224 CRITICAL THEORY AND LEADERSHIP PRACTICES
(and the largest numbers to date) find 18% women superintendents across the U.S. (Brunner
& Grogan, 2007). The question of why there are so few women in the superintendency
becomes puzzling when one considers three paradoxical situations. One situation has to do
with the pathway toward the position of superintendent. Glass (1992) found that a typical
pathway for women to the superintendency is from the position of teacher, and then to
principal, to central office position, to superintendent. Since the position of teacher is the first
position held in that pathway and since women comprise approximately 75% of all teachers
(Bell & Chase, 1993), one would expect women to hold more leadership positions in schools
than they currently do.
The second paradoxical situation has to do with increased numbers of women in graduate
education leadership programs. Research (Grogan, 1996, Gupton & Slick, 1995) has shown
that while men have historically dominated the field of education administration, there has
been an increase in female enrollment in graduate programs in education administration. In
school administration programs, the percentage of female students now outnumbers males. A
1997 survey of member institutions in the University Council for Educational Administration
(UCEA) showed that 74% of certification programs in institutions responding to the survey
had from 51to 72% women (Logan, 1998). Results from this survey correspond to other
research that shows women entering education programs in increasing numbers since the
1970s (Grogan, 1996).
The third situation exists because there are more women in the pipeline for the
superintendency as increasing numbers of women are moving into more central office
positions and school principalships. Hodgkinson and Montenegro (1999) found that women
occupied 33 % of assistant, associate, deputy, or area superintendent positions. At 57%,
representation of women in central office administration (such as curriculum directors and
supervisors of special programs) surpasses that of men. In the principalship, women represent
20% at the secondary school level (still low in number) but 53% women reportedly are
elementary school principals (Hodgkinson & Montenegro, 1999).
Barriers exist for women entering the superintendency. One barrier cited in the literature
is the lack of role models for women and is believed to be part of the reason more women do
not get into the superintendency (Brunner, 1998b). Researchers suggest that another barrier
occurs when leadership is approached from a male perspective (Brunner, 1998a; Shakeshaft,
1989; Wesson & Grady, 1994a). Shakeshaft (1989) explained that educational theories
developed from a male-centered or androcentric framework are a result of imbalanced and
inaccurate research and are not representative of the female paradigm. Campbell (1996) stated
that “narrow definitions of leadership based on male models or theories need to be expanded
to include women’s values, beliefs, and experiences” (p. 9).
FRAMEWORK AND PERSPECTIVE
In this section, I address why feminist standpoint theory is used as an overarching
theoretical framework for thinking about the inclusion of women leaders’ perspectives when
designing coursework in education leadership programs. Standpoint theory, emerging from
feminist critical theory in the 1970s and 1980s has been proposed as an explanation as to why
women are a marginalized group but also as a methodology to guide future feminist research.
As a critical theory, it delves into relations between the production of knowledge and
practices of power. Feminist standpoint theory has been used as a framework for empowering
oppressed groups to value their experiences. Giving these groups recognition and voice can be
an important source of critical insight (Harding, 2004). Feminist standpoint theorists claim