Metaphors of Place-Conscious Leadership in the Multidistrict Superintendency: Negotiating Tensions of Place-Consciousness and District-Wide Goal Attainment
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online March, 2020
Metaphors of Place-Conscious Leadership in the Multidistrict Superintendency: Negotiating Tensions of Place-Consciousness and District-Wide Goal Attainment
The purpose of this ethnographic case study is to provide a rich picture of the ways in which the multidistrict superintendent (MDS) engages in contextually responsive and place-conscious leadership across multiple community school districts. Secondarily, the research explores the meaning ascribed to these leadership practices in the form of participant-generated metaphors. We find the MDS employs the metaphors of weatherman, cow herder, and river guide to explain practice as he negotiates tensions of place-consciousness with his goal of a common vision for the multidistrict union.
BjörkL. G.Browne-FerrignoT.KowalskiT. J. (2014). The superintendent and educational reform in the United States of America. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 13, 444–465.
BudgeK. (2006). Rural leaders, rural places: Problem, privilege, and possibility. Journal of Research in Rural Education, 21, 1–10.
4.
BudgeK. M. (2010). Why shouldn’t rural kids have it all? Place-conscious leadership in an era of extralocal reform policy. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 18, 1–26.
5.
CorbettM. (2010). Wharf talk, home talk, and school talk: The politics of language in a coastal community. In SchafftK.A.Youngblood JacksonA. (Eds.), Rural Education for the 21st century: Identity, place, and community in a globalizing world (pp. 115–131). University Park, PA: Penn State Press.
6.
CreswellJ. W. (2012). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
7.
CubanL. (1988). The managerial imperative and the practice of leadership in schools. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
8.
FairmanJ. C.Donis-KellerC. (2012). School district reorganization in Maine: Lessons learned for policy and process. Maine Policy Review, 21, 24–40.
9.
FurmanG. C.GruenewaldD. A. (2004). Expanding the landscape of social justice: A critical ecological analysis. Educational Administration Quarterly, 40, 47–76.
10.
GlassT. E.BjörkL.BrunnerC. C. (2001). The study of the American superintendency, 2000: A look at the superintendent of education in the new millennium. Arlington, VA: American Association of School Administrators.
11.
GruenewaldD. A.SmithG. A. (Eds.). (2014). Place-based education in the global age: Local diversity. New York, NY: Routledge.
12.
HallD. (2016). Local control as resistance: Policy and practice of autonomous school boards(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA.
13.
HallD.McHenry-SorberE. (2017). Politics first: Examining the practice of the multi-district superintendent. Educational Policy Analysis Archives, 25, 1–29.
14.
HallingerP.HeckR. H. (2010). Leadership for learning: Does collaborative leadership make a difference in school improvement?Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 38, 654–678.
15.
HammersleyM.AtkinsonP. (2007). Ethnography: Principles in practice. New York, NY: Routledge.
16.
HarmonH. L.SchafftK. (2009). Rural school leadership for collaborative community development. The Rural Educator, 30, 4–9.
17.
HowleyA.HowleyC. B.RhodesM. E.YahnJ. J. (2014). Three contemporary dilemmas for rural superintendents. Peabody Journal of Education, 89, 619–638.
18.
JohnsonS. M. (1996). Leading to change: The challenge of the new superintendency. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
19.
JonesK.HowleyA. (2009). Contextual influences on superintendents’ time usage. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 17, 1–27.
20.
KamrathB.BrunnerC. C. (2014). Blind spots: Small rural communities and high turnover in the superintendency. Journal of School Leadership, 24, 424–451.
21.
LamkinM. L. (2006). Challenges and changes faced by rural superintendents. Rural Educator, 28, 17–24.
22.
LeCompteM. D.SchensulJ. J. (2010). Designing and conducting ethnographic research (Vol. 1). Lanham, MD: AltaMira.
23.
LeithwoodK. (2010). Characteristics of school districts that are exceptionally effective in closing the achievement gap. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 9, 245–291.
24.
LeithwoodK.LouisK. S.AndersonS.WahlstromK. (2004). Review of research: How leadership influences student learning. New York, NY: The Wallace Foundation.
25.
MasumotoM.Brown-WeltyS. (2009). Case study of leadership practices and school-community Interrelationships in high-performing, high-poverty, rural California high schools. Journal of Research in Rural Education, 24, 1–19.
26.
McHenry-SorberE.BudgeK. (2018). Revisiting the rural superintendency: Rethinking guiding theories for contemporary practice. Journal of Research in Rural Education, 33, 1–15.
27.
McHenry-SorberE.ProvinzanoK. (2016). Confronting rapid change: Exploring the practices of educational leaders in a rural boomtown. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 16, 602–628.
28.
McHenry-SorberE.SchafftK. A. (2014). ‘Make my day, shoot a teacher’: Tactics of inclusion and exclusion, and the contestation of community in a rural school-community conflict. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 19, 733–747.
29.
MilesM. B.HubermanA. M.SaldañaJ. (2013). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
30.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2015). Search for public school districts. Washington, D.C.: Institute of Educational Sciences. Retrieved fromhttps://nces.ed.gov/ccd/districtsearch/index.asp
31.
ReyJ. C. (2014). The rural superintendency and the need for a critical leadership of place. Journal of School Leadership, 24, 509–536.
32.
TekniepeR. J. (2015). Identifying the factors that contribute to involuntary departures of school superintendents in rural America. Journal of Research in Rural Education, 30, 1–13.
