Contents
1.0 INTRODUCTION.. 1
1.1. Overview of the Research Problem.. 1
1.2. Theoretical Framework. 1
1.3. Change in the Context of School Superintendents. 3
1.3.1. Superintendents as Communicators. 5
1.3.2. Superintendents as Managers. 5
1.3.3. Case Studies on How Superintendents Effect Change. 7
1.4. School Superintendents are not “Blobs”. 12
1.5. Deficiencies in the Studies. 14
1.6. Study Purpose and Research Questions. 15
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW… 16
2.1. Introduction. 16
2.2. Theoretical Framework. 18
2.2.1. The Three-Step Approach. 20
2.2. 1.1. Breaking the Existing Norms (Unfreezing) 21
2.2.1.3. Refreezing. 28
3.0 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY.. 31
3.1 Sampling and Data Collection. 31
3.2. Data Analysis. 33
3.3 Study Limitations. 33
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1. Overview of the Research Problem
School district leadership has been the focus of a vast body of empirical research for decades as educators and policymakers have struggled to determine what these leaders can do to foster changes in school districts or reform aspects of educational programming (Bredeson & Kose, 2007; Cuban & Usdan, 2003; Klatt, 1996). These research studies have resulted into a rich bank of information about the school district superintendent profession (Kowalski, 2001). As a matter of fact, there is no dispute about the role(s) of superintendents as potential change agents in their respective school districts. According to Portis & Garcia (2007), change in academic realms assumes a number of facets that revolves round sound leadership practices. By fair terms, this postulation is too broad to give a precise account of how school district superintendents’ effect change. As such, this dissertation seeks to carry out an in-depth study on the profession of a school district superintendent with the view of unearthing how they go about imparting change. Ideally, this chapter attempts to dig into prior research studies on school superintendents with view of forming a “literature map” that will be give the entire dissertation a sense of focus and meaning.
1.2. Theoretical Framework
Basing on the fact that school leadership and management is a complex process that requires significant amounts of time, capital, and human resources (Katz & Khan, 1978; Kowalski, 2000), an investigation on how school district superintendents’ effect change can be better approached through a change theory lens. The hallmark of change theory rests on the postulation that change does not happen instantaneously, it is gradual, and that it comprises of significant amount of adaptations and adjustments (Schein, 1995, 1988; Kritsonis, 2004-2005). Precisely, according to Robbins (2003) change does not just occur – it only occurs when the forces sponsoring it are stronger than those that oppose it.
The process of imparting change is a complex one. It entails the transformation of individuals or groups from conditions generally believed to be redundant to more productive ones, and hence it can only be realized when the existing structures are convincingly perceived to be ineffective (Lorenzen, 2009). Perhaps this is the main reason as to why Robbins (2003) affirms that the process of achieving change is gradual and it is directly dependent on the nature of relationships between those at the helm and their subordinates. Based on Lippit, Watson and Wesley (1958) and Robbins (2003), change is a byproduct of concerted efforts meant to address looming issues that impede maximum realization of the envisaged goals and objectives. In the context of superintendents as change agents there are a number of frameworks that help to underscore their positions and/or positive intentions in realizing change in the form of the envisaged goals and objectives.
Again, Robbins (2003) clarifies that change does not just occur – it only occurs when the forces sponsoring it are stronger than those that oppose it. The nature and context of educational leadership and management at any level of jurisdiction involves a lot of processes and personnel (Orr, 2006; Melton, 2009). As such, imparting change in such a bureaucratic environment can be a daunting task. At the school district level for instance, superintendents work with several school boards, principals, teachers, parents, students, and in extension the members of public (Hentschke, Nayfack, & Wohlstetter, 2009). Consequently, so as to impart change superintendents need to work hand in hand with all these stakeholders. To achieve this however, superintendents should step-up the driving forces so as to steer the stakeholders toward the desired ends and to prevent them from reverting their old ways (Robbins, 2003).
1.3. Change in the Context of School Superintendents
In creating a “literature map” as to how school district superintendents it is wise to appreciate the range of challenges that engulf the profession as well as some of the advocated solutions to such challenges. Based on Baumann (1996) as well as Fullan (1996) change at the school level cannot be achieved without a significant overhaul of the existing organizational structures and processes. To this end the authors argue that one core area that should be addressed is the school culture. On the same vein (Kowalski, 2000; Kowalski, 2001; Hess, 1998) argues that meaningful academic achievements cannot be achieved on a silver platter: they need to be tirelessly earned, probably through dedication on the part of the school district leaders.
Moreover, basing their arguments on the educational challenges of the 21st century theorist Murphy (1991) as well as Chance and Bjork (2004) assert that the contemporary education systems need to address the social part of the students needs. This opinion is galvanized by Schlechty (1997) when he asserts that school managers should appreciate that “the way social systems are put together has independent effects on the way people behave, what they learn, and how they learn what they learn” (p.134). As such, the human relations that school superintendents cultivate are directly responsible for bringing about new knowledge and skills. Analytically, change or lack of it is greatly determined by the nature of the social interactions among the leaders and their subjects (Kowalski, 2003b).
The responsibilities of a school superintendent are multifaceted (Firestone & Martinez, 2007). They entail directly working with the school boards, principals, teachers, students, on one side and the state and federal representatives’ one the other (Sergiovanni, et al 2009). As such, being a superintendent demands high levels of “people skills” so as to effectively deal with the conflicting opinions from these two sides while ensuring that the interests of all the stakeholders are fully served (Kowalski, 2004). In a nutshell, this process of absorbing pressure, cracking complex organizational puzzles, formulating workable policies to address challenges, and most importantly fulfilling the demands and expectations of all the educational stakeholders within the school district and beyond cannot be made a reality without first embracing and pursuing the concepts of change (Schein, 1995; Robbins, 2003).
An extensive account on how school superintendents effect change is offered by Marzano, Marzano, and Pickering (2003), when they opine that the school superintendent judicially handles all classroom related issues, gives timely and relevant responses to all concerns from stakeholders, solves conflicts among stakeholders in amicable ways, addresses political overtones related to education, and addresses school boards demands. Similar sentiments are shared by Portis and Garcia (2007), when they acknowledge that school environments are at times awash with all sorts of conflicts, with the superintendent acting as an impartial judge of the last resort.
The core responsibilities of imparting change among school superintendents is part and parcel of their job titles. This postulation is advised by the author’s hands-on experience in the education leadership realm that, school superintendents work in inherently bureaucratic and unpredictable environments. As a matter of fact, they are positioned at a very sensitive position along the overall education management ladder – between the school boards and the state and federal educational authorities. In this regard, their duties entail fulfilling the expectations of both ends which sometimes may be conflicting and unrealistic to achieve. For instance, the state and federal authorities normally issue demands that schools must meet to qualify for financial and other supports while on the other hand the school boards being the very people at the ground may have completely different expectations from the school superintendent (Firestone & Martinez, 2007).
1.3.1. Superintendents as Communicators
Perhaps to delineate in operational terms how school superintendents manage to successfully fulfill their core roles as agents of change it is wise to approach the subject in more operational terms by addressing each of these core elements of change/leadership independently. It has been echoed on several accounts that superintendents are leaders in their own right (Thomas & Moran, 1992; Carter & Cunningham, 1997; Reeves, 2002; Waters & Marzano, 2007). As leaders they are responsible for the day to day implementation of all policy matters as directed by the local, state, and federal educational requirements (Reeves, 2002). In extension, they earn the leadership status by making timely and bidirectional communications between those at the helm of education management and their local levels counterparts. Precisely, Waters and Marzano (2006) and Kowalski (2003b) further elucidate that in order to successfully leverage at the school district level, superintendents employ good communication tactics that help to create new and sustainable relations with their subordinates. Similar sentiments are echoed by Carter and Cunningham (1997) when they assert that superintendents overcome the highly unpredictable stakeholders’ demands by acting as “the communicator[s] to the public” (p.24). Similar opinions are shared by the findings of a survey conducted among nine Manitoba, Canada superintendents where it was revealed that superintendents acknowledged their responsibilities as communicators of new knowledge among the various school heads within their school districts (Wallin & Crippan, 2007).
1.3.2. Superintendents as Managers
Due to the inherent “crossroads” atmosphere within educational leadership realms superintendents roles have evolved over the years (Pristine, 2005; Myers, 2010). Thomas and Moran (1992), for instance assert that superintendents are managers in their own rights just like other conventional managers who “manage great business or industrial enterprise” (p. 42). Consequently, it is evident that to fulfill their changing roles superintendents should be professionals and not employees (Schein, 1985; Myers, 2010). In this regard it has been noted that they succeed in inducing change within their respective school districts by practicing sound planning and time management skills – what Thomas and Moran (1992) sums up as “planners and thinkers” of policy changes (p.42). Moreover, Reeves (2002) argues that superintendents as managers achieve the desired goals and objectives by acting as “the bridge[s] from chaos to clarity for every stakeholder so that students, teachers, parents, leaders, and the broad community know what success really means” (p. 77).
As a matter of fact, the management role of policy implementation has been noted among superintendents particularly as they struggle to make key decisions, coordinate students’ evaluation, and deliver measurable academic results as per the requirements of various educational policy legislations that have been constantly enacted over the years such as the popular No Child Left Behind of 2001(Pristine, 2005; Haglund, 2009). Moreover, the sheer increase in leadership responsibilities occasioned by the changing educational demands reflecting the 21st century societal demands has impacted positively on superintendents into accepting their dynamic obligations that revolve around the initiation, sponsorship, and management of change (Klatt, 1996; Myers, 2010). In affirmation, Sergiovanni et al (2009) opine that the very nature of the contemporary superintendent roles underscores the need for a multifaceted manager who can comfortably handle immense pressure, address conflicting opinions, offer informed guidelines in a wide range of educational issues, and most importantly be seen to achieve the envisaged local, state, and federal educational goals and objectives.
1.3.3. Case Studies on How Superintendents Effect Change
Perhaps the best way to test the applicability highly touted postulation that that school superintendents are change agents is by using a personal case study. The case of Dale Carter who has been a school superintendent for Kenawee Public Schools since 1969 is the most suitable for this purpose given it offers a personalized account of some of the challenges the school district supervisor has to put up with (Jenkins, 2007). As a superintendent in a rural school district in Oklahoma, Carter attests that school superintendents fulfill their obligations in a virtually different manner when compared to their counterparts in urban areas. He singles out the unique sense of togetherness among the members of the community where almost everyone knows his residence, his church, and even how much he tithes. Carter singles out such instances as very difficult to impart changes which may have some inhumane ramifications. For instance, he singles out a case where he had to go out of the rule book and cover a teacher suffering from cancer who had exhausted her normal leaves. Such incidence would have attracted a lot of backlash if it were done in an urban setting. This instance leads to the conclusion that as change agents, school superintendents impart change by being realistic to the unique situations engulfing the communities within which they operate (Jenkins, 2007).
Superintendents manage change processes within their areas of operation through closely coordinating with the media people. By working with the media, superintendents get a chance to tap in on the benefits that comes with the “power of pen” (Jenkins, 2007, p.31). The media is capable of painting a good picture of the school system and its processes, in fact if coordinated well so that it does not portray the negative side of the school system it can go along way in creating a good rapport between the public and the school management systems in the school district. To achieve this nature of coordination Langlois (2004) offers that the school district superintendent maintains a close tab on the media so that quick actions can be taken to prevent any leaks of uncensored information to the media that might harm the credibility of the school district. In the example given above, Carter ensures that he deliver a weekly press briefing about upcoming activities as part of his responsibilities in ensuring the public is informed about the any school changes about to be effected. This way the school superintendent faces very little resistance in implementing seemingly sensitive reforms.
Bredeson and Kose (2007) set out to investigate the school superintendents have been transformed by their responsibilities over a period of ten years starting from 1993 to 2003. Their study singled out accountability as one of the prime movers of reform initiatives they argued were witnessed during this period of time. The study involved all public school superintendents (426) in one of the largest Midwestern states. In examination of a set of two structured questionnaires that were sent to the superintendents the two authors found out that the change agents in their respective school districts engaged in a number change imparting methods. Precisely, the study showed that acting on the pressure from the state and federal educational authorities as well as the demands from the local public school principals and teachers, superintendents achieve the desired ends (change) through careful planning and allocation of appropriate “curriculum priorities, budget increases to support these priorities, increased attention to data analysis, and priorities in hiring assistants to support their work” (p.15). In a nutshell, these complex work environments act as the precursor for change. Superintendents have been found to prioritize and act accordingly executes such priorities.
On his part, Haglund (2009) set out to investigate how large district school superintendents go about ensuring that high academic standards are realized as part of the contemporary public school reform programs. In doing this, he narrowed down his work on a single school superintendent with significant experience serving in the capacity of superintendents at least from 2006. The selected school district, Eastern Seaboard Public School District (ESPSD) was relatively large given it was position seventeen out of a national school district ranking. It was found out that school district superintendents particularly those in large school districts the size of ESPSD had a huge task to impart change. They fulfilled this critical task by effectively employing a barrage of reform strategies that harmonized all the goals meant for improving academic achievement in the school district with close emphasis to the set mission statement. In nutshell, the ESPSD mission statement entailed,
… [To] advance the achievement of its diverse student body through community engagement, sound policy governance, accountability, and fiscal responsibility… [Through] 1) Children are our business and they come first, 2) Parents are our partners, 3) Victory is in the classroom, 4) Continuous improvement in teaching, leadership, and accountability is the key to our success, and 5) Every member of this community shares the responsibility for successful schools (Haglund, 2009, pp.75-76).
This process entailed strategic planning where the school superintendent first embarked on a bonding and a fact finding tour with in the school district, initiated training sessions through a series of “executive retreats [that] kept team focused on the plan and clear about their roles”, drew clear plans and deliberated on the best ways to implement such plans, put in place effective evaluative measures, and employed efficient reward mechanisms to motivate efficiency among the school principals and teachers alike. Essentially, the ESPSD superintendents achieved change in a number of reforms strategies some of which were inherently radical such as the, redrafting of the “role of principal as instructional leader and minimized impact of operational issues on site administrators” the establishment of “a data-driven culture to emphasize the meaning of accountability at all levels…”, putting in place workable infrastructure to mitigate, “challenges of staffing at low performing and high-poverty schools, and low-performing students at all sites” as well as the initiation of a new “brand to focus attention on district master plan’s objective of improving achievement and closing achievement gaps” (Haglund, 2009, p.116).
Kowalski (2005) argues that change in both elementary and secondary schools’ has been realized not as a result of efforts by the educators but by external forces. In support of his assertion Kowalski contends that, “the impetus to refashion organizational structure or operations has been predominately external … [and that majority of] changes that have occurred in districts and schools have been imposed” (p.60). In essence, the school superintendents in their capacity as the link between the state/federal education authorities and the school boards, (Kowalski, 2004) it can be argued that they have been in the forefront of imparting this change. For instance, the implementation of key federal educational directives such as the No Child Left Behind Act as well as state legislations such as performance-based school programs are implemented by the superintendents. After all, it has been argued that school reforms emanating from state or federal levels needs to be locally coordinated for them to fully fit into the system (Henkin, 1993).
In fact, it is conventionally acknowledged that school district superintendents are the persons at the pivotal position for implementing any form of school reforms (Murphy, 1994). He supports these postulations by asserting that, “present-day superintendents across all types and sizes of school districts must wear several different hats if they are to be effective” (Kowalski, 2005, p.50). To achieve this, school superintendents need to be tactful and opportunistic by discerning the most appropriate moments to engage their juniors. Ideally, Kowalski (2003a; 2003b;2004) provides a barrage of strategies which range from “engaging others in open political dialogue, facilitating the creation of shared visions, building a positive school district image, gaining community support for change, providing an essential framework for information management, marketing programs, and keeping the public informed about education” (Kowalski, 2005, p.50).
Kowalski (2005) offers an extensive account of how school superintendents effect change in their respective areas of jurisdiction. In making this account he pays tribute to Callahan (1966) work that portrayed the school superintendent as applied social scientist. He acknowledges that deployment of a barrage of social sciences theories such as role theories, change theories, and social learning theories has enabled superintendents to engage in more result-driven endeavors of administration and leadership. However, so as to be in a position to juggle these social sciences theories, superintendents require intensive training and hands-on experiences. As a matter of fact, as applied social scientists, school superintendents employ empiricism, scientific inquiry methodologies, as well as the skills of drawing inferences from phenomenal happenings and using such inferences to plan for the future happenings. Most importantly, as Kowalski (2003a; 2004; 2005) and Johnson & Fusarelli (2003) asserts school superintendents fulfils their roles as change agents by incorporating the dynamics of behavioral sciences into the school system as well as deploying theory in discerning the behavioral changes exhibited by educational stakeholders in their areas of jurisdiction.
In extension on the applied social scientist methodology of imparting change, (Fusarelli & Fusarelli, 2003) contend that apart from the mere responsibility of discerning problems and formulating policy to ameliorate such problems, school superintendents also employ enculturation tactics. This entails the de-freezing process advanced by Kurt Lewin in his three-pronged theory of change (Robbins, 2003). Ideally, superintendents prepares the ground for change by highlighting on key shortcomings of existing processes and/or institutions then ensures that all the stakeholders are perfectly convinced that there is dire need for change. To achieve this they carryout institutional as well as procedural restructuring by way of inducing new and popular culture that bars subjects from reverting back to the old order. Opportunistically, they then move in with the intended reform packages which they rollout to the stakeholders in practical and operational ways. For example, by drawing out direct links between the new reforms packages and deep-seated social ills such as poverty, unemployment, insecurity, climate change, terrorism, etc.
The contemporary education demands are enormous. There is more accountability on the part of a school superintendent’s job than it has been witnessed ever before. In reference to the requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act, the superintendents are expected to deliver convincing results or else risk their districts forfeiting important funds from the federal government. In bid to avoid such financial forfeiture the superintendents explore all ways of getting those under them to carryout their duties fully. Based on the findings of a research study commissioned by the Wallace Foundation and carried out by researchers from Stanford Educational Leadership Institute, school leaders have been noted to employ a range of methods in imparting the desired change. Among these methods is the conscious efforts made to improvement students academic performance through “the support and development of effective teachers and the implementation of effective organizational processes … preparation and licensing requirements, which generally subscribe to a set of common expectations for the knowledge, skills, and dispositions of school leaders (Davis, Darling-Hammond, La Pointe, & Meyerson, 2005, p.5).
1.4. School Superintendents are not “Blobs”
No doubt school superintendents are not “an amorphous blob that soaks up valuable resources without adding value to a district’s instructional program” as popularly referred to by former Secretary of Education, William Bennett (Waters, & Marzano, 2005, p.2). At least not when they engage in what Waters and Marzano (2006) found out in their meta-analysis of several studies on school superintendents. One of the outstanding findings of their meta-analysis was “collaborative goal-setting” (p.11). This entails the purposive inclusion of all the stakeholders in the schools in the process of identifying and delineating educational based on the unique school district student needs as well the set state and federal obligations. Collaboratively set goals will be easy to implement particularly when the implementers of such goals where involved in process of delineating such goals.
Again, it was found out that superintendents fulfill their obligations as change agents by employing wise and well coordinated distribution of critical resources to areas that they are needed. This is done in tandem with the set goals and it entails cutting down support in some sectors while increasing such support in other sectors. Again, this is done closely with the respective section heads so as to enhance acceptance. Though there may no clear cut restrictions as to what amount should be committed to what sectors, it has been noted that the superintendents have got the knack of identifying the most critical areas, which they go ahead to support. It is arguable that well supported school boards will more likely engage in constructive activities so as to build a strong for future support (Waters & Marzano, 2006).
Apart form the normal educational goals that can be formed under the guidance of the school superintendents during the collaborative goal-setting sessions, it has been advanced that wise school superintendents achieve change in the students performance by pushing for the establishment of “non-negotiable” goals particularly in the most critical areas of student performance and instruction (Waters, & Marzano, 2006, p.12). Such non-negotiable goals are very difficult to alter and school teachers are left with no alternative but to deliver good results or risks facing reprimands from the “federally-pressured” superintendents.
Another key finding was the “monitoring achievement & Instruction” (instruction (Waters, & Marzano, 2006, p.12). To impart change, school superintendents ensure close monitoring of the process of curriculum implementation. For instance, they ensure that the process of instructional giving is closely monitored to ensure uniformity. At the long run this ensures that teachers do not digress from the curriculum requirements. This is carried out in a series of continuous assessment tests on the part of the teachers. In practical terms this method of imparting change is more or less a need-analysis process as the superintendent is given the opportunity to identify which schools are performing poorly and which ones are not. Lastly, it was observed that school superintendents achieve change by aligning the local education board with the non-negotiable goals. This enhances efficiency by eliminating duplication of efforts and resources through the removal of detractors. By combining these two goals it becomes very easy for channel all its efforts in key activities that lead to improved academic performance instruction (Waters, & Marzano, 2006).
1.5. Deficiencies in the Studies
As evidenced by the preceding literature review a great deal has been written about superintendents as change agents. No doubt these are fairly broad statements that fall short of identifying specific behaviors employed by the school district superintendent to bring about real changes that have measurable outcomes and that can be evaluated against a specific standards or requirements. Ideally, the existing studies provide rich background information about the roles of school district superintendents but they fall short of addressing how these leaders impart change or even indulge other stakeholders in realizing change. This apparent lack of specificity is phenomenal given the changing educational trends characterized by accountability, transparency, performance-based management, and the use of empirical data to make critical educational decisions. Moreover, it is ironical to note that even after a wide range of empirical evidence advanced by various research studies across the wide spectrum of school leadership little efforts have been made to address how school district superintendents as change agents impart change in practical and/or operational terms. Furthermore, comparatively juxtaposing some of the salient findings advanced by a wide range of existing research studies against the prevailing educational trends shows glaring discrepancies between theoretical and practical happenings in educational leadership at the local levels. For instance, it is obvious that not all superintendents embrace or impart change in their respective school districts. This is partly because of the dynamic nature the socio-political and cultural environments within which school leadership operates. As such, there is an urgent need to investigate how the school district superintendents’ effect change. Using interviews as the main data collection tool, the research study will investigate this critical area of school leadership with emphasis given to leadership at the local level (school superintendents).
1.6. Study Purpose and Research Questions
The changing socio-political and cultural trends occasioned by technological advancements and globalization calls for a critical examination of the educational leadership realm. Precisely, it has been argued above that a grey area exists on how school superintendents effect change. Moreover, basing on the existing empirical evidence it is only fair to assert that the intense pressure that school district superintendents work under to bring about dramatic improvements in student test scores while simultaneously meeting the needs of an increasingly diverse and multicultural student population impacts directly on their overall performance (Childress, Elmore, & Grossman, 2006). Given that significant achievements have been realized courtesy of their relentless efforts to achieve efficiency at their respective school districts (Hentschke, Nayfack, & Wohlstetter, 2009), there is need to critically investigate how they succeed in doing this despite operating from potentially conflicting environments. This research study will lead to the realization of some of the strong and weak areas insofar as educational leadership is concerned. Such critical empirical data will advice policy formulation and implementation particularly in the areas of improving smooth coexistence between all educational stakeholders at the federal, state, and local levels and most importantly it will enhance quick and efficient service delivery. In this regard the overarching research question is simply “how do school district superintendents effect change.” Other supporting questions are:
- As a long serving school district superintendent what do you do to get other people involved in the management of education at the local level change?
- What do you perceive of superintendents as change agents and what type of preparation at the University and/or professional development is needed?
- Do you feel that you have got all it takes (professional know-how and resources) to impart change at the local level?
- Can you briefly describe substantive change that you as superintendent have helped to make in leading and learning in this or another school district.
- Given your expertise as superintendent what advice would you have to a new superintendent to enhance their ability to reflect needed changes in teaching and learning.
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1. Introduction
The “nearly continuous turbulent …[bureaucratic, unpredictable and] inescapable” environment that the school superintendents function in makes the responsibilities of imparting change part and parcel of their job titles (Starratt, 2004, p.29). This turbulent environment is as a result of positioning the school superintendents at a very sensitive point along the education management ladder, between the school boards and the state/federal educational authorities making them the de facto “mediators” between these two sides. In this regard, their duties entail fulfilling the demands from members of both ends, which sometimes may be conflicting and unrealistic to achieve (Begley, 2004). For instance, the state and federal authorities normally issue demands that schools must meet to qualify for financial and other support while on the other hand the school boards representing the interests of the people at the ground may have completely different expectations from the school superintendent (Firestone & Martinez, 2007). In fact, superintendents who attempt to execute their duties “without [making] reference to the greater environmental context will quickly” meet resistance” (Begley, 2004, pp.8-9).
School district leadership has been the focus of a vast body of empirical research for decades as educators and policymakers have struggled to determine what these leaders can do to foster changes in their respective districts (Bredeson & Kose, 2007; Cuban & Usdan, 2003; Klatt, 1996). These research studies have resulted into a rich bank of information about the school district superintendent profession (Kowalski, 2001). As a matter of fact, there is no dispute about the role(s) of superintendents as potential change agents in their respective school districts. According to Portis and Garcia (2007), change in academic realms assumes a number of facets that revolves round sound leadership practices.
By fair terms, these postulations are too broad to give a precise account of how school district superintendents’ effect change. As such, this dissertation seeks to carry out an in-depth study on the profession of the school district superintendent with the view of unearthing how they go about imparting change. Ideally, this chapter attempts to dig into prior research studies on school superintendents with the view of forming a “literature map” that will give the entire dissertation a sense of focus and meaning. Essentially, the chapter is structured into a number of sections that help to address the salient knowledge claims regarding superintendents as change agents’ vis-à-vis the adopted change theory lens. These sections include:
- Introduction – gives a general overview of the entire chapter by delineating important issues to be discussed in the chapter.
- Theoretical framework – this describes the framework within which the study arguments will be channeled through.
- The three-step approach as applied in the school superintendent context – this section is structured into three sub-sections, each representing a single step. Basically, this section utilizes the three-step framework to describe how superintendents go about achieving the actual change.
2.2. Theoretical Framework
School leadership and management are complex processes that require time, capital, and human resources (Katz & Khan, 1978; Kowalski, 2000). As a matter of fact, existing research work that attempts to address these processes does not provide sufficient grounds as to how some of the critical facets of leadership and management take place. Attempts to demonstrate in operational terms how school superintendents’ effect change have borne little empirical currency as the existing literary accounts have only succeeded in advancing the various roles played by school superintendents as change agents and not how they go about achieving the actual change. As such, there is need for carrying out a focused and impartial research work to investigate how these administrative officers effect change in their respective school districts. To this end, this dissertation adopts the “three-step” change theory lens of, “unfreezing, changing, and refreezing” as advanced by Kurt Lewin (Schein, 1995, p.2).
Conceivably, the wisdom behind this decision is advised by the theory’s central premise that, change does not happen instantaneously, it is gradual, it comprises of significant amount of adaptations and adjustments, and that it can only occur when the forces sponsoring it are stronger than those opposing it (Schein, 1995, 1988; Kritsonis, 2004-2005, Robbins, 2003). Most importantly, change whether from an individual or collective perspective is phenomenal, in that, it entails, “a profound psychological dynamic process that involved painful unlearning without loss of ego identity and difficult relearning as one cognitively attempted to restructure one’s thoughts, perceptions, feelings, and attitudes” (p.2). In the same way, the process of effecting change among school district superintendents is gradual and that it is influenced by a number of forces (Kowalski, 2005). In this regard, the dissertation will seek to describe the gradual process of effecting change as well as the forces behind this gradual process. In essence, it will serve as the blueprint that will model course of the entire dissertation. Perhaps as Chinn and Kramer (1999) postulate, it will serve to express “knowledge … [in] a creative and rigorous … [manner, so as to] project a tentative, purposeful, and systematic view of” the study topic (p.258).
Ideally, the process of imparting change is a complex one. It entails the transformation of individuals and/or groups from conditions generally believed to be redundant to more productive ones (Robbins, 2003). In this regard, change can only be realized when the existing structures are convincingly perceived to be ineffective (Lorenzen, 2009). Perhaps this is the main reason why Robbins (2003) affirms that the process of achieving change is gradual and it is directly dependent on the nature of relationships between those at the helm and their subordinates. Based on Lippit, Watson and Wesley (1958) as well as on Robbins (2003), change is a byproduct of concerted efforts meant to address looming issues that impede maximum realization of the envisaged goals and objectives. In the context of superintendents as change agents there are a number of frameworks that underscore their positions and/or positive intentions in realizing change. Essentially, superintendents are guided by clearly delineated goals and objectives that channel their actions toward a certain point (Kowalski, 2005). These goals and objectives are the equivalent of the change theory framework envisaged in this dissertation.
2.2.1. The Three-Step Approach
Lewin envisaged that for change to take place three basic steps must be fulfilled (Schein, 1993, 1995; Robbins, 2003). Firstly, change entails the opportunistic engagement of concerned elements by creating an appropriate mood for bidirectional dialogue. Such a move leads to the breaking of the existing norms and practices and therefore preparing the ground for change. Essentially, this breaking existing norms and practices requires significant wit in the form of creating an atmosphere of trust and confidence among the members of the group. It is such atmospheres that play the role of incentivizing individuals to develop positive attitudes toward change. Again, the change agent should apply preventive forces that in this case serve as impediments toward any potential slip-backs to the existing behaviors. Lastly, the change agent should closely monitor the overall reception of the change so as to make timely decisions whether to step-up or even reduce either of the driving or the restrictive forces applied (Robins, 2003). On his part Schein (1988), asserts that for real change to be realized organizations must build strong capacities capable of managing immediate and perpetual change. Most importantly, organizations must be willing to “learn how to learn” from emerging issues within their area of operation.
In his second step, Lewin postulates that substantial efforts should be invested in the overall process of behavior change. He acknowledges that the process should be gradual and methodical lest it draws out bad feelings among the stakeholders (Schein, 1995). To this end, Lewin advances three distinct sub-steps whose hallmark is creating a clear distinction between the existing and the envisaged behavior so as to achieve a consensus among the stakeholders. For easy change realization efforts should be made to enhance teamwork among the stakeholders. Lastly, so as to enhance smooth and quick acceptance of the envisaged behavior changes the change agent should cleverly create visible links showing true success stories or even prominent personalities behind the envisaged change (Robbins, 2003). Similar postulations are shared by Schein (1985) when he asserts that organizations should formulate malleable structures that allow emerging issues as well as new ideas to be effectively entrenched.
The third step involves the complete entrenchment of the acquired change into the systems or simply refreezing (Schein, 1995). Ideally, this step is meant to cement the new change into the existing systems and therefore can only be applicable in situations when the envisaged change has been realized (Robbins, 2003). This is necessary to prevent any potential slip-backs to the old ways after a short time of realizing the new change. Essentially, this step involves the active entrenchment of new values, practices, and policies that are responsible for sustaining the new change at the long term. To achieve this, the change agent needs to maintain a state of equilibrium between the driving and restrictive forces through the creation of new institutions, positions, as well as the engagement of additional personnel (Robbins, 2003; Kritsonis, 2004-2005). Schein (1988) strengthens these sentiments by opining that organizations should come up with policies, processes, events, and tasks that allow the optimization of the set goals and objectives while still allowing the participants to freely interact and form strong interpersonal bonds.
2.2. 1.1. Breaking the Existing Norms (Unfreezing)
Schein (1995) asserts the desire to learn and/or change is brought about by “some form of dissatisfaction or frustration generated by data that disconfirm our expectations or hopes” (p.3). In the same way in creating a “literature map” as to how school district superintendents effect change, it is wise to appreciate that the range of challenges that engulf the profession of the school district superintendent are in one way or the other dissatisfying and frustrating, at least going what well as some of the advocated solutions to such challenges. Based on Baumann (1996) as well as Fullan (1996) change at the school level cannot be achieved without a significant overhaul of the existing organizational structures and processes. To this end the authors argue that one core area that should be addressed is the school culture. On the same vein (Kowalski, 2000; Kowalski, 2001; Hess, 1998) argues that meaningful academic achievements cannot be achieved on a silver platter – they need to be tirelessly earned, most probably through dedication on the part of the school district leaders. Moreover, basing their arguments on the educational challenges of the 21st century theorists Murphy (1991) as well as Chance and Bjork (2004) assert that the contemporary education systems need to address the social part of the students needs. This opinion is galvanized by Schlechty (1997) when he asserts that school managers should appreciate that “the way social systems are put together has independent effects on the way people behave, what they learn, and how they learn what they learn” (p.134). As such, the human relations that school superintendents cultivate are directly responsible for bringing about new knowledge and skills. Analytically, change or lack of it is greatly determined by the nature of the social interactions among the leaders and their subjects (Kowalski, 2003b).
The responsibilities of a school superintendent are multifaceted (Firestone & Martinez, 2007). They entail directly working with the school boards, principals, teachers, students, on one side and the state and federal representatives’ on the other (Sergiovanni, et al 2009). An extensive account on how school superintendents effect change is offered by Marzano, Marzano, and Pickering (2003), when they opine that the school superintendent judicially handles all classroom related issues, gives timely and relevant responses to all concerns from stakeholders, solves conflicts among stakeholders in amicable ways, addresses political overtones related to education, and addresses school boards demands. Similar sentiments are shared by Portis and Garcia (2007), when they acknowledge that school environments are at times awash with all sorts of conflicts, with the superintendent acting as an impartial judge of the last resort. In a nutshell, the work of a school superintendent entails the process of absorbing pressure, cracking complex organizational puzzles, formulating workable policies to address challenges, and most importantly fulfilling the demands and expectations of all the educational stakeholders within and beyond the school district cannot be made a reality without first embracing and pursuing the concepts of change (Schein, 1995; Robbins, 2003; Begley, 2004; Starratt, 2004).
The contemporary education demands are enormous. There is more accountability on the part of a school superintendent’s job than it has been witnessed before (Hentschke, Nayfack, & Wohlstetter, 2009). In reference to the requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act for instance, the superintendents are expected to deliver convincing results or else their districts forfeit important funds from the state and/or federal governments (Orr, 2006; Melton, 2009). In bid to avoid such financial forfeiture the superintendents explore all ways of getting those under them to carryout their duties fully (Portis & Garcia, 2007). Based on the findings of a research study commissioned by the Wallace Foundation and carried out by researchers from Stanford Educational Leadership Institute, school leaders have been noted to employ a range of methods in imparting the desired change (Davis, Darling-Hammond, La Pointe, & Meyerson, 2005). Among these methods are the conscious efforts made towards the improvement of students academic performance through “the support and development of effective teachers and the implementation of effective organizational processes … preparation and licensing requirements, which generally subscribe to a set of common expectations for the knowledge, skills, and dispositions of school leaders (p.5).
Basing on Schein (1993, 1995) postulations these inherently turbulent, bureaucratic, and highly unpredictable environments are chiefly responsible for creating the “survival anxiety” complex among school superintendents, or simply the “…feeling that if [they] do not change [they] will fail to meet [their] needs or fail to achieve some goals or ideals that [they] have set for” themselves (Schein, 1995, p.4). Drawing from what Robbins (2003) asserts this survival anxiety complex is an enough opportunistic engagement among the school superintendents that helps to create appropriate mood for bidirectional dialogue with other educational stakeholders within their areas of jurisdiction. As a matter of fact, such a move leads to the breaking of the existing norms and practices and therefore preparing the ground for change.
The personal experiences from a long serving school superintendent, serving a rural school district helps to explain this argument better. Dale Carter has been a school superintendent for Kenawee Public Schools, Oklahoma since 1969 (Jenkins, 2007). Though he attests that superintendents in rural school districts fulfill their obligations in virtually different ways when compared to their counterparts in urban areas, Carter asserts that it is usually very difficult to impart changes which may have some inhumane ramifications to the community. For instance, he singles out the unique sense of togetherness among the members of the community where almost every resident of the school district one knows his lifestyle – his family, his residence, his church, and even how much he tithes. This unique sense of togetherness may heighten the “learning anxiety” or the feeling that by accepting change one will be indirectly acknowledging that they are inadequate in the current situation and therefore ineffective (Schein, 1995, p.4). As such, so as to mitigate this learning anxiety, school superintendents endeavor to impart the “psychological safety” to their subordinates as well as superiors (p.5). It is this psychological safety that helps to assure others that a change is the only way to address the weaknesses presented thereof by the survival anxiety while reducing the potential learning anxiety that might crop up in defiance to the survival anxiety (Schein, 1993).
For example, Carter singles out a case where he had to go out of the rule book to award extra leave days to a teacher who had exhausted her normal leave days due to her long sickness and did the unexpected in covering the whole matter from the public knowledge. He clarifies that such incidence would have attracted a lot of backlash (learning anxiety) if it were done in an urban setting where the members of public are more enlightened as well high levels of transparency and accountability. Most tellingly, the quiet rural setting acted as a source of strong psychological safety that mitigated any fears of public reprisal (learning anxiety) while emboldening the survival anxiety on the part of Carter and perhaps other few Kenawee School District senior officers (Schein, 1995). This is a critical discrepancy between change among the highly bureaucratic educational systems employed by urban school districts against the personalized and humane systems that addresses all pertinent issues affecting all the stakeholders from a case-by-case approach. In essence, basing this real-life situation to what Lewin hypothesized in the first step of his change theory, it is clear that as change agents, school superintendents unfreeze the existing norms through creation of their own informal “parallel systems” … [to] allow some relief from day to day work pressures, [and hence] providing practice fields in which errors are embraced rather than feared” (p.6).
2.2.1.2. Changing
Step two of Lewin three-step change process entails the creation of clear lines between the old habits and the new ones by creating clear “images” of envisaged change (Robbins 2003). This postulation is in harmony with Schein (1995) and Robbins (2003) clarification that, change does not just occur – it only occurs when the forces sponsoring it are stronger than those opposing it. While alluding to the notion that superintendents are change agents, Waters and Marzano (2006) and Kowalski (2003b) elucidate that, superintendents achieve change goals by employing good communication tactics that help to create new and sustainable relations with their subordinates. Similar sentiments are echoed by Carter and Cunningham (1997) when they assert that superintendents overcome the highly unpredictable stakeholders’ demands by acting as “the communicator[s] to the public” (p.24). Consequently, by communicating policy changes in all the time, superintendents draw clear lines between the past and the future – between old/existing policies and the envisaged ones (Schein, 1988). For instance, a survey conducted among nine Manitoba, Canada superintendents concluded that superintendents acknowledges their responsibilities as communicators of new knowledge among the various school heads within their school districts (Wallin & Crippan, 2007).
Even so, in acknowledgement of the large number of stakeholders involved (Pristine, 2005; Myers, 2010). In this regard, superintendents need to work hand in hand with all these stakeholders. Precisely, they should step-up the driving forces so as to steer the stakeholders toward the desired ends hence preventing them from reverting to their old ways (Robbins, 2003). In affirmation to this postulation, Kowalski (2005) argues that change in both elementary and secondary schools’ is realized not as a result of efforts by the educators but by external forces. In support of this assertion he contends that, “the impetus to refashion organizational structure or operations has been predominately external … [and that majority of] changes that have occurred in districts and schools have been imposed” (p.60). In this regard, and as Kowalski (2004) argues, it can be asserted that, in their capacity as the link between the state/federal education authorities and the school boards, the school superintendents have been in the forefront of imparting this change. For instance, the implementation of key federal educational directives such as the No Child Left Behind Act as well as state legislations such as performance-based school programs is wholly the responsibilities of the superintendents (Kowalski, 2005). After all, it has been argued that school reforms emanating from state or federal levels need to be locally coordinated for them to fully fit into the system (Henkin, 1993). In fact, it is conventionally acknowledged that school district superintendents are the persons at the pivotal position for implementing any form of school reforms (Murphy, 1994).
Again, Kowalski (2005) supports these postulations by asserting that, “present-day superintendents across all types and sizes of school districts must wear several different hats if they are to be effective” (p.50). To achieve this, school superintendents need to be tactful and opportunistic by discerning the most appropriate moments to engage their juniors. It is these appropriate moments that helps to re-define key policy indicators and therefore enlarges their overall understanding and in extension their acceptance of the change process. As Schein (1995), redefining and enlarging the overall understanding of the change indicators helps to deconstruct attitudes such as “negative images of ‘group think,’ [and] lynch mobs” (p.6). Ideally, Kowalski (2003a; 2003b;2004) provides a barrage of strategies which can be applied in redefining, enlarging and changing the rewarding standards for change, these are, “engaging others in open political dialogue, facilitating the creation of shared visions, building a positive school district image, gaining community support for change, providing an essential framework for information management, marketing programs, and keeping the public informed about education” (Kowalski, 2005, p.50).
In a nutshell, and in fulfillment of the second step of the three-step change theory espoused by Lewin (Robbins, 2003), superintendent need to exhibit high levels of “people skills” so as to effectively deal with the conflicting opinions from the stakeholders while ensuring that their interests are adequately catered for (Kowalski, 2004). In his study, Haglund (2009) found out that, school superintendents achieve change by pursuing a number of reform strategies, some of which may be considered inherently radical. They include, redrafting of the “role of [the school] principal as instructional leader [as well as playing down the] impact of operational issues on site administrators…”, establishing “a data-driven culture to emphasize the meaning of accountability at all levels…”, putting in place workable infrastructure to mitigate, “challenges of staffing at low performing and high-poverty schools, and low-performing students at all sites” as well as the initiation of a new “brand to focus attention on district master plan’s objective of improving achievement and closing achievement gaps” (Haglund, 2009, p.116).
2.2.1.3. Refreezing
The third step of the three-step change theory involves refreezing (Robbins, 2003). Basically, this step entails the complete entrenchment of the already realized change into the system. Among the school superintendents there are a number methods used to achieve this end, among them the media. As a matter of fact, it has been advanced that school superintendents utilize the services of the media people to pass out critical information that impart the much needed psychological safety among the members of public. Working with the media, superintendents get a chance to tap on the benefits that comes with the “power of pen” (Jenkins, 2007, p.31). In essence, the media is capable of painting a good picture of the school system and its processes by creating fresh and multiple outlooks that the public can adopt for deeper cognitive redefinition (Schein, 1995).
Tellingly, if coordinated well so that it does not portray the negative side of the school system it can go along way in creating a good rapport between the public and the school management systems in the school district (Jenkins, 2007). To achieve this nature of coordination Langlois (2004) offers that the school district superintendent maintains a close tab on the media so that quick actions can be taken to prevent any leaks of uncensored information to the media that might harm the credibility of the school district. In the example given above, Carter ensures that he deliver a weekly press briefing about upcoming activities as part of his responsibilities in ensuring the public is informed about any school changes about to be effected. This way the school superintendent faces very little resistance in implementing seemingly sensitive reforms. Again, by holding weekly press conference, Carter ensures that the Kenawee School District residents develops new semantic and cognitive standpoints as well as fresh judgmental lenses which enable them to adopts broad analytical capabilities particularly to matters of education administration (Schein, 1995).
On the other hand, superintendents solidify the already realized change by exhibiting worthwhile moral values. Schein (1968, 1995) asserts that initiators of change should exhibit high moral values given that they are by default the role models that subjects can look upon for development of strong psychological safety. As the overall bosses in their respective school districts superintendents are by default, role models – as Reeves (2002) argues they act as “the bridge[s] from chaos to clarity for every stakeholder so that students, teachers, parents, leaders, and the broad community know what success really means” (p.77). This postulation is affirmed by Bredeson and Kose (2007) in their study to investigate the extent which school superintendents have been transformed by their responsibilities over a period of ten years starting from 1993 to 2003. Precisely, they singled out accountability as one of the most important moral value that enhanced the processes of instituting reforms witnessed during this period of time. The study involved all public school superintendents (426) in one of the largest Midwestern states. In examination of a set of two structured questionnaires that were sent to the superintendents, the two authors found out that superintendents engage in a number of change imparting methods courtesy of the sound moral values they exhibit – change takes the direction of the “salient and powerful role models” (Schein, 1995, p.9). Moreover, Thomas and Moran (1992), assert that superintendents are managers in their own rights just like other conventional managers who “manage great business or industrial enterprise” (p. 42). Thus, in fulfillment of the second step of the three-step change theory, superintendents should be professionals and not employees (Schein, 1985; Myers, 2010). In this regard, Thomas and Moran (1992) conclude that, superintendents succeed in inducing change within their respective school districts by practicing sound planning and time management skills and by assuming the roles of “planners and thinkers” of policy changes (p.42).
As concerns the salient role model postulation made by Schein (1995), it is a fact that step three of the three-step change theory as envisaged by Lewin can be made a reality if the acquired change is linked to a salient role model that fits into the cultural identity of the subjects. In this case if the role models are not culturally compatible with the cultural personalities of the subjects then such change may last for a short duration of time. The same way with teaching housewives how to eat new types of meat such as liver and kidney from a community that despises such poor meat – they will definitely end up dropping the habit as a result of cultural incompatibility. Role model acts as the source of psychological safety that makes change to have a permanent impact on the subjects (Schein, 1968). Drawing from the findings of Bredeson and Kose (2007) study described above, the pressure from the state and federal educational authorities as well as the demands from the local public school principals and teachers from are the salient cultural expectations that school superintendent have to fulfill. As such, superintendents must strive to bring about new policies that are realistic to these demands. Such culturally compatible policies include appropriate “curriculum priorities, budget increases to support these priorities, increased attention to data analysis, and priorities in hiring assistants to support their work” (p.15).
Collectively, these worthwhile professional behaviors codes demonstrated by the school superintendents as well as other educational stakeholders within and beyond the school districts leverage the process of imparting change. Apparently, they cannot be achieved if there is no goodwill on the part of the school superintendents’ and most importantly, their subordinates.
3.0 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Babbie (2004) opines that a number of research models of studying superintendents as change agents exist – exploratory as well as explanatory methodologies can be used. Ideally, exploratory methodology can only take a qualitative tone while explanatory can take either qualitative or quantitative overtones. For purposes of this proposed study a qualitative research will be the most appropriate given its capabilities to identify the superintendents’ effect on change in operational terms. Precisely, a qualitative methodology ensures that all key issues that affect a particular phenomenon such as superintendents’ role as change agents are clearly outlined. Moreover, basing on Creswell (2003) postulations on interviews and case studies it can be argued that a qualitative research offers the best option for the proposed research given the underlying research problem centers on how school district superintendents go about achieving the desired educational changes.
3.1 Sampling and Data Collection
The sampling and data collection processes of the study will be based on a number of existing social research theories. Owing to the large number of superintendents in the state of Illinois only a small fraction of this population will be considered for the study – between eight and twelve superintendents. Apparently, this is in accordance with Ader, Mellenbergh, and Hand (2008) postulations that a study sample should enhance easy data collection, low costs, and most importantly should be a complete representation of the targeted demographic. Essentially, the superintendents will be selected on the basis of their experience in the field of education leadership, with five years of service being the minimum qualification. Given the small size of the study sample there will be no coercion for participation – school superintendents will be approached and their voluntary consent of participation sought. To avoid cases of mortality during the study, superintendents’ personal information will not be revealed – only information relevant to the research problem will be collected from the participants. The study will be restricted within an area of about 100 mile radius in the state of Illinois. Based on Pedhazur and Schmelkin (1991) method of sampling the proposed study will employ a stratified sampling method the 100 mile radius region will be divided into six strata. Each stratum will be sampled independently. Only two superintendents will be selected from each stratum. To ensure that the selected participants fulfill the study sampling criteria the state’s public school records will be consulted and personal contacts for qualifying candidates (Superintendents) taken. Then the individual superintendents will be contacted through internet, telephone, or even by visiting them in work stations (Creswell, 2003).
The structured interviews and questionnaires will borrow samples from Creswell (2003) and Kvale and Britmann (2008). The process of data collection will involve two levels as postulated by (Babbie, 2004). Firstly, the superintendents will be sent the structured questionnaires to fill accordingly. The questionnaires will be studied, transcribed, coded and analyzed. Secondly, highly structured physical interviews will be conducted in venues convenient with the busy superintendents’ daily schedules. Similarly, data collected from these interviews will be subjected to the same process of analysis (Creswell, 2003).
3.2. Data Analysis
Due to the intensive nature of the proposed research problem collected through the structured interviews will be analyzed using a continuous method (memoing) (Trochim, 2006). First, data from the structured interviews and questionnaires will be subjected to a purposive scrutiny to check accuracy. Then it will be closely studied and all important information (main points) in regards to the research problem will be jotted down in a memo in form of short notes. These short notes will be transcribed for easy analysis using qualitative data analysis method. The transcribed data will then be subjected to further scrutiny and coded into meaningful units for easy analysis (Maxfield & Babbie, 1995). For instance, likely codes in the study may include: conflict solving, communication, mentoring, coercion, in-servicing, role modeling, etc.
3.3 Study Limitations
Some of this proposed research study limitations include the selection-mortality threat that may be more pronounced especially when there is a higher propensity to withdraw on the part of the study participants. To some extent social interaction threats such as compensatory rivalry, resentful demoralization, compensation equalization threat, and imitation threat may pose some substantial amount of validity doubts to this qualitative research given it will rely on the end results of the interpersonal interactions (interviews and observation) between the participants and the researcher(s) (Trochim, 2006). Even so, there is a higher predisposition for avoiding these seemingly glaring validity snags given that the randomly selected participants will be fetched from state of Illinois public schools and therefore there is a lesser probability for them to have prior awareness about each other, a thing that will work positively towards mitigating any potential social interactions threats.
References
- Bauman, P. C. (1996). Governing education: Public sector reform or privatization. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
- Begley, P.T. (2004). Understanding valuation processes: Exploring the linkage between motivation and action. International Studies in Educational Administration, 32(2), 4-17.
- Bredeson, P.W. & Kose, B.W. (2007). Responding to the education reform agenda: A study of school superintendents’ instructional leadership. EPAA, 15(5), 1-10.
- Callahan, R. E. (1966). The superintendent of schools: A historical analysis. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 0104 410).
- Carter, G.R., & Cunningham, W.G. (1997). The American school superintendent: Leading in an age of pressure. San Francisco, California: Jossey-Bass Inc.,
- Chance, P.L. & Bjork, L.G. (2004). The social dimensions of public relations. In T.J. Kowalski (Ed.), Public relations in schools (3rd), pp. 125-148. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill, Prentice Hall.
- Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1978). The social psychology of organizations, (2nd ed.). New York: John Wiley.
- Cuban, L. & Usdan, L. (eds.) (2003). Powerful reforms with shallow roots: Improving America’s urban schools. New York: Teacher’s College Press.
- Davis, S., Darling-Hammond, L., LaPointe, M., & Meyerson, D. (2005). School Leadership Study Developing Successful Principals. The Wallace Foundation Stanford Educational Leadership Institute
- Firestone, W.A. & Martinez, M.C. (2007). Districts, district leaders, and distributed leadership. Leadership & Policy in Schools, 6(1), 3-35.
- Fullan, M.G. (1996). Turning systemic thinking on its head. Phi Delta Kappan, 77(6), 420-423.
- Fusarelli, B.C. & Fusarelli, L.D. (2003). Preparing future superintendents to be applied social scientists. Paper presented at the annual conference of the University Council for Educational Administration, Portland, Oregon.
- Haglund, D. (2009). Systemic change and the system leader: A case study of superintendent action to improve student achievement in a large urban school district. A dissertation presented to the faculty of the Rossier School of Education University of Southern California.
- Hentschke, G.C., Nayfack, M., & Wohlstetter, P. (2009). Exploring Superintendent Leadership in Smaller Urban Districts: Does District Size Influence Superintendent Behavior? Education and Urban Society, 41(3)317-337.
- Hess, F. M. (1998). The urban reform paradox. American School Board Journal, 185(2), 24–27.
- Jenkins, C. (2007). Considering the Community: How One Rural Superintendent Perceives Community Values and Their Effect on Decision-Making. The Rural Educator.
- Johnson, B. C., & Fusarelli, L. D. (2003, April). Superintendent as social scientist. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association,
- Klatt, B.R. (1996). Superintendents as agents of systemic change: The professional characteristics of superintendents who facilitate systemic change in their school districts.
- Kowalski, T. J. (2000). Cultural change paradigms and administrator communication. Contemporary Education, 71(2), 5–10.
- Kowalski, T. J. (2001). The future of local school governance: Implications for board members and superintendents. In C. Brunner & L. G. Björk (Eds.), The new superintendency (pp. 183–201). Oxford, UK: JAI, Elsevier Science.
- Kowalski, T. J. (2003a). Contemporary school administration (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
- Kowalski, T.J. (2005). The school superintendent: theory, practice, and cases. Sage Publishers.
- Kowaslski, T.J. (2003b). The superintendent as communicator. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American educational research association, Chicago.
- Kowaslski, T.J. (2004). School public relations: A new agenda. In T.J. Kowalski (Ed.), Public relations in schools (3rd), pp. 3-29. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill, Prentice Hall.
- Kritsonis, A. (2004-05). Comparison of change theories. International Journal of Scholarly Academic Intellectual Diversity. 8(1) 1-7.
- Langlois, L. (2004). Responding ethically: Complex decision-making by school district superintendents. International Studies in Educational Administration, 32(2), 78-93.
- Lippitt, R., Watson, J. & Westley, B. (1958). The Dynamics of Planned Change. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World.
- Lorenzen, M. (2009). Change Management. In F. Jack. Mistakes in library management: Grievous errors and how to avoid them. Scarecrow Press. pp. 83-94.
- Marzano, R.J., Marzano, J.S., & Pickering, D.J. (2003). Classroom management that works: Resreach based strategies for every teache Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
- Melton, A. (2009). Leadership matters: A mixed-methods study of South Carolina superintendents’ change style preferences, longevity and student achievement. Dissertation, University of South Carolina. Retrieved July 04, 2010, from: http://www.proquest.umi.com/pqdlink?did=1745453501&Fmt=7&clientI d=79356&RQT=309&VName=PQD/
- Murphy, J. (1991). Restructuring schools. New York: Teachers College Press.
- Myers, S. (2010). A multiple regression analysis of six factors concerning School district demographics and superintendent tenure and experience in 2007-2008 schools relative to student achievement on the third grade Kansas reading assessments. Dissertation in fulfillment of doctorial degree, Kansas State University.
- Orr, M. T. (2006). Learning the superintendency: Socialization, negotiation, and determination. Teachers College Record, 108(7), 1362-1403.
- Portis, C. & Garcia, M.W. (2007). The superintendent as change leader. The School Administrator, 64(3), 1-8.
- Prestine, N.A. (2005). The eye of the beholder: Superintendent Perceptions of state systemic reform. Planning and Change, 36(4), 193-216.
- Reeves, D. B. (2002). The daily disciplines of leadership. San Francisco, California: Jossey-Bass.
- Robbins, S. (2003). Organizational Behavior (10th Ed). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
- Schein, E. H. (1985). Organizational culture and leadership: A dynamic view. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass
- Schein, E.H. (1995). Kurt Lewin’s change theory in the field and in the classroom: Notes toward a model of managed learning. Working Paper 3821.
- Schlechty, P.C. (1997). Inventing better schools. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
- Sergiovanni, T., J., Kelleher, P., McCarthy, M. M., & Fowler, F. C. (2009). Educational governance and administration (6th ed.). Boston, Mass: Pearson Education.
- Starratt, R.J. (2004). Captains of the ships: An allegory about moral leadership in school systems during times of turbulence. School Administrator, 61(8), 29-29.
- Thomas, W. B., & Moran, K. J. (1992). Reconsidering the power of the superintendent in the progressive period. American Educational Research Journal, 29(1), 22–50.
- Wallin, D.C. & Crippin, C. (2007). Superintendent leadership style: A gendered discourse analysis. Journal of Women in Educational Leadership, 5(1(, 21-40.
- Waters, J. T., & Marzano, R. J. (2007). The primacy of superintendent leadership. School Administrator, 64(3), 10-16.
- Waters, J.T. & Marzano, R.J. (2005). School District Leadership That Works: The Effect of Superintendent Leadership on Student Achievement. ERS Spectrum, spring 2007 Vol. 25, No. 2, pp. 1-12.
- Waters, J.T. & Marzano, R.J. (2006). School District Leadership That Works: The Effect of Superintendent Leadership on Student Achievement. A Working Paper.