Restricted accessOtherFirst published online 2003-12
Superintendent and School Board Member Turnover: Political Versus Apolitical Turnover as a Critical Variable in the Application of the Dissatisfaction Theory
This article explores potential links between school board member and superintendent turnover. Qualitative and quantitative data from 176 school districts in a Northwest state supported the use of the Dissatisfaction Theory as a useful tool in describingthe political sequence of events in local school governance and established the necessity of distinguishing between political versus apolitical school board member turnover in studies of this type.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Anderson, S. L. (1989). How to predict success in the superintendency. The School Administrator, 46(7), 22-22.
2.
Best, J. W., & Kahn, J. V. (1998). Research in education(8th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
3.
Brackett, J. D. (1995). Superintendent turnover in relation to incumbent school board member defeat in Alabama from 1984-1994. Dissertation Abstracts International, 57(06), 2284A-2284A. (UMI No. 9635752)
4.
Burlingame, M. (1978). Downward trends in socioeconomic-political indicators and incumbent defeat. In F. W. Lutz & L. Iannaccone (Eds.), Public participation in local school districts(pp. 45-53). Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath.
5.
Carlson, R. O. (1972). School superintendents: Careers and performance. Columbus, OH: Merrill.
6.
Chance, E. W., & Capps, J. L. (1992). Superintendent instability in small/rural schools: The school board perspective. Norman: University of Oklahoma, College of Education.
7.
Counts, G. S. (1927). American education: It’s men, ideas, and institutions. New York: Arno Press.
8.
Erickson, K. A., & Keirnes, B. (1978, December). Former members tell... why they left the school board. OSSC Bulletin, 22(4), 3-35.
9.
Freeborn, R. M. (1966). School board change and succession pattern of superintendents (Doctoral dissertation, Claremont Graduate School, 1966). Dissertation Abstracts International, 28(02), 424A-424A. (UMI No. 6709505)
10.
Fullan, M. (1993). Change forces: Probing the depths of educational reform. London: The Falmer Press.
11.
Fullan, M. G., & Miles, M. B. (1992). Getting reform right: What works and what doesn’t. Phi Delta Kappan, 73(10), 744-752.
12.
Gliner, J. A., & Morgan, G. A. (2000). Research methods in applied settings: An integrated approach to design and analysis. London: Lawrence Erlbaum.
13.
Grady, M. L., & Bryant, M. T. (1989). Critical incidents between superintendents and school boards: Implications for practice. Planning for Change, 20, 206-214.
14.
Hosman, C. M. (1989). Electoral challenges as indicators of community dissatisfaction. Urban Education, 24, 77-92.
15.
Hosman, C. M. (1990). Superintendent selection and dismissal: A changing community defines its values. Urban Education, 25, 350-369.
16.
Iannaccone, L. (1996). Callahan’s vulnerability thesis and “Dissatisfaction Theory.” Peabody Journal of Education, 71(2), 110-119.
17.
Iannaccone, L., & Lutz, F. W. (1970). Politics, power and policy: The governing of local school districts. Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill.
18.
Iannaccone, L., & Lutz, F. W. (1994). The crucible of democracy: The local arena. Journal of Educational Policy, 9(5), 39-52.
19.
Kirkendall, R. S. (1966). Discriminating social, economic, and political characteristics of changing versus stable policy-making systems in school districts (Doctoral dissertation, Claremont Graduate School, 1966). Dissertation Abstracts International, 28, 395A. (UMI No. 6709515)
20.
Kitchens, S. K. (1994). Superintendent turnover in relation to incumbent school board member defeat in Louisiana from 1980-1992. Dissertation Abstracts International, 55(04), 819A-819A. (UMI No. 9422723)
21.
LeCompte, M. D., & Preissle, J. (1993). Ethnography and qualitative design in educational research(2nd ed.). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
22.
Ledoux, E. P., & Burlingame, M. (1973). The Iannaccone-Lutz model of school board change: A replication in New Mexico. Educational Administration Quarterly, 9, 48-65.
23.
Lutz, F. W. (1962). Social systems and school districts: Astudy of the interactions and sentiments of a school board. Dissertation Abstracts International, 24(04), 1466A-1466A.(UMI No. 6304852)
24.
Lutz, F. W. (1982). Community conflict and superintendent survival. Planningand Changing, 13, 11-18.
25.
Lutz, F. W., & Iannaccone, L. (Eds.) (1978). Public participation in local school districts: The Dissatisfaction Theory of Democracy. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, D.C. Heath.
26.
Lutz, F. W., & Merz, C. (1992). The politics of school/community relations. New York: Teachers College Press.
27.
Lutz, F. W., & Wang, L. (1987). Predicting public dissatisfaction: A study of school board member defeat. Educational Administration Quarterly, 23, 65-77.
28.
McAdams, R. P. (1996). Interrelationships among property tax rate changes, school board member turnover, and superintendent turnover in elected Pennsylvania school districts. Planning & Changing, 26, 57-70.
29.
Mitchell, D. E. (1978). Measurement and methodological issues related to research on incumbent defeat and superintendent turnover. In F. W. Lutz & L. Iannaccone (Eds.), Public participation in local school districts(pp. 73-99). Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath.
30.
Mitchell, D. E., & Spady, W. G. (1983). Authority, power, and the legitimization of social control. Educational Administration Quarterly, 19, 5-33.
31.
Mitchell, D. E., & Thorsted, R. R. (1976). Incumbent school board member defeat reconsidered: New evidence for its political meaning. Educational Administration Quarterly, 12, 31-48.
32.
Olson, L. (1995, April 12). Rapid turnover in leadership impedes reforms, study finds. Education Week, p. 6-6.
Poyourow-Ripple, R. (1990). A descriptive survey of school board member turnover and superintendent turnover in Pennsylvania, 1973-1987. Dissertation Abstracts International, 51(03), 705A-705A. (UMI No. 9022938)
35.
Rada, R. D. (1984). Community dissatisfaction and school governance. Planningand Changing, 15, 234-247.
36.
Reed, D. B., & Johnson-Howard, D. (1989, March). Political change in a school district leading to cultural change in a high school. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED311555)
37.
Robinson, N., & Wood, M. (1987, March). Why school board members choose to seek or not seek re-election: A test of political efficacy and trust theory. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Washington, DC.
38.
Walden, J. (1978). Antecedents to incumbent defeat and superintendent turnover. In F. W. Lutz & L. Iannaccone (Eds.), Public participation in local school districts(pp. 25-32). Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath.
39.
Wang, L. Y., & Lutz, F. W. (1989). The dissat-factor: Recent discoveries in the Dissatisfaction Theory. Educational Administration Quarterly, 25, 358-376.
40.
Weller, D. L., Brown, C. L., & Flynn, K. J. (1991). Superintendent turnover and school board member defeat: A new perspective and interpretation. Journal of Educational Administration, 29, 61-72.
41.
Weninger, T. A., & Stout, R. T. (1989). Dissatisfaction Theory: Policy change as a function of school board member-superintendent turnover: A case study. Educational Administration Quarterly, 25(2), 162-180.
42.
Williams, L. A. (1993). Superintendent turnover in relationship to incumbent school boardmember defeat in Kentucky from 1980-1990. Dissertation Abstracts International, 55(01), 30A-30A. (UMI No. 9416295)
43.
Wirt, F. M., & Kirst, M. W. (1992). Schools in conflict: The politics of education(3rd ed.). Berkeley, CA: McCutchan.
44.
Zeigler, L. H., & Jennings, M. K. (1974). Governing American schools. North Scituate, MA: Duxbury Press.
