Seeking the Essential Superintendent

Kudos to AASA for its initiative in developing standards that identify what superintendents should know and be able to do.

Who would not want the man or woman who met the AASA standards to lead their school district? But who could find such a person? Would we really expect superintendents to meet every standard and demonstrate that they can perform at a high level with respect to all, or even most, of these indicators of readiness to lead?

Lofty Expectations

One could pick from any of the indicators of capability to illustrate how unlikely it is that any mortal could do what AASA has prescribed. Consider, for example, the assertion that superintendents should be able to "[d]evelop core curriculum design and delivery systems for diverse school communities."

By all accounts, the leading national effort to do this is that of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. This effort has engaged the energies of hundreds of the nation's best scholars and teachers and its leaders would no doubt agree that they are yet short of achieving the standard set by AASA.

The developers of the superintendency standards might respond to the concern that they have set goals that are beyond the reach of most in at least three ways. First, these criteria serve only as targets and it is best to aim high; second, that the measures of expertise and performance standards can be set at reasonable levels; or third, one would not be expected to meet all of the standards. But these responses render the standards less helpful than the claims AASA makes for them.

If a target is not reachable, it ceases to be a guide. If the measures to be developed lead to less ambitious definitions of the indicators than the current wording connotes, then the standards being proposed should be thought of as a draft. If not all must be attained, which ones are unnecessary?

An Endless Curriculum

The superintendency standards developers say one of the main functions of their effort should be to shape the curriculum of universitybased preparation programs for superintendents (and, presumably, other key leaders of school systems).

Imagine that the standards and the indicators were to be used in this way. Granted that some overlap in the indicators exists, yet about 100 topics listed in the AASA inventory remain. Moreover, many of these topics are multidimensional (e.g., "Analyze available instructional resources and assign them in the most cost-effective and equitable manner to enhance student outcomes").

Curriculum developers would create a matrix that listed the (elaborated) indicators on one axis and learning experiences on the other. Many topics listed typically require considerable time to master. Consider what it would take to learn to do costeffectiveness studies, for example. Or to determine how to assess whether a distribution of resources is equitable. The possibility of a matrix with 5,000 cells comes to mind.

Some curriculum developers might rejoice in the prospect of an endless supply of students working for advanced degrees or certificates for years on end. But more responsible designers of professional development programs would ask themselves at least two questions. Are some things much more important than others? Is everything that superintendents need to know and be able to do best learned in a university curriculum, even in a field-based university program?

Setting Priorities

The AASA standards give no hints as to which standards and indicators would be most important in establishing eligibility for the office or in creating preparation programs. Clearly, some knowledge and skills are essential for all superintendents while others would have much less influence on student learning.

For example, one indicator (of a dozen for one of the standards) seems to capture a large part of the capabilities we want from a superintendent. "Develop, implement, and monitor change processes to improve student learning, adult development, and climates for learning." If this indicator is more important than knowing about international trends in education or how to improve food services--as it surely must be--it would be useful for AASA to say so.

Furthermore, is it necessary for superintendents to have all of the knowledge and skills that everyone else in the school system has? That is clearly implied by the standards. But no industry expects such comprehensive knowledge and capabilities of its chief executive officer. I believe "less would be more" with respect to the standards if the fundamental goal is to focus attention on capabilities that truly make a difference for students.

University Role

While the typical school administration program deserves many of the criticisms heaped upon it, it would be impossible for a university-based preparation program to adequately cover all topics identified in the standards. Furthermore, to attempt this feat would assume that universities should be the sole, or even the major, source of learning opportunities for school leaders.

AASA's national commission faults university preparation programs for being "too theoretical." But if universities are not about the exploration of theory through systematic inquiry, they will have little long-run usefulness to society. Virtually all action is based on theory. The question is: how robust and how right is the theory?

Theory facilitates problem solving when knowledge of specifics is in short supply. For example, a deep understanding of learning theory means that one need not know a lot about the numerous "hot ideas" about instruction to ask tough questions and guide deliberations that would lead to the decision to implement one alternative over another. An understanding of theories of motivation and systems would allow one to design "learning organizations." And so forth.

The point is that universities are better at some things than others; they should not be a substitute for a rich professional development program in school systems. The relative roles of universities and school systems in helping superintendents and superintendent wannabes meet the AASA standards deserve considerable discussion.

Core of Leadership

The eight superintendency standards will be helpful in the ways they are meant to be.

But they could be more productive for school improvement if they conveyed a clearer image of the essential elements of educational leadership and if the standards were coupled with measures of knowledge and performance that gave universities, school boards, and school administrators themselves the ability to know a capacity for leadership when they saw it.

Willis Hawley previously directed the Center for Education and Human Development Policy at Vanderbilt University, where he also served as dean of Peabody College for nine years.

The Eight Standards

Here is a summary of Professional Standards for the Superintendency.

* Standard 1: Leadership and District Culture.

This standard stresses executive leadership, vision, shaping school culture and climate, empowering others, and multicultural and ethnic understanding.

* Standard 2: Policy and Governance.

This standard centers on developing procedures for working with the board; formulating district policy, standards, and regulations; and describing public school governance in our democratic society.

* Standard 3: Communications and Community Relations.

This standard emphasizes skill in articulating district vision and purpose to the community and media. Also, it stresses responding to community feedback and building consensus to strengthen community support.

* Standard 4: Organizational Management.

This standard calls for skills in gathering, analyzing, anti using data for decision making; framing and solving problems; and formulating solutions to problems. It also stresses quality management to meet internal and external customer expectations and to allocate resources.

* Standard 5: Curriculum Planning and Development.

This standard tests the superintendent's skill in designing curriculum and a strategic plan to enhance teaching and learning, using theories of cognitive development, employing valid and reliable performance indicators and testing procedures, and describing the use of computers and other learning technologies.

* Standard 6: Instructional Management.

This standard measures knowledge and use of research findings on learning and instructional strategies and resources to maximize student achievement. It also centers on applying research and best practice to integrate curriculum for multicultural sensitivity and assessment.

* Standard 7: Human Resources Management.

This standard assesses skill in developing a staff evaluation and assessment and supervisory system to improve performance. It also requires skills in describing and applying legal requirements for personnel selection, development, retention, and dismissal.

* Standard 8: Values and Ethics of Leadership.

This standard stresses the understanding and modeling of appropriate value systems, ethics, and moral leadership. It also requires the superintendents to exhibit multicultural and ethnic understanding, and to coordinate social agencies and human services to help each student grow and develop as caring, informed citizens.

COPYRIGHT 1994 American Association of School Administrators
COPYRIGHT 2004 Gale Group