This paper reports on the current thinking about the position of principal and superintendent in America's schools. The positions of school principal and district superintendent have been undergoing changes in definition and scope over the last century and a half. As America undergoes significant societal transformation, the definition of these two positions has to evolve to meet the complex demands the country puts on its schools. The history of the development of the principalship and superintendency is given to provide context for the challenges aspiring education leaders will face in the new millennium. A noted systemic problem in higher education is the inability of many universities to provide adequate instruction relevant to today's leadership needs in education. Recommendations include leadership preparation programs being redesigned to reflect collaborative instructional leadership that works through transformational processes. Such programs must be organized around problems of practice and delivered in collaboration with practitioners. Developmental evaluation processes need to be contained to assess aspiring leaders based upon their level of development. Programs should have a critical mass of five to six faculty devoted to the preparation of new forms of leadership for the schools. (Contains 51 references.) Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made from the original document.

Concerns with equity issues in education have largely given way to concerns about quality and excellence. Bell and Chase (1993) argue that from the beginning of the 1980s, federal policies have focused on the establishment and enforcement of performance standards rather than on equity standards. And even when the focus was on equity, apart from affirmative action policies in some arenas, what was really targeted was equality. Talking of gender equity, in particular, Stromquist (1997) points out that although the U.S. government describes both Title XI of the Educational Amendments Act of 1972 and the Women's Educational Equity Act (WEEA) passed in 1975 as legislation for equity, the laws, at best, offer equality of opportunity in terms of access and resources. "To provide equity would be to give greater support to women in order to ensure that they ultimately reach a condition of equality with men" (p. 55). Odden (1995) agrees: "Despite our rhetoric about equal outcomes, our equity orientation has been one primarily of access" (p. 12).Thus, when Charol Shakeshaft poses the question: "Are women represented in administration in equal proportions to their representation in teaching?" she is not referring to any extra efforts that have been made on behalf of women to enable their entry into administration that would provide equity. She is looking simply at the numbers, unreliable as they are, to determine if there is equality of representation. The answer is no. "Females are overrepresented in teaching and underrepresented in administration" (p. 100). Beyond 518

The gender of school leaders makes a difference in career paths, personal life, and characteristics of workplace. There is additional evidence that men and women are appointed or elected to lead different kinds of educational jurisdictions. Even if those differences did not exist, equitable access to leadership positions for people of different backgrounds would make this an important issue. This article reports gender-related findings from the American Association of School Administrators 2015 Mid-Decade Survey. Findings confirm many of the trends in research on the superintendency over the past 15 years. The profiles of women superintendents are becoming more like their male counterparts. Both men and women appear to be less mobile than in the past. Men and women are spending about the same time as teachers before becoming superintendents, women and men appear to experience stress similarly, and women are receiving mentoring much more than in the past. There are few data to support the beliefs that women superintendents, more than men, are limited by family circumstance although this survey sheds no light on perspectives of women aspirants. This survey also confirms that there are a variety of paths to the position providing opportunities for women who have not necessarily had the typical teacher/principal/central office administrator trajectory. Nevertheless, significant differences still exist. Most important is that men are still four times more likely than women to serve in the most powerful position in education, and both women and men of color are still grossly underrepresented.

No abstract

No abstract