Join the conversation

Yesterday morning, guest blogger Noelle Ellerson talked about AASA’s new decennial study of the American superintendent. Yesterday afternoon, I went to the study’s release over at the National Press Club. And I was enthralled, which (I’ll be honest) I was not exactly expecting.

But I learned a TON. I could spew statistics at you like no one’s business. For example, in 2010:

• 24.1% of superintendents were female
• 94% were White (not Hispanic or Latino) – just 2% were Black or African-American and just 2% were Hispanic or Latino
• 5.2% were 40 years old or younger; 47.7% were 56 years old or older
• 96.6% of superintendents are very satisfied with their career choice, though just 50.7% intend to be a superintendent in 2015
• The top reason for leaving a prior superintendency: Assuming a new challenge (30.3%). The next? School board conflict (15.3%)

I could talk to you about the marriage rate of superintendents, why they feel they were hired, what their biggest professional development needs are. But as one of the discussants at this meeting, Edgar Hatrick (Superintendent of Virginia’s Loudoun County Public Schools and President of AASA) asked, What does this mean for America’s children? How can this study impact their education? Ultimately, that is why we (superintendents, education policy folks, educators in general) all care about it.

Panelists and attendees at the meeting brought up a number of reasons. Two that stood out to me:

• Gender and race. The percentage of female and minority superintendents has increased over the past 10 years (up from 13.2% female and 5.1% minority – meaning nonwhite – in 2000). But these percentages are extremely low given the demographic makeup of the educator workforce (72% of full-time public school teachers are female) and the student populations they serve (in 2006, 43% of students classified as members of a racial or ethnic minority).*

  Some may argue that the disproportionate representation of females and minorities in the superintendency has little direct impact on students and more to do with our societal values of equality and equity. But others argue that seeing someone who looks like them in a position of leadership is important to children – it may give them a sense of possibility, or a validation. While I haven’t done research into that, it was a thought that emerged from this discussion.

• Superintendent turnover. If less than half of current superintendents intend to remain in the job in five years, we could be in trouble. To get systemic change, continuous leadership is critical. Look at some of the most celebrated districts in the nation. Montgomery County, MD, for example, or Long Beach, CA. Both have superintendents who have stayed longer than the national average.

  Plus, if we have to replace half the superintendents in the nation, where will all these new superintendents come from? How will they be trained? Will they have experienced colleagues to turn to for support? How much capacity will schools boards spend searching for new candidates? What of their work will fall by the wayside during the searches? How will that impact children? These are questions that need to considered. And we as a nation need to start finding answers to them.

In the end, this report does leave us with more questions than answers (they always do). But it also reminded me of the importance of this type of research, and that it can be used to improve outcomes for kids. Of course, the challenge is actually applying what we learned. Hopefully, we can do that here.

*Citations for data not regarding superintendents can be found in the study. If you want to follow up on that information but are unable to access the study, leave a comment requesting a source.