University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Traditional and nontraditional urban school superintendents in the age of accountability

(USC Thesis Other)

Traditional and nontraditional urban school superintendents in the age of accountability

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content TRADITIONAL AND NONTRADITIONAL URBAN
SCHOOL SUPERINTENDENTS IN THE AGE OF
ACCOUNTABILITY
by
Alvaretta Baxter
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
May 2007
Copyright 2007Alvaretta Baxter
ii

DEDICATION
This dissertation and all of the effort toward it are dedicated first to my mother,
Elinora Carolyn Baxter, whose tenacious support, unconditional love, and great sacri-
fice has afforded me the opportunity to pursue my personal goals.
It is also dedicated also to the memory of my grandmother, Alvaretta Dorothy
Davis, whose guiding presence is ever felt in each of my life’s accomplishments.
To them I say: “I have completed this work, and attained the degree of doctor of
education in your honor as you might have done if time and circumstances had per-
mitted. If I am worthy of this title, it is only because of what God has given you to pass
on to me. Thank you.”
iii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to offer special thanks to the following individuals for their tireless
support in completing this study and for encouragement throughout the process of
completing my degree: dissertation committee chair—Dr. Amanda Datnow; disserta-
tion committee members—Dr. Stuart Gothold and Dr. Carol Wilson; best friend and
preliminary editor—Dr. Gregorio Canillas; dearest sisters Bonita Baxter-Doswell and
Gena Cox; dear friends Clarence and Valanitta Jingles; valued mentors, family mem-
bers and friends—Mary “Aunty Jo” Taylor, Verna Hale, Denise Burkhardt, Bishop
Edward G. McLachlan, Dr. Marjorie Y. Booker, and the entire Calvary Community
Church congregation.
Most of all, I would like to thank my father, Wayne Karl Baxter, who has
always been enthusiastically supportive of personal, educational, and career goals. He
will always be the coolest dad on the block!
Finally, I thank the Lord God in heaven who has empowered me, through Jesus
Christ, to set a goal for myself and meet it. “Now thanks be unto Him who causes us to
triumph in Christ!” (II Corinthians 2:14).
ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
DEDICATION. ...................................................... ii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS. .............................................iii
LIST OF TABLES. ................................................... iv
LIST OF FIGURES. .................................................. v
ABSTRACT......................................................... vi
Chapter 1: INTRODUCTION. ......................................... 1
Overview of the Study............................................ 4
Purpose of the Study............................................. 5
Research Questions. ............................................. 6
Significance of the Study. ........................................ 7
Limitations. ................................................... 7
Chapter 2: LITERATURE REVIEW. ................................... 9
History and Definition of the Superintendency.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Overview of the Urban Superintendency in the Age of Accountability
and School Reform............................................ 12
Leadership in Urban School Districts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Accountability for Student Achievement and NCLB. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Community Involvement and Accountability. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Accountability to the School Board of Education. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Traditional and Nontraditional Superintendents. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Conclusion. ................................................... 41
Chapter 3: METHODOLOGY. ........................................ 43
Research Design. ............................................... 43
Sample Population. ............................................. 44
Instrumentation. ................................................ 46
Analysis of Data. ............................................... 48
Ethical Considerations. .......................................... 49
Limitations. ................................................... 50
Chapter 4: FINDINGS................................................ 51
A Picture of the Superintendents.................................... 52
What Led Them to the Superintendency. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
Transferable Skills and Experiences. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
iii
Federal Accountability Demands. .................................. 60
Community Involvement.......................................... 70
School Board Relations........................................... 74
Perceptions, Advantages, and Disadvantages of Traditional or
Nontraditional Superintendents. ................................. 79
Chapter 5: SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS. .......................... 86
Overview of the Problem. ........................................ 86
Purpose of the Study............................................. 87
Research Findings and Connections to Literature.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
Research Question 1........................................... 90
Research Question 2........................................... 96
Research Question 3........................................... 98
Research Question 4........................................... 99
Implications for Policy and Practice. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
Recommendations for Future Research. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
Conclusion....................................................105
REFERENCES CITED. ............................................... 108
Appendix A: INTRODUCTORY LETTER TO PROSPECTIVE
PARTICIPANTS................................................ 114
Appendix B: INTERVIEW PROTOCOL. ................................ 116
Appendix C: INFORMED CONSENT. .................................. 117
iv
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Sample Population Chart. ..................................... 45
Table 2:2006 Demographic for the 10 Urban School Districts Involved in
Study. ..................................................... 47
Table 3:Five Traditional Urban School Superintendents.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
Table 4:Five Nontraditional Urban School Superintendents. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
Table 5:Thoughts Regarding Nontraditional Superintendents in Urban
School Districts.............................................. 80
v
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1:Continuum of responses regarding whether or not the No Child
Left Behind (NCLB) Act has led to greater accountability. . . . . . . . . . . . 61
Figure 2:Summary of thoughts on which are the most challenging
components of the No Child Left Behind Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
Figure 3:Leadership practices implemented toward greater student
achievement................................................ 67
Figure 4:Cycles of strategies initiated toward building accountability to the
surrounding community....................................... 71
Figure 5:School boards and maintaining accountability. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
vi

ABSTRACT
In this current age of accountability, urban school boards are looking for inno-
vative ways to foster change in schools and create greater accountability within the
public education sector. A question persists of whether greater accountability and more
focused efforts toward school reform can be achieved more expeditiously under the
assumed “tried-and-true” leadership of traditional superintendents or the supposedly
more innovative approaches of a nontraditional superintendent. This study is a compar-
ison of the philosophies and ideas of traditional superintendents and nontraditional
superintendents in urban school districts. Ten urban school superintendents created the
participant sampling. All were interviewed and shared insightful perspectives on ac-
countability measures pertaining to federal mandates, as outlined by the No Child Left
Behind (NCLB) initiative, community involvement, and school board relations. The
following conclusions were drawn from the findings:
1.Approaches to accountability should be viewed from all angles for the good
of children in urban schools. The ideas and strategies of both traditional superinten-
dents and nontraditional superintendents should be considered and appreciated.
2.The NCLB initiative should be viewed as an inroad to accountability and
might be used as leverage for school leaders to effect change in urban districts.
3.Effective school community relations involve communication, collabora-
tion, and empowerment to create an accountable system for reform in urban schools.
vii
4.When hiring a superintendent, school boards must consider the fact that
leadership is situational and that the attributes of an individual must be considered on
their own merit, not necessarily based on an orientation of traditional or nontraditional.
These implications for policy and practice were derived from a focused effort to
understand the perspectives of both types of superintendents and gain greater knowl-
edge toward accountability and reform in urban schools.
1
CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION
What kind of person makes a good school superintendent? Someone who’s
been a principal, an administrator, or a teacher? How about a marine, a minis-
ter, or a banker? A lot of districts are turning to people outside of education to
run their schools. Are they onto something? (Merrow, 1999, p. 1)
Of all the positions in a school district, the one most coveted and hated, most
praised and punished, most tried and touted is that of the superintendent. One must ask
what kind of person would desire such an office. Who would want to subject them-
selves to such punishment? A wise person once said, “The job of a superintendent is
not a job—it is a great calling” (Houston, 2001, p. 429). This researcher believes this to
be true and has devoted this study to the examination of that calling. More importantly,
the researcher will look closely at the ideas and philosophies of two types of superinten-
dents: those called traditional and those called nontraditional. For the sake of this
study, a traditional superintendent will be viewed as one who came up through the
ranks in the field of education and takes on the top position in the school district as a
natural progression of his/ her career. A nontraditional superintendent will be one who
has had a successful career in another field and takes on the superintendency as a new
challenge. Many urban school districts today have employed nontraditional superinten-
dents in hopes that their academic, managerial, and fiscal ills will be alleviated by a
bright new perspective of a former corporate CEO, a lawyer, a politician or a military
general (Fuller et al., 2003; Merrow, 1999). In light of new accountability measures,
such as the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) initiative, and the increasingly complicated
2
demands of running urban schools, large districts in cities such as Los Angeles, Chi-
cago, San Diego, New York, and Philadelphia have subscribed to this tenant and have
seen some favorable results (Usdan, 2003). But an obvious question comes to mind:
Are those who have a traditional education background just not skilled or savvy enough
to run a school district today? Have school boards lost confidence in educators? Do
the answers to the problems in urban schools lie within the minds of noneducators? Or
perhaps there is something to be learned from the perspective of both traditional and
nontraditional superintendents within this new era of education that some might call
“the age of accountability.”
Accountability is defined as “an obligation or willingness to accept responsibil-
ity or to account for one’s actions” (America Online, 2005, p. 1). Many urban educa-
tors would call this the age of accountability, as the time has come for a willingness to
accept responsibility for the failures in urban schools. O’Day (2002) stated: “Every-
where you turn—from Congress to the statehouse to local communities and parent
groups—some people are trying to make some other people more accountable for
something in education” (p. 293).
There is widespread agreement that American public schools are failing to meet
societal expectations. “Explanations given for the low achievement of poor and minor-
ity students are varied, but increasingly research has shown that these students are not
offered equal or even adequate opportunity to learn in American public schools”
(Datnow, Hubard, & Mehan, 2002, p. 18). The hope is that accountability will provide
a vehicle for improvement for failing schools with high populations of low-income and
3
minority students (Datnow, 2004). Currently, in the area of student achievement, ac-
countability wears a label called NCLB; its components involve reform in the areas of
academic achievement, teacher quality and credentialing, and addressing achievement
gaps for significant subgroups (Anthes, 2002). This focused effort toward accountabil-
ity is evaluated based on measurable objectives, which point toward annual yearly
progress (AYP; Strecher, Hamilton, & Gonzalez, 2003).
Although NCLB (2002) and its effects on urban school districts provided a great
deal of foundation and inspiration for this study, there are other aspects of accountabil-
ity that this study addresses. It is important to look at the way superintendents approach
accountability to their surrounding communities. What comes out in much of the re-
search is that communication is a key factor (Harvard Family Research Project, 2003;
Oregon School Boards Association, 2006). Keeping the sounding community abreast
of current issues and efforts to improve services is a powerful way to maintain account-
ability (Hayes, 2001; Oregon School Boards Association).
Another important focus under the umbrella of accountability, as related to
superintendents and urban school districts, to be examined more closely in this study is
accountability to local school boards. Research in this area points to the huge frustra-
tion of superintendents regarding school boards, with a large percentage of superinten-
dents often citing school board relations as a key factor in leaving the position (Glass,
2001). Measures toward gaining and maintaining accountability to a school board also
revolve around communication, as well as the formulation of what are called Board
4
Superintendent Teams, involving collaboration efforts toward school district success
(Goodman & Zimmerman, 2000).
In light of the definition of accountability stated above, a close examination of
the ideas of traditional and nontraditional urban superintendents, within a compare/
contrast schema, is extremely relevant to the current era of educational reform. The
perspectives of both provide insights toward school district success and create a ratio-
nale for further study in this area. Additionally, a comparison between the two types,
which is not aimed at drawing a conclusion about which one is best, may help to bring
understanding to some of the complex issues surrounding the phenomenon of nonedu-
cators joining the ranks with experienced educators as urban school superintendents.
Overview of the Study
What is to follow is not an argument or a debate about whether traditional or
nontraditional superintendents are better prepared to lead U.S. schools today. It is an
empirically based comparison of contrasting ideas, thoughts, and philosophies that meet
on a common ground for the good of children. After a review of pertinent literature and
an outline of the research design, an analysis of data collected from 10 urban school
superintendents will help to bring this comparison together into a unique study that will
make a valuable contribution to the body of research on the topic of traditional and
nontraditional superintendents in urban school districts.
Borja (2002) found that contrary to the popular notion of a 2.5-year tenure,
urban superintendents are said to average about 4.6 years on the job. The position is a
5
little more stable than previously thought; however, there is still a high turnover rate,
due to the stress and complexities of the office (Borja). This high turnover rate and the
general lack of viable candidates to take on the position are among the factors that have
led to the nontraditional option (Cuban, 2001).
In this, the age of accountability, those in the field of education find themselves
in a quandary. More specifically, urban superintendents have quite a balancing act to
perform. Despite pressures from their surrounding communities, challenging school
boards, complaining teachers’ unions, and district office demands, the federal govern-
ment now dictates that the superintendent must lead his/her school district to instruction
by “highly qualified teachers” by 2006 and to total proficiency for all students by 201
(California Department of Education [CDE], 2006; NCLB, 2002). In addition to the
federal and state mandates, superintendents must meet their obligation to children by
serving as true instructional leaders, face the demands of the surrounding community,
and meet the acceptations of the school board. It was the objective of this study to
explore the superintendency, in light of all of those factors, from the perspective of both
traditional and nontraditional school district leaders.
Purpose of the Study
The aim of this study was the explore several dimensions of accountability from
the perspective of traditional and nontraditional superintendents. The types of account-
ability that were focused on are accountability to federal and state demands, account-
ability to the surrounding community, and accountability to the school board. The
6
inspiration for these three areas was taken from a pertinent presentation made at the
Broad Foundation Urban Superintendent’s Academy in October of 2004. According to
the Broad Center (2004), the major focus areas within the job of the urban school
superintendent are the following: (a) leadership; (b) student learning, curricular knowl-
edge, and instructional management; (c) human resource management/employee rela-
tions; (d) finance and business services; (e) community relations; and (f) school board
relations. Along with the NCLB initiative, this study focuses on the last two areas from
the above list—namely community relations and school board relations.
Research Questions
The overarching research question is, What are the philosophical and strategic
differences and similarities in approach, between traditional and nontraditional urban
school superintendents toward accountability measures in the areas of community
involvement, school board relations, and meeting the demands of federal/state man-
dates?
Four guiding questions help to focus the study:
1.Are there differences or similarities in the way that traditional and nontradi-
tional superintendents approach federal and state mandates, specifically the NCLB ini-
tiative?
2.How do their strategies compare in gaining and maintaining accountability
to their surrounding communities?
7
3.Are there differences or similarities in their approach toward accountability
to their respective school boards?
4.What are their views on the advantages and disadvantages of urban school
districts having a nontraditional leader, as opposed to a traditional leader, and how does
one group perceive the other?
Significance of the Study
This study will contribute to the knowledge base on effective urban superinten-
dents, their practices, and procedures. The focus on accountability measures and how
traditional and nontraditional superintendents approach them will add a unique perspec-
tive to the current body of research and help to bring about more clarity in efforts to
reform urban schools. Several other studies have been designed to look at urban super-
intendents and urban school districts (Cuban, 2001; Fuller et al., 2003). There have
also been studies done on traditional and nontraditional superintendents, mainly de-
voted to the anomaly of the nontraditional and the dissatisfactions of boards with the
“up-through-the ranks” superintendent (Cuban; Fuller et al.; Hurwitz, 2001). However,
there have been no studies designed to compare and contrast the ideas of traditional and
nontraditional superintendents as they approach accountability to federal mandates,
their surrounding communities, and their respective school boards.
Limitations
Some obvious limitations of this study include the small sampling of superin-
tendents studied: 5 traditional and 5 nontraditional. It was difficult to make any large
8
generalizations based on the findings; however, viable suggestions for effective mea-
sures to be used in large-scale school reform were formulated.
9
CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW
The following is a review of current and past literature relevant to urban school
superintendents, educational reform, and the rising interest in traditional and nontradi-
tional school superintendents in urban school districts. This is an overview of research
relevant to the current era of increased school district accountability and issues perti-
nent to urban school district leaders. This review begins by providing a historical over-
view of the superintendency in the United States, followed by a broad perspective on
urban schools and the plight of urban superintendents and a brief discourse on leader-
ship in urban schools. The next section will focus more specifically on accountability
as it relates to the superintendency: (a) toward federal and state demands for student
achievement, (b) to their communities, and (c) to their school board. Finally, the last
portion of this review focuses directly on the recent phenomenon of school boards
hiring nontraditional superintendents as opposed to traditional superintendents, as well
as the major arguments for and against this effort.
Although the purpose of the study was not to determine which one is best,
looking at the pros and cons on both sides does help to clarify the issues and synthesize
the literature. The objective of this chapter is to provide a springboard into the data
collected from the 10 superintendents who participated in the study and to share a clear
prospective on the pertinent issues for urban superintendents in the age of accountabil-
ity.
10
History and Definition of the Superintendency
The history of the superintendency in the United States has developed over three
stages. These stages fall between the years of 1837 and 1910, 1910 and 1945, and 1945
to the present (Griffiths, 1966; Townley, 1992). In the initial stage (1837-1910), the
superintendent was one who would oversee the instruction of students and served as
somewhat of a master teacher. Analysis of the position in its earlier stages showed little
or no focus on the business aspects of school leadership. However, during the second
stage (1910-1945), superintendents began to take on the roles and responsibilities of a
business official, with a primary focus of school operations and logistical matters
(Townley). From 1945 to the present day, the superintendency has developed into a
combination of the two roles: instructional leader and business manager. Contempo-
rary superintendents are also grappling with the massive legislative demands and the
often difficult task of welding political power to bring opposing ideologies together for
the good of children (Townley).
The origins of the title school superintendent are uncertain. There have been
claims that it evolved from the industrial revolution, as managers in the textile mills
were often called superintendents. Another view offers the possibility that it derived
from church history, more specifically, 16 -century Europe, where the official in charge
th
of a group or parish was called a superintendent (Cuban, 1988).
The definition of superintendent has its origins in Latin word super, meaning
“over,” and intendere, meaning “direct attention to” (Townley, 1992). The combination
of the two Latin concepts, in respect to understanding what the job of a superintendent
11
is today, helps to refocus on the real meaning of the position and commitment required
to truly be an effective overseer who pays direct attention to the needs and best interest
of schools, communities, and children.
The first superintendent to be appointed in the United States was in Louisville,
Kentucky, in 1837. At that time the population was 17,600, with 716 students enrolled
in school. The first California superintendent was appointed in San Francisco in 1852,
with a student enrollment of 1,399. The city of Los Angeles followed in 1854, with an
enrollment of only 127 students (Griffiths, 1966; Townley, 1992). Most of the research
on the superintendency in its early stages has suggested that the job has always been a
difficult one. Although schools were smaller and seemingly much easier to manage,
life was still not smooth sailing for chief school leaders (Townley; Wilson, 1960). Sev-
eral issues have been cited:
1.There was objection to the creation of the position from an economic stand-
point. Many citizens felt it was not needed in the past and would not be needed in the
future.
2.Local board members were anxious to get rid of the position, as they were
displeased with one man (or woman) ruling the schools or having too much power.
3.Teachers and principals were often not supportive of the superintendent and
subverted the position by not following directives with which they did not agree and
also by rallying support from school board members.
4.A general lack of clarity in the job description often led to conflict between
the board members and the superintendent.
12
5.Early superintendents generally had no formalized training. Universities
were not offering specialized courses until long after the position had been well estab-
lished.
6.School board expectations were usually unreasonable, and compensation
was not commensurate with the responsibilities (Townley).
This list of issues would make one think that things have not changed much in
the last 150 years. Surely, current superintendents would agree. Although there is not
much bickering over whether or not school districts should have superintendents, there
still continues to be a constant battle between school board members and superinten-
dents (Giles & Giles, 1990). School district staff members can still be extremely sub-
versive, hiding behind contracts and unions (Harvey, 2003). Compensation is still a
major issue, and although there are training programs offered by various universities,
there is still some confusion or lack of clarity as to what the job really entails (Townley,
1992).
Overview of the Urban Superintendency in the Age
of Accountability and School Reform
In 2003, Fuller et al. at the Center for Reinventing Public Education, based at
the University of Washington, released a study that was appropriately named “The
Impossible Job: A View from the Urban Superintendent’s Chair.” What ensued were
the findings from a survey of 100 urban school superintendents across the nation, as
well as interviews with 40 large school district superintendents in districts nationwide.
The findings paint a picture of what educational leaders are dealing with in this age of
13
accountability and school reform. Salient points bring forth the true plight of the urban
superintendent as outlined below:
1.The very structure of the position does not allow a superintendent to do what
he/she has been hired to do.
2.Policy discussions revolve around student achievement, but the real dynam-
ics within the school district are driven by employment demands.
3.Superintendents have almost no control over their daily agenda. They are
constantly “whipsawed” by competing power centers within their organizations.
4.The fickle demands of the public are hard to follow, but crisis can empower
superintendents to make decisions to foster real change that might otherwise be impos-
sible.
5.There will always be a need for more training, but experience is what really
counts. The superintendency is a public management position that is just as much about
politics and calculation as it is about instructional leadership.
6.Urban superintendents need to have the freedom and liberty to become the
true educational chief operating officers (CEOs) of their districts. School boards and
unions oftentimes hold them back from what they know is best for the district.
7.Nontraditional superintendents attempt to think “outside the box,” but still
struggle with some of the same issues as their traditional colleagues. Their success is
by no mean assured.
14
8.There is a need for reshaping of school governance. Barriers to true school
reform are too overwhelming to be handled with new or different leadership every
season (Fuller et al.).
Today’s urban superintendent must seek to bring about what is called funda-
mental change or deep change that requires new ways of thinking and behaving, is
major in scope, and is discontinuous with the past and generally irreversible. This type
of reform will distort any exiting nonproductive patterns and will always involve taking
risks. It is juxtaposed with the concept of “incremental change,” which denotes a more
managerial adjusting of the existing system, making minor changes in systems and
procedures. Incremental changes are a part of any reforming organization, but funda-
mental changes are essential to the success and sustainability of a reforming organiza-
tion (Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning [McREL], 2000). Because of
the NCLB Act of 2002, urban school districts have now been mandated to become re-
forming organizations, and urban school superintendents must use power and authority
to facilitate fundamental “deep change” in urban schools to meet the demands of NCLB
(CDE, 2006; McREL; NCLB). According to NCLB legislation, student achievement in
failing schools and failing school districts must increase across the board. This increase
will be indicated by a narrowing of the gap between the test scores of the disadvantaged
students and the advantaged ones. Additionally, they must be taught by “highly quali-
fied” teachers (Anthes, 2002).
Effective in the 2002-2003 school year, the NCLB law authorized a series of
consequences for schools, school districts, and states that did not meet demands.
15
Schools and districts are now being required to offer support services, replace school
staff, implement new curricular programs, and or change the governing structure if
schools do not make set targets. These requirements hit underperforming urban schools
hard, and expectations for urban superintendents are now raised to the highest levels,
including more pressure to become instructional leaders, more knowledge needed on
data analysis and technology, greater clarity and rigor as they evaluate principals and as
board members evaluate them, plus a heavier focus on staff development that will
encompass more teacher training as well as training for school site and district leaders
(Anthes, 2002). All of this has to be done in the face of socioeconomic issues, issues of
race, culture, ethnicity, desegregation, and access. Cuban (2001) summed up the plight
of the urban school leader by stating:
Leading urban schools, unlike leading other districts, is intimately tied to a
unique and complex mission: Through improved schooling, reduce the dire
consequences of racial and ethnic isolation and the impact of poverty on aca-
demic achievement, while increasing the life chance for families and their
children to succeed economically and to contribute to their communities. (p. 6)
An even more salient view of the contextual setting of today’s urban superinten-
dent is offered by the Council of Great City Schools in a report from the Colloquium for
Former Urban Superintendents:
Urban public schools face a new and ambitious agenda. It is one that sets high
expectations by insisting that all students can learn and no child be left behind.
It requires superintendents to act as leaders of learning, dedicated to eliminating
the achievement gap and developing a sense of urgency about the task within
the district. It requires superintendents to become connoisseurs of data that can
be used to drive the accountability discussion. In the end, it also asks superin-
tendent to step outside traditional roles, to worry about school readiness and
how students spend their time when they are not in school. (as cited in Harvey,
2003, p. 19)
16
The top issue on the agenda for urban school leaders is closing the achievement
gap (Fuller et al., 2003). Still after 40 years of encouragement from the federal govern-
ment via Title I Funding and a myriad of other initiatives, the gap still exists (Harvey,
2003). A recent report produced by the National Center for Educational Statistics
(NCES) showed that although some progress has been made, “most gaps between white
and minority students have not narrowed sufficiently over time to exceed the margin of
error” (Schneider, 2005, p. 4). The major finding in this report was that White students
across the nation in Grades 4, 8 and 10 scored higher than African American and His-
panic students in urban districts in all areas of reading/ language arts, and mathematics
(Schneider). At the Colloquium of Former Urban Superintendents mentioned above,
some conclusions were drawn about what should be done and where the major focus
areas are:
1.Resources are needed so that funds can be equalized within districts, out-of-
school community assets can be developed, and improvement in early education pro-
grams can begin.
2.Inordinate amounts of resources must be provided to students in the greatest
need.
3.A sense of urgency should be infused district-/statewide to improve the level
of expectation for poor and minority students.
4.Data must be used to drive the discussion about the achievement gap.
17
5.Principals and teachers with higher skill levels should go to the neediest
schools. Race and class should not be a factor in making placement decisions of that
nature.
6.Hold families and community accountable for student attendance, as it is the
greatest indicator of student success.
7.Identify outstanding schools, teachers, and principals and celebrate suc-
cesses where they are found (as cited in Harvey, 2003).
As stated above, the challenges of an urban school superintendent are great, in-
volving the internal and external pressure of running a school district; the increasing
weight of federal and state mandates; and the balancing of socioeconomic issues, issues
around race, culture, ethnicity, desegregation, and access (Cuban, 2001; Fuller et al.,
2003). For many school districts, this is a tall order that school boards are having a
difficult time finding someone to fill, as the position of superintendent is said to be in a
state of crisis (Glass, 2001). The increased focus on accountability is seen as a vehicle
for improvement (Datnow, 2004); the hope is that leaders, whether they be traditional
or nontraditional, will meet the challenge (Fuller et al.).
Leadership in Urban School Districts
There are many studies done and theories formulated on educational leadership
and the superintendency. Of particular relevance is Johnson’s (1996) study conducted
in the early 1990s. After following the work of 12 newly appointed superintendents
throughout their first 2 years of tenure, she recognized three kind of leadership
18
exercised by these individuals. They functioned (a) as educational leaders, (b) as
political leaders, and (c) as managerial leaders. Johnson found that success was marked
by the superintendent’s ability to integrate understanding of the educational needs of
children and the politics of dealing with city officials, school board members, and the
general public, all while handling the day-to-day operation of the school district as an
organization.
Another perspective on leadership was offered by Bennis (2003), acknowledg-
ing that leaders come in many forms but have some common ingredients: (a) guiding
vision; (b) passion; (c) integrity, which includes knowledge of self, candor, and matur-
ity; (d) the development of trust among followers; (e) curiosity; and (f) willingness to
take risks. Bennis’s theory applies not just to educational leaders but to leaders in other
sectors as well. Yet another relevant theory in the area of leadership falls under the
overarching ideas of power and authority. The concept of power can be defined as “the
absolute capacity of an individual agent to influence the behavior or attitudes of one or
more designated target persons at a given point in time” (Yukl, 2002, p. 142). Yukl
also stated that “authority involves the rights, prerogatives, obligations, and duties
associated with particular position in an organization or social system” (p. 142). The
ideas of Bennis, Johnson (1996), and Yukl come together to paint a picture of what an
urban superintendent has to be in the era of accountability. The prospective superinten-
dent must also show leadership in all areas of curriculum, politics, and management
(Johnson). He or she must have a passionate vision for the future of the school district
and be willing to take risks to attain it, all while developing trust among subordinates
19
and always showing integrity (Bennis). Finally, an urban school superintendent must
have more than just the authority given to him or her by virtue of the position. He or
she must have power to influence the behavior of staff members, students, parents, and
the surrounding community (Yukl). These characteristics require a level of leadership
and professionalism that is rare among leaders in any field.
Accomplishing the task of an urban superintendent requires a unique type of
leadership: leadership that changes culture. McAdams and Zinck (1998) identified
several characteristics of successful superintendents who shaped their district’s culture,
including (a) espousing to child-centered values; (b) modeling important beliefs and
values understood by the district; and (c) consistently paying attention to matters of
educational importance, such as goal setting, staffing, and professional development.
Culture can be defined as “shared philosophies, ideologies, values, assumptions, be-
liefs, expectations attitudes and norms that knit a community together” (Kilmann,
Saxton, & Serpa, 1985, as cited in McAdams & Zinick). School leaders “define,
strengthen, and articulate those enduring values, beliefs, and cultural standards that give
the school its unique identity over time” (Sergiovanni, 1987, p. 104). There is a direct
relationship between the culture of an organization and the effectiveness of its leader
(Murphy & Hallinger, 1988; Schein, 1992; Senge, 1990; Sergiovanni, 1987, 1991).
Schien stated that “the only thing of real importance that leaders do is to create and
manage culture” (p. 5). Understanding this dynamic helps one to see the vital role of
the urban superintendent within current era of massive school reform. His or her lead-
ership must foster the reorientation of the urban school district from historic failure to a
20
culture that nurtures higher levels of student achievement and success (Harvey, 2003;
McAdams & Zinck, 1998).
Another aspect of leadership in urban schools is focused on instruction and the
importance of solid instructional leadership. A study conducted by Murphy and Hallin-
ger (1988) showed that highly effective California school superintendents were very
focused on high expectations and the establishment of clear goals for student achieve-
ment. The goals were centered around (a) improving student learning and making it a
top priority districtwide; (b) no excuses for the lack of student achievement; (c) superin-
tendents taking a direct leadership role in the area of curriculum and instruction, even
being responsible for introducing preferred teaching strategies; and (d) the superinten-
dent directly monitoring student achievement and other important indicators of school
success or failure, such as attendance rates and student behavior. It is crucial that the
superintendent maintain the role of chief instructional leader in a school district. The
superintendent must visit schools and classrooms consistently, stay abreast of student
achievement data, and hold principals accountable (Townley, 1992).
Urban school superintendents must inspire principals to lead their schools with
(a) a clearly stated mission of success, (b) a safe climate for teaching and learning, (c)
high expectations for all students and staff, (d) a safeguarding of instructional time and
student time on task, (e) conducive home/school relations, and (f) frequent monitoring
of student progress via regular assessments (Taylor, 2002). The last item in this list,
frequent monitoring and regular assessments, is crucial in responding to the mandates
of NCLB and alignment with current reform efforts that are centered around the
21
collection and analysis of data. Major agenda items for all urban school superinten-
dents is assessment data, instruction, and how they are related (Harvey, 2003; Taylor).
According to Schmoker (1999), key elements include the following:
1.Data help to monitor performance.
2.Data are essential in working toward performance goals.
3.Data must be utilized judiciously and with discretion.
4.Data must be collected often and on a regular basis.
5.Teachers and principals(and superintendents) must make curricular and in-
structional decisions based on solid data. Further, data must be derived from assess-
ments that are in alignment with state standards (Harvey, 2003). On this issue, the
Council of Great City Schools (as cited in Harvey) said to urban superintendents:
You must insist that local curriculum be aligned with state standards, and you
must insist to the state that its assessment be aligned with the standards.
You will fail unless you yourself become a sophisticated connoisseur of data
and assessment results. And you will fail also if you do not provide the infra-
structure that permits principals and teachers to understand and use the data to
improve instruction. You must pay attention to this issue. (p. 18)
As instructional leaders themselves, urban school superintendents must lead
principals in maintaining a deep understanding of the dynamics of good instruction,
learning process, and instructional leadership, while exhibiting respect for the various
cultures and racial/ethnic groups that may be on their campuses and throughout the
district (Mitchell, 2000). Research and current thinking about reform efforts in Ameri-
can schools center around the school principal as instructional leader (Marsh, 1992). A
relationship among superintendents and principals that fosters a mutual respect as
22
instructional leaders is essential to the success of an urban school district (Harvey,
2003). An example of a staff development effort in this area would be the California
School Leadership Academy (CSLA), which provided training centered around (a) the
principal’s attitudes and personal thoughts relevant to school policies and instruction;
(b) the principal’s actualized practices and behaviors; (c) school site leadership struc-
tures (i.e. school site councils, curriculum councils, school level cabinets, etc.); (d)
school-level policies that may include classroom procedures, cultural norms, discipline,
and expectations of the school community or surrounding community; (e) teacher
beliefs and expectations of/about students; and (f) teacher behavior and practice with
students (Marsh).
The superintendent is also responsible for keeping the school board and the
community informed of the district’s instructional program. Just as regular budget or
programmatic presentations are made at board meetings, so should presentations on
curricular issues, such as grade-level or subject specific concerns/reports and student
achievement data (Townley, 1992). In urban school districts, where a plethora of
underperforming schools, dysfunctional systems, and lack of focus on student achieve-
ment are often found, the need for a superintendent with clear goals set on raising
student achievement and raising the consciousness of staff, parents, and community
members is one of the keys to success (Harvey, 2003).
Another note on leadership in urban school districts, as related to this study of
traditional and nontraditional superintendents, is the idea that leadership is situational
(Yukl, 2002). Yukl stated that “different attributes will be effective in different
23
situations, and the same attribute is not optimal in all situations” (p. 13). Keeping this
in mind, it is important to recognize that different school districts may require different
types of leadership at various stages along a continuum of development as an organiza-
tion and “where a policy body [or organization] sits on that continuum depends on a
number of factors, especially the superintendent’s experience and the board’s level of
confidence in that person” (Domenech, 2005, p.1). An urban board may choose to put
its confidence in a traditional leader who has had many years of experience in education
and is able to operate as a true instructional leader (Goodman & Zimmerman, 2000), or
it may choose to hire a nontraditional leader out of frustration with the “traditional” way
of doing things and a feeling that a new approach and fresh ideas need to be employed
(Cuban, 2001).
Bringing this section into focus in the examination of the role of traditional and
nontraditional superintendents in urban school districts, the theories of Bennis (2003),
Johnson (1996), Bennis, and Yukl (2002) come into play. Whether they be traditional
or nontraditional, superintendents in urban school district must show great leadership in
the areas of curriculum, politics, and management (Johnson), along with passionate
vision and willingness to take risks (Bennis). Above all, they have the power to influ-
ence the behavior of staff members, students, parents and the surrounding community
(Yukl). Because leadership is situational (Yukl), urban school boards must evaluate
where they are on a continuum of development and decide what type of leadership is
best for them (Goodman & Zimmerman, 2000).
24
With these theories of leadership in mind, in the next section, the literature is
discussed pertaining to the types of accountability that will be examined in this disserta-
tion: (a) accountability for student achievement, (b) accountability to the community,
and (c) accountability to the school board.
Accountability for Student Achievement and NCLB
As mentioned above, for superintendents in urban school districts, there are
many challenging aspects of NCLB (Athens, 2003). In brief, some major points in-
volve (a) greater accountability toward students’ achievement, (b) more local control,
(c) “highly qualified teachers,” and (d) more options/choices for parents. NCLB is
based on a clear accountability system, steeped in the idea that standards-based instruc-
tion and high-stakes testing will bring about greater student achievement. Additionally,
the NCLB legislation requires that all subgroups (i.e., minority groups, special educa-
tion students, English language learners [ELLs], etc.) perform to proficiency at the same
rate as all other students and that their schools meet targeted goals for proficiency,
schoolwide on a performance target, set by the state, to show AYP for federal account-
ability (Strecher et, al., 2003).
Overall, there appears to be a noble effort toward closing the achievement gap,
and many urban superintendents have outwardly shown support for it and disdain for
any effort to reverse it (Cohn, 2005). In an open letter to Congress entitled “Don’t Turn
Back the Clock,” 100 superintendents, many of them being African American or La-
tino, presented a plea to stop any effort to rescind the legislation, claiming that “NCLB
25
is part of a chain of progressive civil rights in America that includes past federal initia-
tives like Brown vs. Board of Education (1954) and the Individual with Disabilities
Education Act (IDEA)” (as cited in Cohn, p. 158). In a compelling conclusion, the
letter stated, “Rolling back any part of the requirement to know more and do more
about the large achievement gaps that have long blighted American education send the
wrong message and simply cannot be an option. . . . Don’t Turn Back the Clock!” (p.
158).
Despite the passionate support for the initiative, other urban superintendents
have found any number of implementation challenges involving program development,
communication, as well as monitoring and reporting as they related to the advent of
supplemental services, if targets are not met (Sunderman & Kim, 2004). Levels of
frustration have escalated as superintendents across the nation also grapple with the
following:
1.The lack of funding to support the initiative;
2.Unfairness in reporting subgroup data and what seems like a penalty for
schools with diverse populations;
3.Logistical and procedural problems with the requirement to offer supple-
mental services;
4.Issues around parents having a choice to send their child to another school,
should their current school not meet set targets; and
5.The expectation that all classes will be taught by a “highly qualified” teacher
by the 2005-2006 school year (Cohn, 2005).
26
Considering all this, the question comes forth, is NCLB providing “increasing
opportunity or increasing bureaucracy” (Sunderman & Kim, 2004)? In a report by Kim
and Sunderman (2005) of the Civil Rights Project at Harvard University, a few conclu-
sions were drawn about how the federal government can revise this initiative and
“reject a one size fits all approach” (p. 8):
1.States should be allowed to experiment with different approaches to ac-
countability that include multiple measures for evaluating performance and achieve-
ment.
2.Subgroup rules should be revised so that student scores only count for one
subgroup, but districts should still encourage schools to disaggregate data in a way that
shows progress for all without being penalized.
3.More evidence should be required to explore how testing accommodations
and modifications effect scores of ELLs and special education students, before these
scores are used for school accountability.
4.When evaluating the use of Title I funding, Congress should take a closer
look at “intended and unintended consequences” for schools with high populations of
minority students.
Amid the back-and-forth arguments for and against the NCLB Act, urban school
leaders move forward in the name of accountability. In 2004, another group testified
before Congress in support of NCLB. Casserly (2004) was quoted as saying:
Our most recent report attempted to answer the question, “Have urban schools
improved student achievement since No Child Left Behind was enacted?” The
answer appears to be “yes.” . . . Between the 2001-2002 and 2002-2003 school
27
years (the period since NCLB), the percentage of urban 4 graders scoring at or
th
above proficiency levels on their respective state reading tests increased from
42.9 percent to 47.8 percent—an increase of 4.9 percentage points. The per-
centage of urban 4 graders scoring at or above proficiency levels on their re-
th
spective state math tests increased from 44.2 percent to 51.0 percent—an
increase of 6.8 percentage points (as cited in U.S. Department of Education,
2004, n.p.)
It would appear to be true that both traditional and nontraditional superintendents also
support the measure. Dr. Eric Smith, former superintendent of Anne Arundel County
Public Schools in Maryland, presumably of a more traditional background, was also
quoted:
This law has fundamentally transformed the debate about public education in
this country by changing the discussion from one about the lack of student
achievement and issues beyond the control of schools and school systems to one
about using research-proven strategies to ensure that each child can read, com-
pute, and write on grade level. (as cited in U.S. Department of Education, p.
n.p.)
As well as, Paul Valles, Superintendent of Philadelphia Public Schools, a nontraditional
superintendent, stated:
The School District of Philadelphia has demonstrated that substantial education
reform can be achieved by using existing resources to fund education priorities.
In short, our philosophy is about sending all available dollars into the classroom.
We will continue to use the tools provided us under the No Child Left Behind
Act to accomplish this, and we will not allow excuses to get in the way of
achievement. (as cited in U.S. Department of Education, n.p.)
In sum, there are numerous challenges for superintendents to face within the
NCLB initiative (Athens, 2003). Still, many educational leaders consider it to be a
noble effort toward closing the achievement gap in urban communities (Cohn, 2005).
Overall, the attitude of several urban school superintendents, traditional or
28
nontraditional, seems to be that student achievement is rising as a result of NCLB and
excuses can no longer get in the way (U.S. Department of Education, 2004).
Community Involvement and Accountability
In addition to being held accountable for student achievement, in the political
climate of education today, it is imperative that superintendents be able to maintain
positive relations with all stakeholders and be seen in their eyes as skillful and effective
leaders (Townley, 1992). On occasion, a superintendent may have to step out as a true
leader, possibly even in opposition to the board or other factions of the district, to be an
advocate for children. He or she must maintain composure under pressure, hold fast to
convictions, and maintain advocacy for children in the eyes of the community (Hayes,
2001). One way to help prevent these types of disagreements and ensure that there is
always mutual accountability is to make sure that there has been adequate communica-
tion regarding a district’s initiatives. This can be done by utilizing a district newsletter
and, when possible or necessary, the local media (Hayes). Internal communication as
well as communication with the surrounding community are crucial. “‘If you expect
people to share your agenda, you have to let them in your takeoffs as well as your land-
ings,’ said U.S. Senator Arthur Vandenberg” (Harvey, 2003, p. 35).
Another important note in the area of community relations and urban schools is
the importance of building respect among people of all races, genders, and cultural
backgrounds in schools and communities. An urban superintendent will always have to
model treating all members of the organization, no matter what their position, with the
29
same levels of respect. This helps to decrease conflict and show the community that
their school superintendent cares about the opinions of all, is fair and impartial (Harvey,
2003).
Beyond these basic tenets of school/community relations, there is the major
issue of gaining and maintaining accountability with the surrounding community of a
school district, especially in light of the NCLB initiative. In a recent publication en-
titled Talking Points for Superintendents, a few interesting points were brought forth
about what to do when parents, community leaders, and media begin to raise issues
about federal and state targets being met or not met (Oregon School Boards Associa-
tion, 2006). Advice to superintendents was as follows:
1.The media or other community leaders will most likely contact them with
any number of schools who did not make the target. They will probably have a list of
“winners” and “losers.”
2.They should not be avoided.
3.Time with them should be spent educating people about the challenges of
meeting these targets in a diverse community, with students who have diverse needs.
4.Keep comments positive.
5.Avoid making excuses or comparisons to other districts, whether or not
AYP was reached.
Similarly, in an article by the Harvard Family Research Project (2003), entitled
“Reframing Accountability for Urban Public Schools,” four common strategies
emerged for urban leaders attempting to create public accountability:
30
(1)Public conversations are an open and deliberative processes in which a
range of stakeholders examines information, engages in problem solving
and makes commitments to work for schools.
(2)Parent and community members monitor program and policies when they
collect and look at data to make judgments about the adequacy of their
schools, the authenticity of school improvement efforts and the credibility of
results.
(3)By participating in the political arena, community-organizing groups take
action to counterbalance the influences on elected and public officials that
have allowed poor conditions in schools to exits.
(4)Community organizing has a methodology for developing relationships of
trust and collective responsibility, as well as a willingness to take actions.
Community-organizing groups share a set of practices, such as “one on
ones” and “house meetings,” that build a culture in which relationships are
not personal, but “public” in the sense that they lead to collective action. (p.
2)
To sum up this section, it would be important to note that “you can judge an
accountability system by its ability to produce relevant information, motivate individu-
als, build knowledge to improve practice, and allocate resources appropriately”
(O’Day, 2002, p. 294). The research suggests that productive collaboration among
school leaders and community members is a key element to success and serves as a
motivating factor toward change, specifically in urban schools (Harvard Family Re-
search Project, 2003).
Accountability to the School Board of Education
In addition to being accountable to the community, superintendents are su-
premely accountable to their local school boards. So important are superintendent/
board relations that job announcements for superintendent vacancies are quite telling
about the priorities of a school district. Among all of them one will inevitably find
statements like the following: “Ability to outline alternative courses of action and to
31
make clear recommendations to the board of education”; “Ability to foster good inter-
personal relations between the superintendent and the governing board”; “A commit-
ment to integrity, honesty and openness in working with the governing board”; or
“Facility in communication with the governing board” (Townley, 1992, p. 22).
Maintaining excellent school board relations is probably the highest priority of
the school superintendent (Townley, 1992). A study conducted by Giles and Giles
(1990) showed that approximately one third of superintendents left the job entirely due
to disharmony with the school board. A more recent study conducted by Glass (2001)
showed that things were not much better. Seventy-one percent of superintendents
polled agreed that the superintendency “is in a state of crisis” (p. 2) and cited school
board relations at the top of the list of concerns. More specifically, McAdams (2002)
stated that urban school boards seem to be in even more turmoil, “so splintered by their
attempts to represent special interests or board members’ individual political needs, that
they cannot govern” (p. 1). Additionally, according to the report, adequate policy over-
sight was not exercised, nor was there an adequate accountability process for communi-
cating about school issues and the school systems with the public. Even less attention
was given to developing positive relations with the superintendent or to the general
commitments of board members, who are servants to their communities (McAdams).
Carter and Cunningham (1997) summed up 11 major factors that affect school
board/superintendent tensions: (a) problems originating from disciplinary action
toward family or friends of board members; (b) nepotism and cronyism; (c) incorrect or
unclear interpretations of the role of the school board members; (d) school board
32
members who were elected with a specific issue or “axe to grind”; (e) board members
who do not support the initiatives of the superintendent; (f) stagnation of the board with
ineffective standing subcommittees, lack of focus, and/or emotional instability; (g)
community groups that apply pressure on a specific board member or members to meet
their demands; (h) personal problems between board members; (i) issues surrounding
the hiring or firing of an athletic coach; (j) issues surrounding the superintendent’s
contract; and (k) uncouth behavior on the part of the superintendent.
To maintain a working relationship with board members, a superintendent must
be sure to (a) represent the board’s will and make every attempt to carry it out as pro-
fessionally and forcefully as possible; (b) plan the agenda carefully for all school board
meetings in consultation with the board president; (c) make sure that there are no sur-
prises, keeping the board abreast of any potential problems or pressing concerns of the
public/employees of the school district; and (d) remember that the superintendent
serves at the pleasure of the board. Signs of a deteriorating board/superintendent
relationship that could lead to termination of the superintendent might include (a)
whether the board feels that the superintendent is not open to criticism or constructive
communication and that he/she has a disharmonious rapport with them; (b) lack of staff
respect toward the superintendent, which may cause lack of confidence in the superin-
tendent; (c) poor communication skills on the part of the superintendent; and/or (d)
unclear evaluation procedures that are not written and ambiguous (Townley, 1992).
What is now becoming increasingly important is the need for school boards and
superintendents to work together as a team for the good of children. The New England
33
School Development Council (as cited in Goodman & Zimmerman, 2000), as a result
of research on superintendent/school board relations, comprised a list of nine responsi-
bilities of a board/superintendent team:
1.Having as its top priority the creation of teamwork and advocacy for the
high achievement and healthy development of all children in the community;
2.Providing education leadership for the community, including the develop-
ment and implementation of the community vision and long-range plan, in close collab-
oration with principals, teachers, other staff and parents;
3.Creating strong linkages with social service, health, and other community
organizations and agencies to provide community-wide support and services for healthy
development and high achievement for all children;
4.Setting districtwide policies and annual goals, tied directly to the commu-
nity’s vision and long-range plan for education;
5.Approving an annual school district budget, developed by the superintendent
and adopted by the board;
6.Ensuring the safety and adequacy of all school facilities;
7.Providing resources for the professional development of teachers, principals,
and other staff;
8.Periodically evaluating its own leadership, governance, and teamwork for
children; and
9.Overseeing negotiations with employee groups.
34
In sum, based on prior research, the superintendent/school board relationship is
vital to both the success of the superintendent and the success of the school district in
general. Urban school districts are particularly at risk of challenging superintendent/
school board relationships due to the layers of difficulty that seem to be inherent within
urban systems. Nevertheless, as stated by Goodman and Zimmerman (2000), there are
inroads to greater success.
In the next section is a review of literature encompassing the issues surrounding
nontraditional superintendents being hired in urban school districts as an alternative to
traditional superintendents. Pertinent references point to advantages, disadvantages,
and general perceptions of both traditional and nontraditional school leaders in urban
communities.
Traditional and Nontraditional Superintendents
The growing impatience with low student achievement and high school cost has
led some school boards to look outside the education arena for their top hired
hand. The military, the business world and even the legal profession have
become targets of superintendent searches. Major urban school systems like
Chicago, Washington, D.C., San Diego, Seattle and Jacksonville, as well as
smaller systems like Boulder Valley, Colorado, and Eatonville, Washington,
have hired men who could not explain the difference between a Carnegie unit
and a cantaloupe, and yet they have brought to their new jobs a talent for making
decisions and clearing away administrative debris. (Mathews, 1999, p. 2)
The jury of educators and theorists is still out on whether traditional, up-
through-the-ranks superintendents or nontraditional “outsiders” are best to lead urban
school districts (Fuller et al., 2003). With long work hours, intense public scrutiny,
increased accountability from both federal and state entities, and comparatively lower
35
pay, it has become difficult to recruit and maintain strong leadership in the urban super-
intendent’s office (Bianchi, 2003). School boards are split between arguments. One
side of the debate relates to whether nontraditional candidates, having had no experi-
ence in the field, should even be allowed to apply. The other side claims that the re-
quirements that hinder their applications are unfair and stifling to boards seeking new
inroads to school reform (Hess, 2003).
Advocates for traditional candidates would say,
Unconventional leaders may find themselves, in time, wrestling with such
conventional educational issues as how to elevate academic excellence while
brokering budgets and dampening discord. Then a question arises as to whether
generals, corporate executives, and governors will have any more success than
the conventional superintendents they replaced. (Guthrie & Sanders, 2001, as
cited in Hurwitz, 2001, p. 2)
In cases like this, many nontraditional superintendents tend to select a number 2 person
(deputy or associate superintendent) to take care of the responsibilities of curriculum
and instruction. Experts say that this is a bad choice, as the superintendent needs to be
“hands on” and maintain his/her orientation toward student learning and high achieve-
ment (Hurwitz, 2001).
The most logical choice for superintendent might seem to be someone who has
an education background and understands learning theory, the dynamics of good in-
struction, and the inner workings of school operations. However, many school boards
have lost confidence in the ability of these “rise-from-the-ranks” (Cuban, 2001) super-
intendents to effectively manage large urban school districts. As a result, there has
been a major shift in larger urban centers like, Los Angeles, New York, Seattle,
36
Washington, D.C. and San Diego, towards the selection of nontraditional superinten-
dents. These boards (either presently or in the past) have hired a former governor, a
corporate attorney, military generals and a U.S. attorney as superintendent, in hopes for
true reform (Cuban).
According to Fuller et al. (2003), whatever the reason for the move toward a
traditional or nontraditional superintendent, there are some noted differences in the
outlook of these two categories of urban superintendents. Nontraditional superinten-
dents seem to struggle or worry more about internal pressures, whereas traditional
superintendents worry more about external pressures. In interviews with nontraditional
superintendents, concerns seem to revolve around the incivility and raw conflict be-
tween administration and the unions, the lack of understanding and cooperation among
staff in the face of true reform efforts, and the great difficulty in keeping staff and board
members focused on overall goals. These seem to be things that traditional superinten-
dents take in stride, having been a part of, at some point in his/her career, the very
organizations in conflict and having a greater understanding of the nuances and tradi-
tions within the field of education. However, it seems as if political forces on the
outside, such as pressure from city officials, issues with local businesses/corporations,
federal and state mandates, and external criticism seem to be concerns that nontradi-
tional superintendents take in stride. These same individuals may come into a school
district not knowing educational jargon or “lingo” commonly used in the environments
in which they and may be seemingly operating at a disadvantage due to naivete about
systems and procedures in school districts. However, according to Fuller et al., this was
37
seen more as an advantage. One superintendent responded to an interview question
with this comment, “One of my strengths, oddly enough, is that I’m naive about these
issues. I’m not burdened by the traditional wisdom” (p. 54). The fact that many nontra-
ditional superintendents have had to ask so many questions to find out information that
most traditional superintendents would already know has, in many cases, led the organi-
zation to ask real evaluative questions of itself that may not have been asked before.
Currently, most urban school boards are still hiring trained educators to lead
their school districts, and many have even returned to the traditional route after a bout
with an a nontraditional leader (Hurwitz, 2001). “The Washington, D.C., and Balti-
more systems, for example, have replaced an Army general and a fiscal expert, respec-
tively, with professional educators who have had extensive experience managing
teachers and administrators” (p. 1). There have not been many studies done on tradi-
tional and nontradition urban superintendents; the study of Fuller et al. (2003) repre-
sents one of the few. What is clear is that there is little clarity on which type of superin-
tendent is best to lead urban schools (Fuller et al.).
Nevertheless, selecting a superintendent is probably the most important task of
the school board. Hurwitz (2001) offered these lessons for boards in making their
decision:
1.Put learning first. Learning for all students should be the superintendent’s
top priority. Every managerial decision should revolve around that priority.
38
2.Find a capable manager. Whatever the individual’s backgrounds, he/she
should have expertise in handling large organizations in a way that will support instruc-
tion, and be able to simultaneously cope with political concerns.
3.Do not expect instant results. Things are not going to change overnight.
Reforming urban schools takes “coherence, continuity and follow-through,” as stated by
Tom Payant, Boston Superintendent (p. 2).
Despite Hurwitz’s advice, school boards often become impatient with the lack of
progress and begin to look at alternatives. Don McAdams, former school board mem-
ber in Houston, Texas, was quoted as saying, “When school boards start looking at
nontraditional superintendents, they are looking for fundamental change. . . . They’re
saying that they don’t believe that there’s just one system or way of doing things” (as
cited in LaFee, 2004, p. 1). In further support of this idea, Thomas Vander Ark, former
“businessman-turned-superintendent,” stated:
School districts tend to look outside for a superintendent only when things have
gotten so bad that doing the same old thing just doesn’t feel like it’s going to
work. . . . That’s when boards start to look at alternative sources for a new
superintendent, some who will generally come into a job embraced with all
manner of unreasonable expectations. (as cited in LaFee, p. 1)
But, how can one be sure that hiring nontraditional superintendents in a failing
or struggling system is really the answer? Once hired, what do they do? A few interest-
ing examples rise to the forefront in the literature: Alan Bersin and John Stanford.
Alan Bersin, who is now the California State Education Secretary, was formerly the
superintendent of San Diego Unified School District (USD) from 1998 to 2005 but
began his professional career as an attorney. His decision to become the superintendent
39
in San Diego was based on his commitment and desire to give back to public education
(Smith, 2005). During his tenure in San Diego, which would have been categorized by
many as a failing system in 1998, he implemented some very aggressive strategies
toward reform (Willi, 2004). He believed in (a) the need for strong principals, (b) ef-
fective professional development, (c) extended learning experiences for students, (d)
modern books and materials to support teaching, and (e) committed parents (Willi).
After hiring Anthony Alvarado from New York as his Chief Academic Officer, he
began to shake the system up (Smith; Willi). Together Bersin and Alvarado reformed
the San Diego school system by (a) firing nonproductive administrators, (b) developing
a comprehensive K-12 academic framework, and (c) instituting very focused strong
staff development. They met with opposition from labor unions and bashing from the
media, but continued to forge ahead. As a result of these efforts, what was reported was
a steady improvement of 2% in reading and math every year (Willi).
Alan Bersin was not well received by the community in San Diego and came
under harsh scrutiny, as critics claimed he “excluded parents, teachers and community
groups from the reform process. He was called an abrasive manager who used fear and
intimidation to get things done and some teachers say he had little regard for their ex-
pertise” (Magee, 2002, p. 1). This was not the case with John Stanford, retired army
general, who became superintendent in Seattle, Washington, in 1995 (Mathews, 2001).
Stanford’s approach to reform was quite different. Brian Benzel, who was the chief
operating officer (COO) for the district during Stanford’s tenure, stated:
40
Stanford brought a rigorous focus on customer service. He created a unit in the
district that still exits to coordinate and respond to the public: parents, citizens,
businesses, etc. …He proclaimed early and often that the system would be
student-focused and he rallied the public, educators, support staff and students
to that cause. (as cited in Mathews, p. 6)
He was instantly loved by all, quickly began to institute drastic changes within the
system, and received a great deal of support from weary citizens who were tired of their
underperforming system (Lilly, 1996). Stanford began to implement procedures such as
(a) a weighted student funding system that allowed monies to travel with student to
schools of parental choice; (b) the abolishment of “teacher seniority,” which allowed
school site leadership team to select teachers whom they felt would serve their commu-
nities best; and (c) the institution of a new logistics department that coordinated serv-
ices such as transportation, maintenance, landscaping, custodial work, and warehouses
for a more effective Operations Department (Mathews, 2001). Student achievement
remained on the rise during and after his 3-year tenure (Lilly, 1998).
However, does education need nontraditional superintendents to do these types
of things, or can these reforms be accomplished by traditional superintendents? An
excellent example that comes to mind is Dr. Carl Cohn, former superintendent of the
Long Beach USD and current superintendent of San Diego USD. Cohn achieved un-
precedented success in the Long Beach USD, setting the stage for the district to win the
coveted Broad Prize for Urban Education in 2003, along with the $500,000 in scholar-
ships that accompany the award (Center for Public Education, 2006). He implemented
such reforms as school uniforms (districtwide), ending social promotions, and the ini-
tiation of an aggressive reading program focused at the third-grade level. He made
41
clear what his primary objectives were in San Diego, having been voted in by the board
in July of 2005. He planned to (a) refocus the board on more important issues, (b) re-
organize the district to achieve a closer connection between school sites and the district
office, and (c) begin to seriously listen and consider the issues of the teacher’s union
that felt it had been ignored with the previous administration (Sutton, 2005).
As stated earlier, there is no real evidence that proclaims one type of superinten-
dent over another (Fuller et al., 2003). However, one can only hope, as Hurwitz (2001)
suggested, that school boards in urban districts are able to make accurate choices for the
time and situation that suit their districts.
Conclusion
The overarching point in this review of literature is that the job of the urban
superintendent is very complex in nature and has evolved over time as one of the most
difficult positions to hold among public servants (Fuller et. al, 2003). In the earlier
portion of this chapter, the history of the superintendency was examined along with the
phases through which it has gone from the mid/late 1800s until the present. This
chapter also reviewed salient points on the dynamics of the urban superintendency and
general issues raised in urban school districts and communities. It was also important
to understand the details and dynamics of the NCLB initiative and how it affects the
day-to-day operations of an urban school district. A specific focus was placed on ac-
countability, as it relates to the role of the superintendent in the area of community
relations and school board relations. Toward the end of this chapter, a review of the
42
differences between traditional and nontraditional superintendents brought all of the
aforementioned literature into focus, as it relates to this study. It is hoped that the
present study will make a significant contribution to the research and knowledge base
on urban superintendents, traditional and nontraditional, as well as school reform
efforts.
43
CHAPTER 3

METHODOLOGY
Research Design
This was qualitative study of urban superintendents: traditional and nontradi-
tional. A good qualitative study “seeks to discover and understand a phenomenon, a
process, or the perspectives and worldviews of the people involved” (Merriam, 1998, p.
11). Thus, I have chosen the methods of qualitative research to capture the essence of
effective superintendency in an urban school district, while gaining a greater under-
standing of the different perspectives of two types of superintendents.
Originally, the researcher’s choice to pursue this topic was based on her own
aspirations to become a superintendent, along with her personal and profession interest
in urban schools. Her professional background is almost wholly dedicated to education,
having been a classroom teacher, district office administrator, and now a school site
administrator. She wondered if her training and preparation in the different areas of
public school education would afford her the knowledge and foresight needed to be an
effective leader of a school district. The recent phenomenon of urban school districts
hiring nontraditional superintendents became of particular interest, as she evaluated her
own career path and lack of experience in other fields. Although the superintendency
may not be on the top of her list of future goals any more, the dynamics of the position,
as it relates to the urban school setting, are still fascinating and the comparison between
44
the philosophies of traditional superintendents and nontraditional superintendents has
proven to be both interesting and informative.
Sample Population
“The logic and power of purposeful sampling lies in selecting information-rich
cases for study in depth” (Patton, 2002, p. 230). With this philosophy in mind, a partic-
ular type of individual was sought to participate in this study. Criteria for the sampling
were 10 superintendents from urban school districts: 5 traditional and 5 nontraditional.
However, the following were not considerations: (a) achievement data (i.e., AYP or
state criteria), (b) size of the district, (c) years in education or years as a superintendent,
and (d) specific demographics other than what is commonly known as “urban.”
Having equal numbers of superintendents from each side (traditional and non-
traditional) was important for validity purposes. The final sampling was an ethnic
mixture of African American, Hispanic, and Caucasian. The gender ratio was 9 men
and 1 woman. In Table 1 superintendents are identified by a designated alphanumeric
code, beginning with “T” for traditional superintendents and “NT” for nontraditional
superintendents. The table contains demographic information on the 10 urban school
districts.
In the quest to find these superintendents, it was discovered that the network
among them is very strong. It proved to be extremely helpful, as superintendents rec-
ommended me to others like themselves. Dissertation committee members, two of
whom are former superintendents, also made helpful suggestions of possible
45
Table 1
Sample Population Chart
Years in
Code Race/ Years inYears as super-current
nameGender ethnicityeducation intendentdistrictCurrent background
NT-01MaleCaucasian666Politician
NT-02MaleCaucasian664City official
NT-03FemaleAfrican American844Corporate executive
NT-04MaleCaucasian622Corporate executive
NT-05MaleAfrican American1589Corporate executive
T-01MaleHispanic3111Educator
T-02MaleCaucasian30330Educator
T-03MaleHispanic35420Educator
T-04MaleAfrican American42205Educator
T-05MaleAfrican American37111Educator
Note. NT = nontraditional superintendent; T = traditional superintendent.
individuals with whom to begin. An email contact, introducing myself, describing the
study and requesting their participation, was used as initial contact for most of the
superintendents who participated in my study (see appendix A).
All of the participants were currently working as superintendents in urban
school districts. Eight of the superintendents interviewed were serving in urban school
districts in the southern California area. Two were superintendents in other states,
Michigan and Pennsylvania. It proved to be difficult to find nontraditional superinten-
dents in urban school districts in California. The two nontraditional superintendents
46
from out of state were a welcome addition and brought an exciting perspective to the
study.
Table 2 delineates the demographic information for all of the districts repre-
sented in this study. The common understanding of an urban school district encom-
passes one or more of the following characteristics: (a) is located in an urban area, as
opposed to suburban or rural; (b) has a high population of students who are socially and
economically disadvantaged (SED); (c) has a relatively high population of minority
students; and (d) has a high population of students who are ELLs (Russo, 2004). As
observed in Table 2, all 10 of the districts represented in this study would qualify as
urban. Additionally, it is important to note that many of these districts also had high
numbers of special education students. Total enrollment numbers ranged from 4,738
to 520,075 students. It was fortunate for the outcome of the study to have had the per-
spective of superintendents from districts with various sizes and various population
challenges. Many of their responses made reference to some of those challenges in
meeting accountability demands.
Instrumentation
Data were collected for this study via tape recorded telephone or in-person
interviews. The interviews lasted 20-45 minutes, depending on the length of the re-
sponses. Questions focused on the experiences of the superintendent with current
reform efforts and his or her approaches to accountability measures. General questions
were also asked about the background of the individual and how he/she arrived in the
47
48
position of superintendent in an urban school district. Most of the interviews were
scheduled toward the end of March, 2006; 2 were conducted in the 1 week of April,
st
2006. The researcher was able to meet 7 of the superintendents in person; 2 were in-
terviewed over the phone; and 1 responded via email and a follow-up phone call. A
standard audiocassette tape recorder was used. The interview protocol was brief and
concise, allowing as much time as possible for the participants to answer questions as
honestly and thoughtfully as possible (see appendix B for a sample of the interview
protocol). All of the interviews were transcribed and manually coded/analyzed to find
emerging themes and common threads in ideas and philosophy.
Analysis of Data
All interviews were transcribed verbatim. Data were initially analyzed using a
graphing organizing technique called Thinking Maps®, which many educators have
found to be a useful technique in comparing and contrasting concepts (Hyerle, 1995).
These graphic organizers were placed on preliminary charts in order to synthesize the
data, draw viable conclusions, and discover connections between emerging themes.
The charts also provided the foundation for the graphic representations, referred to
throughout chapter 4, that illustrated the core concepts within the findings.
After all transcriptions were charted, it was important to go back and review
them again to ensure that all useful information was excavated and clear interpretations
were made. This process is what led to generated responses to the research questions.
49
Following the method above, the comprehensive narrative that comprises
chapter 4 of this study was formulated. The narrative includes salient responses to the
research questions, clear comparisons between the two types of superintendents, and
viable conclusions regarding school reform effort and accountability measures. Addi-
tionally, an overview of the demographic data provides a picture of the superintendents,
including background, years of experience, and motivation to become an urban superin-
tendent. Inferences and conclusions were drawn about how traditional and nontradi-
tional superintendents approached accountability measures and their thoughts on urban
school districts hiring nontraditional superintendents.
Ethical Considerations
In designing this study, it was important to keep three factors in mind within the
realm of ethical consideration: informed consent, confidentiality, and protection of
identity. Prior to any interviewing, informed consent from each subject was obtained.
For the protection of the subjects, findings were reported using code names, as identi-
fied in Table 1. This was done to secure the anonymity of both the individual being
interviewed and any persons mentioned during the interviews. Specific circumstances
or events that may have been referenced were disguised or not mentioned at all. All
participants received a letter explaining what the study was about and how the findings
would be reported, as well as a consent form that outlined the parameters of the study
and any possible risks involved (see appendixes A and C, respectively). Each
50
participant understood his/her option as to not answering any uncomfortable questions
or discontinuing their participation at any time.
Limitations
This study had obvious limitations due the very small sample size. The re-
searcher’s ability to make large generalizations based on the findings was reduced.
However, the findings did shed some light in an area of study on the superintendency
that was fairly dark and added a new perspective to the existing body of research.
Another limitation would be the researcher’s own biases inevitably came into
play because of the fact that she works in the field of education and had her own ideas
and notions about educational policy. The field of education is very small. The re-
searcher has been a district office administrator, a school site administrator, as well as a
teacher. She has worked in four different urban school districts in the southern Califor-
nia area. Some of the superintendents interviewed were previous personal and profes-
sional acquaintances of hers or other friends and colleagues. However, she made every
effort to be as objective as possible while conducting the interviews, analyzing/coding
the transcripts, reporting the data, and drawing conclusions about the findings.
51
CHAPTER 4

FINDINGS
The purpose of this study was to examine the similarities and differences in
ideas, thoughts, and philosophies of traditional and nontraditional urban school superin-
tendents. The first part of this chapter is devoted to the characteristics of the 10 super-
intendents who participated in the study, including their background information, their
motivation to lead an urban school district, and their perceptions about transferable
skills and experiences from previous positions within or outside of the field of educa-
tion. The next sections are devoted to the findings in this study and are organized
around the overarching research question, which was the following: What are the
philosophical and strategic differences and similarities in approach between tradi-
tional and nontraditional urban school superintendents toward accountability mea-
sures in the areas of community involvement, school board relations, and meeting the
demands of federal/ state mandates? Four guiding questions helped to focus the study,
and from these questions section headings were formed:
1.Are there differences or similarities in the way that traditional and nontradi-
tional superintendents approach federal and state mandates, specifically the NCLB ini-
tiative?
2.How do their strategies compare in gaining and maintaining accountability
to their surrounding communities?
52
3.Are there differences or similarities in their approach toward accountability
to their respective school boards?
4.What are their views on the advantages and disadvantages of urban school
districts having a nontraditional leader as opposed to a traditional leader, and how does
one group perceive the other?
Again, the aim of the study was to make a comparison of two sets of ideas, those
of traditional superintendents and those of nontraditional superintendents. A synthesis
of those ideas leads to the conclusions drawn in the final chapter of this study.
A Picture of the Superintendents
Ten urban school superintendents participated in this study. Five of them were
considered traditional, having numerous years of experience in the field of education,
and 5 would be considered nontraditional, having come from outside of the field of
education to take on the challenge of the urban school superintendency. In Tables 3 and
4, a broad view is provided of these individuals, including their career background and
motivation for becoming an urban school superintendent.
What Led Them to the Superintendency?
As evidenced in Tables 3 and 4, the routes to the superintendency varied among
the two groups. Most of the traditional superintendents came up through the traditional
ranks—hence the definition of the group. However, among them, there were some
unexpected facts. One traditional superintendent had originally planned to become a
53
Table 3
Five Traditional Urban School Superintendents
Code

name Outline of career
What led person to become
an urban superintendent
T-01Started as teacher (junior high and high school).
Moved into administration as elementary, middle,
and high school principal. Became district office
director. Became deputy superintendent. Currently

superintendent in small southern California district.
Preparation and training in doctoral
program; desire to work with diverse
population.
T-02Taught for 6 years. Worked in district office in cur-
riculum and instruction. Moved into administration
as elementary principal, then adult school principal
and high school principal. Became assistant super-
intendent and currently superintendent in small
southern California district.
Very connected to his com-
munity—was a student in the dis-
trict; had spent his entire career,
from teaching to administration, in
the same district and was ap-

proached by board to apply.
T-03Used to be a sheet metal worker. Taught for 2½
years. Became a district office coordinator and then
school site principal. Moved up the ranks to super-
intendent and currently superintendent in small

southern California district.
Life experience with racism created
passion to be a leader in education to
ensure that other students would not
have to endure what he did.
T-04Was a classroom teacher. Worked in staff develop-
ment at district office. Became a principal. Did
some foundation and private industry work for about
6 years. Moved up the ranks to superintendent and
currently superintendent of an average size district in
southern California.
Always had a passion for children in
urban areas; some influence from
doctoral program and other experi-
ences in education field made him
“inquisitive,” wanting to learn more
about education and the position of

superintendent.
T-05Studied to become a priest. Was looking for a job,
realized he could teach, and was recruited to teach
high school. Became a high school counselor.
Moved into administration at district office level.
Moved up the ranks and became a very successful
superintendent in large urban school district in
southern California. Currently a superintendent in
another large urban southern California district.
Doctoral program influenced his
thinking toward leading in urban
school systems.
54
Table 4
Five Nontraditional Urban School Superintendents
Code
name Outline of career
What led person to become
an urban superintendent
NT-01Degrees in agriculture and law; practiced law.
Worked in private sector and ran various busi-
nesses. Went into politics. Became superinten-
dent of very large southern California district.
Wanted a difficult job and felt that it
would be better for his health. Knew
that urban areas were the most difficult

and wanted to “see it built upon.”
NT-02Had some teaching experience. Worked in state
legislature. Became a director of an education
fiscal commission. Worked on education issues
at the State Department of Education level. Be-
came a budget director. Became one of the
nation’s first chief executive officer (CEO)/super-
intendent and currently a CEO/superintendent in

large Pennsylvania district.
Was approached by mayor but was
very much willing to take on the posi-

tion.
NT-03Upon completing a M.B.A. degree, became ac-
count executive for a major telecommunications
company and retired as sales vice president.
Taught at university level and currently superin-
tendent of small Michigan district.
Grew up in urban districts and appreci-
ated the foundation she got. Wanted
to help give urban children the same
positive experiences in education that
she had. Felt every child should have
“a reasonable chance to achieve the

American Dream.”
NT-04Owned a construction development company.
Had nine children and was very involved with
schools (i.e., school site councils, district advi-
sory committees). Became director of mainte-
nance and operations. Went back to school to get
B.A. and M.A. degrees and began to promote
within the district. Moved to assistant superinten-
dent and currently superintendent of a high school

district in southern California.
The area was not considered urban
when he came to it. His intention was
to be in a high-growth area where he
felt his skills could be best used.
55
Table 4 (continued)
Code
name Outline of career
What led person to become
an urban superintendent
NT-05Worked in a steel mill. Became a computer pro-
grammer. Began a career in finance. Worked in
aerospace and for special government programs.
Became a corporate executive. Began working
with school district as assistant superintendent of
business and currently superintendent of average
size district in southern California.
Was recruited by friend. Always ap-
preciated the idea of working with dis-
advantaged students. Identified with
minority students as he was African
American.
priest; another one took a 6-year hiatus to do some private industry work; and yet an-
other started as a sheet metal worker, taught for only 2½ years, and then went straight to
the district office.
The nontraditional superintendents also created an interesting picture. One of
them was a politician before coming to the superintendency; one was in city manage-
ment; and the others were all business executives of some type. A common theme
among this group was that they all seemed to be looking for something beyond the
success they had already experienced in their previous fields. Based on some of their
responses to the questions, an inference could be made that monetary compensation was
not a motivation to come to the superintendency. In fact, many of them made com-
ments that alluded to the idea that the salary of a superintendent paled in comparison to
the compensation they could receive in any of their other fields. Interesting comments
to support this conclusion were the following:
56
A friend of mine convinced me to give it [the superintendency] a try. I looked at
my financial situation and discovered I could afford to take a reduction in pay to
come to education.
I don’t like to flaunt it, but I’m independently wealthy. I’m not in this business
because I need to pay my mortgage. Therefore, if my board does something that
I feel is morally wrong, I can walk.
With maybe one exception, it was clear that many of them were driven by a
desire to make a difference for children and the hope of a new challenge. This desire to
make a difference was evident in both groups as they shared the reasons why they came
to urban school districts and what fueled their passions. Traditional superintendents
spoke of inspiration that came from the Ed.D. and Ph.D. programs they attended and
eye-opening personal experiences. Two of them talked about being approached by the
school board and the fact that it was a natural progression of their career. Nontradi-
tional superintendents spoke of wanting a greater challenge, growing up in urban dis-
tricts with positive experiences there, being approached by a city official, or being
recruited by a friend. Most of them, both traditional and nontraditional, made connec-
tions to the desire to give back to the communities in which they were raised (or com-
munities like those in which they were raised) and/or a great desire to see progress in
urban schools. The sentiments from both groups can be best summed up in a comment
made by one of the nontraditional superintendents:
I grew up in an urban school, and I feel I received a solid education foundation.
It is my desire to give to other children in similar circumstance the same oppor-
tunities I was afforded. I believe education is critical, and I want to see that
every child is provided with a reasonable chance to achieve the American
Dream.
57
Transferable Skills and Experiences
Another level of understanding about the participants comes when examining
their ideas about what transferable skills and experiences from positions they had
within or outside the field of education had been most valuable to them. Synthesizing
their responses led to the following conclusions. Nontraditional superintendents
seemed lean toward the ideas that:
1.Positive attitudes about accountability and ideas around people and pro-
grams being accountable helped to keep them focused on the real objectives of the job.
2.Expertise in finance was an invaluable skill that helped to rectify numerous
fiscal problems.
3.Skills in planning, managing people, communication, and politics trans-
ferred over just as they would in running any other organization.
4.Constant drive toward high performance had provided an orientation toward
success that was oftentimes lacking among those with whom they were working in
school districts.
5.Setting targets, meeting them, and always asking questions about why
targets were not met before is a normal process in the business world that is highly
applicable in running a school district.
A salient comment from one nontraditional superintendent spoke volumes in
this vein. When asked about his previous experiences with accountability measures in
the business world and how they might relate to his responsibilities as superintendent,
he said:
58
In the private industry, that’s just a standard. So I think as a nontraditionalist, I
have a big advantage in that area, because I understand and know how to say,
“This is the goal and we didn’t achieve the goal. Now I want to know why we
didn’t achieve the goal and what do we do to correct the situation.” I think
traditionals just look at the past and just continue moving on saying, “Well,
we’re moving towards the goal.” But they don’t really set specific targets on an
annual basis that can be measured. This is new for them. This is common oc-
currence in private industry.
Emerging themes from the responses of traditional superintendents were the
following:
1.Training at universities, such as Ed.D./ Ph.D. programs, master’s programs,
and academies were helpful in preparation for the superintendency.
2.Being a teacher, school site administrator, and various district office posi-
tions provided experiences to draw on for reference, although the superintendency is
not anything like those jobs.
3.Having varied experiences within a school district and with different types
of school districts, large and small, helps to bring insight to different situations.
4.Some experiences outside of the field of education, such as foundation work
and general life experience, helped the superintendents to gain perspective on the bigger
picture and provided opportunities to look at education in a different way, much like
their nontraditional superintendent counterparts.
The last response was a clear connection between the two groups. In this re-
spect, the traditional superintendents seemed to have some levels of admiration for
nontraditional superintendents, as they tended to look at things with a broader perspec-
tive and fresh views. What stands out in these responses is the underlying themes on
59
both sides. The nontraditional superintendents seemed to value their experiences in
management and their technical expertise, whereas the traditional superintendents
seemed to draw more on the theoretical and interpersonal skills. One superintendent
commented on being a teacher and how that taught him “how to treat people . . . and
that’s what it’s all about.” A final quote for this section sums up the general thoughts
of most traditional superintendents:
I can look back on my experiences as a teacher, as an administrator, both ele-
mentary and secondary, as well as district office positions and be able to put all
of the pieces together so I have a very good understanding in regard to what my
principals and other staff members in the district are dealing with on an ongoing
bases, from the complexity of running a high school, which is like a small city
within itself, to being an elementary school principal and interacting with par-
ents of kindergarten students and all the way through the system. That kind of
experience to me is absolutely invaluable. I have a true understanding of the
operation of a school district in its entirety.
The participants in this study reflected a wide variety of experiences and
thoughtful perspectives on the superintendency and urban school districts. In viewing
their background information, motivation toward the superintendency in an urban
district, and their thoughts on previous experiences, one can readily see clear compari-
sons in philosophy and blatant separations in orientation toward running a school
district. One side leaned more toward technical skill and clearcut objectives, while the
other side, having respect for broad perspective and new ideas, leaned more toward the
value of knowing the traditional operations of a school district and training from edu-
cational programs.
60
Federal Accountability Demands
In understanding the attitudes, current challenges, and approaches to current
legislation, namely NCLB, interesting differences and similarities surfaced among the
two groups. It would be best to first view the attitude of both the traditional and nontra-
ditional superintendents toward the NCLB initiative and how they thought it has led to
greater accountability in their school districts. This is shown in Figure 1 as a continuum
of responses, from positive to negative, with more neutral responses toward the middle.
The overall view is provocative and provides a catalyst for some very interesting con-
clusions. At cursory glance, one would be able to see that most of the positive com-
ments came from nontraditional superintendents and the majority of the negative
comments stemmed from the traditional superintendents. However, it is important for
the researcher to note that all 10 superintendents did express some levels of frustration
with the federal law. The combination of quotes and paraphrased comments represents
their sentiments, for the most part. The quotes on the continuum in Figure 1 represent
either the initial responses to the question or a summary of the entire response. Over-
all, there seemed to be two major outcomes. Two quotes found on the continuum bring
it all into perspective. On one end a traditional superintendent blurted out, “I’ve been
stymied by unfunded mandates!” Another nontraditional superintendent smiled and
said, “It’s the best thing since sliced bread!” A particularly interesting neutral response
that came from another nontraditional superintendent was, “I don’t let NCLB determine
what we do here. What we do must be independent of that.” He went on to say, “I
61
62
hold district offices accountable not to NCLB but to the standards that I have set and
that they have agreed to.”
Among the traditional superintendents in this sampling, there seemed to be a
divide. One side was a little less optimistic toward the NCLB initiative, and there was
not as much willingness to credit it with strides that their districts may have made. Re-
ferring to the frustration many educators feel when reviewing the discrepancy between
federal standards and state standards, one traditional superintendent commented that
“NCLB didn’t lead to greater accountability. We already had it in California with our
rigorous state standards. In some way it didn’t help at all.” He went on to talk about
the systematic efforts that have been made within the state of California to develop
standards, identify appropriate text books, and identify comprehensive assessment
programs. He concluded by saying, “I think we have a greater accountability for stu-
dent achievement than what NCLB is asking for.” The other half of the traditional
superintendents seemed to be more positive, at least in their response to this question,
saying things like “accountability now looks like support at the district office and
student achievement at the school site” and that
a very powerful research and evaluation department developed within our
district. Ten or fifteen years this wasn’t as critical but now in our district and
many others the type of talent that lines up in those offices is really different . . .
all of that has been driven by NCLB.
Nontraditional superintendents generally ranged from neutral to positive regard-
ing NCLB. Among them some of the comments were the following: “It [NCLB] gave
us ‘air cover’ or leverage to go in with strong accountability measures” and “It provides
63
external pressure that the unions can’t debate with.” A common thread here was lev-
erage. Most of the nontraditional subjects found that the tenets of the NCLB legislation
provided them with the necessary support to implement programs and procedures to
redirect the district toward higher performance and greater accountability. One nontra-
ditional superintendent claimed, “NCLB caused our district to implement a drastic
program improvement plan” and went on to outline the major 2-year plan that involved
staff development, hiring of new personnel, changing of the grading policy, putting high
schools in smaller learning communities, separation of 9 graders from 10 -12 grad-
th th th
ers, more inclusion for special education students, and built-in time for collaboration
among teachers during their regular work week. Overall, nontraditional superinten-
dents seemed to feel that NCLB is a catalyst for the type of change that is needed in
urban school districts.
Understanding what the superintendents found to be the most challenging com-
ponent of NCLB brings another level of clarity, in which there was an obvious divide in
thinking among the two groups. There was some commonality here as well. Figure 2
shows a Venn diagram with responses of traditional and nontraditional superintendents
on either side. What was common between them is represented in the middle. At first
glance, it is easy to notice the top two comments, which are direct quotes. When asked
what components of the NCLB legislation were most challenging for them as superin-
tendents, one nontraditional superintendent replied, “None of them!” while a traditional
superintendent said, “All of them!”—again, another very interesting contrast. How-
ever, these were not summative statements. There were clear differences in opinion on
64
65
both sides and within the groups. Following is a summary of what the nontraditional
superintendents said in response to the question:
It is unrealistic and unfair the schools to require that special education students
be required to make the same targets as “regular education students.”
The whole section of the legislation involving the mandate for “highly quali-
fied” teachers needs to be revisited.
The process for comparisons between similar schools needs to be reviewed
again and revised to make things equitable and fair.
Schools and districts need to be judged on a “growth model” as opposed to
requiring 100% proficiency across the board, which is impossible.
Lack of resources available to fully comply with the mandates.
The procedural and organizational complexities involved in keeping parents
informed, staffing and credentials, data collection, analysis, and desegregation
are a serious challenge.
Traditional superintendents had concerns about the following:
Keeping the district office, school site staff and students motivated to continue
as oftentimes the “troops” seem fatigued with constant assessment and regimen-
tation of curriculum.
Finding personnel in the face of the “high qualified” teacher mandate, especially
in the areas of special education, science, and mathematics.
The requirement for all subgroups to proceed at the same level and the seem-
ingly unfair penalties involved when the set targets are not met within those
groups. Schools that might have been seen as high performing are now being
labeled as underperforming due to this portion of the legislation.
Lack of funding.
Common themes between the two groups were the frustration with the defini-
tion of “highly qualified teacher”; problems with requirements and reporting on minor-
ity, ELL, and disabled subgroups; and the lack of funding and resources available to
66
bring about all of the required changes. One idea that separated itself from most of the
others on both sides was the concern of a traditional superintendent about motivation.
This might possibly have been due to his perspective as a traditional educator and the
experiences he had had over the many years served in the field of education with federal
and state demands always coming down the pipeline. He found a difficult challenge
finding ways “to keep the troops motivated” in continuing the work toward student
achievement saying, “a sense of fatigue is beginning to set in as we continue to ask
more and more of our practitioners. I am not quite sure how you push the refresher
button, but you don’t stop trying to do so.”
A third angle on NCLB and accountability measures toward student achieve-
ment is provided in Figure 3, which shows leadership practices/strategies initiated that
may have brought about success in meeting some of the targets set forth by the federal
legislation. Figure 3 delineates a summary of the responses to this question, along with
some inferences and connections to subjects mentioned throughout the interview. The
top portion of each box shows the specific leadership strategy used; the bottom portion
shows the inferred outcome, based on the total response to the question and other
aspects of the interview that were related. In general, what was found here is that tra-
ditional superintendents employed strategies such as (a) strategic planning and thinking
ahead; (b) making the district office more accessible to school sites; (c) directing staff
to look closely at data and where the gaps were for certain groups; (4) initiating instruc-
tional leadership staff development programs for principals; and (5) employing a uni-
form, comprehensive assessment program. In addition to helping to meet some of the
67
68
targets set by NCLB legislation, additional outcomes were (a) a more proactive ap-
proach toward problem solving; (b) increased support for school sites to create greater
focus on student achievement; (c) the closing of some of the achievement gaps; (d) the
development of strong instructional leaders; and (5) a clear rise in student achievement,
with better tools to monitor it.
Their nontraditional counterparts used some of the same approaches, with a few
interesting differences. Strategies mentioned were (a) not tying the district to some of
the unrealistic benchmarks set by NCLB, (b) initiating a greater focus on data, (c) ini-
tiating a strong focus on staff development across the district, (d) implementing regular
meetings with the district’s entire management team, and (e) management by objec-
tives. These strategies led to outcomes beyond just meeting some of the set targets.
Results were seen that involved (a) a greater focus on school achievement instead of
school failures; (b) a general rise in overall academic achievement, districtwide; (c)
administrators and teachers providing better service to school sites toward greater
students achievement, (d) overall strong focus on student achievement, and (e) a more
focused, effective monitoring process.
Both traditional and nontraditional superintendents focused heavily on data and
the need to collect, disaggregate, and analyze them to align the district toward high
student achievement. Both traditional and nontraditional superintendents created fo-
cused staff development programs to create more knowledgeable staff and better serv-
ice for students. A clear difference in leadership approach was the nontraditional super-
intendents’ desire not to tie the district to unrealistic benchmarks and the feeling that
69
there was a need to have regular meetings with the entire district management team to
create a sense of cohesiveness in monitoring set objectives. Traditional superintendents
spoke of making the district office more accessible to school sites as a way to ensure
more support. A salient comment that supported the general views of the traditional
superintendent was as follows:
Leadership really plays back to involving the district, including the administra-
tion in each of the schools; identifying what their particular needs are within the
school, and then providing a lot of staff development and training . . . making
certain that the infrastructure at the district level is meeting the needs of the
schools. Our principals do have access to all of my cabinet members, as well as
all the directors with simply a phone call; they don’t have to get through a lot of
red tape in regard to making direct contact with somebody to get services imme-
diately.
The general focus of the nontraditional superintendents could be summed up by this
comment:
I don’t teach old guys in this district to meet that legislation’s demands. I orga-
nize this district to meet the education of children. And I have to deal with that
legislation, but I don’t let it drive my strategy; it is a compliance piece of legisla-
tion. Now, it does, however call to my attention that I got to keep focusing upon
the subgroup of special ed, African American, Hispanic. You know, it makes
me look at the chief gaps. But it is a major tool. Do I sit here and worry about
do I make that law or don’t? No . . . and set this district tied to an unrealistic
expectation . . . no. You well know . . . to get totally perfect within 14 years or
whatever is ridiculous. I’m not going to tie the district to that kind of notion. It
is kind of like my going to the doc and he says, “You know I want you to get
down to 98 lbs.” You know, give me 170 as a target—don’t give 98, you under-
stand, see?
Overall, there was some optimism and concern on both sides in regard to NCLB
and the issues surrounding accountability and student achievement. Both traditional
and nontraditional superintendents seemed to approach this aspect of accountability in
urban school districts with worries about funding, unfair expectations for subgroups,
70
and the challenges surrounding the “highly-qualified-teacher” issue. They all seem to
have central agreement on the need for accountability and could see the value in the
initiative. Some nontraditional superintendents seemed to be embracing the legislation
while others were neutral to it, proclaiming it to be just a tool and not a key focus in
their attempts toward reform. Others in the nontraditional group were appreciative of
the leverage it provided to implement strong accountability measures within their dis-
tricts. Some traditional superintendents seemed to feel that accountability measures
were already in place (at least in California) and that such aggressive legislation was not
helpful at all. However, as a result of the initiative, their approach was still with an
increased focus on data and staff development.
Community Involvement
Superintendents were asked a question about strategies they had used to gain or
maintain accountability to their surrounding communities. Responses to this question,
from both sides, all seemed to center around communication and keeping the commu-
nity informed on the current business of the district, progress made, and efforts toward
higher performance levels. These comments were viewed, on both traditional and non-
traditional sides, as cycles with continuous connection and ongoing stability. Figure 4
illustrates this concept, incorporating the responses of both groups. Nontraditional
superintendents cited public forums, parents support groups, local school councils,
annual reports, and newsletters as ways to gain and maintain a sense of accountability to
their communities. The overall theme among their responses seemed to be
71
72
communication and empowerment. Traditional superintendents mentioned identifying
clear community relations goals, an annual “State of the District” address, comprehen-
sive monitoring reports, quality customer processes, and also newsletters as strategies
used for success in this area. The overarching theme among traditional superintendents
was communication and collaborative goal setting. Both groups focused heavily on
maintaining regular communication with the public through weekly, monthly, or quar-
terly newsletters, annual reports, or public addresses.
This was also an area in which a few traditional superintendents expressed some
frustration regarding community involvement. They spoke of lack of community
support and innovative programs initiated with no sustainability due to lack of partici-
pation on the part of parents. An extremely frustrated traditional superintendent stated:
I’ve had every program; I’ve tried every strategy trying to get communities ac-
countable. I’ve been a failure here. I don’t know how to say this. I have not
figured out how to bring the community in and keep them there, okay! And in
accountability, I’m talking about not only the parents, but I’m talking about
nonprofits, I’m talking about city councils, I’m talking about the board—every-
thing in the community. I’ve bought programs; I’ve hired consultants. There’s
a disconnect between urban and community. When you look at a suburban
district, you’ve got the rotary, they have Kiwanis—you’ve got foundations,
you’ve got all of this fabric tied to the schemes. The urbans, you’ll get it but
then you may lose it. You may gain it, but there’s not consistency at all—this
fabric that embraces urban schools . . . it’s disjointed.
One traditional superintendent even mentioned the fact that his district was attempting
to seek assistance from a marketing company to help improve the image of the district
and to gain more support.
73
Interestingly, nontraditional superintendents did not respond to this question
with any particular frustrations. However, one nontraditional superintendent did offer a
solution to the problem of lacking parental and community involvement:
You know, you can’t demand accountability unless you’re going to empower,
and you can’t demand accountability unless you’re willing to improve school
communication. And you’re not going to be able to demand accountability
unless you give the community a presence in the school. So, what we do is we
push to create local school councils. We have parent and community representa-
tives in the schools who work with the schools, who have some governing
authority in the schools.
He went on to give examples of how schools in his district had begun to implement
local school councils and parent support groups, allowing these auxiliary organizations
to have some authority and input even in aspects like principal and teaching staff se-
lection, along with charging them to encourage other parents and community members
to get involved in school programs.
An unexpected finding was that some of the traditional superintendents’ re-
sponses were strategies one would assume that nontraditional superintendents would
employ, such as a quality process for client-centered, customer-friendly service and
comprehensive monitoring reports. Conversely, some of the responses of the nontradi-
tional superintendents (e.g., local school councils and parent support groups) were strat-
egies one might assume a traditional educator would implement. Perhaps this can be
attributed to the current age of accountability or the set requirements that are now
placed before all school districts in terms of parental involvement and parental notifi-
cation (i.e., state requirements for school site councils to be formed and informed, Title
I funding guidelines that require 1% of the budget be spent on parent involvement, etc.).
74
Or perhaps this can be attributed to superintendents and education leaders in general,
traditional and nontraditional, communicating and sharing information about what
works in urban communities and what does not work. Whatever the attribution, it
makes for an interesting comparison and discussion.
School Board Relations
When asked questions about key areas of focus in maintaining accountability to
the school board, most of the superintendents paused to think for a few minutes (some
chuckled) and make statements about how they have dealt with their respective school
boards over the years, speaking from many years of experience as traditional superin-
tendents or only a few years, as was the case for most of the nontraditional superinten-
dents. Summarizing the responses of nontraditional superintendents led to the follow-
ing conclusions:
1.It is important to submit annual budgets that are timely, understandable, and
reflect the mission and goals of the district.
2.Regular meetings, preferably weekly, are important to stay in tune with the
thoughts and concerns of the board and to keep them generally informed regarding all
major business of the district, as well as crisis situations that might appear on the news.
3.The goals of the district must be developed in a collaborative setting, along
with the board, instead of working against the board or having board members work
against the superintendent.
75
4.It is important to be accessible, responsive, and informative in the eyes of
board members.
5.It is extremely helpful and crucial to develop a personal relationship with
each board member.
Traditional superintendents responded with similar “rules of thumb,” with a few
differences and seemingly a little more insight. Key areas of focus for them were the
following:
1.Communicate with board members and make sure that they are never sur-
prised by anything. One superintendent mentioned a one-page “Friday Update” as a
way to do this. Another mentioned a “Friday Packet” sent out to each board member
every week.
2.Sponsor workshops and training so that the board stays abreast of current
issues in educational strategies being used and ways to advance the district toward
greater proficiency. One superintendent spoke of a “90-Day Workshop,” where ques-
tions would be asked such as, “What are we going to do as an organization?” and
“What do we want to see in our district in the next 90 days?”
3.Make sure that board members understand their role of governance, and
remind them of policy and procedure when necessary, as they do tend to overstep
boundaries at times.
4.Quarterly reports from the superintendent and district departments should be
regular agenda items so that board members stay constantly in tune with the district foci
and federal mandates toward instruction and student achievement.
76
5.Be straight forward with board members and stick to your principles. Do
not give in to their personal whims and desires.
An interesting comment that kind of brings these thoughts together was the following
My motto has always been, “You don’t want to provide them any surprises,”
and also that they are, in fact, the people who represent the pulse of this commu-
nity and that we should be listening to their sense of what might be taking place,
and what kind of focus areas we might need to zero in on. As far as account-
ability to the school board is concerned, it really is very, very important for me
to provide them the literature, the latest information, the latest trends, updates,
workshops, and superintendent reports, so they feel empowered to be able to
discuss and be knowledgeable about those things that are taking place on an
ongoing basis.
Common themes on both sides existed within the realms of (a) maintaining
consistent, relevant communication with board members and making sure that there are
never any surprises for them; and (b) developing goals with the board in the form of a
collaborative setting, where forward-thinking questions are asked about the direction of
the district and goals to be set.
When asked about ways that they might have been prepared to deal with school
board members through life experience or previous jobs, responses from nontraditional
superintendents referenced their previous job experiences and use of political skills,
communication skills, team building, and the ability to create clear, concise memos or
“briefing papers.” Traditional superintendents referenced their years of experience in
the field, and most of them commented that they kind of got to see how it was “on the
way up the ladder” as either a district office director, assistant superintendent, or deputy
superintendent. Although those jobs are quite different than the job of an actual super-
intendent, many of them felt that those experience at least gave them a “bird’s eye
77
view” of what it was going to be like before they attained the position. Traditional
superintendents offered a great deal in the way of strategies toward maintaining ac-
countability and keeping a strong superintendent/school board team. Other salient
comments from this group that summarized the important points in this section were the
following:
The board, like a staff, needs to be trained. And they truly need to understand
what their role is . . . and their role is one of governance.
I do these 90-day board workshops, and I used that very successfully for 10
years in another district and we’ve started on that in my current district. And
it’s not original with me. In my 1 year when I was appointed superintendent
st
back in ’92, I was reading a book by Lee Iacocca, and he said, “In any company
you ought to get the CEO and the trustees together and really drill down on
where you’re going organizationally, what do they expect in the next 90 days.”
The board needs to talk to me in an evaluative conversation about any concerns
that they have about my leadership, things that I need to get from them, things
that they need to get from me. All of this is designed to make your regular
meetings more trustee-type meetings, rather than sitting there until midnight,
sending sometimes a chaotic message to the public about the direction of the
school system.
Summarizing this section, a number of similarities were found in the strategies
of nontraditional superintendents and traditional superintendents as they outlined key
elements in maintaining accountability to their school boards. Most of the similarities
revolved around the ideas of collaboration and constant, consistent communication with
board members. There were differences in the way that they expressed their thoughts;
however, there were no concrete dissimilarities in thought or strategy between the two
groups (see Figure 5).
78
79
Perceptions, Advantages, and Disadvantages of
Traditional or Nontraditional Superintendents
Questions regarding nontraditional superintendents and the advantages or dis-
advantages of their leadership in urban school districts incited a great deal of emotion,
thoughtful reflection, and oftentimes humor. This argument, for lack of a better term,
helped to refocus the findings in this study and made for an excellent transition into the
summary of findings in the final chapter. Table 5 provides a complete synopsis of the
responses. There were obviously some very strong feelings on both sides about the
decision of urban schools boards to hire “outsiders” for the top position in the field of
education. Both traditional and nontraditional superintendents offered interesting
points for and against such a decision. Nontradtionals tended to think it was a good
idea, but a few expressed concerns about the lack of curricular knowledge and lack of
insight regarding instructional techniques. Traditional superintendents certainly agreed
with this deficit in their knowledge and understanding. One traditional superintendents
said:
A lot of them are bright, a lot of them are quick learners, but the notion that in
this business someone is going to walk in and be in the position that’s furthest
from the classroom and start dictating in a top-down manner what ought to take
place in the classroom is a really foolish and silly notion.
Another said:
If you’re truly looking at it, at addressing all of the needs of students in an in-
structional environment, I think you really need to have that experience of being
a classroom teacher, of being associated with schools, having that fundamental
understanding of the operation of schools and what they did and how they ac-
complish the goals, how you train your people and what’s important about
training your people, how you interact with your teachers, how you interact with
80
81
82
83
your labor organizations—which I do believe is different in the private sector
versus the public sector.
Speculating on the plight of urban schools and the assumed lack of qualified, willing
leadership, another traditional superintendent said:
I think it’s out of a desperation that we’ve brought the nontraditional superinten-
dent into the foray. I don’t know how you substitute for teaching in the class-
room being the principal and understanding the uniqueness of educational para-
digms. There have been very few highly successful nontraditional superinten-
dents—a lot of hype but the bottom line, other than the guy who’s deceased now
in Seattle, maybe a couple of others, most not too successful. I define success as
achievement, closing the achievement gap—that’s the measure of leadership in
urban districts. Have you got more children achieving? And most of the people
who are having success with that are people that were teachers and principals.
I’m really a proponent of the traditional superintendent.
Another perspective from this traditional superintendent spoke of the anomaly of non-
traditional superintendents and how they are often treated like “miracle workers”:
People are searching; boards are searching. They’re trying to see, “Well, can we
bring this phenomena that’s never been a teacher and never been a principal to
perform miracles?” It’s not about a miracle—it’s about hard work, dedication,
commitment, courage. It’s tough . . . toughest job in America . . . to be an urban
teacher, principal, superintendent, and work in an urban environment. And I see
very few people that have earned their stripes!
However, a few traditional superintendents did express positive thoughts and admira-
tion for the way nontraditional superintendents tended to look at things in a fresh new
way, without biases and without inhibition to ask fundamental questions about what
educators do. These may be questions that individuals who have been in the field of
education for many years should have asked a long time ago. One traditional superin-
tendent shared this story:
I remember being at the USC Dean’s house where we were—some superin-
tendents—were prepping a nontraditional candidate for an interview for the Los
84
Angeles superintendency, and we got into the issue of special education and a
different kind of discipline standard for special education students. And this
guy had been a Wells Fargo Bank executive, and he said, “Let me see if I under-
stand what you’re saying. You’re supposed to guarantee safe schools under
California law, but you actually have certain youngsters that you apply a differ-
ent discipline standard to. Why would you ever do that?” And I thought, “You
know what? That’s a very refreshing perspective on our work.” The questions
that are often raised by nontraditionals about what the heck we’re doing, it’s
good. I think it’s a valuable perspective.
Nontraditional superintendents were, overall, very critical of their traditional
counterparts, claiming,
I really believe that nontraditionals will not come in with an attitude of, “We’ve
already tried that and it didn’t work.” I believe a lot of traditionals tend to make
excuses for failures; they give up on students way too early.
Another one made the comment:
I have a whole other career and a different perspective as a result of my back-
ground. I come to this position with a great sense of speed and urgency in doing
the job. This is unlike my traditional counterparts.
However, the nontraditional superintendents did realize their limitations in the areas of
curriculum and instruction, and most recognized the importance of having that knowl-
edge. Also, more seasoned nontraditional superintendents recognized the limitations
embedded within the system of public education. One spoke on these concepts:
We are more willing to take risks. We are not as risk adverse as those who are
traditional here. And I don’t say that in a mean way. I know why they’re risk
adverse. They are dealing with a system that doesn’t tolerate much risk. There
are advantages and disadvantages. Now, one of the things that I think is abso-
lutely essential to a superintendent is to understand what is good instruction.
Instruction, instruction, instruction is the center of this business and most non-
traditionalists will probably come in not having that experience or maybe not
that orientation. They need to acquire that in order to be successful.
In a reflective moment, he went on to say:
85
Look . . . this is the toughest job I’ve ever had. This is much more difficult than
being governor. I’ve put more energy—intellectual energy—into this job than I
think I ever did as governor. Problems are more intractable in urban education.
Politics are very much more demanding and difficult. It takes a remarkably
skilled person to do this job right. I have a great deal of admiration for people
who do these jobs, and I have a great deal of humility about doing it.
Overall, both types of urban school superintendents seemed to clearly recognize
the advantages and disadvantages, and obviously each side favored its own orientation.
In summation, a broad view of the data collected from 10 urban school superintendents
led to some intriguing conclusions. Traditional and nontraditional superintendents had
both comparative and contrasting approaches to accountability in the areas of meeting
federal mandates, community involvement, and school board relations. Additionally,
they had strong feelings and deep convictions about the orientation of traditional lead-
ership, as opposed to nontraditional. Greater synthesis and connections to prior re-
search are discussed in the next chapter.
86
CHAPTER 5
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Overview of the Problem
Urban school districts are in a state of crisis, as there is a lack of qualified
leadership (Glass, 2001). The complexities of the position of the urban school superin-
tendent have qualified it by researchers as “The Impossible Job” (Fuller, et. al., 2003).
Although recent data collected would lead us to believe the tenure of the average urban
superintendent is about 4.5 years, there is still a very high turnover rate among urban
school superintendents (Borja, 2002). This shortage in viable candidates for the super-
intendency, the increased focus on accountability measures and school reform efforts,
along with a feeling among urban school boards that change is needed, is what has led
to the recent phenomenon of the nontraditional superintendent (Cuban, 2001).
A nontraditional superintendent is an educational leader who has had a success-
ful career as a leader in his/her field and wishes to take on the challenge of leading a
school district. A traditional superintendent is one who has come up through the ranks
as an educator and has taken on the superintendency as a natural progression of his/her
career. One would think that the latter is the most logical option, given the current era
of school reform and accountability; however, school boards have taken to hiring the
former. A governor in the Los Angeles USD, an attorney in the San Diego USD, and a
retired army general in the Seattle School District are just a few examples of the non-
traditional option taken by urban school boards in efforts toward school reform. This
87
study provided an in-depth look at data collected from 10 superintendents, 5 traditional
and 5 nontraditional. It compared their ideas, thoughts, and strategies toward account-
ability, specifically toward federal mandates, their surrounding communities, and their
local school boards.
Purpose of the Study
The objective of this study was to compare and contrast the ideas, thoughts, and
philosophies of traditional and nontraditional superintendents of urban school districts
within the current era of education, often referred to as the “age of accountability.”
Ten interviews were conducted with superintendents of urban school districts, 5 of
which were considered to be traditional and 5 nontraditional. The overarching research
question was the following: What are the philosophical and strategic differences and
similarities in approach between traditional and nontraditional urban school superin-
tendents toward accountability measures in the areas of community involvement,
school board relations, and meeting the demands of federal mandates?
Four guiding questions helped to focus the study:
1.Are there differences or similarities in the ways traditional and nontradi-
tional superintendents approach federal and state mandates, specifically the NCLB
initiative?
2.How do their strategies compare in gaining and maintaining accountability
to their surrounding communities?
88
3.Are there differences or similarities in their approach toward accountability
to their respective school boards?
4.What are their views on the advantages and disadvantages of urban school
districts having a nontraditional leader, as opposed to a traditional leader, and how does
one group perceive the other?
Research Findings and Connections to Literature
Looking at the routes that many of these individuals took to get to the superin-
tendency makes for an interesting comparison between the groups. Highlights pertain-
ing to their motivation and transferable skills are noted:
1.Both traditional and nontraditional superintendents who participated in this
study seemed to be motivated by desires to do greater good for society and see improve-
ment in urban schools.
2.Although it cannot be said that traditional superintendents use money as a
motivating factor toward assuming the superintendency, an assumption can be made
that for the nontraditional participants in this study, monetary gain was not a motivator.
Many of them made statements that would lead one to believe they were compensated
at a much higher level in their previous careers.
3.In dealing with current accountability measures and the general operation of
an urban school district, nontraditional superintendents may lean on a different skill set
than traditional superintendents—from their previous careers—referencing expertise in
89
finance, a clear orientation toward accountability, and a drive toward higher perfor-
mance and meeting targets, .
4.In dealing with current accountability measures and the general operation of
an urban school district, traditional superintendents tend to draw on more theoretical
approaches, referencing training from Ph.D. and Ed.D. programs, as well as a more
practical approach, coming up through the ranks as teachers, school site administrators,
district office staff, and assistant superintendents.
Relevant research regarding motivation to become an urban school superinten-
dent points to the desire to give back to the community or to see changes happen in
urban schools (LaFee, 2004), as was the case with most of the participants in this study.
However, there is a high turnover rate in the position of the superintendency, due to the
stress and complexities of the office (Borja, 2002). With long work hours, intense
public scrutiny, increased accountability from both federal and state entities, and com-
paratively lower pay, it has become difficult to recruit and maintain strong leadership in
the urban superintendent’s office (Bianchi, 2003). The high turnover rate and the
general lack of viable candidates to take on the position are among the factors that have
led to the nontraditional option (Cuban, 2001). On the issue of training and experi-
ence, school boards are split between arguments. One side of the debate argues whether
nontraditional candidates should even be allowed to apply for the superintendency,
having had no experience in the field, while the other side claims that the requirements
that hinder their applications are unfair and stifling to boards seeking new inroads to
school reform (Hess, 2003). Still, nontraditional superintendents tend to bring new
90
ideas, form business-oriented professions (e.g., corporations, military, law, etc.) and
may draw on different skills from their experiences in running organizations, leader-
ship, and accountability that causes them to ask crucial questions about what educators
do and how they do it (Fuller et al., 2003). However, the nontraditional superintendent
remains an anomaly, as traditional educators are still the most likely choice of urban
school boards, based on knowledge and years of experience (Hurwitz, 2001).
Research Question 1
Are there differences or similarities in the ways traditional and nontraditional
superintendents approach federal and state mandates, specifically the NCLB initiative?
Examining the data leads to a general picture of the attitudes, recognized challenges,
and identified leadership strategies used between traditional and nontraditional superin-
tendents. Figures 1-3 in chapter 4 provide a visual representation of these three con-

cepts and help to clarify the following sections.
Attitudes toward whether or not NCLB has led to greater accountability (Figure
1). Among the traditional superintendents in this sampling, there seemed to be a divide.
One side was a little less optimistic toward the NCLB initiative and not willing to credit
it with increasing accountability. The other half of the traditional superintendents
seemed to be more positive, citing more focus on data and increased student achieve-
ment as benefits.
Nontraditional superintendents generally ranged from neutral to positive. A
common thread among many of their comments about the NCLB initiative was
91
leverage. Many nontraditional superintendents felt that NCLB allowed them to initiate
strong accountability measures that would have been resisted before.
The less optimistic attitudes of the traditional superintendents about NCLB are
prevalent amongst many superintendents in urban districts, due to numerous implemen-
tation challenges that revolve around lack of funding, problems with reporting proce-
dures, unrealistic benchmarks for subgroups, and credentialing/staffing issues (Cohn,
2005). However, it has sparked an increased focus on data, high student achievement,
and standards that many superintendents support (Strecher et al., 2003). Further, the
ideas that many nontraditional superintendents subscribe to regarding leverage or “air
cover,” so that they can implement strong accountability measures within their districts
without a fight, would be supported by the edict that new accountability measures have
created a vehicle for improvement in urban schools (Datnow, 2004). Overall, the atti-
tudes of both groups pointed to the struggle that urban districts have in meeting the
demands, as well as the appreciation that some have for the initiative, as stated by Paul
Valles, a nontraditional superintendent: “We will continue to use the tools provided us
under the No Child Left Behind Act to accomplish this, and we will not allow excuses
to get in the way of achievement” (U.S. Department of Education, 2004, n.p.).
Recognized challenges in meeting the demands of NCLB (Figure 2). Traditional
superintendents found funding issues to be a great challenge, along with finding per-
sonnel to meet the “highly-qualified-teacher” requirement. But they were also con-
cerned with motivation of staff and students in the face of such harsh accountability
92
measures, as well as unfair penalties for schools that were high performing and were
now being considered underperforming due to problems with “similar schools compari-
sons” and requirements for subgroups (NCLB, 2002).
Nontraditional superintendents felt as though aspects in the NCLB initiative
pertaining to the achievement requirements for subgroups and mandates for “highly
qualified” teachers should be revisited. They had concern about the 100% proficiency
edict (by the year 2014), the process for comparing “similar schools,” and also the lack
of funding available to comply with the mandates.
What seemed to be a major issue on both sides in this area was the lack of
funding. This frustration is felt by superintendents across the nation. Cohn (2005)
stated that “the challenge for superintendents comes from the law’s equally powerful
insistence on consequences for lack of progress and the usual resource shortfalls associ-
ated with large scale federal education initiatives” (p. 157).
A further connection to Cohn’s statement above is the nontraditional superinten-
dents’ frustration with the idea of the federal government demanding 100% proficiency
and problems with how schools are compared and evaluated. This was further outlined
in the work of Sunderman and Kim (2005), where specific areas for revision in the
NCLB legislation were identified. Two specific areas were (a) that states should be
allowed to experiment with different approaches to accountability that include multiple
measures for evaluating performance and achievement; and (b) that subgroup rules
should be revised so that student scores count for only one subgroup, but districts
93
should still encourage schools to disaggregate data in a way that shows progress for all
without being penalized.
The issue of motivation of staff, raised by a traditional superintendent, was
unique in this section, as no other superintendent expressed such a concern. The
thought comes to mind that this issue might be addressed within the amalgamation of
leadership theories expressed by Bennis (2003), Johnson (1996), and Yukl (2002).
Johnson purported that a superintendent must show leadership in all areas of curricu-
lum, politics, and management. He or she must have a passionate vision for the future
of the school district and be willing to take risks to the attain it, all while developing
trust among subordinates and always showing integrity (Bennis, 2003). Additionally,
an urban school superintendent must have more than just the authority given to him or
her by virtue of the position. He or she must have power to influence the behavior of
staff members, students, parents and the surrounding community (Yukl, 2002). Be-
cause leadership is situational, a superintendent must gauge the situation and use his/
her personal attributes as a leader to motivate or influence the behavior of staff (Yukl)
to continue to work toward the shared vision of the organization (Bennis).
Strategies used in attempts to meet the targets (Figure 3). In general it was
found that traditional and nontraditional superintendents used varying leadership
strategies that they felt may have contributed to some success in their districts:
1.Traditional superintendents employed strategies such as strategic planning
and thinking ahead, making the district office more accessible to school sites, directing
94
staff to look closely at data and where the gaps were for certain groups, initiating in-
structional leadership staff development programs for principals, and employing a
uniform comprehensive assessment program. Some of the outcomes were a more pro-
active approach toward problem solving, increased support for school sites to create
greater focus on student achievement, the closing of some achievement gaps, the de-
velopment of strong instructional leaders, and a clear rise in student achievement, with
better tools to monitor it.
2.Their nontraditional counterparts cited not tying the district to some of the
unrealistic benchmarks set my NCLB; initiating a greater focus on data; initiating a
strong focus on staff development across the district; implementing regular meetings
with the district’s entire management team; and management by objectives as strategies
applied that achieved results such as a greater focus on school achievement instead of
school failures, a general rise in overall academic achievement districtwide, administra-
tors and teachers providing better service to school sites toward greater student achieve-
ment, overall strong focus on student achievement, and a more focused and effective
monitoring process.
3.Both groups mentioned a heavy focus on data and staff development as key
initiatives toward success.
4.A clear difference in approach was the nontraditional superintendent’s
desire not to tie the district to unrealistic benchmarks and the feeling that there was a
need to have regular meetings with the entire district management team in order to
create a sense of cohesiveness in monitoring set objectives. Traditional superintendents
95
may have felt that making the district office more accessible was more important to
support school sites and the community.
In this section on leadership strategies, the use of data, as outlined by Schmoker
(1999), is of particular relevance. Key elements included the following:
1.Data help to monitor performance.
2.Data are essential in working toward performance goals.
3.Data must be utilized judiciously and with discretion.
4.Data must be collected often and on a regular basis.
5.Teachers and principals (and superintendents) must make curricular and
instructional decisions based on solid data. Both traditional and nontraditional superin-
tendents in this study show agreement in this area.
Fuller et al. (2003) conducted a study that outlined major challenges for urban
superintendents. What was found was that nontraditional superintendents seemed to
struggle or worry more about internal pressures, whereas traditional superintendents
worried more about external pressures. Nontraditional superintendents were generally
more concerned about staff conflicts, procedural challenges, and the cohesiveness of the
organization—which might be why the nontraditional superintendents who participated
in this study thought it was very important to have regular meetings with the entire
management team. Traditional superintendents tended to be more concerned with the
outward appearance of the district, political issues, and the external dynamics of run-
ning a school district, which might explain the comments made by traditional
96
superintendents regarding using leadership strategies directed toward more accessibility
and support for schools and communities.
Research Question 2
How do their strategies compare in gaining and maintaining accountability
to their surrounding communities? The involvement of the surrounding community
was another area addressed in this study. Superintendents were asked about ways that
they gained or maintained accountability to their surrounding communities. The find-
ings here provide an interesting comparison in approach to this very important aspect of
a superintendent’s job. See Figure 4 for a visual representation of the following:
1.Traditional superintendents mentioned identifying clear community rela-
tions goals, an annual “State of the District” address, comprehensive monitoring re-
ports, quality customer service processes, and also newsletters as strategies used for
success in this area. The overarching theme among traditional superintendents was
communication and collaborative goal setting.
2.Nontraditional superintendents cited public forums, parents support groups,
local school councils, annual reports, and newsletters as ways to gain and maintain a
sense of accountability to their communities. The overall theme among their responses
seemed to be communication and empowerment.
3.Both groups focused heavily on maintaining regular communication with
the public through weekly, monthly, or quarterly newsletters; annual reports; or public
addresses.
97
4.Traditional superintendents used strategies that focused more on goal set-
ting, while nontraditional superintendents mentioned strategies that revolved around
empowerment of community members to gain greater accountability.
According to most of the research on community involvement and accountabil-
ity, a key factor in success is communication (Hayes, 2001). U.S. Senator Arthur
Vandenberg was quoted by Harvey (2003) as saying, “If you expect people to share
your agenda, you have to let them in on your takeoffs and your landings” (p. 35). This
idea permeated throughout this section of the study on community involvement and the
way that superintendents gained or maintained it. Ideas around collaborative goal
setting, as mentioned by traditional superintendents, and community empowerment, as
noted by nontraditional superintendents, correlate with the findings in a study by the
Harvard Family Research Project (2003), where successful strategies used by urban
leaders for public accountability were outlined. Strategies involved (a) public conver-
sations that were open and allowed community members to examine problems and find
solutions; (b) parents and community members monitoring programs, reviewing infor-
mation about schools, and understanding reform efforts; (c) encouraging parents to
participate in the political arena to counterbalance the influences on public officials that
have allowed substandard conditions for urban schools; and (d) organizing with the
community to set culture and develop a willingness to build relationships. Again, a key
element in making all of these things happen in urban communities is communication
(Harvey).
98
Research Question 3
Are there differences or similarities in their approach toward accountability to
their respective school boards? Superintendents were asked questions about key focus
areas for maintaining accountability to the local school board. Figure 5 gave a clear
picture of what their responses were:
1.Traditional superintendents said that it was important to communicate with
board members, sponsor workshops and trainings for them to make sure that board
members understood their role of governance, submit quarterly reports from district
departments, stick to one’s principles, and not give in to personal whims.
2.Nontraditional superintendents felt that it was important to submit timely,
understandable annual budgets and other reports; maintain regular meetings; set goals
with board members in a collaborative setting; be responsive to them; and develop
relationships with them.
3.Common themes on both sides were consistent communication and collabo-
ration on goals and objectives for the district.
The most relevant research that surfaced in light of the concerns of both tradi-
tional and nontraditional superintendents was cited in the work of Goodman and
Zimmerman (2000). The authors outlined the characteristics of a board/superintendent
team that involves (a) having as its top priority the creation of teamwork and advocacy
for high achievement; (b) providing education leadership for the community that
includes long-range planning and developing a shared vision; (c) creating strong link-
ages with social service; (d) setting districtwide policies ties to the shared vision; (e)
99
approving an annual school district budget, developed by the superintendent and
adopted by the board; (f) ensuring the safety and adequacy of all school facilities; (g)
providing resources for the professional development of teachers, principals, and other
staff; (h) periodically evaluating its own leadership, governance, and teamwork for
children; and (I) overseeing negotiations with employee groups. These are all key focus
areas identified in maintaining accountability to a school board, the stability of the
school district, and the tenure of the superintendent (Townley, 1992). Strategies men-
tioned by the superintendents participating in this study directly correlated with the
research in this area.
Research Question 4
What are their views on the advantages and disadvantages of urban school
districts having a nontraditional leader, as opposed to a traditional leader, and how
does one group perceive the other? When asked questions that pertained to the recent
phenomenon of urban school districts hiring nontraditional superintendents, a myriad of
responses came that led to some insightful conclusions. Table 4 provided a summary of
all responses:
1.All but one of the traditional superintendents had an initial response that was
either positive or neutral, saying that it was not a bad idea if the right person is chosen,
as in the case of John Stanford, recognizing that in education innovative approaches are
always being sought. The one blatant negative respondent was clear in his opinion that
“a school district is much different than a business.”
100
2.Nontraditional superintendents had interesting responses. Among, them one
was neutral, claiming that “it’s not a recent phenomenon . . . I don’t think there is any
real difference.” Overall, the nontraditional superintendents seemed to feel that they
provided a good alternative but that it depended on the individual and only a select few
could be successful.
3.Advantages noted by traditional superintendents were that nontraditionals
tended to come in with fresh ideas and often asked question that caused educators to
question traditional ways.
4.Advantages noted by nontraditional superintendents revolved around the
ideas that those who come from different backgrounds have more innovative ideas,
may have more expertise in finance, tend to move more quickly on initiatives for
change, and are much more willing to take risks.
5.Disadvantages noted by traditional superintendents were steeped in the ideas
that lack of knowledge in the area of curriculum and instruction preclude nontradition-
als from being truly successful. Additionally, their lack of understanding about educa-
tional processes and procedures also hamper their abilities.
6.Disadvantages noted by nontraditional superintendents indicated lack of
curricular knowledge as a real problem as well, but also mentioned the idea that non-
traditional superintendents may tend to work too quickly, with little respect for how
children learn and grow.
A broad overview of the literature specifically on traditional and nontraditional
superintendents would lead one to believe that the jury is out on whether or not one is
101
more effective than the other (Fuller et al., 2003). It is known that the demand for non-
traditional superintendents in urban schools has come from the “growing impatience
with low student achievement and high school cost” and the desire of most school
boards for a change in the type of leadership they may have experienced in the past
(Mathews, 1999, p. 2). Nontraditional superintendents are characterized as leaders who
will “shake up” the system, take risks, and embrace the challenge of reform (LaFee,
2004;Willi, 2004). This was the general feeling among most of the participants in this
study. The problem with this is the fact that these individuals came in as school district
leaders with knowledge of businesses procedures and how to run an effective organiza-
tion, but with no knowledge of curriculum and instruction and how schools work
(Hurwitz, 2001). This idea was also supported in the data collected for the study.
Another important connection to current research is the idea of naivete and the
point that Fuller et al. (2003) made in stating that the lack of knowledge of educational
processes and procedures and familiarity with the technical “lingo” in the field might
actually be a benefit, as nontraditional superintendents are “not burdened by the tradi-
tional wisdom” (p. 54). This causes them to ask evaluative questions, initially for
information, but the end result is a challenge in the system (Fuller et al.).
While some school boards have lost confidence in traditional “rise-from-the-
ranks” superintendents (Cuban, 2001), nontraditional superintendents are currently still
an anomaly (Hurwitz, 2001). Most school boards are still hiring trained educators to
lead their school districts, and many have returned to the traditional route after a bout
with a nontraditional leader (Hurwitz).
102
Exceptional examples exist on both sides and were often highlighted in the
literature. John Stanford, former army general-turned superintendent, was a nontradi-
tional superintendent with great respect and admiration from the community and the
school district (Lilly, 1996). He quickly began to implement reform strategies such as
(a) a weighted student funding system that allowed monies to travel with student to
schools of parent’s choice; (b) the abolishment of “teacher seniority,” which allowed
school site leadership teams to select teachers whom they felt would serve their com-
munities best; and (c) the institution of a new logistics department that coordinated
services such as transportation, maintenance, landscaping, custodial work, and ware-
houses, for a more effective Operations Department (Mathews, 2001). Student achieve-
ment remained on the rise for the duration of his tenure and thereafter (Lilly, 1998).
Carl Cohn, traditional superintendent, formerly of Long Beach USD and currently
superintendent of San Diego USD, provides an outstanding example among tradition-
als. Cohn achieved success in Long Beach with a number of new reform measures,
some of which were the implementation of school uniforms, ending social promotion,
and initiating an aggressive reading program (Sutton, 2005).
There is no evidence to support one type of superintendent over the other (Fuller
et al. 2003). The hope is that school boards in urban districts will be able to select the
right leaders for the time and situation in which the school district may be at the time
(Hurwitz, 2001; Yukl, 2002).
103
Implications for Policy and Practice
As a result of this study, four major implications are drawn in regard to future
policy and practice:
1. Approaches to accountability should be viewed from all angles, for the good
of children in urban schools. The ideas and strategies of both traditional superinten-
dents and nontraditional superintendents should be considered and appreciated. Fig-
ures 1-5 clearly outline some of these strategies and provide insight on both the similar-
ities and difference found between the groups. Attitudes, recognized challenges, and
strategies toward success with current federal mandates are highlighted in Figures 1-3;
ideas for gaining and maintain accountability to the surrounding community and key
elements toward accountability to the school board are delineated in Figures 4 and 5.
2. The NCLB initiative should be viewed as an inroad to accountability and
used as leverage to effect change in urban districts. Within this study, this edict was
subscribed to by the nontraditional superintendents; however, traditional superinten-
dents also spoke of ways that the initiative became a conduit for change in their dis-
tricts. Although there are numerous challenges, many superintendents across the nation
have supported the initiative, testifying before Congress in efforts to thwart any at-
tempts to rescind the legislation (“Don’t Turn Back,” 2003).
3. Effective school community relations involve communication, collaboration,
and empowerment to create an accountable system for reform in urban schools. These
elements were present within the philosophies of traditional and nontraditional superin-
tendents and pointed to the importance of building accountability. Prior research
104
conducted has led to the belief that these elements are keys to success in urban commu-
nities and conduits for change toward a more accountable system (Harvard Family
Research Project, 2003).
4. When hiring a superintendent, school boards must consider the fact that
leadership is situational and that attributes of an individual must be considered on
their own merit, not necessarily based on an orientation of traditional or nontradi-
tional. Keeping this in mind, it is important to recognize that different school districts
may require different types of leadership at various stages along a continuum of devel-
opment as an organization. “Where a policy body [or organization] sits on that contin-
uum depends on a number of factors, especially the superintendent’s experience and the
board’s level of confidence in that person” (Domenech, 2005, p.1). Therefore, it will be
important for school boards to consider the needs of their district and find an individual,
either traditional or nontraditional, to direct the district toward those needs.
Recommendations for Future Research
The sample size for this study was very small. An obvious recommendation for
future research would be to conduct a similar study on a much larger scale, involving
superintendents from urban school districts across the nation. Another recommendation
would be to incorporate issues around race and gender, examining how those variables
may or may not factor in as new dynamics toward the decision for or against traditional
or nontraditional leadership in urban school districts. A final recommendation for
future research would be to look at different angles of accountability, such as those
105
related to school district operations, human resources, and more specific areas of cur-
riculum and instruction, and the way that traditional and nontraditional superintendents
approach them.
Conclusion
Although this study was not intended to be an argument, it develops in an argu-
mentative style by nature. The contrasting views of the two types of superintendents
make for interesting debate. Traditional superintendents who participated in this study
seemed to be much more passionate about the “outsiders” coming in with no real
knowledge about educational pedagogy and limited understanding about policy and
procedure. They recognized their nontraditional counterparts’ interesting perspective
on things, and at least one or two of the traditional superintendents in this study ex-
pressed appreciation for the evaluative questions that nontraditional superintendents
tended to ask about normal practices in the field of education. However, based on their
comments, there seemed to still be cynical feeling among that nontraditionals were
“brought in out of desperation” and the idea of a nontraditional superintendent attempt-
ing to be an instructional leader is a “very foolish and silly notion.”
Nontraditional superintendents seemed to understand their limitations but had
clearly not allowed them to hamper their ideas about their ability to meet accountability
demands, to take risks, and to point the finger at their traditional counterparts with
claims that they “give up on students too soon,” do not move with a “sense of speed and
106
urgency about the job,” and were not oriented toward setting and meeting targets to-
ward high achievement goals.
The final conclusions drawn in this study are the following:
1.Under the caveat that effective leadership depends on the time and situation,
the decision to hire a certain type of superintendent, traditional or nontraditional, must
be evaluated clearly. The attributes of an individual, in concert with the needs of the
school district, is what will create success, as can be seen by the examples of Carl Cohn
and John Stanford, both of whom achieved unprecedented success in their respective
districts in efforts to reform failing systems.
2.Approaches to accountability vary among educational leaders. There is no
one approach that is best for urban schools. A staunch orientation toward setting
measurable goals, along with a clear understanding of curriculum and instruction, might
be a viable approach. Additionally, a clear focus on community involvement and col-
laboration with school boards as well as all other stakeholders are an added perspective
that may also bring about success in urban schools. These ideas and strategies toward
them exist in the repertoire of leadership skills for both traditional and nontraditional
superintendents.
3.The dialogue around whether traditional or nontraditional superintendents
are the optimal choice to “save” urban schools has value and leads educators to exam-
ine practices in a new light. Approaches to accountability may differ depending on the
focus area, and similarities exist in all arenas. However, to say that one is better than
the other or should be automatically chosen over the other based on the single
107
characteristic of being traditional or nontraditional is not sound judgment and lends
itself to misguided and unfounded assumptions.
This study began as a quest to compare and contrast the ideas and philosophies
of two types of urban school superintendents. Probing the similarities and differences
has led to an interesting reflection on the state of education in urban schools, and the
conclusions drawn have hopefully helped to bring some clarity to the proverbial tradi-
tional versus nontraditional argument.
108
REFERENCES CITED

America Online. Homework Help. (2005). Accountability [Definitions from Merriam-
Webster’s Dictionary]. Retrieved April 25, 2006, from http://aolsvc
.homeworkhelp.search.aol.com/homeworkhelp/
search?source=webster&query=accountability
Anthes, K. (2002). No Child Left Behind policy brief: School and district leadership.
Denver, CO: Education Commission of the States. Retrieved October 25, 2005,
from http://www.ecs.org/clearinghouse/34/62/3462.pdf
Bennis, W. ( 2003). On becoming a leader. New York: Warren Bennis.
Bianchi, A. B. (2003). The road less traveled: School administrators with nontradi-
tional backgrounds. Forecast: Emerging Issues in Public Education, 1(2), 1-4.
Borja, R. (2002, February 6). Study: Urban school chief’s tenure is 4.6 years. Educa-
tion Week, n.v. Retrieved February 26, 2002, from http://www.edweek.org/ew/
articles/2002/02/06/21supes.h21.html
Broad Center. (2004, October). A conversation about the superintendent’s perfor-
mance evaluation and professional ethics. Paper presented at The Broad Center’s
Urban Superintendent’s Academy, Los Angeles, CA.
Brown v. Board of Education (1954). 347 U.S. 483, 74S. Ct. 686. 98 L. Ed. 2d. 873.
California Department of Education. (2006). No Child Left Behind. Sacramento:
Author. Retrieved May 4, 2006, from http://www.cde.ca.gov/nclb/index.asp
Carter, G., & Cunningham, W. (1997). The American school superintendent: Leading
in the age of pressure. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Center for Public Education. (2006). Education partnership leads to “broad” success.
Alexandria, VA: Author. Retrieved May 4, 2006, from http://www.nsba.org/
site/sec_peac.asp?TRACKID=&CID=1237&DID=36055
Cohn, C. (2005). NCLB implementation challenges: The local superintendent’s view.
Peabody Journal of Education, 80, 156-169.
Cuban, L. (1988). The managerial imperative and the practice of leadership in
schools. New York: State University of New York Press.
109
Cuban, L. (2001). Leadership for student learning: Urban school leadership—dif-
ferent in kind and degree. Washington, DC: Institute for Educational Leadership.
Datnow, A. (2004). The age of accountability and the need for data driven decision
making. Urban Education: The Magazine of the USC Rossier School of Educa-
tion, n.v.. Retrieved April 26, 2006, from http://www.usc.edu/dept/education/
news/urbaned04/14.pdf
Datnow, A., Hubbard, L. & Mehan, H. (2002). Extending education reform: From one
school to many. New York: RoutledgeFalmer Press.
Domenech, D. (2005). Situational governance: A continuum of board types. The
School Administrator, n.v. Retrieved April 23, 2006, from http://www.aasa.org/
publications/saarticledetail.cfm?ItemNumber=3651&snItemNumber=950&tnItem
Number=951
Don’t turn back the clock: NCLB—Not perfect but hugely important [A letter to the
U.S. Congress from African American and Latino superintendents and civic
leaders]. (2003). Retrieved April 21, 2006, from http://www2.edtrust.org/NR/
rdonlyres/D4EAo468-953D-4580-8E86-434925A6E8AD/0/FINALSIGNERS.pdf
Eisenhart, M. A., & Howe, K. R. (1992). Validity in educational research. In M. D.
LeCompte, W. L. Millroy, & J. Preissle (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research
in education (pp. 643-680). San Diego: Academic Press.
Fuller, H. F., Campbell, C., Celio, M. B., Harvey, J., Immerwahu, J. & Winger, A.
(2003). An impossible job? The view from the urban superintendent’s chair. Se-
attle: University of Washington, Center on Reinventing Public Education.
Giles, D., & Giles, S. (1990). Where do all the superintendents go? California School
Board Journal, n.v., 30-35.
Glass, T. (2001). Superintendent leaders look at superintendency, school boards and
reform (ECS Issue Paper). Denver, CO: Education Commission of the States.
Goodman, R., & Zimmerman, W. (2000). Thinking differently: Recommendations for
21 century school board/superintendent leadership, governance, and teamwork
st
for high student achievement. Arlington, VA: Educational Research Service and
New England School Development Council.
Griffiths, D. E. (1966). The school superintendent. New York: Center for Applied
Research in Education.
110
Harvard Family Research Project. (2003). Reframing accountability for urban public
schools. The Evaluation Exchange, 9(2). Retrieved April 21, 2006, from http://
www.gse.harvard.edu/hfrp/eval/issue22/spotlight.html
Harvey, J. (2003, February). The urban school superintendent: Creating great schools
while surviving on the job. Report of a colloquium for former urban superinten-
dents, Council of the Great City Schools, Orlando, FL.
Hayes, W. (2001). So you want to be a superintendent? Lanhan, MD: Scarecrow
Press.
Hess, F. M. (2003). Lifting the barrier. In a license to lead? A new leadership
agenda for America’s schools. Washington, DC: Progressive Policy Institute.
Houston, P. D. (2001). Superintendents for the 21 century: It’s not just a job, it’s a
st
calling. Phi Delta Kappan, 82, 429-433.
Hurwitz, S. (2001). The outsiders: Can a new break of non-educator superintendents
transform urban school systems? American School Board Journal, 188(6), 1-12.
Hyerle, D. (1995). Thinking maps: Tools for learning. Cary, NC: Thinking Maps.
Johnson, S. M. (1996). Leading to change: The challenge of the new superintendency.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Kilman, R. H., Saxton, M. J., & Serpa, R. (1985). Five key issues in understanding
and changing culture in gaining control of corporate culture. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Kim, J. & Sunderman, G. (2005). Large mandates and limited resources: State re-
sponse to the No Child Left Behind Act and implications of accountability. Cam-
bridge, MA: The Civil Rights Project at Harvard.
LaFee, S. (2004, November). Outside the ropes: Superintendents from business and
the military learn about system leadership informally and in seminars. Arlington,
VA: American Association of School Administrators. Retrieved March 9, 2007,
from http://www.aasa.org/publications/saaricledetail.cfm?
Lilly, D. (1996, September 5). Doors open today on Stanford’s big experiment. Seat-
tle Times. Retrieved April 22, 2006, from http://seattletimes.nwsource
.com/special/stanford/stories/meany.html
111
Lilly, D. (1998, April 20). Reviewing one man’s vision. Seattle Times. Retrieved
April 22, 2006, from http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/special/stanford/stories/
vision.html
Magee, M. (2002, October 27). Bersin: Leadership style grates on many teachers. San
Diego Union-Tribune. Retrieved March 20 from http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/
sandiego/offers
.html?url=%2Fsandiego%2Faccess%2F226987621.html%3Fdids%3D226987621
%3A226987621%26FMT%3DFT%26FMTS%3DABS%3AFT%26date%3DOct%
2B27%252C%2B2002%26author%3DMaureen%2BMagee%26pub%3DThe%2BS
an%2BDiego%2BUnion%2B-%2BTribune%26desc%3DBERSIN%253A%2BLea
dership%2Bstyle%2Bgrates%2Bon%2Bmany%2Bteachers
Marsh, D. (1992). Enhancing instructional leadership: Lessons from the California
School Leadership Academy. Education and Urban Society, 24, 386-409.
Mathews, J. (1999). On the job learning of non-traditional superintendents. School
Administrator, n.v. Retrieved August 2, 2004, from http://www.aasa.org/ publica-
tions/as/1999_02/mathews.htm
Mathews, J. (2001). Nontraditional thinking in the central office. The School Adminis-
trator, n.v., 6.
McAdams, D. (2002). Leading city schools challenge and change in urban education:
Strengthening urban boards. American School Board Journal, n.v. Retrieved
March 9, 2007, from http://www.asbj.com/specialreports/
1202Special%20Reports/S3.html
McAdams, P. R., & Zinck, A. R. (1998). The power of the superintendent’s leadership
in shaping school district culture: Three case studies. ERS Spectrum. Retrieved
April 14, 2006, from http://www.ers.org/spectrum/fall98.htmv
Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education
(rev. ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass .
Merrow, J. (November 1999). Non-Traditional School Leaders. Learning Matters.
The Merrow Report, Program 3-11, retrieved from the world wide web 4/14/06
from http://www.pbs.org/merrow/tmrradio/leaders/
Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning. (2000). Leadership of school
improvement (rev. ed.). Aurora, CO: McREL, Office of Educational Research and
Improvement.
112
Mitchell, L. Z. (2000). A place where every teacher and every student learns. Educa-
tion and Urban Society, 32, 506-518.
Murphy, J., & P. Hallinger. (1986). The superintendent as instructional leader: Find-
ings from effective school districts. Journal of Educational Administration, 24,
213-236.
Murphy, J., & Hallinger, P. (1988). Characteristics of instructionally effective school
districts. Journal of Education Research, 81, 175-181.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 20 U.S.C. Sections 6301 et seq. U.S.C. (2002).
O’Day, J. A. (2002). Complexity, accountability and school improvement. Harvard
Education Review, 72, 293-327.
Oregon School Boards Association. (2006). NCLB adequate yearly progress toolkit:
Talking points for superintendents. Salem, OR: Author. Retrieved April 21,
2006, http://www.osba.org/hotopics/funding/nclb/ayptk/suptsfaq.htm
Patton, M. Q. (Ed.). (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3 ed.).
rd
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Russo, P. (2004, February). What makes any school an urban school? [Position
paper]. Oswego, NY: Center for Urban Schools at SUNY. Retrieved April 28,
2006, from http://www.oswego.edu/academics/colleges_and ... d_projects/
urban_teaching.html
Schein, E. H. (1992). Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.
Schmoker, M. (1999). Results: The key to continuous school improvement. Alexan-
dria: Association of Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Schneider, M. (2005). National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) 2005
mathematics and reading Trial Urban District (TUDA) results. Washington, DC:
National Center for Education Statistics.
Senge, P. (1990). The Fifth Discipline. New York: Doubleday.
Sergiovanni, T. J. (1987). The theoretical basis for cultural leadership. In M. B.
Schoenheit & L. T. Sheive (Eds.), Leadership: Examining the elusive (pp. 116-
127). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
113
Sergiovanni, T. J. (1991). The principalship: A reflective practice perspective (2
nd
ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Smith, H. (Producer). (2005, September). An interview with Alan Bersin superinten-
dent (1998-2005), San Diego schools. In H. Smith, Making schools work with
Hedrick Smith. New York: PBS. Retrieved April 22, 2006, from http://www.pbs
.org/makingschoolswork/dwr/ca/bersin.html
Strecher, B., Hamilton, L., & Gonzalez, G. (2003). Working smarter to leave no child
behind: Practical insights for school leaders [White Paper]. Santa Monica, CA:
Rand Education.
Sunderman, G., & Kim, J. (2005). Increasing bureaucracy or increasing opportuni-
ties? School district experiences with supplemental services. Cambridge, MA:
Civil Rights Project at Harvard.
Sutton, M. (2005, October). A new beginning for city schools: An interview with Carl
Cohn. San Diego, CA: Voice of San Diego. Retrieved April 21, 2006, from
http://www.voiceofsandiego.org/site/apps/nl/content2.asp?c=euLTJbMUKvH&b=
312472&ct=1505953
Taylor, B. O. (2002). Effective school process: Alive and well. Phi Beta Kappan, 83,
375-378.
Townley, A. J. (1992). An introduction to school administration. Dubuque, IO:
Kendall/Hunt.
U.S. Department of Education. (2004, June 24). Urban school leaders testifying
before Congress express their support for NCLB and say it is working. Washing-
ton, DC: Author. Retrieved April 21, 2006, from http://www.ed.gov/news/ news-
letters/extracredit/2004/06/0624.html
Usdan, M. D. (2003). Rethinking the urban school superintendency: Nontraditional
leaders new models of leadership. Washington, DC: Institute for Educational
Leadership.
Willi, D. (2004). Shaking up the system. Scholastic Administrator. Retrieved
March 17, 2006, http://www.scholastic.com/administrato/aprilmay04/
articles.asp?article=spotlightadmin
Wilson, R. (1960). The modern school superintendent. New York: Harper & Row.
Yukl, G. (2002). Leadership in organizations. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Prepared by Alvaretta Baxter.
1
114
APPENDIX A
INTRODUCTORY LETTER TO PROSPECTIVE PARTICIPANTS
1
[Date]
[Superintendent’s Name]
[Address]
Dear [Superintendent’s Name]:
I am an assistant principal in a local school district and also a doctoral candidate in Educational Leader-
ship at the University of Southern California, Rossier School of Education. I am conducting a study of
Traditional and Nontraditional Urban School Superintendents. I am seeking out those urban school
superintendents who have come up through the ranks of education as well as nontraditional superinten-
dents who have previously had successful careers in other fields outside of education and are now taking
on the superintendency in an urban school district.
If you are interested in participating in this study, I will schedule an interview with you during the months
of March and April. The interview will be tape-recorded and transcribed, unless you prefer the interview
not be tape-recorded. Your interview transcription will be assigned a number for identification purposes,
and you may review the transcription for accuracy to avoid any misinterpretation. Information will be
reported in a way that ensures anonymity. All transcripts and tapes will be kept in a secure location until
the completion of the study and will be destroyed once the data have been successfully integrated into the
appropriate sections of the study.
As a participant, you are free to refuse to answer any question or withdraw from the study completely at
any time. You are also free to request that certain portions of the interview be stricken from the body of
findings.
Your contribution to this research will be included in a dissertation, under the guidelines of the University
of Southern California, Rossier School of Education Ed.D. Program. Please feel free to ask any questions
regarding the study, it will be my pleasure to converse with you regarding it.
If you are willing to participate, please fill out the attached form and return it to me using the enclosed
self addressed stamped envelope. Please keep a copy for your records. If you have immediate questions
or concerns, I can be contacted at [email address] or (xxx) xxx-xxxx. Further inquiries may also be
directed to my research advisor, Dr. Amanda Datnow, at datnow@usc.edu.
Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Alvaretta Baxter
Doctoral Candidate
University of Southern California
Prepared by Alvaretta Baxter.
1
115
APPENDIX B
INTERVIEW PROTOCOL
1
Section 1: Background
My study is a comparison between the ideas, thoughts and philosophies of the
Traditional Superintendent and the Non-Traditional Superintendent. Please
answer the following questions from your vantage point, as one or the other.
1.How did your career in education begin?
2.How many years have you been in the field of education?
3.How long have you been a superintendent?
a. Probe: How long with your current school district?
4.Keeping the most common definition of “urban” in mind, what led you to an urban
school district?
5.What are your general thoughts on the recent phenomenon of hiring nontraditional
superintendents in urban school districts?
a.Probe: Are there advantages or disadvantages from your perspective?
6.How have your previous experiences (either inside or outside of the field of educa-
tion) interfaced with your current position as urban school superintendent?

Section 2: Accountability—Federal and State Demands (NCLB)/Student Achieve-
ment
1.How have the current federal and state demands led your district to greater account-
ability for student achievement?
a.Probe: On a district office level toward student achievement?
b.Probe: On a school site level toward student achievement?
2.Which of the components of the NCLB legislation do you find most challenging?
116
a.Probe: Are there specific leadership practices that you have implemented
that may have led to meeting various targets set by the NCLB Legislation?
Section 3: Community Relations & Accountability
1.What strategies have you used to either gain or maintain a sense of accountability to
the surrounding community of your district?
Section 4: School Board Relations & Accountability
1.What are some key focus areas to consider in maintaining accountability to the
school board?
Section 5: Conclusion
1.Is there anything else you would like to share about your experience as a traditional
or nontraditional urban school superintendent?
2.Would you like me to share my findings with you?
3.Would it be all right if I contacted you in the near future, should I have any other
questions?
117
APPENDIX C
INFORMED CONSENT
University of Southern California
Center on Educational Governance
Rossier School of Education
INFORMED CONSENT FOR NONMEDICAL RESEARCH
**************************************
CONSENT TO ACT AS A SUBJECT IN A RESEARCH STUDY
You are asked to participate in a research study conducted by Alvaretta Baxter and Dr.
Amanda Datnow from the Rossier School of Education at the University of Southern
California. This study will be my doctoral dissertation. You have been recommended
for this study by fellow colleagues because of your experience as either a Traditional or
Nontraditional Superintendent. There will be 8-10 participants interviewed for this
study. Your participation is voluntary.
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
The purpose of this study is to examine and compare the ideas and philosophies of both
traditional superintendents and nontraditional superintendents who are working in
urban school districts. A key focus area is accountability. The study will examine the
differences in approach to accountability between these two types of superintendents,
toward student achievement and No Child Left Behind legislation, community relations,
and school board issues/relationships.
PROCEDURES
If you volunteer to participate in this study, we would ask you to do the following
things:
You will be asked to participate in one interview regarding your role as a Traditional or
Nontraditional Superintendent in an urban school district. The purpose of the interview
is to capture your perspective on the concept of accountability to students, community,
and school board in light of the No Child Left Behind initiative. The interview will
118
last approximately 1 hour. The interview will be taped and later transcribed verbatim.
If you choose not to be taped, you may continue in the study and only written notes will
be taken. The types of questions you will be asked include the following:

1)How did your career in education begin?
2)How many years have you been in the field of education?
3)How long have you been a superintendent?
a.Probe: How long with your current school district?
b.How do you think your previous career experiences have helped you?
4)What led you into the position of superintendent?
5)Keeping the most common definition of “urban” in mind, what led you to an
urban school district?
6)What are your general thoughts on the recent phenomenon of hiring nontradi-
tional superintendents in urban school districts?
a.Probe: Are there advantages or disadvantages from your perspective?
POTENTIAL RISKS AND DISCOMFORTS
There are no foreseeable risks associated with this study. You may choose not to
answer any question that may make you uncomfortable and still remain in the study.
POTENTIAL BENEFITS TO SUBJECTS AND/OR TO SOCIETY
As a participant in the interview portion of this study, you will not experience any per-
sonal benefit. In general, by participating in this study you will be contributing to the
education field’s understanding of this topic.
PAYMENT/COMPENSATION FOR PARTICIPATION
We are unable to compensate you for your participation, but we assure you that the time
involved will be minimal.
119
CONFIDENTIALITY

You have the opportunity to decide whether (a) you would like to have your identity
kept confidential in all reports of our research; or (b) you would like your real name
used in our reports (for example, in order to receive professional credit for your partici-
pation in the project or for your comments about it).
A)If you choose to have your identity kept confidential, then any information about
you obtained from or for this research study will be kept as confidential (private)
as possible. Any data about you will be identified by a pseudonym. Information
that links pseudonyms and actual persons will be kept in a locked file, and only
members of the research team will have access to it. You will not be identified by
name in any publication of the research results, and efforts will be made to mini-
mize the chance that you can be identified through a combination of information.
B)If you choose to have your real name used in our reports, you will need to indicate
this on the consent form, and then we will do so whenever we can. We will not
be able to use your name, if doing so will allow readers to infer the identity of any
participant who wishes to remain confidential. To minimize any risks to you
because of the breech of your confidentiality, we will engage in the following
protective measures:
(1)Before publishing the study, we will send you a list of any quotes associated
with you that we are including, in order to allow you to verify their accuracy;
(2)Before publication, we will be sharing preliminary findings with you and
other nonconfidential participants so you will have an opportunity to re-
spond;
(3)If you are interested, we would also be happy to share pre-publication drafts
with you. Please indicate your potential interest in this by checking the box
on the consent form.
These measures are all part of a methodology of using “member checks” in research
(see Eisenhardt & Howe, 1992) that we think is important both for doing more valid
research as well as for protecting participants’ rights as human subjects.
You may change your mind about whether or not you would like your name to be kept
confidential up until the time that the first publication about this research is submitted
to a journal or other publication outlet.
In addition to the investigators listed on the first page of this consent form and their
research staff, the following individuals will or may have access to identifiable informa-
tion related to your participation in this research study:
120
Authorized representatives of the University of Southern California Institutional Re-
view Board may review your identifiable research information for the purpose of
monitoring the appropriate conduct of this research study.
In unusual cases, the investigators may be required to release identifiable information
related to your participation in this research study in response to an order from a court
of law. If the investigators learn that you or someone with whom you are involved is in
serious danger or potential harm, they will need to inform, as required by law, the ap-
propriate agencies.

All research data will be kept in the Principal Investigator’s office for a minimum of 3
years.
You have the right to review/edit the interview tapes. Tapes will not be used for edu-
cational purposes, and the tapes will be kept indefinitely under the care of the Principal
Investigator. If you decide not to be audio-taped, you may continue in the study and
only written notes will be taken.

PARTICIPATION AND WITHDRAWAL
You can choose whether to be in this study or not. If you volunteer to be in this study,
you may withdraw at any time without consequences of any kind. You may also refuse
to answer any questions you do not want to answer and still remain in the study.
IDENTIFICATION OF INVESTIGATORS
If you have any questions or concerns about the research, please feel free to contact
Alvaretta Baxter at (xxx) xxx-xxxx or [email address] or contact Professor Amanda
Datnow, Waite Phillips Hall 901, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
90089-4039, Tel: (213)740-3443.

RIGHTS OF RESEARCH SUBJECTS
You may withdraw your consent at any time and discontinue participation without
penalty. You are not waiving any legal claims, rights, or remedies because of your
participation in this research study. If you have questions regarding your rights as a
research subject, contact the University Park IRB, Office of the Vice Provost for Re-
search, Grace Ford Salvatori Hall, Room 306, Los Angeles, CA 90089-1695, (213)
821-5272 or upirb@usc.edu.
121
SIGNATURE OF RESEARCH SUBJECT
I understand the procedures described above, and I understand fully the rights of a
potential subject in a research study involving people as subjects. My questions have
been answered to my satisfaction, and I agree to participate in this study. I have been
given a copy of this form.
Name of Subject
G I wish to keep my identity confidential.
G You have my permission to use my identity.
G I agree to be audio-taped for this interview.
G I do not agree to be audio-taped for this interview.

Signature of SubjectDate
SIGNATURE OF INVESTIGATOR
I have explained the research to the subject and answered all of his/her questions. I
believe that he/she understands the information described in this document and freely
consents to participate.
Alvaretta Baxter

Signature of InvestigatorDate

Abstract (if available)

Abstract In this current age of accountability, urban school boards are looking for innovative ways to foster change in schools and create greater accountability within the public education sector. A question persists of whether greater accountability and more focused efforts toward school reform can be achieved more expeditiously under the assumed "tried-and-true" leadership of traditional superintendents or the supposedly more innovative approaches of a nontraditional superintendent. This study is a comparison of the philosophies and ideas of traditional superintendents and nontraditional superintendents in urban school districts. Ten urban school superintendents created the participant sampling. All were interviewed and shared insightful perspectives on accountability measures pertaining to federal mandates, as outlined by the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) initiative, community involvement, and school board relations.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

How successful urban superintendents in California improve student achievement

PDF

Opening the door: a comparative study of leadership competencies of traditional and nontraditional superintendents

PDF

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

PDF

A case study in reform: implementation strategies of one urban superintendent

PDF

Factors contributing to outperformance in nontraditional urban schools: a case study of a public elementary school with a dual immersion program

PDF

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

PDF

California urban superintendents and their selection criteria for secondary school principals

PDF

Sustaining student achievement: Six Sigma strategies and successful urban school district superintendents

PDF

Factors that may lead to an urban high school‘s outperforming status: a case study of an institution‘s achievement in the age of accountability

PDF

School-to-work programs in urban districts in the state of California: a leadership perspective

PDF

Teaching in the context of NCLB: a qualitative study of the impact on teachers' work, morale, and professional support

PDF

Outperforming expectations: a case study of an urban high school

PDF

Factors including student engagement impacting student achievement in a high performing urban high school district: a case study

PDF

Closing the achievement gap: breakthrough in the urban high school

PDF

Reclaiming the superintendency: the skills, strategies and experiences of successful women superintendents in California

PDF

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

PDF

What strategies do urban superintendents utilize to address global challenges in the implementation of 21st century skills

PDF

The factors present in an outperforming charter middle school: a case study focusing on promising practices, school leadership, and cultural norms

PDF

Rising above expectations: a case study of an outperforming urban nontraditional school

PDF

School board and superintendent accountability: a policy analysis regarding the implementation of the Ralph M. Brown Act

Asset Metadata

Creator Baxter, Alvaretta M. (author)

Core Title Traditional and nontraditional urban school superintendents in the age of accountability

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 04/17/2007

Defense Date 05/09/2006

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

Tag Education,leadership,OAI-PMH Harvest,school reform,superintendents,urban schools

Language English

Advisor Datnow, Amanda (committee chair), Gothold, Stuart E. (committee member), Wilson, Carol (committee member)

Creator Email abaxter@paramount.k12.ca.us

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m405

Unique identifier UC148335

Identifier etd-Baxter-20070417 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-480607 (legacy record id),usctheses-m405 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-Baxter-20070417.pdf

Dmrecord 480607

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Baxter, Alvaretta M.

Type texts

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

Repository Name Libraries, University of Southern California

Repository Location Los Angeles, California

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu