Media reports of a crisis in the American superintendency, based on anecdotal reports and scattered superintendent opinions about a growing number of retirements, high turnover, and an inadequate pool of qualified applicants, are contributing to widespread public misperceptions. The Education Commission of the States (ECS) recently completed a nationwide survey of school board presidents, those with direct knowledge of the number and quality of candidates in superintendent search pools, to better understand the nature and scope of this issue. Findings indicate that a nationwide crisis in the superintendency does not exist. Rather, the number and quality of applicants appears adequate. Data also suggest, however, that some districts have a history of “churning” superintendents. These circumstances contribute disproportionately to these districts having high turnover rates and a relatively smaller number of qualified applicants in search pools. We suggest that the crisis has been misdiagnosed. It is not one associated with the superintendency per se but involves political conflict among local school board members.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AASA. (1952). The American school superintendency. Commission on the American superintendency.Washington, DC: National Education Association.
2.
AASA. (1960). Professional administrators for America's schools.Washington, DC: National Education Association.
3.
BjörkL. (1996). The revisionists’ critique of the education reform reports. Journal of School Leadership, 7(1), 290–315.
4.
BjörkL. (2001a). Preparing the next generation of superintendents: Integrating formal and experiential knowledge. In BrunnerC. C., & BjörkL. (Eds.), The new superintendency: Advances in research and theories of school management and educational policy (pp. 19–54). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
5.
BjörkL. (2001b). The role of the central office in decentralization. In KawolskiT. (Ed.), 21st century challenges to educational administration (pp. 286–309), Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press.
6.
BlumbergA. (1985). The school's superintendent living with conflict.New York: Teachers College Press.
7.
CarterG., & CunninghamW. (1997). The American school superintendent.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
8.
Catalyst. (2002). 2002 Catalyst census of women corporate officers and top earners.New York: Author.
9.
ChapmanC. H. (1997). Becoming a superintendent: Challenges of school district leadership.Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.
10.
CooperB., FusarelliL., & CarellaV. (2000). Career crisis in the school superintendency?Arlington, VA: American Association of School Administrators.
11.
CrowsonR. (1988). Editor's introduction. Peabody Journal of Education, 65(4), 18.
12.
CubanL. (1975). Urban school chiefs under fire.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
13.
CubanL. (1988). Constancy and change in schools. In JacksonP. W. (Ed.), Contributing to educational change.Berkeley, CA: McCutchan.
14.
CubberlyE. (1922). Public school administration.New York: Houghton-Mifflin.
15.
CunninghamL., & HentgesJ. (1982). The American school superintendency.Arlington, VA: American Association of School Administrators.
16.
GlassT. E. (1992). The study of the American school superintendency: America's education leaders in a time of reform.Arlington, VA: American Association of School Administrators.
17.
GlassT. (2000). The shrinking applicant pool. Education Week, 20(10), 22–24.
18.
GlassT. (2001a). State education leaders view the superintendency.Denver: Education Commission of the States.
19.
GlassT. (2001b). The superintendent crisis: A review by search consultants.Denver: Education Commission of the States.
20.
GlassT. (2001c). Superintendent leaders look at the superintendency, boards, and reform.Denver: Education Commission of the States.
21.
GlassT. (2001d). Study of first-year superintendents. Spectrum: Journal of School Research and Information, 19(3), 26–32.
22.
GlassT. (2002). Board presidents view superintendent turnover.Denver: Education Commission of the States.
23.
GlassT., BjörkL., & BrunnerC. (2000). The study of the American school superintendency 2000: A look at the superintendent in the new millennium.Arlington, VA: American Association of School Administrators.
24.
HenryT. (2000, January 26). Superintendents in demand. USA Today, p. 1.
25.
HessF. (2002). School boards at the dawn of the 21st century: Conditions and challenges of district governance.Alexandria, VA: National School Boards Association.
26.
HunterB. (1994, March). What do Americans think of their schools? Paper presented at the annual Willard Fox Seminar, Appalachian State University, Boone, NC.
27.
JohnsonS. M. (1996). Leading to change: The challenge of the new sperintendency.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
28.
KowalskiT. (2002). Superintendent shortage: The wrong problem and the wrong solution?New Orleans, LA: American Educational Research Association.
29.
MathewsJ. (2001). An end to school boards. Retrieved February 13, 2001, from www.WashingtonPost.com
30.
McAdamsR. (1998). Who'll run the schools? The coming administrator shortage. American School Board Journal, 185(8), 37–39.
31.
NASSP. (1988). In search of excellence—A talk with Tom Peters about the principalship. NASSP Bulletin, 72(512), 36–45.
32.
NatkinG. L., CooperB. S., AlboranoJ. A., PadillaA., & GhoshS. K. (2003). Predicting and modeling supertendent turnover. Journal of School Leadership, 13(3), 328–46.
33.
NatkinG., CooperB., FusarelliL., AlboranoJ., PadillaA., & GhoshS. (2002). Myth of the revolving-door superintendency. School Administrator, 59(4), 31.
34.
National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform.Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
