Purpose:In this article, the authors highlight three constraints—structural time crisis (Schor, 1991) ideal worker norms (Williams, 2000), and labor and occupational queues (Reskin & Roos, 1990; Strober, 1992)—on the decisions and choices of women seeking to advance to and hold positions in the superintendency.
Proposed Conceptual Argument:The authors contribute to and extend the extant body of work by integrating a conceptual framework that emerges from feminist economics theory and feminist organizational theory. The authors use this framework to analyze the current access and representation of women in the superintendency.
Conclusions:What exists today is an institutionalized, systemic pattern in the market that is robust and resistant to change. However, this discussion contributes to our understanding of women’s experiences in advancing to administrative positions generally, and the superintendency particularly, and advances the way we organize administration and administrative work to be more representative of women and eliminate constraints on women’s choices.
Acker, J. (1990). Hierarchies, jobs, bodies: A theory of gendered organizations. Gender and Society, 4, 139-158.
2.
Acker, J. (1992). Gendering organizational theory. In A. Mills & P. Tancred (Eds.), Gendering organizational analysis (pp. 248-260). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
3.
American Educational Research Association (AERA). (1999, May). Endangered species? New AASA study identifies characteristics of school superintendents. Retrieved June 29, 2004, from http://www.area.net/gov/archive/r0499-01.htm
4.
Alston, J. (2000). Missing from action: Where are the Black female school superintendents?Urban Education, 35(5), 525-531.
5.
Armenti, C. (2003). May babies and posttenure babies: Maternal decisions of women professors. The Review of Higher Education, 27(2), 211-231.
6.
Bailey, D., Wolfe, D. M., & Wolfe, C. (1996). The contextual impact of social support across race and gender: Implications for African-American women in the workplace. Journal of Black Studies, 26(2), 287-307.
7.
Bailyn, L. (2000). Time in organizations: Constraints on and possibilities for gender equity in the workplace (Working Paper No. 4142). Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Sloan School of Management.
8.
Becker, G. (1985). Human capital, effort, and the sexual division of labor. Journal of Labor Economics, 3(1), S33-S58.
9.
Berryman-Fink, C., LeMaster, B. J., & Nelson, K. A. (2003, Winter). The women’s leadership program: A case study. Liberal Education. Retrieved June 25, 2004, from http://www.aacu-edu.org/liberaleducation/le-wi03/le-wi03Perspective.cfm
10.
Bielby, W. T., & Baron, J. N. (1986, January). Men and women at work: Sex segregation and statistical discrimination. American Journal of Sociology, 91, 759-799.
11.
Björk, L. G. (2000). Introduction: Women in the superintendency—advances in research and theory. Educational Administration Quarterly, 36(1), 5-17.
12.
Björk, L. G., & Keedy, J. (2001). Changing social context of education in the United States: Social justice and the superintendency. Journal of In-Service Education, 27(3), 405-427.
13.
Blount, J. M. (1998). Destined to rule the schools. Women and the superintendency, 1873-1995. Albany: State University of New York (SUNY) Press.
14.
Brunner, C. C. (2000a). Principles of power. Women superintendents and the riddle of the heart. Albany: SUNY Press.
15.
Brunner, C. C. (2000b). Unsettled moments in settled discourse: Women superintendents’ experiences of inequality. Educational Administration Quarterly, 36(1), 76-116.
16.
California Department of Education. (2004). Statewide 2000-01 average salaries and expenditures. Retrieved July 3, 2004, from http://www.cde.ca.gov/re/pn/fb/yr03swavesal.asp
17.
Cassell, J. (1998). The woman in the surgeon’s body. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
18.
Chase, S., & Bell, C. (1994). How search consultants talk about female superintendents. School Administrator, 51(2), 36-42.
19.
Cleveland, J., Stockdale, M., & Murphy, K. (2000). Women and men in organizations: Sex and gender issues at work. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
20.
Cooper, B., Fusarelli, L., & Carella, V. A. (2000). Career crisis in the school superintendency? The results of a national survey. Arlington, VA: American Association of School Administrators.
21.
Cox, T. (2001). Creating the multicultural organization: A strategy for capturing the power of diversity. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
22.
Diversity Web. An Interactive Resource Hub for Higher Education. (2000, Fall). Diversity Digest. Retrieved July 2, 2004, from http://www.diversityweb.org/Digest/F00/research2.html
23.
Eckman, E. W. (2004). Similarities and differences in role conflict, role commitment, and job satisfaction for female and male high school principals. Educational Administration Quarterly, 40(3), 366-387.
24.
Falk, E., & Grizard, E. (2003). The glass ceiling persists: The 3rd annual APPC report on women leaders in communication companies. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, The Annenberg Public Policy Center.
25.
Ferber, M. A., & Waldfogel, J. (2000). The effects of part-time and self-employment on wages and benefits: Differences by race/ethnicity and gender. In F. Carré, M. A. Ferber, L. Golden, & S. A. Herzenberg (Eds.), Nonstandard work: The nature and challenge of changing employment arrangements (pp. 213-234). Champaign, IL: Industrial Relations Research Association.
26.
Ferguson, K. (1984). The feminist case against bureaucracy. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
27.
Glass, T. E. (1992). The study of the American school superintendency: America’s education leaders in time of reform. Arlington, VA: American Association of School Administrators.
28.
Glass, T. E. (2000, June). Where are all the women superintendents?The School Administrator (Web edition). Retrieved July 3, 2004, from http://www.aasa.org/publications/sa/2000_06/glass.htm
29.
Glass, T. E., Björk, L., & Brunner, C. C. (2000). American Association of School Administrators ten year study of the superintendency. Arlington, VA: AASA.
30.
Glazer-Raymo, J. (1999). Shattering the myths: Women in academe. Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press.
31.
Grogan, M. (1996). Voices of women aspiring to the superintendency. Albany: SUNY Press.
32.
Grogan, M. (2000). Laying the groundwork for a reconception of the superintendency from feminist postmodern perspectives. Educational Administration Quarterly, 36(1), 117-142.
33.
Grogan, M., & Brunner, C. (2005). Women leading systems. The School Administrator (Web edition). Retrieved July 5, 2005, from http://www.aasa.org/publications/sa/2005_02/grogan.htm
34.
Hassard, J. (1991). Aspects of time in organizations. Human Relations, 44, 105-125.
35.
Hess, F. (2002). School boards at the dawn of the 21st century: Conditions and challenges of district governance. Alexandria, VA: National School Boards Association.
36.
Hochschild, A. R. (1975). Inside the clockwork of male careers. In F. Howe (Ed.), Women and the power to change (pp. 47-80). New York: McGraw-Hill.
37.
Hochschild, A. R. (1989). The second shift: Working parents and the revolution at home. New York: Viking.
38.
Hodgkinson, H., & Montenegro, X. (1999). The U.S. school superintendent: The invisible CEO. Washington, DC: Institute for Educational Leadership.
39.
Kalbus, J. C. (2000). Path to the superintendency. Urban Education, 35(5), 549-556.
40.
Kanter, R. M. (1977). Men and women of the corporation. New York: Basic Books.
41.
Kanter, R. M. (1985). Managing the human side of change. Management Review, 5, 52-56.
42.
Konrad, A., & Pfeffer, J. (1991). Understanding the hiring of women and minorities in educational institutions. Sociology of Education, 64(3), 141-157.
43.
Lewin, K. (1947). Frontiers in group dynamics: II. Channels of group life, social planning, and action research. Human Relations, 1, 143-153.
44.
Love, P. G. (1998). Cultural barriers facing lesbian, gay, bisexual students at a Catholic college. Journal of Higher Education, 69(3), 298-323.
45.
Maienza, J. G. (1986). The superintendency: Characteristics of access for men and women. Educational Administration Quarterly, 22(4), 59-79.
46.
Marshall, S. (1986). Women reach for the top spot. School Administrator, 43(10), 10-13.
47.
Mendéz-Morse, S. (2004). Constructing mentors: Latina educational leaders’ role models and mentors. Educational Administration Quarterly, 40(4), 561-590.
48.
Mincer, J., & Polachek, S. (1974). Family investments in human capital: Earnings of women. Journal of Political Economy, 82(2), S76-S108.
49.
Moody, C. D. (1983). On becoming a superintendent: Contest or sponsored mobility?Journal of Negro Education, 52(4), 383-397.
50.
Noddings, N. (1984). Caring: A feminist approach to ethics and moral education. Berkeley: University of California Press.
51.
Noddings, N. (2002). Educating a moral people: A caring alternative to character education. New York: Teachers College Press.
52.
Ortíz, F. I. (2001). Using social capital in interpreting the careers of three Latina superintendents. Educational Administration Quarterly, 37(1), 58-85.
53.
Ortíz, F. I. (2004). Who controls succession in the superintendency? A minority perspective. Urban Education, 35(5), 557-566.
54.
Papanek, H. (1973). Men, women, and work: Reflections on the two-person career. American Journal of Sociology, 78, 852-872.
55.
Polachek, S. (1981). Occupational self-selection: A human capital approach to sex differences in occupational structure. Review of Economics and Statistics, 63(1), 60-69.
56.
Polachek, S. (1995). Earnings over the life cycle: What do human capital models explain?Scottish Journal of Political Economy, 42(3), 267-289.
57.
Pounder, D., & Merrill, R. (2001). Job desirability of the high school principalship: A job choice theory perspective. Educational Administration Quarterly, 37(1), 27-57.
58.
Quilantán, M. C., & Menchaca-Ochoa, V. (2004, Spring). The superintendency becomes a reality for Hispanic women. Kappa Delta Pi Record, pp. 124-127.
59.
Reskin, B. F. (1993). Sex segregation in the workplace. Annual Review of Sociology, 19, 241-270.
60.
Reskin, B. F., & Roos, P. (1990). Job queues, gender queues: Explaining women’s inroads into male occupations. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
61.
Revere, A. B. (1987). Black women superintendents in the United States: 1984-85. Journal of Negro Education, 56(4), 510-520.
62.
Riehl, C., & Byrd, M. (1997). Gender differences among new recruits to school administration: Cautionary notes to an optimistic tale. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 19(1), 45-64.
63.
Rothschild, J. (2000). Creating a just and democratic workplace: More engagement, less hierarchy. Contemporary Sociology, 29(1), 195-213.
64.
Sahadi, J. (2004, April 23). Woman’s work? Almost anything. CNN Money. Retrieved July 2, 2004, from http://money.cnn.com/2004/04/23/pf/women_occupations
65.
Schor, J. B. (1991). The overworked American. New York: Basic Books.
66.
Schniedewind, N., & Cathers, K. (2003). Becoming allies for each other: An inclusive approach for confronting heterosexism in schools. Equity & Excellence in Education, 36(2), 184-193.
67.
Schwartz, D. (1994). An examination of the impact of family friendly policies on the glass ceiling. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Retrieved June 30, 2005, from http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1127&context=key_workplace
68.
Schwartz, F. (1989, January/February). Management women and the new facts of life. Harvard Business Review, 67(1), 65-76.
69.
Shakeshaft, C. (1989). Women in educational administration (Rev. ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
70.
Shakeshaft, C. (1998). Wild patience and bad fit: Assessing the impact of affirmative action on women in school administration. Educational Researcher, 27(9), 10-12.
71.
Sheppard, D. (1992). Women managers’ perceptions of gender and organizational life. In A. Mills & P. Tancred (Eds.). Gendering organizational analysis (pp. 151-166). London: Sage.
72.
Sirianni, C., & Negrey, C. (2000). Working time as gendered time. Feminist Economics, 6(1), 59-76.
73.
Skrla, L., Reyes, P., & Scheurich, J. (2000). Sexism, silence, and solutions: Women superintendents speak up and speak out. Educational Administration Quarterly, 36(1), 44-75.
74.
Strober, M. H. (1992, Fall). The relative attractiveness theory of gender segregation: The case of physicians. Proceedings of the 44th Annual Meetings of the Industrial and Labor Relations Research Association, pp. 42-50.
75.
Tallerico, M. (2000a). Gaining access to the superintendency: Headhunting, gender and color. Educational Administration Quarterly, 36(1), 18-43.
76.
Tallerico, M. (2000b). Accessing the superintendency: The unwritten rules. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
77.
Tallerico, M., & Blount, J. (2004). Women and the superintendency: Insights from theory and history. Educational Administration Quarterly, 40(5), 633-662.
78.
Tallerico, M., & O’Connell, R. W. (2001). Women and men in the superintendency: A case of a promising research alliance. In C. C. Brunner & L. G. Björk (Eds.), The new superintendency. Advances in research and theories of school management and educational policy (Vol. 6, pp. 75-86). New York: JAI.
79.
Tatum, B. D. (1994). Teaching White students about racism: The search for White allies and the restoration of hope. Teachers College Record, 95, 462-476.
80.
Thomas, J. (1999). “Everything about U.S. is feminist”: The significance of ideology in organizational change. Gender and Society, 13(1), 101-119.
81.
Turner, R. (1960). Sponsored and contest mobility and the school system. American Sociological Review, 25(6), 855-867.
82.
Tyack, D. (1976). Pilgrim’s progress: Toward a social history of the school superintendency, 1860-1960. History of Education Quarterly, 16, 257-300.
83.
Tyack, D., & Hansot, E. (1982). Managers of virtue: Public school leadership in America 1820-1980. New York: Basic Books.
84.
U.S. Census Bureau. (2004). Special edition. Teacher Appreciation Week (May 2-8). Retrieved June 27, 2004, from http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/facts_for_features_special_editions/001737.html
85.
U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2004). Occupational outlook handbook, 2004-05 Edition, Lawyers. Retrieved July 20, 2004, from http://stats.bls.gov/oco/ocos053.htm
86.
U.S. Glass Ceiling Commission. (1995). A solid investment: Making full use of the nation’s human capital. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University. Retrieved June 10, 2005, from http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1117&context=key_workplace
87.
Valverde, L. A. (1974). Succession socialization: Its influence on school administration candidates and its implication to the exclusion of minorities from administration (Project 3-0813). Washington, DC: National Institute of Education.
88.
Williams, C. (1992). The glass escalator: Hidden advantages for men in the “female” professions. Social Problems, 39, 253-267.
89.
Williams, C. (1995). Still a man’s world. Berkeley: University of California Press.
90.
Williams, J. (2000). Unbending gender: Why family and work conflict and what to do about it. New York: Oxford University Press.
91.
Young, M. D., & Skrla, L. (2003). Reconsidering feminist research in educational leadership. Albany: SUNY Press.
