0.9 Moody, m. (september 2011). superintendent–board relations:  (Page 2/9)

As a professor of educational leadership, and a former superintendent of schools, I understand and appreciate the value and benefit of a positive working relationship between a board of education and its superintendent of schools. Within this context it is important to note that for much of the 20 ^th Century, education was incorrectly viewed as being “a political” (Lutz&Merz, 1992). More recently, a number of theories have been formalized in an attempt to better understand the tentative political nature of superintendent-board relations. Alsbury (2008), for example, detailed three specific theories: (1). Decision-output theory, (2). Continuous participation theory, and (3). Dissatisfaction theory, “to help explain the political environment in communities within which schools operate” (p. 203). While these theories help clarify the political nuances of school board-superintendent relations, there is simply not much in the professional literature dedicated to the examination of the historical development of both institutions. Assuming that an historical examination of the complex and problematic nature of superintendent –board relations would improve the level of understanding of both entities, a discussion of their historical development is offered in an attempt to more effectively understand the demands and nuances of each. Konnert and Augenstein (1990) lend support to this exercise, stating “[a] knowledge of history helps one understand the present” (p. 3).Additionally, according to Glasman and Glasman (1997), “As a systematic account of events, history usually is associated with philosophical explanations of causes and effects” (p. 3). Within this context, the following historical perspectives are offered in an attempt to more effectively understand the current status of the institution.

An historical perspective

Board of education

Formal education has long been an important component of the basic American culture; however, this was not always the case. In the very early years of American settlement, the first 50 years or so, there was, in fact, no formal system of public education. During those early years of American colonization, educational delivery was haphazard at best, and what formal education there was came about through “a large array of private, charity, religious, and partially public funded schools” (Theobald, 2005, p. 116). As the country became increasingly settled, education began to become more highly valued and the publics’ perception evolved to the point that schools were deemed to be “essential to individual, social, economic, and political well-being of society and as such were integral to community life and deserved financial support” (Hoyle et al., 1993, p. 41). As the country matured and the “one-room school house” became a predominate fixture of the educational landscape (Glickman, Gordon,&Ross-Gordon, 2010), the governance of local schools was gradually transformed to the point that “control and authority over public educational institutions [shifted] from religious authority or private corporations to public or civil authorities” (Knezevich, 1984, p. 276).