Download pdf - Finding The Right Fit - Wallace Foundation · EFFECTIVE SUPERINTENDENTS, EFFECTIVE BOARDS3 T his questioning of the role of local leadership has not always existed. For most of the

S P E C I A L R E P O R TE d u c a t i o n W r i t e r s A s s o c i a t i o n

Effective Superintendents, Effective Boards

Finding The Right Fit

Finding The Right Fit

2 E F F E C T I V E S U P E R I N T E N D E N T S , E F F E C T I V E B O A R D S

Currently, most of the attention on reforming schools

focuses on classrooms. The reasoning is that dedicated, well-

qualified teachers can boost student achievement despite the

chaos swirling outside their classroom doors. Ideally, they

work under a principal who provides them with the right mix

of support and autonomy.

Reform efforts that rely solely on the work of individual

teachers or even exemplary principals, however, are not

enough. For most of the past two decades of change in

K-12 education, researchers and policymakers also have

acknowledged the importance of the system — the district

and the state — to moving reforms ahead. Systemic

change may have been background noise for all the atten-

tion to teacher quality and high standards, but it never left

the agenda of education researchers and policy gurus. The

knowledge base about what makes for good district lead-

ership is expanding. The quality of leadership provided —

or not provided — by local superintendents and school

boards can be explored with more than anecdotes

and war stories.

“School reform ultimately has to happen in the class-

room,” says Paul Hill, acting dean of the Daniel J. Evans

School of Public Affairs at the University of Washington. “But

the odds that you’re going to get spontaneous improvement

in the classroom without changing the broader, regulatory

environment are pretty low. Classrooms are the way they are

in large part because of what happens at the district level.”

That point is not always appreciated by the public or in

reporting about schools. The public and parents probably

don’t yet associate better outcomes for students with what a

superintendent or school board does, points out Marla Ucelli,

director of a district redesign effort for the Annenberg

Institute for School Reform. Similarly, in recent years states

have tended to make an end-run around districts and deal

directly with school sites. They rarely consider, she says, “the

impact of districts beyond their potential to do harm.”

“School boards are looking for God—on a good day.” Atlanta-based superintendent recruiter, as quoted in the New York Times

“The hero-superintendent is an ideal seldom realized.

The whole governance structure is tilted against

strong executive leadership.”

From “School Boards,” a report by Paul Hill

Just what should the public expect from

the leadership at the school district level?

Why does it seem to be eternally controversial in many places, especially in

urban districts? What difference could achieving “the right fit” between

superintendents and school boards make in the learning of children?

OVERVIEW

E F F E C T I V E S U P E R I N T E N D E N T S , E F F E C T I V E B O A R D S 3

This questioning of therole of local leadershiphas not always existed.For most of the history

of K-12 education in this coun-try, school boards enjoyed closeties with parents and smoothrelationships with superintend-ents. In the early history of theeducation system, families andneighbors banded together to pay for the education of theirchildren. In the early 1800s,they agreed to pay taxes for theeducation of all children in acommunity, provided controlremained in local hands. Schoolcommittees, then boards, werecreated to make important decisions.When the number of schools began togrow, school committees organized intodistricts or county systems. The role ofadministrator grew from “principalteacher” for each school, hence the term“principal,” to an overall administrator,the superintendent.

The role of the superintendent during the early years of districts andcounty systems was almost entirelyinstructional and tightly controlled bythe school committees. Some educationleaders, particularly Horace Mann andHenry Barnard, argued for even greatercentralization, especially in the cities,partly to wrest control of schools awayfrom ward politics. This was accom-plished by the early 1900s. Centralizedcity school boards were run more likecorporate boards of directors, with

board members responsible for settingoverall policy, and professional superin-tendents – resembling corporate chief

administrative officers – responsible for the district’s day-to-day operation,according to Deborah Land, a post doctorate fellow at the Center forOrganization of Schools at JohnHopkins University and author of a

report on the role of local schoolboards. In non-urban areas,school districts adopted the samemanagement model, but thesmallness of most schools anddistricts kept the organizationmore personal.

Even though consolidation ofschools and districts began in the1870s, at the middle of the 20thcentury there still were almost84,000 separate school districts inthis country, each usually with atleast five school board members.Today, there are fewer than

13,500 districts; the NationalSchool Boards Association claims

more than 95,000 members, a far cryfrom the several hundred thousand citizens involved in schools when there

were more than 200,000 schools or dis-tricts with separate boards. Other thansmall, rural districts, most now aremore bureaucratic than community-based. Many are mired in relationshipsthat often pit local lay leaders against

“What you have are traditional, superintendent-run districts

with supportive school boards working very much in the

background and a strong community consensus to keep it

going. They’re getting good results, and it’s because of the

quality of the district leadership.” Mike Kirst, Stanford University

A TRADITIONon Trial


professional managers. Sometimes thisworks. Sometimes the arrangement isso controversial that some policymak-ers, researchers and members of thepublic are calling for new structures.

Dissatisfaction with the way manylocal school districts are governed — by an elected school board and anappointed or elected superintendent —runs deep. In fact, 52 percent of super-intendents judged to be outstanding bytheir peers and polled by the EducationCommission of the States, said themodel needs to be “seriously restructured,” although they did notspecify how it should change. Another 16 percent called for the model to bereplaced. A national survey by PublicAgenda found that nearly seven of10 superintendents say their boardsinterfere where they shouldn’t, and two-thirds believe “too many school boards would rather hire a superintendent they can control.”

Yet, despite the dissatisfaction withthe school board/superintendentmodel, Michael Kirst, StanfordUniversity education professor, says itcan be effective. “Of course it canwork,” says Kirst. “There are districts

out there where school boards havechosen good superintendents and stuckwith them. And where, as a result,classroom instruction has improved ina large number of schools. That’s mymeasure of success, and it wouldn’thappen without good leaders.” Kirstcites school districts in Long Beach andElk Grove, Calif., as examples. “What

you have are traditional, superintend-ent-run districts with supportive schoolboards working very much in the background and a strong communityconsensus to keep it going,” says Kirst.“They’re getting good results, andit’s because of the quality of the district

leadership.”

School Board presidents say system works

Findings of a survey of 2,096 school board presidents from across the country:

— Education Commission of the States survey of school board presidents,

conducted by Thomas Glass, University of Memphis

• 64.2 percent reported turnover of

three or more superintendents in the

past 10 years.

• Boards were dissatisfied with the

performance of the previous superin-

tendent 42.7 percent of the time.

• 73 percent said that at least half of

the applicants were “well-qualified.”

• One-third claimed their board works

well together “all” of the time

• 60 percent believe their board works

well together “most” of the time.

• 30 percent said they would not run

again for a board position.

• Nearly 75 percent say there is no

need to change the present model of

school board governance.

Superintendent leaders say their role is in a state of crisis

Findings of a survey of 175 superintendents judged nationally by their peers to be outstanding:

• 71 percent agree that the super-

intendency is in a state of crisis.

• 93 percent say they have a col-

laborative relationship with the

school board

• 88 percent feel their board is

effective

• 30 percent believe the current

model should continue as it

exists (52 percent believe it

should be seriously. restruc-

tured; 16 percent say it needs to

be completely replaced.)

• 37 percent report that insignifi-

cant, time-consuming demands

limits their effectiveness.

• 35.1 percent say they would be

more aggressive in pursuing

school reform initiatives if given

six-year contracts.

• 29 percent feel they were hired

because of their ability to be an

instructional leader.

— Education Commission of the States survey of superintendents, conducted by Thomas Glass, University of Memphis


The heightened interest inschool district leadershipcomes at a time whendemands on local school

leaders — superintendents and schoolboards — have never been greater. This,at a time when the majority face budgetshortages, growing numbers of at-riskstudents, and federal and state man-dates — frequently unfunded — thatdetermine much of what happens inthe classroom. The need for enlightenedpolicymaking stretches the capacities of school boards, which are, after all,voluntary jobs. Except in urban districts, board members rarely receivecompensation. At the same time, super-intendents are expected to be efficientmanagers and instructional leaders.

The issues at the district level aremore demanding than ever. Districtleaders must distribute resourcesaccording to equity and fairness with-out alienating major constituencies.They must be good data analyzers. Theymust push good practice and eliminatewhat isn’t working. They determinehow capacities to deliver high-qualityinstruction can be boosted. The federalNo Child Left Behind legislation hasplaced specific deadlines on districtleadership for getting all of these thingsdone in ways that assure that all children achieve at high levels. Districtleaders are under pressure to align localstandards for teaching and learningwith state standards. The federal lawmakes school district leadership trans-parent. The public must be informedregularly of progress under the Act’srequirements.

All of this points to a more urgentneed than ever to clarify just what

defines an “effective” superintendentand “effective” board, and how theirroles and responsibilities can mesh sothat entire districts perform at the levelsdemanded.

Effective Superintendents

Effective superintendents, accordingto Mike Kirst, have a vision of whatgood instruction is and know how toexecute programs that will improveteaching and learning. “It’s not aboutgetting a bond issue passed. It’s aboutimproving classroom instruction.” Still,research on superintendent effective-ness “remains sparse and leaves muchto be desired,” says Janet Thomas, aresearcher with the Center for SocialOrganization of Schools at JohnsHopkins University. Studies of the roleof school districts’ chief executive offi-cers, she adds, offer vague suggestionsof effective leadership characteristicsand have not linked leadership styles todistrict or student performance.

One study, however, made a connection between attributes of super-intendents and improvement of studenttest scores. George Petersen of theUniversity of Missouri collected datafrom superintendents, school boards,and principals in five California districts that had the largest percentilegrowth on state assessments in the late1980s (they were mid-sized districts,with 5,500 to 9,500 students). Thesuperintendents showed instructionalleadership by:� articulating a vision for children’s

education and weaving that visioninto the mission of the districts;

� organizing support for that visionthrough personnel moves, shared

decision making, board memberinvolvement and use of key instructional strategies; and

� evaluating and assessing personneland programs.All of the superintendents in the

study were highly visible in their dis-tricts, visiting classrooms regularly andreporting their observations to princi-pals. They kept the focus on the dis-tricts’ goals for students, putting a highpremium on intensive staff develop-ment that supported the goals. Petersenalso found an organizational structuresupporting the superintendents’ leader-ship. The superintendents could replaceprincipals and other administrators, thedistricts had fiscal stability, and theschool boards gave the superintendentslatitude to make decisions.

The new and unfamiliar challengesfacing public education today requireschool leaders to be flexible and col-laborative, rather than authoritative,says Ron Heifetz, founding director ofthe Center for Public Leadership atHarvard’s Kennedy School ofGovernment. “Authority relationshipsfunction beautifully until the environ-ment changes.” But confronting complex and often unanticipatedproblems calls for flexible thinking,collaboration and shared decision-making. Broad-based leadership canalso help districts maintain the impe-tus for reform even in districts experi-encing high rates of superintendentand/or school board turnover. And themore people who are involved in formulating a district’s reform agenda,the more people there are with a stakein its success, Heifetz says.

Paul Houston, executive director ofthe American Association of SchoolAdministrators, summarizes thechanging roles and expectations ofsuperintendents this way.Superintendents once were consideredsuccessful if they could manage the“B’s” of district leadership: buildings,buses, books, budgets and bonds.Today, he says, the challenge is to shiftthe focus of district leadership to the

What is EFFECTIVE

LEADERSHIP?


“C’s”: “things like connection,communication, collaboration,community building, child advocacy,and curricular choices,” that lead toacademic progress for all children.

Managing The Politics

The current clamor may be for“instructional leadership,” but districtleaders also must effectively managechange in highly complex, politicallycharged and often contentious system.If they are to survive and thrive in theirrole as superintendents, they need tounderstand, and be adept at, the politicsof these jobs.

A former superintendent, Houstoncontends most of his colleagues enjoytheir work and find it challenging. Still,“there is much about the current rolethat is dysfunctional,” he says.“Expectations and resources are mis-matched. Accountability and authorityare misaligned.” The work is now con-ducted in an environment that overtime has grown increasingly politicaland downright abusive.

A study commissioned by ECSfound that 71% of superintendents sur-veyed believe the superintendency itselfis in a state of “crisis,” characterized bypoor school board/superintendent

relations, long working hours andstressful working conditions. Some former superintendents explain why.Ronald Ross, who served as superin-tendent for four years in Mt. Vernon,N.Y., was always “walking a tightrope,having to play politics.” Now a seniorfellow at the National Urban League, heretired primarily because of the majorreason for superintendent turnover: apoor relationship with his school board.Spence Korte resigned in the summer of2002 after three years in the Milwaukeesuperintendency out of frustration witha politically fractured school board.“The reality is, you have to think abouturban schools within a context that’slargely political,” says Korte. The dissension “makes it impossible forleaders to be effective.”

Other superintendents see negotiat-ing the political complexities of aschool board as part of the job. Pascal“Pat” Forgione, superintendent of theAustin, Texas, school district, attributeshis success in earning the superinten-dency to his willingness to campaignfor it. School leaders must be politicalplayers, he says. “Leadership has to beeffective within a political context,”according to Forgione, who is Austin’sseventh superintendent in 10 years.“You have to design your leadership foryour district’s politics.”

Effective School Boards

If many school superintendents,urban in particular, are working understress, so are many school boards.Although still vested with financialoversight and policy-making authority,today’s board members are far lessresponsive to local community valuesthan their predecessors, according toJim Cibulka, dean of the School ofEducation at the University ofKentucky. Especially in large districts,local control has been eroded by a com-bination of voter apathy and growingstate and federal influence over schoolissues, Cibulka says. Board membersalso lack sufficient information or aretoo divided politically to effectively set

What Kind of School Board Do You Have?— By Anne Lewis

Reporters can look at this criteria to determine how well their school boards operate.

FUNCTIONAL DYSFUNCTIONAL

Focused on clear set of beliefs, a plan to Disagreement among members

carry them out, and constant monitoring on goals and process

Established process to orient new board No coherent orientation for new

members, provide continuous training, board members, no investment in

and build collaboration training for board members

All about improving student achievement Unfocused agenda that wastes time

of all students on unimportant, peripheral issues

Differences are never personal in public and Disagreements get personal in public

are about important issues related to student

achievement and well being

Members work together to represent Members represent special interest

the whole district; do not play interest groups or only certain areas of the

group game district

Board keeps regulations to a minimum Board over manages with regulations,

petty matters

Board does work through the Board members play to other district

auperintendent ataff, go around superintendent

Board operates in the open, involves Board avoids transparency, prefers to

community in decisionmaking make big decisions in closed

committees

Board communicates as one body and Board plays favorites with press

works with the media in an ethical manner

Board shares expectations with community Board hires superintendents under

before hiring a superintendent, sets goals, unclear expectations, then changes

monitors and provides feedback frequently its mind frequently


school district policy or priorities, hesays. As a result, boards often aredominated by superintendents or spe-cial interest groups. The boards, saysCibulka, “are not setting the reformagenda.”

In smaller communities, however,school boards still retain their tradi-tional roots. In most such communities,residents consider their school boardsimportant, according to ChristyColeman, president of the IllinoisSchool Boards Association and a mem-ber of the rural Geneseo, Ill., schoolboard. She notes that the vast majorityof school board members are unpaid,and therefore, “really have no agendaother than to make local schools better,which in turn makes their local com-munities more attractive and valuable.”Coleman concedes, however, that notall school board members are effectivethough most try to put a high priorityon student achievement.

Nothing is more predictable thanannual panels of school board andsuperintendent leaders at their respec-tive national conferences, exchangingcompliments and pledges to get along.They write policies and statements toguide local leadership, which, if fol-lowed, would seem to assure respectfulrelationships. School boards need to beconvinced to focus on achievement,contends Deborah Land of JohnsHopkins University. A survey by theNational School Boards Associationfound that only 21 percent of superin-tendents believed it was very importantto hold school boards accountable forraising student achievement, but if theyaccepted this responsibility, their effec-tiveness would improve, she predicted.

High-performing urban districtsalmost always have strong boards, in theopinion of Donald McAdams, presidentof the Center for Reform of SchoolSystems and former Houston schoolboard member. He cites as examplesCharlotte-Mecklenberg, N.C., andHouston, Texas. McAdams dismissesthe image of superintendent heroes“who ride in on a white horse with

shining armor and overcome local poli-tics where these wretched school boardmembers are just screwing things up.”As a former member of the much-praised Houston school board, he saysthe dynamic of district leadership ismuch more complicated. The Houstonschool board, for example, adopted adetailed statement on beliefs andvisions and decided on a brief plan fora new district structure, directing thesuperintendent “to initiate a process forthe development of a plan to imple-ment the beliefs….” For instance, boardmembers set as a priority improvingoverall achievement of students,declared the dropout rate as unaccept-ably high and stipulated that schoolswere overly regulated.

Another urban district that is managing to avoid superintendentturnover and major controversy isBoston, according to Marla Ucelli of theAnnenberg Institute. The superintend-

ent, Tom Payzant, accepted the positiononly after an agreement from themayor, who controls the school system,that he would be given at least five yearsto enact reforms. The average tenure ofall public school superintendents isabout seven years. Yet, most prominenturban districts like New York City,Dallas, and Kansas City made at leastthree or four appointments between1992 and 2002. Thomas Glass of theUniversity of Memphis says chronicsuperintendent turnover, or “churn,” isindicative of a board’s inability to func-tion effectively, and that the results ofbringing a new superintendent onboard every few years can be disastrous.“It not only confuses and discouragesdistrict staff, but also conjures up apublic image of a district in turmoil,” hesays. Often overlooked is how superin-tendent turnover usually derails ongo-ing reform initiatives — initiatives thatgenerally take four to five years to take

Ronald Ross, (right) former superintendent

of Mount Vernon, N.Y. and senior

scholar at the National Urban League

Pasqual "Pat" Forgione, (with kids

below) superintentendent of Austin

Independent school district,

effect and bring about results, he notes.(Payzant completed the five years andwas given a new contract.)

Although little, if any, statistical evi-dence exists to prove that the leader-ship quality at the district level affectsstudent achievement, Glass believes astrong link exists. For example, in districts where superintendents and

principals know their boards are goingto support them, they are more likelyto take risks aimed at bringing aboutreform. But superintendents unsure ofwhat their board members want orinsecure about how they will respondto controversy, are reluctant to sticktheir necks out in an effort to bringabout change.

One of the few attempts to study thelink between school board performanceand student achievement was undertak-en by the Iowa Association of SchoolBoards in 2000. The association’sLighthouse Study compared schoolboards and superintendents in unusual-ly high- and unusually low-achievingdistricts of similar size. The study controlled for differences in the districts’ demographics.

The study found that board members in both the high- and low-achieving districts maintained goodrelationships with their superintendentsand had positive opinions of them.Board members in all the districts stud-ied also exhibited a caring for children.However, in the high-achieving dis-tricts, board members and superintend-ents consistently said their job was to“release each student’s potential.” Theyalso were constantly seeking ways toimprove the district and viewed socialor economic problems as challenges. Inthe low-achieving districts, board mem-bers and superintendents were morelikely to simply accept shortcomings inthe students or in the district. Theiremphasis was on managing the districtrather than changing or improving it.

Board members in the successful dis-tricts also knew more about schoolreform initiatives and the board’s role insupporting them than their peers in thelow-achieving districts. And in the high-achieving districts, board members’knowledge and beliefs were translatedinto initiatives at the classroom level.

This study is reinforced by otherresearch. Richard H. Goodman, projectdirector at the New England SchoolDevelopment Council, examined 10school districts in five states. He found

that well-run districts had lowerdropout rates, a higher percentage ofstudents going on to college, and higheraptitude test scores than poorly run districts. For the purposes of the study,“quality governance” included a focusby the board on student achievement, apositive relationship between the boardand superintendent, and the ability ofthe superintendent to function as theCEO and instructional leader. “Poorgovernance” was characterized bymicro-management by board members,conflict and poor communicationbetween board members and the super-intendent, and confusion over theirrespective roles. (See sidebar on p. 9)

The most recent study by MDRC,released in 2002 and commissioned bythe Council of the Great City Schools,shows similar results. Once again, ashared vision was key for the more suc-cessful urban districts among the casestudies. Student achievement was thehighest priority as well as focusing onachievable goals and the lowest per-forming schools. The districts reformedto serve and support schools. In com-parison, the typical districts lacked consensus among their leaders, lackedconcrete goals and took little responsi-bility for improving instruction.

Glass provides clues as to otherbehaviors that indicate an ineffectiveschool board: members who ran on aplatform reflecting narrow interests orspecial interest groups; boards that areout of touch with the electorate; andboards that lack experienced leadersfrom other sectors in the communitysuch as business and civic groups andwho do not understand the process ofconsensus building.

The traditional district governancemodel needs a redesign, not a replace-ment, according to Goodman and fellow researcher William Zimmerman.Advised by a broad-based board in ayear-long study, they developed a consensus on the roles of schoolboards, superintendents, andboard/superintendent teams that oughtto be established in state law.

A publication of the Education Writers Association.

This EWA Special Report was producedwith support from The Wallace Funds

and its Leaders Count initiative.The findings and recommendations

of this report are solely the responsibility of EWA and its authors.

The Education Writers Association,founded in 1947, is the national

professional association of educationreporters and writers.

EWA President:Robin Farmer,

Richmond Times Dispatch

Executive Director:Lisa Walker

Project DirectorLori Crouch

Special Report Writers:Priscilla Pardini and Anne C. Lewis

Photography Courtesy of:Austin American-Statesman,

The (Westchester, N.Y.) Journal News,and the Johnson Foundation.

© Copyright 2003 by the EducationWriters Association. All rights reserved.

Published May 2003Design by Rabil & Bates Design Company.

Printing by Camera Ready.

Education Writers Association2122 P St N.W., Suite 201Washington, D.C. 20037

(202) 452-9830;Fax (202) 452-9837

[email protected]

S P E C I A L R E P O R T


While the vast majority ofpublic school districts inthis country are not ready to throw out the

traditional governance structure, someare turning to alternatives. These arestrategies to watch:

� In districts that practice site-basedmanagement, principals, teachers andparents are given some of the author-ity for decision-making that has tra-ditionally rested with school board

members and superintendents.Chicago was an early example of theshift to individual school control afterit was named the worst school systemin the nation in 1987 by then-U.S.Education Secretary William Bennett.It has since reverted back to a morecentralized model. Many districtshave adopted versions of site-baseddecision-making.

� Charter school legislation allowsteachers, parents or other citizens toopen and operate their own public

schools under “charters” that freethem from the constraints oftraditional school district policiesand regulations.

� Under school choice programs, thetraditional role of the school boardis eliminated as parents send theirchildren to any school they wishand funding follows each child. Apanel put together by EducationCommission of the States recom-mended a model where schoolboards contract with every schoolinstead of running entire systemsthemselves. Paul Hill of theUniversity of Washington has pro-posed that districts operate chartersfor each school and that both theschool board and the charters meetperformance standards or lose their authority.

� Some have proposed that localschools be incorporated as a separate municipal or county

• Selecting, working

with and evaluating

superintendent

• Serving as advocates

for all children teach-

ers, and other staff by

adopting “kids-first”

goals, policies and

budget

• Maintaining fiscal

responsibility and fis-

cal autonomy, with

the authority to

appropriate local

funds necessary to

support the board-

approved budget

• Delegating to the

superintendent the

day to day adminis-

tration of the school

district, including stu-

dent discipline and all

personnel matters

• Serving as chief exec-

utive officer to the

board of education,

including recommend-

ing all policies and

the annual budget.

• Supporting the board

of education by

providing good

information for

decision-making

• Overseeing the edu-

cational program

• Taking responsibility

for all personnel

matters

• Developing and

administering the

budget

• Managing business

and financial matters,

bids and contracts,

facilities, transporta-

tion, etc.

• Developing and sup-

porting districtwide

teams of teachers and

other staff working to

improve teaching and

learning and support-

ing local school

councils of staff,

parents and students

• Taking care of day to

day management and

administrative tasks

including student dis-

cipline and personnel

issues.

• Having as its top priority

the creation of teamwork

and advocacy for the high

achievement and healthy

development of all children

in the community

• Providing education leader-

ship for the community,

including the development

and implementation of the

community vision and long

range plan, in close collab-

oration with principals,

teachers, other staff

and parents.

• Creating strong linkages

with social service, health

and other community

organizations and agencies

to provide community wide

support and services for

healthy development and

high achievement for

all children.

• Setting districtwide poli-

cies and annual goals, tied

directly to the community’s

vision and long-range plan

for education.

• Approving an annual

school district budget,

developed by the superin-

tendent and adopted by

the board

• Ensuring the safety and

adequacy of all school

facilities.

• Providing resources for the

professional development

of teachers, principals and

other staff

• Periodically evaluating

its own leadership,

governance and teamwork

for children.

• Overseeing negotiations

with employee groups.

Richard H. Goodman, William G. Zimmerman,

From New England School Development Council


Responsibilities of Board/Superintendent Team: Responsibilities of Superintendent:Responsibilities of School Board:

Trying SOMETHING

DIFFERENT

1 0 E F F E C T I V E S U P E R I N T E N D E N T S , E F F E C T I V E B O A R D S

department, or run by a group that would oversee comprehensive educa-tion, health and social services forchildren and families.

Some reforms focus on the superin-tendency itself, with boards opting tohire leaders with corporate or militaryexperience rather than educationalexpertise. It is a trend gaining momen-tum, with Seattle, Chicago, LosAngeles, and New York City as primeexamples. In still other cases, the tradi-tional superintendent’s role has beendivided up, and its duties split betweena chief executive officer, generally anon-educator, and chief educationalofficer. In San Diego, for example,Anthony Alvarado has served as chan-cellor for instruction with Alan Bersin,a former federal prosecutor, as chiefeducation officer, although he plannedto resign in September 2003 and scaledback his work with the district to part-time recently.

A big innovation to watch is mayoralcontrol of school districts. Beginning inthe mid-1990s, states have turned overat least partial control of urban schooldistricts to mayors in Chicago,Philadelphia, New York City, Cleveland,Detroit, Oakland, and Boston.

Mayoral takeovers can be good forstudents and in the mayors’ own bestinterests, according to Thomas Glass ofthe University of Memphis: “Large citiesstruggling hard to retain businesses,renew Although core areas, and attractnew investments hardly need a highlypublicized, failing school district.” Thereis no evidence mayoral takeovers haveyet increased student achievement, hebelieves school boards appointed bymayors are more stable than electedboards, and the districts they oversee,more efficiently managed.

Stanford University education pro-fessor Michael Kirst agrees that themodel has potential. “These are typical-ly school systems mired in bureaucracywith boards that cannot establish a cleardirective for improvement,” says Kirst.“What they need is a quick, large jolt,

and mayors have been able to deliverthat in some cases.” Kirst says mayorswho take over schools need to have a lotof confidence in their leadership ability.“You have to be a pretty bold person tosay, ‘I’m willing to be held accountablefor this system with all of its problemsthat’s hard to turn around.”

Schools in Chicago, Boston andCleveland, where residents recentlyvoted to continue mayoral control, haveimproved, according to Kirst. “They’renot really high quality, but are on the right track,” he says. The reason may-oral control has failed in cities such as

Detroit and Oakland is that the mayorsthere were not given, or were not willing to accept, full control, he says.

A study comparing mayoral-controlled school districts, completed in 2002, found different results but, inall three, no perceptible change in stu-dent achievement. Similarly, Baltimorechanged its governance from mayoralcontrol to a partnership between thestate and the district, and only aftermore than four years and three superintendents (plus one interim)were there signs of improved studentachievement.

Just as schools depend on districtleadership, districts depend on thestrengths of their communities. “IfI were thinking about reforming a

school district, the first place I’d look isto the community,” Glass says, notingthat very few effective schools are foundin what he calls “disorganized” commu-nities — places where citizens fail toagree on major social and educationalissues. “I’d ask, ‘Does the communityknow where the district is in terms ofachievement and program effectiveness?What are the community’s educationalpriorities? What does the communitywant the school district to do? Is theresupport for those things? Are peoplewilling to pay for them? To participate inthe process?’ ”

The MDRC study notes that success-ful urban districts engage the commu-nity. Not only must the school boardand superintendent agree that improved

student achievement is the top priority,but so must community leaders. Thegeneral public should be providingfeedback as well, it concludes.

In his book, Leadership Without EasyAnswers, Heifetz says that leaders “mustchallenge their communities to faceproblems for which there are no simple,painless solutions.” And, successfulreform efforts require long-term, com-mitted support from outside the schoolsystem, says Hill in his book, It Takes ACity: Getting Serious about Urban SchoolReform. “Superintendents are goodsources of day-to-day leadership, butgiven their short tenures, their effortsare not enough,” according to Hill.“Leadership must come from a longer-lasting source and one that is both moredeeply rooted in the community than asuperintendent and less protective ofthe status quo than a school board orcentral office.”

Check the EFFECTIVENESSof the COMMUNITY

E F F E C T I V E S U P E R I N T E N D E N T S , E F F E C T I V E B O A R D S 1 1

James Cibulka, deanCollege of EducationUniversity of KentuckyLexington, Kentucky859-257-2813

Christy Coleman, presidentIllinois Association of SchoolBoards, Geneseo, Illinois217-528-9688

Consortium for PolicyResearch in EducationUniversity of PennsylvaniaPhiladelphia, Penn.(215) 573-0700

Council of the Great CitySchoolsWashington, D.C.(202) 393-2427www.cgcs.org

Pat ForgioneSuperintendentAustin Independent SchoolDistrictAustin, Texas(512) [email protected]

Thomas E. Glass Professor of EducationalLeadershipUniversity of MemphisMemphis, Tennessee901-678-3009

Richard H. GoodmanNew England SchoolDevelopment CouncilMarlborough, [email protected]

Ronald HeifetzKennedy School ofGovernmentHarvard UniversityCambridge, [email protected]

Paul T. HillActing Dean, Daniel J. EvansSchool of Public AffairsUniversity of Washington206-616-1648

Paul HoustonExecutive DirectorAmerican Association ofSchool AdministratorsArlington, Virginia703-875-0722

Michael W. KirstProfessor of EducationStanford University650-723-4412

Michael S. KnappEducation Leadership andPolicy StudiesUniversity of WashingtonSeattle, [email protected]

Deborah LandCenter for Social Organizationfor SchoolsJohns Hopkins UniversityBaltimore, [email protected]

Donald R. McAdamsPresidentCenter for Reform of SchoolSystemsHouston, Texas713-682-9888

National School BoardsAssociationAlexandria, Va.703-838-6722www.nsba.org

Lauren ResnickLearning Research andDevelopment CenterUniversity of PittsburghPittsburgh, Penn.412-624-7020

Ronald RossNational Urban LeagueNew York, NY 212-558-5300

Ted Sanders, presidentEducation Commission of the StatesDenver, Colorado3030-299-3600

State Action for EducationLeadership ProjectCouncil of Chief State SchoolOfficersContact: Patty SullivanWashington, [email protected]

Janet ThomasCenter for Social Organizationof SchoolsJohns Hopkins UniversityBaltimore, [email protected]

The Wallace-Reader’s DigestFundsNew York, NY 212-251-9700Fax 212-679-6990www.wallacefunds.org

Thomas WatkinsSuperintendent of PublicInstructionDepartment of EducationState of MichiganLansing, Michigan517-373-9235

Marla UcelliAnnenberg Institute for SchoolReformNew York, N.Y.212-375-9624

Urban SuperintendentsProgramHarvard Graduate School ofEducationCambridge, MassContact: Robert Peterkin or Linda Wing617-496-4828

The ability of a superintendentor a school board to engagein community building andshared decision-making, or,

for that matter, to adroitly navigate aschool district’s often-turbulent politicalwaters, is meaningless unless suchefforts improve student achievement.

The goal must be to become trueinstructional leaders focused on provid-ing a school environment in whichquality teaching and learning can flour-ish. How to get there? Demand that school board members and school

superintendents measure their owneffectiveness by one and only one meas-ure: according to how well their stu-dents achieve.

Focusing on school leadership with-out addressing other issues – i.e., thesocial conditions that put children atrisk of doing poorly in school, teacherquality, or inadequate school financing– is indeed shortsighted. Yet, the emerg-ing research suggests that improvingstudent achievement across a districtwill only occur under leaders who arecollaborative rather than confrontation-

al and know how to use politics to bringabout change. Those leaders need avision and plans to achieve that vision.Their decisions must be based on harddata rather than conjecture. And theymust have the political will and person-al commitment to stay the course ratherthan succumb to the lure of a quick fix.

Although no one is minimizing theimpact that gifted teachers have on stu-dent performance, the Institute forEducational Leadership says teachersalone can’t make better learning a reali-ty for all students in a school system.“Real learning seldom takes place with-out sensitive yet forceful guidance fromthose who fill education’s leadershippositions – leaders who focus on theimportance of developing high-per-forming organizations, enlightenedpublic attitudes, and a realistic set ofpriorities.”

Sources

Conclusion:

LEADINGfor LEARNING

2122 P St N.W., Suite 201

Washington, D.C. 20037

S P E C I A L R E P O R TE d u c a t i o n W r i t e r s A s s o c i a t i o n

56Y E A R S

of EducationWriting

Education WritersAssociation

• “Who Will Lead? The Role of Superintendents, SchoolBoards and States,” EWA regional conference atWingspread Conference Center, Oct. 18-20, 2002.

• Thinking Differently: Recommendations for 21stCentury School Board/Superintendent Leadership,Governance, and Teamwork for High StudentAchievement, by Richard Goodman and WilliamZimmerman, Jr., Educational Research Service andNew England School Development Council,2000.

• Superintendent Leaders Look at the Superintendency,School Boards and Reform, Thomas E. Glass,University of Memphis, Education Commission of theStates, July 2001.

• Leadership Without Easy Answers, Ronald Heifetz, TheBelknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1994.

• It Takes A City, Paul T. Hill, Christine Campbell, andJames Harvey, Brookings Institution Press, 2000.

• Testimony of Marla Ucelli, California state assemblycommittee on low-performing schools, February2002.The Public School Superintendency in theTwenty-First Century: The Quest to Define EffectiveLeadership.

• Demonstrated Actions of Instructional Leaders: AnExamination of Five California Superintendents,George J. Petersen, University of Missouri-Columbia,Education Policy Analysis Archives, 1999.

• The Public School Superintendency in the Twenty-First Century: The Quest to Define EffectiveLeadership, Janet Y. Thomas, Johns HopkinsUniversity, Technical Reporter No. 55, Center forResearch on the Education of Students Placed at Risk,October 2001.

• Local School Boards Under Review: Their Role andEffectiveness in Relation to Students’ AcademicAchievement, Deborah Land, Johns HopkinsUniversity, Technical Report No. 56, Center forResearch on the Education of Students Placed At Risk(CRESPAR), January 2002.

• Improving School board Decision-Making:The Data Connection, National School Boards Foundation, 2001.

• Steer, Not Row: How to Strengthen Local Schoolboards and Improve Student Learning, Kansas CityConsensus School Governance Task Force, 2001.

• How Boards and Superintendents Impact StudentAchievement: The Iowa Lighthouse Study, IowaAssociation of School Boards, 2000.

• No Child Left Behind Policy Brief: School and DistrictLeadership, by Katy Anthes, Education Commission ofthe States, 2002.

Bibliography

Finding The

Right Fit

Finding The

Right Fit

Effective Superintendents,

Effective Boards

Books and meetings that provided material for report: