The role of the superintendent as perceived by school administrators and school board presidents in Texas public schools in Region 20 ESC

Abstract

This study examined the role of the superintendent as it is perceived by school administrators and school board presidents. The study was limited to public schools in Texas located within Region 20 ESC. Responses to a Likert-type instrument were solicited from school board presidents, superintendents and other school administrators (n=163). The questionnaire generated data regarding perceptions toward the role of the superintendent in nine different domains containing 38 different criteria. Results from an ANOVA showed no significant difference at the alpha level of .05. Sidak post-hoc tests were run as well, but because the ANOVA did not reveal any significant difference, the post-hoc data was not presented. The primary conclusion drawn from this study was that the perceived conflict in the literature that exists between boards and superintendents that is prevalent enough to cause a superintendent to leave a district, was not brought to light in this study. Board presidents, superintendents and other school administrators all appear to have the same perceptions regarding the role of the superintendent. This questionnaire did not reveal the source of conflict. However, the data revealed that board presidents, superintendents and other school administrators see the superintendent’s role in the same way. The findings from this research may indicate that as a result of extensive board training, there may be improved respect and communication between the board, superintendents, and other school administrators. Recommendations include, among others: 1. Research into the development of an instrument that examines a more reflective relationship between the board and superintendent dealing with the aspects of personality, character, prejudices and attitudes. 2. Through the legal process, to increase the length of a term for board members from the current three-year term to at least five years. 3. Through the legal process, modify the Open Meetings Act to allow boards the freedom to conduct self-evaluations and “board performance” issues behind closed doors. This would eliminate the perception of the board “airing dirty laundry” in public.