Superintendents

Key Findings

• Key Finding 1

  Superintendents are significantly less diverse than K-12 public school students, teachers, and administrators.

  Women and leaders of color are significantly underrepresented among K-12 public school district superintendents. Nationally, 87% of superintendents are white, and 71% are men, substantially higher proportions than among principals or teachers (see Figure 1). Researchers have found varied reasons for this underrepresentation, including women and leaders of color being socialized to delay pursuing leadership positions until they gain more experience or higher credentials; inequities in access to mentoring, networks, and coaching that would support progress toward the superintendency; and discrimination and biases in recruitment and hiring processes and policies.

  Explore the evidence
• Key Finding 2

  Pathways to and through the superintendency are inequitable.

  Inequities in pathways to and through the superintendency contribute to a lack of diversity. Men and white educators reach the superintendency in fewer years than women and leaders of color. Women and leaders of color are significantly more likely than white men to obtain a superintendent position in large, urban districts and those with fewer resources. While some research suggests that women feel that their men counterparts are more mobile, national data show that, on average, there are no significant gender-based differences in the likelihood of leaving the role, although there are some state and geographic nuances in these trends. results.

  Explore the evidence
• Key Finding 3

  Superintendent attrition is rising nationally, and reasons for attrition vary.

  Superintendent attrition has consistently risen in each of the past four years. However, superintendent attrition rates are not uniform across all states and school district types. For example, urban districts and districts serving larger proportions of students of color are significantly more likely to experience superintendent attrition. Age is an important predictor of attrition, and about half of exits appear to be retirements. Yet, other contextual factors also are important, including local politics. Attrition taking place in politicized contexts or contentious environments has grown over the last four years.

  Explore the evidence
• Key Finding 4

  Superintendent work is not a monolith.

  Differences in district size and locale mean that superintendents’ day-to-day work can differ substantially across contexts. Superintendents’ legal responsibilities, state and local political contexts, and the extent of authority over both revenue generation and spending within their district can vary across space and time. Moreover, superintendents in large, urban districts are often responsible for the oversight of several district administrators, such as directors of human resources, finances, special services, and curriculum and instruction. In contrast, a superintendent of a small, rural district may be the only central office employee. In addition, such a superintendent may also serve as a principal, athletic director, or classroom teacher. Moreover, superintendents leading portfolio districts must manage external partners affiliated with charter schools or non-profit organizations.

  Explore the evidence
• Key Finding 5

  Measuring superintendent impact is challenging.

  Although superintendents influence resource allocation in ways that matter for student experiences and outcomes (e.g., proposing and managing district budgets, hiring and retaining high-quality teachers and leaders), empirically measuring superintendents’ contributions has proved challenging. These challenges result from both data availability and methodological limitations. Existing research finds limited impacts on student test score performance, but given the research challenges, we should be extremely cautious in how we interpret these.

  Explore the evidence

Introduction

Superintendents are chief executive officers of school districts, responsible for managing day-to-day operations and implementing the policies and strategies adopted by local, state, and federal policy makers. Although the specific roles and legal responsibilities of a superintendent may vary from state to state, common duties include establishing a vision and goals for the district and developing and implementing strategies to achieve the vision and goals; ensuring district compliance with local, state, and federal policies laws, rules, and regulations; hiring and evaluating district and/or school administrators (e.g., assistant superintendents, principals); making recommendations to the school board related to district expenditures and investments, changes to policies or procedures, and maintenance and improvement of safe infrastructure; implementing the district budget approved by the school board and responsibly spending taxpayer dollars; and serving as the reviewing authority for challenges made by students or families related to school-level decisions and ensuring due process rights of students.

While primarily a leadership and management role, the superintendent role also has an important political dimension.¹ Although some are appointed by mayors or state officials who have assumed control of the district, superintendents typically are hired by and report to a locally elected school board, connecting them closely to the voting public. The political nature of the role means an emphasis on developing relationships with school board members and engaging with diverse community stakeholders around district policy and financial decisions.² Regardless of the school governance structure (charter, private, portfolio, traditional), a superintendent—sometimes referred to as a chief executive officer or head of schools—carries out each of the aforementioned roles.

Because superintendents lead operations and management efforts that ultimately impact student access to educational opportunities, some research on superintendents considers whether and how superintendents influence performance and outcomes of school systems. Other research has focused on superintendents’ impact on other aspects of the education system, such as through the implementation of policy. Another area of superintendent research emphasizes inequities in the superintendency—primarily focused on pathways to and through the superintendency and variation in the treatment of current and aspiring superintendents based on personal characteristics such as gender and race.

Understudied topics. Much of the research on superintendents has focused on understanding trends in the superintendent labor market, the experiences of superintendents, and the ways that superintendents shape educational opportunities for students. Important topics for future research include:

• Superintendent selection and variation in selection processes and decisions across school boards and search firms

• Superintendent time use and its connections to job satisfaction, well-being, professional effectiveness, and stability

• Policies and practices that support a more diverse superintendent workforce and contribute to healthy superintendent retention

• Outcomes and outputs that can and should be part of superintendent effectiveness research.

Policy considerations. Much of the research related to the superintendency is limited to relatively small sample sizes at a single point in time, making it difficult to make broad policy recommendations due to differences in trends and patterns across state and local contexts and over time. Investments in larger-scale studies at the state or national level over time could help inform policy changes and nuances in policies that are necessary to account for variation in local contexts. Yet, among the studies we have, local school boards and state policymakers may consider:

• Scalability of policies targeting inclusion, stability, and effectiveness in the superintendency. The work of superintendents varies based on district locale, size, needs of students and families served, and community priorities, as well as state policy and the political and economic context. Thus, enacting one-size-fits-all policies to improve superintendent diversity, reduce turnover, or promote effectiveness may be challenging.

• Governance and contracts. The work of the superintendency and superintendent labor markets cannot be considered without examining the body that typically hires, evaluates, and either renews or ends a superintendent’s contract: publicly elected local school boards. Policies and practices related to the superintendent hiring process, including the use of search firms, as well as superintendent contracts must be considered in any effort to improve superintendent diversity, well-being, effectiveness, and stability.

• Data availability. Much of what we know about the superintendency, and that could inform policy change related to it, is based on studies that draw on data from a single state, relatively small survey samples, and/or single-point-in-time studies. Creation of and access to robust data on superintendents and their work on a broader scale—that is comparable across states and over time—is needed to inform potential policy change.

• Figure 1

  Comparative Demographics - Students, Teachers, Principals, and Superintendents

  

While the proportion of women superintendents doubled between 1992 and 2000 and doubled again between 2000 and 2010, from 2010 to 2020, the proportion of women superintendents increased by only 3 percentage points. In the last five years, the proportion of women superintendents increased 2 percentage points, perhaps suggesting that this decade may see relatively slower growth than the 1990s and 2000s. In contrast to the gender gap, little progress has been made in closing the racial gap in the superintendency. Between 2000 and 2010, the proportion of Black or Hispanic superintendents increased by only 1 percentage point.

Evidence

Compared to that on teachers and principals, research on the superintendency is relatively sparse. In a systematic review of literature since 1939, I identified 132 studies in peer-reviewed journal articles focused on superintendents. Of those, 72% focused explicitly on superintendents, and 13% considered an educational leadership or policy topic in which superintendents were an actor of interest (e.g., leadership for inclusion in rural schools, sensemaking of principal evaluation policy). The remaining 15% of studies focused more broadly on district leadership, with the superintendent being one of several research subjects (e.g., how principals and district leaders navigate school choice markets).

Among the studies reviewed, 95 focused explicitly on superintendents, as opposed to superintendents merely being one of many actors in a larger study. Of all the studies on superintendents, 45% took a qualitative approach (e.g., interviews or observations), 24% drew on quantitative data and methods (e.g., surveys, administrative data), 7% adopted a mixed methodological approach, 17% were commentary or theoretical articles (i.e., non-empirical), and 6% were literature reviews and meta-analyses. I was able to find only one peer-reviewed research study focused explicitly on charter school superintendents³ and none that focused solely on private school superintendents. The evidence summarized below comes from the most rigorous and recent of these studies.

Key Finding #1: Superintendents are significantly less diverse than K-12 public school students, teachers, and administrators.

Diversity in the superintendency is important for many reasons. Diverse leaders represent “mirrors” for diverse students to see themselves reflected as leaders and “windows” of opportunity to see other perspectives as policies and practices are being shaped and implemented. Additionally, underrepresentation of women, leaders of color, leaders who identified as LGBTQ+, leaders whose first language in not English, and leaders with disabilities suggests that barriers to ascending to top leadership positions impact some groups more than others.

Women and leaders of color are significantly underrepresented in the superintendency, and the gender and racial gaps in the superintendency are narrowing slowly.⁴ However, women and leaders of color once held many educational leadership positions in K-12 public schools. In the 1920s, Black women were often school administrators,⁵ and by the 1930s, many Black women were frequently “Jeanes supervisors” who carried out administrative duties at the school or district level for country superintendents and “served as negotiator, crisis handler, resource allocation specialist, disseminator of information, staff developer, and personnel specialist.”⁶ During World War II, women also often served in county superintendent roles.⁷ However, after returning home from war, men took over many superintendent positions that women once held.⁸ After the Brown v. Board of Education decision, Jeanes supervisors were phased out when schools were integrated, and leaders from the white schools were retained, while Black school leaders were not.⁹

As shown in Figure 2, the percentage of women superintendents increased from 7% in 1992 to 13% in 2000—i.e., doubling over eight years.¹⁰ Between 2000 and 2010, the percentage of women superintendents again doubled, increasing to 24%.¹¹ Between 2010 and 2020, the share of women superintendents only increased another 3 percentage points.¹² New data from the National Longitudinal Superintendent Database (NLSD)—encompassing the entire universe of K-12 public school district superintendents (n~12,500)¹³—indicate that women superintendent representation increased 2 percentage points over the last five years.¹⁴

• Figure 2

  Growth in supt women and leaders of color nationally

  

At the current 5-year change rate, gender equality at the national level would potentially be reached by 2039. Some states are closing gender gaps more quickly than others,¹⁵ suggesting potential for accelerating the shift toward parity by improving access for women in states that show flat or even countervailing trends. Gender gaps in the superintendency persist even as women comprise the majority of teachers (77%) and principals (56%).¹⁶ The proportion of women serving as secondary-school principals, a position often highly valued in superintendent searches, increased from 15% to 36% between 1993 and the present.¹⁷ Women also make up the majority of educators obtaining a superintendent’s license and/or doctoral degree in educational leadership.¹⁸

Certain types of school districts are more likely to hire women and superintendents of color. Women superintendents are more likely to serve in large, urban districts, as well and districts that serve larger proportions of students living in poverty, students who are classified as English learners, and students of color.¹⁹ Similarly, Black women superintendents are more likely to serve in urban school districts with larger populations of students of color.²⁰ Finally, districts with high populations of students classified as English learners are more likely to be led by a Hispanic superintendent.²¹

While data that allow for a robust understanding of superintendent racial gaps at a national level are lacking, AASA’s decennial survey provides some insight. As shown in Figure 2, AASA found that 5% of their decennial survey respondents self-identified as leaders of color in 2000,²² a figure that increased to 6%²³ in 2006 and remained there through 2010.²⁴ In 2020, AASA reported an increase in superintendents of color, to 8.6%.²⁵ Superintendents are less racially diverse than principals, of whom 10% are Black, 9% are Hispanic, and 1% or less are each of Asian or Pacific Islander, American Indian/Alaska Native, or multiracial.²⁶ Superintendents are significantly less racially diverse than the K-12 public school student population.²⁷

Key Finding #2: Pathways to and through the superintendency are inequitable.

Issues of sex and race stereotyping and discrimination and barriers such as biased power structures and a lack of access to networks and mentorship are among the primary reasons offered by women and leaders of color for not pursuing or leaving the superintendency.²⁸ Women and leaders of color take longer to obtain district leadership positions, thus coming to the superintendency later in life, when they are closer to retirement.²⁹ Women and leaders of color have also been found to experience “glass cliffs,” in which they gain access to superintendent positions in districts that are experiencing challenges or that are underresourced, and then are blamed for negative outcomes and removed from the position in a relatively brief amount of time.³⁰ Similarly, Black superintendents are often more likely to be given opportunities to lead in districts that were experiencing challenging circumstances financially, academically, or politically.³¹

Women have expressed hesitancy to pursue superintendent positions due to issues such as time demands and work–life balance, a desire to stay connected to students, and perceived power asymmetries,³² emphasizing the importance of policymakers and local school board members’ focus on supporting the personal and professional well-being of superintendents. Research has shown that support networks and mentoring are essential for the ascendancy of women and leaders of color to the superintendency.³³

Another factor that contributes to inequities and inequalities in pathways to and through the superintendency is discrimination in recruitment and hiring policies and processes, as well as biases among school board members or search firms.³⁴ School board members have questioned women’s leadership abilities³⁵ and expressed concerns about the family, children, and parenting values of superintendent candidates.³⁶ Similarly, a study of superintendent hiring practices in districts in New York State found, through interviews with board members and search firm consultants, that consultants and school board members rarely considered anyone other than a White man to be a viable candidate and did not prioritize diversity in the applicant pool. Additionally, board members expressed concern that their communities were not ready for, or would not be accepting of, a Black superintendent.

Opening the black box of superintendent search processes has been challenging for researchers. Policies on what information can be made public from superintendent search processes varies from state to state. For example, in Texas, only information about the sole finalist selected for the position must be publicly announced. In other states, districts are required to release the names of the applicants who have been selected as finalists. In considering what information about superintendent search processes should be available, caution should be taken to protect the personal and professional lives of superintendents. It may be beneficial to not release the names of applicants to protect persons from potential backlash at their current place of employment.

Yet, understanding who is in superintendent applicant pools, who makes it to second- and final-round interviews, and who is ultimately chosen may help policymakers target root causes of inequities in the recruitment and hiring processes. State education agencies may consider superintendent labor market data collection procedures that prioritize the protection of applicants but allow for analyses of data—either at the state education agency or in partnership with researchers—to understand patterns and trends in the applicant pool. Another relevant factor is that some districts employ private search firms to run their superintendent search, and in some cases, it is not clear whether those firms are subject to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests or whether they can be compelled to release information from applicants.

Key Finding #3: Superintendent attrition is rising, and reasons for attrition vary.

Some superintendent attrition is healthy, especially when there is a transition plan in place to ensure that district operations continue to run smoothly and students, educators, and families are prepared for the transition. For example, attrition may allow for continued growth and innovation after a superintendent has served for many years. However, attrition that is sudden, unplanned, or takes place in a contentious environment can be detrimental to a school district. Frequent superintendent turnover can create public perceptions of instability and may lower morale among educators within the district.³⁷ Superintendent turnover may also disrupt stability in district operations and culture.³⁸ In some cases, superintendent turnover can have significant financial ramifications for a district. If a superintendent’s contract is terminated prematurely, the district may be required to pay the superintendent a hefty severance package. Superintendent turnover may also require school boards to expend money on legal fees and a search firm to support the search for the next superintendent.

Superintendent turnover has been characterized as both a major issue—with some referring to the superintendency as a “revolving door”³⁹—and, contrastingly, as “not as serious an issue as once perceived”⁴⁰with the “crisis in the superintendency” being “unfounded.”⁴¹ Historically, research has reported superintendent tenure rates—typically between 3 and 6 years⁴²—but little has been reported on attrition or turnover rates. In part, this may be due to data limitations and small sample sizes. One study calculated a 16% turnover rate in the 25 largest urban districts in the 1970s.⁴³ Additionally, ILO Group studied the largest 500 school districts and found that 20% of superintendents turned over in 2023–24.⁴⁴ However, based on the National Longitudinal Superintendent Database—a new database established in 2019 and the only data resource tracking superintendents in nearly all (~12,500) K-12 public school districts across the United States—we now know that, nationally, superintendent turnover increased from 14% after the 2019–20 school year to 17% after the 2022–23 school year (see Figure 3).⁴⁵ In 37 states, more than half of all K-12 public school districts have experienced as least one superintendent departure since 2019–20.⁴⁶

• Figure 3

  Turnover Rate within Geographic Locale

  

Just as some states and districts are more likely to be exposed to diverse leaders, others have higher rates of superintendent attrition.⁴⁷ Superintendent turnover tends be higher in larger districts with a greater proportion of students receiving free and reduced-price lunch and students of color, as well as districts offering lower pay (see Figure 4).⁴⁸ When delineating between superintendents who move to another district or another position versus those who leave the profession, movers and position changers tend to be from rural or smaller school districts, in contrast to leavers, who tend to be from larger, urban districts.⁴⁹ Some research suggests that districts serving large proportions of students living in poverty and with fewer financial resources have higher superintendent turnover than those serving more affluent communities.⁵⁰

• Figure 4

  

Two of the main predictors of attrition are superintendent age and tenure in the district, with those closer to retirement age and having more years of service as a superintendent being more likely to turn over.⁵¹ Additionally, research suggests that superintendent attrition can be attributed to superintendents progressing in their career and taking a job in another district, often with higher pay;⁵²one the other hand, some research suggests that salary is not a significant contributor to superintendent turnover, at least in rural areas.⁵³ Research also suggests that superintendents promoted from within a district are less likely to turn over, as are superintendents with higher salaries.⁵⁴ Finally, research consistently shows that, conditional on the aforementioned factors (e.g., age, tenure, salary) and district characteristics, superintendent gender and race have not been found to be predictive of superintendent turnover.⁵⁵

Superintendents who report having strong, trusting relationships with their school board are significantly less likely to seek a new job.⁵⁶ Conversely, politics is consistently cited as a major contributor to superintendent attrition.⁵⁷ In particular, school board–superintendent relations impact superintendent job satisfaction and retention.⁵⁸ Power struggles between superintendents and school boards, role confusion among school board members, and personal agendas of board members have all been found to impact superintendent stability.⁵⁹

Key Finding #4: Superintendent work is not a monolith.

Research on the work of superintendents, as well as practice-based standards developed by professional organizations, have offered several frameworks for how to understand all that the job entails. The AASA superintendent standards encompass a wide range of responsibilities, some of which include policy formulation; instructional leadership; providing for and maintaining safe schools; development and implementation of a strategic plan and vision; effective allocation of fiscal, human, and material resources; recruiting, employing, supporting, evaluating, and retaining quality instructional and support personnel; oversight of staff development programs; employing organizational and problem-solving skills; and building coalitions among, communicating with, and working collaboratively with staff, families and community members.⁶⁰

While many superintendents likely engage in these activities at some point, research suggests that the work of superintendents—and whether and how they engage in each of these activities—varies based on district and community context. For example, superintendents’ levels of engagement in instructional leadership, development of principals, implementation of policy reform, and engagement in state and local policy spaces can vary from district to district.⁶¹ Engagement in these activities may also vary by locale and district size. Rural school district superintendents often wear multiple hats, serving not only as superintendent but also teaching classes and serving the school community in other ways.⁶² In contrast, superintendents of large, urban school districts serving hundreds of schools are more likely to have larger district administrative teams that divvy up responsibilities. In these contexts, superintendents may spend more time managing administrators in their cabinet who are each focused on different tasks such as instructional leadership, development of principals, and implementation of policy. Because the job of the superintendent varies from place to place, it can be challenging to generalize the work of the superintendency in ways that could inform broad-brush changes to policies impacting the work of the superintendent.

Key Finding #5: Measuring superintendent impact is challenging.

Superintendents pay a vital role in developing and sustaining strong relationships and collaborating with community stakeholders—including the school board, district educators, and students—to set a vision for the district; strategically developing and working toward short- and long-term goals; and establishing sound financial practices and policies in service of student learning and growth. Superintendents—and, in larger districts, members of their cabinet—are also responsible for the strategic planning and investments related to recruiting, retaining, and supporting the growth of high-quality educators and administrators. The impact that superintendents have on district operations has been explored in survey and qualitative research. Studies have found that superintendents are able to shape district culture and interpret and implement school policy changes and reforms and lead their district in curriculum and instruction.⁶³

A strong research base has established that financial investments, policies, high-quality teachers and leaders, and inclusive and culturally responsive school climates matter for students’ access to equitable educational experiences. As such, it is reasonable to expect that superintendents’ orchestration of financial and policy decisions related to curriculum and instruction, human resources and capital, and buildings, infrastructure, and technology affect students, families, educators, and community stakeholders. Yet, it is challenging to measure the direct impact of a superintendent, in part due to data and methodological limitations as well as varying theories of action regarding what superintendents can and should impact in their role as the district leader.

When considering superintendent impact, attention must be given to both how to measure superintendent impact and what elements of an education system are within the locus of control of a superintendent and should be considered as measures of superintendent impact. Quantitative examinations of superintendent impact can be strong if they are able to identify a change in district leadership and examine differences (if any) in district operations and performance before and after the arrival of a new superintendent. In examining these differences, stakeholders must consider logic models for (1) how variation in superintendent transitions may influence superintendent impact and (2) how “impact” can be operationalized responsibly.

One of the key ways that “impact” has been operationalized is by tracking changes in district performance before and after a superintendent transition. However, stakeholders must consider how the following factors may influence the work of a new superintendent and her ability to have an immediate impact on district operations and performance.

• The nature of superintendent transitions. The nature of a superintendent transition event may impact the initial work or areas of focus for the incoming superintendent. For example, the transition from a long-serving superintendent who retired under ostensibly amicable conditions and provided substantial lead-time for the district to make transition plans may look and feel very different from a situation in which a superintendent’s contract was not renewed by a new slate of school board members who were elected on a platform of ousting the superintendent based on a the superintendent’s approach to supporting transgender students’ safety and well-being. The nature of the departure can impact the extent to which the outgoing superintendent is able and willing to support and provide valuable local knowledge to the incoming superintendent. Moreover, the nature of a superintendent’s departure can impact a school board’s ability to recruit a pool of high-quality superintendent candidates.

• Whether the incoming superintendent was previously employed in the district or hired from outside of the district. Hiring from within or outside may have implications for the immediate relational and political work of superintendents, as well as new superintendents’ need to deeply understand historical context and immerse themselves in local culture. Those attempting to examine superintendent impact within the first few years must consider the strength of the new superintendent’s relationships with other district employees, school board members, students, families, and community stakeholders that either allow her to seamlessly transition into the role of superintendent or require her to invest substantial time in the development of trusting relationships with stakeholders. Complicating this matter is the fact that superintendent tenure is relatively short, making it challenging to measure long-term impact.

• Whether an acting or interim superintendent was in place. When measuring the impact of a superintendent, quantitative analyses must account for the role of interim and acting superintendents and the fact that these superintendents are planned to be temporary and consider whether and how they should be considered when examining superintendent impact.

Regarding how “impact” can be operationalized responsibly, some stakeholders have conceptualized “impact” through a narrow, output-focused lens of student performance on state standardized assessments. Yet, standardized assessments are but one measure of a district’s performance. State standardized assessments provide a singular snapshot a student’s knowledge, sometimes employ questions that are not appropriately culturally inclusive,⁶⁴ and provide results that are often highly correlated with familial socioeconomic status.⁶⁵ Nonetheless, a limited number of studies have examined the impact of superintendent tenure or stability on student performance on standardized assessments.

A working paper (non-peer-reviewed) presented a meta-analysis of research focused on the relationship between superintendents and student academic achievement.⁶⁶ However, the authors provided little information related to the data and methodological rigor of the included studies. Upon further review of the 27 studies included in the meta-analysis, 11% were peer-reviewed research studies, 78% were doctoral dissertations, and 11% were non-peer-reviewed reports. A thorough review of the three peer-reviewed research studies revealed substantial methodological limitations. For example, one study included in the meta-analysis estimated regression models with limited statistical power, drawing on data from 104 schools in Colorado during one school year.⁶⁷ Other studies analyzed data from 24 districts in the state of Maryland during one school year⁶⁸ and 66 randomly selected school districts in California over a six-year period.⁶⁹

Four additional quantitative studies found positive relationships between superintendent stability and student achievement. However, these studies also had relatively limited statistical power. These studies examined the relationship between superintendent longevity and student achievement in 115 school districts during one year in North Carolina,⁷⁰ 45 school districts during one year in Kentucky,⁷¹ 142 school districts during one year in New Jersey,⁷² and an unknown number of districts during one year in Kansas.⁷³

Researchers at The Brookings Institution also worked to quantitatively examine superintendents’ impact on school systems and students.⁷⁴ While the full analytic dataset for their study included ten years of data from North Carolina and Florida, when examining superintendents’ contribution to student achievement, this study only examined student achievement in fourth and fifth grade in North Carolina. The findings revealed no significant differences in student achievement based on superintendent longevity. District-level academic performance declined after a superintendent turnover event; however, the estimated effect size was very small and only one effect (math, three years after superintendent turnover) was significant. The study concluded that superintendents accounted for 0.3% of North Carolina fourth- and fifth-grade students’ differences in state standardized assessment scores. However, whether this effect size is substantial is unclear, especially given that the superintendent is just one person.

Moving beyond quantitative studies attempting to examine the impact of superintendents on school systems, other research has examined superintendents’ impact on school systems vis-a-vis their leadership style. For example, among the various district leadership items, superintendents' ability to manage instructional programs explained the largest share of variation in principals' self-efficacy and collective capacity to improve student learning.⁷⁵ Drawing on questionnaires completed by 507 Texas superintendents focused on management styles, goals, and time allocation, another study utilized a measure of “network-management style”, which was based on the frequency of contact with school board members, business leaders, other superintendents, state legislators, and the Texas Education Agency.⁷⁶ Exploring the relationship between a superintendent’s network-management style and student test scores, they concluded that superintendents with higher network management style scores could “translate resources into outputs at a more efficient rate.”⁷⁷ For example, the impact of smaller classes on student achievement was 5.5 times larger in districts with high, compared to low, network management style superintendents.⁷⁸

Substantial caution should be taken in using these studies to make any broad generalization about superintendent impact. Instead, stakeholders must consider how to responsibly measure superintendent impact using both qualitative and quantitative data and rigorous mixed-methods approaches, as well as the types of data that can be collected and utilized to examine the impact that superintendents have on students and families, educators, and communities. In doing so, stakeholders should consider what resources, decisions, and people are in the locus of control of a superintendent that research reveals have an impact on students’ access to equitable educational opportunities, experiences, and outcomes. Finally, stakeholders must acknowledge how measuring superintendent impact has been challenging due to a historical lack of data collection efforts related to superintendent labor markets.

Endnotes and references