Hodgkinson, C. (1993). Foreword, in T. B. Greenfield and P. Ribbins (eds.). Greenfield on
Educational Administration, Routledge, London.
Hoyle, E. (1986). The Politics of School Management, Hodder and Stoughton, Sevenoaks.
Keough, T. and Tobin, B. (2001). Postmodern Leadership and the Policy Lexicon: From Theory,
Proxy to Practice, Paper for the Pan-Canadian Education Research Agenda Symposium, Quebec,
May.
Leithwood, K., Jantzi, D. and Steinbach, R. (1999). Changing Leadership for Changing Times.
Buckingham: Open University Press.
Levacic, R. (1995). Local Management of Schools: Analysis and Practice, Open University Press,
Buckingham.
Levacic, R., Glover, D., Bennett, N. and Crawford, M. (1999). Modern headship for the rationally managed school: combining cerebral and insightful approaches, in T. Bush and L. Bell (Eds.). The Principles and Practice of Educational Management, Paul Chapman,London.
Lindle, J. (1999). What can the study of micropolitics contribute to the practice of leadership in reforming schools, School Leadership and Management, Vol.19, No.2, pp.171-178.
Little, J. (1990). Teachers as colleagues, in A. Lieberman (ed.). Schools as Collaborative Cultures: Creating the Future Now, The Falmer Press, Basingstoke.
March, J. G. (1982). Theories of choice and making decisions, Society, Vol. 20, no. 1, copyright ©
by Transaction Inc. Published by permission of Transaction Inc.
March, J. G. and Olsen, J. P. (1976). Organisational choice under ambiguity, in J. G. March and J.
P. Olsen, Ambiguity and Choice in Organisations, Universitetsforlaget, Bergen.
Miller, T.W. and Miller, J.M. (2001). Educational leadership in the new millennium: a vision for 2020, International Journal of Leadership in Education, 4 (2), 181 – 189.
Morgan, G. (1997). Images of Organization, Sage, Newbury Park, California.
Morrison, M. (2002). What do we mean by educational research?, in M. Coleman and A. Briggs
(Eds.). Research Methods in Educational Leadership and Management, Paul Chapman, London.
Newman, J. and Clarke, J. (1994). Going about our business? The managerialism of public
services, in Clarke, J., Cochrane, A. and McLaughlin, E. (Eds.). Managing School Policy, London, Sage.
Owens, R. and Shakeshaft, C. (1992). The new “revolution” in administrative theory, Journal of
Educational Management, 30: 9, 4-17.
Ribbins, P. (1985). Organisation theory and the study of educational institutions, in M. Hughes, P.
Ribbins and H. Thomas (eds.). Managing Education: The System and the Institution, Holt,
Rinehart and Winston, London.
Ryan, J. (1988). Science in educational administration: a comment on the Holmes-Greenfield
dialogue, Interchange, 19: 2, 68-70, Summer.
Sackney, L. and Mitchell, C. (2001). Postmodern expressions of educational leadership, in K.
Leithwood and P. Hallinger (Eds.). The Second International Handbook of Educational Leadership
and Administration, Kluwer, Dordrecht.
Samier, E. (2002), Weber on education and its administration: prospects for leadership in a
rationalised World, Educational Management and Administration, 30(1), 27-45.
Schein, E. (1997). Organizational Culture and Leadership, Jossey Bass, San Francisco.
Sergiovanni, T. (1984). Leadership and excellence in schooling, Educational Leadership, 41(5), 4-13.
Sergiovanni, T.J. (1991). The Principalship: a reflective practice perspective, Needham Heights, MA, Allyn and Bacon.
Simkins, T. (1999). Values, power and instrumentality: theory and research in education
management, Educational Management and Administration, 27 (3), 267-281.
Theodossin, E. (1983). Theoretical perspectives on the management of planned educational
change, British Education Research Journal, 9 (1),81-90.
Walker, A. and Dimmock, C. (2002). Introduction, in Walker, A. and Dimmock, C. (Eds.). School
Leadership and Administration: Adopting a Cultural Perspective,Routledge Falmer, London.
Wallace, M. (1989). Towards a collegiate approach to curriculum management in primary and
middle schools, in M. Preedy (ed.). Approaches to Curriculum Management, Open University
Press, Milton Keynes.
Webb, R. & Vulliamy, G. (1996). A deluge of directives: conflict between collegiality and
managerialism in the post-ERA primary school, British Educational Research Journal,22 : 4, 441-
458.
Weick, K. E. (1976). Educational organisations as loosely coupled systems, Administrative
Science Quarterly, 21: 1, 1-19.
Willower, D. J. (1980). Contemporary issues in theory in educational administration, Educational Administration Quarterly, 16: 3, 1-25.
Yukl, G. A. (2002). Leadership in Organizations, Fifth Edition, Upper Saddle River, NJ, Prentice-Hall.
Solutions
Chapter 4. Preparing and Training Superintendents for
the Mission of Executive Management
This module has been peer-reviewed, accepted, and sanctioned by the National Council of the
Professors of Educational Administration (NCPEA) as a scholarly contribution to the
knowledge base in educational administration.
Preparing and Training Superintendents for the Mission of Executive Management
Superintendent preparation and training has remained substantially unaltered for a half century.
State certification requirements drive the content and activities for preparation programs housed in higher education institutions. State agencies never participated in superintendent preparation beyond awarding certification to post master’s educators completing an “approved” course of
study. However, high stakes testing and accountability pressures are now causing a few states to reconsider traditional paths to superintendent certification. Illinois and Washington have
“opened” the superintendency to individuals without educational, managerial, executive, or higher education backgrounds. What the effects of these attempts “to” provide local school districts with
“superintendent choice” is unclear at this time.
Reform literature discussing preparation, selection, and evaluation of superintendents generally questions the abilities of superintendents to bring about higher student test scores. Seldom
discussed is effective management of resources and systems. Policy literature often tosses aside superintendent management responsibilities as being a “technical” matter, not germane to the
development of transformational executive leadership.
This paper focuses on “real” superintendent management preparation or training necessary to
effectively and efficiently manage district fiscal, personnel, and physical resources. The creation of an effective and functional management system is most definitely a pre-condition for
exercising effective leadership. Seldom are high scoring districts found without effective
superintendent led management systems.
What is needed is a new vision of superintendent executive level management training consisting of a cooperative effort between universities, state agencies, and professional associations. This new paradigm should cast management training in an equal role with leadership preparation. The
existence of higher education and degree programs should not be eliminated but augmented by
state agency resources and involvement with professional associations.
Preparing Superintendents to be Executive Managers
The Need for a New Paradigm
Often school reformers sarcastically criticize superintendents as “mere” managers not capable of leading, schools, districts and communities. Education literature abounds with conventional
wisdom rhetoric advocating “silver bullet” leadership stratagems guaranteeing higher test scores.
For the sake of self preservation, many superintendents “talk the talk” of transformational,
creative, challenged, results based, follower based, distributive and situational leadership but few actual “walk the walk” toward verifiable results and “managerially” improved districts. District improvement is more likely achieved through “appropriate” board and superintendent leadership
behavior in conjunction with effective management. One strategy alone in most cases will not
maintain or bring about organizational effectiveness and reform.
Large urban districts poignantly and tragically illustrate this paradigm. These large urban districts (often mammoth impersonal hierarchical bureaucracies) serve more than a third of the nation’s
public school children and provide a majority of No Child Left Behind’s (NCLB) “failing”
schools. The picture of “failing schools within failing districts” in “failing communities” provides a chilling view of urban America today. By 2015 at least one out of two public school students
will be a minority enrolled in one of these “failing districts” (National Center for Education
Statistics, 2000).
What massive set of policy initiatives can turn around this urban (actually national) catastrophe?
More money, more teachers, better teachers, better principals, better curriculum, parental
involvement, better governance or current “jingoistic” leadership by principals and
superintendents?
Recent reform literature offers “quick school fixes” via “better” leadership. Foundations, state agencies, universities, private sector groups, and school districts have in the past, and are today, spending significant amounts to “implant” leadership skills in principals and superintendents.
How this “new” leadership is to be evaluated, except by very nebulous test scores increases, is not discussed. Many reform writers slip into the beginning graduate student error of assuming high
correlation denotes causation.
The Roles of Superintendents
In some respects the superintendent’s role is an anomaly in comparison to many complex
organizations. The roles of leadership (executive) and management are discrete functions carried out by separate role incumbents in large private sector organizations. This is only true in perhaps 1% to 2% of American public school districts.
A body of literature in the field of business not only separates the two roles but also discusses personality traits and types best needed to fit each role. These “managerial” and “leadership”
personalities are portrayed many times to be in opposition and conflict (Zaleznik, 1977). If this business organization literature aptly describes leadership and management needed in public
school districts, a curious paradox is created for superintendents. Can a superintendent possess both a leadership and management personality? Or does the more confining role of the manager
inhibit the less confining role of executive leader?
Importantly, is there sufficient inter-role conflict to render the superintendency a plural role forcing incumbents to choose between often conflicting role expectations and responsibilities? If effective managers and effective leaders possess different personalities, can one superintendent be effectively trained for a role requiring a bi-polar personality? This is certainly another way to view the common description of leaders as being either relations or task oriented in selected
practices and situations (Hersey & Blanchard, 1988). This may also account for the reluctance of many superintendents to adopt a change agent role requiring “visionary” leadership and risks.
There appears to be an absence of literature examining the “managerial” and “leadership”
attributes of superintendents in terms of emotional involvement, empathy, and social discourse.
Leaders are typically characterized as being extroverted and intensely emotionally involved with followers and colleagues in a realm of ideas. Managers on the other hand relate to others
according to roles and sequences of events in decision-making and task completion (Zaleznik,
1977). Which of the two best fits or describes current superintendents?
Callahan Revisited
Callahan’s identification and description of four distinctive roles of the superintendent, scholarly educational leader, business executive, educational statesman in democratic society, and applied social scientist, suggest a plural role with built-in conflict (Callahan, 1962). Cuban (1976) and others correctly point out that superintendents must manifest behavior elements of these four roles at different times and places in their practice. This is correct as the superintendent is a highly situational position dictated by boards and unique sets of local circumstances. Lutz and Merz
(1992) and others suggest three “general roles” for superintendents as, change agent, developer, or maintainer of the status quo. These roles are situational based requiring distinct sets of leadership and management skills. Do these skill sets require psychosocial attitudes? It is likely this trio of roles significantly affects a board’s decision when selecting a new superintendent.
A board satisfied with the performance of the district may carefully select a superintendent with excellent management skills charged to keep the district at its present level of operation. Or a board may choose a management skilled superintendent to carefully manage a district with very
few resources and little possibility of implementing reform initiatives. This status quo
superintendent role is very prevalent.
Another board may have already passed through an era of repeated failed reform initiatives led by a change oriented visionary leader and feel the time is ripe for a new superintendent to pick up the pieces and develop and manage them into a whole program. The developer role may be the
superintendent many large urban districts need at this time.
The hard charging visionary change-agent leader is resplendent in today’s reform literature. This is particularly true in the urban districts where change agent superintendents stay fewer than 3
years and initiate three new reform initiatives each year of their brief tenure (Hess, 1999).
Contrary to conventional wisdom relatively few boards are actively seeking this usually short
term leader. Only 8 % of superintendents participating in the American Association of School
Administrators (AASA) Ten Year Study in 2000 said their boards hired them to be “reform
leaders” (Glass, Bjork, & Brunner, 2004).
The majority of school boards appear to be seeking a superintendent with ability to develop
programs and effectively manage district resources. These boards probably agree with Zaleznik
(1977), effective change agent leaders often create disorder, a condition many boards desire to avoid. This is afar different view from what school reformers and their political policy makers arrogantly and blindly demand of boards. A reality seen by boards is that a majority of school
districts possess central office staffs of one or two administrators and while strong leadership is desired, management is imperative.
Unfortunately, what is not discussedin the literature is whether a superintendent can be adequately proficient in Callahan’s (1964) or other multiple role models. Callahan’s four conceptual roles expand the superintendency far beyond the business paradigm of leadership and management. The
role models of change agents, developers, and maintainers of the status quo are overlapping and many boards may even require superintendents to act to a degree in each.
A complication certainly must arise in practice when superintendent leadership situations change due to board elections or adjustments in community expectations. The reform era has
“politicized” the role to the point in some districts where the superintendent is the “chief political officer.” Carrying out this role takes a superintendent “out” of the district and in extreme cases makes the role of superintendent a community rather educational role. This may be occurring
more than we are presently aware.
Leaders and Managers
Bennis and Nanus (1985) in their review of more than 1,000 studies of leadership and
management found more than 350 definitions of effective leadership. Not finding a clear
understanding of non-leaders versus leaders, they coined the term “a leader does the right thing”
and “manager does the thing right.”
Drucker (1985) states that effective leaders make relatively few decisions regarding the “total”
picture and the future of the organization. If this is true, then superintendents in most districts are obligated by the board to make few “day to day” management types of decisions. Perhaps
Drucker’s axiom best fits the superintendent-board team role that may be cast as the district’s
“visionary-effective leader.” In the context of American schools decisions resulting in broad
policy statements are the responsibility of the board.
What is the board’s role in superintendent leadership? Management traditionally has been
expected of superintendents by boards. Over involvement in management by board members
(micro-management) has never been an approved practice. The National School Board
Association (2000) and its state affiliates particularly condemn the practice, often creating
conflict between boards and superintendents. The problem has been what is the demarcation line
between policy, leadership, and management? When does superintendent leadership join or
separate from board leadership? In addition, boards and superintendents often have very different ideas as to what constitutes board micromanagement.
Policy and procedures in school districts often appear to be management statements. The division between superintendent, leadership, and management might be:
Leadership is “influencing” the community, staff, board, and students.
Leadership is “guiding” in setting abstracts such as goals, vision, etc.
Leadership is “persuading” staff to put aside self interests.
Management is “shaping” district management systems to produce results.
Management is “supervising” and insuring worker productivity.
Leadership overall recognizes the total school district and attempts to influence it or its
employees in a certain direction. Management is actually accomplishing the task (Hersey &
Blanchard, 1988).
As Lunenberg and Ornstein (2000) point out, a school organization does not need good leadership to survive. Poor leadership in a district may not affect the overall operation for years. However, poor management quickly impairs the organization effectiveness.
A Management Training Platform
Most education leadership literature is strangely silent about district level management as the essential foundation or platform necessary for productive district system leadership. Without a solid district level management platform, leadership strategies of any type are likely to flounder or be seriously impeded. It is a challenge to find a high academic achieving district without
competent fiscal, budget, facilities, personnel, curriculum, and support services management. A plethora of school based activities, if well supported by the central office, allow principals to better focus on the tasks of academic improvement.
If this management support is not present, principals may be likely to be in a continual struggle
“against” the central office. This dichotomy of the principal’s struggle to improve achievement and the struggle with a district central office is likely a strong contributor to “failing schools.”
Superintendents in high achieving districts are often characterized as being effective leaders; and those in chronically poor achieving districts are frequently thought of as ineffective leaders
(Education Writers Association, 2003). Seldom is there discussion as to whether they are effective or ineffective managers in “leading” district management efforts.
By necessity, massive urban districts supporting hundreds of schools have created large
hierarchical “classical” bureaucracies featuring a reliance on classical “scientific management”
theory (now reinforced by NCLB). The number and complexity of essential management functions
is difficult to see if looking from outside the organization. Few reformers and critics realize these large bureaucracies are very much a part offederal and state government actions created over a
hundred years. In many respects they mirror any large governmental bureaucracy. They are unlike large corporations that change organizational structure when threatened with loss of profits and possible extinction. Smaller districts (like smaller private sector businesses) are usually closer to
“customers” and can change organizational structures to meet public demand.
Superintendents seldom are well trained or experienced to simultaneously lead and manageschool
bureaucracies. The not too surprising result for urban superintendents is failing to raise test scores and bringing about institutional reform. They never get the management “system” to sufficiently support instructional programs (Hess, 1999). In short, the hub of the wheel cannot support the
spokes. Managerial ineffectiveness by superintendents in smaller districts may also hurt
instructional programs, but the task of fixing these systems is less difficult.
An excellent example of “fixing” a large organization is the Chrysler Corporation under the
leadership of Lee Iacocca. When the Chrysler board hired Iacocca, the corporation was on the
brink of bankruptcy. Iacocca immediately hired a team formerly working with him at Ford and
began working on rebuilding corporate management systems. They did not immediately rush to
the car assembly plant lines correcting the poor quality of Chrysler cars. This was a later step after corporate management was rebuilt sufficiently to manage needed changes in the production lines
corporate image and creating a future for the corporation (Iacocca & Novak, 1987).
This is an excellent illustration of the need for effective management systems to be in place
before visionary leadership dominates the district leadership paradigm. Urban school systems
would be well advised to look at how failing corporations are rebuilt from the top down. Reform efforts since A Nation at Risk have been generally bottom up.
Superintendents and the Management Imperative
The following managerial tasks are common to every school district regardless of size and wealth.
They are prescribed actions both in highly centralized or decentralized organizational structures.
Most are closely monitored by state departments and other regulatory agencies. In brief, they
constitute a non-negotiable managerial imperative for superintendents to supervise, coordinate, perform and be held accountable to the school board and community. If performed efficiently and effectively fiscal costs to the district can be substantially reduced creating an opportunity to transfer “saved” dollars to “instructional” accounts.
If not managed properly district credibility with the community, state, and staff suffer making all district operations more difficult. More superintendents are dismissed for mismanaging finances with the exception of a poor relationship with the board (Glass, Bjork, & Brunner, 2000).
Finances
A school district is a trustee of both the community’s children and its tax dollars. Efficient and appropriate management of public tax dollars is a key responsibility for every superintendent.
Inarguably, this is a complex and time consuming task for superintendents in districts of all sizes.
School districts are not “stand alone” businesses in managing revenues and expenditures. Instead, they are part of large state school funding programs that are complex and difficult to comprehend and implement at the local level. Lack of competent fiscal and operational management skills is a leading reason for board dismissal of superintendents. High quality financial management is a
characteristic of academically high performing districts. The following are fiscal management
components found in all districts.
Fiscal Planning
This important management task plans and sets spending patterns for present and future budget
years. Competent fiscal planning establishes a reality frame around which a district can create a strategic plan. A critical decision made yearly by the superintendent is the forecasted revenue upon which to build next year’s budget. Incompetent fiscal planning and revenue forecasting may result in the district not meeting program commitments, incurring unexpected budget deficits, and creating distrust with district personnel and in the community. Knowledge of state, county, and local tax revenue systems is imperative.
An often overlooked fiscal planning task is that of forecasting the future number of children to be served. Particularly in districts with budgets driven by state aid formulas, the number of children to be served is a critical budget variable. Knowledge of demographic variables and forecasting is very important to fiscal and facility planning.
Budgeting
Allocating sufficient funds to each district program is a very difficult process. The superintendent does not usually make budget decisions alone. However, the superintendent must deploy and
supervise the budget system in the district. The structure of budget systems is often mandated by the state. Although district staff may participate in the budgeting process by providing input, the final decisions about how scarce resources are to be allocated rests with the superintendent and ultimately the school board. After board (and state) approval, the superintendent must implement a plan to implement and manage the budget. This task can be complicated in districts with bottom up types of budget systems.
Accounting
While superintendents are not expected to be certified accountants it is important for them to
competently manage cash (sometimes accrual) accounting systems. Most important they must be
able to adequately use the fund accounting systems required by state departments of education. In perhaps nine out of every ten districts the superintendent participates daily in district accounting processes (Ray, Hack, & Candoli, 2001).
Debt Management
Due to reliance of school districts on state funding systems, most districts on a routine basis incur short and long term debt. Understanding bonding systems and borrowing options available to the
district are very important management options. Districts frequently use short term borrowing to meet cash flow problems. In most districts cash flow management is a very important task for the superintendent to oversee.
Investing
All districts, large and small, have funds to invest in short term or long term options. These funds augment regular program funds and often provide for a “rainy day” crisis. Superintendents often make almost daily decisions regarding the structuring and use of district financial investments.
Auditing
The annual external audit is but one part of the districts auditing requirements. Cash accounts must be internally audited on a frequent basis. Program progress audits are often required by
states as well. Federal auditing procedures, many times, do not align with state systems and this creates a challenge for superintendents. Understanding state auditing standards is a legal as well as professional obligation of superintendents. Bad audit reports in recent years have claimed the careers of more than