Predicting and Modeling Superintendent Turnover

Abstract

This study examines the longevity in office of superintendents in 292 school districts, using data from the period 1975-99. Random samples of districts from across the United States, as well as all school districts from North Carolina, were studied. Data were analyzed by survival analysis techniques, using information on superintendents, districts, and school boards as predictors. Superintendent tenure has not changed significantly since 1975-79, averaging 6–7 years over the whole period. Significantly related to survival in office were level of school board involvement in management, support for needed construction, merger of school systems, district poverty level, and superintendent postgraduate education.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Cooper

, Fusarelli

, & Carella

(2000). Career crisis in the superintendency? The results of a national survey. Arlington, VA: American Association of School Administrators.

Council of Great City Schools. (1999). Urban school superintendents: Characteristics, tenure, and salary. Retrieved April 20, 2001, from http://www.cgcs.org/reports/home/superintendents.htm

Fullan

M. G.

, & Stiegelbauer

(1991). The new meaning of educational change. New York: Teachers College Press.

Glass

, Björk

, & Brunner

(2000). The study of the American school superintendency 2000. Arlington, VA: American Association of School Administrators.

Grady

, & Bryant

(1989). Critical incidents between superintendents and school boards: Implications for practice. Planning & Changing, 20, 206–213.

Grady

, & Bryant

(1991). A study of frequent superintendent turnover in a rural school district: The constituents perspective. Journal of Rural and Small Schools, 4(3), 10–13.

Hosman

(1990, October). Superintendent selection and dismissal: A changing community defines its values. Urban Education, 25, 350–377.

Hosmer

, & Lemeshow

(1999). Applied survival analysis. New York: Wiley.

Iannacone

(1996). Callahan's vulnerability thesis and “dissatisfaction theory.” Peabody Journal of Education, 71(2), 110–119.

10.

Johnston

(2000, December 13). Vacuum at the top takes heavy toll on Dallas schools. Education Week, 20(15). Retrieved March 18, 2002, from http://www.edweek.org/ew/ewstory.cfm?slug=15dallas.h20

11.

Kleinbaum

D. G.

(1996). Survival analysis: A self-learning text. New York: Springer-Verlag.

12.

Lutz

, & Iannacone

(1986, February). The dissatisfaction theory of American democracy: A guide for politics in local school districts. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Association of School Administrators, San Francisco.

13.

McKay

, & Grady

(1994). Turnover at the top. Executive Educator, 16(8), 37–38.

14.

Metzger

(1997). Involuntary turnover of superintendents. Thrust for Educational Leadership, 26(4), 20–23.

15.

Morita

, & Lee

(1993). The regression-analog to survival analysis: A selected application to turnover research. Academy of Management Journal, 36, 1430–1464.

16.

Natkin

, Cooper

, Fusarelli

, Alborano

, Padilla

, & Ghosh

(2002). Myth of the revolving-door superintendency. School Administrator, 59(5), 28–31.

17.

Padilla

, & Ghosh

(2000). Turnover at the top. Presidency, 3(1), 30–37.

18.

Renchler

(1992). Urban superintendent turnover: The need for stability. Sounding Board 1(1), 1–3.

19.

Weller

, Brown

, & Flynn

(1991). Superintendent turnover and school board member defeat. Journal of Educational Administration, 29, 61–71.

20.

Yee

, & Cuban

(1996). When is tenure long enough? A historical analysis of superintendent turnover and tenure in urban school districts. Educational Administration Quarterly, 32(Supplement), 615–641.