0.9 Moody, m. (september 2011). superintendent–board relations:  (Page 6/9)

The history of the superintendency illustrates several key points. One is that the formal position of superintendent of schools is less than 200 years old--which is relatively young by most professional standards (Carter&Cunningham, 1997; Hoyle et al., 2005; Peterson, 1999; Wall, 1991). Another key consideration is that the position has been marked by steadily increasing complexity, replete with heightened periods of conflict, significant elements of role confusion, and increased role ambiguity (Bjork, Kowalski,&Brown-Ferrigno, 2005, Bjork, Kowalski,&Young, 2005; Carter&Cunningham, 1997; Norton, 2005; Norton et al., 1996). Within this context, Petersen and Barnett (2005) wrote that “the demands on and expectations of the district superintendent have changed dramatically due to significant social, political, and economic trends” (p. 107). In response to the increased ambiguity, conflict, and confusion previously referenced, Goodman and Zimmerman (2000) noted that “[t]he complexities of modern-day education, together with today’s political realities, economic constraints, and social problems, make the job of the superintendent one of the most challenging of all chief executive undertakings” (p. 10).

Historical summary

School governance, as we know it today, can be traced to the earliest days of this country and to the geographic region that would eventually become known as the New England States. As educational processes became increasingly complex and time consuming, the management and leadership function of public schooling slowly shifted from the committee of “select men” to the “school committee” and finally to the contemporary school board that we have in place today (Bjork, 2000; Hoyle et al., 1998; Knezevich, 1984; Tyack&Hansot, 1982).

The appointment of the first superintendent of schools occurred in 1837, a mere 30 years prior to the federal government’s initial foray into public education. The emergence of an individual appointed by a board of education to manage the day-to-day operations of a school district has as its foundation the Hamiltonian concept of a division of responsibilities between the legislative branch (board of education) and the executive branch (superintendent of schools) (Knezevich, 1984). This conceptualization succinctly identifies local educational policy development to be the purview of school board. A considerable amount of professional literature concerning school board–superintendent relations also suggests that the role differentiation between the board of education and the superintendent is relatively simple: the board is charged with the development of policy and the superintendent is expected to administer board policies (Hoyle et al., 1998; Norton et al., 1996; Tyack&Hansot, 1982). An analysis of the practical aspects of this postulate would indicate; however, that most superintendents have some degree of influence in the formation and adoption of policy, and most school boards have some voice in policy administration (Haugland, 1986; Knezevich, 1984; Norton et al., 1996; Peterson&Klotz, 1999; Tyack&Hansot, 1982). In this vein, Carter and Cunningham (1997) wrote, “The conventional role of the superintendent, in many cases stipulated by local law, is to assist the board in policy making and to carry out policy. This role has proven to be an oversimplification that tends to cloud understanding almost as much as it clarifies it” (p. 16). Additionally, role ambiguity, role confusion and the inherent complexities of superintendent–board relations have not diminished, but rather have intensified within the current climate of assessment driven high stakes accountability. According to Sweet (1987) “There seems to be a rather uncertain working relationship between school superintendents and school boards which may lead to conflict” (p. 2).