Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
The evolution of superintendents as instructional leaders: past, present, and future
(USC Thesis Other)
The evolution of superintendents as instructional leaders: past, present, and future
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
1
Running
head:
EVOLUTION
OF
SUPERINTENDENTS
THE EVOLUTION OF SUPERINTENDENTS AS INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERS:
PAST, PRESENT, AND FUTURE
by
Blanca S. Cantú
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUATION
May 2013
Copyright 2013 Blanca S. Cantú
2
EVOLUTION
OF
SUPERINTENDENTS
DEDICATION
This dissertation is dedicated to my father, Roberto G. Cantu, who always
believed in me and stressed the importance of receiving an education and making a
difference. To my mother, Blanca N. Cantu, whose strength, courage, and endless
dedication toward her children is everlasting and enduring. Throughout this journey, my
mother is the one that continued to push me to continue and to finish what I had begun.
To my siblings, family, and friends, thank you for your continuous love and consideration
throughout these years.
I would also like to recognize four fabulous female leaders who not only
encouraged me but who also helped to bring the best out of me. Thank you to: Dr. Myna
Rivera, Superintendent; Dr. Elaine Gorley, retired Superintendent; my dear friend and
retired Director, Mrs. Cheryl Hovard Walker; and, a very supportive friend who truly
believed in me, Marianne Holtzinger.
My three-year journey has been a test of time, effort, and patience. Throughout
my courses, I have truly enjoyed making new friends, collaborating, laughing, and having
deep, thoughtful conversations with my professors. My experience at the University of
Southern California will always be remembered as a forging experience that has made
my life more enriching and memorable. I do look forward to regaining my life and the
continuation of my work. I dedicate this dissertation to all who have helped me
throughout my journey.
3
EVOLUTION
OF
SUPERINTENDENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First and foremost, I would like to thank Dr. Rudy Castruita, the former San
Diego County Superintendent and my dissertation chair, for his continuous support,
assistance, and dedication throughout my entire dissertation process. Whom to learn from
than an individual that has all the insight, experience, knowledge, and skill set to be
considered one of the best and successful retired superintendents. Thank you Dr.
Castruita.
I also would like to acknowledge Dr. Pedro Garcia and Dr. Bowman, both
members of my dissertation committee, for their continuous support. As a wonderful
professor full of insight and experience, Dr. Garcia brings to life the role of the
superintendent, as well as the preparation needed to be successful. I thank him for his
humor, kindness, and true thoughtfulness towards his students. Dr. Bowman is a keen
leader with an eye for excellence and dedication, and respect. Thank you, Dr. Bowman,
for being a good listener, and for your encouragement, and thoughtfulness.
Finally, I would like to recognize my weekend cohort 2010 for creating such an
environment of family, dedication, and everlasting friendship. Thank you for your
encouragement and support throughout these three years; for that, I will be eternally
grateful.
4
EVOLUTION
OF
SUPERINTENDENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Dedication…………………………………………………………………………………2
Acknowledgements………………………………………………………..……..………..3
List of Tables………………………………………………………………………….......7
List of Figures…………………………………………………………………………......8
Abstract………………………………………………………………………………...….9
Chapter
I. The Research Problem…………………………………………………………...10
Introduction……………………………………………………………....10
Statement of the Problem……………………………………………...…11
Purpose of the Study………………………………………………...…...11
Research Questions……………………………………………………....12
Importance of the Study……………………………………………...…..12
Limitations of the Study…………………………………………...……..14
Delimitation of Study………………………………………………...…..14
Definition of Terms………………………………………………...…….15
Summary of Study………………………………………………...……..17
II. Literature Review…………………………………………………………..…….18
Introduction………………………………………………………..…….18
Learning Organization……………………………………………..…….18
The Historical Role of the Superintendent...………………………..……23
The Superintendent: Manager of the System..………………...……..…..26
The Superintendent as Instructional Leader…………...……………..….27
The Superintendent Teacher Scholar………………………………..…...29
Organizational Reform and Unit of Change….……………………….....31
Transformational Leadership and Performance……………………..…...34
Loose Coupling Theory of Social Control Mechanisms………….….….,38
Summary of Literature Review…………………………………………..44
III. Methodology………………………………………………………………..…....46
Introduction……………………………………………………….……...46
Restatement of the Problem………………………………..……….……46
Research Questions………………………..………………………….….48
Research Methods…..…………………………………………………....48
Data Collection and Analysis…………………………………………….53
Interviews………………………………………………………...53
Data Analysis…………………………………………………….54
Limitations of the Study………………………………………………….55
5
EVOLUTION
OF
SUPERINTENDENTS
Summary of Methodology……………………………………………….55
IV. Results of the Study……………………………………………………………56
Introduction……………………………………………………...……….56
Participants……………………………………………………………….57
Superintendent Instructional Reflective Survey…………………………59
Document Review Matrix……………………………………………......60
Research Question One…………………………………………………..61
Learning Organization Survey Analysis…………………………65
Leadership Style of Superintendents…………………………….66
Learned Organization Shared Vision……………………………67
Learning Organization Document Analysis……………………..68
Research Question Two………………………………………………….69
Instructional Leadership…………………………………………69
Instructional Leadership Survey Analysis……………………….72
Instructional Leadership Document Analysis…………………...73
Research Question Three………………………………………………...73
Instructional Leadership…………………………………………73
Instructional Leadership Survey Analysis………………………77
Instructional Leadership Document Analysis…………………...79
Research Question Four………………………………………………….79
Social-Control Mechanism………………………………………79
Social-Control Mechanism Survey Analysis…………………….85
Socio-Control Forum Learning With and From………………....86
Social-Control Mechanism: Instrumental Role in Improving ...... 87
Social-Control Mechanism: Document Analysis .......................... 88
Summary…………………………………………………………………88
V. Overview of Findings……………………………………………………………90
Introduction……………………………………………….…………….90
Overview of Research Question One………………….………………...90
Learning Organization………………………….……………….91
District-Wide Shared Vision, Instructional Plan, Data…………..92
Overview of Research Question Two…………………….…………......94
Instructional Leadership: Trends, Perceptions, Challenges……...94
Overview of Research Question Three……………………….……….....97
Instructional Leadership: Reflection, Evaluation, Resources……97
Overview of Research Question Four………………………….…….....100
Social-Control Mechanisms……………………………………..100
Loose-Coupling Theory: Engagement, Instructional Role, ……101
Reflective Summary………………………………………………….....102
Implication for Further Study………………………………………….103
Conclusion……………………………………………………………104
References………………………………………………………………………106
6
EVOLUTION
OF
SUPERINTENDENTS
Appendices
A. Superintendent Survey Protocol ......................................................... 114
B. Superintendent Interview Protocol ..................................................... 120
C. Document Review Matrix .................................................................. 122
D. Developing and Measuring the Learning Organization ..................... 123
E. Types of Relationships ....................................................................... 124
F. Survey Superintendent Correspondence ............................................. 125
7
EVOLUTION
OF
SUPERINTENDENTS
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Evolution of Role Characterizations for District Superintendents ..................... 24
Table 2: District Comparison Results ............................................................................... 58
Table 3: District-Level Organizations: Survey Participants ............................................ 59
Table 4: Superintendent Years of Service: Survey Participants ...................................... 59
Table 5: Superintendent Gender: Survey Participants ..................................................... 60
Table 6: Superintendent Ethnicity and Gender: Survey Participants ............................... 60
Table 7: Superintendent Age: Survey Participants .......................................................... 60
Table 8: Survey Analysis Questions 1–6 ......................................................................... 66
Table 9: Survey Questions 9–14 ...................................................................................... 73
Table 10: Professional Learning that Increases Educator Effectiveness and ................... 77
Results for All Students
Table 11: Coupling Dimension of School Organization .................................................. 84
Table 12: Survey Questions 17–23 .................................................................................. 86
Table 13: Evolving Roles and Challenges ....................................................................... 97
8
EVOLUTION
OF
SUPERINTENDENTS
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Learning Organization 4 Bs Framework .......................................................... 20
Figure 2: Superintendent Instructional Leadership and Performance Outcome ............... 31
Conceptual Framework
Figure 3: Leadership Factors ........................................................................................... 36
Figure 4: A Conceptual Model of Coupling and Control in School Systems .................. 40
Figure 5: Loose Coupling Model of School Organization and Student Learning ............ 41
Figure 6: Qualitative Model Research Design ................................................................. 49
Figure 7: Depiction of a Classic Hypothetic-Deductive Research Design ...................... 51
Figure 8: Triangulated Design for Data Collection ......................................................... 52
Figure 9: Leadership Style ................................................................................................ 67
Figure 10: Learning Organization (Vision) ...................................................................... 68
Figure 11: Three Learning Agendas in Context (Organizational Contexts) ..................... 74
Figure 12: Instructional Leadership ................................................................................. 78
Figure 13: Instructional Program ..................................................................................... 79
Figure 14: Socio-Control Forum For Learning With/From .............................................. 86
Figure 15: Instrumental Role in Improving Instruction .................................................... 87
9
EVOLUTION
OF
SUPERINTENDENTS
ABSTRACT
This study examined the critical aspects of oversight that superintendents must
employ to improve instruction. It was an analysis of superintendents as instructional
leaders. In this study, we looked at four school district superintendents who have
demonstrated instructionally effective school districts. The study was based on a three-
year period, using CST scores for language arts and math. School districts were identified
on the basis of their ability to promote achievement on standardized tests.
A review of the literature discussed the various models for learning organizations,
instructional leadership, and social mechanisms of control. The primary emphasis was on
at the superintendent as an instructional leader. We looked at the superintendent’s belief,
perception, skills, leadership style, and organizational design.
The research questions posed the following questions: (a) How do superintendents
define a district-wide plan for improving instruction in language arts and math? (b) How
do superintendents mobilize human, social, and physical capital to build a coalition of
instructional leaders? (c) How do superintendents build the capacity of site-level
instructional leaders to implement the chosen instructional programs district wide?
(d) How do superintendents evaluate the effectiveness of their instructional programs?
The study involved mixed-methods research. Strategies of inquiry involved
providing all participants with the same survey to gather statistical data as well as text
information (interview) to provide the final database representative of both quantitative
and qualitative information. Results were based on interviews and surveys of
superintendents, along with analysis of selected documents. Verification of conclusions
were reached through the process of triangulation.
10
EVOLUTION
OF
SUPERINTENDENTS
CHAPTER I
THE RESEARCH PROBLEM
Introduction
Past research has looked at the various models of leadership, system
implementation, and educational organization; however, in today’s age of accountability,
questions remain, especially regarding student performance. Accountability is not merely
a part of reform but rather a trademark of a progressive expectation. An important aspect
of this study was its focus on urban instructional leadership and how it impacted district
performance outcomes. With the leadership roles that superintendents fulfill in their
districts and the ever-increasing calls for greater accountability in student learning, the
questions raised was: How do superintendents impact district academic performance?
The characterization of the superintendent as a teacher-scholar was summarized in an
1890 report concerning urban superintendents. The report summarized:
It must be made his recognized duty to train teachers and inspire them with
high ideals; to revise the course of study when new light shows that
improvement is possible; to see that pupils and teachers are supplied with
needed appliances for the best possible work; to devise rational methods of
promoting pupils. (Cuban, 1976, p.16; Kowalski, 2005, p. 4)
Our new informational society has new expectations for its schools, thus the
superintendent is expected to implement a variety of reform initiatives. These initiatives
include meeting state learning standards, closing the achieving gap, and providing some
type of evidence as proof of progress. Improving instruction, however, requires district-
level leadership, which contributes directly to the instructional effectiveness of the school
district. As a leader, the superintendent facilitates communication and collaboration,
establishes a positive relationship with school personnel, and provides a forum in which
11
EVOLUTION
OF
SUPERINTENDENTS
to engage the external community. The superintendent must foster a culture that supports
data-driven decision making at all levels within the system, and helps to lead the design
for an instructional system.
Organizations must build relationships within the social control mechanisms to
foster internal coordination for the organization, to implement its initiatives, and to
supervise and evaluate its employees. Superintendents are required to meet the ever-
changing demand placed upon them by policy makers, school boards, parents, business,
and community. Today’s superintendent faces the challenge of mobilizing the human,
social, and physical capital needed to make innovation happen and to change
circumstances to promote student achievement.
Statement of the Problem
Superintendents must address the various leadership practices being implemented
in order to assert or adapt the instructional design. District leadership is extremely
difficult to manage. Superintendents deal with not only increased accountability but also
an influx of demographics, growing diversity, and a fragmented organizational culture.
The Institute of Educational Leadership has portrayed the urban superintendence as a
merry-go-round with an average tenure of fewer than three years (Task Force on School
District Leadership, 2001).
Purpose of the Study
Superintendents must be able to navigate the complex maze of district objectives
and goals. The purpose of this study was to analyze the role of the superintendent as
instructional leader. As the leader, the superintendent has the ultimate responsibility for
the overall improvement of student achievement and performance. The superintendent is
12
EVOLUTION
OF
SUPERINTENDENTS
the crucial agent who mobilizes the human, social, and physical capital needed to bring
about change. What are the professional skills superintendents need to flourish and be
successful? Can this success be continuous and maintained throughout the organization?
The challenge for today’s superintendent, along with managing fiscal realities, is to focus
on the established mission. Research shows that superintendents positively impact
student achievement by fulfilling their duties in a responsive manner (Waters & Marzano,
2006) and by utilizing a “comprehensive goal-setting process to develop board-adopted
non-negotiable goals for achievement” (Waters & Marzano, 2007, p. 14).
Research Questions
1. How do superintendents define a district-wide plan for improving instruction in
language arts and math?
2. How do superintendents build the capacity of site-level instructional leaders to
implement the chosen instructional programs district wide?
3. How do superintendents evaluate the effectiveness of their instructional
programs?
4. How do superintendents mobilize human, social, and physical capital to build a
coalition of instructional leaders?
Importance of the Study
The accountability provisions mandated by the law No Child Left Behind
(NCLB) have exacerbated and intensified the way schools and districts are judged.
Superintendents are responsible for all of their students to achieve and to continually
improve. Severe sanctions are levied on schools and districts if they do not improve; thus,
the superintendent is scrutinized by his/her school board, state officials, politicians, the
13
EVOLUTION
OF
SUPERINTENDENTS
federal government, teacher unions, teachers, and parents. Accountability must be a
reciprocal process. Indeed, it is the glue that, in the final analysis, will hold accountability
systems together. This is the principle of “reciprocity of accountability for capacity”
(Elmore, 2000).
This study is designed to identify the various indicators used by successful
instructional leaders; they are as follows: personal and/or professional educational
beliefs, perception and views, direct behaviors, daily practices and routines, and the
organizational design for instruction. These identified indicators can serve as an example
for other urban superintendents.
The findings from the study can serve as a resource for what successful
superintendents have implemented to improve student achievement. Today’s school
districts have become complex and demanding organizations, yet the organization of
schools has remained the same. This study will look at how superintendents have been
able to translate the immediate pressure into useful and fulfilling work.
The results of the study can serve future endeavors in educational preparation, as
well as provide insight into the leadership skills and practices that are needed for a
successful organization—one that improves student instruction.
Instructional improvement is a continuous developmental process requiring
different types of knowledge and skills at successive developmental stages (Elmore,
2005). Due to public policy and public scrutiny, an accountability agenda that emphasizes
one measurement of learning often fails to recognize that the context for urban schools
differs dramatically from its counterparts in middle-class and affluent districts (Cuban
2001, 2004; Harvey 2003).
14
EVOLUTION
OF
SUPERINTENDENTS
Limitations of the Study
The following limitations of the study are recognized:
1. The study examined the critical aspects superintendents employed to improve
student performance. It analyzed the superintendent as an instructional leader,
specifically looking at the practices and strategies implemented within the
organizational design to improve student performance. The study did not attempt
to conclude that one organizational design is better than the rest. It simply sought
to determine how improved school districts have adapted their school systems to
better meet today’s accountability measures.
2. The study was limited to the particular school district superintendents selected to
respond to the interview and/or survey as well as to particular school personnel
within each district.
3. The conclusion of the study cannot be perceived as a reflection of a belief,
behavior, or perception of all urban school district superintendents or of district
personnel.
4. The validity of the study depends on the reliability of the instruments used.
5. The findings represent the degree of accuracy based on the individual responses
provided concerning the belief, perception, behavior, and design of instructional
leadership.
Delimitation of Study
The following delimitations of the study are recognized:
1. The study was delimited by addressing only those school districts that had shown
instructional improvement within the last three years based on the California
15
EVOLUTION
OF
SUPERINTENDENTS
Standards Test (CST). The representative years were between 2008 and 2011,
inclusively.
2. School districts that had more than 14,000 students enrolled district-wide, with a
high percentage of minority group as well as the largest ethnic (Latino/Hispanic)
group represented were selected.
Definitions of Terms
Bolman and Deal (2008) have focused their work on both the management and
leadership of organizations. Their work identifies four frames that can be used to identify
the comprehensive picture of an organization. We will consider one frame for this study,
defined by Bolman and Deal (2008), as follows:
Symbolic Frame – sees organizations as cultures, propelled more by
rituals, ceremonies, stories, heroes, and myths by rules, policies, and managerial
authorities; activity and meaning are loosely coupled events and actions which
have multiple interpretations as people experience life differently; the goal is to
shape the culture that gives purpose, meaning to workers, and builds team spirit
through ceremony and story. (p. 253)
District policies and practices sometimes lack the connections they need throughout
the organization. Such connections are often loosely structured and have weak control
over behavior, perception, and relationships. Educational organizations are loosely
coupled due to activities and decisions made at one level that do not reverberate in clearly
patterned ways (Firestone 1984b; Green & Swanson 2011; Mintzberg 1983; Peterson
1984; Weick 1982). The researchers have synthesized previously identified mechanisms
for coupling individual behaviors, perceptions, beliefs, or units in an organization. These
mechanisms are identified as:
Mutual Adjustment – The coordination of work by the simple process of
direct, informal communication
16
EVOLUTION
OF
SUPERINTENDENTS
Direct Supervision – Coordination by having one person take responsibility
for the work of others, issuing instructions to them, and monitoring their
actions
Standardization of work processes – The prespecification or programming of
the contents or procedures of work. This effort can be undertaken through the
creation of directions or rules and also through specifically designed work
devices like measuring cups or textbooks, which ensure that certain amounts
of information are being delivered.
Standardization of outputs – The prespecification of the results of work in
terms of dimensions, quantity, or quality. This effort is undertaken through
product testing or quality control in industry and through standardized testing
in education.
Enculturation or standardization of skills, knowledge, and values – Training
typically before entry to the organization, as in professional training;
however, the enculturation or standardization of skills, knowledge, and
values can also include on-the-job training and informal socialization to
organizational or group norms.
Organizational Learning System – “ learning orientations,” a set of critical
dimensions to organizational learning, and “ facilitating factors,” the
processes that affect how easy or hard it is for learning to occur
Transformational Leaders – those able to raise awareness of their
stakeholders regarding what is important, and to promote concern for
achievement, self-actualization, and ideals. Such leaders are able to move
17
EVOLUTION
OF
SUPERINTENDENTS
their followers beyond self-interest to focus on the good of the organization,
community, or society as a whole.
Transactional Leaders – those who cater to the self-interests of their
stakeholders through the use of reinforcement, constructive rewards, praise,
and promises of success if commitments are made to the leader and/or the
organization
Summary of Study
This study analyzed the superintendent as instructional leader. We looked at the
belief, perception, behavior, and design of the organization, and how instructional
improvement had taken place within a three-year span. The study utilized Bolman and
Deals (2008) organizational framework as a lens for how leaders conceptualize
organizations surrounding the leadership process. The study utilized the theoretical
research around loosely coupled systems, and how they provide a mechanism for
change—adaptation—while enabling the system to remain stable. We also looked at (a)
the coordination of the superintendent as a communicator, (b) the direct supervision and
monitoring of instructional leadership, (c) the work processes in place for student
performance, (d) the end results and dimensions of quality control, and (e) professional
training and socialization of the organization. The study provides a description derived
from interviews, surveys, document analysis, and participant observation.
18
EVOLUTION
OF
SUPERINTENDENTS
CHAPTER II
LITERATURE REVIEW
Introduction
The purpose of the study was to address the impact a superintendent’s
instructional leadership had upon an urban school district. The study includes a
discussion of current theories and research with regard to present educational
organizations, current leadership style and implementation, educational reformist (change
agent), and the social control aspects of an organization. This chapter reviews the current
research related to the following:
1. Learning Organization
2. The historical role of the Superintendent
3. Instructional Leadership
4. Educational Reform
5. Social Control Mechanism
Learning Organization
What is a learning organization? What determines the characteristics of a good
learning organization? How can organizations improve their learning? Human activity is
conducted within all organizations; members use various reference frames to make sense
of activities, relationships, and occurrences. Such frames become the navigational tools
for setting up the design of an organization. Like a mechanic’s tools, different
perspectives are needed at different times to effectively solve various problems (Hinka,
Mayo, Mobelini, Stephenson, & Young, 2009).
19
EVOLUTION
OF
SUPERINTENDENTS
A learning organization is skilled at creating, acquiring, and transferring
knowledge and at modifying its behavior to adapt to and reflect new knowledge and
insights (Giesecke & McNeil, 2004). Learning organizations encourage their employees
to improve their skills so that they will be able to acquire new knowledge. Garvin et al
(1993) offer a more practical definition, which posits a learning organization as an
organization skilled at creating, acquiring, and transferring knowledge, and at modifying
its behavior to reflect new knowledge and insights. Peter Senge, in his book The Fifth
Discipline (1990), has outlined five disciplines as the foundation for learning
organizations. The five disciplines he described are shared vision, personal mastery,
mental models, group learning, and systems thinking. Attending to these disciplines
enables organizations to develop staff that is committed to finding the best ways to
implement the organization’s mission, goals, and objectives. Embracing the learning
disciplines can foster creative positive change, enabling organizations to build paths for
individuals to lead and to strive for innovation and change. The learning organization
model helps the organization adapt to a changing environment.
According to Worrell (1995), “The learning organization concept calls for no less
than a cultural realignment of the organization and may be an effective tool in breaking
the organization free from powerful inertial forces.” Organizations usually engage a
Band-Aid effect, creating teams and departments without looking at changing the
organization’s fundamental beliefs and organizational design. Today’s extreme
competiveness and accountability have driven organizations to pay close attention to the
organizational design of their learning organizations. Thus, organizational design has
shifted to a focus on developing highly adaptive and transformational firms that require a
20
EVOLUTION
OF
SUPERINTENDENTS
new DNA to become L-forms (James, 2003). (See Figure 1, below). Constance James
(2003) has described the DNA of learning organizations, explaining how the work is
fulfilled. According to James (2003), beliefs are the basis for transformational
leadership. It provides the opportunity for employees to feel empowered knowledge. The
belief is that every employee in the organization is a knowledge worker, one that is
considered an essential building block for the organization. This employee continuously
contributes, learns, and assists with the transference of knowledge to other employees
within the organization. Employees are highly valuable and are considered teachers and
learners. To be an effective leader, the employee must be engaged in the new set of
beliefs about how the organization will run.
Figure 1. Learning Organization 4 Bs Framework.
BEHAVIOR
BALANCE
LEARNING
ORGANIZATION
WEB
BELIEFS
BOUNDARYLESSNESS
FIRM
PERFORMANCE
21
EVOLUTION
OF
SUPERINTENDENTS
Balance enables an organization to consider learning a collective and generative
experience. Leaders are constantly learning and are fully engaged in learning from others.
Leaders transform organizations into teaching organizations in which everyone learns and
teaches. Collective learning requires the organization to focus on how the parts of the
organization connect to each other, forming a tight coupling. Behavior creates
transformation, increasing the worker’s ability to explore, exploit, and consider
generative and collective learning. Employees seek to be masters of learning and teaching
others. “Boundarylessness” minimizes the boundaries of the organization from within
and without, enhancing the learning and sustaining superior performance. This particular
type of culture provides for decision making and organizational learning across all lines.
Learning organizations can outperform other institutions by simply focusing on how their
own design affects collective learning and transformation. Organizations must evolve
into teaching organizations, in which everyone is engaged in both learning and teaching.
Leaders train employees, and knowledge workers become mentors to leaders. Learning
and teaching become a part of the organizational DNA (James, 2003). A symbiotic
relationship is the result.
Today’s organizations must foster learning, experimenting, and risk taking.
Simply controlling organizations should be replaced by adopting strategies that assist the
organization to move forward and develop responses to change. Employees must learn to
appreciate change, accept new challenges, develop new skills, and commit to the
organization’s vision, specific goals, and objectives. Effective learning is about
communication, communicating about errors and failures, analyzing why systems fail,
and using that information to make change (Giesecke & McNeil, 2004). Learning
22
EVOLUTION
OF
SUPERINTENDENTS
organizations foster an environment in which not only students are involved in learning,
but also all professional educators are focused on a learning-oriented achievement goal
and on socializing a nested community of learners. An example of such work has been
observed in District #2 New York City, described as follows in a report:
When educators focus on learning—their own as well as their colleagues’ and
students’—they cannot remain isolated in classrooms or hierarchies. The
intensely active, highly public process of learning for the sake of a system
wide goal takes place only through continuous and varied human interactions.
Isolation gives way to dialogue, questioning, experimentation, evaluation, and
demonstration. . . . People relate to other through their learning, as learners, so
that children can learn. A sense of community grows from everyone’s
interactions around learning and instruction. (Maloy, 1998)
The superintendent and other district personnel facilitate learning communities at the
district level. As the ones responsible for the teaching and learning in all of the area
schools, these senior administrators set the district’s instructional agenda and priorities
through their decisions about programs, policies, personnel, and resource allocation
(Resnick, 1998). Superintendents and principals need to develop workable improvement
plans that will assist with improving teaching and learning. There should be explicit goals
and standards by which the achievement will take place. Goals for school improvement
integrate the particular needs of students and teachers with the collective ideals and
assumptions of the district.
The administrative team can know what is needed at the school level only by
listening well, because no two schools will need the same things. But all schools must
seek the same outcome: improved instruction and learning. However, individual
principals and teachers must discover how best to serve the variable needs of their own
student population under the conditions that prevail in their own schools and
neighborhoods (Maloy, 1998). Thus, changing how schools and districts function will
23
EVOLUTION
OF
SUPERINTENDENTS
has a significant impact on the processes of teaching and learning. Building learning
organizations will move toward an educational reform that is both radical and
sustainable.
The Historical Role of the Superintendent
The role of the superintendent can be traced back through specific periods of history. The
early period began during the 1800s and extended to the 20
th
century. Today’s modern
superintendent is still in transition. Superintendents are required to be proficient in
politics and the art of persuasion. Most of the work revolves around the ability to create,
build, and maintain relationships. The successful modern superintendent is a
superintendent of learning, able to navigate through uncertain terrain with skill and
finesse. Table 1, below, depicts the evolutionary role of a district superintendent
(Kowalski, 2006).
24
EVOLUTION
OF
SUPERINTENDENTS
Table 1:
Evolution of Role Characterizations for District Superintendents
Role Emergence Description Contemporary
Relevance
Teacher/Scholar 1880–1900 A teacher of teachers; a teacher-leader
who focused on curriculum and
instruction, ensuring that the
prescribed curriculum was
implemented effectively
Superintendents are expected to be
instructional leaders who
encourage and facilitate school
improvement
(Petersen & Barnett, 2005)
Manager 1900–1930 An expert on knowing how to
maximize efficiency in carrying out
policy largely through the control of
human and material resources.
Superintendents are expected to
secure and properly use human and
material resources, ensure legal
compliance, and adequate and
efficient operations (Browne-
Ferrigno & Glass, 2005).
Democratic
Leader
1930–1950 A statesman capable of competing for
scarce resources while creating and
maintaining symbolic relationships
with various publics to ensure positive
school-community relations
Superintendents are expected to
involve both district employees and
members of the local community in
school improvement and to
subsequently garner both material
and human support for these
essential efforts (Björk, & Gurley,
2005).
Applied Social
Scientist
1950–1970 An administrator educated in the social
sciences and capable of applying this
knowledge to solving traditional and
emerging problems in public education
Superintendents are expected to
engage in problem solving,
decision making, and research,
especially related to conflict
emerging from evolving political,
social, and economic problems
(Fusarelli & Fusarelli, 2005).
Effective
Communicator
1970–2000 An administrator who consistently
engages in relational communication
and is capable of accessing,
exchanging, and deploying information
rapidly
Superintendents are expected to
maintain open, multidirectional,
and ongoing communication in and
out of the school district, ensuring
that (a) opportunities are
maximized, (b) programs and
services remain relevant, and (c)
problems are managed effectively
(Kowalski & Keedy, 2005).
The superintendent is expected to be an efficient manager, relate effectively to the
board, secure adequate funding, maintain district facilities, relate well to the community,
secure and develop highly effective educators, and improve educational opportunities for
all students (Wolf, 1988). The superintendent of a public school district is the official
designated leader of the organization. New York is credited with appointing the first
superintendent in 1812. Soon, other states planned similar positions. Superintendents
became the most powerful individuals and were considered civic leaders who wielded
25
EVOLUTION
OF
SUPERINTENDENTS
enormous authority over the daily life of the school system. In 1983, the Nation at Risk
report indicated a rising tide of mediocre school performance, citing that serious reform
was needed. The pressure on schools, and ultimately school leaders, became severe. Due
to federal pressure, states reasserted their role in education by adopting state standards
and a performance assessment system. The new imperative that all children be taught to
attain grade-level standards became a call for greater educational leadership from the
superintendent. This fiat required the superintendent to be proficient in politics and
persuasion. The evolving position of superintendent moved toward that of a
superintendent of learning.
By 1900, most city school districts had established this position. The need for
school systems to have a top executive stemmed from a myriad of conditions, including
the development of larger city school districts, the consolidation of rural school districts,
expanded state curriculum, the passage of compulsory attendance laws, demands for
increased accountability, and efficiency expectations (Kowalski, 2003). The
superintendency is a position that involves periods of great stress, given the necessary
drive to achieve designated goals. The concept of a successful superintendent’s
characteristics, skills, and attributes has been a focus of educational reformist and others
interested in answering the question, What drives a successful superintendent?
Petersen and Barnett (2003) pointed out that the concept of the superintendent as
instructional leader has been challenged for reasons ranging from politics and position
instability to school board member expectations. Currently, state deregulation and district
decentralization continue to heighten expectations that superintendents recommend
policy and develop rules that will increase educational productivity (Kowalski, 2001).
26
EVOLUTION
OF
SUPERINTENDENTS
The Superintendent: Manager of the System
A superintendent must exercise real leadership by assuming the role of politician,
manager, and teacher. As a manager, the superintendent must have knowledge of
business, finance, facilities, transportation, and organizational design for instruction. In
this role, the superintendent must also be able to develop policy, delegate responsibility,
run meetings, establish routines, and handle disturbances.
Qualms about managerial competencies intensified as America began its
transition from an agrarian to an industrial society (Kowalski, 2005). By 1920, the role
transformation had been officially completed; superintendents were expected to be
scientific managers—individuals who could improve operations by concentrating on time
and efficiency (Tyack & Hansot, 1982).
The model of superintendent as a social scientist was encouraged, and
superintendents in the future would be able to apply scientific inquiry to the problems and
decisions that arose in the practice. Superintendents were expected to reshape
institutional cultures that deterred positive change. Superintendents needed to be viewed
as teachers. Today, because of the complexity of the superintendent role, many
superintendents are viewed as teacher-scholars, as seen in student award ceremonies,
retirements, or board presentations about district goals and priorities. Yet, the current
strong interest in having superintendents exert leadership in the areas of curriculum,
instruction, and assessment acknowledges anew the historic role of the superintendent as
teacher (Cuban, 1985).
The teaching role would enable the superintendent to focus his/her managerial
and political skills; like a teacher, a superintendent would have to develop objectives and
27
EVOLUTION
OF
SUPERINTENDENTS
a sense of direction, be able to negotiate and compromise, and backward plan from end
results to beginning. The teaching role would provide purpose for decision, process of
implementation, and product (accountability). Despite all obstacles, superintendents must
realize that achieving school restructuring requires identifying and challenging
individuals and groups to believe in and value education. Today’s superintendents are
learning to evolve quickly and to look at the teaching role as instructional management
aimed at improving student performance. This skill can be looked at as a very astute form
of political leadership.
The Superintendent as Instructional Leader
Testing and accountability are the means by which states and the federal
governments identify whether schools and/or districts are meeting their goals. Success is
measured by the adequate yearly progress (AYP) made by schools and/or districts.
Schools/districts failing to meet the standard face a variety of consequences. Thus,
superintendents need to drastically adapt their roles to meet the new goals. The
reauthorization of ESEA will widen the gap between accountability and authority. On
this subject, Lashway (2002) has pointed out that the law first strengthens deregulation by
mandating various kinds of parental choice in schools that fail to demonstrate adequate
yearly progress. Second, the new law heightens the superintendent’s instructional role.
The new expectations require in-depth understanding of instructional strategies, coaching
techniques, and use of data to guide decision making (Anthes, 2002). Third, because of
the highly visible outcome of adequate yearly progress, such criteria can play a pivotal
role in the board’s evaluation of the superintendent. Along these lines, Leithwood and
Jantzi (2006) wrote:
28
EVOLUTION
OF
SUPERINTENDENTS
There is a significant gulf between classroom practices that are “changed” and
practices that actually lead to greater pupil learning; the potency of leadership for
increasing student learning hinges on the specific classroom practices that leaders
stimulate, encourage and promote. (p. 223)
Robinson, Lloyd, and Rowe (2008) have identified five dimensions in which
instructional leadership is relevant to successful student outcomes. The following are
examples of the dimensions:
• Dimension 1: Establish goals and expectations – Goal setting needs to be
focused not just on the leader, but also on the educational content of the
activities and the alignment of the intended student outcome. The importance
of goal setting is also suggested from the findings from a meta-analysis of
research on the direct effects of leadership on students’ academic
achievements, as reported by Witziers et al. (2003).
• Dimension 2: Resourcing strategically – Securing resources that are aligned
with instructional purposes rather than securing leadership skill in securing
resources; the ability needed to link resource recruitment and allocation to
specific pedagogical goals
• Dimension 3: Planning, coordinating, and evaluating teaching and
curriculum – First, in high performing schools, leaders and teachers are
actively involved in all aspects, having collegial discussions about
instructional matters. Second, leadership is distinguished by its active
oversight and coordination of the instructional program. Third, the degree of
leader involvement in classroom observation and subsequent feedback is also
relevant. Fourth, greater emphasis is placed on ensuring that staff systemically
monitors student progress.
29
EVOLUTION
OF
SUPERINTENDENTS
• Dimension 4: Promoting and participating in teacher learning and
development – The leader participates in the learning as a leader, learner, or
both. The contexts for such learning are both formal (staff meetings and
professional development) and informal (discussions about specific teaching
problems).
• Dimension 5: Ensuring an orderly and supportive environment – Instructional
leadership includes creating an environment for both staff and students that
makes it possible to meet important academic and social goals.
The loose coupling of school leadership and classroom teaching, commented on by
Cuban (1998), Elmore (2004), and others, is paralleled in the academy by the separation
of most leadership research and researchers from research on teaching and learning, and
by the popularity of leadership theories that have little educational content.
The Superintendent as Teacher-Scholar
Teachers who eventually became superintendents were often viewed as
instructional leaders. Over the past 100 years, expectations that superintendents be
instructional leaders have fluctuated. In recent decades, school reform initiatives and
strategies have heightened expectations that these administrators provide the visionary
leadership and planning necessary to producing academic gains at the school-district
level (Bjork, 2009). Leadership is a foundational level emerging from effective school
studies and an important characteristic of effective schools/districts. To improve
education throughout an organization, we must look beyond the building level.
Improving education throughout requires district-level leadership.
30
EVOLUTION
OF
SUPERINTENDENTS
The superintendent’s behavior may signal changes in performance at the building
and classroom level. The superintendent is charged with the responsibility of articulating
the district’s goals, and then making structurally appropriate changes through evaluation,
rewards, recruitment, selection and socialization, rules, and clearly articulated roles for
all participants within the organization. In sum, even though the superintendent’s work is
dominated by management tasks and is separated from instruction and student learning, it
occupies a pivotal position in the district and has the means to influence instructional
programs and activities at the building- and classroom-levels in the school district (Bjork,
2009).
Hightower, Knapp, Marsh, and McLaughlin (2002) have provided examples of
how superintendents in successful districts influence instruction by both using student
outcome data to guide decision making and offering long-term professional development.
Other examples of policies, programs, or procedures used by effective superintendents to
impact district performance include:
• Aligning curricula with district goals or standards (Leithwood, 2005);
• Allocating resources, including money, time, and personnel to meet identified
campus/district needs (Bjork, 1993; Waters & Marzano, 2006);
• Forming policies for collaborative goal setting that include all relevant
stakeholders (Waters & Marzano, 2006); and
• Selecting staff and principal supervision (Bjork, 1993).
Leadership practices exemplify how a superintendent’s teaching and learning
impact the district. Figure 2, below, demonstrates the conceptual framework by Firestone
and Shipps (2005) for leadership and performance outcomes. Superintendents apply their
31
EVOLUTION
OF
SUPERINTENDENTS
skills, knowledge base, and experience toward building their instructional design, which
ultimately supports attaining district performance outcomes. Superintendents engage
systems of practice to indirectly influence, design, shape, enable, and maintain
instructional and organizational outcomes (Halverson, 2003).
Figure 2. Superintendent instructional leadership and performance outcome conceptual
framework.
Organizational Reform and Unit of Change
District and campus goals for improving student achievement were noted as the
primary focus of staff development programs in high-performing districts (Cawelti &
Protheroe, 2001; Togneri & Anderson, 2003). Davis and Davies (2005) contended that
superintendents of high-performing schools provided leadership, whereas Halverson
(2005) argued that administrators created the conditions for strong professional
communities. Unsurprisingly, researchers have found that successful leaders need a
Goals/Vision
Superintendent
S
S
Curriculum
Personnel
Finances
Instruction
District
Performance
Outcomes
32
EVOLUTION
OF
SUPERINTENDENTS
repertoire of skills and practices to draw upon to influence performance outcome
(Leithwood, 2005). Thus, leadership behaviors may impact district performance goals
and meet local, state, and federal accountability standards. Today’s superintendents are
being moved by the challenge of reform, which seeks quality and equality for all
students. The pivotal challenge for superintendents is to balance the various activities of
their role, which is directly associated with improving educational opportunities for all.
Which reform strategies work best for students? The quality of education for
children depends ultimately not on specific techniques, practices or structures, but on
more basic human and social resources in a school, especially on the commitment and
competence (the will and skill) of educators, and on students’ efforts to learn (Newman &
Wehlage, 1996). Restructuring initiatives marks a substantial departure from traditional
conventional practices. We then ask ourselves, how do we implement the new practice
and/or tool for reform?
The Center for Organization and Restructuring of Schools implements core
activities oriented toward a vision of student learning. Pedagogy helps to gauge the
intellectual quality of the activity and how teachers interact, instruct, and assess students.
The organization is considered a professional community that promotes and cherishes a
clear, common purpose for student learning. External support is provided only if it is
consistent with the challenges. As Paul Houston (2001) has pointed out:
The superintendent of the 21
st
century will have to be able to (a) deregulate the
school system and serve as a broker of services and as an ensurer of equity; (b)
devolution, superintendents will find a way of leading by sharing power and by
engaging members of the organization and the community in the process of
leading; (c) demassification, fewer common experiences that hold society
together, and this erosion of the common ground necessary to hold a democracy
together presents a potential threat to our future.
33
EVOLUTION
OF
SUPERINTENDENTS
Superintendents in the future will have to focus on creating learning that is
individualized and connected to personal interest inclusive of social context in
which children learn to live together. The final issue is that of disintermediation,
when technology introduced to society replaces old institutions. To exist,
superintendents must view that learning is not about a place or building but rather
it is about the process.
To create these systems, we need educational leadership at the school, district, state, and
federal levels that understand how to promote thoughtful, equitable approaches that
support teaching and learning for students, teachers, and organizations (Darling-
Hammond, 2007). Deming and Senge have identified organizational learning as a reform
process for developing an organization from within, providing an ongoing learning
process to be considered diagnostic and responsive to its clients and ever-changing needs.
Thus, we must ask; How do we build systemic reform that is organized for student
success across all boundaries? Kenneth Leithwood and Jantzi (2005) have suggested
several effective leadership practices based on transformational leadership. They
recommended that leaders do the following:
• Set direction by developing consensus around vision, goals, and direction;
• Help individual teachers, through support, modeling, and supervision; and
develop collective teacher capacity through collaborative planning and
professional development that creates shared norms of practice;
• Redesign the organization to enable this learning and collaboration among
staff (and personalization/support for students), as well as to engage families
and community; and
• Manage the organization by strategically allocating resources and support.
For district-wide reform to take place, leaders must continually reconcile the
dilemma of centralization versus decentralization (Fullan, 2004). The notion of reform
34
EVOLUTION
OF
SUPERINTENDENTS
must be constantly refined, adapted, and identified within the organization as a whole.
Fullan defined this belief as the goal of constantly fostering shared identity with room to
be innovative. Schools/districts need to balance their programs, policies, and overall
practice to focus on instruction, building capacity, and fostering change through feedback
and evaluation. Effective leadership needs to be invested in, provided for, and to stay
current.
Transformational Leadership and Performance
The current wave of reform aims for the education of all students. Pressure to
succeed in this aim is arising amid serious fiscal crisis in states and municipalities—
particularly in urban districts that enroll a large percentage of children in the U.S.
(Blankstein & Noguera, 2004). Thus, urban school leaders must think critically and act
courageously to help develop, plan, and implement a system that provides all students
access to public education. The purpose of public schooling in this nation—a nation
founded on principles of freedom, justice, and measures of happiness for all—is to
educate the citizenry in understanding and abiding by these principles (Jackson, 2008).
Extreme challenges are afflicting urban school districts, The Institute for
Educational Leadership’s Task Force on School District Leadership et al (2012)
articulated the changes as follows:
District leaders are operating in an environment of ever-shifting priorities. During
the first half of the 20
th
century, says the conventional wisdom, district
management could be defined by ‘ the four Rs’—Race, Resources, Relationships,
and Rules—as heretofore mostly ignored groups such as members of minority
groups, teachers, students, and communities began asserting themselves. Priorities
shifted again in the 1980s when the contemporary school reform movement
gained traction. Today, district leaders must concern themselves with a host of
different concerns: the four As’—Academic standards, Accountability,
Autonomy, and Ambiguity and ‘the five Cs’ – Collaboration, Communication,
Connection, Child advocacy, and Community building.
35
EVOLUTION
OF
SUPERINTENDENTS
Transformational leadership is part of the “New Leadership” paradigm
(Bryman, 1992), which gives more attention to the charismatic and affective elements of
leadership. James Macgregor Burns has defined two types of leadership: transformational
and transactional. He viewed leadership as the process of behavior between a supervisor
and his/her employee. A transformational leader is one who possesses a charismatic
attitude, is attentive to everyone’s needs, and is able to motivate followers with his/her
potential. A classic example of such a leader is Mohatma Gandhi. As a leader, he raised
hope for millions and, through the process, changed himself. Transactional leadership is
often associated with the leader who makes exchanges with his/her employees. An
example can be seen with the politician running for office who gives promises in
exchange for votes. The models for transformational and transactional leadership are
articulated by Peter Northhouse (2007) in Leadership Theory and Practice. (See Figure
3). Lumpkin and Dess (1996) have argued that transformational leadership is associated
with the two basic components of corporate entrepreneurship as mentioned in
entrepreneurial research: proactivity of top managers and organizational innovativeness.
Theories around transformational and charismatic leadership suggest a possible
relationship among leadership, organizational change and adaptation, and
entrepreneurship. Schumpeter (1934) initially defined innovation as the primary function
of entrepreneurship, defined it as the ability to implement a new design for services,
processes, and/or products. For leaders to innovate, they must also take risks. Either the
innovation will foster growth for the organization, or there will be costs.
36
EVOLUTION
OF
SUPERINTENDENTS
Figure 3. Leadership factors.
Although leadership and entrepreneurship overlap to some degree, leadership
involves influencing subjects in the symbolic realm to move them toward certain actions
and to determine the time and scope of these actions (Leavy, 1996; Shamir, House, &
Arthur, 1993), whereas entrepreneurship represents the operational translation of symbols
and behaviors into action. According to Bolman and Deal (1997), the symbolic frame
provides organizations with metaphors, humor, and play as indirect ways to grapple with
issues that are too complex, mysterious, or threatening to approach head-on. A symbolic
frame standpoint suggests the possibility of perception in which importance is not given
to how a decision is made but rather to what the end results mean to the group. Effective
symbolic believers are passionate about making their organization the best and
communicate that passion to all. Symbolic leaders are viewed as prophets, poet leaders
Transformational Transactional Laissez-Faire
Leadership Leadership Leadership
_______________ ____________ ____________
Factor 1 Factor 5 Factor 7
Idealized Influence Contingent Reward Laissez-Faire
Charisma Constructive Transactions Non-transactional
Factor 2 Factor 6
Inspirational Management-by-Exception
Motivation Active and Passive
Corrective Transactions
Factor 3
Intellectual
Stimulation
Factor 4
Individualized
Consideration
37
EVOLUTION
OF
SUPERINTENDENTS
able to connect, build, inspire, and frame experiences that will build relationships
throughout the organization.
Thus, transformational leadership can adopt a radical entrepreneurial strategy as
its main tool for realizing alternative educational realities that recognize and take
advantage of new opportunities in the school environment and act upon them, while
providing better schooling for diverse pupils’ needs (Eyal & Kark, 2012).
People in schools (Elmore 2002, 2004) primarily learn values and expectations
through practice; they do not learn new practices as a consequence of learning new values
and expectations. Accountable leadership should focus on modeling common values
through the engagement of work and the instructional practices implemented. Although
leadership is frequently proposed as a key aspect of management in the public sector, we
continue to debate how much it matters given the constraining environment of the public
sector (Rainey, 2009). How can transformational leaders influence change indirectly?
Leaders need to shape their organizations by making connections between leadership and
successful reform efforts.
Transformational leadership fosters performance information by consistently
providing goal clarity and supporting an organizational culture. Goal clarity encourages
performance information to be explicit and credible in the support of performance
management reforms and processes (Dull, 2009). Thus, transformational leaders ask
employees to look beyond their own self-interests and to focus specifically on the needs
of the organization. By focusing the employee toward collective outcomes rather than
self-interest, and on innovation rather than continuity, transformational leadership creates
a climate in which employees are more willing to endure the costs of performance
38
EVOLUTION
OF
SUPERINTENDENTS
information use, are more cognizant of its benefits, and are creative enough to realize
those benefits (Moynihan, Pandey, & Wright, 2011).
If leaders are to “set the table” for success by creating perfect conditions for their
organizations, the challenge exists in which certain conditions matter. Leaders need to be
able to support direct involvement but also to assist within indirect support. Adopting
either transformational and transactional leadership behavior helps in the success of the
organization (Laohavichien, 2009). Jansen (2009) concluded in his study that
transformational leadership behaviors contribute significantly to exploratory innovation,
whereas transactional leadership behaviors facilitate improving and extending existing
knowledge and are associated with exploitative innovation.
Loose Coupling Theory of Social Control Mechanisms
One thing is clear: Schools and systems that are improving are directly and
explicitly confronting issues of isolation embedded in loose coupling (Elmore, 2000). To
examine organizations, we need to question the connections among the hierarchical
layers within the educational organization. The analysis looks at the linkages through
which work is coordinated, revealing some activities as loose (unconnected/standalone)
or without purpose and others as relatively tight. Bidwell (1965) has pointed out that the
structural looseness of school systems makes it difficult for managers to control work
through bureaucratic procedures. Teachers are expected to produce roughly uniform
outcomes in students moving through a sequence of classes, grades, and schools. But
their particular type of isolation and need for autonomy prevent administrators from
introducing bureaucratic controls such as rules for classroom instruction and management
(Gamoran & Dreeben, 1986). The researchers concluded that individuals within the
39
EVOLUTION
OF
SUPERINTENDENTS
organization play different roles, and that interest groups have varied and conflicting
goals or beliefs. This diversity can harm the organization; school systems cannot operate
by passing on directives continuously from one level to the next. Observing the
ambiguity of connections between the organizational subunits, Weick (1976)
characterized educational organizations as loosely coupled systems.
Schools/districts provide activities and decisions that take place at one level, but
do not reverberate in clearly patterned ways elsewhere. Weick (1976) has mentioned two
limitations that have to be noted by this perspective: First, not every connection is a loose
coupling, for the responsiveness of units to one another varies from one context to
another. Second, the loose-coupling view does not identify the mechanisms that hold
school systems together. Studies have indicated that some key elements of formal
authority—prevalence of rules, obedience to orders, supervision of work—are highly
attenuated in educational organizations (Gamoran & Dreeben, 1986).
What fosters the coordination of work within a school system? Schools operate by
having their managers coordinate their symbolic environment instead of their technical
cores. School system administrators can influence teaching and learning through the
allocation of resources. There are four kinds of resources involved, the first being the
physical environment, as this is the easiest in which to show administrative control—and
yet its link to learning is still vague. Second is personnel (including students); with this
resource, control is viewed through the drawing of boundary lines. Assignment of
personnel is also one of the more tightly coupled aspects of school systems. Then follows
time; much evidence supports the link between time for learning and student
achievement. With variation in teachers’ adherence to schedules, coupling mechanisms
40
EVOLUTION
OF
SUPERINTENDENTS
may be tighter in one area than another. Instructional techniques may vary from class to
class, yet curricular progress can be limited due to the short amounts of time. Finally, the
curricular materials—elements of formal curriculum—define what is taught, and thus
influence student learning. The loose-coupling view examines the discretion with which
teachers use the materials. Figure 4, below, shows the model for coordination of school
systems as they should exist today. One of the reasons why schools/districts are
considered loosely coupled is that it is tough to measure their effectiveness given that
cause-effect relations are not understood or identified.
Resource District School Class Group Individual
Physical
Environment
Facilities provided
By the district
Facilities provided
By the school
Classroom physical
environment
Time
District time
allocation
School time
Allocation
Class time
allocation
(in particular
subjects)
Group time
allocation
Time on task
Curricular
Materials
District allocation
of materials
School supplement
and allocation
of materials
Teacher supplement
and use of materials
Teacher supplement
and use of materials
in small groups
Student
Learning
Personnel
Pool of teachers and
students in the
district
Distribution of
teachers and
students to schools
Distribution of
teachers and
students to
classrooms
Distribution of
students to groups
Individual
Aptitude
Figure 4. A conceptual model of coupling and control in school systems.
Finally, participants within the system often change over time, affecting the continuity of
district plans, and ultimately adding to uncertainty within the organization. Most school
systems tend to be detached from activities and, in turn, activities are detached from the
41
EVOLUTION
OF
SUPERINTENDENTS
outcomes that affect previously set goals. According to Weick (1982), schools are tightly
coupled when they deal with such categories as grade levels and teachers, not activities.
Moreover, educators and other stakeholders do not communicate much with each other.
The loose-coupling model, shown in Figure 5, below, offers a challenge to the
multilayers approach.
School Student
Figure 5. The Loose Coupling Model of school organization and student learning
teacher.
An organization is a system made up of linked relationships, not just of
employees or isolated categories. Richard Ingersoll (1991) has characterized loose
coupling as the technology of teaching—how learning actually happens, the difficulties
of predicting and measuring educational outcomes, and the changing influence of
curricular and methodological innovation. Loosely coupled organizations exhibit an
inordinate lack of cohesion and integration throughout the organization and within the
layers of the design. Green and Swanson (2011), Firestone (1984b), Peterson (1984),
Teacher
Training
and
Socialization
Organizational
Resources
Time
Materials
Skills
Teaching
Practices
Content
Coverage
Student
Learning
Societal
Norms
and
Expectations
42
EVOLUTION
OF
SUPERINTENDENTS
Mintzberg (1983), Weick (1982) have synthesized previously identified mechanisms for
coupling individual behaviors, perceptions, beliefs, or units in an organization. These
mechanisms are identified as follows:
• Mutual Adjustment – The coordination of work by the simple process of
direct, informal communication.
• Direct Supervision – Coordination by having one person take responsibility
for the work of others, issuing instructions to them, and monitoring their
actions.
• Standardization of work processes – The prespecification or programming of
the contents or procedures of work. This effort can be undertaken through the
creation of directions or rules and through specifically designed work devices
like measuring cups or textbooks, which ensure that certain amounts of
information are delivered.
• Standardization of outputs – The prespecification of the results of work in
terms of dimensions, quantity, or quality. This effort is achieved through
product testing or quality control in industry and through standardized testing
in education.
• Enculturation or standardization of skills, knowledge, and values – Training
typically before entry to the organization, as in professional training; can also
include on-the-job training and informal socialization to organizational or
group norms.
Accountability, environmental pressures, and rankings have changed the
fundamental activities of schools, for instance with decision making and how a job is
43
EVOLUTION
OF
SUPERINTENDENTS
executed. As such, research on the effects of measure, assessment, and indicators is very
important (Sauder & Espeland, 2009). For organizations, this viewpoint will have an
increasing role in defining how the environment and relations play with other
stakeholders.
Weick (1976) mentions that an organization does what it does because of
plans, intentional selection of means that get the organization to agree upon
goals, and all of this is accomplished by such rationalized procedures as cost
benefit analyses, division of labor, specified areas of discretion, authority
invested in the office, job descriptions, and a consistent evaluation and reward
system.
Loose-coupling events are responsive, yet each activity or event can preserve its
own integrity as long as it links to the purpose, process, and end result. Loose coupling
can be viewed as the glue that holds the organization together. It suggests the idea of
building blocks as the foundation, utilizing elements of intention and action.
Unfortunately, many organizations spend a lot of time and effort on planning, only
assessing actions in terms of how they fit with the plan. Mars and Ginter (2007) found
that the tightly coupled academic organization they studied were more successful at
implementing and managing instructional technology, and did so in a manner that
provided diverse learning experiences. Marcum (2001) did not specifically refer to
Weick’s article on loose coupling, but his concept of “discovery system” embodies many
of the same traits of a loosely coupled system in terms of adaptability. As Marcum (2001)
wrote:
A discovery system is an existing system that develops the capacity to draw
lessons and propose theories about what is happening and changing.
Discovery systems would not be created fresh and original, but would
emerge from a working system already in place. (p. 99)
44
EVOLUTION
OF
SUPERINTENDENTS
Similarly, as Chu (1995) has noted, “In a successful collaboration among people from
different subunits in a loosely coupled system, there must be a common understanding of
the purpose of collaboration.” Communication is fundamental to creating a bridge of
understanding.
Loosely coupled relationships that stress local authority inhibit widespread
consensus on collection development. Firestone (1984) has mentioned that the idea of
loose coupling is especially unsettling because it undermines a recurring belief about
organizations—namely, the centrality of leadership. One of the major challenges of loose
coupling is to specify the relationship between school administration and school
performance. Loose coupling has serious implications for school administration as an
occupation.
Summary of Literature Review
Managers of organizations need to develop a system of control in order for
systems to meet their goals, policies, procedures, and especially academic accountability.
A review of the literature on learning organization theory, the evolution of the school
superintendent role, instructional leadership, educational reform, and mechanisms of
control used by leaders to focus on district performance definitely influences the focus on
district performance and success.
Studies of the use of control mechanisms and the coordination of learning
organizations reveal the dilemma that today’s school superintendents face in the high-
stakes forum of accountability. There is an urgent need for all units and levels of an
organization to learn to adapt to their environments by preparing for a new world of
globalism and diversity.
45
EVOLUTION
OF
SUPERINTENDENTS
This study utilized the five disciplines for learning organizations by Peter Senge
with reference to how a superintendent designs his/her organization. Instructional
leadership was studied for its relevance to successful student outcomes. The study also
reviewed the impact on Social Control Mechanisms by Green and Swanson (2011),
Firestone (1984), Peterson (1984), Mintzberg (1983), Weick (1982), and how these
behaviors were synthesized and previously identified as mechanisms for coupling;
individual behaviors, perceptions, beliefs or units in an organization. Furthermore, this
study assessed the overall impact of the informal and formal rules and norms of the
organization as a whole institution for learning.
46
EVOLUTION
OF
SUPERINTENDENTS
CHAPTER III
METHODOLOGY
Introduction
This chapter outlines the methods used to investigate the research problem
identified in Chapter One, offering descriptions of the research— participant survey and
interviews, as well as document analysis of school/district performance—and reviewing
the rationale for participant selection.
Restatement of the Problem
Today’s accountability measures drive superintendents to pay critical attention to
the purpose, process, and overall product concerning the structure of the organization;
leadership abilities; and the mechanism responsible for its relationships. If an
organization is to survive, it must be responsive to the ever-changing demands placed on
its environment. But how does an organization become effective? What does the
organization’s effectiveness depend on? When should an organization respond to
environment demands? When should it not? Lastly, how does an organization avoid
environment constraints that force immediate action but limit effectiveness and survival?
In The Fifth Discipline, Senge (1990a) has outlined five disciplines as the
foundation for learning organizations; they are a shared vision, personal mastery, mental
models, group learning, and systems thinking. Developing these disciplines enables
organizations to support staff commitments to finding the best ways to implement the
organization’s mission, goals, and objectives. James (2003) has added to the disciplines
by describing the DNA of learning organizations and explaining how work is fulfilled.
Beliefs are the basis for transformational leadership, and employees feel empowered to
47
EVOLUTION
OF
SUPERINTENDENTS
build their knowledge base and be part of the decision-making process. Thus, what are
the characteristics of instructional leaders? What do these leaders possess that enables
them to change their districts and sustain student performance? Are these leaders
proactive? Do they take risks? Do they recognize the necessity to shift their interests in
anticipation of change and to challenge the status quo?
Successful leadership focuses on the self-transformation of the leader. Browne-
Ferrigno and Muth (2004) have discussed an approach to leadership that realizes the
necessity of changing both the professional culture—comprised of the language,
perspectives, and skills of the developing leader—as well as their conceptual personal
and educational orientations. Bolman and Deal (2003) have described organizations as
frames for study and the leadership they need. They stated that leaders need a working
knowledge of the frames to deal with problems that arise when imbalances occur and that
they must work within these frames to foster a cooperative organization.
Building a cohesive cooperative organization depends upon the superintendent’s
ability to design an organization with a foundation based on interpersonal influence and
personal relationships (Green, 2006) and to synthesize previously identified mechanisms
for coupling individual behaviors, perceptions, beliefs, or units. These mechanisms are
identified as the direct or informal process of communication, the responsibility for
monitoring and evaluating work, the creation of directions or rules, the quantity or
quality produced through quality control of standardized testing, and the professional
training provided to socialize the organization and develop group norms.
48
EVOLUTION
OF
SUPERINTENDENTS
Research Questions
This study focused on the following research questions:
1. How do superintendents define a district-wide plan for improving instruction
in language arts and math?
2. How do superintendents build the capacity of site-level instructional leaders to
implement the chosen instructional programs district wide?
3. How do superintendents evaluate the effectiveness of their instructional
program?
4. How do superintendents mobilize human, social, and physical capital to build
a coalition of instructional leaders?
Research Methods
This study employed a mixed-method of analysis. Johnson and Onwuegbuzie
(2004) have suggested that researchers employ the term “mixed methods” to describe
research designs that consciously blend both approaches within or across the stages of the
research process. Caracalla and Green (1993) and Onwuegbuzie and Teddlie (2003) have
concluded that transformative designs change one form of data into another (most often
qualitative to quantitative data) so that the data collected by mixed-methods designs can
be merged. Patton (2002) has described the use of qualitative analysis thusly:
The data for qualitative analysis typically come from fieldwork. During
fieldwork, the researcher spends time in the setting under study—a program, an
organization, a community, or wherever situations of importance to a study can be
observed, people interviewed, and documents analyzed. (p. 4)
Qualitative analysis and findings are developed out of three kinds of data collection: (1)
in-depth, open-ended interviews; (2) direct observation; and, (3) written documents
(Patton, 2002). Charts and graphs can organize data so that analyst will be able to detect
49
EVOLUTION
OF
SUPERINTENDENTS
trends, patterns, irregularities, or new assumptions, and so conclusions can be verified
through the use of another data set. Generating useful and credible qualitative findings
through observation, interviewing, and content analyses requires discipline, knowledge,
training, practice, creativity, and hard work (Patton, 2002). Maxwell and Loomis (2002)
have described five components of research design essential to the coherence of a study.
Figure 6, below, is an interactive graph that shows a qualitative model research design.
Figure 6. Qualitative model research design.
Qualitative research involves an inductive approach, focus on specific situations
or people, and emphasis on words rather than numbers. There are five types of research
purposes for which qualitative research studies are specifically suited. Maxwell et al.
(2005) have described five types of research purposes for which qualitative research
studies are specifically suited:
GOALS CONCEPTUAL
FRAMEWORK
RESEARCH
QUESTIONS
METHODS
VALIDITY
50
EVOLUTION
OF
SUPERINTENDENTS
• Understanding the meaning of events, situations, actions, and accounts of lives
and experiences;
• Understanding the context within which participants act, and the influence that
this context has on their actions;
• Identifying unanticipated phenomena and influences and generating new
grounded theories;
• Understanding the process by which events and actions take place; and,
• Developing causal explanations.
Slone (2009) has stated that humans instinctively rely on qualitative information, having
an aptitude for pattern recognition and sharing of information. Qualitative researchers
have the task of capturing, sorting, analyzing, interpreting, and sharing qualitative data.
Quantitative research is a formal, objective, systematic process for obtaining
quantifiable information about the world. It is basically presented in numerical form and
is analyzed through the use of statistics. Quantitative research is used to describe and to
test relationships and to examine the cause and effect of those relationships. Thus,
quantitative research is concerned with numbers, statistics, and the between the events
and the numbers. Rose and Sullivan (1996) have defined the logic of social research as
follows:
as social researchers we believe that patterns and regularities occur in society and
that these are not simply random. The task we are faced with is to ask why these
patterns exist: in other words to produce explanations of them, We couch these
explanations in terms of theories. Theories allow us to select out from a mass of
confusing material those elements of reality which are of concern to us. On the
basis of theory we can develop hypotheses about relationships which ought to
exist, if the theory is valid.
51
EVOLUTION
OF
SUPERINTENDENTS
Figure 7. Depiction of a classic hypothetic-deductive research design.
Quantitative research aims at (causal) explanations, primarily seeking to answer
the “why” questions. Quantitative methods can be measured and expressed numerically
and analyzed statistically. Observations are classified into numeric variables. Data are
transformed into a data matrix, which serves as the starting point for the analysis.
Creswell (2003) has identified four central questions that inform the design of a
mixed-methods study; they are: (1) In what sequence will the qualitative and quantitative
data collection be implemented? (2) What relative priority will be given to the qualitative
and quantitative data collection and analysis? (3) At what stage of the project will the
qualitative and quantitative data be integrated? and (4) Will an overall theoretical
perspective be used to guide the study? Greene (2006) has offered a useful framework
Theories
Deductive
Reasoning
Hypotheses
Observations
Induction
Empirical
Generalizations
THEORY
EMPIRICISM
52
EVOLUTION
OF
SUPERINTENDENTS
for mixed-methods research, identifying these four domains: (a) philosophical
assumptions, (b) inquiry logics, (c) guidelines for practice, and (d) sociopolitical
commitments. Therefore, triangulation allows for the convergence of quantitative and
qualitative results. Oliver-Hoyo (2006) and Allen et al. have identified a schematic
representation of the triangulation design, as shown in Figure 8, below. Each vertex of
the triangle produces results that are compared and weighed against the results of the
other methods.
Interviews
Journals/ Field Notes Survey
Figure 8. Triangulated design for data collection.
The process of triangulation can verify conclusions. Patton (2002) has described the logic
of triangulation as based on the premise that no single method ever adequately solves the
problem of rival explanations. Four kinds of triangulation contribute to verification and
validation of qualitative analysis:
1. Methods triangulation: Checking out the consistency of findings generated by
different data collection methods;
Graphing
Attitudes
53
EVOLUTION
OF
SUPERINTENDENTS
2. Triangulation of sources: Checking out the consistency of different data
sources within the same method;
3. Analyst triangulation: Using multiple analysts to review findings; and,
4. Theory/perspective triangulation: Using multiple perspective or theories to
interpret the data.
Data Collection and Analysis
Data collection for this study consisted of conducting personal interviews and
administering participant surveys.
Interviews
Purposeful sampling was employed to help determine the sample of interviews.
Patton (1990, 2002) has suggested that the logic and power of purposeful sampling lies in
selecting information-rich cases for study in depth. Information-rich cases are those from
which one can learn a great deal about issues of central importance to the purpose of the
research, thus the term purposeful sampling. Perhaps the differences between quantitative
and qualitative methods differ in the strategies used throughout the study such as logic
and purposeful sampling. With purposeful sampling, according to Patton (1990), in the
process of developing the research design, the evaluator or researcher tries to consider
and anticipate the kinds of arguments that will lend credibility to the study as well as the
kinds of arguments that might be used to attack the findings. His description also includes
critical case sampling as a strategic method of picking the site that will yield the most
information and have the greatest impact on the development of knowledge. Patton
(2002) described the purpose of interviewing with the assumption that the perspectives of
others are meaningful, knowledgeable, and able to be made explicit. Moreover, the
54
EVOLUTION
OF
SUPERINTENDENTS
quality of the information obtained during an interview is largely dependent on the
interviewer.
Forty superintendents were surveyed, and interviews were conducted with four
urban district superintendents, who are the focus of this study. Appendix A provides a
survey table used for this study. Appendix B provides a sample of the interview protocol,
which identifies the various questions used. Appendix C provides the document analysis
matrix. The research implemented clarifying questions and probes to assist in gathering
new questions. The interviews were taped recorded and then transcribed. The information
was then collected and categorized using graphs and charts and then merged with the
other data source collected through surveys. All information contained through recorder,
transcription, or survey was protected to respect confidentiality. Following the
interviews, a special note of appreciation was given to recognize the importance of the
participant’s willingness to participate in this study.
Data Analysis
The collected data were analyzed through various graphs and charts. The data
were summarized through research theory provided by Peter Senge for learning
organizations, leadership by Robert Marzano, and the social control mechanisms for
organizations by Green and Swanson (2011). The study used a template to analyze the
design for a learning organization, instructional leadership capacity and its social
controls, and the effects of these controls as they are implemented. The names of the
district, and individuals interviewed or quoted, have been changed. Any similarity to a
description is coincidence. Consistency in the use of fictitious names has been
maintained throughout the case study.
55
EVOLUTION
OF
SUPERINTENDENTS
Limitations of the Study
The participant interviewees were selected based on the indicators for this study;
thus, limitations were set with specific indicators such as size of school district (15,000 or
more student population) and performance on the California State Tests (CST) for
language arts and math over a three-year period. The researcher made an effort to
maintain objectivity in the process of analyzing the data. The researcher was aware that
asking for perceptions could allow personal bias and prejudices to surface. Thus, the
particularly probing clarifying questions assisted with the opinions, issues, or concerns
attributed to personality characteristics.
This study was limited to the information provided by the survey and interview
protocol used to gather specific information concerning a school district’s learning
organizational design, the instructional leadership applied, and the social control
mechanism implemented.
Summary of Methodology
This chapter has focused on the research problem identified for this study and
how the methods were selected and used throughout the study. These methods
incorporated the use of data analysis, which assisted with the formation of conclusions.
An overview of qualitative and quantitative design assisted with the data analysis and use
of multiple data collection techniques in the formation of triangulation. This process
provided cross-data consistency checks that gave credence to the study’s approach.
56
EVOLUTION
OF
SUPERINTENDENTS
CHAPTER IV
RESULTS OF THE STUDY
Introduction
The focus of this study was to analyze a superintendent’s oversight as an
instructional leader, as well as the learning organization design and the social control
mechanism employed throughout the urban school district. Employing the research
strategies of triangulation, which includes interviews, surveys, and document analysis,
this chapter presents the overall findings of the study concerning the superintendent’s
oversight as leader of an urban school district.
This chapter focuses on the findings of this study via an analysis of the reflective
interviews and document analysis of four participating superintendents, together with
surveys taken by 40 urban school superintendents. The identified research questions are
the basis for this chapter’s organization. The specific findings are presented through the
specific research questions, in chronological order, and by specific category according to
the specific question posed. The questions are as follows:
1. How do superintendents define a district-wide plan for improving instruction
in language arts and math?
2. How do superintendents build the capacity of site-level instructional leaders to
implement the chosen instructional programs district wide?
3. How do superintendents evaluate the effectiveness of his/her instructional
program?
4. How do superintendents mobilize human, social, and physical capital to build
a coalition of instructional leaders?
57
EVOLUTION
OF
SUPERINTENDENTS
Using the reflective interviews and document analysis of superintendents and
surveys taken by superintendents, this chapter presents evidence in response to the
particular questions being posed. Collected data were analyzed through charts, matrices,
information coding, interviews, and document analysis.
Participants
All of the participants in this study were superintendents located in the Southern
California region with student populations of 14,000 students or more and a high
percentage of minority students. They represent a sample of today’s superintendents.
The names of the districts and its personnel interviewed and/or quoted have been
changed to provide confidentiality and professional respect. Consistency in the use of
names has been maintained throughout this study as “respondent.” Districts, too, shall be
outlined and mentioned as an “organization.” Table 2, below, provides information about
each district and the comparable results of the CST (California State Test) for the last
three years. All districts have the commonality of demonstrating instructional growth
over time, specifically a three-year span (2008, 2009, 2010 school years). Each
organization had shown a positive percentage of growth in language arts and math,
clearly demonstrating that each organization had an instructional leader setting the tone.
Today’s success is measured by overall student performance on the California State
Exam. The following results are described by the key variables within the contextual
frame of this study. The contextual frames are the instructional design and leadership of
the organization and the social-control mechanism employed throughout the organization.
The four superintendents who participated in the interview process had had more than
eight years of experience, plus they all had previous experience within the curriculum and
58
EVOLUTION
OF
SUPERINTENDENTS
instruction department and had held other positions in education before being promoted
to superintendent. They held the belief that instruction was the pivotal indicator that
drives a district. Three were male (one African American, two Latino), and one female
(Latina) superintendent. They believed that the cornerstone of student success was
classroom instruction.
Table 2:
District Comparison Results*
District % Minority
Students
%
Proficient
Lang. Arts
%
Proficient
Math
Language
Arts
Comparison
Math
Comparison
A 97.5
97.9
98.3
(2008–2009)
31.9
(2009–2010)
36.6
(2010–2011)
39.3
(2008–2009)
39.0
(2009-2010)
46.2
(2010–2011)
47.2
+ 7.4 + 8.2
B 98.9
99.4
98.8
(2008–2009)
38.6
(2009–2010)
42.5
(2010–2011)
45.9
(2008–2009)
42.0
(2009–2010)
47.6
(2010–2011)
49.5
+7.3% +7.5%
C 82.7
83.1
83.3
(2008–2009)
34.4
(2009–2010)
37.4
(2010–2011)
40.5
(2008–2009)
40.3
(2009–2010)
44.0
(2010–2011)
47.5
+6.1% +7.2%
D 96.2
97.0
97.2
(2008–2009)
38.4
(2009–2010)
40.5
(2010–2011)
44.3
(2008–2009)
48.8
(2009–2010)
52.2
(2010–2011)
56.6
+5.9% +7.8%
*Based on Ed. Data District Comparison Results
The interviews were tape recorded and then transcribed. The information
provided from the interviews was then categorized, and coded onto charts and matrices,
which then were merged with the other data sources. All information that was gathered
through the interview process and transcriptions protected the confidentiality of the
immediate source. (See Appendix A for a copy of the Superintendent Interview Matrix.)
59
EVOLUTION
OF
SUPERINTENDENTS
Superintendent Instructional Reflective Survey
Questionnaire Sample (n = 40)
The population of the questionnaire sample consisted of 40 urban superintendents
who participated in the instructional survey instrument. (See Appendix B for a copy of
the survey instrument.) The superintendents who participated were selected from various
counties located in Southern California. Tables 3 through 7 provide data from the school
districts that participated in the survey process, providing years of service, gender,
ethnicity, and age. Thirty-two out of 40 districts that participated were unified school
districts, three were individual unified high school districts, and the remaining five were
undisclosed. Superintendents averaged three years of service. Superintendents were
mostly male (26), with a lower number of females (13), White, and between the ages of
51 to 60. One did not disclose race or gender. All school districts that participated had
student populations ranging from 14,000 or more with a high percentage of minorities.
They were all urban districts.
Table 3:
District-Level Organizations: Survey Participants
Unified School
District
Unified High
School District
Other
Survey
Participants
32 3 5
Table 4:
Superintendent Years of Service: Survey Participants
Mean Median Mode Standard
Deviation
Variance Population
Standard
Deviation
Survey
Participants
4.4 3 1 3.4 12 3.4
60
EVOLUTION
OF
SUPERINTENDENTS
Table 5:
Superintendent Gender: Survey Participants
Male Female Nondescription
Survey
Participants
26 13 1
Table 6:
Superintendent Ethnicity and Gender: Survey Participants
Asian
American
African
American
Caucasian Latino
American
Nondescription
Survey
Participants
Male: –1 Male: 2
Female: 2
Male:15
Female: 8
Male: 5
Female: 3
Male: 4
Female: 0
Table 7:
Superintendent Age: Survey Participants
< 30 31–40 41–50 51–60 61+ Nondescription
Survey
Participants
0 0 Male:4
Female: 1
Male: 10
Female:7
Male: 6
Female: 4
Male: 2
Female:6
Document Review Matrix
Participants were asked to fill out a document review matrix that addressed the
specific district policies and procedures with publications and any document related to
the organization’s instructional design, leadership, and any social control mechanisms it
employed. Superintendents were asked to identify the specific documentation that they
employed. Each contextual frame consisted of specific questions that led to the analysis
of the documents. (See Appendix C for an example of the matrix used for this study.)
Some of the artifacts contained information related to district-wide instructional plans,
capacity building and professional development, monitoring and evaluation of the
instructional plan, and use of resources to build a coalition of instructional leaders.
61
EVOLUTION
OF
SUPERINTENDENTS
Research Question One
How do superintendents define a district-wide plan for improving instruction in
language arts and math?
Learning Organization
Question One referred to the specific plan that a superintendent must have in
place to improve instruction. For example, is the organization considered a learning
organization, one that places a complete focus on instruction? Does this organization
have an instructional vision? Is there an instructional plan in place with goals, objectives,
and a continuous forum for professional development and communication throughout the
organization and community?
Having a shared vision as an institution allows an organization to foster and
embrace loyalty, which inspires the idea of a shared vision. Having a shared vision forces
people to open their hearts, have honor, and perhaps ask, “What do we want to create?”
This sense of community permeates the organization and provides coherence.
Peter Senge has agued that generative learning occurs only when people are
striving to accomplish something that matters deeply to them—something that will likely
be abstract and meaningless until they become excited about a shared vision they truly
want to accomplish. An organization needs to embrace change through the development
and maturation of the organization. Schein (1995) has described the leader as an animator
and a creator/sustainer of the organization’s culture. When changes in the organization
are needed, leaders must become “change agents.”
Interviewees were asked to describe their perception of the organizational design
of instruction, the instructional dynamics of a leader, and the mechanism of relationships
62
EVOLUTION
OF
SUPERINTENDENTS
incorporated within the organization. Comments from the various respondents supported
the overall observations of their respective organizations. Superintendents described their
instructional focus on language arts and math within their overall district-wide
instructional plan. Superintendents were asked to describe their learning organization and
how they defined their district-wide instructional plan—to which Superintendent
Respondent C responded: “My district makes sure that all youngsters are pushed to
maximize their potential, to provide a quality professional development system for all,
and everyone uses a common language throughout the district.” To the same question,
Superintendent Respondent A stated:
to provide an education embedded with a quality education that includes a system
in place with processes inclusive of monitoring and evaluation. All professional
development is developed within a collaborative effort. It is inclusive of all
initiatives, State, District, Union. It embraces community partnerships and uses a
variety of resources. This allows the district to measure its strategies and end
results.
Superintendent Respondent B stated: “All individuals play a role. Decisions are made
collaboratively. Action plans are developed with objectives and alternatives, developed
systematic decision-making process. I have implemented a corporate model.”
Superintendent Respondent D stated:
My organization is provided with a personal touch in order to ensure that all
students are career and college prepared. We have a theory of action. For
example, we use the umbrella of common core standards in order to make
changes to our teaching and learning.
Peter Senge described the five disciplines as shared vision, personal mastery,
mental models, group learning, and systems thinking to help develop a strong
commitment to achieving the organization’s vision, mission, goals, and objectives. All of
63
EVOLUTION
OF
SUPERINTENDENTS
the superintendents voiced their organization’s quest to embrace instruction in various
modes and models, and all conveyed a sense of urgency.
Perceptions varied from respondent to respondent regarding the degree of
implementation of exciting instructional happenings and the philosophy of the
organization. How the vision is created and then leads to the development of the
instructional plan varies from district to district, each with its own method of
implementation. Is there a department responsible for instruction, and does this
department have the ability to make decisions? Who collects, distributes, and analyzes
the data? Respondents considered purpose of plan (district-wide focus) and process of
implementation. Along these lines, Superintendent Respondent C stated:
The vision is to close the achievement gap. Hired personnel that had huge
background knowledge and thus surrounded myself with an extremely
knowledgeable and complete team. I also hired important people in the field of
education to run my various instructional departments. I sought the best minds
from the most powerful universities. Communication throughout the district is
provided by the public affairs information office. Also implemented, district-wide
meetings/forums for all administrators, teachers, parents/community and students.
Superintendent Respondent A stated:
The research department uses the process for data analysis. They provide
assessment service. Data is received within days. The whole system is around data
analysis. I review data with each principal. Everyone has an opportunity to voice
their opinion through district-day forums for communication.
Superintendent Respondent B stated, “The team visits each school and makes
accountability a priority. Team helps each individual school by establishing a needs
assessment plan, timeline, objectives, and goals.” And Superintendent Respondent D
stated:
My plan entailed the development of a continuous improvement team. I would
invite all stakeholders throughout the district. I held more than fifteen forums.
They would help my instructional service team in crafting our mission/vision,
64
EVOLUTION
OF
SUPERINTENDENTS
which then we would present to the Board for approval. It is an entire process in
which everyone is provided with a voice.
Superintendent Respondent A cited the importance of data analysis and the process
implemented:
We have a data dashboard based on our set district indicators. All data is
presented to all stakeholders. These indicators help us to judge whether we are on
track for college, and career prepared. And it also helps to keep ourselves
accountable. For example, one priority indicator is our redesignation rate, due to
the high second language learner population.
Constance James has painted a picture of how organizations need a new DNA of
learning, one that encompasses the four B’s framework; belief, behavior, balance, and
boundarylessness. She explained how organizations need this empowered knowledge in
order to firm up the organization’s performance. Having a strong organizational belief
embraces the basis of a transformational leader—one who raises awareness about what is
important and increases concern for student achievement, self-actualization, and ideals.
Superintendent respondents were asked about their role within the learning
organization and the leadership style that defined them. To these queries, Superintendent
Respondent A stated, “My leadership style is participatory. I like to participate in
everything that takes place in my district. I am a transformational leader. I like to make
sense.” Superintendent Respondent B stated, “My role is to make sure that all my schools
have all the resources they need in order to get the job done. I provide each individual ten
days a year for professional development, which I sponsor.” Superintendent Respondent
D stated, “My leadership style is inclusive, an exceptional listener, trained as counselor,
people person.” Superintendent Respondent A stated, “I am a hands-on superintendent.”
Superintendent Respondent D stated:
65
EVOLUTION
OF
SUPERINTENDENTS
My style is collaborative, but I set high expectations and I hold people
accountable. All department supervisors have to submit weekly action plans to me
and I review them. All plans need to consider the district’s goals and a
comprehensible timeline to achieve the goals.
What much of this commentary suggests is that as we continue to look at
institutions of learning, all employees must be continually provided with the opportunity
to create, acquire, and transfer new knowledge to their organizations so their
organizations can adapt to any and all future challenges.
Garvin, Edmondson, and Gino (2008) have described three fundamental building
blocks of a learning organization. First, an organization needs to have a supportive
learning environment, one that takes risks and explores the unknown. Second, a concrete
learning process must be in place, one that collects, interprets, and disseminates
information and all kinds of data. Finally, leadership must reinforce learning, demonstrate
a willingness to entertain alternative viewpoints, and engage in active questioning and
listening.
All four superintendents interviewed provided examples of their instructional
organizational design and how their organization’s teams, departments, communities, and
entire organizations were performing within the building blocks of a learning
organization.
Learning Organization Survey Analysis
Sample (n = 40)
Superintendents were asked to reflect upon the development of their district-wide
instructional plans and how the shared vision for language arts and math was composed.
Does the organization have a system of communication that expects schools to fully
implement the district’s instructional plan, or is their flexibility for independence
66
EVOLUTION
OF
SUPERINTENDENTS
compromised? Table 8, below, shows data collected for the learning organization and
how the superintendents defined their district-wide instructional plan. It describes and
measures the various facets of statistical data collected for this study.
Table 8:
Survey Analysis Questions 1–6
Learning Organization:
Question Themes
Mean Median Mode Standard
Deviation
Variance Population
Standard
Deviation
District-Wide
Instructional Plan
20 20 9, 31 16 242 11
District Vision:
Language Arts
10 4 1 14 204 12
District Vision: Math 13 9 1, 9, 30 15 224 12.229
Communication 13 17 1, 17, 22 11 120 9
Independent School
Implementation
8 3 3 8 56 7
District Implemented
Plan
10 11 1,7,15,17 7.4 55 6.4
Leadership Style of Superintendents
Sample (n = 40)
Superintendents have to deal with a multitude of responsibilities and demonstrate
the capability to lead. There are various styles of leadership. Figure 9, below, provides
information concerning the leadership style that superintendents perceive about
themselves.
67
EVOLUTION
OF
SUPERINTENDENTS
Figure 9. Leadership Style.
Out of the 40 surveys collected, the top three indicators selected were a
collaborative superintendent, followed by one that empowers its employees, and lastly
one who considers him or herself “hands-on.” Two indicators were tied for the lowest
points: hands-off and top down leaders. Fifteen superintendents perceived themselves as
effective leaders, whereas fewer than five did not respond. Five superintendents also
considered themselves “top down” leaders. Overall, the data affirm that superintendents
in general want to be participatory and collaborative within their organizations.
Learning Organization Shared Vision
Sample (n = 40)
An organizational vision entails stakeholders coming together to develop a plan,
belief, or design. Figure 10, below, shows how the superintendents perceived their
organizations’ stakeholder participation process in the creation, communication, and
implementation of the districts’ instructional vision. Each superintendent was asked to
identify any and/or all stakeholders that participate within their organization. According
68
EVOLUTION
OF
SUPERINTENDENTS
to the data, superintendents apparently expect certain stakeholders to participate in the
creation and communication of shared instructional vision.
Figure 10. Learning organization (vision).
Thirty-nine out of 40 superintendents agreed that they and district-level staff were
responsible for creating and communicating the message, but that principals and students
were the implementers of the vision. Thirty-eight out of 40 believed strongly about this
distribution of accountability. Board members were held to some type of creation role,
but it was minimal. Parents, students, and community members were not considered
important stakeholders within this process.
Learning Organization Document Analysis
(n = 4)
All four interviewees were asked to identify the various documents present in
their districts. They were asked to fill out a yes/no document review matrix. The
superintendents identified “yes” to all questions pertaining to the document analysis with
100% agreement. An example provided by Superintendent Respondent A considered the
69
EVOLUTION
OF
SUPERINTENDENTS
yearly Superintendent Monitoring Report as inclusive of the nine priorities outlined. Each
priority in the report had its own action plan and articulated how it was connected
throughout the organization.
The identified priorities were to raise student achievement, with primary focus on
reading/language arts, ELD, math, and 9–12 core a performance-based testing and
assessment program; technology to manage information throughout district; improvement
of student support services; increasing and promoting team building and staff
involvement in decision making; monitoring and promoting school safety and security;
increasing parent and community involvement and collaboration; improving
understanding and accepting cultural diversity and multiple perspectives; and, effectively
managing resources to achieve the district’s mission.
Research Question Two
How do superintendents build the capacity of site-level instructional leaders to
implement the chosen instructional programs district wide?
Instructional Leadership
Question Two encompasses the focus of instructional leadership. Are there
specific trends and/or methodologies that superintendents implement, and how do they
relate to instructional success? Successful leaders have been described as individuals who
take a proactive role in changing their organizations, at times advocating risk taking.
These recognized strategic shifts surround the interest and/or needs of their clientele; they
anticipate the need for change and challenge the status quo. SEDL et al. (2012) describe
instructional leaders as directors of educational change who have a vision and belief that
70
EVOLUTION
OF
SUPERINTENDENTS
the purpose of schools is to promote student learning. Schools must also value human
resources as well as communication and listening.
Being a proactive leader and a risk taker demonstrates the dimension of initiating
structure. Leaders of educational change respond to the human aspects, as well as to the
task aspects of their schools and districts. For change to be effective, skilled leadership
must integrate the human element into the business action.
The following section addresses the instructional leadership of superintendents as
they build the capacity of their instructional leaders. Superintendents were asked to
reflect on specific information pertaining to the instructional trends and methodologies
related to their language arts and math programs, perceptions of their instruction strength
and/or weakness, and any instructional issues and challenges. On this subject,
Superintendent Respondent C stated:
Goals are always lined up with the state approaches other than building teacher
capacity. We try to tackle how teachers teach. This is our powerful emphasis.
Over time, we have developed math units, which is our strength. Our instructional
research department piloted to all, which then teachers implemented.
Superintendent Respondent D stated:
We are creating our own common core units and we are using our teachers to
develop our own curriculum to help move away from program-based to
standards-based. Our teachers are implementing already for language arts and
math. We also provide for our dual language programs.
Superintendent Respondent A stated:
The district’s strength is the fidelity in which instructional professional
development is implemented. We monitor all aspects of professional development
from initial development, training, implementation, reflection, and evaluation. We
take pride in initiative audits. I try to remove all that I can from principal’s plates
to focus on instruction. Our biggest challenge is to increase rigor and provide
accessibility to our send language learners.
71
EVOLUTION
OF
SUPERINTENDENTS
Superintendent Respondent B stated, “A slower pace of change. Examples such as our
grading practice. I feel that there is not enough of collaboration throughout. A huge area
which is out of our control is today’s economics.” Overall, Superintendent Respondents
A and D offered similar remarks: “To get buy-in, we have to be considered symbolic. We
try to attend all meetings. We meet with all principals, visit schools, classrooms, walk the
talk. The role is emphasized.”
An accomplished educational leader will consistently cultivate leadership and the
entire process of change to meet a high level of performance. Accomplished leaders have
a developed vision, which is continuously reformed through the involvement of all
stakeholders. An accomplished leader manages and maintains all systems and processes
to achieve the desired results.
The Center for the study of Teaching and Policy et al. (2003) describes the five
areas of action for leading for learning. Schools and district leaders can advance powerful
and equitable student learning by (a) establishing a focus on learning—by persistently
and publicly focusing their own attention and that of others on learning and teaching; (b)
building professional communities that value learning—by nurturing work cultures that
value and support their members’ learning; (c) engaging external environments that
matter for learning—by building relationships and securing resources from outside
groups that can foster students’ or teachers’ learning; (d) acting strategically and sharing
leadership—by mobilizing effort along multiple “pathways” that lead to student,
professional, or system learning and by distributing leadership across levels and among
individuals in different positions; and, (e) creating coherence—by connecting student,
72
EVOLUTION
OF
SUPERINTENDENTS
professional, and system learning with one another and with learning goals. Thus, leaders
can exert a direct and identifiable influence on learning results.
Instructional Leadership Survey Analysis
Sample (n = 40)
As instructional leaders, superintendents continuously provide feedback, collect
and measure data, make opportunities for reflection, allow for time and resources to be
available, and evaluate the effectiveness of their instructional programs. Table 9, below,
shows the data collected for the instructional leadership portion of the survey. It describes
and measures the various facets of statistical data collected for this study. The data show
three indicators in which 20 out of 40 superintendents strongly agreed that collecting and
analyzing data, preparing for instruction, and being an instructional leader are the most
important indicators. The least important indicators are tied between providing feedback
and time and resources, which less than half of the superintendents found to be as
important as other indicators. Based on the data, about 22 out of 40 superintendents
perceived their districts as having effective processes for evaluating their instructional
program. Twenty-four out of 40 superintendents agreed to being considered an effective
instructional leader.
73
EVOLUTION
OF
SUPERINTENDENTS
Table 9:
Survey Questions 9–14
Instructional
Leadership: Question
Themes
Mean Median Mode Standard Deviation Variance Population
Standard
Deviation
Provides regular
feedback
13 11 1,11,28 14 186 11.2
Collects Data 20 20 4, 36 23 512 16
Provides Time and
Resources
13 11 1,11,28 14 186 11.2
Prepares to improve
instruction
20 20 8, 32 17 288 12
Evaluate
Effectiveness
13.3 15 3,15,22 10 92.3 8
Effective
instructional leader
20 20 16,24 6 32 4
Instructional Leadership Document Analysis
Sample (n = 1)
Superintendent Respondent D provided a pamphlet called “The Superintendent
100-Day Entry Plan,” which outlined the “Listening, Learning, and Leading” yearly plan.
It was a summary report based on observation, activities, and recommendations, and
provided information about accomplishing key goals focused on respect, responsibility,
and results.
Research Question Three
How do superintendents evaluate the effectiveness of his/her instructional
program(s)?
Instructional Leadership
Is there superintendent oversight for building capacity within the organization and
the process for reflection and evaluation of the instructional program? According to
Westley and Mintzberg et al. (1989) visionary leadership is dynamic and involves a
three-step process: an image of the desired future for the organization (vision) is
74
EVOLUTION
OF
SUPERINTENDENTS
communicated (shared), which serves to “empower those followers so that they can enact
the vision.” Within the context of learning, leaders must be able to look at the multiple
influences on the school learning experience, considering how leaders’ actions can
involve student, professional, and overall system learning in the improvement effort.
The CTP (Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy et al [2003]) has stated
how leaders influence and evaluate learning by emphasizing learning for all students,
regardless of the challenges they face, helping them master challenging content and skills
in subject areas, develop habits of mind for further learning, and prepare for fulfilling
occupational futures and citizenship in a democracy. In pursuing this end, leaders engage
three learning agendas: student learning, professional learning, and system learning.
Figure 11, below, demonstrates the process within an organization and how all systems
are interconnected.
Figure 11. Three learning agendas in context (organizational contexts).
75
EVOLUTION
OF
SUPERINTENDENTS
Learning is not simply about making changes to the system, it must include the
ability to craft new approaches. Personnel should always be encouraged to take risks and
be able to explore the unknown. A supportive learning environment provides a pause in
the action and allows for thoughtful review of the organization’s processes. Leaders who
were able to change their organizations were proactive and took risks.
Respondents were asked to describe the process in which superintendents
evaluated their instructional program, provided opportunities for reflection, and allocated
resources to support their districts’ instructional programs. On this subject,
Superintendent Respondent C explained, “Key instructional strategies and opportunities
for reflection such as professional development [are[ very strong and we partner with
university higher education to understand our openness to the outside.” Superintendent
Respondent A cited, “We have professional development for our schools—we consider it
as a model of inquiry. Our common core unit of studies are implemented and then our
teachers provide feedback in order for us to adjust and make change.” Superintendent
Respondent D cited: “Use of data helped make change appeasable, used walk-throughs to
observe implementation and change (constructive feedback).”
Superintendent respondents commented on the organization’s ability to evaluate the
districts’ instructional program as well as to allocate resources: Superintendent
Respondent C offered, “If schools needed help, I would call the chief financial officer
and I would make it a point to support each and all of my schools. My schools were to
have the basic foundation.” Superintendent Respondent D cited, “We have about thirty-
five curriculum specialists to help implement the common core units of study. The board
agreed to these positions as long as they were to work individually with school,
76
EVOLUTION
OF
SUPERINTENDENTS
principals, teachers, students.” Superintendent Respondent B offered, “Reflection is
extremely important in my district, I believe in a systematic process, thus I implement
various levels of evaluation throughout. Everyone is held accountable for the results. Our
results are analyzed consistently to demonstrate our growth from growth.”
Superintendent Respondent A cited:
There are a variety of skills needed to apply such as leadership, I always look for
an internal adequacy of the district and how money is not only allocated, but how
it is funneled throughout. My priority is to assist my desperate schools in need
first and even out the playing field.
Professional learning assists and increases educator effectiveness. It provides the
results in the MetLife Foundation, which helps to articulate the Standards for
Professional Learning. They describe these seven standards within the whole process to
assist developing foundational knowledge to improve the professional learning base and
how individuals participate, as well as the planning, designing, facilitating, and final
evaluation of programs, processes, and professional learning. Table 10, below, shows an
excerpt of the standards for professional learning, and how learning can be effective if
organizations are provided for.
77
EVOLUTION
OF
SUPERINTENDENTS
Table 10:
Professional Learning that Increases Educator Effectiveness and Results for All Students
Learning Communities Occurs within learning communities committed to continuous
improvement, collective responsibility, and goal alignment.
Leadership Requires skillful leaders who develop capacity, advocate, and create
support systems for professional learning.
Resources Requires prioritizing, monitoring, and coordinating resources for
educator learning.
Data Uses a variety of sources and types of student, educator, and system
data to plan, assess, and evaluate professional learning.
Learning Designs Integrates theories, research, and models of human learning to
achieve its intended outcomes.
Implementation Applies research on change and sustains support for implementation
of professional learning for long-term change.
Outcomes Aligns its outcomes with educator performance and student
curriculum standards.
Instructional Leadership Survey Analysis
Sample (n = 40)
Superintendents were asked to identify the on-going training provided for their
staff. Figure 12, below, shows the data concerning appropriate specific on-going
professional development.
78
EVOLUTION
OF
SUPERINTENDENTS
Figure 12. Instructional leadership.
Of the six professional development categories, 40 out 40 superintendants agreed
that instruction is pivotal. Second place was a tie between curriculum and assessment,
both receiving 38 out of 40. Third place was a tie between data analysis and standards-
based, both receiving 37 out of 40. In last place was personal professional development,
with a score of 20 out of 40. The data made apparent that the superintendents did not
consider personal professional growth to be an investment in future promotions and
building from within the organization. Each superintendent was asked to identify any
and/or all stakeholders that participated in the creation, communication, and
implementation of the district’s instructional program. Figure 13, below, shows how the
superintendents provided such opportunities and how they assessed their own roles
relative to them.
79
EVOLUTION
OF
SUPERINTENDENTS
Figure 13. Instructional program.
Instructional Leadership Document Analysis
Sample (n = 1)
One respondent provided a sample pamphlet containing the districts “Seven C’s
of Building Blocks.” Each “C” represented an indicator such as a clear focus on learning,
a comprehensive accountability system, the district overall climate, alignment of capital,
avenue of communication, community and parent involvement, and, commitment and
capacity for all employees. This pamphlet was a clear indication of the superintendent’s
process for evaluating the effectiveness of the organization. It defined the perspective the
superintendent had toward the superintendent’s instructional leadership.
Research Question Four
How do superintendents mobilize human, social, and physical capital to build a
coalition of instructional leaders?
Social-Control Mechanism
The fourth question assumed that the superintendent had a system in place and/or
a preconceived perception as to how the superintendent will mobilize the human, social,
80
EVOLUTION
OF
SUPERINTENDENTS
and physical capital (social-control mechanism) to build a coalition of instructional
leaders. Information was gathered through the perceptual lens of mechanisms with such
measure as mutual adjustment, direct supervision, standardization of work processes, and
enculturation. Within this mechanism, clarifying new relationships, causes and
consequences or new patterns of coupling were reviewed. One highly coupling
mechanism was that of the organizational theory, authority of office, and the ability to
shape the instructional process.
The concept of loosely coupled systems refers to the effort to treat schools as a
coordinated whole, a series of hierarchies and departments that are responsive to each
other yet separate and independent. This model raised questions about the role and
function of district/school leaders and the difficulty of intentional, directed efforts to
reform education. Thus one of the major challenges was to specify the relationship
between district/school administration and school performance. We looked at the
rationality of the educational enterprise by connecting intention and actual action taken.
Improved districts have developed and implemented policies and strategies that
are built to promote equity and excellence review and to revise policies and strategies that
are linked to the district goals. Student learning was the central priority given to the role,
budget, operating procedures, and personnel practices, which were all redefined
according to need or change. All personnel were included in reinforcing common goals
and efforts to attain the objective.
Improved districts have built a collaborative and reflective system, which
develops and nurtures a professional culture and collaborative relationship from within.
They promote a clear understanding of district roles and responsibilities. Lastly,
81
EVOLUTION
OF
SUPERINTENDENTS
improved districts interpret and help manage the external environment, making possible
the full participation of all stakeholders.
The following depicts the perception that superintendents shared concerning the
social-control mechanism of loose coupling within their organizations. We specifically
looked at the shared development of the organization, that is instructional vision,
opportunity of engagement/instructiveness, the role of the instructional leader, and how
the leadership builds capacity and invests in relationships throughout the organization.
Superintendent respondents cited various examples for building and developing a shared
instructional vision. As Superintendent Respondent A stated, “We have a shared
instructional vision, a sense of urgency and need.” Superintendent Respondent C stated,
“We have retreats and an in-town meetings where we discuss and present everything:
strategic, action plan, and data, student performance.” Superintendent Respondent D
explained, “Our instructional vision, theory of action, we work on it together, training
with principals and teachers. All help to develop our plan, collaborate, our ‘C’ paper.
Everyone is focused and everyone is on the same page.” Superintendent Respondent B
offered, “We have a stakeholder team that meets quarterly, teachers forum with union
and our protocols, we talk to each other, I listen, we discuss barriers that keep us from
meeting our goals and I continue to listen.” Superintendent Respondent A stated,
“Instructional vision, established as a priority, attached to each student achievement, arts
program enhanced, bond money to help build facilities.”
Superintendent respondents also shared how their organizations engaged and
provided instructiveness: Superintendent Respondent D stated, “We cascade everything
for all of our stakeholders and connect the dots for our leaders, teachers, parents, and
82
EVOLUTION
OF
SUPERINTENDENTS
students, role/responsibility.” Superintendent Respondent A stated, “We motivate/inspire
all to engage in support and buy-in, relationships are created and supported which assists
teachers to do the important work, practice.” Superintendent Respondent B stated,
“Passion of superintendent cascades throughout organization.” Superintendent
Respondent C stated, “Rapport. I ask a lot of questions and I bring it back to the kids and
why we are here, the barriers and obstacles, the privilege to work in this district.”
Superintendent Respondent D stated, “Our seven ‘C’s’ and a lot of work, each has the
objectives/goals, communication has been a struggle yet we try--emails, bulletins,
forums, we hired an administrator strategize and work with our community.”
Superintendent Respondent A stated:
We get people to feel that they are engaged/motivated, we have different
forums/meetings/workshops. I attend all meetings, but my directors lead. I lead
my executive cabinet (DELAC/DEAC). I give the message and I set the tone. I try
to empower people.
Superintendent respondents were asked about their role as the instructional leader and
their involvement and how relationships were developed and built. This question
included how much investment was made in building the capacity of the organization.
To these questions, Superintendent Respondent B stated, “Guiding principle. Leaders
have a potential authority. If you can conceive it, make it become a reality.”
Superintendent Respondent A stated, “Relationships. In it for the long haul, not in for the
money. Sense of leadership is stable.” Superintendent Respondent C stated, “Provided
dinner with principals just to stay in touch. It suggests respect for all and followed-up,
regular superintendent meeting for all to attend if had a question, issue/concern.”
83
EVOLUTION
OF
SUPERINTENDENTS
Superintendent Respondent D stated, “Role, to help, hold people accountable, working
with the Board. I help with the vision. I am very engaged with everything throughout. We
have reduced our expulsion rate.” Superintendent Respondent D stated:
I am a passionate leader. I open every principals meeting with a message.
Sometimes its hard to connect with so many people. You can lose the
relationship. I have a face book that helps me remember all the information about
the principals and assistant principals.
Superintendent Respondent C stated:
I started a new principals academy and it is for aspiring assistant principals to be
trained and be promoted. I have one person that I am assisting to become
superintendent. I like to encourage, develop, train future superintendents. I like to
promote to lead our future task as educators.
It is very easy for individuals to innovate within their own area/department, but it
is quite different to be able to change the whole system. Having a loose coupling
inevitably affects other areas/departments. Thus the relationship among an administrator,
school performance, and overall student achievement raises questions about the linkage
of intention and action. William Firestone (1984) identified the (SODA) instrument:
Seven Coupling Dimensions. Table 11, below, shows information concerning the
coupling dimension of a school organization toward an organization.
84
EVOLUTION
OF
SUPERINTENDENTS
Table 11:
Coupling Dimension of School Organization
Type of Mechanism Dimension Definition Sample
Mutual Adjustment Horizontal
Communication
The extent to which
information about
instruction is shared among
teachers
How often one speaks
about lessons or
curriculum units that
work well or poorly.
(Teachers)
Direct Supervision Vertical Communication
Centralization:
Instruction
Centralization:
Resources
The extent to which
information about
instruction is shared
between administrators and
teachers.
The ability of the principal
to get teachers to carry out
his/her wishes with respect
to teaching activities.
The ability of the principal
to get teachers to carry out
his/her wishes with respect
to courses, schedules,
assignments, and the
allocation of space and
money.
How often one speaks
about lessons or
curriculum units that
work well or poorly.
(Administrators).
Indicates influence
teachers and
administrators have
on program selection.
Indicates influence
teachers and
administrators have
on faculty grade-level
or course
assignments.
Standardization of
Work Processes
Rule Enforcement The consistency of
enforcement of recognized
policies in a school.
Whether policy exists,
and how consistently
it is enforced.
Standardization of
Outputs
None
Enculturation Goal Consensus Agreement among teachers
on which student skills and
characteristics should
require most attention.
As a member of
organization: How
important is critical
and original thinking?
As we compared and contrasted what an educational organization (district and/or
school) needed in terms of a loose coupling, we looked at the variables that were
sensitive, that maybe tied together or had minimal connection. Bidwell, in 1965,
identified the structural looseness of school systems. He questioned the hierarchical
layers within an educational organization and its multitude of links.
Over the years, we have investigated school systems and how they are structured
and organized. Weick, in 1976, argued that the usual mechanisms of coupling are the
85
EVOLUTION
OF
SUPERINTENDENTS
technical core and the authority of office. These organizations and systems are composed
of autonomous elements that, at times, can be unresponsive to one another—hardly
rational and hierarchically controlled. Within the district level of the organization, we
looked at the resources, such as the physical environment (facilities provided by the
district); time (district time allocation); curricular materials (district allocation of
materials); and personnel (pool of teachers and students in the district). Like a school
system, a district encompasses the various mechanisms that entail connections and/or
relationships throughout.
Social-Control Mechanisms Survey Analysis
Sample (n = 40)
Social-Control Mechanisms are measured by the opportunities provided for the
staff, the resources provided for staff to do its job, how the organization entrusts and
empowers it staff, the contributions and value of its staff, and the recognition, reward,
and motivation toward the mechanism of improving instruction. Table 12, below, shows
information concerning the results from the survey analysis. Superintendents perceived
themselves as providing opportunities for their staff as the priority indicator. Thirty-one
out of 40 viewed this indicator as most important. The second indicator was to value
employee contributions, which 31 out of 40 recognized as important. The third indicator
was motivating employee productivity, which 28 out of 40 felt to be important. The least
amount indicator was providing resources. Based on the survey questions, 14 out of 40
felt that this indicator was one of the least important. Based on the data, 17 out of 40
superintendents strongly agreed in feeling comfortable bringing together diverse groups
of stakeholders to improve instruction.
86
EVOLUTION
OF
SUPERINTENDENTS
Table 12:
Survey Questions 17–23
Social Control Mechanisms:
Question Themes
Mean Median Mode Standard
Deviation
Variance Population
Standard
Deviation
Opportunities for Employees 20 20 9, 31 16 242 11
Resources Provided 13.3 14 2,14,24 11.2 121.3 9
Empower decision making 13.3 18 1,18,21 11 116.3 9
Value Employee
Contributions
20 20 9,31 16 242 11
Motivate Productivity 20 20 12,28 11.3 128 8
Recognize/Reward
Performance
20 20 20 0 0 0
Diverse Groups of
Stakeholders
13.3 17 2,17,21 10.1 100.3 8.2
Socio-Control Forum Learning With and From
Sample (n = 40)
Superintendents were asked to identify the various individuals who participated in
various forums and/or meetings. Figure indicates information concerning the districts’
ability to provide a forum in which to meet and learn from.
Figure 14. Socio-control forum for learning with/from.
The superintendents agreed that principals and teachers were the leaders to learn
with/from; 40 out of 40 stated as such. In second place, with 36/37 out of 40, was the
87
EVOLUTION
OF
SUPERINTENDENTS
superintendent and district-level staff. In third place, 31 out of 40 educators from other
districts were recognized as important. The indicator with the least amount of points was
the category of students, with 17 out of 40. The superintendents perceived students as the
category from which learning should not come but rather go. Students were not perceived
as contributors to learning with or from.
Social-Control Mechanism: Instrumental Role in Improving Instruction
Sample (n = 40)
Superintendents were asked to identity all participants whom they perceived to be
instrumental in improving instruction. Figure 15, below, provides the data concerning
which individuals played an instrumental role in helping remove barriers to the school’s
ability to improve instruction.
Figure 15. Instrumental role in improving instruction.
The most important participant the superintendents selected was the principal,
with 39 out of 40. In second place, the district level staff had a 37 out of 40 result. Third
place was the superintendent position, with a result of 35 out of 40. The least indicator,
88
EVOLUTION
OF
SUPERINTENDENTS
according to the survey, was the category of students, with a 14 out of 40 result. Based on
the data, parent contribution was also considered a low indicator; 19 out of 40 perceived
parents as instrumental in improving instruction.
Social-Control Mechanism: Document Analysis
Sample (n = 4)
Superintendent Respondent A provided:
A Monthly City/District newspaper, which provides the overall district
information inclusive of the district education news with pictures of awards and
recognition of the district and school performance. The newspaper also included
business connections and partnerships, service clubs and district patrol and safety.
Superintendent Respondent D provided:
A district pamphlet, which describes and provides instructional information on the
common core state standards. Within the pamphlet information is provided
concerning changes from procedures to application of knowledge. There is a clear
description of the districts vision/mission, Language Arts/Math, building capacity,
key changes, assessments, parental involvement, and partnerships.
Superintendent Respondent C provided:
A pamphlet-containing information regarding community and parental
involvement. It describes process for: “You Spoke, We Listened, Now, and Let’s
move Forward Together.” It provides the information for commitment and parent
involvement and the various in-depth discussions focused on the district priorities.
Summary
Perceptions detail one’s beliefs, interests, actions, and—ultimately—
implementation. The superintendent’s role and responsibility stand at the top of the
hierarchical role of an organization. It is a pivotal role in the education and management
of a multimillion-dollar enterprise that is charged with the socialization, education, and
future of our youth. An important component is the industrial management and practice
89
EVOLUTION
OF
SUPERINTENDENTS
of an organization, which emphasizes time management, employee specialization, and
the type of organization structure.
Despite the beliefs of such roles and responsibilities, we must continue to
investigate the impact of the superintendent’s role on instructional success. This
particular topic is urgent, as accountability is such an important factor. This topic
demands continuous reflection. Despite the evidence presented in this study, it still
appears that “No facts yet exist on superintendent behaviors that cause district
improvement. Hence, what superintendents do daily to create the conditions for
instructional improvement and to influence students directly remains in the shadows of
research produced knowledge” (Cuban, 1984, pp. 146–147).
This chapter reported information provided by superintendents and the impact
provided by their organizations. Perceptual beliefs, behaviors, ideals, processes, and
systems were considered with the insights provided by reflective interviews, surveys, and
district document analysis.
The following chapter provides the overall recommendations and conclusions for
this study. It offers an overall description of the instructional role of the superintendent
and how it has grown, developed, and changed.
90
EVOLUTION
OF
SUPERINTENDENTS
CHAPTER V
OVERVIEW OF FINDINGS
Introduction
Leaders drive change. Faced with practical needs for significant change, we opt
for the hero-leader rather than eliciting and developing leadership capacity
throughout the organization. The capacity of a human community—people living
and working together—to bring forth new realities. Leadership breathes life into
an enterprise, without which nothing truly new can emerge. The word inspire,
long associated with leadership, derives from the Latin inspirare, literally “ to
breathe life into.
--Senge (1999).
This study has reviewed the evolution of superintendents as instructional leaders.
It has analyzed and described the development and implementation of a learning
organization, the instructional leadership provided, and the social-control mechanisms
used to effect organizational change and development. Chapter Five contains a focused
description of beliefs, behaviors, practices, and implementation based on the perceptions
of the superintendent and the organization they represented.
This chapter summarizes the findings for each of the focused questions, using the
various instruments: interviews, survey, and document analysis. These findings lead to
the discussion and conclusion. The conclusion provides an opportunity for
recommendations to be made for future studies.
Overview of Research Question One
How do superintendents define a district-wide plan for improving instruction in
language arts and math?
This section lists the various aspects identified by the conceptual frame learning
organization and its relationship to creating a district-wide instructional plan.
91
EVOLUTION
OF
SUPERINTENDENTS
Learning Organization
Organizations are in rapid need of change. Accountability is the driver instigating
organizations to deliver results fast and quickly. Yet today, school districts face ever-
changing factors that may inhibit the academic growth for which they are striving. David
Garvin, Harvard Business School professor, has addressed the critical issues concerning a
learning organization. First, a learning organization needs to define itself with an easy-to-
apply description; second, management needs clear operational guidelines for practice;
and finally, organizations need better tools for measurement to assess their rates and
levels of learning. Appendix D provides a map identifying the various indicators of a
learning organization’s corporate culture. Success comes from incrementally cultivating
the commitments, beliefs, attitudes, and management processes that will accrue slowly
and steadily. Peter Senge (1990) has suggested that:
organizations where people continually expand their capacity to create the results
they truly desire, where new and expansive patterns of thinking are nurtured,
where collective aspirations is set free, and where people are continually learning
to see the whole together.
Data from the interviews revealed that superintendents hold instruction as a
priority. Superintendent Respondent A described how the organization provided a quality
education for all, inclusive of monitoring and evaluation. Everyone was held accountable,
and the organization developed a common language. Accountability was a priority. They
continually consulted and analyzed data. Data were provided for all stakeholders, and
they maintained a transparent organization. For example, Superintendent Respondent C
described how communication was used throughout the organization. The organization
provided all types of information from district-wide meetings—forums for all
stakeholders—to ensure focused and strategic professional development. Professional
92
EVOLUTION
OF
SUPERINTENDENTS
development was fostered by the stakeholders and designed based on the need of the
organization. Through the lens of the superintendent respondents (A, B, C, D), instruction
was regarded as a pivotal indicator on which they all strategically focused.
District-Wide: Shared Vision, Instructional Plan, Data
The survey data for instructional vision was divided among who creates,
communicates, and implements the plan. Once again, superintendents’ perceptions
indicated that superintendents regarded the district-level staff as creators of the
instructional plan. Principals were charged with communicating the plan and managing
professional development, whereas teachers were the sole implementers. All other
stakeholders identified were not considered as important. Thirty out of 40 superintendents
felt that district board members could be considered part of the creation of the plan, yet
29 out of 40 actually included the board in the process. Students were not considered
important stakeholders. Thirty out of 40 superintendents would include them in the
creation conversation. Parents were considered by 21 superintendents to be important in
the creation of the instructional vision, yet 11 superintendents felt that they were
important to the implementation of the vision.
According to the survey data, the superintendents viewed themselves as the
individuals who set the tone. They participated or made sincere attempts to participate in
events that took place in the district. They tried to provide the resources necessary to
accomplish the task, as well as to be good listeners and people persons. Thirty-four out of
40 superintendents viewed themselves as collaborative, with this being the highest
indicator. Empowerment came in second place. Twenty-five out of 40 believed that they
empowered their stakeholders to assist with the process of decision making and the
93
EVOLUTION
OF
SUPERINTENDENTS
overall management of the organization. More than half of the superintendents perceived
themselves as contributing to the organization by being a “hands-on superintendent.” One
superintendent (respondent A) defined this role as “You walk the talk.”
The survey data also revealed that an average of 20 superintendents believed that
having a district-wide instructional plan would assist in achieving the goals that had been
set for the district. Notably, about 17 superintendents held communication as a
contributing factor for achieving their objectives. Overall, about 11 superintendents
required schools to implement the district-wide instructional plan and about 3
superintendents felt that their schools could design, develop, and implement their own
instructional plan.
Finger and Brand et al. (1999) have argued that organizational learning is the
“activity and the process, by which organizations eventually reach the ideal of a learning
organization.” Schon (1973) defined the learning organization as the ability to adapt at
learning. We must be able not only to transform our institutions in response to changing
situations and requirements but also to invent and develop institutions that are “learning
systems” capable of bringing about their own continuing transformation.
Castells (2001) has identified organizational learning productivity and
competitiveness as a function of knowledge and information processing. The firms and
territories are organized in networks of production, management, and distribution. The
core economic activities are global, that is, they have the capacity to work as a unit in real
time, or chosen time, on a planetary scale.
Pedler, Burgoyne, and Boydell (1991) have contended that the learning company
is a vision of what might be possible. It is not brought about simply by training
94
EVOLUTION
OF
SUPERINTENDENTS
individuals, but can only happen as a result of learning at the whole organization level. A
learning company is an organization that facilitates the learning of all of its members and
continuously transforms itself.
According to Kerka (1995), most conceptualizations of the learning organizations
seem to function on the assumption that “learning is valuable, continuous, and most
effective when shared and that every experience is an opportunity to learn.”
Overview of Research Question Two
How do superintendents build capacity of site-level instructional leaders to
implement the chosen instructional program?
This section lists the various aspects identified by the conceptual frame
instructional leadership as it pertains to building school-site instructional leaders.
Instructional Leadership: Trends, Perceptions, Challenges
Building leadership capacity means eliciting effort. When individuals finally
acknowledge that effort is a determining indicator, they can make the needed investment
to succeed. Improving schools today calls for formidable mobilization of a collective
effort. No person and/or program has more powerful leverage than the superintendent in
terms of instructional leadership and training personnel to be effective leaders. If
superintendents continue to be only involved in crises and/or putting out fires, they will
have little availability to develop instructional leaders.
According to Jon Saphier (2012) and Pia Durkin (2012) , the most important work
of the superintendent is to promote the instructional leadership capacity of his/her
principals. We must figure out how to change the message to superintendents, to
eliminate the forces that serve as distractions from this important work, and to make
95
EVOLUTION
OF
SUPERINTENDENTS
instructional leadership a priority of superintendents, and to build capacity to do so
effectively.
The survey data painted a different picture of instructional leadership. When
superintendents were asked if they believed they were prepared for helping to improve
their instruction, 32 out of 40 strongly agreed. But, 24 out of 40 superintendents viewed
themselves as an effective instructional leader. The data seemed a bit skewed.
Superintendents perceived themselves as instrumental in improving their instruction, yet,
most did not consider themselves effective instructional leaders. The researcher contends
that superintendents possibly perceive themselves as participants in the overall
instructional improvement process rather than as the sole instructional leader.
A common theme, but with little account, was feedback and communication to the
stakeholders and how schools can improve instruction. Twenty-eight out of 40
superintendents strongly agreed that they participated in this process. A very low count of
superintendents participated in some form of feedback from stakeholders. Superintendent
Respondent D described how the organization in that district provided a data dash-
board—available to all stakeholders— in which data was presented along with the district
indicators for improving instruction. This researcher wondered what the underlying
beliefs were held by superintendents on evaluation, feedback, and communication? If we
can’t articulate consistently, how can change be achieved?
Most superintendents perceived themselves as collaborative leaders that
empowered their stakeholders. The interpretation of the data did not support this
perception. One interpretation could be that superintendents were provided with all
information by a given team and/or department (context). Thus, information comes
96
EVOLUTION
OF
SUPERINTENDENTS
through the particular department responsible for the action or plan. The superintendent
was thus perceived as a vehicle for communication, but not as an instructional leader.
Yet, the superintendent respondents (A, B, C, D) who were selected for this study
demonstrated their instructional success based on their three-year CST assessment data.
They described strategic processes and systems in place that helped garner their
instructional success. Appendix E provides a table describing the various types of
collaboration and collaborative leadership and the simple form of relationship building.
Superintendents were asked to identify the stakeholders involved in the creation,
communication, and implementation of the district instructional program. Based on the
survey data, the superintendents relied on district-level staff for all three aspects of the
instructional program. The question posed for consideration pertained to the participation
rate of the superintendent. Based on the survey data, superintendents perceived
themselves as communicators of the instructional program; 39 out of 40 agreed. Yet,
three superintendent respondents (A, C, D) described themselves as hands-on
superintendents—someone who participates in all aspects of the organization, especially
within the instructional aspect of the organization. Once again, a differing definition for
instructional leader appears. Are superintendents required to be “all knowing”?
According to Katy Anthes (2002), new expectations for the superintendency are
an in-depth understanding of instructional strategies, coaching techniques, and using data
to guide decision-making. Superintendents do not need to immerse themselves in the
details of instructional planning and execution, but they must be knowledgeable enough
to hold principals and teachers accountable for effective practice.
97
EVOLUTION
OF
SUPERINTENDENTS
Larry Lashway (2002) has suggested that standards-based accountability has
made reform not only the trademark of progressive superintendents, but also a minimum
expectation for the job. The evolving role of the superintendent presents challenges for
universities, policymakers, school boards, and superintendents. Table 13, below, shows
the challenge and need for the professional growth of future superintendents.
Table 13:
Evolving Roles and Challenges
Role Challenge
University Should revise preparation programs to provide district leaders with
the knowledge and skills needed to create well-focused learning
organizations. Superintendents need a thorough grounding in the
complexities of today’s instructional leadership; a few courses in
curriculum and supervision will no longer do the job.
Policymakers and Researchers Should explore ways to bring better balance into the accountability-
authority equation. The radical instructional improvement
demanded by the new ESEA will require strong leadership at the
district level.
School Boards Should work closely with superintendents to clarify their
expectations for performance and evaluation. Without strong and
highly visible board support, district administrators will be
preoccupied with shoring up their political base and thus unlikely to
take the bold steps needed for transforming schools.
Superintendents Should put instruction at the top of the district’s agenda. While the
managerial and political dimensions of the job will not go away,
those roles should be aligned with the overriding goal of continuous
instructional improvement.
Overview of Research Question Three
How do superintendents evaluate the effectiveness of their instructional
programs?
This section lists the various aspects identified by the conceptual frame
instructional leadership as it effects the evaluation of the instructional program.
Instructional Leadership: Reflection, Evaluation, Resources
Student learning to high standards and expectations requires quality teaching and
learning. Improved districts have incorporated high expectations and accountability
98
EVOLUTION
OF
SUPERINTENDENTS
systems. District leadership coordinates and helps to align the curriculum and assessment,
which ensures the alignment of state and district goals.
Bergeson (2004) has suggested that improved districts hold all adults in the
system accountable for student learning, beginning with the superintendent, senior staff,
and principals. Districts must have clear expectations for instruction and apply consistent
pressure on schools for improved outcomes for students. The superintendent expects
excellence by all, monitors performance, and provides feedback. High expectations
influence hiring decisions and prompt districts and schools to address issues regarding
ineffective teachers.
Leadbetter (2000) has argued that companies need to invest not just in new
machinery to make production more efficient, but also in the flow of know-how that will
sustain their businesses. Cranton (2002) described how new habits of analyzing issues
and choosing appropriate means of dealing with those issues can be stimulated by
assignments requiring individuals to examine a critical life experience.
According to Lauren Resnick (1995), schools need to provide equal instructional
time to all students. What if we set an absolute standard of expectation, and allowed time
and the other resources that go with it to vary? Wouldn’t this arrangement support
individual need, and everyone would be held to the same high minimum? Effort would
provide the learning opportunity that students need to meet the standards. In this model,
everyone in the system knows what he or she is working toward; they see clearly how
they are doing, and effort is recognized just as people are valued for the job or actions
they perform.
99
EVOLUTION
OF
SUPERINTENDENTS
At the conclusion of the four superintendent respondent (A, B, C, D) interviews,
the data supported the perceptions that superintendents had of their leadership, in which
goals and approaches were aligned to help build school site leaders and teacher capacity.
All four superintendent respondents (A, B, C, D) strongly agreed in having an effective
professional development system available for all stakeholders, inclusive of students and
the community.
The organizations of each district superintendent (A, B, C, D) were considered to
have flexible systems. The superintendent respondents defined this flexibility as a system
that has the capability to adapt and change based on the analysis of data. Data were used
to enable the communication of constructive feedback for all. Every stakeholder
participated in the analysis of the data, had a voice to provide an opinion/idea, and
tackled the instructional process from beginning to end. Superintendent Respondent C
suggested that the district has developed a very effective professional development
program in which partners with higher education open up accessibility and partnership to
the outside. Superintendent Respondent D described how that district’s professional
development system was considered a model of inquiry, in which all stakeholders had a
conversation about their data. Everyone participated and was expected to voice an
opinion and provide constructive feedback.
Superintendents collectively believed in gathering some form of data. About 36
out of 40 strongly agreed in its importance. It was apparent that superintendents
perceived data to be a high indicator for instructional improvement. Although the
researcher was curious as to how superintendents evaluated and the measured their
100
EVOLUTION
OF
SUPERINTENDENTS
instructional programs, the question remained: Was data used continuously and are
changes and adaptations considered part of that change?
According to the survey data, superintendents did not perceive themselves as
doing a good job in evaluating the effectiveness of their instructional program. Twenty-
two out of 40 strongly agreed to having the skill sets needed. How can we consider
superintendents as instructional leaders when more than half perceived themselves as
unprepared?
Part of the process within the learning curve is the ability to provide staff with the
opportunity of time, resources, and reflection. As a result-oriented system that demands
high expectations, educational organizations must create and enhance instructional
expertise. When superintendents were asked if they provided their staff with time,
resources, and reflection, 28 out of 40 strongly agreed that they did so. Superintendents
also identified instruction as a priority for on-going professional development, with 40
out 40 in agreement.
Overview of Research Question Four
How do superintendents mobilize human, social, and physical capital to build a
coalition of instructional leaders?
This section lists the various aspects identified by the conceptual frame Social-
Control Mechanism and its effect in building a coalition of instructional leaders.
Social-Control Mechanisms
Superintendent respondents (A, B, C, D) reported being very passionate about
their work. They shared a sense of urgency—one that cascaded throughout their
organizations. Their guiding principle and belief was that leaders had a potential
101
EVOLUTION
OF
SUPERINTENDENTS
authority. If you can conceive it, make it become a reality. Relationships are built for the
long haul, not for the money. To be successful, you must provide leadership that is
constant, continuous, and stable. Their belief stems from the idea of communication
and/or rapport. Stakeholders always have questions and seek attention. Superintendents
agree to be good listeners and active participants.
Superintendent Respondent D affirmed that to connect to the principals, one
must meet, greet, and participate in all forums with them, which is a good example of
how a superintendent socially controls a process in which connections, trust, and
relationships are built. All superintendent respondents (A, B, C, D) agreed that it was
critical to build trust in order for stakeholders to be engaged and motivated. The
organization needed to be perceived and cultivated as a consistent, transparent, and
visible thinking organization.
Loose-Coupling Theory: Engagement, Instructional Role, Relationship Building,
Investment
Superintendents reported that they definitely provided opportunities for their
stakeholders to collaborate. Thirty-one out of 40 marked this indicator as the most
important. Yet only half of the superintendents found rewarding their employees’
performance low with 20 out of 20 strongly agreeing. The researcher then questions, how
would one motivate, energize, and value employees’ performances?
Overall, the superintendents valued their employees to a certain degree. Thirty-
one out of 40 strongly agreed in valuing employee contributions. Yet, when asked if they
empowered their staff with decision-making related to instruction, only 18 out of 40
agreed. Resources are considered a powerful tool for employees to do their jobs. Without
102
EVOLUTION
OF
SUPERINTENDENTS
these resources, achieving the goals set out by the district can be difficult. Fourteen out of
40 superintendents strongly agreed that they provided sufficient resources for their staff
to do their job. The evidence showed a low trend with most superintendents in building
relationships, as well as in providing the resources for the job.
Weick (1976) observed that the usual mechanisms of coupling are the technical
core and the authority of office. What makes school systems so interesting, however, is
that neither of these mechanisms appears to be the main operating principle.
Reflective Summary
My interviews consisted of providing each superintendent with a hard copy of
my interview matrix. I gave them the opportunity to reflect on all of the questions. All
conservations were taped and transcribed into a journal. After each interview, I reflected
on the various pieces of the conversation and how I would interpret the particular
superintendents perceptions and/or belief with the purpose of diffusing personal bias.
As we moved through the questions, each superintendent revealed his or her own
particular way of operating the district. I found myself connecting to such strong
instructional leaders partly because they felt so passionate about their work.
The researcher took her time to explain the study along with the conceptual
frame focus. Each superintendent agreed to the work that needed to be looked at. They
did mention how important instruction was to the success of the organization, but more
so to the success of their students.
The superintendents mentioned today’s accountability race and the importance of
operating an instructional district. All of the superintendents had held multiple positions
throughout their career. Most of those positions were under curriculum and instruction.
103
EVOLUTION
OF
SUPERINTENDENTS
One superintendent credited his success to his counseling career. They all explained that
to be considered successful, they had to walk the talk. They had the skill sets, knowledge,
and experience to maneuver the ups and downs of change and adaptation.
In reflecting on the findings from this research, I realized that I had more
questions to ask about the superintendent’s role as an instructional leader. Are
superintendents created, or are they individuals that come well prepared to take on the
extremely tough job of a superintendent, given the internal and external conditions? This
researcher concluded that successful superintendents hold an arsenal of experiences,
knowledge, and skill sets. They are true to their perceptions and beliefs. They hold
themselves accountable, and all who work with them are considered part of the process
and not just an employee number.
This researcher still questions whether superintendents are responding to the ever-
changing environment. Is the superintendency in a state of crisis, not knowing how to
change and adapt? What is the superintendent’s level of expertise within instructional
leadership and management? What is the superintendent’s ability to plan, implement, and
evaluate the efficacy of the district’s instructional and assessment program?
Implications for Further Study
This researcher is concerned with the availability of equipped and willing
individuals to take the lead in such a seemingly impossible—and often turnstile—job.
Today’s superintendent not only has to deal with instructional results, but also has to
cope with conflicts arising from issues of race, class, and accountability. Educational
reform is not new, but it does have new and different constraints, such as improving
education for all students and closing the achievement gap. Tomorrow’s leaders will need
104
EVOLUTION
OF
SUPERINTENDENTS
to have a well-developed skill set, full range of experience, and the knowledge base to
operate an organization.
The implication for change stems from the preparatory programs for future
educators—from teacher to principal to superintendent preparation. What experience and
positive results are expected of each individual? Are there serious implications for the
behavior, beliefs, and perceptions individuals carry throughout their career? What
professional level of growth is required of superintendents (professional development)?
This researcher recommends that these particular questions be addressed for future
studies.
Conclusion
Though the focus of superintendent evaluation has in recent years shifted from
management to leadership, Glass, Bjork, and Brunner (2000) argued that superintendents
are strong leader only when they effectively allocate time, money, personnel, and
resources in ways that align with the goal of achievement for all students. McCullough
(2009) asserted that a true definition of the superintendency must reflect a comprehensive
and challenging vision of district leadership, a synthesis of managerial and leadership
components, interpersonal skills, and a strategic action assessment. Because of the
particular findings, this researcher contends that the superintendent as an instructional
leader embodies varying factors of recognition, definition, and implication.
The lens of perception for instructional leadership depends on the experience and
skill set of each superintendent. Effort has been provided throughout the organizations,
but questions remain around the effectiveness of superintendents’ as instructional leaders
throughout. Effective superintendents are strong advocates for children. They envision,
105
EVOLUTION
OF
SUPERINTENDENTS
inspire, create, develop, and implement a high-quality experience within their district that
enables students to experience meaningful choices, and promotes decision-making skills,
partnering, and opportunity at each step toward a successful future. Superintendents need
to possess a wide and deep set of instructional skills and knowledge base.
Will future superintendents be able to create conditions for successful learning?
Richard Elmore (2006) has stated, “What is central and what is peripheral to the
knowledge required for the job, where the locus of practice begins, what skills and
knowledge are associated with that domain, and what it looks like when the work is being
done well.”
106
EVOLUTION
OF
SUPERINTENDENTS
REFERENCES
Anthes, K. (2002). School and district leadership: No Child Left Behind policy brief.
Denver, CO: Education Commission of the States, pp. 1–6.
Bergeson, T. (2004). Characteristics of improved school districts, assessment and
research. Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction.
Bidwell, C. (1965). Analyzing schools as organizations: Long-term permanence and
short-term change. Sociology of Educational Extra Issue, 100–114.
Bjork, L. G. (1993). Effective schools---effective superintendents: The emerging
instructional leadership role. Journal of School Leadership, 3(3), 246–259.
Bjork, L. G. (2009). The superintendent as an instructional leader. Charleston, WVA:
The West Virginia Superintendents’ Institute.
Bjork L. G., & Gurley D. K. (2003). Superintendents as educational statesman. Paper
Presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, Chicago, IL.
Blankstein & Noguera (2004). Reclaiming the promise of public education. School
Administration Journal.
Bolman, L., & Deal, T. (2008). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and
leadership. Jossey-Bass,
Browne-Ferrigno, T., & Muth R. (2004). Leadership mentoring in clinical practice: Role
socialization, professional development, and capacity building. Educational
Administration Quarterly, 40(4), 468–494.
Bryman, A. (1992). Charisma and social structure: A study of love and power.
London: Sage.
Campbell, T., & Caims, H. (1994). Developing and measuring the learning organization.
Caracalla V. J., & Green, J. C. (1993). Data analysis strategies for mixed-methods
evaluation designs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 15(2), 195–207.
Castells, M. (2001). Information technology and global capitalism: On the edge. Living
with global capitalism. London: Vintage.
Cawelti G., & Protheroe N. (2001). High student achievement: How six school districts
changed into high-performance systems. Arlington, VA: Educational Research
Service.
107
EVOLUTION
OF
SUPERINTENDENTS
Chu F. T. (1995). Collaboration in a Loosely Coupled System: Librarian-faculty relations
in collection development. Library and Information Science Research, 17(2),
135–150.
Cranton, P. (2002). Teaching for Transformation. New Directions for Adult and
Continuing Education.
Creswell, (2003). Handbook of mixed-methods in social & behavioral research. Sage
Publications.
Cuban, L. (1984). Transforming the frog into a prince: Effective schools research policy
and practice at the district level. Harvard Educational Review.
Cuban, L. (1985). Conflict and leadership in the superintendency. The Phi Delta
Kappan, 67(1), 28–30.
Cuban, L. (1998). The superintendent contradiction. Education Week 18(7), 56.
Cuban, L. (2004). Meeting challenges in urban schools. Educational Leadership, 61(7),
64–69.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2007). Excellent teachers deserve excellent leaders, educational
leadership: A bridge to school reform. New York City: The Wallace Foundation.
Dull (2009). Results-model reform leadership: Questions of credible commitment.
Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory.
Edwards, C. (2000). Superintendent instructional leadership: Meeting the needs of
diverse populations. Tarleton State University.
Elmore R. (2000). Building a New Structure for School Leadership, Washington, DC:
The Albert Shanker Institute.
Elmore, R. (2002). Bridging the gap between standards and achievement: Report
on the imperative for professional development in education. Washington, DC,
The Albert Shanker Institute.
Elmore, R. (2005). Accountable leadership. The Educational Forum, 69(2), 134–142.
Elmore, R. (2006). Educating leaders for tomorrow: A forum. The Phi Delta Kappan.
Eyal & Kark (2012). Caught in the net: The network entrepreneurship connection in
public schools. International Journal of Educational Management, 22(5), 386–
398.
108
EVOLUTION
OF
SUPERINTENDENTS
Ferrigno & Glass (2005). The contemporary superintendent: Preparation, practice, and
development. Superintendent as Organizational Manager, pp. 137-182.
Firestone, W. (1984a). School context and school change: Implications for effective
planning. New York: Teachers College Press.
Firestone W. A. (1984b). The study of loose couplings: Problems, progress, and
prospects. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational
Research Association, New Orleans.
Firestone W. A., & Shipps D. (2005). How do leaders interpret conflicting
accountabilities to improve student learning? In W. Firestone & C. Richl (Eds.), A
New Agenda for Research in Educational Leadership (pp. 81–100), New York:
Teachers College Press.
Fullan, M. (2004). Whole school reform: Problems and promises. Ontario Institute for
Studies in Education, Chicago Community Trust.
Fusarelli (2005). Gubernatorial Reactions to No Child Left Behind: Politics, Pressure,
and Educational Reform, 80(2), 120–136.
Gamoran, A., & Dreeben, R. (1986). Coupling and control in educational organizations.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 31(4), 612–632.
Garvin, D. A., Edmondson, A. C., & Francesca, G. (2008). Is yours a learning
organization. Harvard Business Review: Tool Kit.
Giesecke, J., & McNeil, B. (2004). Transitioning to the learning organization,
University of Nebraska-Lincoln, 53, no. 1, 54–67.
Glass, T. E., Bjork, L., & Brunner, C. C. (2000). The 2000 study of the American school
superintendent: A look at the superintendent of education in the new millennium.
Arlington, VA: American Association of School Administrators.
Green & Swanson (2011). Tightening the system: Reference as a loosely coupled
system. Journal of Library Administration, 51(4), 375–88.
Greene J. C. (2006). Toward a methodology of mixed-methods social inquiry. Research
in The Schools, 13(1), 93–98.
Halverson, R. (2003). Systems of practice: How leaders use artifacts to create
professional community in schools. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 11(37).
109
EVOLUTION
OF
SUPERINTENDENTS
Halverson, R. (2005). A distributed leadership perspective on how leaders use artifacts
to create professional community in schools. Paper presented at the meeting of the
Annual Conference of the University Council of Educational Administration,
Nashville, TN.
Hightower A., Knapp M. S., March J. A., & McLaughlin M. W. (2002). School districts
and institutional renewal. New York: Teachers College Press.
Hinka, K. (2009). Being and becoming leaders: Application of learning. Paper
Presented at the meeting of the Southern Council of Educational Administration
in Atlanta, GA.
Houston, P. (2001). Superintendents for the 21
st
Century: It’s not just a job. It’s a
calling, Phi Delta Kappan, 82(6), 428–43.
Ingersoll, R. (1991). Loosely coupled organizations revisited. Chicago, IL: American
Sociological Association.
Jackson, S. (2008). Research methods and statistics: A critical thinking approach.
Cengage Learning, pp. 1-430.
James, C. (2003). Designing learning organizations, Organizational Dynamics,
32(1), 46–61.
Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004, Toward a definition of mixed-methods research, pp.
112-133, Sage Journals.
Kerka, S. (1995). The learning organization: Myths and realities. Eric Clearinghouse.
Kowalski, T. (2001). The future of local school governance: implications for
board members and superintendents. In C. Brunner & L .G. Bjork (Eds.), The new
superintendency (pp. 183-201). Oxford, UK: JAI, Elservier Science.
Kowalski, T. (2003). Contemporary school administration. Boston: Allyn &
Bacon.
Kowalski, T. (2005). Evolution of the School District Superintendent Position, Pp.
1-18.
Kowalski, T. (2006). Preparation and licensing of school superintendents: A
critique of state deregulation policy. San Antonio, Texas: University Council for
Educational Administration,
Kowalski, T., & Keedy L. (2005). Preparing superintendents to be effective
communicators. In L.G. Bjork & T.J. Kowalski (Eds.), The contemporary
superintendent preparation, practice, and development. Sage Publication.
110
EVOLUTION
OF
SUPERINTENDENTS
Laohavichien (2009). The effects of transformational and transactional leadership on
quality improvement. The Quality Management Journal, 16(2), 7–24.
Lashway, L. (2002). The superintendent in an age of accountability. ERIC Digest 161-
September 2002.
Lawson, (2003). Types of relationships.
Leadbetter, C. (2000). Living on thin air. London: Penguin.
Leavy, B. (1996). Understanding the strategy process: Themes and Theories. Cenegage
Learning EMEA.
Leithwood, K. (2005). Educational leadership: A review of the research. Philadelphia,
PA: The Mid-Atlantic Regional Educational Laboratory.
Leithwood, K., & Jantzi D. (2006). Transformational school leadership for large-scale
reform: Effects on students, teachers, and their classroom practices, school.
Effectiveness and School Improvement, 17(2), 201–227.
Lumpkin & Dess (1996). Enhancing entrepreneurial orientation research:
operationalizing and measuring a key strategic decision making process. Journal
of Management, 26(5), 1055–1085.
Maloy, (1998). Building a learning community: Portrait of a public school district.
Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh, Learning Research & Development
Center.
Marcum J. W. (2001). From information center to discovery system: next step for
libraries. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 27(2), 97–106.
Mars, M., & Ginter, M. (2007). Connecting organizational environments with
instructional technology practices of community college faculty. Community
College Review, 34, 324–343.
Maxwell & Loomis (2002). A model for qualitative research design, qualitative
research design: An interactive approach. Sage Publications.
McCullough, B. (2009). Do unto others: A roadmap for communicating well. School
Administrator.
Mendez-Moore, S. (2012). Issues… about change: Vision, leadership, and change.
Southwest Educational Development Laboratory.
111
EVOLUTION
OF
SUPERINTENDENTS
Moynihan, (2011). Setting the table: How transformational leadership fosters
performance information use. Journal of Public Administration Research &
Theory, 22(1), 143–164.
Newman, F., & Wehlage, G. (1996). Successful school restructuring, center on
organization and restructuring of schools. University of Wisconsin-Madison.
Northhouse, P. (2007). Leadership: Theory and practice, 4
th
ed. Western Michigan
University: Sage Publications.
Oliver-Hoyo, M. (2006). The use of triangulation methods to validate results of
qualitative educational research. Journal of College Science Teaching, 42–47.
Patton, M. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods, 3
rd
ed.
International Educational and Professional Publisher: Sage Publications.
Pedler, M., Burgoyne, J., & Boydell, T. (1996). The learning company. A strategy for
sustainable development. London: McGraw-Hill.
Petersen, G. J., & Barnett, B. G. (2003). The superintendent as instructional leader:
History evolution and future of the role. Paper presented at the annual meeting of
The American Educational Research Association, Chicago, Illinois.
Rainey, H. (2009). Understanding and managing public organizations, 4
th
ed.
San
Francisco: Wiley/Josey-Bass.
Resnick, L. (1995). From aptitude to effort: A new foundation for our schools. The MIT
Press.
Resnick, L. (1998). Learning organizations for sustainable education reform.
Daedalus, Education Yesterday, Education Tomorrow, 127(4), 89–118.
Robinson, V., Lloyd, C., & Rowe, K. (2008). The impact of leadership on student
outcomes: an analysis of the differential effects of leadership types.
Educational Administration Quarterly, 44(5), 635–674.
Rose, D., & Sullivan, O. (1996). Introducing data analysis for social scientist, 2
nd
ed. Open University Press.
Saphier, J. (2012). Supervising principals: How superintendents can improve teaching
and learning in the classroom. Research for Better Teaching.
Sauder, M., & Espeland, W. (2009). The discipline of rankings: Tight coupling
and organizational change. American Sociological Review, 74(1) 63–82.
112
EVOLUTION
OF
SUPERINTENDENTS
Schein, E. H. (1995). The leader of the future. Drucker Foundation, Volume on
Leadership.
Schon, D. A. (1973). Beyond the stable state. Public and private learning in a changing
society. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Schumpeter, J. (1934). The theory of economic development. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Senge, P. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning
organization. New York: Doubleday.
Senge, P. (1999). Leading beyond the walls. The Drucker Foundation, Jossey-Bass.
Senge, P., Kleiner, A., Roberts, C., Ross, R., Roth, G., & Smith, B. (1999). The dance of
change: The challenges of sustaining momentum in learning organizations. New
York: Doubleday/Currency.
Slone, D. J. (2009). Visualizing qualitative information. The Qualitative Report, 14(3),
488–497.
Task Force on School District Leadership. (2001). Restructuring school district
leadership. Washington, D.C: Institute for Educational Leadership, 40 pages, ED
458684.
Tyack, D., & Hansot, E. (1982). Managers of virtue: Public school leadership in
America. New York: Basic Books.
Waters J. T., & Marzano R. J. (2006). School district leadership that works: The effects
of superintendent leadership on student achievement, Denver, CA: Mid-Continent
Research for Education and Learning.
Waters J. T., & Marzano R. J. (2007). The primacy of superintendent leadership. School
Administrator, 64(3), 10–16.
Weick, K. (1976). Educational organizations as loosely coupled systems.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 21(1), 1–19.
Weick, K. (1982). Administering education in loosely coupled systems. Phi Delta
Kappan, 63, 673–75.
Wolf, E. (1988). The school superintendent in through reform era perceptions of
practioners, principals, and pundits. Peabody Journal of Education, 65(4),
9–30.
113
EVOLUTION
OF
SUPERINTENDENTS
Worrell, D. (1995). The learning organization: Management theory for the
information age or new age fad? Journal of Academic Librarianship, 21(5),
351–357.
114
EVOLUTION
OF
SUPERINTENDENTS
APPENDIX A
SUPERINTENDENT SURVEY PROTOCOL
The following instrument is designed to better understand your district’s instructional
vision and plans as well as your and other stakeholders’ involvement with the creation,
implementation, and evaluation of your district’s instructional programs. Please select
the responses that most closely match with your district’s current practice. The survey
should take about 15 minutes to complete. All of your responses will be kept
confidential.
LEARNING ORGANIZATIONS:
1. My district has developed a district-wide instructional plan that includes high
expectations of academic excellence for all students.
Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree
(4) (3) (2) (1)
2. I know what my district’s vision is for improving instruction in language arts.
Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree
(4) (3) (2) (1)
3. I know what my district’s vision is for improving instruction in math.
Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree
(4) (3) (2) (1)
4. I communicate timely information about the district’s instructional programs with
all stakeholders.
Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree
(4) (3) (2) (1)
5. I believe that districts should allow school sites to determine how to implement
instruction at their individual schools.
Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree
(4) (3) (2) (1)
6. I believe that districts should create a district-wide plan on how instruction will be
implemented at the individual school sites.
Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree
(4) (3) (2) (1)
115
EVOLUTION
OF
SUPERINTENDENTS
7. My leadership style is (select all that apply):
a. Top down
b. Collaborative
c. Hands on
d. Hands off
e. Effective
f. Empowering
8. For each of the following stakeholders, check off which items they participated in
(check all that apply): creation of the district’s instructional VISION,
communication of the district’s instructional VISION, and implementation of
the district’s instructional VISION:
Superintendent
☐creation ☐communication ☐implementation of the instructional VISION
District Level Staff
☐creation ☐communication ☐implementation of the instructional VISION
District Board Members
☐creation ☐communication ☐implementation of the instructional VISION
Principals
☐creation ☐communication ☐implementation of the instructional VISION
Teachers
☐creation ☐communication ☐implementation of the instructional VISION
Students
☐creation ☐communication ☐implementation of the instructional VISION
Parents
☐creation ☐communication ☐implementation of the instructional VISION
Community Members
☐creation ☐communication ☐implementation of the instructional VISION
116
EVOLUTION
OF
SUPERINTENDENTS
INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP:
1. My district gives regular feedback to schools regarding how to improve
instruction at their school sites.
Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree
(4) (3) (2) (1)
2. My district collects information/data concerning student achievement.
Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree
(4) (3) (2) (1)
3. My district provides its staff with time and resources to reflect on and improve the
district’s past academic performance.
Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree
(4) (3) (2) (1)
4. I feel prepared to help improve instruction in my district.
Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree
(4) (3) (2) (1)
5. My district does a good job evaluating the effectiveness of its instructional
programs.
Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree
(4) (3) (2) (1)
6. I believe I am an effective instructional leader who plays an instrumental role in
improving instruction in my district.
Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree
(4) (3) (2) (1)
7. My district provides its staff with appropriate on-going training for (select all that
apply)
a. Curriculum
b. Instruction
c. Assessment
d. Data Analysis
e. Standards Implementation
f. Personal Professional Growth
117
EVOLUTION
OF
SUPERINTENDENTS
8. For each of the following stakeholders, check off which items they participated in
(check all that apply): creation of the district’s instructional PROGRAMS,
communication of the district’s instructional PROGRAMS, and implementation
of the district’s instructional PROGRAMS:
Superintendent
☐creation ☐communication ☐implementation of the instructional PROGRAMS
District Level Staff
☐creation ☐communication ☐implementation of the instructional PROGRAMS
District Board Members
☐creation ☐communication ☐implementation of the instructional PROGRAMS
Principals
☐creation ☐communication ☐implementation of the instructional PROGRAMS
Teachers
☐creation ☐communication ☐implementation of the instructional PROGRAMS
Students
☐creation ☐communication ☐implementation of the instructional PROGRAMS
Parents
☐creation ☐communication ☐implementation of the instructional PROGRAMS
Community Members
☐creation ☐communication ☐implementation of the instructional PROGRAMS
SOCIAL CONTROL MECHANISMS:
1. My district provides opportunities for employees to work together and collaborate
to improve instruction.
Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree
(4) (3) (2) (1)
2. My district provides its staff with the resources they need to do their jobs.
Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree
(4) (3) (2) (1)
118
EVOLUTION
OF
SUPERINTENDENTS
3. I empower my staff to make decisions related to instruction.
Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree
(4) (3) (2) (1)
4. I value employee contributions to the district’s instructional programs.
Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree
(4) (3) (2) (1)
5. I motivate employees to take pride in producing quality results in student
achievement.
Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree
(4) (3) (2) (1)
6. I recognize and reward positive employee performance related to instruction.
Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree
(4) (3) (2) (1)
7. I am able to bring diverse groups of stakeholders together to improve instruction.
Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree
(4) (3) (2) (1)
8. My district provides a forum for meeting with and learning from (select all that
apply):
a. Superintendent
b. District Level Staff
c. Principals
d. Teachers
e. Students
f. Parents
g. Community Members
h. Educators from Other Districts
i. Educational Consultants and/or Vendors
9. The following individuals play an instrumental role in removing barriers to our
schools’ abilities to improve instruction (select all that apply):
a. Superintendent
b. District Level Staff
c. District Board Members
d. Principals
e. Teachers
119
EVOLUTION
OF
SUPERINTENDENTS
DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION:
1. Your School District:
_____________________________________________________
Your School District name will only be seen by the researcher in order to track
surveys that were completed, and it will not be included in the final dissertation.
Instead, only pseudonyms (fake names) will be used when referring to any
individual school districts in the final dissertation.
2. Your Title:
_____________________________________________________
3. Number of Years in Current Position: _______
4. Gender: Male Female
5. Ethnicity: Caucasian Hispanic/Latino African American Asian
Other
6. Age: <30 31-40 41-50 51-60 61+
120
EVOLUTION
OF
SUPERINTENDENTS
APPENDIX B
SUPERINTENDENT INTERVIEW PROTOCOL
Interview Question Matrix
Research
Questions
How do Superintendents
define a district-wide plan
for improving instruction in
Language Arts and Math?
How do
Superintendents
build the capacity of
site level
instructional leaders
to implement the
chosen instructional
programs?
How do
Superintendents
evaluate the
effectiveness of
his/her
instructional
program(s)?
How do
Superintendents
mobilize human,
social, and physical
capital to build a
coalition of
instructional leaders?
Conceptual
Frame
Learning
Organizations
Instructional
Leadership
Social Control
Mechanisms
Interview
Questions
for
Superin-
tendents
1. What is your district’s
instructional vision?
2. How do you develop
your district-wide
instructional plan?
Describe the decision-
making process. Is there a
department in charge of
instruction? What role do
you play in this process?
3. How do you
communicate the district’s
instructional vision and
plans with your
stakeholders? How do you
communicate your results
and any changes made?
4. Tell me about your
leadership style. How do
you lead?
5. How much autonomy
do you give to your staff
and school sites to make
instructionally related
decisions?
1. What do you see is your role as an
instructional leader in your district? What
leadership, management, and supervisory
behaviors do you employ to support
instruction in your district?
2. What do you believe are best
instructional practices for language arts
and math?
3. What are some instructional trends and
methodologies used in your district that
relate to language arts and math?
4. What are your district’s instructional
strengths? What contributed to these
strengths? How will you assure that these
strengths are maintained?
5. What are your district’s instructional
weaknesses? What contributed to these
weaknesses and how do you plan to
overcome these weaknesses?
6. How do you build instructional leaders
in your district? Describe your
process/procedure for this. What
professional development do you provide?
7. How does your district collect
information/data concerning student
achievement? How is this data
disaggregated and decisions made based
on this data?
8. How do you evaluate your district’s
instructional programs? What
opportunities are in place for your staff to
reflect on and improve past academic
performance?
1. How do you
engage all
stakeholders to work
together in the creation
and implementation of
the district’s
instructional plans?
Who is involved?
How do you get buy-
in, especially from
staff who are resistant
to your plans?
2. How do you build
relationships within
the district? What
would we observe
when watching you
work with your staff?
3. Explain your
experience in running
meetings and leading
groups. What does
this look like?
4. What resources do
you allocate for your
district’s instructional
programs? What
supports do you
provide to your
schools? What
challenges did you
overcome in order to
get the resources you
needed to support your
instructional plans?
How did you
overcome these
121
EVOLUTION
OF
SUPERINTENDENTS
9. What is the last new procedure for
instruction that you incorporated into the
district? Who was involved and what were
the results?
challenges?
5. How do you
motivate and
recognize quality
performance in your
district?
122
EVOLUTION
OF
SUPERINTENDENTS
APPENDIX C
DOCUMENT REVIEW MATRIX
Research
Questions
How do Superintendents
define a district-wide
plan for improving
instruction in Language
Arts and Math?
How do
Superintendents build
the capacity of site level
instructional leaders to
implement the chosen
instructional programs?
How do
Superintendents
evaluate the
effectiveness of
his/her
instructional
program(s)?
How do
Superintendents
mobilize human,
social, and physical
capital to build a
coalition of
instructional
leaders?
Study Focus
Areas
Learning
Organizations
Instructional
Leadership
Social Control
Mechanisms
Evidentiary
Documents
Collected
1. District’s
instructional vision
statement
2. District’s
instructional planning
documents
3. District-wide
professional
development calendars
and agendas
4. District-wide memos
and e-mail messages
regarding how the
district communicates its
instructional vision,
plans, and programs with
its stakeholders
1. Documents with specific details about the
district’s instructional programs for language
arts and math
2. School site professional development
calendars and agendas
3. Documents regarding the district’s
student achievement results
4. Documents regarding how the district
evaluates its instructional programs
1. Superintendents’
daily/weekly/monthl
y schedules
2. Agendas from
meetings led by the
superintendent
3. Copies of the
district’s budget
4. Newspaper
articles or other
artifacts (such as
thank you letters
and email messages)
about how the
superintendent met
with stakeholders
and/or overcame
specific challenges
123
EVOLUTION
OF
SUPERINTENDENTS
APPENDIX D
DEVELOPING AND MEASURING THE LEARNING ORGANIZATION
Campbell & Caims (1994)
124
EVOLUTION
OF
SUPERINTENDENTS
APPENDIX E
TYPES OF RELATIONSHIPS
Relationship Type Description
Networking Networking is the most basic and informal way for
individuals to work together. These relationships reflect a
minimal level of trust, limited time availability and a
reluctance to share turf. Networking involves exchanging
information and ideas. It excludes working together on any
activity or toward any goal beyond sharing information.
Communicating Communicating is a more formal way for individuals to
share information and ideas, individuals share information
and perspectives as they converse and talk through formal
channels such as newsletters, letters, press releases,
updates, etc. Little happens beyond the sharing of
information through these formal mechanisms.
Coordination Coordination involves synchronizing operations or
activities in order to make services more accessible and less
redundant. Coordination requires more trust than
networking and greater time commitments and paperwork.
It does not, however, require resource sharing and, all in
all, involves integrating separate or independent operations.
In some instances formal contracts are created ( or
memorandums of understanding) that serve as another level
of cooperative relationship, one involving contracting.
Cooperation Cooperation entails a much higher level of commitment
and trust. It involves sharing. Resources, knowledge, staff,
physical property, clients, money and reputation are just
some of the resources organizations may share when they
are cooperating.
Collaboration Collaboration develops when entities recognize that none
can succeed without the others. Each has special expertise
or unique capabilities that the others need. It is
characterized by trust, norms of give-and-take, shared
responsibilities, consensus-building and conflict resolution
mechanisms, shared power and authority and shared
information and decision-making systems.
Lawson (2003; Torres & Margolin (2003)
125
EVOLUTION
OF
SUPERINTENDENTS
APPENDIX F
SURVEY SUPERINTENDENT CORRESPONDENCE
Date: August 31, 2012
Dear Superintendent,
I am asking for your assistance concerning my research. My focus is Superintendents as
Instructional Leaders. My emphasis will be looking at Superintendents and their design
for their instructional organization, the instructional leadership which is employed , and
the social-control mechanisms (relationships) implemented throughout the organization.
I am fortunate to be assisted by my two chairs, Dr. Rudy Castruita (former
Superintendent of the San Diego County of Education) and Dr. Pedro Garcia (former
Superintendent of Corona-Norco), both excellent clinical professors with a wealth of
knowledge and experience in the Superintendence.
I would like to thank you for your assistance in filling out the survey. Please let me know
if you would like a copy of my research. Ultimately, I would like my research to be used
as a guide, reflection, and/or research information.
Please fill out the survey and mail back to me in the envelope provided.
Thank you for your assistance,
Blanca S. Cantu, Principal
blancaca@usc.edu
University of Southern California, (Ed.D)
Abstract (if available)
Abstract
This study examined the critical aspects of oversight that superintendents must employ to improve instruction. It was an analysis of superintendents as instructional leaders. In this study, we looked at four school district superintendents who have demonstrated instructionally effective school districts. The study was based on a three-year period, using CST scores for language arts and math. School districts were identified on the basis of their ability to promote achievement on standardized tests. ❧ A review of the literature discussed the various models for learning organizations, instructional leadership, and social mechanisms of control. The primary emphasis was on at the superintendent as an instructional leader. We looked at the superintendent’s belief, perception, skills, leadership style, and organizational design. ❧ The research questions posed the following questions: (a) How do superintendents define a district-wide plan for improving instruction in language arts and math? (b) How do superintendents mobilize human, social, and physical capital to build a coalition of instructional leaders? (c) How do superintendents build the capacity of site-level instructional leaders to implement the chosen instructional programs district wide? (d) How do superintendents evaluate the effectiveness of their instructional programs? ❧ The study involved mixed-methods research. Strategies of inquiry involved providing all participants with the same survey to gather statistical data as well as text information (interview) to provide the final database representative of both quantitative and qualitative information. Results were based on interviews and surveys of superintendents, along with analysis of selected documents. Verification of conclusions were reached through the process of triangulation.
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
The critical aspects of oversight that suburban superintendents, as instructional leaders, must employ to improve instruction
PDF
The secondary school principal's role as instructional leader in teacher professional development
PDF
A study of California public school district superintendents and their implementation of 21st -century skills
PDF
A study of California public school district superintendents and their implementation of 21st century skills
PDF
Leadership strategies employed by K-12 urban superintendents to improve the academic achievement of English language learners
PDF
Strategies employed by successful superintendents and boards of education resulting in increased student achievement
PDF
Leadership strategies employed by K-12 urban superintendents to improve the academic achievement of English language learners
PDF
Superintendents increase student achievement by selecting effective principals
PDF
The role of superintendents as instructional leaders: facilitating student achievement among ESL/EL learners through school-site professional development
PDF
Barriers women face while seeking and serving in the position of superintendent in California public schools
PDF
Effective strategies that urban superintendents use that improve the academic achievement for African-American males
PDF
21st century superintendents: the dynamics related to the decision-making process for the selection of high school principals
PDF
Strategies used by superintendents in developing leadership teams
PDF
Superintendents' viewpoint of the role stakeholders can play in improving student achievement
PDF
Strategies California superintendents use to implement 21st century skills programs
PDF
Leadership traits and practices supporting position longevity for urban school superintendents: a case study
PDF
Leadership strategies employed by K–12 urban superintendents to improve the academic achievement of English language learners
PDF
21st century superintendents: the dynamics related to the decision-making process for the selection of high school principals
PDF
A study of California public school district superintendents and their implementation of 21st-century skills
PDF
Getting to the Core: an examination into the resources, strategies and skills superintendents employed as they implemented the Common Core state standards and the politics in play
Asset Metadata
Creator
Cantú, Blanca Silvia
(author)
Core Title
The evolution of superintendents as instructional leaders: past, present, and future
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Education
Publication Date
05/08/2013
Defense Date
04/02/2013
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
instructional leadership,learning organization,OAI-PMH Harvest,social-control mechanisms
Format
application/pdf
(imt)
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Castruita, Rudy Max (
committee chair
), Bowman, Gregory (
committee member
), García, Pedro Enrique (
committee member
)
Creator Email
blanca.cantu@lausd.net,can866@gmail.com
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-252922
Unique identifier
UC11294058
Identifier
etd-CantuBlanc-1671.pdf (filename),usctheses-c3-252922 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-CantuBlanc-1671.pdf
Dmrecord
252922
Document Type
Dissertation
Format
application/pdf (imt)
Rights
Cantú, Blanca Silvia
Type
texts
Source
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Access Conditions
The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...
Repository Name
University of Southern California Digital Library
Repository Location
USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA
Tags
instructional leadership
learning organization
social-control mechanisms