/

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

/

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

(USC Thesis Other)

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

PDF

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: SUCCESSFUL SUPERINTENDENTS

1

STRATEGIES EMPLOYED BY SUCCESSFUL SUPERINTENDENTS
AND BOARDS OF EDUCATION RESULTING IN INCREASED
STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT

by

Melissa Sue Moore

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

December 2014

Copyright 2014 Melissa S. Moore

SUCCESSFUL SUPERINTENDENTS

2
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to express my sincere appreciation to everyone who encouraged and
supported me through my educational journey at the University of Southern California, Rossier
School of Education. Never in a million years did I picture myself at this point in my life
enrolling in such a prestigious program. My journey began by accepting the invitation of Dr.
Sherry Kendrick to attend a Rossier Summer Leadership Conference. That experience influenced
me to make the decision to become a Trojan and pursue a doctoral degree in educational
leadership.
I was extremely fortunate to be assigned Dr. Rudy Castruita as my dissertation chair. Dr.
Castruita’s high expectations and sage advice provided me with the essential framework to
succeed. His tremendous knowledge and expertise regarding the superintendency inspired me to
attain my first position as a superintendent while completing this program. My committee
members Dr. Pedro Garcia and Dr. Hilda Flores provided me counsel, feedback, and guidance as
to the next best steps. I feel extremely blessed to have a dissertation committee that challenged
me at the highest level academically, personally, and professionally.
I must also acknowledge the numerous individuals who comprised the 2012 Orange
County Cohort. Throughout this program, I enjoyed engaging in rich professional dialogue with
colleagues on topics of educational leadership. I express special thanks to my dear friend Linda
Moffatt, who stayed the doctoral course alongside me, every step of the way. Your presence and
positive work ethic inspired me to keep my eye on the destination. Fight on!
Finally, I must acknowledge the unwavering love and support of my sons, family, and
friends throughout this process. All of you recognized and honored my commitment as a
graduate student even when it meant I spent a little less time chatting on the phone, attending a
SUCCESSFUL SUPERINTENDENTS

3
family event, or simply spending time together. Thank you to my three sons, Chase, Scott, and
Alex, who supported my decision to enroll in the program and believed that I could attain my
goal. Your thoughtful encouragement and real belief in me motivated me to work harder. I am
grateful for the unconditional love and happiness you bring into my life. A special recognition is
awarded to Marlene and Hal Moore, who taught me the self-discipline to successfully navigate
this educational journey. As my parents, you modeled for me personal integrity and family
values, you demonstrated a tremendous work ethic, you taught me the significance of education,
you inspired me to find strength from within, and you believed in me. I watched, I listened, and I
learned from both of you. I genuinely believe my success is your success.
SUCCESSFUL SUPERINTENDENTS

4
Table of Contents

Acknowledgements 2

List of Tables 7

Abstract 9

Chapter One: Overview of the Study 11
Introduction 11
Statement of the Problem 18
Purpose of the Study 19
Research Questions 20
Significance of the Study 20
Summary of Methodology 21
Assumptions 21
Limitations 22
Delimitations 22
Definition of Terms 23
Organization of the Study 25

Chapter Two: Review of the Literature 26
Introduction 26
Overview of the Superintendency and School Boards 27
Changes in the Roles of Superintendents and School Boards 29
Current Challenges for Superintendents and School Boards 33
Effective Superintendent School Board Relationships 37
Commitment to Vision of Student Achievement 39
Collaborative Goal-Setting 40
Non-Negotiable Goals for Achievement 41
Board Alignment and Support of District Goals 42
Monitoring the Goals for Achievement 42
Allocation of Resources to Support Achievement 43
Role of District-Level Leadership on Student Achievement 44
Role of the Superintendent 44
Role of the Board of Education 46
Conclusion 48

Chapter Three: Methodology 49
Introduction 49
Purpose of the Study 50
Research Questions 51
Mixed-Method Study Design 51
Research Design 52
Sample and Population 53
Instrument Validity 54
SUCCESSFUL SUPERINTENDENTS

5
Instrumentation 54
Quantitative Instrumentation 55
Qualitative Instrumentation 55
Data Collection 56
Quantitative Data Collection 56
Qualitative Data Collection 57
Data Analysis 57
Quantitative Data Analysis 57
Qualitative Data Analysis 58
Summary 58

Chapter Four: Results 60
Introduction 60
Purpose of the Study 61
Response Rate 61
Quantitative Demographic Data 63
Qualitative Demographic Data 72
Research Question One 74
Possessing a Belief That All Students Can Learn 77
Possessing High Expectations for Student Achievement 78
Establishing a Shared Vision for the School District 79
Specific Strategy That Yielded Results 80
Discussion 82
Research Question Two 83
Superintendent’s Perception of Essential Relationship Elements 85
Focus on Student Achievement and Data-Driven Decision-Making 87
Follows Board Protocols and Understands the Board’s Role 87
Board President’s Perception of Essential Relationship Elements 88
Keeps Board Well-Informed and Communicates Effectively 91
Works Collaboratively 92
Discussion 93
Research Question Three 93
Expresses a Belief That All Students Can Learn 97
Demonstrates Knowledge of the District Goals 100
Discussion 100
Research Question Four 101
Analysis of Data 102
Monitoring Reports 103
Discussion 104
Summary 105

Chapter Five: Conclusions 107
Introduction 107
Statement of the Problem 107
Purpose of the Study 108
Research Questions 109
SUCCESSFUL SUPERINTENDENTS

6
Review of the Literature 110
Methodology 110
Findings 112
Implications for Practice 116
Recommendations for Future Study 117
Conclusions 118

References 120
Appendix A: Research Question/Instrument Connection 127
Appendix B: Survey Instrument 132
Appendix C: Interview Protocol 136
Appendix D: Consent Letter 138
Appendix E: Information Letter 139
SUCCESSFUL SUPERINTENDENTS

7
List of Tables
Table 1: Quantitative Survey: Response Rate 62

Table 2: Quantitative Survey: Participant Gender 63

Table 3: Quantitative Survey: Participant Ethnicity 64

Table 4: Quantitative Survey: Participant Age 66

Table 5: Quantitative Survey: Participant Highest Education Level 67
Attained

Table 6: Quantitative Survey: Participant Experience in Current 69
School District

Table 7: Quantitative Survey: District Characteristics 71

Table 8: Qualitative Interview: Characteristics of 73
Superintendents, Board Presidents and Districts

Table 9: Ranking of Collaborative Strategies Employed That Resulted in 76
Increased Student Achievement

Table 10: Types of Instructional Coaching Employed to Improve 81
Student Achievement

Table 11: Degree of Satisfaction with School District’s Success in 84
Improving Student Achievement

Table 12: Degree of Superintendent Satisfaction Working 85
with the Board of Education

Table 13: Desirable Qualities Board Members Should Possess 86

Table 14: Degree of Board President Satisfaction Working 88
with the Superintendent

Table 15: Desirable Qualities Superintendents Should Possess 90

Table 16: Degree of Perception that Superintendent and Board 94
Relationship Collectively Influences Student Achievement

Table 17: Board Degree of Agreement Regarding Strategies 97
Superintendent Employs That Influence Student Achievement

SUCCESSFUL SUPERINTENDENTS

8
Table 18: Superintendent Degree of Agreement Regarding Strategies 99
Board Members Employ That Influence Student Achievement

Table 19: Data Used Collectively by Governance Teams to Increase 102
Student Achievement

SUCCESSFUL SUPERINTENDENTS

9
Abstract
School district superintendents and boards of education in the 21st-century are facing
unprecedented pressure to improve student achievement results. In order to compete,
superintendents and boards of education must share the role of solution seeker to meet the
challenge of increasing achievement for all students. This study sought to identify essential
elements regarding the governance team relationships and strategies that superintendents and
boards of education collaboratively employ that result in increased student achievement.
This study was conducted by a single researcher from the Rossier School of Education at
the University of Southern California. This research study employed a mixed-methods design to
respond to 4 research questions related to superintendent and board of education relationships
that increase student achievement. Data was collected via 41 quantitative surveys and 10
qualitative interviews completed by matched pairs consisting of successful superintendents and
board presidents from the same school district in California.
First, data analysis revealed that possessing the belief that all students can learn, holding
high expectations for achievement, and establishing a shared vision for the school district were
the primary themes that surfaced. One specific strategy that also emerged was the
implementation of instructional coaching as a means to improve instructional practice for
teachers. Second, the essential elements within the governing team relationship that contributed
to increased student achievement included board members who focus on student achievement,
make decisions based upon research or data, follow the established board protocols, and
understand the role of a board member; as well as superintendents who keep the board well-
informed, communicate effectively, and work collaboratively with others. Third, successful
superintendents and boards of education recognize their roles as contributing members of a
governance team whose relationship can result in positive effects or adverse effects that can
SUCCESSFUL SUPERINTENDENTS

10
influence the school district’s goal to improve student achievement. Fourth, highly effective
school districts use data as indicators of strengths and weaknesses in student achievement, in
relation to the accomplishment of district goals, and to provide progress reports to the board of
education in order to maintain a keen focus on student achievement.

SUCCESSFUL SUPERINTENDENTS 11

CHAPTER ONE: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
Introduction
School district superintendents and boards of education in the 21st century are facing
unprecedented pressure to improve student achievement results. First off, under the mandates of
the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act, superintendents and boards of education are obliged to
respond to the challenges prescribed by the federal accountability model. However, public
education systems are under pressure not only by the national expectations for school
improvement but also for American students to achieve status as global contenders and to
outperform international students from other countries in reading, writing, and science (Fuchs &
Wobmann, 2007). School district governing teams consisting of superintendents and boards of
education must address these national and international expectations. District governing teams
face demands from local communities, policymakers, and the media, who insist on the
implementation of student achievement reforms. The challenge for superintendents and boards of
education is to meet constituents’ demands for accountability to produce high quality students
who possess the necessary academic knowledge and skills to be successful in the 21st century
(Kirby & Stecher, 2004). Therein lies the overwhelming task for district governing teams.
NCLB immediately generated several dilemmas for district governing teams. Authorized
in 2001, NCLB altered the face of public education by establishing federal regulations to
increase teacher quality, require student testing, and impose a school accountability system on all
school districts (National Council on Teacher Quality, 2011). NCLB is the single largest federal
educational policy in the history of the United States, and compels explicit action on the part of
superintendents and boards of education; in many ways, these entities are unaccustomed to the
nature of this action (Elmore, 2003). School district governing teams have found themselves
SUCCESSFUL SUPERINTENDENTS 12

mired in federal regulations that value a bureaucratic performance-based accountability system
grounded in standardized test results (Kirby & Stecher, 2004). Thus, NCLB has been nicknamed
“No Child Left Untested” or “No School Board Left Standing,” as a school district’s failure to
meet the federal mandates results in serious sanctions that include school restructuring, school
closure, and a regulation permitting student transfers (Darling-Hammond, 2007). School districts
are unilaterally rated by standardized test results of student subgroups—compared to arbitrary
federal standards in the content areas of reading and mathematics.
The focus of NCLB is a form of bureaucratic accountability that measures growth against
an established standard that has proved to be problematic for governing teams (Darling-
Hammond, 2007; Kirby & Stecher, 2004). Elmore (2003) has argued that NCLB became the
problem of superintendents, boards of education, principals, and teachers. Consequently,
superintendents and boards of education were collectively charged to build the capacity of
educators and of schools to deliver highly effective instruction—or be identified as a “failing”
school or district (Darling-Hammond, 2007; Elmore, 2002). Elmore (2003) has asserted that to
respond to the politics of education, superintendents and boards of education developed a
collaborative practice of improvement with a sense of urgency. District governing teams
responded accordingly.
Political and performance-based accountability is evident on international assessments as
well, where the performance of United States youth lags behind competing nations in
mathematics and reading (Kirby & Stecher, 2004; Miller, Malley, & Burns, 2009). The political
accountability relates to the inability of United States to maintain status as a global competitor.
One such indicator is the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) 2006, a study of
15-year-old students from member countries of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and
SUCCESSFUL SUPERINTENDENTS 13

Development (OECD) (Baldi, Jin, Skemer, Green, & Herget, 2007). OECD is comprised of 34
highly competitive world nations.
The 2006 PISA results were startling for the educational community in the United States.
PISA revealed that 15-year-old American students demonstrated only average ability in reading
literacy and below average ability in mathematics in comparison to 15-year-old students from
OECD countries. Specifically, American students lagged behind international peers in applying
mathematical knowledge to real world tasks and scored in the bottom quarter on PISA math
achievement. PISA also targets reading literacy that focuses on real-life versus curriculum-based
questions (Fuchs & Wobmann, 2007). The previous valid American student scores in PISA
reading were in 2003, with U.S. reading achievement landing in the middle third of all OECD
countries (Provasnik, Gonzales, & Miller, 2009). Undoubtedly, American students being
“average” in reading does not measure up to national expectations.
U.S. students fail to compete adequately on multiple international measures. Although the
United States is spending more dollars on education than its G-8 counterparts—which include,
Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, the United Kingdom—there remains a
significant lack of academic achievement gains in American students (Miller et al., 2009).
Furthermore, other competitive global indicators, such as the Trends in International
Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) and the Progress in International Reading Literacy
Study (PIRLS) provide comparable evidence (Provasnik et al., 2009). On 2009 TIMSS
mathematics, U.S. students demonstrated increased achievement in both 4th and 8th grade since
the first administration of TIMSS in 1995 (Provasnik et al., 2009). Yet U.S. 8th-grade students
still trailed behind Japan, Singapore, Korea, Chinese Taipei, and Hong Kong (Gonzales et al.,
2008). Similarly, eight out of 35 countries outscored U.S. 4th-grade students in mathematics. On
SUCCESSFUL SUPERINTENDENTS 14

the PIRLS (2006) reading, American 4th-grade students ranked 11th out of 45 participating
countries. Interestingly enough, no measurable progress was recorded in the U.S. students’
average literacy score between 2001 and 2006 (Baer, Baldi, Ayotte, & Green, 2007). To
maintain its status as a world power, the U.S. public-at-large and media will not settle for
mediocre student performance and is looking at school districts to place blame for failing to
prepare students to compete on a global level (Darling-Hammond, 2007).
McKinsey’s (2009) research found that the achievement gap between international
countries or even states within our own nation has led to economic and market loss. The
McKinsey (2009) research serves as an example of how performance-based accountability
evolves into market accountability (Kirby & Stecher, 2004). On a global level, in 2008 the
lagging achievement of American children—in comparison to children from other countries—
deprived the United States of roughly $2.3 trillion in economic output (Auguste, Hancock, &
Laboissiere, 2009). Moreover, the entrenched achievement gaps between students from various
ethnic groups within the United States, poverty levels, and low-performing school districts
represent unattained financial gains due to underutilized human potential (Lee, 2002). Left
unchanged, the disparities will grow exponentially as Blacks and Hispanics account for a greater
segment of the U.S. population (Auguste et al., 2009). McKinsey (2009) also concluded that
failing to address the achievement inequality for students of poverty also negatively impacts the
U.S. economy.
Global and economic comparisons aside, every student comes to school each day with the
hope that 13 years of schooling will make a difference and increase their chances of success in
modern America (Marzano, Waters, & McNulty, 2005). Although America was founded on
freedom, conflict exists at the core between the dominant or privileged and the oppressed that
SUCCESSFUL SUPERINTENDENTS 15

resist submission (A. Johnson, 2006). Across the United States, an achievement gap is evident
between minority and disadvantaged students and their White peers (Bensimon, 2005; Ladson-
Billings, 2006; Lee, 2002). This gap reflects the disparity between the performance of Black and
Hispanic students on standardized test scores and those of their White counterparts (Darling-
Hammond, 2007; Ladson-Billings, 2006; Lee, 2002). The gap is also evident in dropout rates,
number of students who take advanced placement exams, enrollment in honors, advanced
placement, or “gifted” courses, and admittance to colleges (Bensimon, 2005; Ladson-Billings,
2006). Public education in America needs to take a critical role of professional accountability
and serve as an equalizer to guard against the obstacles of privilege and power (Johnson, 2006;
Kirby & Stecher, 2004). The failure of educators to act will create a bifurcated society that
increases education debt and social inequality (Ladson-Billings, 2006). The time to act is now.
The promise of NCLB to improve the educational system for underserved students, such
as students of color or of low socioeconomic status, English learners, and those with disabilities
was not entirely accomplished. Although it placed positive attention on student achievement by
race and class, the federal mandate led to the creation of an uneven playing field for schools due
to the demands of market-based accountability (Darling-Hammond, 2007). In a market-based
accountability system, parents are the consumers, and schools are the providers (Kirby &
Stecher, 2004). Parents, as consumers, have a perception that schools serving White, wealthier
students are better than those serving a majority of underserved student populations (Jellison
Holme, 2002). Hence, parents with resources research the high-status schools, primarily using
test scores—thus confirming what they learn through social networks—and select the school
their child will attend (Jellison Holme, 2002). Jellison Holme’s (2002) study concluded that
parents with resources implicitly trust the information obtained from other high-status parents
SUCCESSFUL SUPERINTENDENTS 16

and assume that the school serving the children of high-status parents is superior. Hence, status
ideologies of race and class influence school choice (Darling-Hammond, 2007). Such responses
perpetuate inequities.
Another form of market-based accountability and school choice for parents includes
charter schools (Kirby & Stecher, 2004). A Brown Center on Education Policy (2010) study
concluded that during the last decade, the number of charter schools has steadily increased due to
their popularity with parents. For charter schools, a lottery determines the student body and thus
an unintended consequence can be a lack of demographic diversity. The Brown Center (2010)
study highlighted that school districts remain the most prevalent authorizing agency for charter
schools regardless of the conflict between the growth of charter schools and loss of enrollment to
public school districts. Thus, charter schools can potentially cause hardship for a school district
as they compete for students and resources. The Brown Center (2010) study found that wide-
ranging variation exists among the instructional effectiveness of charter schools. Superintendents
and boards of education that fail to actively address marketability and school choice may cause
loss of school district student enrollment and credibility or status within the community when
competing with charter schools (Mac Iver & Farley, 2003). The failure to act can have long-
range implications.
With U.S. students underperforming compared to other world nations, there is significant
pressure for local governing teams to respond and take action to increase student achievement.
Now, more than ever, local community members, politicians, and the media train a laser-like
focus on accountability and hold school districts responsible for academic performance (Elmore,
2002). Superintendents and boards of education have the authority to craft policies and allocate
SUCCESSFUL SUPERINTENDENTS 17

resources toward their primary goal of increasing student achievement (Togneri & Anderson,
2003). Yet authority is simply not enough; action is required.
The responsibility to increase student achievement falls jointly on superintendents and
boards of education. Governing teams must collectively employ strategies that will increase
student academic achievement. The superintendent as the CEO, along with the elected members
of the board of education as policymakers, must recognize that it is imperative to invest in long-
range strategies to improve student achievement that will mobilize the knowledge, skills, and
resources that will increase the capacity of the school system (Elmore, 2002). Governing teams
must function strategically as a coherent organization, as their constituents are expecting results
(Childress, Elmore, & Grossman, 2006). By maintaining a focus on student achievement,
governing teams demonstrate their commitment to a district-wide culture to improve student
learning
Boards of education and superintendents are vital stakeholders in the quest to improve
student achievement. Boards of education feel pressure from the community to meet their
expectations—or face not being reelected. Superintendents must meet demands for district
achievement results or be unseated by the board of education. Consequently, to attain a coherent
organization, the superintendent’s initiatives for improvement need to become the board’s
initiatives for improvement (Childress, Elmore, & Grossman, 2006). This balance of power is
necessary, as no single stakeholder can tackle improving student achievement in isolation
(Togneri & Anderson, 2003). Thus, superintendents and boards of education must share the role
of solution seeker to meet the challenge of increasing achievement for all students (Togneri &
Anderson, 2003).

SUCCESSFUL SUPERINTENDENTS 18

Statement of the Problem
A fundamental factor in the success of all school districts is a productive relationship
between boards of education and superintendents. First off, school board members are
experienced individuals of prominence in the community who understand how to network (Eadie
& Houston, 2003). Comprised as they are of public officials, boards of education are
responsible for district oversight and are policy, regulation, and accountability driven (Togneri &
Anderson, 2003). Board decision-making leads to satisfaction in their work. The relationship
between the board of education and superintendent is symbiotic, as the superintendent is
responsible for fulfilling the long-range plans, goals, and objectives of the board of education.
The board president plays a pivotal role in governance of the school district and communicating
with the superintendent. Trust and satisfaction are cornerstones in the partnership between the
board president and the superintendent (Eadie & Houston, 2003; Kimball, 2005). This project
explored strategies that promote a functioning relationship between the board of education and
the superintendent.
To attain success, superintendents must play a vital role in the school district operation.
Superintendents serve as the chief administrative officers who execute the plans to meet the
goals and objectives of the boards of education. Superintendents make policy recommendations,
ensure that regulations are adhered to, implement strategies to achieve goals, and provide
leadership, while managing the daily operation of school districts (Kowalski, McCord, Peterson,
Young, & Ellerson, 2011). With the requirements of NCLB, boards of education and
superintendents roles have shifted to accomplish the central goal of influencing the achievement
of all students (Hill, 2003). Consequently, superintendents have evolved from school inspector
into visionary instructional leaders who prioritize student achievement and the delivery of
SUCCESSFUL SUPERINTENDENTS 19

effective instruction as core values of the district (Waters & Marzano, 2007). To identify
strategies that actively provide solutions to addressing identified gaps and monitoring and
evaluating progress, superintendents must employ an inclusive approach with boards of
education.
Governance teams must formulate a high impact alliance in order to propel student
achievement further and to prepare students to compete on a global scale (Eadie & Houston,
2003; Kimball, 2005). Effective superintendent leadership strategies are extensively discussed
in the literature (American Association of School Administrators [AASA], 2007; Marzano et al.,
2005; Waters & Marzano, 2007). However, minimal qualitative or quantitative research has been
conducted regarding the role of the board of education in influencing student achievement
(Johnson, 2012). One prominent hurdle is that insufficient information exists regarding specific
strategies that superintendents and boards of education collectively employ to positively impact
student achievement. Deeper understanding of the how the relationship between the
superintendent and board of education impacts progress toward student achievement is needed.
Purpose of the Study
This study sought to identify the strategies that superintendents and boards of education
collaboratively employ in relation to student achievement increases. The researcher examined the
responsibilities of superintendents and boards of education that coincide and jointly contribute to
student academic achievement. In addition, the study determined the factors that superintendents
and boards of education perceive of as indicators that their relationship has an impact on student
achievement. Lastly, the study identified the strategies that governing teams utilized to monitor
and evaluate student achievement progress.

SUCCESSFUL SUPERINTENDENTS 20

Research Questions
The following questions guided the study:
1. What strategies do successful superintendents and boards of education collaboratively
employ that result in increased student achievement?
2. What are the essential elements regarding superintendents and boards of education
relationships that contribute to increases in student achievement?
3. How does the relationship between superintendent and board of education influence
student academic achievement in the school district?
4. What strategies do successful superintendents and boards of education utilize to
monitor and evaluate progress toward increased student achievement?
Significance of the Study
This study adds to the body of literature by identifying strategies that successful
superintendents and boards of education employ to increase student achievement and that are
effectively implemented in other school districts within the State of California. It provides
guidance to novice or aspiring superintendents in understanding the collective responsibility of
boards of education and superintendents and the necessity of building a positive partnership. In
addition, boards of education may apply information gained as performance criteria that could be
used to evaluate superintendents.
The knowledge gained from this study could be of value to superintendents and boards of
education that want to investigate whether their relationship impacts the district’s primary goal
of improving achievement. It is also significant for examining the specific responsibilities that
superintendents and boards of education should assume to attain student achievement. Such
defined responsibilities can provide direction for boards of education that would benefit from the
SUCCESSFUL SUPERINTENDENTS 21

development of defined leadership roles. These defined governance responsibilities can also
serve as potential leverage for the superintendent to further refine his or her working partnership
with the board of education.
The results of the study are of interest to institutions of higher education and professional
organizations such as California School Boards Association (CSBA) or the Association of
California School Administrators (ACSA). Colleges and universities could use the results to
inform the curriculum used in preparation programs for doctoral students. Both CSBA and
ACSA could draw upon the results to improve the curriculum presently used for workshops,
academies, and professional development in which board members, aspiring superintendents,
and seated superintendents participate.
Summary of Methodology
A mixed-method design was utilized to address the research questions. The use of both
quantitative and qualitative data as a method was selected to address the complexity of the
inquiry (Creswell, 2009). Quantitative data was collected via a survey distributed to
successful superintendents and presidents of boards of education of California public school
districts who met the study’s established norms. Qualitative data was collected via interviews
with five superintendents (who had to have held their position for a minimum of 18 months) and
five accompanying board members (who had to have completed a minimum 4-year term and
were serving or had served previously as board president). The interview protocol consisted of
10 questions principally driven by the research questions.
Assumptions
The study assumed the following:
1. The primary overarching objective of school districts is to improve student
achievement.
SUCCESSFUL SUPERINTENDENTS 22

2. Superintendent and board of education governance is vital to improving student
achievement.
3. Board presidents and superintendents will be able to reflect, ascertain, and articulate
strategies they have employed to improve student achievement.
4. The superintendent and board of education relationship has the potential to influence
student achievement.
5. The selected methodology for the study is well-designed and will comprehensively
address the research questions.
Limitations
This study included the following limitations:
1. The reliability of the selected methodology for conducting interviews in conjunction
with the qualitative and quantitative instrument design.
2. The cooperation of the interview participants to provide authentic and credible
responses.
3. The ability to gain access to both a school district’s superintendent and president of
its board of education.
4. An inherent limitation in the generalization of the findings due to the select sample
size.
Delimitations
The delimitations of this study were as follows:
1. Data collection was restricted to superintendents along with the accompanying board
presidents of public school districts of 15,000 students or more in California.
SUCCESSFUL SUPERINTENDENTS 23

2. Select interviews were conducted with five superintendents who had at least entered
their second year of service in the position, along with five accompanying board
members who had served as board presidents.
3. The district must have attained a minimum district API of 800 or better and a
minimum of 20 points of growth on the API for three out of the last four years.
4. The district must serve a minimum of 35% minority students.
5. The district must serve a minimum of 25% low-socioeconomic students as
determined by its free or reduced lunch participation rate.
Definitions of Terms
Academic Performance Index (API): The measurement system of academic performance
and progress of schools and districts in California.
Accountability: An expectation of responsibility held between a bureau and participants.
Achievement gap: The disparity in academic achievement levels among subgroups of
student populations.
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP): A federal system of measurement of proficiency levels
of students on standardized tests in mathematics and English language arts.
Administrative Regulation: The regulatory guidelines the administration will follow to
implement the Board Policy in a local school district.
Assessments: A test or evaluation of student achievement.
Board of Education: Elected officials who hold a fiduciary responsibility to govern local
school districts.
Board Policy: A policy drafted by district administration in accordance with state school
board association guidance that is approved by a local school district’s board of education.
SUCCESSFUL SUPERINTENDENTS 24

Capacity building: The development of individuals and organizations to more effectively
respond to and meet student achievement goals.
Charter schools: A public school that is independent from the local school district and
may have fewer state regulations to follow.
Disadvantaged students: Students of poverty who are eligible for and participate in the
free and reduced lunch program.
District initiative: A strategy implemented toward improvement of practice.
Goals and objectives: An articulated or documented purpose to be achieved.
Global contender: The ability to be competitive at a high level internationally.
No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001: The federal regulation that implemented a
nationwide accountability system for all states and school districts.
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD): An organization of
34 member countries throughout the world that share common goals.
Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS): An international study of 4th-
grade students’ literacy from various participating countries around the world.
Program for International Student Assessment (PISA): An international study of 15-year-
old students from various participating countries around the world.
Professional development: Adult learning focused on increasing the knowledge, skills,
and abilities of educators to address improved student achievement.
Stakeholders: Individuals and groups that have a specific interest in the operation of the
school district for various purposes.
Strategic plan: A plan of action that outlines the identifiable strategies that will be used
toward a specific purpose.
SUCCESSFUL SUPERINTENDENTS 25

Strategy: A particular method that is well thought out.
Superintendent: The chief administrative officer of the school district who is employed
by the board of education.
Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS): An international study
of students in 4th and 8th grades from various countries around the world.
Underserved students: Students who, prior to NCLB, often were overlooked or
forgotten—such as students of color, English learners, and those with disabilities.
Organization of the Study
This study is organized in five chapters, with an introduction, problem statements, and
purpose of the study in the first chapter. A review of the relevant literature on superintendent and
board of education relationships and strategies employed to improve student achievement is
included in the second chapter. The methodology for surveying and interviewing superintendents
and presidents of boards of education is outlined in chapter three. The data gathered throughout
this process is reviewed in chapter four. The study concludes with chapter five, which includes a
discussion of findings, implications, and strategies that successful superintendents and boards of
education employ that lead to increased student achievement.

SUCCESSFUL SUPERINTENDENTS 26

CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Introduction
There are approximately 1,000 school districts in California in varied settings—from
rural communities to urban cities. Each school district has its own enrollment, demographics,
district size, and culture, which influence the formation of the district’s goals (Gray, Bitterman,
& Goldring, 2013). However, federal mandates and international competition compel school
district governing teams to establish the central goal of improving student achievement. Now
more than ever, district superintendents and boards of education are under unprecedented
pressure to increase student achievement results. In a 2009 study, California superintendents
primarily ranked the impact of the federal mandate NCLB as very detrimental or detrimental to
their professional work (Petersen, Kelly, Reimer, Mosunich, & Thompson, 2009). The
superintendents went on to cite that the primary challenge NCLB posed was to ensure all
children reached grade-level proficiency levels (Petersen et al., 2009). To respond to the politics
of education, superintendents and boards of education must develop a collaborative practice of
improvement with a sense of urgency (Elmore, 2003; Kirby & Stecher, 2004). Thus, the mission
of improving student achievement collectively rests with superintendents and boards of
education.
Specific themes emerged from reviewing the literature related to superintendent and
school board relationships that contribute to student achievement. This review of literature is
organized around five central themes. The first theme will examine the history and origination of
both school boards and the position of superintendent. The second theme will discuss the defined
roles of the board of education and superintendent, and how these roles have changed over time.
The third theme will assess the obstacles that superintendents and boards of education face
SUCCESSFUL SUPERINTENDENTS 27

today. The fourth theme will outline effective elements within a superintendent and board
relationship that promote increased student achievement. Finally, the fifth theme will emphasize
district-level leadership factors that influence student achievement specific to the role of the
superintendents and boards of education (Waters & Marzano, 2006).
The five central themes when applied to the superintendent and board of education
relationship provide a foundation of understanding regarding strategies that resulted in increased
student achievement.
Overview of the Superintendency and School Boards
The first theme that emerged from the review of the literature concerns the history and
origins of school boards and the position of superintendent. Responsibility for public education
in the United States has long been a function of the state. The California Department of
Education (2011) indicates that there are approximately 1,043 school districts in California.
Thus, oversight of local school districts is delegated to a school board, an elected body of five to
nine officials who represent the community-at-large in the educational process. The most
important responsibility a school board performs is hiring a superintendent to serve as the chief
administrative officer for the school district.
School boards have had a long-standing tradition of governing public education in the
United States. More than 200 years ago in Massachusetts, the model of a board of education was
first conceived as a committee of “select men,” who were appointed to govern education in that
state (Land, 2002; Moody, 2011). The Massachusetts law of 1642 served as the first
significant action that charged a legislative body to ensure all children should be taught to read
(Moody, 2011). The Massachusetts committee structure evolved 150 years later into the
establishment of the first state board of education, as well as the formation of local school boards
SUCCESSFUL SUPERINTENDENTS 28

that governed public schools (Land, 2002). This framework for local school district
governance endured, and schools grew to reflect the community-at-large (Moody, 2011) .
Just as school boards gradually changed over time, so did the role of superintendent. With
student enrollment and the demands of school governance both increasing, the position of
school inspector was developed (Moody, 2011). Eventually, the first superintendent was
appointed by a board of education to the position in 1837 in Buffalo, New York (Moody, 2011).
This organizational structure is based upon our nation’s founding fathers’ notion of a balance of
power between the legislative branch, or the board of education, and the executive branch, or the
superintendent of schools (Moody, 2011). From 1865 to 1910, the superintendent’s role as a
teacher-scholar was well-defined due to the need for full-time supervision of instruction and
monitoring the fidelity of the curriculum (Kowalski et al., 2011). By 1890, 39 major city school
districts employed a superintendent of schools.
Throughout the twentieth century, superintendents adjusted their roles from a narrow to a
comprehensive capacity that included business manager, statesman, applied social scientist, and
communicator (Kowalski et al., 2011). The essential functions of a superintendent transformed
over time to meet the educational leadership concerns and challenges of each era (Kowalski et
al., 2011). The average school district superintendent spends more than 50 to 60 hours a week at
work, including evening meetings, sporting events, performances, and community events (Glass,
2001; Harris, 2007). Thus, the position of superintendent became increasingly challenging in
terms of time commitment and more complex in scope in order to meet the broad spectrum of
demands from federal, state, and local officials. These demands are embedded in the
accountability movement and require the response of superintendents and boards of education to
increase student achievement.
SUCCESSFUL SUPERINTENDENTS 29

Changes in the Roles of Superintendents and School Boards
The second theme that surfaced through a review of the literature delineated the roles of
the board of education and superintendent and described how they have changed over time.
Today, schools boards provide a vital connection between community values and educational
expertise. Although boards of education are charged with governing local public education, there
has been a notable increase in federal inference in the form of mandates that have diminished the
role of the board. The Brown v. Board of Education decision was one of the first federal
Supreme Court decisions to impact select local boards of education (Land, 2002). This
landmark decision required school districts in urban areas to ensure equitable education of racial
and minority students (Land, 2002). In addition, the passage of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act (ESEA) in 1965 was evidence that special interest groups had federal influence.
With the allocation of ESEA federal dollars for underserved students, boards of education were
charged to comply with a lengthy set of federal regulations.
In 1983, the National Commission on Excellence in Education (NCEE) released the
report A Nation at Risk. A Nation at Risk (1983) argued that education was being eroded by a
“rising tide of mediocrity” that threatened our nation’s future, and cited that our country was
once a world competitor in commerce, industry, science, and technological innovation. Although
our nation had much pride in its accomplishments, our nation’s students were not competing on
an international level (NCEE, 1983). Boards of education were charged with the urgent need to
improve four essential aspects of the educational process: adopt rigorous course content,
intensify expectations of graduates, increase the time students spend in school, and strengthen
the teacher work force. Boards of education were tasked with responding to this comprehensive
SUCCESSFUL SUPERINTENDENTS 30

report that publically criticized public education and declared the urgent need to increase student
achievement.
NCLB is the single largest federal educational policy in the history of the United States
and poses several serious dilemmas for district governing teams. Authorized in 2001, NCLB
altered the face of public education by establishing federal regulations to increase teacher
quality, require student testing, and impose a school accountability system on all school districts
(National Council on Teacher Quality [NCTQ], 2011). NCLB dramatically expanded the federal
government’s role in education and further eroded the role of local control for school boards
(Darling-Hammond, 2007). School district governing teams found themselves bound to
federal regulations that valued a bureaucratic performance-based accountability system grounded
in standardized test results (Kirby & Stecher, 2004). A school district’s failure to meet the
federal mandates may result in serious sanctions that include school restructuring, school closure,
and a regulation permitting student transfers (Darling-Hammond, 2007). Boards of education
were left scrambling regarding how to navigate public opinion when their school districts were
unilaterally rated “failing” in light of standardized test results and arbitrary federal standards.
The need to increase student achievement climbed to the top of governing teams’ priorities.
Elmore (2003) declared that NCLB became the problem of superintendents, boards of
education, principals, and teachers. Consequently, superintendents and boards of education were
collectively charged with the need to build the capacity of educators and for schools to deliver
highly effective instruction—or be identified as “failing” schools or districts (Darling-Hammond,
2007; Elmore, 2002). Elmore (2003) asserted that in order to respond to the politics of education,
superintendents and boards of education must develop a collaborative practice of improvement
with a sense of urgency. District governing teams responded accordingly. Consequently, state
SUCCESSFUL SUPERINTENDENTS 31

and national school boards associations promoted an agenda of education and professional
learning for local school board members to increase student achievement.
Today’s boards of education are involved in governance responsibilities. The California
School Boards Association (CSBA) developed Call to Order (2013), a guide book for school
board members regarding governance. CSBA (2013) articulated that effective governance
responsibilities encompassed (a) setting direction, (b) establishing structure, (c) demonstrating
support, (d) ensuring accountability, and (e) engaging community. Current board members
should focus on student academic achievement and attend to policy, not administration (Land,
2002). Thus, the business of board governance conducted at public board meetings is
primarily policy setting.
Changes in political realities, social issues, and economic constraints have significantly
altered the role of the superintendent. America’s transition to an information-based society, and
the emergence of a global economy impacted the role of the superintendent (Kowalski et al.,
2011). A Nation at Risk (1983) served as the nucleus of the school reform agenda by
recommending that specific aspects of the educational program be changed. NCLB set forth the
federal regulations that profoundly and systematically impacted all school districts’ public
accountability methods. Superintendents identified the greatest challenge in the implementation
of NCLB as ensuring that all students reach proficiency levels, as defined by the federal mandate
(Petersen et al., 2009). Superintendents advocated a growth or progress model in lieu of NCLB
(Petersen et al., 2009). Thus, political realities served as barriers or obstacles to fairly reporting
the educational progress of students for superintendents. Despite these barriers, increasing
student achievement remains the top priority for superintendents nationwide.
SUCCESSFUL SUPERINTENDENTS 32

Mounting social issues in the form of rapidly changing student demographics and a
statewide fiscal crisis required superintendents in California to take more responsibility and a
greater advocacy role for public education (Petersen et al., 2009). In a 2009 study by Petersen et
al., 350 superintendents in California identified (a) academic achievement, (b) budget and
finances, and (c) competing and conflicting demands of a superintendent as the top three issues
they encountered. An achievement gap is evident between minority and disadvantaged students
and their White peers (Bensimon, 2005; Ladson-Billings, 2006; Lee, 2002). This gap refers to
the disparity between the performance of Black and Hispanic students on standardized test scores
in comparison to their White counterparts (Darling-Hammond, 2007; Ladson-Billings, 2006;
Lee, 2002). The achievement gap is especially prevalent in California, which has one of the
nation’s highest percentages of English learners and an increasing number of students of poverty
(Petersen et al., 2009). As California’s per-student funding has fallen over the past 10 years, so
has student achievement (Bennett, 2013). Regardless of increasing student needs and having
the highest class sizes in the nation, California presently ranks 49th out of 50 states in
educational finance (Bennett, 2013). Consequently, superintendents require a substantial
knowledge and complex skill set to meet today’s obligations (Petersen et al., 2009). The position
of superintendent requires pivotal leadership in order to successfully implement district-wide
improvement initiatives to increase student achievement.
To meet today’s educational demands, superintendents must be effective communicators.
In a 2009 Petersen et al. study, California superintendents cited strong interpersonal relations
skills as the number one factor in personal effectiveness on the job. School accountability reform
efforts require superintendents to work in an empowerment model, in which building and
maintaining positive relationships with a broad coalition of stakeholders is necessary (Blasé &
SUCCESSFUL SUPERINTENDENTS 33

Bjork, 2011; Kowalski et al., 2011). California’s new Local Control Accountability Plan (LCAP)
serves as an example of an empowerment model at work (Bennett, 2013). LCAP development
requires meaningful involvement of the community in the development of a 3-year plan to
improve student achievement (Bennett, 2013). Boards and superintendents must seize the
opportunity for increased local control of resources and assume greater responsibility for student
outcomes (Bennett, 2013). Therefore, the process used to develop the LCAP will require
superintendents to employ highly effective interpersonal skills. These skills include
communication, compassion, trust, and influence as essential components of relationships with
internal and external stakeholders (Petersen et al., 2009). To successfully address the challenges
of tomorrow, superintendents no longer utilize a traditional hierarchical model of
communication. Instead, they employ a relational model of communication (Kowalski et al.,
2011). Thus, communication becomes a central means of accomplishing district goals and
objectives and mobilizes teachers to increase student achievement.
Current Challenges for Superintendents and School Boards
The third theme raised in the review of the literature concerned the obstacles that
contribute to challenges in superintendents and boards of education relationships. Conflict within
any organization can be problematic. However, because boards of education are part of a school
district’s strategic leadership team, how well its members function as a governance team can
have implications for the organization’s ability to meet its goals (Grissom, 2009). Conflict
among governing board members may occur due to external or internal forces (Grissom, 2009).
In Grissom’s research (2009), extrinsic forces that predicted board conflict were predominantly
environmental, such as urban location and percentage of students who were non-White. In
SUCCESSFUL SUPERINTENDENTS 34

addition, the size of the board of education has a significant effect on whether the board enjoys a
harmonious working relationship. Larger boards of education—with upwards of nine members—
have greater potential for conflict.
Another source of disagreement arises when the board election is based on electing single
member districts. In this scenario, elected board members feel a deeper sense of responsibility to
represent their constituents and are less likely to reach consensus with other board members who
represent other areas of the community (Grissom, 2009). Thus, board elections that are
conducted at-large typically produce board members who govern with the needs of all students in
mind.
Special interest group activity can also play a central role in provoking conflict among
board members. When teachers associations directly participate in board elections, board conflict
often results (Grissom, 2009). Teachers associations are formed for the express purpose of
promoting a platform that will benefit their membership: teachers. Thus, pressure is asserted on
board members who accepted teacher association endorsements aligned with the notion of quid
pro quo. In exchange for a successful election, the teachers association expects improved
negotiating power to push the district toward decisions that benefit teachers and not
students(Grissom, 2009). In other words, such an exchange presents an example of special
interest group politics at its worst. In such instances, student achievement may be adversely
affected.
In Grissom’s (2009) study, intrinsic board conflict was predicted on racial uniformity and
ideological differences. Interestingly enough, gender played no significant role in this study’s
findings. These findings suggested that boards of education that are more diverse in gender and
race are at no greater risk for conflict. However, a board of education with a single board
SUCCESSFUL SUPERINTENDENTS 35

member who holds strong ideological beliefs regarding how students should be educated can
instigate greater conflict overall (Grissom, 2009). Conflict is endemic to any governance
team, but the degree to which all governance team members commit to a common vision guides
the boards’ decision-making and suppresses conflict. It is important to note that intra-board
conflict is associated with decreased organizational performance (Grissom, 2012). By
concentrating efforts on the interpersonal relations of the board, superintendents may encourage
greater opportunities to find common ground and build consensus among the board members
(Grissom, 2012). In this situation, both the board and the organization benefit overall, as the
governance team is united in reaching the common goal of increasing student achievement.
Superintendents can also face challenges regarding a board member’s underlying
motivation for running for office. Mountford (2004) identified that board members are motivated
by either a personal agenda or an altruistic agenda. Board members who are personally
motivated strive to achieve some individual objective, such as resolving an issue related to their
own child, the desire to attain political power, or dissatisfaction with the present leadership
(Mountford, 2004). Mountford (2004) contended that personal motivation is more closely
associated with a “power over” philosophy, whereas board members motivated by altruistic
reasons possess a philosophy of “power with.” In addition, board members with altruistic
motivations possess an overarching concern for the education of all students, or have a sense of
wanting to give back to the community-at-large (Mountford, 2004). Consequently, if they
understand a board member’s motivation for membership, superintendents are more likely to
predict behavior and the manner in which the board member exercises the power of office
(Mountford, 2004). Understanding a board member’s motivation can be the superintendent’s
first step in navigating solutions.
SUCCESSFUL SUPERINTENDENTS 36

Mountford’s work (2004) was refocused by Williams and Tabernik (2011), who have
contended that board members typically run for office because they are either satisfied with the
school district operation, or unsatisfied with the district, superintendent, or both. Perhaps
satisfaction with the school district operation would align with Mountford’s altruistic motivation,
and disappointment in the district operation would be represented by personal motivation. In the
2011 Williams and Tabernick study, 15 out of 21 superintendents identified school boards that
fail to focus on student achievement first and foremost as “dysfunctional.” The 15
superintendents noted that such boards of education strongly retain a personal image or social
agenda. This characteristic ties into a personal motivation to run for board of
education(Mountford, 2004). In addition, board members with a social agenda seek above all
to establish a political foundation, and politically motivated board members are likely to support
teacher union platforms. Board members that maintain a narrow self-serving platform can disrupt
school district efficiency. Superintendents can educate new board members through an
orientation program and by sharing protocol processes with them (Kowalski et al., 2011). Such
processes can develop a united governance team that retains the priority of increased student
achievement.
Frequent changes in boards of education or superintendents can disturb the momentum of
the educational mission within a school district. Low organizational health in a district is often
the result of turnover in both the superintendent and board members. Board member stability is
correlated to superintendent stability (Williams & Tabernik, 2011). School board turnover
may negatively impact student achievement as it often leads to superintendent turnover as well
(Alsbury, 2008). In addition, a Waters & Marzano (2006) study contended that superintendent
tenure positively correlates with improved student learning. The potential for disruption can
SUCCESSFUL SUPERINTENDENTS 37

effect district policy approval, curriculum, and instruction, and result in staff disequilibrium
(Williams & Tabernik, 2011). Stability in both the role of superintendent and board of
education nurtures trust among community and staff members. Therefore, stability in
superintendent and the board of education enables positive momentum toward district goals and
increased student achievement.
Effective Superintendent and School Board Relationships
The fourth theme that arose from the review of the literature outlined the elements of a
superintendent and board relationship that effectively promoted increased student achievement.
Boards of education in high-performing districts strived for “peaceable relationships” that
demonstrated satisfaction with and value for the superintendent (Iowa Association of School
Boards, 2000). In addition, several assertions described the critical components of effective
school board governance to ensure efficient administration of the school district operation by the
superintendent. The first assertion was that the school board’s primary task is to focus on
students’ academic achievement and setting policy rather than on administration(Land, 2002).
Consequently, board members do not micro-manage the actions of the superintendent. The
second assertion was the establishment and maintenance of positive relations among the board of
education and superintendent, local and state governments, and the public-at-large (Land, 2002).
The third assertion was effective performance in budgeting, leadership, and policy-making
(Land, 2002). The final assertion by Land (2002) was adequate evaluation and governance
training or professional learning.
A superintendent’s ability to establish a positive relationship with the board president and
the remaining members of the board of education is essential to fostering community confidence
in a quality educational program in a school district. The American School Superintendent Study
SUCCESSFUL SUPERINTENDENTS 38

(2010) reported “97% of all superintendents surveyed indicated that they maintain positive
relationships with all (64%) or most (33%) board members.” The board’s perception of the
superintendent’s skill in forging relationships in the community was a key factor in sustaining a
positive relationship with the board of education (Petersen & Williams, 2005). The elected
position of board president usually leads to additional influence with fellow board members
(Petersen & Williams, 2005). In the Petersen and Williams study (2005), board presidents
described effective superintendents as having the ability to influence, being a good
communicator, having respected experience, being goal oriented and child centered, and
remaining transparent and open. Successful superintendents clearly and frequently messaged
timely information pertinent to student achievement (AASA, 2006, 2007). The board president
and superintendent relationship naturally evolved into strategic partners in the governance of the
district (Eadie & Houston, 2003). Such a partnership was achieved when the superintendent
established strong communication with the board president that was based on a foundation of
trust.
A superintendent who is committed to understanding his or her board of education and
community is more likely to be successful. One important quality of effective superintendents
was viewing the partnership with the board of education as a critical or delicate bond that could
easily be severed if conscience effort to maintain it is not sustained (Eadie & Houston, 2003).
The 2010 American School Superintendent Study quantified that two thirds of all
superintendents indicated they spend fewer than six hours per week in direct communication
with the board members. In particular, superintendents who sat and listened empathically with
stakeholders, who really got to know them and their families, and understood their concerns
naturally developed trust (Petersen & Williams, 2005). However, superintendents also found
SUCCESSFUL SUPERINTENDENTS 39

technology to be an effective means of communicating directly with their boards (Kowalski et al.
2010). Building social capital allowed superintendents to foster public confidence for district
programs and initiatives (Petersen & Williams, 2005). Such confidence was necessary for the
superintendent to carry out collective decisions with the board of education and to increase
student achievement (Eadie & Houston, 2003) .
The superintendent’s ability to frame an issue, make a recommendation, and obtain
support from the board of education required a certain degree of social influence and social style
(Petersen & Short, 2001). The ability to persuade is a component of social influence. In the 2010
American School Superintendent Study (ASSS), superintendents considered themselves as
having a greater influence on the board of education than any other group. The board of
education viewed the superintendent as the professional authority on all issues related to
education (Petersen & Short, 2001). Keeping that perspective in mind, superintendents were
prepared to make prudent recommendations to the board of education based on the best interests
of students. The findings of ASSS (2010) showed that 97% of all superintendents surveyed
stated that at least 80% of their recommendations were approved by their board of education. On
broad-based community initiatives, the board looked to the superintendent to frame the issue,
initiate board discussion, and allow it to make the final decision (Petersen & Short, 2001). It was
essential to honor the formal authority and balance of power between the board president and the
superintendent.
Commitment to Vision of Student Achievement
Superintendents and boards of education share interest in improving student achievement.
When all members of the governance team are grounded in a collaborative vision that is based on
the collective belief that all students can learn and a commitment to improving student
SUCCESSFUL SUPERINTENDENTS 40

achievement, the school district’s future will be bright (Moody, 2011). The Center for Public
Education (2011) identified the number one characteristic of an effective school board as
“demonstrating a commitment to a vision of high expectations for student achievement and
quality instruction and defining clear goals toward that vision.” Thus, a priority of every
superintendent was to strategically orchestrate the planning process of establishing a common
district-wide vision (Moffett, 2011). The board of education’s role was to approve the vision and
advocate the common messages throughout the community regarding the district’s vision and
goals for achievement (AASA, 2006; Elmore, 2000; Moody, 2011).
Waters and Marzano (2006) identified five district leadership responsibilities that
positively correlated to improvements in student learning. Although this research specifically
addressed the superintendent’s impact on student achievement, application of these five elements
as a framework were considered, and served to examine the collective efforts superintendents
and boards of education performed in light of the five leadership lenses that Waters and Marzano
(2006) developed. These five leadership areas are (a) establishing a collaborative process to set
goals, (b) establishing non-negotiable goals, (c) having board aligned and supported district
goals, (d) monitoring goals for achievement and instruction, and (e) allocating resources to
support student achievement and instruction (Waters & Marzano, 2006). Waters and
Marzano’s research (2006) validated that leadership matters in improving student achievement.
Collaborative Goal-Setting
Several studies indicated that superintendents and boards of education appreciate the
significance of increasing student achievement. Board members recognize that the
superintendent needs to lead the collective efforts of the district (Moffett, 2011). Highly effective
superintendents empower all stakeholders, including board members, to identify and establish
SUCCESSFUL SUPERINTENDENTS 41

the district’s non-negotiable goals (Waters & Marzano, 2006). Student needs remained the
focal point of all discussions. Thoughtful instructional improvement required all stakeholders to
be ever-present and involved (Togneri & Anderson, 2003). The outcome-driven superintendent
worked alongside members of the board of education throughout the goal-setting process in
order to identify meaningful performance objectives (Eadie & Houston, 2003; Waters &
Mazano, 2006). The superintendent recommended that the board of education adopt a vision
and goals that revolve around student learning (Elmore, 2000; Togneri & Anderson, 2003).
When the recommendation resulted in approval of the goals by the board of education, a
correlation that improved student achievement occurred (Waters & Marzano, 2006).
Non-Negotiable Goals for Achievement and Instruction
The superintendent allows the collaborative goal-setting process to inform procedures
when establishing the non-negotiable goals (Waters & Marzano, 2006). Non-negotiable goals
targeted a minimum of two areas, including student achievement and classroom instruction
(Waters & Marzano, 2006). More specifically, the research indicated that the district
determined achievement targets and instructional framework for the district, school sites, and
subgroups of students. The goals for achievement and instruction were understood by all
personnel and served as a blueprint for making decisions (Togneri & Anderson, 2003). Although
Waters and Marzano (2006) did not make a particular reference to the board of education in this
area, the board of education indeed played a role in originally setting and approving the goals
and would certainly have performed a support role with some level of understanding of how the
goals translated to school practice. However, it would be the leading responsibility of the
superintendent to administer and carry out the goals of the board of education. As the district
leader, the superintendent provided principals with the authority and responsibility to determine
SUCCESSFUL SUPERINTENDENTS 42

how to meet the goals (AASA, 2007). In turn, the board of education should evaluate the
superintendent on progress made toward achieving the goals of student achievement and
classroom instruction.
Board Alignment and Support of District Goals
The Center for Public Education (2011) recognized the need for school boards to “spend
less time on operational issues and more time focused on policies to improve student learning.”
Keeping this guideline in mind, the board of education ensured that the goals for achievement
remained the top priority in the district and that distractors did not deter them from
accomplishing their goals (Waters & Marzano, 2006). The 2006 findings stated that boards of
education maintained a keen focus on the goals and allocated resources accordingly. Policy- and
accountability-driven boards often spoke with one voice and came back to the question “What’s
best for the children?” (Togneri & Anderson, 2003).This approach is relevant today now more
than ever with the development and implementation of the LCAP. While developing LCAP,
boards of education and superintendents need to be asking a question like, “What do our students
need in order to improve?”(Bennett, 2013). The state requires that a school district’s Local
Control Accountability Plan precede approval of the district’s budget, and resource allocation
should be consistent with the objectives of improved student achievement, as outlined in LCAP
(Bennett, 2013). This current model provides a real life example of the relevance of Waters
and Marzano’s (2006) findings today.
Monitoring the Goals for Achievement and Instruction
Although these leadership responsibilities are from Waters and Marzano’s work (2006),
the theme resonates with other researchers. The Center for Public Education (2011) noted that
boards of education should also become “data savvy and monitor student achievement to drive
SUCCESSFUL SUPERINTENDENTS 43

continuous improvement.” Clearly, the superintendent is the foremost professional and leader in
this arena. However, this does not preclude the essential need for governance teams to embrace
data in order to increase student achievement. This premise is supported by the work of Togneri
and Anderson (2003) as well. Boards of education in highly effective school districts were
transparent when discussing negative data, embracing it as an opportunity to improve teaching
and learning (Togneri & Anderson, 2003). In addition, the monitoring process started at the
school site with the classroom, teacher, and principal. Effective superintendents ensured each
school assessed its progress toward achievement targets (Waters & Marzano, 2006).
Superintendents considered the use of reflective feedback to enhance growth (Moffett, 2011).
Any discrepancy between the agreed upon district instructional framework and student
achievement targets resulted in corrective next steps (Waters & Marzano, 2006). The research
identified the superintendent as the chief administrative officer who continually monitored
district progress overall in order to ensure that student achievement continued to increase
(Waters & Marzano, 2006) .
Allocation of Resources to Support Achievement
Resources required to meet goals can include money, personnel, time, and materials.
Superintendents in high-performing school districts took action to systematically align the
various resources with district goals (Waters & Marzano, 2006). Consequently, fiscal,
personnel, regulatory, and operational responsibilities were collectively coordinated to align with
the short-term and long-term district needs and goals to increase student achievement (Waters &
Marzano, 2007). The research also supported that an essential component of this area is building
the capacity of teachers and principals through professional learning. Although Waters and
Marzano (2006) did not cite the board of education in this area, with the adoption of LCAP,
SUCCESSFUL SUPERINTENDENTS 44

boards of education will be required to set policy through approval of the accountability plan,
provide final approval to ensure budget alignment with LCAP goals and objectives, and
empower schools to improve student learning (Bennett, 2013). Furthermore, the Center for
Public Education (2011) acknowledged that effective school boards should play a part to “align
and sustain resources to meet district goals.” Boards of education recognize the important role
that extensive professional learning plays in building the capacity of staff members (Dervarics &
O'Brien, 2011). The board of education’s supportive involvement in building the capacity of staff
members through professional learning in order to improve student achievement allowed for
“meaningful commitment of funding needed to accomplish the district’s goals,” as noted by
Waters and Marzano (2006).
Role of District-Level Leadership on Student Achievement
The final and fifth theme that materialized from the review of the literature emphasized
leadership factors specific to the role of the superintendent and board of education that increased
student achievement.
Role of the Superintendent
The superintendent should act as a catalyst for district improvement endeavors, with
steadfast corroboration from the board of education. Waters and Marzano’s (2006) study
summarized a statistically significant relationship between school district leadership and student
achievement. Three district-level leadership findings were identified as statistically significant:
(a) District leadership matters; (b) Effective superintendents focus their efforts on creating
collaborative goal-oriented districts; (c) Building a defined culture of autonomy is associated
with an increase in student achievement(Waters & Marzano, 2006). Consequently, school
boards must perform their due diligence when selecting a leader for the position of
SUCCESSFUL SUPERINTENDENTS 45

superintendent, as this single selection can make a difference in whether the next superintendent
can propel the district further in the goal to improve student achievement.
The superintendent is the individual with positional authority to inspire, coordinate, and
communicate district improvement practices (Bird, Dunaway, Hancock, & Wang, 2013). In
research by Bird et al. (2013), 232 superintendents in six southeastern states participated in an
online survey. The survey findings showed a significant and positive relationship between
superintendent leadership authenticity and the district’s successful use of improvement
processes. Superintendents who possessed balanced leader authenticity had self-awareness,
relational transparency, and strong internal moral perspectives aligned with organizational
improvement efforts (Bird et al., 2013). These qualities were positively aligned with district-
wide enhancement and improved student achievement.
McREL’s (2006) meta-analysis of the research also acknowledged the effect of
superintendent leadership on building the cohesive foundation on which student achievement is
built. Their research included 27 studies and 2,817 school districts, and had five statistically
significant correlations (p < .05), which were defined as the following essential elements: (a)
establish non-negotiable goals for achievement and instruction; (b) involve stakeholders,
including principals, in goal setting; (c) align board support to district objectives; (d) monitor
progress and make corrections when necessary; and (e) focus resources on district goals (AASA,
2006; Waters & Marzano, 2006). These elements involve many actors within and outside the
educational arena. These principles remain relevant today as they closely align with the
empowerment model that places the community at the forefront of educational decision-making
promoted through development of the Local Control Accountability Plan (Bennett,
2013)(Bennett, 2013) (Bennett, 2013).
SUCCESSFUL SUPERINTENDENTS 46

A superintendent’s relationship with his or her principals allows for defined autonomy
and innovation but requires that the principals’ efforts are aligned closely with district goals
(Waters & Marzano, 2006). By honoring the role of each stakeholder and clearly defining the
roles, the superintendent advances a model for distributed leadership (Elmore, 2000; Togneri &
Anderson, 2003). Elmore (2000) acknowledged that authentic leaders model the values and
learning they expect of others. These findings are also supported by AASA (2009), which
concluded that an enlightened superintendent recognizes that leadership is meant to be shared,
and a highly effective leader empowers others, such as inspiring principals to be instructional
leaders who ensure all students learn. Thus, the use of distributed leadership by a superintendent
motivates all stakeholders to take an active role in both the education of students and increasing
student achievement.
Role of the Board of Education
In high-achieving school districts, student achievement is the primary agenda for boards
of education. Boards of education can play an instrumental leadership role by building public
understanding of the educational initiatives within their own school districts. Building
understanding can be accomplished through effective messaging. Community commitment is
paramount to efforts to increase student achievement. Such efforts on behalf of a board of
education create connections across the system and prioritize the improvement of education for
students (Delagardella, 2008). In high-achieving districts, there is a collective effort to
improve student achievement system-wide (Delagardella, 2008). All actors within the system
work together around a shared purpose that is critical to them—such as improved student
achievement.
SUCCESSFUL SUPERINTENDENTS 47

In the IASB Lighthouse study (2000), board/superintendent teams articulated an
“elevating” view of students that released each student’s potential. This viewpoint required a
paradigm shift, whereby both the governance team and school personnel constantly sought
improvements on a system-wide level. High-performing districts evidenced a shared value of a
promoting a culture of ongoing improvement and systematizing the district to make it happen
(Delagardella, 2008). Therefore, the system was united, coherent, and collaborative, which
resulted in increased student achievement.
Knowledge of school renewal actions was understood by board members in high-
performing districts (IASB, 2000). The key conditions of school renewal were (a) shared
leadership; (b) continuous improvement and shared decision making; (c) ability to create and
sustain initiatives; (d) supportive workplace for staff; (e) staff development; (f) support for
school sites though data and information; and (g) community involvement (IASB, 2000). The
findings delved further, and defined board actions based upon “moving” or being “stuck.” The
notion of moving referred to characteristics associated with student achievement on the move or
exceeding the norm. The concept of stuck meant student achievement was stagnant and below
the norm. A moving board of education demonstrated a collective focus on meeting all students’
needs, constantly improving educational programs, working together for the shared good of the
district, and possessing a high degree of confidence in staff—to name a few (IASB, 2000).
Overall, a moving board of education’s understandings and beliefs of school renewal enhanced a
district-wide culture of ongoing advancement to increase student achievement in which all
appeared to care deeply “about doing the right thing for children” (IASB, 2000). These
progressive findings also specifically defined moving and stuck descriptors for superintendents
SUCCESSFUL SUPERINTENDENTS 48

and school staff members. Thus, the manner in which school boards perform their role as
governing team partners matters.
Conclusion
The purpose of this study was to identify the strategies that superintendents and boards of
education have collaboratively employed that are related to increases in student achievement. A
review of the literature was conducted in order to further define the scope of work previously
conducted on the topic of student achievement strategies that superintendents and boards of
education have utilized. First, the history behind the origination of boards of education and
superintendents validated the interconnected relationship between the essential members of the
governing team. In addition, examining the roles of superintendents and boards of education
clearly occurred in order to rise to meet the state and federal mandates to improve student
achievement. Furthermore, deeper understandings were gained regarding the obstacles that
contribute to strife in superintendent and board of education relations. Such knowledge is
necessary to overcoming the challenges, maintaining balance in the relationships, and generating
potential solutions in order to maintain the focus on increased student achievement. Finally,
although research studies exist on district leadership that matters and effective practices for
boards of education, research that considers how the combined actions of superintendents and
boards of education positively influence student achievement is limited. This review of literature
indicated that superintendents and boards of education are both complex and multilayered.
Taking into consideration this dearth in the scholarship, the researcher undertook an
investigation of the research questions.

SUCCESSFUL SUPERINTENDENTS 49

CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
Introduction
School district superintendents and boards of education in the twenty-first century are
facing unprecedented pressure to attain increased student achievement results. Now more than
ever, public education governing teams must not only train students to rise to national
expectations for achievement, but also prepare American students to outperform international
students in reading, writing, and science (Fuchs & Wobmann, 2007). To address local
constituents’ needs, governing teams must act strategically and respond to demands for increased
educational accountability to produce high quality students who possess the necessary academic
knowledge and skills to be successful in the twenty-first century (Kirby & Stecher, 2004).
Policy- and accountability-driven governing boards often speak with one voice and come back to
the question, “What’s best for the children?” (Togneri & Anderson, 2003). Therein lies the
overwhelming task of district governing teams to improve student achievement.
The responsibility to increase student achievement falls jointly on superintendents and
boards of education. This premise was referenced by Thomas E. Glass (2001), who posited that
both superintendents and school boards are key contributors in improving school performance.
Thus, governing teams must collectively employ strategies that will increase student academic
achievement. The superintendent as the CEO, along with the elected members of the board of
education as policymakers, must recognize that it is imperative to invest in long-range strategies
to improve student achievement that will mobilize knowledge, skills, and resources, and increase
the capacity for success within the school system (Eadie & Houston, 2003; Elmore, 2002).
Governing teams must function strategically as a coherent organization as their constituents are
expecting results (Childress et al., 2006). . By maintaining a focus on student achievement,
SUCCESSFUL SUPERINTENDENTS 50

governing teams will demonstrate the value of a district-wide culture to improving student
learning.
The previous chapters provided an overview of the study and a summary of the existing
literature relevant to the areas of study. This chapter details the design of the study and the
methodology, delineating the purpose of the study, the research design, sample population,
instrumentation, data collection process, and data analysis procedure utilized. The findings
resulting from the data revealed by this study and the conclusions based upon the findings will be
discussed in subsequent chapters.
Purpose of the Study
The overarching purpose of this study was to gather data that would identify the
strategies that superintendents and boards of education collaboratively employ that are related to
student achievement increases. As part of the study, the researcher identified, collected, and
evaluated the responsibilities of superintendents and boards of education that coincided and
jointly contributed to student academic achievement. In addition, the study examined the
perceptions of superintendents and those of presidents of boards of education regarding factors
indicating that the superintendent/board relationship impacted student achievement. Lastly, the
study gathered data that identified strategies that governing teams utilized to monitor and
evaluate student achievement progress.
Boards of education and superintendents are vital stakeholders in the quest to improve
student achievement. Boards of education feel pressure from the community to meet its
expectations—or face not being reelected to office. In turn, superintendents must meet the
demands for district achievement results or be unseated by the board of education. Consequently,
in order to establish a coherent organization, the superintendent’s initiatives for improvement of
SUCCESSFUL SUPERINTENDENTS 51

student achievement must become the board’s initiatives for improvement of student
achievement (Childress et al., 2006). This balance of power is necessary, as no single stakeholder
can tackle improving student achievement in isolation (Togneri & Anderson, 2003). Thus,
superintendents and boards of education must share the role of solutions seeker to meet the
challenge of increasing student achievement for all (Togneri & Anderson, 2003).
Research Questions
The following questions guided the study:
1. What strategies do successful superintendents and boards of education collaboratively
employ that result in increased student achievement?
2. What are the essential elements regarding superintendents and boards of education
relationships that contribute to increases in student achievement?
3. How does the relationship between superintendent and board of education influence
student academic achievement in the school district?
4. What strategies do successful superintendents and boards of education utilize to
monitor and evaluate the progress toward increased student achievement?
Mixed-Method Study Design
A mixed-method design included both quantitative and qualitative data collection
(Creswell, 2009). The reason for selecting the mixed-method design was to gain deeper
insight regarding the relationship between superintendents and boards of education as related to
student achievement. Mixed-method procedures allowed the researcher to utilize the strengths of
both quantitative and qualitative research (Creswell, 2009). Thus, mixed-method design was
deemed the most appropriate course of action for addressing the research questions in the study.
SUCCESSFUL SUPERINTENDENTS 52

The collection of quantitative data established a supportive foundation for identifying a
broad-spectrum of strategies that superintendents and board presidents collaboratively employed
to improve student achievement. The quantitative data permitted general perspectives to be made
by numerous superintendents and presidents of boards of education. However, the quantitative
data was inadequate and did not yield deep insights for addressing the research questions. The
qualitative data collected allowed superintendents and presidents of boards to personally
interpret and construct meaning regarding their understandings of their complex relationship in
light of the shared goal of student achievement (Merriam, 2009). Qualitative inquiry promoted
rich descriptions of the school district context, the relationship between the superintendents and
boards of education, and their degree of interest in student achievement (Merriam, 2009).
A concurrent triangulation approach allowed the researcher to collect quantitative and
qualitative data concurrently, and then to draw comparisons to determine convergence (Creswell,
2009). This method built off the strength of both research methods and provided a
comprehensive analysis of the research problem. The concurrent triangulation approach
addressed both predetermined and emerging methods, employed both open-ended and closed-
ended questions, and included statistical and text analysis (Creswell, 2009). The connections
and interrelationships were examined across both quantitative and qualitative data bases.
Research Design
The relationship between a superintendent and his or her board of education is
multifaceted, involving as it does leadership roles, a balance of power, and potential personal
agendas. To thoroughly address the research questions, this researcher determined that a mixed-
methods study design was most appropriate. Firstly, the study involved a quantitative survey of
selected superintendents and presidents of their corresponding board of education. Once the
SUCCESSFUL SUPERINTENDENTS 53

survey was distributed, select superintendents and presidents of the corresponding boards of
education separately participated in qualitative interviews.
Sample and Population
The study’s sampling protocol was purposeful and criterion-based for both the
quantitative and qualitative research (Patton, 2002). Criterion sampling enabled the researcher to
select superintendents, along with corresponding board presidents, from school districts that
demonstrated high levels of student achievement as measured by the API over a 3-year period.
High-achieving school districts were defined as having attained a minimum district API of 800
or better and a minimum 20-point growth overall between 2009 and 2012. The sampling protocol
also required that specific student demographic requirements were met. Both the quantitative and
qualitative sampling criterion used were the same. The sampling criteria established which
superintendents and accompanying board presidents would be eligible for the study. Required
participants were from (a) a California school district; (b) districts that had attained a minimum
district API of 800 or better and a minimum 20-point growth on the API for three out of the last
four years; (c) districts that had more than 15,000 students; (d) districts that had a minimum of
35% minority students; and (e) districts that served a minimum of 25% low-socioeconomic
students as determined by free or reduced lunch participation rate.
Superintendents and accompanying board presidents who agreed to participate in the
qualitative interview were secured through voluntary consent obtained through the quantitative
survey response. To participate in the interview, the five superintendents had to have held their
position for a minimum of 18 months, and the five accompanying board members had to have
completed a minimum of a 4-year term and be serving, or had served, previously as board
president.
SUCCESSFUL SUPERINTENDENTS 54

Data used for sampling was limited to public information reported by the California
Department of Education for 2009, 2010, 2011, and 2012. This data informed the researcher
about the district’s context, student demographics, and if the district met the minimum
achievement criterion established for the study. The researcher identified 34 school districts
across the state of California that met the well-defined criterion. Thus, the researcher determined
that a survey would be sent to 34 superintendents and 34 board presidents from the specifically
identified school districts. Due to variance in student achievement reporting systems between
states, the researcher limited the scope exclusively to California to retain comparability levels
between school districts, as determined by API.
Instrument Validity
To ensure validity, the researcher designed the instrument based upon surveys utilized in
similar prior studies. The inventory was gender-neutral and was field-tested on educational
professionals before its implementation to assure that instructions were clear and concise,
questions were clearly comprehensible, and participants could complete the instrument within
the allotted time. Prior to implementation, the survey instrument and interview questions were
field tested by superintendents and board members who were not included in the actual study.
Based upon feedback, adjustments were made to the interview questions and survey instrument.
Instrumentation
Quantitative and qualitative research conducted by the researcher employed the
instruments listed below. Appendix A substantiates the alignment between the quantitative and
qualitative instruments in relation to the four research questions that guided this study.

SUCCESSFUL SUPERINTENDENTS 55

Quantitative Instrumentation
First, the researcher conducted a thorough examination of surveys affiliated with prior
research studies. Using the knowledge gained, the researcher designed the quantitative survey
specifically to speak to seven major research themes: (a) having board-aligned and supported
district goals; (b) implementing shared leadership; (c) ability to create and sustain initiatives; (d)
monitoring goals for achievement and instruction; (e) allocating resources to support student
achievement and build the capacity of others. This framework was developed using multiple
sources of research regarding both district and board leadership actions that lead to improved
student achievement. The quantitative survey comprised a total of 45 questions (Appendix B)
that addressed the following components of study: (a) six questions to establish participants’
context; (b) one question to assess commitment to a qualitative interview; and (c) 38 Likert-style
survey questions that reflected the research questions.
The 38 Likert-style survey items were primarily valued from 1 through 4, 1 assigned the
response of strongly disagree, 2 designated the response of disagree, 3 specified the response of
agree, and 4 indicated the response of strongly agree. A 4-point scale removes the middle or
“neutral” option and is considered a forced-choice method (Fink, 2013). Forced-choice
questions are appropriate when you want a survey participant to commit to a specific answer
(Fink, 2013). In this study, such a framework allowed the participants to gauge the degree of
support for the survey questions.
Qualitative Instrumentation
The researcher conducted a thorough examination of interview protocols affiliated with
prior research studies. The researcher consulted research design texts to strengthen interview
protocol and construct effective questions (Creswell, 2009; Maxwell, 2013; Merriam, 2009). The
SUCCESSFUL SUPERINTENDENTS 56

interview protocol was limited to 10 questions in order to confine the interview to a manageable
amount of time (Merriam, 2009). The researcher appreciated the time commitments made by the
participants, as superintendents and board presidents are busy individuals. The questions were
primarily designed to seek the perspectives and beliefs of superintendents and board presidents
related to the research questions (Merriam, 2009). Follow-up questions were used by the
researcher for the purpose of seeking clarification or to gather deeper insights about specific
remarks or feelings.
Data Collection
Because a mixed-methods approach was selected for this study, data collection involved
both quantitative and qualitative phases. The first phase of data collection involved quantitative
surveys of superintendents and board presidents. The second phase required the researcher to
perform qualitative interviews with select superintendents and board presidents. The researcher
sought approval from the Institutional Review Board (IRB) at the University of Southern
California in order to ensure fidelity of research protocol implementation, such as the necessity
to protect research participants from harm. The identities of all participants remain confidential,
and any data gathered was secured properly in order to avoid a breach.
Quantitative Data Collection
Surveys were forwarded to 34 select superintendents and 34 board presidents in
California who fulfilled the criterion established for the study. A cover letter that outlined the
purpose of the research study and assured the confidentiality of those who desired to voluntarily
participate was sent via email to superintendents and board presidents (Appendix C). Individuals
who agreed to take part in the research study clicked on a link contained in the email, which
directed them to the survey hosted on the Survey Monkey website. The researcher made follow-
SUCCESSFUL SUPERINTENDENTS 57

up contact by phone or email with any potential members of the study who had not responded
within two weeks to the survey request.
Qualitative Data Collection
Superintendents and board presidents who independently agreed to voluntarily participate
in an interview on the quantitative survey were contacted by the researcher to take part in a 45-
minute interview. The researcher conducted interviews with five superintendents who
volunteered to contribute to the study. In addition, the five accompanying board presidents—
from the same school districts as the superintendents—were interviewed in a separate setting.
The interview protocol (containing 10 questions) was administered by a single researcher
(Appendix C). The researcher once again reminded the participants of her intent to audio record
the interview and referred back to the information letter (Appendix E). In addition, the researcher
offered to provide interested participants an executive summary of the dissertation findings.
Following interviews, the audio recordings were transcribed by a professional transcription
service.
Data Analysis
The researcher closely examined the quantitative and qualitative data, looking for
similarities and differences in the data. Analysis provided an extended opportunity to identify the
strategies collaboratively employed by superintendents and boards of education that resulted in
increased student achievement. These findings were compared to prior research studies in order
to serve as a secondary indicator of validity.
Quantitative Data Analysis
The quantitative data garnered from the completed surveys were evaluated in light of the
research questions for this study. Each survey item was quantified using an Excel Spreadsheet.
SUCCESSFUL SUPERINTENDENTS 58

The mean was calculated for each item. Thus, the researcher was able to ascertain the degree of
alignment of each item in comparison to the research-based deduction.
Qualitative Data Analysis
Both interview notes and transcriptions of the interview were thoroughly analyzed using
the methods of Merriam (2009). Merriam (2009) described the process of data analysis as
emergent, cyclical, and dynamic (Merriam, 2009). Merriam’s (2009) process follows these steps:
1. Category Construction: Data are reviewed by the researcher, notations are made on
the transcripts and notes, themes may begin to emerge, and relevant data is coded into
a category that may be potentially valuable in answering a research question.
2. Sorting Categories and Data: Initial analysis may result in numerous codes. As the
researcher moves forward, codes are assigned category or theme names. Data are
organized.
3. Data Analysis: The researcher is actively engaged in the process of making sense of
the data and determines findings based upon the data collected.
Summary
This chapter shared the specific methodology employed in this research study and the
methodology used. The overarching purpose of this study was to gather data that would identify
the strategies superintendents and boards of education collaboratively employ that are related to
student achievement increases. A mixed-method design was used in order to gain deeper
insights regarding the relationships between superintendents and boards of education as related
to the increases in student achievement. Methodology outlined included the sample and
population, instrumentation, data collection, and data analysis specific to this study. In the
SUCCESSFUL SUPERINTENDENTS 59

proceeding chapter, the researcher will report the results of the study in relation to the four
research questions.

SUCCESSFUL SUPERINTENDENTS 60

CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS
Introduction
Boards of education and superintendents are vital stakeholders in the quest to improve
student achievement. Boards of education feel pressure from the community to meet their
expectations or face not being reelected to office. Superintendents must meet the demands for
district student achievement results or be unseated by the board of education. Consequently, in
order to attain a coherent focused organization, the superintendent’s initiatives for improvement
of student achievement need to be adopted by the board of education and become their initiatives
for improvement of student achievement as well (Childress et al., 2006)
. This balance of power is necessary, as no single stakeholder can tackle improving
student achievement in isolation (Togneri & Anderson, 2003). Thus, superintendents and boards
of education must share the characteristic of being solutions seekers to meet the challenge of
increasing student achievement for all (Togneri & Anderson, 2003).
This chapter reports the findings from a mixed-method research study, which included
quantitative and qualitative data collection approaches. The quantitative survey was completed
by 41 superintendents and board presidents; 10 qualitative interviews conducted with five
superintendents and five corresponding board presidents were guided with the following research
questions:
1. What strategies do successful superintendents and boards of education collaboratively
employ that result in increased student achievement?
2. What are the essential elements regarding superintendents and boards of education
relationships that contribute to increases in student achievement?
SUCCESSFUL SUPERINTENDENTS 61

3. How does the relationship between superintendent and board of education influence
student academic achievement in the school district?
4. What strategies do successful superintendents and boards of education utilize to
monitor and evaluate progress toward increased student achievement?
Purpose of the Study
The overarching purpose of this study was to gather data that would identify the
strategies superintendents and boards of education collectively employ that result in improved
student achievement. Part of the study identified, collected, and evaluated responsibilities for
superintendents and boards of education that coincide and jointly contribute to student academic
achievement. In addition, the perceptions of both superintendents and board presidents were
recorded regarding how the superintendent/board relationship can influence or impact student
achievement. Lastly, the study gathered data that identified strategies governing teams utilized to
monitor and evaluate student achievement progress. Data gathered included survey results and
interview responses, which were analyzed by the researcher and employed to formulate the
meaningful research findings.
Response Rate
Based upon the specific selection criterion for the study, 34 superintendents and 34 board
presidents from high-achieving school districts of 15,000 students or more were identified to
participate in the quantitative survey. Table 1 indicates that a total of 68 potential participants
and 41 individuals completed the survey. This resulted in an overall response rate of 60.2%.
Examination of the survey participation by role varied slightly. Table 1 reflects that a total of 34
superintendents met the criteria to participate, and 20 elected to complete the survey. The survey
was administered for a 2-month period beginning January 28 through March 26, 2014. The
SUCCESSFUL SUPERINTENDENTS 62

superintendent response rate was 58.8%. In addition, 21 board presidents out of 34 potential
participants chose to participate. The board president response rate was slightly higher than that
of superintendents, at 61.7%. The response rate of participants met the established goal of the
researcher, which was a response rate of 40% or more based upon a meta-analysis of response
rate research for Internet-based survey collection (Cook, Heath, & Thompson, 2000).
Table 1:

Quantitative Survey: Response Rate_________________________________________________
No. Invited to No. %
Participate Participated Participated

Superintendents 34 20 58.8
______________________________________________________________________________
Board Presidents 34 21 61.7

Total Participants 68 41 60.2
______________________________________________________________________________

The researcher required matched pairs that were comprised of the superintendent and the
board president from the same school district to independently consent to the qualitative
interview. Matched pairs were necessary as the focus of the research was on strategies successful
superintendents and boards of education employ that result in increased student achievement.
Thus, the research examines the collective work of both the superintendent and board president.
A total of 9 matched pairs were identified from the survey response as potential interview
participants. The researcher selected five matched pairs that met the defined criterion and
represented five high performing school districts of 15,000 students of more from four different
counties in Southern California.

SUCCESSFUL SUPERINTENDENTS 63

Quantitative Demographic Data
The gender of respondents who participated in the quantitative survey is shown in Table
2. Gender is reported in three categories: superintendent, board president, and overall
participants. The majority of all respondents were male. Overall, respondents were 60.98% male
and 39.02% female. Of the 20 superintendents who participated in the survey 75% were male
and 25% were female. The gender of board presidents reflected more of an equal balance by
gender, as the breakdown was approximately half male and half female.
Table 2:
Quantitative Survey: Participant Gender_____________________________________________
Measure Male Female Total

Superintendents 15 5 20
______________________________________________________________________________
% of Superintendents 75 25 100
______________________________________________________________________________
Board Presidents 10 11 21

% of Board Presidents 47.62 52.38 100
______________________________________________________________________________
Total Participants 25 16 41
______________________________________________________________________________
% of Participants 60.98 39.02 100
______________________________________________________________________________
The percentages of male and female superintendents align with the comprehensive
American School Superintendent 2010 Decennial Study, which indicated that 75.9% of
superintendents were male and 24.1% were female. There was an insignificant difference of
0.9% (Kowalski et al., 2010). In addition, the percentages of male and female board members are
equivalent to those reported by the National School Boards Association Report for school
districts of 15,000 students, which stated that 48.3% of school board members were male and
SUCCESSFUL SUPERINTENDENTS 64

51.7% were female. The differences between the researcher’s findings are 0.68% for males and
0.68% for females (Hess & Meeks, 2010).
The ethnic breakdown of respondents who participated in the quantitative survey is
shown in Table 3. Superintendents surveyed were 5% Asian, 25% Hispanic, and 70% White. The
ethnicity of board presidents varied from that of the superintendent respondents, as the majority
of board respondents were White. The ethnicity of board presidents was 9.52% Asian, 4.76%
Black/African American, 4.76 Hispanic, and 80.95% White. Ethnicity did not have a bearing on
participant’s responses.
Table 3:
Quantitative Survey: Participant Ethnicity____________________________________________
Measure Asian Black/ Hispanic White Other Total
African
American
No. of 1 0 5 14 0 20
Superintendents
______________________________________________________________________________
% of 5 0 25 70 0 100
Superintendents
______________________________________________________________________________
No. of 2 1 1 17 0 21
Board Presidents

% of 9.52 4.76 4.76 80.95 0 100
Board Presidents
______________________________________________________________________________
Total no. of 3 1 6 31 0 41
Participants
______________________________________________________________________________
% of 7.32 2.44 14.63 75.61 0 100
Participants
______________________________________________________________________________
The percentages of ethnic breakdown for superintendents did not align with the American School
Superintendent 2010 Decennial Study, which indicated that 94% of superintendents were White.
Upon further examination, the 2010 Decennial Study reported that minority group
SUCCESSFUL SUPERINTENDENTS 65

superintendents were more likely employed in school districts in which the student population of
color or resident population of color exceeds 51% (Kowalski et al., 2010). Districts identified for
the study were required to have a minimum of 35% minority students. In actuality, 29 of the 34
high achieving school districts, or 85% of districts identified, served a student population of
color, which exceeded 51%. Thus, the superintendent ethnic data would be skewed from national
statistics.
The National School Board Association (2010) reported that in school districts with
15,000 students or more, 0.9% of school board members were Asian, 21.8% were Black/African-
American, 6% were Hispanic, and 66.7% were White. These data are specific to all school board
members on a national level and not specific to board presidents per se (Hess & Meeks, 2010).
Based upon the student populations of color exceeding 51% in 85% of the school districts in the
survey, it is unusual that the majority of all board president ethnicity was 80.95% White, which
does not reflect the diverse student population of color that the districts served. This is a
difference of 14.25%. Ethnicity did not have a bearing on participant’s responses. Participants’
position as superintendent or elected board member had a greater bearing on the responses than
any demographic factors.
The quantitative survey respondents’ age is reported in Table 4. Age is conveyed in a
range of 10 years. There were no respondents with the age range of 20–29 years so these data
were not included in Table 4. Of the 20 superintendents surveyed, only one, or 5% of
respondents, was 30–39 years of age, 30% were 40–49 years of age, 45% were 50–59 years of
age, and 20% were 60–69 years of age. In addition, the 21 board president age ranges included
one, or 4.76%, who was 30–39 years of age, 14.29% were 40–49 years of age, 42.86% were 50–
59 years of age, 23.81% were 60–69 years of age, and 14.29% were 70 years or older.
SUCCESSFUL SUPERINTENDENTS 66

Table 4:

Quantitative Survey: Participant Age________________________________________________
Measure 30–39 40–49 50–59 60–69 70 or Total
over

No. of 1 6 9 4 0 20
superintendents
______________________________________________________________________________
% of 5 30 45 20 0 100
superintendents
______________________________________________________________________________
No. of 1 3 9 5 3 21
board presidents

% of 4.76 14.29 42.86 23.81 14.29 100
board presidents
______________________________________________________________________________
Total no. of 2 9 18 9 3 41
participants
______________________________________________________________________________
% of 4.88 21.95 43.90 21.95 7.32 100
participants
______________________________________________________________________________
The age breakdown for superintendents aligned with the American School
Superintendent 2010 Decennial Study, which indicated that 67.1% of superintendents were 46–
60 years of age, and 18.1% were older than age 60. Upon further examination of school districts
that specifically served 15,000 students or more, the researcher found that the 2010 Decennial
Study findings are consistent with research study findings, as 74.9% of superintendents were
ages 41–60 and 22.4% were over 60 years of age (Kowalski et al., 2010). Although the band
range in the research study does not match exactly, the results are certainly similar. There is
roughly a 0.1% difference for ages 41–60, and 2.4% difference for ages 60 and above.
In comparison with the National School Boards Association (2010), board member ages
for school districts of 15,000 students or more were 3.9% for the age range of 30–39, 15% for
SUCCESSFUL SUPERINTENDENTS 67

the age range 40–49, 42.5% for the age range 50–59, and 38.6% for the age range 60 or over.
These findings are also comparable with this research study (Hess & Meeks, 2010).
Table 5 shows the highest educational level achieved by the 41 respondents who
contributed to the quantitative study. One superintendent reported that the highest educational
level attained was a bachelor’s degree, whereas the remaining 95% of superintendents possessed
advanced degrees. Superintendents with a master’s degree were 20% and those with a doctoral
degree were 75%. In school districts with 3,000 to 24,000 students, the American School
Superintendent 2010 Decennial Study reported that 70.4% of superintendents had earned a
doctoral degree in education or philosophy. Of the number of superintendents in districts with
fewer than 2,999 students only 35.5% had attained a doctoral degree (Kowalski et al., 2010).
Table 5:

Quantitative Survey: Highest Education Level Attained_________________________________
Measure High Associate’s Bachelor’s Master’s Doctoral Total
School Degree Degree Degree Degree
Diploma

No. of 0 0 1 4 15 20
superintendents
______________________________________________________________________________
% of 0 0 5 20 75 100
superintendents
______________________________________________________________________________
No. of 3 2 3 10 3 21
board presidents

% of 14.29 9.52 14.29 47.62 14.29 100
board presidents
______________________________________________________________________________
Total no. of 3 2 4 14 18 41
participants
______________________________________________________________________________
% of 7.32 4.88 9.76 34.15 43.90 100
participants
______________________________________________________________________________
SUCCESSFUL SUPERINTENDENTS 68

Twenty-one board presidents completed the quantitative survey. A total of 14.29 were
high school graduates, 9.52% had associate’s degrees, 14.29% had bachelor’s degrees, 47.62 had
master’s degrees, and 14.29% had doctoral degrees. Therefore, 61.91% of participating board
presidents held advanced degrees. In school districts of 15,000 students or more, the National
School Boards Association (2010) reported that 1.7% of board members were high school
graduates, 13.3% obtained an associate’s degree, 27.9% had a bachelor’s degree, and 57.1% had
advanced degrees that included master’s and doctoral degrees. The findings indicate that the
educational level of attainment for board presidents within the research study did not match
board members nationwide.
The distribution of years of service for superintendents and board presidents who
participated in the quantitative survey is shown in Table 6. A total of 65% of the 20 participating
superintendents had fewer than 2 years of experience in their current school district. This result is
notable as it may indicate that a high number of superintendents in high achieving school
districts had either retired or changed school districts in the last 2 years during an unprecedented
period of accountability due to the prescribed mandates of NCLB. This finding is also not
aligned with the research of Kowalski et al. (2010), which reported nationally that 29.1% of
superintendents in school districts with 15,000 students had at least 4 years of experience.

SUCCESSFUL SUPERINTENDENTS 69

Table 6:

Quantitative Survey: Participant Experience in Current School District
Measure 0–2 3–4 5–6 7 or Total
years years years more years
No. of 13 3 1 3 20
superintendents
______________________________________________________________________________
% of 65 15 5 15 100
superintendents
______________________________________________________________________________
No. of 6 6 1 8 21
board presidents

% of 28.57 28.57 4.76 38.10 100
board presidents
______________________________________________________________________________
Total no. of 19 9 2 11 41
participants
______________________________________________________________________________
% of 46.34 21.95 4.88 26.83 100
participants
______________________________________________________________________________

The majority (57.14%) of board presidents had served on the board 4 years or fewer in
their current school district. These board presidents would have gone through only one school
board election unless they were appointed. However, 38.10% of board presidents had served 7 or
more years and at least two terms of service. The National School Boards Association (2010)
reported that 45.4% of all board members in school districts of 15,000 students or more served 5
years or more, which is comparable to the research study findings. This is a difference of 2.54%.
Of the 34 school districts that met the survey criteria, 27, or 79.4%, either had the
superintendent, board president or both the superintendent and board president respond to the
quantitative survey. Table 7 shows the school district demographic data such as enrollment,
percent minority, percent free or reduced lunch participation, and API for 2009, API for 2012
and total API points gained over that 4-year period. The school districts surveyed ranged from
SUCCESSFUL SUPERINTENDENTS 70

15,151 to 56,970 student enrollment with an average enrollment of 25,801. Percent of minority
students ranged from 45% to 97% and had a survey district average of 68.5% minority students.
Percent of free or reduced lunch participation of students ranged from 28% to 86% with the
survey district average of 50.37% of students participating in the free or reduced lunch program.
Participating school districts’ API in 2012 ranged from 800 to 871 with the average surveyed
district earning API of 836 in 2012. Overall, gain in API points from 2009 to 2012 ranged from
20 to 43 points with the survey district average of a 31-point increase.

SUCCESSFUL SUPERINTENDENTS 71

Table 7:

Quantitative Survey: District Characteristics
District Enrollment % % API API Gain
Minority Free or Reduced 2009 2012
______________________________________________________________________________
1 20,845 92 50 812 849 37
2 18,076 97 68 802 845 43
3 16,546 54 39 816 847 31
4 16,231 50 69 784 811 27
5 30,705 78 48 799 821 22
6 28,668 85 50 830 869 39
7 53,437 69 44 790 826 36
8 29,159 76 68 766 809 43
9 19,117 42 33 815 840 25
10 47,599 89 70 790 821 31
11 26,187 45 52 829 862 33
12 16,400 57 34 811 847 36
13 22,929 53 35 826 857 31
14 22,003 52 44 811 842 31
15 25,622 56 35 836 871 35
16 21,379 67 54 791 825 34
17 15,501 95 68 777 802 25
18 30,355 47 28 847 871 24
19 56,970 79 64 775 807 32
20 33,184 73 51 780 805 25
21 19,617 58 45 833 871 38
22 15,151 77 44 781 813 32
23 24,324 70 30 843 869 26
24 23,771 69 43 836 868 32
25 19,832 92 86 763 806 43
26 17,402 56 48 797 818 21
27 25,642 72 60 779 800 21
______________________________________________________________________________
Average 25,801 68.5 50.37 804 836 31
______________________________________________________________________________
SUCCESSFUL SUPERINTENDENTS 72

Qualitative Demographic Data
Five matching pairs of superintendents and board presidents were selected for qualitative
interviews. The research study required a superintendent to have served a minimum of 18
months in his or her position in that current school district and that a coordinating board
president or a member who had previously served as board president, also consented to
participate in a separate interview. Matched pairs were identified in nine of the 34 potential
school districts and five matched pairs were selected for interview. Special consideration in
selection was given to those groups who are traditionally underrepresented in the
superintendency. Kowalski et al., (2010) reported that 2% of all superintendents in the nation are
Hispanic and 24.1% are women. Thus, I selected two female superintendents, a Hispanic male
superintendent, a Hispanic male board president, and matched pairs from four different counties
in Southern California to participate in the qualitative interview in order to gain insights from
traditionally underrepresented populations in these important roles.
Table 8 shows the demographic profile for each superintendent and board president who
participated in the qualitative interview along with the school district’s demographic description.
These data are relevant as they provide a profile of the superintendents and board presidents
interviewed and offer perspective to their responses.

SUCCESSFUL SUPERINTENDENTS 73

Table 8:

Qualitative Interview: Characteristics of Superintendents, Board Presidents, and Districts________
Superintendent Board President District
Profile Profile Profile

A Gender: Female Gender: Male Enrollment: 21,376
Ethnicity: White Ethnicity: White Minority: 67%
Age: 50–59 Age: 50–59 Free lunch: 54%
Education: Master’s degree Education: Master’s degree 2009 API: 791
Years as superintendent: 6 Years on board: 11 2012 API: 825
Years in current position: 6 Gain: 34 points

B Gender: Male Gender: Male Enrollment: 19,832
Ethnicity: Hispanic Ethnicity: Hispanic Minority: 92%
Age: 60–69 Age: 50–59 Free lunch: 86%
Education: Master’s degree Education: High school diploma 2009 API: 763
Years as superintendent: 1.5 Years on board: 4 2012 API: 806
Years in current position: 1.5 Gain: 43 points

C Gender: Male Gender: Female Enrollment: 26,187
Ethnicity: White Ethnicity: Other Minority: 45%
Age: 40–49 Age: Declined to state Free lunch: 52%
Education: Doctoral degree Education: Master’s degree 2009 API: 829
Years as superintendent: 4 Years on board: 7 2012 API: 862
Years in current position: 4 Gain: 33 points

D Gender: Female Gender: Male Enrollment: 16,546
Ethnicity: White Ethnicity: White Minority: 54%
Age: 60–69 Age: 70+ Free lunch: 39%
Education: Doctoral degree Education: Master’s degree 2009 API: 816
Years as superintendent: 2 Years on board: 11 2012 API: 847
Years in current position: 2 Gain: 31 points

E Gender: Male Gender: Female Enrollment: 23,771
Ethnicity: White Ethnicity: White Minority: 69%
Age: 50–59 Age: 50–59 Free lunch: 43%
Education: Doctoral degree Education: High school diploma 2009 API: 836
Years as superintendent: 7 Years on board: 18 2012 API: 868
Years in current position: 3 Gain: 32 points
______________________________________________________________________________

Two of the superintendents interviewed were female and three were males. This same
ratio of female to male applied to the board presidents interviewed. The ethnic distribution of
SUCCESSFUL SUPERINTENDENTS 74

superintendents who participated in the qualitative interview was four White and one Hispanic.
The ethic distribution of board presidents was three White, one Hispanic, and one other. The age
distribution of superintendents who participated in the qualitative interview was one
superintendent was 40–49 years-old, two were 50–59 years-old, and two were 60–69 years old.
The age distribution of the board presidents was three who were 50–59 years old, one who was
70 years or older, and one who declined to state her age. The highest level of educational
attainment of superintendents who participated in the qualitative interview was that two
possessed master’s degrees, and three had earned doctoral degrees. The board presidents’
educational level varied, as two had high school diplomas, and three had a master’s degree.
Two of the five superintendents had been in their position 2 or fewer years. The
remaining three superintendents had served 4 to 7 years as superintendents. Four of the five
superintendents were in their first superintendency. Only one of the five superintendents had
previously served as a superintendent in another school district. The average years of service for
the five superintendents was 4.1.
Collectively, the board presidents’ years of service exceeded those of the average
superintendent. Board presidents’ years of service ranged from 4 to 18. The average years of
service for the five board presidents was 10.2, which exceeded the superintendents’ tenure by 6.1
years.
Research Question One
What strategies do successful superintendents and boards of education collaboratively
employ that result in increased student achievement?
Superintendents and boards of education jointly share an interest in improving student
achievement. When all members of the governance team are grounded in a collaborative vision
SUCCESSFUL SUPERINTENDENTS 75

that is based upon the collective belief that all students can learn and upon the improvement of
student achievement, the school district’s future will be bright (Moody, 2011). The Center for
Public Education (2011) identified the number one effective characteristic of an effective school
board as “demonstrating a commitment to a vision of high expectations for student achievement
and quality instruction and define clear goals toward that vision.” Accordingly, a priority of
every superintendent was to strategically orchestrate the process that results in the establishment
of a common district-wide vision (Moffett, 2011). The board of education’s role was to approve
the vision and advocate the common messages throughout the community regarding the district’s
vision and goals for achievement (AASA, 2006; Elmore, 2000; Moody, 2011).
Table 9 illustrates superintendent and board president responses to the question: What
strategies do successful superintendents and boards of education collaboratively employ that
result in increased student achievement? Superintendents and board presidents used a Likert-
type scale to indicate their level of agreement with a response. A 1 represents strongly disagree,
2 represents disagree, 3 represents agree, and 4 represents strongly agree.

SUCCESSFUL SUPERINTENDENTS 76

Table 9:
Ranking of Collaborative Strategies Employed That Resulted in Increased Student Achievement
Strategy Strongly Disagree Agree Strongly Response Total
Disagree Agree Mean
(1) (2) (3) (4)
Possess belief all
students can learn 0 0 2 38 3.95 40

Possess high
expectations for 0 0 2 38 3.95 40
student achievement

Establishing a shared
vision for the district 0 0 4 36 3.90 40

Setting collaborative
goals between 0 0 8 32 3.80 40

Establishing agreement
between supt. & bd. 0 3 23 14 3.275 40
on how to recognize
district achievements

Learning together as
a bd.-supt. team at 0 3 24 13 3.25 40
professional
development

Reporting student
achievement data 0 1 6 33 3.80 40
to the board

Communicating
expectations and 0 0 11 29 3.725 40
messaging goals

Utilizing data to
identify student 0 0 7 33 3.825 40
learning needs

Implementing a
system to manage 0 0 15 25 3.625 40
instructional change

SUCCESSFUL SUPERINTENDENTS 77

The response mean for all categories within this survey question ranged from 3.25 to 3.95. The
most favorable ranking (3.95) occurred for two strategies, “Possessing a belief that all students
can learn,” and “Possessing high expectations for student achievement,” in contrast to “Learning
together as a board-superintendent team at professional association activities,” which received
the lowest response mean (3.25).
Possessing a Belief That All Students Can Learn
One of the two areas to receive the highest response (3.95) collectively from
superintendents and board presidents was “Possessed a belief that all students can learn.” Four
out of five board presidents articulated the belief that all students can learn and that their school
district’s vision affirms this belief as the driving force of its collective efforts.
Each of the five board presidents interviewed spoke from the heart when describing
strategies he or she considered to contribute to student achievement. Board President A stated:
When we hired our superintendent six years ago, we went through a program called Good
Beginnings where we outlined our priorities as a board. The first priority was student
achievement for every student and I think it begins there. It begins with both an
expectation and a desire that every student can and will achieve and be served.

Board President C and E each spoke about the vision of the governance team that all students can
and will achieve. Board president C shared, “One of the things that comes to the forefront of my
mind is about the role of the board of education and superintendent to ensure all students will be
successful.” According to Board President E, “It is the role of the superintendent and board of
education to set a clear vision that all students can and will learn.” All five board presidents
interviewed clearly articulated the belief that all students can learn and that this belief sets the
foundation for the school district vision.
Although 18 out of 20 superintendents indicated on the quantitative survey that they
strongly agreed it was necessary to “possess a belief that all students can learn,” such a specific
SUCCESSFUL SUPERINTENDENTS 78

statement did not materialize or was messaged during the qualitative interview. All five
superintendents spoke about specific, tangible strategies that the school district implemented to
ensure all students learned; strategies such as strong first instruction, response to intervention
programs, instructional coaches, ongoing targeted professional development, and data analysis.
Superintendent D credited the employees and the belief they possessed about the children
when she was asked about contributing factors to increasing student achievement in her school
district:
I have to say, I have worked in other districts – and I think it is our employees. This is the
best group of employees I have ever worked with. These people keep their focus directly
on our kids. They are hard workers . . . I see a great deal of passion and dedication
within. They will do whatever it takes to get kids to learn. I love that! You know what I
am saying?

Superintendent D validated that employees in the district possess a belief that students can learn
and will do whatever it takes to support them.
Possessing High Expectations for Student Achievement
The second area to receive an equivalent response (3.95) collectively from
superintendents and board presidents was “possessing high expectations for student
achievement.” Nine out of 10 participants in the qualitative interview acknowledged their belief
in possessing high expectations for student achievement. Superintendent C confessed:
This district has been a great district before I got here. It continues to be a great district
and will be a great district long after I am gone. When I came here seven years ago as an
outsider, one of the things that hit me was that the expectation level is very high. Looking
back at my doctoral dissertation, expectation level plays such an important role that is
very evident when you go through classrooms here.

High expectations can permeate a school or district culture. Superintendent D described her
district, “I think we have a culture of self-improvement. I think it was here before I came. I can’t
take credit for that – I wish I could. I was lucky to land in this district as it makes you just rise.”
SUCCESSFUL SUPERINTENDENTS 79

Both Superintendent C and D acknowledged the school district culture of self-improvement and
expectation that achievement for all students is attainable. Additionally, Board President A
summarized his school district in the following way:
We are a very broad and diverse district. At 54%, we are now a majority of minorities.
We run the spectrum from free and reduced students to top end kids going to Berkeley
and Princeton. We have students at the other end of the spectrum in AVID, with special
needs or English Learners that are equally as important too. Our overarching desire and
expectations is that all students can learn.

Such responses are validated by the IASB Lighthouse study (2000), which found that effective
governance teams articulating an “elevating” view of students releases each student’s potential.
These remarks serve as evidence of the governance team’s shared value of a culture of ongoing
improvement and how to systematize the district to make it happen (Delagardella, 2008).
Therefore, the school district was united, coherent ,and collaborative—and more likely to
increase student achievement.
Establishing a Shared Vision for the School District
The third highest response (3.90) collectively from superintendents and board presidents
was “establishing a shared vision for the school district.” Four of the five matched pairs of
superintendents and board presidents clearly spoke about their school district’s vision and how
this vision was shared with various stakeholders. When superintendents and boards of education
are grounded in a collaborative vision based upon the collective belief that all students can learn,
the school district’s future will be bright (Moody, 2011). Board President D demonstrated his
commitment to the school district vision when he asserted:
In our district we have our vision. The vision sets the tone for everything else in the
school district. The mission statement pretty much will determine where we want to be in
terms of achieving the vision of the district. We also have our board goals and objectives.
An example I could provide is in our vision, we clearly state that we want to see
technology, modern technology, throughout our school district for the benefit of kids.
Then the mission statement will say by such and such a date, and the goals and objectives
SUCCESSFUL SUPERINTENDENTS 80

will go that much further . . . If you look at our board agenda, it even states which board
goal the item is addressing.
Board President E built upon the foundation of vision of Board President D, sharing:
As a governing team, we need to listen to what is going on in the classroom. Then set a
vision that teachers will buy into and they can implement with confidence . . . You have
to get everybody on board, implement it in a methodical way and check how things are
going, and ask regularly for feedback.

A shared vision based upon a belief that all students can learn was evident. Thus, a priority of
every superintendent should be to strategically orchestrate the planning process that results in the
establishment of a common district-wide vision (Moffett, 2011). The board of education’s role
was to approve the vision and advocate the common messages throughout the community
regarding the district’s vision and goals for achievement (AASA, 2006; Elmore, 2000; Moody,
2011). These priorities were also evident in School District C, as seen in statements from
Superintendent C:
As you walked in the door, you should have seen the board priorities and the strategic
plan on display, as well as what we are emphasizing this year through the strategic plan.
By staying true to that process outlined in the strategic plan, we have a well-defined
multi-year approach that is not the last best greatest thing.

Strategic plans, school district vision, mission statements, and board goals and objectives are all
means to communicate to stakeholders the key organizational priorities.
Specific Strategy That Yielded Results
Four out of five superintendents interviewed shared that instructional coaching was a key
strategy that was employed to increase student achievement. Each of the five school districts
tailored or planned to tailor instructional coaching to meet its specific district need. Coaching
was also a strategy used to increase the leadership capacity of principals. Instructional coaching
is a form of professional development. Professional development for principals and/or teachers
had the same response mean (3.85) on the quantitative survey.
SUCCESSFUL SUPERINTENDENTS 81

Table 10 shows superintendent responses to the question: Which specific strategy the
superintendent/board employed had the greatest impact on student achievement? Why?
Table 10
Types of Instructional Coaching Employed to Improve Student Achievement_________________
District Data Superintendent Remarks
A
Enrollment: 21,376 Teachers need to learn from other teachers. The teacher support
Minority: 67% program was a two-year program, which resulted in teachers’
Free lunch: 54% growth. One year involved intensive coaching, and the second year
2009 API: 791 they co-planned and co-taught. Common assessment results went
2012 API: 825 from the very bottom to being in the middle of the pack. It was
Gain: 34 points a huge success.

B
Enrollment: 19,832 Every school has an instructional coach. Instructional coaching
Minority: 92% is powerful to me. Coaches help teachers, work with them,
Free lunch: 86% model lessons, and demonstrate it. There is a comfort level here with a
2009 API: 763 coach that I have not seen anywhere else. It is teacher as
2012 API: 806 diagnostician … It has created an atmosphere where I as a teacher
Gain: 43 points can explore, can fail, and the only one who will know is my coach.

C
Enrollment: 26,187 Coaching principals and then each of the schools have
Minority: 45% instructional leadership teams that we are also coaching.
Free lunch: 52% It involves instructional rounds. Schools self-identified best
2009 API: 829 practices and how they would improve student achievement.
2012 API: 862 Instructional rounds are led by teachers from the school. Other
Gain: 33 points teachers attend along with administrators from a cohort of schools. We
share out and it is charted and taken back to school.

D
Enrollment: 16,546 We plan to implement coaching next year to support
Minority: 54% Common Core lesson implementation. We are using a
Free lunch: 39% trainer of trainer model. The teachers welcome this next step.
2009 API: 816
2012 API: 847
Gain: 31 points

E
Enrollment: 23,771 We have instructional coaching and that has de-privatized
Minority: 69% teachers’ practice. It made having other people in our classrooms
Free lunch: 43% less threatening. There is a pretty high degree of cooperation,
2009 API: 836 collaboration among teachers even across schools and across
2012 API: 868 grade levels.
Gain: 32 points
_____________________________________________________________________________________
SUCCESSFUL SUPERINTENDENTS 82

Teacher peer-to-peer coaching was the singular strategy that all five superintendents mentioned
during the qualitative interview. The use of instructional coaches or facilitators is part of the
evidenced-based model of adequacy and is considered a high-yield strategy (Odden, Picus, &
Goetz, 2009).
Discussion
Four strategies surfaced through the analysis of quantitative survey and qualitative
interviews of superintendents and board presidents that resulted in increased student
achievement. The first strategy is that the governing team holds a belief that all students can
learn as the guiding foundation for all its practice. This strategy coincides with the IASB
Lighthouse study (2000), which found that effective board/superintendent teams articulated an
“elevating” view of students that released each student’s potential. The second strategy is that
governing teams should possess high expectations for student achievement, which is also aligned
with Waters and Marzano’s (2006) notion of setting non-negotiable goals for student
achievement. The third strategy validates the need for establishing a shared vision for the school
district. The Center for Public Education (2011) identified the number one effective
characteristic of an effective school board as “demonstrating a commitment to a vision of high
expectations for student achievement and quality instruction and define clear goals toward that
vision.” The final strategy that emerged was instructional coaching as a means to improve
instructional practice for teachers. Instructional facilitation or coaching is considered a high-yield
strategy as part of the evidenced-based model of adequacy (Odden et al., 2009).
Possessing the belief that all students can learn; holding high expectations for
achievement; and establishing a shared vision for the school district were the primary themes that
surfaced within the quantitative survey and qualitative interview. Although superintendents and
SUCCESSFUL SUPERINTENDENTS 83

board presidents by and large reinforced the survey items as significant, clarity was gained
through the qualitative interview responses regarding strategies governing teams employed to
improve student achievement. The collective efforts of superintendent and board of education
can be summarized by Superintendent A:
As superintendent, I realize I act differently than how I thought I would act. I do not
come at the issue of student achievement like I have all the answers. The superintendent
and board share this responsibility: What is it we want to see happening in the
classrooms? How will we know that learning is occurring? What will we see the teacher
doing? What will students be doing? The strategy that I employ that has led to success is
to talk about what I would like to see happening and also gather ideas the Board would
like to see happening. Though these conversations we develop shared values to employ
moving forward towards success. Thus, the Board’s vision permeates our collective work
going forward and I facilitate the process.
Successful superintendents recognize their role as a contributing member of a governance team
whose work is constructed upon the foundation of belief that all students can learn, and this
belief resulted in increased student achievement.
Research Question Two
What are the essential elements regarding superintendents and boards of education
relationships that contribute to increases in student achievement?
The establishment of a governance team is essential to increasing student achievement.
Effective superintendents view the partnership with the board of education as a critical or
delicate bond that requires a conscious effort to maintain (Eadie & Houston, 2003). In addition,
boards of education in high performing districts strived for “peaceable relationships” that
demonstrated satisfaction with and value for the superintendent (Iowa Association of School
Boards, 2000). Effective school boards’ primary task is to focus on students’ academic
achievement and set policy (Land, 2002). Consequently, board members do not micromanage the
actions of the superintendent. Additionally, the ability of the superintendent to establish a
positive relationship with the board president and the remaining members of the board of
SUCCESSFUL SUPERINTENDENTS 84

education is essential to fostering community confidence in a quality educational program within
a school district.
Table 11 represents superintendent and board president response to the question: To what
degree are you satisfied with your school district’s success in improving student achievement?
Quantitative survey participants used a Likert-type scale to indicate their level of agreement with
a response. A 1 represents very dissatisfied, 2 represents dissatisfied, 3 represents satisfied, and 4
represents very satisfied.
Table 11:
Degree of Satisfaction with School District’s Success in Improving Student Achievement_______
Degree Very Dissatisfied Satisfied Very Total
Dissatisfied Satisfied
(1) (2) (3) (4)

No. of
Responses 0 5 21 14 40
______________________________________________________________________________
% of
Responses 0 12.5 52.5 35 100

The majority (87.5%) of survey participants indicated that they were satisfied or very satisfied
with their school district’s success in improving student achievement; 12.5% of survey
participants stated that they were dissatisfied with their school district’s progress toward
improved student achievement. The AASA study (2010) reported that 97.7% of superintendents
in school districts of a similar size were moderately or very satisfied with their district schools
and programs. This is a difference of 10.2%.
However, all five, or 100%, of matched pairs of superintendents and board presidents
who participated in the qualitative interviews were either satisfied or very satisfied with their
school district’s success in improving student achievement. In comparison with the AASA study
SUCCESSFUL SUPERINTENDENTS 85

(2010), this study reported a 97.7% satisfaction rating of superintendents; this is a difference of
2.3%.
Superintendent’s Perception of Essential Relationship Elements
Table 12 depicts superintendent responses to the question: To what degree are you
satisfied with your working relationship with the board of education? The same Likert-type scale
as Table 12 was used to indicate superintendent degree of agreement with the questions.
Table 12
Degree of Superintendent Satisfaction Working with the Board of Education________________
Degree Very Dissatisfied Satisfied Very Total
Dissatisfied Satisfied
(1) (2) (3) (4)

No. of
Superintendents 0 1 5 14 20
______________________________________________________________________________
% of
Superintendents 0 5 25 70 100

The majority, or 95%, of superintendents specified that they were satisfied or very satisfied with
the working relationship with the board of education in their current school district; whereas only
5% of the superintendents revealed a dissatisfaction rating. Once again, the AASA research
(2010) reported a 90.8% satisfaction rating of superintendents in school districts of similar size;
this is a difference of 4.2%.
Table 13 shows superintendent responses to the question: To what extent do you agree
the following qualities are desirable for board members to possess in order to foster a strong
relationship with their superintendent that contributes to improved student achievement?
Superintendents used a Likert-type scale to indicate their level of agreement with a response. A 1
represents strongly disagree, 2 represents disagree, 3 represents agree, and 4 represents strongly
agree.
SUCCESSFUL SUPERINTENDENTS 86

Table 13:
Desirable Qualities Board Members Should Possess
Strategy Strongly Disagree Agree Strongly Response Total
Disagree Agree Mean
(1) (2) (3) (4)
Maintains focus on
student achievement 0 0 2 18 3.90 20

Sets effective
policies 0 0 6 14 3.70 20

Establishes positive
relationships with 0 2 14 4 3.10 20
local/state government

Maintains a
relationship with 0 1 9 10 3.45 20
community-at-large

Follows board
protocols 0 0 4 16 3.80 20

Is receptive to
new ideas 0 0 5 15 3.75 20

Builds consensus
Among the board 0 0 10 10 3.50 20

Maintains fiscal
responsibility 0 0 5 15 3.75 20

Understands the
role of the board 0 0 4 16 3.80 20

Keeps the
superintendent 0 0 6 14 3.70 20
well-informed

Makes decisions
based upon 0 0 3 16 3.84 19
research and data

The response mean range for the categories contained in this item is 3.10 to 3.90. The most
desirable quality in a board member is for the board member to maintain a focus on student
achievement (3.90); whereas board members establishing positive relationships with local and
state governmental leaders was rated the least (3.10).
SUCCESSFUL SUPERINTENDENTS 87

Focus on Student Achievement and Data-Driven Decision-Making
Surveys and interviews revealed that superintendents designated “Maintains a focus on
student achievement” (3.90), and “Makes decisions based upon research and data” (3.84) as the
two most desirable qualities a board member could possess that result in increased student
achievement. One matched pair described the use of data similarly, as Superintendent A shared:
The board actively considers data in decision making. One pivotal example of my work
with the Board is when I showed them in a workshop that we had a number, a small
number, of teachers who were constantly performing poorly. They were low performing.
I showed the Board the impact a low performing teacher could have on a school’s API.
Their initial frustration was with the principal, but when I showed them if they took out
this one teacher the school site’s API went up 8 points. Then they said – what are you
going to do for that teacher? Thus, I was able to bring them the teacher support program.
Board President A mirrored this sentiment when he stated:
We love data in our school district and there was data that identified these needs. The
focus has remained on learning and student achievement. When we have a leader who the
board respects and she is saying this is what we need to do for the good of students, the
numbers and the budget become secondary.
These two quotations serve as an example of a united governance team working toward common
goals and objectives. Successful superintendents clearly messaged timely information pertinent
to student achievement frequently (AASA, 2006, 2007).
Follows Board Protocols and Understands the Board’s Role
The third largest response (3.80) by superintendents was that board members would
“follow board protocols and understand the role of a board member.” All five superintendents
surveyed indicated the essential role of board protocols. Superintendent D reported:
When it (the relationship) gets off track, then we had a session on board governance and
we brought in a facilitator. I think that really helped us. We reviewed the board protocols
and we talked about their role and our role. We talked about our governance team. It was
a really good refresher and it is really important.

Board President D communicated a similar message to that of the corresponding superintendent:

SUCCESSFUL SUPERINTENDENTS 88

You have to be on the same page as a governance team where everybody knows their
role. Board members should really be cognizant of that fine line between governance and
administration because they are definitely different roles.. . . . You are governance – NOT
administration. A good superintendent will certainly be aware of that and will work
toward that aim, making sure that everybody is on task within their roles and
responsibilities without crossover . . . As a board member you are one of five – or
whatever the make-up of your board is – but you are one person. It takes the majority of
your board to accomplish anything. You make decisions as a governance team.

This example demonstrates alignment in governance team understanding regarding roles and
responsibilities. The board president and superintendent relationship is one of strategic partners
in the governance of the school district D (Eadie & Houston, 2003).
Board President’s Perception of Essential Relationship Elements
Table 14 represents board president response to the question: To what degree are you
satisfied with your working relationship with the superintendent? Quantitative survey
participants used a Likert-type scale to indicate their level of agreement with a response. A 1
represents very dissatisfied, 2 represents dissatisfied, 3 represents satisfied, and 4 represents very
satisfied.
Table 14:
Degree of Board President Satisfaction Working with the Superintendent___________________
Degree Very Dissatisfied Satisfied Very Total
Dissatisfied Satisfied
(1) (2) (3) (4)
No. of
Bd. Presidents 0 0 1 14 20
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
% of
Bd. Presidents 0 0 30 70 100

All, or 100%, of board presidents specified that they were satisfied or very satisfied with the
working relationship with the corresponding superintendent in their current school district. This
is an unusually high degree of satisfaction with the superintendent. Yet it is also important to
SUCCESSFUL SUPERINTENDENTS 89

note that all of the board presidents participating in the study were serving in school districts
identified as high performing.
However, it is important to note that originally 21 board presidents participated in the
survey. Board President F contacted the researcher to indicate that although she had begun the
survey, she could not complete the remaining questions due to a community controversy
regarding the superintendent’s effectiveness and performance. Consequently, only 20 board
presidents completed the entire survey. Shortly after speaking to Board President F, the
researcher confirmed through local newspaper reports that the Superintendent F voluntarily
resigned his position as superintendent in that district.
Successful superintendents are committed to understanding their board of education and
are effective communicators. Table 15 represents board president response to the question: To
what extent do you agree the following qualities are desirable for superintendents to possess in
order to foster a strong relationship with their board that contributes to improved student
achievement? Board Presidents used a Likert-type scale to indicate their level of agreement with
a response. A 1 represents strongly disagree, 2 represents disagree, 3 represents agree, and 4
represents strongly agree.

SUCCESSFUL SUPERINTENDENTS 90

Table 15:
Desirable Qualities a Superintendent Should Possess
Strategy Strongly Disagree Agree Strongly Response Total
Disagree Agree Mean
(1) (2) (3) (4)

Communicates
effectively 0 0 1 19 3.95 20

Works
collaboratively 0 0 2 18 3.90 20

Models instructional
leadership 0 0 8 12 3.60 20

Mentors leadership
and inspires others 0 0 6 14 3.70 20

Demonstrates an
awareness of lives 0 3 14 3 3.00 20
of staff members

Is a change agent
receptive to new ideas 0 0 7 13 3.65 20

Is a reflective/
introspective leader 0 1 7 12 3.55 20

Builds a strong district
administrative team 0 0 4 16 3.80 20

Fiscally responsible 0 0 5 15 3.75 20

Makes
recommendations 0 0 6 14 3.70 20
based on research
and data

Keeps the board 0 0 0 20 4.00 20
well-informed

SUCCESSFUL SUPERINTENDENTS 91

The response mean range for the categories contained in this table is 3.55 to 4.0. Board
presidents unanimously strongly agreed that the superintendent keeps the board well-informed
(4.0). This response is significant as it is the only response among all survey questions to receive
complete agreement to the same degree. The quality with the lowest score applied to the
superintendent who is a reflective and introspective leader (3.55).
Keeps Board Well-Informed and Communicates Effectively
Survey and interviews determined that board presidents perceived keeping the board
well-informed (4.0) and communicating effectively (3.95) as the two most desirable qualities a
superintendent could possess. A governance team partnership is achieved by the superintendent
establishing strong communication with the board president that is based upon a foundation of
trust. One matched pair described the importance of communication comparably; Board
President E stated confidentially:
We all need to be on the same page. In our school district there is a mentality of no
surprises. We never undermine one another or the superintendent. We work incredibly
well together. There is a level of trust unlike any other district . . . Our superintendent
deals with each one of us individually but while he is doing that he makes sure that any
communication with one of us is going to the other four of us.

Superintendent E agreed:
I think the first thing in any relationship is communication and honesty. I try to be as
transparent as possible when working with the Board. I give them lots of lead time as we
are heading into any kind of major decision so that they can start wrestling with it and
give them plenty of information. The relationship needs to be built on trust which really
only happens when you spend time communicating and working together. I try to
communicate with the board collectively and individually on a regular basis just to
maintain the relationship.

A second matched pair of also expressed affirmation as a governance team on the importance of

communication. Board President D acknowledged:

SUCCESSFUL SUPERINTENDENTS 92

Communication and no surprises. The big thing is trust. If we don’t trust one another –
you have no organization. If there appears to be a divide it will never be a secret, people
will see it, they will see right through the masking.

Superintendent D concurred with these remarks:

Trust and communication are the most important. I communicate with the board all the
time. I meet with each board member once a month. I communicate with them constantly.
If any situation comes up, such as a safety concern, I send an email out to the board first.
Positive or negative any of that . . . I send it to the board.

All 10 participants in the quantitative interview asserted highly effective communication as the
most critical element related to the superintendent and board of education relationship. These
results aligned with the Petersen, Kelly, Reimer, Mosunich, and Thompson study (2009), in
which California superintendents indicated that the number one factor that contributed to
personal effectiveness on the job was possession of strong interpersonal relations skills and
effective communication skills.
Works Collaboratively
The third largest response (3.90) by board presidents was that the superintendent would
work collaboratively. School accountability reform efforts require superintendents to work in an
empowerment model, whereby building and maintaining positive relationships with a broad
coalition of stakeholders is necessary (Blasé & Bjork, 2011; Kowalski et al., 2011). California’s
LCAP serves as an example of an empowerment model at work as it requires collaborative
involvement of the community in the development of a 3-year plan to improve student
achievement (Bennett, 2013). Superintendent A responded, “High achieving districts with
continual achievement are successful because they have established a professional high quality
working relationship between the board and the superintendent.” Superintendent B demonstrated
collaborative work by celebrating academic successes. Superintendent B shared, “A board
meeting should be a celebration of our academic success so we bring a team and share what is
SUCCESSFUL SUPERINTENDENTS 93

going on at the school. It makes the Board more supportive of our instructional strategies.”
Featuring the contributions of school administrators and faculty is vital and demonstrates
recognition of the efforts made within the school district to improve student achievement.
Discussion
Through quantitative survey and qualitative interviews, essential elements surfaced
regarding the relationship between the board of education and superintendent that contribute to
increased student achievement. Superintendents perceived a focus on student achievement and
making decisions based upon research or data as the two most desirable qualities a board
member could demonstrate. In addition, a board member who followed the established board
protocols and understood the role of a board member were also qualities superintendents strongly
valued. Whereas board presidents overwhelmingly asserted that superintendents who keep the
board well-informed and communicate effectively were critical to increasing student
achievement. Board presidents also preferred a superintendent who worked collaboratively.
These essential elements within the governing team relationship were perceived by survey and
interview participants to contribute to increased student achievement.
Research Question Three
How does the relationship between superintendent and board of education influence
student academic achievement in the school district?
The ability to influence others is a vital component of leadership within a governance
team and positively impact student achievement. According to a Petersen and Williams study
(2005), the elected position of board president usually leads to additional influence with fellow
board members. Board presidents described effective superintendents as having the ability to
SUCCESSFUL SUPERINTENDENTS 94

influence, being a good communicator, having respected experience, being goal oriented, being
child centered, and remaining transparent and open (Petersen & Williams, 2005).
Table 16 depicts participants’ responses to the question: To what degree do you perceive
the superintendent and board of education collectively influence student achievement? A Likert-
type scale was used to indicate their degree of agreement with the response. A 1 represents none,
2 represents slight, 3 represents moderate, and 4 represents considerable.
Table 16:
Degree of Perception that Superintendent and Board Relationship Collectively Influences
Student Achievement_____________________________________________________________
Degree None Slight Moderate Considerable Total
(1) (2) (3) (4)

No. of
Responses 0 0 9 31 40
______________________________________________________________________________
% of
Responses 0 0 22.5 77.5 100

The majority (77.5%) of governing team members perceived the superintendent and board of
education as having considerable collective influence on student achievement. In addition, 22.5%
of respondents perceived that the superintendent and board of education possessed a moderate
degree of collective influence on student achievement.
A significant finding was that not a single survey or interview respondent stated that there
was no correlation regarding the governance team’s relationship influencing student
achievement. Board President A weighed in on this issue:
Respect the staff and put kids first. If you do that. . . it is frankly not a difficult job. If you
don’t respect the staff or if you decide there is another constituent group more important
than students – than watch out!

SUCCESSFUL SUPERINTENDENTS 95

Board President A clearly delineated respect for staff and putting the needs of students first.
Superintendent E delved further regarding the importance of maintaining the relationship with
the board of education as:
There is really nothing more important than maintaining the relationship with the Board.
That is not something I think that you can delegate. You can delegate darn near anything
else in the school district but you cannot delegate that one because they are YOUR
employer and Your boss as the superintendent. They have one employee and you are it.

Both of these statements demonstrated a value and respect between the elected board members
and the district administration.
Conversely, Board President C described the potential for adverse effects on the district
operation when the relationship between the superintendent and board fragments as:
It can be so extreme that is could be disruptive to the teachers and what they are trying to
accomplish in the classroom… negatively impact the morale at school sites. Hopefully
when there are disagreements amongst the governing team the focus could go back to
let’s look at it again that is valuable for student achievement.

Board President B felt adverse effects were possible when,
If we are not listening to the superintendent and if he is not communicating with us
results in a lack of understanding and as board members we do not get the tools that
educational services I crying out for; this would affect student achievement. Absolutely.

Board President E summarized the issue as:
There have been several issues in our county in the last decade that made the newspaper
where there has been trouble in the relationship between the superintendent and board of
education. That trickles down to every single level of people working in the school
district, beyond just the teachers, into the classified staff members, parents, PTA/PTO
members, all of that. So it (the relationship) definitely has an impact when it is positive
and it has an impact when it is negative.

This strong sentiment was also summarized best by Superintendent E, who asserted:

I have observed places where a school board is in flux or lacks stability and it really hurts
student achievement. The reason I say that is if employees aren’t secure and don’t feel
safe to make decisions, and take some risks, knowing where the lines are and being
secure about knowing where the lines are . . . the best thing does not always happen for
kids. In places that are stable where the board has consistency, even if school board
SUCCESSFUL SUPERINTENDENTS 96

members change, but the culture of the school board remains consistent, then people
(employees) are willing to take some risks and experiment. They may reach and risk
failure but have a chance at greatness for kids.

This finding was strongly affirmed by all board presidents and superintendents who participated
in the qualitative interview. An interesting note was that all five school districts were identified
as high performing and maintained the focus on student achievement as a governance team.
The superintendent’s ability to frame an issue, make a recommendation, and obtain
support from the board of education required a degree of influence and social style (Petersen &
Short, 2001). The ability to persuade is a component of social influence. On the 2010 American
School Superintendent Study (ASSS), superintendents considered themselves as having a greater
influence on the board of education than any other group.
Table 17 shows board president responses to the question: To what extent do you concur
that the following are utilized by the Superintendent to influence student achievement?
Board presidents indicated their extent of agreement using a Likert-type scale. A 1 represents
strongly disagree, 2 represents disagree, 3 represents agree, and 4 represents strongly agree.

SUCCESSFUL SUPERINTENDENTS 97

Table 17:

Board Degree of Agreement Regarding Strategies Superintendent Employs That
Influence Student Achievement_____________________________________________________
Strategy Strongly Disagree Agree Strongly Response Total
Disagree Agree Mean
(1) (2) (3) (4)

Fosters climate of
shared leadership 0 0 10 9 3.47 19

Communicates
expectations 0 0 8 11 3.58 19
and goals

Expresses belief all
students can learn 0 0 4 15 3.79 19

Expresses confidence
in district and school 0 1 7 11 3.53 19
staff

Demonstrates
commitment to 0 0 9 10 3.53 19
professional
development

Maintains presence
and visibility at school 0 1 6 12 3.58 20
sites and events

The response mean range for the categories contained in this item is 3.47 to 3.79. The technique
used by the superintendent that was perceived to be the most influential is to express a belief that
all students can learn (3.79), whereas superintendents who fostered a climate of shared
leadership were rated less influential (3.47).
Expresses a Belief That All Students Can Learn
Although this influential technique was prominent in the survey responses, it was not a
prominent theme in the interviews. Superintendent B was employed in a school district with the
SUCCESSFUL SUPERINTENDENTS 98

highest percentage of minority students (92%). Superintendent B asserted his belief in students
as follows:
Kids are my driving force behind everything I do. It is offensive that we as educators are
comfortable with the word GAP. We are comfortable. There shouldn’t be a gap. Why is
there a gap and why aren’t we ticked off about it? This is about children.

Superintendents in the remaining four school districts did not focus on this specific belief, as the
researcher’s questions were primarily focused upon the superintendent and board of education
relationship as it relates to student achievement.
The board of education viewed the superintendent as the professional authority on all
issues related to education (Petersen & Short, 2001). However, it was essential to honor the
formal authority and balance of power between the board president and the superintendent.
Table 18 shows superintendent responses to the question: To what extent do you agree
that the following are utilized by members of the board of education to influence student
achievement? Superintendents indicate their extent of agreement using a Likert-type scale. A 1
represents strongly disagree, 2 represents disagree, 3 represents agree, and 4 represents strongly
agree.

SUCCESSFUL SUPERINTENDENTS 99

Table 18:
Superintendent Degree of Agreement Regarding Strategies Board Members Employ That
Influence Student Achievement_____________________________________________________
Strategy Strongly Disagree Agree Strongly Response Total
Disagree Agree Mean
(1) (2) (3) (4)

Demonstrates
knowledge about 0 1 5 14 3.65 20
district goals

Expresses belief
that all students 0 0 8 12 3.60 20
can learn

Expresses
confidence in 0 2 6 12 3.50 20
district and school
staff

Maintains a
presence and 1 0 10 9 3.35 20
visibility at school
sites and events

Seeks out community
involvement 0 2 10 8 3.30 20

Validates the
efforts of 0 0 12 8 3.40 20
stakeholders

The response mean range for the categories contained in this item is 3.30 to 3.65. The technique
used by the board presidents that was perceived to be the most influential is to demonstrate
knowledge of the district goals (3.65), whereas board members who sought out meaningful
community involvement were seen less influential (3.35).

SUCCESSFUL SUPERINTENDENTS 100

Demonstrates Knowledge of the District Goals
Superintendents perceived that board members who were knowledgeable regarding the
district’s goals positively influenced student achievement. Superintendent C responded:
The board has always made their number one priority student achievement. They truly
support and back the high expectations for all, especially in the classroom. I think that is
where their constant support and recognition falls. We also do a lot of discussion items
around student achievement; good and bad with the board.

Superintendent A agreed with this premise, stating, “When a board member continually asks
about the lowest achieving students, I see that as a great benefit. The Board is asking about all
students, including subgroups, and this helps improve everything.”
All school districts identified goals for student achievement were found to be high
achieving. Establishing a clear goal to improve student achievement and having the board of
education share and value that goal was found to positively influence student achievement.
Discussion
Quantitative survey and qualitative interviews of superintendents and board presidents
determined that the relationship of the governing team can result in positive effects or adverse
effects that can influence a school district’s goal to improve student achievement. All
participants in the research study concurred that the relationship may have moderate (22.5) to
considerable (77.5) influence on student achievement. Board presidents identified
superintendents who expressed a belief that all students could learn while communicating
effectively had a greater influence of student achievement. To successfully address the
challenges of tomorrow, superintendents employed a relational model of communication
(Kowalski et al., 2011). Thus, communication becomes a central means of accomplishing district
goals and objectives and mobilizes teachers to increase student achievement.
SUCCESSFUL SUPERINTENDENTS 101

Superintendents described board members who were knowledgeable regarding district
goals as influencing student achievement. This assertion aligns with Land’s research (2002),
which concluded that a school board’s primary task is to focus on students’ academic
achievement and setting policy rather than on administration. Successful superintendents and
boards of education recognize their roles as contributing members of a governance team whose
work is constructed upon the foundation of belief that all students can learn, and this foundation
of belief results in increased student achievement.
Research Question Four
What strategies do successful superintendents and boards of education utilize to monitor
and evaluate progress toward increased student achievement?
The school district goal of increasing student achievement must be carefully monitored
and evaluated in order to determine if the district has indeed been successful. District progress to
improve student achievement is monitored on an ongoing basis using multiple measures, and
adjustments are formulated to enhance practice (Togneri & Anderson, 2003). Highly effective
school districts are no longer institutions but have become dynamic learning organizations that
actively respond to student needs (Mac Iver & Farley, 2003). All stakeholders within a school
community are committed to the district’s common goal of increased student achievement.
This research question yielded the greatest degree of commonality compared to the
previous three questions. Both board presidents and superintendents mirrored one another’s
independent responses regarding monitoring and evaluating the school district. The use of data
was the overarching theme that surfaced through qualitative interviews of governance team
members. Ten out of 10 respondents were unified in the approach of using a variety of data as
indicators of strengths and weaknesses in student achievement; that data were considered in light
of accomplishment of district goals; and in providing monitoring reports to the board of
SUCCESSFUL SUPERINTENDENTS 102

education. These three approaches provided governance teams with the essential information
regarding the educational program and student achievement going forward.
Analysis of Data
Ten out of 10 respondents affirmed that the governance team examined data in order to
monitor and evaluate student achievement within the school district. The data that were
examined were broad-based. The one common measure to which all districts referred was the
standardized test results required by state and federal mandates. Other indicators of student
progress are outlined in Table 19.
Table 19
Data Used Collectively by Governance Teams to Increase Student Achievement______________
 Attendance Rate
 Benchmark Exam Results
 California High School Exit Exam Scores
 Advanced Placement (AP) Participation Rate and AP Exam Scores
 Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) Participation Rate and SAT Scores
 Student Achievement Results in Relation to Pilot Programs
 Three- or 5-Year Test Score Trend Data
 Proficiency Levels of Students
 Referral Rate and Discipline Rates
 Suspension Rates
 Expulsion Rates
 Failure Rates
 Drop Out Rate
 Ascension Rates
 School Climate
 Survey Results from Parents, Staff, and Students
______________________________________________________________________________
Superintendent E summed it up this way:
With our board, we do a comprehensive data review during a couple of board meetings in
the fall after scores are released. The review goes through everything that we get
measured on regarding student achievement. Anything that is measurable is shared over a
couple of board meetings. The board has confidence in the work that is happening here.
When we identify areas of concern, we are writing intervention steps for the district or
even a particular school(s,) if it is just a school or two, which is having specific issues.
SUCCESSFUL SUPERINTENDENTS 103

This statement is complemented by Board President E, who shared the following:
I think the overall key to a district being successful is a united front that the
superintendent and board put out there and to take the time to carefully strategic plan.
Equally important is follow-up – going back and looking at what we were successful
with, what we weren’t, what we can change, what results did we get, were they the
desired outcomes, and what are we going to do to get the desired outcomes.
There is clear alignment in the message regarding monitoring and evaluating student progress
that is communicated by members of this governance team. The message for Governance Team
E is that results assist this team in analyzing what the district strengths and weaknesses are and
go beyond to include the identification of next steps in the cycle of improvement.
Two school districts had implemented surveys as a tool to gather input from parents,
teachers, and students. Superintendent C described surveys as an opportunity for self-reflection,
adding that reflection is a healthy process for everybody. His first year in the position,
Superintendent C had all principals do a survey on him and had since expanded the survey to the
entire district office personnel. Surveys can allow for data to be collected on topics such as
leadership, school climate, and/or the degree to which a student feels a sense of belonging at
school.
Monitoring Reports
McREL’s meta-analysis of the research (2006) included 27 studies and 2,817 school
districts, and included five statistically significant correlations (p < .05).The first essential
element was defined as (1) establishing non-negotiable goals for achievement and instruction.
Established goals provide the governance team with a benchmark or expectation with which to
measure the progress of the school district. Data are not meaningful unless they are considered in
light of a target measure or standard. Accountability processes are framed by district goals with
the primary goal being student achievement. Superintendent E stated:
SUCCESSFUL SUPERINTENDENTS 104

We have five district goals and individual priorities under each goal that I am evaluated
on. I give the board a mid-year progress report in January and final report in June. The
Board uses that document as well as their own anecdotal evidence to write my evaluation.

This statement supports the significance of district goals, and the relationship between the goals
and district leadership. Five out of five board presidents maintained a clear focus on data in
relation to the progress toward or accomplishment of the designated district goals. Boards of
education in these highly effective school districts were knowledgeable of district goals but were
also transparent when discussing negative data and embraced it as an opportunity to improve
teaching and learning (Togneri & Anderson, 2003). Board President A revealed the essential role
district goals play in relation to evaluation:
We have areas of focus. The Superintendent takes the areas of focus and works with each
division to determine what the district is going to work on in collaboration with the
assistant superintendents/directors. Then, midway through the year the superintendent
provides a status of all of those things; done, not done, will not be able to get to it. That
becomes the template for her evaluation. At the beginning of the year, these were the 30
things in the three departments that you said were important, and here is how we are
progressing towards accomplishing these goals.
Board President E went further when describing goals, “I think it is incredibly valuable planning
to be successful. We sit down and look at what the long-term and short-term goals are and come
back together to assess how we did in meeting those goals.” Special board meetings or study
sessions were implemented in order to support District B in monitoring and evaluating student
achievement progress. Board President B asserted, “We determine if we are successful based
upon data. Everything is data-driven.” Following a comprehensive assessment, five out of five
board presidents expressed re-establishing or setting new goals as a critical function of the
governance team.
Discussion
Monitoring and evaluating progress of student achievement is institutionalized practice in
school districts that have been successful in improving student achievement. These school
SUCCESSFUL SUPERINTENDENTS 105

districts maintain a keen focus on student achievement through the collective efforts of the
superintendent and board of education. Data analysis, monitoring reports, and considering results
in light of the district’s goals and objectives are the major themes that resulted in increased
student achievement. These themes are not all encompassing, yet they offer superintendents
essential components for an evaluation plan specific to an individual school district’s priorities.
Summary
Superintendents and board presidents that participated in quantitative surveys and
qualitative interviews referred to numerous strategies they collectively employed to increase
student achievement. The data indicate the following findings related to the four research
questions.
Research question one asks, What strategies do successful superintendents and boards of
education collaboratively employ that result in increased student achievement? Possessing the
belief that all students can learn, holding high expectations for achievement, and establishing a
shared vision for the school district were the primary themes within the quantitative survey and
qualitative interview that increased student achievement. One specific strategy that also emerged
was the implementation of instructional coaching as a means to improve instructional practice
for teachers.
Research question two asks, What are the essential elements regarding superintendents
and boards of education relationships that contribute to increases in student achievement?
Superintendents identified that board members should focus on student achievement, make
decisions based upon research or data, follow established board protocols, and understand the
role of a board member. Whereas board presidents overwhelming asserted that superintendents
should keep the board well-informed, communicate effectively, and work collaboratively with
SUCCESSFUL SUPERINTENDENTS 106

others. These essential elements within the governing team relationship were perceived by
participants to contribute to increased student achievement.
Research question three asks, How does the relationship between superintendent and
board of education influence student academic achievement in the school district? Successful
superintendents and boards of education recognize their roles as contributing members of a
governance team whose work is constructed upon the foundation of belief that all students can
learn. Thus, the relationship of the governing team can result in positive effects or adverse
effects that can influence a school district’s goal to improve student achievement. Board
presidents identified superintendents who communicated effectively and expressed a belief that
all students could learn positively influenced student achievement. Superintendents delineated
that board members who were knowledgeable regarding district goals influenced student
achievement.
Research questions four asks, What strategies do successful superintendents and
boards of education utilize to monitor and evaluate progress toward increased student
achievement? Highly effective school districts maintain a keen focus on student achievement
through the collective efforts of the superintendent and board of education. Both board presidents
and superintendents mirrored one another’s independent responses regarding monitoring and
evaluating the school district. Use of data was the overarching theme that surfaced through
qualitative interviews of governance team members. Governing teams were unified in their use
of data to indicate strengths and weaknesses in student achievement, in relation to the
accomplishment of district goals, and to monitor progress through reports to the board of
education.

SUCCESSFUL SUPERINTENDENTS 107

CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSIONS
Introduction

School district superintendents and boards of education in the 21st century are facing
unprecedented pressure to attain improved student achievement results. Under the mandates of
the NCLB Act, superintendents and boards of education are obliged to respond to the challenges
prescribed by the federal accountability model. However, public education systems are under
pressure not only by national expectations for school improvement, but also for American
students to compete on an international level in reading, writing, and science. School district
governing teams, consisting of the superintendents and boards of education, must address these
national and international expectations. Governing teams face demands from local communities,
policymakers, and the media, who insist on the implementation of student achievement reforms.
The challenge for superintendents and boards of education is to meet constituents’ demands for
accountability to produce high quality students who possess the necessary academic knowledge
and skills to be successful in the 21st century (Kirby & Stecher, 2004).
Chapters one through four of the study provided the relative background, comprehensive
literature review, quantitative and qualitative methodology and research design, and the findings
that emerged through survey results and interviews with superintendents and board presidents.
Chapter five summarizes the study, including a statement of the problem, purpose of the study,
research questions, review of literature, methodology, and findings from Chapter Four, and
provides implications and overall recommendations for future research.
Statement of the Problem
A fundamental element to the success of all school districts is a productive relationship
between boards of education and the superintendents. First off, school board members are
SUCCESSFUL SUPERINTENDENTS 108

experienced individuals of prominence in the community who understand how to network (Eadie
& Houston, 2003). Constituted of public officials, boards of education are responsible for district
oversight and are policy, regulation, and accountability driven (Togneri & Anderson, 2003). The
relationship between the board of education and superintendent is symbiotic, as the
superintendent is responsible to fulfill the long-range plans and goals and objectives of the board
of education. The board president plays a pivotal role in governance of the school district and
communicating with the superintendent. Trust and satisfaction are cornerstones in the partnership
between the board president and the superintendent (Eadie & Houston, 2003; Kimball, 2005). A
functioning relationship between the board of education and superintendent is necessary for
district success.
With the requirements of NCLB, a board of education’s and superintendent’s roles have
shifted to accomplish the central goal of influencing the achievement of all students (Hill, 2003).
Superintendents must employ an inclusive approach with boards of education to identify
strategies that actively provide solutions to address gaps identified and how to monitor and
evaluate the progress. Governance teams must formulate a high impact alliance in order to propel
student achievement further and prepare students to compete on a global scale (Eadie &
Houston, 2003).
Purpose of the Study
The overarching purpose of this study was to gather data that would identify the
strategies that superintendents and boards of education collaboratively employ that are related to
student achievement increases. As part of the study, identification of responsibilities for
superintendents and boards of education that correspond and jointly contribute to student
academic achievement were collected and evaluated. In addition, the perceptions of
SUCCESSFUL SUPERINTENDENTS 109

superintendents and those of presidents of boards of education were examined; specifically,
perceptions regarding factors that served as indicators that the superintendent/board relationship
impacted student achievement. Lastly, the study gathered data that identified strategies that
governing teams utilized to monitor and evaluate student achievement progress.
Boards of education and superintendents are vital stakeholders in the quest to improve
student achievement. Boards of education face pressure from various constituent groups.
Superintendents must meet the demands for district achievement results or be unseated by the
board of education. Consequently, in order to attain a coherent organization, the superintendent’s
initiatives for improvement of student achievement need to become the board’s initiatives for
improvement of student achievement (Childress et al., 2006). This balance of power is necessary
as no single stakeholder can tackle improving student achievement in isolation (Togneri &
Anderson, 2003). Thus, superintendents and boards of education must work collaboratively to
accomplish district goals of increasing student achievement for all.
Research Questions
The following questions guided the study:
1. What strategies do successful superintendents and boards of education collaboratively
employ that result in increased student achievement?
2. What are the essential elements regarding superintendents and boards of education
relationships that contribute to increases in student achievement?
3. How does the relationship between superintendent and board of education influence
student academic achievement in the school district?
4. What strategies do successful superintendents and boards of education utilize to
monitor and evaluate progress toward increased student achievement?
SUCCESSFUL SUPERINTENDENTS 110

Review of the Literature
Specific themes emerged from the review of literature related to superintendent and
school board relationships that contribute to student achievement. Five central themes were
revealed from the review of literature. The first theme examined the history and origination of
both school boards and the position of superintendent. The second theme discussed the defined
roles of the board of education and superintendent, and how these roles have changed over time.
The third theme assessed the obstacles that superintendents and boards of education face today.
The fourth theme outlined effective elements within a superintendent and board relationship that
promoted increases in student achievement. Finally, the fifth theme emphasized district-level
leadership factors that influenced student achievement specific to the role of the superintendents
and boards of education (Waters & Marzano, 2006). The five central themes, when applied to the
superintendent and board of education relationship, provided a foundation of understanding
regarding the strategies employed that result in increased student achievement.
Methodology
This study employed a mixed-methods design consisting of 41 quantitative surveys and
10 qualitative interviews completed by matched pairs consisting of successful superintendents
and board presidents from the same school district in California. This mixed-method approach
was selected as it allowed for increased depth and complexity regarding the data collected and
comparisons between surveys and interviews (Patton, 2002).
Criterion sampling enabled the researcher to select superintendents, along with the
corresponding board presidents, from school districts that demonstrated high levels of student
achievement as measured by the API over a 3-year period. High achieving school districts were
defined as having attained a minimum district API of 800 or better and a minimum of 20 points
SUCCESSFUL SUPERINTENDENTS 111

growth overall between 2009 and 2012. The sampling protocol also required that specific student
demographic requirements were met. Required participants were from: (a) California school
district, (b) districts that had attained a minimum district API of 800 or better ,and a minimum of
20 points growth on the API for t3 out of the last 4 years, (c) districts that had more than 15,000
students, (d) districts that had a minimum of 35% minority students, and (e) districts that served
a minimum of 25% low-socioeconomic students as determined by free or reduced lunch
participation rate. The data used for sampling were limited to public information reported by the
California Department of Education for 2009, 2010, 2011, and 2012.
Superintendents and accompanying board presidents who agreed to participate in the
qualitative interview were acquired through voluntary consent obtained through the quantitative
survey response. The five superintendents who agreed to participate in the interview must have
held their position for a minimum of 18 months, and the five accompanying board members must
have completed a minimum of a 4-year term and presently serve or had served previously as
board president. The researcher identified 34 school districts across the state of California that
met the well-defined criterion.
The quantitative survey comprised questions to establish participants’ context,
willingness to be interviewed, along with 38 Likert-style survey questions that reflected the
research questions. The qualitative interview was limited to 10 questions along with clarifying
questions to gather deeper insights about specific remarks. To ensure accuracy, interviews were
recorded and transcribed.
To ensure validity, the researcher designed the instrument based upon surveys utilized in
similar prior studies. The inventory was gender-neutral and was field tested on educational
professionals before its implementation in order to assure that instructions were clear and
SUCCESSFUL SUPERINTENDENTS 112

concise; questions were clearly comprehended; and participants could complete the instrument
within the allotted time. Prior to implementation, the survey instrument and interview questions
were field tested by superintendents and board members who were not included in the actual
study. Based upon the feedback, adjustments were made to the interview questions and survey
instrument.
Findings
Research question one asks, What strategies do successful superintendents and boards of
education collaboratively employ that result in increased student achievement? Possessing the
belief that all students can learn, holding high expectations for achievement, and establishing a
shared vision for the school district were the primary themes that surfaced within the quantitative
survey and qualitative interview that increased student achievement.
One of the two areas to receive the highest response (3.95) collectively from
superintendents and board presidents was “Possessed a belief that all students can learn.” Four
out of five board presidents articulated the belief that all students can learn and that their school
district’s vision affirms this belief as the driving force of its collective efforts. The second area to
receive an equivalent response (3.95) collectively from superintendents and board presidents was
“Possessing high expectations for student achievement.” Nine out of 10 participants in the
qualitative interview acknowledged their belief in possessing high expectations for student
achievement.
The third highest response (3.90) collectively from superintendents and board presidents
was “Establishing a shared vision for the school district.” Four of the five matched pairs of
superintendents and board presidents clearly spoke about their school district’s vision and how
this vision was shared with various stakeholders. One specific strategy that also emerged was the
SUCCESSFUL SUPERINTENDENTS 113

implementation of instructional coaching as a means to improve instructional practice for
teachers. Four out of five superintendents interviewed shared that instructional coaching was a
key strategy that was employed to increase student achievement. All five superintendents shared
that their school districts tailored or planned to customize instructional coaching to meet their
specific present or future district need.
Research question two asks, What are the essential elements regarding superintendents
and boards of education relationships that contribute to increases in student achievement?
Superintendents identified that board members should focus on student achievement, make
decisions based upon research or data, follow the established board protocols, and understand the
role of a board member. Surveys and interviews revealed superintendents designated “Maintains
a focus on student achievement” (3.90) and “Makes decisions based upon research and data”
(3.84) as the two most desirable qualities a board member could possess that result in increased
student achievement. The third largest response (3.80) by superintendents was that board
members would “Follow board protocols” and “Understand the role of a board member.” All
five superintendents surveyed indicated the essential role of board protocols.
Board presidents overwhelmingly asserted that superintendents should keep the board
well-informed, communicate effectively, and work collaboratively with others. These essential
elements within the governing team relationship were perceived by participants to contribute to
increased student achievement. Survey and interviews determined board presidents perceived
“Keeping the board well-informed” (4.0) and “Communicating effectively” (3.95) as the two
most desirable qualities a superintendent could possess. A governance team partnership is
achieved by the superintendent establishing strong communication with the board president that
is based upon a foundation of trust. All 10 participants in the quantitative interview asserted
SUCCESSFUL SUPERINTENDENTS 114

highly effective communication as the most critical element related to the superintendent and
board of education relationship.
The third largest response (3.90) by board presidents was that the superintendent would
“Work collaboratively.” School accountability reform efforts require superintendents to work in
an empowerment model, building and maintaining positive relationships with a broad coalition
of stakeholders (Blasé & Bjork, 2011; Kowalski et al., 2011). These three essential elements
within the governing team relationship were perceived by survey and interview participants to
contribute to increased student achievement.
Research question three asks, How does the relationship between superintendent and
board of education influence student academic achievement in the school district? Successful
superintendents and boards of education recognize their roles as contributing members of a
governance team whose work is constructed upon the foundation of belief that all students can
learn. Thus, the relationship of the governing team can result in positive effects or adverse
effects that can influence school district’s goal to improve student achievement. The majority
(77.5%) of governing team members believed that the superintendent and board of education had
considerable collective influence on student achievement. In addition, 22.5% of respondents
perceived the superintendent and board of education possessed a moderate degree of collective
influence on student achievement. A significant finding was that not a single survey or interview
respondent stated that there was no correlation regarding the governance team relationship
influencing student achievement.
Board presidents identified superintendents who communicated effectively and expressed
a belief that all students could learn positively influenced student achievement. The technique
used by the superintendent that was perceived to be the most influential is to express a belief that
SUCCESSFUL SUPERINTENDENTS 115

all students can learn (3.79), whereas superintendents who fostered a climate of shared
leadership were rated as less influential (3.47).
Superintendents delineated that board members who were knowledgeable regarding
district goals influenced student achievement. The technique used by the board presidents that
was perceived to be the most influential is to demonstrate knowledge of the district goals (3.65),
whereas board members who sought out meaningful community involvement were seen as less
influential (3.35).
Research question four asks, What strategies do successful superintendents and
boards of education utilize to monitor and evaluate progress toward increased student
achievement? The school district goal of increasing student achievement must be carefully
monitored and evaluated in order to determine if the district has indeed been successful. Highly
effective school districts maintain a keen focus on student achievement through the collective
efforts of the superintendent and board of education. Analyzing data, monitoring reports, and
considering results in light of the district’s goals and objectives were strategies aligned with
improving student achievement.
This research question yielded a greater degree of commonality than the previous three
questions. Both board presidents and superintendents mirrored one another’s independent
responses regarding monitoring and evaluating the school district. Governance team members
were unified in using a variety of data as indicators of strengths and weaknesses in student
achievement, considering data in light of accomplishment of district goals, and providing
monitoring reports to the board of education. The data that were examined were broad-based.
The one common measure that all districts referred to was the standardized test results required
by state and federal mandates.
SUCCESSFUL SUPERINTENDENTS 116

Established goals provide the governance team with a benchmark or expectation by
which to measure the progress of the school district. Data is not meaningful unless it is
considered in light of a target measure or standard. Accountability processes are framed by
district goals with the primary goal being student achievement. These boards of education in
highly effective school districts were knowledgeable of district goals but were also transparent
when discussing negative data and embraced them as an opportunity to improve teaching and
learning (Togneri & Anderson, 2003). These three approaches provided governance teams with
the essential information regarding the educational program and student achievement going
forward.
Implications for Practice
This study identified strategies that successful superintendents and boards of education
employ to increase student achievement. The insights herein are useful to aspiring and/or
transitioning superintendents to gain deeper understanding regarding the collective responsibility
of boards of education and superintendents and the absolute necessity of building a positive
partnership. The findings are of value to superintendents, as their leadership cannot occur in
isolation. To be an effective and successful superintendent, an individual in the position must
think and act through the framework of a governing team. Failure to consider these significant
findings could result in a superintendent’s demise.
In addition, aspiring or current board members may gather insights from the study
findings. A single board member has no authority, but the board of education has collective
power or responsibility for decisions in the school district; the most important board decision
being the selection of the superintendent. For a school district to remain high performing,
SUCCESSFUL SUPERINTENDENTS 117

superintendents and boards of education must work collaboratively toward the common goal of
improving student achievement.
The study also has implications for superintendents and boards of education that want to
investigate whether their relationship impacts the district’s primary goal of improving
achievement. Specific responsibilities for superintendents and boards of education are outlined
and could serve as a framework for governance team evaluation. Boards of education may also
consider elements within the findings as performance criteria that could be used to evaluate
superintendents. Defined responsibilities can provide direction for boards of education that
would benefit from the development of distinct leadership roles. These defined governance
responsibilities also have implications as potential leverage for the superintendent to further
refine his or her working partnership with the board of education.
The results of the study also may be of interest to CSBA, ACSA, or executive search firm
consultants that facilitate training regarding effective governance teams. Both CSBA and ACSA
could draw upon the results to improve the curriculum presently used for workshops, academies,
and professional development in which board members, aspiring superintendents, and seated
superintendents participate. Such training could explicitly state the essential elements of
successful superintendent and board of education relationships that result in increased student
achievement.
Recommendations for Future Study
The findings in the study contribute to the literature regarding strategies that successful
superintendents and boards of education employ that lead to increased student achievement.
Effective superintendent leadership strategies are extensively discussed in the literature
(American Association of School Administrators, 2007; Waters & Marzano, 2006). However,
SUCCESSFUL SUPERINTENDENTS 118

one prominent hurdle is that insufficient research exists regarding specific strategies that
superintendents and boards of education collectively employ to positively impact student
achievement. In spite of the limitations of the study, the current findings provide deeper
understanding of the how the relationship between the superintendent and board of education
impacts progress toward student achievement. The following recommendations for future
research are based upon the overall findings from the study:
 Future research should focus on specific communication strategies superintendents
employ to foster a positive relationship with boards of education and increase student
achievement.
 Future research should examine successful superintendents and boards of education from
school districts of a smaller size (between 3,000 and 14,999 students) along with the
same performance indicators of success to determine if the strategies in use align with
this study’s results or if different strategies are utilized.
 This study examined successful superintendents and boards of education and the
strategies they employed to improve student achievement. Future research could include
study of unsuccessful superintendents and boards of education in order to compare and
contrast strategies utilized to determine the impact on student achievement.
 Future research should focus on instructional coaching as a means of educational reform
and a strategy to increase student achievement.
Conclusions
Superintendents and boards of education are under tremendous pressure to prepare
students to become global contenders and achieve at an international level. Superintendents and
boards of education must share the role of solution seeker to meet the challenge of increasing
SUCCESSFUL SUPERINTENDENTS 119

achievement for all students. The relationship between the superintendent and board of education
should model good organization health. As a result, to increase student achievement,
superintendents and boards of education must consciously acknowledge defined roles and
responsibilities, respect one another’s contributions, communicate for understanding, and
collectively in all decisions keep students first.

SUCCESSFUL SUPERINTENDENTS 120

References
Alsbury, T. (2008). School board member and superintendent turnover and the influence on
student achievement: An application of the dissatisfaction theory. Leadership and Policy
in Schools, 7(2), 202-229.
American Association of School Administrators. (2007). Leadership for change: National
superintendent of the year forum. Arlington, VA: Aramark Education.
American Association of School Administrators. (2006). Leadership for change: National
superintendent of the year forum. Arlington, VA: Aramark Education.
Auguste, B. G., Hancock, B., & Laboissiere, M. (2009). The economic cost of the US education
gap. Washington, DC: McKinsey & Company.
Baer, J., Baldi, S., Ayotte, K., & Green, P. (2007). The reading literacy of U.S. fourth-grade
students in an international context: Results from the 2001 and 2006 progress in
international reading literacy study (PIRLS). (NCES 2008-017). Washington, DC:
National Center for Educational Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S.
Department of Education.
Baldi, S., Jin, Y., Skemer, M., Green, P., & Herget, D. (2007). Highlights from PISA 2006:
Performance of U.S. 15-year-old students in science and mathematics literacy in an
international context (NCES 2008-016). Washington, DC: National Center for
Educational Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
Bennett, R. (2013, October 25). New funding system requires education leaders to shift their
thinking. Retrieved from http://edsource.org/today/2013/new-funding-system-requires-
education-leaders-to-shift-their-thinking/40749#.UpVQo8Skp6Q

SUCCESSFUL SUPERINTENDENTS 121

Bensimon, E. M. (2005). Closing the achievement gap in higher education: An organizational
learning perspective. New Directions for Higher Education(131), 99-111.
Bird, J., Dunaway, D., Hancock, D., & Wang, C. (2013). The superintendent's leadership role in
school improvement: Relationships between authenticity and best practices. Leadership
and Policy in Schools, 12, 77-99.
Childress, S., Elmore, R., & Grossman, A. (2006). How to manage urban school districts.
Harvard Business Review, 55-68.
Cook, C., Heath, F., & Thompson, R. (2000). A meta-analysis of response rates in web- or
internet-based surveys. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 821-836.
Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches, (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2007). Race, inequality and educational accountability: The irony of "'No
Child Left Behind". Race Ethnicity and Education, 10(3), 245-260.
Delagardella, M. (2008). The Lighthouse Inquiry: Examining the role of the school board
leadership in the improvement of student achievement. In T. Alsbury, The Future of
School Board Governance: Relevancy and Revelation (pp. 191-224). Lanham, MD:
Rowan & Littlefield Education.
Dervarics, C., & O'Brien, E. (2011). Eight charteristics of effective school boards. Alexandria,
VA: Center for Public Education.
Eadie, D., & Houston, P. D. (2003). Ingredients for a board-savvy relationship. School
Administrator, 60(2), 56-57.
Elmore, R. (2000). Building a new structure for school leadership. Washington, DC: Albert
Shanker Institute.
SUCCESSFUL SUPERINTENDENTS 122

Elmore, R. (2000). The politics of education reform. Issues in Science and Technology, 14(1),
41-49.
Elmore, R. (2003). A plea for strong practice. Educational Leadership, 61(3), 6-10.
Fink, A. (2013). How to conduct surveys: A step-by-step guide, (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications.
Fuchs, T., & Wobmann, L. (2007). What accounts for individual differences in student
performance? A re-examination using PISA data. Empirical Economics, 433-464.
Glass, T. E. (2001, June). Superintendent leaders look at the superintendency, school boards and
reform. Education Commission of States Issue Paper, 1-4.
Gonzales, P., Williams, T., Jocelyn, L., Roey, S., Kastberg, D., & Brenwald, S. (2008).
Highlights from TIMSS 2007: Mathematics and science achievement of U.S. fourth-grade
and eighth-grade students in an international context (NCES 2009-001). Washington,
DC: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute for Education Sciences, U.S.
Department of Education.
Gray, L., Bitterman, A., & Goldring, R. (2013). Characteristics of public school districts in the
United States: Results from the 2011–12 schools and staffing survey. Washington, DC:
National Center for Education Statistics: U.S. Department of Education.
Grissom, J. A. (2009). The determinants of conflict on governing boards in public organizations:
The case of California school boards. Journal of Public Administration Research, 20,
601-627.
Harris, S. (2007, Spring). Motivators and inhibitors for women superintendents. Advancing
Women in Leadership Journal, 23, 1-8.
SUCCESSFUL SUPERINTENDENTS 123

Hill, P. (2003). School boards: Focus on school performance, not money and patronage. Los
Angeles, CA: Progressive Policy Institute, 21st Century Schools Project, The Broad
Foundation.
Iowa Association of School Boards. (2000). IASB lighthouse study: School boards and student
achievement . Des Moines, IA: Iowa Association of School Boards.
Jellison Holme, J. (2002). Buying homes, buying schools: School choice and the social
construction of school quality. Harvard Education Review, 72(2), 177-205.
Johnson, A. (2006). Privilege, Power, and Difference. New York: McGraw Hill.
Johnson, P. A. (2012). School board governance: The times they are a-changin'. Journal of Cases
in Educational Leadership, 83-102.
Kimball, D. (2005). The cornerstone relationship between the CEO and board president. The
School Administrator, 62(1), 6.
Kirby, S., & Stecher, B. (2004). Introduction. In S. Kirby, & B. Stecher, Organizational
improvement and accountability: Lessons from education for other sectors (pp. 1-7).
Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation.
Kowalski, T. J., McCord, R. S., Peterson, G. J., Young, I. P., & Ellerson, N. M. (2011). The
American School Superintendent: 2010 Decennial Study. Lanham, MD: Rowman &
Littlefield.
Ladson-Billings, G. (2006). From the achievement gap to the education debt: Understanding
achievement in U.S. Schools. Educational Researcher, 35(7), 3-12.
Land, D. (2002). Local school boards under review: Their role and effectiveness in relation to
students' academic achievement. Review of Educational Research, 72(2), 229-278.
SUCCESSFUL SUPERINTENDENTS 124

Lee, J. (2002). Racial and ethnic gap trends: Reversing the progess towards equity? Educational
Researcher, 31(1), 3-12.
Mac Iver, M. A., & 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.
Marzano, R. J., Waters, T., & McNulty, B. A. (2005). School leadership that works. Alexandria,
VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach, (3rd ed.). Los
Angeles: Sage Publications.
Merriam, S. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Miller, D., Malley, B., & Burns, S. (2009). Comparative indicators of education in the United
States and other G-8 countries: 2009. (NCES 2009-039). Washington, DC: National
Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of
Education.
Moffett, J. (2011). Perceptions of school superintendents and board presidents on improved pupil
performance and superintendent evaluation. The International Journal of Leadership
Preparation, 6(1), 1-7.
Moody, M. (2011, September). Superintendent-Board relations: Understanding the past to
promote the future. Retrieved from http://cnx.or/content/m41035/1.3>.
Mountford, M. (2004). Motives and power of school board members: Implications for school
board-superintendent relationships. Educational Administration Quarterly, 40(5), 704-
741.
SUCCESSFUL SUPERINTENDENTS 125

National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A Nation at Risk. Washington, D.C.:
National Commission on Excellence in Education.
National Council on Teacher Quality. (2011). Recommendations for the reauthorization of the
elementary and secondary education act: Removing the roadblocks. How federal policy
can cultivate effective teachers. Washington, DC: National Council on Teacher Quality.
Patton, M. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Petersen, G. J., Kelly, V. L., Reimer, C. N., Mosunich, D., & Thompson, D. (2009). An
investigation of district leaders' perceptions of forces that complicate efforts to succeed.
Journal of School Public Relations, 30, 281-308.
Petersen, G., & Williams, B. M. (2005). School leader, advocate, and the good neighbor: The
superintendent's complex relationship with the board president, the school board, and the
rest of the community. Journal of School Public Relations, 26(4), 252-280.
Provasnik, S., Gonzales, P., & Miller, D. (2009). U.S. performance across international
assessment of student achievement: Special supplement to the condition of education
2009 (NCES 2009-083). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics,
Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
The Brown Center on Education Policy. (2010). Charter schools: A report on rethinking the
federal role in education. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institute.
Togneri, W., & Anderson, S. (2003). Beyond islands of excellence: What districts can do to
improve instruction and achievement in all schools. Washington, DC: The Learning First
Alliance and the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
SUCCESSFUL SUPERINTENDENTS 126

Waters, J., & Marzano, R. (2007). The primacy of superintendent leadership. School
Administrator, 64(3), 10-16.
Waters, T., & Mazano, R. (2006). School district leadership that works: The effect of
superintendent leadership on student achievement. Denver, CO: Mid-continent Research
for Education and Learning.
Williams, P., & Tabernik, A. M. (2011). School district leadership stability: The relationship
between the stability of a board of education and the superintendent. International
Journal of Educational Reform, 20(4), 16-32.

SUCCESSFUL SUPERINTENDENTS 127

Appendix A
Research Question/Instrument Connection

Research Question One
What strategies do successful superintendents and boards of education
collaboratively employ that result in increased student achievement

Interview

1. What strategies do you consider to be contributing
factors to increasing student achievement in your
school district the past four years?

2. From the specific strategies you have indicated, which
of these strategies do you believe involved the
superintendent and board of education collective efforts
that resulted in increased student achievement?

3. From your perception which specific strategy the
superintendent/board employed that had the greatest
impact upon improving student achievement? Why?

Survey To what extent do you agree that the following strategies are
significant to superintendent and board of education
collaborative efforts that result in increased student
achievement?
1. Possessing a belief that all students can learn
2. Possessing high expectations for student achievement
3. Establishing a shared vision for the district
4. Setting collaborative goals between superintendent and
board members
5. Establishing agreement between the Board President and
Superintendent on how to recognize achievements of
schools, employees and students
6. Learning together as a Board-Superintendent team at
professional association activities
7. Reporting student achievement data to the board
8. Communicating expectations and messaging goals to
stakeholders
9. Utilizing student achievement data to identify student
learning needs
10. Implementing a system to manage instructional change

SUCCESSFUL SUPERINTENDENTS 128

11. Ensuring all student populations’ needs are met
12. Allocating resources to support the achievement goals
13. Developing opportunities for shared leadership
14. Permitting defined autonomy for principals
15. Providing professional development for principals
16. Providing professional development for teachers

Research Question Two

What are the essential elements regarding superintendents and boards of education
relationships that contribute to increases in student achievement?
Interview

4. What do you consider to be the essential elements
regarding a superintendent and board of education
relationship that contributes to increases in student
achievement?

5. Do you perceive that the superintendent/board
relationship in your school district exhibits these
essential elements? What elements do you recognize
presently exist in your district? What elements do you
believe require further refinement and development?

Survey

To what degree are you satisfied with your school district’s
success in improving student achievement?

To what degree are you satisfied with your working
relationship with the Board or Education? (Superintendent
only)

To what degree are you satisfied with your working
relationship with the Superintendent? (Board President only)

To what extent do you agree the following qualities are
desirable for a superintendent to possess in order to foster a
strong relationship with their Board that contributes to
improved student achievement? (Board President only)
1. Communicates effectively
2. Works collaboratively
3. Models instructional leadership
4. Mentors leadership and inspires others
5. Demonstrates an awareness of the personal lives of staff
members
6. Is a change agent/receptive to new ideas

SUCCESSFUL SUPERINTENDENTS 129

7. Is a reflective/introspective leader
8. Builds a strong district administrative team
9. Maintains fiscal responsibility
10. Makes recommendations based upon research and data
11. Keeps the board well-informed

To what extent do you agree the following qualities are
desirable for board members to possess in order foster a strong
relationship with their Superintendent that contributes to
improved student achievement? (Superintendent only)

1. Maintains a focus on student achievement
2. Sets effective policies
3. Establishes positive relationships with local/state
government
4. Maintains a relationship with the community-at-large
5. Follows board protocols
6. Is receptive to new ideas
7. Builds consensus among the board
8. Maintains fiscal responsibility
9. Understands the role of the board/does not micromanage
10. Keeps the superintendent well-informed
11. Makes decisions based upon research and data

Research Question Three
How does the relationship between superintendent and board of education influence
student academic achievement in the school district?

Interview

6. How does the relationship between the superintendent
and board of education influence student academic
achievement in the school district? Can this relationship
ever result in have adverse effects? Can this
relationship result in have positive effects?

7. With the many changes school district face this next
year in regards to full implementation of the Local
Control Funding Formula, the Local Control
Accountability Plan, and the Common Core State
Standards, how does the relationship between the
superintendent and board of education influence the
student academic achievement in the future? One year
from now? Three years from now?
SUCCESSFUL SUPERINTENDENTS 130

Survey

To what degree do you perceive the Superintendent influences
student achievement? (Board President only)

To what degree do you perceive the Board of Education
influences student achievement? (Superintendent only)

To what degree do you perceive the Superintendent and Board
of Education collectively influence student achievement?

To what extent do you concur that the following are utilized by
the Superintendent to influence student achievement? (Board
President only)
1. Fosters a climate of shared leadership
2. Communicates expectations and goals
3. Expresses belief that all students can learn
4. Expresses confidence in district and school staff
5. Demonstrates commitment to professional
development
6. Maintains presence and visibility at school sites and
events

To what extent do you agree that the following are utilized by
members the Board of Education to influence student
achievement? (Superintendent only)
7. Demonstrates knowledge about district goals and
initiatives
8. Expresses belief that all students can learn
9. Expresses confidence in district and school staff
10. Maintains presence and visibility at school sites and
events
11. Seeks out meaningful community involvement
12. Validates the collective efforts of stakeholders
To what degree do you perceive the Board of Education
influences the decisions of the Superintendent regarding
District’s collective efforts to improve student achievement?

To what degree do you perceive the Superintendent influences
the decisions of the Board of Education regarding District’s
collective efforts to improve student achievement?

SUCCESSFUL SUPERINTENDENTS 131

Research Question Four
What strategies do successful superintendents and boards of education utilize to
monitor and evaluate the progress toward increased student achievement?

Interview

8. What strategies have you found in your role as
superintendent/board president to be highly effective in
monitoring and evaluating the progress the district is
making in improving student achievement?

9. What indicators do you use to determine that the
strategies the superintendent and board utilized were
successful?

10. What are some “lessons learned” or recommendations
you would make to other superintendents/board
presidents regarding this topic?

SUCCESSFUL SUPERINTENDENTS 132

Appendix B
Survey Instrument
Demographics
What is your gender?
Male
Female

What is your ethnicity?
American Indian or Alaska Native
Asian
Black/African American
Hispanic or Latino
Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander
White (not Hispanic or Latino)
Other

What is your age?
29 or under
30-39
40-49
50-59
60-69-70 or over

What is you highest educational attainment?
High School Diploma
Associate Degree
Bachelor Degree
Master’s Degree
Doctoral Degree

Which position do you currently hold?
Superintendent
Board President
Board Member who previously served as Board President

How many years of experience as the superintendent or Board Member in your current school
district?
0 -2 years
3-4 years
5-6 years
7 or more years

If you served in your current position for three or more years, would you be willing to participate
in a 45-minute follow-up interview?
Yes or No
SUCCESSFUL SUPERINTENDENTS 133

To what extent do you agree that the following strategies are significant to superintendent and
board of education collaborative efforts that result in increased student achievement?

(1=Strongly Disagree; 2=Disagree; 3=Agree; 4= Strongly Agree)

1. Possessing a belief that all students can learn 1 2 3 4
2. Possessing high expectations for student achievement 1 2 3 4
3. Establishing a shared vision for the district 1 2 3 4
4. Setting collaborative goals between superintendent and board members 1 2 3 4
5. Establishing agreement between the Board President and Superintendent
on how to recognize achievements of schools, employees and students 1 2 3 4
6. Learning together as a Board-Superintendent team at professional
association activities 1 2 3 4
7. Reporting student achievement data to the board 1 2 3 4
8. Communicating expectations and messaging goals to stakeholders 1 2 3 4
9. Utilizing student achievement data to identify student learning needs 1 2 3 4
10. Implementing a system to manage instructional change 1 2 3 4
11. Ensuring all student populations’ needs are met 1 2 3 4
12. Allocating resources to support the achievement goals 1 2 3 4
13. Developing opportunities for shared leadership 1 2 3 4
14. Permitting defined autonomy for principals 1 2 3 4
15. Providing professional development for principals 1 2 3 4
16. Providing professional development for teachers 1 2 3 4

To what degree are you satisfied with your school district’s success in improving student
achievement?
Very satisfied
Satisfied
Dissatisfied
Very dissatisfied

To what degree are you satisfied with your working relationship with the Board or Education?
(Superintendent only)
Very satisfied
Satisfied
Dissatisfied
Very dissatisfied

To what degree are you satisfied with your working relationship with the Superintendent?
(Board President only)
Very satisfied
Satisfied
Dissatisfied
Very dissatisfied
SUCCESSFUL SUPERINTENDENTS 134

To what extent do you agree the following qualities are desirable for a superintendent to possess
in order to foster a strong relationship with their Board that contributes to improved student
achievement? (Board President only)

(1=Strongly Disagree; 2=Disagree; 3=Agree; 4= Strongly Agree)

1. Communicates effectively 1 2 3 4
2. Works collaboratively to build consensus 1 2 3 4
3. Models instructional leadership 1 2 3 4
4. Mentors leadership and inspires others 1 2 3 4
5. Demonstrates an awareness of the personal lives of staff members 1 2 3 4
6. Is a change agent/receptive to new ideas 1 2 3 4
7. Is a reflective/introspective leader 1 2 3 4
8. Builds a strong district administrative team 1 2 3 4
9. Fiscally responsible 1 2 3 4
10. Makes recommendations based upon research and data 1 2 3 4
11. Keeps the board well-informed 1 2 3 4

To what extent do you agree the following qualities are desirable for board members to possess
in order foster a strong relationship with their Superintendent that contributes to improved
student achievement? (Superintendent only)

(1=Strongly Disagree; 2=Disagree; 3=Agree; 4= Strongly Agree)

1. Maintains a focus on student achievement 1 2 3 4
2. Sets effective policies 1 2 3 4
3. Establishes positive relationships with local/state government 1 2 3 4
4. Maintains a relationship with the community-at-large 1 2 3 4
5. Follows board protocols 1 2 3 4
6. Is receptive to new ideas 1 2 3 4
7. Builds consensus among the board 1 2 3 4
8. Maintains fiscal responsibility 1 2 3 4
9. Understands the role of the board/does not micromanage 1 2 3 4
10. Keeps the superintendent well-informed 1 2 3 4
11. Makes decisions based upon research and data 1 2 3 4

To what degree do you perceive the Superintendent and Board of Education collectively
influence student achievement?
Considerable
Moderate
Slight
None

SUCCESSFUL SUPERINTENDENTS 135

To what extent do you agree that the following are utilized by your Superintendent to influence
student achievement? (Board President only)

(1=Strongly Disagree; 2=Disagree; 3=Agree; 4= Strongly Agree)

1. Fosters a climate of shared leadership 1 2 3 4
2. Communicates expectations and goals 1 2 3 4
3. Strives for continuous improvement 1 2 3 4
4. Expresses belief that all students can learn 1 2 3 4
5. Expresses confidence in district and school staff 1 2 3 4
6. Demonstrates commitment to professional development 1 2 3 4
7. Maintains presence and visibility at school sites and events 1 2 3 4

To what extent do you agree that the following are utilized by your Board of Education to
influence student achievement? (Superintendent only)

(1=Strongly Disagree; 2=Disagree; 3=Agree; 4= Strongly Agree)

1. Demonstrates knowledge about district goals and initiatives 1 2 3 4
2. Expresses belief that all students can learn 1 2 3 4
3. Expresses confidence in district and school staff 1 2 3 4
4. Maintains presence and visibility at school sites and events 1 2 3 4
5. Seeks out meaningful community involvement 1 2 3 4
6. Validates the collective efforts of stakeholders 1 2 3 4

To what degree do you perceive the Superintendent influences the decisions of the Board of
Education regarding District’s collective efforts to improve student achievement?
Considerable
Moderate
Slight
None

To what degree do you perceive the Board of Education influences the decisions of the
Superintendent regarding District’s collective efforts to improve student achievement?
Considerable
Moderate
Slight
None

SUCCESSFUL SUPERINTENDENTS 136

Appendix C
Interview Protocol

Introductory Questions:
Superintendent
1. How long have you served as superintendent in this school district?
2. How many years of experience as a superintendent do you have and in which districts?
3. Describe your educational career from your first teaching job to you present position as
superintendent?
4. What motivated you to become a superintendent?
5. Describe your leadership style as superintendent when working with the board?
Board President
6. How long have you served as board president in this school district?
7. How many total years of experience as a board member?
8. What motivated you to become a board member?
9. Describe your leadership style as board president when working with the board and
superintendent?
Interview Questions:
1. What strategies do you consider to be contributing factors to increasing student
achievement in your school district the past four years?

2. From the specific strategies you have indicated, which of these strategies do you believe
involved the superintendent and board of education collective efforts that resulted in
increased student achievement?

3. From your perception which specific strategy the superintendent/board employed that had
the greatest impact upon improving student achievement? Why?

4. What do you consider to be the essential elements regarding a superintendent and board
of education relationship that contributes to increases in student achievement?

5. Do you perceive that the superintendent/board relationship in your school district exhibits
these essential elements? What elements do you recognize presently exist in your district?
What elements do you believe require further refinement and development?

6. How does the relationship between the superintendent and board of education influence
student academic achievement in the school district? Can this relationship ever result in
have adverse effects? Can this relationship result in have positive effects?

7. With the many changes school district face this next year in regards to full
implementation of the Local Control Funding Formula, the Local Control Accountability
Plan, and the Common Core State Standards, how does the relationship between the
SUCCESSFUL SUPERINTENDENTS 137

superintendent and board of education influence the student academic achievement in the
future? One year from now? Three years from now?

8. What strategies have you found in your role as superintendent/board president to be
highly effective in monitoring and evaluating the progress the district is making in
improving student achievement?

9. What indicators do you use to determine that the strategies the superintendent and board
utilized were successful?

10. What are some “lessons learned” or recommendations you would make to other
superintendents/board presidents regarding this topic?

SUCCESSFUL SUPERINTENDENTS 138

Appendix D
Consent Letter
Date

Dear (Superintendent or Board President Name),
My name is Melissa Moore and I am a doctoral candidate in the Rossier School of Education at
the University of Southern California. I am conducting a research study as part of my
dissertation, which examines strategies successful urban superintendents and boards of education
employ that result in increased student achievement. This study is being conducted under the
guidance of Dr. Rudy Castruita. Your school district has been selected for this study as you have
an established record of improved student achievement during your tenure as a superintendent or
board member. You are cordially invited to participate in the study. If you agree, you are invited
to complete an online survey that contains multiple choice questions; you may also be asked to
participate in an interview.
The online survey will take no more than fifteen minutes to complete. Depending upon your
response to the survey and your availability, you may be asked to be interviewed in person. The
interview is anticipated to last no more than 45 minutes and may be audio-taped with your
permission. I will send you an email with a link to the survey this week.
Participation in the study is completely voluntary. It is hoped that the results of the study will
offer a contribution to the research on superintendent and board of education strategies to
improve student achievement. Your identity as a participant will remain confidential at all times.
There are no known risks associated with participation in this study.
Thank you in advance for your consideration. If you have questions please contact me at
melisssm@usc.edu or contact me by phone at (909) 809-9426.

Sincerely,
Melissa Moore
Melissa Moore
Doctoral Candidate- Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
melisssm@usc.edu
(909)809-9426

SUCCESSFUL SUPERINTENDENTS 139

Appendix E
Information Letter

University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education

I
Strategies Employed by Successful Superintendents and Boards of Education
Resulting in Increased Student Achievement

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

Your participation is voluntary; your relationship with your employer or school district will not
be affected, whether or not you participate in this study. You can keep this document for your
records.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
This study will focus on strategies employed by superintendents and boards of education that
result in increased student achievement. Collaborative strategies used by both superintendents
and boards of education, essential elements of the relationship between superintendents and
boards of education, the influence of the relationship on student achievement and the strategies
the governance team utilizes to monitor and evaluate progress will be examined. This study will
employ a mixed methods design to understand the strategies that are collectively used by
superintendents and boards of education that result in increased student achievement.
Participation is voluntary.

PARTICIPANT INVOLVEMENT
If you agree to participate, you will be asked to complete a 45 item survey: six demographic
questions, one question regarding availability to participate in the qualitative portion of the study
and 38 questions pertinent to the literature. The survey instrument will take 15 minutes to
complete.

Depending upon your responses in the survey, you may also be invited to participate in an
individual interview anticipated to take 45 minutes. The questions relate to your role, your
perceptions of strategies, etc. The interview will be audio-recorded with your permission.

CONFIDENTIALITY
Any identifiable information obtained in connection with this study will remain confidential.
Your responses will be coded with a false name (pseudonym) and maintained separately. The
audio-tapes will be destroyed once they are transcribed. The members of the research team and
the University of Southern California’s Human Subjects Protection Program (HSPP) may access
the data. The HSPP reviews and monitors research studies to protect the rights and welfare of
subjects.
INFORMATION/FACTS FOR EXEMPT NON-MEDICAL RESEARCH
SUCCESSFUL SUPERINTENDENTS 140

The data will be coded with false names ((pseudonyms), the identifiable information will be
stored separately from de-identified data in locked cabinets and/or on password protected
computers. Identified data will be destroyed upon completion of the research study; the
remaining data will be maintained indefinitely and may be used in future research studies. If you
do not want the data used in future studies, you should not participate in this study.

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

INVESTIGATOR CONTACT INFORMATION
Melissa Moore via email at melisssm@usc.edu or phone at (909) 809-9426.

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

Abstract (if available)

Abstract School district superintendents and boards of education in the twenty-first century are facing unprecedented pressure to improve student achievement results. In order to compete, superintendents and boards of education must share the role of solution seeker to meet the challenge of increasing achievement for all students. This study sought to identify essential elements regarding the governance team relationships and strategies that superintendents and boards of education collaboratively employ that result in increased student achievement. ❧ This study was conducted by a single researcher from the Rossier School of Education at the University of Southern California. This research study employed a mixed-methods design to respond to four research questions related to superintendent and board of education relationship that increase student achievement. Data was collected via 41 quantitative surveys and ten qualitative interviews completed by matched pairs consisting of successful superintendents and board presidents from the same school district in California. ❧ First, data analysis revealed that possessing the belief that all students can learn, holding high expectations for achievement, and establishing a shared vision for the school district were the primary themes that surfaced. One specific strategy that also emerged was the implementation of instructional coaching as a means to improve instructional practice for teachers. Second, the essential elements within the governing team relationship that contribute to increased student achievement included board members who focus on student achievement, make decisions based upon research or data, follow the established board protocols, and understand the role of a board member, as well as superintendents who keep the board well-informed, communicate effectively, and work collaboratively with others. Third, successful superintendents and boards of education recognize their roles as a contributing member of a governance team whose relationship can result in positive effects or adverse effects that can influence the school district’s goal to improve student achievement. Fourth, highly effective school districts use data as indicators of strengths and weaknesses in student achievement, in relation to accomplishment of district goals, and to provide progress reports to the board of education in order to maintain a keen focus on student achievement.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Superintendents increase student achievement by selecting effective principals

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Local governance teams: how effective superintendents and school boards work together

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

School board governance training and student achievement

PDF

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

PDF

Strategies used by superintendents in developing leadership teams

PDF

School board training and governance in California