New Leaders for Urban Schools: The Rise of Non-Traditional School Leaders 303
Sun Microsystems. Moreover, urban school districts are often struggling to repair and
maintain an extensive network of old and decaying buildings with limited capital funding
resources. While the largest urban school districts comprise about one percent of all school
districts in the country, they serve close to 25% of the nation’s children, of whom
approximately 60% live in poverty and 70% belong to minority groups. This urban student
population has historically experienced low student achievement and high dropout rates.
Leaders of large urban school districts must successfully address significant income
achievement gaps and ethnic achievement gaps, “within a highly political, racially sensitive,
media-intensive, highly unionized and highly regulated public environment” (Quinn, 2007, p.
24).
EFFECTIVE SUPERINTENDENTS
Scholars have tried to determine the characteristics of effective superintendents for over
40 years. In his historical analysis of the position, Cuban (1976) noted three distinct
conceptions of superintendents: superintendent as (a) Teacher-Scholar (curriculum,
instruction, supervision); (b) Administrative Chief (management, finance, district
organization); and (c) Negotiator-Statesman (school boards, community, federal and state
relations). Cuban found that urban superintendents adopted diverse philosophies to help them
cope with an unpredictable environment and that while some conceptions proved more
durable than others at certain times, none disappeared, for they were inherent to the nature of
the job (Cuban, 1976).
Effective superintendents are reflective practittioners who wrestle with the conflicting
demands of the role and ask themselves, “Am I primarily a manager, politician, or
instructional leader?” (Cuban, 1998; Nestor-Baker & Hoy, 2001). As manager, the
superintendent must keep the “organization working smoothly and efficiently toward their
“goals” while “reducing conflict, seeking changes, and taking risks” (Cuban, 1998, p. 53). As
politician, superintendents use their technical and organizational skills in implementing what
others—school boards, governors, state legislatures, and the U.S. Congress—dictate to
“improve the district’s image, implement a desired program, or secure new resources”
(Cuban, 1998, p. 43). As instructional leader, the superintendent must “lead teachers and
principals in aligning the curriculum, raising academic standards, and producing better test
results” (Cuban, 1998, p. 53).
Paul Vallas, a non-traditional superintendent in both the Chicago and Philadelphia school
systems, attributes his success to the fact that he “immediately defined his vision for
education, outlined a five year plan for a balanced budget, and started talking with the
district’s unions” (Schaarsmith & Grant, 2005, p???). His successful approach can be related
to the Cuban model in the areas of Teacher-Scholar, Administrative Chief, and Negotiator-
Statesman.
Similarly, Petersen (1999) identified four characteristics essential to superintendent
effectiveness: (a) possession and articulation of an instructional vision, (b) the creation of an
organizational structure that supports their instructional vision and leadership, (c) assessment
and evaluation of personnel and instructional programs, and (d) organizational adaptation.
Kowalski (1995) asserted that as many as 50 facets of superintendents’ behaviors have been
explored by researchers and that they can be reduced to two broad categories. These
categories are situational variables (those relating to context) and personal variables (those