University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

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

(USC Thesis Other)

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

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

THE ROLE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT IN ENSURING
SCHOOL BOARD FOCUS ON STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT

by
Elizabeth Hall Hamilton

______________________________________________________________

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

May 2012

Copyright 2012 Elizabeth Hall Hamilton

ii
DEDICATION

My husband, Manuel Pastor, works harder than anyone I know. He has
spent the last 3 years taking care of all the life duties—cooking, paying bills,
getting the car repaired—that allowed me to focus on my studies. I could not
have completed this program without his support.
I also dedicate this to my children, Anna Eliza and Joaquín, for lifting my
spirits and contributing greatly to my happiness.
Finally, I owe a debt of gratitude to my mother, Natalie Hamilton, whose
intellect, humor and compassion live through me despite her passing at a young
age; and to my father, Douglas Hamilton, for his passion for life and for learning,
and for promising to stay alive long enough to see me graduate.

iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to express my gratitude first and foremost to Dr. Pedro E.
Garcia, whose consistent support, encouragement and prodding ensured that I
would complete this task. As he frequently reminded us in our courses, “The
point of the exercise is to DO the exercise.”
My gratitude also goes to Dr. Rudy Castruita, as co-chair of my
dissertation committee, co-professor of the Superintendency course, and general
mentor throughout the program. Many thanks also go to Dr. Rudy Crew, an
esteemed professor who served on my committee and whose questions prompted
deeper reflection.
Finally, I would like to acknowledge my mentor, friend and boss, Dr.
Ellen Dougherty. She has contributed to my personal and professional growth by
her exemplary leadership, deeply reflective thought, and well-developed values
and ethics. She is living proof of “leadership with soul.”

iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS

DEDICATION ii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS iii
ABSTRACT vii
CHAPTER 1 OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY 1
Background 1
Statement of the Problem 5
Purpose of the Study 7
Significance of the Study 8
Summary of Methodology 8
Assumptions 9
Limitations 9
Delimitations 10
Definitions of Terms 10
CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW 12
Framework: Foundation of Superintendent/Board Relations and
Current Challenges 13
The Role of the Superintendent in Ensuring that the School Board is
Focused on Student Achievement 15
Superintendent Role in Managing and Sustaining Focus on Student
Achievement 19
Alignment of Central Office Departments and School Personnel 19
Successfully Navigating Political and Cultural Contexts 24
The Role of Communication in Leading and Leveraging Context 25
Accountability to the Community: Superintendent and Board Roles and
Relations 27
Superintendent Evaluation and Student Achievement 29
CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY 34
Research Question and Sub-Questions 35
Sample and Population 36
Research Design 38
Quantitative Data Collection Procedures 39
Qualitative Data Collection Procedures 40
Document Review 40

v
Interviews 40
Observations 41
Data Collection and Analysis Plan and Timeline 42
Validity 42
Ethical Considerations 43
Summary 43
CHAPTER 4 FINDINGS 44
Data Collection: Surveys, Interviews, Observations, and Document
Review 44
Research Questions 46
Research Question 1: Communication 47
Research Question 2: Orientation and Training of the Board 61
Research Question 3: Evaluation of Superintendent 74
Research Question 4: Community Support 85
Four Additional Questions 91
CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION 95
Background and Purpose 95
Summary of Findings 96
Protocols and Practices for Board-Superintendent Communication 96
Orientation and Training of Board Members 97
Superintendent Evaluation Protocols 99
Community Support 100
Implications for Practice 102
Implications for Future Research 104
Conclusions 105
REFERENCES 107
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A ELECTRONIC SURVEY PROTOCOL FOR
SUPERINTENDENTS 113
APPENDIX B SUPERINTENDENT INTERVIEW PROTOCOL 115
APPENDIX C RESEARCH INTRODUCTION LETTER 117
APPENDIX D INFORMATION SHEET FOR NON-MEDICAL
RESEARCH 118

vi
LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Questionnaire Responses Regarding Communication 49

Table 2. Superintendent Interviews: Protocols or Practices for
Communication with Board Members 54

Table 3. Questionnaire Responses Regarding Board Orientation and
Training 63

Table 4. Superintendent Interview: Protocols or Practices for Board
Training and Orientation 71

Table 5. Questionnaire Responses Regarding Evaluation of the
Superintendent 77

vii
ABSTRACT

The purpose of the study was to identify superintendent practices and
protocols that contribute to the ability of the urban superintendent to establish and
sustain a school board focus on student achievement as the highest organizational
priority of a school district.
The study was conducted utilizing mixed qualitative and quantitative
methods. A survey of 23 urban superintendents in the Los Angeles area was
completed and interviews were conducted with 4 superintendents. Numerous
school district documents were reviewed and analyzed.
Four particular areas of superintendent/board relations and superintendent
practices were examined: superintendent/board communication protocols, board
training and orientation regarding student achievement, superintendent evaluation,
and community support for student achievement.
The findings in the area of communication included the need for frequent,
focused and purposeful communication, utilization of a variety of communication
methods, and differentiation of communication methods and styles to meet the
needs of different board members. The findings in the area of board orientation
and training and superintendent evaluation included the importance of outside
consultants or organizations in ensuring effective training of the board in
governance responsibilities and in effective evaluation of the superintendent. The
findings in the area of community support included superintendents moving

viii
beyond legally mandated or traditional organizations and considering cultural
context in defining community.

1
CHAPTER 1
OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY

Background
The role and responsibilities of the school district superintendent have
changed significantly over the past century. During the first half of the twentieth
century, school districts generally did not have superintendent evaluation systems
in place. During the last few decades, concurrent with business initiatives to
evaluate executives, school districts began to utilize instruments and processes
developed in the for-profit world. Models such as management by objectives
(MBO) or continuous improvement made their way into education, and
superintendents began to be evaluated by their ability to ensure cost savings and
efficiencies in management of personnel and property (Hoyle & Skrla, 1999)
With the development of state and federal accountability systems under
the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) (2002) legislation, school districts came to be
held accountable for the delivery of educational outcomes, not just educational
services. Similarly, the role of school boards and the relationship between school
boards and superintendents has changed considerably under increased public
scrutiny and accountability for student achievement results.
Significant research exists on the roles of the classroom teacher and the
principal in effecting instructional outcomes and providing instructional

2
leadership. Administrative and teacher leadership research highlights the
leadership role of the school principal as central to effecting continuous
improvement resulting in increased student achievement (Marks & Printy, 2003)
Marzano’s meta-analysis of school leadership identifies those qualities and
characteristics of effective principals that correlate highly with student
achievement. Of the 21 characteristics, 3 connect directly to student achievement:
Knowledge of and involvement in curriculum, instruction and assessment;
monitoring and evaluating effective instructional practices; and provision of
teachers with materials and professional development necessary for success
(Marzano, Waters & McNulty, 2005) Current research indicates the imperative of
focused goals for student achievement and alignment of the school board,
superintendent, central office staff, and site leadership (MacIver & Farley, 2003;
Marzano & Waters, 2009).
Principals and other instructional leaders benefit from guidance about
curricular choices and instructional program decisions. The district office should
provide principals and teachers with professional learning around standards-based
instruction and curricular frameworks. The alignment of curriculum, instruction,
and assessment is essential for student achievement (MacIver & Farley, 2003).
The superintendent is the linchpin of the entire system: He or she can
work to establish and maintain effective relations with the board so that they
support the superintendent, and the superintendent can direct the work of assistant

3
superintendents to align their efforts and resources in service to effective
instruction and student achievement. The superintendent must establish non-
negotiable, board-approved goals for instruction and achievement, and evaluate
the work of assistant superintendents through the lens of how effectively they
focus their fiscal and human resources to support those goals (Marzano & Waters,
2009).
Identifying common interests and objectives between school sites and
district offices and organizing the school district office in a “customer service”
model of support rather than top-down directive or control has also proved to be
supportive of higher levels of student achievement. Utilizing a consulting model
and assigning district office personnel as supportive partners to certain school
sites is one way of increasing communication between sites and the central office,
increasing central office knowledge of site issues, and addressing barriers to
student achievement in a collaborative manner. This type of model cannot be
implemented without superintendent and board support (Glaser & Toscano,
2008).
Once the superintendent has established board-approved goals for
instruction and achievement, systems of assessment and monitoring of student
progress must be established. Best practices in utilizing assessments to inform
instruction include setting clear expectations for student learning, providing an
academically rigorous curriculum, and ensuring fair and credible evaluation. All

4
curricula and assessments should be aligned with state content standards, and
students should know the criteria upon which their performance is assessed.
(Resnick, 2003).
Collaborative goal-setting, establishing non-negotiable goals for
achievement and instruction, and monitoring progress toward meeting goals are
three areas in which districts both support principals and hold them accountable
for results. It is not possible to evaluate progress in the absence of a consistent
system of formative and summative measurements. Accountability for
performance must be specific and concretized in order for performance gaps be
addressed. (Marzano & Waters, 2009).
District and site leaders are responsible for maintaining a sustained focus
on utilizing results to evaluate programmatic or instructional efficacy. Leaders
can create a results-oriented culture by co-creating a vision and building staff
capacity for change, buffering staff from unnecessary non-instructional activities
or distractions, and focusing the staff and resources on a few high-leverage
initiatives (DuFour & Burnette, 2002).
As adult learners, principals and teachers need embedded professional
development, where authentic learning that is applicable to the work of teaching
and leading is integrated into the work day (Butler, 2002). This means a retooling
of the roles of the district office personnel responsible for professional
development, moving away from a classroom instruction or workshop mode, and

5
toward an apprenticeship or coaching model. Finally, it is not enough to release
teachers with substitutes and declare become a professional learning community.
District and school leaders must themselves demonstrate learning by doing and
must provide differentiated guidance to teacher groups in how to engage in
constructive dialogue focused on student work (DuFour, Eaker & Many, 2006).
There is consensus in the literature regarding the imperative of
superintendent and board leadership in effecting a focus on student achievement
as a necessary component to student academic success. The board relies on the
leadership of the superintendent to translate multiple public, legal, and fiscal
pressures into a coherent, student-focused mission. The superintendent relies on
the support of the board to carry out programmatic initiatives.
What is not well understood is how the board and superintendents operate
together to effect a system-wide focus on student learning as the highest
organizational priority. What, then, is the role of the superintendent in developing
organizational focus and efficacy in support of student achievement outcomes?

Statement of the Problem
The primary function of a school district is to educate children. It is no
longer sufficient for a superintendent to establish efficacy in board and civic
relations, facilities development, and collective bargaining management. In the
post-NCLB accountability environment, a superintendent must harness the

6
resources and align the efforts of the school board, district departments, school
leadership, and community partners in the service of student achievement. Of the
numerous responsibilities of urban superintendents, instructional leadership has
become paramount.
School districts are complex organizations with multiple functions, and
school boards are comprised of elected representatives with varied levels of
knowledge or experience in the world of public education. The board relies on
the leadership of the superintendent to translate multiple public, legal, and fiscal
pressures into a coherent, student-focused mission. Beginning with the school
board, the superintendent must ensure that the school district is focused on student
achievement as its primary objective. The superintendent must have the
knowledge, skills and attributes necessary to ensure that the school board
maintains a focus on student achievement as well.
The problem is that insufficient information exists regarding the specific
practices superintendents deploy to establish and sustain such an organizational
focus, beginning with the board of trustees. Beginning with the
superintendent/board relationship makes sense: Even when a superintendent’s
leadership of district staff results in continuous improvement of student learning,
system-wide reform efforts can be dashed by poor superintendent/board relations.
Being an effective instructional leader, it turns out, is not enough. A review of the

7
literature indicates that the single most common reason for boards to non-reelect
superintendents is “poor communication.”

Purpose of the Study
The purpose of the study was to identify what superintendent practices
contribute to the ability of an urban school district superintendent to ensure a
school board focus on, and support of, student achievement outcomes as the
primary organizational objective.
The research question guiding this study is: What are the protocols or
practices superintendents deploy in developing and managing
superintendent/board relations in order to achieve a school district focus on
student achievement?
The sub-questions guiding the study are:
1. What are the protocols or practices for superintendent/board
communication?
2. What orientation and training regarding student achievement is
provided to the board, and by whom?
3. What are the superintendent evaluation protocols and procedures,
and how do they address student achievement?
4. How does the superintendent work with the board to create
community support for a student achievement focus?

8

Significance of the Study
The study will contribute to knowledge about school superintendent/board
relations in developing and sustaining school districts’ focus on and efficacy in
raising student achievement.
The study will assist practitioners (superintendents, aspiring
superintendents, school board members) in understanding the components of
effective superintendent/board relations in the area of student achievement.
The study will assist professional organizations (Association of California
School Administrators, California School Boards Association, etc.) and
universities in providing information about what leadership skills and attributes
superintendents must develop and what protocols and practices they must employ
in order to align board and staff in ensuring continuous improvement in student
achievement.

Summary of Methodology
A review of the literature on the role of superintendents and boards in
shaping student achievement focus and outcomes was conducted. A mixed-
quantitative and qualitative approach was utilized. The quantitative component
consisted of an electronic survey with 20 closed-ended and 3 open-ended
questions. The survey was sent to 46 superintendents who met the criteria for the

9
study. The survey was completed by 23 superintendents. The qualitative
component was composed of in-person interviews with four superintendents, two
board members, and two assistant superintendents responsible for student
achievement.

Assumptions
1. The primary mission of schools and school districts is student
learning.
2. School board focus and priorities influence staff focus and
priorities.
3. The superintendent has the potential to influence the school board
and its priorities.
4. The superintendent has the potential to influence student
achievement.

Limitations
This study included the following limitations:
1. The dissertation must be completed in order to participate in the
May 2012 graduation, and all data must be collected and analyzed
within this time frame.

10
2. Data from others (superintendents, board members, district staff)
may not be reliable, due to discrepancies in self-reporting of
interviewees as well as potential bias of the researcher.

Delimitations
The delimitations of this study are:
1. The superintendents are from medium-sized urban school districts
in California.
2. The superintendents have a minimum of 3 years of tenure in their
school district.
3. The school districts have demonstrated increased student academic
achievement during the 3 years of superintendent tenure.

Definitions of Terms
Accountability: Systems and practices designed to hold individuals and
groups accountable for student achievement outcomes.
Assessments: Instruments that evaluate student learning and progress.
Instructional Leadership: The active involvement of principals and
teachers in collaborative learning in the areas of curriculum development,
instructional efficacy, and analyzing assessment data to improve teaching and
learning (Marks & Printy, 2003)

11
Student achievement: Demonstrated skills and knowledge, usually
through results of performance on formative and summative assessments of
student learning.
Urban superintendent: Superintendent of a school district in a
metropolitan area.

12
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW

The review of the literature is divided into five sections that explored the
superintendent/board relationship as it relates to establishing and sustaining a
board focus on student achievement as the highest organizational objective of
public, urban school districts.
The primary mission of a school district is the education of children. The
system of public education in the United States operates within a structure of
elected boards and hired (or, less frequently, appointed) superintendents who
work under the direction of the board. Societal demands and changes in
government education policy have prompted a shift in requirements of school
districts from a focus on accountability for fiscal integrity and facilities
maintenance toward accountability for student learning.
The first section of the literature review explores the foundations of this
system and the shift in focus of school boards and superintendents over time.
Current governance challenges faced by superintendents as they lead and manage
school districts are explored. The second section explores how superintendents
develop a board focus on student achievement, and the third section addresses
how this focus is managed and sustained. Special attention is given to issues of
alignment of district departments and school-site leadership toward the objective

13
of student achievement, and the importance of effective superintendent/board
communication. The fourth section addresses the circumstance of board
accountability to the larger community, and how the superintendent engages and
enjoins the community in support of establishing student achievement as the top
priority. The fifth area is the role of superintendent evaluation as it relates to the
ability of the superintendent to effect a board focus on student achievement.

Framework: Foundation of Superintendent/Board
Relations and Current Challenges
This section explores the roles and responsibilities of the superintendent,
in particular as it relates to systems of governance of school districts. An
historical overview of the role of the superintendency indicates that the changes in
responsibilities coincide with the larger social and political context. Historian
Raymond Callahan concluded that from 1865 to 1965, four separate role
conceptualizations of superintendent—teacher-scholar, business manager,
statesman, and applied social scientist—had emerged (Kowalski, McCord,
Petersen, Young, & Ellerson, 2011).
Since the 1970s, the context of school governance has changed and
become more complex. Studies of board dynamics have looked at school board
tendencies to shift roles from policy-making to administration. During this
period, the role of the superintendent was to manage a system that balances these

14
two functions, with the board occupying the policymaking position and the staff
implementing policy. In the past two decades, and in particular since the passage
in 2001 of the No Child Left Behind legislation, the effects of societal demands
and state and federal accountability requirements have influenced school systems
and their governance. Local school boards were once primarily responsible for
“bonds, budgets, buses and buildings,” but an increasing emphasis on student
achievement has emerged (Porch & Protheroe, 2003, p. 2).
Concurrent with the emergence of the accountability movement, the
United States transitioned from a manufacturing base to an information base.
With this transition came increasing emphasis on the role of the superintendent as
chief communicator. Superintendents are the key organizational arbiters of
political and social messaging in highly public organizations. The content and
intensity of political activity changes with district size, but all districts exist in a
political context that must be encountered and managed by district leadership.
Superintendents of large districts are subject to political pressures to a greater
degree than those leading small or medium-sized districts (Kowalski, et al., 2011).
A nationwide decennial study of superintendents outlines five major roles
of the superintendency. The 2010 study surveyed 1,838 superintendents, 76 of
whom were from California. Of the five responsibility areas, the highest level of
substantial emphasis was placed on being an effective communicator, followed by
manager, instructional leader, statesman/democratic leader, and applied social

15
scientist. Respondents identified personal characteristics, potential to be a change
agent, and ability to be an instructional leader as the top three reasons that boards
selected them for the superintendency. Male respondents thought that personal
characteristics were most important, while female respondents identified
instructional leadership ability as most important in their selection (Kowalski, et
al., 2011).
Respondents in a 2001 survey of 2,000 school district board members
reported that funding and student achievement were leading topics of concern.
Emphasis on student achievement, in particular, increased significantly in the
1990s. Seventy-three percent of respondents reported that the percentage of board
time spent on issues directly related to student achievement increased during their
board tenure. In large (25,000+) districts, 24.7% of board members spent an
average of more than 70 hours monthly on board business, while in small districts
(less than 5,000), 0.8% spend more than 70 hours monthly on board business
(Hess, 2002).

The Role of the Superintendent in Ensuring that the School Board
is Focused on Student Achievement
When first hired, a superintendent wishing to focus on student
achievement can seek positions in districts where boards have established this as a
priority. Even so, as board members change, the superintendent must develop

16
systems that ensure orientation of new members and focus on student learning as
the highest priority. For districts with little or no board focus on student
achievement, the challenge for the superintendent is greater.
As school superintendents and boards have shifted focus from fiscal and
facilities management to a greater accountability for student learning, the
orientation and training for school board members has changed. Most training
and education of board members occurs through state organizations (such as the
California School Boards Association) and through direct influence of or training
by the superintendent.
As elected officials with few requirements for candidacy, school board
members assume their positions with a limited understanding of either their role
as policymakers or their role as a member of a governing body. Without a
framework for understanding their role and the context within which they operate,
they are vulnerable to an array of external influences over which they have
minimal control. In a 2010 nationwide study of superintendents, the most
frequent provider of orientation for new board members was the superintendent,
followed by state school board associations, and board members themselves
(Kowalski, et al., 2011).
Along with the increasing complexity of governance and rise in school
district accountability systems has been a striking increase in amount of time
superintendents spend communicating with board members, as well as an increase

17
in the provision of orientation and training for board members. In 2000, only
55% of superintendents and only 26% of state school board associations provided
new school board members with an orientation. In 2010, 89.7% reported that the
superintendent-oriented board members, and 72.2% reported that state school
board associations oriented new members (Kowalski, et al., 2011).
Superintendents make recommendations on nearly all issues presented to
school boards for approval. Kowalski et al. (2011) reported that 97% of
responding superintendents said that boards approved their recommendations at
least 80% of the time. This same study asked superintendents to identify the level
of influence of a variety of stakeholders, including themselves, and 87.2% of
responding superintendents felt they had “considerable influence” with the school
board. The next most influential stakeholder group was parents (with 32.1% of
respondents reporting “considerable” influence) and other district administrators
(with 30.5% of respondents reporting “considerable” influence).
Similar to the district size effect on level of politicization of
superintendent activity, superintendents from small and medium sized districts
spent less time in direct communication with board members. Hess (2002) found
that in each of 11 categories of board member training, large district boards
exceeded medium and small districts in amount of training provided. In the area
of board and superintendent relations, 88% of large districts, 79% of medium, and
77% of small districts provided training. In the area of student achievement, 75%

18
of large districts, 65.7% of medium districts and 59.5% of small districts provided
board member training.
Calweti and Protherone (2007) studied high-achieving districts serving
students from low-income families, with high percentage of students of color and
English learners. The authors attributed districts’ academic success to strong
superintendent leadership, along with school boards who were willing and able to
publicly recognize challenges, plan strategy, and build support for needed
reforms. Two of the 10 principles that the authors identified as necessary for
district success were establishment of high expectations and focused leadership,
and engagement of school boards and community leaders. School-board
collaboration with the superintendent was key to reform efforts. The challenge of
such district reform efforts was to achieve a balance between comprehensiveness
and a focus on key initiatives. Accurate assessment of current staff and
institutional capacity was viewed as an important component to success. Caution
was advised in taking a top-down stance, which can create resistance and slow
reform efforts.
In summary, superintendents have increased the amount of time they
spend communicating with and training board members. Comparing 2000 to
2010, superintendents were almost twice as likely to have provided orientation for
new board members. This gives historically unprecedented access and influence
by superintendents over board members’ knowledge and perspective of their role

19
and responsibility. The vast majority of policy recommendations made by
superintendents were approved by boards in both 2000 and in 2010, which speaks
to the essential leadership role of the superintendent in shaping the direction of
the district and the activities of district personnel.

Superintendent Role in Managing and
Sustaining Focus on Student Achievement
This section of the literature review is divided into three areas.
First is an examination of the superintendent’s ability to effect alignment
of district departments and school staff in focusing on student achievement
objectives. The second area looks at the ability of the superintendent to
successfully navigate the political realities of the district, and leverage the culture
of the district toward a focus on student achievement. The third area explores the
interpersonal and communication skills employed by the superintendent as those
skills support or enhance the superintendent’s efficacy in district leadership,
political maneuvering, and cultural context.

Alignment of Central Office Departments
and School Personnel
Once a superintendent has succeeded in attaining a board focus on student
achievement, maintaining that focus over time requires that the entire

20
organization support and sustain that focus. Despite decades of multiple reform
efforts which have led to improved student achievement results at individual
schools, urban public school districts have rarely been able to achieve excellence
on a broad scale. While excellent principals can create good schools in a low-
performing district, only district-level leadership can transform culture and
practices to ensure that all schools excel. This indicates the need for systemic
reform that does not rely solely or primarily on the efficacy of school site
leadership (Childress, Elmore, & Grossman, 2006).
Superintendents are uniquely positioned to direct the work of central
office and site leadership and shape the perspectives of school district personnel.
Prior to the era of accountability for student learning results, district departments
mirrored those of other public and private organizations, where
departmentalization ensured separate and distinct functions. Shifting
departments from independent operations to functioning in an integrated and
collaborative way requires superintendent leadership. Specifically, the
superintendent must develop board-approved, non-negotiable goals for student
achievement and must educate and enjoin staff in supporting aligned efforts
toward achieving those goals (Marzano & Waters, 2009)
Only the superintendent is able to direct human and material resources
toward a district-wide strategy for improving instruction in the classroom, and
only the district office can create a coherent plan, hire and train staff, develop

21
instructional leaders, establish district systems for monitoring student progress,
and hold staff accountable for results (Childress, et al., 2006)
Leadership is second only to classroom instruction in terms of effects on
student learning. The superintendent either directly supervises principals, or
supervises the staff that oversees principal work. Together, the superintendent
and district-level staff influence principals and schools through the establishment
of vision, mission and goals, and through overseeing curriculum and instruction.
Superintendents in high-performing districts establish high expectations of
principals, teachers and students, and ensure that principals are highly visible and
make frequent classroom visits (Protheroe, 2006).
Waters and Marzano (2007) identified a correlation between district-level
leadership and behavior and achievement, finding a one standard deviation
increase in district-level leadership to be associated with a 9.5 percentile point
difference in mean student achievement. Twenty-one school-level leadership
responsibilities and six areas of district-level responsibilities were identified as
having a significant impact on student achievement. Waters and Marzano (2007)
identifies attainment of student achievement goals as correlated with the extent to
which the superintendent:
1. Engages in collaborative goal setting with the board and principals.
2. Establishes non-negotiable goals for achievement and instruction based on
research and evidence.

22
3. Ensures board alignment and support of district goals for achievement and
instruction.
4. Ensures the use of resources to support achievement and instruction goals,
including professional development necessary to reach instructional goals.
5. Establishes effective systems for monitoring goals for achievement and
instruction.
6. Establishes a relationship of defined autonomy with the schools, in which
the superintendent provides autonomy to principals to lead their schools as
long as they align with district goals and are accountable for results.
Waters and Marzano (2007) also found that stability in superintendent
leadership matters when it comes to student achievement. The available data
indicate the effect of superintendent tenure is (r) .19, which appears after 2 years
and is evident at least through year 10. In contrast, superintendent tenure effect
size is greater than that of the average effect of CSR (class size reduction), a
reform effort widely believed to be linked to increased student achievement.
Childress, Elmore and Grossman (2006) made a series of
recommendations for urban superintendents interested in achieving systemic
change in support of high levels of student achievement. Establishing clear
district-level strategies for reform help avoid the tendency for urban school
boards to spend inordinate amounts of time on matters unrelated to student

23
achievement. Former superintendent Carl Cohn of Long Beach recommended
engaging board members in developing and then supporting district initiatives.
Strategies should be consistent across schools throughout the district, and
the central office should provide support systems that free up principals to focus
on instruction. The coherence of district-wide efforts are important not just for
the sake of conformity, but because well-orchestrated and aligned efforts
reinforce each other and create a context for high performance. Reform efforts
that are implemented haphazardly, on the other hand, can constrain reform
efforts. Human and material resources should be allocated in alignment with and
in support of district strategy. Utilization of allocation formulas, for example,
can help to ensure that resources go where an established need exists (Childress,
et al., 2006).
A central feature of a district with alignment between district office and
site personnel is a professional development system that pairs purposeful support
of continuous learning with high expectations for students and staff alike.
District policies and resources help school staff build their capacity to provide
more effective instruction. Districts with success in raising student achievement
provide data and assist with analysis and interpretation of data. They provide
instructional coaching and time for teacher collaboration, and require school
plans to align district and site goals, focusing on how student needs will be met
(Filby, 2000).

24
Successfully Navigating Political and Cultural Contexts
Successful superintendents are deft at navigating political minefields, both
internally and externally. Maintaining a sustained focus in the context of myriad
pressures requires establishing systems that ensure decisions are filtered through
the lens of student achievement. Malen describes micropolitics as implicit and
explicit processes leveraged by individuals or groups within an organization. The
purpose of these behaviors is to
acquire and exercise power to promote and protect their interests . . .
Superintendents must stay on top of the micropolitical goings on in their
districts. It is not a question of whether or not a superintendent will play
politics; the only question is how well and how ethically he or she will be.
(Hoyle& Skrla, 1999).
School boards and superintendents may be partners in governance of
school districts, but they have different roles: boards have been charged with
governance, and superintendents with management. Elected boards are beholden
to their public constituency. Some cities have appointed boards, in part to avoid
the special interests and micromanaging that can occur with elected boards.
Either way, boards represent the culture and politics of the community in which
they reside, and superintendents must learn to navigate this context successfully.
When board members have little or no experience with governance or knowledge
of how school districts function, the superintendent may assume a governance
role (McAdams, Wisdom, Glover, McClellan, 2006).

25
The Role of Communication in Leading
and Leveraging Context
With the first wave of school reform in the 1980s, superintendents began
to be charged with restructuring and transforming schools and districts. This shift
is founded in the assumption that organizational characteristics of districts and
schools, and especially institutional culture, must be reformed at the local level.
Concurrent with the rise in responsibility for reform was the increasing reliance
on schools to address societal challenges posed by crime, poverty, violence,
immigration, and the increase in single-parent families. Within the context of the
reform role, the purpose of superintendent communication has shifted over the
past three decades. Originally, there were four main functions: informing,
instructing, evaluating, and influencing. Then a new function was added.
Superintendents were now expected to utilize communication as a way to initiate
and facilitate school improvement, through collaboration with numerous
stakeholders (Kowalski, et.al 2011).
Kowalksi, et.al also found that the quality of relationships between
superintendents and school boards have leadership and policy implications that
directly affect the quality of school districts’ educational programs. Poor
superintendent/board relationships can weaken district stability and morale, and
call into question the superintendent’s trustworthiness and credibility. As it
relates to student achievement, poor communication and dysfunctional

26
relationships can impede collaborative visioning and increase conflict over district
instructional goals and objectives.
Superintendents must understand and manage conflict effectively, which
requires a complex set of interpersonal and communication skills. The
superintendent position requires the ability to communicate effectively at many
levels of the organization, internally, and externally. Paramount is the ability of
the superintendent to communicate effectively with his or her board members.
Poor communication is cited most often as the reason for termination of
superintendent contracts. Examples abound of urban superintendents succeeding
in reform efforts in support of student achievement, only to be terminated by the
board over matters having little or nothing to do with instruction or student
achievement.
Poor communication’ has become code for a wide range of negative
factors in superintendent/board relationships. Superintendents who fail to
communicate adequately with the board, either by commission or
omission, create “hidden agendas” that lead to mistrust, suspicion,
excessive conflict, and micromanagement by board members. (Hoyle &
Skrla, 1999, p. 407)
When the culture or shared assumptions in a school district are negative
and counterproductive to school improvement, the superintendent has a key role
to play in effecting cultural change. Superintendents are chief change agents who
must communicate their vision and beliefs, gradually enjoining others in sharing
their perspective in order to influence school and district effectiveness. If beliefs,
for example, about students’ ability to learn, are negative, then it is incumbent

27
upon the superintendent to identify the harmful effects of such beliefs, dissuade
constituencies (employees, board members and community members) of such
beliefs, and reconstruct the culture to ensure high expectations for students and
purposeful action toward that end (Fullan, 2001)

Accountability to the Community: Superintendent
and Board Roles and Relations
As elected representatives, board members are accountable to the
community. How does the superintendent create and leverage the support of the
community, civic, and business partners in establishing a district focus on student
achievement?
Increasingly, local school boards are charged with ensuring that broader
state and federal educational requirements are met while translating local
values and priorities into policies to meet the goals and aspirations of
parents, taxpayers, and local businesses. By engaging their
communities . . . school boards create a culture that supports schools in
their main mission: raising student achievement. (Resnick &
Bryant, 2010, p. 11)

Boards make a regular effort to obtain community input on a variety of
issues. `This tendency is especially strong in large districts and may be attributed
to the greater diversity of their constituencies and complexity of educating a
larger and more diverse student population. Most school boards have created
formal opportunities for community members to voice their concerns (Hess,
2002). Kowalski found that board members in large districts are substantially

28
more concerned about relations between the superintendent and community
leaders, as well as the success of educational reforms, than are their peers in
smaller districts. Citizens were more likely to be involved in extracurricular
activities in smaller districts. The three issues identified as having the most
frequent citizen involvement were long-range planning, constructing a district or
school vision, and facility planning. In fact, stakeholders were twice as likely to
be involved in these three activities as they were in all other activities. (Kowalski,
et al., 2011)
In their decennial study of superintendents, Kowalski, et.al found that
superintendents considered working with empowered individuals (such as
community members or parents) as an asset, but employee unions were viewed by
41.1% as a major or minor liability. Depending on the community, employee
union members may also be members of the community, which puts the
superintendent and board in a different position than if the employees live outside
the school district boundaries. Superintendents saw the school reform movement,
including standards and assessment, as empowering increasing numbers of
individuals, but this did not translate to organized political action for matters
related to curriculum, instruction and reform (Kowalski, et al.,, 2011).

29
Superintendent Evaluation and
Student Achievement
The history of superintendent evaluation parallels the earlier discussion of
the role of the superintendent and how it has changed over the last century. From
1900 to the 1950s, trends in education mirrored private industry, with cost savings
or efficiencies being paramount. Through the 1970s and 1980s, various models of
executive leadership (such as management by objectives (MBO) Leadership by
Objectives and Results (LBO/R) and the Administrator Evaluation for Continuous
Improvement Model (AECI)) were popular. Portfolio-based evaluations also
came into use during the 1980s and 1990s (Hoyle & Skrla, 1999).
All of these procedures preceded the current emphasis on the role of
superintendents and school boards in leading school reform and providing
instructional leadership, leading to high levels of student achievement.
A key assumption of the researcher is that accountability for job
performance is rooted in the evaluation process. If the school board does not have
student achievement as a component of evaluation, superintendents will (a) have
less motivation to sustain focus over time, (b) have less support from the board in
maintaining focus, (c) be evaluated on other issues unrelated to student
achievement, and (d) will not have the line authority backing to order cabinet and
principals to make this their top priority.

30
Hess’ (2002) study of 2,000 board members found that the three most
critical factors in evaluating superintendent performance were the
superintendent/board relationship, the morale of the school district employees,
and the safety of district students.
The responses reflect the importance of the superintendent/board
relationship and the building blocks for effective district governance and
administration…. A well-functioning leadership team provides a
foundation for effective governance and administration and an
environment in which student achievement can be fostered. (Hess,
2002, 23)

Of the five roles of superintendents, the highest level of emphasis was
placed on being an effective communicator, followed by manager, instructional
leader, statesman/democratic leader, and applied social scientist. Hess (2002)
found that the size of the district affected the likelihood of the board’s evaluating
superintendents in the area of student performance on standardized measures.
Board members in large districts ranked student performance as second in
importance, while small and mid-sized district board members ranked it fifth.
Two thirds of the superintendents received annual performance
evaluations that included both formative and summative components. The most
common criterion used to assess performance was the formal job description
(Kowalski, et al., 2011).
In a review of the politics of superintendent evaluation, Hoyle and Skrla
(1999) examined the context, history, and processes involved in superintendent
evaluation. Numerous works cited by the authors emphasized teamwork and trust

31
between board members and the superintendent as a necessary foundation to a
successful school district. Communication is cited as the key to effective and
productive relationships. Negroni states that superintendents have to “do their
jobs and keep their job . . . if they aren’t able to ‘stay in the game,’ they will not
be able to reform schools and sustain improvements in student achievement”
(Hoyle & Skrla, 1999, p. 407). Ideally, the board and superintendent work in
tandem to establish district goals and objectives, with student achievement
providing one measure of efficacy of the superintendent.
Even when communication is positive between the superintendent and
board, the performance evaluation process must be clearly defined in advance. If
the role of the board and the expectations for superintendent performance are not
spelled out, the superintendent is vulnerable to political conflict or personality
clashes. If the context of superintendent/board relations deteriorates considerably,
even clear performance criteria become moot. The superintendent may be expert
at budget management and school improvement, but be dismissed due to
personality or political conflicts. This tension summarizes the unique position of
a school superintendent: board members do not have the professional expertise
of the superintendent and are accountable to the public (and persuaded by
constituent interests), and superintendents are the key translators of information
and expertise for the board. What the board knows and thinks is important is
tremendously influenced by communication from the superintendent.

32
Hoyle and Skrla (1999) found massive inconsistencies in superintendent
evaluation practices. The majority of superintendents are evaluated annually, and
7% evaluated mid-year, but some are never evaluated. Only 50% of
superintendent evaluations followed the criteria in the job description. Ninety
percent of evaluations were conducted by the board, with input from others only
included 10% of the time. These findings are significant. They highlight the
challenges of a position that is evaluated by laypersons that may not be well-
equipped to conduct evaluations, and they point out the fundamental problem of
lack of specified protocols (including utilization of job descriptions) for the
evaluation process.
One potential source for guidance in this area are the American
Association of School Administrators (AASA) Professional Standards, but they
may not cover all the criteria for superintendent evaluation. Further research is
needed to investigate the question of whether a research-based superintendent
evaluation model will improve the performance of the superintendent or reduce
political or personal factors from entering the evaluation process. Candoli,
Cullen, & Stufflebeam (1997) make the following recommendations to improve
the evaluation system for superintendents:
 Clarify the evaluation process at contract time.
 Base the evaluation on the job description and the district’s strategic plan.

33
 Use multiple sources of data and clearly delineate the data-gathering
process, as superintendents are accountable to multiple constituencies.
The AASA Professional Standards for the Superintendency could help
superintendents improve their ability to withstand political and personal factors
created by changing board membership and district dynamics. The standards
provide a sharper focus on how superintendents and other central office
administrators are selected, prepared, and licensed. The use of national standards
would also inform school board members about the role of superintendents and
central office administrators. The eight AASA Standards outline the knowledge
and skills superintendents must bring to the position if they wish to work well
with the board and ensure a focus on school improvement.

34
CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY

The previous chapters outlined the changing roles and responsibilities of
superintendents and school boards. Once primarily responsible for fiscal and
facilities functions, school district governance teams are now held accountable at
the federal, state, and local levels for student achievement outcomes.
While school district governance structures have gone essentially
unchanged for the last century, public demands over the last two decades have
transformed expectations of school boards and superintendents. A review of the
literature found that student achievement was correlated with the ability of the
superintendent to align the board, district, and site staff in setting student
achievement goals and monitoring progress toward reaching those goals.
The literature review also identified communication and interpersonal
skills as key to superintendents’ successful navigation of political and cultural
contexts. While it might appear to be self-evident that attaining student
achievement goals would be paramount in evaluating a superintendent’s value,
the most common reason given for terminating a superintendent contract was
communication. The board hires the superintendent and the superintendent must
establish and maintain effective relationships with the board in order to attain
organizational objectives.

35
A third area reviewed in the literature is the ability of the superintendent to
enjoin the community in support of a student achievement focus. The school
board is accountable to the public, and the superintendent’s relationship with the
public factors into the superintendent/board relationship.
A gap in the literature exists in identifying specific practices or protocols
that superintendents can deploy in order to effect and sustain a board focus on
student achievement. The purpose of this study was to examine superintendent
practices and protocols which contribute to establishing and maintaining a district
focus on student achievement as the primary organizational objective.

Research Question and Sub-Questions
What are the protocols or practices superintendents deploy to develop and
manage superintendent/board relations to achieve and sustain a school district
focus on student achievement?
 Hiring and evaluation: What do the superintendent job description,
employment contract, and superintendent evaluation processes or
protocols state about student achievement?
 Communication: What are the protocols or practices for
superintendent/board communication? What are the protocols for
conducting board meetings? How are community interests (parents,

36
business, and civic leaders) engaged or addressed by the superintendent
and board?
 Board training: What orientation and training regarding student
achievement is provided to the board, and by whom?
The questions posed in this study will shed light on factors contributing to
a successful governance team. Success is defined as a cooperative and
collaborative relationship between the superintendent and board, with agreement
that a sustained focus on student achievement is the primary organizational
objective.

Sample and Population
The researcher utilized purposeful, homogenous sampling to select
participants for the study. This sampling is due to the focus of the study on
effective practices. Given the time limitations of the study, it was not possible to
engage in comparison of practices in low-achieving and high-achieving districts,
or to compare small, medium, and large-sized districts. Medium-sized districts
were selected due to the literature indicating that large district size affects
politicization of board members and superintendent/board relations, and small
districts often do not have a central office staff member (other than the
superintendent) whose primary responsibility is student achievement. Districts
with a record of at least 3 years of continuous growth in academic achievement

37
(as measured by the Academic Performance Index) were selected so as to study
the relationship between a focus on achievement and the practices and protocols
of the superintendent.
The criteria for selection of school districts for the electronic survey
instrument were:
 District size (5,000-30,000 students).
 Location (Los Angeles County urban school districts).
 Demonstrated student achievement (growth on the Academic Performance
Index for 3 consecutive years, from 2006-2009).
 Superintendent tenure (with the superintendent being in the district for a
minimum of 3 years).
 Parent education level (as a proxy for parent income).
Forty-six districts were sent an electronic, 20-item, closed-ended question
survey for the superintendent to complete. Three additional open-ended questions
were asked, as well as a question regarding the willingness of the superintendent
to participate in an interview. Twenty-three superintendents completed the
survey. From the 23 completed surveys, four districts were selected for further
study. The criteria for selecting the cases for study were:
 Respondents completed the survey, including a response to the open-
ended question.
 Respondents indicated a willingness to participate in interviews.

38
 Respondents agreed to provide researcher with access to a board
member and a staff member in charge of student learning.
 Availability of individuals to meet with the researcher for interviews
within the time parameters of the study.

Research Design
This is an applied research utilizing mixed quantitative and qualitative
methods. The purpose of the study was to deepen understanding of how school
district superintendents enjoin school boards in establishing student achievement
as a primary organizational objective.
The researcher’s paradigm combined social constructivism and
pragmatism. Social constructivists assume that individuals seek meaning within
the context of their lives and work, and that the meaning they construe is
subjective and varied. The research design was founded in the social
constructivist framework, as the goal of the research was to gain understanding of
participants’ viewpoints, addressing how individuals within an organization
interact, and construct meaning about their roles and relationships. It was
assumed that participants’ viewpoints influence their actions. The social
constructivist worldview informed the qualitative aspects of the study.
Pragmatism informed the quantitative element of the study. The interest of the

39
researcher was in determining what actions can be applied to a real problem in
order to effect a particular outcome (Creswell, 2009)
Combining methodologies of survey, interviews, observations, and
document review provides the potential for testing the consistency of data (Patton,
2002). Naturalistic inquiry guided the observations of board meetings. Narrative
inquiry guided the interviews. Inductive analysis was utilized to understand
interview results. While the literature and work experience of the researcher
creates bias, questions arose during observations, interviews, or document review
that created opportunities for further research. The time and resource limitations
also provided parameters for the researcher.

Quantitative Data Collection Procedures
A 20-question, 7-point Likert Scale web-based survey instrument was
completed with superintendents of 23 medium-sized urban school districts in
Southern California with similar demographics. The survey instrument included
questions about the role and responsibilities of superintendents and board
members with regard to focusing the district on student achievement as the
primary organizational objective. The survey questions reflected the research
sub-questions outlined earlier.
In addition to the Likert Scale, an open-ended response was sought to the
questions, “In your opinion, what superintendent practices have led to your school

40
board supporting a focus on student achievement? What have been the greatest
barriers in establishing or maintaining this focus?” A check box was provided to
indicate respondents’ interest in participating further in the study, including
interviews.

Qualitative Data Collection Procedures
Document Review
Literature on superintendent evaluation reveals that the most common
document from which evaluation tools are derived is the job description. Existing
district data on superintendent job description and evaluation tools and protocols
were reviewed. The superintendent had to conduct the business of the district in
public meetings. A selection of board meeting agendas was reviewed. The
literature indicated that the most common method for influencing board members’
perspectives on student achievement was through orientation or training of board
members. Orientation or training documents for board members were reviewed.

Interviews
The qualitative method was determined to be most appropriate for the
research questions, allowing study in greater depth in four school districts. In
order to ensure greater validity, interviews were conducted at three levels of the
organization. The unit of analysis was the individual superintendent, the

41
individual board member, and the individual central office staff person most
responsible for student achievement outcomes. Interviews were digitally recorded
and transcribed, and notes were recorded during interviews in order to capture
non-verbal elements and events during the interviews. The focus of the
interviews was on the protocols and practices utilized by the superintendent as he
or she worked with the school board to focus the organization on student
achievement.
The purpose of the interviews was to obtain as much information as
possible regarding the perspectives of three key individuals on the same issue or
problem. Patton (2002) describes the purpose of qualitative interviews as
capturing “how those being interviewed view the world, to learn their terminology
and judgments, and to capture the complexities of their individual perceptions and
experiences” (p. 343). Perspectives of board members and district office
personnel responsible for student achievement deepened understanding of the
communication and interpersonal skills of the superintendent.

Observations
Observation of a board meeting in three school districts was conducted.
The purpose of the observations was to observe the superintendent and board
members in context as they conducted business for the school district. The
researcher was interested in observing protocols for meeting conduct, the tone and

42
content of communication between the superintendent and board, and to observe
in particular how matters related to student achievement were addressed.

Data Collection and Analysis Plan and Timeline
The dissertation had to be successfully defended by April 1, 2012 in order
to participate in the May 2012 graduation, and all data had to be collected and
analyzed within this time frame.
“Survey Monkey” was utilized to collect responses to questionnaires. The
survey data collection and analysis was completed between June 1 and July 31,
2011. The interviews, school board observations, and document review was
conducted between August 1 and October 31, 2011. Analysis of data was
conducted between October 31, 2011 and February 28, 2012.

Validity
Patton (2002) identified four basic types of triangulation, including use of
multiple data sources, frameworks, and methodologies. The study utilized a
mixed-methods approach to collect and analyze data. Survey questionnaires, in-
depth interviews, observations, and document reviews were conducted to provide
depth and breadth to the understanding of how superintendents effect a board
focus on student achievement. The study selected four districts and three

43
individuals at different levels of the organization to increase the validity of the
findings.

Ethical Considerations
The researcher adhered to procedures required by the Institutional Review
Board of the University of Southern California. The researcher was certified to
conduct research utilizing human subjects. All interviews, observations, and
document review data were collected and coded to ensure confidentiality of the
participants. All participants signed consent forms. Data was kept on a secured,
password-protected computer.

Summary
This is a sequential mixed-methods study that combined a quantitative
survey with closed-ended questions associated with district focus on student
achievement. Qualitative methods were utilized in the individual interviews and
in the collection analysis of data from observations and document review. From
the quantitative analysis of a 20-item questionnaire, four
districts were selected for further study with qualitative methodology.

44
CHAPTER 4
FINDINGS

The purpose of the study was to examine superintendent practices and
protocols that contribute to establishing and maintaining a district focus on
student achievement as the highest organizational priority. This chapter contains
a review of the data collected; how the data compares to and connects to the
literature; and an analysis of the connections of the data to the research questions.

Data Collection: Surveys, Interviews,
Observations, and Document Review
The criteria for selection of school districts for the electronic survey
instrument were:
 District size (5,000-30,000 students).
 Location (Los Angeles County urban school districts).
 Demonstrated student achievement (growth on the Academic Performance
Index for three consecutive years, from 2006-2009).
 Superintendent tenure (with the superintendent being in the district for a
minimum of 3 years).
 Parent education level (as a proxy for parent income).

45
Forty-six districts were sent an electronic, 20-item, closed-ended question
survey for the superintendent to complete. Three open-ended questions requiring
a narrative response were asked, and one question was asked about the
respondent’s willingness to participate further in the study, including participating
in an interview. Twenty-three superintendents completed the survey.
From the 23 completed surveys, four districts were selected for further
study. The criteria for selecting the cases for study were:
 Respondents completed the survey, including a response to the open-
ended question.
 Respondents indicated a willingness to participate in interviews.
 Respondents agreed to provide researcher with access to a staff
member in charge of student learning.
 Respondents agreed to provide researcher with access to internal
documents related to the research questions.
 Availability of individuals to meet with the researcher for interviews
within the time parameters of the study.
Four of the twenty-three responding superintendents participated in one-
on-one personal interviews, answering 10 questions designed to elicit responses to
the research questions and to elaborate on responses in the questionnaire. Their
responses were digitally recorded, transcribed, and coded. The coding connected
the response to research question(s) addressed. Patterns were examined and are

46
addressed below. In referring to or quoting the interviewed superintendents, each
is assigned a letter (A, B, C or D) and the masculine pronoun “he” is used in all
references, in order to protect the anonymity of the participants.
Additional data collection included: telephone interviews of two assistant
superintendents and two board members, a review of school board meeting
agendas, three board meeting observations, and attendance at California School
Board Association annual conference and Masters in Governance sessions.
Numerous documents related to board or district focus on student achievement
were reviewed, including district strategic plans, board and district goals for
student achievement, Single Plans for Student Achievement, documents related to
student-achievement components of superintendent and principal evaluation
processes, and documents reflecting superintendent, district management, and
board observation protocols at school sites.

Research Questions
The over-arching research question was: “What are the protocols or
practices superintendents deploy to develop and manage superintendent/board
relations to achieve and sustain a school district focus on student achievement?”
Analysis of data is organized by the four research sub-questions, with data related
to protocols and practices in the following areas: superintendent/board

47
communication, school board orientation and training, evaluation of the
superintendent, and community support for student achievement.

Research Question 1: Communication
What are the protocols or practices for superintendent/board
communication?
Context and literature on communication. In the 2010 Decennial Study of
1,867 superintendents (Kowalksi, et al., 2011), effective communication with
board members was recognized as paramount to successful leadership of school
districts. Citing a prior 2000 study of superintendents, Kowalski and his
colleagues noted that the percent of superintendents spending less than 6 hours
weekly on direct communication with board members declined from 83% in 2000
to 63% in 2010. The 2010 study also found that the smaller the school district,
the less time the superintendent spent on direct communication with board
members. For districts of similar size to those in this study, Kowalski and his
colleagues found that 49.8% spent less than 6 hours per week, 34.8% spent 6 to 9
hours per week, 9.8% of superintendents spent between 10 and 14 hours per
week, and 3.9% spent 15-19 hours per week.
Kowalksi speculated that one of the reasons for a change in hours per
week spent on communication might be the changing political and social climate,

48
or the greater access to technology-assisted communication (such as email or cell
phones).

Questionnaire results on communication. Table 1 illustrates the responses
to the questions regarding superintendent/board communication and its relation to
student achievement. Areas highlighted on Table 1 indicate occurrences where
more than 70% of respondents clustered. Percentages in bold typeface indicate
the highest percentage of respondents.
Of the superintendents surveyed, 100% agreed or strongly agreed that
communication with the board is essential to maintaining an organizational focus
on student achievement. Over 90% of superintendents stated that their district
had protocols to help ensure effective communication.
Communication with parents, civic, and business partners was
overwhelmingly important to respondents in keeping a district focus on student
achievement. One hundred percent of respondents stated that they ensured that
parents were well informed about student achievement goals, at both the district
and school level. All but one respondent agreed or strongly agreed that they
communicated the importance of student achievement as the “primary
organizational objective” in their participation with civic and business partners.

49
Table 1
Questionnaire Responses Regarding Communication
Communication Questions %
Strongly
Agree
%

Agree
%

Neutral
%

Disagree
%
Strongly
Disagree
Number
Skipped
Question
Number
Answered
Question
1 Communication with the board is essential to
maintaining an organizational focus on student
achievement.
95.7% 4.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0 23
2 Often, nearly half of my day is spent in
communication with `board members.
4.3%

13.0% 8.7% 47.8% 26.1% 0 23
3 I ensure that board members support district/student
achievement goals.
81.8% 18.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1 22
4 At board meetings, I encourage board members to
make student achievement a top priority when
making decisions.
78.3% 21.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0 23
5 The majority of board meetings include agenda items
related to student achievement.
30.4% 52.2% 4.3% 13.0% 0.0% 0 23
6 In my participation with civic and business partners,
I communicate the importance of student
achievement as the primary organizational
objective.
74% 21.7% 0.0% 4.3% 0.0% 0 23
7 I ensure that parents are well informed about student
achievement goals, at both the district and school
level.
60.9% 39.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0 23
8 I find it challenging to keep board members focused
on student achievement matters. Issues unrelated to
teaching and learning distract them.
8.7% 34.8% 0.0% 30.4% 26.1% 0 23
9 My district has superintendent/board communication
protocols that help ensure effective communication.
30.4% 60.9% 4.3% 4.3% 0.0% 0 23

50
While the literature suggests that 15% of superintendents in medium-sized
districts spend from 10 to 25 or more hours per week in direct communication
with board members, 17.3% of survey respondents for this study stated that they
often spent “half of my day” in communication with board members. The vast
majority of respondents (73.9%) disagreed with the statement that they often
spent half their day in communication with board members.
On the question of whether the majority of board meeting agendas
included items related to student achievement, 82.6% of respondents indicated
that they agreed or strongly agreed that this was the case in their districts. One
hundred percent of respondents stated that they ensured that board members
support district student achievement goals, and that during board meetings, they
encouraged board members to make student achievement a top priority when
making decisions.
Responses to question eight (regarding challenges with keeping board
members focused on student achievement matters) were nearly split down the
middle. Those who agreed or strongly agreed that this was a challenge comprised
43.5% of the responses, while 56.5% of respondents disagreed that it was a
challenge to keep board members focused on student achievement.
Narrative Questionnaire Responses on Communication. More than half of
the surveyed superintendents provided narrative responses to the question, “Do
you have any comments regarding superintendent/board communication?”

51
Three themes emerged: Effective communication is essential to a
productive relationship between the superintendent and board members;
communication with board members must be frequent, focused, and purposeful;
and communication must be tailored to the board members’ particular styles or
needs for communication methods. One respondent stated:
There is great variation in board members’ interest in ongoing
communication. Some are really concerned and some are minimally
interested in deep understanding of district business. I try to keep all
equally informed.

This respondent captured the challenge faced by many superintendents:
how do you communicate important information to board members who may lack
interest in the content? How do you keep all board members “equally informed?”
Several respondents utilized e-mail or phone messaging systems to convey
information to all board members simultaneously. This can assist with the
political pitfalls that occur when one individual knows new information prior to
others. Nevertheless, many respondents in both the electronic survey and in the
interviews emphasized the need to differentiate both the content and style of
communication to fit the needs or interests of board members. As one survey
respondent stated:
The most effective communication is that which is informal and
consistent. The superintendent needs to take the initiative at all times,
reaching out to each board member in numerous ways. Superintendents
must see themselves in the role of teacher/mentor with their Boards.

52
Another respondent highlighted the need to inform all board members
equally, even if a question or concern is raised by only one board member. With
different levels of knowledge about school district matters, and with political
factors related to board members being elected officials, the practice of informing
all board members simultaneously has a leveling effect.
It’s important for a superintendent to communicate with board members
frequently and in a variety of ways . . . I meet with each board member
individually at least twice per month, for a total of about 3 hours each
month. It’s also important to treat important questions from a single board
member as items that require a response to all board members. All board
members need to be comfortable that they’re receiving the same
information on issues that may be important to the entire board.

The questionnaire results confirmed what the literature states in terms of
frequency and focus of communication between the superintendent and board.
Respondents also confirmed what is present in the literature regarding the
superintendent being the “chief spokesperson” for the district, or to use a term
more popular today, the person in charge of “messaging” for the school board, the
district employees, and the larger community. Successful superintendents are
cognizant of the need to over-communicate their message in a variety of venues
and utilize a variety of methods, in order to capture all audiences and
constituencies.
A finding that is not captured in the literature is the need for a
superintendent to “differentiate” communication based on the personal
preferences and comfort of each board member. This appears to be, in part, due

53
to the varied levels of technological proficiency, but is not limited to that factor.
Some adults prefer email communication and some find it impersonal, preferring
a phone conversation. Superintendents in this study, particularly in the interview
data, advocated for strategizing what works for each individual and making an
effort to tailor communication to their needs.

Superintendent interview results on communication. Interviews revealed a
rich array of protocols or practices utilized to ensure a board focus on student
achievement, represent a spectrum of practices from the formal and legal to the
informal and social. Table 2 illustrates the commonly utilized protocols for
communication with the board, and the frequency of use.
A protocol used by all interviewees was direct communication (by phone
or in person) with the board members, and the president in particular, in the
formation of the board meeting agenda. Following a bi-weekly schedule requires
continuous preparation for board meetings, and Brown Act requirements make it
necessary for pre-meeting communication to be individualized.

54
Table 2
Superintendent Interviews: Protocols or Practices for Communication with Board Members

Support
% of Time
Spent
Weekly
Communi-
cating with
Board
Members
In-person
meetings
Email Phone
contact
Weekly
Letter
School Site
Visits with
Board
Members
Reviewing
Board
Agenda
Board
Meeting
Presenta-
tions

A

10% Weekly
with each
member,
twice a
week with
president
Daily or
weekly
Daily X X Every 2
weeks, in
person with
president
X
B

20% Weekly at
minimum
Weekly Daily X X Every 2
weeks in
person with
president
X
C

Did not
address
Weekly at
minimum
5 Daily X X Every 2
weeks in
person with
president
X
D

10% Weekly at
minimum
Less than
monthly
Daily X X Every 2
weeks in
person with
president
X

55
All respondents met individually with the board president prior to each
board meeting, and superintendents called each member to determine if they had
any questions about items coming before the board. The purpose and effect of
these practices is to ensure that the board is able to focus on carrying out the
business of the board meeting with an appropriate level of information required to
make decisions.
When asked about the impact of this protocol on the ability of the
superintendent to keep the board focused on student achievement, superintendents
replied that board members’ questions or concerns about other matters could often
be addressed in advance. Controversial topics or closed-session matters (such as
student discipline or dismissal of personnel) could be discussed with individual
members in advance of the board meeting, narrowing the time spent and
potentially increasing the amount of time available for matters such as board
reports from staff regarding student achievement matters. Regardless of the
quantity of time spent in communication with board members, superintendent
interviewees were unanimous in identifying it as a crucial aspect of their job.
Superintendent B explained: “It is the top priority of the things I do—supporting,
managing, informing, and communicating with the board. “
A second practice common to all respondents was a weekly letter or
communication document utilized to inform the board of events or issues or areas
of concern. Typically, other district departments (such as human resources,

56
business and curriculum, and instruction) contribute to the weekly letter so as to
apprise board members of current issues. Weekly letters also typically contain a
public portion and a confidential portion, the latter of which addresses student
discipline, personnel actions, or other legal matters of a confidential nature.
Superintendents spoke at length about the multiple purposes that this
communication serves. Two of the four superintendents stated that the contents
of the weekly letter include those areas in which the superintendent is being
evaluated. Superintendent C stated:
I’ve taken all of the big headings off of my evaluation, and I write to these
each week to tell them . . . what I’m doing in instructional leadership, in
safety, in bullying, in the community. I try to keep them up on what I’m
up to.

With regard to student achievement specifically, the weekly letter allows
the department of curriculum and instruction to “frontload” information that may
be coming to the board in the form of a report or an action item. Examples in this
area would be reports on schools’ Single Plans for Student Achievement,
standardized testing results, textbook adoptions, teacher professional
development, and programmatic initiatives related to improving student
achievement.
A third protocol or practice that was utilized by all interviewees is the
practice of board members visiting school sites. All interviewees had regular
board visitation schedules and all had methods to ensure that the visits focused on
matters related to student achievement. All districts had an expectation as to the

57
number of visits board members would make during a given school year.
Superintendent B described the visits’ connection to student achievement matters:
We have this process of every board member attends . . . four or five.
There’s a . . . written protocol for preparing them. This year we are
adding what we want them to be engaged with. We’re defining . . . what
effective instruction means and the board is going to play an eminent role
in that.

Superintendent C shared his perspective on the importance of being in
classrooms:
It’s my expectation that a chunk of my week is in classrooms and in
schools talking about student achievement. I am very intentional about
being in every school every month . . .on what we call a structured
learning walk, which is part of a program improvement effort.

When asked specifically about how the visits impacted board members’
perspective on the importance of student achievement, the superintendent shared
that of the three districts in which he had held the superintendency, each board
and each board member had distinct and different interests. The board visits to
sites allow the superintendent to shape the focus and narrative about the meaning
and purpose of site visits. Superintendents, “interpret” and make meaning about
what is observed in classrooms, drawing connections to district initiatives.
Superintendents also use the visits as an opportunity to define the role and
function of board members in maintaining student achievement as the highest
organizational priority.
Apart from the specific protocols used for communication, an additional
finding was in the area of the impact the greater political and economic context in

58
which educational leaders operate. All four of the superintendents spoke at length
about NCLB (No Child Left Behind) legislation and the effect of federal and state
accountability systems on their work with their boards. Superintendent D, with
11 years experience stated:
I’m thinking the last 10 years . . . we had NCLB come into play, the API
as an indicator of student achievement. It’s probably been on the radar
screen of superintendents more than in the past.”

The federal and state governmental accountability systems appeared to
have acted both as pressure on the superintendent to deliver, but also provided
permission for the superintendent to focus the board on student achievement as a
priority over other matters, such as sports or facilities. One interesting
observation of superintendent B was with regard to the concurrent state legislative
developments regarding school funding, and the diminishing role of school boards
in the budgetary process.
After Prop 13 and Prop 98 came about, boards’ roles shifted. When you
took away budgetary authority from boards, they have been in search of
meaningful things to do. This vacuum created a more rich environment to
say . . . we’re interested in curriculum and instruction.

Another unanticipated finding was that all four interviewees had a
curriculum and instruction background (as compared to human resources or
business). This may indicate that those willing to participate in an interview had a
natural inclination to do so, based on their prior professional experience and their
area of interest.

59
Regarding the use of email as a form of communication, the
superintendents differed in their practices, but agreed on some particulars. Email
was viewed as an appropriate form of communication only for certain
circumstances. With email being a permanent record, subject to public review,
duplication, or subpoena, superintendents expressed caution about what content
would be appropriate. Email was perceived to be most advantageous to
communicate information that does not require explanation or interpretation, such
as event locations or factual news. Superintendent D explained that he is
hampered by certain board members’ lack of facility with computers. In certain
cases, he might send an email, and then call certain individuals to ensure they are
informed.
Summary and analysis on communication. Effective communication is
essential to a productive relationship between the superintendent and board
members. The business of the board is conducted in board meetings, but
communication prior to the meeting determines how productive the meeting is
and whether the desired outcomes of the superintendent are met. Every
interaction, from phone conversations and email to school visits and board
meetings, presents an opportunity to strengthen the relationship between the
superintendent and each board member. A strong interpersonal relationship lays a
foundation for effective coaching of board members to maintain a focus on
student achievement matters.

60
Communication with board members must be frequent, focused, and
purposeful. If a superintendent wants the board to focus on instruction and
learning outcomes, he must strategically weave those issues into every
communication protocol or practice, or create new practices.
Communication must be tailored to the board members’ particular styles
or needs for communication methods. Technology can facilitate a superintendent
ensuring that board members receive the same message simultaneously, but how a
board member responds to or receives information varies, based, in part, on their
prior knowledge and their feelings toward particular topics. A superintendent
who is successful in maintaining a focus on student achievement may have to fax
one board member, email another, and have a phone conversation with a third.
Some board members fully support an achievement focus and some are more
interested in sports. The savvy superintendent is able to develop relationships
with board members who recognize their individual interests, capitalize on those
interests to further strengthen their relationship, and contain individual interests if
they interfere with the smooth functioning of the governance team.

61
Research Question 2: Orientation and Training of the Board
What orientation and training regarding student achievement is provided
to the board, and by whom?
Context and literature on board orientation and training. Since the
1970s, the context of school governance has changed and become more complex.
With the advent of the standards movement, the NCLB legislation (United States
Department of Education, 2002), and accompanying accountability systems,
expectations for breadth and depth of understanding of complex educational
issues has accelerated.
Traditionally, school boards have occupied the policymaking function and
the superintendent directs staff to implement policy. Since the passage in 2001 of
NCLB, the effects of societal demands and state and federal accountability
requirements have influenced school systems and their governance. Local school
boards were once primarily responsible for bonds, budgets, buses and buildings,
but an increasing emphasis on student achievement has emerged (Porch &
Protheroe, 2003). In the pre-NCLB era, superintendents and boards were not
required to be as knowledgeable about instructional programs, standardized
assessments, and effective reform measures. For a superintendent to establish and
maintain an organizational focus on student achievement as the highest
organizational priority, he must have a knowledgeable and supportive board. In
order to ensure that the board has a functional level of understanding of federal

62
and state accountability requirements, board members must receive ongoing
training.
In the past decade, training of board members has increased significantly.
In 2000, only 55% of superintendents and only 26% of state school board
associations provided new school board members with an orientation. In 2010,
89.7% reported that the superintendent oriented board members, and 72.2%
reported that state school board associations oriented new members (Kowalski, et
al., 2011).
Questionnaire results on board orientation and training. As Table 3
illustrates, 100% of respondents agreed that their board received training directly
from the superintendent. The majority of respondents (69.5%) stated that their
board members received training through the California School Boards
Association. More than 95% of respondents stated that board members learned
about student achievement matters from board presentations or study sessions.
Narrative questionnaire responses on board orientation and training. While the
majority of respondents (69.5%) agreed that board members receive orientation
and training through the California School Boards Association (CSBA), the data
did not specify the type or amount of training provided. Narrative responses
indicated preference for the CSBA Masters in Governance training, though not all
board members participated in said training. Many board members attended
sessions at the annual CSBA conference (Table 3)

63
Table 3
Questionnaire Responses Regarding Board Orientation and Training
Board Orientation and
Training Questions
%
Strongly
Agree
%
Agree
%
Neutral
%
Disagree
%
Strongly
Disagree
Number
Skipped
Question
Number
Answered
Question
19 Board members receive
orientation and training
from me regarding student
achievement.
34.8% 65.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0 23
20 Board members in my
district receive orientation
or training through the
California School Boards
Association.
30.4%

39.1% 13.0% 13.0% 4.3% 0 23
21 Board members learn about
student achievement
matters from regular study
sessions or board
presentations.
60.9% 34.8% 4.3% 0.0% 0.0% 1 22

64
One respondent stated that the majority of the board was “not interested in
attending this training,,” which may indicate that it is a choice, and not an
expectation, in that district. One respondent agreed that training would support
maintaining a focus on student achievement as the highest organizational priority,
but stated that “political issues sometimes sway their focus” (Table 3).
The greatest response (69% strongly agreed and 34.8% agreed) was in the
area of board members learning about student achievement in board meetings or
study sessions. One respondent stated: “The training in our district is more from
board presentations by the schools and discussions. All of our schools make
annual presentations to the board that are focused on site-level initiatives that
enhance student achievement. “
Superintendent interview results on board orientation and training.
Similar to the results for communication protocols, the superintendents
interviewed reported a spectrum of practices in board orientation and training
from formal to informal. Reviewed here are common practices and how said
practices support the superintendent in establishing and maintaining board focus
on student achievement.
Three of the four interviewees utilized the California School Board
Association (CSBA) for orientation of new members, as well as ongoing board
member training. The same three interviewees also utilized outside consultants.
In two cases, this outside consultant also advised the board on superintendent

65
hiring and evaluation matters. These consultants provided continuity for the
organization, their hire preceded or coincided with the hiring of the current
superintendent, and their perspectives helped shape the organizational focus of the
districts.
From the perspective of the superintendents, there are two significant
areas in which the practice of utilizing CSBA or consultants resulted in a focus on
student achievement. First, board members who participate in the CSBA Master
in Governance training or annual conference have an opportunity to hear from
experts outside their district on the importance of their role as stewards of
organizations whose primary function is teaching and learning. The Masters in
Governance program has a day dedicated to curriculum and instruction, and the
annual conference has numerous offerings in matters related to curriculum,
instruction and assessment.
Second, the trainings and consultants provide information and guidance
about board members’ role as members of a governance team. All four
superintendents commented on the importance of training board members as to
their appropriate role as a member of the governance team, particularly as it
related to district operations and staff activities. Part of ongoing board orientation
involved treating them as a policy-making body, and communicating that their
power and agency occurs only as they act together in a board meeting setting.
Superintendent A stated:

66
It’s important to let them know what the board policy is regarding board
members and their role, and that individually they don’t have any role
beyond what any other citizen has.

The importance of this statement is that it is not just about a
superintendent creating and maintaining a board focus on student achievement. It
is about not permitting other issues or concerns to interfere with that focus.
Unclear processes of conduct and decision-making for the organization act as
barriers to achieving and sustaining organizational focus as much as a board
member’s individual passion for an issue unrelated to student achievement.
More than one superintendent acknowledged the special role that a trusted
outside consultant played in guiding the board on both governance matters as well
as strategic focus on student learning. The higher functioning governance team
would collaboratively craft organizational goals, and a trusted outside consultant
could be helpful in this process.
Superintendent D utilized CSBA consultants to help his district work with
the board on developing norms and protocols. The use of communication and
decision-making norms and protocols and clarity about staff and board member
roles and responsibilities functioned to support a superintendent in maintaining a
board and organizational focus on student achievement. As Superintendent D
stated, the consultant “helps keep the board centered on the right things. He’s
able to say things to them that would be more difficult for me to say. He helps
maintain stability on the board.”

67
Superintendent A described a practice of departmental orientation sessions
for new board members. This allowed the assistant superintendent for curriculum
and instruction to explain in greater detail the instructional programs and goals for
the district.
When we have a new board member . . . we make arrangements for that
board member to sit with each department in usually a 2- to 3-hour
meeting. That department gives them an overview in what it is they do
and what aspects of the district they deal with.

Superintendent B shared that subsequent to the CSBA Masters in
Governance training, board members were invited to cabinet meetings where
directors summarized their areas of responsibility. In addition, Superintendent B
provided board members with all of the professional reading that was shared with
district leadership. This supported the board and staff in aligning their
philosophical outlook as well as their knowledge of current best practices in
education.
Superintendent D described having board subcommittees in which two
board members participated. In addition, the assistant superintendent of
educational services met with board members to review particular topics, such as
the Local Educational Agency (LEA) Plan.
All respondents discussed the embedded training that occured when
instructional components were included in board meeting agendas. All
superintendents stated that their districts regularly reported on instructional
programs and student achievement. For those situations in which board members

68
demonstrated a lack interest in training, having information embedded in their
meetings was advantageous.
All superintendents stated that board meetings included reporting on
standardized testing results. Superintendent D stated that it was important for this
report to come directly from him, rather than an assistant superintendent or
director. In so doing, he provided a clear and strong message to the board, district
and school staff, and larger community: student learning and achievement is of
highest importance to the organization, the superintendent assumes responsibility
for ensuring that continuous improvement is occurring, and he considered himself
to be the chief instructional leader in the district. This practice represents a
change historically in the role of superintendents.
All superintendents reported that principals made board presentations on
their Single Plans for Student Achievement goals, as well as their progress toward
reaching student achievement goals. Consistent with the literature on post-NCLB
practices and the increased focus on student achievement, Superintendent A
explained that these presentations used to be more of a “dog and pony show,” but
had become rigorous and substantive. In three of the districts, principals were
provided with a template that assured continuity and consistency in format and
content of reporting to board members. Detailed and complex information about
program improvement status, standardized test result analysis of subgroups, and

69
resource allocation to effect instructional reforms were all topics addressed in
principals’ reports to the board in Superintendent A’s district.
In addition to monthly school reports at board meetings, Superintendent D
reported that his district had an annual 8-hour meeting in which each principal
shared their school data, goals in their SPSA and plans to address student learning
needs. This annual tradition provided board members with an in-depth
understanding of the particular challenges each school faced, while
simultaneously framing it in the district’s overall approach to improving student
learning outcomes.
While the NCLB (United States Department of Education, 2002)
legislation and accompanying accountability systems both permitted and
pressured superintendents to ensure their board members were knowledgeable in
these areas, the interviews illuminated the difficulty of educating elected
community members in some of the minutiae of the current accountability
systems. Superintendent B shared an example of a board member who, upon
learning about the textbook adoption process, remarked that she wished they had
learned more about this in the past. Superintendent B stated:
We forget, because we’re so immersed in this stuff, what it’s like to go to
a meeting every 2 or 3 weeks, having been elected.… You are working
culturally with the board around seeing their role as policy makers and
decision makers focused on teaching and learning.

Three of the four superintendents reported that their districts had strategic
plans, a component of which included student achievement goals. Reporting on

70
progress toward plan goals was conducted at board meetings, and this informed
board members of organizational focus and progress. Superintendent B held three
day-long planning sessions each year, which allowed for greater depth of study on
a variety of issues, including student achievement. Superintendent D reported on
strategies within the plan that specifically impact student learning and the
instructional program.
All districts conducted board visits to school sites. While their purpose
was similar, the details of the site-visit practice varied considerably. In one
district, site visits were conducted mainly for board members to have an
opportunity to visit the schools, accompanied by the superintendent and principal.
The three other districts had specific visitation protocols that provided a more
purposeful framework.
Professional articles and books that were read by the district staff
leadership were also shared with the board in two of the districts. This practice
was initiated by superintendents in order to establish common knowledge and
align thinking for all leaders in the district, with regard to best instructional
programs and practices and other district initiatives (Table 4).

71
Table 4
Superintendent Interview: Protocols or Practices for Board Training and Orientation
Sup’t.
California
School
Board
Association
Training
Consultant
Provides
Training &
Guidance
Weekly
Letters/
Packets to
Board
Board
Retreats/
Strategic
Planning
Sessions
Orientation
with
District
Dep’ts.
Board
Visits to
Schools
Board
Study
Sessions &
Board
Reports

A

X x x Annually x x x
B

X No x 3 Full-Day
Sessions
Annually
x x x
C

No No x No x x x
D

x x x x x x x

72

Summary and analysis on board orientation and training. What the
researcher found most striking was that given the complex demands that board
members face, much of the way they learn to do their work was through “on-the-
job” training. This presented both a challenge and an opportunity for
superintendents and the staff they supervised. The superintendent and his staff
had unprecedented potential for influence over the information board members
received, as well as the meaning they made of that information. At the same time,
it was difficult to provide the in-depth analysis or understanding required in order
to make decisions. There were similarities in the challenges that school district
leadership faced in the provision of professional development for teachers.
The job is complex and demanding, and it takes more than a year to
develop a basic grasp of the responsibilities. What works best is learning that is
embedded within the construct of the “work day,” which in the case of board
members, was within board meetings or in the course of preparation for board
meetings. Time constraints prevented in-depth study of complex issues. Sixty-
nine percent of questionnaire respondents stated that their board members
received their training primarily in board reports or study sessions. One
superintendent described the process of board member development as “layering
of paint,” as small strokes of color applied frequently, over time, began to create a
clear picture.

73

One conclusion that the researcher has drawn from this portion of the
study is that the most essential component of board training is in the area of roles,
responsibilities, and appropriate conduct. Protocols in these areas have intrinsic
value, but they also lay the foundation for progress to be made in any other area.
A board member with extensive knowledge of the state and federal accountability
systems will be of little support to the students or the superintendent if he does not
know how to communicate properly or work as a member of a governance team.
Smoley (1999) asserts that while most people agree that school board
leadership is essential to the provision of educational excellence for our children,
not all agree on the changes that need to take place in order to achieve excellence.
He further states that
In my view it is, as its core, a question of capacity, not of direction. The
six mistakes school boards make involved the process by which they do
their work, not the particular policies they recommend. School boards
must build their capacity to govern, whatever the policy. (Smoley, 1999,
p. 13)

This leads the researcher to question whether knowledge of content in the
area of student achievement is as important as the ability to effectively function as
a member of a team, in concert with the superintendent and district staff.
Superintendents and their staff have a great responsibility to build the capacity of
board members to learn governance skills as well as knowledge of the educational
system and what practices will result in continuous growth for students.

74

Though superintendents report to the board, they can also act as coach or
guide in developing members’ ability to govern collaboratively. A relationship
built on trust and clear communication is the foundation for a coaching or training
role.
To build trust within an organization, the superintendent must continually
focus on coaching, training, and responding to board members’ needs.
Board members were chosen by the communities to establish policies for
local public schools, and it is a fundamental aspect of the superintendent’s
job to guide these individuals through the maze of legal mandates,
instructional expectations, and the myriad of policies that focus on moving
the district forward. (Townsend, et al., 2007, p. 22)

The conclusion the researcher has drawn is that a combination of CSBA
training and school-district staff training is optimal for developing both
governance skill and educational knowledge of board members.

Research Question 3: Evaluation of Superintendent
What do the superintendent job description, employment contract, and
superintendent evaluation processes or protocols state about student achievement?
Context and literature on evaluation of superintendent. From 1900 to the
1950s, evaluation in education mirrored private industry, with cost savings or
efficiencies being paramount. Through the 1970s and 1980s, various models of
executive leadership were popular. Portfolio-based evaluations also came into
use during the 1980s and 1990s (Hoyle & Skrla, 1999). These evaluation models

75

preceded the current emphasis on the role of superintendents and school boards in
leading school reform and providing instructional leadership, leading to high
levels of student achievement. An assumption of the researcher is that
superintendent evaluation and accountability for job performance is rooted in the
evaluation process, and that process ought to reflect the contextual changes in the
role and responsibilities of the superintendent over the past few decades.
Kowalski found that two thirds of superintendents received annual
performance evaluations that included both formative and summative
components. The most common criterion used to assess performance was the
formal job description (Kowalski, et al., 2011).
In a review of the politics of superintendent evaluation, Hoyle and Skrla
(1999) emphasize teamwork and trust between board members and the
superintendent as a necessary foundation to a successful school district.
Communication is cited as the key to effective and productive relationships.
Hoyle and Skrla also found massive inconsistencies in superintendent evaluation
practices. The majority of superintendents are evaluated annually, and 7%
evaluated mid-year, but some are never evaluated. Only 50% of superintendent
evaluations followed the criteria in the job description. Ninety percent of
evaluations were conducted by the board, with input from others included only
10% of the time.

76

Stufflebeam et.al. (1997) make the following recommendations to improve
the evaluation system for superintendents:
 Clarify the evaluation process at contract time.
 Base the evaluation on the job description and the district’s strategic plan.
 Use multiple sources of data and clearly delineate the data-gathering
process, as superintendents are accountable to multiple constituencies.
The AASA Professional Standards for the Superintendency could help
superintendents improve their ability to withstand political and personal factors
created by changing board membership and district dynamics.
Questionnaire results on evaluation of the superintendent. As illustrated
in Table 5, 95.6% of respondents stated that their job description contained
elements related to student achievement as an organizational objective for which
the superintendent is responsible. This contrasts sharply with Hoyle and Skrla’s
(1999) finding of only 50% of evaluations liking to the job description. Similarly,
100% of respondents indicated that their evaluation contained elements related to
student achievement.
Only 13.6% of respondents stated that their school board utilized an
outside resource to assist in the superintendent evaluation process. Training was
received by 52.1% of board members on how to evaluate superintendents.

77
Table 5
Questionnaire Responses Regarding Evaluation of the Superintendent
Evaluation Questions %
Strongly
Agree
%

Agree
%

Neutral
%

Disagree
%
Strongly
Disagree
Number
Skipped
Question
Number
Answered
Question
11. My job description contains elements
related to student achievement as an
organizational objective for which I am
responsible.
65.2% 30.4% 4.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0 23
12. My employment contract contains
elements related to student achievement
as an organizational objective.
26.1% 13.0% 21.7% 39.1% 0.0% 0 23
13. My evaluation by the board includes
elements related to student achievement.
68.2% 31.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1 22
14. The processes for my evaluation are
clearly defined and agreed upon by all
board members.
52.2% 34.8% 0.0% 13.0% 0.0% 0 23
15. My board members have received
training on how to evaluate
superintendents.
13.0% 39.1% 13.0% 30.4% 4.3% 0 23
16. My board members include feedback
from staff, parents, or community
members in evaluating my performance.
8.7% 43.5% 4.3% 34.8% 8.7% 0 23
17. The school board in my district utilizes
outside resources to assist in the
superintendent evaluation process.
9.1% 4.5% 0.0% 54.5% 31.8% 1 22
18. I feel that the superintendent evaluation
process is fair.
43.5% 34.8% 17.4% 4.3% 0.0% 0 23

78
Most superintendents (78.3%) felt that the superintendent evaluation
process was fair in their school district.
While nearly all job descriptions and evaluation processes contained
elements related to student achievement, this was not the case for employment
contracts. Of the respondents, 39.1% stated that their contract contained elements
related to student achievement, and an equal percentage stated that this was not
the case.

Narrative questionnaire responses on evaluation of superintendent. While
more than half of the respondents elected to provide narrative responses in the
area of communication, only 30% of respondents wrote about the superintendent
evaluation process. Of the responses, an emerging theme was in the area of the
need for board training in the area of superintendent evaluation. One
superintendent commented that “There is no training involved in the current
process, which makes it difficult to conduct.” A second superintendent
commented that “More training is needed. Said training, however, must be
valued and followed.” The one respondent who expressed confidence in the
evaluation process stated that its success relied, in part, on the use of an outside
facilitator.
Our board has used an external facilitator in my evaluation process since
2001 when I accepted the position. This individual has helped enormously
to keep the board’s perspective on the “big picture,” especially during
times of transition on the board.

79

Superintendent interview results on evaluation of superintendent. All four
interviewees shared openly about their evaluation process. All four previously
held positions in district administration with responsibilities for student
achievement . Three stated that their board hired them for that area of expertise.
Two superintendents shared that there was not a coherent evaluation
process in place for the superintendent prior to their tenure, which meant that they
each had a hand in developing their current system. Three of the four
superintendents described current practices that connected student achievement
goals to the evaluation process.
Superintendent A discussed the district’s strategic plan as the foundation
of the evaluation process, a practice recommended in the literature. A consultant
was brought in to develop the strategic plan priorities and goals, document what
evidence would be acceptable as indicators of progress, and set up progress
monitoring meetings three times during the year. The top priority of the strategic
plan was student achievement, and every item that was placed on a board meeting
agenda was tied to the goals in the strategic plan. Superintendent A was very firm
in holding that line.
Superintendent B explained that though it is not explicitly mentioned in
his contract or evaluation document, the evaluation process in his district
integrates elements of setting goals for increased student achievement and closing

80
achievement gaps. This is the case for the superintendent as well as central office
administrators and principals. The district utilized the Association of California
School Administrators (ACSA) standards, setting goals in each of the seven
domains, and meeting throughout the year to monitor progress toward
achievement of the goals. In addition to the ACSA standard goal-setting, the
superintendent participates with the board in a CSBA self-evaluation process
every 2 years. The intent of superintendent B was to align board, district, and
school goals for student achievement, and to parallel that alignment in the
evaluation process for all staff.
This superintendent also expressed a level of frustration with the
evaluation process in general, stating that it generally did not meet its intended
purpose. He stated two reasons for evaluation: the process allowed for
termination of ineffective individuals and continuous improvement of
performance of all others. This superintendent perceived that the current
evaluation systems in education were better at the former (firing) than the latter
(improving). He recommended that school districts would benefit from more
coherence in the evaluation system so that it was aligned from “top to bottom,”
that is, that the evaluation process would reflect district goals throughout the
entire organization.
Superintendents A and B came into their current positions without an
evaluation process in place. In both districts, these superintendents were

81
instrumental in working with the boards in development of a mutually agreeable
system which was aligned with the strategic plan, board, and superintendent
goals. Both superintendents noted that the evaluation process did not appear to be
paramount to board members who like or agree with their superintendent, but that
when conflicts or challenges presents themselves, a system needs to be in place
for the benefit of both the board and the superintendent. Superintendent B
described the development of a procedure manual that ensured a certain level of
adherence to an agreed-upon evaluation process.
Superintendent D and his board worked with the outside consultant who
conducted the search for this superintendent. The board continued to contract
with this consultant to assist in annual evaluation of the superintendent. From the
perspective of superintendent D, this has been a very positive relationship that has
helped provide consistency and continuity not only in the evaluation process, but
in helping keep the board focused on the student learning outcomes.
The board hired this individual and trusts him, and as a former
superintendent, this consultant has played a very supportive role over the years for
superintendent D. During the annual evaluation process, the consultant was able
to coach veteran and new board members alike. For example, in conducting the
annual evaluation process, the consultant was able to guide new board members
in appropriate conduct during the evaluation process and this burden is not borne
solely by the superintendent or other board members.

82
By contrast, superintendent C was working with a board that was not
particularly interested in student achievement and viewed “bad” news (such as
program improvement status) as both unfavorable and uninteresting. This
superintendent developed a way to weave the reporting of activities related to his
evaluation into his weekly report to the board. The interview with this
superintendent was not as productive as the other three, perhaps due to the
superintendent’s perception that the board was not interested in student
achievement and had not ever initiated conversations about it. Nevertheless,
Superintendent C described a process of evaluation that included the collection of
average “scores” on areas of performance, and an annual meeting with the board
president to review the evaluation document. The researcher sensed frustration on
the part of the superintendent that the board evaluated him on “what they see me
doing,” rather than on more objective criteria.
In contrast, the other interviewees had protocols or practices in place that
ensured the board frequently encountered experiences of learning about student
achievement. This made it seem more “natural” that student achievement would
be woven into the evaluation process.
Summary and analysis on hiring and evaluation of superintendent. In the
questionnaire and the interviews, student achievement factored prominently in the
evaluation process of the superintendent respondents. Most superintendents’ job
descriptions and evaluation processes contain elements related to student

83
achievement, but their employment contracts did not. Employment contracts
tended to specify more about compensation and general responsibilities. In
retrospect, the researcher might have erred in asking superintendents about the
hiring process, as they have limited knowledge of the process utilized when they
were themselves selected for the position.
The data indicated that those districts with clearly defined evaluation
processes were perceived by superintendents as being “fair,” and in some cases,
the superintendent had a role in shaping the process itself. Nevertheless, about
half of the survey respondents stated that their boards had not received training to
evaluate them, and only 13.6% of respondents indicated that they utilized an
outside resource to consult on the evaluation of the superintendent. This data
initially surprised the researcher, as it seemed logical to expect that organizations
of this size and complexity would ensure that their boards were properly trained
to evaluate their chief executive officer. However, when reviewing the literature
and the data collected on board orientation and training, this finding is not at all
surprising. Most of the orientation and training that board members received was
from the superintendent himself, or a member of his staff. When it comes to the
superintendent’s evaluation process, it is an awkward position to train one’s boss
on how to perform one’s own evaluation. In this instance, then, the researcher
concludes that the use of an outside consultant or organization is advisable for
both the board and the superintendent.

84
The California School Boards Association recommends that boards
operate with a unity of purpose when making decisions about superintendent
evaluation. As with other decisions, board members should not demonstrate
power except as a body, and the governance team includes the superintendent.
Decisions about evaluation content, criteria, methods and instruments
must be made jointly by the board and superintendent. We are a
governance team working together to lead the district toward achievement
of a collective vision. (Loofbourrow, 2006, p. 27)
Public school districts are led by elected board members who may have
little formal education or training in the field. They may have little or no
experience with consensual decision-making, which is an operational requirement
for high-functioning school districts. While the CSBA training provides
information about the role of board members as part of a governance team, and
superintendents or staff can fill in content information about the educational
system, board members may not have the strategies required to be effective.
A frequently overlooked strategy for keeping boards and superintendents
focused is the superintendent evaluation. A facilitated process can be
effective for the whole team as a way to assess progress toward goals, thus
maintaining a strong team focused on providing the best education for the
students. (Townsend, et al., 2007, p. 24)

Townsend’s perspective raises another general point. It is strategic and
expedient for superintendents or board members to utilize a required process to
strengthen superintendent/board relations or efficacy of either party. Seeing
processes or practices through this lens creates an outlook that may be more
favorable and productive. The same can be said for any protocol or practice that

85
is required; being mindful that relationship and trust building can be a conscious
component of any practice.
An area unexplored by this researcher, but of interest for future study, is
that of the role of board and community culture, and the way culture may come
into play during superintendent evaluation. If culture is what is assumed, then it
is not apparent to those who are in the culture. When a superintendent is hired
into a district, he is entering a culture with which he may not be familiar. While
most evaluation processes are linked to the job description of the superintendent,
there are hidden expectations that often are rooted in culture or tradition.
Superintendents may not be aware of these expectations, only discovering them
when a cultural norm or tradition has been violated. Making the unseen
expectations explicit by uncovering them and putting them in writing would be
valuable for board members and superintendents alike.

Research Question 4: Community Support
How does the superintendent work with the board to create community
support for a student achievement focus?
Context and literature on community support. The context for this
question lies in the assumption of the researcher that the staff of a public school
district is accountable to the superintendent, the superintendent is accountable to
the board, and the board is accountable to the public. Consequently, it would

86
behoove the superintendent to ensure that he has a strong understanding of the
community in which he works, and an appreciation of the culture or cultures of
the community. An effective superintendent would know how to enjoin
community partners and leverage the resources of the community in support of a
school board and district focus on student achievement.
School boards represent the culture and politics of the community in
which they reside, and superintendents must learn to navigate this context
successfully. When board members have little or no experience with governance
or knowledge of how school districts function, the superintendent may assume a
governance role (McAdams et al., 2006). If the superintendent desires authentic
community involvement in the operations of the school district, the board must
have a sufficient working knowledge of district operations to act as ambassador
and liaison with community partners.
When it comes to community involvement and superintendent/board
relations, size matters. Kowalski et al. (2011) found that board members in large
districts are more concerned about relations between the superintendent and
community leaders than are their peers in smaller districts, while citizens in small
districts were more likely to be involved in extracurricular activities. The three
issues identified as having the most frequent citizen involvement were long-range
planning, constructing a district or school vision, and facility planning.

87
Stakeholders were twice as likely to be involved in these three activities as they
were in all other activities (Kowalski, et al., 2011).
In short, parents and community members tend to be relatively absent
from processes directly involving matters of teaching and learning, despite the
NCLB policies requiring parent involvement in programs funded through the U.S.
Department of Education. Guidance by the U.S. Department of Education to
assist with implementation of NCLB is based on four principles: accountability
for results, local control and flexibility, expanded parental choice, and effective
and successful programs that reflect scientifically based research.
Examination of 31 studies by Henderson and Map (2002) provide
educational leaders with the types and levels of actions or activities that are most
likely to produce higher levels of achievement. The four key findings of their
work are: programs and interventions that engage families in supporting their
children’s learning at home; continuity of family involvement at home as children
progress through the educational system, which suggests that the more family
support the child has, the more likely that the child will stay in school and do well
in school; all families, regardless of culture, education or income, can and often
do have a positive influence on their children’s learning; and parent and
community involvement that is linked to student learning has a stronger
association with achievement than other forms of involvement
(Ceperley, 2005).

88
Questionnaire and superintendent interview results on community support.
In the questionnaire section regarding communication, 95.7% of respondents
agreed or strongly agreed with the statement “In my participation with civic and
business partners, I communicate the importance of student achievement as the
primary organizational objective.” In response to the statement “I ensure that
parents are well informed about student achievement goals, at both the district and
school level.” One hundred percent of respondents agreed or strongly agreed. In
the questionnaire regarding superintendent evaluation, 52% of respondents agreed
or strongly agreed with the statement “My board members include feedback from
staff, parents, or community members in evaluating my performance.”
All four superintendents spoke of attendance at meetings of civic or
community events and organizations, such as city council, Rotary, Chamber of
Commerce. Two spoke of relationships with elected officials, such as mayors or
members of congress. Intra-district organizations were also discussed as an
important element of involving and supporting the community. Such
organizations included the District English Learner Advisory Committee
(DELAC), the School Site Council (SSC), Parent Teacher Association (PTA), and
Booster Clubs.
All superintendents discussed the changes in federal and state
accountability systems, which were perceived as having a significant impact on
community support for student achievement as the highest priority of the

89
organization. The standards movement in the state of California created
accountability for aligning standards, curriculum, instruction and assessment
systems. The assessment systems in particular created a public level of
accountability that had not previously existed in the area of student achievement.
Superintendent B perceived the policy climate as having an impact on the
interests and priorities of the board.
The policy alignment changed the environment for school districts and
superintendents in . . . all of the emphasis that was put on testing. If there
was a bunch of stuff in the community about school’s test scores and the
press was calling, that creates a shift.

This shift put the superintendent in a position of needing to educate board
members on the requirements of schools and districts with new legislative and
policy initiatives, which naturally created a greater emphasis on student
achievement.
The increased use of electronic data systems to obtain, store and report
student data contributed to the public and community knowledge and ability to
pressure school districts for results. Community members no longer had to rely
on school district personnel to inform them about the achievement levels of
students at their various schools.
This, combined with direct access to superintendents and board members
with the advent of email, has created new conditions for how we think about
communication with and accountability to the public. Some superintendents
communicate directly with the public. Superintendent B maintained a weblog in

90
which he interacted with the community on educational matters. Superintendent
A was directly accessible by phone or email:
I’m very accessible to the community. Parents call me all the time and
they get me. Teachers call or email me, they get me. I think that helps
also that we’re all held accountable. Because if I’m going to be held
accountable to the board, you’re going to be held accountable to me.

Superintendents in this study shared their challenges in keeping board
focused. Board members were members of the community, and they had outside
forces which worked to distract or pull their focus from matters of student
achievement. Among the myriad examples provided of such distractions were
issues involving employee associations, sports and extracurricular activities,
facilities or construction issues, and personnel issues. The superintendent had to
mediate experiences of community pressure on board members and ensure that
these did not cause the board member to lose focus on the primary objective of
the organization. One superintendent shared:
Sometimes our eye leaves the ball with minutia, and we get caught up in
the [employee] that’s not happy because [he] was transferred. Your job is
to set policy, not run the day-to-day operations. That’s hard for any board
to understand.

Superintendent A hired a consultant to work with the superintendent and
district to ensure that the schools were “family friendly.” He stated:
It’s important that everybody feels safe, welcomed, and respected at our
schools because I think learning happens better when those things happen.
All of the research shows parent involvement in their student’s education
results in a better end-product.

91
`An issue raised by Superintendent C is how to support board members
when they are pressured by the community around a particular issue. If a
community member complains to a board member about an educational practice
or extracurricular activity, the superintendent works with the board member to
help them “manage their response” to the community member. In this type of
situation, board protocols can support both the superintendent and board member.

Four Additional Questions
In addition to the questionnaire and the related superintendent interview
questions heretofore discussed, the researcher asked four additional questions in
the superintendent interviews. The purpose of these open-ended questions was to
elicit more detailed responses in areas related to the four questions regarding
communication, board training, evaluation, and community support. The four
questions were:
How are conflicts between the board and superintendent or staff resolved?
Please describe how you would characterize the relationship between the
board and the superintendent, and how that relationship contributes to the
district’s ability to focus on student achievement.
How do you ensure the culture and climate of your school district is
conducive to teaching and learning?
What is your greatest challenge in keeping the board focused on student
achievement, and how are you addressing that challenge?

92
One interesting finding is that none of the superintendents interviewed had
protocols in place for resolving conflicts between the board and superintendent or
staff. All had experience in this area, and clear ideas of how to handle conflict,
but no agreed-upon protocols that could be followed. Ironically, when
superintendents and boards function well together, they do not perceive a need for
these protocols.
In general, superintendents reported that such conflicts should be handled
one-on-one, behind closed doors with the individual involved. Superintendent B
had a clear philosophy regarding the role of leaders in handling conflict:
As a leader, you’re not allowed to get angry. Emotion gets in the way.
You move to the pain. When there is something wrong, you embrace it
and you deal with it directly. You don’t ignore it. Engaging in conflict is
exhausting and prevents work from being accomplished.

The question on culture and climate conducive to teaching and learning
elicited very different responses. Superintendent A spoke of ensuring that schools
are “family-friendly,” and that all staff, students and parents feel safe, welcomed
and respected. For this superintendent, that foundation was a necessity in order to
keep the focus on teaching and learning. Superintendent B stated that the four
DuFour questions were axiomatic in his district: what do students need to know
and do, how do you know if they have learned, what do you do if they haven’t
learned, and what do you do if they already know the content. Superintendent C
spoke of eliminating barriers to effective instruction, such as interference with

93
instructional time, as well as eliminating non-research based instructional
practices.
The question regarding the greatest challenge in keeping the board focused
on student achievement also elicited different responses, but two themes. One
theme was with regard to the importance of hiring decisions and their impact on
the overall district focus and functioning. Hiring staff that “fit” with the culture
and objectives of the superintendent makes the job of focusing the board easier, as
the organization develops critical mass in support of district initiatives.
Superintendent D, leading his district for more than 10 years, explained that he
was very strategic about retirement decisions and new hires, ensuring that new
hires are “on board” with the instructional agenda. He stated:
Every principal who’s here I’ve hired. I’ve hired the entire cabinet. And
when I made a bad decision I fixed it. So . . . the group of administrators
that are in the district right now are pretty much of a like-mind in terms of
putting student achievement at the forefront of our daily efforts. That
feels really good because we’re all aligned and growing in the same
direction, as is the board and the community.

Superintendent B remarked that it is the superintendent’s job to lead and
manage the board, “right up to the degree that doesn’t get me fired.” This is
accomplished by working collaboratively and collegially, from interests as
opposed to positions.
Superintendent C’s biggest challenge was that the board was not focused
on student achievement, but on extracurricular activities and other issues that

94
board members find personally important or interesting. They do not prevent the
superintendent from maintaining a student achievement focus, “but they do not
contribute to it—in fact, they’re distracting from it.”

95
CHAPTER 5
DISCUSSION
Background and Purpose
During the last decade, school district superintendents have spent an
increasing amount of time communicating with board members, and have
developed a greater focus on student achievement, than ever in the history of the
position. The literature is clear on the need for superintendents and boards to
work collaboratively in order to establish and maintain student learning and
achievement as the highest organizational priority.
The purpose of this study was to identify protocols and practices of urban
superintendents in medium-sized districts who have demonstrated success in
improving student achievement. Specifically, the study examined practices in
superintendent/board communication, board orientation and training,
superintendent evaluation, and community support. The purpose of examining
these areas was to discover the practices that support the superintendent as he
endeavors to focus the board on student achievement as the highest organizational
priority.

96
Summary of Findings
Protocols and Practices for
Board-Superintendent Communication
The findings in the area of superintendent/board communication were
consistent with the literature in terms of the amount of time spent in
communication and the amount of time spent and intensity of focus on student
achievement matters. Communications to participants are shown in Appendices
A through D. Three themes emerged from the data. Establishing effective
communication practices was, by far, the area considered by survey respondents
and interviewees to be most essential to maintaining an organizational focus on
student achievement. Communication must be frequent, focused and purposeful,
and communication must be tailored to the board members’ particular styles or
needs for communication methods. This finding is not well researched in the
literature, but it arose consistently in both the electronic survey data and the
interviews as both a challenge for superintendents and as an essential skill
component of developing efficacy in superintendent/board communication.
Another finding was in the area of the potential for school-site visits to operate as
an effective communication protocol for keeping the board focused on student
achievement. During a school visit, the superintendent can shape the message and
meaning of what is observed and connect it to district instructional program
initiatives. The researcher would have thought that this practice would have been

97
perceived as more of a board training protocol, but it was consistently viewed
primarily as a communication practice, with a secondary effect being training.
The final unexpected finding was that the four interviewees, all had a
background in curriculum and instruction, and this prompted the researcher to
consider the possible reasons for this coincidence and whether there is a
correlation between superintendent success in raising student achievement and the
occupational background of the superintendent.

Orientation and Training of Board Members
In a parallel to the increased amount of time superintendents communicate
with board members, the last decade has also shown a greater amount of time
being spent on board training (Kowalski, et al., 2011). The findings are consistent
with the literature but go beyond it in the following way. As in the literature,
superintendents are the primary source of training, but this study showed an array
of practices that had not heretofore considered “training” in the traditional sense.
Superintendents’ success at keeping the board focused on student achievement
appeared to occur best when the training was embedded in regular activities or
responsibilities of board members. The primary examples of embedded
professional development would be training within board meetings, school visits,
and reading professional literature or the “Friday packet.” As adult learners,
principals and teachers need embedded professional development, where

98
authentic learning, that is applicable to the work of teaching and leading, is
integrated into the work day (Butler, 2002). The data collected by the researcher
indicate that the practice of embedded professional development applies also to
board members. Another parallel is that district and school leaders must
demonstrate learning by doing, providing differentiated guidance to teachers. The
researcher has concluded that in order for the school district to become a true
learning organization, board members must be integrated into this process
(DuFour, Eaker & Many, 2006). Two of the superintendents in this study had
begun this type of embedded and aligned professional development with their
board members by ensuring that they receive the same reading materials that the
district managers and leaders received.
The researcher has drawn two conclusions from this study. An aligned
model of embedded professional development that runs from the board room to
the classroom would be most effective and efficient for establishing and
maintaining a board focus on student achievement. Professional learning in the
area of student achievement is only worthwhile if it goes hand in hand with
training and practice in governance. Protocols and practices of effective
governance are required for a board and superintendent to develop and sustain an
effective governance team, which is necessary to collaborate around any issue or
initiative. The researcher recommends a balance between in-house training for

99
the educational aspects of learning and the use of an outside organization or
consultant for the governance training.

Superintendent Evaluation Protocols
A key finding was that 95.6% of the respondents in the electronic survey
stated that their job description contained elements related to student achievement
as an organizational objective for which the superintendent was responsible. This
contrasts sharply with Hoyle and Skrla’s (1999) finding that only 50% of
evaluations followed criteria in the job description. The researcher would
recommend further study to assess whether this finding coincides with the advent
of NCLB focus in achievement results.
One theme among respondents was the need for more training for board
members in how to evaluate superintendents. While 13.6% of respondents used
an outside consultant to assist with evaluation, only about half (52%) said that
their board had received training on how to evaluate the superintendent. The
researcher would argue that the hiring and evaluation of the superintendent is
perhaps the most important act of board members, and that both superintendents
and boards deserve a trained body to carry out this important task.
The use of strategic plans as a foundation for the superintendent
evaluation process is recommended in the literature. Whether it is the use of
strategic plans, ACSA standards or CSBA consultants, the evaluation process

100
should be aligned with district goals, including those for student achievement.
Outside resources (such as CSBA) or internal documents (such as strategic plans,
Local Educational Agency Plans, or Single Plans for Student Achievement), serve
to guide the process of superintendent evaluation in a way that focuses the
organization on students learning and achievement.
In conclusion, the superintendent should either have extremely clearly
defined, mutually agreeable protocols in place, or utilize a mutually agreeable
outside organization or consultant to guide the evaluation process. This supports
and protects both the board and the superintendent.

Community Support
The literature on community support is mostly in the area of parent
involvement in schools. Much of this research revolves around informing or
engaging parents in ways that will improve academic or socio-emotional
outcomes for children. The researcher’s question was about how the
superintendent creates community support for a focus on student achievement,
and parents are but one of many constituents within the community.
In retrospect, the researcher might have asked more detailed and specific
questions in this area to elicit a broader range of practices. There were only three
questions in the survey on this topic. Nevertheless, the data indicated a strong

101
commitment to engaging both parents and the larger business and civic partners in
supporting school district goals.
The traditional intra-district methods of involving parents in Parent
Teacher Association, School Site Council, District English Learner Advisory
Council and the like were discussed by superintendents as important to focusing
the board and district on student achievement. The traditional extra-district
community connections were also mentioned, such as Rotary Club and attendance
at meetings of or co-meetings with the City Council.
In comparison to other researched topics, such as communication, there
was much less data forthcoming in the survey narratives or interviews in the area
of community support. Superintendents had a lot to say about communication,
but less to say about community support. This could be due to lack of specificity
in questions, or it could reflect less breadth of practice, coherence in practice, or
planning in this area. The researcher concludes that this may be the next area for
alignment of practice. Marzano’s (2005) work, for example, has grown from
focus on the classroom, to the teacher, principal, and superintendent. Perhaps this
indicates a natural progression to how superintendents engage communities in
support of district goals. The coherence of district-wide efforts and alignment of
those efforts with the community are important, not just for the sake of
conformity, but because well-orchestrated and aligned efforts reinforce each other
and create a context for high performance.

102
Implications for Practice
In the area of communication, there are two implications for practice.
Superintendents would benefit from knowledge and expertise in the area of
multiple and modern forms of communication, such as forms of communication
facilitated by technology. While many use technology for one-way
communication (to inform parents or the community), there are many interactive
technologies that would facilitate communication between the superintendent, the
staff, and the wider community. As with any technology, however, there are
potential pitfalls. Opening the office of the superintendent to public accessibility
through email or a blog can present as many problems as it solves. Nevertheless,
the researcher recommends that superintendents are prepared for these practices
and develop their own knowledge base and philosophy of practice in this area.
The second implication for practice in the area of communication is
regarding the cultural aspects of communication. The literature and the research
for this study confirm that communication is the most essential skill for
superintendents to develop in order to sustain an effective relationship with the
board, and by extension, effective governance. The literature also states that poor
communication is most often cited as the reason for termination of
superintendents.
Superintendents seem under-prepared for the unique demands of
communicating effectively with a board. The main finding in this study was

103
regarding the need to differentiate communication for each board member. Any
competent superintendent would recognize the necessity for this, but there is little
research in this area. The cultural aspect of communication is also neglected in
practice and in the research. Understanding the beliefs and values of each board
member and what motivates them individually and collectively is essential to
developing effective communication practices. This point illustrates the value of
norms and protocols, which may outlive board members and provide stability
during changes in board composition. Superintendents often do not know that
they have violated a cultural norm until they do so, and by then the damage is
difficult to repair.
The researcher would recommend that superintendent preparation
programs include family and community engagement components to their
curriculum.
In the area of superintendent evaluation, the implication for practice is that
the board and superintendent follow the job description, have clearly defined,
mutually agreeable protocols in place, or utilize a mutually agreeable outside
organization or consultant to guide the evaluation process. Superintendent
preparation programs should include preparation for the evaluation process and
recommended practices in this area.

104
Implications for Future Research
There are numerous recommendations for further research to round out
knowledge about effective practices for maintaining a district focus on student
achievement. These recommendations are stated in the form of potential research
questions.
Is there a correlation between effective superintendents (as defined by
those who lead districts demonstrating significant and continuous improvement)
and the educational or occupational background of the superintendent?
Specifically, is there evidence that a background in curriculum and instruction
enhances superintendent performance in this areas of leadership?
What role does cultural and geographic knowledge play in the ability of a
superintendent to effectively lead a school district? Specifically, is there evidence
that being from the community or geographic area of the district increases the
ability of the superintendent to lead effectively? Does it positively affect a
superintendent’s ability to garner community support for a focus on student
achievement?
Superintendents in this study described the fiscal context as a barrier to
sustaining a district focus on student achievement. What has been the fiscal
impact in California on programs related to increasing student achievement and
closing achievement gaps? With the advent of categorical fund sweeping and

105
increased flexibility in the context of overall reductions in revenue, what impact
has this had on programs and services for underachieving students?
Are there differences in pre- and post-NCLB job descriptions of
superintendents? Specifically, do post-NCLB job descriptions contain more
elements related to student achievement? Has there been a significant change in
the use of job descriptions as the basis of evaluation between 2000 and the
present?

Conclusions
If urban public schools are going to be led by qualified, effective
superintendents who keep school districts focused on student learning, we will
need well-informed superintendents and boards who communicate and
collaborate, understand and occupy their respective roles, and who jointly inform,
enjoin and engage the community in making student achievement the highest
priority for our school districts.
To accomplish this requires more than knowledge, skill or will. Brain and
brawn are essential ingredients for this difficult and demanding work, but to
successfully lead a school district requires heart and soul. The researcher
concludes that poor communication is the most-often cited reason for termination
of a superintendent because we mistakenly believe that most problems can be
resolved with sufficient information and resource.

106
Bolman and Deal (2011) capture it this way:
Budgets have to be balanced and paper has to be pushed, but that’s the
easy part. The deeper and more important task is to give passionate,
relentless attention to mission and purpose, continually seeking ways to
offer the gift of significance to one’s constituents. (p. 263)

Protocols for communication, board training and superintendent
evaluation will certainly help. Protocols can depersonalize interactions. They
provide structure for processes and parameters for behavior. They are the vehicle
for building skills and, ultimately, the culture for how to operate collaboratively
for a common purpose.

107
REFERENCES
Bolman, L & Deal, T. (2011). Leading with soul: An uncommon journey of
spirit. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Butler, J. (2002). Staff development. School Improvement Research Series:
Research You Can Use, 12, 3. Retrieved April 24, 2006 from
http://educationnorthwest.org/webfm_send/501.
Byrd, J., Drews, C., & Johnson, J. (2006). Factors impacting superintendent
turnover: Lessons from the field. NCPEA Education Leadership Review,
7,(2). Retrieved February 12, 2012 from
http://cnx.org/content/m14507/latest/
Calweti, G., & Protheroe, N. (2007). The school board and central office in
district improvement. In H. Walberg (Ed.), Handbook on restructuring
and substantial school improvement (pp. 37-52). Lincoln, IL: Center on
Innovation and Improvement. Retrieved February 12, 2012 from
http://www.doe.virginia.gov/support/school_improvement/training/handbo
oks/cii_handbook.pdf.
Candoli, I., Cullen, K., & Stufflebeam, D. (1997). Superintendent performance
evaluation: Current practice and directions for improvement. Boston
MA. Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Ceperley, P. (2005). Research brief: Linking student achievement to school,
family, and community involvement. Charleston, WV: Appalachia
Educational Laboratory at EDVANTIA. Retrieved on February 23, 2012,
from http://www.edvantia.org/pdta/pdf/FamilyBrief.pdf.
Childress, S., Elmore, R., & Grossman, A. (2006, November). How to manage
urban school districts. Harvard Business Review, 55-68.
Cotton, K. (1989). Expectations and student outcomes. NW Archives: School
Improvement
Creswell, J. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-
methods approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Cunningham, C. (2002). Engaging the Community to Support Student
Achievement. ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Management, Eugene.
Retrieved from http://www.ericdigests.org/2003-1/student.htm.

108
Datnow, A., Park, V., & Wohlstetter, P. (2007). Achieving with data: How high-
performing school systems use data to improve instruction for elementary
students. Los Angeles: USC Center on Educational Governance.
Retrieved February 12, 2012, from
http://www.newschools.org/files/AchievingWithData.pdf.
Donaldson, G, Marnik, G., Mackenzie, S., & Ackerman, R. (2009). What makes
or breaks a principal. Educational Leadership,67(2), 8-14.
DuFour, R. & Burnette, B. (2002, Summer). Pull out negativity by its roots:
Those who grow healthy school cultures must root out weeds of bad
culture. Journal of Staff Development, 23(3), 27-30. Retrieved April 24,
2006 from http://www.nsdc.org/news/jsd/burnette233.cfm
DuFour, R, DuFour, R., Eaker, R., & Many, T. ( 2006 ) Learning by doing: A
handbook for professional learning communities at work. Bloomington,
IN: Solution Tree Press
Elmore, R. (2000, Winter). Building a new structure for school leadership. The
Albert Shanker Institute, Washington DC. Retrieved on February 12,
2012 from
http://www.politicalscience.uncc.edu/godwink/PPOL8687/Wk10%20Mar
ch%2022%20Accountability/Elmore%20Building%20a%20New%20Stru
cture%20for%20Leadership.pdf.
Elmore, R. (2002). Bridging the gap between standards and achievement: The
imperative for professional development in education. Washington, D.C.:
Albert Shanker Institute. Retrieved July 12, 2003, from
http://www.nsdc.org/library/results/res11-02elmore.html.
Elmore, R. (2003). A plea for strong practice. Educational Leadership, 62(3), 6-
10. Retrieved from http://www.qualitylearning.net/strongpractice.htm.
Filby, N. (2000). Teachers who learn, kids who achieve: A look at schools with
model professional development. San Francisco, CA: Western Regional
Education Laboratory.
Fullan, M. (2001). Leading in a culture of change. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Fuller, H. L., Cambell, C., Celio, M. B., Harvey, J., Immerwahr, J., & Winger, A.
(2003). An impossible job? The view from the urban superintendent’s
chair (The Wallace Foundation.). Washington, DC: U.S. Government
Printing Office.

109
Glaser, J., & Toscano, E. (2008, January/February). A new model for district
office organization. Leadership, 37 (3), 14-17.
Hamilton, L., Halverson, R., Jackson, S., Mandinach, E., Supovitz, J., &
Wayman, J. (2009). Using student achievement data to support
instructional decision making (NCEE 2009-4067). Washington, DC:
National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance,
Institute of Education sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved
on February 12, 2012, from
http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/publications/practiceguides/
Hancock, M., & Lamendola, B. (2005, March). Learning from urban schools: A
leadership journey. Educational Leadership, 62(1), 74-78.
Henderson, A. T., & Mapp, K. L.. (2002). A new wave of evidence: The impact
of school, family, and community connections on student achievement.
Annual synthesis. Austin, TX: National Center for Family and
Community Connections with Schools, Southwest Educational
Development Laboratory.
Hess, F. (2002). School boards at the dawn of the 21
st
century: Conditions and
challenges of district governance. A report prepared for the National
School Boards Association. School of Education and Department of
Government, University of Virginia. Retrieved February 12, 2012 from
http://www.nsba.org/Board-
Leadership/Surveys/SchoolBoardsattheDawnofthe21stCentury.pdf
Hoyle, J., & Skrla, L. (1999). The politics of superintendent evaluation. Journal
of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 13(4), 405-419.
Hoyle, J., Bjork, L., Collier, V., & Glass, T. (2005). The superintendent as CEO.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Kowalski, T, McCord, R, Petersen, G, Young, P, & Ellerson, N. (2011). The
American school superintendent: 2010 decennial study. Lanham, MD:
Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
Loofbourrow, S., (2006). Human resources: Superintendent evaluation. West
Sacramento, CA: California School Board Association Masters in
Governance Series.

110
Malen, B. (1994). The micropolitics of education: Mapping the multiple
dimensions of power relations in school politics. Journal of Education
Policy, 9(5-6), 147-167. Retrieved from
http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/search/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true
&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=EJ501253&ERICExtSearch_Searc
hType_0=no&accno=EJ501253.
Marzano, R., & Waters, T. (2009). District leadership that works: Striking the
right balance. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.
Marzano, R. J., Waters, T., & McNulty, B. A. (2005). School leadership that
works: From research to results. Alexandria, VA: Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development.
MacIver, M., & Farley, E. (2003). Bringing the district back in: The role of the
central office in improving instruction and student achievement. (Report
No. 65). Baltimore, MD: Center for Research on the Education of
Students Placed At Risk, Johns Hopkins University.
Marks, H., & Printy, S. (2003). Principal leadership and school performance:
An integration of transformational and instructional leadership.
Educational Administration Quarterly, 39(3), 370-397.
Marzano, R., & Waters, T. (2009). District leadership that works: striking the
right balance. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.
Marzano, R., Pickering, D., & Pollock, J. (2001). Classroom instruction that
works: Research-based strategies for increasing student achievement.
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.
Marzano, R., Waters, T., & McNulty, B. (2005). School leadership that works:
From research to results. Aurora, CO, Mid-continental Research for
Education and Learning.
Malen, B. (1994). The micropolitics of education: Mapping the multiple
dimensions of power relations in school politics. Journal of Education
Policy, 9(5-6), 147-167. Retrieved from
http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/search/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true
&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=EJ501253&ERICExtSearch_Searc
hType_0=no&accno=EJ501253.

111
McAdams, D., Wisdom, M., & Glover, S. (2006). What school boards can do:
Reform governance for urban schools. New York: Teacher's College
Press, Columbia University.
National School Boards Association, Council of Urban Boards of Education
Survey Report, Superintendent tenure, 2001
Patton, M. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Porch, S., & Protheroe, N. (2003). Superintendent-school board relations in
support of high student achievement. Arlington VA: The Informed
Educator Series, Educational Research Service. Retrieved from
http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/search/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true
&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=ED481242&ERICExtSearch_Searc
hType_0=no&accno=ED481242.
Protheroe, N. (2006). School boards focused on student learning. The Informed
Educator Series. Arlington, VA: Educational Research Service.
Reeves, D. (2009). Leading change in your school: How to conquer myths,
build commitment, and get results. Alexandria, VA: Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Resnick, L., & Hall, M.W. (2003). Principles of learning for effort-based
education. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburg. Retrieved
February 12, 2012 from
http://ramsey.spps.org/uploads/polv3_3.pdf
Resnick, M., & Bryant, A. (2010). School boards: Why American education
needs them. Phi Delta Kappan, 91(6),11-14.
Ruhland, J. (2001). Superintendent tenure. CUBE Survey Report. Alexandria
VA: Council of Urban Boards of Education, National School Board
Association.. Retrieved February 12, 2012 from,
http://www.nsba.org/Board-
Leadership/Surveys/SuperintendentTenure.pdf.
Smoley, E. R. (1999). Effective school boards: Strategies for improving board
performance. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

112
Togneri, W., & Anderson, S. E. (2003). Beyond islands of excellence: What
districts can do to improve instruction and achievement in all schools.
Washington, D.C.: The Learning First Alliance and the Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Townsend, R. S., Johnston, G. L., Gross, G. E., Lynch, P., Garey, L., Roberts, B.,
& Novotney, P. B. (2007). Effective superintendent/school board
practices: Strategies for developing and maintaining good relationships
with your board, Thousand Oaks, CA, Corwin Press.
Waters, T., & Marzano, R. J. (2007). School district leadership that works: The
effect of superintendent leadership on student achievement. Educational
Research Service, 25(2), 1-12.
Waters, T., Marzano, R. J., & McNulty, B. (2004). Leadership that sparks
learning. Educational Leadership, 61(7), pp. 48-51.

113
APPENDIX A
ELECTRONIC SURVEY PROTOCOL FOR SUPERINTENDENTS
Introduction to Survey:

Thank you for taking the time to complete this survey. There are 20 questions and it should take
less than 15 minutes to complete.

The purpose of the study is to identify the practices and protocols that superintendents deploy in
developing and managing superintendent/board relations in order to achieve a school board focus
on student achievement outcomes as the primary organizational objective.

Please indicate your level of agreement
with the following statements.
Strongly
Agree
Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
Disagree
Communication

1. Communication with the board is
essential to maintaining an
organizational focus on student
achievement.
5 4 3 2 1
2. I communicate daily with board
members.
5 4 3 2 1
3. I ensure that board members support
district student achievement goals.
5 4 3 2 1
4. At board meetings, I encourage
board members to put student
achievement as a top priority when
making decisions.
5 4 3 2 1
5. The majority of board meetings
include agenda items related to student
achievement.
5 4 3 2 1
6. In my participation with civic and
business partners, I communicate the
importance of student achievement as
the primary organizational objective.
5 4 3 2 1

7. I ensure that parents are well
informed about student achievement
goals, at both the district and school
level.
5 4 3 2 1
8. I find it challenging to keep board
members focused on student
achievement matters. Issues unrelated
to teaching and learning distract them.
5 4 3 2 1
9. My district has superintendent/board
communication procotols that help
ensure effective communication.

114

Please indicate your level of
agreement with the following
statements.
Strongly
Agree
Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
Disagree
Evaluation

10. My job description contains
elements related to student
achievement as an organizational
objective.
5 4 3 2 1
11. My employment contract
contains elements related to student
achievement as an organizational
objective.
5 4 3 2 1
12. My evaluation by the board
includes elements related to student
achievement.
5 4 3 2 1
13. The processes for my evaluation
are clearly defined and agreed upon
by all board members.
5 4 3 2 1
14. My board members have
received training on how to evaluate
superintendents.
5 4 3 2 1
15. My board members include staff,
parent or community feedback in
evaluating my performance.

16. The school board in my district
utilizes outside resources to assist in
the superintendent evaluation
process.
5 4 3 2 1
17. I feel that the superintendent
evaluation process is fair.
5 4 3 2 1
Board Member Training

18. Board members receive
orientation and training from me
regarding student achievement.
5 4 3 2 1
19. Board members in my district
receive orientation or training
through California School Boards
Association
5 4 3 2 1
20. Board members learn from study
sessions or board presentations about
student achievement matters.
5 4 3 2 1
Thank you very much. Would you
be willing to be participate in a 30-
minute interview as part of this
study?

Yes No

115
APPENDIX B
SUPERINTENDENT INTERVIEW PROTOCOL
1. Current research indicates that over the past decade, superintendents have
increased both the amount of time they communicate with board members,
and the amount of time they spend focusing the board on student
achievement matters. Please share your own experience in this area.
2. What communication protocols are in place in your district, and how do
they impact establishing a board focus on student achievement?
Specifically, what communication protocols exist between the board and
superintendent or between the board and district level staff responsible for
student achievement?
3. Who provides orientation and training for board members in the area of
student achievement?
4. What is your role in developing and sustaining community support for a
district focus on student achievement?
5. How is the superintendent evaluated? What role does student achievement
play in the hiring and/or the evaluation of the superintendent?
6. How do you ensure the culture and climate of your school district is
conducive to teaching and learning?
7. How are conflicts between the board and superintendent or staff resolved?

116

8. Please describe how you would characterize the relationship between the
board and the superintendent, and how that relationship contributes to the
district’s ability to focus on student achievement.
9. What is your greatest challenge in keeping the board focused on student
achievement, and how are you addressing that challenge?
10. Is there anything else you would like to share with me?

117
APPENDIX C
RESEARCH INTRODUCTION LETTER

Dear [Name],

My name is Betsy Hamilton, and I am a doctoral student in the Rossier School of
Education at USC. I am working with Drs. Pedro Garcia, Rudy Castruita, and
Rudy Crew, and am conducting a research study as part of my dissertation. My
specific focus is exploring the role of superintendents in establishing a school
board focus on student achievement. Your participation in this study will
contribute to the profession by helping identify superintendent practices that
contribute to the ability of the superintendent to establish and maintain this focus.

You have been identified as an educational leader with significant expertise and
experience in this area. I would respectfully request that you consider
contributing to our knowledge of superintendent/board relations by participating
in this study. Participation would require response to an on-line questionnaire.
From the questionnaire respondents, a selection of districts will be asked to
participate in an interview with you, a board member, and a member of your
management team who is primarily responsible for student achievement
outcomes. Each interview would be completed in less than an hour and would be
scheduled at your convenience.

Participation in this study is voluntary. Your identity as a participant will remain
confidential at all times during and after the study. If you have questions or
would like to participate, I can be contacted at the numbers listed below.

Thank you for considering participation in this study.

Sincerely,

Betsy Hamilton

Doctoral Student, Rossier School of Education, University of Southern California
Assistant Superintendent, Educational Services, Lawndale Elementary School
District
Work (310) 973-1300 x 1234
Cell (831) 566-9600

118
APPENDIX D
INFORMATION SHEET FOR NON-MEDICAL RESEARCH
The Role of the Superintendent in Ensuring School Board Focus
on Student Achievement

Invitation to Participate

You have been selected for invitation to participate in a research study
conducted by Elizabeth (Betsy) Hamilton and Dr. Pedro E. Garcia at the
University of Southern California. You have been selected due to your district’s
success in continuously increasing academic achievement. This research study
will be the basis for a dissertation, as part of completion of the Ed.D. program at
the Rossier School of Education at USC. Your participation is voluntary. Please
read the information below, and ask any questions prior to determining whether
you will participate.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of the study is to examine how urban superintendents work
with their school boards to achieve and sustain a district focus on student
achievement as the highest organizational priority.

Procedures

An electronic survey regarding superintendent/board relations will be
conducted. Individual confidential interviews will be conducted.

Potential Risks and Discomforts

There are no risks or discomforts associated with participation in the
study.

Potential Benefits to Subject and/or Society

There are potential benefits to practitioners of educational leadership and
superintendent preparation programs in institutions of higher learning.

119
Payment for Participation

Participants will not be paid for their participation. Results of the study
will be provided to participants at their request.

Confidentiality, Participation and Withdrawal

Participant responses will remain confidential. Participants may withdraw
from the study at any time.

Abstract (if available)

Abstract The purpose of the study was to identify superintendent practices and protocols that contribute to the ability of the urban superintendent to establish and sustain a school board focus on student achievement as the highest organizational priority of a school district. ❧ The study was conducted utilizing mixed qualitative and quantitative methods. A survey of 23 urban superintendents in the Los Angeles area was completed and interviews were conducted with 4 superintendents. Numerous school district documents were reviewed and analyzed. ❧ Four particular areas of superintendent/board relations and superintendent practices were examined: superintendent/board communication protocols, board training and orientation regarding student achievement, superintendent evaluation, and community support for student achievement. ❧ The findings in the area of communication included the need for frequent, focused and purposeful communication, utilization of a variety of communication methods, and differentiation of communication methods and styles to meet the needs of different board members. The findings in the area of board orientation and training and superintendent evaluation included the importance of outside consultants or organizations in ensuring effective training of the board in governance responsibilities and in effective evaluation of the superintendent. The findings in the area of community support included superintendents moving beyond legally mandated or traditional organizations and considering cultural context in defining community.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

The sustainability of superintendent-led reforms to improve student achievement

PDF

Superintendents increase student achievement by selecting effective principals

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Strategies employed by middle school principals successful in increasing and sustaining the mathematics achievement of African American students

Asset Metadata

Creator Hamilton, Elizabeth Hall (author)

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

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 05/06/2012

Defense Date 03/13/2012

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

Tag leadership,OAI-PMH Harvest,school board,student achievement,superintendent

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor García, Pedro Enrique (committee chair), Castruita, Rudy Max (committee member), Crew, Rudolph (committee member)

Creator Email betsy_hamilton@lawndale.k12.ca.us,teacherbetsy@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-32275

Unique identifier UC11289047

Identifier usctheses-c3-32275 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-HamiltonEl-785.pdf

Dmrecord 32275

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Hamilton, Elizabeth Hall

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