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

operating procedures, while not meaning that everyone [think] alike, [provide]structure so discussions [can] be about ideas, not personalities. When arguments are based on people and personalities rather than on ideas, it is a loss for the democratic process and for the students. (p. 27)

Additionally, The Center for Public Education (2011), concluded “that [school districts] with a strong board/superintendent relationship had a greater student achievement as measure by dropout rates, the percentage of students going to college, and aptitude test scores” (p. 8, citing Goodman et al., 1997), and proffered four specific “characteristics of quality governance” (p. 8) that are associated with the relationship between the board of education and the superintendent of schools. Those characteristics are as follows:

• A trusting and collaborative relationship between the board and superintendent;
• Creation by the board of conditions and organizational structures that allowed the superintendent to function as the chief executive officer and instructional leader of the district;
• Evaluation of the superintendent according to mutually agreed upon procedures; and
• Effective communication between the board chair and superintendent and among board members. (The Center for Public Education, p. 8)

Finally, boards of education and superintendents must recognize that team building and collaborative effort is a continuous and on-going process. Protocols or operating procedures must be continuously reviewed and refined. While we should never lose sight of our historical underpinnings, it is critical that our efforts to promote the future be firmly grounded upon a collaborative vision that is clearly focused upon a team effort dedicated to the improvement of student learning.

References

• Alsbury, T. L. (2003). Superintendent and school board member turnover: Political versus apolitical turnover as a critical variable in the application of the dissatisfaction theory. Educational Administration Quarterly, 39 (5), 667-698.
• Alsbury, T. L. (2008). School board member and superintendent turnover and the influence on student achievement: An application of the dissatisfaction theory. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 7(2) , 202-229.
• Bjork, L. G. (2000). The transformative role of the school superintendents: Creating a community of learners. In P. M. Short&J.P. Scribner (Eds.), Case studies of the superintendency (pp. 41-60). Lanham, Maryland. Scarecrow Press, Inc.
• Bjork, L. G., Bell, R. J.,&Gurley, D. K. (2002). Politics and the socialization of superintendents. In G. Perreault&F.C. Lunenburg (Eds.), The changing world of school administration ( pp. 294-311). Lanham, MD: The Scarecrow Press, Inc.
• Bjork, L. G., Kowalski, T. J.,&Browne-Ferrigno, T. (2005a). Learning theory and research: A framework for changing superintendent preparation and development. In L. G. Bjork&T. J. Kowalski (Eds.), The contemporary superintendent: Preparation, practice, and development (pp. 71-106). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
• Bjork, L. G., Kowalski, T. J.,&Young, M. D. (2005b). National education reform reports: Implications for professional preparation and development. In L. G. Bjork&T. J. Kowalski (Eds.), The contemporary superintendent: Preparation, practice and development (pp. 45-69).Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
• Carter, G. R.,&Cunningham, W. G. (1997). The American superintendent: Leading in an age of pressure . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc.
• Cox, E. P.,&Malone, B. (2003). New superintendents' perceptions of their jobs: Is the honeymoon over? Educational Research Services Spectrum, 21 (1), 8-11.
• Cubberley, E. P. (1948). The history of education . New York: Houghton Mifflin Company.
• Danzberger, J. P., Kirst, M. W.,&Usdan, M. D. (1992). Governing public schools: New times-new requirements. Washington, DC: Institute for Educational Leadership.
• DiPaloa, M. F.,&Stronge, J. H. (2003). Superintendent evaluation handbook . Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press.
• Fullan, M. (2003). The moral imperative of school leadership . Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc.
• Fusarelli, L. D.,&Petersen, G. J. (2002). Changing times, changing relationships: An exploration of current trends influencing the relationship between superintendents and boards of education. In G. Perreault&F.C. Lunenburg, (Eds.), The changing world of school administration (pp. 282-293). Lanham, MD: The Scarecrow Press, Inc.
• Glasman, N. S.,&Glasman, L. D. (1997). Connecting the preparation of school leaders to the practice of school leadership. Peabody Journal of Education, 72 (2), 3-20.
• Glass, T. E. (2001). Superintendent leaders look at the superintendency, school boards and reform . Denver, CO: Education Commission of the States. Retrieved June 2, 2010, from www.ecs.org/clearinghouse/27/18/2718.htm.
• Glickman, C. D., Gorton, S. P., Ross-Gordon, J. M. (2010). Supervision and instructional leadership: A developmental approach. (8 ^th ed.). Boston: Allyn&Bacon.
• Goodman, R. H., Fulbright , L.,&Zimmerman, Jr, W. G. (1997). Getting There from Here: School Board-Superintendent Collaboration: Creating a School Governance Team Capable of Raising Student Achievement . Arlington, VA: Educational Research Service.
• Goodman, R. H.,&Zimmerman, Jr, W. G. (2000). Thinking differently: Recommendations for 21st century school board/superintendent leadership, governance, and teamwork for high student achievement . Arlington, VA: Educational Research Service.
• Haugland, M. M. (1986). A comparative analysis of the professional competencies needed by superintendents of public schools perceived to be most desirable for successful employment by school board members and superintendents in South Dakota. (Doctoral Dissertation, University of South Dakota-Vermillion). Dissertation Abstracts International, 47 (5), 1548. (UMI No. 8616587).
• Hensley, P. A.&Burmeister, L. (2008). Leadership connectors: A theoretical construct for building relationships. Educational Leadership and Administration: Teaching and Program Development , 20 , 125-134.
• Hensley, P. A.&Burmeister, L. (2009). Leadership connectors: Six keys to developing relationship in schools . Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education.
• Hill, P. T. (2003). School boards: Focus on school performance, not money and patronage . Washington, DC: Progressive Policy Institute, 21st Century Schools Project. Retrieved June 1, 2010 from http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?knlgAreaID=110&subsecID=134&contentID=251238.
• Hoyle, J. R., et al. (1993). Professional standards for the superintendency . Arlington, VA: American Association of School Administrators.
• Hoyle, J. R., Bjork, L. G., Collier, V.,&Glass, T. (2005). The superintendent as ceo: Standards-based performance . Thousand Oaks, CA: American Association of School Administrators and Corwin Press.
• Hoyle, J. R., English, F. W.,&Steffy, B. E. (1998). Skills for successful 21st century school leaders: Standards for peak performers. Arlington, VA: American Association of School Administrators.
• Knezevich, S. J. (1984). Administration of public education: A sourcebook for the leadership and management of educational institutions (4th ed.). New York: Harper&Row.
• Konnert, W. M.,&Augenstein, J. J. (1990). The superintendency in the nineties: What superintendents and board members need to know. Lancaster, PA: Technomic Publishing Company, Inc.
• Kowalski, T. J. (2003). Contemporary school administration: An introduction (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn&Bacon.
• Kowalski, T. J.,&Brunner, C. C. (2005). The school superintendent: Roles, challenges, and issues. In F. W. English (Ed.), The sage handbook of educational leadership: Advances in theory, research, and practice (pp. 142-167). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
• LaMonte, H., Delagardelle, M.,&Vander Zyl, T. (2007). The lighthouse research: Past, present and future: School board leadership for improving student achievement. Information Briefing . Iowa School Boards Foundation, 1 (9), 1-3.
• Lutz, F. W. and C. Merz (1992). The politics of school/community relations . New York, Teachers College, Columbia University.
• Moody, M. (2007). Superintendent-board relations: Competencies for success. (Doctoral Dissertation, University of South Dakota). Dissertation Abstracts International, 68 (6A), 2264. (AAI No: 3269551).
• Norton, M. S. (2005). Executive leadership for effective administration . Boston: Pearson Education, Inc.
• Norton, M. S., Webb, L. D., Dlugosh, L. L.,&Sybouts, W. (1996). The school superintendency: New responsibilities new leadership . Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
• Petersen, G. J.,&Barnett, B. G. (2005). The superintendent as instructional leader: Current practice, future conceptualizations, and implications for preparation. In L. G. Bjork&T. J. Kowalski (Eds.), The contemporary superintendent: Preparation, practice, and development (pp. 107-136). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
• Petersen, G. J.,&Short, P. M. (2002). An examination of school board presidents' perceptions of their superintendent's interpersonal communication competence and board decision making. Journal of School Leadership, 12 (4), 411-436.
• Peterson, M. R. (1999). Superintendent competencies for continued employment as perceived by Louisiana public school superintendents and school board presidents . (Doctoral Dissertation, University of Southern Mississippi). Dissertation Abstracts International, 60 (9), 3227. (UMI No. 9947700).
• Peterson, M.,&Klotz, J. (1999). Superintendent competencies for continued employment as perceived by Louisiana public school superintendents and school board
• presidents. Annual Meeting of the Mid-South Educational Research Association . Point Clear, Alabama. Retrived September 8, 2010 from http://search.ebscohost.
• Sweet, J. M. (1987). The role of the public school superintendent as perceived by public school board presidents and school superintendents in South Dakota. (Doctoral Dissertation, University of South Dakota). Dissertation Abstracts International, 48 (4), 801. (UMI No. 8715881).
• The Center for Public Education. (2011). Eight characteristics of effective school boards: Full report. Arlington, VA: Author. Available on-line at http://www.centerforpubliceducation. org/Main-Menu/Public-education/Eight-characteristics-of-effective-school-boards/Eight-characteristics-of-effective-school-boards.html
• Theobald, P. (2005). Urban and rural schools: Overcoming lingering obstacles. Phi Delta Kappan, 87 (2), 116-122.
• Townsend, R. S., Johnston, G. L., Gross, G. E., Lynch, P., Garcy, L., Roberts, B.,&Novotney, P. B. (2007). Effective superintendent school board practices: Strategies for developing and maintaining good relationships with your board. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc.
• Tschannen-Moran, M. (2004). Trust matters: Leadership for successful schools . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
• Tyack, D.,&Hansot, E. (1982). Managers of virtue: Public school leadership in America, 1820-1980. New York: Basic Books, Inc.
• Wall, R. R. (1991). The successful superintendent: The importance of selected performance dimensions as perceived by superintendents and board of education presidents in class II and class III Nebraska school districts. (Doctoral Dissertation, University of Nebraska-Lincoln). Dissertation Abstracts International, 52 (8), 2784. (UMI No. 9203357).
• Wendel, F. C., (1999). A study of the supply and demand of school administrators in Nebraska. Lincoln, NE: Nebraska Council of School Administrators and Nebraska Association of School Boards.