Red for Ed Teacher Movements: Exploring Roles and Symbols in the Politics of the Superintendency

Abstract

Purpose: In recent years, a new wave of teacher-led political action has erupted resulting in work stoppages in several states across the United States. This study examines how superintendents navigated this Red for Ed movement in two representative states. Methods: Framed as a multisite, embedded case study, we drew from public documents and semistructured interviews with superintendents. We took a deductive approach to data analysis, seeking analytic generalization to the theoretical frameworks adopted herein. Findings: Red for Ed-motivated teacher job actions did create a political dilemma for superintendents. Superintendents addressed the dilemma by utilizing the roles of business manager, instructional leader, and politician as expressed through symbolic politics including assigning responsibility and vaguely supporting the Red for Ed cause. Superintendent responses are consistent with isomorphic tenants of sociological institutionalism. Implications: Considering the modern superintendency’s political nature, superintendents might benefit from preparation in political strategy and tactics.

Keywords

superintendent red for Ed dilemmas superintendent roles symbolic politics

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Altheide

D. L.

Schneider

C. J.

(2013). Qualitative media analysis. Sage.

Arizona Revised Statute 15–511 (1996 & rev. 2004). Prohibition; Civil Penalty; Definitions. https://www.azleg.gov/viewdocument/docName=https://www.azleg.gov/ars/15/00511.htm

Arizona Revised Statute 23–1303 (1946 & rev. 1982). Strike or Picketing for Illegal Purpose. https://www.azleg.gov/viewdocument/docName=https://www.azleg.gov/ars/23/01303.htm

Barnetson

. (2010). Alberta’s 2002 teacher strike: The political economy of labor relations in education. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 18(3), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.v18n3.2010

Bennett

J. V.

McKee

Martin

. (2014). Superintendent-business executive collaboration in intermediary organizations: Moral agency and democratic functioning. Journal of School Leadership, 24(1), 61–114. https://doi.org/10.1177/105268461402400103

Bennett

J. V.

Thompson

H. C

. (2011). Changing district priorities for school-business collaboration: Superintendent agency and capacity for institutionalization. Educational Administration Quarterly, 47(5), 826–868. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X11417125

Bjork

L. G

. (2005). Superintendent-board relations: An historical overview of the dynamics of change and sources of conflict and collaboration. In Petersen

G. J.

. & Fusarelli

L. D.

(Eds.), The politics of leadership: Superintendents and school boards in changing times (pp. 1–22). Information Age Publishing.

Bjork

L. G.

Browne-Ferrigno

T. B.

Kowalski

T. J

. (2014). The superintendent and educational reform in the United States of America. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 13(4), 444–465. https://doi.org/10.1080/15700763.2014.945656

Bjork

L. G.

Glass

T. E.

Brunner

C. C.

(2005). Characteristics of American school superintendents. In Bjork

L. G.

Kowalski

T. J.

(Eds.), The contemporary superintendent: Preparation, practice and development (pp. 19–44). Corwin Press.

10.

Bjork

L. G.

Gurley

D. K.

(2005). Superintendent as educational statesman and political strategist. In Bjork

L. G.

Kowalski

T. J.

(Eds.), The contemporary superintendent: Preparation, practice and development (pp. 163–186). Corwin Press.

11.

Bjork

L. G.

Lindle

J. C

. (2001). Superintendents and interest groups. Educational Policy, 15(1), 76–91. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904801015001005

12.

Bolman

L. G.

Deal

T. E.

(2017). Reframing organizations (6th ed.). Jossey-Bass.

13.

Boyd

W. L

. (1974). The school superintendent: Educational statesman or political strategist? Administrator’s Notebook, 22(9), 1–4. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ102563

14.

Cowen

J. M.

Fowles

. (2013). Same contract different day? An analysis of teacher bargaining agreements in Louisville since 1979. Teachers College Record, 115(5), 1–30. https://www.tcrecord.org/Content.asp?ContentId=16956

15.

Cowen

J. M.

Strunk

K. O

. (2015). The impact of teachers’ unions on educational outcomes: What we know and what we need to learn. Economics of Education Review, 48(October), 208–223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2015.02.006

16.

Cuban

(1988). The managerial imperative and the practice of leadership in schools. State University of New York Press.

17.

Davidson

F. D.

Schwanenberger

Wiggall

. (2019). What matters most in superintendent evaluation. Educational Leadership Review, 20(1), 217–233. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1234937.pdf

18.

Edelman

(1988). Constructing the political spectacle. University of Chicago Press.

19.

Fusarelli

B. C

. (2006). School board and superintendent relations: Issues of continuity, conflict, and community. Journal of Cases in Educational Leadership, 9(1), 44–57. https://doi.org/10.1177/1555458905285011

20.

Hall

McHenry-Sorber

. (2017). Politics first: Examining the practices of the multi-district superintendent. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 25(82), 1–26. http://dx.doi.org/10.14507/epaa.25.2934

21.

Hall

P. A.

Taylor

R. C

. (1996). Political science and the three new institutionalisms. Political Studies, 44(5), 936–957. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9248.1996.tb00343.x

22.

Honig

M. I

. (2004). The new middle management: Intermediary organizations in education policy implementation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 26(1), 65–87. https://doi.org/10.3102/01623737026001065

23.

Horn

. (2017). Striking out on their own: Lessons learned from student teaching during and after the Chicago Teachers Union strike. Critical Questions in Education, 8(2), 193–205. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1135620.pdf

24.

Howell

F. J

. (2014). Entropic management: Restructuring district office culture in the New York City Department of Education. Urban Review, 46(4), 725–746. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11256-014-0302-9

25.

Hoy

W. K.

Tarter

C. J

. (2010). Swift and smart decision making: Heuristics that work. International Journal of Educational Management, 24(4), 351–358. https://doi.org/10.1108/09513541011045272

26.

Hurst

T. M

. (2017). The discursive construction of superintendent statesmanship on Twitter. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 25(29), 1–37. https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.25.2300

27.

Iannaccone

(1975). Education policy systems: A study guide for educational administrators. Nova University Press.

28.

Iannaccone

. (1991). Micropolitics of education: What and why. Education and Urban Society, 23(4), 465–471. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013124591023004008

29.

Ingle

W. K.

Johnson

P. A.

Petroff

R. A

. (2012). “Hired guns” and “legitimate voices”: The politics and participants of levy campaigns in five Ohio school districts. Educational Administration Quarterly, 48(5), 814–858. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X12448251

30.

Ingle

W. K.

Wisman

R. A

. (2018). Extending the work of Cowen and Fowles: A historical analysis of Kentucky teacher contracts. Educational Policy, 32(2), 313–333. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904817741544

31.

Johnson

S. M.

(1996). Leading to change: The challenge of the new superintendency. Jossey-Bass.

32.

Kentucky Revised Statute 161.164 (1962 & rev. 1994). https://apps.legislature.ky.gov/law/statutes/statute.aspx?id=3882.

33.

Kentucky Revised Statute 336.130 (1942 & rev. 2017). Picket - Protection of Employees - Conduct Prohibited - Effect of Violence or Injury to Person or Property. https://apps.legislature.ky.gov/law/statutes/chapter.aspx?id=38883.

34.

Kowalski

T. J.

Bjork

L. G

. (2005). Role expectations of the district superintendent: Implications for deregulating preparation and licensing. Journal of Thought, 40(2), 73– 96. https://www.jstor.org/stable/42589826

35.

Lecours

(2005). New institutionalism: Theory and analysis. University of Toronto Press.

36.

Litchka

Polka

Calzi

(2014). Living on the horns of dilemmas: Superintendents, politics, and decision-making. Rowman and Littlefield.

37.

Mawhinney

H. B

. (1999). Reappraisal: The problems and prospects of studying the micropolitics of leadership in reforming schools. School Leadership & Management, 19(2), 159–170. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632439969168

38.

Melton

T. D.

Reeves

McBrayer

J. S.

Smith

A. Q

. (2019). Navigating the politics of the superintendency. AASA Journal of Scholarship and Practice, 16(3), 23–37. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1230452

39.

Meyer

H. D.

Rowan

(2006). Institutional analysis and the study of education. In Meyer

H. D.

Rowan

(Eds.), The new institutionalism in education (pp. 1–14). State University of New York Press.

40.

Mountford

. (2004). Motives and power of school board members: Implications for school board-superintendent relationships. Educational Administration Quarterly, 40(5), 704–741. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X04268843

41.

Myers

D. A

. (2007). Teacher power—revisited. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 80(5), 239–242. https://doi.org/10.3200/TCHS.80.5.239-242

42.

Nack

Childers

Kulwiec

Ibarra

. (2020). The recent evolution of Wisconsin public worker unionism since Act 10. Labor Studies Journal, 45(2), 147–165. https://doi.org/10.1177/0160449X19860585

43.

Noppe

Yager

Webb

Sheng

. (2013). Decision-making and problem solving practices of superintendents confronted by district dilemmas. NCPEA International Journal of Educational Leadership Preparation, 8(1), 103–120. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1012999

44.

Opfer

V. D

. (2005). Personalization of interest groups and the resulting policy nonsense. In Petersen

G. J.

Fusarelli

L. D.

(Eds.), The politics of leadership: Superintendents and school boards in changing times (pp. 73–93). Information Age Publishing.

45.

Orrú

Woolsey-Biggart

Hamilton

G. G

. (1989). Organizational isomorphism in East Asia. In Powell

W. W.

Dimaggio

P. J.

(Eds.), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis (pp. 361–389). The University of Chicago Press.

46.

Peterson

G. J.

Short

P. M

. (2001). The school board president’s perception of the district superintendent: Applying the lenses of social influence and social style. Educational Administration Quarterly, 37(4), 533–570. https://doi.org/10.1177/00131610121969415

47.

Robert

A. D.

Tyssens

. (2008). Introduction: mapping teachers’ strikes: A “professionalist” approach. Paedagogica Historica, 44(5), 501–516. https://doi.org/10.1080/00309230802351867

48.

Schirmer

E. B

. (2017). When solidarity doesn’t quite strike: The 1974 Hortonville, Wisconsin teachers’ strike and the rise of neoliberalism. Gender and Education, 29(1), 8–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540253.2016.1197381

49.

Schirmer

E. B.

Apple

M. W

. (2016). Teachers, school boards, and the power of money: How the right wins at the local level. The Educational Forum, 80(2). 137–153. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131725.2016.1135384

50.

Scribner

C. F

. (2015). Beyond the metropolis: The forgotten history of small-town teachers’ unions. American Journal of Education, 121(4), 531–561. https://doi.org/10.1086/681924

51.

Secunda

P. M

. (2012). The Wisconsin public-sector labor dispute of 2011. ABA Journal of Labor and Employment Law, 27(2), 293–305. https://www.jstor.org/stable/23314987

52.

Seidman

(2013). Interviewing as qualitative research: A guide for researchers in education and the social sciences (4th ed.). Teachers College Press.

53.

Shuffelton

A. B

. (2014). The Chicago teachers strike and its public. Education and Culture, 30(2), 21–33. https://doi.org/10.1353/eac.2014.0018

54.

Smith

M. L.

Miller-Kahn

Heinecke

Jarvis

P. F.

(2004). Political spectacle and the fate of American schools. Routledge.

55.

Stake

R. E.

(1995). The art of case study research. Sage.

56.

Szolowicz

M. A

. (2016). Putting political spectacle to work: Understanding local resistance to the Common Core. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 24(114). https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.24.2521

57.

Tallerico

. (2000). Gaining access to the superintendency: Headhunting, gender, and color. Educational Administration Quarterly, 36(1), 18–43. https://doi.org/10.1177/00131610021968886

58.

Thompson

. (2014). The superintendent and school board relationship: Functioning as a group. International Journal of Organizational Innovation, 7(1), 69–77. https://www.ijoionline. org/index.php/back-issues/40-volume-7-number-1-july-2014

59.

Wang

. (2016). Homology and isomorphisms: Bourdieu in conversation with the New Institutionalism. The British Journal of Sociology, 67(2), 348–370. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-4446.12197

60.

Webner

De Jong

Campoli

Baron

. (2017). Public school board presidents’ and superintendents’ perceptions of the characteristics of effective superintendents in a midwestern state. Journal of School Leadership, 27(6), 800–830. https://doi.org/10.1177/105268461702700602

61.

Yin

(2014). Case study research: Design and methods (5th ed.). Sage.