This article reports the results of a survey of novice superintendents in California, Missouri, North Carolina, and Ohio. The research provides a profile of novice superintendents and their opinions regarding the adequacy of academic preparation and the problems they encountered after entering this challenging position. Findings indicate that the novices were typical demographically of all superintendents, and generally, they were satisfied with their academic preparation. However, they were highly focused on managerial problems, an outcome likely explained by nature of their employing districts. The typical novice was employed in a district that (a) was rural (b) enrolled less than 1,000 students, and (c) was below average in taxable wealth. Findings and conclusions provide insights for improving academic preparation and for considering changes to state policy that could affect qualifications for this challenging position.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AndrewsR.GroganM. (2002, February). Defining preparation and professional development for the future. Paper commissioned for the First Meeting of the National Commission for the Advancement of Educational Leadership Preparation. Wingspread Conference Center. Racine, WI.
2.
ArmstrongD. G.HensonK. T.SavageT. V. (1994). Education: An introduction (4th ed.). New York: Macmillan.
3.
BeverageL. H. (2003). Inhibiting factors to effectiveness and the adaptability of new superintendents in Virginia. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Virginia, Charlottesville.
4.
BjörkL. G.GurleyD. K. (2005). Superintendent as educational statesman and political strategist. In BjörkL. G.Kowalski,T. J. (Eds.), The contemporary superintendent: Preparation, practice, and development (pp. 163–185). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
5.
BjörkL. G.KowalskiT. J.Browne-FerrignoT. (2006). Learning theory and research: A framework for changing superintendent preparation and development. In BjörkL. G.Kowalski,T. J. (Eds.), The contemporary superintendent: Preparation, practice, and development (pp. 71–106). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
6.
BjörkL. G.KowalskiT. J.YoungM. D. (2006). National education reform reports: Implications for professional preparation and development. In BjörkL. G.KowalskiT. J. (Eds.), The contemporary superintendent: Preparation, practice, and development (pp. 45–70). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
7.
BorkoH.PutnamR. (1996). Learning to teach. In CalfeeR.BerlinerD. (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 673–708). New York: Macmillan.
8.
Broad Foundation & Thomas B. Fordham Institute. (2003). Better leaders for America's schools: A manifesto.Los Angeles: CA.
9.
CallahanR. E. (1962). Education and the cult of efficiency: A study of the social forces that have shaped the administration of public schools.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
10.
CallahanR. E. (1966). The superintendent of schools: A historical analysis. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 0104 410).
11.
CeglarekN. E. (2004). Lonely at the start: A first-year superintendent. School Administrator, 61(2), 13.
12.
CooperB. S.FusarelliL. D.CarellaV. A. (1999). Career crisis in the school superintendency? The results of a national survey.Arlington, VA: American Association of School Administrators.
13.
CooperB. S.FusarelliL. D.JacksonB. L.PosterJ. (2002). Is “superintendent preparation” an oxymoron? Analyzing changes in programs, certification, and control. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 1(3), 242–255.
14.
CooperB. S.FusarelliL. D.RandallE. V. (2004). Better policies, better schools: Theories and applications.Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
15.
DoolittleV.JacobsonS.LeTendreB.McCarthyM. (2003, April). Tracking leadership preparation to practice and back. Research paper presented at the Annual Meeting of The American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.
16.
FeistritzerE. (2003). Certification of publicschool administrators.Washington, DC: The National Center for Education Information.
17.
GlassT. E., (2001). Study of first-year superintendents. ERS Spectrum, 19(3), 26–32.
18.
GlassT. E.BjörkL.BrunnerC. C. (2000). The study of the American school superintendency, 2000. A look at the superintendent of education in the new millennium.Arlington, VA: American Association of School Administrators.
19.
GlassT. E.FranceschiniL. A. (2007). The state of the American school superintendency: A mid-decade study.Lanham, MD. Rowman & Littlefield Education.
20.
GrossmanP.ThompsonC. (2004). District policy and beginning teachers: A lens on teacher learning. Educational Evaluation & Policy Analysis, 26(4), 281–301.
21.
HessF. M. (2003). A license to lead? A new leadership agenda for America's schools.Washington, DC: Progressive Policy Institute.
22.
JacksonB. L.KelleyC. (2002). Exceptional and innovative programs in educational leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 38(2), 192–212.
23.
KowalskiT. J., (2001). The future of local school governance: Implications for board members and superintendents. In BrunnerC.BjörkL. (Eds.), The new superintendency (pp. 183–201). Oxford, UK: JAI, Elsevier Science.
24.
KowalskiT. J., (2004). The ongoing war for the soul of school administration. In LasleyT. J. (Ed.), Better leaders for America's schools: Perspectives on the Manifesto (pp. 92–114). Columbia, MO: University Council for Educational Administration.
25.
KowalskiT. J., (2005). Evolution of the school district superintendent position. In BjörkL.KowalskiT. J. (Eds.), The contemporary superintendent: Preparation, practice and development (pp. 1–18). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
26.
KowalskiT. J., (2006). The school superintendent: Theory, practice, and cases (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
27.
LevineA. (2005). Educating school leaders.Washington, DC: Education Schools Project.
28.
LuekerD. H. (2002). Superintendent rookies. The School Administrator, 59(9), 6–7.
29.
MartinK. M. (2004). Assuring novice teacher competency in Ohio and Japan. Action in Teacher Education, 26(3), 52–58.
30.
MorrisH. B. (2004). A descriptive study of the challenges faced by first year rural school superintendents in Texas. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Stephen F. Austin State University.
31.
MurphyJ. (2001). The changing face of leadership preparation. School Administrator, 58(10), 14–17.
32.
OrrM. T. (2003). Evaluating educational leadership development: What and how to measure leadership preparation and its impact.New York: Teachers College.
33.
PetersenG. J.ShortP. M., (2002July). An examination of the school board president's perception of the district superintendent's interpersonal communication competence and board decision making. Journal of School Leadership, 12(4), 411–436.
34.
PetersenG. J.ShortP. M., (2001October). The school board president's perception of the district superintendent: Applying the lens of social influence and social style. Educational Administration Quarterly, 37(4), 533–570.
35.
YeomanD. R. (1991). Diary of a first-year superintendent. School Administrator, 48(7), 22–27.
36.
YoungM. D.PetersenG. J.ShortP. M. (2002). The complexity of substantive reform: A call for interdependence among key stakeholders. Educational Administration Quarterly, 38(2), 137–175.
