An important, first-of-its kind Brookings Institution study asks whether school superintendents improve outcomes for students. The answer, according to authors, is no. They find that student achievement in particular districts doesn’t improve as superintendents stay longer, nor is there a bump when districts hire new ones. Supes account for a paltry 0.3 percent of the differences in student achievement among fourth and fifth graders in North Carolina (as compared to student demographics, which account for 38.8 percent, and teachers and schools, which account for 4 and 3 percent, respectively). On first read, these findings seem bleak. But the authors make two assumptions in their analyses, one out of necessity and one out of convention. First, because they rely on state administrative data and its limited variables, years-of-service in a single district is their primary observable superintendent characteristic. The assumption is that the longer one stays, the greater impact he or she should have. Yet, despite research in other fields suggesting that manager longevity is a predictor of organizational success, it is far from the only one. Effective district leadership requires knowledge of education policy and practice, communication and relationship-building skills, leadership capability, strategic thinking, conflict mediation, and innumerable other important-yet-unmeasurable characteristics. Second, adhering to conventional wisdom, the authors assume that a superintendent’s primary role is to improve student achievement as measured by standardized test scores—and that they’re capable of doing so directly within the district’s current structure. This isn’t necessarily true. Superintendents’ impacts are often secondary. For example, they hire teachers and principals, who then affect student achievement. Or their impact may be hamstrung by restrictive collective bargaining agreements or state laws—which effectively reduce school chiefs to implementers of local, state, and federal policies. In other words, although this study found that superintendent longevity and turnover have no direct impact on student achievement, leaders might not be truly irrelevant; it may be that these are the wrong measures—or superintendents’ hands could simply be tied. So, although the findings are compelling, reformers and advocates should be wary of ignoring superintendents all together.
SOURCE: Matthew M. Chingos, Grover J. Whitehurst, and Katharine M. Lindquist, “School Superintendents: Vital or Irrelevant?,” The Brookings Institution (September 2014).
