Introduction
Education in America predates the formation of the USA and has primarily been focused on the district level, under the leadership of the district board. Initially, the board directly superintended over educational issues in the district, but as the burden increased, the boards appointed technocrats named district superintendents to manage the day to day issues relating to the district. However, the primary day to day running of schools is normally limited to the school board, the school principal, and the Parents Teachers, Association (PTA) (Vinovskis, 2015). The obligation of the district board and the superintendent are thus limited to supervisory and advisory roles hence having a limited impact on student outcomes, as compared to the more localized players in the education sector (Chingos, Whitehurst & Lindquist, 2014). However, as this research paper shows, with education being a crucial and important aspect of any community, even the limited role that the education district plays is crucial to student outcomes and should thus be taken seriously.
Impact of Federal and State Laws in Superintendent’s Duties
The management of school districts by superintendents and boards vary from state to state but as a general rule, federal laws provide guidance while state laws provide an element of control. Under the Tenth Amendment of the US constitution, the day to day management of education was relegated to the state by the federal government. Subsequent federal laws including the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 which is a version of the Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974 reinforces the 10th Amendment by providing that control of education is limited to the state level (McGuinn, 2016). The school superintendent will thus be guided on some issues by federal laws but will generally adhere to state laws when carrying out basic school running obligations.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
It must, however, be noted that despite leaving the management of schools to the states, federal laws still play a pivotal role in some issues of management of the day to day running of schools and classrooms. For example, under the No Child Left Behind Act, all students in spite of their limitations should be taught contemporaneously in the same classrooms as much as is practicable (McGuinn, 2016). Based on this law, immigrant children with a limited understanding of English, for example, are taught alongside children who are native English speakers. Further, children with learning disabilities and those who are extremely gifted should be taught alongside the average children. Similarly, under the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act, schools have the obligation of providing meals for students, at the very least breakfast and lunch, more so in less privileged communities (Vinovskis, 2015). This federal provision, although may look noble exponentially eats into the school budget, yet federal funding of elementary and high school education is very limited. Based on the above, the guidance that is supposed to be provided by the federal government sometimes applies as instruction, thus encroaching on the abilities of the superintendent to handle the day to day running of schools.
Issues such as the hiring of teachers, determination of qualifications of the teachers to be hired, and the creation of the annual school calendar are limited to state laws. In modern times, most states, key among them being California, in an effort to streamline education have enacted stringent, elaborate, and comprehensive laws relating to school management (Ballou & Springer, 2015). Some of the laws are extreme including inter alia laws that provide for the termination of teachers whose classes perform dismally in standardized tests. It is the obligation of the superintendent to ensure that these laws are adhered to by advising the respective schools within the district accordingly (Vinovskis, 2015). Further, the superintendent plays a crucial role in the educational policy development within the school district. The policy developed is also to some extent subject to federal laws and to a very large extent controlled by state laws. Superintendents may aspire to be creative and innovative in the development of educational policies for their respective districts but have to operate within the limitations of these laws.
Leadership Methods Superintendents Could Employ
The superintendent must be a dynamic leader to be able to apply and implement state and federal laws toward the improvement of student outcomes within the school district. Student outcomes in this perspective include performing well on standardized tests and proper overall development of the students academically, emotionally, and socially (Vinovskis, 2015). State and federal laws may act as either assets or barriers in the attainment of student outcomes. For example, federal laws are designed to be applicable to all states, yet from an academic perspective, the states vary exponentially from one another (Ostrander, 2015). It is the obligation of the superintendent to break down these laws and apply them in a manner that they will become relevant to the school district and also to the various schools within the district. The same approach applies to state laws where innovation, creativity, and balancing have to be applied to make them suitable for different districts (Vinovskis, 2015). For example, in the Miami-Jade County, exponentially different communities live within a few miles of each other yet all fall within the same educational laws, rules, and regulations hence the need for dynamism in leadership at the level of the school superintendent.
School superintendents need to apply visionary leadership in ensuring the improvement of student outcomes within their districts. The superintendent has no de facto or de jure direct control of how students are directly handled by their teachers or the school administration (Björk, Kowalski & Browne-Ferrigno 2014). At the same time, the superintendent cannot escape responsibility for student outcomes within the district. A visionary approach to leadership will enable the superintendent to inspire teachers, the board, and the school administration to apply federal and state laws within the school in a manner that improves student outcomes (Tyssen, Wald & Spieth, 2014). Among the fundamental attributes of visionary leadership include proper communication, charisma, and strategic planning. The superintendent should have a vision about the anticipated status of students outcomes then inspire schools to work towards those outcomes. Laws should then be used as part of the system that will result in those outcomes.
The school superintendent also needs to apply transformational leadership to improve student outcomes, through state and federal laws. A transformational leader determines what needs to change within the team, then uses inter alia inspiration to make changes within the team, so as to attain a set objective (Tyssen, Wald & Spieth, 2014). State and federal laws determine how schools are supposed to be run on a day to day basis. The responsibility of the superintendent includes ensuring that the running of the schools is done in a manner that improves student outcome. Transformational leadership will enable the superintendent to change the school leadership including the board, the principle, and the teaching staff, instead of changing the system. Transforming the officials and professionals will enable them to apply the law in a way that the laws become an asset, not a liability to student outcomes.
Finally, the superintendent will still need to apply transactional leadership in ensuring that the day to day running of the schools is still done subject to state and federal laws, yet the application thereof does not affect student outcomes. Transactional leadership involves supervision, organization, and performance monitoring (Tyssen, Wald & Spieth, 2014). Indeed, the primary duties of the school superintendent are mainly relegated to transactional leadership. The other forms of leadership defined above such as dynamic leadership, visionary leadership and transformational leadership amount to going the extra mile to improve student outcomes. However, the multidimensional student outcomes cannot be attained without the basics of transactional leadership. For example, in California, after the standardized test laws were enacted, some teachers sought to save their jobs by doing standardized tests for their students (Ballou & Springer, 2015). In such scenarios, student outcomes were compromised, instead of being improved. Transactional leadership which includes the traditional obligation of school supervision will ensure that schools do not take shortcuts that compromise student outcomes instead of fulfilling them.
Training and Assistance for Governing Board Members
Training in the basics of material and financial management of a school and on how to apply the material to advance high expectations and learning outcomes for students is necessary for school board members. The governing board members are involved in the running of the school. There are many definitions of school boards, which may vary from state to state but they can be generally termed as not-for-profit corporations responsible for the overall management of the school. The boards are constituted by selected respectable members of the community (Beckham, Wills & Weeks, 2016). Unfortunately, respectable does not necessarily mean competent or knowledgeable, hence the need for training. Two types of training are necessary for board members, the first being theoretical training and the second being applied training. Theoretical training should include formal sessions such as a conference or seminar where new members are trained and older members are given continuous and refresher courses. Among the sources to be used in such training sessions include federal laws relating to education and applicable state laws. Further sources include materials relating to student outcomes, ethical decision-making, developmental factors for children of various ages, and finance. The training will give board members the ability to make the daily decisions relating to their obligations as school governors. Applied training, on the other hand, involves issues such how to apply the theoretical training to the management of schools and also how to find consensus during decision-making process (Beckham, Wills & Weeks, 2016). Sources and materials to be used in such training include benchmarking in successful school districts, team building, and materials relating to subjects such as ethics. The combination of theoretical and applied training will elicit competence in the board members and enable them to function as a team. The two prerequisites will form a foundation for the boards to play a role in fostering the advancement of high expectations and learning outcomes for students (Beckham, Wills & Weeks, 2016).
Conclusion
Based on the totality of the above, the district superintendent has the unenviable and complicated obligation of being responsible for the student outcomes within the district without having actual control over how the students are handled. Over and above the complexity above, the superintendent has to deal with the combination of federal and state laws relating to how learning is to be handled within the state, some of which may not be easily applicable to certain districts. The superintendent has to employ leadership styles that are able to influence and inspire the leaders and teachers within the school district. These styles include visionary and transformational leadership. Contemporaneously, the superintendent had to be a dynamic leader so as to adjust to the different aspects of the position and also transactional to be able to supervise how students are managed and handled within the district. The main center of power within the US education as under the superintendent is the school governing board. The efforts of the superintendent as outlined above may not succeed unless members of the board are properly trained to handle their obligations.
References
Ballou, D., & Springer, M. G. (2015). Using student test scores to measure teacher performance: Some problems in the design and implementation of evaluation systems. Educational Researcher , 44 (2), 77-86
Beckham, J., Wills, B. K., & Weeks, K. M. (2016). School Boards: responsibilities, duties, decisionmaking and legal basis for local school board powers. Education Encyclopedia
Björk, L. G., Kowalski, T. J., & Browne-Ferrigno, T. (2014). The school district superintendent in the United States of America. Educational Leadership Faculty Publications. 13. https://ecommons.udayton.edu/eda_fac_pub/13
Chingos, M. M., Whitehurst, G. J., & Lindquist, K. M. (2014). School superintendents: Vital or irrelevant?. Retrieved from https://www.brookings.edu/research/school-superintendents-vital-or-irrelevant/
McGuinn, P. (2016). From no child left behind to the every student succeeds act: Federalism and the education legacy of the Obama administration. Publius: The Journal of Federalism , 46 (3), 392-415
Ostrander, R. R. (2015). School funding: Inequality in district funding and the disparate impact on urban and migrant school children. BYU Educ. & LJ , 271
Tyssen, A. K., Wald, A., & Spieth, P. (2014). The challenge of transactional and transformational leadership in projects. International Journal of Project Management , 32 (3), 365-375
Vinovskis, M. (2015). From A Nation at Risk to No Child Left Behind: National education goals and the creation of federal education policy . New York: Teachers College Press
