Directory UMM :Data Elmu:jurnal:I:International Journal of Educational Management:Vol12.Issue2.1998:
School superintendent development
M artha N. Ovando
Department of Educ ational Administration, The University of Texas at Austin, Texas
Ben M . Harris
Department of Educ ational Administration, The University of Texas at Austin, Texas
Patsy M enefee
De partme nt o f Le ade rship and Cultural Studie s, Unive rsity o f Ho usto n, Ho usto n,
Te xas
School superintendents are in
search of development opportunities that can help them
enhance their leadership
capacity in order to respond
to new demands and changes
in the environment. This
paper focuses on the professional development behaviors
of school superintendents
identifi ed through a comparative study of two groups. One
group participated in a Diagnostic Executive Competency
Assessment System (DECAS)
and the second group did not
have any assessment experience. Findings suggest that
both groups of school superintendents tend to engage in
development experiences and
activities. While there are
some differences in the development behaviors of these
two groups, it is interesting
that all school superintendents recognize improvement
(of self, schools, and student
achievement) as a motivation
to enhance their capacity in
several ways.
Inte rnatio nal Jo urnal o f
Educ atio nal Manage me nt
1 2 / 2 [ 1998] 8 2 –8 9
© MCB Unive rsity Pre ss
[ ISSN 0951-354X]
[ 82 ]
Introduction
Du r in g th e 1990s a n d beyon d, sch ools w ill be
r equ ir ed to becom e lea r n in g or ga n iza tion s
(Ga r m ston , 1991; Sen ge, 1990) in or der to
r espon d to n ew ch a llen ges a n d ch a n ges in th e
en vir on m en t. Ch a n ges in th e dem a n ds for
sch ool execu tive lea der sh ip ten d to h a ppen
m or e qu ick ly a n d w ith m or e u n pr edicta bility
th a n even th e m ost sen sitive system of con tin u in g tr a in in g a n d developm en t ca n a ccom m oda te. Con sequ en tly, sch ool a dm in istr a tor s
r ou tin ely a ppea r to be u n pr epa r ed to r espon d
to n ew ch a llen ges. Th is a ppa r en t la ck of
pr epa r a tion on th e pa r t of sch ool a dm in istr a tor s m ay be du e to a la ck of pr ogr a m s in con tin u in g edu ca tion dir ectly r ela ted to su per in ten den t developm en t n eeds. It m ay fu r th er
der ive fr om h eavy em ph a sis on “discon tin u ou s”, a d h oc, topic-by-topic or ien ted
pr ogr a m s.
Th e N a tion a l Policy Boa r d for E du ca tion a l
Adm in istr a tion (1989) sta ted th a t “ever y
edu ca tion a l r efor m r epor t of th e pa st deca de
h a s con clu ded th a t th e n a tion ca n n ot h ave
excellen t sch ools w ith ou t h avin g effective
lea der s” (p. 9). An ea r lier r epor t of th e
N a tion a l Gover n or s’ Associa tion Cen ter of
Policy Resea r ch a n d An a lysis (1986) a lso
su ggested th a t “policy m a k er s r ea ssess th e
r ole of a dm in istr a tor s a n d esta blish
pr ogr a m s to im pr ove th e lea der sh ip a n d
m a n a gem en t ca pa bilities of th e sch ool a dm in istr a tive for ce” (p. 3). Mor e r ecen tly, Keef
(1993) ca lled for a n a tion a l over h a u l of th e
pr epa r a tion of sch ool a dm in istr a tor s a n d
u r ged sta te officia ls to “m ove people in th e
dir ection of bein g r espon sible for th e pr ofession ” (p. 4). Sim ila r ly, Sch lecty (1985) r ecom m en ded th a t a ssu m ption s sh ou ld n ot be m a de
th a t sch ool im pr ovem en t is solely th e r espon sibility of th e bu ildin g pr in cipa l a n d sch ool
fa cu lty.
Th e r ole of cen tr a l office lea der sh ip, in clu din g sch ool distr ict su per in ten den ts, in
a ddr essin g th e n eeds of a ll stu den ts a n d in
th e r estr u ctu r in g of sch ools is cr itica l (Cu ba n
1989). However, it h a s been r ecogn ized th a t
oth er s, in clu din g tea ch er s, ca n be lea der s
w ith in sch ool system s (Spa r k s, 1993). Th u s,
sch ool su per in ten den ts, wh ile pr ovidin g
oppor tu n ities for oth er s to develop, a lso n eed
to r em a in on th e for efr on t in or der to
en h a n ce th eir poten tia l to a ddr ess th e ch a llen ges of today’s sch ools a s well a s th e edu ca tion pr ofession . In or der for a sch ool su per in ten den t to “be a cu ltu r e bu ilder, a n or ga n iza tion a l ch a n ge a gen t, a vision a r y, a n d a lea der
wh o k n ow s h ow to bu ild a lea r n in g or ga n iza tion th r ou gh th e developm en t of people”
(Spa r k s, 1993, p. 22) h e or sh e m u st en ga ge in
h is or h er ow n pr ofession a l developm en t.
E a r ly stu dies h ave str essed th a t societa l
for ces su ch a s th ose for a ccou n ta bility law s
a n d com peten cy tests r equ ir ed sch ool a dm in istr a tor s to h ave sk ills n ever ta u gh t in u n iver sities sever a l yea r s a go (Cawelti, 1981). F u r th er m or e, a n a gin g, r etir in g popu la tion of
top-level edu ca tion lea der s is pr odu cin g r a pid
pr om otion s for m a n y wh o wer e pr epa r ed on ly
for bu ildin g level or h igh ly specia lized position s. Con sequ en tly, sch ool su per in ten den ts
fa ce th e n eed to en ga ge in self-r en ew a l a ctivities in or der to en h a n ce th eir pr ofession a l
com peten ce.
Wh ile m a jor effor ts h ave been m a de by
u n iver sities, pr ofession a l a ssocia tion s, a n d
sch ool distr icts to pr epa r e sch ool lea der s in
th eir effor ts to r em a in cu r r en t w ith edu ca tion a l in n ova tion s a n d tr en ds, Ga r dn er sta ted
th a t:
we ca n n ot a ssign a n a ssessm en t pr ocedu r e
th a t yields a lea der sh ip a ptitu de scor e th a t
is a dequ a tely pr edictive a t a ge twen ty or
th ir ty … or expect ou r gr a du a te a n d pr ofession a l sch ools to sen d th eir gr a du a tes ou t
in to th e wor ld w ith fu tu r e gr ea tn ess pr epa ck a ged. Lea der sh ip developm en t ca lls for
r epea ted a ssessm en ts a n d r epea ted oppor tu n ities for tr a in in g (1990, p. 171).
An in cr ea sed em ph a sis on con tin u in g gr ow th
a n d developm en t of sch ool a dm in istr a tor s is
eviden t (Killion a n d La n zer otte, 1992; Spa r k s,
1993). However, k n ow ledge r e ga r din g th e
Martha N. Ovando ,
Be n M. Harris and
Patsy Me ne fe e
Sc ho o l supe rinte nde nt
de ve lo pme nt
Inte rnatio nal Jo urnal o f
Educ atio nal Manage me nt
1 2 / 2 [1 9 9 8 ] 8 2 –8 9
pr ofession a l developm en t of sch ool
su per in ten den ts is lim ited to th eir ca r eer
developm en t exper ien ces a n d pa tter n s (Bu r n h a m , 1989) a n d to a descr iption of th eir
in str u ction a l lea der sh ip com peten cies, a n d
r oles (Bu ck , 1989; Ha r r is a n d Wilson , 1991;
Her m a n , 1989; Ho, 1992; Hor d, 1990; Kn e zek ,
1993; Wa lk er -F u ller, 1992). Th er efor e, r esea r ch
a ddr essin g specifi c sch ool su per in ten den ts’
pr ofession a l developm en t effor ts m igh t
h eigh ten ou r u n der sta n din g of th eir pr ofession a l developm en t m odes a n d n eeds. Th e
pu r pose of th is pa per is to r epor t th e pr ofession a l developm en t beh avior s of selected
sch ool su per in ten den ts iden tifi ed th r ou gh a
com pa r a tive r esea r ch stu dy.
The study
Th is stu dy a ttem pted to descr ibe th e in dividu a l pr ofession a l developm en t beh avior s of
pr a cticin g pu blic sch ool su per in ten den ts.
Th e in ten t w a s to iden tify th e n a tu r e of pr ofession a l developm en t beh avior s of cen tr a l
office execu tives en ga ged in pr ofession a l
gr ow th a n d explor e differ en ces between two
gr ou ps, pu blic sch ool su per in ten den ts pa r ticipa tin g in a n a ssessm en t wor k sh op a n d pu blic sch ool su per in ten den ts n ot pa r ticipa tin g
in a n a ssessm en t wor k sh op. Specifi ca lly, it
a ddr essed th e follow in g qu estion s:
1 Ar e th er e a n y differ en ces between th e
pr ofession a l developm en t beh avior s of
pu blic sch ool su per in ten den ts pa r ticipa tin g in a dia gn ostic a ssessm en t cen ter a n d
th ose n ot pa r ticipa tin g in a n a ssessm en t
cen ter ?
2 Ar e th er e a n y com m on ch a r a cter istics of
pr ofession a l developm en t beh avior s of
pu blic sch ool su per in ten den ts r e ga r dless
of th eir pa r ticipa tion in a dia gn ostic
a ssessm en t cen ter ?
Addition a lly, it w a s h ypoth esized th a t th er e
wer e n o sign ifica n t differ en ces between th e
pr ofession a l developm en t beh avior s of th e
two gr ou ps of pu blic sch ool su per in ten den ts.
Th e in depen den t va r ia ble w a s pa r ticipa tion
in a dia gn ostic a ssessm en t cen ter, wh ile th e
depen den t va r ia bles in clu ded five ca te gor ies
of pr ofession a l developm en t iden tified a s
a ctivities, r esou r ces, m otiva tion , self-a ssessm en ts a n d tim e fr a m es. Th e dem ogr a ph ic
va r ia bles in clu ded execu tive position , distr ict
size, de gr ee a tta in m en t, pr eviou s exper ien ce,
distr ict wea lth , stu den t per for m a n ce a n d
loca tion .
Given th e pu r pose of th is stu dy, it w a s lim ited to th e iden tifi ca tion a n d com pa r ison of
pr ofession a l self-r en ew a l beh avior s r epor ted
by pu blic sch ool su per in ten den ts. Docu m en ta tion or eva lu a tion of th e qu a lity, effectiven ess, or im pa ct levels of su ch beh avior s w a s
n ot th e focu s of th is stu dy.
Procedures
Follow in g a ba sic ca su a l com pa r a tive design ,
th is stu dy in clu ded two gr ou ps of sch ool
su per in ten den ts differ in g on th e in depen den t
va r ia ble a n d com pa r in g th em on th e depen den t va r ia ble (Gay, 1987). Th e two gr ou ps
wer e differ en t in th a t on e gr ou p of pu blic
sch ool su per in ten den ts pa r ticipa ted in a
dia gn ostic a ssessm en t cen ter a n d th e oth er
gr ou p did n ot pa r ticipa te in a dia gn ostic
a ssessm en t cen ter. Th e depen den t va r ia bles
of th e stu dy wer e pr ofession a l developm en t
beh avior s of th e pa r ticipa tin g su per in ten den ts (see F igu r e 1). Th ese specific beh avior s
wer e clu ster ed in five ca te gor ies: a ctivities,
r esou r ces, m otiva tion , self-a ssessm en ts a n d
tim efr a m es.
E igh ty pu blic sch ool su per in ten den ts of
sch ool distr icts in a sou th cen tr a l sta te pa r ticipa ted in th e stu dy. Th ese wer e or ga n ized in
two gr ou ps of 40 ea ch . On e gr ou p in clu ded 40
pu blic sch ool su per in ten den ts wh o a tten ded
a n a ssessm en t cen ter a t a u n iver sity-
Figure 1
A c o mpariso n o f pro fe ssio nal de ve lo pme nt be havio rs o f sc ho o l supe rinte nde nts
DECAS
Gro up
DECAS
Asse ssme nt
Wo rksho p
Pro fe ssio nal
De ve lo pme nt
Be havio rs
No n-DECAS
Gro up
[ 83 ]
Martha N. Ovando ,
Be n M. Harris and
Patsy Me ne fe e
Sc ho o l supe rinte nde nt
de ve lo pme nt
Inte rnatio nal Jo urnal o f
Educ atio nal Manage me nt
1 2 / 2 [1 9 9 8 ] 8 2 –8 9
spon sor ed wor k sh op. Th is wor k sh op is
k n ow n a s th e Dia gn ostic E xecu tive Com peten cy Assessm en t System (DE CAS). It w a s
th e on ly on e pr ovidin g a wor k sh op exclu sively for su per in ten den cy lea der sh ip a ssessm en t. Th is gr ou p is r efer r ed to a s th e DE CAS
pa r ticipa n ts. Th e oth er gr ou p in clu ded 40
pu blic sch ool su per in ten den ts wh o h a d n o
h istor y of pa r ticipa tin g in a n y a ssessm en t
cen ter, a n d it is r efer r ed to a s th e n on -DE CAS
gr ou p. Th ese su per in ten den ts wer e iden tifi ed
fr om th e Agen cy Dir ector y of th e Sta te P u blic
Sch ools. Sch ool distr icts th a t h a d ch a r a cter istics closely r ela ted to th e distr icts iden tifi ed
in th e DE CAS gr ou p wer e in clu ded in th e
com pa r ison gr ou p in or der to a ssu r e sim ila r ity. Ta ble I con ta in s dem ogr a ph ic ch a r a cter istics of th ese two gr ou ps.
P a r ticipa n t r espon ses wer e collected
th r ou gh a qu estion n a ir e r efer r ed to a s th e
Sch ool E xecu tive Su r vey (SE S). Th is in str u m en t con sisted of qu estion s a n d ch eck list
Table I
De mo graphic c harac te ristic s o f study partic ipants
Variables
DECAS
n
%n
Non-DECAS
n
%n
Total sample
N
%N
Sample
School districts
M ales
Females
27
37
6
68.0
93.0
15.0
19
30
7
48.0
75.0
18.0
46
67
13
58.0
64.0
16.0
District size
Below 5,000
Above 5,000
37
3
93.0
8.0
37
3
93.0
8.0
74
6
93.0
8.0
Executive position
Superintendent
Assistant superintendent
Central office officer
10
14
16
25.0
35.0
40.0
10
14
16
25.0
35.0
63.0
20
28
32
25.0
35.0
40.0
Degree attainment
PhD, EdD
M aster’s
3
40
8.0
100.0
3
40
8.0
100.0
6
80
8.0
100.0
Previous experience
Superintendent
Assistant superintendent
Central office officer
10
14
26
25.0
35.0
65.0
9
18
28
23.0
72.0
70.0
19
32
46
24.0
40.0
56.0
Community type
< 50 miles
> 50 miles
37
3
93.0
8.0
36
4
90.0
10.0
70
7
88.0
9.0
Wealth (per pupil)
Below $4,000
Above $4,000
36
4
90.0
10.0
36
4
90.0
10.0
72
8
90.0
13.0
Student performance
Low performing
High performing
7
33
18.0
83.0
9
31
23.0
77.0
16
64
20.0
80.0
Note:
Frequenc ies for previous experienc e represent total responses possible and are,
therefore, greater than 40 for some variables within eac h subgroup and greater than
80 for some variables within the total sample
[ 84 ]
item s th a t r equ ir ed r espon den ts to r epor t
th eir in dividu a l pr ofession a l developm en t
beh avior s over a per iod of on e yea r. It w a s
or ga n ized follow in g th e r epr esen ta tive a ctivities iden tified a n d tested for va lidity a n d r elia bility by Bu r n h a m (1989). Th e in str u m en t
item s wer e fu r th er cor r elated w ith th e exper ien ce im pa ct levels of pr ofession a l r en ew a l
exper ien ces discu ssed by Ha r r is (1989). Th e
in str u m en t w a s or ga n ized in two pa r ts. Pa r t
on e r equ ested dem ogr a ph ic in for m a tion su ch
a s cu r r en t position , distr ict stu den t en r ollm en t, loca tion , h igh est degr ee, pr eviou s
a dm in istr a tive exper ien ce, eth n ic ba ck gr ou n d
a n d gen der. Pa r t two r equ ested in for m a tion
r ela tive to pr ofession a l developm en t beh avior s
of su per in ten den ts wh ich in clu ded in dividu a l
a ctivities, r esou r ces, sou r ces of m otiva tion ,
com pletin g self-a ssessm en ts, a n d tim e fr a m e
for im plem en ta tion
of in dividu a l pr ofession a l developm en t
en deavor s.
Da ta a n a lysis w a s com pleted u sin g fr equ en cies, per cen ta ges, m ea n s, a n d sta n da r d devia tion s. Addition a lly, a t-test w a s com pu ted to
deter m in e wh eth er sign ifica n t differ en ces
existed between th e two gr ou ps pa r ticipa tin g
in th is stu dy. Th e in depen den t va r ia ble w a s
pa r ticipa tion in a dia gn ostic a ssessm en t cen ter wor k sh op (DECAS) a n d th e depen den t
va r ia bles wer e gr ou ped u n der five h ea din gs.
Th ese wer e: a ctivities, r esou r ces, m otiva tion ,
self-a ssessm en ts a n d tim e fr a m es. Th e level of
sign ifica n ce w a s esta blish ed a t 0.5 level.
To explor e va r ia bles’ r ela tion sh ips w ith in
ea ch of th e five m a jor ca tegor ies of pr ofession a l developm en t, it w a s n ecessa r y to a n a lyze a n d descr ibe fin din gs for ea ch of th e va r ia bles. A tota l of 38 depen den t va r ia bles wer e
in clu ded. Th ese wer e a s follow s.
Activities
Th is ca tegor y r efer r ed to types of pr ofession a l
developm en t oppor tu n ities su ch a s
wor k sh ops, con fer en ces, u n iver sities, in stitu tes, pr ofession a l m em ber sh ips, com m u n ity
involvem en t, politica l involvem en t, bu sin ess
involvem en t, ta sk for ces, pr ofession a l libr a r y,
pr ofession a l dia logu e, tr avel to oth er distr icts,
a n d m en tor s.
Resources
Th e secon d ca tegor y in clu ded video r ecor der s,
a u dio ta pes, com pu ter s, Sta te E du ca tion a l
Agen cy, edu ca tion ser vice cen ter, r egion a l
u n iver sities, peer n etwor k s, pr ofession a l exper ien ce, life exper ien ces, a n d fin a n ces.
M otivation
Th e th ir d ca te gor y r efer r ed to sou r ces of
m otiva tion su ch a s: con tr a ct r en ew a l, r ecogn ition , self-im pr ovem en t, r ew a r ds or
Martha N. Ovando ,
Be n M. Harris and
Patsy Me ne fe e
Sc ho o l supe rinte nde nt
de ve lo pme nt
Inte rnatio nal Jo urnal o f
Educ atio nal Manage me nt
1 2 / 2 [1 9 9 8 ] 8 2 –8 9
in cen tives, job su ccess, stu den t im pr ovem en t,
distr ict im pr ovem en t, a n d pr ofession a l
a dva n cem en t.
Time frames
Th e fou r th ca te gor y r ela ted to th e tim e fr a m e
in wh ich sch ool execu tives in itia ted selfr en ew a l a ctivities a fter com pletin g som e
for m of self-a ssessm en t. It in clu ded on e yea r,
six m on th s, th r ee m on th s, a n d on e m on th .
Self-assessments
Th e la st ca te gor y r efer r ed to th e fr equ en cy in
wh ich a ssessm en t of pr ofession a l developm en t n eeds wer e com pleted by ea ch sch ool
su per in ten den t, su ch a s yea r ly, m on th ly, a n d
week ly.
Findings
Th e fin din gs of th is stu dy a r e pr esen ted follow in g th e r esea r ch qu estion s a n d th e fi ve
ca te gor ies of pr ofession a l developm en t
beh avior s descr ibed ea r lier. Repor ted h er e
a r e on ly th ose pr ofession a l developm en t
beh avior s th a t wer e fou n d to be differ en t a t
th e 0.5 level of sign ifica n ce esta blish ed in th is
stu dy.
Differences in the professional
development behaviors of school
superintendents
P a r ticipa n ts in both gr ou ps (DE CAS a n d n on DE CAS) a r e a ctive in volvem en t in pr ofession a l gr ow th en deavor s. All r epor ted pa r ticipa tion in a w ide r a n ge of a ctivities, ava ila bility of differ en t r esou r ces, a va r iety of sou r ces
of m otiva tion , a n d expedien t u sa ge of tim e
fr a m es a n d self-a ssessm en ts.
Wh en com p a r ison s wer e m a d e b et w een t h e
over a ll r esp on ses of DE CAS a n d n on -DE CAS
p u blic sch ool su p er in t en d en t s t o d et er m in e
w h et h er a n y d iffer en ces exist ed , d a t a a n a ly sis r evea led t h a t t h er e w er e n o sign ifica n t
d iffer en ces in t h e p r ofession a l d evelop m en t
b eh av ior s of t h ese t wo gr ou p s. H ow ever,
w h en st a t ist ica l t est s wer e com p let ed for
in d iv id u a l va r ia bles w it h in ea ch ca t e gor y,
som e s ign ifica n t d iffer en ces em er ged . T h er e
w er e eigh t sp ecific b eh av ior s t h a t w er e sign ifica n t ly d iffer en t for t h e t wo gr ou p s. T h ese
d iffer en ces a r e sh ow n in Ta ble II.
Ac tivitie s
Ou t of t h e 13 p r ofession a l d evelop m en t a ct iv it ies list ed , a t t en d in g u n iver sit y cou r se wor k
w a s on e of t h e p r ofession a l d evelop m en t
b eh av ior s fou n d t o b e d iffer en t . T h e d iffer en ce b et w een DE CAS a n d n on -DE CAS p u blic
sch ool su p er in t en d en t s w a s fou n d t o b e sign ifica n t a t t h e 0.021 level. A d iffer en ce w a s
a lso fou n d in r ela t ion sh ip t o p a r t icip a t ion in
Table II
T-te st re sults fo r c umulative me ans fo r
partic ipatio n in pro fe ssio nal de ve lo pme nt
be havio rs
Standard
mean
Two-tail
probability
Activities:
Workshops
Conferences
Universities/ colleges
Professional institutes
M emberships
Community involvement
Political involvement
Business involvement
Task forces
Professional library
Professional dialogue
Travel to other districts
M entors
1.9321
1.9321
1.0102
1.0470
1.9321
1.7713
1.7152
1.1880
1.6711
1.2261
1.4977
1.0943
1.1110
0.975
0.975
0.021
0.046
0.975
0.623
0.399
0.544
0.717
0.668
0.652
0.019
0.685
Resources:
Video recorders
Audio tapes
Computers
State Education Agency
Educational service center
Universities/ colleges
Peer networks
Professional experience
Life experiences
Finances
1.8450
1.9321
1.4301
1.8900
1.9321
1.7105
1.2011
1.9321
1.1903
1.1441
0.689
0.975
0.023
0.975
0.995
0.023
0.643
0.975
0.611
0.024
M otivation:
Contract renewal
Recognition
Self-improvement
Rewards/ incentives
Job success
Student improvement
District improvement
Professional advancement
1.1992
1.2212
1.9553
1.7724
1.1170
1.9321
1.9940
1.8210
0.561
0.026
0.971
0.443
0.623
0.992
0.997
0.883
Self-assessments:
Yearly
M onthly
Weekly
1.0006
1.7040
1.3211
0.031
0.843
0.833
Time frames:
One year
Six months
Three months
One month
1.1104
1.2682
1.0031
1.0022
0.401
0.643
0.577
0.993
Variable
p r ofession a l in st it u t es. T h e d iffer en ce w a s
d et er m in ed t o b e sign ifica n t a t t h e 0.046
level. F u r t h er, a d iffer en ce w a s ev id en t in
r ela t ion sh ip t o t r avelin g t o ot h er d is t r ict s a s
a n a ct iv it y for p r ofession a l d evelop m en t .
T h is d iffer en ce w a s a lso fou n d t o b e sign ifica n t a t t h e 0.019 level.
[ 85 ]
Martha N. Ovando ,
Be n M. Harris and
Patsy Me ne fe e
Sc ho o l supe rinte nde nt
de ve lo pme nt
Inte rnatio nal Jo urnal o f
Educ atio nal Manage me nt
1 2 / 2 [1 9 9 8 ] 8 2 –8 9
Re so urc e s
Th er e w a s a lso a differ en ce between th e
DE CAS a n d th e n on -DE CAS pu blic sch ool
su per in ten den ts in r ela tion sh ip to th e u se of
com pu ter s a s a r esou r ce for pr ofession a l
developm en t pu r poses. Th is differ en ce w a s
fou n d to be sign ifica n t a t th e 0.021 level.
Addition a lly, th e n on -DE CAS gr ou p
r epor ted u sin g u n iver sity or colle ge a s a
pr ofession a l developm en t r esou r ce m or e th a n
th e DE CAS gr ou p r epor ted u sin g th em . Th is
differ en t level of u se w a s fou n d to be sign ifica n t a t a 0.023 level.
F in a lly, fin din gs in dica te th a t n on -DE CAS
pu blic sch ool su per in ten den ts h ave differ en t
fin a n cia l r esou r ces th a n th e DE CAS pu blic
sch ool su per in ten den ts. Th is differ en ce w a s
fou n d to be sign ifica n t a t th e 0.024 level.
Mo tivatio n
Mor e DE CAS pa r ticipa n ts a ppea r ed to view
r ecogn ition a s a m a jor sou r ce of m otiva tion
th a n th e n on -DE CAS pa r ticipa n ts. Th is differ en ce w a s fou n d to be sign ifica n t a t th e
0.026 level.
Se lf-asse ssme nts
A differ en ce in th e com pletion of yea r ly selfa ssessm en ts existed between th e n on -DE CAS
pu blic sch ool su per in ten den ts a n d th e
DE CAS pu blic sch ool su per in ten den ts. Th is
differ en ce w a s fou n d to be sign ifica n t a t th e
0.031 level.
Common characteristics of professional
development behaviors of school
superintendents
A com pa r a tive a n a lysis of th e pr ofession a l
developm en t beh avior s of th e two gr ou ps
r evea led th a t som e sim ila r ities for th e tota l
sa m ple existed. Th u s, sim ila r ities wer e fou n d
w ith in ea ch of th e fi ve pr ofession a l developm en t ca te gor ies for both DE CAS a n d n on DE CAS sch ool su per in ten den ts. Th e exa m in a tion of th e r a n k or der ed r espon ses for a ll
ca te gor ies fu r th er deter m in ed com m on h igh
a n d low fr equ en cies for th e differ en t beh avior s. Th ese com m on ch a r a cter istics ca n be
obser ved in Ta ble III.
Ac tivitie s
All pu blic sch ool su per in ten den ts in both
gr ou ps r epor ted pa r ticipa tion in wor k sh ops,
con fer en ces, a n d m em ber sh ip in pr ofession a l
or ga n iza tion s a s th eir h igh est com m on ch a r a cter istics. Th e lowest r epor ted a ctivity for
both gr ou ps r ela ted to m en tor r ela tion sh ips.
Re so urc e s
Th e h igh est com m on pr ofession a l developm en t beh avior r epor ted by both gr ou ps
r ela ted to th e u se of edu ca tion ser vice cen ter s, in volvem en t in peer n etwor k s, a n d u se of
th e Sta te E du ca tion Agen cy.
[ 86 ]
Mo tivatio n
Th e h igh est com m on ch a r a cter istics, r ela ted
to sou r ces of m otiva tion for both gr ou ps, wer e
stu den t im pr ovem en t, distr ict im pr ovem en t,
a n d self-im pr ovem en t. On th e oth er h a n d,
both gr ou ps r e ga r ded r ew a r ds a n d in cen tives
a s ver y low sou r ces of m otiva tion .
Se lf-asse ssme nt
Th er e wer e n o com m on a lties between th e two
gr ou ps of sch ool su per in ten den ts r ela ted to
self-a ssessm en ts for pr ofession a l developm en t pu r poses. Th e DE CAS pu blic sch ool
su per in ten den ts r epor ted h igh est fr equ en cies for week ly self-a ssessm en ts a n d lowest
scor es for yea r ly self-a ssessm en ts.
Con ver sely, n on -DE CAS pu blic sch ool su per in ten den ts r epor ted h igh est fr equ en cies for
yea r ly self-a ssessm en ts a n d lowest for week ly
self-a ssessm en ts.
Time frame
Com m on ch a r a cter istics wer e fou n d for a ll
tim e fr a m es’ va r ia bles. Both DE CAS a n d
n on -DE CAS gr ou ps r epor ted h igh est level of
im plem en ta tion of in dividu a l pr ofession a l
developm en t a ctivities w ith in a yea r. Sim ila r ly, both gr ou ps r epor ted th e lowest fr equ en cy for im plem en ta tion of pr ofession a l
developm en t a ctivities on a m on th ly ba sis.
Conclusion
Th e pu r pose of th is stu dy w a s to iden tify th e
pr ofession a l developm en t beh avior s of pu blic
sch ool su per in ten den ts. F u r th er, a n a ttem pt
w a s m a de to iden tify differ en ces a n d sim ila r ities between pu blic sch ool su per in ten den ts
wh o pa r ticipa ted in a Dia gn ostic E xecu tive
Com peten cy Assessm en t System a n d th ose
wh o did n ot pa r ticipa te in a n y a ssessm en t
a ctivity.
F in din gs of th is stu dy su ggest th a t pr ofession a l developm en t a ppea r s to be a m a jor
con cer n of pu blic sch ool su per in ten den ts.
Resu lts illu str a te th a t m ost sch ool su per in ten den ts en ga ge in con tin u ou s pr ofession a l
developm en t en deavor s wh eth er th ey h ave
pa r ticipa ted in a n a ssessm en t cen ter or n ot.
Th is fin din g is con gr u en t w ith th e Killion
a n d La n zer otte (1992) con ten tion th a t “E du ca tor s con tin u e to pa r ticipa te in tr a in in g on
th eir ow n tim e, even wh en th ey m u st pay for
th e ser vice. Th ey k n ow th e r esu lt of tr a in in g
in edu ca tion ca n a ffect gen er a tion s” (p. 10).
F u r th er, Spa r k s’ (1993) r epor t a lso su ppor ts
th is stu dy’s fin din gs r ela tive to pu blic sch ool
su per in ten den ts u se of pr ofession a l developm en t oppor tu n ities. He con clu ded th a t th ey
“seek ou t pr ofession a l developm en t oppor tu n ities differ en t fr om th ose typica lly a ssocia ted w ith edu ca tion , r ea d n on -edu ca tion a l
Martha N. Ovando ,
Be n M. Harris and
Patsy Me ne fe e
Sc ho o l supe rinte nde nt
de ve lo pme nt
Inte rnatio nal Jo urnal o f
Educ atio nal Manage me nt
1 2 / 2 [1 9 9 8 ] 8 2 –8 9
liter a tu r e a n d a tten d con fer en ces on topics
ou tside edu ca tion ” (p. 25) in or der to sh a r pen
th eir sk ills.
Few pr ofession a l developm en t beh avior s
wer e fou n d to be sign ifica n tly differ en t
between th e two gr ou ps (DE CAS a n d n on DE CAS) in clu ded in th is stu dy. Th u s, th is
stu dy h ypoth esis w a s r ejected for eigh t
pr ofession a l developm en t beh avior s on ly.
Th ese wer e a tten din g u n iver sity or colle ge
pr ogr a m s, a tten din g pr ofession a l in stitu tes,
u sin g com pu ter s a s a r esou r ce for pr ofession a l developm en t, u sin g u n iver sities
or colle ges a s r esou r ces for pr ofession a l
developm en t, th e a ccessibility of fi n a n cia l
r esou r ces, r ecogn ition a s a sou r ce of
Table III
Ranke d pro fe ssio nal de ve lo pme nt be havio rs o f sc ho o l supe rinte nde nts
Rank
DECAS
Frequency
%
Activities:
Workshops
Conferences
Professional memberships
Travel to other districts
Community involvement
Professional dialogue
Professional library
Business involvement
Task forces
Universities/ colleges
Political involvement
Institutes
M entors
13
13
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
40
40
40
39
37
32
21
18
11
8
8
8
3
100.0
100.0
100.0
98.0
93.0
80.0
53.0
45.0
28.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
18.0
Resources:
Education service center (ESC)
Video recorders
Peer networks
State Education Agency
Audio tapes
Life experiences
Professional experiences
Finances
Universities/ colleges
Computers
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
2
40
37
35
34
17
17
16
13
11
11
M otivation:
Student improvement
District improvement
Self-improvement
Job success
Recognition
Professional advancement
Contract renewal
Rewards
8
8
8
7
6
5
4
3
Self-assessment:
Yearly
M onthly
Weekly
Time frames:
One year
Six months
Three months
One month
Variable
Rank
Non-DECAS
Frequency
%
Workshops
Conferences
Professional memberships
Professional institutes
Universities/ colleges
Professional libraries
Professional dialogue
Business involvement
Community involvement
Political involvement
Travel to other districts
Task forces
M entors
13
13
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
40
40
40
39
38
36
34
27
24
19
12
6
6
100.0
100.0
100.0
98.0
95.0
90.0
85.0
68.0
60.0
48.0
30.0
15.0
15.0
100.0
93.0
88.0
85.0
43.0
43.0
40.0
33.0
28.0
28.0
Education service center (ESC)
Finances
Peer networks
State Education Agency
Computers
Video recorders
Universities/ colleges
Professional experiences
Life experiences
Audio tapes
10
10
9
8
8
8
7
6
5
4
40
40
39
37
37
37
36
28
20
12
100.0
100.0
98.0
93.0
93.0
93.0
83.0
70.0
50.0
43.0
40
40
40
39
35
35
26
19
100.0
100.0
100.0
98.0
88.0
88.0
65.0
48.0
Student improvement
District improvement
Self-improvement
Job success
Professional advancement
Contract renewal
Rewards/ incentives
Recognition
8
8
7
6
5
4
3
3
40
40
39
33
27
22
11
11
100.0
100.0
98.0
83.0
68.0
55.0
28.0
28.0
1
2
3
2
8
30
5.0
20.0
75.0
Yearly
M onthly
Weekly
3
2
1
22
11
7
55.0
28.0
17.0
4
3
2
1
27
8
5
0
68.0
20.0
12.0
0.0
One year
Six months
Three months
One month
4
3
2
1
21
11
7
1
53.0
28.0
17.0
2.0
Note:
Perc entages are rounded to the nearest tenth-plac e digit
[ 87 ]
Martha N. Ovando ,
Be n M. Harris and
Patsy Me ne fe e
Sc ho o l supe rinte nde nt
de ve lo pme nt
Inte rnatio nal Jo urnal o f
Educ atio nal Manage me nt
1 2 / 2 [1 9 9 8 ] 8 2 –8 9
[ 88 ]
m otiva tion a n d com pletin g self-a ssessm en ts
on a yea r ly ba sis. Th e n on -DE CAS gr ou p
seem s to pa r ticipa te m or e in u n iver sity or
colle ge wor k a n d pr ofession a l in stitu tes th a n
th e DE CAS gr ou p. Sim ila r ly, th e n on -DE CAS
gr ou p a ppea r s to h ave m or e a ccess to
r esou r ces su ch a s com pu ter s, u n iver sities
a n d colle ges, a n d fin a n cia l r esou r ces th a n th e
DE CAS gr ou p. F in a lly, th e n on -DE CAS gr ou p
a ppea r s to com plete self-a ssessm en ts ever y
yea r a s opposed to th e DE CAS gr ou p.
On th e oth er h a n d, th ose pu blic sch ool
su per in ten den ts in th e DE CAS gr ou p seem to
h ave m or e oppor tu n ities for tr avel to oth er
distr icts th a n th e n on -DE CAS gr ou p. Th is
cou ld a lso be a s a r esu lt of th e loca tion s of
th eir sch ool distr icts. Lik ew ise, th e DE CAS
gr ou p a ppea r s to iden tify r ecogn ition m or e a s
a sou r ce of m otiva tion a s opposed to th eir
cou n ter pa r ts.
Som e com m on pa tter n s of pr ofession a l
developm en t beh avior s seem to exist for th ese
two gr ou ps r e ga r dless of th eir in volvem en t in
a n a ssessm en t cen ter. For in sta n ce both
gr ou ps en ga ge in con fer en ces a n d wor k sh ops,
a n d a r e m em ber s of pr ofession a l or ga n iza tion s. Addition a lly, both gr ou ps a r e equ a lly
in ter ested in u sin g edu ca tion ser vice cen ter s,
peer n etwor k s, a n d th e Sta te E du ca tion
Agen cy a s r esou r ces of pr ofession a l developm en t. Sim ila r ly, stu den t im pr ovem en t, distr ict im pr ovem en t, a n d self-im pr ovem en t a r e
r e ga r ded a s sou r ces of m otiva tion by both
gr ou ps. F in a lly, it is a ppa r en t th a t com pletin g
self-a ssessm en ts ever y yea r is a lso a com m on
pr a ctice for th ese two gr ou ps.
Given th e n a tu r e of th is stu dy a n d th e
a bsen ce of m a jor differ en ces between th e two
gr ou ps, it seem s th a t pa r ticipa tion in a ssessm en t wor k sh ops m igh t n ot n ecessa r ily in flu en ce or stim u la te pr ofession a l developm en t
en deavor s. However, som e of th e sign ifi ca n t
differ en ces in th e eigh t specifi c beh avior s
m ay be situ a tion a l or th ey cou ld be th e ou tcom e of th e focu s h igh ligh ted by th e dia gn ostic a ssessm en t pr ocess.
F u r th er m or e, fin din gs of th is stu dy r e ga r din g th e popu la r u se of edu ca tion ser vice cen ter s a n d pr ofession a l a ssocia tion s len d su ppor t to th ese in stitu tion s, to som e exten t.
Con ver sely, th e a ppa r en t lim ited u se of u n iver sities a n d colle ges a s r esou r ces of pr ofession a l developm en t by th e pu blic sch ool
su per in ten den ts in th e DE CAS gr ou p illu m in a tes th e n eed to cr ea te colla bor a tive in itia tives between sch ool distr icts a n d u n iver sities th a t ca n en h a n ce pr ofession a l gr ow th
oppor tu n ities for pu blic sch ool su per in ten den ts.
Th ese su per in ten den ts’ r ecogn ition of stu den t im pr ovem en t, distr ict im pr ovem en t a n d
self-im pr ovem en t a s sou r ces of m otiva tion for
pr ofession a l developm en t r eflects r ecen t
ch a n ges in sta ff developm en t, both in bu sin ess a n d in sch ools, tow a r ds “con tin u ou s
im pr ovem en t of th eir pr odu cts (i.e. stu den t
lea r n in g)” a n d a n “in cr ea sed focu s of th e
wh ole or ga n iza tion a n d im pr ovem en t of th e
sch ool th r ou gh a pr ocess focu s” (Killion a n d
La n zer otte, 1992, p. 7).
Th is stu dy a ttem pted to expa n d th e k n ow ledge a ssocia ted w ith th e differ en t pr ofession a l self-r en ew a l beh avior s of pu blic sch ool
su per in ten den ts. However, fu r th er in qu ir y
cou ld pr ovide a br oa der pictu r e of th eir pr ofession a l developm en t in itia tives. Deta iled
a n d expla n a tor y a n a lyses of su ch beh avior s
wou ld gen er a te a n excellen t a n d pr a ctica l
r esou r ce for developer s of execu tive lea der sh ip a n d oth er s seek in g to en cou r a ge th e
con tin u ed pr ofession a l gr ow th of sch ool
su per in ten den ts. Su ch a ddition a l in for m a tion m ay a lso con tr ibu te to m or e system a tic
pla n n in g a n d design of en deavor s to en su r e
th a t pr ofession a l developm en t oppor tu n ities
m eet th e r ea l n eeds of con tem por a r y sch ool
su per in ten den ts. F u r th er, th e r ela tion sh ip
between pr ofession a l developm en t of pu blic
sch ool per son n el a n d stu den t su ccess n eeds
to be esta blish ed in or der to deter m in e th e
or ga n iza tion a l ben efits of pr ofession a l
developm en t.
References
Alexa n der, L. (1986), “Tim e for r esu lts: a n
over view ”, Ph i Delta Ka ppa n , Vol. 68 N o. 4,
pp. 202-4.
Bu ck , J .T. (1989), “Tr a n sfor m a tion a l lea der sh ip
beh avior s of exem pla r y Texa s su per in ten den ts”, u n pu blish ed doctor a l disser ta tion ,
Th e Un iver sity of Texa s a t Au stin , TX.
Bu r n h a m , J . (1989), “Th e ca r eer developm en t
exper ien ces a n d ca r eer pa tter n s of su per in ten den ts in th e Un ited Sta tes”, u n pu blish ed
doctor a l disser ta tion , Th e Un iver sity of Texa s
a t Au stin , TX.
Cawelti, G. (1981), “Tr a in in g for effective sch ool
a dm in istr a tor s”, pa per pr esen ted a t th e
a n n u a l m eetin g of th e N a tion a l Con fer en ce of
P r ofessor s of E du ca tion a l Adm in istr a tor s,
Sea ttle, WA, E RIC Docu m en t Repr odu ction
Ser vice N o. E D 244360.
Clin ton , B. (1986), “Wh o w ill m a n a ge th e sch ools”,
Ph i Delta Ka ppa n , Vol. 64 N o. 8, pp. 208-10.
Cu ba n , L. (1989), “Th e distr ict su per in ten den t a n d
th e r estr u ctu r in g of sch ool: a r ea listic
a ppr a isa l”, in Ser giova n n i, T. a n d Moor e, J .H.
(E ds), S ch oolin g for T om or row : Directin g
R efor m s to Issu es th a t Cou n t, Allyn & Ba con ,
Boston , MA, pp. 251-71.
Ga r dn er, J . (1990), On L ea d ersh ip, McMilla n
Ca n a da In c., N ew Yor k , N Y.
Ga r m ston , R. (1991), “Sta ff developer s a s socia l
a r ch itects”, Ed u ca tion a l L ea d ersh ip, Vol. 49
N o. 3, pp. 64-5.
Martha N. Ovando ,
Be n M. Harris and
Patsy Me ne fe e
Sc ho o l supe rinte nde nt
de ve lo pme nt
Inte rnatio nal Jo urnal o f
Educ atio nal Manage me nt
1 2 / 2 [1 9 9 8 ] 8 2 –8 9
Gay, L.R. (1987), Ed u ca tion a l R esea rch : Com peten cies for A n a lysis a n d A pplica tion (3rd ed .),
Mer r il P u blish in g Com pa n y, Colu m bu s, OH.
Ha r r is, B.M. (1989), In S er vice Ed u ca tion for S ta ff
Dev elopm en t, Allyn & Ba con , Boston , MA.
Ha r r is, B.M. a n d Wa n , Y. (E ds) (1991), “Per for m a n ce cr iter ia for sch ool execu tives”, In stru ction a l L ea d ersh ip, ava ila ble fr om Th e Un iver sity of Texa s a t Au stin , Depa r tm en t of E du ca tion a l Adm in istr a tion , SZB # 310, Au stin ,
Texa s 78712.
Ha r r is, B.M. a n d Wilson , L. (1991), “In str u ction a l
lea der sh ip specifi ca tion s for sch ool execu tives”, J ou r n a l of Person n el Eva lu a tion in
Ed u ca tion , Vol. 5, pp. 21-30.
Her m a n , J . (1989), “In str u ction a l lea der sh ip sk ills
a n d com peten cies of pu blic sch ool su per in ten den ts”, u n pu blish ed doctor a l disser ta tion ,
Th e Un iver sity of Texa s a t Au stin , TX.
Hor d, S.E . (1990), “An in vestiga tion of in str u ction a l lea der sh ip per ception s a m on g distr ict
level execu tives”, u n pu blish ed doctor a l disser ta tion , Th e Un iver sity of Texa s a t Au stin ,
TX.
Ho, W. (1992), “A stu dy of r ela tion sh ips between
in str u ction a l sta ffin g com peten cies of su per in ten den ts a n d selected per son n el pr a ctices”,
u n pu blish ed doctor a l disser ta tion , Th e Un iver sity of Texa s a t Au stin , TX.
Killion , J .P. a n d La n zer otte, J .K. (1992), “Is th e
gr a ss gr een er on th e oth er side? Discover ies
a bou t tr a in in g in bu sin ess a n d in du str y”,
J ou r n a l of S ta ff Dev elopm en t, Vol. 13 N o. 4,
pp. 6-11.
Kn e zek , D.G. (1993), “A ta sk a n a lysis pr ofi lin g th e
in str u ction a l lea der sh ip r ole of th e a ssista n t
su per in ten den t for in str u ction w ith in la r ger
sch ool distr icts in Texa s”, u n pu blish ed doc-
tor a l disser ta tion , Th e Un iver sity of Texa s a t
Au stin , TX.
N a tion a l Gover n or s’ Associa tion Cen ter of Policy
Resea r ch a n d An a lysis (1986), T im e for
R esu lts: T h e Gov er n ors’ 1991 R epor t on Ed u ca tion , Wa sh in gton , DC.
N a tion a l Policy Boa r d for E du ca tion a l Adm in istr a tion (1989), Im provin g th e Prepa ra tion of
S ch ool A d m in istra tors: A n A gen d a for R efor m ,
Ch a r lottesville, VA.
Sch lech ty, P.C. (1985), “Distr ict level policies a n d
pr a ctices su ppor tin g effective sch ool m a n a gem en t a n d cla ssr oom in str u ction ”, in Kyle,
R.M.J . (E d.), R ea ch in g for Ex cellen ce: A n Effectiv e S ch ool S ou rceb ook , Gover n m en t P r in tin g
Office, Wa sh in gton , DC, pp. 117-29.
Sen ge, P.M. (1990), T h e Fifth Disciplin e: T h e A r t
a n d Pra ctice of th e L ea r n in g Orga n iz a tion ,
Dou bleday Dell P u blish in g Gr ou p, N ew Yor k ,
N Y.
Spa r k s, D. (1992), “E xecu tive developm en t a n d
cu ltu r a l ch a n ge a t th e For d Motor Com pa n y”,
J ou r n a l of S ta ff Dev elopm en t, Vol. 13 N o. 4,
pp. 2-5.
Spa r k s, D. (1993), “Th r ee su per in ten den ts spea k
ou t on pla n n in g a n d th eir r ole a s sta ff developer s: a con ver sa tion w ith Ma r y N ebgen ,
David Sou sa , a n d Ray Willia m s”, J ou r n a l of
S ta ff Dev elopm en t, Vol. 14 N o. 2, pp. 22-5.
Su n u n u , J .L. (1986), “Will tech n ologies m a k e
lea r n in g a n d tea ch in g ea sier ?”, Ph i Delta
Ka ppa n , Vol. 68 N o. 4, pp. 220-2.
Wa lk er -F u ller, A.L. (1992), “Rela tion sh ip of su per in ten den ts’ beh avior s to th e in str u ction a l
effectiven ess of sch ool distr icts”, u n pu blish ed
doctor a l disser ta tion , Th e Un iver sity of Texa s
a t Au stin , TX.
[ 89 ]
M artha N. Ovando
Department of Educ ational Administration, The University of Texas at Austin, Texas
Ben M . Harris
Department of Educ ational Administration, The University of Texas at Austin, Texas
Patsy M enefee
De partme nt o f Le ade rship and Cultural Studie s, Unive rsity o f Ho usto n, Ho usto n,
Te xas
School superintendents are in
search of development opportunities that can help them
enhance their leadership
capacity in order to respond
to new demands and changes
in the environment. This
paper focuses on the professional development behaviors
of school superintendents
identifi ed through a comparative study of two groups. One
group participated in a Diagnostic Executive Competency
Assessment System (DECAS)
and the second group did not
have any assessment experience. Findings suggest that
both groups of school superintendents tend to engage in
development experiences and
activities. While there are
some differences in the development behaviors of these
two groups, it is interesting
that all school superintendents recognize improvement
(of self, schools, and student
achievement) as a motivation
to enhance their capacity in
several ways.
Inte rnatio nal Jo urnal o f
Educ atio nal Manage me nt
1 2 / 2 [ 1998] 8 2 –8 9
© MCB Unive rsity Pre ss
[ ISSN 0951-354X]
[ 82 ]
Introduction
Du r in g th e 1990s a n d beyon d, sch ools w ill be
r equ ir ed to becom e lea r n in g or ga n iza tion s
(Ga r m ston , 1991; Sen ge, 1990) in or der to
r espon d to n ew ch a llen ges a n d ch a n ges in th e
en vir on m en t. Ch a n ges in th e dem a n ds for
sch ool execu tive lea der sh ip ten d to h a ppen
m or e qu ick ly a n d w ith m or e u n pr edicta bility
th a n even th e m ost sen sitive system of con tin u in g tr a in in g a n d developm en t ca n a ccom m oda te. Con sequ en tly, sch ool a dm in istr a tor s
r ou tin ely a ppea r to be u n pr epa r ed to r espon d
to n ew ch a llen ges. Th is a ppa r en t la ck of
pr epa r a tion on th e pa r t of sch ool a dm in istr a tor s m ay be du e to a la ck of pr ogr a m s in con tin u in g edu ca tion dir ectly r ela ted to su per in ten den t developm en t n eeds. It m ay fu r th er
der ive fr om h eavy em ph a sis on “discon tin u ou s”, a d h oc, topic-by-topic or ien ted
pr ogr a m s.
Th e N a tion a l Policy Boa r d for E du ca tion a l
Adm in istr a tion (1989) sta ted th a t “ever y
edu ca tion a l r efor m r epor t of th e pa st deca de
h a s con clu ded th a t th e n a tion ca n n ot h ave
excellen t sch ools w ith ou t h avin g effective
lea der s” (p. 9). An ea r lier r epor t of th e
N a tion a l Gover n or s’ Associa tion Cen ter of
Policy Resea r ch a n d An a lysis (1986) a lso
su ggested th a t “policy m a k er s r ea ssess th e
r ole of a dm in istr a tor s a n d esta blish
pr ogr a m s to im pr ove th e lea der sh ip a n d
m a n a gem en t ca pa bilities of th e sch ool a dm in istr a tive for ce” (p. 3). Mor e r ecen tly, Keef
(1993) ca lled for a n a tion a l over h a u l of th e
pr epa r a tion of sch ool a dm in istr a tor s a n d
u r ged sta te officia ls to “m ove people in th e
dir ection of bein g r espon sible for th e pr ofession ” (p. 4). Sim ila r ly, Sch lecty (1985) r ecom m en ded th a t a ssu m ption s sh ou ld n ot be m a de
th a t sch ool im pr ovem en t is solely th e r espon sibility of th e bu ildin g pr in cipa l a n d sch ool
fa cu lty.
Th e r ole of cen tr a l office lea der sh ip, in clu din g sch ool distr ict su per in ten den ts, in
a ddr essin g th e n eeds of a ll stu den ts a n d in
th e r estr u ctu r in g of sch ools is cr itica l (Cu ba n
1989). However, it h a s been r ecogn ized th a t
oth er s, in clu din g tea ch er s, ca n be lea der s
w ith in sch ool system s (Spa r k s, 1993). Th u s,
sch ool su per in ten den ts, wh ile pr ovidin g
oppor tu n ities for oth er s to develop, a lso n eed
to r em a in on th e for efr on t in or der to
en h a n ce th eir poten tia l to a ddr ess th e ch a llen ges of today’s sch ools a s well a s th e edu ca tion pr ofession . In or der for a sch ool su per in ten den t to “be a cu ltu r e bu ilder, a n or ga n iza tion a l ch a n ge a gen t, a vision a r y, a n d a lea der
wh o k n ow s h ow to bu ild a lea r n in g or ga n iza tion th r ou gh th e developm en t of people”
(Spa r k s, 1993, p. 22) h e or sh e m u st en ga ge in
h is or h er ow n pr ofession a l developm en t.
E a r ly stu dies h ave str essed th a t societa l
for ces su ch a s th ose for a ccou n ta bility law s
a n d com peten cy tests r equ ir ed sch ool a dm in istr a tor s to h ave sk ills n ever ta u gh t in u n iver sities sever a l yea r s a go (Cawelti, 1981). F u r th er m or e, a n a gin g, r etir in g popu la tion of
top-level edu ca tion lea der s is pr odu cin g r a pid
pr om otion s for m a n y wh o wer e pr epa r ed on ly
for bu ildin g level or h igh ly specia lized position s. Con sequ en tly, sch ool su per in ten den ts
fa ce th e n eed to en ga ge in self-r en ew a l a ctivities in or der to en h a n ce th eir pr ofession a l
com peten ce.
Wh ile m a jor effor ts h ave been m a de by
u n iver sities, pr ofession a l a ssocia tion s, a n d
sch ool distr icts to pr epa r e sch ool lea der s in
th eir effor ts to r em a in cu r r en t w ith edu ca tion a l in n ova tion s a n d tr en ds, Ga r dn er sta ted
th a t:
we ca n n ot a ssign a n a ssessm en t pr ocedu r e
th a t yields a lea der sh ip a ptitu de scor e th a t
is a dequ a tely pr edictive a t a ge twen ty or
th ir ty … or expect ou r gr a du a te a n d pr ofession a l sch ools to sen d th eir gr a du a tes ou t
in to th e wor ld w ith fu tu r e gr ea tn ess pr epa ck a ged. Lea der sh ip developm en t ca lls for
r epea ted a ssessm en ts a n d r epea ted oppor tu n ities for tr a in in g (1990, p. 171).
An in cr ea sed em ph a sis on con tin u in g gr ow th
a n d developm en t of sch ool a dm in istr a tor s is
eviden t (Killion a n d La n zer otte, 1992; Spa r k s,
1993). However, k n ow ledge r e ga r din g th e
Martha N. Ovando ,
Be n M. Harris and
Patsy Me ne fe e
Sc ho o l supe rinte nde nt
de ve lo pme nt
Inte rnatio nal Jo urnal o f
Educ atio nal Manage me nt
1 2 / 2 [1 9 9 8 ] 8 2 –8 9
pr ofession a l developm en t of sch ool
su per in ten den ts is lim ited to th eir ca r eer
developm en t exper ien ces a n d pa tter n s (Bu r n h a m , 1989) a n d to a descr iption of th eir
in str u ction a l lea der sh ip com peten cies, a n d
r oles (Bu ck , 1989; Ha r r is a n d Wilson , 1991;
Her m a n , 1989; Ho, 1992; Hor d, 1990; Kn e zek ,
1993; Wa lk er -F u ller, 1992). Th er efor e, r esea r ch
a ddr essin g specifi c sch ool su per in ten den ts’
pr ofession a l developm en t effor ts m igh t
h eigh ten ou r u n der sta n din g of th eir pr ofession a l developm en t m odes a n d n eeds. Th e
pu r pose of th is pa per is to r epor t th e pr ofession a l developm en t beh avior s of selected
sch ool su per in ten den ts iden tifi ed th r ou gh a
com pa r a tive r esea r ch stu dy.
The study
Th is stu dy a ttem pted to descr ibe th e in dividu a l pr ofession a l developm en t beh avior s of
pr a cticin g pu blic sch ool su per in ten den ts.
Th e in ten t w a s to iden tify th e n a tu r e of pr ofession a l developm en t beh avior s of cen tr a l
office execu tives en ga ged in pr ofession a l
gr ow th a n d explor e differ en ces between two
gr ou ps, pu blic sch ool su per in ten den ts pa r ticipa tin g in a n a ssessm en t wor k sh op a n d pu blic sch ool su per in ten den ts n ot pa r ticipa tin g
in a n a ssessm en t wor k sh op. Specifi ca lly, it
a ddr essed th e follow in g qu estion s:
1 Ar e th er e a n y differ en ces between th e
pr ofession a l developm en t beh avior s of
pu blic sch ool su per in ten den ts pa r ticipa tin g in a dia gn ostic a ssessm en t cen ter a n d
th ose n ot pa r ticipa tin g in a n a ssessm en t
cen ter ?
2 Ar e th er e a n y com m on ch a r a cter istics of
pr ofession a l developm en t beh avior s of
pu blic sch ool su per in ten den ts r e ga r dless
of th eir pa r ticipa tion in a dia gn ostic
a ssessm en t cen ter ?
Addition a lly, it w a s h ypoth esized th a t th er e
wer e n o sign ifica n t differ en ces between th e
pr ofession a l developm en t beh avior s of th e
two gr ou ps of pu blic sch ool su per in ten den ts.
Th e in depen den t va r ia ble w a s pa r ticipa tion
in a dia gn ostic a ssessm en t cen ter, wh ile th e
depen den t va r ia bles in clu ded five ca te gor ies
of pr ofession a l developm en t iden tified a s
a ctivities, r esou r ces, m otiva tion , self-a ssessm en ts a n d tim e fr a m es. Th e dem ogr a ph ic
va r ia bles in clu ded execu tive position , distr ict
size, de gr ee a tta in m en t, pr eviou s exper ien ce,
distr ict wea lth , stu den t per for m a n ce a n d
loca tion .
Given th e pu r pose of th is stu dy, it w a s lim ited to th e iden tifi ca tion a n d com pa r ison of
pr ofession a l self-r en ew a l beh avior s r epor ted
by pu blic sch ool su per in ten den ts. Docu m en ta tion or eva lu a tion of th e qu a lity, effectiven ess, or im pa ct levels of su ch beh avior s w a s
n ot th e focu s of th is stu dy.
Procedures
Follow in g a ba sic ca su a l com pa r a tive design ,
th is stu dy in clu ded two gr ou ps of sch ool
su per in ten den ts differ in g on th e in depen den t
va r ia ble a n d com pa r in g th em on th e depen den t va r ia ble (Gay, 1987). Th e two gr ou ps
wer e differ en t in th a t on e gr ou p of pu blic
sch ool su per in ten den ts pa r ticipa ted in a
dia gn ostic a ssessm en t cen ter a n d th e oth er
gr ou p did n ot pa r ticipa te in a dia gn ostic
a ssessm en t cen ter. Th e depen den t va r ia bles
of th e stu dy wer e pr ofession a l developm en t
beh avior s of th e pa r ticipa tin g su per in ten den ts (see F igu r e 1). Th ese specific beh avior s
wer e clu ster ed in five ca te gor ies: a ctivities,
r esou r ces, m otiva tion , self-a ssessm en ts a n d
tim efr a m es.
E igh ty pu blic sch ool su per in ten den ts of
sch ool distr icts in a sou th cen tr a l sta te pa r ticipa ted in th e stu dy. Th ese wer e or ga n ized in
two gr ou ps of 40 ea ch . On e gr ou p in clu ded 40
pu blic sch ool su per in ten den ts wh o a tten ded
a n a ssessm en t cen ter a t a u n iver sity-
Figure 1
A c o mpariso n o f pro fe ssio nal de ve lo pme nt be havio rs o f sc ho o l supe rinte nde nts
DECAS
Gro up
DECAS
Asse ssme nt
Wo rksho p
Pro fe ssio nal
De ve lo pme nt
Be havio rs
No n-DECAS
Gro up
[ 83 ]
Martha N. Ovando ,
Be n M. Harris and
Patsy Me ne fe e
Sc ho o l supe rinte nde nt
de ve lo pme nt
Inte rnatio nal Jo urnal o f
Educ atio nal Manage me nt
1 2 / 2 [1 9 9 8 ] 8 2 –8 9
spon sor ed wor k sh op. Th is wor k sh op is
k n ow n a s th e Dia gn ostic E xecu tive Com peten cy Assessm en t System (DE CAS). It w a s
th e on ly on e pr ovidin g a wor k sh op exclu sively for su per in ten den cy lea der sh ip a ssessm en t. Th is gr ou p is r efer r ed to a s th e DE CAS
pa r ticipa n ts. Th e oth er gr ou p in clu ded 40
pu blic sch ool su per in ten den ts wh o h a d n o
h istor y of pa r ticipa tin g in a n y a ssessm en t
cen ter, a n d it is r efer r ed to a s th e n on -DE CAS
gr ou p. Th ese su per in ten den ts wer e iden tifi ed
fr om th e Agen cy Dir ector y of th e Sta te P u blic
Sch ools. Sch ool distr icts th a t h a d ch a r a cter istics closely r ela ted to th e distr icts iden tifi ed
in th e DE CAS gr ou p wer e in clu ded in th e
com pa r ison gr ou p in or der to a ssu r e sim ila r ity. Ta ble I con ta in s dem ogr a ph ic ch a r a cter istics of th ese two gr ou ps.
P a r ticipa n t r espon ses wer e collected
th r ou gh a qu estion n a ir e r efer r ed to a s th e
Sch ool E xecu tive Su r vey (SE S). Th is in str u m en t con sisted of qu estion s a n d ch eck list
Table I
De mo graphic c harac te ristic s o f study partic ipants
Variables
DECAS
n
%n
Non-DECAS
n
%n
Total sample
N
%N
Sample
School districts
M ales
Females
27
37
6
68.0
93.0
15.0
19
30
7
48.0
75.0
18.0
46
67
13
58.0
64.0
16.0
District size
Below 5,000
Above 5,000
37
3
93.0
8.0
37
3
93.0
8.0
74
6
93.0
8.0
Executive position
Superintendent
Assistant superintendent
Central office officer
10
14
16
25.0
35.0
40.0
10
14
16
25.0
35.0
63.0
20
28
32
25.0
35.0
40.0
Degree attainment
PhD, EdD
M aster’s
3
40
8.0
100.0
3
40
8.0
100.0
6
80
8.0
100.0
Previous experience
Superintendent
Assistant superintendent
Central office officer
10
14
26
25.0
35.0
65.0
9
18
28
23.0
72.0
70.0
19
32
46
24.0
40.0
56.0
Community type
< 50 miles
> 50 miles
37
3
93.0
8.0
36
4
90.0
10.0
70
7
88.0
9.0
Wealth (per pupil)
Below $4,000
Above $4,000
36
4
90.0
10.0
36
4
90.0
10.0
72
8
90.0
13.0
Student performance
Low performing
High performing
7
33
18.0
83.0
9
31
23.0
77.0
16
64
20.0
80.0
Note:
Frequenc ies for previous experienc e represent total responses possible and are,
therefore, greater than 40 for some variables within eac h subgroup and greater than
80 for some variables within the total sample
[ 84 ]
item s th a t r equ ir ed r espon den ts to r epor t
th eir in dividu a l pr ofession a l developm en t
beh avior s over a per iod of on e yea r. It w a s
or ga n ized follow in g th e r epr esen ta tive a ctivities iden tified a n d tested for va lidity a n d r elia bility by Bu r n h a m (1989). Th e in str u m en t
item s wer e fu r th er cor r elated w ith th e exper ien ce im pa ct levels of pr ofession a l r en ew a l
exper ien ces discu ssed by Ha r r is (1989). Th e
in str u m en t w a s or ga n ized in two pa r ts. Pa r t
on e r equ ested dem ogr a ph ic in for m a tion su ch
a s cu r r en t position , distr ict stu den t en r ollm en t, loca tion , h igh est degr ee, pr eviou s
a dm in istr a tive exper ien ce, eth n ic ba ck gr ou n d
a n d gen der. Pa r t two r equ ested in for m a tion
r ela tive to pr ofession a l developm en t beh avior s
of su per in ten den ts wh ich in clu ded in dividu a l
a ctivities, r esou r ces, sou r ces of m otiva tion ,
com pletin g self-a ssessm en ts, a n d tim e fr a m e
for im plem en ta tion
of in dividu a l pr ofession a l developm en t
en deavor s.
Da ta a n a lysis w a s com pleted u sin g fr equ en cies, per cen ta ges, m ea n s, a n d sta n da r d devia tion s. Addition a lly, a t-test w a s com pu ted to
deter m in e wh eth er sign ifica n t differ en ces
existed between th e two gr ou ps pa r ticipa tin g
in th is stu dy. Th e in depen den t va r ia ble w a s
pa r ticipa tion in a dia gn ostic a ssessm en t cen ter wor k sh op (DECAS) a n d th e depen den t
va r ia bles wer e gr ou ped u n der five h ea din gs.
Th ese wer e: a ctivities, r esou r ces, m otiva tion ,
self-a ssessm en ts a n d tim e fr a m es. Th e level of
sign ifica n ce w a s esta blish ed a t 0.5 level.
To explor e va r ia bles’ r ela tion sh ips w ith in
ea ch of th e five m a jor ca tegor ies of pr ofession a l developm en t, it w a s n ecessa r y to a n a lyze a n d descr ibe fin din gs for ea ch of th e va r ia bles. A tota l of 38 depen den t va r ia bles wer e
in clu ded. Th ese wer e a s follow s.
Activities
Th is ca tegor y r efer r ed to types of pr ofession a l
developm en t oppor tu n ities su ch a s
wor k sh ops, con fer en ces, u n iver sities, in stitu tes, pr ofession a l m em ber sh ips, com m u n ity
involvem en t, politica l involvem en t, bu sin ess
involvem en t, ta sk for ces, pr ofession a l libr a r y,
pr ofession a l dia logu e, tr avel to oth er distr icts,
a n d m en tor s.
Resources
Th e secon d ca tegor y in clu ded video r ecor der s,
a u dio ta pes, com pu ter s, Sta te E du ca tion a l
Agen cy, edu ca tion ser vice cen ter, r egion a l
u n iver sities, peer n etwor k s, pr ofession a l exper ien ce, life exper ien ces, a n d fin a n ces.
M otivation
Th e th ir d ca te gor y r efer r ed to sou r ces of
m otiva tion su ch a s: con tr a ct r en ew a l, r ecogn ition , self-im pr ovem en t, r ew a r ds or
Martha N. Ovando ,
Be n M. Harris and
Patsy Me ne fe e
Sc ho o l supe rinte nde nt
de ve lo pme nt
Inte rnatio nal Jo urnal o f
Educ atio nal Manage me nt
1 2 / 2 [1 9 9 8 ] 8 2 –8 9
in cen tives, job su ccess, stu den t im pr ovem en t,
distr ict im pr ovem en t, a n d pr ofession a l
a dva n cem en t.
Time frames
Th e fou r th ca te gor y r ela ted to th e tim e fr a m e
in wh ich sch ool execu tives in itia ted selfr en ew a l a ctivities a fter com pletin g som e
for m of self-a ssessm en t. It in clu ded on e yea r,
six m on th s, th r ee m on th s, a n d on e m on th .
Self-assessments
Th e la st ca te gor y r efer r ed to th e fr equ en cy in
wh ich a ssessm en t of pr ofession a l developm en t n eeds wer e com pleted by ea ch sch ool
su per in ten den t, su ch a s yea r ly, m on th ly, a n d
week ly.
Findings
Th e fin din gs of th is stu dy a r e pr esen ted follow in g th e r esea r ch qu estion s a n d th e fi ve
ca te gor ies of pr ofession a l developm en t
beh avior s descr ibed ea r lier. Repor ted h er e
a r e on ly th ose pr ofession a l developm en t
beh avior s th a t wer e fou n d to be differ en t a t
th e 0.5 level of sign ifica n ce esta blish ed in th is
stu dy.
Differences in the professional
development behaviors of school
superintendents
P a r ticipa n ts in both gr ou ps (DE CAS a n d n on DE CAS) a r e a ctive in volvem en t in pr ofession a l gr ow th en deavor s. All r epor ted pa r ticipa tion in a w ide r a n ge of a ctivities, ava ila bility of differ en t r esou r ces, a va r iety of sou r ces
of m otiva tion , a n d expedien t u sa ge of tim e
fr a m es a n d self-a ssessm en ts.
Wh en com p a r ison s wer e m a d e b et w een t h e
over a ll r esp on ses of DE CAS a n d n on -DE CAS
p u blic sch ool su p er in t en d en t s t o d et er m in e
w h et h er a n y d iffer en ces exist ed , d a t a a n a ly sis r evea led t h a t t h er e w er e n o sign ifica n t
d iffer en ces in t h e p r ofession a l d evelop m en t
b eh av ior s of t h ese t wo gr ou p s. H ow ever,
w h en st a t ist ica l t est s wer e com p let ed for
in d iv id u a l va r ia bles w it h in ea ch ca t e gor y,
som e s ign ifica n t d iffer en ces em er ged . T h er e
w er e eigh t sp ecific b eh av ior s t h a t w er e sign ifica n t ly d iffer en t for t h e t wo gr ou p s. T h ese
d iffer en ces a r e sh ow n in Ta ble II.
Ac tivitie s
Ou t of t h e 13 p r ofession a l d evelop m en t a ct iv it ies list ed , a t t en d in g u n iver sit y cou r se wor k
w a s on e of t h e p r ofession a l d evelop m en t
b eh av ior s fou n d t o b e d iffer en t . T h e d iffer en ce b et w een DE CAS a n d n on -DE CAS p u blic
sch ool su p er in t en d en t s w a s fou n d t o b e sign ifica n t a t t h e 0.021 level. A d iffer en ce w a s
a lso fou n d in r ela t ion sh ip t o p a r t icip a t ion in
Table II
T-te st re sults fo r c umulative me ans fo r
partic ipatio n in pro fe ssio nal de ve lo pme nt
be havio rs
Standard
mean
Two-tail
probability
Activities:
Workshops
Conferences
Universities/ colleges
Professional institutes
M emberships
Community involvement
Political involvement
Business involvement
Task forces
Professional library
Professional dialogue
Travel to other districts
M entors
1.9321
1.9321
1.0102
1.0470
1.9321
1.7713
1.7152
1.1880
1.6711
1.2261
1.4977
1.0943
1.1110
0.975
0.975
0.021
0.046
0.975
0.623
0.399
0.544
0.717
0.668
0.652
0.019
0.685
Resources:
Video recorders
Audio tapes
Computers
State Education Agency
Educational service center
Universities/ colleges
Peer networks
Professional experience
Life experiences
Finances
1.8450
1.9321
1.4301
1.8900
1.9321
1.7105
1.2011
1.9321
1.1903
1.1441
0.689
0.975
0.023
0.975
0.995
0.023
0.643
0.975
0.611
0.024
M otivation:
Contract renewal
Recognition
Self-improvement
Rewards/ incentives
Job success
Student improvement
District improvement
Professional advancement
1.1992
1.2212
1.9553
1.7724
1.1170
1.9321
1.9940
1.8210
0.561
0.026
0.971
0.443
0.623
0.992
0.997
0.883
Self-assessments:
Yearly
M onthly
Weekly
1.0006
1.7040
1.3211
0.031
0.843
0.833
Time frames:
One year
Six months
Three months
One month
1.1104
1.2682
1.0031
1.0022
0.401
0.643
0.577
0.993
Variable
p r ofession a l in st it u t es. T h e d iffer en ce w a s
d et er m in ed t o b e sign ifica n t a t t h e 0.046
level. F u r t h er, a d iffer en ce w a s ev id en t in
r ela t ion sh ip t o t r avelin g t o ot h er d is t r ict s a s
a n a ct iv it y for p r ofession a l d evelop m en t .
T h is d iffer en ce w a s a lso fou n d t o b e sign ifica n t a t t h e 0.019 level.
[ 85 ]
Martha N. Ovando ,
Be n M. Harris and
Patsy Me ne fe e
Sc ho o l supe rinte nde nt
de ve lo pme nt
Inte rnatio nal Jo urnal o f
Educ atio nal Manage me nt
1 2 / 2 [1 9 9 8 ] 8 2 –8 9
Re so urc e s
Th er e w a s a lso a differ en ce between th e
DE CAS a n d th e n on -DE CAS pu blic sch ool
su per in ten den ts in r ela tion sh ip to th e u se of
com pu ter s a s a r esou r ce for pr ofession a l
developm en t pu r poses. Th is differ en ce w a s
fou n d to be sign ifica n t a t th e 0.021 level.
Addition a lly, th e n on -DE CAS gr ou p
r epor ted u sin g u n iver sity or colle ge a s a
pr ofession a l developm en t r esou r ce m or e th a n
th e DE CAS gr ou p r epor ted u sin g th em . Th is
differ en t level of u se w a s fou n d to be sign ifica n t a t a 0.023 level.
F in a lly, fin din gs in dica te th a t n on -DE CAS
pu blic sch ool su per in ten den ts h ave differ en t
fin a n cia l r esou r ces th a n th e DE CAS pu blic
sch ool su per in ten den ts. Th is differ en ce w a s
fou n d to be sign ifica n t a t th e 0.024 level.
Mo tivatio n
Mor e DE CAS pa r ticipa n ts a ppea r ed to view
r ecogn ition a s a m a jor sou r ce of m otiva tion
th a n th e n on -DE CAS pa r ticipa n ts. Th is differ en ce w a s fou n d to be sign ifica n t a t th e
0.026 level.
Se lf-asse ssme nts
A differ en ce in th e com pletion of yea r ly selfa ssessm en ts existed between th e n on -DE CAS
pu blic sch ool su per in ten den ts a n d th e
DE CAS pu blic sch ool su per in ten den ts. Th is
differ en ce w a s fou n d to be sign ifica n t a t th e
0.031 level.
Common characteristics of professional
development behaviors of school
superintendents
A com pa r a tive a n a lysis of th e pr ofession a l
developm en t beh avior s of th e two gr ou ps
r evea led th a t som e sim ila r ities for th e tota l
sa m ple existed. Th u s, sim ila r ities wer e fou n d
w ith in ea ch of th e fi ve pr ofession a l developm en t ca te gor ies for both DE CAS a n d n on DE CAS sch ool su per in ten den ts. Th e exa m in a tion of th e r a n k or der ed r espon ses for a ll
ca te gor ies fu r th er deter m in ed com m on h igh
a n d low fr equ en cies for th e differ en t beh avior s. Th ese com m on ch a r a cter istics ca n be
obser ved in Ta ble III.
Ac tivitie s
All pu blic sch ool su per in ten den ts in both
gr ou ps r epor ted pa r ticipa tion in wor k sh ops,
con fer en ces, a n d m em ber sh ip in pr ofession a l
or ga n iza tion s a s th eir h igh est com m on ch a r a cter istics. Th e lowest r epor ted a ctivity for
both gr ou ps r ela ted to m en tor r ela tion sh ips.
Re so urc e s
Th e h igh est com m on pr ofession a l developm en t beh avior r epor ted by both gr ou ps
r ela ted to th e u se of edu ca tion ser vice cen ter s, in volvem en t in peer n etwor k s, a n d u se of
th e Sta te E du ca tion Agen cy.
[ 86 ]
Mo tivatio n
Th e h igh est com m on ch a r a cter istics, r ela ted
to sou r ces of m otiva tion for both gr ou ps, wer e
stu den t im pr ovem en t, distr ict im pr ovem en t,
a n d self-im pr ovem en t. On th e oth er h a n d,
both gr ou ps r e ga r ded r ew a r ds a n d in cen tives
a s ver y low sou r ces of m otiva tion .
Se lf-asse ssme nt
Th er e wer e n o com m on a lties between th e two
gr ou ps of sch ool su per in ten den ts r ela ted to
self-a ssessm en ts for pr ofession a l developm en t pu r poses. Th e DE CAS pu blic sch ool
su per in ten den ts r epor ted h igh est fr equ en cies for week ly self-a ssessm en ts a n d lowest
scor es for yea r ly self-a ssessm en ts.
Con ver sely, n on -DE CAS pu blic sch ool su per in ten den ts r epor ted h igh est fr equ en cies for
yea r ly self-a ssessm en ts a n d lowest for week ly
self-a ssessm en ts.
Time frame
Com m on ch a r a cter istics wer e fou n d for a ll
tim e fr a m es’ va r ia bles. Both DE CAS a n d
n on -DE CAS gr ou ps r epor ted h igh est level of
im plem en ta tion of in dividu a l pr ofession a l
developm en t a ctivities w ith in a yea r. Sim ila r ly, both gr ou ps r epor ted th e lowest fr equ en cy for im plem en ta tion of pr ofession a l
developm en t a ctivities on a m on th ly ba sis.
Conclusion
Th e pu r pose of th is stu dy w a s to iden tify th e
pr ofession a l developm en t beh avior s of pu blic
sch ool su per in ten den ts. F u r th er, a n a ttem pt
w a s m a de to iden tify differ en ces a n d sim ila r ities between pu blic sch ool su per in ten den ts
wh o pa r ticipa ted in a Dia gn ostic E xecu tive
Com peten cy Assessm en t System a n d th ose
wh o did n ot pa r ticipa te in a n y a ssessm en t
a ctivity.
F in din gs of th is stu dy su ggest th a t pr ofession a l developm en t a ppea r s to be a m a jor
con cer n of pu blic sch ool su per in ten den ts.
Resu lts illu str a te th a t m ost sch ool su per in ten den ts en ga ge in con tin u ou s pr ofession a l
developm en t en deavor s wh eth er th ey h ave
pa r ticipa ted in a n a ssessm en t cen ter or n ot.
Th is fin din g is con gr u en t w ith th e Killion
a n d La n zer otte (1992) con ten tion th a t “E du ca tor s con tin u e to pa r ticipa te in tr a in in g on
th eir ow n tim e, even wh en th ey m u st pay for
th e ser vice. Th ey k n ow th e r esu lt of tr a in in g
in edu ca tion ca n a ffect gen er a tion s” (p. 10).
F u r th er, Spa r k s’ (1993) r epor t a lso su ppor ts
th is stu dy’s fin din gs r ela tive to pu blic sch ool
su per in ten den ts u se of pr ofession a l developm en t oppor tu n ities. He con clu ded th a t th ey
“seek ou t pr ofession a l developm en t oppor tu n ities differ en t fr om th ose typica lly a ssocia ted w ith edu ca tion , r ea d n on -edu ca tion a l
Martha N. Ovando ,
Be n M. Harris and
Patsy Me ne fe e
Sc ho o l supe rinte nde nt
de ve lo pme nt
Inte rnatio nal Jo urnal o f
Educ atio nal Manage me nt
1 2 / 2 [1 9 9 8 ] 8 2 –8 9
liter a tu r e a n d a tten d con fer en ces on topics
ou tside edu ca tion ” (p. 25) in or der to sh a r pen
th eir sk ills.
Few pr ofession a l developm en t beh avior s
wer e fou n d to be sign ifica n tly differ en t
between th e two gr ou ps (DE CAS a n d n on DE CAS) in clu ded in th is stu dy. Th u s, th is
stu dy h ypoth esis w a s r ejected for eigh t
pr ofession a l developm en t beh avior s on ly.
Th ese wer e a tten din g u n iver sity or colle ge
pr ogr a m s, a tten din g pr ofession a l in stitu tes,
u sin g com pu ter s a s a r esou r ce for pr ofession a l developm en t, u sin g u n iver sities
or colle ges a s r esou r ces for pr ofession a l
developm en t, th e a ccessibility of fi n a n cia l
r esou r ces, r ecogn ition a s a sou r ce of
Table III
Ranke d pro fe ssio nal de ve lo pme nt be havio rs o f sc ho o l supe rinte nde nts
Rank
DECAS
Frequency
%
Activities:
Workshops
Conferences
Professional memberships
Travel to other districts
Community involvement
Professional dialogue
Professional library
Business involvement
Task forces
Universities/ colleges
Political involvement
Institutes
M entors
13
13
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
40
40
40
39
37
32
21
18
11
8
8
8
3
100.0
100.0
100.0
98.0
93.0
80.0
53.0
45.0
28.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
18.0
Resources:
Education service center (ESC)
Video recorders
Peer networks
State Education Agency
Audio tapes
Life experiences
Professional experiences
Finances
Universities/ colleges
Computers
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
2
40
37
35
34
17
17
16
13
11
11
M otivation:
Student improvement
District improvement
Self-improvement
Job success
Recognition
Professional advancement
Contract renewal
Rewards
8
8
8
7
6
5
4
3
Self-assessment:
Yearly
M onthly
Weekly
Time frames:
One year
Six months
Three months
One month
Variable
Rank
Non-DECAS
Frequency
%
Workshops
Conferences
Professional memberships
Professional institutes
Universities/ colleges
Professional libraries
Professional dialogue
Business involvement
Community involvement
Political involvement
Travel to other districts
Task forces
M entors
13
13
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
40
40
40
39
38
36
34
27
24
19
12
6
6
100.0
100.0
100.0
98.0
95.0
90.0
85.0
68.0
60.0
48.0
30.0
15.0
15.0
100.0
93.0
88.0
85.0
43.0
43.0
40.0
33.0
28.0
28.0
Education service center (ESC)
Finances
Peer networks
State Education Agency
Computers
Video recorders
Universities/ colleges
Professional experiences
Life experiences
Audio tapes
10
10
9
8
8
8
7
6
5
4
40
40
39
37
37
37
36
28
20
12
100.0
100.0
98.0
93.0
93.0
93.0
83.0
70.0
50.0
43.0
40
40
40
39
35
35
26
19
100.0
100.0
100.0
98.0
88.0
88.0
65.0
48.0
Student improvement
District improvement
Self-improvement
Job success
Professional advancement
Contract renewal
Rewards/ incentives
Recognition
8
8
7
6
5
4
3
3
40
40
39
33
27
22
11
11
100.0
100.0
98.0
83.0
68.0
55.0
28.0
28.0
1
2
3
2
8
30
5.0
20.0
75.0
Yearly
M onthly
Weekly
3
2
1
22
11
7
55.0
28.0
17.0
4
3
2
1
27
8
5
0
68.0
20.0
12.0
0.0
One year
Six months
Three months
One month
4
3
2
1
21
11
7
1
53.0
28.0
17.0
2.0
Note:
Perc entages are rounded to the nearest tenth-plac e digit
[ 87 ]
Martha N. Ovando ,
Be n M. Harris and
Patsy Me ne fe e
Sc ho o l supe rinte nde nt
de ve lo pme nt
Inte rnatio nal Jo urnal o f
Educ atio nal Manage me nt
1 2 / 2 [1 9 9 8 ] 8 2 –8 9
[ 88 ]
m otiva tion a n d com pletin g self-a ssessm en ts
on a yea r ly ba sis. Th e n on -DE CAS gr ou p
seem s to pa r ticipa te m or e in u n iver sity or
colle ge wor k a n d pr ofession a l in stitu tes th a n
th e DE CAS gr ou p. Sim ila r ly, th e n on -DE CAS
gr ou p a ppea r s to h ave m or e a ccess to
r esou r ces su ch a s com pu ter s, u n iver sities
a n d colle ges, a n d fin a n cia l r esou r ces th a n th e
DE CAS gr ou p. F in a lly, th e n on -DE CAS gr ou p
a ppea r s to com plete self-a ssessm en ts ever y
yea r a s opposed to th e DE CAS gr ou p.
On th e oth er h a n d, th ose pu blic sch ool
su per in ten den ts in th e DE CAS gr ou p seem to
h ave m or e oppor tu n ities for tr avel to oth er
distr icts th a n th e n on -DE CAS gr ou p. Th is
cou ld a lso be a s a r esu lt of th e loca tion s of
th eir sch ool distr icts. Lik ew ise, th e DE CAS
gr ou p a ppea r s to iden tify r ecogn ition m or e a s
a sou r ce of m otiva tion a s opposed to th eir
cou n ter pa r ts.
Som e com m on pa tter n s of pr ofession a l
developm en t beh avior s seem to exist for th ese
two gr ou ps r e ga r dless of th eir in volvem en t in
a n a ssessm en t cen ter. For in sta n ce both
gr ou ps en ga ge in con fer en ces a n d wor k sh ops,
a n d a r e m em ber s of pr ofession a l or ga n iza tion s. Addition a lly, both gr ou ps a r e equ a lly
in ter ested in u sin g edu ca tion ser vice cen ter s,
peer n etwor k s, a n d th e Sta te E du ca tion
Agen cy a s r esou r ces of pr ofession a l developm en t. Sim ila r ly, stu den t im pr ovem en t, distr ict im pr ovem en t, a n d self-im pr ovem en t a r e
r e ga r ded a s sou r ces of m otiva tion by both
gr ou ps. F in a lly, it is a ppa r en t th a t com pletin g
self-a ssessm en ts ever y yea r is a lso a com m on
pr a ctice for th ese two gr ou ps.
Given th e n a tu r e of th is stu dy a n d th e
a bsen ce of m a jor differ en ces between th e two
gr ou ps, it seem s th a t pa r ticipa tion in a ssessm en t wor k sh ops m igh t n ot n ecessa r ily in flu en ce or stim u la te pr ofession a l developm en t
en deavor s. However, som e of th e sign ifi ca n t
differ en ces in th e eigh t specifi c beh avior s
m ay be situ a tion a l or th ey cou ld be th e ou tcom e of th e focu s h igh ligh ted by th e dia gn ostic a ssessm en t pr ocess.
F u r th er m or e, fin din gs of th is stu dy r e ga r din g th e popu la r u se of edu ca tion ser vice cen ter s a n d pr ofession a l a ssocia tion s len d su ppor t to th ese in stitu tion s, to som e exten t.
Con ver sely, th e a ppa r en t lim ited u se of u n iver sities a n d colle ges a s r esou r ces of pr ofession a l developm en t by th e pu blic sch ool
su per in ten den ts in th e DE CAS gr ou p illu m in a tes th e n eed to cr ea te colla bor a tive in itia tives between sch ool distr icts a n d u n iver sities th a t ca n en h a n ce pr ofession a l gr ow th
oppor tu n ities for pu blic sch ool su per in ten den ts.
Th ese su per in ten den ts’ r ecogn ition of stu den t im pr ovem en t, distr ict im pr ovem en t a n d
self-im pr ovem en t a s sou r ces of m otiva tion for
pr ofession a l developm en t r eflects r ecen t
ch a n ges in sta ff developm en t, both in bu sin ess a n d in sch ools, tow a r ds “con tin u ou s
im pr ovem en t of th eir pr odu cts (i.e. stu den t
lea r n in g)” a n d a n “in cr ea sed focu s of th e
wh ole or ga n iza tion a n d im pr ovem en t of th e
sch ool th r ou gh a pr ocess focu s” (Killion a n d
La n zer otte, 1992, p. 7).
Th is stu dy a ttem pted to expa n d th e k n ow ledge a ssocia ted w ith th e differ en t pr ofession a l self-r en ew a l beh avior s of pu blic sch ool
su per in ten den ts. However, fu r th er in qu ir y
cou ld pr ovide a br oa der pictu r e of th eir pr ofession a l developm en t in itia tives. Deta iled
a n d expla n a tor y a n a lyses of su ch beh avior s
wou ld gen er a te a n excellen t a n d pr a ctica l
r esou r ce for developer s of execu tive lea der sh ip a n d oth er s seek in g to en cou r a ge th e
con tin u ed pr ofession a l gr ow th of sch ool
su per in ten den ts. Su ch a ddition a l in for m a tion m ay a lso con tr ibu te to m or e system a tic
pla n n in g a n d design of en deavor s to en su r e
th a t pr ofession a l developm en t oppor tu n ities
m eet th e r ea l n eeds of con tem por a r y sch ool
su per in ten den ts. F u r th er, th e r ela tion sh ip
between pr ofession a l developm en t of pu blic
sch ool per son n el a n d stu den t su ccess n eeds
to be esta blish ed in or der to deter m in e th e
or ga n iza tion a l ben efits of pr ofession a l
developm en t.
References
Alexa n der, L. (1986), “Tim e for r esu lts: a n
over view ”, Ph i Delta Ka ppa n , Vol. 68 N o. 4,
pp. 202-4.
Bu ck , J .T. (1989), “Tr a n sfor m a tion a l lea der sh ip
beh avior s of exem pla r y Texa s su per in ten den ts”, u n pu blish ed doctor a l disser ta tion ,
Th e Un iver sity of Texa s a t Au stin , TX.
Bu r n h a m , J . (1989), “Th e ca r eer developm en t
exper ien ces a n d ca r eer pa tter n s of su per in ten den ts in th e Un ited Sta tes”, u n pu blish ed
doctor a l disser ta tion , Th e Un iver sity of Texa s
a t Au stin , TX.
Cawelti, G. (1981), “Tr a in in g for effective sch ool
a dm in istr a tor s”, pa per pr esen ted a t th e
a n n u a l m eetin g of th e N a tion a l Con fer en ce of
P r ofessor s of E du ca tion a l Adm in istr a tor s,
Sea ttle, WA, E RIC Docu m en t Repr odu ction
Ser vice N o. E D 244360.
Clin ton , B. (1986), “Wh o w ill m a n a ge th e sch ools”,
Ph i Delta Ka ppa n , Vol. 64 N o. 8, pp. 208-10.
Cu ba n , L. (1989), “Th e distr ict su per in ten den t a n d
th e r estr u ctu r in g of sch ool: a r ea listic
a ppr a isa l”, in Ser giova n n i, T. a n d Moor e, J .H.
(E ds), S ch oolin g for T om or row : Directin g
R efor m s to Issu es th a t Cou n t, Allyn & Ba con ,
Boston , MA, pp. 251-71.
Ga r dn er, J . (1990), On L ea d ersh ip, McMilla n
Ca n a da In c., N ew Yor k , N Y.
Ga r m ston , R. (1991), “Sta ff developer s a s socia l
a r ch itects”, Ed u ca tion a l L ea d ersh ip, Vol. 49
N o. 3, pp. 64-5.
Martha N. Ovando ,
Be n M. Harris and
Patsy Me ne fe e
Sc ho o l supe rinte nde nt
de ve lo pme nt
Inte rnatio nal Jo urnal o f
Educ atio nal Manage me nt
1 2 / 2 [1 9 9 8 ] 8 2 –8 9
Gay, L.R. (1987), Ed u ca tion a l R esea rch : Com peten cies for A n a lysis a n d A pplica tion (3rd ed .),
Mer r il P u blish in g Com pa n y, Colu m bu s, OH.
Ha r r is, B.M. (1989), In S er vice Ed u ca tion for S ta ff
Dev elopm en t, Allyn & Ba con , Boston , MA.
Ha r r is, B.M. a n d Wa n , Y. (E ds) (1991), “Per for m a n ce cr iter ia for sch ool execu tives”, In stru ction a l L ea d ersh ip, ava ila ble fr om Th e Un iver sity of Texa s a t Au stin , Depa r tm en t of E du ca tion a l Adm in istr a tion , SZB # 310, Au stin ,
Texa s 78712.
Ha r r is, B.M. a n d Wilson , L. (1991), “In str u ction a l
lea der sh ip specifi ca tion s for sch ool execu tives”, J ou r n a l of Person n el Eva lu a tion in
Ed u ca tion , Vol. 5, pp. 21-30.
Her m a n , J . (1989), “In str u ction a l lea der sh ip sk ills
a n d com peten cies of pu blic sch ool su per in ten den ts”, u n pu blish ed doctor a l disser ta tion ,
Th e Un iver sity of Texa s a t Au stin , TX.
Hor d, S.E . (1990), “An in vestiga tion of in str u ction a l lea der sh ip per ception s a m on g distr ict
level execu tives”, u n pu blish ed doctor a l disser ta tion , Th e Un iver sity of Texa s a t Au stin ,
TX.
Ho, W. (1992), “A stu dy of r ela tion sh ips between
in str u ction a l sta ffin g com peten cies of su per in ten den ts a n d selected per son n el pr a ctices”,
u n pu blish ed doctor a l disser ta tion , Th e Un iver sity of Texa s a t Au stin , TX.
Killion , J .P. a n d La n zer otte, J .K. (1992), “Is th e
gr a ss gr een er on th e oth er side? Discover ies
a bou t tr a in in g in bu sin ess a n d in du str y”,
J ou r n a l of S ta ff Dev elopm en t, Vol. 13 N o. 4,
pp. 6-11.
Kn e zek , D.G. (1993), “A ta sk a n a lysis pr ofi lin g th e
in str u ction a l lea der sh ip r ole of th e a ssista n t
su per in ten den t for in str u ction w ith in la r ger
sch ool distr icts in Texa s”, u n pu blish ed doc-
tor a l disser ta tion , Th e Un iver sity of Texa s a t
Au stin , TX.
N a tion a l Gover n or s’ Associa tion Cen ter of Policy
Resea r ch a n d An a lysis (1986), T im e for
R esu lts: T h e Gov er n ors’ 1991 R epor t on Ed u ca tion , Wa sh in gton , DC.
N a tion a l Policy Boa r d for E du ca tion a l Adm in istr a tion (1989), Im provin g th e Prepa ra tion of
S ch ool A d m in istra tors: A n A gen d a for R efor m ,
Ch a r lottesville, VA.
Sch lech ty, P.C. (1985), “Distr ict level policies a n d
pr a ctices su ppor tin g effective sch ool m a n a gem en t a n d cla ssr oom in str u ction ”, in Kyle,
R.M.J . (E d.), R ea ch in g for Ex cellen ce: A n Effectiv e S ch ool S ou rceb ook , Gover n m en t P r in tin g
Office, Wa sh in gton , DC, pp. 117-29.
Sen ge, P.M. (1990), T h e Fifth Disciplin e: T h e A r t
a n d Pra ctice of th e L ea r n in g Orga n iz a tion ,
Dou bleday Dell P u blish in g Gr ou p, N ew Yor k ,
N Y.
Spa r k s, D. (1992), “E xecu tive developm en t a n d
cu ltu r a l ch a n ge a t th e For d Motor Com pa n y”,
J ou r n a l of S ta ff Dev elopm en t, Vol. 13 N o. 4,
pp. 2-5.
Spa r k s, D. (1993), “Th r ee su per in ten den ts spea k
ou t on pla n n in g a n d th eir r ole a s sta ff developer s: a con ver sa tion w ith Ma r y N ebgen ,
David Sou sa , a n d Ray Willia m s”, J ou r n a l of
S ta ff Dev elopm en t, Vol. 14 N o. 2, pp. 22-5.
Su n u n u , J .L. (1986), “Will tech n ologies m a k e
lea r n in g a n d tea ch in g ea sier ?”, Ph i Delta
Ka ppa n , Vol. 68 N o. 4, pp. 220-2.
Wa lk er -F u ller, A.L. (1992), “Rela tion sh ip of su per in ten den ts’ beh avior s to th e in str u ction a l
effectiven ess of sch ool distr icts”, u n pu blish ed
doctor a l disser ta tion , Th e Un iver sity of Texa s
a t Au stin , TX.
[ 89 ]