be addressed, the
stakeholders to consider – what, when and how to involve them in the vision, and the
way in which the message is communicated to the various stakeholders.
87
Research Question 4 was designed to gather data regarding the various
messaging strategies utilized by superintendents that will ultimately raise student
achievement and is stated as follows: What are the various messaging strategies
urban superintendents employ with the various stakeholders in order to raise student
achievement? Messaging strategies, in this case include both the actual method in
which superintendents communicate to the stakeholders, and the strategies in which
they use to ensure that the message is sent in the appropriate manner, and both will
be addressed in this section.
Before a superintendent should begin the process of determining

who to
inform and how, s/he must first decide, more often than not, what the stakeholders
need to know and whether knowing certain information will contribute to student
achievement. A portion of the survey was aimed at gaining data from the
superintendents’ perspective of how important certain factors are to student
achievement and results are presented in Table 14. Of the total survey questions
posed to the superintendents, these data had the greatest amount of variance among
respondents. Two factors contributing to student achievement scored a 3.8, which
was the highest average rating for the specific data collected here. The first factor
that superintendents felt impacted student achievement in critical ways was having a
system of open communication with internal stakeholders and the other being
honesty and transparency from the district level. This finding suggests that all
information should be openly communicated with internal stakeholders to ensure
district transparency, and that to neglect to share certain information with
88
stakeholders can lead to a feeling of distrust. As Superintendent E shared, when there
is a lack of communication or negative communication with the association
[teachers’ union] it “has an ill affect on things, because it creates an atmosphere of
contention and mistrust…that would have an overall affect on teacher effectiveness,”
and if teachers are not effective in the classroom, student achievement will be lower.
The lowest scoring factor, in terms of what respondents felt to be important in
impacting student achievement, were the district marketing strategies giving it an
average rating of 2.90. Six superintendents rated this as very important, and 2
considered it to be not important with the remaining falling in between. This finding
is interesting because so much of student achievement is reliant on communicating
the district vision for increasing student achievement to the stakeholders. This is
particularly true in times of financial crisis, teacher lay-offs, district of choice
initiatives, and student attrition; given such a climate, having a district communicate
its excellence in program offerings and student achievement appears to be a vital
component of district success. Furthermore, much of the transparency and open
communication that superintendents have agreed to be a very important aspect to
student achievement necessarily incorporates the marketing strategies that a district
has to engage.
89
Table 14
Factors Impacting Student Achievement
Very
Important
(4)
Important
(3)
Somewhat
Important
(2)
Not
Important
(1)
Average
Rating
Positive image of the
school district
11 9 0 0 3.55
Crisis management 8 7 4 1 3.10
District marketing
strategies
6 8 4 2 2.90
System of open
communication with
internal stakeholders
16 4 0 0 3.80
System of open
communication with
external stakeholders
13 6 1 0 3.60
District honesty and
transparency
16 4 0 0 3.80

As previously identified, superintendents have noted that communication is
in and of itself a vital skill for succeeding as a superintendent and Table 15 presents
the level of importance superintendents place on certain messaging strategies. As
many superintendents have yet to be formally trained on the various nuances of
effective communication, the survey asked the superintendents to rate the importance
of seeking professional strategic communications advice and roughly half of the
respondents expressed it to be a very important messaging strategy, while the other
90
half thought it to be only somewhat important giving it an average rating of 3.05 In
the open-ended portion of the survey, the superintendents explained their reasoning
by suggesting that the level of importance was dependent upon the actual strengths
of the superintendent. For instance, if the superintendent possesses strong
communication skills, then it is less important to seek professional advice, however
if the reverse is true, then seeking the advice of a professional is very important.
One respondent explained that superintendents are not formally trained in the art of
communication and the necessary skills involved, therefore, it is important to have
formal, professional support on hand. Another superintendent explained that it is
critical to have communications support in the time of budget cuts, teacher lay-offs,
and districts that are faced with union strikes. The average rating for the strategy of
having a communications/public relations employee on staff is somewhat consistent
with the responses regarding seeking professional advice—although the average
rating was lower at 2.50. In addition, the responses were fairly evenly distributed
from “very important” to “not important”, showing discrepancy as to whether or not
this strategy is needed for successful communication. Superintendents offering
additional information in the open-ended portion of the survey shared a variety of
responses. One explained that there should be a communications person on staff,
even if not full time because communication often falls on the superintendent and
therefore becomes a vital task, while others explained that the need for a
communications staff member really depends on the size of the district, while
Superintendent B explained that it isn’t necessary for a specific communications
91
individual to be on staff. However, s/he goes on to explain that a superintendent
must have a communications plan and process in place to alert the stakeholders to
pertinent information in a timely manner, adding that “this is why a system must be
created within the organization – to ensure that communication is a built in
component of the process of running a school district.”
Understanding and being able to identify the various political forces in a
community, can be an important strategy in determining not only what should be
communicated to the stakeholders, but how the message should be communicated.
Boleman and Deal (2008) discuss the importance of this leadership skill in what they
have defined as the political frame of leadership. This frame, in Boleman and Deal’s
scholarship, requires the superintendent to understand that any organization is made
up of stakeholders or interest groups who have their own values, beliefs, information,
interests, and perceptions of reality and are competing for scarce resources which
inevitably causes conflict among those who are the recipients of those resources.
Strong political leaders build relationships and networks, apply a realist approach,
and maintain a clear focus as to what they can get, while they persuade, negotiate,
and coerce if necessary, to achieve their goals, recognizing that power is essential to
their effectiveness as superintendents (Bolman & Deal, 2008). Consistent with this
research, participating superintendents rated the ability to identify the political forces
in a community as 3.75 with 16 superintendents rating this strategy as very
important. In the open-ended section superintendents shared, that by being aware of
the political forces in a community, they can better understand where the land-mines
92
are located because politics can persuade board members to move in certain
directions that would ultimately impact student learning and student achievement.
One superintendent shared that “these groups must be identified and managed
appropriately so that the school district maintains ultimate control over the schools.”
As education accountability continues to keep the spotlight on our schools,
the need for community and local business support for schools has become
increasingly important to student achievement. In addition, more recently, with
funding continuously being cut from education, it has become increasingly important
to garner support from the community and surrounding businesses in a partnership in
order to ensure student achievement. Superintendents were asked about the
importance of promoting school-business partnerships and related public activities,
and 17 listed this as a very important strategy, giving it an average rating of 3.85. In
addition, one superintendent explained that the ability to be creative in order to
achieve multiple goals within a district is imperative to student achievement, while
another expressed, “urban school districts need additional support to meet the
physical, social/emotional student needs.”
Research suggests that students perform better when families and
communities work together with schools and that superintendents must increase lines
of communication among stakeholders and allow for autonomy at the campus level
in order to have a positive impact on student academic achievement (National School
Public Relations Association, 2007; Byrd, Drews, & Johnson, 2006). When asked
about the importance of being able to understand and communicate with all the
93
cultural groups within the community, the superintendents gave this an average
rating of 3.75 with 16 superintendents expressing this to be a very important
communication strategy, as the student make-up of any school reflects the various
cultures within a community. Therefore, if a superintendent fails to include the
various cultural populations when sending out the message of student achievement,
or misunderstands the way in which a certain group may receive the information,
there will be less understanding in terms of expectations and consequently less
support from the community.
When asked about the ability to persuade the community to adopt initiatives
for the welfare of the students, superintendents rated the importance as 3.70. It
would seem, however, that in a time of such fiscal crisis, superintendents would have
thought the ability to persuade the community to adopt initiatives for the welfare of
students to be a very important strategy across the board. When interviewed,
superintendents were asked about whether communications had an impact on the
success of moving the district’s vision forward. Superintendent E spoke to garnering
community support in this capacity directly by saying, “we just went out for a
general obligation bond, [that would bring $270,000 to the school district] and had a
70% approval…so I would say that for the most part, our community believes in the
education we’re providing in our community.” Superintendent A shared that this
strategy is important because, “in order to move from good to great, a district must
include the entire community.”
94
Table 15
Messaging Strategies
Very
Important
(4)
Important
(3)
Somewhat
Important
(2)
Not
Important
(1)
Average
Rating
Seek professional
strategic
communications advice
9 3 8 0 3.05
Employment of
communications/
public relations staff
6 6 4 4 2.50
Ability to identify the
political forces in a
community
16 3 1 0 3.75
Promoting school-
community relations,
school-business
partnerships and
related activities
17 3 0 0 3.85
Communicating with
all cultural groups in
the community
16 3 1 0 3.75
Persuading the
community to adopt
initiatives for welfare
of students
14 6 0 0 3.70

Once a superintendent has strategically decided upon the stakeholders to
include in the message and the message that needs to be communicated, s/he must
then employ a variety of methods to communicate this message. It should be noted
95
that one of the methods used to communicate the vision of student achievement
within a district, and has been widely used by the superintendents for this study, is
the consensus building process in creating the vision and mission, and has been
discussed previously in this dissertation study. However, in addition to this method
of creating ambassadors for the vision, what Superintendent C referred to as a “peer-
to-peer campaign” where each member will then go out and inform others,
superintendents shared a variety of ways in which they communicate with the
various internal and external stakeholders. Superintendent E explained, “you try to
communicate it [the vision] through a variety of means, whether it’s the regular
communication of what we call the Staff-O-Gram…or communicating [with] the
principals then having them communicate to their staffs.” When asked about parent
communication, Superintendent E explained, “We put communiqués out to the
parents in the Thursday Folders. We work closely with the individual PTAs, the
PTA Council, and will have three community forums this year.” Superintendent E
also discussed the strategic planning process undergone by members of the district,
and shared that the ultimate vision and mission as a result of that process was shared
in the form of a video. Superintendent E explains:
A video interviewing teachers, administrators, parents, and students was
created and presented, at a Board Meeting, and also the State of the Schools
where I address about 500 community members as to the progress of our
district, as well as the areas in which we need to address with urgency in
terms of student achievement. Then this video will be made available to all
PTAs and to all the principals to show to their staffs.

96
Superintendent C shared that the message is communicated in his/her district
through a variety of methods including the traditional methods of using the web-site,
phone messaging, the State of the District address, the district publication called Eye
On Ed, and more non-traditional approaches involving a great deal of discussion.
Superintendent C shared, “we talk about it practically every time we meet – with
administrators, or teachers, or PTAs, or arts advocacy groups, or other similar
groups.” Superintendent D added another component to the discussion aspect of
communicating the vision with internal stakeholders:
I believe in vertical articulation, with the high school, and all K-12. My first
year here I met with all the elementary principals and teachers and kept my
message simple – Just graduate everybody. A to G is the standard. I use the
same methods with the parents.

Superintendent B shared another more non-traditional approach to
communication and explained that the district has “utilized video Public Service
Announcements (PSAs). Last November we had the opening of Harry Potter at the
theaters, and so most local theaters around in the time leading up to the movie
showed our 60 second PSA in there for one of our schools.” Superintendent B goes
on to explain that,
We also had sign signboards over here on the ABC Freeway, in the
community next door. They think, or there’s some notion, we’re trying to
grab the kids. Not at all. We’ve actually studied the demographics, and we
know that people that are caught in the traffic jam are our community people
going to and from ABC City to DEF City….The point is, we’ve got to look at
all those ways to help people understand who we are, what we’re doing, and
so on, and get our message out. And again, our message has to continually
circulate around the notion of student learning.

97
Creating and articulating the district mission around the vision of student
achievement, building consensus in terms of how this goal can be realized, deciding
who should receive the information and the method by which the information should
be communicated is a daunting task for any superintendent, regardless of the amount
of time s/he has been in the position. A critical detail to keep in mind when creating
the process of communication is that people will be able to support the mission if
they understand what the mission is and their role in the process. Superintendent B
explained that in order to reach the vision of student achievement, each employee,
whether classified or certificated, needs to feel connected to the outcome and
described the Maintenance and Operations employees within his/her district having
celebration Bar-BQs when the academic achievement scores for the district were
published. Superintendent B explained:
They understood that they were part of that [student] success, and they were
integrated into that success. It wasn’t like, ‘Well, that belongs to teachers,
we just mow the lawn.’ No, when we have success, it is their success. So it
has to be an integrated message that says, ‘We need to do this all together.’
All employees need to be able to make connections between what they do,
and student learning.

Summary
This chapter reviewed the quantitative data collected from responses to
survey questions and qualitative data collected from both the responses to open-
ended survey questions as well as questions asked during the individual
superintendent interviews, with five selected superintendents. In addition to open-
ended questions regarding various stakeholders, the survey asked participating
98
superintendents to rate on a Likert-scale from very important to not important,
essential leadership skills necessary to successfully run a school organization, the
importance of communication to each leadership skill, as well as the importance of
various communication and messaging strategies utilized to keep stakeholders
informed and involved. The interview portion of the study allowed for participating
superintendents to expand upon their beliefs regarding the importance of
communication to the various stakeholders in addition to detailing their experiences
in building consensus for the vision of raising student achievement within each of
their districts.
Regarding creating the vision of student achievement and the importance of
communicating this vision to the many stakeholders, overall data revealed that
superintendents consider it to be of vital importance. The survey instrument revealed
that only 18 out of 20 superintendents found this to be a very important component
of successfully leading a school district. However, during the interview portion of
the study, each of the five superintendents found communication and the
corresponding, necessary skills, to be of crucial importance. It is fair to say, that the
primary vision and mission in education is student achievement or student learning,
and the mission of each district varies, in terms of finding the appropriate method(s)
of achieving the vision of student achievement. The vision of student achievement
provides the anchor for the way in which each employee or other stakeholder will be
expected to align his/herself to the process of raising student achievement.
Communicating this vision was found to be equally important. Again, by
99
understanding the vision of student achievement at every school in a district,
employees and others are better able to focus their efforts on the expectation, parents
have a better understanding of what is expected and how to support their student(s),
and students themselves understand more clearly what is expected of them which
allows for more success. It should also be noted, that superintendents shared that
maintaining the vision over time and the mission for achieving the vision, is a very
difficult task.
Data revealed that the process of building consensus for the vision of student
achievement should incorporate stakeholder representation from as many groups as
possible. Superintendents shared that by doing this the vision is better
communicated, and therefore better understood by the individual stakeholders across
the district. As each stakeholder has a better understanding of the vision, s/he has a
more tangible idea of his/her roll in the process, which in turn, increases student
achievement. Furthermore, the process of consensus building allows for the mission
to be better sustained over time.
Data regarding important stakeholders to be included in the message of
student achievement revealed that, in essence, the message should be communicated
to all stakeholders, both internal and external. Again, the more groups that are
involved in a school and have a clear understanding of the vision, and even the
mission of achieving the vision, the better they will able to support the efforts of
raising student achievement. It should be noted, however, that the level of
importance given to the various populations of stakeholders varied. This may have
100
been due to the fact that certain stakeholders are not as present or applicable to every
aim of the district than others, however, the exact reason is unclear.
Regarding the messaging strategies and methods utilized by superintendents
to increase student achievement, data were separated into two parts: First – the
communication strategies employed by superintendents, and second – the methods
utilized for communicating the vision of student achievement. Regarding the
communication strategies employed by superintendents, data revealed that
superintendents are not aligned in terms of the importance of certain communications
strategies such as employing a public relations staff member or seeking public
communications advice, which may have to do with the level of knowledge and skill
set a sitting superintendent currently possesses. Still, superintendents were in
agreement as to the importance of having a communication process built into the
system so that all stakeholders receive accurate and timely information. In terms of
actual methods utilized to communicate the message and vision of student
achievement, superintendents shared a variety of traditional methods and some added
more non-traditional methods. It should also be noted that each superintendent
interviewed shared that open communication with any and all stakeholder groups
from the superintendent is a very powerful form of communication.
This chapter provided information gathered from the results of the research
completed through this study and were presented in tables and narrative form to
reveal the collected data. The summary, conclusions, implications, and
recommendations for future research will be presented in Chapter 5.
101
CHAPTER FIVE
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS
Introduction
The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) has dramatically changed
education and how leaders attempt to run school districts. Due to the high level of
accountability and the legislation mandating greater transparency, district
superintendents have had to become skilled intellects to understand the many facets
of educational policies and their implications for all members of a district.
Superintendents have also had to become masters in the art of translating these
policies for their boards, administrators and teachers. In addition, superintendents
must create a vision and unity of purpose focusing on raising student achievement
and be able to build support for this vision from their internal and external
stakeholders.
Student achievement and success are at the heart of all current measures of
school reform, accountability, and transparency. In order to move a school district
forward and impact student achievement in positive ways, superintendents must first
create a vision for student achievement, and then learning how to communicate this
vision to all their stakeholders. A superintendent must also utilize various
communication strategies and techniques in order to build consensus with the various
stakeholder groups as to their roles in achieving the vision of the district. By
ensuring that both internal and external stakeholders are aware of the vision and the
102
steps that will be taken in order to ensure that the vision is reached, there will be
better success in attaining the vision of student achievement.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to identify the necessary communication skills
and strategies needed for effective leadership in the public school system that will
ultimately increase student achievement. This study analyzed how communication
and communication strategies utilized by superintendents play an integral role in
their success or failure for implementing school reform in terms of stakeholder buy-
in, support, and student achievement. This study provides research-based
information that can be used by superintendents to help them see the importance of
creating a district vision, identify messaging strategies for communicating this vision
with both the internal and external stakeholders, and analyze various messaging and
communication strategies for building consensus for the mission of raising student
achievement. It was the intent of this study to provide superintendents with various
strategies for communication, as well as providing research which reveals the
importance of communication and communication strategies to enable the sharing of
the vision of raising student achievement. This study was guided by the following
research questions:
1. How do urban superintendents successfully communicate the vision of
raising student achievement?
2. How do urban superintendents successfully create a unity of purpose and
build consensus focused on raising student achievement?
103
3. When implementing change that will increase student achievement, who
are the various groups that a superintendent must consider when
communicating the vision?
4. What are the various messaging strategies successful urban
superintendents employ with the various stakeholders in order to raise
student achievement?
Summary of Findings
A discussion and summary of the findings of this study are presented in
response to the four research questions that guided this study.
Research Question 1: Communicating the Vision
How do urban superintendents successfully communicate the vision of
raising student achievement? The data gathered for this study regarding the
communicating the vision of raising student achievement are consistent with the
National School Public Relations Association (NSPRA) Communications
Accountability Project (CAP) study (2004) which concluded that effective
communication is an integral part of moving the vision for any district forward.
Effective communication allows a superintendent to align words with actions, which
allows for greater transparency, which in turn creates more trust with both internal
and external stakeholders.
However, the data gathered from this study considered the exact methods
employed by the superintendents, who were the subjects of this study, for
communicating their visions for student achievement. This study was smaller in
104
scale than the above mentioned studies allowing the researcher, through individual
interviews, an opportunity to ask more in depth questions resulting in identifying a
theme shared by the participants that good interpersonal communication is important
in order for the vision to be realized. This may seem an obvious statement, but so
often a superintendent assumes that a message has been communicated to each
stakeholder in a meaningful way, but it simply isn’t the case because there is an over
reliance on written communications. The superintendent interviewees agreed, it is
difficult to sustain a vision over time and it can be difficult to ensure a consistent
message is being sent unless one is committed to implementing a quality
communication plan. It is also interesting that none of the superintendents
interviewed overtly stated that face-to-face communication with the stakeholders has
a greater impact on communicating the vision, yet, as each described his/her methods
of communication, they noted a great deal of time was spent personally
communicating with the various stakeholders.
Research Question 2: Creating a Unity of Purpose and Building Consensus
How do urban superintendents successfully create a unity of purpose and
build consensus focused on raising student achievement? Superintendents shared
that the process of building consensus and creating a unity of purpose was a very
important component in realizing the vision for the district. Through the interview
portion of the study, it was shared that strategic planning practices are at the
forefront of the process of creating a unity of purpose and building consensus for the
vision. This said, an ideal strategic planning committee should have a representative
105
from every stakeholder group including students. Data analysis revealed that the
strategic planning process, which is basically the creation of the mission to lead the
district to achieve the vision, is in and of itself a powerful communication tool.
Many districts spend a great deal of time and effort ensuring that the strategic plan
for the district is created in order to guide each participant to understand his/her role
in the mission, and the process is a powerful learning tool for all involved. However,
it was also shared that the outcomes of the strategic plan creation must be
consistently and continually communicated for the vision to be realized over time.
Participating and going through the thorough process once every five years is not
enough alone to ensure that the various stakeholders maintain knowledge and
understanding of the vision and their role in achieving it. It must be communicated
on a regular basis over time. Furthermore, the question must be addressed as to
whether or not consensus can be built without participating in a formal strategic
planning process. Throughout the interview process it was evident that consensus
can be built through a variety of measures. Face-to-face communication with
individuals or groups of people is a powerful communication tool utilized by all
superintendents interviewed. When a superintendent articulates the vision to an
individual or a group of people and stakeholders have a clear understanding of the
vision, they are more likely to buy-in to the mission or process of ensuring that the
vision is realized.
106
Research Question 3: Stakeholder Consideration
When implementing change that will increase student achievement, who are
the various groups that a superintendent must consider when communicating the
vision? The data from this study are consistent with Kowalski’s (2005) assertions
stating that reform efforts are successful when there is a culture of openness and
inclusion within a school district. Therefore, when considering the stakeholders to
include when communicating the vision of raising student achievement, all
stakeholders should be included. Superintendents successful in raising student
achievement through effective communication strategies utilize methods that
incorporate as many stakeholders as possible. According to the participating
superintendents, and consistent with Kowalski’s assertions, the process of
collaboration with all stakeholders – colleagues, parents, community partners, media,
etc., facilitates the creation of shared visions, builds a positive school district image,
gains community support for change, keeps the public informed about education, and
ultimately assists in realizing the district vision for raising student achievement.
Research Question 4: Messaging Strategies
What are the various messaging strategies successful urban superintendents
employ with the various stakeholders in order to raise student achievement? While
the superintendents participating in this study were aligned in the philosophy that it
is very important to have messaging strategies in place for communicating the vision
of student achievement to the various internal and external stakeholders, the views
differed in terms of the various methods and strategies needed for execution. All
107
superintendents shared that they spend a great deal of their time in face-to-face
interaction with stakeholders across their districts. Therefore, while they may not
have identified this as a separate messaging strategy, it is clear that this face-to-face
communication is an integral strategy used for communicating the vision with the
stakeholders. It is also this interaction that builds trust between the superintendent
and stakeholders. Superintendents were not completely aligned when considering
the importance of having a having a communications expert on site, or even seeking
advice of a communications expert. Some superintendents enter the role with a great
amount of communication knowledge and ability, and therefore may not feel the
need to employ someone within the district to take this charge or seek outside
communications assistance. However, in an era of information at the ready via
social media and the like, it is not only important to have a clear message, but it is
equally important to possess the knowledge of the various strategies available to get
this message out to the stakeholders in a quick and meaningful way.
Superintendents, while skilled leaders and communicators, may not have the time or
interest in staying updated with the accelerated world of technology and the
multitude of ways that individuals receive information. Furthermore,
superintendents must understand not only the different stakeholders and their roles,
but their differences in how they receive information. For instance, superintendents
wanting to include students in their stakeholder groups for purposes of
communication must appeal to these digital natives in a way that they will not only
receive the information, but understand the information which will involve mainly
108
technology. Likewise, when communicating with a community group where the
demographic is made up of mostly retired individuals, face-to-face communication
might be a better avenue for communication. Having a communications employee
on-site to manage this process would be beneficial.
It should also be noted that while the survey participants agreed that
communication not only impacts student achievement, it is a necessary element to
each leadership skill that a successful superintendent must develop. When
interviewed, each of the five participating superintendents shared the various
messaging strategies employed by their staffs, districts, and by themselves in order to
communicate the vision of student achievement and garner support from the
stakeholders to reach that vision. In addition, they each shared the frustration and
difficulty in ensuring the vision was truly understood by each stakeholder along with
the steps that would be taken in order to reach the vision. They expressed the same
difficulty in sustaining the vision and mission over time, all under the assumption
that the communication from his/her end to the stakeholders was successful.
However, it is interesting that there were no superintendent interviewees that
suggested s/he failed to communicate in an effective manner to any stakeholder.
Limitations
The districts and superintendents chosen for this study were limited to school
districts with 15,000 students or more, however there were no significantly large
districts with 100,000 or more represented in the study. It was the intent of the
researcher to provide information pertaining to a sampling of average sized districts.
109
However, it became clear once the data began to be analyzed that certain strategies
may look different or be unnecessary in districts with fewer than 15,000 students as
well as large districts with 100,000 students or more.
Implications for Practice
This study is significant to the field of education in that it analyzes how
communication and communication strategies utilized by superintendents play an
integral role in their success or failure of implementing school reform in terms of
stakeholder buy-in, support and student achievement. As educational reform
continues to involve a shift from isolation to collaboration, transparency, and
stakeholder involvement, it is of vital importance to keep an open line of
communication from the district and superintendent to each of the internal and
external stakeholders in order to realize the vision of raising student achievement.
Data gathered from this study are consistent with research suggesting that
communication and communication skills are a vital part of every leadership
attribute a superintendent must possess to successfully lead a school district.
Although a critical component of the overall skill of communication, the
mere dissemination of information is not the only function of effective
communication. Superintendents must have a clear understanding of the roles of the
many internal and external stakeholders and use communication and communication
strategies to not only disseminate information, but as an avenue of building
consensus and trust. Therefore, this researcher asserts that greater importance should
be placed on the training of superintendents and aspiring superintendents in the area
110
of effective communication and communication strategies as part of superintendency
training programs. Furthermore, districts should consider making it a regular
practice to employ a communications staff member to ensure that the process of
communicating regularly utilizing the various methods of both traditional and non-
traditional forms of communication is in place.
For superintendents who are fairly skilled at the art of effective
communication and therefore do not see the need for a communications employee on
staff, s/he should have a system in place for 1) gathering information that should be
shared with internal and external stakeholders, 2) utilizing the various messaging
strategies most appropriate for disseminating the information once gathered, and 3)
ensuring that there is a process for information dissemination in a timely and
constant manner to inform the stakeholders of the vision and sustain the momentum
for the vision over time.
Future Research
Although this study addressed and presented findings of the effective
communication strategies utilized by superintendents to build consensus for the
vision of raising student achievement, there remains a need for future research that
goes beyond the scope addressed in this study. The following recommendations for
future research are suggested:
1. Replicate aspects of this study and include stakeholder representation.
While the researcher surveyed and interviewed superintendents for this
study, the data provided were evidence of the superintendent’s perception
111
of whether or not effective communication had taken place. Collecting
data from specific stakeholders regarding their perception and methods of
effective communication could offer an additional level of insight in how
superintendents involve the stakeholders in the mission of raising student
achievement, and whether the superintendent’s perception of effective
matches the stakeholder’s perception of effective.
2. While communication strategies effective in one district will most likely
be just as effective in another, further research that expands the
geographic and demographic boundaries defined in this study is needed.
The potential data gathered could support findings from this study and
other existing bodies of research, as well as provide additional
information regarding effective communication strategies as they pertain
to possibly very large districts with over 100,000 students, or very small
with fewer than 1,000 for example.
3. While this study focused on communication strategies increasing student
achievement, further research providing information regarding instances
where communication was lacking, or types of communication strategies
that failed to inform, which in turn had a negative impact on student
achievement, could be a very powerful tool for superintendents or
aspiring superintendents to understand the level of importance
communication plays to the success of a superintendent and the success
of a district.
112
REFERENCES
Bjӧrk, L. G., Glass, T. E., & Brunner, C. C. (2005). Characteristics of American
school superintendents. In L. G. Bjork & T. J. Kowalski (Eds.), The
contemporary superintendent: Preparation, practice, and development (pp.
19-44). CA: Corwin Press. [Invited]

Bolman, L., & Deal, T. (2008). Fourth Edition. Reframing organizations: Artistry,
choice, and leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Bredeson, P. W., & Kose, B. W. (2007). Responding to the education reform
agenda: A study of school superintendents’ instructional leadership.
Education Policy Analysis Archives, 15(5), 1-21. Retrieved January 20,
2011, from http;//epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v15n5.

Brewer, D. & Smith, J. (2006). Evaluating the “Crazy Quilt”: Educational
Governance in California. Institute for Research on Education Policy &
Practice (IRePP).

Bryk, A. S. & Schneider, B. (2003). Trust in Schools: A Core Resource for School
Reform. Educational Leadership, 40-44.

Burke, J. C. (2004). Achieving accountability in higher education: Balancing public,
academic, and market demands. In J. C. Burke (Ed.), The many faces of
accountability (pp. 1-24). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Carlsmith, L., & Railsback, J. (2001). The Power of Public Relations in Schools.
Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory.

Childress, S., Elmore, R., & Grossman, A. (2006). How to manage urban school
districts. Harvard Business Review, 55-68.

Edwards, M. E. (2007). The modern school superintendent: An overview of the role
and responsibilities in the 21
st
century. New York, NY: IUniverse Inc.

Elmore, R. F. (2002). Bridging the gap between standards and achievement,
Washington, DC: Albert Shanker Institute. Retrieved July 12, 2003, from
http://www.nsdc.org/library/results/res11-02elmore.html.

Fowler, F.C (2009). Chapter 1: Policy: What is it and Where it Comes From. In
Policy Studies for Educational Leaders (pp.1-20). Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Pearson/Merrill Prentice Hall.
113
Goldberg, B., & Morrison, D. M. (2003). Co-Nect: Purpose, accountability, and
school leadership. In J. Murphy & A. Datnow (Eds.), Leadership lessons
from comprehensive school reforms (pp. 57-82). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Corwin Press.

Houston, P. (2001). Superintendents for the 21st Century: It’s not just a job, it’s a
Calling. Phi Delta Kappan, 82(6), 428-433.

Hoyle, J. R., Bjork, L. G., Collier, V., & Glass, T. (2005). The superintendent as
CEO: standards-based performance. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press-A
Sage Publication Company.

Jacobson, S., Johnson, L., Ylimaki, R., & Giles, C. (2005). Successful leadership in
challenging U.S. schools: Enabling principles, enabling schools. Journal of
Educational Administration, 43, 607-618.

Jorgensen, M., & Hoffman, J. (2003). History of the No Child Left Behind Act of
2001 (NCLB). Assessment report. Pearson Education, Inc.

Kim, J. S., & Sunderman, G. L. (2005). Measuring academic proficiency under the
No Child Left Behind Act: Implications for educational equity. Educational
Researcher.

Kowalski, T. J. (2000). Cultural change paradigms and administrator
communication. Contemporary Education, 71(2), 5-10.

Kowalski, T. J. (2005). Evolution of the school district superintendent position. In
L. G. Bjӧrk & T. J. Kowalski (Eds.), The contemporary superintendent:
Preparation, practice, and development (pp. 1-18). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Corwin Press.

Kowalski, T. J. (2006). The school superintendent: Theory, practice, and cases (2
nd

ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Kowalski, T. J., McCord, R. S., Peterson, G. J., Young, I. P., & Ellerson, N. M.
(2011). The American School Superintendent: 2010 decennial study.
Arlington, VA: American Association of School Administrator.

Leithwood, K., Louis, K., Anderson, S., & Wahlstrom, K. (2004). How leadership
influences student learning. New York: The Wallace Foundation.

114
Leithwood, K. A., & Riehl, C. (2003). What we know about successful school
leadership. Philadelphia, PA: Laboatory for Student Success, Temple
University.

Linn, R. L. (2003). Accountability; Responsibility and reasonable expectations.
Educational Researcher, 32, 3-13.

Marzano, R. J. & Waters, J. T. (2006). School District Leadership that Works: The
Effect of Superintendent Leadership on Student Achievement. Denver, CO:
McREL.

Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. Retrieved March 20, 2011, from
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/accountability.

National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A Nation at Risk: The
Imperative for Education Reform. Retrieved on September 1, 2010 from
http://www.ed.gov/pubs/NatAtRisk/index.html

National Education Goals Panel. (1993). Background on the National Education
Goals Panel. U.S. Department of Education, Off ice of Educational
Research and Improvement: Washington, DC.

National Education Goals Panel. (1999). Data volume for the National Education
Goals report, U.S. Department of Education: Washington, D.C.

National School Public Relations Association. (2007). Characteristics of Effective
Superintendents: A study to identify qualities essential to the success of
school superintendents as cited by leading superintendents. Rockville, MD:
Retrieved from: http://www.nspra.org/files/docs/StandardsBooklet.pdf.

The National Education Goals Report. (1993) Building a Nation of Learners. U. S.
Department of Education: Washington, DC.

Northouse, P. G. (2007). Leadership: Theory and Practice. (4
th
ed). Thousand Oaks,

Paris, K. (1994). A leadership model for planning and implementing change for
school-to-work transition (pp. 22-25). Madison, WI: University of
Wisconsin-Madison, Center on Education and Work.

Petersen, G. (2001). Singing the same tune: Principals’ and school board members’
perceptions of the superintendt’s role as instructional leader. Journal of
educational Administration 40(2), 158-171.
115
Petersen, G. & Short, P. (2001). The school board president’s perception of the
district superintendent: Applying the lenses of social influence and social
style. Educational Administration Quarterly, 37(4), 533-570.

Policy Brief: Effective Leaders for Today’s Schools: Synthesis of a policy Forum on
Educational Leadership. (2009). Retrieved from:
www2.ed.gov/pubs/EffectiveLeaders/effective-leadership.html

Porter, A. C., and M. S. Polikoff. (2007). NCLB: State interpretations, early effects,
and suggestions for reauthorization. Social Policy Report 21 (4), Society for
Research in Child Development.
http://www.srcd.org/documents/publications/spr/21-
4_no_child_left_behind.pdf (accessed May 20, 2008).

Robinson, V. M. (2006). Putting education back into educational leadership. Leading
& Managing. 12(1), 62-75.

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

Schwartz, R., Robinson, M., Kirst, M., & Kirp, D. (2000). Goals 2000 and the
standards movement. Brookings Papers on Education Policy, 3(2000), 173-
214.

Stecher, B., and Kirby, S. (2004). Organizational improvement and accountability:
Lessons for education from other sectors. Santa Monica, CA: Rand
Corporation. Retrieved November 14, 2005, from
http://www.rand.org/publications/MG/MG136/

U.S. Department of Education (1996). Goals 2000: Increasing Student Achievement
through State and Local Initiatives. Washington, DC.

U.S. Department of Education (2004). No Child Left Behind. Retrieved January 7,
2011, from www.nclb.gov
116
APPENDIX A
WEB-BASED SURVEY
Superintendent Survey Instrument

1. Gender

Male
Female

2. Ethnicity

African American
White
Latino/Hispanic
Asian
Other

Other (please specify)

3. Age

29 or under
30-35
36-39
40-45
46-49
50-59
60-65
66 or over
117
4. Highest educational attainment (Select all that apply)

Bachelors Degree
Masters Degree
Doctoral Degree
Post Doctoral Degree
Other Professional Degree

5. Years you have been a superintendent

5 or less years
6-10 years
11-15 years
16 or more years

6. Years you have been a superintendent in your current school district

____________________________________

7. Do you currently hold or have held any of the following positions during your
career? (check all that apply)

School District Administrator (other than superintendent)
School Site Administrator
Certificated Employee (teacher, etc.)
Classified Employee (clerical, custodial, instructional aide, etc.)
Private Industry (please specify) ________________________________
118
8. List three to five skills you define as the most important to your success as a
superintendent.

Skill 1:

Skill 2:

Skill 3:

Skill 4:

Skill 5:

9. How important is communication to each of these skills? (Please describe)

10. When developing a message, who are the various external stakeholders that you
include as recipients?

11. When developing a message, who are the various internal stakeholders that you
include as recipients?

12. How important is the district vision, mission, and priorities to student
achievement?

Very
Important
Important Insignificant Not Important
Completely
Irrelevant
Please
select:

119
13. How important is communicating this vision, mission, and priorities to:

Very
Important
Important Insignificant
Not
Important
Completely
Irrelevant
District office
staff?

School site
administration

School site
teaching and
classified staff

Parents

Community
members/partners

Media

Other relevant stakeholders (please specify)

14. How important are the following factors to student achievement within a district?

Very
Important
Important Insignificant
Not
Important
Completely
Irrelevant
Positive image
of the school
district

Crisis
management

District
marketing
strategies

System of open
communication
with internal
stakeholders

System of open
communication
with external
stakeholders

District honesty

120

Very
Important
Important Insignificant
Not
Important
Completely
Irrelevant
and
transparency
Other factors impacting student achievement (please specify)

_____________________________________________

15. How important is the role of communications in the success or failure of a
superintendent’s tenure?

Very
Important
Important Insignificant
Not
Important
Completely
Irrelevant
Please select:

Please add any additional comments that you feel are important. (Optional)

16. In order to succeed in his/her position, how important is it for a superintendent to
seek professional strategic communications advice?

Very
Important
Important Insignificant
Not
Important
Completely
Irrelevant
Please select:

Please add any additional comments that you feel are important. (Optional)

17. How important is communications to a superintendent’s ability to effectively
manage an administrative team?

Very
Important
Important Insignificant
Not
Important
Completely
Irrelevant
Please select:

Please add any additional comments that you feel are important. (Optional)
121
18. How important is communications to a superintendent for building consensus
and commitment among various individuals and groups?

Very
Important
Important Insignificant
Not
Important
Completely
Irrelevant
Please select:

Please add any additional comments that you feel are important. (Optional)

19. How important is communications to a superintendent who is trying to impose
dramatic changes in education reform?

Very
Important
Important Insignificant
Not
Important
Completely
Irrelevant
Please select:

Please add any additional comments that you feel are important. (Optional)

20. In order to succeed in his/her position, how important is it for a superintendent to
employ communications/public relations staff?

Very
Important
Important Insignificant
Not
Important
Completely
Irrelevant
Please select:

Please add any additional comments that you feel are important. (Optional)

21. How important is it for the superintendent to understand and be able to
communicate with all cultural groups in the community?

Very
Important
Important Insignificant
Not
Important
Completely
Irrelevant
Please select:

Please add any additional comments that you feel are important. (Optional)
122

22. How important is it for a superintendent to be able to identify the political forces
in a community?

Very
Important
Important Insignificant
Not
Important
Completely
Irrelevant
Please select:

Please add any additional comments that you feel are important. (Optional)

23. How important is it for a superintendent to be able to promote school-
community relations, school-business partnerships, and related public service
activities?

Very
Important
Important Insignificant
Not
Important
Completely
Irrelevant
Please select:

Please add any additional comments that you feel are important. (Optional)

24. How important is it for a superintendent to be able to persuade the community to
adopt initiatives for the welfare of students?

Very
Important
Important Insignificant
Not
Important
Completely
Irrelevant
Please select:

Please add any additional comments that you feel are important. (Optional)

25. How important is it for a superintendent to be able to demonstrate consensus
building?

Very
Important
Important Insignificant
Not
Important
Completely
Irrelevant
Please select:

123

Please add any additional comments that you feel are important. (Optional)
124
APPENDIX B
INTERVIEW GUIDE
Successful Communication Strategies Used by Urban School District
Superintendents to Build Consensus in Raising Student Achievement

• What is your district’s vision?
o Do you feel that all the employees know of this vision? If so, how do they
know?

o How about parents – are they aware of your district’s vision? If so, how
do they know?

• Once you had created the district vision, how did you facilitate building
consensus with the various groups to garner support for achieving the vision?

o Which groups did you include in the process and why?
• Do you feel that communication has an impact on the success of moving your
district’s vision forward?

• Does communication play a role in improving student achievement?
o If yes, tell me why?
o If not, why not?
• Can you give one or two examples of when communications had a significant
impact on the success of your district?

• When implementing change that will increase student achievement, who are the
various groups that you consider when communicating this vision?

• What are the ways that you communicate the vision of raising student
achievement with various internal and external stakeholders?
125
APPENDIX C
INVITATION TO PARTICIPATE LETTER

June 17, 2011

Dear Superintendent,

Thank you for taking the time from your busy schedule to review this request. My
name is Elena Heimerl, and I am doctoral student under the guidance and direction
of Dr. Rudy Castruita from the Rossier School of Education at the University of
Southern California. You have been identified as a successful superintendent and
someone who can add to the knowledge base of superintendent research.

I am conducting a research study as part of my dissertation, focusing on
communication strategies used by superintendents to build consensus in raising
student achievement. Because of your success as someone who has led a school
district showing academic growth, you have been identified as someone who would
be ideal for this study. Participation would require you to click on the link provided
in this email, which will take you to the online survey. This survey has been time
tested to take roughly 15 minutes.

Participation in this study is entirely voluntary and you may withdraw at any point.
Your identity as a participant will remain confidential at all times during and after
the study. No data will be presented in any manner where an individual and/or
district can be identified.

Thank you for taking the time to participate in this study. If you should have any
questions, please contact me directly (818) 263-1513.

Respectfully,

Elena Heimerl
Doctoral Student/Researcher
University of Southern California
eheimerl@usc.edu
Dr. Rudy M. Castruita
Faculty Supervisor/Dissertation Chair
University of Southern California
rcastrui@usc.edu

Abstract (if available)

Abstract The role of the superintendent has dramatically changed over the years. With the latest demands for increased accountability measures and district transparency from the state and federal governments, superintendents have had to increase their skills and areas of expertise not just in the basics of leadership, but to include skills in networking and building partnerships, translating complicated governmental policies, negotiating with union groups, focusing on student achievement and closing the gap between high and low performing sub-groups, while maintaining a sense of transparency with internal and external stakeholders to establish and maintain trust. This study explores how successful urban school district superintendents raise student achievement through effective communication and communication strategies to build consensus and implement school reform efforts. In addition to identifying the internal and external stakeholders to which information must be shared, the study also provides an analysis of effective messaging and communication strategies superintendents employ to build consensus and raise student achievement.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Superintendents increase student achievement by selecting effective principals

PDF

Strategies employed by successful superintendents and boards of education resulting in increased 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 urban superintendents responding to demands for student achievement reform

PDF

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

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

Should it say or should it go: how successful superintendents build, shift, and transform district culture in an age of increasing accountability

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Strategies used by superintendents in developing leadership teams

PDF

Model leadership: discovering successful principals' skills, strategies and approaches for student success

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Strategies California superintendents use to implement 21st century skills programs

PDF

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

PDF

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

Asset Metadata

Creator Heimerl, Elena G. (author)

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

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 04/11/2012

Defense Date 02/27/2012

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

Tag building consensus,Communication,OAI-PMH Harvest,superintendent

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Castruita, Rudy Max (committee chair), Escalante, Michael F. (committee member), García, Pedro Enrique (committee member)

Creator Email eheimerl@gusd.net,eheimerl@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-25700

Unique identifier UC11288182

Identifier usctheses-c3-25700 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-HeimerlEle-593.pdf

Dmrecord 25700

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Heimerl, Elena G.

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