The purpose of this essay is to examine and respond to Tom Glass's (2000) assertions about the dearth of women in the superintendency using the lenses of new data (from two large national studies) and analysis — an analysis that primarily focuses on women superintendents’ and central office administrators’ formal, experiential, and personal preparedness. The essay concludes that women who aspire to and who are seated in the superintendency meet and even exceed preparation requirements and expectations. Further, while experiential preparedness for women may look different from that gained by men, the variation and concentration on curriculum and instruction during career path development may render women better prepared than men.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AlstonJ. A. (1999). Climbing hills and mountains: Black females making it to the superintendency. In BrunnerC. C. (Ed.), Sacred dreams: Women and the superintendency (pp. 79–90). Albany: State University of New York Press.
2.
BrunnerC. C. (2000). Principles of power: Women in the superintendency.Albany, NY: State University of New York.
3.
BrunnerC. C.GroganM.BjörkL. (2002). Shifts in the discourse defining the superintendency: Historical and current foundations of the position. In MurphyJ. (Ed.). The challenge of school leadership: Redefining leadership for the 21st century — National Society for the Study of Education yearbook (pp. 211–138). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
4.
BrunnerC. C.HammelK.MillerM. D. (2003). Transforming leadership preparation for social justice: Dissatisfaction, inspiration, and rebirth—An exemplar. In LunenburgF.CarrC. (Eds.), Professors and practitioners: Building bridges through leadership: NCPEA yearbook—2003 (pp. 70–84). Toronto: Scarecrow Education.
5.
BrunnerC. C.OpsalC.OlivaM. (2006) Disrupting identity: Fertile soil for raising social consciousness in educational leaders. In MarshallC.OlivaM. (Eds.), Leading for Social Justice: Making revolutions in education (pp. 214–32). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
6.
BrunnerC. C.GroganM. (2007). Women leading school systems: Uncommon roads to fulfillment.Maryland, Toronto, UK: Rowman & Littlefield.
7.
BakerB. D.OrrM. T.YoungM. D. (2007). Academic drift, institutional production, and professional distribution of graduate degrees in educational leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 43(3), 279–318.
8.
BjörkL. G.KeyedJ. L. (2003). Guest editors’ introduction: Who will lead? Examining the superintendent shortage. Journal of School Leadership, 13(3), 256–263.
9.
BycioP.HackettR.Allen, (1995). Further assessments of Bass's (1985) conceptualization of transactional and transformational leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 468–478.
10.
FaithG. C. (1984). Women in educational administration: A research profile. Educational Forum, 49, 65–79.
11.
FresherJ. M.FresherR. S. (1979). Educational administration: A feminine profession. Educational Administration Quarterly, 15(2), 2–13.
12.
FulkJ.DeSantisG. (2001). Articulation of communication technology and organizational form. In SharfritzJ. M.OttJ. S. (Eds.), Classics of organization theory (5th ed., pp. 400–518). Orlando: Harcourt College Publishers.
13.
GardinerM. E.EnomotoE.GroganM. (2000). Coloring outside the lines: Mentoring women into school leadership.Albany: State University of New York Press.
14.
GibsonC. B. (1995). An investigation of gender differences in leadership across four countries. Journal of International Business Studies, 26(2), 255–279.
15.
GlassT. (1992). The study of the American school superintendency: America's education leaders in a time of reform.Arlington, VA: American Association of School Administrators.
GlassT.BjörkL. G.BrunnerC. C. (2000). The study of the American superintendency 2000: A look at the superintendent in the new millennium.Arlington, VA: American Association of School Administrators.
18.
Glass (2000). American Association of School Administrators’ ten-year study of the superintendency. Arlington, VA: AASA Publication.
19.
GlassT.BjörkL. G. (2003). The superintendent shortage: Findings from research on school board residents. Journal of School Leadership, 13(3), 265–287.
20.
GlassT.Franceschini (2007). The state of the American school superintendency: A mid-decade study.Lanham, Maryland; Toronto; Plymouth, UK: Rowman & Littlefield Education.
21.
GrossN.TraskA. E. (1976). The sex factor and the management of schools.New-York: Wiley-Interscience Publication.
22.
GroganM. (2000). Laying the groundwork for a reconception of the superintendency from feminist postmodern perspectives. Educational Administration Quarterly, 36, 117–142.
KimY.BrunnerC. C. (2007, November). Career mobility factors and women's access to the superintendency: A structural equation model. Paper presented at the University Council for Educational Administration National Conference, Arlington, VA.
25.
KimY.BrunnerC. C. (2009). School administrators’ career mobility to the superintendency: Gender differences in career development. The Journal of Educational Administration, 47 (1), 75–107.
26.
KowalskiT. (1999). The school superintendent: Theory, practice, and cases. Prentice Hall, NJ.
27.
KowalskiT. (2003). Superintendent shortage: The wrong problem and wrong solutions. Journal of School Leadership, 13(3), 288–303.
28.
LankfordH.WyckoffJ. (2003). The supply of school leaders: A multivariate analysis of administrative certification and transitions to leadership positions.Albany, NY: University of Albany.
29.
LevineA. (2005). Educating school leaders.New York: The Education Schools Project.
30.
MandellB.PherwaniS. (2003). Relationship between emotional intelligence and transformational leadership style: A gender comparison. Journal of Business and Psychology, 17(3), 387–404.
31.
MarksH. M.Seashore-LouisK. (1999). Teacher empowerment and the capacity for organizational learning. Educational Administration Quarterly, 35(5), 707–750.
32.
McClellanR.IvoryG.DominguezR. (2008). Distribution of influence, communication, and relational mentoring in the US superintendency. Mentoring and tutoring: Partnership in learning, 16(3), 346–358.
33.
Murtadha-WattsK. (2000). Cleaning up and maintenance in the wake of an urban school administration tempest. Urban Education, 35(5) 603–615.
34.
NewtonR. M. (2006). Does recruitment message content normalize the superintendency as male?Educational Administration Quarterly, 42(4), 551–577.
35.
OrtizF. I.MarshallC., (1988). Women in educational administration. In BoyanN. (Ed.), Handbook of research on educational administration (pp. 123–141). New York: Longman.
36.
PitnerN. J. (1981). Hormones and harems: Are the activities of superintending different for a woman? In SchmuckP. A.ChartersW. W.Jr.CarlsonR. O. (Eds.), Educational policy and management (pp. 273–295). New York: Academic Press.
37.
RiehlC.ByrdM. (1997). Gender differences among new recruits to school administration: Cautionary notes to an optimistic tale. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 19(1), 45–64.
38.
RosenthalC. S. (1998). Determinants of collaborative leadership: Civic engagement, gender or organizational norms?Political Research Quarterly, 51(4), 847–868.
39.
ShakeshaftC. (1989). Women in educational administration.Newbury Park, CA: Corwin Press.
40.
ShakeshaftC. (1999). The struggle to include a more gender inclusive profession. In MurphyJ.LewisK. S. (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational administration (2nd ed., pp. 99–118). San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
41.
SkrlaL. (1999). Femininity/masculinity: Hegemonic normalizations in the public school superintendency. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Quebec.
42.
SkrlaL.ReyesP.ScheurichJ. J., (2000). Sexism, silence, and solutions: Women superintendents speak up and out. Educational Administration Quarterly, 36(1), 44–75.
43.
TallericoM. (2000). Gaining access to the superintendency: Headhunting, gender, and color. Educational Administrative Quarterly, 36(1), 18–43.
44.
TallericoM. (2003). Policy, structural, and school board influences on superintendent supply and demand. Journal of School Leadership, 13, 347–364.
45.
TaylorS. S. (1977). The attitude of superintendents and board of education members toward the employment and effectiveness of women as public-school administrators. In PottkerJ.FishelA. (Eds.), Sex bias in school: The research evidence (pp. 300–310). Madison, NJ: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press.
YammarinoF. J.DubinskyA. J.ComerL. B.JohsonM. A. (1997). Women and transformational and contingent reward leadership: A multiple-levels-of-analysis perspective. The Academy of Management Journal, 40 (1), 205–222.
48.
YoungM. D.McLeodS. (2001). Flukes, opportunities, and planned interventions: Factors affecting women's decisions to become school administrators. Educational Administration Quarterly, 37(4), pp. 462–502.
49.
ZaccaroS. J. (2001). The nature of executive leadership: A conceptual and empirical analysis of success.Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
