University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

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

(USC Thesis Other)

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

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

1

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

by

Mariana Ryan

__________________________________________________________________________

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

May 2016

Copyright 2016 Mariana Ryan

SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

2
DEDICATION
To my amazing support system that I have which I am so lucky to call my family. My
parents have always encouraged and supported me every step of my educational journey. They
have both worked extremely hard and sacrificed so much to make sure that I valued education
and that I had every opportunity to pursue my dreams and goals. Thank you for always pushing
me and setting such high expectations while yet providing me the support needed to reach all of
these goals! You guys are my rock and I love you both so much! And to my friends thank you
for keeping me sane and helping me find and keep a balance through this entire process!

SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

3
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to thank my dissertation committee Dr. Rudy Castruita, Dr. Pedro Garcia,
and Dr. David Cash. Without your support, patience, and guidance throughout this entire
process, this would not have been possible. After my very first class at the Rossier School of
Education at USC I knew that Dr. Castruita was a true leader in education and that I would leave
the program with a wealth of knowledge, experience, and confidence that I never had before.
You have truly been a mentor to me throughout the entire process and provided me with such
insight. I will always reflect back on this program and your words as guidance in my decisions in
education. Thank you for putting up me throughout this entire process, I know it has not been
easy!
I would also like to thank my co-author Bobbi Burnett. Without you, this entire program
would not have been possible. You have pushed me, encouraged me, and supported me even
when I was not ready for it or wanting to. I will miss all the long drives filled with intellectual
conversations and personal advice you that have given me over the past three years. There is
absolutely no one else I could have done this program with and no one else that could have ever
counterbalanced me so well. I love you and you are definitely the older sister I never had!
Finally a huge thank you to Beaumont USD for the continual support and guidance
throughout this journey!

SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

4
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Dedication 2
Acknowledgements 3
List of Tables 6
Abstract 7
Preface 8
Chapter 1: Overview of the Study 9
Introduction 9
Statement of the Problem 14
Purpose of the Study 15
Assumptions 16
Limitations 16
Delimitations 16
Definition of Terms 17
Chapter 2: Literature Review 19
Background of the Superintendency 21
The Superintendent and School Board of Education Perceptions 23
Challenges to Superintendent Longevity 26
Superintendent Leadership Characteristics and Practices 28
Superintendent Relationships with Stakeholders 32
The Role of the Twenty-First Century Superintendent 34
Chapter 3: Methodology 39
Introduction 39
Purpose of the Study 41
Research Questions 41
Research Design 42
Conceptual Framework 42
Sample and Population 43
Participants 43
Instruments 44
Protocol 45
Data Collection 46
Summary 46
Chapter 4: Findings 47
Background 47
Demographics of Participants 49
Process to Gather Research 53
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

5
Response Rate 54
Data Analysis and Findings 55
Research Question #1: What Personal Characteristics do Superintendents with 61
Above Average Tenure in Suburban Districts Possess that Promote
Longevity in Their Career as Perceived by School Board Members?
Research Question #2: What Personal Factors do Superintendents with Above 70
Average Tenure in Suburban Districts Possess that Promote Longevity
in Their Career as Perceived by School Board Members?
Research Question #3: What Evaluation Tool/s are Used by School Board 81
Members to Determine the Superintendents’ Effectiveness as it Relates
to Their Longevity?
Summary 89
Chapter 5: Conclusions and Implications 92
Introduction 92
Purpose of the Study 94
Research Questions 94
Results and Findings 94
Implications of the Study 102
Summary 105
Recommendations for Future Research 106
Concluding Remarks 106
References 108

SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

6
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. District Demographics 50
Table 2. Years of Superintendency 51
Table 3. Years as a School Board Member 52
Table 4. Tiered Preparation of Superintendency 53
Table 5. Quantitative Survey: Response Rate 55
Table 6. Leadership Qualities and Characteristics: The Mean from a 5 Point Likert 57
Scaled Survey
Table 7. Leadership Qualities and Characteristics: The Percentage from a 5 Point 58
Likert Scaled Survey
Table 8. Leadership Qualities and Characteristics: The Frequency From a 5 Point 60
Likert Scaled Survey
Table 9. Leadership Qualities and Characteristics: Frequency Distribution From 61
Open-Ended Interview
Table 10. Top Five Leadership Characteristics: Mean from Survey 62
Table 11. Top Five Leadership Characteristics: Percentile Rank from Survey 63
Table 12. Top Five Leadership Characteristics: Frequency from Survey 64
Table 13. Top Two Leadership Characteristics: Frequency from Interview 65
Table 14. Top Five Leadership Factors: Mean from Survey 71
Table 15. Top Five Leadership Factors: Percentile Rank from Survey 72
Table 16. Top Five Leadership Factors: Frequency from Survey 73
Table 17. Top Three Leadership Factors, Frequency from Interview 74
Table 18. Evaluation Tools Used by Superintendents: From Open-Ended Interview 82

SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

7
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this study was to identify leadership characteristics, factors and evaluation tools
that support superintendent longevity in suburban school districts. Five school board members
from suburban school districts that have been in their positions for a minimum of one full term of
four years were surveyed and interviewed to obtain an understanding of the characteristics, the
leadership factors, and the evaluation tools that they perceived positively promoted longevity in
the position of a suburban superintendent. In addition, 32 suburban school board members, who
have been in their positions for a minimum of one full term of four years, were surveyed to
identify their understanding of characteristics, factors and evaluation tools that support
superintendent longevity. The design that utilized for this study was mixed method including
both the qualitative and quantitative approach. The conceptual framework utilized for this study
was based on Creswell’s six steps of the research process. These six steps are: (1) identification
of the research problem (2) review of the literature (3) specification of the purpose for the
research (4) data collection (5) analyzing and interpreting the data (6) reporting and evaluating
the research. This conceptual framework was designed to be a mixed-method research study and
was conducted using both the use of interviews and surveys. The information from this research
study provides insight about suburban superintendent leadership characteristics, factors and
evaluation tools that can directly impact and influence individuals who are interested in
becoming a superintendent in suburban school districts.

SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

8
PREFACE
While jointly authored dissertations are not the norm of most doctoral programs, a
collaborative effort is reflective of real-world practices. To meet their objective of developing
highly skilled practitioners equipped to take on real-world challenges, the USC Graduate School
and the USC Rossier School of Education have permitted our inquiry team to carry out this
shared venture.
This dissertation is part of a collaborative project with two other doctoral candidates,
Bobbi Burnett and Abram Jimenez. We three doctoral students met urban, suburban and school
board members with the aim of helping educators understand the issue of low superintendent
longevity as genuine problem. However, the process for dissecting and resolving the problem
was too large for a single dissertation. As a result, the three dissertations produced by our
inquiry team collectively address the needs of urban, suburban, and school boards (see Burnett,
2016; Jimenez, 2016). Each chapter of this dissertation was co-authored by all three of us.

SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

9
CHAPTER 1
OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
1

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

1
This chapter was co-authored by Bobbi Burnett and Abram Jimenez.
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

10
utilize contingent rewards, transactions that they construct and manage-by-exception with active
and passive corrective transactions (Northouse, 2007). They strategically provide rewards for
those that they perceive to be assets to the company, those that they consider to be doing a good
job (Northouse, 2007). Transactional leaders build their team with buy-in that includes exterior
rewards with interior motivation. People commit themselves to the individual and the
organization because of the transaction that will occur because of their efforts. This individual
may work for the boss and not even like him, but do it because of the reward that they will
receive. Transformational leaders have a strategy that includes a buy-in that is connected to the
individual and the relationship that has been built (Northouse, 2007).
A good leader may use a combination of both of these strategies to facilitate a productive
work environment and commitment to the organization. In the 1980s, Bass (1985) looked at the
transformational work of both Burns (1978) and House (1976) to conclude that both
transformational and transactional leadership should be on a mutual continuum versus one that
was independent from the other (Northouse, 2007). His understanding is that one can benefit
from being led with strategies that promote positive self-reflection and belief in one’s own
abilities, which leads to motivation, as well as transactional leadership that promotes morale and
self-worth with the utilization of rewarding transactions that encourage positive membership and
buy-in with the leader in charge.
With the outstanding number of changes that educators and administrators are
experiencing with the new implementation of Common Core State Standards and technology,
Twenty-first century educational leaders need to strategically facilitate leadership strategies that
incorporate inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, individualized consideration, and
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

11
contingent rewards for those doing an outstanding job, which are both transformational and
transactional leadership practices (Northouse, 2007).
The world of education is rapidly changing for everyone and the leadership
characteristics, along with the leadership practices that are being utilized to promote
superintendent longevity need to be studied to capture the heart and logic of the people with
whom they are serving.
School district leadership, specifically the superintendency, is a critical component to
increase student achievement. Waters and Marzano (2006) highlight the statistical significance
between the superintendent position and overall student performance. Since the relationship is
important, it becomes significant for school districts to have effective superintendents with
longevity that possess the skills to serve students, parents, and the local community for a
considerable amount of time. Consistent and effective superintendent leadership is at the center
of a school district overall success (Marshall & Ray, 2005), however, recent data indicates the
potential risks that superintendents take in becoming a superintendent with the average tenure of
superintendents being 3.18 years (Council of the Great City Schools, 2014).
The role of school superintendent has significantly changed from a traditional teacher
leader with limited political involvement to that of a chief executive officer responsible for
balancing the districts instructional program, operations, and public relations of the district
(Houston, 2006). The position of superintendent was originally developed in the late 1800s
during the common school movement, where children attended school for free despite their
socio-economic status, gender, religion, race or country of origin (Grieder, Pierce, & Jordan,
1969). By 1870, 30 large cities had school superintendents, which increased to over 35,000 by
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

12
the mid-1900s (Kowalski, 2003) and currently there are 14,000 superintendents in the United
States (National Center for Education Statistics [NCES], 2010).
In 2002, the No Child Left Behind Initiative significantly changed the role of
superintendent. Superintendents became responsible for the oversight and accountability
measures associated with high stakes testing that was targeted by the Federal Government to
ensure that students were performing proficient and above on standardized assessments or face
sanctions. Superintendent behaviors shifted based on pressures to ensure students performed well
on standardized assessments and that teachers delivered effective instruction (Bjork & Kowalski,
2005). Superintendents continued to take on multiple roles with expectations that included, but
were not limited to, increased student achievement, board relations, hiring effective leaders,
maintaining a collaborative relationship with all community stakeholders, budget and finance
oversight, professional preparation, operations, and staying informed on incoming realities of
practice (Bjork & Kowalski, 2005).
Most recently, with the shift to Common Core State Standards, superintendents are now
faced with yet another shift in educational management and practice, which will require
additional skills to promote their longevity. There has not been sufficient research on the
characteristics that lead to superintendent longevity, which warrants an investigation of this
study. Superintendents need the flexibility, communication skills, knowledge capacity, and the
foresight to create a vision that promotes rigor, relevance, and relationships in the 21st century
while incorporating technology, and data into everyday practice. It is also their responsibility to
ensure safety for all students and staff, while providing the resources and services that ensure
high school students are graduating college and career ready (Finnan, 2014). With the new
Common Core State Standards initiative, superintendents are dealing with deep change versus
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

13
incremental change. A twenty-first superintendent needs to exhibit more than the first order
change responsibilities centered around optimizing, affirmation, ideas/beliefs, situational
awareness, visibility, relationships, communication, culture, and input (Marzano, McNulty, &
Waters, 2005).
Due to the nature of change with the Common Core State Standards that encompass new
accountability measures, rigorous national curriculum for all students, College and Career
Readiness Standards, along with the implementation of technology, the twenty-first century
superintendent must exhibit second order change characteristics that require the district leader to
have knowledge of curriculum, instruction and assessment; be an optimizer, an intellectual
stimulator, a change agent, and a monitor and evaluator that is flexible with strong ideals and
beliefs (Marzano et al., 2005). This change requires new ways of thinking and behaving from the
No Child Left Behind era; it distorts the existing patterns in place, it means taking risks, and calls
for superintendents to surrender control of past practices and ideologies to support the new
educational political movement that comes with local control funding and Common Core State
Standards (Quinn, 1996).
Some of these risks that superintendents may need to take in this new role of the twenty-
first century superintendent can be supported by what Wagner and Kegan (2006) points out as
leadership styles and skills that are defined by Fortune 200 business leaders as being essential
leadership traits that have promoted longevity and continuous success over the changing times.
As superintendents continue to take on both new and old roles, they are essentially running an
enterprise much like the Chief Executive Officer of a corporation. Wagner and Kegan (2006)
describes a great leader that withstands time as one that is a critical thinker, a problem solver,
and a collaborator. They are also adaptable, creative, effective oral and written communicators
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

14
that are great at analyzing and using their imagination. Wagner and Kegan (2006) emphasizes
that these are specific skills that are needed for a successful superintendent career with longevity
and for continuous learning in an ever-changing educational system.
Statement of the Problem
Superintendent tenure is the lowest in decades; the average tenure of superintendents is
3.18 years (Council of the Great City Schools, 2014), but is shorter in large urban school districts
(Cooper, Fusarelli, & Carella, 2000). Hoyle’s (2007) research found having high turnover for
district superintendents has a negative impact on student performance, stakeholder trust, and
organizational morale. Moreover, Rooney and McKenna (2007) indicate that it takes at least five
years to make sustainable impact to existing practice to show quality results. Since the average
tenure of superintendents are less than five years, it becomes difficult for districts to make
necessary shifts in policies and practices to positively impact student achievement given a new
leader comes and may have a different vision for the district.
Subpar superintendent leadership may be to blame for short tenure and underperforming
districts. Marzano et al. (2005) examined district leadership and its correlation to student
achievement and found that strong leadership characteristics significantly escalate student
performance and achievement. The report also demonstrated that there is a correlation between
effective district leadership characteristics and increased student achievement (Marzano et al.,
2005). Strong leadership, with regard to positive character traits, is ideally not a new concept
and the theories surrounding great leadership have been around for many years. Strong
leadership at the site level and the district level should promote equity and access of a quality
education to all students (Marzano et al., 2005). While there has been significant research done
investigating the importance of superintendent leadership to increase academic achievement,
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

15
there are few studies investigating the leadership characteristics that promote the longevity of the
superintendent position.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this qualitative and quantitative research study was to identify the
characteristics that successful superintendents possessed in order to maintain longevity in their
respective position as superintendent in suburban school districts, as well as the perception of
school board members of successful superintendent characteristics that promote longevity.
The research questions that guided this investigation are:
1. What personal characteristics do superintendents with above average tenure in
suburban districts possess that promote longevity in their career as perceived by
school board members?
2. What personal factors do superintendents with above average tenure in suburban
districts possess that promote longevity in their career as perceived by school board
members?
3. What evaluation tool/s are used by school board members to determine the
superintendents’ effectiveness as it relates to their longevity?
This study identifies the characteristics that have assisted superintendents in suburban
school districts in their longevity, as well as board members perceptions of superintendent
characteristics that promote tenure. The results of this study provide a foundation where aspiring
superintendents can seek out necessary training in preparing for their careers. This study is a
comprehensive look at multiple components that affect superintendent tenure. By examining
superintendents’ characteristics and board members understanding of successful superintendent
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

16
characteristics, individuals seeking superintendent candidates for employment can utilize this
information in their hiring selection process.
Assumptions
The study assumed that character traits which superintendents in both large and small
districts possessed played a key role in their professional longevity. Board members interviewed
were assumed to be able to identify successful superintendent characteristics that promoted
tenure. The study further assumed that the participants being interviewed and surveyed gave
truthful and accurate information. In addition, the literature that was used to support the
conceptual framework and the instruments that were utilized for data collection were assumed to
be valid tools that were also credible. Finally, it was assumed that the participants gave truthful
and accurate responses to their interviews and their surveys.
Limitations
Time was a restriction that led to a study that was limited to surveying and interviewing 5
urban superintendents, 5 suburban superintendents and 5 board members. Furthermore, due to
the limited numbers of superintendents in both suburban districts that actually have longevity of
3 years or more, the participant selection was limited for both participating superintendents and
board members. Potential bias may result due to the qualitative nature of the study and the
analysis that is interpreted through the lens of the researcher. Other variables within a district
may have an effect on the results of this study. The study was limited to voluntary participation.
Delimitations
The study was delimited to the skills base and understanding of 5 superintendents in
suburban school districts. In addition, the skills base and understanding of 5 school board
members. This study was delimited by examining and providing evidence that supports
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

17
leadership characteristics, practices and board perceptions that support superintendent longevity
in suburban school districts; a topic related to educational management and instructional
leadership.
Definition of Terms
For the purpose of this study, the following terms are operationally defined and included
in the scope of this study:
Accountability: The obligation of schools to produce improvements in student academic
achievement. This is a system that holds districts, schools and/or students responsible for student
performance. Accountability systems typically consist of assessments, public reporting of results,
and rewards or sanctions based upon student performance over time.
Board members: Elected community representatives who are responsible for hiring the
superintendent and approving all policies within the district. They are elected every four years
and usually range between five to nine members.
Common Core State Standards: The Common Core State Standards (CCSS) are a set of
high quality academic expectations in English-language arts (ELA) and mathematics that define
the knowledge and skills all students should master by the end of each grade level in order to be
on track for success in college and career.
Conceptual framework: A lens through which research literature, theories, and other
pertinent information forms the basis for the analysis of findings within the study.
Longevity: The amount of time your service lasts; length of time spent in service or
employment.
No Child Left Behind Initiative: Is a United States Act of Congress that is a
reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.

NCLB supports standards-based
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

18
education reform based on the premise that setting high standards and establishing measurable
goals can improve individual outcomes in education. The Act requires states to develop
assessments in basic skills. To receive federal school funding, states must give these assessments
to all students at select grade levels. The Act does not assert a national achievement standard.
Each individual state develops its own standards.
Professional development: Collaborative professional development aligned to student
learning and standards that prepares, trains, and recruits high-quality teachers, principals,
paraprofessionals, and other staff.
Suburban: A residential area or a mixed use area, either existing as part of a city or urban
area or as a separate residential community within commuting distance of a city.
Urban: A location characterized by high human population density and vast human-built
features in comparison to the areas surrounding it. Urban areas may be cities or towns.

SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

19
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
2

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

2
This chapter was co-authored by Bobbi Burnett and Abram Jimenez.
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

20
(Berlau, 2011) and responsibilities tied to measurable state and federal student performance
outcomes. Student achievement accountability and increased public scrutiny, amongst others, has
placed increased examination into the superintendent roles and responsibility that include, but
are not limited to: district operations, facilities manager, curriculum development, instructional
leader, controller of budget, internal and external communications, and liaison to the Board of
Education and community. Each of these essential components to the job of superintendent
require tactful leadership characteristics and practices, to successfully improve student
achievement and superintendent longevity (Berlau, 2011).
The superintendent position is a critical component towards increasing student
achievement. Waters and Marzano (2006) highlight the statistical significance between the
superintendent position and overall student performance. Since the relationship is critical, it
becomes significant for school districts to have an effective superintendent that possess the
leadership characteristics and practices to promote longevity to serve students, parents, and the
local community for a considerable amount of time. Consistent and effective superintendent
leadership is at the center of a school district overall success (Marshall & Ray, 2005), however,
recent data indicates the average career longevity of urban superintendents as 3.18 years
(Council of the Great City Schools, 2014).
Superintendent longevity has been an issue for many years and even though the research
has shown the need for sustainability for district improvements, superintendent longevity has not
increased (Fullan, 2002). The job of superintendent has become the least stable and secure
position in education (Plotts, 2011). Suburban superintendent turnover rates are at a new high,
which has created a revolving door for many districts. According to Berlau (2011), the reasons
most associated with suburban superintendent turnover includes, poor relations between the
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

21
school board of education and superintendent, the lack of direct support and assistance to the
superintendent, the percentage of students that qualify for free or reduced lunch, and the
superintendent’s educational attainment. Furthermore, the roles and expectations associated with
the position of superintendent has transformed from a businessman to a professional educational
leader that must lead significant reform efforts, which has made the position much more rigorous
(Berlau, 2011).
Background of the Superintendency
The role of school superintendent has significantly changed from a traditional teacher
leader with limited political involvement to that of a chief executive officer responsible for
balancing the districts instructional program, operations, and public relations of the district
(Houston, 2006). The position of superintendent was originally developed in the late 1800s
during the common school movement, where children attended school for free despite their
socio-economic status, gender, religion, race or country of origin (Grieder et al., 1969). By 1870,
30 large cities had school superintendents, which increased to over 35,000 by the mid-1900s
(Kowalski, 2003) and currently there are 14,000 superintendents in the United States (NCES,
2010).
During the beginning of the school superintendent position, the primary role of a
superintendent was to manage the implementation of course curriculum and serve as supervisor
to classroom teachers. Superintendents were viewed as expert teachers that understood pedagogy
(Kowalski, 2003). However, as the country changed during the 1930s due to the crash in the
stock market and WWII, so did the role of the superintendent. Resources were scarce and
schools found themselves competing for government funding (Kowalski, 2003). This period
changed the role of school superintendents from manager to advocating for public funding and
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

22
becoming a political strategist (Bjork & Gurley, 2003). Another period that marked a change to
the school superintendency was after WWII, when the role of the superintendent became that of
a social scientist because of the public’s lack of confidence in public education. By the 1970s,
superintendents were expected to use research-based practices and devised plans for improving
the district’s instructional programs and outcomes for students (Fusarelli & Fusarelli, 2003). In
the early 1980s, the role of superintendent carried another responsibility; one of effective
communicator (Bjork & Kowalski, 2005). The need for superintendents to work collaboratively
with district and site administrators, teachers and staff, as well as, key stakeholders (parents,
special interest groups, politicians, and other taxpayers) became critical as America had moved
into the information age (Bjork & Kowalski, 2005).
During the 1980s and 1990s, the superintendent position became one of politician filled
with turmoil and pressure (Johnson, 2007). Suburban superintendents became targets of special
interests groups based on their inability to meet federal and state laws and regulations. These
laws placed higher demands on public school systems for greater accountability pertaining to
overall student achievement, specifically with the passage of No Child Left Behind in 2001
(Johnson, 2007). One such measure is a school’s Academic Performance Indicator (API) that
measures three categories; state assessments, school completion (attendance rates, dropout rates)
and graduation rates. Academic achievement levels are included as well, including ACT scores,
Advanced Placement (AP) scores and college remediation via the Early Assessment Program.
The public has access to every district’s and school accountability report card (SARC) and it is
utilized as a gauge to the schools level of performance (Johnson, 2007).
Although the superintendent’s role originally began with a focus on the teaching and
learning (Kowalski, 2003), it is still expected today, but suburban superintendents are being held
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

23
accountable for all other matters of the district (Glass, Bjork, & Brunner, 2000). Superintendents
are responsible for personnel and organizational management, political leadership, collaborative
practices, and public relations (Brederson & Kose, 2007). Despite those internal district
responsibilities, suburban superintendents encounter external challenges, such as relational issues
with the governing board of education, financial responsibilities, demographic changes, high
stakes accountability, and stakeholder influences.
In a study conducted by Fuller et al. (2003), superintendents from the 100 largest school
districts indicated that 61% of superintendents felt that school board micromanagement and/or
mismanagement was a hindrance to the effectiveness of their work. Moreover, 41% of
superintendents felt the school board’s lack of focus was an unnecessary obstacle (Fuller et al.,
2003). Jones and Howley’s (2009) research suggests this struggle with superintendents and
school boards is a significant challenge for many that regularly affect their overall performance.
The single most important factor for superintendent success is the interaction between the board
and the superintendent (Mountford, 2008).
The Superintendent and School Board of Education Perceptions
Some school board experts perceive that the most important job of a school board of
education is hiring superintendents and holding them accountable for the management of the
organization as governed by school board policies and supported by the state (Carol et al., 1986;
Goodman, Fulbright, & Zimmerman, 1997). Much of the power of a school board lies in their
authority to both hire and fire the superintendent which gives them indirect power over what
occurs within the district (Land, 2002). There is widespread agreement that a good working
relationship between the school board and the superintendent is essential to the governance of a
district (Anderson, 1992; Carol et al., 1986; Goodman et al., 1997; Goodman & Zimmerman,
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

24
2000; Grady & Bryant, 1991; Thomas, 2001). Therefore, it is important for suburban
superintendents to ensure that they manage the perceptions of the school board because of its
impact on their longevity.
There are a number of resources to assist school boards in selecting, collaborating with
and evaluating suburban superintendents, despite these resources, critics still discern that there
are several school boards that are still lacking the capacity to train and maintain positive working
relations with their superintendents (Danzberger, Kirst, & Usdan, 1992). Case study and survey
data of negative board-superintendent relationships have been marked as poor due to the
insurmountable workload, administrative situations, too much involvement by the board, lack of
superintendent resolution of issues, and lack of superintendent freedom from the board (Carol et
al., 1986). On the other hand, good suburban superintendent-board relations are characterized by
shared respect, trust, support, confidence, and the ability to openly communicate (Anderson,
1992; Carol et al., 1986; Goodman et al., 1997). In a two year study conducted of 266 urban,
suburban, and rural school boards spanning 16 states, a large finding concluded that there are
ineffective procedures in place to handle conflicts between school boards and superintendents
(Danzberger et al., 1992).
There are few studies that have shown a correlation between the relationship of the
school board of education and superintendent as it pertains to overall student academic
achievement. However, Goodman et al. (1997) found that districts who faced poor board-
superintendent relations, along with a lack of trust and collaboration, had lower student
achievement than districts that were not faced with the same problems (Land, 2002). According
to the Education Writers Association (2003), the relationship that suburban superintendents with
the governing school board of education was a decisive element in sustained superintendent
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

25
longevity. Rausch (2001) found that conflict between a school board and superintendent is a
common reason why superintendents leave the district. Allen (1998) noted that poor
relationships with the school board was a second reason for involuntary contracts that were non-
extensions. In the same research study, board members perceived that the major reason
superintendents leave their positions is because of their poor working relationship with the
superintendent. Even if conflicts arise, Goodman and Zimmerman (2000) stated that it is
important for the school board, superintendent, and community to work together to connect the
needs and wants of all three stakeholders for the good for the district and the students it serves.
Many of the school boards and superintendents describe having a cooperative working
relationships with each other, but have encountered issues regarding where the final authority
regarding district matters (Farkas, Johnson, Duffet, & Foleno, 2001). Farkas, Johnson, et al.
(2001) stated that 65% of superintendents perceived that school boards wanted to work with
leaders that they would have direct control and influence over. In addition, 80% of
superintendents stated that they felt frustrated with the politics of the job (Farkas, Johnson, et al.,
2001). School boards micromanaging and interfering with superintendent responsibilities was
also noted as a source of frustration for superintendents (Harvey, 2003). Two-thirds of the
superintendents stated that the board meddled in issues that were outside of their scope of
responsibility (Harvey, 2003). A quality working relationship between the school board and the
superintendent is key (Byrd, Drews, & Johnson, 2006).
Some school boards perceive suburban superintendents as leaders who want to control
the direction that the school district is going in and the policies that are enacted by giving
information that is not sufficient in an attempt to put a stop to board deliberations. Also, some
suburban superintendents have been accused of failing to put important information and issues
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

26
on the board agenda for public discussion. This can lead to a very stressful environment where
the board begins to lose trust and faith in the superintendents’ handling of school business
(Johnson, 2007). For this reason, it is important that the board and the superintendent have a
shared mission, vision, and goal. Nestor-Baker and Hoy (2001) conducted a study that identified
how successful superintendents openly support board decisions and work to maintain unity
(Johnson, 2007).
Positive relationships between a suburban superintendent and their school board play a
critical role in the longevity of a superintendent. An experienced urban or suburban
superintendent understands how important the relationship for him/her to have with their school
board. In a study conducted amongst twenty-four superintendents in California, found that they
felt the most crucial component to their longevity and tenure is a positive relationship with their
school board. Eight of the twenty-four mentioned that a stable school board was directly
responsible for their longevity in the district (Chance, 1991). All the superintendents surveyed
also stated that open communication was the key to their longevity. The superintendents also
mentioned the importance of keeping the members informed and keeping the office door open
(Chance, 1991). A good relationship with the board of education should help with a
superintendent’s longevity and continuity in a district (Plotts, 2011). It is key that suburban
superintendents can manage their relationship with various stakeholders politically correct. A
successful superintendent is one who accepts three simultaneous roles: the politician, the
manager, and the teacher (Chance, 1991).
Challenges to Superintendent Longevity
School finance fluctuates based on the state funding and the country’s economy. Changes
to school district budgets can prove to be extremely challenging for suburban superintendents
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

27
because of their responsibility in funding district, state, and federal government educational
goals. Approximately 80% of a district’s budget is allocated to employee salaries and benefits
(Ellerson & McCord, 2009). Any decrease in funding will have huge implications for staffing
and what can be funded to support the instructional program of the district. Sixty-seven-point-
two percent of suburban district superintendents and 87.7% of urban district superintendents felt
their district is inadequately funded (Ellerson & McCord, 2009).
Suburban superintendents face shifts in school demographics, including the number of
English language learners and students that qualify for free or reduced lunch. The National
Center for Education Statistics (NCES, 2010) reported the percentage of white students who are
English Only Speaking (EOS) in public schools from 1989 to 2009 decreased from 68% to 55%.
During the same time period, Hispanic students whose primary home language other than
English increased from 11% to 22%. In the same study conducted National Center for
Educational Statistics (2010), 22% of elementary students and 8% of high school students
attended public schools were categorized as high poverty.
The No Child Left Behind Act (USDOE, 2002) placed much higher levels of
accountability on suburban superintendents and threatened sanctions for poor performance, while
placing stronger levels of scrutiny by ranking schools with chronically low performance as
“Program Improvement.” Districts were required to have continuous student achievement for all
subgroups (i.e., economically disadvantaged students, limited English proficiency students,
students with disabilities, racial groups, etc.). Members of the community, local school boards,
and other stakeholders began to view schools differently based on their academic performance
levels, which increased pressure on suburban superintendents to correct low performing schools.
Although school accountability has not been defined by the most states to address Common
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

28
Core, new accountability discussions have added additional measures to gain a holistic approach
to accountability.
One of the primary focuses for a school superintendent is to ensure teachers are
delivering effective instruction and students learn, however, a new primary focus is navigating
and managing complex political situations at the local, state and federal level (Sergiovanni,
1990). At the local level, parents, unions, special interest groups, faith-based organizations,
board members, and district employees may have different perspectives about how the district
should conduct its affairs and cause conflict (Fuller et al., 2003). Farkas, Johnson, et al. (2001)
found that 81% of superintendents surveyed felt handling public criticism is an integral
component of the job.
Superintendent Leadership Characteristics and Practices
Northouse (2007) defines leadership as a process by which an individual is able to
influence an organization or group of individuals to achieve a particular goal. Bolman and Deal
(2003) present a four-frame leadership model that represents four key leadership domains that
should be utilized as a leader to decode organizational complexity. The four leadership frames
are: the structural frame, the human resource fame, the political frame, and the symbolic frame
(Bolman & Deal, 2003). The human resource frame is one that suits a twenty-first superintendent
due to their need to have a strong relationship with the school board of education and various
stakeholders. A strong human resource leader invests in their human capital for the greatest
return on investment (Bolman & Deal, 2003). With the implementation of the National Common
Core Standards and College and Career Readiness Technology Standards, teachers need support
and professional development to accommodate these new changes.
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

29
The political frame is important in the school board and various stakeholders relations
domain, and with the new Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) it is imperative to build
public coalitions to dissolve potential conflict. The structural frame is essential to organize
instructional rounds, leadership teams, committees, and strong teams to increase district results.
Finally, superintendents need the symbolic frame to create a district culture that has purpose,
focus, vision, goals, and can function as a team (Bolman & Deal, 2003). Strong leaders have
character traits the come from each of these domains and that do not work independently from
one another.
Northouse (2007) points out that despite the multiple ways that leadership is discussed or
defined, there is no one real definition to describe it or set of characteristics to define it.
Northouse (2007) describes two different views on leadership; the trait definition of leadership
and the process definition of leadership. The trait definition sees a leader as an individual that
possesses a set of properties that resides within a select group of people, characteristics that
contribute to their ability to be a leader. The process definition sees leadership as something that
can be learned over the course of time and not necessarily something that a person already has
within. Throughout the 20th century, several scholars began to test the trait approach to see if
there was any validity to leadership traits making people great leaders (Northouse, 2007). The
theory was known as the great-man theory and leaders such as: Gandhi, Abraham Lincoln, and
Napoleon were seen as being born leaders with innate leadership traits (Northouse, 2007). This
time period was one whereby researchers clearly concentrated on linking specific character traits
with leaders (Bass & Stogdill, 1990; Jago, 1982).
In the mid-20th century, researchers began to challenge the link between characteristics
of a leader and their leadership roles (Northouse, 2007). Stogdill (1948) reconceptualized the
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

30
theory that character traits were not directly linked to leadership roles, but rather leadership was
linked between the individual and the social setting that they were in. Stogdill (1974) conducted
a meta analysis, in which, he analyzed 163 research studies and compared it to his original
findings. Stogdill identified the following characteristics as leadership traits: the need to be
responsible and task-oriented; persistent in goals; problem-solver; initiative; confident; accepting
of consequences; be able to endure stress, to tolerate frustration, to influence others, and to
structure social interactions (Stogdill, 1974).
Mann (1959) found that leaders had leadership characteristics that could be distinguished
from non-leaders (Mann, 1959). Lord, DeVader, and Alliger’s (1986) meta-analysis identified a
connection between the characteristics of leaders versus non-leaders. Finally Kirkpatrick and
Locke (1991) conducted a qualitative synthesis that determined how leaders have six traits that
non-leaders lack, which are listed as: drive; the want to lead; being honest and having integrity;
having self-confidence; cognitive ability, and finally having the knowledge of the industry. The
consensus of the five major studies listed above synthesized the key leadership characteristics
that constituted being a leader versus being a non-leader as: intelligence, self-confidence,
determination, integrity, and sociability (Northouse, 2007). Although the trait approach does not
point out what types of leaders are needed during different situations, it does point out that
having a leader with certain leadership characteristics is crucial to having an effective leader
(Northouse, 2007).
The role of suburban superintendents has changed to meet the twenty-first century needs
of the educational population. These demanding changes and responsibilities of a superintendent
have shown that there are certain attributes, experiences, and knowledge that promote
superintendent longevity in today’s educational setting. The areas of knowledge that have shown
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

31
to have the most positive effect on the longevity of a suburban superintendent are relationships
and communication with the school board, the school board’s positive perceptions of the
superintendent, district employees, the community, and knowledge in the current
curriculums/standards and finance, and a district vision.
Communication is another leadership characteristic experienced suburban
superintendents keeps as important. A successful superintendent understands that communication
amongst all stakeholders is critical in his/her tenure in that district. In their relationships with
their communities, open communication was again the key to the success of a superintendent’s
longevity (Chance, 1991). The study done showed that superintendents credited the community
for their success and public relations was identified key as well (Chance, 1991). They also
asserted that open communication with school personnel was an important attribute. One
superintendent stated that involving a lot of people was the key and another felt that creating a
sense of belonging was the important factor (Chance, 1991).
Suburban superintendents are faced with tough decisions daily. Since superintendents
facing these struggling issues, they are required to be knowledgeable in all areas of education.
Effective superintendents need to allocate the resources necessary such as time, money,
personnel, and materials to accomplish the district’s goals and sometimes making the tough
decisions of cutting back on certain initiatives that are not aligned with district goals (Plotts,
2011). Along with these cutbacks, another big area the superintendent should be knowledgeable
in is the finances of your districts (Chance, 1991). Not only should a superintendent understand
areas such as finances and the appropriate allocations of these finances, they should be fluent in
the curriculum and professional development needed for the staff and students in the district as a
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

32
whole (Quinn, 2005). The role of the superintendent now is as an instructional leader (Quinn,
2005).
Another key leadership characteristic that promotes longevity of suburban
superintendents is having a clear and concise vision for their district and an effectively be able to
translate this plan. Effective suburban superintendents focus their efforts on creating goal
oriented districts such as: collaborative goal setting, non-negotiable goals for achievement and
instruction, board alignment and support of district goals, monitoring goals for achievement and
instruction, and the use of resources to support achievement and instruction goals (Plotts, 2011).
Key among the desired attributes of a successful superintendent is the ability to enunciate a clear,
shared vision, and the ability to inspire others to work toward realizing the vision (Quinn, 2005).
The five district level responsibilities most used by superintendents in creating a goal oriented
district are: collaborative goal setting, non-negotiable goals for achievement and instruction,
board alignment and support of district goals, monitoring goals for achievement and instruction,
use of resources to support achievement and instruction goals (Marzano et al., 2005).
Superintendent Relationships with Stakeholders
Lere (2004) conducted a study in Colorado that researched three groups with an emphasis
on superintendent tenure. His study looked at the importance of the relationship between the
superintendent, the community, and the school board. Lere concluded from his study that there is
a connection between superintendent longevity and the three variables (community, school board
and superintendent leadership). When these three variables are aligned with a positive
correlation, the average years of service for the superintendent is just over 5 years. When the
community and the school board align or when the school board and the superintendent align, the
average tenure was also just over 5 years. However, if all three of them are not aligned, the
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

33
average superintendent tenure is only about 3.5 years (Johnson, 2007). There are a number of
reasons why this might be the case, but many researchers find the two prevalent factors are
superintendent/school board relations that “fit” with the community (Carter & Cunningham,
1997; Glass et al., 2000; Bryant & Grady, 1989; Johnson, 2007; Newell, 1997). It has been noted
that if there is a lack of compatibility between the school board, the superintendent, and the
community, a “revolving door syndrome” can occur with superintendents. Bryant and Grady
(1989) describe how the consistent turnover of superintendents can create difficulty in
establishing consistent policy and administrative rule. This can have a negative impact on a
district who is constantly being faced with internal uncertainty that can be distracting when
trying to handle school business. Goals can become unclear and lack credibility, employees
might lose faith in the direction of the district and loyalty to the organization as a whole, and a
crisis style of management can dominate the district (Bryant & Grady, 1989).
Additional studies have presented clear evidence that if there is not a positive working
relationship between the governing triad, the superintendent usually does not stay in their
position for very long (Carter & Cunningham, 1997; Copeland, 1993; Bryant & Grady, 1989;
Hess, 1994; Konnert & Augenstein, 1995; Lere, 2004; McCarty & Ramsey, 1971; Sharp &
Walker, 1997; Smith, 1998; Spring, 1984). For this reason, it is important for a school board to
find a superintendent that is a good fit for their district and fits their profile. The relationship and
alignment of the superintendent with the community and the school board really provides
stability and progress to a school system. Describing the compatibility of superintendents based
upon the community characteristics, school board type and leadership could really help school
boards with finding a good “fit” for their district (Johnson, 2007). This could also assist potential
superintendents with identifying a good match for their leadership style and reduce the disruption
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

34
in the educational system that results from having a constant turnover of superintendents and
enhance the initiation and implementation of educational programs needed to improve student
achievement. Hess concludes that there is a direct relationship between community, school
board, and superintendent leadership styles. His data also supported the idea that community
drives school boards, which ultimately drive the superintendent leadership style. He also
concludes, that if these three do not match up, the superintendent will not have a long stay in that
particular district (Johnson, 2007). Overall the research indicates that the degree of success that a
superintendent feels within their position relies heavily on the critical relationship between the
school board and the community (Nestor-Baker & Hoy, 2001).
The Role of the Twenty-First Century Superintendent
The role of a suburban superintendent has changed and evolved in the twenty first
century and even more dramatically in recent years. In the beginning of the superintendency,
many superintendents were in charge of writing their districts’ curriculums and day to day
operations in their districts. This meant that the role of the superintendent was to be a teacher to
the teachers and it was the beginning of the evolution of the superintendent as instructional
leader (Plotts, 2011). The twenty-first century superintendent’s responsibility is now to oversee
overall function of the school district, which has increased the average work week to about 60-75
hours (Plotts, 2011). The superintendents in charge of public education in the United States are
responsible for the education provided to over 45 million children and youth in nearly 15,000
school districts where they oversee teachers, administrators, and non-instructional staff totaling 5
million people. On top of managing all these professionals, they also direct annual education
expenditures around $300 billion (Quinn, 2005).
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

35
A job description requirement post for a suburban superintendent position in Vista,
California necessitates leadership characteristics defined in each of Bolman and Deal’s (2003)
leadership frame. The qualifications of this job description embody the structural frame that
describes a superintendent as having the skills to organize and structure groups to get results
(Bolman & Deal, 2003). Some of these structural qualifications of a superintendent that are listed
in this job description include shaping a purpose in response to a demand placed on the district
by the community, the board, the state, and the federal government (Bolman & Deal, 2003). In
addition, the qualifications as listed in the job description for a superintendent require the
leadership of a leader that can organize high-performing teams that create a common purpose
that translates into measurable outcomes (Bolman & Deal, 2003). Furthermore, the
superintendent job description fits into the structural frame as a superintendent is responsible for
developing the right mix of leaders with the right qualifications and expertise while developing a
team that is committed to having workable relationships with all stakeholders within the district
(Bolman & Deal, 2003).
The qualifications of the superintendent job description also include the frame of human
resources. The superintendent is responsible for hiring a diverse population of instructional
managers, teachers, and classified staff that will lead the district to success (Bolman & Deal,
2003). The superintendent will encourage autonomy and participation within their district while
fostering-self management teams that will assist with leading the district towards their mission,
vision, and goals (Bolman & Deal, 2003). The human resource component of the superintendent
job includes providing democracy, egalitarianism, training and security within a workforce that
leads to cohesion, trust and organizational satisfaction (Bolman & Deal, 2003).
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

36
According to the necessary qualifications that a superintendent must have, they too must
embody the elements outlined in the political frame. The superintendent is responsible for
creating a vision and for leading their organization towards obtaining this vision despite any
internal or external forces that impede this journey (Bolman & Deal, 2003). The superintendent
becomes the manager as a politician who is responsible for enacting policy, board relations,
community relations, fiscal spending, bargaining, negotiating, networking, and forming
coalitions (Bolman & Deal, 2003). In addition they must also adhere to state and federal
reporting and accountability measures that the organization must abide by in order to receive
necessary funding. The superintendent must also be aware in advance of individuals or
organizations that might resist their vision and be able to rationalize these challenges to come up
with resolutions (Bolman & Deal, 2003).
Finally, Bolman and Deal discuss in their book the symbolic frame, and as listed above in
the job description of a superintendent. This frame is an essential component of an individual in
this particular career. The culture of the district is defined by symbolic frame. A superintendent
is responsible for creating a culture within a district where beliefs, values, and practices are
interwoven amongst stakeholders within the organization (Bolman & Deal, 2003). The
organization needs to function as a team that shares the same basic assumptions and as a group
learns to solve problems, adapt, and integrate new members to have similar perceptions thoughts
and feelings in relation to the problems that may arise within the organization (Bolman & Deal,
2003). The superintendent leads the organization to share common ceremonies, traditions, rituals
and protocols that are valued by members within the group (Bolman & Deal, 2003).
In addition to Bolman and Deal’s (2003) organization frames, Marzano et al. (2005)
define the 21 responsibilities of school leaders. These 21 categories of behaviors were the
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

37
findings of 69 studies in a meta-analysis that looked for specific behaviors that were related to
principal leadership. Many of leadership responsibilities can be listed under one of the four
Bolman and Deal (2003) organizational frame categories. These 21 leadership responsibilities
have been described as being characteristics that are beyond the scope of one human-being to
have and hence the reason why school leadership has been described as a shift from it not just
being an individual responsibility, but rather the responsibility of a team of individuals (Marzano
et al., 2005). As Bolman and Deal (2003) discuss the structural frame, the human resources
frame, the political frame, and the symbolic frame, Marzano et al. (2005) use similar terminology
in their 21 necessary leadership characteristics identified as: affirmation; change agent;
contingent rewards; communication; culture; discipline; flexibility; focus; ideals and beliefs;
input; intellectual stimulation; involvement in curriculum, instruction and assessment;
knowledge of curriculum, instruction and assessment; monitoring and evaluating; optimizer;
order; outreach; relationships; resources; situational awareness; and visibility.
Superintendents utilize managerial influence over the principals and teachers in which
they serve. This means that they have direct influence and impact on student learning and
achievement (Cuban, 1984; Hoyle, Bjork, Collier, & Glass, 2005). Included in their roles is
selecting strong staff and recruitment, clear mission and goals, as well as financial planning that
supports instruction (Hoyle et al., 2005). Farkas, Foley, & Duffett (2001) found that more than
half of superintendents listed that their hardest job is that of increasing student achievement.
Student achievement is recognized as being vital to the success of the superintendent even
though their job is different from that of the principal (Byrd et al., 2006). Superintendents are
instructional leaders not just for the sites that they serve, but for monitoring and regulating the
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

38
overall school system (Hoyle et al., 2005). It was also cited that superintendents of successful
districts do have a “hands on approach” with regard to instructional matters (Cuban, 1984).
The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 in recent years has increased the demands that are
placed on superintendents (USDOE, 2002). Federal and state accountability standards that are
increasingly difficult to obtain have put stressful mandates on superintendents and the districts
that they serve. Not only is the superintendent responsible for supporting the overall running of
the district, but they are now too responsible for the success and failure of student performance
(Byrd et al., 2006). The twenty-first century superintendents must have managerial and financial
skills, but now they must also have instructional methods, and the ability to interpret assessment
data as well to explain how their district is achieving in comparison to other districts across the
state and the nation (Hoyle et al., 2005).

SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

39
CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY
3

This chapter provides detailed information about the purpose and design of the study. It
also discusses the sample of the study, which included five suburban school board members that
were utilized to obtain information over the course of the research study. The five school board
members were selected for this research to get their perceptions about what characteristics and
qualities promote longevity among suburban superintendents. Further, it explains the instruments
used to conduct surveys, interviews, and the procedures used to conduct and analyze the
information found in the data.
Introduction
The superintendency is viewed as a critical component towards increasing student
achievement. Waters and Marzano (2006) highlight the statistical significance between the
superintendent position and overall student performance. Since the relationship is important, it
becomes significant for school districts to have effective superintendents that possess the skills to
serve students, parents, and the local community for a considerable amount of time. An effective
superintendent understands that in order to be successful in their position, communication is vital
with all stakeholders (Chance, 1991). Another key component of a successful superintendent is
the ability to enunciate a clear, shared vision, and the ability to inspire others to work towards
realizing the vision (Quinn, 2005). Successful superintendents also understand that they are
required to be knowledgeable in all areas of education such as: collaborative goal setting, non-
negotiable goals for achievement and instruction, board alignment and support of district goals,
monitoring goals for achievement and instruction, and the use of resources to support

3
This chapter was co-authored by Bobbi Burnett and Abram Jimenez.
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

40
achievement and instruction goals (Plotts, 2011). Consistent and effective superintendent
leadership is at the center of a school district’s overall success (Marshall & Ray, 2005); however,
recent data indicates the average tenure of urban superintendents as 3.18 years, where 92% of
them worked in K-12 education before being appointed superintendent (Council of the Great
City Schools, 2014).
One of the primary focuses for a suburban school superintendent is to ensure teachers are
delivering effective instruction and students learn, however, a new primary focus is navigating
and managing complex political situations at the local, state and federal level (Sergiovanni,
1990). At the local level, parents, unions, special interest groups, faith-based organizations,
board members, and district employees may have different perspectives about how the district
should conduct its affairs and cause conflict (Fuller et al., 2003). For this reason, it is important
that the board and the superintendent have a shared mission, vision, and goal. Nestor-Baker and
Hoy (2001) conducted a study that identified how successful superintendents openly support
board decisions and work to maintain unity (Johnson, 2007).
The role of superintendent has changed in recent years with more demanding roles that
include many duties, expectations and responsibilities that are tied to measurable state and
federal student performance outcomes (Berlau, 2011). Along with the new focus on student
achievement accountability, superintendents’ roles have increased as well that include, but are
not limited to: district operations, facilities manager, curriculum development, instructional
leader, controller of budget, internal and external communications, and liaison to the Board of
Education and community (Berlau, 2011). The complexity and challenges of the position (board-
superintendent relationships, finance, demographic shifts, new accountability, and public
relations) indicate why there is high turnover in the position. The job of superintendent has
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

41
become the least stable and secure position in education (Plotts, 2011). Superintendent turnover
rates are at a new high, which has created a revolving door for many districts (Berlau, 2011).
Since the adoption of the No Child Left Behind Act (USDOE, 2002), educational leaders have
higher levels of accountability and even greater scrutiny from their school board which have
placed significant challenges to suburban superintendents that have been described as impossible
(Andero, 2000).
Purpose of the Study
Suburban superintendent turnover is a problem and this research examined factors that
influence superintendent longevity. The focus of this research was the school board member
perspectives of what factors contribute to superintendent longevity. It is important to determine
how suburban superintendents with greater than average longevity have stayed in their positions
despite all of the obstacles. The information from the research study provides insight into the
leadership characteristics and strategies that can influence and promote longevity in individuals
in positions of superintendency.
Research Questions
The following questions were used to guide the study:
1. What personal characteristics do superintendents with above average tenure in
suburban districts possess that promote longevity in their career as perceived by
school board members?
2. What personal factors do superintendents with above average tenure in suburban
districts possess that promote longevity in their career as perceived by school board
members?
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

42
3. What evaluation tool/s are used by school board members to determine the
superintendents’ effectiveness as it relates to their longevity?
Research Design
The study called for an analysis of factors that suburban board members believe
contribute to superintendent longevity. The research used a mixed method approach using
qualitative and quantitative data to address the research problem. The mixed methods approach
included both surveys and interviews in the data collection process to answer the research
questions (Creswell, 2014). According to Creswell’s (2014) framework for qualitative research,
this study use interviews and surveys to determine the contributing factors related to above
average suburban superintendency. Integrating the quantitative and the qualitative data assisted
with triangulation, checking for accuracy of the other database being utilized (Creswell, 2014).
Conceptual Framework
The conceptual framework utilized for this study was based on Creswell’s (2014) six
steps of the research process. These six steps are: (1) identification of the research problem, (2)
review of the literature, (3) specification of the purpose for the research, (4) data collection, (5)
analyzing and interpreting the data, (6) and finally reporting and evaluating the research. This
conceptual framework was designed to be a mixed-method research study and was conducted
using both the use of interviews and surveys.
The qualitative aspect of this study was done with interviews conducted in person. These
interviews were with five suburban school board members. These interviews ranged about one
hour per person interviewed. They provided insight into board perceptions about what constitutes
career longevity and the positive character traits that contribute to this longevity. The data
collected provide insight to answer the inquiry questions about characteristics and leadership
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

43
qualities that promote longevity for suburban superintendents while allowing the researcher the
opportunity to gather an in-depth understanding of this information.
The quantitative portion of this study was done with a survey of 32 school board
members using the Likert scale method that was completed by suburban school board members.
The use of these surveys allowed for a large collection of data to be utilized (Mertens, 2004).
The survey was sent out to 50 school board members who have been in their position for at least
one four year term, and responses were obtained from 32. Waters and Marzano’s (2006) list of
twenty-one leadership characteristics and Bolman and Deal’s (2003) four political frames were
used in the analysis of the data collected by these surveys that will help contribute to the
identification of characteristics and qualities that are aligned with superintendent longevity.
Sample and Population
Suburban school board members selected for the study are currently sitting board
members employed in California school districts and have been in their positions for more than
one full term of four years.
The 5 suburban school board members that chose to take part in the research study were
selected based on their willingness to sit through the interview process. The 5 California
suburban school board members selected to participate in the research study had student
populations or average daily attendance (ADA) that varied from 7,834 to 22,101. Board
members selected have been sitting board members for at least one four year term.
Participants
All 5 suburban school board members from the population were asked to participate in
the research study. School board member contact information was obtained by reaching out to
colleagues, reviewing personal contacts and reviewing information from school district websites.
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

44
Each board member was contacted by electronic email. Each electronic mail delivered explained
the purpose and rationale of the study, expectations for interviewees, and the researcher’s plan to
address subject confidentiality.
Instruments
Confidential interviews were central to the research study. Letters were sent via
electronic mail to 5 suburban school board members serving at least one four year term
requesting for their participation in the research study. The letter gave context to the research
study, as well as, the purpose and their role in the study. The letter also explained the procedures
used for the analysis and confirmation of data. Participating board members received a letter of
consent that they were asked to sign and return prior to beginning the research study. Five
suburban school board members responded and confirmed their participation to take part in the
study. A Likert scale survey was sent out to the original five school board members and an
additional forty-five active school board members that have been sitting for at least one full term
of four years.
Due to the qualitative and quantitative nature of this study, semi-structured interviews
and online surveys were used. The survey instrument is based on a four-choice Likert scale. The
interviews consisted of standardized questions followed by open-ended questions that would
allow for additional information and insight. The interviews were recorded once the participant
gives permission. The interviews were transcribed for clarity and destroyed after their purpose
was served. The interviewee was told that the information that they provided remains
confidential and their names will be anonymous.
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

45
Protocol
Interview with the board members were conducted utilizing the following protocols in
sequential order:
Each interview began with an introduction stating that the researcher is a University of
Southern California students conducting research on the leadership characteristics, practices and
board perceptions that support superintendent longevity. They were told that the research would
be conducted to inquire on board member perspectives on the characteristics that contribute to
superintendent longevity.
The participants were informed that the interviews would remain confidential.
Pseudonyms would be utilized to protect their privacy.
The surveys with the superintendents and the board members were conducted utilizing
the following protocols in sequential order:
Each survey was sent out electronically. The participants were given a Likert scale to
follow when answering the survey. The participants were informed that the surveys would
remain confidential. Pseudonyms would be utilized to protect their privacy. They were further
informed that they would not have to answer any questions that they were not comfortable with
answering. Once the surveys were all returned, all participants received a follow up thank you
email for participating in the survey.
The surveys with the superintendents and the board members were conducted utilizing
the following protocols in sequential order:
Each survey was sent out electronically. The participants were given a Likert scale to
follow when answering the survey. The participants were informed that the surveys would
remain confidential. Pseudonyms would be utilized to protect their privacy. They were further
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

46
informed that they would not have to answer any questions that they were not comfortable with
answering. Once the surveys were all returned, all participants received a follow up thank you
email for participating in the survey.
Data Collection
Confidential interviews of current suburban school board members were essential to the
study. The researcher sent letters to the five school board members in their position at least one
full term of four years and working with superintendents with longevity, at a California school
district via email requesting for their participation in the study. In the email it explained the
purpose of the study, their role, and the process for aggregating and disaggregating data. If
board members accepted the invitation, there was an attachment consent letter that needed to be
signed and returned prior to participating in the study. Five school board members responded and
were included in the study.
Since the research of the study is qualitative, the researcher leveraged semi-structured
interviews with board members that participated in the study. The interviews consisted of
standard questions and ended with open-ended questions used to gather any information the
questions did not sufficiently address.
Summary
Chapter 4 will discuss the findings of this qualitative and quantitative mixed methods
study. The findings from interviews and the surveys will be analyzed, triangulated, and
synthesized to provide a detailed understanding of the qualities and characteristics that contribute
to career longevity for suburban school board members.

SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

47
CHAPTER 4
FINDINGS
4

Background
Suburban superintendent turnover is a problem and this research examined the factors
that influence superintendent longevity. It is important to determine how suburban
superintendents with greater than average longevity have stayed in their positions despite all of
the obstacles. The information from this research study provides insight about suburban
superintendent leadership characteristics, experiences and relationships that can directly impact
and influence individuals who are interested in becoming a superintendent in suburban school
districts.
School district leadership, specifically the superintendency, is a critical component to
increase student achievement. Waters and Marzano (2006) highlight the statistical significance
between the superintendent position and overall student performance. Since the relationship is
important, it becomes significant for school districts to have effective suburban superintendents
that possess the skills to serve students, parents, and the local community for a considerable
amount of time. Consistent and effective superintendent leadership is at the center of a school
district overall success (Marshall & Ray, 2005); however, recent data indicates the average
tenure of urban superintendents as 3.18 years (Council of the Great City Schools, 2014).
One of the primary focuses for a suburban superintendent is to ensure teachers are
delivering effective instruction and students learn, however, a new primary focus is navigating
and managing complex political situations at the local, state and federal level (Sergiovanni,
1990). At the local level, parents, unions, special interest groups, faith-based organizations,

4
This chapter was co-authored by Bobbi Burnett and Abram Jimenez.
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

48
board members, and district employees may have different perspectives about how the district
should conduct its affairs and cause conflict (Fuller et al., 2003). Farkas, Foley, and Duffett
(2001) found that 81% of superintendents surveyed felt handling public criticism is an integral
component of the superintendent.
The role of suburban superintendent is vast and includes many duties, expectations and
responsibilities. The complexity and challenges of the position (board-superintendent
relationships, finance, demographic shifts, new accountability, and public relations) indicate why
there is high turnover in the position. This turnover can negatively affect a district’s culture,
climate, and confidence. This negative effect is basis for the research paper.
The study called for an analysis of factors that suburban school superintendents believe
contribute to superintendent longevity. The research used a mixed methods approach using
qualitative and quantitative data to address the research problem. The mixed methods approach
included both surveys and interviews in the data collection process to answer the research
questions (Creswell, 2014). According to Creswell’s (2014) framework for qualitative research,
this study used interviews and surveys to determine the contributing factors related to suburban
superintendents career longevity, a minimum of 3.18 years in their position (Council of the Great
City Schools, 2014). Integrating the quantitative and the qualitative data assisted with
triangulation, checking for accuracy of the other database being utilized (Creswell, 2014).
The purpose of this qualitative and quantitative research study was to identify the
characteristics perceived by school board members that successful superintendents possessed in
order to maintain longevity in their respective position as superintendent in urban school
districts. The results of this study provide a foundation where aspiring superintendents can seek
out necessary training in preparing for their careers. This study is a comprehensive look at
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

49
multiple components that affect superintendent tenure. By examining school board members
perceptions of superintendents’ characteristics, individuals seeking superintendent candidates for
employment can utilize this information in their hiring selection process. Similarly, the research
will contribute to the thin literature on California suburban school superintendents’ tenure
leadership practices and characteristics that have contributed to their tenure as superintendents.
Participants in the study are referenced anonymously through the use of generic district
titles and names. Any potential identifiers of the district, participant, and individual were
excluded from the study.
Chapter 4 presents the findings from a mixed-method study comprised of a quantitative
survey completed by 32 suburban school board members and qualitative interviews conducted
with five suburban school board members, which aligned with the following research questions:
1. What personal characteristics do superintendents with above average tenure in
suburban districts possess that promote longevity in their career as perceived by
school board members?
2. What personal factors do superintendents with above average tenure in suburban
districts possess that promote longevity in their career as perceived by school board
members?
3. What evaluation tool/s are used by school board members to determine the
superintendents’ effectiveness as it relates to their longevity?
Demographics of Participants
Suburban Superintendent Demographics of District Served
The school board members selected for the study were in active positions and had served
at least one full term in a suburban district where the superintendent has been in their position for
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

50
more than three years. The five California suburban school board members selected to participate
in the research study had student populations or average daily attendance (ADA) that varied from
9,073 to 23,362 (California Department of Education, 2014).
Table 1 describes the demographics of the student population of each school board
member’s school district. It is broken down into the following population categories: students,
English Learners, free and reduced lunches, minorities, and largest subgroups. The average
English Learner population in the district served was 14.42%. The average population that was
served free and reduced lunch was 65.46%. The average minority population served within
participant districts was 67.13%. Four out of 5 districts had Hispanic populations as being their
largest subgroup, while one had Caucasians as their largest subgroup.

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

SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

51
Table 2 gives the demographics of the superintendent each district where a school board
member was interviewed. This table gives the reader a more detailed breakdown of the
demographics and background of the superintendent in each district. The background of the
superintendent is broken into the following categories: gender, years in position, and ethnicity.
Of the five school board members interviewed it was reported that 3 out of the 5
superintendents were female. Only one out of five was Hispanic/Latino, while the other four
were Caucasian. The average years in the position for all 5 participants was 6.3 years as
superintendent.

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

Table 3 gives the demographics each school board member that was interviewed. This
table gives the reader a more detailed breakdown of the demographics and background of the
school board member in each district. The background of the superintendent was broken into the
following categories: gender, years in position, and ethnicity.

SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

52
Table 3
Years as a School Board Member
School Board Member Gender Years in Position Ethnicity
A Male 4 years Caucasian
B Female 9 years Caucasian
C Male 20 years Hispanic/Latino
D Female 16 years Caucasian
E Female 9 years Caucasian

Each participant interviewed had very different paths to their superintendency. Each of
the pathways to superintendency were charted beside each classified superintendent interviewed.
Table 4 describes how each participant interviewed had different career paths to their
superintendency. Each of the pathways to superintendency are charted beside each classified
superintendent interviewed.

SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

53
Table 4
Tiered Preparation of Superintendency
Superintendent Teacher
Assistant
Principal Principal Director
Assistant
Superintendent
A X X X X X-Human Resources
B X X X X-Instructional
C X X X X X-Instructional
D X X X X X-Instructional
E X X X X X-Instructional

Process to Gather Research
The quantitative portion of this study used a survey instrument based on a five-choice
Likert scale that was completed by participating school board members that fit the at least one
full term suburban school board member participant qualification guidelines. The data collected
from these surveys provided insight into the characteristics and qualities that were identified as
being important for successful suburban superintendency that contributed to career longevity.
Waters and Marzano’s (2006) twenty-one leadership characteristics and Bolman and Deal’s
(2003) research on the four frames of leadership linked strong leadership skills to
superintendency positions and inspired the survey questions created for inquiry.
Confidential interviews were central to the research study. Letters were sent via
electronic mail to five suburban school board members superintendents with a minimum of
serving one full four year term as a school member in a California school district. This email
requested for their participation in the research study. The letter gave context to the research
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

54
study, as well as, the purpose and their role in the study. The letter also explained the procedures
that were used for the analysis and confirmation of data. Participating school board members
received a letter of consent that they were asked to sign and return prior to beginning the
research study. Five suburban school board members responded and confirmed their
participation to take part in the study. The quantitative instrument used to collect data was a five-
choice Likert scale with the categories: Strongly Agree, Agree, Neutral, Disagree, and Strongly
Disagree. Fifty surveys in all were sent out to suburban superintendents who matched the one
full term minimum requirement.
The qualitative aspect of this study was done with interviews that were done in person.
These interviews were conducted with five suburban school board members. The interviews
ranged about one hour per person interviewed. The interviews were conducted utilizing
standardized questions followed by open-ended questions that allowed for additional information
and insight. Interviews began with demographic and background questions, followed by a set of
questions aligned to the research question. The interviews were recorded once permission was
given by the participants. The data collected provided insight into school board members
perceptions about what constitutes career longevity and the positive character traits that
contribute to superintendent longevity. The interviews were transcribed for clarity and destroyed
after their purpose was served. The interviewee was told that the information they provided
would remain confidential and their names would remain anonymous.
Response Rate
Based on the designed criteria for this study, 50 suburban school board members of
elementary, middle and high school districts were invited to participate in the quantitative
survey. The criteria selected for this study required that the school board members’
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

55
superintendents be in their position for above average tenure, as defined by the Council of the
Great City Schools of 3.18 years (2014). Of the 50 potential participants, 32 elected to
participate. The result was a response rate of 64%. The response rate was satisfactory to the
researcher, based on the average return rate of 40% for a survey conducted through email
(Dillman, 2000).

Table 5
Quantitative Survey: Response Rate
Measure # Invited To Participate # Participated % Participated
School board members 50 32 64%

Data Analysis and Findings
This section provides analyses and processes for reports and findings related to each of
the quantitative research questions. Descriptive statistics and the results of the quantitative
statistical calculations identified in the tables listed below where survey questions 1-26 were
presented. The data file consisted of the information from the 32 California suburban school
board members represented the total sample for the quantitative study. It was organized into
Excel spreadsheets. Superintendent responses were captured via an online survey. Each response
was on a five point Likert Scale from Strongly Agree, Agree, Neutral, Disagree, and Strongly
Disagree. Each response was recorded and converted to a numerical value to aggregate and
disaggregate the information to understand the responses to each questions from a numerical
analysis. Responses of Strongly Agree were converted to a numerical value of five, Agree
converted to four, Neutral to three, Disagree to two and Strongly Disagree to one. Of the 32
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

56
suburban elementary, middle, and high school district school board members who chose to
participate in the quantitative survey, five also participated in the qualitative interview. The data
was then analyzed to find the mean to report the following perceptions of superintendents.
Summary of Findings
Findings: Survey.
Table 6 depicts a ranked list of the 26 closed ended questions with regard to personality
characteristics that support above average tenure in suburban districts. The mean is the
mathematical average of all scores in the data set (Kurpius & Stafford, 2006). These are the
results of 32 suburban school board members (n=32) that participated in the survey. The table
reported the findings of analyzing a five point Likert Scale ranging from strongly agree to
strongly disagree to find the mean of each question.
Table 7 depicts a ranked list of the 26 closed ended questions with regard to personality
characteristics that support above average tenure in suburban districts. The percentile rank
represents the percentage of people in a group who scored at any given raw score (Kurpius &
Stafford, 2006). This table depicts the results of 32 suburban school board members (n=32) that
participated in the survey. The table reports the findings of a five point Likert Scale utilizing the
data from strongly agree to agree to find the percentage scores of each question.

SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

57
Table 6
Leadership Qualities and Characteristics: The Mean from a 5 Point Likert Scaled Survey
(School board members, n=32)
Leadership Qualities and Characteristics Mean
My superintendent is passionate and cares deeply about his/her work as a superintendent 4.78
I believe my superintendent is trustworthy 4.75
My superintendent maintains a sound moral and ethical compass 4.75
I consider my superintendent a lifelong learner 4.75
My superintendent keeps student learning and academic achievement at the forefront of my priorities 4.72
My superintendent is approachable 4.6
My superintendent is a caring and empathetic leader 4.6
My superintendent is committed to issues of social justice and implements strategies to create equity
and access in all schools for all students, to promote equity in my district
4.5
My superintendent has developed a clear vision for the school district I serve 4.47
My superintendent is consistently optimistic when interacting with various stakeholders 4.47
Building quality relationships with key stakeholders is important to my superintendent and his/her
tenure as superintendent
4.47
My superintendent has great communication skills 4.44
My superintendent maintains political acuity at the state and local level on issues that pertain to
educational matters that affect the school district and community he/she serves
4.41
My superintendent invests heavily in human capital 4.28
My superintendent has situational awareness regarding the happenings within the school district 4.25
My superintendent prioritizes his/her time based on the vision of the district’s strategic goals 4.19
My superintendent is an effective manager 4.19
My superintendent is a strong financial manager of resources 4.16
My superintendent maintains a strong presence in the community he/she serves 4.06
My superintendent’s primary role is an instructional leader 4.0
My superintendent has structures in place to stay well organized 3.97
The most important relationship my superintendent maintains within my school district is with my
school board of education
3.78
The effectiveness of my superintendent is based on his/her ability to build a high quality cabinet and
administrative team
3.72
My superintendent has value shared responsibility and delegates authority to ensure to build the
collective capacity of all
3.69
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

58
Table 7
Leadership Qualities and Characteristics: The Percentage from a 5 Point Likert Scaled Survey
(School board members, n=32)
Leadership Qualities and Characteristics
Percentile
Rank
I believe my superintendent is trustworthy 100
My superintendent has developed a clear vision for the school district I serve 97
My superintendent keeps student learning and academic achievement at the forefront of my
priorities
97
My superintendent is passionate and cares deeply about his/her work as a superintendent 97
My superintendent maintains a sound moral and ethical compass 97
My superintendent is a caring and empathetic leader 97
My superintendent maintains political acuity at the state and local level on issues that pertain to
educational matters that affect the school district and community he/she serves
94
My superintendent is approachable 94
My superintendent is committed to issues of social justice and implements strategies to create equity
and access in all schools for all students, to promote equity in my district
94
My superintendent is consistently optimistic when interacting with various stakeholders 94
My superintendent has situational awareness regarding the happenings within the school district 88
My superintendent invests heavily in human capital 88
Building quality relationships with key stakeholders is important to my superintendent and his/her
tenure as superintendent
84
My superintendent has great communication skills 84
My superintendent is a motivating and encouraging leader 84
My superintendent values the input of others 84
My superintendent is an effective manager 84
My superintendent prioritizes his/her time based on the vision of the district’s strategic goals 81
My superintendent has structures in place to stay well organized 81
My superintendent is a strong financial manager of resources 81
My superintendent maintains a strong presence in the community he/she serves 78
My superintendent’s primary role is an instructional leader 75
The most important relationship my superintendent maintains within my school district is with my
school board of education
69
My superintendent has value shared responsibility and delegates authority to ensure to build the
collective capacity of all
69
The effectiveness of my superintendent is based on his/her ability to build a high quality cabinet and
administrative team
66

SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

59
Table 8 depicts a ranked list of the 26 closed ended questions with regard to personality
characteristics that support above average tenure in suburban districts. The frequency
distribution presents scores (X) and how many times (f) each scored was obtained (Kurpius &
Stafford, 2006). Frequency refers to the intervals that have the highest mode (Kurpius &
Stafford, 2006). It depicts the results of 32 suburban school board members (n=32) that
participated in the survey. The table reports the findings of a five point Likert Scale utilizing the
data from strongly agree to agree to find the frequency of each question.

SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

60
Table 8
Leadership Qualities and Characteristics: The Frequency From a 5 Point Likert Scaled Survey
(School board members, n=32)
Leadership Qualities and Characteristics
Frequency
Distribution
I believe my superintendent is trustworthy 32
My superintendent has developed a clear vision for the school district I serve 31
My superintendent keeps student learning and academic achievement at the forefront of my priorities 31
My superintendent maintains a sound moral and ethical compass 31
I consider my superintendent a lifelong learner 31
My superintendent is a caring and empathetic leader 31
My superintendent is passionate and cares deeply about his/her work as a superintendent 31
My superintendent maintains political acuity at the state and local level on issues that pertain to educational
matters that affect the school district and community he/she serves
30
My superintendent is consistently optimistic when interacting with various stakeholders 30
My superintendent is approachable 30
My superintendent is committed to issues of social justice and implements strategies to create equity and
access in all schools for all students, to promote equity in my district
30
My superintendent has situational awareness regarding the happenings within the school district 28
My superintendent invests heavily in human capital 28
Building quality relationships with key stakeholders is important to my superintendent and his/her tenure as
superintendent
27
My superintendent is a motivating and encouraging leader 27
My superintendent values the input of others 27
My superintendent is an effective manager 27
My superintendent has great communication skills 27
My superintendent has structures in place to stay well organized 26
My superintendent prioritizes his/her time based on the vision of the district’s strategic goals 26
My superintendent is a strong financial manager of resources 26
My superintendent maintains a strong presence in the community he/she serves 25
My superintendent’s primary role is an instructional leader 24
My superintendent has value shared responsibility and delegates authority to ensure to build the collective
capacity of all
22
The most important relationship my superintendent maintains within my school district is with my school
board of education
22
The effectiveness of my superintendent is based on his/her ability to build a high quality cabinet and
administrative team
21

SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

61
Findings: Interview.
Following the coding process, which identified common themes, frequency counts from
the open-ended interview questions were tabulated. Table 9 depicts the results of 5 suburban
school board members (n=5) that participated in an interview. It lists the top five frequent
themes/categories that interviewed participants warranted as leadership characteristics and
factors that promoted superintendent longevity.

Table 9
Leadership Qualities and Characteristics: Frequency Distribution From Open-Ended Interview
(School board members, n=5)
Leadership Qualities and Characteristics Frequency Distribution
School Board Relationship 52
Educational Leader 40
Strong District Team 34
Relationship with all Stakeholders 32
Personable 26

Research Question #1: What Personal Characteristics do Superintendents with Above
Average Tenure in Suburban Districts Possess that Promote Longevity in Their Career as
Perceived by School Board Members?
The first research question asked about personal characteristics that superintendents
possessed that promoted their longevity. In order to measure what characteristics actually had a
positive effect on superintendent longevity, school board members participated in a Likert Scale
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

62
survey where they ranked characteristics that their superintendent possessed in their current
position. The school board members were also asked to list specific characteristics that their
superintendent possessed that contributed to their longevity in an open-ended interview.
Summary of Findings
Findings: Survey.
Table 10 is the list of the top five mean findings of leadership characteristics that were
reported from the qualities and characteristics survey by school board members with regard to
superintendent longevity from the surveys. It depicts the results of 32 suburban school board
members (n=32) that participated in the survey.The top five characteristics listed by the school
board members that promote superintendent longevity were passionate and caring at 4.78,
trustworthy at 4.75, sound moral and ethical compass at 4.75, approachable at 4.6, and caring
and empathetic leader at 4.6.

Table 10
Top Five Leadership Characteristics: Mean from Survey (School board members, n=32)
Top Five Leadership Characteristics Mean
My superintendent is passionate and cares deeply about his/her work as a
superintendent
4.78
I believe my superintendent is trustworthy 4.75
My superintendent maintains a sound moral and ethical compass 4.75
My superintendent is approachable 4.6
My superintendent is a caring and empathetic leader 4.6

SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

63
Table 11 is the list of the top five percentile rank findings of leadership characteristics
that were reported from the qualities and characteristics survey by school board members with
regard to superintendent longevity from the surveys. The table depicts the results of 32 suburban
school board members (n=32) that participated in the survey. The top five characteristics listed
by the school board members that promote superintendent longevity were trustworthy at 100,
passionate and caring at 97, sound moral and ethical compass at 97, caring and empathetic leader
at 97, and approachable at 94.

Table 11
Top Five Leadership Characteristics: Percentile Rank from Survey (School board members,
n=32)
Top Five Leadership Characteristics Percentile Rank
I believe my superintendent is trustworthy 100
My superintendent is passionate and cares deeply about his/her work as a
superintendent
97
My superintendent maintains a sound moral and ethical compass 97
My superintendent is a caring and empathetic leader 97
My superintendent is approachable 94

Table 12 is the list of the top five frequency findings of leadership characteristics that
were reported from the qualities and characteristics survey by school board members with regard
to superintendent longevity from the surveys. The table depicts the results of 32 suburban school
board members (n=32) that participated in the survey. The top five characteristics listed by the
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

64
school board members that promote superintendent longevity were trustworthy at 32, sound
moral and ethical compass at 31, caring and empathetic leader at 31, passionate and caring at 31,
and consistently optimistic at 30.

Table 12
Top Five Leadership Characteristics: Frequency from Survey (School board members, n=32)
Top Five Leadership Characteristics
Frequency
Distribution
I believe my superintendent is trustworthy 32
My superintendent maintains a sound moral and ethical compass 31
My superintendent is a caring and empathetic leader 31
My superintendent is passionate and cares deeply about his/her work as a
superintendent
31
My superintendent is consistently optimistic when interacting with various
stakeholders
30

Findings: Interview.
Table 13 is the list of the top two frequency leadership characteristics that were reported
from the qualities and characteristics interview by school board members with regard to
superintendent longevity from the interviews. The table depicts the results of 5 suburban school
board members (n=5) that participated in an interview. The top two characteristics that were
identified to promote longevity in the superintendents were Educational Leader and Trustworthy.
Educational Leader had a 40 frequency. There were several qualities that fell under the
Educational Leadership category such as: curriculum, instruction, continually learning and
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

65
seeking new answers to questions, and commitment. Personable had a 26 frequency. There were
several qualities that fell under this category as well such as: trustworthy, honesty, and
approachable.

Table 13
Top Two Leadership Characteristics: Frequency from Interview (School board members, n=5)
Top Two Leadership Characteristics: Interview Frequency Distribution
Educational Leader 40
Personable 26

The first leadership characteristic that was identified from the interviews was educational
leadership and under this area fell several other qualities. Every school board listed these
categories under the umbrella of an educational leader: curriculum, instruction, continually
learning and seeking new answers, and commitment.
School board member A disclosed that his superintendent is well rounded in his position
as an educational leader. He shared specific characteristics about his superintendent’s leadership
style, “He’s organized and he delegates responsibility.” He went on to discuss that his
superintendent can jump into different roles as needed in his position. School board member B
stated:
Well, you know, aside from being assistant for this superintendent of instruction. She
collaborated with all assistant superintendents, that’s a good learning ground for them. So
they learned a lot about each other’s jobs. And so I think that’s what made her a good
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

66
candidate for superintendent because she was able to understand all aspects of the district
not just instruction.
School board member B also stated about her superintendent as a life long learner:
Basically already said it, but she’s very collaborative. And if she doesn’t know
something, she’s the first one to say, do you know what, I’ll have to look into that. She
doesn’t try to sugarcoat anything. She just -- she’ll go and learn it if she needs it, you
know. And, you know, like I said, if she’s not experienced in something, she’ll try to
figure out exactly where to educate herself. So she’s a life-long learner for sure.
School board member C discussed the characteristics that made his superintendent an
educational leader. He also spoke about the knowledge the superintendent obtained from his
journey of moving up through the educational ladder. He stated “He was taught by a lot of good
superintendents. He is sharp and learns really quickly.” He also talks about how his
superintendent is always trying to continue to learn. He shared “He’s not afraid to ask questions
and seek assistance.” School board D member talked about the process/road the superintendent
went through:
Well, he has started from the beginning, I first met him about 20 years ago and he was a
teacher at our local high school. Throughout the years, he progressed. He became the
vice principal at high then he was the principal. From there, he became assistant to the
human resources assistant superintendent. Then became the human resource assistant
superintendent and then he progressed into the superintendent seat from there. So as far
as he’s gradually has progressed throughout the district. He knows secondary, he knows
elementary, he knows the human resource aspect of it, he knows the managerial as far as
the principal. So he’s very well-schooled in his preparation to become a superintendent.
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

67
School Board member D shared about how her superintendent had an amazing network
group to go to when she needed an answer or help. She stated: “Another strength she has an
amazing network of people who are highly knowledgeable in certain aspects. So she knows
lawyers that she could call and they don’t necessarily bill us.” She also discussed the background
her superintendent had that made her an educational leader. She stated “Oh, she’s well prepared.
She had been a superintendent in a large district much larger than we are for six years. So she’s
had lots of experience, and a deputy superintendent before that for four years.” She went on to
discuss how her knowledge and resources have her helped her superintendent in her current
position. She stated “I think her years of experience and her knowledge about how to handle
situations is also a strength.”
School board member E disclosed the the background and educational roles that her
superintendent took before her current position. She described how her superintendent started
from bottom in the education world and worked her way to the top. She stated “She was the
assistant of educational services, so, you know. Her background in education. She worked the
latter. She was a teacher, student counselor, principal. She’s done all levels and then went into
administration and from there.”
All of these school board members shared very detailed accounts of how their
superintendent got into their position. They all also talked about all the areas that made their
superintendent an educational leader. These interviews gave a better understanding of how
important it is to have an educational leader in order to become a successful superintendent.
The second leadership characteristic that was identified from the interviews was
personable and under this area fell several other qualities. Every school board listed these
categories under the umbrella of being personable: trustworthy, honesty, and approachable.
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

68
School board member A communicated how his superintendent was a very personable
person and easy to approach. He stated “I think he’s got good people skills.” He also talked
about how his superintendent was able to take a step back and look at the bigger picture to
accommodate and help the majority in his district. He stated “he is able to take the long view on
things and let other people, people that are connected to him laterally, work out the details and
then get back to him.” School board member B shared a lot of qualities that made her
superintendent personable:
She’s very collaborative. She’s always, you know, willing to get other people’s input.
She doesn’t work by herself, and that’s, I think, a big thing, you know. She listens really
well. She takes to heart what board members concerns are. She actually listens and
follows through. She’s been the easiest to work with, I’d say. I think she personalizes and
very personable and, you know, it’s important. So she’s approachable, you know.
School board member C articulated about how his superintendent was very well liked in
his district. He listed a variety of qualities that made his superintendent personable. He stated
“His strengths is his personality and great communication skills.” School board member C also
stated:
I believe he has great integrity and the staff actually trusts him, which is a big key. But he
is sensitive to the understanding of the needs of the people around him. I think that
because he’s been truthful, he’s been fair, he’s made sure that we understood his
decisions and his rationale behind his decisions. He’s been open and transparent with us.
That allows us to trust him when it goes back to that trust.
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

69
School board member D addressed that everyone in the district felt that the
superintendent was a friend to them. She discussed that since they felt they were friends with her,
they wanted to work harder and not disappoint her. She talked about how stated:
And that is a huge strength because when you want people to do things that maybe they
don’t want to do, they’re more likely to do it if they like you, you know. If they choose
to follow you, if they say this is a person that I want to trust and listen to.
School board member D stated how quickly the superintendent got to know staff:
Within a few months, she was talking about teachers and custodians and cafeteria
workers and, you know, but where she knew them by their first name, knew something
about their family. She’s just a very approachable person. Well, for one thing, she’s very
approachable. You know, she’s kind of a very, very friendly, very outgoing person. I
was blown away by how quickly she learned names.
School board member E minimally spoke about this topic. He did state that his superintendent is
well liked by all stakeholders.
Each school board member gave a very detailed insight into the specific characteristics
that have made their superintendent personable and well liked by his/her stakeholders. They also
reported how important it is to be personable in the position of the superintendency. All school
board members discussed how the qualities listed above directly affected their superintendent’s
longevity.
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

70
Research Question #2: What Personal Factors do Superintendents with Above Average
Tenure in Suburban Districts Possess that Promote Longevity in Their Career as Perceived
by School Board Members?
The second research question asked the school board members about what factors have
contributed to the longevity of the superintendents in their districts. In order to measure what
factors listed actually had a positive effect on superintendent longevity, school board members
participated in a Likert Scale survey where they ranked the factors that have led to their
superintendent longevity in their current position. The school board members were also asked
specific questions that pertained to factors that promoted their superintendent’s longevity in an
open-ended interview.
Summary of Findings
Findings: Survey.
Table 14 lists the top five mean findings of leadership factors that were reported from the
qualities and characteristics survey by school board members with regard to superintendent
longevity from the surveys. These are the results of 32 suburban school board members (n=32)
that participated in the survey.The top five factors listed by the school board members that
promote superintendent longevity were lifelong learner at 4.75, student achievement is a priority
at 4.72, committed to issues of social justice at 4.5, developed a clear vision at 4.47, and building
quality relationships with key stakeholders at 4.47.

SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

71
Table 14
Top Five Leadership Factors: Mean from Survey (School board members, n=32)
Top Five Leadership Factors Mean
I consider my superintendent a lifelong learner 4.75
My superintendent keeps student learning and academic achievement at the forefront
of my priorities
4.72
My superintendent is committed to issues of social justice and implements strategies
to create equity and access in all schools for all students to promote equity in my
district
4.5
My superintendent has developed a clear vision for the school district I serve 4.47
Building quality relationships with key stakeholders is important to my
superintendent and his/her tenure as superintendent
4.47

Table 15 is the list of the top five percentage findings of leadership factors that were
reported from the qualities and characteristics survey by school board members with regard to
superintendent longevity from the surveys. This table depicts the results of 32 suburban school
board members (n=32) that participated in the survey. The top five factors listed by the school
board members that promote superintendent longevity were developed a clear vision at 97,
student achievement was a priority at 97, maintained political acuity at 94, committed to issues
of social justice at 94, and invested in human capital at 88.

SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

72
Table 15
Top Five Leadership Factors: Percentile Rank from Survey (School board members, n=32)
Top Five Leadership Factors Percentile Rank
My superintendent has developed a clear vision for the school district I
serve
97
My superintendent keeps student learning and academic achievement at
the forefront of my priorities
97
My superintendent maintains political acuity at the state and local level on
issues that pertain to educational matters that affect the school district and
community he/she serves
94
My superintendent is committed to issues of social justice and implements
strategies to create equity and access in all schools for all students, to
promote equity in my district
94
My superintendent invests heavily in human capital 88

Table 16 is the list of the top five frequency findings of leadership factors that were
reported from the qualities and characteristics survey by school board members with regard to
superintendent longevity from the surveys. It depicts the results of 32 suburban school board
members (n=32) that participated in the survey. The top five factors listed by the school board
members that promote superintendent longevity were developed a clear vision at 31, student
achievement was a priority at 31, lifelong learner at 31, maintained political acuity at 30,
committed to issues of social justice at 30.

SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

73
Table 16
Top Five Leadership Factors: Frequency from Survey (School board members, n=32)
Top Five Leadership Factors
Frequency
Distribution
My superintendent has developed a clear vision for the school district I serve 31
My superintendent keeps student learning and academic achievement at the
forefront of my priorities
31
I consider my superintendent a lifelong learner 31
My superintendent maintains political acuity at the state and local level on
issues that pertain to educational matters that affect the school district and
community he/she serves
30
My superintendent is committed to issues of social justice and implements
strategies to create equity and access in all schools for all students, to promote
equity in my district
30

Findings: Interview.
Table 17 is the list of the top three frequency of leadership factors that were reported by
the qualities and characteristics interview school board members with regard to superintendent
longevity from the interviews. Frequency refers to the data that has the highest mode (Kurpius &
Stafford, 2006). These are the results of 5 suburban school board members (n=5) that
participated in the interviews. The top three factors that were identified to promote longevity in
the superintendents were School Board Relationships, Strong Delegation with District Team, and
Relationships with Outside Stakeholders. The highest frequency out of all five categories was
School Board Relationships with a frequency of 52. There were several categories that fell under
School Board Relationships such as: communication, honesty, and transparency. The second
highest factor was Strong District Team with a frequency of 34. There were several categories
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

74
that fell under this factor such as: delegation, organization, strong cabinet team, strong
administrative team, and trust in district. The last highest factor was Relationship with all
Stakeholders with a frequency of 32. There were several factors that fell under this factor such
as: visibility, students, schools, community, communication, and collaboration.

Table 17
Top Three Leadership Factors, Frequency from Interview (School board members, n=5)
Top Three Leadership Factors Frequency Distribution
School Board Relationship 52 f
Strong District Team 34 f
Relationship with all Stakeholders 32 f

The first leadership factor that was identified from the interviews was a good school
board relationship and under this area fell several other qualities. Every school board listed these
categories under the umbrella of a positive board relationship: communication, honesty, and
transparency.
School board member A discussed how important it is to keep the school board informed.
He stated “He is really good at informing us of anything we need to know.” “He gives us a
weekly update. And if something does come up that we need to know about, they’re pretty good
about letting us know.” He also shared that the relationship between the two parties is very
critical to a superintendent’s longevity. He stated “The relationship is on all fronts good.” “He
knows what he wants to do.” School board member B communicated how important it is to be
transparent with the board:
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

75
I think she’s pretty honest and straightforward. Just comes out and says, you know,
whatever. So it’s not like there’s no surprises. We try not to surprise each other. So,
like, say during a school board meeting, you know, there’s not like, oh, my, where did
this come from? It’s not like, oh, surprise. So we’re back to everybody, we all like each
other, you know, so we’re not having issues amongst ourselves. Because once that
happens too, then things kind of change, so, you know.
Superintendent B explained how crucial it is to maintain a positive relationship with the
school board. He stated “They have to keep a good relationship with the board, because if you
start making the board mad, there’s a chance they’re going to lose their job.” He discussed how
the biggest thing standing in the way of a superintendent’s longevity is the school board and their
relationship.
School board member C articulated that the superintendent really needs to make sure to
make time for their school board members. He stated “He makes sure that if there’s time that we
need to talk with him, he makes that time available.” He also talked about how you need to keep
your school board informed. He stated “He shares with the board, he doesn’t hold anything
back.” School board member C informed how a superintendent needs to do what his/her school
board asks. He stated “He does represent the board very well, because a lot of these things are
things that we ask him to do as well.” School board member D shared how important it is to
maintain a professional relationship:
So it’s a very professional relationship. It’s very anything she tells or says to one board
member, she says to all. And I have been with her when we talked about something and
she said, oh, gosh, don’t let me forget to tell the rest of the board that, you know. So
that’s good too.
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

76
School board member D also shared how important it is to maintain a close relationship:
And, you know, we do a lot of visiting of schools. We go with her a lot of the time. Not
certainly every day, but monthly we’re all out in the schools. And I think that she goes
with us, and that’s a good way for her to maintain a good relationship with the board and
to do the kinds of things like I described to you that I did.
School board member E discussed how important it is to keep a close relationship with
the school board. She stated “Obviously they have to be open with the board. They need to work
with the board members. Keep the board advised of what’s going on and any changes.” She
explained how her superintendent tells them everything that is going on in the district. She
stated “And one thing that I really like is that our board, is that our superintendent advises us of
everything, whether good or bad, everything.” School board member E also stated:
If you’re not connected with your board, then you’re not going to be very successful. You
have to have great communication. Well, she does superintendent’s report at each board
meeting, so it’s kind of like her comments section. It could be legislative it can be
general. She advises everyone at that time this is what’s going on.
The interviews proved that the relationship between the superintendent and the school
board is critical to their longevity. This factor was one that was listed throughout all interviews.
Superintendents need to keep communication lines open with their school board and they also
need to maintain a positive relationship with them as well. The relationship component is key to
a superintendent’s longevity.
The second leadership factor that was identified from the interviews was a strong district
team and under this area fell several other qualities. Every school board listed these categories
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

77
under the umbrella of a strong district team: delegation, organization, strong cabinet team, strong
administrative team, and trust in district.
School board member A shared how closely the superintendent works with his cabinet
team. He stated “He depends very heavily on his cabinet. He identifies the direction that he
wants the district to go, then he calls for his cabinets to give him information so he can -- so to
help him make decisions.” He talked about what he observed at the cabinet meetings he has sat
in on. He stated “I have been in on cabinet meetings and that’s what happens. At the end of the
cabinet meeting, he says, okay, who’s going to take care of this, who’s going to take care of
this.”
School board member B stated how her superintendent utilizes her entire leadership team.
She works closely with cabinet, administrative team, and leadership team in order to implement
anything into her curriculum. She stated:
She includes everyone. Kind of like the math curriculum that we’re getting ready to adopt
and stuff. I mean, that was a district, teacher, administrators, you know, all that. That
makes the buy-in for all that so much better never get it done.
School board member B also stated:
I really think the collaboration is huge. And so when everybody is involved in making the
decisions, you know, the school board and the cabinet, and how those decisions are made,
how recommendations are brought to the board and all that stuff. That goes back to that
trust thing though because she trusts her cabinet so. And her cabinet is good at delegating
down. That’s one thing I do love about the district is that it’s always a shared decision
initiative process. I mean, even with the curriculum and everything. It wasn’t just
thrown at us. So that’s why it’s important to do the evaluations with her and the goals
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

78
setting and she in turn, after she’s done with hers, then she meets with the assistant
superintendent that sets goal and directions for them, which trickles all the way down.
School board member C shared how the superintendent has a two way communication
and implementation process with his cabinet. He stated “He utilizes his team. He does a good job
of bringing in the right individuals.” He explains that even though the superintendent utilizes his
cabinet team, he is still in charge of the decision making process. He stated “Each assistant
superintendent, he allows them to make recommendations, though he has the final say when it
comes to presenting it to the board.”
School board member D minimally spoke on this topic. He did state that his utilizes his
cabinet and district team when needed. School board member E stated how her superintendent
uses her district team:
They have cabinet meetings, weekly superintendent cabinet meetings every week. It’s
Mondays and Tuesday mornings. And then she has principal meetings. So she relies a lot
on her three assistant superintendents, and gives them the flexibility and management to
run their show. She doesn’t micro manage, which is great, and together they have great
team.
The school board members articulated how crucial it is for the superintendent to have a
strong district team. They all stated how their superintendents relied on their teams for any
implementation to be possible for their district. Even though each superintendent varied on the
teams utilized for their districts from their cabinet, district, or leadership team; it was apparent
that this connection was directly tied to their effectiveness and longevity in the district.
The third leadership factor that was identified from the interviews was a good
relationship with all stakeholders and under this area fell several other qualities. Every school
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

79
board listed these categories under the umbrella of a positive relationship with all stakeholders:
visibility, students, schools, community, communication, and collaboration.
School board member A shared how it has been harder for the superintendent to work
with his community compared to his previous district because of the size difference. Even
though this is the case with his superintendent, he explained how important this connection is.
He stated:
It is a little harder to get the community involved because it is a bigger district and spread
out over a large area. We have tried to have meetings around in the -- in the community
and everything. And the attendance in the public meetings have been pretty darn sparse.
School board member B explained how well her superintendent maintained a positive and close
relationship with her community. She stated:
This district is very near and dear to her so it’s, I mean, it’s really evident in the way she
does stuff. I mean, she’s not just here because she was hired by this district, it’s like she
wants to be a part of this community and she cares about what happens to the community.
And, you know, she cares about, you know, how the school district looks in the
community and, you know, all those sorts of things that are really important. She tries to
keep a really good positive focus and, you know, always keeps students in mind and
student learning was always her main.
School board member C discussed how his superintendent has a very close relationship
with his community since he grew up in the city his entire life. He stated:
He actually will go to community meetings, he will go whether as an example, we were
redoing the high school football field, so we needed to tell all the youth leagues that use
it. He went personally to the youth league meeting to let them know.
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

80
“He won’t delegate that. If there’s a message that needs to come from him, he does it.” He also
talked about how he is always available and visible for his community. He stated:
He’s always had an open door policy, which really helps, and which allows not only
board members, but staff, union, presidents, and community to come in. So he does have
that personal contact with all the different agencies, community groups, and he will go
out.
School board member C communicated how his superintendent created a community
cabinet team to involve and include all stakeholders in his community for the best interests of the
students. He stated:
We’ve designed the community cabinet in an effort to take a look at what’s coming down
from the state and the future. Students to careers, students to college. We’re trying to
draw in as many employers, community members, professional alumni, and he’s done an
excellent job in gathering groups of people.
School board member D stated about visibility:
She’s on a school campus at least one or two hours every day. But I do think that her first
priority in the schools, is the kids. She always lets people know that. She very quickly a
widespread positive reviews by the people who don’t like don’t like public school.
School board member E shared how her superintendent is works late to stay involved in
her community. She stated “Yeah, she is a hard worker. Starts early in the morning and goes late
in the evening because she’s also a member of a service clubs in town.” She also explained how
her superintendent became proficient with technology to add another communication line with
her community. She stated:
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

81
She learned to tweet. I don’t even know how to tweet. She brought it upon herself. And,
you know, especially with the high school, they had the big state championship. The high
school winning mock trial. They won nationals, they won state. That was huge. Everyone
got to see what’s going on.
The involvement in the community has proven to be integral component of a
superintendent’s longevity. Superintendents need to be visible in all community events. The
more informed you keep the community, the easier it is to get buy in from its members.
Research Question #3: What Evaluation Tool/s are Used by School Board Members to
Determine the Superintendents’ Effectiveness as it Relates to Their Longevity?
The third research question asked the five interviewed school board members what
evaluation tools they utilized to determine the superintendent’s effectiveness in their district. In
order to measure what factors listed actually had a positive effect on superintendent longevity,
the participating school board members responded to open ended interview questions regarding
this topic.
Summary of Findings
Findings: Interview.
Table 18 is the list of the seven evaluation tools that were used by school board members
to determine the effectiveness of the superintendent. These are the results of 5 suburban school
board members (n=5) that participated in the interviews. The tools used were both formal and
informal measures to determine a superintendent’s effectiveness. The table was created by
analyzing and coding the interview process from each superintendent interviewed.

SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

82
Table 18
Evaluation Tools Used by Superintendents: From Open-Ended Interview (School board
members, n=5)
School Board Members
A B C D E
Annual School Board Evaluations X X X X X
Mid Year School Board Evaluations X X
Annual Cabinet Evaluations X X X
Annual District Evaluations X
Student Test Scores X X X
Superintendent Informational Letters X X
Individual Board Member Meetings X X X X X

There were seven tools listed by the school board members to evaluate the
superintendents in their district, which included both formal and informal measures. The five
formal tools used to measure the superintendent’s effectiveness were: annual school board
evaluations, mid-year school board evaluations, annual cabinet evaluations, annual district
evaluations, and student test scores. The two informal tools used to measure the superintendent’s
effectiveness were: superintendent informational letters and individual school board member
meetings.
The first tool used to measure a superintendent’s effectiveness was the annual evaluation
created by the district’s school board members. Every school board member interviewed verified
that there was annual evaluation done by the school board member that was shared with the
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

83
superintendent that analyzed their effectiveness in their position and the district for the school
year.
School board member A discussed the procedure used to measure his superintendent’s
effectiveness with their annual evaluation. He stated “There’s a board self-evaluation. There’s a
series of questions. I believe there’s probably about 20 of them.” He then proceeded to explain
the areas that their superintendent is evaluated on. He stated:
And they have to deal with different areas like school climate and, you know, financial
liability, and -- you know, there’s all these little categories that you rate. And then
everybody writes it up and then it gets typed out, and then we present with the
superintendent.
School board member B stated:
We evaluate her every year. We give her a set of goals and direction, you know. We’re
actually getting ready to do that again. Once the school year is over, what have we done,
what are we going to do different next year. That sort of thing. What areas are we going
to focus on. We always do a board self-evaluation so that we can kind of see where
we’re going and, you know, just to keep everybody on the same page. It’s really
important.
School board member C reviewed the protocols their district uses when evaluating their
superintendent annually. She stated “Okay. Once again, we do have the yearly superintendent’s
evaluation which is conducted by each one of the board members.” She then explained how they
hired an outside consultant to conduct and lead the evaluation process. She stated “It is tallied
and scored by independent consultant, and then we review the results together with the
superintendent.”
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

84
School board member D minimally spoke on the topic. He did state that their district does
evaluate their superintendent annually with proper protocols put in place from the school board.
School board member E stated:
And then the five of us, we have our own. We obviously deal with her, the
superintendent. Then our president will get the five of us, will sit there and review and
average out what we said, you know, probably four or five pages long. It goes over how
she informed us about what’s going on, testing, curriculum, management, facilities.
Every single thing, every angle she’s responsible for. And we go through each one, how
is she in the community, improves herself out there, how she’s doing with the media. And
it’s funny because we’re always all about the same point, yeah, all five of us.
The second tool used to measure a superintendent’s effectiveness was a mid-year
evaluation created by the district’s school board members. Only two of the five school board
members interviewed verified that there was a mid-year evaluation done by the school board
members that was shared with the superintendent that analyzed their effectiveness in their
position and the district mid-way through the school year.
School board member B minimally spoke on the topic, but did say they evaluate their
superintendent midyear. School board member E stated:
Well we do two evaluations basically. And we do a mid year that she prepares for us and
that’s like in January, and then we have the end of the year which is her basically her
review. And there’s two reports on what she’s done. And then the five of us, we have our
own. We obviously deal with her, the superintendent. Then our president will get the
from the five of us, will sit there and review and average out what we said, you know,
probably four or five pages long. It goes over how she informed us about what’s going
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

85
on, testing, curriculum, management, facilities. Every single thing, every angle she’s
responsible for. And we go through each one, how is she in the community, improves
herself out there, how she’s doing with the media. And it’s funny because we’re always
all about the same point, yeah, all five of us. So she got mid year. Especially that mid
year. That’s so great, because we’re so busy, but to be able to get it and look and say,
okay, this is what we’ve done. In mid year we go, wow, we done a lot. We really don’t
think about it. It’s like you done a lot. And before you know it, the end of year is here
and, whoa, that happened, that happened, that happened. It’s a wonderful report.
The third tool used to measure a superintendent’s effectiveness was an annual evaluation
created by the district’s cabinet team. Only three of the five school board members interviewed
verified that there was an annual evaluation done by the cabinet team that was shared with the
superintendent that analyzed their effectiveness in their position and the district at the end of the
school year.
School board member B discussed the downward vertical process that her superintendent
uses with her team. The process starts at the top and she then meets with all her teams to make
sure they are all the same page:
So that’s why it’s important to do the evaluations with her and the goals setting and she
in turn, after she’s done with hers, then she meets with the assistant superintendent that
sets goal and directions for them, which trickles all the way down.
The school board member also talked about how her superintendent even sends out an evaluation
to all her certificated and certified staff to see where she and the district can improve as a whole.
The superintendent goes thorough process with all staff to ensure she is meeting all standards set
within the district.
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

86
School board member C minimally spoke on the topic, but did say the cabinet does
evaluate the superintendent annually. School board member E shared that her superintendent
allows her:
Uh-huh. And we also have assistant sups and some of the management team who give her
a review as well. You know like a shoe tier [check] questionnaire, you know, that they
can do as well with comments and everything that way she, you know, it’s not just us.
The fourth tool used to measure a superintendent’s effectiveness was an annual
evaluation completed by the entire district’s certificated and classified team. Only one of the five
school board members interviewed verified that there was an annual evaluation done by the all
employees in the district that was shared with the superintendent that analyzed their effectiveness
in their position and the district at the end of the school year.
School board member B minimally spoke on the topic, but did say that the superintendent
sent out an evaluation survey to be done by all employees in the district at the end of the year.
The fifth tool used to measure a superintendent’s effectiveness was analyzing the
district’s annual student test scores. Only two of the five school board members interviewed
verified that they analyzed student data to determine the effectiveness of the superintendent in
their position and the district at the end of the school year.
School board member A disclosed that test scores and achievement scores are a part of it.
School board member B minimally spoke on the topic, but did say that school board does
analyze their district’s data and utilizes this data as a tool to measure the superintendent’s
effectiveness in the position. School board member D stated:
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

87
So, you know, we look at data, we look at a lot of that. Employee satisfaction is big
because districts where the employees are not happy have a hard time banding together
and making a difference.
The sixth tool used to measure a superintendent’s effectiveness was the informational
letter/memo that the superintendent sent out to her school board and cabinet. This informal
measure varied from district to district. Some superintendents sent out a memo or letter weekly,
monthly, or quarterly to inform the school board members and cabinet of what was occurring in
the district during that time period. Only two of the five school board members verified that their
superintendent sent out informational letters/memos.
School board member B minimally spoke on the topic, but did say that the superintendent
does send out an informational letter every week to inform the school board members and
cabinet team of anything occurring in the district. School board member E stated:
Well, she does superintendent’s report at each board meeting, so it’s kind of like her
comments section. It could be legislative it can be general. She advises everyone at that
time this is what’s going on, this is what we’re working on, prepares reports, budget
reduction, LCAP review. Whatever needs to be done, she does that. Then we also get an
SU, what’s called a superintendent’s update every Monday. Every Monday there’s
superintendent’s update. That’s probably about this thick, and it will have what
happened during the week, you know, confidentiality, if there’s any personnel issues or
anything like that.
The seventh tool used to measure a superintendent’s effectiveness was individual
meetings that the superintendent coordinated with each school board member. These informal
meetings could be lunches, phone calls, car rides, or any other alone time the superintendent had
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

88
designated for each school board member. These informal meetings varied in frequency such as
weekly monthly, quarterly, semiannually, or annually.
School board member A talked about the informal opportunities made possible by his
superintendent. He stated “Well, with the school board, we have opportunities outside of, like,
closed session board meetings to interact within, like, school functions that we have to go to.” He
explained how much enjoyed the one on one time to run ideas and catch up with his
superintendent. “I cherish the opportunity to go off to a meeting, something to ride in the car
because it’s just us. That helps a lot.” School board member B stated:
We actually meet once a month, each school board member independently with her just
to yeah, she likes to keep in contact with us just kind of, you know, to address any
concerns we might have, or just to, you know. I mean, I went to lunch the other day and I
don’t think we talked about any school stuff. You know, it’s just keeping that open
relationship.
School board member C addressed the two areas that his superintendent did to meet with
school board informally. He explained how his superintendent utilizes school board meetings as
an opportunity to meet with them. He stated “One of the things he’s good at doing is prior to
every board meeting, he does call each board member to see if there’s anything on the agenda
that we might have some questions about.” He further explained how his superintendent also
meets with his board for lunch at least once or twice a year.
School board member D shared how her superintendent even puts structures in place to
meet with school board informally including educational work opportunities as often as she can.
She stated “You know, we do a lot of visiting of schools. We go with her a lot of the time. Not
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

89
certainly every day, but monthly we’re all out in the schools.” She even utilizes lunch meetings
to discuss board agenda issues. She stated:
One of the probably structural thing that she does is we have a lunch every month,
usually in the week before a board meeting, and we talk through issues that are going to
come before the board on a one-on-one basis.
School board member E stated:
Work with your staff [unintelligible] but we’re kind of unique. I mean, this is what builds
more confidence. And we go to dinner together, the superintendent and myself and
another board member, because the brown act, we can’t get everyone there. But people
are like, what are you going to do tonight? I’m going to dinner with my sup. They’re like,
really? We would never do that in a social element. But that’s what makes us unique and
we can understand each other, in our good times and our bad times. We have them.
Summary
This chapter reported the findings from 32 school board members surveyed as well as 5
superintendents interviewed from California suburban school districts. The findings from the
surveys and interviewed showed that there are many characteristics and qualities that promote
longevity among suburban superintendents.
The results from this study indicated that the characteristics that attributed to
superintendent longevity frequented from the interviews were being an educational leader,
forming a positive relationship with all stakeholders, and finally being personable person. This
research mimics the theory as stated by Chance (1991) a successful superintendent is one who
accepts three simultaneous roles: the politician, the manager, and the teacher (Chance, 1991).
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

90
Furthermore, the study indicated the highest frequency of superintendent characteristics
that contributed to their longevity from the surveys analyzed were my superintendent is
trustworthy, maintains a sound moral and ethical compass, is a caring and empathetic leader, is
passionate and cares deeply about his/her work as a superintendent, is consistently optimistic
when interacting with various stakeholders. These findings support Northouse (2007) and
Bolman and Deal’s (2003) theories. Northouse (2007) defines leadership as a process by which
an individual is able to influence an organization or group of individuals to achieve a particular
goal. Bolman and Deal (2003) present a four-frame leadership model that represents four key
leadership domains that should be utilized as a leader to decode organizational complexity. The
four leadership frames are: the structural frame, the human resource fame, the political frame,
and the symbolic frame (Bolman & Deal, 2003).
The leadership factors that were identified from the interview analysis as contributors to
suburban superintendent longevity were maintaining a positive school board relationship and
developing and utilizing a strong district team. The findings from this research are shared by the
research of Anderson (1992), Carol et al. (1986), and Goodman et al. (1997): good suburban
superintendent-board relations are characterized by shared respect, trust, support, confidence,
and the ability to openly communicate. These findings match Mountford’s (2008) research that
also found the single most important factor for superintendent success as the interaction between
the board and the superintendent.
The leadership factors frequented from the survey that contributed to superintendent
longevity were my superintendent has developed a clear, keeps student learning at the forefront
of my priorities, is a lifelong learner, maintains political acuity at the state and local level, and is
committed to issues of social justice. The findings from this research further support Waters and
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

91
Marzano (2006), who report the five district level responsibilities most used by superintendents
in creating a goal oriented district are: collaborative goal setting, non-negotiable goals for
achievement and instruction, board alignment and support of district goals, monitoring goals for
achievement and instruction, use of resources to support achievement and instruction goals.
Finally, the seven evaluation tools that were utilized to measure superintendent
effectiveness were: annual school board evaluations, mid-year school evaluations, annual cabinet
evaluations, annual district evaluations, student test scores, superintendent informational letters,
and individual board member meetings. These research findings support the research that some
school board experts perceive that the most important job of a school board of education is hiring
superintendents and holding them accountable for the management of the organization as
governed by school board policies and supported by the state (Carol et al., 1986; Goodman et al.,
1997).
In Chapter 5, there will be a discussion of the research, further conclusions and
implications of the research.

SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

92
CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS
5

Introduction
The superintendency is viewed as a critical component towards increasing student
achievement. Waters and Marzano (2006) highlight the statistical significance between the
superintendent position and overall student performance. Since the relationship is important, it
becomes significant for school districts to have effective superintendents that possess the skills to
serve students, parents, and the local community for a considerable amount of time. An effective
superintendent understands that in order to be successful in their position, communication is vital
with all stakeholders (Chance, 1991). Another key component of a successful superintendent is
the ability to enunciate a clear, shared vision, and the ability to inspire others to work towards
realizing the vision (Quinn, 2005). Successful superintendents also understand that they are
required to be knowledgeable in all areas of education such as: collaborative goal setting, non-
negotiable goals for achievement and instruction, board alignment and support of district goals,
monitoring goals for achievement and instruction, and the use of resources to support
achievement and instruction goals (Plotts, 2011). Consistent and effective superintendent
leadership is at the center of a school district’s overall success (Marshall & Ray, 2005); however,
recent data indicates the average tenure of urban superintendents as 3.18 years, where 92% of
them worked in K-12 education before being appointed superintendent (Council of the Great
City Schools, 2014).
One of the primary focuses for a suburban school superintendent is to ensure teachers are
delivering effective instruction and students learn, however, a new primary focus is navigating

5
This chapter was co-authored by Bobbi Burnett and Abram Jimenez.
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

93
and managing complex political situations at the local, state and federal level (Sergiovanni,
1990). At the local level, parents, unions, special interest groups, faith-based organizations,
board members, and district employees may have different perspectives about how the district
should conduct its affairs and cause conflict (Fuller et al., 2003). For this reason, it is important
that the board and the superintendent have a shared mission, vision, and goal. Nestor-Baker and
Hoy (2001) conducted a study that identified how successful superintendents openly support
board decisions and work to maintain unity (Johnson, 2007).
The role of superintendent has changed in recent years with more demanding roles that
include many duties, expectations and responsibilities that are tied to measurable state and
federal student performance outcomes (Berlau, 2011). Along with the new focus on student
achievement accountability, superintendents’ roles have increased as well that include, but are
not limited to: district operations, facilities manager, curriculum development, instructional
leader, controller of budget, internal and external communications, and liaison to the Board of
Education and community (Berlau, 2011). The complexity and challenges of the position (board-
superintendent relationships, finance, demographic shifts, new accountability, and public
relations) indicate why there is high turnover in the position. The job of superintendent has
become the least stable and secure position in education (Plotts, 2011). Superintendent turnover
rates are at a new high, which has created a revolving door for many districts (Berlau, 2011).
Since the adoption of the No Child Left Behind Act (USDOE, 2002), educational leaders have
higher levels of accountability and even greater scrutiny from their school board which have
placed significant challenges to suburban superintendents that have been described as impossible
(Andero, 2000).
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

94
Purpose of the Study
Suburban superintendent turnover is a problem and this research examined factors that
influence superintendent longevity. The focus of this research was be the school board member
perspectives of what factors contribute to superintendent longevity. It is important to determine
how suburban superintendents with greater than average longevity have stayed in their positions
despite all of the obstacles. The information from the research study provides insight to the
leadership characteristics and strategies that can influence and promote longevity in individuals
in positions of superintendency.
Research Questions
The following questions were used to guide the study:
1. What personal characteristics do superintendents with above average tenure in
suburban districts possess that promote longevity in their career as perceived by
school board members?
2. What personal factors do superintendents with above average tenure in suburban
districts possess that promote longevity in their career as perceived by school board
members?
3. What evaluation tool/s are used by school board members to determine the
superintendents’ effectiveness as it relates to their longevity?
Results and Findings
The findings in this study were based on the data that was collected and analyzed from
surveys and interviews. This section will interpret the findings from both the qualitative and
quantitative data collected and link these findings back to the literature review.
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

95
Research Question #1: What Personal Characteristics do Superintendents with Above
Average Tenure in Suburban Districts Possess that Promote Longevity in Their Career as
Perceived by School Board Members?
There were five findings of leadership characteristics that were reported most frequently
from the qualities and characteristics survey that was completed by 32 school board members
with regard to superintendent longevity. The first characteristic listed by the school board
members that promote superintendent longevity was that their superintendents were trustworthy
at a frequency of 32. The human resource component of the superintendent job includes
providing democracy, egalitarianism, training and security within a workforce that leads to
cohesion, trust and organizational satisfaction. Good suburban superintendent-board relations are
characterized by shared respect, trust, support, confidence, and the ability to openly
communicate (Anderson, 1992; Carol et al., 1986; Goodman et al., 1997). The second
characteristic listed from the survey was sound moral and ethical compass at a frequency of 31.
The third characteristic that was reported from the survey was that the superintendent was a
caring and empathetic leader at a frequency of 31. The superintendent leads the organization to
share common ceremonies, traditions, rituals and protocols that are valued by members within
the group (Bolman & Deal, 2003) which in fact shows that that the leader strongly cares about
the organization being served. Bolman and Deal (2003) conducted a study on leadership that
identified 89.7% of participants valued input from others. The fourth characteristic listed that
promoted superintendent longevity was being passionate and caring at 31. The Bolman and Deal
(2003) study also listed that 93.1% of the participants surveyed, contributed superintendent
longevity to caring deeply and being passionate about their job. The superintendent will
encourage autonomy and participation within their district while fostering-self management
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

96
teams that will assist with leading the district towards their mission, vision, and goals (Bolman &
Deal, 2003). The final characteristic that promoted superintendent longevity was being
consistently optimistic at 30.
There were two leadership characteristics that were reported most frequently from the
qualities and characteristics interview that was completed by 5 suburban school board members
with regard to superintendent longevity from the interviews. The top two characteristics that
were identified to promote longevity in the superintendents were educational leader and
personable. Throughout the interviews, school board members listed educational leadership as
promoting superintendent with a frequency of 40. Under the umbrella of educational leadership,
several qualities fell under that category such as: curriculum, instruction, continually learning
and seeking new answers to questions, and commitment. The second category that was stated
repeatedly was that the superintendent was personable. This was was stated by school board
members with a frequency of 26 times throughout the interviews. There were several qualities
that fell under this category as well such as: trustworthy, honesty, and approachable. Each school
board member gave a very detailed insight into the specific characteristics that have made their
superintendent personable and well liked by his/her stakeholders. They also reported how
important it is to be personable in the position of the superintendency. All school board members
discussed how the qualities listed above directly affected their superintendent’s longevity.
Research Question #2: What Personal Factors do Superintendents with Above Average
Tenure in Suburban Districts Possess that Promote Longevity in Their Career as Perceived
by School Board Members?
The demanding changes and responsibilities of a superintendent have shown that there
are certain attributes, experiences, and knowledge that promote superintendent longevity in
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

97
today’s educational setting. The areas of knowledge that have shown to have the most positive
effect on the longevity of a suburban superintendent are relationships and communication with
the school board, district employees, the community, and knowledge in the current
curriculums/standards and finance, and a district vision.
There were five frequency findings of leadership factors that were reported from the
qualities and characteristics survey by 32 school board members with regard to superintendent
longevity from the surveys. The first factor listed by the school board members that promote
superintendent longevity was a clear developed vision at 31. A study by Quinn (2005) stated a
key leadership characteristic that promotes longevity of suburban superintendents is having a
clear and concise vision for their district and effectively be able to translate this plan. A
successful superintendent must have the ability to enunciate a clear, shared vision, and the ability
to inspire others to work toward realizing the vision (Quinn, 2005). The second factor listed in
the survey was student achievement was a priority with a frequency of 31. The third factor
associated with longevity was the superintendent being a lifelong learner with a frequency of 31.
Not only should a superintendent understand areas such as finances and the appropriate
allocations of these finances, they should be fluent in the curriculum and professional
development needed for the staff and students in the district as a whole (Quinn, 2005). The role
of the superintendent now is as an instructional leader (Quinn, 2005). The fourth factor stated in
the survey was to maintain political acuity at 30. One of the primary focuses for a school
superintendent is to ensure teachers are delivering effective instruction and students learn,
however, a new primary focus is navigating and managing complex political situations at the
local, state and federal level (Sergiovanni, 1990). The fifth factor that had a positive correlation
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

98
with superintendent longevity was that the superintendent was committed to issues of social
justice at 30.
There were three leadership factors that were reported with high frequency by the
qualities and characteristics interview completed by 5 school board members with regard to
superintendent longevity. The top three factors that were identified to promote longevity in the
superintendents were school board relationships, strong delegation with district team, and
relationships with outside stakeholders. The highest frequency reported by the school board
members out of all five categories was school board relationships with a frequency of 52. There
were several categories that fell under school board relationships such as: communication,
honesty, and transparency. The study done showed that superintendents credited the community
for their success and public relations was identified key as well (Chance, 1991). The interviews
proved that the relationship between the superintendent and the school board is critical to their
longevity. This factor was one that was listed throughout all interviews. Superintendents need to
keep communication lines open with their school board and they also need to maintain a positive
relationship with them as well. The relationship component is key to a superintendent’s
longevity.
The second highest factor was that the superintendent had a strong district team at a
frequency of 34. Every school board listed these categories under the umbrella of a strong district
team: delegation, organization, strong cabinet team, strong administrative team, and trust in
district. A study done also asserted that superintendents felt open communication with school
personnel was an important attribute. One superintendent stated that involving a lot of people
was the key and another felt that creating a sense of belonging was the important factor (Chance,
1991).
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

99
The last highest factor was the superintendent had a positive relationship with all
stakeholders at a frequency of 32. There were several factors communicated from the school
board members interviewed that fell under this factor such as: visibility, students, schools,
community, communication, and collaboration. Communication is another leadership
characteristic experienced suburban superintendents keeps as important. A successful
superintendent understands that communication amongst all stakeholders is critical in his/her
tenure in that district. In their relationships with their communities, open communication was
again the key to the success of a superintendent’s longevity (Chance, 1991).
Research Question #3: What Evaluation Tool/s are Used by School Board Members to
Determine the Superintendents’ Effectiveness as it Relates to Their Longevity?
There were seven tools listed by the school board members to evaluate the
superintendents in their district, which included both formal and informal measures. The five
formal tools used to measure the superintendent’s effectiveness were: annual school board
evaluations, mid-year school board evaluations, annual cabinet evaluations, annual district
evaluations, and student test scores. The two informal tools used to measure the superintendent’s
effectiveness were: superintendent informational letters and individual school board member
meetings.
The first tool used to measure a superintendent’s effectiveness was the annual evaluation
created by the district’s school board members. Good suburban superintendent-board relations
are characterized by shared respect, trust, support, confidence, and the ability to openly
communicate (Anderson, 1992; Carol et al., 1986; Goodman et al., 1997). In a two year study
conducted of 266 urban, suburban, and rural school boards spanning 16 states, a large finding
concluded that there are ineffective procedures in place to handle conflicts between school
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

100
boards and superintendents (Danzberger et al., 1992). This study showed how important it is to
have effective and continual procedures in place to measure a superintendent’s effectiveness.
Every school board member interviewed verified that there was annual evaluation done by the
school board member that was shared with the superintendent that analyzed their effectiveness in
their position and the district for the school year.
The second tool used to measure a superintendent’s effectiveness was a mid-year
evaluation created by the district’s school board members. Only two of the five school board
members interviewed verified that there was a mid-year evaluation done by the school board
members that was shared with the superintendent that analyzed their effectiveness in their
position and the district mid-way through the school year. In a study conducted by Fuller et al.
(2003), superintendents from the 100 largest school districts indicated that 61% of
superintendents felt that school board micromanagement and/or mismanagement was a hindrance
to the effectiveness of their work. Moreover, 41% of superintendents felt the school board’s lack
of focus was an unnecessary obstacle (Fuller et al., 2003).
The third tool used to measure a superintendent’s effectiveness was an annual evaluation
created by the district’s cabinet team. Only three of the five school board members interviewed
verified that there was an annual evaluation done by the cabinet team that was shared with the
superintendent that analyzed their effectiveness in their position and the district at the end of the
school year.
The fourth tool used to measure a superintendent’s effectiveness was an annual
evaluation completed by the entire district’s certificated and classified team. Positive
relationships between suburban superintendent and their school board play a critical role in the
longevity of a superintendent. In a study conducted, eight of the twenty-four mentioned that a
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

101
stable school board was directly responsible for their longevity in the district (Chance, 1991). It
is key that suburban superintendents can manage their relationship with various stakeholders
politically correct. A successful superintendent is one who accepts three simultaneous roles: the
politician, the manager, and the teacher (Chance, 1991). Only one of the five school board
members interviewed verified that there was an annual evaluation done by the all employees in
the district that was shared with the superintendent that analyzed their effectiveness in their
position and the district at the end of the school year.
The fifth tool used to measure a superintendent’s effectiveness was analyzing the
district’s annual student test scores. Only two of the five school board members interviewed
verified that they analyzed student data to determine the effectiveness of the superintendent in
their position and the district at the end of the school year.
The sixth tool used to measure a superintendent’s effectiveness was the informational
letter/memo that the superintendent sent out to her school board and cabinet. All the
superintendents surveyed also stated that open communication was the key to their longevity.
The superintendents also mentioned the importance of keeping the members informed and
keeping the office door open (Chance, 1991). A good relationship with the board of education
should help with a superintendent’s longevity and continuity in a district (Plotts, 2011). This
informal measure varied from district to district. Some superintendents sent out a memo or letter
weekly, monthly, or quarterly to inform the school board members and cabinet of what was
occurring in the district during that time period. Only two of the five school board members
verified that their superintendent sent out informational letters/memos.
The seventh tool used to measure a superintendent’s effectiveness was individual
meetings that the superintendent coordinated with each school board member. These informal
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

102
meetings could be lunches, phone calls, car rides, or any other alone time the superintendent had
designated for each school board member. These informal meetings varied in frequency such as
weekly monthly, quarterly, semiannually, or annually. Jones and Howley’s (2009) research
suggests this struggle with superintendents and school boards is a significant challenge for many
that regularly affect their overall performance. The single most important factor for
superintendent success is the interaction between the board and the superintendent (Mountford,
2008).
Implications of the Study
In education there has been a problem of high turnover among suburban superintendents.
This study’s focus is to examine and analyze characteristics, factors, and tools that positively
affect superintendent longevity in suburban school districts. The findings from this study and
previous research will provide implications about characteristics, factors, and tools that
superintendents should consider to promote their longevity in their position as superintendent.
Characteristics
In education today, suburban superintendents are faced with much more demanding roles
than in recent previous years (Berlau, 2011). The role of the suburban superintendent has
changed to meet the twenty-first century needs of the educational population. These demanding
changes and responsibilities of a superintendent have shown that there are certain attributes,
experiences, and knowledge that promote superintendent longevity in today’s educational setting
(Berlau, 2011). With all these changes in education a successful superintendent is one who
accepts three simultaneous roles: the politician, the manager, and the teacher (Chance, 1991).
The results from this study indicated that the characteristics that attributed to
superintendent longevity frequented from the interviews and surveys were being an educational
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

103
leader, forming a positive relationship with all stakeholders, and finally being personable person.
Under these high contributing characteristic categories, there were several subcategories that
more specifically affected a suburban superintendent’s longevity which were trustworthiness,
maintaining a sound moral and ethical compass, being a caring and empathetic leader, being
passionate and caring deeply about his/her work as a superintendent, being consistently
optimistic when interacting with various stakeholders. Suburban superintendents are faced with
tough decisions daily. Since superintendents facing these struggling issues, they are required to
be knowledgeable in all areas of education (Plotts, 2011). The role of the superintendent now is
as an instructional leader (Quinn, 2005).
A consistent and effective superintendent leadership is at the center of a school district’s
overall success (Marshall & Ray, 2005). Wagner and Kegan (2006) emphasizes that these are
specific skills that are needed for a successful superintendent career with longevity and for
continuous learning in an ever-changing educational system. Therefore, it is imperative that a
superintendent is a strong instructional leader who is continuously learning, collaborating, and
forming positive relationships with all stakeholders in order sustain his/her longevity in
education.
Factors
The roles and expectations associated with the position of superintendent has transformed
from a businessman to a professional educational leader that must lead significant reform efforts,
which has made the position much more rigorous (Berlau, 2011). Since the relationship is
critical, it becomes significant for school districts to have an effective superintendent that
possesses the leadership characteristics and practices to promote longevity to serve students,
parents, and the local community for a considerable amount of time.
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

104
The results from this study indicated that the factors that attributed to superintendent
longevity frequented from the interviews and surveys were maintaining a strong positive school
board, district, and community team and relationship. Under these high contributing factor
categories, there were several subcategories that more specifically affected a suburban
superintendent’s longevity which were my superintendent has developed a clear, keeps student
learning at the forefront of my priorities, is a lifelong learner, maintains political acuity at the
state and local level, and is committed to issues of social justice.
Student achievement accountability and increased public scrutiny, amongst others, has
placed increased examination into the superintendent roles and responsibility that include, but
are not limited to: district operations, facilities manager, curriculum development, instructional
leader, controller of budget, internal and external communications, and liaison to the Board of
Education and community. Each of these essential components to the job of superintendent
require tactful leadership characteristics and practices, to successfully improve student
achievement and superintendent longevity (Berlau, 2011). Therefore a superintendent must
develop a positive working relationship with all stakeholders throughout the school district and
community. The superintendent must have situational awareness and be adaptable to every
situation to promote student achievement.
Tools
In education there have been some school board experts that have perceived that the most
important job of a school board of education is hiring superintendents and holding them
accountable for the management of the organization as governed by school board policies and
supported by the state (Carol et al., 1986; Goodman et al., 1997). Good suburban superintendent-
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

105
board relations are characterized by shared respect, trust, support, confidence, and the ability to
openly communicate (Anderson, 1992; Carol et al., 1986; Goodman et al., 1997).
Finally, the seven evaluation tools that were utilized to measure superintendent
effectiveness were: annual school board evaluations, mid year school evaluations, annual cabinet
evaluations, annual district evaluations, student test scores, superintendent informational letters,
and individual board member meetings.
Much of the power of a school board lies in their authority to both hire and fire the
superintendent which gives them indirect power over what occurs within the district (Land,
2002). There is widespread agreement that a good working relationship between the school board
and the superintendent is essential to the governance of a district (Anderson, 1992; Carol et al.,
1986; Goodman et al., 1997; Goodman & Zimmerman, 2000; Grady & Bryant, 1991; Thomas,
2001). Therefore there needs to be multiple formal and informal tools in place that properly
measure the effectiveness of a superintendent in a school district.
Summary
The major findings that were developed from this study proved that there were certain
characteristics, factors, and tools that positively promote the longevity of a suburban
superintendent. The characteristics that were found to have a positive impact on suburban
superintendent longevity were being an educational leader, forming a positive relationship with
all stakeholders, and being personable person. The factors that were linked to have a positive
effect on suburban superintendent longevity were maintaining a positive school board
relationship and developing and utilizing a strong district team. There were seven evaluation
tools that were identified to measure suburban superintendent effectiveness: annual school board
evaluations, mid year school evaluations, annual cabinet evaluations, annual district evaluations,
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

106
student test scores, superintendent informational letters, and individual board member meetings.
The role and expectation of a suburban superintendent has transformed from a businessman to a
professional educational leader, which has made the position much more rigorous (Berlau,
2011). With this in mind there needs to be further research on characteristics, factors, and tools
that have a positive impact on the longevity of a suburban superintendent.
Recommendations for Future Research
This study surveyed 32 suburban school board members and interviewed five suburban
school board members in the state of California. Findings from this study revealed additional
areas that need to be further explored. The following are recommendations for future research:
 Further explore the characteristics that support superintendent longevity.
 Further explore the factors that support superintendent longevity.
 Further explore the factors that positively affect the school board relationship.
 Further explore the tools used to measure a superintendent’s effectiveness.
 Further explore the support systems and mentorship programs in place for
superintendents.
 Further explore and investigate the causes of superintendency turnover.
 Further explore preparation programs in colleges and universities for superintendents.
Concluding Remarks
The leading factor that led to this study was the high rate of superintendent turnover in K-
12 education. This turnover rate led to see if there were characteristics, factors, and/or tools that
affect superintendent longevity. Throughout this study it became apparent that even though there
is a high level of superintendent turnover, there are characteristics, factors, and tools that can
positively affect superintendent longevity. This has led to further investigating and exploring
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

107
these areas to see what does actually promote superintendent longevity. This study provided
insight into the characteristics, factors, and tools that positively impacted superintendent
longevity. It is my hope that this study and the research provided will be used to help support and
maintain superintendents in their positions for more than three years.

SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

108
REFERENCES
Allen, P. R. (1998). Reasons for involuntary non extensions of Missouri public school
superintendent contracts in 1996. Dissertation Abstracts International, 59(9), 3292A.
Andero, A. (2000). The changing role of school superintendent with regard to curriculum policy
and decision-making. Education, 121(2), 276-286.
Anderson, C. G. (1992). Behaviors of the most effective and least effective school board
members. ERS Spectrum, 10, 15-18.
Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York, NY: Free
Press.
Bass, B., & Stogdill, R. (1990). Bass & Stogdill ’s handbook of leadership: Theory, research, and
managerial applications (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Free Press.
Berlau, D. (2011). Superintendent longevity and its relationship to student performance
(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Drake University, Des Moines, IA.
Bjork, L., & Gurley, D. (2003). Superintendents as transformative leaders in a large scale reform:
Creating a community of learners. Journal of Thought, 38(4), 37-38.
Bjork, L., & Kowalski, T. (Eds.). (2005). The contemporary superintendent: Preparation,
practice, and development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2003). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership
(3rd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Brederson, P., & Kose, B. (2007). Responding to the education reform agenda: A study of
schools’ superintendents instructional leadership. Education Policy Analysis Archives,
15(5), 2-24.
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

109
Bryant, M. T., & Grady, M. L. (1989). Superintendent turnover in rural school districts.
Educational Considerations, 16(1), 34-36.
Burnett, B. (2016). Leadership characteristics, factors and tools that support superintendent
longevity in suburban school districts: A case study (Unpublished doctoral dissertation).
University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA.
Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York, NY: Harper and Row.
Byrd, J. K., Drews, C., & Johnson, J. (2006, November 10). Factors impacting superintendent
turnover: Lessons from the field. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the University
Council of Educational Administration.
California Department of Education. (2014, November). California Basic Education Data
System. Sacramento, CA: Author. Retrieved from http://www.cde.ca.gov/ds/dc/cb/
Carol, L. N., Cunningham, L. L., Danzberger, J. P., Kirst, M. W., McCloud, B. A., & Usdan, M.
D. (1986). School boards: Strengthening grass roots leadership. Washington, D.C.:
Institute for Educational Leadership.
Carter, G. R., & Cunningham, W. G. (1997). The American school superintendent: Leading in
the age of pressure. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Chance, E. (1991). Long term rural superintendents: Characteristics and attributes. West
Lafayette, IN: National Rural Education Association.
Cooper, B., Fusarelli, L., & Carella, V. (2000). Career crisis in the superintendency? The results
of a national survey. Arlington, VA: American Association of School Administrators.
Copeland, M. E. (1993). A descriptive study of superintendent stability in rural Oklahoma
schools (Unpublished doctorial dissertation). University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK.
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

110
Council of the Great City Schools. (2014, Fall). Urban school superintendents: Characteristics,
tenure, and salary. Urban Indicator. Washington, D.C.: Author. Retrieved from
http://www.cgcs.org/cms/lib/DC00001581/Centricity/Domain/87/Urban%20Indicator_Su
perintendent%20Summary%2011514.pdf
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Cuban, L. (1984). Transforming the frog into a prince: Effective schools research and practice at
the district level. Harvard Educational Review, 54(2), 129-151.
Danzberger, J. P., Kirst, M. W., & Usdan, M. D. (1992). Governing public schools: New times,
new requirements. Washington, D.C.: Institute for Educational Leadership.
Dillman, D. A. (2000). Mail and Internet surveys: The tailored design method. New York, NY:
Wiley.
Education Writers Association. (2003, May). Effective superintendents, effective boards: Finding
the right fit (Special Report). Washington, D.C.: Author.
Ellerson, N., & McCord, R. (2009). Report of findings: One year later: How the economic
downturn continues to impact school districts. Washington, D.C.: American Association
of School Administrators.
Farkas, S., Foley, P., & Duffett, A. (2001). Just waiting to be asked. New York, NY: Public
Agenda.
Farkas, S., Johnson, J., Duffett, A., & Foleno, T. (2001). Trying to stay ahead of the game. New
York, NY: Public Agenda.
Finnan, L. (2014). Common Core and other state standards: Superintendents feel optimism,
concern and lack of support. Alexandria, VA: The School Superintendents Association.
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

111
Fullan, M. (2002). The role of leadership in the promotion of knowledge management in schools.
Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 8, 409-419.
Fuller, H., Campbell, C., Celio, M., Harvey, J., Immerwahr, J., & Winger, A. (2003). An
impossible job. The view from the urban superintendent ’s chair. Seattle, WA: Center on
Reinventing Public Education.
Fusarelli, B., & Fusarelli, L. (2003). Systemic reform and organizational change. Planning and
Change, 34(3 & 4), 169-177.
Glass, T. E., Bjork, L., & Brunner, C. C. (2000). The 2000 study of the American school
superintendency: A look at the superintendent of education in the new millennium.
Arlington, VA: American Association of School Administrators.
Goodman, R. H., Fulbright, L., & Zimmerman, W. G. (1997). Getting there from here: School
board-superintendent collaboration: Creating a school governance team capable of
raising student achievement. Arlington, VA: Educational Research Service & New
England School Development Council.
Goodman, R. H., & Zimmerman, W. G. (2000). Thinking differently: Recommendations for 21st
century school board/superintendent leadership, governance, and teamwork for high
student achievement. Arlington, VA: Educational Research Service.
Grady, M. L., & Bryant, M. T. (1991). School board turmoil and superintendent turnover: What
pushes them to the brink? School Administrator, 48, 19-26.
Grieder, C., Pierce, T. M., & Jordan, K. F. (1969). Public school administration (3rd ed.). New
York, NY: Ronald Press.
Harvey, J. (2003, February). The urban superintendent: Creating great schools while surviving
on the job. Orlando, FL: Council of the Great City Schools.
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

112
Hess, R. G. (1994). A study of school board/community organizational structures and
superintendent leadership styles (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of
Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI.
House, R. J. (1976). A 1976 theory of charismatic leadership. In J. G. Hunt & L. L. Larson
(Eds.), Leadership: The cutting edge (pp. 189-207). Carbondale: Southern Illinois
University Press.
Houston, P. D. (2006). The superintendent: Championing the deepest purposes of education.
Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, 105(1), 1-9.
doi:10.1111/j.1744-7984.2006.00060.X
Hoyle, J. R. (2007). A preparation mystery: Why some succeed and others fail. Planning and
Changing: An Educational Leadership and Policy Journal, 38(3 & 4), 148-163.
Hoyle, J., Bjork, L., Collier, V., & Glass, T. (2005). The superintendent as CEO. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Jago, A. G. (1982). Leadership: Perspectives in theory and research. Management Science, 28(3),
315-336.
Jimenez, A. (2016). Leadership characteristics, practices and board perceptions that support
superintendent longevity in urban school districts: A case study. (Unpublished doctoral
dissertation). University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA.
Johnson, G. (2007). A study of the relationships between community power structures, school
board types, superintendent leadership styles and the impact on student achievement in
Oklahoma (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK.
Jones, K., & Howley, A. (2009). Contextual influence on superintendents’ time usage. Education
Policy Analysis Archives, 17(23), 1-24.
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

113
Kirkpatrick, S. A., & Locke, E. A. (1991). Leadership: Do traits matter? The Executives, 5, 48-
60.
Konnert, W. M., & Augenstein, J. J. (1995). The school superintendency: Leading education into
the 21st century. Lancaster, PA: Technomic.
Kowalski, T. J. (2003). Superintendent shortage: The wrong problem and wrong solutions.
Journal of School Leadership, 13(3), 288-303.
Kurpius, S., & Stafford, M. (2006). Testing and measurement. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
doi:10.4135/9781412986106.
Land, D. (2002). Local school boards under review: Their role and effectiveness in relation to
students’ academic achievement. Review of Educational Research, 72(2), 229-278.
Lere, D. J. (2004). A study of the relationships between community power structures, school
board types, superintendent leadership styles and superintendent longevity in Colorado
(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Northern Colorado, Greeley, CO.
Lord, R. G., DeVader, C. L., & Alliger, G. M. (1986). A meta-analysis of the relation between
personality traits and leadership perceptions: An application of validity generalization
procedures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 402-410.
Mann, R. D. (1959). A review of the relationship between personality and performance in small
groups. Psychological Bulletin, 56, 241-270.
Marshall, R. L., & Ray, L. A. (2005). The aftershock of superintendent buyouts: An analysis of
the effects on school finance, school climate, student achievement and community
relations. National Forum of Educational Administration and Supervision Journal,
23(4E), 1-9.
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

114
Marzano, R., McNulty, B., & Waters, T. (2005). School leadership that works from research to
results. Aurora, CO: Mid-Continent Research for Education and Learning.
McCarty, D. J., & Ramsey, C. E. (1971). The school managers: Power and conflict in American
public education. Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing.
Mertens, D. (2004). Research and evaluation in education and psychology: Integrating diversity
with quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Mountford, M. (2008). Historical and current tensions among board-superintendent teams:
Symptoms or cause? In T. Asbury (Ed.), The future of school board governance:
Relevancy and revelation (pp. 81-114). New York, NY: Rowman & Littlefield
Education.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2010). Urban education in America statistics.
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences.
Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/urbaned/districts.asp
National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983, April 26). A nation at risk.
Washington, D.C.: Author.
Nestor-Baker, N. S., & Hoy, W. K. (2001). Tacit knowledge of school superintendents: Its
nature, meaning and content. Educational Administration Quarterly, 37(1), 86-129.
Newell, M. B. (1997). Factors affecting superintendent tenure in Missouri (Unpublished
doctoral dissertation). University of Missouri, Columbia, MO.
Northouse, P. G. (2007). Leadership: Theory and practice (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Orfield, G., & Lee, C. (2006). Racial transformation and the changing nature of segregation.
Cambridge, MA: The Civil Rights Project at Harvard University.
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

115
Plotts, T. (2011). A multiple regression analysis of factors concerning superintendent longevity
continuity relative to student achievement (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Seton Hall
University, South Orange, NJ.
Quinn, R. (1996). Discovering the leader within. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Quinn, T. (2005). Factors influencing superintendent longevity in Pennsylvania (Unpublished
doctoral dissertation). Widener University, Chester, PA.
Rausch, L. M. (2001). Factors contributing to exits from the superintendency in Indiana.
Dissertation Abstracts International, 62(4), 1290A.
Rooney, D., & McKenna, B. (2007). Wisdom in organizations: Whence and Whither. Social
Epistemeology, 21(2), 113-138.
Sergiovanni, T. J. (1990). Value added leadership: How to get extraordinary performance in
schools. New York, NY: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Sharp, W. L., & Walter, J. K. (1997). The school superintendent: The profession and the person.
Lancaster, PA: Technomic.
Smith, B. J. (1998). Community power structures, school board types and superintendent
leadership styles in North Carolina (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). North Carolina
State University, Raleigh, NC.
Spring, J. (1984). The structure of power in an urban school system: A study of Cincinnati
school politics. Curriculum Inquiry, 14, 401-424.
Stogdill, R. M. (1948). Personal factors associated with leadership: A survey of the literature.
Journal of Psychology, 25, 35-71.
Stogdill, R. M. (1974). Handbook of leadership: A survey of theory and research. New York,
NY: Free Press.
SUPERINTENDENT LONGEVITY IN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

116
Thomas, J. Y. (2001). The public school superintendency in the twenty-first century: The quest to
define effective leadership (CRESPAR Tech. Rep. No. 55). Baltimore, MD: Johns
Hopkins University, Center for Social Organization of Schools.
U.S. Department of Education. (2002, January 8). No Child Left Behind Act of 2001.
Washington, D.C.: Office of Elementary and Secondary Education. Retrieved from
http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/107-110.pdf
Wagner, T., & Kegan, R. (2006). Change leadership: A practical guide to transforming our
schools. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Waters, T., & Marzano, R. (2006). School leadership that works: The effect of superintendent
leadership on student achievement. A working paper. Denver, CO: Mid-Continent
Research for Education and Learning.

Abstract (if available)

Abstract The purpose of this study was to identify leadership characteristics, factors and evaluation tools that support superintendent longevity in suburban school districts. Five school board members from suburban school districts that have been in their positions for a minimum of one full term of four years were surveyed and interviewed to obtain an understanding of the characteristics, the leadership factors, and the evaluation tools that they perceived positively promoted longevity in the position of a suburban superintendent. In addition, 32 suburban school board members, who have been in their positions for a minimum of one full term of four years, were surveyed to identify their understanding of characteristics, factors and evaluation tools that support superintendent longevity. The design that utilized for this study was mixed method including both the qualitative and quantitative approach. The conceptual framework utilized for this study was based on Creswell’s six steps of the research process. These six steps are: (1) identification of the research problem (2) review of the literature (3) specification of the purpose for the research (4) data collection (5) analyzing and interpreting the data (6) reporting and evaluating the research. This conceptual framework was designed to be a mixed-method research study and was conducted using both the use of interviews and surveys. The information from this research study provides insight about suburban superintendent leadership characteristics, factors and evaluation tools that can directly impact and influence individuals who are interested in becoming a superintendent in suburban school districts.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Superintendent's leverage: a case study of strategies utilized by an urban school district superintendent to improve student achievement

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Strategies used by superintendents in developing leadership teams

PDF

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

PDF

The impact of formalized school board training on California school districts

PDF

Increasing Latino access to higher education: A suburban district's design and implementation

PDF

Traits, skills, and competencies contributing to superintendent longevity

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Superintendent stewardship in California school districts with continuously-improving API scores: reflections on the act of leadership

PDF

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

Asset Metadata

Creator Ryan, Mariana L. (author)

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

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 01/13/2016

Defense Date 11/10/2015

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

Tag longevity,OAI-PMH Harvest,suburban school districts,suburban superintendents

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

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

Creator Email marianlr@usc.edu,mryan1224@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c40-203565

Unique identifier UC11278567

Identifier etd-RyanMarian-4069.pdf (filename),usctheses-c40-203565 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-RyanMarian-4069.pdf

Dmrecord 203565

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Ryan, Mariana L.

Type texts

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

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

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

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