Superintendent Politics the Political Pressures

Superintendent Politics

The Political Pressures Facing the Superintendent of Schools

The position of superintendent is one which, while affording its holder a degree of gravitas, authority and singular status, may also be personally taxing, professionally difficult and ideologically problematic. For its holder, the top office in a school district can be an extremely embattled spot, distinguishable by the various political pressures that can routinely, sometimes negatively, impact the way in which this individual may conduct responsibilities and see to the overall maintenance or improvement of school standards. In this discussion, we will consider the ways in which political pressure may manifest to effect either the budgetary realities facing the superintendent or the curricular demands incumbent upon him. Each of these topics elucidates the position as one in which the attainment of collective approval may be fleeting or even inaccessible, with the need to govern a school district or state system being directly effected by the ideas, actions and interests of a host of other parties. The political pressure there applied results in an executive position that, while more frequently appointed, bears many of the qualities of an elected office. The discussion hereafter will consider the challenging nature of the work and role of the superintendent, especially as the process and implications of administration are impacted by the politics of money, community and educational theory.

The difficulty of this position means that it can often be thankless, with the individual aspiring for career advancement in either education or politics often finding that the commonly insurmountable political dilemmas of this position make it ill-suited as a launching point for career improvement. This may be well demonstrated by the shortage of young school superintendents and the tendency for those that have risen to this position to remain there until retirement age. In fact, "of the 14,300 or so school superintendents nationwide, most started as teachers during the Vietnam War era and worked their way up the chain of command. An astounding 82% of superintendents have already reached retirement age, according to Cooper's study." (Danitz, 1) This is indicative of the ways in which increasing political sensitivity in the field has alienated many potential candidates who are wary of gaining the stigmas associated with the position's political hardships.

One of the major consequences of the political realities facing school superintendents is what many educational professional and lawmakers alike have described as a pressing personnel shortage. The educational qualifications for the position are not prohibitively stringent, but do establish a program for quality assurance and proper filtering of candidates. To the point, "ny the 1980s, 82% of the states had promulgated laws or policies that required officeholders to complete a prescribed program of graduate study and subsequently obtain a state-issued license (or certificate) to practice." (Bjork & Kowalski, 1) There is indeed a system in place which is designed to produce observably reputable and qualified candidated.

However, the complexity of the position and the onus of blame which typically fall upon the superintendent have together rendered this a formidable position made thusly by a variety of implications that may not necessarily be in the formal job descriptions. Particularly, "often, qualified candidates find that salaries in the low six-figure range aren't sufficient compensation for having to confront political intrigue, lack of resources and declining student test scores on a regular basis." (Danitz, 1) This captures well the way in which political factors can impact not just the direction which one's work as a superintendent will take but indeed, whether one's work will even be dedicated to the position in question. At center of this issue, we reveal here, is the responsibility of the superintendent to present the budget. Though countless factors -- including the legislative policies of federal, statewide and local lawmakers; the availability of allocated resources; and the reigning economic conditions facing all three levels of government -- will go into the final budget proposal for a school year, it is unquestionably the superintendent that will be handed the blame for its failure to meet the expectations of all parties.

Still, the notion that there is a shortage of available superintendents as a result of the impossibility of meeting budgetary consensus does not truly tell the story, even if it is well-evidenced by hiring trends which are drawing attention toward less traditional candidates for the position. To the point, "the wave of nontraditional superintendents, people coming from the business, the military, or the political side to take over school systems, [is] very popular in the large urban districts." (Stanley, 1) In such contexts where shortages of resources, obstacles in meeting state or national testing standards, disciplinary problems and underqualified or underpaid educators, it is increasingly attractive to consider a candidate whose perception for large, bureaucratic organizational tasks will allow him or her to weather the complexities and frustrations of an array of forces pulling one in multiple directions at once. The perception that the nature of the position has been so dramatically altered by external pressures has produced a scenario where those candidates viewed as historically fit for the position are increasingly ill-suited for the rigors of its modern incarnation.

Indeed, there is an evolving history to the position which demonstrates it to have become increasingly loaded with relevancy to statewide political systems, with legislative and electoral affairs often bleeding into the educational context. The reflects a change in the way that the role of the superintendent is perceived in general. To this point, "the democratic leader characterization is anchored in both philosophical and political realities. In the 1930s, scarce fiscal resources forced school officials to engage more directly in political activity, especially in relation to lobbying state legislatures. Previously, the behavior of highly political superintendents was regarded as unprofessional. But such convictions faded when it became apparent that public schools had to compete with other governmental services to acquire state funding." (Bjork & Kowalski, 8)

This means that amongst those holding the position and those making hires, there is a clear imperative for an orientation toward these external elements to the direct administration of the school. As a result, it is necessary for the viable superintendent to be equally as skilled and knowledgeable in areas of public policy as in areas relating to the stewardship of educational faculty, the oversight of curriculum and attention to the standards being met within a school's academic and behaviors realms. In some contexts, in fact, this politicization has occurred to the extent that "depending upon the state, a state board of education or the governor appoints the state superintendent, and in some cases the voters elect the state superintendent. At best, a state superintendent serves education by acting as an advocate for local school districts while functioning as an agent of the state." (Edwards, 4) The result is a clear relationship between the role assumed by the superintendent and the various parties to which this individual is professionally or personally beholden.

The outcome is a job description that is rather complex, and in the most challenging districts and educational contexts, fully undesirable to the qualified candidate. Quite to this point and contrary to the belief by many that there is a real shortage of available superintendents to the overall hiring pool, more current research suggests that in fact, there is not an issue of personnel availability with which to contend, but an imbalance in the interest which candidates express toward some districts vs. others. According to a 2003 article on the subject, there are compelling reasons for many in the relatively specialized field to avoid those school systems which are known to apply undue pressures and inappropriately expansive public burdens on superintendents. To this extent, the research finds "that some districts have a history of 'churnin' superintendents, which contributes disproportionately to these districts having high turnover rates and a relatively small number of qualified applicants." (Glass et al., 264) This is not to dissuade us from the view that there is a relationship between the political realities of the position and the consequences as they have manifested in some districts. Quite to the contrary, it reinforces the notion that it remains a challenge for many districts to properly balance the notion of an effective and accountable superintendent with the presence of a sound educational structure, with a host of political consequences resulting from a failure to achieve this equation.

The superintendent must answer to a board of administrators itself constructed according to varying and often conflictive political intentions or designs. Accordingly, "the findings of the study suggest a relationship exists between the way board members define power and the type of motivation board members have for service." (Mountford, 704) The visibility and expected accountability of the district superintendent will often render this figure the focal point of interests and desires emerging from this array of figures. The result is a position beset by conflicting points and yet held to political responsibility for the effectiveness of policies and decisions impacting the schools.

Such is to say that a core reality impacting the profession is the impingement of the political upon the fulfillment of one's practical responsibilities, making it very frustrating to work in an environment where one's hands are tied both by the challenges inherent to improvement of troubled school districts and the requirement to answer to various external parties such as teachers, parents, communities and local public officials. With the difficulties of resolving budget controversies, contending with myriad resource shortfalls and enduring a federal economic perspective toward education that is today, inconsistent at best, criminally negligent at worst, the superintendent must sometimes make decisions which are responsible but reprehensible to those without a full appreciate for the centricity required of the position. To this end, one journal published superintendent conceded that "partisan politics sometimes forces the superintendent of schools into a dilemma in which he must champion disgusting leadership in his party simply for the sake of being regular and therefore to hold his position as a school leader and through this leadership to do what he can to carry forward a decent program for education in his community." (Hall, 241) Such is to say that the superintendent must be conscientious of and willingly participatory in the political process if he is to survive in the position.

Even still, it has become a problematic inherency in some districts that the superintendent's role is generally seen as a conflictive one. The responsibility of resolving both practical and political priorities from diverse parties is not just a defining aspect of the role but is, even further, a confounding issue considering the core importance of educational development. To this point, a survey from 2001 of active superintendents revealed a troubling level of reported discontent with the ability left to satisfy the practical demands of a job impeded upon so heavily by political imperatives. According to the study, "over half of superintendents (54%) say they have to work around the school system to get things done, and one in 10 say the system actually ties their hands. Over half of principals (57%) say that in their own district even good administrators are so overwhelmed by day-to-day management that their ability to provide vision and leadership is stymied." (Hasan, 1)

Indeed, when we look at the responsibilities of the superintendent in such contexts as the administration of statewide school-districting concerns, it is apparent that public-impression, regional differences and statewide cultural realities also all play a crucial role in molding the political horizon for the person holding this position. One recent example demonstrates how politically difficult it can be to appease a diverse range of parties, all with a vested interests in the decisions which fall upon the shoulders of the superintendent. The notions of both dilemma and compromise have been touched upon in this discussion, and in the 2004 case of Georgia's statewide education policies, the state's school superintendent confronted a difficult dilemma with a compromise that in its attempted centricity has earned extensive criticism for its originator. In January of that year, state superintendent attempted to deal a middle-ground resolution to what has long been a sensitive and thorny issue concerning the content taught in public schools. With many of the religious Christian disposition objecting to the use of the term or instruction on the concept of evolution, a theory which many creationist devotees find to be blasphemous, there has long been pressure on school administrators and elected officials to push for some solution which might satisfy what comprises a statistically significant population of school parents and is becoming an increasingly powerful lobby group. The result of this is that the superintendent of schools in states such as Georgia, where such demographics are well-concentrated, is under pressure by segments of the public who wish to see part of the curriculum banished while, in response to this disposition, the superintendent is under equal pressure to defend this part of the curriculum. This constitutes a true dilemma because essentially any conceivable compromise will provoke vocal response from both parties for a failure to meet the totality of their demands. To this end, in Georgia, offering a prospective compromise to parties on all sides of the issue, "superintendent Kathy Cox said the concept of evolution would still be taught under the proposal, but the word would not be used. The proposal would not require schools to buy new textbooks omitting the word evolution and would not prevent teachers from using it." (AP, 1) Here, we can see that the superintendent is not overstepping any boundaries of power-entitlement or attempting to shape curriculum according to one political interest or the other. Instead, she has sought to administrate curriculum in a manner that she believes will straddle the middle ground and thus allow teachers the autonomy to teach scientific concepts absent of the elements which may be considered implicative of blasphemy. The result has been the outright hostility of parties on both sides.

The superintendent has been roundly criticized by opponents of evolution for failing to take any meaningful action, with most regarding this semantic approach as an essentially empty gesture. By retaining the concept while simply removing its key terminology, many believe that her response to political pressure has been negligible. In exact parallel, those applying political pressure requiring schools to defend theories which have been lent considerable scientific credence view the recent proposal as an undeserved nod to the interests of those actually demanding that schools bypass empirically verifiable education at the behest of religious extremists. The intensity of rhetoric and the transcendent nature of the issue illustrates that this is in impasse by which a superintendent may be hard-pressed, indeed, even unqualified, to resolve. Such is to suggest that the saddling of a school district or state system with the pressure to exemplify certain beliefs, ideals and cultural characteristics in turn burdens the top executive figure to find ways to temper this responsibility with the demands placed upon the office to do what is best for the school from an educational perspective. As we see here, when the paths to this dichotomy of roles diverges, the political pressures tend to force a lose-lose situation for the superintendent.