University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Women and the superintendency: characteristics of and barriers encountered by female superintendents in California

(USC Thesis Other)

Women and the superintendency: characteristics of and barriers encountered by female superintendents in California

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

WOMEN AND THE SUPERINTENDENCY: CHARACTERISTICS OF AND
BARRIERS ENCOUNTERED BY FEMALE SUPERINTENDENTS IN
CALIFORNIA

by

Tracy MacArthur

_____________________________________________________________

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

May 2010

Copyright 2010 Tracy MacArthur

ii
Dedication
This dissertation is dedicated to my family and friends, whose love and support
mean the world to me. So many people have supported me in their own unique ways. I
am blessed to have so many people in my life that have helped me throughout this
process, and I am forever indebted to them.
I am especially thankful to have had so many women role-models throughout
my life that have encouraged me and instilled in me these core beliefs: ―anything is
possible‖ and ―you can be whoever you want to be.‖
My mother, with her never-ending determination, has always been an inspiration
to me. No matter what, she has always been there to listen when I needed her. My
grandmother, Joan, has been my biggest fan and never stopped believing in me. My
Great-Grandma Celia, Grandma Ellie, and Aunt Donna have all been driving forces in
my life to continue my educational pursuits.
I am thankful to my friend, Amy, whom I met at the beginning of this process.
From studying for the Graduate Record Exam (GRE) to the final defense, through
laughter and tears, she has been there every step of the way. I don’t think I would have
made it through had it not been for our friendship.

iii
Acknowledgements
I am grateful to all of my committee members for their invaluable time and
feedback. I especially wish to express my gratitude to my dissertation chair, Dr. Rudy
M. Castruita, former San Diego County Superintendent, for his patience and guidance
throughout this process. I thank him for the extra push when I needed it!
I also want to thank my two committee members, Dr. Kathy Stowe, Executive
Director of the Ed.D. Program at the University of Southern California and Dr. Darline
Robles, Los Angeles County Office of Education Superintendent, for their flexibility
and support of my dissertation.
For their willingness to participate in my study, I am further grateful to all of the
female superintendents. Through this study and data collection, I was fortunate to meet
five inspirational superintendents who made this research come to life.
Karen Dabney-Lieras is deserving of special acknowledgement because her
dissertation and instruments were vital to my research.
My friend Jessica, a fellow Trojan, was a guiding force in the early stages of this
dissertation. She provided me with valuable advice and recommendations.
I must acknowledge my all-star staff for their support and encouragement!
Last, but not least, I would like to thank my editor, Dr. Annalisa Zox-Weaver,
for her ability to work with my timelines and for assisting me with editing and
formatting.
This dissertation would not have been possible without the support of amazing
people in my life, including those not named here.

iv
Table of Contents
Dedication ii
Acknowledgements iii
List of Tables vi
Abstract vii
Chapter One: Introduction 1
Background of the Problem 1
Statement of the Problem 5
Purpose of the Study 6
Research Questions 6
Significance of the Study 7
Assumptions 8
Limitations of the Study 8
Delimitations of the Study 9
Summary of Methodology 9
Definition of Terms 9
Organization of the Study 10

Chapter Two: Review of the Literature 12
Introduction 12
Historical Context 13
A Struggle for Equity 13
Traditional Roles in School Systems 14
Common Characteristics 17
Personal Characteristics 17
Professional Characteristics and Career Paths 18
Instructional Leadership 22
Barriers to the Superintendency 24
Internal and External Barriers 24
The Glass Ceiling 25
Female Role Models, Mentoring, and Networking 28
Feminist Lens 30
Where Are We Today? 30
Women in Doctoral/Educational Leadership Programs 30
Breaking the Silence 31
Implications of Research 31
Summary 32

v
Chapter Three: Research Methodology 33
Introduction 33
Purpose of the Study 34
Research Questions 34
Selection of the Population 35
Data Collection Procedures 37
Instrumentation 38
Data Analysis 39
Validity 40
Figure 1: Triangulation of the Data 41
Ethical Considerations 42
Summary 42

Chapter Four: Findings 44
Introduction 44
Survey of Female Superintendents 45
Interviews With Female Superintendents by Research Question 60
Research Question 1: Barriers 61
Research Question 2: Characteristics and Leadership Styles 64
Research Question 3: Mentor Relationships 69
Advice from Female Superintendents 72
Summary 73

Chapter Five: Discussion and Implications of the Findings 74
Introduction 74
Restatement of the Study 74
Key Findings 75
Research Question 1: Barriers 76
Research Question 2: Common Characteristics and 77
Leadership Styles
Research Question 3: Mentor Relationships 78
Recommendations for Aspiring Superintendents 79
Implications of the Study 80
Recommendations for Future Research 82
Concluding Remarks 83

References 85

Appendices
Appendix A: Survey Cover Letter 91
Appendix B: Survey of Female Superintendents in California 93
Appendix C: Female Superintendents Interview Protocol 97

vi
List of Tables
Table 1: Survey and Interview Selection Criteria of Women Superintendents 36
Table 2: Age of Female Superintendents in Study 46

Table 3: Racial/Ethnic Group of Female Superintendents in Study 47
Table 4: Marital Status of Female Superintendents in Study 48
Table 5: Number of Children of Female Superintendents in Survey 49
Table 6: Assistance with Household Duties 50

Table 7: District Size of Participating Superintendents in this Study 51
Table 8: Highest Level of Education 52
Table 9: Number of Years Served as a Teacher 53
Table 10: Age First Administrative Position Obtained 54
Table 11: Age First Superintendency Position Obtained 55
Table 12: Importance of Mentor Relationship 56
Table 13: Characteristics of Mentor(s) 58
Table 14: Perceived Barriers Toward Attainment of the Superintendency 59
Table 15: Demographics of Interviewed Superintendents 60

vii
Abstract
Though women constitute the majority of the teacher workforce, historically,
they have been underrepresented in the school superintendency. And although
California boasts higher percentages of female superintendents than the national
average, a discrepancy clearly continues to exist.
This study investigated female school superintendents’ common characteristics
and leadership styles; perceptions about barriers they faced as they attempted to attain
the superintendency; and the impact, if any, of mentor relationships on their careers in
an attempt to identify possible causes of the disproportionate numbers of women in the
superintendency.
The methodology for this study involved a mixed-method design. The data
collected for the study were quantitative and qualitative in nature. Surveys were mailed
to 35 female superintendents in California, with a return rate of 71%. From those
surveys returned, purposeful sampling was employed to select five female
superintendents for one on one interviews.
Key findings of female superintendents in this study include the following: (1)
women follow similar career paths on the road to the superintendency; (2) barriers
identified were demands of family, societal socialization of ―proper‖ roles for men and
women, gender bias/discrimination in the screening and selection process, and
exclusion from the ―Good Ol’ Boy Network‖; and (3) mentor relationships significantly
impacted careers of female superintendents.
Implications of the research and recommendations for future research are
included.
1
Chapter 1
Introduction

Background of the Problem
School superintendents in the 21
st
Century face many challenges, especially
with the demands of No Child Left Behind. They are charged with increasing student
achievement while educating students to compete in a global economy— both in the
face of diminishing finances. Moreover, our current education system demands that
superintendents be managers as well as instructional leaders. These educational
leaders, often referred to as the ―CEOs‖ of public school districts, must be
knowledgeable about politics and budgets; indeed, there are many facets to the
position. Thus, the superintendency has recently been described as an impossible job
and many of the conditions, including internal and external pressures, set
superintendents up for failure (Fuller, Campbell, Celio, Harvey, Immerwahr, &
Winger, 2003). The job of the superintendent has evolved since the position was first
established in the mid-1800s (Björk & Kowalski, 2005). The original purpose and
rationale behind the superintendent’s position was to have one person oversee
classroom instruction and ensure that curriculum was uniform (Björk & Kowalski,
2005).
After the conception of the superintendent’s position, nearly 60 years would
pass before Ella Flagg Young would be hired as the first female superintendent, in
Chicago in 1909 (Blount, 1998). At her appointment, Young proclaimed,
―[Education] is a woman’s natural field and she is no longer to do the greatest part of
2
the work and yet be denied leadership‖ (Glass, 2000). At that historic time, women
accounted for approximately 9% of all superintendents (Blount, 1998). By 1930, the
numbers had increased and women held nearly 28% of the nation’s superintendent
positions (Blount, 1998). The years between 1900 and 1930 have been called the
―golden age‖ of women in school administration (Brunner & Grogan, 2007). Despite
three decades of expansion for women in the field and Young’s optimism, the number
of female superintendents at any given period of time has fluctuated in the years since.
For example, in the 1970s the number of female superintendents fell to an all-time low
of 3% (Jordan, Hunter & Derrick, 2008).
Today, 21.7% of public school superintendents nationwide are women (Glass
& Franceschini, 2007), fewer than the number of female superintendents in 1930. In
California, the statistics are a bit higher: women account for 31% of the state’s public
school district superintendents (Dabney-Lieras, 2008). Yet, despite the passing of
almost four decades, men still clearly dominate the field.
Research has identified a number of barriers women face in aspiring to the
superintendency. According to Funk, Pankake, and Schroth (2002), women seeking
educational leadership positions face both internal and external barriers. Internal
barriers can include, but are not limited to, motivation and self-efficacy. Shakeshaft
(1989) noted that external barriers can include organizational barriers and influences
such as androcentrism. Gender role expectations and the structure of traditional
bureaucratic organizations can be external barriers obstructing women from
educational leadership positions (McCabe & Dobberteen, 1998). In addition, some
3
researchers have reported the existence of gender bias in the superintendent selection
process (Grogan & Henry, 1995; Radich, 1992; Tallerico, 2000a).
Glass and Franceschini (2007) have also indicated that some factors restricting
women from the superintendency may be ―nonappealing working conditions, family
concerns, and gender discrimination by boards‖ (p. xviii). The tendency toward a
schedule more conducive to childrearing may also contribute to women remaining in
the classroom longer than men (Shakeshaft, 1989). Because they tend to spend more
years in the classroom before pursuing administrative positions, women are often
older candidates for the superintendency. Therefore, family priorities and age can
compound barriers for women.
Traditional organizational barriers may also exist for women as they attempt to
ascend to the superintendency. The Civil Rights Act of 1991 created the Federal Glass
Ceiling Commission to investigate and provide recommendations for identifying
barriers to career advancement for women and minorities as well as for increasing
advancement opportunities for these underrepresented groups (Dana & Bourisaw,
2006). Researchers have found that female superintendents were twice as likely as
men to believe that a glass ceiling exists (Glass & Franceschini, 2007). Female
superintendents view hiring practices as discriminatory much more often than do male
superintendents (Tallerico, 2000a).
Common career paths may also be barriers to the superintendency. Statistics
show that higher percentages of females are found at the elementary principal level
than at the secondary level (Dana & Bourisaw, 2006; Montenegro, 1993), and less
than a third of superintendents comes from an elementary administrative background
4
(Glass & Franceschini, 2007). Glass (2000) found that only 18% of all female
superintendents possesses secondary administrative background. Indeed, the Glass
(2000) study reported that 60% of female superintendents spent 10 or more years in
the classroom teaching, compared to five years for male superintendents. Shakeshaft
(1989) reported that, on average, women spend 15 years teaching before moving up to
a principalship. Glass and Franceschini (2007) noted that prior to the superintendency
many women serve as an assistant or associate superintendent of instruction. As they
explain,
It is conventional wisdom that a central office administrator (an
assistant/associate superintendent) charged with overseeing instruction would
be more knowledgeable and inclined to focus on increasing test scores rather
than budget and operations administration. (Glass and Franceschini, 2007,
p.33)

Additional barriers for women who aspire to the superintendency may be the lack of
female role models, mentors, and networks. According to Wheatley (1981), women
may lack the access to extended professional networks that White males can take for
granted (as cited in Tallerico, 2000a).
In a 1992 study, 56% of responding superintendents believed a ―good-ol’-boy‖
or ―good-ol’-girl‖ network existed in the superintendency (Glass & Franceschini,
2007, p. 36). In a 2006 study, 39% of superintendents reported not having any type of
mentor (Glass & Franceschini, 2007).
Notably, Glass and Franceschini (2007) predict that by 2010 women will
account for approximately 25% to 30% of all superintendents. The number of female
principals and central office administrators is most likely a factor contributing to the
rising number of women superintendents. Whereas the number of women
5
superintendents appears to be increasing, women are only now reclaiming the
positions they once held.

Statement of the Problem
The field of education as a whole contains a large percentage of women;
however, women are underrepresented at higher levels of educational leadership. As
of 2003-2004, women comprised nearly two-thirds of the teacher workforce (National
Center for Educational Statistics, 2006). In 2000, women constituted more than half
of doctoral students in educational administration, yet they occupied about one-fourth
of the administrative positions in the field (Sharp, Malone, Walter, & Supley, 2000).
Nationwide, 21.7% of all public school superintendents is women (Dabney-Lieras,
2008); in California, women account for 31% of the state’s public school district
superintendents (CDE, 2007).
The U.S. Census Bureau called the school superintendency the most male-
dominated executive position in the nation. Since 1982 there has been an increasing
number of women superintendents (Glass, 2000), yet the percentages still remain
small given the number of women in the teaching workforce.
Research about women in the superintendency is a relatively new concept,
though scholarship on the subject began to flourish in the 1990s (Brunner & Grogan,
2007). This proliferation of research sharply contrasts with a previous time,
characterized by Hansot and Tyack as a ―conspiracy of silence‖ during which
disaggregated data by sex was virtually nonexistent (Blount, 1998). Further,
researchers suggest that women’s experiences are often not shared because of the male
6
domination in educational administration (Brunner, 2000; Chase, 1995; Dunlap &
Schmuck, 1995). More recent research of women in educational leadership positions,
such as the superintendency, has moved past simple studies of gender. An increasing
amount of research has been devoted to skills, knowledge, and abilities— yet
unanswered questions remain.

Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study is two-fold. The primary purpose of this study is to
identify common characteristics and leadership styles of women superintendents in
order to inform women who may be interested in pursuing the superintendency.
Secondarily the purpose of this study is to determine what barriers to the
superintendency women have encountered and to examine the impact mentor
relationships have had (if any) on women aspiring to the superintendency.
Understanding what barriers or obstacles other women have encountered may better
prepare them for the difficult journey to the superintendency. Further, determining a
possible relationship between superintendents and their relationships with mentors can
provide valuable information to school districts and universities as they prepare future
female leaders in educational administration.

Research Questions
This study focused on the following research questions in order to provide
answers to the stated purpose of the study:
1. What barriers do women face in attempting to reach the superintendency?
7
2. Are there characteristics women superintendents share, such as leadership
styles, training, and background?
3. Do current women superintendents in this study identify mentors who
impact their ability to carry out their position?

Significance of the Study
The significance of this study is to make a contribution to the body of research
in the field of educational leadership by examining the historical context of women in
the superintendency as well as current women superintendents in the field, their
characteristics, and the barriers they may have overcome on the path to the
superintendency. Much of the research on the superintendency has been focused on
males to the neglect of considering a female perspective. Bell (1998) proclaims,
―Studies that directly focus on women and their experiences in the superintendency
will be of immense value to professors and students of educational administration
today as well as to 21
st
-century historians‖ (p. 36). Historical information on
individual women who hold the position is an area of much-needed research and
would provide insight to others about their situations (Jordan, Hunter, & Derrick,
2008). Reed and Patterson (2007) have reported, ―Once women reach the mid to
upper levels of educational management, they still encounter many barriers to
advancement‖ (p. 91). Knowing about these barriers from those who have surpassed
them may enable women in educational management to be more resilient, thus
increasing the likelihood they will pursue the superintendency. In addition, aspiring
8
female superintendents will learn about characteristics of women who have achieved
the position of superintendent.

Assumptions
For this study it is assumed that:
1. The selected procedures and methods are appropriate.
2. Each of the participants faced barriers on the road to the superintendency
but subsequently overcame them.
3. The interviewees and survey respondents were honest in their responses.
4. Surveying and interviewing women superintendents across the state of
California would provide valuable data, analysis of which would contribute
to the field of education.

Limitations of the Study
The limitations of this study were:
1. This study was limited to women superintendents.
2. The superintendents led large urban school districts in California.
3. The superintendents represented various regions in California.
4. Time was a limitation in this study.
5. Because of the small sample size, findings in this study may not be
generalizable.

9
Delimitations of the Study
The delimitations of this study were:
1. This study was limited to women public school superintendents in
California.
2. This study was limited to 20 interviews of women serving in large
public school districts in California. The demographics of the
school districts varied and were not comparable.

Summary of Methodology
This study was conducted utilizing a mixed method qualitative approach.
Surveys were mailed to 35 women superintendents in urban public school districts
across the state of California with a return rate of 71%. A total of 5 superintendents
were interviewed. The participants in this study represented various racial/ethnic
backgrounds, years of experience, and ages.

Definition of Terms
For the purpose of this study, the following terms are defined as follows:
1. androcentrism: ―the practice of viewing the world and shaping reality from
a male perspective that leads to sex discrimination‖ (Funk, Pankake, &
Schroth, p. 3).
2. career path: a series of work experiences through a progression of time.
3. external barrier: an obstacle beyond one’s control.
4. feminism: a social theory supporting the equality of both sexes.
10
5. glass ceiling: an invisible barrier to the career advancement of women
who are otherwise qualified for the position. Though the term glass ceiling
has often been used to refer to women and minorities, this study solely uses
the term in reference to women in educational leadership.
6. hegemony: the dominance or leadership of one social group over others.
7. internal barrier: an obstacle found within one’s self and within one’s
control.
8. large urban school district: a district with a high minority student
population and low socioeconomic status. The district has more than
10,000 students.
9. patriarchy: the dominance of men in social and cultural systems.
10. self-efficacy: the belief that one is capable of performing in a certain matter
to attain certain goals.
11. superintendent: the executive officer of a public school district.

Organization of the Study
This study contains five distinct chapters. Chapter One provides an overview
and highlights the statement of the problem and the purpose and significance of the
study. Chapter Two provides a review of the literature as it relates to barriers faced by
women as they aspire to the superintendency and common characteristics and
background of women superintendents. In addition, Chapter Two examines relevant
literature about women superintendents and mentors. Chapter Three delineates the
methodology of the study. Chapter Four offers an analysis of the data collected from
11
interviews and surveys. Findings of the study are also found in Chapter Four.
Conclusions, implications, and recommendations for future research are in Chapter
Five.
12
Chapter Two
Review of the Literature

Introduction
The field of education as a whole contains a large percentage of women;
however, relatively few women are found at higher levels of educational leadership.
As of 2003-2004, women comprised nearly two-thirds of the teacher workforce
(National Center for Educational Statistics, 2006). In 2000, women constituted more
than half of doctoral students in educational administration, yet they occupied about
one-fourth of the administrative positions in the field (Sharp et al., 2000). Nationwide,
21.7% of all public school superintendents is women (Dabney-Lieras, 2008). In
California, women account for 31% of the state’s public school district
superintendents (CDE, 2007). With men still dominating the field, a gender equity gap
clearly exists in educational leadership.
The purpose of this study is two-fold. Primarily, the purpose of this study is to
identify common characteristics and leadership styles of women superintendents in
order to inform women who may be interested in pursuing the superintendency.
Secondarily, the purpose of this study is to determine the barriers women may face as
well as the impact of mentor relationships as they attempt to access the
superintendency.
This literature review is presented in four sections. First, the historical context
of women and the struggle for gender equity is presented as it relates to women in the
superintendency. Second, common characteristics and leadership styles found in
13
studies of women superintendents with a focus upon instructional leadership are
examined. Third, challenges and barriers women face as they attempt to access the
superintendency are analyzed. Fourth, female role models and mentors in higher
levels of administration are considered.

Historical Context
A Struggle for Equity
Women have historically experienced social injustices including a lack of
equity and limited access to opportunities. In 1920 women achieved voter equity
when they were guaranteed the right to vote, according to the Nineteenth Amendment
to the United States Constitution. Prior to the passing of this legislation, women could
not vote in many places simply because of their gender. The National Woman’s Party
proposed the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) in 1923. This proposed law, to be
added to the Constitution, stated that the law must treat men and women equally:
―Men and women shall have equal rights throughout the United States and every place
subject to its jurisdiction.‖ Not until 1972 was this amendment passed by Congress—
and even then it was only ratified by 35 of the necessary 38 states by the July, 1982
deadline.
Though the right to vote and the proposed ERA were steps toward equity,
more time would pass before legislation for gender equity in the workplace would be
enacted. In 1938, the Fair Labor Standards Act instated a minimum wage for all
workers regardless of sex. Further legislation, the Equal Pay Act of 1963, promised
equitable wages for the same work. This act passed by congress intended to guarantee
14
equal wages not only for women but also for those of diverse race, color, religion,
or national origin.
One year later, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) prohibited
discrimination of any kind based on race, color, religion, national origin, or sex.
Despite the Civil Rights Movement and new legislation aimed at eliminating
discrimination, injustices continued (Brunner & Grogan, 2007). In 1972, congress
added to the Civil Rights Act, creating Title IX to further prevent sex-based
discrimination. Title IX states, ―No person in the United States shall, on the basis of
sex, be excluded from participation in, or denied the benefits of, or be subjected to
discrimination under any educational program or activity receiving federal assistance.‖
This legislation was unique in that federal funding of specific programs could be
jeopardized for noncompliant institutions; its intended purpose was to create equal
opportunities in educational experiences for men and women. Finally, the Women’s
Educational Equity Act of 1974 primarily intended to extinguish traditional sex-role
stereotyping of girls in elementary and secondary schools and encouraged females to
develop math and science skills. Despite all of this legislation to ensure equity and
prohibit sex-based discrimination, women continue to face barriers in the workplace
and women in the superintendency remain dramatically underrepresented.
Traditional Roles in School Systems
Teaching made the shift from a male-dominated field to a female-dominated
profession in the 1800s (Blount, 2000). At this time, a movement was underway, in
which White women were going into the teaching profession so they could educate
their sons; education was considered an extension of childcare. Women were also
15
deemed suitable for the profession because of their willingness to accept lower
wages. According to Bruner and Grogan (2007), by the 1900s women dominated the
profession, capturing 70% of the teaching positions. Because of the dramatic increase
of women in teaching, the profession became less desirable to men. Teaching was
now seen as a woman’s work. As this shift occurred, males wanting to continue in
education, looked to positions of power, such coaching, vocational education, and,
eventually, the superintendency (Blount, 2000).
Traditionally in the school system, ―the proper order of things has been
presumed to be a hierarchical organization in which women’s place is taking care of
the children (teaching) while men are in charge (administration)‖ (Washington, Miller,
& Fiene, 2007, p.263). Research has referred to this hierarchy as a patriarchal system
(McCall, 1995; Miller, 2009) in which men are the leaders or the head of the system,
and women are the caretakers or teachers. Research has focused upon the concepts of
power and gender in educational leadership (Blount, 1998; McCall, 1995; Tallerico,
2000a). Societal views about ―proper‖ roles for men and women may extend into the
educational arena, creating structural inequities and barriers for women in the
superintentendency.
Nonetheless, women have become superintendents. In 1909, Ella Flagg Young
was hired as the first woman superintendent of Chicago city schools, challenging the
traditional school system in which men were presumed to be the only ones in positions
of power. She proclaimed that women were ―destined to rule the schools‖ and that in
the near future all would see ―more women than men in executive charge of the vast
16
educational system‖ (Blount, 1998, p.1). At the time Young was hired, women
accounted for 9% of all superintendents (Blount, 1998).
The years to follow would be considered the ―golden age‖ for women school
administrators (Blount, 1998). Tyack and Hansot (1982), who dubbed the era as such,
did so because during this time the bureaucratic structure of schools was transformed,
creating new administrative positions. As a result, women were able to take on roles
such as lead teacher, principal, supervisors and, occasionally, superintendent. For
about 30 years, (until after World War II), women enjoyed this time of expansion in
leadership positions.
Soon times would not always be so golden for women leaders in education.
From World War II to about 1970, the number of women in the superintendency
dropped from 9% to an all time low of 3% (Blount, 1998). Grogan (1996) has
reported on the number of women superintendents in the past few decades, with
numbers ranging from 3% in 1985 to 4% in 1987. In 1993, Montenegro found that
7.1% of all superintendents was women (Grogan, 1996).
The most recent statistics indicate that women account for 21.7% of
superintendents nationwide (Dabney-Lieras, 2008). Though the number is higher than
in recent decades, underrepresentation of women in the superintendency clearly
persists.

17
Common Characteristics
Personal Characteristics
Research shows that other factors cluster around the central problem of gender
discrimination in the superintendency. To clarify, for the purposes of this study,
personal characteristics are defined as demographic information such as age,
race/ethnicity, and marital status. Women often enter administration at a later age than
men (Brunner & Grogan, 2007; Glass, 1992; Tallerico, 2000). There are several
different explanations for this postponement. First, studies have found that women
superintendents have at least twice the number of years of teaching experience than
their male counterparts (Glass & Franceschini, 2007; Shakeshaft, 1989). Tallerico
(2000) also confirmed that women tend to enter into the superintendency later than
men. Second, some women tend to wait until their children are older to enter the
superintendency. Brunner and Grogan (2007) found that 30% of the respondents in
their study delayed seeking the superintendency until their children were older. Both
of these conditions mean that in general women enter the superintendency at an older
age than do men. The disparity in age is disadvantageous to women when applying
for positions. In a 2000 study, Tallerico interviewed a headhunter who commented on
the relationship between a woman’s age and career path to the superintendency. The
headhunter explains that age discrimination is ―particularly more acute for women
because many of them start their administrative career path later….Does that limit
women for getting into the superintendency? Absolutely….Of course, the variable
there is child bearing and child rearing‖ (Tallerico, 2000b, p. 77). A possible
18
connection between age and gender, if further studied, may provide plausible
explanation for the underrepresentation of women in the superintendency.
Marital status is another personal characteristic that registers notable
differences between men and women. Recent statistics indicate that nearly 95% of
male superintendents is married compared to 76% of women (Brunner & Grogan,
2007; Glass & Franceschini, 2007). Notably, race/ethnicity is one area in which
gender does not seem to make a significant difference as it pertains to the
superintendency. Glass and Franceschini (2007) reported that 95% of superintendents
is White. Indeed, in a 2003 study of women superintendents, 93% of participants was,
in fact, Caucasian (Brunner & Grogan, 2007).
Professional Characteristics and Career Paths
Though the data regarding gender and personal characteristics present evident
disparities, research about common professional characteristics and career paths
among women superintendents provides a juxtaposition of viewpoints. Brunner and
Grogan (2007) have reported that the most common path women take to the
superintendency is that of teacher, principal, and central office administrator. A
principalship at the elementary level is the most common experience amongst women
superintendents (Brunner & Grogan, 2007). While commonalities exist, research
indicates that there is no one particular career path women follow to attain this
position, meaning that women have learned to lead through many diverse paths
(Brunner & Grogan, 2007; Tallerico, 2000a).
Conversely, male candidates traditionally follow a similar career path on their
ascent to the superintendency. Most men superintendents possess experience as
19
secondary school administrators (Tallerico, 2000b). About 70% of superintendents
in general comes from a secondary school background (Glass & Franceschini, 2007).
In the 2000 American Association of School Administrators (AASA) study, only 18%
of female superintendents possessed experience with secondary school administration
(Glass & Franceschini, 2007). Prior secondary administrative experience is highly
valued by school board members and headhunters when considering candidates for the
superintendency (Tallerico, 2000b), which may contribute to the relatively low
number of women superintendents.
There are two types of superintendent candidates: traditional and
nontraditional. A traditional superintendent candidate rises up through the ranks,
usually of classroom teacher, assistant principal, principal, district office
administrator, and, ultimately, superintendent. Nontraditional candidates for the
superintendency hail from diverse backgrounds such as the military or business.
Festritzer (2003), as presented in Kowalski (2006), reported that nearly all states
require administrators to have prior teaching or related experiences; however, there
seems to be great variance in what is considered ―experience.‖
In addition to career path, another professional characteristic worth examining
is education level. Miller (2009) concluded that women lacking doctorates may face
more difficulties rising through the ranks than women who possess the degree. The
2006 AASA study noted that 51% of the respondents possessed a doctoral degree,
which demonstrated an increase from the study in 2000 (Glass & Franceschini, 2007).
In the same 2006 sample, 58% of female respondents had earned a doctorate (Glass &
Franceschini, 2007). These statistics demonstrate that nationwide female
20
superintendents have higher education levels than men. Paradoxically, women are
still underrepresented in the superintendency.
Bolman and Deal’s (2003) work on management and leadership is centralized
around a four frame model: structural, political, symbolic, and human resource. This
model represents the frames from which leaders operate within their organizations.
Each of these frames, Bolman and Deal (2003) contend are essential to improving
organizations. The structural frame emphasizes goals and specific roles of individuals
within the organization. Policies, procedures, and rules fall under the structural frame.
The political frame is rooted in politics as the title suggests; bargaining, negotiating,
and comprising are key notions of this frame. The human resource frame revolves
around people being the key components of an organization. Viewing the
organization from a human resource perspective means seeing individuals as
investments. Interpersonal skills are critical in the human resources frame.
Glass and Franceschini (2007) have identified nine factors associated with
superintendent effectiveness: the board of education, the central office team, school
principals, teaching staff, a personal support system, preservice training, community
support, support from elected officials, and interpersonal skills. Of these factors,
superintendents in the study overwhelmingly agreed that interpersonal relations skills
were most important (Glass, 2007). In her case study of women superintendents,
Grogan (1996) found that participants often commented on the human relations
element of the superintendency; many of the women believed that their people or
relationship skills were areas of strength. As part of interpersonal relationship skills,
listening is an essential skill that frequently arises in the literature of female
21
superintendents (Brunner, 2000; Dana & Bourisaw, 2006; Johnston, et al., 2002).
Communication skills are of increasing importance for all administrators, including
the superintendent (Kowalski, 2006).
Similarly, in her dissertation, ―A Study of the Human, Technical, and
Conceptual Skills Identified by Women Superintendents in California as Essential to
be Effective in Their Role,‖ Pauline Ellen Conner Schara (1992) identified nine
human skills necessary for success:
(1) communicates effectively both orally and in writing; (2) demonstrates skill
in resolving conflict; (3) demonstrates adaptability and flexibility; (4) displays
self-confidence; (5) delegates responsibility without concern for loss of
authority; (6) demonstrates active listening skills; (7) manages time effectively;
(8) handles personal and job-related stress; and (9) withstands criticism.
(p.126)

These two studies indicate that communication and human relations skills are critical
in the superintendency.
Further research provides more professional characteristics employed by
women superintendents. Women have succeeded in the field by capitalizing on
feminine strengths such as being supportive and encouraging, teaching and opening
communication, soliciting input, and creating a positive, collegial work environment
(Helgesen, 1990). Other literature suggests that women superintendents employ a
collaborative approach (Wesson & Grady, 1994, as cited in Washington, Miller &
Fiene, 2007; Worrall, 1995). Though a collaborative approach and participatory
leadership are becoming the trend in education (Gupton & Slick, 1996), women’s
skills in this area have been largely ignored (Worrall, 1995).

22
Instructional Leadership
When the public school superintendency first began in the 1800s, the position
was seen as primarily managerial in nature. However, today superintendents wear
many hats. They are considered the chief executive officers of the school district
(Fuller et al., 2003).
One documented shift of the superintendent’s position has been from manager
to instructional leader. In the 1980s, school reform movements led to increasing
interest in the role of the superintendent and instructional leadership (Grogan, 1996;
Kowalski, 2006).
According to Hallinger (2003), the most common model of instructional
leadership is transformational leadership. Hallinger (2003) noted, ―transformational
leadership seeks to build the organization’s capacity to select its purposes and to
support the development of changes to practices of teaching and learning‖ (p.330). A
transformational leader is one who understands that distributed leadership is necessary
to accomplish the tasks of the organization. Shared vision and shared commitment
amongst stakeholders help builds consensus. Though Hallinger’s work focused
primarily on principal leadership, it appears the idea of a transformational leader is
relevant to women in the superintendency given their propensity toward a particular
career path.
The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 put further pressure on school districts
for high academic achievement. According to Fuller et al., the pressure increased
significantly: ―The addition of these new expectations to inherited roles makes the
superintendent position in major urban areas an extremely difficult job to do‖ (2003).
23
Indeed, research has shown that instructional leadership and student achievement
are linked to the superintendency. In fact, an AASA study revealed that school boards
expect the primary role of the superintendent to be instructional leader (Glass, Bjork,
& Brunner, 2000). As such, a superintendent must be knowledgeable about research
findings on learning and instructional strategies and techniques; equally, the
superintendent should be familiar with student achievement monitoring and reporting
systems. Stein and Nelson (2003) confirm that leaders must have knowledge of
instructional leadership in order to improve student achievement.
A Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning (McREL) study by
Marzano and Waters (2006) found that district leadership matters when it comes to
instruction and student achievement. Marzano and Waters (2006) reported five
district-level leadership responsibilities that correlate with student achievement: goal-
setting, nonnegotiable goals for achievement and instruction, board alignment with
and support of district goals, monitoring goals for achievement and instruction, and
use of resources to support the goals for achievement and instruction (p. 11). In
addition, the McREL study found a positive relationship between superintendent
tenure and student achievement.
Johnson (1996) affirms that some superintendents do, in fact, make a
difference instructionally. Ortiz (1991) found that strong female superintendents
monitor instruction and assessment (as cited in Washington, Miller, & Fiene, 2007).
Ultimately, school boards should be seeking instructional leaders when they hire
superintendents in order to improve student achievement. But is there a relationship
24
between women superintendents and instructional leadership? The research on the
topic is vague at best. Future studies should investigate if any connection exists.

Barriers to the Superintendency
Internal and External Barriers
Though all superintendent candidates experience barriers, women often
experience ―unique‖ and more ―complex obstacles‖ as they ascend to the top ranks of
educational leadership (Kowalski, 2006, p.370). These barriers can be internal and/or
external. Research has provided insight into some of the barriers women encounter
along the path to the superintendency. As mentioned previously, internal barriers are
those experienced within an individual and include a wide array of manifestations.
Kowalski (2006) has reported that internal barriers faced by women include
socialization and personality issues, aspiration level, personal beliefs, attitudes,
motivation, and self-image. Self-efficacy could also prove to be a barrier to a
woman’s success, especially given that, as Bjork and Keedy (2001) state, ―the
superintendency…is the most male-dominated executive position of any profession‖
(p. 406).
Additionally, aspiring women superintendents may experience external
barriers along their journey. External barriers are environmental circumstances and
obstacles such as stereotyping, discrimination, and family responsibilities (Kowalski,
2006). The literature does support that family responsibilities such as childrearing do
cause more difficulties for aspiring superintendents; this reality is especially true for
women (Brunner, 2000; Grogan, 1996; Morris, 2002). In fact, in one study, almost
25
70% of women identified personal and family barriers as they most significant
barrier to their success (Morris, 2002).
Large scale studies on minority women in the superintendency have been
lacking (Brunner & Grogan, 2007). Although research has shown that race may indeed
compound the barriers women face in the workplace (Bell & Nkomo, 2001; Brunner
& Grogan, 2007; Dabney-Lieras, 2008), this study sought to examine barriers that may
be generalizable to all women regardless of race.
External barriers such as a ―good-ol’-boy network‖ (Dana & Bourisaw, 2006;
Glass, 2000) and/or the ―glass ceiling‖ are commonly cited in research on women in
the superintendency.
The Glass Ceiling
The term ―glass ceiling‖ was popularized in the American vernacular after a
1986 article published in the ―Corporate Woman‖ column of The Wall Street Journal
used the phrase to describe the invisible barriers women encounter as they climb the
corporate ladder. Five years later, the Civil Rights Act of 1991 created the Federal
Glass Ceiling Commission to conduct a study of barriers to the advancement of
minorities and women in management and leadership positions. The creation of such
a commission provided a direct and necessary acknowledgment that the glass ceiling
existed (Dana & Bourisaw, 2006). The bipartisan commission headed by the Secretary
of Labor held five public hearings in major cities, where businessmen and
businesswomen testified to their perceptions about the existence of a glass ceiling in
corporate America. The commission also conducted a study in which it consulted
26
government officials, CEOs, and focus groups, including men and women from
minority groups. As a result of the study, the commission found the following:
 Prejudice against White women and minorities is the single biggest barrier to
their advancement in the executive ranks.
 Glass ceilings exclude able-bodied people of diverse backgrounds that
businesses need to compete successfully for top leadership of corporations.
 Three levels of barriers do exist: societal barriers, which may be outside the
direct control of business, internal structural barriers, and governmental
barriers. (Dana & Bourisaw, 2006, p. 6-7).
Though the glass ceiling metaphor was initially used to describe prejudice in corporate
America, discrimination against women existed in other fields as well— including
education. In 1994 congress passed the Gender Equity in Education Act, which would
―train teachers in gender equity, promote math and science learning by girls, counsel
pregnant teens, and prevent sexual harassment.‖ These two legislative measures
represented a turning point in women’s hundred-year struggle to gain equity and
access. And though these laws hopefully proposed equity and access, research shows
that women in educational leadership continue to face a glass ceiling, whereas men are
riding the ―glass escalator‖ (Mahitivanichcha & Rorrer, 2006; Williams, 1992).
The ―good-ol’-boy network‖ and ―glass ceiling‖ present formidable gender
barriers in educational leadership and, as research has shown, gender bias can be a
prohibitive obstacle for women as they prepare to attain the superintendency (Blount,
1998; Brunner, 2000; Dana & Bourisaw, 2006; Grogan, 1996; Tallerico, 2000).
27
Though gender bias is well-documented in the research, men and women in the
education field do not necessarily perceive it as having the same impact as other
factors with regard to women and their underrepresentation in the superintendency.
In a 2006 study, Glass surveyed male and female superintendents for the
reasons they believed so few women possess the superintendency as compared to the
number of women educators as a whole. Twenty-eight percent of female
superintendents identified gender discrimination by school boards as well as the
presence of a glass ceiling as a response (Glass & Franceschini, 2007). Men in the
same study were only half as likely to select gender discrimination and school boards
and the glass ceiling to explain the disproportionate numbers of women in the
superintendency. In the study, 28.3% of male superintendents believed the working
conditions of the job were not appealing to women and 22.3% felt family concerns
were barriers for women in the position (Glass & Franceschini, 2007). The results of
this study indicate that males and females have differing perceptions of barriers to
women seeking the superintendency.
Some of the challenges that women face as they attempt to gain access to the
superintendency have to do with power and political structures that exist in
educational institutions. As discussed previously in this chapter, traditional school
systems have regarded women as teachers and men as administrators. As women took
over the role as teacher and men took on the role as administrators, the power shifted.
Such a system explicitly provides men with power over women (Blount, 1998). As
Blount (1998) has stated, ―The solution is not simply to get more women into
superintendencies, but rather there must be a larger re-conceptualization of how power
28
is structured in public schooling‖ (p.165). Qualified women must be in leadership
positions beginning with teacher leaders and on up to the highest ranks at the district
office. Blount (1998) further asserts that ―what happens in schools influences what
happens in society and vice versa‖ (p. 165). To illustrate this notion, Blount (1998)
explains that in schools, students are aware of the power relationship between
administrators and teachers. If students are accustomed to women as teachers and men
as administrators, they form a schema in their mind about gender and power. This
schema translates into the society at large and how gender and power are related.
Therefore, Blount (1998) argues, there not only needs to be a paradigm shift in
education but also in society.

Female Role Models, Mentors, and Networking
Another possible barrier particularly for women aspiring to the
superintendency is the lack of mentors. Women entering the superintendency are at a
disadvantage due to the shortage of women role models in higher levels of educational
administration. The absence of mentors, role models, and networks is often cited as a
reason why women do not go into the superintendency (Bjork, 2000; Gupton & Slick,
1996; Shakeshaft, 1989). Mentoring relationships can be important because they
provide structure and support for developing skills in those learning to lead others. A
study by Bova and Phillips (1982) revealed 10 benefits that protégés gained from their
mentors: (a) risk-taking behaviors, (b) communication skills, (c) survival in the
organization, (d) skills of the profession, (e) respect for people, (f) setting high
standards without compromising them, (g) being a good listener, (h) getting along
29
with a variety of people, (i) leadership qualities, and (j) what it means to be
professional (p.18). Mentors are critical pieces of the puzzle in that they support and
guide aspiring superintendents along the journey to the position. Mentoring often
provides invaluable experience that simply cannot be learned in classes or other
formalized educational programs. Pence (1995) affirms that for new and aspiring
administrators, ―mentors can provide a link between theory and practice‖ (p. 142).
The idea of mentoring is not new and in fact has served as a ―powerful
developer of human potential for centuries‖ (Glass, Bjork & Brunner, 2000, p. 156).
Having numerous mentors is not only beneficial but essential (Brunner & Grogan,
2007; Dana & Bourisaw, 2006). Each mentor possesses his or her own skill set as
well as a different networking system of contacts. Bodies of research have confirmed
the value of mentors (Bell & Nkomo, 2001; Ensher & Murphy, 2005; Pence, 1995;
Ragins, Townsend, & Mattis, 1998; Tallerico, 2000a).
Though the notion of mentoring is not novel, Glass and Franceschini (2007)
reported that 39% of superintendents, male and female, in their study received no
mentoring before becoming the superintendent. In a regional study of male and
female superintendents in the South, Hall and Klotz (2001) reported that few females
were selected as mentors. Further, Hall and Klotz (2001) found that mentors for
female superintendents were predominately male. Dana and Bourisaw (2006) have
suggested that male mentors can actually be advantageous for women superintendents
as a way to gain access to the ―good ol’ boy network.‖ Nonetheless, the literature
indicates that the lack of mentors and networking for aspiring female superintendents
continues to be a barrier that requires attention.
30
Feminist Lens
Until recently, much of the research on the superintendency was presented
from a male’s perspective highlighting men’s experiences because the position has
been and continues to be dominated by men (Bell, 1998). Recently researchers
recognized that these androcentric views of the literature have neglected the female
perspective (Marshall, 1997; Skrla, 2000). Women’s perspectives have ―historically
been absent, overlooked, or dismissed in the superintendent policy research and
analysis‖ (Skrla, 2000). Because of the androcentric views and hegemony prevalent in
previous literature, a feminist lens is imperative when studying women in the
superintendency. McCall (1995) states: ―Feminism seeks to restructure personal and
public life to protect individual freedoms, to foster gender, racial, and class equality
among and within various groups, and to encourage collective actions as a way of
addressing social problems‖ (p. 190). A feminist lens provides a framework through
which the findings of this study are analyzed. It was the intent of the researcher to
examine the underrepresentation of women in the superintendency as it relates to
structural inequities in education and gender-related barriers.

Where Are We Today?
Women in Doctoral/Educational Leadership Programs
Enrollment of women in graduate programs for educational leadership has
steadily increased over time (Mahitivanichcha & Rorrer, 2006). In the mid-1980s 50%
or more of the candidates enrolled in doctoral programs in educational administration
was women (Shakeshaft, 1989). As of 2006, 58% of women superintendents
31
possessed doctoral degrees. According to the past three American Association of
School Administrators studies, higher percentages of women superintendents hold
doctoral degrees than men in the same position (Glass & Franceschini, 2007). From
these recent statistics, the disproportionate number of women in the superintendency
becomes even more glaring and disconcerting.
Breaking the Silence
In recent years, research and studies about women superintendents have been
written primarily by female doctoral students pursuing educational administration.
These works were important to this study as they helped identify the history of women
superintendents as well as chronicled the experiences of women superintendents.
Grogan (1996) suggested that studies should focus on telling the stories of female
superintendents from the women’s perspectives.
One significant piece of literature follows the suggestion of Grogan (1996) and
stands out from the rest. In Eight at the Top: A View Inside Public Education (2002),
eight California female superintendents share their powerful stories and words of
wisdom to inspire others as they continue to lead school systems. This critical work
presents an insider’s view from the superintendency from women that have been in the
position.
Implications of Research
Previous research has demonstrated that the voices of women in the
superintendency have been silenced (Brunner, 2000; Chase, 1995; Schmuck &
Dunlap, 1995; Tyack & Hansot, 1982). However, as women do break through the
glass ceiling and enter the superintendent ranks, it is critical that their voices are heard.
32
While beyond the scope of this project, study of restructuring educational
administration is necessary to affording women the same opportunities as men as they
strive to attain the superintendency. In order to address these concerns, Shakeshaft
(1989) suggests expanding course offerings in universities that prepare future
administrators; his recommendations include: (a) classes addressing women’s
experiences in educational administration, (b) case studies of women to be used in
classes, (c) internships for female students with women administrators when possible,
(d) encouragement and support of research on styles of women administrators, (e)
women speakers in classrooms on college campuses, and (f) addition of women to
college and university faculties in educational administration.

Summary
This chapter provided a literature review that included a historical perspective
on women in the superintendency, common characteristics of female superintendents,
and barriers to the superintendency. The concepts of instructional leadership of
women superintendents and the lack of mentors for aspiring women administrators
were also discussed.

33
Chapter Three
Methodology

Introduction
Women serve as nearly two-thirds of the teacher workforce (National Center
for Educational Statistics, 2006); yet only comprise 21.7% of public school
superintendents nationwide (Glass & Franceschini, 2007). In California, the rates are
slightly higher, with women accounting for 31% of the state’s public school district
superintendents (CDE, 2007). The U.S. Census Bureau called the school
superintendency the most male-dominated executive position in the nation. And
though since 1982 the number of women superintendents has increased (Glass, 2000),
percentages still remain disproportionate to men in the profession. Of all K-12
administrative positions, the public school superintendency has integrated women the
slowest (Tallerico, 2000a). Thus, women role models in educational administration are
lacking as compared to male counterparts. Still, research on women in educational
leadership positions such as the superintendency considers various factors, not only
those relating to gender. Increasingly, research has been devoted to skills, knowledge,
and abilities. Yet, unanswered questions remain.
This study examined the historical context of women in the superintendency as
well as current women superintendents in the field, their leadership styles, and barriers
they may have overcome on the path to achieving the position. This study provides
relevant information for women aspiring to the superintendency including common
leadership styles and potential barriers. First-hand accounts from women who have
34
attained the position may aid other women in educational management to be more
resilient, thus increasing the likelihood they will pursue the superintendency.
This chapter outlined the methods and procedures for conducting this study
and is divided into the following sections: (a) research questions, (b) selection of the
population, (c) method of data collection, and (d) data analysis.

Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study is two-fold. The primary purpose of this study is to
identify common leadership characteristics of current women superintendents in
California. Additionally, this study examined the barriers women face when pursuing
the superintendency as well as the perceived impact of mentors on female
superintendents. Though many studies have researched minority women in particular,
this study seeks to be a foundation for all aspiring women superintendents without
emphasis on race or color. The intent of this study was to present information about
common leadership qualities while providing insight into potential challenges these
women may face as they rise through the ranks of their school districts. Though this
study is of importance to all K-12 educators, efforts were made to focus on a woman
audience.

Research Questions
This study focused on the following research questions in order to provide
answers to the stated purpose of the study:

35
1. What barriers do women face in attempting to reach the
superintendency?
2. Are there similar characteristics women superintendents share, such as
leadership styles, training, and background?
3. Do current women superintendents in this study identify mentors who
impact their ability to carry out their position?

Selection of the Population
Participants in this study were 35 female superintendents serving in public schools
across the state of California during the 2009-2010 school year. Participants were
selected from information gathered from various resources including the Council of
the Great City Schools website and the California Department of Education website.
Survey participants represented women superintendents serving in urban districts,
ranging from 4,000 to 60,000 students. Table 1, below, shows the interview criteria.
36
Table 1
Survey and Interview Selection Criteria of Women Superintendents

Survey

Interview
Varied age, race/ethnicity, career path,
and years of experience
Varied age, race/ethnicity, career path,
and years of experience
Serving in districts with student
populations from 4,000 to 60,000
Serving in districts with student
populations from 4,000 to 60,000
Serving in urban districts throughout the
state of California
Serving in urban districts in Southern
California
Status of relationship with mentor
unknown
Relationship with a mentor

If the gender of a particular superintendent was unclear due to an ambiguous
name, additional information from the school district website was obtained for
clarification.
Surveys were mailed to each of the 35 superintendents. After collecting the
responses from the returned surveys, the researcher employed purposeful sampling to
choose five respondents for interviews. According to Creswell (1998), ―The
purposeful selection of participants represents a key decision point in qualitative
study. Researchers designing qualitative studies need clear criteria in mind and need to
provide rationales for their decisions‖ (p. 118). Interview participants were
purposefully selected to represent women superintendents from urban districts and
37
various backgrounds in order to generalize the findings. Because the researcher’s
focus is on women superintendents in general, regardless of race or color, the
interview participants selected represented varied racial/ethnic backgrounds and years
of experience. In addition, all interview participants worked in the Southern
California area within a 100-mile radius of the researcher. Table 1, above, shows the
selection criteria for survey and interview participants. A total of five Southern
California female superintendents of urban school districts were interviewed.

Data Collection Procedures
Creswell (2006) has indicated that the following data-collection activities may
be pertinent in conducting research: (a) locating site/individual, (b) gaining access and
making rapport, (c) purposefully sampling, (d) collecting data, (e) recording
information, (f) resolving field issues, and (g) storing data. This researcher followed
Creswell’s data collection activities. First, surveys were sent to 35 women
superintendents in the state of California using the aforementioned selection criteria.
A cover letter accompanied the survey and explained the survey as well as the study
and its purpose. Of the 35 surveys that were distributed to study participants, 25 were
returned, providing this researcher with a return rate of 71%.
In addition to quantitative data collected from the surveys, qualitative data was
gathered. Qualitative data in this study was of particular importance. Patton (1985)
explains:
Qualitative research is an effort to understand situations in their uniqueness as
part of a particular context and the interactions there. This understanding is an
end in itself, so that it is not attempting to predict what may happen in the
38
future necessarily, but to understand the nature of that setting – what it
means for participants to be in that setting, what their lives are like, what’s
going on for them, what their meanings are, what the world looks like in that
particular setting – and in the analysis to be able to communicate that faithfully
to others who are interested in that setting.... The analysis strives for depth of
understanding. (p. 1)

Of those responding to the survey, five were selected to participate in in-depth
interviews. As aforementioned, purposeful sampling was used in the selection of
interview participants that met the selection criteria in order to best reflect the purpose
of the study and provide ―information rich cases‖ (Merriam, 1998, p. 61). The
superintendents were interviewed for approximately one hour each. Follow-up phone
calls were made as necessary to clarify any pertinent information. All interviews were
digitally recorded and stored. The interviews were carefully transcribed and reviewed
by the researcher in order to ensure the accuracy of the findings.

Instrumentation
The researcher employed a mixed-method design. Quantitative data were
gathered through the use of surveys and qualitative data were gathered through
interviews. Surveys were mailed to 35 women superintendents in California. The
survey instrument developed by Karen Dabney-Lieras (2008) was employed in this
study with the author’s permission. A survey was selected as one method because it
allows for a collection of data from many subjects. The survey instrument, consisting
of 19 questions, was designed to collect data in the following categories: personal
characteristics, professional characteristics, and experience with mentors. Personal
characteristic questions include items on age, marital status, race/ethnicity, children (if
39
any), and family responsibilities. Professional characteristic questions include
items on highest degree held, type and size of school district of current employment,
age at which first administrative position was obtained, age at which first
superintendency was obtained, and number of superintendent positions held. Mentor
relationship survey questions include items related to use of a mentor (if any),
importance of mentor, and mentor characteristics.
Based on the surveys returned, five superintendents were selected for in-depth
interviews. The interviews were qualitative in nature and allowed for the subjects to
provide insight and discuss experiences related to the research questions posed in this
study without being limited to a fixed scale. The interview protocol was designed to
answer the three research questions.
Both the survey instrument and in-depth interview protocol were piloted by
four women administrators in order to receive feedback and suggestions pertaining to
the number of questions, clarity of each question, and amount of time needed to
complete the instruments. Piloting interview questions gives the researcher an
opportunity to refine questions as necessary (Creswell, 2006).

Data Analysis
This study was a mixed-method approach, utilizing both quantitative and
qualitative data. Data gathered from surveys was quantitative in nature. Interviews
with participants produced qualitative data. The research questions guided the data
analysis. All items on the survey and interview protocol were mapped to the research
questions. Data from participants were carefully transcribed, coded, and analyzed for
40
patterns related to the stated research questions. Interviews were coded and
confidentiality of each study participant was preserved.

Validity
Exploring the same research questions through several methods allows the
researcher to compare and triangulate data. Patton (2002) discusses triangulation:
―Triangulation strengthens a study by combining methods. This can mean using
several kinds of methods or data, including both quantitative and qualitative
approaches‖ (p. 247). Figure 1, below, shows a model of the triangulation of data in
this study.

41
Figure 1
Triangulation of the Data

Qualitative
Data:

In-Depth
Interviews

Quantitative
Data:
Surveys

AASA Mid-
Decade Study
(Glass &
Franceschini, 2007)

Research
Findings

Field Notes and
Reflections

42
Limitations on this study were considered carefully as they may impact
validity. Patton (2002) cautions that interview data can be distorted and is susceptible
to inaccuracies, especially if the interview subject is asked to recall information from
past experiences. Responses from interviewees may be biased (Patton, 2002). Given
these limitations, data was triangulated to ensure validity.

Ethical Considerations
Because this study involved human subject research, approval was required by
the Internal Review Board (IRB) from the University of Southern California before
the researcher could proceed. This researcher gained IRB approval from the
University before any participants were contacted for participation in the study. The
confidentiality of all participants was carefully maintained. Prior to completing the
surveys and interviews, all participants were provided with informed consent
information, which included details and the purpose of the study.

Summary
This chapter outlined the research methodology employed for this study. This
section included a discussion of the following elements: selection of the population,
data collection procedures, research instrumentation, and procedures for data analysis.
The information collected from women superintendents in California provided
data for statistical analysis regarding the demographics of female superintendents in
California, characteristics of women superintendents, perceived barriers experienced
by women superintendents, and women superintendents’ experiences with mentors.
43
The research design protected the anonymity of participants in that instruments
were not coded for identification and no identifiable data was requested in either the
survey or interview protocol. The following chapter will outline the findings of this
research.

44
Chapter Four
Findings

Introduction
This chapter presents an analysis of the data collected in the current study,
whose purpose was to investigate the personal and professional characteristics of
female superintendents in California. Additionally, this study examined perceived
barriers and the role of mentors as women ascend to the superintendency. The data for
the current study was collected using two instruments, described in depth in Chapter
Three: (a) Survey of Female Superintendents in California (Appendix B) and (b)
Female Superintendents Interview Protocol (Appendix C).
The surveys were distributed to 35 female superintendents across the state of
California. The superintendents represented a wide variety of ages, races, and served
in districts of varying size. Twenty-five out of 35 surveys were returned, for a return
rate of 71%. The data collected from the survey consisted of 25 female
superintendents across the state of California. The data collected from the one-on-one
interviews consisted of five female superintendents serving in K-12 districts located in
Southern California. Data was interpreted and analyzed using the process of
triangulation where multiple sources of information were utilized to support the
findings. The five superintendents who participated in interviews will be referred to
as Superintendents A-E in order to maintain and protect their confidentiality. In
addition, no identifiable information is reported in the findings.
The data gathered through the course of the research was analyzed in an
45
attempt to answer the research questions posed by this study:
1. What barriers do women face in attempting to reach the
superintendency?
2. Are there similar characteristics female superintendents share, such as
leadership styles, training, and background?
3. Do current female superintendents in this study identify mentors who
impact their ability to carry out their position?

Survey of Female Superintendents
This study examined personal as well as professional characteristics of female
superintendents. The first section of the survey instrument addressed the participants’
personal characteristics. This segment of the survey included items on the following
personal characteristics: age, marital status, racial/ethnic group, number of children,
age of children when participant began first superintendency, and assistance with
household duties.
Table 2, below, shows the ages of female superintendents in this study. Forty-
percent of the superintendents surveyed was between the ages of 56 and 60. In 2006,
the mean age of superintendents was estimated to be 54.6 years, the oldest age of
superintendents found in any 10-year study (Glass & Franceschini, 2007). Therefore,
the ages of the superintendents in this study bear out the results found by the AASA
mid-decade study. This finding demonstrates that superintendents, in general, are
entering into the profession at a later age than ever before (Glass & Franceschini,
2007). Many possible reasons exist for superintendents beginning their careers at a
46
later age: spending more time in the classroom, staying in the principalship longer,
or delaying the position until their children are older.

Table 2

Age of Female Superintendents in Study
Age Frequency %
30-35 0 0
36-40 0 0
41-45 5 20
46-50 0 0
51-55 4 11
56-60 10 40
61-65 5 20
65> 1 4
Total 25 100

The intent of this study was to include female superintendents representing
various racial and ethnic groups. Surveys were sent to superintendents of various
racial/ethnic groups. However, due to participation, surveys received by the researcher
do not represent all racial/ethnic groups. Table 3, below, shows that 76% of the
respondents in this study were White whereas other respondents were Asian, Hispanic,
and multiracial. Statistically, the race/ethnicity of superintendents has been
predominantly White (Glass & Franceschini, 2007). Therefore, the results from the
47
national survey conducted in 2006 are comparable to those of this study conducted
in California.

Table 3
Racial/Ethnic Group of Female Superintendents in Study

Racial/Ethnic Group

Frequency

%
American Indian 0 0
Asian 2 8
Black 0 0
Hispanic 2 8
Multiracial 2 8
White 19 76
Other 0 0
Total 25 100

Eighty percent of the women in the study reported being married; 20% of the
superintendents are divorced and single. The results (see Table 4, below) found in this
survey were analogous to those found in the 2006 AASA study, in which Glass and
Franceschini (2007) found that 75.45% of female superintendents nationwide was
married, whereas 24.55% was unmarried.

48
Table 4
Marital Status of Female Superintendents in Study

Marital Status

Frequency

%
Currently Married 20 80
Single (Never Married) 0 0
Single (Divorced) 5 20
Single (Widowed) 0 0
Unmarried (In a
Committed Relationship)
0 0
Total 25 100

Glass and Franceschini (2007) describe the superintendency as a ―traditional
family‖ position. Historically, they assert, boards are looking for superintendents that
have families. The superintendents in this study were asked about the number of
children they have and what age their youngest child was when they entered into their
first superintendency (See Table 5, below). The majority (84%) of the women in the
study has children. Forty-eight percent of the women in the study has two children.
Sixteen percent indicated having no children. Of the superintendents with children,
48% responded that the child was over 18 when they entered into their first
superintendency. Thus, 36% had children younger than 18 when they accepted their
first superintendency. These findings differ from a 2008 study of female
superintendents in California in which all 55 participants in the study delayed the
49
superintendency until their children were college-aged (Dabney-Lieras). Recent
studies have confirmed that family expectations can be a barrier for some women as
they attempt to attain the superintendency (Dabney-Lieras, 2008; Miller, 2009).

Table 5
Number of Children of Female Superintendents in Survey
Number of
Children

Frequency

%
0 4 16
1 5 20
2 12 48
3 4 16
4> 0 0
Total 25 100

Another survey question inquiring about personal characteristics asked
participants what type or types of assistance they received with household duties. All
participants reported receiving some type of assistance. The majority, 88%, indicated
that a spouse or partner helps them with household duties. Sixty percent has paid help.
Dabney-Lieras (2008) found similar results in her study of female superintendents in
California. Recent studies of female superintendents found that women in this role
often seek support from spouses, other family members, or outside agencies in order to
maintain balance in their home and career (Dabney-Lieras, 2008; Miller, 2009).
50
Table 6

Assistance with Household Duties

Type of Assistance

Frequency

%
No Assistance 0 0
Spouse/Partner 22 88
College-Age Child 0 0
Minor-Age Child 2 8
Parent 2 8
Other Adult 0 0
Paid Help 15 60
Other 1 4

The second section of the survey instrument was dedicated to questions
addressing the participants’ professional characteristics. Questions included
information on highest degree earned, type and size of district, number of years served
as a teacher, and age at which first the administrative position was obtained. Other
questions focused specifically on the superintendency: age at which first
superintendency was obtained, number of superintendent positions held, location of
positions, how superintendency was obtained, number of years served in current
position, and total number of years as superintendent.
The majority of public school districts in the United States serve fewer than
3,000 students (Glass & Francheschini, 2007). Participants of the study were asked
51
about the type and size of their district. Forty-eight percent of the superintendents
surveyed designated the district they served as urban, whereas 52% of the participants
reported serving suburban districts. Twenty-three of the districts were K-12 districts
and two respondents were from K-8 districts. Superintendents were asked about the
number of students served in their districts (See Table 7, below). In this study, the
mean size of the district is 25,000 students.

Table 7
District Size of Participating Superintendents in this Study
District Size
(number of pupils)

Frequency

%
1,000 – 9,999 12 48
10,000-19,999 6 24
20,000 – 29,999 3 12
30,000 – 39,999 1 4
40,000 – 49,999 2 8
50,000 – 59,999 1 4

Table 8, below, shows that of the superintendents in this study, 60% holds
some type of doctorate degree. The majority (44%) of the female superintendents in
this study holds doctorates of education. Miller (2009) proposes that women without
doctorates may experience more difficulty in attaining the superintendency and that
obtaining this level of education may help them overcome these barriers.
52
Table 8
Highest Level of Education

Highest Degree Held

Frequency

%
Bachelor of Arts/Science Degree 0 0
Master Degree 7 28
Doctorate of Education (Ed.D.) 11 44
Doctorate of Philosophy (Ph.D.) 4 16
Currently in Graduate School
Working Toward a Doctorate
2 8
Note. One participant omitted this question.

Researchers have examined the career paths of male and female
superintendents. In one example, Brunner and Grogan (2007) found that the most
common career path of female superintendents is from teacher, principal, and district
office administrator. Twenty four women in the study served as a teacher during their
career (one survey participant omitted this question). Seventy-eight percent of female
superintendents in this study served at least six years as a teacher prior to becoming a
superintendent (See Table 9, below). The majority of the superintendents worked for
6-10 years in the classroom. All of the superintendents in this study have an education
background, making them what has become commonly known as ―traditional‖
superintendents. Participants were also asked to identify what their assigned subject
areas were when they taught. Ten women (42%) had elementary-level experience
53
before serving as a superintendent. Brunner and Grogan (2007) identified that
elementary experience, particularly as an administrator, is a common characteristic of
female superintendents. Six women (25%) indicated having a background in special
education. The remaining participants (32%) reported having secondary education
experience, which research has indicated is highly valued (Tallerico, 2000a).

Table 9
Number of Years Served as a Teacher

Number of Years

Frequency

%
0-2 0 0
3-5 5 21
6-10 16 66
11-15 2 8
16-19 1 4
20+ 0 0
Note. One participant omitted this question

For professional characteristics, participants were asked to indicate the age at
which they obtained their first administrative position. The results, as seen in Table
10, below, were nearly evenly distributed. Ninety-six percent of the participants was
between the ages of 24 and 40 when they obtained their first administrative position.
Previous studies have found that women are older than men when they obtain their
54
first administrative experience, and in turn, are often older than their male
counterparts when entering the superintendency (Brunner & Grogan, 2007; Glass,
1992; Tallerico, 2000).

Table 10
Age First Administrative Position Obtained

Age

Frequency

%
25-30 8 32
31-35 8 32
36-40 8 32
41-50 1 4
51-55 0 0
56 or older 0 0

Table 11, below, indicates that 52% of women in this study entered into the
first superintendency between the ages of 41 and 50, with the median age being 48. In
a 1998 study conducted by O’Connell and Tallerico in New York, the researchers
found that the average age of women entered into the superintendency at age 46.
Sixteen (64%) of the participants were currently in their first superintendency.
Another 24% was in their second or third superintendency. Ninety-six percent of the
survey participants had not held a superintendency in any other state than California.
Only one woman had held a position as superintendent in another state.
55
Table 11
Age First Superintendency Position Obtained

Age

Frequency

%
36-40 2 8
41-50 13 52
51-55 5 20
56 or older 5 20

Fifty-six percent of the women in the survey obtained their first
superintendency from within the same district they had worked immediately prior to
obtaining that position. Forty-four percent obtained their first superintendency from a
district other than the one they were working in immediately prior to obtaining that
position.
The superintendents in this study had served in their current positions ranging
from two months to 11 years; the median number of years served in current
superintendency was 3.5.
The experiences of the women in the survey varied. One superintendent was in
her first year whereas another was serving her 16th year as a superintendent. The
median number of years of experience as a superintendent was about seven years.
The final section of the survey instrument addressed the participants’
relationship with mentors, if any, and any perceived barriers experienced in the assent
to the superintendency. Twenty participants (80%) identified having had at least one
56
mentor during their career that had impacted their role as a superintendent. Of those
reporting a mentor, 95% characterized the mentor relationship as ―extremely
important‖ or ―very important.‖ Five participants indicated that they did not have a
mentor that impacted their career. The findings here are in sharp contrast to the 2006
AASA study of male and female superintendents, in which 39% of superintendents
reported receiving no mentoring before becoming a superintendent (Glass &
Franceschini, 2007). Another survey question addressed the importance of that
mentor relationship. The results to this question are shown in Table 12, below.

Table 12
Importance of Mentor Relationship

To What Extent

Frequency

%
Extremely Important 10 50
Very Important 9 45
Somewhat Important 0 0
Not Very Important 1 5
Total 20 100

Participants were also asked to identify characteristics of mentors they had.
Table 13, below, shows the results. The most common characteristics participants
identified were White males and someone older than them. In addition, many
superintendents in this study revealed having been mentored by someone from their
57
own district; retired superintendents and colleagues were also often identified as
mentors. Though the survey did not specifically ask participants to identify the
number of mentors they had, four of the participants wrote in by hand that they had
more than one mentor.
58
Table 13
Characteristics of Mentor(s)

Characteristic

Frequency
White Male 12
Person of Color (Male) 2
White Female 2
Person of Color (Female) 4
Older 15
Younger 0
Colleague 10
Retired Superintendent 10
Family Member 3
Friend 4
Member of an Educational
Organization/Networking
Group
3
From the Same District 12
From a Different District 6
County Office of Education 1
University Professor 4
Other 1

One of the important questions addressed by this study was whether female
superintendents perceived barriers during their assent to the superintendency. This
59
important question was addressed on the survey as well during the interviews.
Survey instructions asked participants to identify any/all barriers they had perceived,
meaning one participant could conceivably have perceived (and marked on the survey)
every barrier. Survey results indicated that 13 (52%) of the women superintendents in
this study reported no perceived barriers. Therefore, 12 of the women indicated at
least one perceived barrier. Twenty-eight percent of the women cited gender
bias/discrimination in the screening and selection process as a barrier. Of the five
perceived barriers listed on the survey, gender bias/discrimination received the highest
number of acknowledgments.

Table 14
Perceived Barriers Toward Attainment of the Superintendency

Barrier

Frequency
Demands of Family 5
Societal Socialization of ―Proper‖
Roles for Men and Women
4
Lack of a Mentor/Sponsor 0
Gender Bias/Discrimination in
Screening and Selection Process
7
Exclusion from ―Good-ol’-boy
network‖
6

60
Interviews With Female Superintendents by Research Question
Merriam (1998) noted that purposeful sampling in qualitative research is
widely used. Therefore, selection of the superintendents to be interviewed was done
utilizing purposeful sampling in order to provide a sound qualitative study.
The demographics of the interviewed superintendents are listed in Table 15,
below. Attempts were made to study females who were representative of the
population when possible. Lack of willingness to participate in interviews affected
diversity with regards to race. Three of the five superintendents interviewed reported
experiencing barriers and all five had experience with mentors.

Table 15
Demographics of Interview Participants
___________________________________________________________________
Superintendent Age Group Race District Size Total Years as
Superintendent
___________________________________________________________________
Superintendent A 61-65 H 10,000 – 19,999 12
Superintendent B 56-60 W 20,000 – 29,000 4
Superintendent C 51-55 W 10,000 – 19,999 9
Superintendent D 56-60 W 50,000 – 59,999 3
Superintendent E 56-60 M 1,000 – 9,999 10
____________________________________________________________________
H = Hispanic W= Caucasian/White M=Multiracial

61
Research Question 1: Barriers
Research has documented the presence of barriers as women attempt to attain
the superintendency (Blount, 1998; Dana & Bourisaw, 2006). The first research
question, regarding those barriers, was raised on the survey as well as during
interviews. In the latter, women were asked two specific and distinct questions; the
first was, ―What barriers, personal and/or professional, have you experienced in the
ascent to the superintendency?‖ Four of the five female superintendents, or 80%,
believed they experienced no professional barriers in their ascent to the
superintendency.
Superintendent B reported experiencing the following barriers on her climb to
the superintendency: societal barriers, gender bias/discrimination, and exclusion from
the ―Good ol’ boy network.‖ She believed that gender bias from male recruiters and
boards of education caused resistance to hiring female superintendents. She
conjectured that men may be reluctant to hire women for the position because they
question whether or not women can make tough decisions. In recounting her story,
this superintendent explained that even though she believed she possessed precisely
the experience the district needed in a new superintendent, she still encountered
gender bias during the selection process. In her words:
The search firm that was used in this district was [using] a male…my previous
district was working with the same search firm, but another male was leading
that search. And the two of them knew each other. And I was being highly
recommended by his buddy who was [working with] my previous district.
From what the board has told me, I was not in the initial group that the search
firm gave to the board for consideration. And the board looked at it and said,
these are the same guys…we want to see more. And because of that my
application was seen…There was no reason why my application wouldn’t have
62
been considered. I had all of the experience. Had the board not asked for
more candidates, I would never have been included…Was it because I was
female or was it because I wasn’t in that core of men that they’re used to
working with, their stable group… I think it was some of both.
Research from Skrla, Reyes, and Scheurich (2000) has confirmed that
women’s leadership is questioned more often than that of men because of associations
with feminine gender-related cultural norms. Along these lines, Superintendent B
continued her story, ―It was like a major hurdle that I had to get over because I was
female…I think they assume looking at men that they can [handle tough situations]
whereas with women [there’s] got to be proof.‖ Superintendent B also reported
experiencing gender bias from female board members, stating that they may in fact, be
jealous or prefer to have a male superintendent because they have difficulty relating to
women superintendents. Thus, societal barriers can be perceived barriers by females
as they reach higher levels of leadership.
Superintendents were also asked about any personal barriers they experienced
during their ascent to the superintendency. With regard to personal barriers, responses
from the superintendents varied. Superintendent A reported an internal personal
barrier in not being able to envision herself advancing all the way to the
superintendency. Though this superintendent expressed that her own family was an
asset to her, she generalized her thoughts about the possibility of family obligations
being a potential barrier:
I do think that on a personal level, women sometimes allow family to be
viewed as a barrier because you bring your guilt about how much time you’re
spending. I was fortunate. My children were off to college by the time I
became a superintendent. That was fortunate for me. It’s not that fortunate for
other women. I do think the issue of balance in your life can sometimes be a
63
barrier is finding that right balance. And I do think that to be a successful
superintendent you have to have balance otherwise you’re not a good leader
for the people who work with you.

Superintendent C affirmed that being in the superintendency poses challenges
as a mother and a wife because the job is so time-consuming. She cited the following
challenges of balancing familial duties with job duties:
It can be a very stressful job and it can be a 24-hour-a-day job. But at the same
time I have children. I have a husband. I have people that I love and care
about. There are sometimes five days of the week that I’m not home for dinner.
Those are challenges. I know that males have those challenges as well. But I
think just still with the roles of women in our society it’s a little more
impactful for the female.

Superintendents B and E both shared that family members with severe illnesses
were personal barriers that they had to overcome as they continued on the path to the
superintendency.
The second question relating to barriers asked, ―How much of a barrier do you
consider gender to be in terms of attaining the superintendency?‖ One superintendent
stated that she does not believe gender to be a barrier in attaining the superintendency.
When asked this same question, Superintendent D perceived race discrimination when
applying to one particular district but felt this incident was unrelated to her gender. As
she put it:
The biggest barrier…wasn’t because I was a woman; it was because I wasn’t
Hispanic. I didn’t blame anybody for that other than the bigots that did it. I
didn’t experience that anywhere else. It was well-known that the people in
power were racist.
Though this study does not examine race, research has shown that it may
indeed compound the barriers women face in the workplace (Bell & Nkomo, 2001).
64
Two of the five superintendents interviewed expressed a belief that gender is not the
barrier it once was. Superintendent C shared that 10 years ago gender was a strong
barrier; she now reports that in her county she sees equal representation in the
superintendency. Superintendent A confirmed that gender is less a barrier than it once
was:
When I became a superintendent [in the early 1990s]…there were far fewer
female superintendents, and I was the first woman in my first district. That
was a big deal in that district even to get a woman. So that must tell you that
there must have been some barriers there in the past. I noticed that even at the
state wide meetings, I was always in the minority. I think that’s less the case
now. And I think that gender is no longer the barrier it was. Probably in
certain communities it would be. But I do think that in urban/suburban areas it
is so much more common to have a woman.

Though the question was not specifically posed during the interviews, every woman
indicated strong support from a spouse or family member(s) helped them to achieve
their current position. A recent study showed that lack of support from a spouse or
family member can be a barrier to the superintendency for females (Dabney-Lieras,
2008).
Research Question 2: Characteristics and Leadership Styles
Another guiding research question in this study focused on characteristics,
leadership styles, training, and background that female superintendents may share.
Four of the interview questions aimed at answering this research question.
Each of the superintendents was asked to describe her career path to the
superintendency. All superintendents who were interviewed have a background in
education, though they had various experiences prior to their first administrative
position. One was a speech pathologist, another a paraeducator, and the others were
65
teachers. All five women had been principals. Three superintendents held positions
as district office directors, though each was in a unique area (human resources,
academic support services, and categorical). Two of the interview participants were
also area superintendents, supervising at least 12 schools. The women were asked
about the position held just prior to the superintendency: three women served as
deputy superintendent, one woman was assistant superintendent of curriculum and
instruction, and the other was a director.
Though each of the superintendents interviewed had unique paths, some
similarities can be drawn: All of them were from the education field; their career paths
are considered traditional and are similar in that 4 out of 5 were teachers; and 100% of
them was a principal.
During the interviews with the superintendents in this study, participants were
asked, ―Have you had any special training (e.g., education) that has attributed to your
success as a superintendent?‖ Four of the five superintendents indicated that getting a
doctorate served their success as a superintendent. All four superintendents shared
that their doctoral program had provided a great amount of training to which they
attributed their success as a superintendent. Two of them specifically mentioned that
getting their doctorate opened them up to the superintendency. Along these lines,
Superintendent A explained, ―My doctorate was clearly a major factor in getting me to
even think about the superintendency because even up until that point I really had not
considered that as a career path goal.‖ The fifth superintendent, who does not have
her doctorate, attributed her success to her experiences as an educator. She said, ―I
66
think one of the reasons that I have credibility with the teachers is that I was one of
them.‖
The superintendents in this study were asked to describe essential skills that
have led to their success in the position. Further, they were asked to discuss if any of
those skills were of particular importance as a female superintendent.
Superintendent D told a story about a former superintendent from when she
was principal. She explained that this superintendent knew all of the classified staff
by name at her school and would shake their hands first. She learned an important
lesson from that superintendent as she reflected on interpersonal relationships:
Know my name…shake my hand, I’ll do anything for you…You can throw all
the research out. You can have every best practice in the world…If you don’t
have that interpersonal [relationship], you’re not going to get anywhere.

Superintendent C also shared her thoughts on the essential skills of a superintendent:
Certainly I’ve been taught skills…conflict resolution, communication, public
relations, curriculum and instruction, etc. Those are skills that I’ve I learned
along the way as an educator. But I believe that the most essential skills of the
superintendency are inherent skills. And when I think of skills that are of
particular importance to female superintendents, or to me, I would say those
skills are my ability to establish relationships…my communication style…my
warmth as an individual, my approachability, my accessibility…I would say
probably the most important essential skill is just who I am as a person. I care
deeply about people. I care deeply about children…my sensitivity. When I
think about why have I been successful for…years and to what do I attribute
my leadership skills to…I really think it’s my inherent skills and who I am as a
person.

Three of the five superintendents specifically mentioned a collaborative
leadership style. For example, Superintendent A said:
I think that my leadership style is collaborative. I do feel that female
superintendents are oriented toward collaboration. I think it is an essential skill
for the current needs in public education because we’re trying to build teacher
67
leadership and…to have teachers own the reforms you’re undertaking and to
be vested in really trying to close achievement gaps.

Effective communication was also cited as an essential skill by the female
superintendents. Superintendent E stated that part of her communication style is to be
direct and honest; however, she cautioned, ―Being direct and honest can get you into
trouble being a woman.‖ Similarly, Superintendent D called herself a ―truthteller.‖
She said, ―I can tell you that I don’t think that anyone has come in here that I have not
told the truth to. They know that whether or not they like what they hear, they know it
will be the truth.‖ Brunner (2000) has found women to be cautious about their style
and how it is perceived. A study by Bell (1995) found that women superintendents
with a ―direct‖ style were evaluated negatively. This situation is often a precarious
one for women leaders, as they are expected to be tough but not ―manly‖ (Northouse,
2007).
The superintendents mentioned that effective communication skills were of the
utmost importance. Several of the superintendents in this study noted that listening
was an essential skill for them as a superintendent. According to Brunner (2000),
―authentic listening is an important part of superior leadership‖ (p.94). Other
researchers have confirmed that listening is indeed important to the position (Dana &
Bourisaw, 2006; Johnson et al., 2002).
The instructional component has been the focus of many researchers of
educational leadership. Stein and Nelson (2003) have asserted that in order to
improve student achievement, leaders ―must be able to know strong instruction when
they see it, to encourage it when they don’t, and to set the conditions for continuous
68
academic learning among their professional staffs‖ (p. 425). In particular, research
has outlined that women bring with them feminine attributes, such as a focus on
instruction and a collaborative style, especially in the superintendency (Brunner &
Grogan, 2007; Helgesen, 1990; Rosener, 1990). Therefore, superintendents in this
study were asked for perceptions of their instructional leadership skills and how they
acquired these skills. All five of the female superintendents in this study considered
themselves strong instructional leaders.
Specifically, Superintendent B explained that she was a strong instructional
leader in that her responsibility was to focus on instruction and student achievement.
She noted that she did not consider herself strong in curriculum but rather skilled in
working with data and accountability systems, which themselves improve instruction.
She acquired this skill while serving as an area administrator.
Superintendent D asserted that her primary focus was data-driven instruction.
She said, ―The superintendent has to be an instructional leader. You can’t fake it
anymore.‖ She also added that having a superintendent as an instructional leader is
especially key in the urban school setting. Her focus as a superintendent has been to
train the principals to be effective instructional leaders, as they are closest to the
teachers and students. Superintendent D attributed her strong instructional leadership
skills to several factors: a master’s degree in reading, experience as an area
administrator in a particular district, and a fascination for learning. Superintendent E
agreed that her experience as an area administrator in the same district helped shape
her understanding of data analysis and how analyzing data improves instruction.
69
Superintendent C echoed the importance of building the capacity of the
principals. She leads every principal’s meeting in her district to demonstrate that
instructional leadership is essential. She reported that some of her skills are
identifying good instruction and articulating what good instruction looks like with the
teachers. She attributed her career path (teacher, assistant principal, principal,
director) as a major factor for her strong instructional leadership skills. In addition,
she keeps abreast of the latest research, attends trainings, conferences, and workshops
often alongside teachers in order to strengthen her skills. Being ―hands on‖ and
―connected with the classroom‖ are crucial to be a strong instructional leader,
according to this superintendent.
Superintendent A reported that her instructional leadership skills are a huge
asset to her role. She revealed that ―on-the-ground conversations about instruction‖
with teachers is an important piece of her instructional leadership style. She shared
that she was the first in her family to go to college and that overcoming her own
personal barriers has motivated her to unlock the potential of the students in her
district. She attributed her instructional leadership skills to her career path.
It was apparent after the interviews and data collection that career path can
play an important role for strengthening instructional leadership. A common thread
wove through each of the women’s stories: instructional leadership, especially
knowledge about data-driven instruction, is essential to the superintendency.
Research Question 3: Mentor Relationships
The importance to and impact of mentor relationships on aspiring female
superintendents was another focus of this study. Research has shown that lack of
70
mentors is an area of concern for women in educational leadership (Brunner, 2000;
Brunner & Grogan, 2007; Dana & Bourisaw, 2006; Tallerico, 2000a). Participants
were asked if they had a mentor who had impacted their career; if they had had such a
mentor, participants were asked to describe them and the effect they had had on their
careers.
Each of the five women interviewed did have at least one mentor who had
impacted their career. Though all had someone they considered a mentor on their
ascent to the superintendency, each mentor was unique.
Superintendent A noted that finding a good mentor, someone you can really
trust, is vital because that person can help advise you of positions and whether or not it
is a good ―fit.‖ She mentioned having one male and two female mentors. Speaking of
her male mentor, who was a principal when she was an assistant principal, she
explained, ―He gave me many opportunities to excel and to be involved in key
leadership positions at the school.‖ She shared that the female mentors she had were
the ones who were pushing her toward the superintendency.
Superintendent C also had mentors who pushed her toward the
superintendency. When asked if any mentors impacted her career, she responded
quickly:
I’ve been really fortunate in that I’ve had many that I can seriously say have
mentored me. And whether they are informal mentors or formal
mentors…whether they know they’re mentors or whether they’ve just become
a mentor to me…most definitely.

She described her mentors as friends, colleagues, and family members. In addition,
she strongly believed that the position of superintendent is ―too difficult to not to have
71
someone who to lean on,‖ someone who supports you and ―cares for you
unconditionally.‖
Mentors can be crucial in helping others toward new career paths, but they can
also help shape leadership styles and thus impact organizations and students.
Superintendent E shared, ―My leadership is a combination of my three mentors; they
were all very different. I learned a lot from each.‖ Research has shown that having
more than one mentor is critical because one can acquire different skills sets from each
mentor (Brunner & Grogan, 2007; Dana & Bourisaw, 2006). However, as
Superintendent E continued the interview, she explained, ―There were no women to be
mentors when I was going through [to the superintendency].‖ The data collected in
this study revealed that female superintendents had more male mentors than female
mentors. These results are harmonious with research indicating the lack of female
mentors in educational administration (Dana & Bourisaw, 2006; Tallerico, 2000a).
Superintendent B expressed her beliefs about the importance of female
superintendents mentoring others:
I also believe it’s important that we mentor others…I mean men and women. I
think there’s a huge shortage of good, strong leaders for the superintendency.
And it’s a critical position for our kids. We can truly make a huge difference,
and I’ve seen that. That’s the part that you love.
Further, research has found that developing effective and supportive mentoring
relationships is a key strategy for helping to shatter the glass ceiling (Bell & Nkomo,
2001; Ensher & Murphy, 2005; Ragins, Townsend, & Mattis, 1998).
The superintendents in this study expressed strong beliefs that their mentors
had provided invaluable support that had guided them to their current positions. One
72
superintendent had a special name for the women mentors who supported her along
the way: ―sheroes.‖

Advice from Female Superintendents
Experience from primary sources can provide great insight into the role of the
superintendent, from a female perspective. As part of this study, the superintendents
were asked if they had any recommendations or advice for aspiring female
superintendents.
Superintendent A suggested maximizing educational opportunities before
entering into the position to gain valuable experience. She also encouraged females to
get a doctorate degree. She advised aspiring female superintendents:
Create a network for yourself…Find good mentors…people you can trust who
will advise you so you don’t get yourself into an assignment that’s not really
well matched to you that you might not succeed in.

And finally, she stressed the importance of balancing work and family life.
Superintendent B warned that women applying for the superintendency must
develop thick skin. She felt strongly that while in the superintendent’s position,
women should not try to become like men but rather utilize their feminine strengths.
As she put it:
You don’t need to be a man and women shouldn’t lose their strength of being a
woman. We offer so many skills that I think are needed for leadership in the
21
st
century: the ability to collaborate, have empathy for our employees, and
make the tough decisions… I think we’re totally into that life-long learning.

Further advice came from Superintendent C when she revealed, ―Be sure you
are mentally and emotionally prepared. Go into this [superintendency] with your eyes
73
wide open. There is no glory or power in this position.‖ Another superintendent
appeared to agree, advising, ―You’re not here for the status.‖
In addition, Superintendent D encouraged women with the following words,
―Be who you are, and know at the end of the day you did everything you could to help
kids.‖ She also advised women aspiring to the superintendency to maintain their
integrity, courage, and passion.

Summary
Findings from this study indicated that female superintendents share common
characteristics, including collaborative leadership styles and strength in instructional
leadership. Additionally, some superintendents in this study reported having
experienced barriers (both personally and professionally) as they attempted to attain
the position. And, finally, an overwhelming majority of superintendents in this study
reported effective mentor relationships as a factor in their success.
This chapter provided information gleaned from the results of the research
completed through this study. A discussion of the research, further conclusions and
implications are presented in Chapter Five as well as recommendations for future
research.

74
Chapter Five
Discussion and Implications of the Findings

Introduction
Though women represent the majority of educators, historically, they have
been underrepresented in educational administration, especially in the
superintendency. Many studies have been conducted on this topic, specifically studies
which identify barriers women face as they attempt to attain the superintendency.
Race was not considered relevant to the scope of this study, making this study
uniquely different from the bulk of literature on women in the superintendency.
The purpose of this study was to examine women in the superintendency with
regard to three specific areas: perceived barriers, common characteristics and
leadership styles, and the impact of mentor relationships on their careers. The
qualitative portion of the study examined women in the superintendency from their
own perspective providing future aspirants with a view from the inside.
This chapter contains a review of the methodology key findings related to the
literature, implications of the study, recommendations for future research, and
concluding remarks.
Restatement of the Study
This study involved a mixed method research design. Both quantitative and
qualitative data were gathered from multiple sources. These sources included the
California State Department of Education website, survey responses from participants,
and interviews of selected superintendents. Quantitative data were gathered to create a
75
profile of female superintendents, including common characteristics. In addition to
the collection of quantitative data, qualitative data was imperative to this study.
Historically, research on the superintendency has been presented from the
dominant male perspective. Therefore, research on women in the superintendency has
revealed a silence of women exists (Brunner, 2000; Chase, 1995; Schmuck & Dunlap,
1995). Grogan (1996) has stated that studies of female superintendents and their
experiences should be conducted from the female perspective, from their own voices.
Thus, the qualitative data in this study — interviews with the female
superintendents—were of the utmost importance. From these interviews, the
researcher gained insight and perspective into the lives of women superintendents. A
feminist lens illuminated the discourse.
Triangulation of the data was critical. Thus, qualitative and quantitative data
from this study were compared to the findings from the 2006 AASA study of
American superintendents. Moreover, field notes and observations from this
researcher helped shape the findings of this study.

Key Findings
The findings presented in this study were developed and presented by
reviewing the data collected. The purpose of this section is to synthesize the findings
after analysis of the data in order to elaborate upon the purpose and meaning of the
study. Several key findings resulted from this study on female superintendents and are
pertinent to note.

76
Research Question 1: Barriers
Despite what has been presented in the literature, a slight majority (52%) of
respondents did not report barriers to the superintendency. A few reasons may
account for this experience: (a) as some of the interview participants indicated, gender
may no longer be the barrier it once was or (b) as research has shown, women may be
reluctant to discuss their experiences regarding barriers in the workplace (Beekley,
1994; Brunner, 2000; Chase, 1995; Skrla, Reyes, & Scheurich, 2000). The remaining
48% of the women reported experiencing barriers, including the demands of family,
expectations of ―proper‖ roles for men and women, gender bias/discrimination in the
screening and selection process, and exclusion from the ―Good ol’ boy network.‖
Though lack of a mentor/sponsor was listed on the survey as a potential perceived
barrier, no one cited it as a verifiable one. Seven of the women identified gender
bias/discrimination in the screening process as a barrier consistent with research by
Tallerico (2000a).
Six women identified exclusion from the ―good ol’ boy network‖ as a barrier.
These findings are congruent with the research that women perceive a ―good ol’ boy
network‖ exists in educational administration (Brunner & Grogan, 2007; Glass, 2000;
Glass & Franceschini, 2007).
Obviously, all superintendents were able to overcome the reported barriers in
order to secure the position. Nonetheless, as this study shows, barriers still exist for
women as they attempt to enter into the superintendency. Implications and
suggestions for future research will be shared later in this chapter.

77
Research Question 2: Common Characteristics and Leadership Styles
Similarities were found in the personal and professional characteristics of
female superintendents. First, some common personal characteristics of female
superintendents in this study are that they are married, have children, and have help
with household duties. This study found that nearly half of the women with children
did not enter into their first superintendency until their children were adults. Another
interesting finding was that 40% of the women in the study was between the 56 and 60
years old when they entered the role, older than the mean age, 54.6, reported of all
superintendents in 2006 (Glass & Franceschini, 2007). In addition, 74% of
participants in this study spent a minimum of 6 to 10 years in the classroom. These
findings are congruent with research reporting that women are spending more time in
the classroom, waiting until their children are older, and entering into the
superintendency at a later age (Glass & Franceschini, 2007).
The researcher also found some common professional characteristics amongst
the superintendents: Ninety-six percent of the women in this study followed a
―traditional‖ career path for women, traveling up the ranks from teacher, principal,
director, to superintendent. Four of the five superintendents were assistant
superintendents prior to the first superintendency. Further, 44% of the women in the
study held doctorates, but all of the women interviewed believed getting their
doctorate attributed to their success as a superintendent.
Common leadership skills also emerged: collaborative style, ability to create
interpersonal relationships, and effective communication. Though these types of
leadership are not solely attributed to women, research shows that women have a
78
tendency toward building interpersonal relationships and employing a collaborative
style (Grogan, 1996). Houston (2001) concluded that women’s collaborative skills
need to be welcomed in the superintendency.
Qualitatively speaking, instructional leadership was found to be a key
characteristic of the female superintendents in this study. All five interview
participants considered themselves strong instructional leaders. Gupton and Slick
(1996) report, ―Several studies on principals’ leadership qualities have found women
to be even more effective than men as instructional leaders‖ (p. xxix). As previously
reported the most common career path of female superintendents is up through the
ranks of principal and beyond. Therefore, if boards of education are indeed searching
for qualified superintendents with instructional leadership capabilities, there appears to
be a discrepancy in the hiring practices because women continue to be
underrepresented in the superintendency. Further examination of board hiring
practices should be considered.
Research Question 3: Mentor Relationships
Mentors significantly impacted the careers of 80% of the female
superintendents in this study. These women expressed that they were fortunate
enough to have mentors who had helped guide them as they entered into the
superintendency. As Bjork (2000) has stated: ―The absence of mentor relationships,
role models, and networks is frequently cited in the literature as a primary reason why
women and minorities do not go into the superintendency‖ (p. 157). Though 20% of
the women in this study reported not having had mentors, they nonetheless
successfully attained a position as superintendent. Notably, the majority of the
79
superintendents without mentors did report at least one barrier. Fourteen women
(70%) reported having male mentors—a statistic consistent with what is found in the
literature. Research has showed that having connections with males in powerful
positions can create networks and connections that may be critical to developing a
female superintendent’s career (Bell & Chase, 1996; Tallerico, 2000a). Only 30% of
the women reported having a female mentor. The lack of female mentors in
educational administration can be discouraging. Brunner and Grogan (2007) found
that there are still few role models for aspiring women superintendents.

Recommendations for Aspiring Superintendents
When asked for recommendations for women aspirants to the superintendency,
the women superintendents of this study had many words of wisdom. Some of the
salient pieces of advice are provided here for aspirants:
1. Know yourself and be who you are.
2. Strong ethics are essential. Maintain integrity and be truthful in your
dealings.
3. Create a good network and find mentors to help guide you along the
way.
4. Get a doctorate. Be a lifelong learner in order to sharpen skills and stay
current on research.
5. Maintain a balance between personal and professional life; it will
strengthen your leadership.

80
Implications of the Study
A paradigm shift in education has occurred: more focus on instruction, less
focus on management. Universities should ensure that their leadership courses include
elements of instructional leadership and collaboration. Females in the study indicated
that their leadership style was collaborative. As Grogan (1996) stated:
If we are better informed about the daily administrative actions and reflections
of women school leaders who care more about teaching and learning than
about the traditional management of an organization, we can provide better
training for others.

Further, universities should ensure a balanced faculty so as to provide female
role models for aspiring female administrators. In addition, potential female
administrators should be informed of common career paths and common barriers faced
by female superintendents. School districts and universities should inform current
teachers, principals, and district-office personnel about professional networks
available to aspirant superintendents.
Though perhaps in less dramatic ways than in the past, women continue to face
barriers as they rise up through the ranks of educational leadership. Superintendent
search firms, headhunters, and boards of education must become more aware of the
exigency for systemic changes in order for women to gain access to the
superintendency. As Dana and Bourisaw (2006) state:

Men and women in the field need to set aside their own prejudices and
condition themselves to a gender-neutral approach to recruitment, screening,
and selection. We have all contributed to a culture where gender prejudice is
tolerated and gender structuring is the norm. Cultural change means changing
behaviors, attitudes, and practices. This is not an easy task. (p. 101)

81
Superintendent search firms have an obligation to be gender-mixed or diversified in
their consultants. In addition, these search firms should employ selection process
strategies that curb gender bias/discrimination. For example, they can black out
names and substitute code numbers before sharing files with boards (Tallerico, 2000a).
Change will not be easy, but nevertheless is essential to ensuring women equal
representation in the superintendency.
Female superintendents in this study valued mentor relationships and
professional networks. Many of the participants in the study had multiple mentors
who had supported them and encouraged them to attain higher-level positions, such as
the superintendency. School districts should implement fully developed mandatory
mentoring programs in which new administrators are matched to experienced and
carefully selected administrators. Pence (1995) concluded:
Incorporating a formal mentorship component into a university preparation
program or district induction program can enhance a beginning experience for
aspirants and neophytes. Formal programs also provide a framework to
actively seek, support, and promote underrepresented groups into
administration‖ (p. 142).

Participants in this study indicated that some of their mentors were from
universities. Educational Leadership programs at the university level should provide
students with information on professional organizations (such as Association for
California School Administrators, ACSA) and conferences that may be of special
interest to female administrators; they should also consider mentoring programs that
pair up local superintendents and graduate students working on advanced degrees in
education.
82
Furthermore, there must be more female role models and mentors in
educational leadership positions. This study found that few women have female
mentors, which is consistent with the research (Dana & Bourisaw, 2006; Dunlap &
Schmuck, 1995; Hall & Klotz, 2001). This dearth creates a dangerous cycle of
marginalization, which may be contributing to the underrepresentation of women in
the superintendency. In short, women need to seek out other women (Gupton & Slick,
1996).
Recommendations for Future Research
Findings in this study have raised compelling questions that merit further
research. The following are recommendations for future study:
1. Survey a larger sample population of female superintendents in
California who represent various races/ethnic groups.
2. Conduct future research in other states besides California in order
to determine if female superintendents in other regions have
similar career paths, experience similar barriers, or have common
experiences with mentors.
3. Attempt to identify the link between a female superintendent’s
leadership style and student achievement.
4. Investigate superintendent search firms and/or boards and their
perceptions of and practices for hiring female superintendents.
5. Further explore the importance of mentor relationships with
regard to female superintendents, focusing in particular on
female mentor/female protégé relationships.
83
6. Examine women who might otherwise be considered candidates to
the superintendency, such as assistant superintendents, but are not
in the position. Studying this group of women may provide more
insight into why women are underrepresented in the
superintendency.

Concluding Remarks
At the heart of this study was the desire to uncover the factors attributing to the
underrepresentation of women in the superintendency through a feminist lens in order
to provide a glimpse into the superintendency for female aspirants to the role.
Aside from the key findings in the study, an important lesson was learned from
the female superintendents. The superintendency is a lonely road, but one needs to
ensure that one is not alone. Support from family members, spouses, networks, and
mentors have made a significant impact on these women and their careers.
Though this study adds to the body of literature by documenting women’s
experiences in the superintendency, inequalities in the field of educational
administration still remain. This study found that barriers related to gender still exist
for women as they attempt to enter the superintendency. Many of the
recommendations for future study include concerns with structural inequalities that
must be addressed.
Gender must cease to be a barrier to women’s attainment of higher levels of
educational administration. Shattering the glass ceiling and breaking up the good ol’
boy network are essential to the advancement of women in the superintendency.
84
Increasing female mentors is likely to have a positive influence on the number of
women in the superintendency. These women mentors must serve as role models and
provide the network and connections that research has found are critical. Increasing
the number of women in the superintendency can also create a balance of power.
Until there is a balance of power in the superintendency, those currently in power
(boards of education and superintendent head hunters) must first recognize that gender
barriers continue to exist and second re-examine the selection process of
superintendents. The powers that be must put an end to conducting business as usual
without regard to equally qualified yet diversified applicants.
Although barriers continue to exist and the lack of female mentors persists,
there is reason to be optimistic. There are women who are attaining the
superintendency and finding success. Fortunately, the number of female
superintendents appears to be on the rise once again. Through this process, this
researcher remains hopeful that one day women will indeed shatter the glass ceiling
completely, women superintendents will become ubiquitous, and studies such as this
will become history. Until then, may the voices of these women continue to be heard.

85
References
Beekley, C. X. (1994). Women who exit the public school superintendency: Four case
studies (Unpublished doctoral dissertation), University of Michigan.

Bell, C. S. (1995). ―If I weren’t involved with schools, I might be radical‖: Gender
consciousness in context. In D.M. Dunlap & P.A. Schmuck (Eds.), Women
leading in education. (p. 288-312). Albany: State University of New York
Press.

Bell, C. S. (1998). Organizational influences on women’s experience in the
superintendency. Peabody Journal of Education, 65(4), 31-59.
Bell, C. & Chase, S. (1996). The gendered character of women superintendents’
professional relationships. In K. Arnold, K. Noble, & R. Subotnik (Eds.),
Remarkable women: Perspectives on female talent development (p. 117-131).
Cresskill, NJ: Hampton.
Bell, E., & Nkomo, S. (2001). Our separate ways: Black and White women and
struggle for professional identity. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Bjork, L.G., & Keedy, J. (2001). Politics and the superintendency in the U.S.A.:
Restructuring in-service education. Journal of In-Service Education, 27(2),
275-302.

Björk, L., & Kowalski, T. J. (2005). The contemporary superintendent: Preparation,
practice, and development.

Blount, J. M. (1998). Destined to rule the schools: Women and the superintendency,
1873-1995. Albany: State University of New York Press.

Blount, J. M. (2000). Spinsters, bachelors, and other gender transgressors in school
employment, 1850-1990. Review of Educational Research, 70(1), 83-101.
Bolman, L.G., & Deal, T. E. (2003). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and
leadership (3
rd
ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Bova, B., & Phillips, R. (1982). The mentoring relationship as an educational
process. Retrieved from ERIC database. (ED224944)
Brunner, C. (1999). Sacred dreams: Women and the superintendency. Albany: State
University of New York Press.
Brunner, C.C. (2000). Principles of power: Women superintendents and the riddle of
the heart. Albany: State University of New York Press.
86
Brunner, C.C., & Grogan, M. (2007). Women leading school systems: Uncommon
roads to fulfillment. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Education
Publishers, Inc. in partnership with American Association of School
Administrators.
Chase, S. E. (1995). Ambiguous empowerment: The work narratives of women school
superintendents. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press.

Connor Schara, P. E. (1992). A study of the human, technical, and conceptual skills
identified by women superintendents in California as essential to be effective
in their role (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of LaVerne.
Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five
traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Creswell, J.W. (2006). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five
approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Dabney-Lieras, K. (2008). Reclaiming the superintendency: The critical skills,
strategies, and experiences of successful women superintendents in California
(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Southern California.
Dana, J.A., & Bourisaw, D.M. (2006). Women in the superintendency: Discarded
leadership. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Education Publishers, Inc. in
partnership with American Association of School Administrators.
Dunlap, D.M., & Schmuck, P.A. (Eds.) (1995). Women leading in education. Albany:
State University of New York Press.
Ensher, E., & Murphy, S.E. (2005). Power mentoring: How successful mentors and
protégés get the most out of their relationships. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Fuller, H., Campbell, C., Celio, M., Harvey, J., Immerwahr, J., & Winger, A. (2003).
An impossible job? The view from the urban superintendent’s chair. Seattle,
WA: Center on Reinventing Public Education.
Funk, C., Pankake, A., & Schroth, G. (2002). Archetypes of outstanding female
superintendents. Retrieved from ERIC database. (ED481622)
Glass, TE. (June, 2000). Why women are not in the superintendency. The School
Administrator: 28-32.
Glass, T.E., Bjork, L., & Brunner, C.C. (2000). The study of the American school
superintendency 2000: A look at the superintendent of education in the new
millennium. Arlington, VA: American Association of School Administrators.
87
Glass, T.E., & Franceschini, L.A. (2007). The state of the American school
superintendency: A mid-decade study. Published in Partnership with American
Association of School Administrators.
Grogan, M. (1996). Voices of women aspiring to the superintendency. Albany, NY:
State University of New York Press.
Grogan, M., & Henry, M. (1995). Women candidates for the superintendency: Board
perspectives. In B. Irby & G. Brown (Eds.), Women as school executives:
Voices and visions (pp.146-173). Huntsville, TX: Texas Council for Women
School Executives.
Gupton, S., & Slick, G. (1996). Highly successful women administrators: The inside
stories of how they got there. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Hall, L., & Klotz, J. (2001, November). A regional study of gender differential
perceptions of mentoring functions in accessing the superintendency. Paper
presented at the Annual Meeting of the Mid-South Educational Research
Association, Little Rock, AR.
Hallinger, P. (2003, November). Leading educational change: Reflections on the
practice of instructional and transformational leadership. Cambridge Journal of
Education, 33(3), 329-351.
Helgesen, S. (1990). The female advantage: Why women are more effective leaders.
New York: Doubleday.
Houston, P. (2001). Superintendents for the 21st century: It's not just a job, it's a
calling. Phi Delta Kappan, 82 (6), 429-433.
Johnson, S.M. (1996). Leading to change: The challenge of the new superintendency.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Johnston, G.L., Gross, G.E., Townsend, R.S., Lynch, P., Novotney, P.B., Roberts, B.,
Garcy, L., & Gil, L. (2002). Eight at the top: A view inside public education.
Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press.
Jordan, H., Hunter, E., & Derrick, M. (2008). Ladies who lead. Voices of authentic
character: Women in the role of school superintendent. Xilibris Corporation.
Kowalski, T.J. (2005). Evolution of the school superintendent as communicator.
Communication Education, 54(2), 101-117.
Kowalski, T.J. (2006). The school superintendent: Theory, practice, and cases. (2
nd

ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
88
Mahitivanichcha, K., & Rorrer, A.K. (2006). Women’s choices within market
constraints: Revisioning access to and participation in the superintendency.
Educational Administration Quarterly, 42(4), 483-517.
Marshall, C. (1997). Feminist critical policy analysis: A perspective from primary and
secondary schooling. London, England: Falmer.
Marzano, R.J., & Waters, J.T. (September, 2006). A Mid-continent Research for
Education and Learning (McREL) Study. School District Leadership that
Works: The Effect of Superintendent Leadership on Student Achievement.
Denver, CO: McREL.
McCabe, D.H., & Dobberteen, K.W. (1998, April). Women superintendents:
Overcoming constraints. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the
American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.
McCall, (1995). The bureaucratic restraints to caring in schools. In Dunlap, D.M. &
Schmuck, P.A. (Eds.), Women leading in Education, (pp.180-194). Albany,
NY: State University of New York Press.

Merriam, S. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Miller, C.M. (2009). Overcoming barriers: Women in the superintendency. A
dissertation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation; Georgia State University.
Montenegro, X. (1993). Women and racial minority representation in school
administration. Arlington, VA: American Association of School
Administrators.

Northouse, P.G. (2007). Leadership: Theory and practice (4
th
ed.), Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publications.

Ortiz, F.I. (1982). Career patterns in education: Women, men and minorities in public
school administration. New York, NY: Praeger.

Patton, M. Q. (1985, April). Quality in qualitative research: Methodological principles
and recent developments. Invited address to Division J of the American
Educational Research Association, Chicago.

Patton, M.Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (3
rd
ed.), Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Pence, L. (1995). Learning leadership through mentorships. In D.M. Dunlap & P.A.
Schmuck (Eds.), Women Leading in Education (pp. 125-144). Albany, NY:
State University of New York Press.
89
Radich, P. (1992). Access and entry to the public school superintendency in the
state of Washington: A comparison between men and women (Unpublished
doctoral dissertation). University of Washington.
Ragins, B.R., Townsend, B., & Mattis, M. (1998). Gender gap in the executive suite:
CEOs and female executives report on breaking the glass ceiling. Academy of
Management Executive, 12, 28-42.

Rosener, J.B. (1990). Ways women lead. Harvard Business Review, 68(6), 119-125.
Shakeshaft, C. (1989). Women in educational administration. Newbury Park, CA:
Sage Publications.
Sharp, W.L., Malone, B.G., Walter, J.K., & Supley, M.L. (2000, October). A three-
state study of female superintendents. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting
of the Mid-Western Educational Research Association, Chicago, Illinois.
Skrla, L. (2000). The social construction of gender in the superintendency. Journal
of Education Policy, 15(3), 239-316.
Skrla, L., Reyes, P., & Scheurich, J.J. (2000). Sexism, silence, and solutions: Women
superintendents speak up and speak out. Educational Administration
Quarterly, 36(1), 44-75.
Stein, M.K., & Nelson, B.S. (2003, Winter). Leadership content knowledge.
Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25(4), 423-448.
Tallerico, M. (2000a). Accessing the superintendency: The unwritten rules. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc. in partnership with American Association of
School Administrators.
Tallerico, M. (2000b). Gaining access to the superintendency: Headhunting, gender,
and color. Educational Administration Quarterly, 36(1), 18-43.

Tyack, D., & Hansot, E. (1982). Managers of virtue. New York: Basic Books Inc.

Washington, Y.C., Miller, S.K., & Fiene, J.R. (2007). Their work, identity, and entry
to the profession. Journal of Women in Educational Leadership, 5(4), 263-283.
Wesson, L.H. & Grady, M.L. (1994). An analysis of women urban superintendents: A
national study. Urban Education, 24, 412-424.
Wesson, L.H., & Grady, M. (1995). A leadership perspective from women
superintendents. In B.J. Irby & G. Brown (Eds.), Women as School Executives:
Voices and Visions (pp.35 - 41). Huntsville, TX: Sam Houston Press.

90
Wheatley, M. (1981). The impact of organizational structures on issues of sex
equity. In P. Schmuck, W. Charters, & R. Carlson (Eds.), Educational Policy
and Management: Sex Differentials (pp. 255-271). New York, NY: Academic
Press.
Worrall, A.M. (1995). Suit-able for promotion: A game of educational snakes and
ladders. In D.M. Dunlap & P.A. Schmuck (Eds.), Women Leading in
Education (pp. 165-179). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

91
Appendix A

Survey Cover Letter

Dear Superintendent,
Thank you for taking time from your busy schedule to review information on:
WOMEN AND THE SUPERINTENDENCY: CHARACTERISTICS OF FEMALE
SUPERINTENDENTS IN CALIFORNIA AND BARRIERS ENCOUNTERED IN
CALIFORNIA.

You have been invited to participate in a graduate research study conducted by Tracy
MacArthur, principal of Country Springs Elementary School, and a doctoral student
from the Rossier School of Education’s Ed.D. Program at the University of Southern
California.
This study is focused on learning common characteristics of women superintendents,
including leadership styles, as well as the perceived barriers that exist for women.
While women comprise almost three-fourths of the nation’s teaching force, women are
disproportionately underrepresented in higher levels of educational administration
including the superintendency. The purpose of this study is to identify common
characteristics as well as perceived barriers of serving women superintendents in
California.
If you agree to participate in this research study, the approximate time required to
complete the enclosed survey questionnaire is about 10-15 minutes. Please complete
the survey questionnaire and return it in the enclosed self-addressed stamped
envelope. Along with the questionnaire and consent form, you may also indicate
whether or not you would be interested in participating in a face-to-face or follow-up
phone interview. Please also indicate whether or not you would like to have a copy of
the findings, once the study is complete.
Your participation in the study is voluntary and you have the right to withdraw at any
time without penalty. Any data collected will be destroyed per your request. All
information obtained in connection with this study will be confidential and the data
will be reported in aggregate so that your responses cannot be linked back to you.
There are no perceived risks to participants.

92
If you have any questions or concerns regarding participation in this study, please
contact Tracy MacArthur or Dr. Rudy M. Castruita at the University of Southern
California. Thank you very much for your time and assistance.
Sincerely,
Tracy MacArthur
Researcher Faculty Supervisor
Tracy MacArthur Dr. Rudy M. Castruita
tmacarth@usc.edu rcastrui@usc.edu

93
Appendix B

Survey: Female Superintendents In California

Personal Characteristics
1. Please select the age group that best describes you.
-35
-40
-45
-50
-55
-60
-65

2. Present Marital Status:

3. Racial/Ethnic Group(s) that best describe you. You may check all that apply
and best represent how you identify yourself.
-American
-American

4. Do you have any children? If so, how many?____________ How old was your
child/were your children when you obtained your first superintendency job?_____

94
5. Who assists you with household duties and family responsibilities? (Please check
all that apply.)

Professional Characteristics
6. What is the highest degree you hold? Please select one.

ster’s Degree

7. Please identify the type of school district you work for.

8. What is the total number of students in your district?___________What grade levels
does your district serve?______________________________.

9. What was the total number of years you served as a full-time classroom
teacher before obtaining your first administrative job?
-5 years
-10 years
-15 years
-19 years
ears
Please list your subject areas:_____________________________________

10. At what age did you obtain your first administrative position?
a. 25-30
b. 31-35
c. 36-40
d. 41-50
e. 51-55
f. 55 or older

11. At what age did you obtain your first superintendency? _____________
95
12. How many school superintendencies have you held including your present job?
a. 1
b. 2
c. 3
d. 4
e. 5
f. 6
g. More than 6

13. Have you held superintendency positions outside of California? If so, in what
states?_______________________________________________________

14. Did you obtain your first superintendency from:
administrator or
district administrator?
administrator or district administrator?

15. How many years have you served in your current position? __________

16. How many total years have you served as a school superintendent?______

17. Did you have a mentor or sponsor that helped encourage you in your pursuit of the
superintendency?
a. Yes
b. No

18. If so, please indicate how important the support of that mentor/sponsor was to
your decision to pursue the superintendency and ultimately be successful
during the first year on the job. Please circle one below:
Extremely Important
Very Important
Somewhat Important
Not Very Important

19. Please identify some characteristics of that mentor. (Please circle all that apply.)
a. White male
b. Person of color (male)
c. White female
d. Person of color (female)
e. Older
f. Younger
g. Colleague
h. Retired superintendent
96
i. Family member
j. Friend
k. Member of an educational organization/networking group
l. From the same district
m. From a different district
n. County office of education
o. University professor
p. Other ____________

97
Appendix C

Female Superintendents Interview Protocol

1. Please describe your career path to the superintendency. Which positions did
you hold and for how long?

2. Have you had any special training (e.g. education) that has attributed to your
success as superintendent?

3. What essential skills, inherent or taught, do you believe have led to your
success as a superintendent? Do you believe any of these skills are of particular
importance as a female superintendent?

4. What barriers, personal and/or professional, have you experienced in the assent
to the superintendency?

5. How much of a barrier do you consider gender to be in terms of attaining the
superintendency?

6. Do you consider yourself to be a strong instructional leader? Please explain. To
what do you attribute your instructional leadership skills (e.g., career path,
specific training, etc.)?

7. Have you had experience with a mentor that has impacted your career? If so,
could you please describe the mentor(s), your relationship with him/her, and
what effect that mentor had on your career?

8. What recommendations or advice can you provide to aspiring women
superintendents? Is there anything else you would like to add that you feel
would be relevant to this study of women in the superintendency?

Abstract (if available)

Abstract Though women constitute the majority of the teacher workforce, historically, they have been underrepresented in the school superintendency. And although California boasts higher percentages of female superintendents than the national average, a discrepancy clearly continues to exist.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Balancing work and family: how female superintendents succeed at work and life

PDF

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

PDF

Reform strategies implemented to increase student achievement: a case study of superintendent actions

PDF

Essential relationship skills necessary for superintendents to possess in order to maintain a positive working relationship with their governing boards

PDF

Female superintendents in California and the role that mentoring and networking have played in their sucess

PDF

California urban superintendents and their selection criteria for secondary school principals

PDF

The journey: Asian American females in higher education administration

PDF

African American female superintendents in California: an exploration of barriers and supports

PDF

Time’s Up: a transformative view of women leaning into the superintendency in California

PDF

How successful urban superintendents in California improve student achievement

PDF

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

PDF

Effective practices employed by superintendents' leadership teams that impact student achievement

PDF

Barriers encountered by women entering K-12 headships in California private schools

PDF

Barriers women face while seeking and serving in the position of superintendent in California public schools

PDF

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

PDF

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

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

PDF

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

PDF

The effects of mentoring on building and sustaning effective leadership practice of an urban school administrator

Asset Metadata

Creator MacArthur, Tracy (author)

Core Title Women and the superintendency: characteristics of and barriers encountered by female superintendents in California

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 04/15/2010

Defense Date 03/23/2010

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

Tag Barriers,California,characteristics,mentors,OAI-PMH Harvest,superintendents,Women

Place Name California (states)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Castruita, Rudy M. (committee chair), Robles, Darline P. (committee member), Stowe, Kathy Huisong (committee member)

Creator Email calteachr@aol.com,tmacarth@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m2924

Unique identifier UC1480619

Identifier etd-MacArthur-3631 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-309597 (legacy record id),usctheses-m2924 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-MacArthur-3631.pdf

Dmrecord 309597

Document Type Dissertation

Rights MacArthur, Tracy

Type texts

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

Repository Name Libraries, University of Southern California

Repository Location Los Angeles, California

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu