202 CRITICAL THEORY AND LEADERSHIP PRACTICES
employment and a tribute to the women and men who have mentored and encouraged women
onward” (pp. 147-148). The white female superintendent’s progress under the protection of
affirmative action may have caused people of color to cry foul for good reason. African
American feminists have argued that unlike their white counterparts, women of color are
burdened with the inequalities of race, class and gender—a three-fold setback. Taken
separately, each type of discrimination has the potential to have a detrimental impact on
status. In the foreword of Sacred Dreams, Schmuck put the scope of African American
female superintendents’ plight into perspective when she writes, “While the feminist
movement has been, in large part, a white, middle-class movement, the literature on women
of color has been growing and leads to our understanding that race and ethnicity are also
factors in the gendered construction of schooling (1999, p.ix).
Until recently, the African American female’s treatment in the press has been superficial
at best. In terms of books or journals, chapters dedicated to people of color have appeared in
the final section or chapter as an afterthought. One example is the book, The contemporary
superintendent: Preparation, practice and development by Bjork and Kowalski (2005) where
the last chapter before the summary is dedicated to minorities in the superintendency.
Whether intentional or not, reporting in this fashion reflects the amalgam of several
independent ethnicities (African, Asian, Native and Hispanics) and fails to zero in on the
unique qualities germane to an ethnic group or race. Invariably, “lumping” groups together
and marginalizing minority groups compromises the integrity of the research. While it is clear
that between 1990 and 2007 authors and researchers (Bjork, 2007; Glass, 2000; Grogan,
2005; Kamler, 2005), have attempted to interpret the superintendency through the lenses of
superintendents of color, they have not embraced the unconscious race issues that have, in
actuality, sustained African American female superintendents’ invisibility as CEOs, in spite of
their good intentions (Lawrence, 1995). The invisible barriers that have restricted the
movement of African Americans have limited their options and placed them in competition
with other African Americans for the few available openings.
As a result of the nation’s changing demographics, the education landscape pursuant to
stricter compliance issues under the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) law have made
researchers more responsive to the leadership profile of the female superintendent. If the
observations of Brunner and Grogan (2007) are accurate, then this nation is looking at an
increased turnabout as to the level and quality of attention researchers are giving to
superintendents of color. According to Brunner, the percentage of superintendents of color
has not kept pace with the increased percentages of children of color attending public schools
(Brunner, 2000 in Glass et al., p.103). Overcoming the white male power structure has
presented enormous challenges for African American women seeking leadership positions.
White males have functioned with the belief that they were losing precious ground to people
of color and minorities {Jackson, 2006; Redmond, 1996). Perceived or otherwise, under those
circumstances, progress at the expense of white males will cause friction in the workplace
especially when white males do most of the hiring (Jackson, 2006; Redmond, 1996).
DEMOGRAPHICS AND QUALIFICATIONS: WHO WE ARE
District location
Based on this sample, most female superintendents, or 50%, are employed in rural school
districts; 12% are in urban school districts, 31% in suburban and 8% selected other, an
amalgamation of suburban/urban or rural/suburban. Based on a three state study of female