0.3 Preparing and training superintendents for the mission of  (Page 19/23)

Recognition Levels

The vast range of district sizes, types, and budgets create a three tier“mastery”of professional superintendent management: (1) executive management, (2) registeredmanagement, and (3) qualified management. This scheme would accommodate district size differences as executive superintendentmanagers would likely be found in very large districts, registered managers in medium sized districts, and qualified managers insmaller districts.

A separate setof requirements need to be developed for each tier. An applicant should not necessarily berequired to begin at the bottom tier. Many experienced central office administrators may be well prepared for the“executive management”tier without first going through the“registered”and“qualified”tiers.

A reasonable question evolving from this scheme is whether principals and central office administratorsmight be discouraged from seeking the superintendency because of raised levels for preparation, assessment, licensing, andprofessional recognition. A recent study found there to be no lack of qualified applicants for superintendents (Glass&Bjork, 2003).

Superintendent applicants with demonstrated and“recognized”management expertise in all likelihood would be more desirable (and qualified) candidates for vacant superintendentpositions. Professional recognition by universities, states, and professional organizations would accentuate the importance ofcompetent district management. Many boards now seem to“assume”that every state licensed superintendent is a competent manager of district fiscal, human, and physical resources. Considering thehaphazard manner of current preparation and licensing, this simply is not true in a high percentage of cases. Superintendent researchshows management expertise is and has been, over the years, the prime hiring criteria used by boards (Glass, Bjork&Brunner, 2000).

The Role of Standard and Performance Indicators

Many essential skills and knowledge bases are currently being offered by higher education programs as required bystate sponsored programs and standards based licensing requirements. Specific management skills areas such as cashaccounting, auditing, and financial investing are often provided by private sector groups.

Current National Policy Board and Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium ( ISLLC) standards are vagueand insufficient to serve as an accurate means to identify and verify quality district superintendent management. In fact, theISLLC“performance indicators”do not even mention essential areas of district management! And, they do not differentiate betweendistrict sizes, budgets, types, and programs (Council of Chief State School Officers, 1996). The performance indicators, whilemostly appropriate, are merely outline“statements”of required training and performance.

The AASA superintendent standards are sufficiently credible (validated) to serve as an appropriateinitial launch point for establishing a“management curriculum”for the superintendency (Hoyle, 1993). A credible training programshould be based on both validated standards and indicators. This joint undertaking between higher education preparation programs,state agencies, and professional associations to develop a“validated”training program could prove to district improvement.