0.9 Moody, m. (september 2011). superintendent–board relations:  (Page 7/9)

Board–superintendent relations

An examination of the historical perspectives proffered above seems to indicate that the complexities surrounding superintendent–board relations have not diminished, but rather have intensified over time. Specifically addressing the problematic nature of the superintendent-board of education relations, Hoyle et al. (1998) stated that “part of the problem stems from the fact that school boards ran things for a long time before school administrators ever appeared on the educational scene” (pp. 26-27). The increasingly complex quality of the relationship, including political and social influences, has produced additional challenges and stressors upon a relationship that has historically been disjointed and, by its very nature, unstable. Studies concerning superintendent and school board relations indicate that problems between boards of education and superintendents tend to surface when some board members attempt to assume a more active role in the operational aspects of schooling than the superintendent is willing to accept (Haugland, 1986; Moody, 2007). In this respect, the potentially volatile relationship between a board of education and its superintendent is often conflicted by one or more of the following four factors: (1) school boards by their very nature are made-up of lay members that generally are elected rather than appointed; (2) board members generally serve part-time and for limited or no pay; (3) board members are not usually professional educators, and as such they tend not to be especially erudite in the nuances of pedagogy and school administration; and (4) the information base from which school board members must operate is often provided (skewed?) by one or two of the following major sources:

1. The superintendent of schools, his or her central staff, and/or other school district employees.

2. Disgruntled patrons, angry tax payers, intrusive politicians and/or the less than supportive mass media (Carter&Cunningham, 1997; Fusarelli&Petersen, 2002; Knezevich, 1984; Konnert&Augenstein, 1990; Norton et al., 1996).

Hill (2003) also captured the essence of an additional source of conflict inherent in the superintendent-board relationship with the following statement: “There are no practical limits on school board powers. They own the district, hire the superintendent and all staff, decide how money will be spent, and in some cases even set schedules and buy textbooks” (p. 11). In reference to the intricate nature of board-superintendent relationships, Goodman and Zimmerman (2000) also wrote, “[t]oo many state laws require or allow boards to engage in the operational detail of a school system” (p. 10).

More recently, Bjork, Bell, and Gurley (2002), in a study of political influences upon the effectiveness of the superintendency, noted several “examples of misalignment between superintendents’ perceptions of board political power configurations and preferred roles of superintendents that increase the possibility of superintendent-board conflict” (p. 305). Bjork et al. (2002) also noted that scholars and practitioners alike have concluded that the increased complexity of the superintendent-board relationship has “contributed to district instability and turnover of superintendents for nearly three decades” (p. 305). Finally, a 1999 study sponsored by the Nebraska Council of School Administrators and the Nebraska Association of School Boards indicated that “half of the superintendents in Nebraska should retire within seven to eight years” (Wendel, 1999, p. 24). Within this growing demand for new superintendents, the need for a better understanding of superintendent-board relations is intensified.