Universities interested in remodeling licensure programs to prepare 21st-century superintendents are faced with a plethora of data to guide curriculum design. This article summarizes survey and focus group findings from current and prospective superintendents and outlines how these data informed the restructuring of the superintendent licensure program at a midwestern university. The curriculum and the delivery model were affected by the data. The authors reflect on the tensions between what the faculty were willing to change about the curriculum, the focus group suggestions, and the best practices described in the leadership preparation literature.
BennisW. G.NanusB. (1985). Organizational learning: The management of the collective self. New Management, 3, 6-13.
2.
BjörkL.GlassT. E.BrunnerC. C. (2005). Characteristics of American school superintendents. In BjörkL. G.KowalskiT. J. (Eds.), The contemporary superintendent: preparation, practice, and development (pp. 19-44). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
3.
BjörkL.KowalskiT. J.YoungM. D. (2005). National education reform reports: Implications for professional preparation and development. In BjörkL. G.KowalskiT. J. (Eds.), The contemporary superintendent: Preparation, practice, and development (pp. 45-69). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
4.
BlountJ. (1998). Destined to rule the schools: Women and the superintendency 1873-1995. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
5.
Browne-FerrignoT.MuthR. (2004). Leadership mentoring in clinical practice: Role socialization, professional development, and capacity building. Educational Administration Quarterly, 40, 468-494.
6.
BrunnerC. C. (2002). Bane or benefit? Considering the usefulness of research focused on female superintendents. In CooperB. S.FusarelliL. D. (Eds.), The promises and perils facing today’s school superintendent. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Education Press.
7.
BrunnerC. C.GroganM. (2007). Women leading school systems: Uncommon roads to fulfillment. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Education.
8.
Byrne-JimenezM.OrrM. T. (2007). Developing effective principals through collaborative inquiry. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
9.
CibulkaJ. G. (2009). Declining support for higher-education leadership preparation programs: An analysis. Peabody Journal of Education, 84, 453-466.
10.
CreightonT. B. (2007). School and data: The educator’s guide for using data to improve decision making (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
11.
CurryB. K. (2000). Women in power: Pathways to leadership in education. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
12.
DonaldJ. G. (1999). Motivation for higher-order learning. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 78, 27-35.
13.
EllerJ.CarlsonH. C. (2009). So, now you’re the superintendent. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
14.
GallM. D.BorgW. R.GallJ. P. (1996). Educational research: An introduction. White Plains, NY: Longman.
15.
GarnG.BrownC. (2008). Women and the superintendency: Perceptions of gender bias. Journal of Women in Educational Leadership, 6(1), 49-71.
HollingworthL.DudeD. (2009). Race, gender, and school leadership in a state with shifting student demographics. Journal of Women in Educational Leadership, 7(4), 175-194.
18.
JamesE. A.MilenkiewiczM. T.BucknamA. (2008). Participatory action research for educational leadership: Using data-driven decision making to improve schools. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
19.
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 Press.
20.
KowalskiT. J.LasleyT. J.MahoneyJ. H. (2008). Data-driven decisions and school leadership: Best practices for school improvement. Boston, MA: Pearson/Allyn and Bacon.
21.
McCarthyM. M. (1999). The evolution of educational leadership preparation programs. In MurphyJ.Louis SeashoreK. (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational administration (2nd ed., pp. 119-139). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
22.
MertzN. T. (2006). The promise of title IX: Longitudinal study of gender in urban school administration, 1972 to 2002. Urban Education, 41, 544-559.
23.
MertzN. T.McNeelyS. R. (1994). How are we doing? Women in urban school administration. Urban Education, 28, 361-372.
24.
MontzC. B.WanatC. L. (2008). Slow path to the superintendency: Women’s social networks and negotiation skills. Journal of Women in Educational Leadership, 6(1), 29-47.
RuschE. (2004). Gender and race in leadership preparation: A constrained discourse. Educational Administration Quarterly, 40, 14-46.
27.
ShakeshaftC. (1987). Women in educational administration. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.
28.
SmithM. S.O’DayJ. (1990). Systemic school reform. In FuhrmanS. H.MalenB. (Eds.), The politics of curriculum and testing (pp. 233-267). Bristol, PA: Falmer.
29.
TallericoM. (2000). Accessing the superintendency: The unwritten rules. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
30.
TallericoM.BurstynJ. N.PooleW. (1993). Gender and politics at work: Why women exit the superintendency. St. Louis, MO: National Policy Board for Educational Administration.
31.
WessonL. H.GradyM. L. (1994). An analysis of women urban superintendents: A national study. Urban Education, 28, 412-424.
