Abstract
This chapter explores the role of the superintendent as an instructional leader by first discussing the ways in which superintendents can and do influence instruction in their school districts. This is a particularly important goal given the call for school leaders to focus on instructional improvement in ISLLC Standard 2. Specifically, ISLLC Standard 2 challenges school leaders to promote the success of every student by advocating, nurturing, and sustaining a school culture and instructional program conducive to student learning and staff professional growth. This chapter presents quandaries encountered by superintendent respondents from the Voices 3 study (Acker-Hocevar, Ballenger, Place, and Ivory, 2012) who were attempting to serve as instructional leaders in a new No Child Left Behind environment. The chapter concludes with several perspectives based on role theory and organizational learning theory that shed light on quandaries superintendents face in leading.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Additional Reading and Resources
Björk, L. G., and Kowalski, T. J. (2005). The contemporary superintendent: Preparation, practice, and development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Cambron-McCabe, N., Cunningham, L. L., Harvey, J., and Koff, R. H. (2005). The superintendent’s fieldbook: A guide for leaders of learning. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Cooper, B. S., and Fusarelli, L. D. (Eds.). (2004). The promises and perils facing today’s school superintendent. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow.
Depres, B. (Ed.). (2008). Systems thinkers in action: A field guide for effective change leadership in education. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
Leithwood, K., Aitken, R., and Jantzi, D. (2006). Making schools smarter: Leading with evidence (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Thomas, J. Y. (2001). The public school superintendency in the 21st century: The quest to define effective leadership. Washington, DC: Department of Education, Center for Research on the Education of Students Placed at Risk (CRESPAR). (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 460 219).
References
Acker-Hocevar, M., Ballenger, J. N., Place, A. W., and Ivory, G. (Eds.). (2012). Snapshots of school leadership in the 21st century: Perils and promises of leading for social justice, school improvement, and democratic community. Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
Archer, J. (2005, September 14). Theory of action: The idea that schools can improve on their own gives way to a focus on effective school leadership. Education Week, S3–S5.
Argyris, C., and Schön, D. (1978). Organizational learning: A theory of action perspective. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Björk, L. G. (1993). Effective schools—effective superintendents: The emerging instructional leadership role. Journal of School Leadership, 3, 246–259.
Bredeson, P. V., and Kose, B. V. (2007). Responding to the education reform agenda: A study of superintendents’ instructional leadership. Educational Policy Analysis Archives, 15(5), 1–26.
Bridges, E. (1982). Research on the school administrator: The state-of-the-art, 1967–1980. Educational Administration Quarterly, 18(3), 12–33.
Cohen, W. M., and Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 128–152.
Crowson, R, and Morris, V. (1990, April). The superintendency and school leadership. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Boston.
Cuban, L. (1984). Transforming the frog into a prince: Effective schools research and practice at the district level. Harvard Education Review, 54(2), 129–151.
Depres, B. (Ed.). (2008). Systems thinkers in action: A field guide for effective change leadership in education. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
Driver, M. (2002). Learning and leadership in organizations: Toward complementary communities of practice. Management Learning, 33(1), 99–126.
Feldman, M. S. (2000). Organizational routines as a source of continuous change. Organization Science, 11(6), 611–629.
Fiol, C., and Lyles, M. (1985). Organizational learning. Academy of Management Review, 10, 803–813.
Firestone, W. A., and Shipps, D. (2005). How do leaders interpret conflicting accountabilities to improve student learning? In W. Firestone and C. Rehl (Eds.), A new agenda for research in educational leadership (pp. 81–100). New York: Teachers College Press.
Fullan, M. (2001). Leading in a culture of change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Fullan, M. (2006). Turnaround leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Glass, T, Björk, L., and Brunner, C. (2000). The study of the American school superintendency: A look at the superintendent of education in the new millennium. Arlington, VA: American Association of School Administrators.
Goldring, E., Crowson, R, Laird, D., and Berk, R (2003). Transition leadership in a shifting policy environment. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25(4), 473–488.
Hart, A. W., and Ogawa, R. T. (1987). The influence of superintendents on the academic achievement of school districts. Journal of Educational Administration, 25(1), 72–84.
Hauke, M. (1997). Leadership and learning in organizations. Unpublished PhD dissertation. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama.
Hess, F. M., and Meeks, O. (2011). School boards circa 2010: Governance in the accountability era. A report published by the National School Board Association, the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, and the Iowa School Boards Foundation. Retrieved on August 17, 2012, from http://www.nsba.org/Board-Leadership/Surveys/School-Boards-Circa-2010.
Hightower, A., Knapp, M. S., Marsh, J. A., and McLaughlin, M. W. (2002). School districts and institutional renewal. New York: Teachers College Press.
Honig, M. I. (2008). District central offices as learning organizations: How sociocultural and organizational learning theories elaborate district central office administrators’ participation in teaching and learning improvement efforts. American Journal of Education, 114(4), 627–664.
Hoy, W., and Mskel, C. (2006). Contemporary issues in educational policy and school outcomes. A volume in research and theory in educational administration. Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
Katz, D., and Kahn, R. L. (1966). The social psychology of organizations. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Keedy, J., and Björk, L. (2001). The superintendent, local boards, and the political arena. The AASA Professor, 24(4), 2–5.
Kew, K, Ivory, G., Muniz, M., and Quiz, F. (2012). No Child Left Behind as school reform: Intended and unintended consequences. In M. Acker-Hocevar, J. N. Ballenger, A. W. Place, and G. Ivory (Eds.), Snapshots of school leadership in the 21st century: Perils and promises of leading for social justice, school improvement, and democratic community (pp. 13–30). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
Leifhwood, K. (2000). What we have learned about schools as intelligent systems. Advances in Research and Theories of School Management and Educational Policy, 4, 315–330. Stanford, CT: JAI Press.
Leifhwood, K. (2005). Educational leadership: A review of the research. Philadelphia: Md-Atlantic Regional Educational Laboratory.
Leifhwood, K., Aitken, R., and Jantzi, D. (2006). Making schools smarter: Leading with evidence (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Leifhwood, K., and Prestine, N. (2002). Unpacking the challenges of leadership at the school and district level. In J. Murphy (Ed.), The educational leadership challenge: Redefining leadership for the 21st century (pp. 42–64). Chicago: National Society for the Study of Education.
Leithwood, K., Seashore-Louis, K., Anderson, S., and Wahlstrom, K. (2004). How leadership influences student learning. Mnneapolis: University of Mnnesota, Center for Applied Research and Educational Improvement.
Levinthal, D. A., and March, J. G. (1993). The myopia of learning. Strategic Management Journal, 14, 5–112.
Levitt, B., and March, J. G. (1988). Organizational learning. American Review of Sociology, 14, 319–340.
March, J. G. (1994). A primer on decision making. New York: Free Press.
Marks, H., Seashore-Louis, K., and Printy, S. (2000). The capacity for organizational learning: Implications for pedagogical quality and student achievement. In K Leithwood (Ed.), Understanding schools as intelligent systems (pp. 293–314). Stanford, CT: JAI Press.
O’Day, J. A. (2002). Complexity, accountability, and school improvement. Harvard Educational Review, 72(3), 1–31.
Schwahn, C., and Spady, W. (1998). Total leaders: Applying the best future-focused change strategies to education. Arlington, VA: American Association of School Administrators.
Short, P., and Scribner, J. (2000). Case studies of the superintendency. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow.
Silins, H., Mulford, B., Zarins, S., and Bishop, P. (2000). Leadership for organizational learning in Australian secondary schools. Advances in Research and Theories of School Management and Educational Policy, 4, 267–291.
Waters, J. T., and Marzano, R. J. (2006). School district leadership that works: The effect of superintendent leadership on student achievement. Denver, CO: Mid-Continent Research for Education and Learning.
Editor information
Copyright information
© 2015 Gary Ivory, Adrienne E. Hyle, Rhonda McClellan, Michele Acker-Hocevar
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Alsbury, T.L., Whitaker, K.S. (2015). District Superintendents as Instructional Leaders?. In: Ivory, G., Hyle, A.E., McClellan, R., Acker-Hocevar, M. (eds) Quandaries of the Small-District Superintendency. Palgrave Macmillan, New York. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137363251_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137363251_4
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, New York
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-67665-1
Online ISBN: 978-1-137-36325-1
eBook Packages: Biomedical and Life SciencesBiomedical and Life Sciences (R0)