Page 1 of 12
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal – Vol. 11, No. 10
Publication Date: October 25, 2024
DOI:10.14738/assrj.1110.17791.
Bjork, L. G. (2024). The Instructional Leadership Role of Superintendents in Instructionally Effective School Districts. Advances in
Social Sciences Research Journal, 11(10). 375-386.
Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom
The Instructional Leadership Role of Superintendents in
Instructionally Effective School Districts
Lars G. Bjork
Department of Educational Leadership Studies,
University of Kentucky, USA
ABSTRACT
Throughout the past four decades (1983-2024), the rise of a global economy and
the changing nature of American society underscored the importance of educating
all children. Successive waves of education reform in the United States of America
(USA) launched a wide array of initiatives focused on improving student learning.
These state and federal policy initiatives were accompanied by an historic shift in
role expectations of school district superintendents. An examination of trend data
reported in three successive nation-wide reports released by the American
Association of School Administrators (AASA) for the years 2000, 2010 and 2020
(Glass, Björk & Brunner, 2000; Kowalski, et al., 2011; Tienken, 2021) suggest that
role expectations for district superintendents moved from away from an emphasis
on management to a focus on instructional leadership. In addition, findings on
superintendent instructional leadership practices in Instructionally Effective
School Districts (IESD) reported by Bjork (1993, 2010, 2024) and Bjork & Browne- Ferrigno (2014) note that they effectively used their managerial position to support
district-wide instructional improvement. They found that superintendents serving
in IESD school districts used enacted their management responsibilities in areas
that would indirectly influence the quality of learning and teaching including: (1)
Staff selection and recruitment; (2) Principal supervision and evaluation; (3)
Establishing clear instructional and curricular goals; (4) Monitoring learning and
curricular improvement activities and, (5) Financial planning for instruction. These
findings suggest that IESD superintendents’ use their management prerogatives to
enact their instructional leadership role and reframe school district leadership for
deeper learning in next generation schools.
Keywords: Superintendent, Leadership, Roles, Reform, Instruction.
INTRODUCTION
Providing a brief overview of the public education system in the United States of America (USA)
may facilitate understanding the context and changing role of school district superintendents
during the educational reform movement (1983-2024). Unlike many European nations, the
USA does not have a national education system under the direction of a ministry of education.
The U.S. Constitution makes no mention of education, but the Tenth Amendment reserves to
states all powers not specifically delegated to the federal government or prohibited to states by
the Constitution. Because education is not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, responsibility for
public education is a state responsibility and is included in their respective constitutions. State
legislatures formulate educational policies which are administered by state boards of education
and their appointed commissioners. In addition, states have delegated to local, school district
Page 2 of 12
376
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal (ASSRJ) Vol. 11, Issue 10, October-2024
Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom
boards of education the responsibility of conducting the practical, day-to-day operation of the
districts. They appoint a school district superintendent to enact state and local education
policies and manage district administrative affairs. There are fifty different state systems and
many differences exist among local school systems within the same state. There are
approximates 15,000 different local school districts-each has their own board, philosophy and
goals.
LITERATURE REVIEW
The critical importance of understanding the nature of school district superintendents’
instructional leadership role is examined in the context of the educational reform movement in
the USA that underscored the importance of enhancing student learning. In the following
section we review the relevant literature on how schooling is organized on a state rather than
a national level, the structure of policy making and administration and, the several waves of
education reform movement that influenced changes in superintendents’ roles as well as data
form nation-wide studies of the superintendent reported by the Association of School
Administrators (AASA) for the years 2000, 2010, and 2020 (Glass, Björk & Brunner, 2000;
Kowalski, et al.,2011; Tienken, 2021) as well as findings on superintendents serving in
Instructionally Effective School Districts (IESD).
The Role of the Federal Government in Education
Although the provision of public education since the colonial period has been the responsibility
of towns and cities, the General Welfare Clause of the U.S. Constitution gives Congress the ability
to allocate funds to support the common good. The language is broad enough for the federal
government to enact educational laws and allocate taxes to support the nation’s schools in ways
that support the general welfare of the nation. These federal funds however must be targeted
to specific education needs (i.e. mathematics, reading, special education et al.) and are
transferred to state governments that in turn, transfer funds to local school districts. The United
States Department of Education administered by a secretary of education, provides oversight
of federal education programs (i.e.) distribution of tax funds, collects data on the condition of
education in the nation and supports long-term research on important issues facing schools.
The Role of the State Government in Education
Every state constitution provides for the support and maintenance of education. State
constitutions and laws provide for the establishment of a uniform system of schools and specify
how they are governed. In this regard, state legislatures make laws regarding education,
determines school taxes and financial support to local districts. They set minimum standards
for teacher and administrative licensure, salary schedules, determine the curriculum and
special services (buses, books, and programs). The state school code is a compilation of laws
that guide the operation of school districts and conduct of education in respective states. The
typical education hierarchy includes a state school board that may be either elected or
appointed by the governor. The state board of education hires a commissioner or secretary of
education to oversee the state department of education. Education departments have separate
departments and experts that are aligned with different aspects of education and provide
oversight of local school operations. Schools are funded by local property taxes (60%), states
allocations (33%) and the feral government (7%).
Page 3 of 12
377
Bjork, L. G. (2024). The Instructional Leadership Role of Superintendents in Instructionally Effective School Districts. Advances in Social Sciences
Research Journal, 11(10). 375-386.
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/assrj.1110.17791
Local School Districts
Local school districts are the basic administrative unit in the education hierarchy. It exists at
the pleasure of the state, which has complete control of its boundaries, jurisdiction, funding,
and powers of the board of education. It is the primary point of education access of citizens in
education policy making. Policy making at the local level is constrained by the need to comply
with the state constitution, state laws, rules and regulations as well as federal laws. Local school
boards are elected and typically hold staggered terms to ensure continuity of decisions over
time. They tend to have 5-9 citizens however cities may have larger boards composed of 12-15
members. Local school boards primary responsibility is legislative (i.e.) making policy and
providing oversight of school district operations. One of their most important functions is to
hire a school district superintendent to provide managerial oversight. Districts may be
comprised of pre-schools, elementary schools (grades 1-5), middle schools (grades 6-9) and
high schools (grades 10-12).
The School District Superintendent
Local school boards hire a district superintendent who serves as a chief executive officer (CEO)
and manages its day-to-day affairs. They have a “central office” staff provides the expertise to
manage its affairs and may varies in size in accordance with the size of the district. The central
office staff provides oversight and support to local schools. Superintendents are hired on
multiple year contracts (usually 3-years in length). Superintendents’ career usually lasts 16
years and may serve in 2-3 districts spending about 6 years in each. Superintendent duties
include: (1) Advising the board of education on education and policy matters; (2) Making
recommendations to the board regarding personnel hiring; (3) Ensuring compliance with
directives of state and federal authorities; (4) Preparing district budgets for board review and
adoption; (5) Leading long-range planning activities; (6) Providing oversight of instructional
programs and student performance; (7) Determining the internal organizational structure of
the district; and (8) Making recommendations regarding school building maintenance and new
construction needs.
The School Principal
In most states, superintendents recommend individuals to be hired by the board of education.
The school principal is responsible for the operation of the school however, it is common
practice for principals to work closely some type of community group for improvement of the
school (e.g.) a Parent Teacher Association (PTA), school-based management council (SBMC) or
a site based decision-making council (SBDMC). During the education reform movement in the
United States (1983-2024) the role of principals shifted from a management to an instructional
leadership focus to ensure that all students learn. Characteristics of effective principals includes
evidences leadership in providing clearly defined goals, curriculum and instruction, articulating
high expectations for student achievement, monitoring students’ academic progress,
professional development and teacher engagement in instructional improvement.
The Education Reform Movement in the United States of America
The report, A Nation at Risk (1983) indicted schools for inadequately preparing children and
jeopardizing the nation’s economy. It launched an educational reform movement in the United
States that is unprecedented in its scale and duration (Björk, Browne Ferrigno & Kowalski,
2018; Björk, 2001). For over four decades education reform efforts have contributed to calls
for accountability, improving learning and teaching as well as changing the nature of principal
Page 4 of 12
378
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal (ASSRJ) Vol. 11, Issue 10, October-2024
Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom
and superintendent leadership (Björk, Kowalski & Young, 2005). Recent studies of educational
reform in the USA suggest that while school districts were held to high accountability standards
by their respective state governments, they decentralized school districts giving greater
decision-making authority to principals and teachers. The devolution of decision making to the
building level was accompanied by adoption of team leadership strategies and
transformational leadership styles that increased teacher voice in classroom-focused change
initiatives.
After the release of the A Nation at Risk: The Imperative for Educational Reform (National
Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983), scholarly interest in district-level, systemic
reform heightened and focused on the role of superintendents particularly regarding how they
were launching and sustaining educational change initiatives (Brunner, Grogan, & Björk, 2002).
Throughout the protracted era of education reform, media coverage created a perception that
schools had failed in meeting their responsibility to the nation’s children and the economy.
Consequently, parents, policymakers, and citizens not only pressed for accountability but also
called for substantive changes in the nature and direction of public education. Over the next
several decades, educational reform reports were released in four consecutive waves. Although
each wave had a unique focus, related themes gave them a sense of coherency (Björk, Kowalski,
& Young, 2005). For example, the first wave (1983-1986) focused on improving student
academic performance, school-level accountability, increasing high school graduation
requirements, increasing the length of the school day and year, and increasing the rigor of
teacher-licensure requirements.
Themes that emerged during the second wave of education reform (1985-1989) included
implementation of standards-based tests, focusing on higher-order thinking and problem- solving skills, technological literacy, and collaborative (team) learning. An important and
pervasive theme in Second Wave reports recognized demographic trends and acknowledged
that race and poverty had a profound impact on student learning outcomes. The third wave of
education reform reports (1989-2003) criticized recommendations of reports previously
released as being narrowly prescriptive, solution driven and focused on organizational and
professional issues related to decision-making rather than on teaching and student learning
outcomes.
The fourth wave of education reform (2004-2024) echoed previous recommendations
(Ravitch, 2010). Policy analysts, professors and practitioners took exception to the No Child Left
Behind (2002) legislation that placed undo emphasis on top-down and coercive mandates.
These provisions reflected the persistent and regressive theme of accountability in using
prescribed measures of student academic progress and endorsed the notion of top-down
authority in schools and districts. These reports and subsequent legislation embodied a view of
leadership and change that contradicted research findings that suggest that collaboration
among stakeholder groups (teachers, parents, professors, and policy makers) facilitated the
change process. Although passage of Every Student Succeeds Act (2015) remedied many
onerous regulatory provisions of the No Child Left Behind (2002), superintendents took the lead
in beginning to decentralize their districts (Björk, Browne-Ferrigno, & Potterton, 2019). They
accomplished this by taking action in five key areas including: (1) Asserting the need for
administrative coherency; (2) Building capacity of principals and teachers as leaders of
building-level reform initiatives (Bjӧrk, Browne-Ferrigno & Kowalski, 2018); (3) Convening
Page 5 of 12
379
Bjork, L. G. (2024). The Instructional Leadership Role of Superintendents in Instructionally Effective School Districts. Advances in Social Sciences
Research Journal, 11(10). 375-386.
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/assrj.1110.17791
district-level leadership teams to align infrastructure, improve operational efficiency and re- center work on student learning (Anderson & Young, 2018); (4) Modeling administrative
teamwork for central office staff, principals and teachers who were assuming greater
responsibility for change and, (5) Using data on demographic shifts in the population and
student performance to change the curriculum and teaching to better serve all students (Björk,
Browne-Ferrigno, & Potterton, 2019). Taken together, these decentralization efforts not only
underscored the importance of teamwork but also redefined the roles of teachers, principals
and superintendents as interrelated parts of district learning organizations (Collinson & Cook,
2007). Analysis of superintendents’ decentralization efforts suggests that they used their
position and authority to structure and restructure school districts (Bruner, Grogan & Bjork,
2002). Scholars also suggest that the roles of superintendents changed over time to reflect the
changing reality of work, shifting expectations and increasing responsibilities for leading
school reform initiatives.
It is evident that during the reform era (1983-2024) the links between the nation’s economy,
society, and schools were irrefutable, and education reform was viewed not as a singular event
but as a continuous change process. In this regard, education reform was viewed as a way for
the nation to adjust to a wide range of global economic, political, social, and technological
changes. Responses to these global shifts have contributed not only to redefining the nature
and scope of learning and teaching but also altered the nature of superintendents’ work. Rather
than superintendents continuing to serve as top-down managers, they expanded the scope of
their work by: (a) interpreting social and economic forces on schools, (b) reconfiguring
organizational structures, (c) engaging local community members, (d) facilitating instructional
improvement, (e) building capacity of their professional staffs to work as teams, and (f)
institutionalizing organizational learning as a long-term survival mechanism (Browne- Ferrigno & Bjӧrk, 2018). Taken together, global shifts had a profound impact on heightening
the importance of superintendents in accomplishing successful systemic reform.
SUPERINTENDENT ROLE CHARACTERIZATIONS
During the last several decades (1983-2024) growth of the global economy launched a wide
array of economic, social, and political changes in the United States of America (USA). As
policymakers aligned student academic performance with long-term, national economic
survival the scope of educational reform altered the nature of learning and teaching shifting it
away from simply ensuring students were literate and numerate to preparing the next
generation of workers and advancing equity. Consequently, state and national education policy
initiatives focused on challenging issues of increasing student learning as measured by
standardized test scores. During the last several years, education leaders and policy makers
have examined the long-term impact of changing the nature and direction of learning and
teaching. The notion of next generation schools and deeper learning (content knowledge,
application and problem solving), technology and the compelling need to ensure equity have
underscored the importance changing the nature and direction of schools. These shifts in the
expected outcomes of student learning accentuate the importance of structurally supporting
the development of school principals and teachers who are regarded as the engines of
education reform.
Studies of education reform initiatives in the USA not only examined pedagogical shifts but also
studied the concurrent devolution of responsibility for decision making to school principals and
Page 6 of 12
380
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal (ASSRJ) Vol. 11, Issue 10, October-2024
Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom
classroom teachers. The unprecedented focus on improving learning and teaching also had an
impact on heightening the importance of the instructional leadership role of school district
superintendents. Research findings suggest that decentralization initiatives altered traditional
management structures of schools and districts and reconfigured relationships among
superintendents, middle management staff, principals, and teachers. It shifted emphasis away
from hierarchical management authority towards enacting dimensions of transformational
leadership particularly building-level, team leadership.
An important dimension of scholarly work during this reform era examined the increase in
importance of the instructional leadership role of superintendents. This discussion will be
framed by a concise review of the literature on education reform, role characterizations of
school district superintendents, transformational leadership and attributes of superintendents
serving in Instructionally Effective School Districts (IESD). Superintendent instructional
leadership practices in IESD reported by AASA for the years 2000, 2010 and 2020 (Glass, Björk
& Brunner, 2000; Kowalski, et al., 2011; Tienken, 2021) that their continuous involvement and
use of their managerial position created the circumstances for district-wide instructional
improvement as measured by standardized tests. Several practices associated with
instructional improvement included: (1) Staff selection and recruitment; (2) Principal
supervision and evaluation; (3) Establishing clear instructional and curricular goals; (4)
Monitoring learning and curricular improvement activities and, (5) Financial planning for
instruction. These findings suggest that superintendents’ may use their management
prerogatives as leverage to enact their instructional leadership role. Although understanding
superintendents emerging instructional leadership role in IESD contexts is based on students’
performance on standardized tests scores, it provides insight into their role as institutional
actors in improving achievement and advancing equity.
The complexity of leading large-scale, district education reform initiatives require
superintendents to have a wide range of knowledge and skills that scholars have described as
five role characterizations. These roles have been validated historically (Brunner, Grogan &
Björk (2002) and although some of these roles may increase or decline in importance, all
remain relevant to contemporary practice (Björk, Browne-Ferrigno, & Potterton, 2019). These
role conceptualizations provide a framework for understanding the complexity of the position
and help to define knowledge and skills linked to effective leadership. Superintendent five role
characterizations include serving as: Educator; Manager; Democratic Leader; Social Scientist
and, Communicator.
Superintendent as Educator
Since the 1850s, the primary emphasis of superintendents’ work was overseeing district
academic programs and ensuring that states’ mandated curriculum was implemented, and
teachers received adequate supervision. In sum, the earliest superintendents were essentially
master teachers (Callahan, 1962). However, they were viewed as more than administrative
functionaries during the latter part of the 19th century. During this era, they were regarded as
intellectuals in their local communities and used their privileged status to deflect political
intrusion into district affairs. Although their role as educational leader was displaced by more
demanding managerial roles, it reemerged in the education reform era (1983-2024) as a
primary role expectation by school boards (Kowalski et al., 2011). During this era,
superintendents enacted their role as an instructional leader by using their administrative
Page 7 of 12
381
Bjork, L. G. (2024). The Instructional Leadership Role of Superintendents in Instructionally Effective School Districts. Advances in Social Sciences
Research Journal, 11(10). 375-386.
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/assrj.1110.17791
prerogatives to support teaching and learning. Scholars found that superintendents serving in
Instructionally Effective School Districts (IESD) are characterized as being actively engaged in
instructional improvement efforts. In addition, they used administrative levers at their disposal
to indirectly influence the behavior of principals and teachers who had a more direct impact on
curriculum, instruction, and student academic performance. Their instructional leadership
levers included: 1) Participating in staff recruitment and selection; 2) Establishing clear
expectations for principal performance and evaluations; 3) Articulating instructional and
curricular goals; 4) Monitoring curricular improvement and student learning outcomes and, 5)
Engaging in financial planning for instruction. When superintendents reframed routine
management activities, they became powerful levers for increasing the instructional
effectiveness and added a new dimension to their work as transformational leaders (Björk,
Browne-Ferrigno & Kowalski, 2018).
Superintendent as Manager
During the late 19th and early 20th century, the impact of industrialization, immigration, and
urbanization increased the size of school districts (1880s-1920s) and contributed to adaption
of business-oriented ideas about how school districts should be managed. The influence of big
business contributed to a shift in the nature and direction of superintendents’ work (Kowalski,
1999). Adoption of corporate perspectives influenced how business-dominated school boards
perceived their roles and transformed superintendents’ role from serving as an education
leader to that of a chief executive officer (CEO). Their administrative responsibilities included
budgeting, administration, personnel, and facility management (Kowalski et al., 2011) and
remained the focus of their work until the educational reform movement prioritized improving
student learning outcomes (Björk, Browne-Ferrigno & Potterton, 2019).
Superintendent as Democratic Leader
States have the responsibility for the provision of education and although state legislatures give
oversight authority to state boards of education, local school boards effectively govern school
districts. School boards hire superintendents to implement state and local education policy.
Local school boards and superintendents are subject to a wide array of local, state, and national
political influence. In this regard, the nature of superintendents’ work as a manager not only
involves oversight of a large corporate-like education enterprise but must contend with a wide
array of interest groups and coalitions that want to influence educational issues. In this regard,
the superintendents’ role as democratic leader is viewed as being political. Although the notion
of politics was soundly rejected by educators during previous decades (Björk & Lindle, 2001),
declining public support and unfunded education reform mandates necessitated their
increasing their advocacy role in support of sound education policies and adequate funding for
public schools. These circumstances compelled superintendents to become political strategists
and skilled at diplomatically galvanizing support for education among policymakers,
employees, and citizens (Howlett, 1993). The issue facing school district superintendents is not
whether they should be political but rather how they effectively enact that role on behalf of
children (Björk & Gurley, 2005).
Superintendent as Applied Social Scientist
The notion that the school district superintendent is an applied social scientist was defined by
the emergence of an information society during the 1950s. It contributed to greater
transparency in all organizations but most importantly shed light on the nations’ changing
Page 8 of 12
382
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal (ASSRJ) Vol. 11, Issue 10, October-2024
Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom
social context and the failure of schools to serve the nation’s economically disadvantaged and
racial minority students (Kowalski & Björk, 2005). During the education reform movement,
superintendents used the tools available to social scientists to better understand the
relationship between society and schooling to help create a more equitable and just society.
During recent decades, school district superintendents have become acutely aware of
important challenges facing schools that are grounded in changing demographics, poverty,
racism, drugs, and violence (Kochan, Jackson, & Duke, 1999).
Superintendent as Communicator
The role of the school district superintendent as a communicator is essential to their effectively
carrying out all of their roles and responsibilities. The emergence of the educational reform
movement in the USA (1983-2024) redefined superintendents’ communication patterns
moving it away from a top down, corporate model to a highly nuanced, interactive, two-way
processes essential to professional teamwork. In the context of educational reform, the impact
of technology, teamwork, voice, and collaboration changed historic communication patterns
(Chance & Björk, 2004). Superintendents recognized that these factors increased
interdependency and influenced the way people learn and behave (Schlechty, 1997). They
contributed towards more horizontal internal communication patterns compatible with
teamwork but also used social media platforms to inform parents and the public about school
district events.
RESEARCH METHODS
Three nation-wide studies (2000, 2010, 2020) conducted by the American Association of
School Administrators (AASA) (Glass, Björk & Brunner, 2000; Kowalski, et al., 2011; Tienken,
2021) provide trend data on the changing nature of superintendent’s roles during the
educational reform movement in the United Sates of America (1983-2024). Decennial studies
of the superintendence have been reported by AASA and its antecedents since 1928 and
constitute the most definitive body of work in the field. The three most recent studies roughly
correspond to the education reform era in the USA. These studies sampled a population of
12,600 school district superintendents. Participants included: 2000 (2,262); 2010 (1,867) and
2020 (1,218). All three studies used a mixed methods data collection approach and focused on
identifying their characteristics, roles, and responsibilities. Data suggest that superintendents’
instructional leadership role increased in importance (2000: 40.2%; 2010: 26%; 2020: 58%)
in relation to their traditional managerial role (2000: 36.2%; 2010: [Ranked 2nd]; 2020: 47%)
that help understand the relationship between national education reform initiatives and role
change. Furthermore, the nature of superintendents managerial and educator (instructional
leadership) roles is explicated by ISED scholars who have identified practices that offer insight
into how they enact their instructional leadership role.
Superintendents as Institutional Actors in Educational Reform
Recent moves towards school district decentralization and relational leadership (i.e.) working
with and through others to improve student learning outcomes is important shift in the nature
and direction of superintendents’ work. For example, Burns (1978) notes that corporate- oriented, top-down managers view workers as needing close supervision, focus on efficiency
and centralize the coordination of work. However, Bass (1985) and Rost (1991) view
leadership as working with and through others in accomplishing shared goals (Björk, Kowalski,
& Young, 2005). Rost (1991) made an important contribution to leadership literature in
Page 9 of 12
383
Bjork, L. G. (2024). The Instructional Leadership Role of Superintendents in Instructionally Effective School Districts. Advances in Social Sciences
Research Journal, 11(10). 375-386.
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/assrj.1110.17791
defining transformational leadership as, “an influence relationship among leaders and
followers who intend real changes that reflect their mutual purposes” (p.162). In this regard,
superintendents viewed as being transformational leaders are focused on empowering others,
enhancing commitment, and building a sense of community and ownership in the organization.
In sum, superintendents acting as transformational leaders are actively engaged in education
reform and employ diverse strategies to foster relationships and motivation, address individual
needs, support professional growth, and encourage higher-order cognitive thinking (Bass,
1985). In addition, ISED literature suggests they may also use managerial prerogatives to
recruit and select staff, evaluate principals and teachers to gauge their competency in
accomplishing tasks and provide supportive professional development. Both relational
leadership and managerial prerogatives contribute to accomplishing their overarching goal of
improving student leaning outcomes (Björk, Browne-Ferrigno & Kowalski, 2018). In sum, trend
data reported by AASA for the years 2000, 2010 and 2020 (Glass, Björk & Brunner, 2000;
Kowalski, et al., 2011; Tienken, 2021) on an increasing emphasis on superintendents’
instructional leadership role and findings from research on superintendents’ serving in
instructionally effective school districts (IESD) suggest that superintendents may be viewed as
transformational leaders not only with regard effectively using administrative levers at their
disposal to increase the effectiveness principals and teachers but also in adopting relational
leadership strategies characteristic of professional, knowledge-work organizations. Taken
together, superintendents serving in IESD districts are adopting leadership strategies that
enhance teachers’ knowledge and skills and indirectly improve students’ performance on
standardized tests.
CONCLUSION
Superintendents’ role characterizations provide a useful framework for understanding the
multi-dimensional aspects of their work. In many respects, school district superintendents are
like executives of large complex organizations. Both sit at the apex of an organization’s
hierarchy that tends to place a premium on centralization and transactional, top-down
management to accomplish work. However, the education reform movement (1983-2024)
altered this traditional pattern of school district-level administrative in rather significant ways.
Superintendents serving in IESD districts recognized that their central office staff, principals
and teachers were the engines of reform and re-conceptualized their role as instructional
leaders. Research findings on Instructionally Effective School Districts (IESD) suggest that
superintendents were both transformational leaders who worked with and through others,
nurtured teamwork and collaboration as well as used their administrative prerogatives (i.e.
organizational space) to formulate goals, set expectations and, build the capacity of the staff to
enhance student learning outcomes (Browne-Ferrigno & Bjӧrk, 2018). Scholars note that
organizational learning is a process that is directed towards building the capacity of its
members to understand why change is needed, establish new organizational goals and
performance expectations (Fiol & Lyles, 1985; Popova-Nowak & Cseh, 2015). Superintendents
who serve as transformational leaders’ value organizational learning and engage in the
“deliberate use of individual, group, and system learning to embed new thinking and practices
that continuously renew and transform the organization in ways that support shared aims”
(Collinson & Cook, 2007). In sum, they create shared meanings (Noam, Cook & Yanow, 1993)
that contribute to re-culturing their school district organizations over time (Wenger (1998).
Page 10 of 12
384
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal (ASSRJ) Vol. 11, Issue 10, October-2024
Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom
Several promising new lines of inquiry on superintendent role characterizations have been
identified during the educational reform movement (1983-2024) that align with their
responsibility to enhance student academic performance. First, superintendents’ role as social
scientist and using data to ensure that all children are educated may be central to ensuring
continuation of a democratic society. It may also be instrumental in preparing them to
participate in an increasingly global economy. Second, the education reform movement, the
recent Covid-19 Pandemic, the post-Pandemic context and strident, partisan political conflict
underscores the need for additional research on the superintendents’ role of both
communicator and democratic leader. Understanding effective modes of internal and external
communication in crisis modes is central to their capacity to understand as well as represent
the school district to multiple and diverse communities it serves. Third, although scholars have
contributed to our understanding of instructionally effective school districts (ISED) the
dynamics of changing organizational cultures and the social architecture of school districts are
complex. Additional research focused on understanding how school district superintendents
work with and through others to accomplish their work will make a significant contribution to
the field (Browne-Ferrigno & Björk, 2018). Lastly, the challenge facing the field is to understand
how the levers identified in IESD research reports may also be applicable to their enacting
instructional leadership roles as school districts move towards placing greater emphasis on
deeper learning (content knowledge, application and problem solving), technology and
broadening equity. In these new learning contexts, the measures of student success will change
and consequently identifying indicators of superintendents’ instructional leadership roles may
become problematic.
The education reform movement (1983-2024) challenged superintendents to meet the needs
of a changing society and a global economy. Their role in educating the next generations of
students remains an essential part of sustaining a democratic society, preserving the economic
wellbeing of the nation and advancing equity. Although public schools have contributed to the
nation’s capacity to embrace a diverse society and participate in a technology-oriented, global
economy remains a work in progress.
References
Anderson, E., & Young, M. (2018). A research-based framework for district effectiveness. UCEA Review, 59(3), 1-
11.
Björk, L. (1993). Effective schools-effective superintendents: The emerging instructional leadership role. Journal
of School Leadership, 3(3), 246-259.
Björk, L. G. (2001). The role of the central office in decentralization. In T. J. Kowalski & G. Perreault (Eds.), 21st
century challenges for school administrators (pp.286-309). Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press.
Bjork, L. (2024). The Instructional Leadership Role of Superintendents in Instructionally Effective School
Districts. The Paris Conference on Arts & Humanities, Paris France: June 16, 2024.
Björk, L. G., Browne-Ferrigno, T. (2014). Introduction-International Perspectives on Educational Reform and
Superintendent Leadership. Leadership and Policy in Schools. 13(4), 357-361.
Björk, L. G., Browne-Ferrigno, T., & Kowalski, T. J. (2018). Superintendent roles as CEO and Team leader.
Research in Educational Administration and Leadership, 3(2), 179-205.
Page 11 of 12
385
Bjork, L. G. (2024). The Instructional Leadership Role of Superintendents in Instructionally Effective School Districts. Advances in Social Sciences
Research Journal, 11(10). 375-386.
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/assrj.1110.17791
Björk, L. G., Browne-Ferrigno, T., & Potterton, A. U. (2019). Educational reform in the United States:
Superintendents role in promoting social justice through organizational justice. In R. Papa (Ed.), Handbook on
promoting social justice in education: Educational reform in the United States. New York, NY: Springer.
Björk, L. G., & Gurley, D. K. (2005). Superintendent as educational statesman and political strategist. In L. G. Björk
& T. Kowalski (Eds.), The contemporary superintendent: Preparation, practice, and development (pp.163-185).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Björk, L. G., Kowalski, T. J., & Young, M. D. (2005). National reports and implications for professional preparation
and development. In L. G. Björk & T. J. Kowalski (Eds.), The contemporary superintendent: Preparation, practice
and development (pp. 45-70). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Björk, L., & Lindle, J. C. (2001). Superintendents and interest groups. Educational Policy, 15(1), 76-91.
Browne-Ferrigno, T., & Björk, L. G. (2018). Reflections on education reform and team leadership. Research in
Educational Administration and Leadership, 3(2), 339-347.
Brunner, C. C., Grogan, M., & Björk, L. G. (2002). Shifts in the discourse defining the superintendency: Historical
and current foundations of the position. In J. Murphy (Ed.), The educational leadership challenge: Redefining
leadership for the 21st century (pp. 211-238). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Burns, J. (1978). Leadership. New York, Harper, Torchbooks.
Callahan, R. E. (1962). Education and the cult of efficiency: A study of the social forces that have shaped the
administration of public schools. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Chance, P. L., & Björk, L. G. (2004). The social dimensions of public relations. In T. J. Kowalski (Ed.), Public
relations in schools (3rd ed., pp.125-148). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill, Prentice Hall.
Collinson, V., & Cook, T. F. (2007). Organizational learning: Improving learning, teaching, and leading in school
systems. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Every Student Succeeds Act, Pub. L. 114-95—114th Congress (2015).
Fiol, C. M., & Lyles, M. (1985). Organizational learning. Academy of Management Review, 10, 803-813.
Glass, T. E., Björk, L. G., & Brunner, C. C. (2000). The study of the American superintendency 2000: A look at the
superintendent in the new millennium. Arlington, VA.: American Association of School Administrators.
Howlett, P. (1993). The politics of school leaders, past and future. Education Digest, 58(9), 18-21.
Kochan, F. K., Jackson, B. L., & Duke, D. L. (1999). A thousand voices from the firing line: A study of educational
leaders, their jobs, their preparation and the problems they face. Columbia, MO: University Council for
Educational Administration.
Kowalski, T.J. (1999). The school superintendent: Theory, practice, and cases. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice- Hall.
Kowalski, T. J., & Björk, L. G. (2005). Role expectations of district superintendents: Implications for deregulating
preparation and licensing. Journal of Thought, 40(2), 73-96.
Kowalski, T. J., McCord, R. S., Petersen, G. J., Young, I. P., & Ellerson, N. M. (2011). The American school
superintendent: 2010 decennial study. Lanham, MD: Rowan & Littlefield Education.
National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform.
Washington, DC: U. S. Government Printing Office.
Page 12 of 12
386
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal (ASSRJ) Vol. 11, Issue 10, October-2024
Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom
No Child Left Behind, H. R. 1—107th Congress (2002).
Noam Cook, S. D., & Yanow, D. (1993). Culture and organizational learning. Journal of Management Inquiry, 2(4),
373-390.
Popova-Nowak, I. V., & Cseh, M. (2015). The meaning of organizational learning: A meta-paradigm perspective.
Human Resource Development Review, 14(3), 299-331.
Ravitch, D. (2010). The death and life of the great American school system: How testing and choice are
undermining education. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Rost, J.C. (1991). Leadership for the twenty-first century. Westport, CT: Praeger.
Schlechty, P. (1990). Schools for the 21st century. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Tienken, C. H. (2021). The American Superintendent 2020 Decennial Study. Lanham MD: Rowan & Littlefield.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. New York, NY: Cambridge
University Press.