(^301)
K-12 LEADERSHIP PRACTICES
New Leaders for Urban Schools: The Rise of
Non-Traditional School Leaders
Bonnie C. Fusarelli and Mark Duckworth
Within the last decade, in an attempt to improve often dismal school system performance,
several states passed laws changing certification requirements for superintendents, effectively
permitting anyone, however trained, to become superintendent of a school system (Fusarelli
& Petersen, 2002). Neo-conservative attacks questioning the efficacy of university-based
preparation programs (Hess, 2003; 2004; Levine, 2005), influenced state policymakers and
many states are revising licensing criteria and administrator certification requirements,
shifting from input models (e.g., academic credits and certification) to output-driven models
(e.g., competencies and performance) (Fusarelli, 2005).
Several states, including Michigan, Tennessee, and Illinois, have either partially or totally
eliminated requirements for superintendent preparation and several others, including
Louisiana, Colorado, Florida, Kentucky, and Washington, have lowered the barriers for entry
of non-educators into the superintendency. For example, Louisiana allows a non-traditional
superintendent to take the position in districts with over 45,000 students (Title 28, Part CXV,
Bulletin 741, Section 505)^1. In Tennessee, superintendents need only U.S. citizenship and a
college degree (in any field of study) (Tennessee Code Annotated 49-2-301). Further,
emergency certification for persons from non-traditional backgrounds in the form of waivers
is permissible in almost every state.
The movement toward alternative certification for school administrators reflects a
response to a perceived leadership crisis in America’s schools. Neo-conservative attacks on
public education—that schools are failing, have been failing for decades- has resulted in calls
for new thinking and new leadership (Hess, 2004).
Desperate to improve student achievement, several large school systems have hired
superintendents (now often called education or school chief executive officers) who have no
significant experience in educational settings. Citing past success in managing corporate
finances, meeting operational and strategic performance goals, and providing leadership
within a complex corporate hierarchy, these non-traditional superintendents have convinced
school boards and mayors that they can effectively execute needed school reform.
These new education Chief Executive Officers (CEO’s) have brought about various
changes in their systems and have received mixed reviews. Paul Houston, executive director
of the American Association of School Administrators (AASA), stated that “the performance
record of non-traditional superintendents from outside the field is mixed, with a few well-
publicized successes and some failures-particularly an inability to raise student achievement
and close the achievement gap” (The Council of State Governments, 2004). As school
(^1) A chief academic officer responsible for curriculum and instruction must be appointed by the LEA within 120
days of the non-traditional superintendent taking office.
Bonnie C. Fusarelli, North Carolina State University
Mark Duckworth, North Carolina State University