0.9 Moody, m. (september 2011). superintendent–board relations:  (Page 8/9)

Looking forward

In a series of articles that focused upon the relationship between superintendent and school board leadership and school improvement Glass (2001) stated, “After years of highly publicized reform efforts, school reformers are beginning to take notice that superintendents and school boards are important participants in improving school performance” (p. 1). In support of this position, Fusarelli and Petersen (2002) wrote, “Research literature focused on district leadership indicates that the relationship between the superintendent and board of education has a significant impact on the quality of a district’s educational program” (p. 282). Additionally, according to Petersen and Short (2002), “Research has indicated that the association of the district superintendent and board of education has far-reaching leadership and policy implications that greatly affect the quality of a district’s educational program” (p. 412).

While it is not realistic to believe that a simplistic solution exists to effectively address the complex role ambiguities and conflicts that permeate superintendent–board relations, an historical examination, like that proffered above, should serve to expand the current knowledge base of superintendent and school board relations, and also should serve to expand insights into the complex as well as delicate nature of the relationship. Fullan (2003), stated “change the context, and you change behavior” (p. 1). Obviously, however, the historical context cannot be changed—it is what it is. School boards were created and ultimately evolved out of a social need, and boards of education, in due course, created the position of superintendent of schools—not simply to enhance the educational process, but also to serve the needs of the board itself. Given that changing the historical context is not an option, an increased awareness and understanding of the divergent (and often contentious) origins of educational governance could well advance professional dialog and discourse between boards of education and their school superintendent. For example, given the inherently bellicose nature of the board-superintendent relationship it would seem that “[t]he first order of business for a school board and its superintendent is to build a relationship of trust” (Carter&Cunningham, 1997, p. 93).

A critical “first step” in the development of a trustful and trusting relationship is open and honest communication (Tschannen-Moran, 2004). Within this “new context,” it is vital that boards and superintendents not see themselves as separate entities, but rather to view themselves as a team. In the initial stages of team development (and at the very least with each change in board membership), boards and superintendents need to talk about (and clarify) the roles, responsibilities, and expectations (operational procedures) of their respective positions. Collaborative development of a set of specific operational procedures, also known as “protocols,” will serve to lessen ambiguity and enhance communications. According to Townsend et al. (2007)