Shared Superintendents: A Minnesota Perspective

A MINNESOTA PERSPECTIVE OF THE SHARED SUPERINTENDENT MODEL

by

Sarah A. Mittelstadt

B.S., St Cloud State University, 1993

M.S., St Cloud State University, 2003

A Dissertation

Submitted to the Graduate Faculty

of

St. Cloud State University

in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements

for the degree of

Doctor of Education

St Cloud, Minnesota

June, 2012

This dissertation submitted by Sarah A. Mittelstadt in partial fulfillment of the

requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Education at St. Cloud State University is

hereby approved by the final evaluation committee.

__________________________________

Chairperson

__________________________________

__________________________________

__________________________________

________________________________

Dean

School of Graduate Studies

iii

A MINNESOTA PERSPECTIVE OF THE SHARED SUPERINTENDENT MODEL

Sarah A. Mittelstadt

The purpose of this study was to describe the current status of shared

superintendents in Minnesota. This includes the challenges and benefits of the shared

superintendent model. The study also examines the demographics of superintendents and

the roles superintendents fulfill when comparing shared superintendent positions and

nonshared superintendent positions.

The study is a mixed-methods study completed in two separate strands. The first

strand was a survey of Minnesota superintendents completed in conjunction with co-

researchers Dr. John Eller and Ellen Voigt; the second strand was an interview

conducted with four shared superintendents in Minnesota. The results of these interviews

are compared to earlier studies of shared superintendents.

Data from Minnesota superintendents were analyzed to compare shared

superintendents to three comparison groups: part-time superintendents, superintendents

also acting as principals, and full-time superintendents in school districts under 1,500

students. Survey results were analyzed to determine the relationship between

demographics of superintendents and school districts, roles of superintendents,

relationships with board members, perceived job satisfaction, and the perception of the

financial condition on school districts. Interviews with four shared superintendents were

analyzed to more thoroughly understand shared superintendents in Minnesota and

determine the reason school districts utilize a shared superintendent model as well as the

benefits and challenges of this model.

No statistically significant differences were identified between shared

superintendents, part-time superintendents, principal/superintendents, and full-time

superintendents. Shared superintendents were more predominantly male than the

comparison groups and had more experience as a superintendent. Shared superintendents

indicated no difference from comparison groups related to job satisfaction. Shared

superintendents generally indicated spending similar amounts of time on various

superintendent roles when compared to part-time superintendents and full-time

superintendents. Principal/superintendents spend more time on instructional leadership

than the comparison groups. Shared superintendents did have a lower average job

satisfaction related to board member relationships than comparison groups.

iv

Shared superintendents indicated the reasons school districts that entered a

shared superintendent model were indirectly related to financial reasons; however, the

reasons were primarily due to increased efficiency and supporting neighboring districts.

The study of shared superintendents provides guidance to school district

administrators and board members when determining the superintendent model when

using this budget reduction strategy.

________________

Month Year Approved by Research Committee:

John Eller Chairperson

v

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This dissertation is dedicated to all those who inspired me to persevere through

the process to completion of my dissertation. I could not have completed this without the

support and prayers of those around me.

I would like to thank my committee members. Dr. John Eller, for being my

committee chair and for helping the program get started with the dissertation process.

Thank you to Dr. Hsueh-I (Martin) Lo for your guidance on statistics, Dr. Nicholas

Miller for your calming presence, and Dr. Roger Worner for your editing feedback. I

appreciate all of you for taking the time to participate in this process. With great

appreciation I acknowledge Randy Kolb in the statistics department for your patience

and wisdom. Thank you to the Minnesota Association of School Administrators for

helping assisting with the dissemination of the survey and encouraging superintendents

to complete the survey.

This would not have been possible without my colleagues in Cohort 1. What a

great group of educational leaders. Your support was extremely valuable! A particular

thanks to Dr. Julie and Dr. Amy for paving the way, finding the answers, and being so

supportive.

This would not have been possible without the love and support of my husband,

Brian. I wholeheartedly thank you for all of the patience and understanding. You have

vi

supported me no matter what crazy ideas and endeavors I pursue. I promise this is my

last degree. Thank you to Annie and Martin, my children, for being my encouragement

and motivation. Thank you for giving up your time with Mom during this journey.

None of this would have been possible without the gifts and love provided by

God. I have been blessed so many times in my life; He always shows the way.

vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

LIST OF TABLES ..................................................................................................... x

Chapter

I. INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... 1

Problem Statement ................................................................................... 6

Purpose of the Study ................................................................................ 7

Research Questions .................................................................................. 8

Significance of the Study ......................................................................... 9

Delimitations of the Study ....................................................................... 10

Definition of Terms ................................................................................. 10

Organization of the Study ........................................................................ 11

II. LITERATURE REVIEW .............................................................................. 13

Challenges Facing Public Schools: The New Normal ............................. 15

History of Sharing in Schools .................................................................. 19

Shared Superintendents ........................................................................... 24

Alternatives to Shared Superintendents ................................................... 38

Summary .................................................................................................. 41

III. METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................ 45

viii

Chapter Page

Statement of Research Problem ............................................................... 45


Participants .............................................................................................. 47

Human Subject Approval ........................................................................ 49

Instrumentation ........................................................................................ 50

Analysis of Data ...................................................................................... 53

Limitations ............................................................................................... 55

Summary .................................................................................................. 56

IV. RESULTS ...................................................................................................... 57

Survey Information .................................................................................. 58

Interview Information .............................................................................. 62

Research Question 1 ................................................................................ 67




Summary .................................................................................................. 91

V. DISCUSSION ................................................................................................ 93





ix

Chapter Page


Recommendations for Professional Practice ........................................... 106

Recommendations for Further Study ....................................................... 107

Conclusion ............................................................................................... 109

REFERENCES .......................................................................................................... 111

APPENDICES

A. Superintendent Survey ................................................................................... 124

B. Interview Consent .......................................................................................... 141

C. Horn Interview Questions Consent to Replicate ........................................... 144

x

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

1. American Association of School Administrator’s Survey Results ................ 15

2. Demographics of All Superintendents Responding to the Survey ................ 59

3. Demographics of Shared Superintendents Interviewed ................................. 65

4. Responses to Reasons for the Shared Relationship ....................................... 67

5. Frequency Distribution for Demographics of Superintendent Comparison

Groups ...................................................................................................... 71

6. Frequency Distribution of the Size of Districts Served by

Superintendent Comparison Groups ........................................................ 72

7. Mean Scores of the Roles Completed by each Superintendent

Comparison Group ................................................................................... 74

8. Rank Order Comparisons for Time Spent in each Role ................................ 75

9. Frequency Distribution of Superintendent Satisfaction with

Board Member Relationships .................................................................. 78

10. Frequency Distribution of Superintendent Perception of Funding

Impact on their School District ................................................................ 80

11. Frequency Distribution of Superintendent Job Satisfaction Related to

Enjoyment with the Position and Satisfaction with Performance ........... 83

12. Analysis of Variance of Superintendent Responses to Enjoyment with

the Position and Satisfaction with Performance ...................................... 84

13. Frequency Distribution of Job Satisfaction Related to Personal

Time Available ........................................................................................ 85

xi

Table Page

14. Frequency Distribution of Job Satisfaction Related to Instructional

Leadership ................................................................................................ 88

1

Chapter I

INTRODUCTION

Amid diminishing resources, public school districts are increasingly evaluating

alternative methods to reduce spending, particularly in budgetary categories not

impacting classroom instruction. One such cost-cutting alternative is the possible sharing

of a superintendent by two or more school districts (Deloitte Research, 2005; Ellerson,

2010b; Thiele, 2011). To be sure, little guidance is available for school districts and

superintendents considering alternatives to employing a full-time superintendent. If

school districts were to proceed with a shared superintendent model, it would seem

likely that school boards and superintendents would benefit from being apprized of

potential pitfalls and strategies to successfully execute the changes.

Practice has revealed that school districts have begun examining alternatives to a

full-time superintendent because of budget pressures. Douglass (2011) reported that

despite the Minnesota State Legislature having added $50 per pupil to the funding

formula for the 2011-12 school year, almost every school district in Minnesota

experienced lower state aid per pupil than was appropriated in the 2002-03 school year

when adjusted for inflation. There is little surprise that 93% of all Minnesota

superintendents report the funding model for school districts is inadequate. As a

consequence of past funding inadequacies, the reduction of adjusted state revenue

2

resulted in school districts depending on local levies to receive adequate revenue. In

2003, the average levy for school districts was $491 per pupil. The average projected

levy for 2013 is $1,157 per pupil (Douglas, 2011). In November of 2011, 114 school

districts asked voters for an operating levy; ninety of the operating levies passed. Even

the Minnesota School Board Association expressed surprise about the number of

successful levy elections (Lombard, 2011). School districts are likely to be concerned

whether taxpayers will continue to approve funding at this level.

The increased pressure on local tax dollars has intensified the complexities for

school districts to maintain program and service quality with reduced funding available.

The perception is that school districts simply need to reduce spending, inefficiencies,

and redundancy (Christie, 2010; Douglass, 2011). An American Association for School

Administrators (AASA) report by Ellerson (2010a) indicated 21% of districts report

cutting 11% to 25% of budgets in the 2009-10 school year; 60% of the respondents

considered personnel layoffs for the 2010-11 school year.

In addition to reduced revenue, school districts noted increases in expenses.

Besides inflation, the two most significant increases in school district budgets are

attributable to rising health insurance and special education costs. By way of illustration,

“Employer health care costs are projected to rise 8.2% to an average annual cost of

$10,730 in 2011” (Yee, 2010, para. 9), and the forecast for future years does not suggest

health care costs will improve. Miller (2011) related, “United States employers can

expect to see health care costs rise by 8.5% in 2012” (para. 1). These increases are not

only impacting school districts. The Minnesota State Demographer’s office anticipates

3

an increase of 4.8% for health insurance each year for the next 10 years for Minnesota

employers (Gillaspy, 2011). As a result of health insurance increases, 46% of school

districts anticipated reducing healthcare benefits for employees during the 2010-11

school year (Ellerson, 2010a).

Similarly, special education expenditures continue to increase for school districts.

These costs rose in Minnesota school districts from 900 million dollars in the year 2000

to one and a half billion dollars in the year 2009. While special education costs

represented 15.3% of school budgets in the state of Minnesota in 2000, these

expenditures rose to 16.9% of budgets by 2009 (Minnesota Department of Education,

2011c). Future special education cost escalations are by no means at an end. The

Minnesota state demographers office anticipates an increase of 4.3% in special education

expenditures each year for the next 10 years (Gillaspy, 2011). The growth in health

insurance and special education expenditures may result in districts needing to reduce

further areas of spending.

With reduced revenue and increased expenses, districts are challenged to find

ways to reduce expenditures. Limited solutions exist for reducing budgets beyond

reducing staff members. Districts often consider reductions in extracurricular activities;

however, research reveals adolescents who participate in athletics demonstrate better

grades, attitudes, and academic aspirations (Barnett 2007; Darling, Caldwell, & Smith,

2005). Barnett (2007) stated that the “beneficial effects of such participation [in

extracurricular activities] on academic performance and achievement and on academic

and psychosocial variables have been consistently found” (p. 316). In Minnesota,

4

decisions regarding reducing or eliminating extracurricular choices are complicated

further by open-enrollment. Students may be less likely to consider open enrolling into a

school district which recently eliminated an extracurricular activity in which the student

desired participation. The loss of open enrolled students further reduces the revenue

generated in the district.

As a partial solution to cost reduction, consolidation is often considered.

However, the National Rural Education Task Force (Bard, Gardener, & Wieland, 2006)

found smaller school districts typically displayed higher achievement and overall school

performance. Consolidation has also been found to result in higher administrative costs

(Deloitte Research, 2005). In addition, Sederberg (1987) reported several concerns for

communities regarding closing school districts. Consolidation resulted in the decline of

residential and commercial property values and reductions in retail and local taxes.

According to Sederberg, one banker interviewed stated that if the community is under

300 people and the school closes, “you could just as well close the community” (p. 4).

As a result of these impacts, it could appear many school districts and communities may

make efforts to oppose consolidation.

With stagnant revenue, increased costs, and limited options for reducing

programs, school districts may find it necessary to seek creative solutions for lowering

spending. During the recession in the 1970s and 1980s, leadership and management

were often the first cutbacks (Ginsberg & Multon, 2011). On the contrary, according to

Minnesota Statute 123B.143 (2010), all school districts with a classified secondary

school must employ a superintendent. Adding to the pressures to fulfill requirements to

5

employ a superintendent, yet reduce management, school districts have had difficulties

filling superintendent positions (Siggerud, 2011). School districts, particularly rural

school districts, express significant difficulties finding superintendents capable of the

many demands placed on the individual (Cooper, Fuscarelli, & Carella, 2000).

Additional stressors exist for rural school district superintendents because that leadership

executive is often the focus of public criticism, is the chief officer of the organization

that is frequently the largest employer in the community, and is constantly under the

scrutiny of community members (Lamkin, 2006). Not surprisingly, the shortage of

superintendents is likely to increase. In fact, only half of superintendents responding to

an American Association of School Administrators (AASA) study stated they planned to

remain in the superintendent role in 2015 (Kowalski, McCord, Petersen, Young, &

Ellerson, 2010).

Due to funding pressures and a dwindling pool of available candidates, school

districts may be willing to consider a shared superintendent model in which one

individual is contracted to serve as the superintendent of two school districts. Such

arrangements pose certain challenges; however, concerns regarding the shared

superintendent model include the lack of contact with stakeholders, lack of control

within the district, increased workload, and high burnout rate (Decker & McCumsey,

1990). One Wyoming newspaper reported how the stressors of the shared

superintendency became visible to the school board. One school board member

concluded about an outgoing shared superintendent, “we’ve aged him over the past

6

couple years” (Murray, 2011, para. 12). The board member went on to state, “I feel

guilty doing this to him” (Murray, 2011, para. 12).

As school districts search for alternatives for reducing costs, the concept of

sharing superintendents could become a viable option for any number of school

enterprises in Minnesota. Toward that possibility, little research is available related to

the complexities associated with shared superintendents, and even how to structure

shared superintendent positions. In this light, districts considering the shared

superintendent model may value guidance in making the decision to employ this cost-

cutting measure. This study is an attempt to identify potential issues and possible success

strategies with the implementation of a shared superintendent model.

Problem Statement

School districts may determine it necessary to consider alternative methods to

address funding shortages due to increasing expenditures and reduced revenue

(Douglass, 2011). Shared superintendents may be an option worth considering by school

districts; unfortunately, relatively few studies have been completed examining the shared

superintendent administrative model. In a study by Bratlie (1992), shared

superintendents in Minnesota and Iowa were surveyed regarding perceptions of the

shared superintendent model. The Bratlie study is the only study regarding shared

superintendents involving Minnesota superintendents; no data specific to Minnesota are

available.

7

The majority of studies completed were conducted in the 1990s; the most recent

study conducted regarding shared superintendents was completed by Horn (2011). The

Horn study revealed inconsistencies from previous studies. Differences from previous

studies revolved around the perceptions of the shared superintendent model, the ability

for the shared superintendent to act as an instructional leader, and the impact of the

sharing on the superintendent’s ability to act as a manager.

Purpose of the Study

This study’s purpose was to describe situations in which shared superintendents

were employed in Minnesota and the impact the role has on the superintendent position.

The study further examined the demographics of superintendents and the roles

superintendents fulfilled when comparing shared and nonshared superintendent

positions. The study intended to provide information on a topic where little research had

been conducted and furnish additional findings about the shared superintendent model.

Information gained will aid in disseminating information to school districts in Minnesota

and across the United States considering a shared superintendent administrative

structure. Additionally, the study illuminated potential issues school districts may

encounter when considering and utilizing shared superintendents as well as strategies to

assist with a successful transition if districts chose to enter a shared superintendent

arrangement. Information gained provides guidance to legislators and other policy

makers considering laws, regulations, and policies impacting superintendent hiring

decisions.

8

The study determined if the disparities found in Horn’s (2011) study and earlier

studies were due to changes in superintendent roles or to limitations of the Horn study;

an investigation conducted which involved only two shared superintendents due to the

inclusion criteria which specified that subjects had to have been employed in a shared

superintendent position for 5 years or more. Replication of the interview questions

employed by Horn permitted a comparison of responses from Iowa superintendents with

five or more years of experience in a shared position to Minnesota superintendents with

varying lengths of experience as a shared superintendent.

Research Questions

This study examined the shared superintendent model in Minnesota to provide

guidance to school districts considering future replication of the shared superintendent

model. There were two phases involved in gathering data. Phase 1 entailed surveying all

Minnesota superintendents through an online survey tool; Phase 2 involved conducting

interviews with superintendents currently serving in a shared capacity with two or more

school districts. Several research questions were addressed:

1. What are the shared superintendents’ perceptions of the reasons Minnesota

school districts are currently using a shared superintendent model?

2. Are there any differences in shared and nonshared superintendent positions

for Minnesota superintendents in the following areas: gender and experience

of superintendents, size of school districts utilizing this model, roles fulfilled,

9

satisfaction with board member relationships, and perceptions of budgetary

challenges?

3. Are there differences in the job satisfaction of shared and nonshared

superintendents?

4. Are there differences in the role of shared and nonshared superintendents as

an instructional leader?

Significance of the Study

Review of literature and demographic predictions indicate school districts will

continue to encounter financial difficulties, which will not likely diminish in the near

future. Consequently, school districts will most certainly continue to examine alternative

methods for dealing with declining enrollment and financial limitations. The shared

superintendent model may offer a workable alternative for assisting in future cost

containment. However, school districts need information about factors to consider and

alternative options available when persisting with this alternative approach.

Additionally, a review of recent news articles indicate legislators from across the country

are creating legislation that is intentionally and unintentionally impacting school district

decisions to share superintendents. This study provided research findings for legislators

to evaluate when drafting future legislation and when assessing the potential results of

their law making.

The study furnished an examination of shared superintendent positions

exclusively in Minnesota, a topic which has not previously been studied. Additional

study in the area of shared superintendents serves as a guide to superintendents and

10

school boards weighing future superintendent position options, including the shared

superintendent model.

Delimitations of the Study

The study was a mixed model study conducted during the 2011-12 school year.

A survey of all Minnesota superintendents was conducted in conjunction with

researchers Dr. John Eller and Ms. Ellen Voigt. Interviews were conducted with four

Minnesota superintendents in shared superintendent positions during January and

February of the 2011-12 school year. Two superintendents were selected based on

having fewer than 5 years of experience as shared superintendents, and two

superintendents were selected based on having 5 years or more experience as shared

superintendents.

Definition of Terms

Combined administrator: An administrator holding another administrative

position or teaching position in addition to a superintendent’s position.

Consolidation: “The process of dissolving or reorganizing one or more

school districts into one new unit” (Rural Assistance Center, 2011, para. 23).

Job satisfaction: The extent that an employee’s job fulfills the individual’s

needs and values (Dawis, England, & LofQuist, 1964).

Nonshared superintendent: A chief executive officer serving only one school

district.

11

Part-time superintendent: An individual acting in the role of chief executive

officer for one or more school districts while working fewer than five days

per week on a regular basis.

Privatization: When a governmental agency contracts with a private agency

for a task the agency has usually done on its own (Flam & Keane, 1997).

Shared services: “Intergovernmental cooperation at the local level either by

formal written contracts or by informal verbal agreements which often

provides a workable method of meeting particular problems” (Federal

Advisory, 1961, p. 3).

Shared superintendents: “One who served two or more school districts as

chief executive officer for the board of education” (Winchester, 2003, p. 23).

Whole grade sharing: When a school district cooperates with one or more

other school districts to provide education for an entire grade of students with

transportation provided by the district.

Organization of the Study

This dissertation is organized in a five-chapter format. The first chapter provides

an introduction and general overview of the topic and further describes factors that have

resulted in the need for shared superintendents. Terminology used throughout the

dissertation is also defined.

Chapter II is an overview of the literature written regarding related factors

impacting shared superintendents. This chapter describes research related to the financial

12

crisis school districts experience which results in consideration of a shared

superintendent relationship; the types of sharing school districts have implemented to

reduce expenditures; and two sections on models districts have employed to staff

superintendent positions as cost cutting measures.

Chapter III describes the mixed methods model study utilized in this research and

provides reasons for the methods identified. This chapter also describes the data that was

gathered to address the research questions. Chapter IV describes the results of the study,

and Chapter V describes conclusions drawn from the findings of the study.

13

Chapter II

LITERATURE REVIEW

When school districts experience declining enrollment, continually changing

expectations from the state and federal government, and diminishing resources, the

leaders of the school district are forced to examine alternatives to increase efficiencies

(Horn, 2011). A shared superintendent, a trained school administrator employed to serve

as the chief executive officer of two or more school districts, may be one of the options

school districts consider. Unfortunately, school districts have mixed results with shared

superintendent relationships.

When two school districts in Michigan considered a shared superintendent

relationship, Gable (2010) interviewed three superintendents currently employed in a

shared superintendent arrangement and the representatives of one school district that

ended a shared superintendent relationship. The first combination of school districts

entered their relationship timidly with two, 6-month trial agreements before developing a

3-year agreement. This agreement eventually led to sharing a business manager,

providing a common director for the food service program, and jointly purchasing

natural gas. Another combination of school districts interviewed by Gable involved

Godwin Heights, Michigan and Wyoming Park, Michigan with enrollments,

respectively, of 2,200 and 5,200 students. When the Godwin Heights superintendent

14

resigned, the idea of a shared superintendent relationship was discussed between the

districts. However, the Godwin Heights school board was not interested. When the

newly hired superintendent resigned following a scandal within the Godwin Heights

School District, Wyoming Park, Michigan and Godwin Heights, Michigan entered a

shared superintendent relationship. The shared relationship also led to sharing a business

manager and transportation coordinator.

Bear Lake, Michigan and Kaleva Norman Dickson, Michigan school districts

have shared a superintendent since 1999; the districts chose to hire another shared

superintendent when the first shared superintendent retired. The fourth shared

superintendent relationship occurred in Suttons Bay, Michigan and Glen Lake, Michigan

school districts. The districts reported the relationship was effective; however, when the

shared superintendent resigned, the shared relationship ended.

The aforementioned illustrations reveal the difficulties and complexities of

shared superintendent arrangements, if they are considered as a mechanism for budget

reductions, they require further examination. The complexities prompted an

investigation of this issue. This chapter is organized in a four-topic format, each

addressing vital issues related to the shared superintendencies. Research related to the

financial crisis school districts experience which results in consideration of a shared

superintendent relationship, the types of sharing school districts have implemented to

reduce expenditures, and two sections on models districts have employed to staff

superintendent positions as cost cutting measures. In summary, this chapter examines

15

research salient to the shared superintendent position and research regarding other

models of staffing superintendent positions.

Challenges Facing Public Schools:

The New Normal

The American Association of School Administrators (AASA) completed a series

of 10 studies regarding the impact of the economy on school districts since 2008. Table

1 outlines the results of three of the AASA studies by comparing budget reduction

strategies identified in the studies. The table outlines percentage of school districts

implementing each of the budget reduction strategies. The page number in which the

information was located is also identified on the table.

Table 1

American Association of School Administrators’ Survey Results

Clearly, school districts are impacted by reduced revenue and increased

expenditures. Table 1 demonstrates that school districts report an increase of inadequate

funding from 67% of school districts reporting inadequate funding in 2008 to 84% of

McCord &

Ellerson (2008)

Ellerson &

McCord (2009)

Ellerson

(2010b)

Described their district as

“inadequately funded”

67% (p. 7) 76% (p. 7) 84% (p. 4)

Implemented Personnel

Layoffs

8% (p. 23) 31% (p. 8) 48% (p. 4)

Considered Personnel

Layoffs in the Future

31% (p. 23) 22% (p. 16) 66% (p. 7)

Reduced Extracurricular

Activities

6% (p. 23) 18% (p. 18) 31% (p. 9)

Reduced Elective Courses 4% (p. 23) 14% (p. 15) 26% (p. 8)

16

school districts reporting inadequate funding in 2010. As a result of the inadequate

funding for school districts, districts have increased the percentage of school districts

implementing personnel layoffs from 8% to 48% in the same time period.

Extracurricular activities have also been impacted as a result of budget cuts with an

increase of 6% of school districts cutting extracurricular activities in 2008 and 31% of

school districts cutting extracurricular activities in 2010. Elective courses were also

impacted with 4% of school districts reducing these courses in 2008 and 26% of school

districts reducing elective courses in 2010.

The reductions in personnel made dramatic impacts on district classrooms during

the 2010-11 school year with 57% of school districts increasing class size. Collaborative

planning time was also reduced in 17% of school districts during the 2010-11 school

year (Ellerson, 2010b, p. 10).

These types of reductions clearly “negatively impact student achievement and the

success of children, and further magnify the long-term impact of the economic

downturn” (Ellerson, 2010a, p. 10). The school districts most impacted by the economy

were districts with a higher percentage of students receiving free and reduced lunch,

which have consistently produced lower test scores (Barry, 2006; Eamon, 2005; Barry,

2006). The No Child Left Behind statute increased the expectations on school districts to

reduce the achievement gap for individuals in poverty (Education Week, 2011), yet 83%

of school districts indicated a lack of funding has negatively impacted the district’s

ability to close the achievement gap (McCord & Ellerson, 2008).

17

Education and economics are highly correlated with one another. One example of

the education and economic relationship unfolded in Minnesota after World War II;

“Minnesota went from a below-average education and below-average income state to a

national leader in both measures” (Gillaspy, 2011, p. 19). The economic impact of

schools reducing staff to the degree found in the AASA studies was even more

prominent in rural communities where job losses translate into economic losses. School

districts in small communities were often the largest employer for the community.

Reducing staff resulted in a loss of students and further loss of revenue (Ellerson,

2010a). One study reported that for each school job created an additional .6 community

jobs were created (Sederberg, 1987).

State Economist, Tom Stinson, and State Demographer, Tom Gillaspy, (2011)

travelled around Minnesota sharing predictions for “Minnesota and the New Normal.”

Without changes in spending patterns in the state of Minnesota, demographic predictions

envision significant gaps between revenues and expenditures with a high of more than

four billion dollars in the 2012 fiscal year (slide 6). The reported gap between revenues

and expenditures is resulting in a slower recovery from the economic recession

compared to previous recessions (Stinson & Gillaspy, 2011). The slower recovery from

the current recession is a nation-wide trend. Typically, the recovery from a recession

occurs at the federal level 12-18 months prior to the recovery at the state and local level.

State and local agencies are likely to lag 2 years behind the federal recovery due to the

depth and duration of the current recession (Ellerson, 2009). Based on previous

18

recessions, it will take even longer for rural areas to recover from recessions than

metropolitan areas (Parker, Kusmin, & Marre, 2010).

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) was enacted by the

United States Congress in February of 2009. The act provided $100 billion for school

districts across the United States (Ellerson, 2009). The purpose was to “promote

economic recovery for school districts and other agencies most impacted by the

recession through creating and preserving jobs and minimizing or avoiding reductions in

essential services” (Minnesota Management and Budget, 2011, para. 2). During 2009

and 2010, Minnesota school districts received over one billion dollars of ARRA funds

(Minnesota Department of Education, 2011b). Eighty-three percent of United States

superintendents reported ARRA funds did not result in increased funds to their districts;

these funds merely offset the cuts being experienced at the local and state levels

(Ellerson & McCord, 2009). Even with 100 billion dollars in ARRA funds distributed to

school districts, 53% were unable to save teaching positions as a result of ARRA funds

(Ellerson, 2009).

According to studies by the AASA, the shortage of funding for school districts

also impacted the number of individuals interested in pursuing superintendent positions.

The AASA conducted a study of 2,110 superintendents in 2007. In the study,

superintendents revealed the greatest disincentive for superintendents entering the field

is the lack of adequate funding for public schools. A lack of adequate funding was

ranked in the top three disincentives for entering the field by 53.89% of superintendents.

With these statistics, it is not surprising that only 15% of current superintendents felt

19

there was an adequate supply of candidates to fill available positions (Sutton & Jobe,

2008).

Beyond the economic crisis, additional changes are occurring in Minnesota

which will impact education. According to the Minnesota State Demographer’s office

(Gillaspy, 2011), during the 2011 and 2012 years, Minnesota anticipates a gain of

approximately 10,000 people through immigration, many of whom are non-English

speaking and require costly, specialized instruction. Also, between 2011 and 2020, the

rate of educator retirements will increase rapidly with a rate comparable to the last four

decades combined (Gillaspy, 2011).

Gillaspy and Stinson (2011) stated the combination of the revenue and

expenditure gap, the slow recovery from the recession, and the changing demographics

of students served in Minnesota schools will result in a “new normal” in Minnesota. The

new normal will result in higher interest rates, slower economic growth, and an

increasingly diverse population. Gillaspy and Stinson advised that the new normal

should result in opportunities to “restructure government costs, replace retiring

government workers wisely, and re-engage the growing retiree population” (slide 37).

History of Sharing in Schools

During previous recessions, school districts have chosen to share services to save

money (Christie, 2010; Rutgers, 2007; Salmon, 2009). Former United States Secretary of

Education Rod Paige identified the efficiencies of sharing services between school

districts when he stated Education Service Agencies (ESA) “are able to successfully

20

respond to district needs in a flexible, adaptable, efficient, cost effective, and direct

manner” (Paige, 2003, para. 3).

In Minnesota, shared service organizations became formalized and increased in

popularity as a result of the 1967 Elementary and Secondary Education Act Title III

grant to fund Educational Research and Development Councils (Briscoe, 1980). In 1971,

six Educational Research and Development Councils existed in Minnesota; these

organizations focused on multi-district collaboration, research, and data gathering.

Simultaneously, the Minnesota State Legislature enacted eleven regional service

agencies (Education Cooperative Service Units), which also focused on multi-district

collaboration and cooperation, including special education staffing. All of these efforts

were established to enhance school districts cost effectiveness, expanded programming,

and higher levels of service (Pine, 1971). The State’s Joint Exercise of Powers Act

created an increase in collaboration for nearly every school district; the act allowed

school districts to use funding for anything a district could not do independently. The

new act fostered the development of other forms of collaboration including joint powers

organizations.

In 1992, a report completed by Manzi and Urahn (1992) for the Minnesota

Legislature arose out of concerns about the number of regional educational organizations

in Minnesota and the belief that a duplication of services and administrative structures

existed. The report cited seven types of collaborative educational relationships that

existed among Minnesota school districts:

21

Education districts required at least four contiguous districts and allowed

districts to receive per pupil funding in state aid and local levy.

Education Cooperative Service Units (ECSUs) provided planning and

education programs to member districts throughout the region.

Regional Management Information Centers (RMICs) provided computer

services for information reporting to the Minnesota Department of Education.

Intermediate districts were specific to interagency collaboration in the

metropolitan area.

Special education cooperatives provided special education through a joint

powers agreement or host-district arrangement.

Secondary vocational cooperatives provided vocational education for two or

more districts.

Telecommunication cooperatives provided interactive television programs for

students through joint powers agreements. (Manzi & Urahn, 1992, pp. 20-21)

The Manzi and Urahn (1992) report indicated throughout the 1970s and early

1980s the majority of school district sharing had been in the form of cooperatives to

purchase equipment and supplies; cooperatives also assisted districts in meeting the

vocational and special education needs for students. School districts then started sharing

administrative services to ensure compliance with state and federal laws and financial

management.

The Minnesota School Board Association (MSBA) is a prime example of a

multi-district administrative shared service in which nearly every school district in

Minnesota participates (Christie, 2010). According to the MSBA website, shared

administrative services provided by the MSBA include school board trainings, policy

development, financial and cash management programs, Americans with Disabilities Act

compliance, insurance bidding, and playground compliance. Additional examples of

shared services in administration include benefits management, insurance, school

business services, and school-based Medicaid health services billing (Salmon, 2009).

22

Clearly, a significant value of shared administrative services is to save school districts

scarce resources, as evidenced by two Canadian school districts that saved eight million

dollars over 3 years through sharing bus transportation and audio-visual resources

(Deloitte Research, 2005).

Another form of sharing embraced by some school districts is privatization. This

creative approach occurs when a governmental agency contracts with a private agency to

perform a task the agency previously performed, though not as cost effectively.

Privatization became popular in school districts in the 1990s (Flam & Keane, 1997).

Examples of privatization have typically included services for cooking, cleaning, and

transportation. More recently, however, privatization ventures have expanded to include

school administration and management, teacher training, and curriculum design

(O’Leary & Bealse, 1994).

Prior to 1979, school districts experienced limited abilities to conduct significant

amounts of sharing with other school districts. In the Education Act (Laws of Minnesota,

1979), the Minnesota Legislature enacted Statute 122.41, permitting school districts in

Minnesota to work collaboratively with other school districts to meet the needs of

students. Prior to the 1979 Minnesota Education Act, all school districts had to provide

services to students between first grade and 12th

grade within district boundaries. The

Education Act allowed school districts to make arrangements with one another for whole

grade sharing as long as at least three grades of students remained in each school district.

Whole grade pairings reached its greatest popularity during the 1991-92 school year

23

when 138 Minnesota school districts participated in whole grade sharing (Rutgers,

2007).

There are two different types of whole grade sharing. One-way sharing occurs

when high school students from one district attend a second district, but none of the

resident students of the second district attend the first district. Two-way sharing is when

students are exchanged between two school districts (Gordon & Knight, 2008). Whole

grade sharing arrangements decreased to 24 combinations during the 2003-04 school

year (Rutgers, 2007) as a result of the 1994 Minnesota state incentives for school district

consolidation (Minnesota Department of Education, 2011a).

In a study of whole grade sharing in Iowa, Lyons (1987) found school districts

were able to reduce an average of 2.4 teaching positions as a result of whole grade

sharing. The districts generally entered into a whole grade sharing arrangement due to a

loss of enrollment, desire to improve curriculum, and an opportunity to increase

curricular offerings. Differences of opinions were identified in the study regarding

whether the sharing of students would eventually result in consolidation. Only half of

school board presidents believed future consolidation would happen, while principals

were the most optimistic that such an arrangement would lead to consolidation.

Superintendents, school board presidents, and principals all felt students had a positive

opinion of the agreement. Over half of the stakeholders responded that adults within the

school system had an excellent attitude toward sharing. The majority of superintendents

and board members reported people’s attitude about whole grade sharing was excellent.

24

Further, the study revealed whole grade sharing did not impact community perceptions

of administrators (Lyons, 1987).

Shared Superintendents

Another form of sharing is when two or more school districts jointly employ a

superintendent. “In 1984, 21 states reported shared superintendent arrangements

involving over 400 districts and 212 superintendents during the 1983-84 school year”

(Bratlie, 1992, p. 2). No information is available regarding what year Minnesota started

sharing superintendents. However, in 1987 the Minnesota Legislature revised Chapter

398, House File 753 to specifically allow two or more school districts to share a

superintendent (Laws of Minnesota, 1987). Subsequently, during the 1988-89 school

year, 39 superintendents participated in a shared superintendent relationship in

Minnesota (Bratlie, 1992); though the number of shared superintendents was reduced as

a result of consolidations. According to the Minnesota Department of Education (2012)

website, 14 superintendents served in a shared superintendent relationship between 29

Minnesota school districts during the 2011-12 school year.

As school districts experience significant budget cuts, school districts have

continued to examine alternative methods to reduce expenditures outside of the

classroom. Deloitte Research (2005) reported, “in most states at least 40% of every

dollar spent on education never makes it into the classroom” (p. 4). In addition to the

difficulties encountered in reducing budgets, school districts have experienced mounting

difficulties hiring qualified superintendents. Minnesota school districts report a 30% to a

25

60% drop in the number of applicants for superintendent positions compared to a decade

ago, and only a small percentage of these applicants are qualified for the position

(Siggerud, 2011). During the summer of 2011, more than 50 superintendent positions

were posted in the state of Minnesota with a staggering one out of seven of all

superintendent positions experiencing turnover (Kyte, 2011).

With a shortage of candidates and limited funding, districts often consider

alternative methods to fill the superintendent positions without hiring full time

personnel. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, superintendents reported the primary

reason, and often the only reason, school districts decided to share a superintendent was

finances (Bratlie, 1992; Decker & Talbot, 1991; Sederberg, 1988).

Decker and McCumsey (1990) surveyed school board presidents in Iowa serving

in districts with shared superintendents. Nine out of 10 school board presidents

confirmed sharing a superintendent was primarily for financial reasons. The sharing of a

superintendent assists school districts to reduce spending in most states, but Iowa also

provides incentive dollars to school districts for sharing of services. The provision of

such additional revenue permits school districts to offer the salary necessary to attract

highly qualified superintendents (Decker & McCumsey, 1990). Even without the

additional financial incentive, Minnesota districts related their primary reason for

sharing a superintendent was due to financial savings (Bratlie, 1992).

Nearly 20 years since the studies by Decker & McCumsey (1990), Talbot and

Talbot (1991), and Bratlie (1992), Horn (2011) conducted a study of shared

superintendents in 2010. Horn identified noticeably different results from previous

26

studies. Studying two pairs of districts sharing superintendents for 5 years or more, Horn

interviewed 23 individuals within the four districts including board members,

administrators, and financial officers. Horn found the financial savings was often the

primary reason for sharing the superintendent. However, stakeholders also identified

many other reasons for sharing a superintendent including the ability to obtain quality

leadership identified in a neighboring district, the difficulties in filling a superintendent

position midyear, future partnering, enhancing partnering already in place, and helping a

neighboring district. None of the districts were in a budget deficit at the time the sharing

was initiated; however, one district was on the verge of serious financial difficulties

(Horn, 2011).

Since school districts enter shared superintendent relationships to enhance

financial savings, it is crucial to examine if districts actually experience such savings as

a result of sharing a common chief executive officer. Winchester (2003) conducted a 5-

year study to determine the financial impact of shared superintendents. Winchester

found districts with shared superintendents saved a significant amount on administrative

costs during the first year of the sharing on administrative costs. After 5 years, however,

the savings were not as significant due to the increased cost of principal salaries due to

additional responsibilities. Winchester related that the first year of sharing a

superintendent, the partnering districts realized an average increase of $3,829 in

principal salaries, while the average change in principal salaries in nonshared districts

was a decrease of $1,967. After 5 years of sharing a superintendent, the participating

school districts experienced an average increase of $25,095 in principal salaries, while

27

the average increase in the cost of principal salaries in nonshared districts was only

$10,604. Total general fund expenditures grew by an average of $46,673 more in shared

districts than in nonshared districts during the first year of the sharing. After 5 years of

sharing, the average increase in the general fund expenditures had grown by an average

of $78,811 more in shared districts than nonshared districts (Winchester, 2003). The

escalation of total general fund expenditures in shared districts as compared to

nonshared districts could be attributed to the sharing districts having redirected savings

from sharing a superintendent to expenses within the classroom. On the other hand, such

increased spending could also be due to decreased administrative oversight and,

therefore, increased inefficiencies in other areas of district operation.

In Sederberg’s survey of shared superintendents, (as cited in Sederberg, 1988)

56% of shared superintendents expressed that a multiple district administrative team

could improve efficiency and effectiveness for the involved school districts. However,

Decker and McCumsey (1990) found some board chairs could identify no strengths of

the shared superintendent relationship other than the financial savings. Other board

chairs offered that the shared arrangement was helpful to expand collaborative

purchasing. Some board chairs reported that the sharing of administrative responsibilities

led to increased unification within the district. For those districts considering whole

grade sharing, board chairs related that shared superintendents were able to lead the

process of expanded sharing more efficiently than two separate superintendents (Decker

& McCumsey, 1990).

28

Ninety-three percent of board chairs expressed a willingness to consider a shared

superintendent relationship again in the future (Decker & McCumsey, 1990). When

comparing school board chairs and superintendents, school board chairs were more

enthusiastic than shared superintendents about entering into a shared superintendent

relationship again. Conversely, almost half of the shared superintendents surveyed

preferred a single district position (Bratlie, 1992). Additionally, only half of shared

superintendents surveyed indicated their district would be willing to share a

superintendent if the district did not save money (Winchester, 1999).

Participating in shared school superintendent relationships often leads to

additional forms of sharing and the consideration of other cost saving options for the

participating school districts. Winchester (2003) found sharing superintendents resulted

in an increase in the usage of shared teachers, curriculum development, workshops,

inservices, and assessment work. Two school districts studied by Winchester (2003)

started sharing a business manager after the shared superintendent relationship started.

When the shared superintendent relationship ended, the school districts continued to

share the business manager.

In Decker and Talbot’s (1991) study, superintendents asserted that one of the

most significant difficulties with the shared superintendent model was the reduced

visibility and accessibility of the superintendent. Community members and staff

members were the strongest opponents in school districts considering the sharing of a

superintendent (Bratlie, 1992). Board chairs also stated concerns about decreased

visibility, particularly based on concerns expressed by faculty members (Decker &

29

McCumsey, 1990). Shared superintendents are required to make additional efforts to

ensure superintendent visibility. As an example, Michael Cunning was a shared

superintendent in Nebraska who, on Fridays, attended the first half of a football game in

one district. The superintendent then drove 7 miles to be present for the end of another

football game in the other district (Beem, 2006). Also, Caroline Winchester created a

shirt with the logos of both districts imprinted to wear on days she worked in both

districts (Winchester, 2006). Concerns about visibility were particularly apparent in

those districts purchasing superintendent services from the originally employing school

district. Board members felt the purchasing district had a disadvantage when compared

with the employing district (Decker & McCumsey, 1990). Even in arrangements where

the shared superintendent relationship had been in place for 5 years or more, the

stakeholders also expressed concerns regarding visibility of the superintendent (Horn,

2011).

A common frustration found by Decker and Talbot (1991) among 52.4% of

surveyed shared superintendents was the sense of losing personal control.

Superintendents reported the inability to maintain the same set of standards for

performance. The role of the superintendent also experienced change with 78.6% of

respondents relating their primary role was as a manager and not an instructional leader.

Shared superintendents reported their role changes were largely due to the increased

paperwork (Decker & Talbot, 1991). In a survey of Minnesota and Iowa superintendents

and board chairs utilizing a shared district arrangement, finance was ranked as the most

critical issue (Bratlie, 1992). Affirming this, Robertson, a former shared superintendent

30

in Missouri, described the shared superintendent position as “totally a business job”

(Beem, 2006, para. 46).

With the different roles shared superintendents occupy, concerns were expressed

about recruiting and retaining individuals in the shared superintendent position. An

AASA study reported that the top two incentives for becoming a superintendent were to

make a difference and lead learning (Sutton & Jobe, 2008). In this light, it would be

understandable that individuals would be less motivated to accept a shared

superintendent position with an increased focus on finance and reduced focus on

instructional leadership. However, Horn (2011) reported one of the two superintendents

surveyed reported achieving success in reducing the focus on finance after strengthening

the fiscal position of the school district. Almost everyone interviewed by Horn related

that the shared relationship enhanced the superintendents’ ability to manage effectively.

Further, interviewees asserted that the model enhanced the district’s ability to provide

instructional leadership.

Another issue impacting recruitment and retention of shared superintendents is

the expanded workload. Increased workload was identified repeatedly in studies of

shared superintendents. To illustrate this point more saliently, superintendents reported

working an average of five more hours per week in a shared superintendent model than

in the previous, nonshared arrangement (Winchester, 1999). Also, many of the shared

superintendents expressed working more than 70 hours a week to complete required

tasks with the increased work hours resulting in an increased feeling of isolation (Decker

& Talbot, 1991). Similarly, board chairs identified concerns about the increased

31

workload and burnout of their shared superintendents (Decker & McCumsey, 1990).

Although, a survey of shared superintendents and board members found that board

members did not observe the workload increased to the same degree as superintendents

(Meyer, 1990). More recently, Horn’s (2011) study identified that workload concerns

may have changed recently. During interviews with two shared superintendents in 2010,

both executives divulged their workloads were not more than the workloads of

colleagues in nonshared districts.

A further challenge for shared superintendents was the difficulty experienced in

maintaining board relationships. Superintendents consistently stated the primary reason

for leaving a position was because of negative relationships with board members (Giles

& Giles, 1990; Grady & Bryant 1988). Shared superintendents reported increased

difficulties in board relationships due to dealing with different philosophies of board

members (Decker & Talbot, 1989). For example, in a recent article in the Albert Lea

Tribune, Mewes (2011) reported Jerry Reshetar worked in the Lyle School District for

12 years. During the 2010-11 school year, a decision was made to share the

superintendent position with the Grand Meadow and Glenville-Emmons School

Districts. Following 1 year of sharing with the three school districts, it became apparent

the philosophies between the Lyle School District and Mr. Reshetar were different.

Subsequently, Mr. Reshetar discontinued his relationship with the Lyle School District

but continued to serve the Grand Meadow and Glenville-Emmons School Districts

(Mewes, 2011). It would appear the shared superintendent relationship accentuated

philosophical differences between Mr. Reshetar and Lyle School District board

32

members. In spite of periodic reports of philosophical differences with board members in

shared superintendent arrangements, Dose’s (1994) study of shared superintendents

found those superintendents did not indicate a low level of satisfaction with supervision.

Further, in a study conducted by Hull (as cited in Dose, 1994) on superintendent

job satisfaction, no significant differences were noted in any of the areas examined

between shared and nonshared superintendents other than shared superintendents

expressed a higher level of satisfaction with pay. Shared superintendents also related

satisfaction with the work itself, coworkers, and supervision. It should be noted,

however, all of the shared superintendents in Hull’s study were in their positions for

fewer than 5 years.

In an examination of superintendents with more extensive experience in a shared

arrangement, Dose (1994) studied the comparative job satisfaction of shared

superintendents and nonshared superintendents. Dose discerned that shared

superintendents had a lower level of perceived satisfaction in one area: the work itself.

Dose also reported findings that shared superintendents were no longer satisfied with the

pay. In light of his findings, Dose predicted the primary reason for the decrease in

satisfaction regarding pay and work within 5 years was due to changes in the

demographics of shared superintendents. In the Hull study (as cited in Dose, 1994), 25

out of 33 of the individuals surveyed had only 1 year of service on the job with an

average of only 1.48 years in the same position. By the time Dose conducted his study,

the average length of time shared superintendents had been in the position increased to

3.31 years. Thus, Dose concluded the reasons for the different perceptions among shared

33

superintendents were related to the fact that the superintendents were not yet aware of

the demands of the position during the first year in their positions (Dose, 1994).

Dose (1994) also found large school district superintendents were more satisfied

with the upward mobility of the position compared to shared superintendents; Dose

identified that decreased feelings about the possibility of job advancement could lead to

dissatisfaction within shared superintendent positions. Furthermore, he observed that

shared superintendents typically are employed in districts considering potential

consolidations resulting in an uncertainty regarding the future of the school district and a

resultant lowering of job satisfaction.

The superintendents most satisfied with a shared superintendent arrangement

were those with agreements permitting the superintendent to divide professional time

between districts as deemed necessary by the administrator (Decker & Talbot, 1991). In

these instances, support staff, including principals, must be competent and supportive of

the shared superintendent. Board members, as well, are required to be supportive and

cooperative with staff from the district they represent as well as the staff from the

partnering district (Bratlie, 1992).

To ensure the shared superintendent relationship is as successful as possible,

Winchester (2003) offered the following recommendations:

Schools should not enter into a shared superintendent arrangement if the only

motivation is financial savings; superintendent expenses may decrease, but

principal expenses may increase.

Prior to entering a shared superintendent relationship, districts should be open

to additional relationships between the two districts; the additional

relationships could include sharing of other staff, sharing of staff

development, and a potential merger between school districts.

34

The shared superintendent model may be a way to maintain local schools,

create greater administrative efficiency, and shift costs closer to learning.

Allow administrators to focus on areas of strength. (pp. 56-57)

Decker and Talbot (1991) also discovered a common strategy employed by

shared superintendents was to develop a “transition committee” consisting of school

board members and administrators from the participating districts. The transition

committee is empowered to discuss concerns and create alignment of procedures

between the school districts. Superintendents reported the transition committee allowed

board members to identify how the superintendent was able to be impartial to both

school districts. Board chairs confirmed the committee was helpful for discussing issues

(Decker & McCumsey, 1990). The transition committee was particularly helpful if the

two districts did not have aligned goals upon starting the shared relationship (Decker &

Talbot, 1991).

Following a survey of shared superintendents and board chairs, Meyer (1990)

reported significant discrepancies between the perceptions of superintendents and board

members regarding the superintendents’ performance. Superintendents rated their own

performance lower than board members. As a result, Meyer recommended a retreat with

board members and shared superintendents to provide opportunities to establish and

maintain open lines of communication, clarify issues, and determine priorities.

Board chairs advised districts not to enter a shared superintendent agreement

unless the districts had the same vision for the future (Decker & McCumsey, 1990). To

reduce frustrations when districts have different goals, 95.2% of the superintendents

expressed the importance of clarifying expectations with board members prior to starting

35

the relationship (Decker & Talbot, 1991). Board chairs emphasized the importance of

discussing specifics prior to initiating the shared arrangement (Decker & McCumsey,

1990). According to Bratlie (1992), the agreement should be stated in writing, and roles

need to be reviewed annually.

Superintendents and board chairs advise against a shared superintendent

arrangement if the district does not intend to reorganize with the partnering district

within the next three to 5 years (Bratlie, 1992; Decker & McCumsey, 1990; Decker &

Talbot, 1991). Bratlie (1992) observed that anything longer than a three year position as

a shared superintendent will lead to burnout. Toward this end, Michael Cunning served

as a shared superintendent for two Nebraska school districts for 2 years. When the

school districts ended discussions regarding merging the districts, Cunning terminated

the shared superintendent relationship. Years later the same districts again approached

Cunning with the idea of a shared superintendent position, but he was only willing to

agree to the arrangement if the districts agreed to a feasibility study regarding a potential

district merger (Beem, 2006).

Superintendents believed one factor to evaluate when considering a shared

relationship was the distance between school districts (Decker & Talbot, 1991). Bratlie

(1992) found the majority of districts who employed a shared superintendent model were

located within 15 miles of each other and had an enrollment of less than 600 students. In

2010 Tom Ames decided to determine whether or not distance was a factor when

becoming the superintendent for two Minnesota school districts located 206 miles apart

from one another (Goldman, 2010). After nearly 2 years in the position, Mr. Ames

36

suggested the distance did not play a factor into his workload because he is able to use

technology to keep all of his information with him at all times. He did acknowledge this

would not have been possible 20 years ago without the use of current technology (T.

Ames, personal communication, May 25, 2012).

A more current analysis of the shared superintendent was conducted by Horn

(2011), some 20 years after studies completed by Decker and Hull . It appears as though

districts learned from the advice offered by previous superintendents. In the studies

conducted in the early 1990s, superintendents and board members stated that shared

superintendent positions would have achieved greater success if the roles and priorities

were clarified prior to initiating the shared relationships (Decker & McCumsey, 1990;

Decker & Talbot, 1991; Dose, 1994). In Horn’s study of four Iowa districts involving

shared superintendent services of 5 years or more, stakeholders related that districts

identified the roles and priorities prior to initiating the shared relationship, and no

significant difficulties were identified regarding roles. The stakeholder’s interviewed

offered that board presidents were quick to defend the superintendent if patrons of the

school district questioned the superintendent’s community involvement. The interception

by board members led to increased satisfaction on the part of superintendents (Horn,

2011).

Having a strong relationship in one of the districts prior to implementing a joint

arrangement was identified as a strategy by 92.9% of shared superintendents interviewed

to improve the shared superintendent position (Decker & Talbot, 1991). In Horn’s

(2011) study, one of the superintendents had a strong relationship prior to starting the

37

shared position. The superintendent related that the previous relationship within one of

the districts assisted with developing a successful shared relationship. A second

superintendent did not have a relationship within one of the districts. The superintendent

and the board made it clear to community members the superintendent would focus his

energy on children and was, therefore, less active in community roles (Horn, 2011).

Studies clearly verify that not all individuals have the necessary skills to serve in

a shared superintendent position. Indeed, the list of suggested competencies to fill such

positions is lengthy. Bratlie (1992) stated the two most salient characteristics for success

are the ability to deal with stress and maintain strong public relations. Shared

superintendents were typically more experienced with 83.3% of them having 10 or more

years as a senior administrator (Decker & Talbot, 1991). Board chairs confirmed

experience was pivotal (Decker & McCumsey, 1990). Board chairs also detailed a list of

required strengths for shared superintendents to be successful, including being decisive,

having positive public relations, being organized, being a delegator, being an effective

communicator, having a high tolerance for stress and criticism, and having a good sense

of humor (Decker & McCumsey, 1990).

In the 2011 study by Horn, respondents asserted shared superintendents need to

communicate well, hire wisely, and delegate effectively. They also require

a strong background in finance, knowing the difference between stakeholders’

needs and wants, a strong sense of fair play, great organizational and time

management skills, the ability to trust and be trusted, a tendency to not micro-

manage, making well-informed decisions and standing by those decisions

through difficult times, the ability to manage conflict, and a focus on advocacy

for students. (pp. 222-223)

38

School districts express difficulties filling superintendent positions in general

(Cooper et al., 2000; McCord & Ellerson, 2008). Locating individuals to fill positions as

a shared superintendent could certainly be more difficult than filling positions for a

single district due to increased demands and expectations. According to a survey

conducted with AASA superintendents, the two greatest incentives for individuals to

become a superintendent were the ability to make a difference and lead learning

(McCord & Ellerson, 2008). With less time available in any one district and an increased

emphasis on management, shared superintendents would likely experience a reduction in

the feeling of making a difference and leading learning in either of the school districts

served. These conditions could reduce the number of candidates for shared

superintendent positions.

Alternatives to Shared Superintendents

When districts experience financial difficulties and shortages of administrators, a

shared superintendent relationship may not be available in the geographic area of the

districts. As an illustration, a school district in Madison, New Jersey desired entering

into a shared superintendent relationship, but none of the neighboring school districts

were interested in such a joint venture (Chirls, 2010). Other districts have attempted

alternative options such as a part-time superintendent or combining a principal’s position

with the superintendent’s position.

There are many factors school districts should consider when determining a

preferred arrangement for a superintendent position. Several states have laws impacting

39

these decisions. For example, in the early 1990s Iowa modified state regulations making

principal and superintendent combination positions difficult and initiated offering

incentives to share between districts (Decker & Talbot, 1991). In Oklahoma, the state

reimburses half of the salary of the superintendent if districts share a superintendent

(Weldon, 2011). New York has never allowed sharing of any kind, although, legislation

in 2011 now allows for shared transportation and shared superintendents (Thiele, 2011).

Other states are not supportive of the shared superintendent model. Illinois

considered changes, requiring each district to employ a superintendent on a full time

basis (Hinton, 2010). In February of 2011, New Jersey implemented salary caps for

superintendents based on the enrollment of the district. There is no exception for an

increase in salary when a superintendent serves two school districts. As a result, New

Jersey superintendents sharing two school districts are experiencing a reduction in

income and, as a result, some school districts have chosen to no longer share a

superintendent (Johnston, 2011; Novak, 2011). Virginia requires school districts to

secure permission from the Board of Education in order to employ a shared

superintendent within the district (Wright, 2010). When the shared superintendent model

is not available as a result of legislation or other factors, districts are likely to seek

alternatives for filling the superintendent position.

Klein (1988) conducted a study of various types of combined administrative

positions. Other duties combined with that of superintendent included the activities

director, food service director, transportation director, vocational director, and special

education director. Some respondents also reported combining the superintendent

40

position with teaching and coaching. Advantages of combining these latter positions

included increased involvement with students and teachers, greater awareness of needs,

and cost savings. Thirty-four out of 47 combined administrators reported a lack of time

to conduct necessary tasks. Other concerns were neglecting some of the superintendent

duties and missing pertinent meetings. Additionally, concerns were noted related to

excessive superintendent duties including supervision, as well as stress and burnout

(Klein, 1988).

Woll (1988) identified advantages of the principal and superintendent

combination. The first is obviously the savings of a reduced administrator; school boards

favor the degree of accountability that occurs when tasks are assigned to a single

administrator rather than two individuals allowing poor performance to be shielded.

Disadvantages of the combined position are the lack of administrative resources, and

curriculum development often being left as incomplete. Furthermore, these positions

often have a high degree of turnover.

Individuals employed to complete superintendent and principal roles reported the

superintendent role typically required more time than the principal role. Canales, Tejeda-

Delgado, and Slate (2010) reported superintendents assigned to a principal and

superintendent combined position cited primary job responsibilities as budget

preparation, curriculum planning, staff development, facilities management, and student

discipline. All of the surveyed individuals commented on the broad array of tasks they

were expected to complete on a daily basis. Specific characteristics were preferred for

individuals contracted to these positions due to the variety of tasks that must be

41

accomplished daily by individuals in a principal/superintendent position. The most

influential leadership behaviors identified by the superintendent/principals and board

members were Tolerance for Freedom (allowing follower’s initiative, decision-making,

and action), Representation, and Consideration (Canales et al., 2010). The study

recommends prioritizing job responsibilities, participating in time management training,

budgeting for a separate position when possible to alleviate stress, attending stress

management workshops, participating in a self-evaluation program, and networking with

other superintendent/principals (Canales et al., 2010).

Few studies have been conducted on the impact of employing a part-time

superintendent. When Bradford and Birchbauer (2011) studied part-time superintendents

in Wisconsin, they identified a 58% increase in the number of part-time superintendents

hired in the last 5 years. The study found chief executive officers working less than five

days per week were more likely to delegate tasks to subordinates, while they primarily

focused on management. Additionally the district vision was the most neglected area for

part-time superintendents. When utilizing a part-time superintendent, school board

member roles changed and often led to the perception by school staff that school board

members were micromanaging (Bradford & Birchbauer, 2011).

Summary

With reduced revenues and increased expenditures, school districts initially

attempted to deflect budget reductions as far away from the classroom as possible. By

the 2009-10 school year; however, school districts experienced significant cuts in staff

42

and course reductions (McCord & Ellerson, 2008). By 2010-11, school districts further

elevated class sizes and reduced collaborative planning time for teachers (Ellerson,

2010b). These conditions are not likely to improve quickly. In fact, as reported by

Ellerson, despite recent efforts made by the federal government “only 20% of states

expect to be at pre-recession revenue levels 1 year after all the ARRA and EduJobs

funds are expired” (Ellerson, 2010b, p. 7).

Beyond reduced budgets, Minnesota school districts are challenged to address an

inadequate supply of superintendent candidates and increasing diversity within the

student population. With a history of slower recovery from recessions in rural areas

(Parker et al., 2010) and an elevated rate of turnover for superintendents in rural areas

(Grady & Bryant, 1988), these school districts will likely be experiencing additional

budget constraints not realized in metropolitan area school districts.

Previous studies reveal that school districts typically undertake efforts to share a

superintendent because of financial reasons. The financial savings school districts

anticipate with a shared relationship diminishes over time because of growth in the

salaries of principals and increases across a variety of areas in the general fund

(Winchester, 2003). More recently, Horn’s (2011) research indicates school districts are

entering shared superintendent relationships for reasons extending beyond financial

aspects and include that school districts are seeing the leadership identified in other

districts and the desire to assist a neighboring district in need.

Several additional differences were found in Horn’s study when the results were

compared to earlier studies. For example, Decker and McCumsey (1990) assessed that

43

school board chairs could find no advantages other than financial savings as a result of

the shared superintendent relationship; while Horn (2011) determined from interviewing

school district stakeholders that they had a much different attitude toward the

relationship. In fact, several stakeholders struggled to find any disadvantages of the

shared superintendent relationship.

Previous reports from shared superintendents expressed concerns that

instructional leadership is often not addressed because of the managerial duties required

(Beem, 2006; Bratlie, 1992; Decker & Talbot, 1991). Horn (2011) found shared

superintendents were able to be more efficient as managers, and the model enhanced the

district’s ability to provide instructional leadership.

Early studies expressed concern regarding the increased workload for shared

superintendents (Decker & McCumsey, 1990; Decker & Talbot, 1991; Winchester,

2003). The two superintendents interviewed by Horn (2011) reported a shared

superintendent’s workload is no higher than colleagues in nonshared districts.

With school districts experiencing budget deficits, school board members may

embrace alternative methods to recruit individuals for superintendent positions without

using a full time person. The perception that shared superintendent positions result in a

greater workload could result in a reduction of individuals interested in a shared

superintendent position. Districts struggle with filling superintendent positions (Cooper

et al., 2000; McCord & Ellerson, 2008) without the additional workload experienced by

shared superintendents. Sometimes there are barriers to initiating a shared superintendent

position such as a lack of partnering school districts (Chirls, 2010). Additionally, some

44

states create legislation that acts as a barrier to the sharing of administrative positions

(Hinton, 2010; Johnston, 2011; Novak, 2011; Thiele, 2011; Wright, 2010).

As a result of barriers to the shared superintendent model, some districts have

filled the superintendent position by combining the superintendent and principal

positions. This arrangement also leads to deficits including the lack of administrative

resources, curriculum development being neglected, and a high rate of attrition in

administrative positions (Woll, 1988). Other districts reduce the superintendent position

to a part time position. Part-time superintendent positions result in a decreased focus on

the district vision and micromanagement by the school board (Bradford & Birchbauer,

2011).

Limited research is available regarding the sharing of superintendents among

school districts. Only one study was conducted regarding shared superintendents

involving Minnesota superintendents (Bratlie, 1992). Study findings by Horn (2011)

relate that the shared superintendent role may not result in as many negative outcomes as

previous studies have suggested (Decker & McCumsey, 1990; Decker & Talbot, 1991;

Bratlie, 1992). However, the study by Horn only involved two shared superintendents.

Additional information is needed to determine if the findings by Horn are consistent with

other shared superintendents and districts currently using the shared superintendent

model. No studies have been conducted to determine the comparisons between shared

superintendents and other superintendent models such as the principal/superintendent

model, part-time superintendents, and full-time superintendents.

45

Chapter III

METHODOLOGY

The purpose of the study was to identify similarities and differences in the

characteristics, roles, and perceptions of similar groups of nonshared superintendents in

Minnesota compared to shared superintendents in Minnesota. The study also examined

the perceived reasons school districts chose a shared superintendent model. Finally,

perceived benefits of and challenges with the shared superintendent model were

compared to select studies to determine if the perceptions of the shared superintendent

model had changed over time. This chapter will describe the survey instrument, study

population, research method, data collection, and data analysis methods.

Statement of Research Problem

School districts may determine it necessary to consider alternative methods to

address funding shortages due to increasing expenditures and reduced revenue

(Douglass, 2011). Shared superintendents may be an option worth considering by school

districts; unfortunately, relatively few studies have been completed examining the shared

superintendent administrative model. In a study by Bratlie (1992), shared

superintendents in Minnesota and Iowa were surveyed regarding perceptions of the

shared superintendent model. The Bratlie study is the only study regarding shared

46

superintendents involving Minnesota superintendents; no data specific to Minnesota are

available.

The majority of studies completed were conducted in the 1990s; the most recent

study conducted regarding shared superintendents was completed by Horn (2011). The

Horn study revealed inconsistencies from previous studies. Differences from previous

studies revolved around the perceptions of the shared superintendent model, the ability

for the shared superintendent to act as an instructional leader, and the impact of the

sharing on the superintendent’s ability to act as a manager.

Horn (2011) indicated two limitations in his study. The first limitation was that

the sample population included only superintendents that were in a shared

superintendent position in Iowa for more than 5 years. As a result, only two

superintendents met this criterion. The study certainly warrants replication to determine

if the differences from previous studies were a result of limitations or a change in the

perceptions of the shared superintendent position.

A mixed methods study was employed to examine the research questions. As

stated by Strauss and Corbin (1990), qualitative research is a helpful means for gaining

information about topics that have not been studied in-depth. Due to the limited number

of studies that have been conducted relating to shared superintendents, a qualitative

study was employed to delve deeper into the understanding of Minnesota shared

superintendents. A quantitative study assisted in developing an understanding of the

relationship between shared and nonshared superintendents. The results of the two

methods are integrated throughout the discussion of the research questions.

47

Research Questions







challenges?


superintendents?



Participants

The study invited all superintendents in the state of Minnesota to complete a

survey. This study was conducted with the support and assistance of the Minnesota

Association of School Administrators (MASA); the Minnesota Association of School

Administrators sent email requests to 321 superintendents inviting them to respond to

the survey.

A brief summary of the results of the survey of all superintendents is presented;

however, the survey analysis focused on shared superintendents and compared the

results to other superintendent models typically chosen by school districts when reducing

administration. A comparison group was also selected which includes full-time

48

superintendents. The following describes the comparison groups discussed throughout

this chapter:

Shared Superintendents: The respondents indicated their position serves two

or more school districts.

Part time: The respondents indicated being employed part time when given a

choice of full time or part time.

Principal/Superintendent: When given a list of other duties within the district,

the respondents indicated they held an elementary or secondary principal

position.

Full Time under 1,500 Students: The respondents indicated their position was

full time, did not include the role of elementary or secondary principal, did

not involve leading two or more school districts, and the school district had

less than 1,500 students. The size comparison was selected because only five

responding superintendents in districts with more than 1,500 students used a

model other than full-time superintendent.

The second strand of the study involved interviews of shared superintendents.

According to the Minnesota Department of Education there were 14 individuals

identified as serving as the superintendent for two or more school districts during the

2011-12 school year (Minnesota State Department of Education, 2012). Interviews were

conducted with four individuals serving as chief executive officer of two independent

school districts. A purposive sample was employed when selecting the shared

superintendents interviewed. As stated by Rea and Parker (2005), a purposive sample is

49

where “the researcher uses his or her professional judgment, instead of randomness, in

selecting respondents” (p. 173).

To compare the results to the study by Horn (2011), two of the shared

superintendents interviewed were selected on the basis of having served in their current

positions for more than 5 years. In addition to the criteria set by Horn, two of the shared

superintendents were selected based on the criteria of being in their current positions for

less than 5 years. To represent a sample of the state, criteria was also set by selecting

four superintendents from four separate regions of the state as designated by the

Minnesota Association of School Administrators.

Human Subject Approval

An application was submitted to the St Cloud State University Institutional

Review Board (IRB) following the completion of required trainings. The application was

submitted along with the informed consent for the interview, informed consent for the

survey, approval from Roark Horn to replicate his interview questions, and a letter of

support from the Minnesota Association of School Administrators. Permission was

obtained from the IRB.

All of the superintendents responding to the electronic survey received

notification of the risks and voluntary nature of the survey prior to responding to any of

the research questions. The superintendents interviewed received an electronic mail with

informed consent stating the risks and voluntary nature of the interview. Prior to asking

50

any interview questions, the interviewed superintendents were asked if they had received

the consent and if they were willing to participate in the survey.

Instrumentation

Two instruments were used to investigate the research questions: an interview

and a survey. The first strand of the study featured a qualitative, open-ended, phone

interview with four individuals holding shared superintendent positions. Five short-

answer demographic questions were asked as well as eight open-ended questions

replicated from the study by Horn (2011). Follow-up questions for clarification and

greater understanding were also asked.

The study by Horn (2011) was replicated to allow for comparison of responses to

a larger sample size and group of individuals with more experience as shared

superintendents.

The following demographic questions were asked:

1. How long have you been a superintendent in this district?

2. How many years of experience in all do you have as a superintendent?

3. For how many districts are you the superintendent?

4. How long have you been in this arrangement?

5. What was your position prior to the shared superintendent position?

51

The following questions, replicated from Horn (2011), were employed to

determine each shared superintendent’s perception of the reason Minnesota school

districts are currently using a shared superintendent model:

1. What was the rationale behind the decision to share a superintendent?

2. What similarities should be in place before this arrangement is considered?

3. What advantages have you found in sharing a superintendent?

The final series of questions, also replicated from the Horn (2011) study, were

used to determine challenges superintendents experienced with a shared superintendent

model:

1. What disadvantages have you found in sharing a superintendent?

2. Does sharing a superintendent assist or hamper progress toward district

goals?

3. How does the sharing arrangement impact the effectiveness of the

superintendent as an instructional leader?


superintendent as a manager?

5. How does the added workload, if any, factor into the effectiveness and job

satisfaction of the interviewee?

Electronic mails were sent to the shared superintendents selected to participate in

interviews. A description of the research study and interview questions was included in

the electronic mail. Superintendents were notified they would receive telephone calls to

schedule interviews. When superintendents were called, the superintendents were

52

offered the option of undertaking the interview immediately or setting a future time for

the interview.

Prior to conducting the interview, a brief description of the research study was

provided. Subjects were asked if the electronic mail with consent was received and if

they, in fact, gave consent to the interview. Following consent, the interview questions

were posed and follow-up questions asked for clarification.

The second strand of the study was a survey developed in conjunction with co-

researchers, Dr. John Eller and Ms. Ellen Voigt. Each of the collaborating researchers

investigated separate research questions related to Minnesota superintendents. The

survey consisted of a series of multiple choice questions and questions requiring

rankings. All Minnesota superintendents received an electronic mail invitation from the

Minnesota Association of School Administrators to participate in the survey

questionnaire. In addition, the superintendents received a link to the survey document

through SurveyMonkey.com (Appendix A).

Respondents were requested to respond to 10 demographic questions regarding

the school district and themselves. The demographic information was intended to assist

the researcher with describing the nature of the individuals currently filling

superintendent positions and disaggregating the data to compare groups of respondents.

Respondents were then posed a variety of questions about their use of time, job

satisfaction, professional development needs, and role as an instructional leader. The

respondents were probed with two open-ended questions regarding the communities

served by the superintendent. Four questions were asked about the perceived impact of

53

the economy on school districts, budget reduction strategies considered, and budget

reduction strategies implemented. A final open-ended question was available for subjects

to offer additional thoughts related to the study.

The survey questions allowed for expansion of the study by Horn (2011) to a

larger population of shared superintendents; the survey questions also assisted in

determining if shared superintendents differed from nonshared superintendents.

Analysis of Data

Interview responses were divided into small units such as a phrase or a sentence.

The responses were then coded to correlate with each of the research questions. Themes

were developed based on the codes; the themes were connected with each of the research

questions.

Data from the survey were downloaded into a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet to

allow for analysis and disaggregation of data. The data were analyzed to respond to each

of the research questions. Additional data analysis was completed using the Statistical

Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) when post-hoc tests were necessary.

Initial demographic information was gathered in a frequency distribution for all

superintendents responding to the survey. Survey respondents were then coded to one of

the comparison groups. If individuals indicated their position was in two of the

comparison groups such as a part time, shared superintendent position, the responses

were duplicated so the individual could be coded into both the shared superintendent

group and the part-time superintendent group. A frequency analysis was completed on

54

the following variables for each comparison group: demographics of the superintendent,

size of districts served, job satisfaction of superintendents, satisfaction with board

member relationships, and impact of funding on school districts. A Cramer V was also

completed on the funding impact to determine if a significant difference existed between

superintendent perceptions of the level of funding for school districts.

An analysis of variance (ANOVA) was also completed on the variables related to

job satisfaction and satisfaction with board member relationships. As defined by

Creighton (2007), “Analysis of variance (ANOVA) is a procedure for evaluating the

mean difference between two or more samples” (p. 102). None of the variables indicated

a statistically significant difference; however, the job satisfaction related to personal

time available warranted further analysis. A Tukey post hoc test was completed to

compute a single value related to the sample groups (Creighton, 2007). A descriptive

analysis was determined by calculating the means and standard deviations for the roles

of superintendents in each of the comparison groups. A rank order analysis was also

completed to determine the comparison of priorities for each superintendent group.

Survey and interview data were collected in parallel to address the research

problem. Quantitative and qualitative data were concurrently analyzed; results were each

of the measures were compared and contrasted for each of the research questions. The

combination of the two research methods allowed for expansion of the study conducted

by Horn (2011) to assist in determining if there has been a change in the perception of

the shared superintendent model.

55

Limitations

According to Roberts (2004), limitations are facets of the study that may

negatively impact the results over which the researcher has no control. Possible

limitations of this study are as follows:

The survey was distributed to superintendents through electronic mail.

Responses may have been limited due to electronic filtering systems.

Responses may have been limited due to the demanding schedules and

repeated survey requests of superintendents.

Each of the comparison groups had small sample sizes, which may not

generalize to superintendents outside of Minnesota.

The interviews with shared superintendents were limited as a result of the

small number of superintendents serving in this role.

Another concern is that responses to the survey do not align with information

available from the Minnesota Department of Education. According to the Minnesota

Department of Education (2012), only one superintendent services three school districts;

however, three individuals responding to the survey indicated serving three or more

school districts. One individual indicated serving two school districts in the metropolitan

area; however, no shared superintendents are listed as serving the metropolitan area on

the Minnesota Department of Education superintendent list.

56

Summary

This chapter detailed the purpose of the study and identified similarities and

differences between the characteristics, roles, and perceptions of similar groups of

nonshared superintendents and shared superintendents in Minnesota. Further, the study

provided information about perceived reasons school districts chose a shared

superintendent model. Additionally, current perceived benefits and challenges faced in

the shared superintendent model were compared to previous studies to determine

whether or not perceptions of the shared superintendent model changed. The following

chapters will describe the results of this study.

57

Chapter IV

RESULTS

The purpose of this study was to describe situations in which shared

superintendents were employed in Minnesota, and the impact the shared superintendent

role had on the superintendent position. The study further examined the demographics of

superintendents and the roles superintendents fulfilled when comparing shared and

nonshared superintendent positions. The study provided information on a topic where

little research has been conducted, furnished additional findings about the shared

superintendent model, and aided in disseminating information to school districts in

Minnesota and across the United States which may be interested in considering a shared

superintendent administrative structure. Additionally, the study illuminated potential

issues school districts may encounter when considering a shared superintendent position

as well as strategies to assist with a successful transition if school districts choose to

enter a shared superintendent arrangement. Information gained will provide guidance to

legislators and other policy makers considering laws, regulations, and policies impacting

superintendent hiring decisions. The following overall research questions focused the

study:



58





challenges?


superintendents?



Data collection occurred between January and March of 2012. Data consisted of

a survey of all superintendents in the state of Minnesota and four interviews with

superintendents acting as the chief executive officer for two school districts.

This chapter discusses the results of the two forms of data collection conducted.

The first section of the chapter provides details regarding the sample population of

individuals participating in the survey and how the survey was completed. The second

section provides information about the superintendents interviewed and conditions of the

interview. Following is a description of each of the research questions studied. The

chapter concludes with a brief synthesis of the data.

Survey Information

All of the superintendents in the state of Minnesota were invited to participate in

a survey with the assistance of the Minnesota Association of School Administrators. Out

59

of 321 superintendents invited to participate, 219 superintendents responded to the

survey via a secure internet link. Table 2 outlines the demographic responses of all

superintendents that responded to the survey. Information is provided about all of the

survey respondents as a context for understanding shared superintendents in relationship

to the status of superintendents as a whole in Minnesota at the time the survey was

completed. Each demographic variable is presented with the number (N) and percentage

(%) of respondents in each category. Each section also includes the number of

respondents who did not answer each question.

Table 2

Demographics of All Superintendents Responding to the Survey (N=219)

Respondent Characteristics N = 219 Percentage

Gender

Male 183 84.7%

Female 33 15.3%

No Response 3

Total Experience as a Superintendent

0-3 years 41 19%

4-7 years 58 26.9%

8-12 years 49 22.7%

12-20 years 40 18.5%

21 or more years 28 13%

No Response 3

Number of Districts Currently Served

One 205 93.6%

Two 11 5%

Three or more 3 1.4%

Currently Employed:

Full-Time 189 86.3%

Part-Time 30 13.7%

Additional Administrative Roles

Elementary Principal 2 .9%

Secondary Principal 9 4.1%

Elementary & Secondary Principal 13 6%

60

The majority of Minnesota superintendents responding to the survey were male

(N=183, 84.7%). Superintendents indicated a dispersed level of experience with nearly

half of Minnesota superintendents having less than eight years of experience (N=99,

45.9%).

Eleven of the respondents indicated being a superintendent for two school

districts; three respondents indicated being a superintendent for three or more school

districts. The 14 shared superintendents represent a diverse representation of areas in

Minnesota. Shared superintendents responding to the survey indicated representation

from seven of nine regions designated by the Minnesota Association of School

Administrators; two shared superintendents did not respond to the question regarding

region. According to the Minnesota Department of Education (MDE) (2012), there were

14 shared superintendents during the 2011-12 school year. Assuming the MDE

superintendent list was accurate and the superintendents answering the survey responded

precisely, 100% of superintendents serving as the chief executive officer for more than

one school district responded to the survey.

This chapter outlines the comparison of survey results of the shared

superintendents to the results of individuals in other superintendent models. The

comparison groups were chosen based on other superintendent models districts typically

select when reducing administration. A comparison group was also selected that

included full-time superintendents for small school districts (under 1,500 students). The

following describe the comparison groups discussed throughout this chapter:

61

Shared Superintendents: The respondents indicated their position serves two

or more school districts.

Part time: The respondents indicated being employed part time when given a

choice of full time or part time.

Principal/Superintendent: When given a list of other duties within the district,

the respondents indicated they held an elementary or secondary principal

position.

Full Time under 1,500 Students: The respondents indicated their position was

full time, did not include the role of elementary or secondary principal, did

not involve leading two or more school districts, and the school district had

less than 1,500 students. The size comparison was selected because only five

responding superintendents in districts with more than 1,500 students used a

model other than full-time superintendent.

Thirteen of the respondents were categorized into more than one of the

comparison groups. Four shared superintendents reported also being employed as a

principal; three of the shared superintendents worked part-time; six part-time

superintendents also indicated responsibility for principal duties. The individuals

categorized in two of the comparison groups were included in both groups throughout

the discussion of the survey results related to the research questions. For instance, if an

individual responded that he worked part time servicing two school districts, the

individual’s responses were included in the part-time superintendent group and the

shared superintendent group.

62

Interview Information

The second strand of the study involved interviews of four shared

superintendents. Individuals serving as chief executive officer of two independent school

districts were selected for interviews from a list of superintendents provided by the

Minnesota Department of Education (2012). A purposive sample was employed when

selecting the shared superintendents interviewed. As stated by Rea and Parker (2005), a

purposive sample is when “the researcher uses his or her professional judgment, instead

of randomness, in selecting respondents” (p. 173). The following criteria were used to

ensure a broad spectrum of shared superintendents was selected for interviews:

Four separate regions designated by the Minnesota Association of School

Administrators were represented.

Two superintendents with more than 5 years of experience in the current

shared position.

Two superintendents with less than 5 years of experience in the current

shared position.

The following is a brief description of each of the individuals selected to

participate in the interviews. To protect the confidentiality of individuals selected, the

school district name, region, and other defining information is not provided.

Superintendent A was hired to work in one of the member districts 12 years

ago. Two years ago the two school districts started sharing a superintendent

when both of the school districts were transitioning to a part-time

superintendent. The districts believed one superintendent would be more

63

efficient because of reduced duplication of meetings and increased

availability of the superintendent. The two school districts Superintendent A

services will start using whole grade sharing for Grades K-12 during the

2012-13 school year.

Superintendent B previously worked as a superintendent in another part of

Minnesota before being hired 4 years ago as a shared superintendent. The

district had participated in a shared superintendent model for 16 years prior to

Superintendent B being hired for the position. The districts started the shared

superintendent model for the financial savings.

Superintendent C was previously a principal/superintendent in another part of

the state of Minnesota. He was hired 9 years ago as a shared superintendent.

The districts decided to change to a shared superintendent model when the

districts initiated whole grade sharing.

Superintendent D has been a superintendent in one of the member districts

for 17 years. Six years ago a neighboring school district was experiencing

financial difficulties; the board chair of Superintendent D’s employing

district asked him if he would be interested in initiating a shared relationship

with the second district. The employing district was experiencing declining

enrollment, and the board chair indicated the shared relationship would

eliminate the need to reduce administration in the future.

During January of 2012, electronic mails were sent to the shared superintendents

selected to participate in the interviews. A description of the research study and

64

interview questions was included in the electronic mail. Superintendents were notified

they would be receiving telephone calls to schedule interviews. During the months of

January and February 2012, telephone interviews were conducted with the

superintendents. When superintendents were contacted, the superintendents were offered

the option of undertaking the interview immediately or setting a time in the future for the

interview. After individuals gave their consent to complete the interview, each of the

shared superintendents was asked a series of demographic questions:

1. How long have you been a superintendent in this district?

2. How many years of experience in all do you have as a superintendent?

3. For how many districts are you the superintendent?

4. How long have you been in this arrangement?

5. What was your position prior to the shared superintendent position?

Table 3 outlines demographic responses of the shared superintendents

interviewed.

65

Table 3

Demographics of Shared Superintendents Interviewed (N=4)

Superintendent A B C D

How many years of

experience do you have

in all?

12 years 17 years 10 years 17 years

How long have you

been a superintendent in

your employing

district?


How long have you

been in this

arrangement?


What was your position

prior to the shared

superintendent

position?

Superintendent

in one of the

districts

currently served

Superintendent in

another district

Superintendent

in another

district

Superintendent

in one of the

districts

currently served

Does your district do

any whole grade

sharing?

Starting in

2012-13

No Yes No

All of the interviewed superintendents had 10 or more years of total experience

as a superintendent. Two of the shared superintendents had less than 5 years of

experience as a shared superintendent, and two interviewees had more than 5 years of

experience as a shared superintendent. All of the superintendents had prior

superintendent experience before the shared superintendent position. Two of the

superintendents were employed as a superintendent in one of the districts currently

served prior to the shared relationship. Two superintendents gained experience as a

superintendent in another school district in another part of the state of Minnesota prior to

being hired as a shared superintendent.

66

After the demographic questions, each of the superintendents interviewed was

queried about the superintendent’s perception of the reason their school districts were

currently using a shared superintendent model:

1. What was the rationale behind the decision to share a superintendent?

2. What similarities should be in place before this arrangement is considered?

3. What advantages have you found in sharing a superintendent?

The final series of questions were used, as follows, to determine challenges

superintendents experienced with a shared superintendent model:

4. What disadvantages have you found in sharing a superintendent?

5. Does sharing a superintendent assist or hamper progress toward district

goals?


superintendent as an instructional leader?


superintendent as a manager?

8. How does the added workload, if any, factor into the effectiveness and job

satisfaction of the interviewee?

Results of the surveys and interviews were distributed and synthesized

throughout the remainder of the chapter to provide a detailed description of each of the

research questions.

67

Research Question 1

What are the shared superintendents’ perceptions of the reasons Minnesota


In order to understand the shared superintendent position, it is necessary to

understand the reasons why school districts are currently using a shared superintendent

model. Table 4 outlines a brief summary of the interview responses of shared

superintendents related to reasons for using the shared superintendent model.

Table 4

Responses to Reasons for the Shared Relationship

Superintendent

A

Superintendent

B

Superintendent

C

Superintendent D

What was the

rationale

behind the

decision to

share a

superintendent

?

Both districts

were changing

to part-time

superintendents

and desired one

superintendent

for increased

efficiencies

Primarily

Financial

The districts

were initiating

whole grade

sharing and felt

one

superintendent

would be more

efficient

Possibly

reducing

administration in

the future;

neighboring

district was in

need

What

similarities

should be in

place before

this

arrangement is

considered?

Be in the same

education

district,

teleconference

consortium, and

service

cooperative

Rural, small,

and in close

proximity

None Similar size and

demographics

assist the sharing

What

advantages

have you found

in sharing a

superintendent

?

Helped district

transition to

whole grade

sharing

Financial

Savings

Allows

communities to

have a voice

Led to additional

sharing

68

Table 4 indicates the school districts’ Superintendent B services began sharing

primarily for financial reasons; it is pertinent to note that the school districts’

Superintendent B services initiated the shared relationship 20 years ago. Although

Superintendents A, C, and D also indicated the justifications for sharing were linked to

financial reasons, the decision extended beyond purely economic ideas. Superintendent

A stated, “The districts [he currently serves] were going to be changing to part-time

superintendents.” He went on to state, “The school board members and I decided one

full-time superintendent between the two school districts would be more efficient than

two part-time superintendents.” Superintendent C summed up the rationale for sharing a

superintendent was due to the partnering school districts transitioning to whole grade

sharing. He said, “The districts determined they needed to be supported by one leader to

ensure a smooth transition toward whole grade sharing.

Superintendent D shared, “My school board chair came to me stating the board

was pleased with the administrators we currently have on staff; however, the board chair

felt the district may need to make administrative reductions in the future due to declining

enrollment.” The neighboring school district had a series of part-time superintendents

with each only staying one to two years. Superintendent D stated, “The board chair and I

approached the neighboring district to see if they would be interested in sharing a

superintendent.” The shared relationship resulted in eliminating the need to layoff

administrators in the near future, and supported a neighboring district in need.

Superintendents interviewed were asked to identify advantages of the shared

superintendency. Superintendent A said, “The districts should really be in the same

69

education district, teleconference consortium, and service cooperative. This reduces the

number of meetings I have to attend.” Superintendent B stated, “The shared

superintendents should service school districts that are rural, small, and close teach each

other.” Superintendent C said, “I don’t believe similarities need to be in place before

starting sharing, but school districts needed to be aware of the limitations the shared

superintendent faces before starting the arrangement.” Finally, Superintendent D stated,

“The districts started cautiously with only a one-year agreement. I don’t think it was

necessary, but it did get the community and school people to “buy in” to the agreement.”

Superintendent D went on to state, “similar size and demographics [between the

partnered school districts] helps, but it isn’t necessary.”

The four superintendents agreed there were district advantages of the shared

superintendency that led to continuing the agreement. Superintendent A indicated, “The

shared superintendent relationship led to sharing in other areas after we started sharing a

superintendent.” Superintendent A noted particular strengths with the shared relationship

due to the district transitioning to whole grade sharing during the coming school year;

the districts were considering additional sharing in the future. Superintendent C said the

two districts he services “truly operate as one unit, yet have two separate districts.” He

went on to state that each community was able to have a voice and feel ownership of the

school district.

Superintendent B said, “I can’t think of any advantages other than financial

savings.” However, when asked to describe any disadvantages to the shared

superintendency, he could not identify any disadvantages. Superintendent D indicated,

70

“The sharing helped the two districts start other types of sharing including payroll

services. We have brought in trainers for both of the districts at the same time. The

districts get a pretty good deal when they go together to purchase curriculum. It also

made it easier for the districts to try a variety of curriculums when the teachers in both

districts got involved.”

In summary, shared superintendents interviewed indicated the reasons for

entering a shared superintendent model are indirectly related to finance. Only

Superintendent B stated sharing a superintendent was solely due to financial savings;

however, it should be noted that the school districts’ Superintendent B services started

sharing a superintendent 20 years ago. Other reasons for sharing were increasing

efficiencies, assisting a neighboring district, and preventing future reductions of

administrative staff.

Research Question 2

Are there any differences in shared and nonshared superintendent positions for

Minnesota superintendents?

Data from 125 superintendents were analyzed to determine the similarities and

differences between shared superintendents and superintendents in other administrative

models. As previously stated, 13 of the respondents’ answers appear in more than one of

the comparison groups. Table 5 uses a frequency distribution to describe the gender of

respondents and experience as a superintendent for each of the comparison groups. For

each of the comparison groups, the number of individuals (N) indicating each response

71

was described. The percentage of the total population (%) within the comparison group

indicating the response appears in Table 5.

Table 5

Frequency Distribution for Demographics of

Superintendent Comparison Groups

Shared

Superintendent

Part-time

Superintendent

Principal/

Superintendent

Full time

under 1,500

Respondent

Characteristics

N=14

f (%)

N=30

f (%)

N=24

f (%)

N=70

f (%)

Gender

Male 14 (100%) 24 (82.8%) 20 (83.3%) 61 (87.1%)

Female 0 (0%) 5 (17.2%) 4 (16.7%) 9 (12.9%)

No Response 0 1 0 0

Total Experience as a

Superintendent

0-3 years 0 (0%) 3 (10%) 9 (39.1%) 13 (18.8%)

4-7 years 2 (15.4%) 3 (10%) 5 (21.7%) 22 (31.9%)

8-12 years 1 (7.7%) 8 (26.7%) 5 (21.7%) 23 (33.3%)

12-20 years 7 (53.8%) 7 (23.3%) 2 (8.7%) 5 (7.2%)

21 or more years 3 (23.1%) 9 (30%) 2 (8.7%) 6 (8.7%)

No Response 1 0 1 1

When comparing each of the groups, the shared superintendents were the only

exclusively male comparison group; the other groups of superintendents ranged from

82.8% to 87.1% of respondents being male. Of the total respondents to the survey,

84.7% of superintendents in Minnesota were male.

Shared superintendents were the most experienced of the comparison groups

with 76.9% reporting 12 or more years as a superintendent. Part-time superintendents

were the second most experienced group with 53.5% reporting 12 or more years of

experience. The respondents in the full time position indicated the least experience with

15.9% of respondents indicating 12 or more years of experience.

72

In summary, the shared superintendent group was the only exclusively male

superintendent group. Shared superintendents as a whole were more experienced than

any of the comparison groups responding to the survey.

The size of the school districts serviced by the responding superintendents was

demonstrated in the frequency distribution in Table 6.

Table 6

Frequency Distribution of the Size of Districts Served by

Superintendent Comparison Groups

Shared

Superintendent

Part-time

Superintendent

Principal/

Superintendent

Full time

under 1,500

Number of students in the

district

N=14

f (%)

N=30

f (%)

N=24

f (%)

N=70

f (%)

Less than 500 5 (35.7%) 18 (60%) 17 (70.8%) 11 (15.7%)

Between 500-1,500 6 (42.9%) 11 (36.7%) 6 (25%) 59 (84.3%)

Between 1,500-2,500 1 (7.1%) 1 (3.3%) 1 (4.2%) NA

Between 2,500-5,000 1 (7.1%) 0 0 NA

Between 5,000-10,000 0 (0%) 0 0 NA

Greater than 10,000 1 (7.1%) 0 0 NA

Of the 121 superintendents responding to the survey employed in a school

district with 1,500 students or less, 54.8% utilize an alternative form of superintendent

other than a full-time superintendent such as shared superintendent, part-time

superintendent, or principal/superintendent combined position. Only five school districts

with greater than 1,500 students reported employing an alternative model of the

superintendent position; three of the school districts over 1,500 students using an

alternative form for the superintendent position were undertaking a shared

superintendent model. The shared superintendent model was utilized most frequently in

73

school districts between 500-1,500 students (42.9% of shared superintendents). The part-

time superintendent and principal/superintendent models were applied more often in

school districts with less than 500 students. Part-time superintendents were utilized 60%

of the time in school districts with less than 500 students, and the principal/

superintendent model was utilized 70.8% of the time in school districts with less than

500 students.

In summary, shared superintendents were utilized more often in school districts

with more than 500 students more often than the part time and principal/superintendent

models.

Another aspect of the study was to determine how the roles of superintendents

were impacted by the different superintendent models. Survey respondents were asked to

indicate the amount of time the superintendent spent on nineteen different activities to

gather information regarding the emphasis each superintendent places on various

superintendent duties. Table 7 compares the mean score (M) for each of the activities.

Mean scores were calculated using a score of 1 for an activity requiring less than 5% of

their time, 2 for an activity entailing 5-10% of their time, 3 for an activity involving 10-

15% of their time, and 4 for an activity requiring more than 20% of their time. The

standard deviations (SD) within each of the groups were also reported.

74

Table 7

Mean Scores of the Roles Completed by each

Superintendent Comparison Group

The average scores were then sorted to determine the rank order for each task.

The information for each comparison group is provided in Table 8.

75

Table 8

Rank Order Comparisons for Time Spent in each Role

Shared

Superintendent

Part-time

Superintendent

Principal/

Superintendent

Full Time

under 1,500

Budget and Budget

Management 1 1 1 1

Board Member

Relationships 2 2 7 2

Community

Relationships 4 5 5 5

Special Interest

Groups 17 17 19 19

Student Achievement 6 7 2 6

Interpreting Student

Achievement Data 16 16 15 16

School Improvement 10 6 3 4

Referendums 11 10 16 13

Employee Relations 3 3 4 3

Contract Negotiations 7 8 8 8

Supervision of

Administrators 5 11 17 11

Student Behavior 19 18 11 18

Interactions with

Parents 12 13 10 15

Teacher Observations

and Evaluations 18 19 6 17

Curriculum

Leadership 15 14 14 12

Operations/Facilities 8 4 9 7

Political/Legislative

Issues 13 15 18 14

Strategic Planning 9 9 12 9

Meetings Outside of

District 14 12 13 10

Shared superintendents deviated minimally from the other superintendent

comparison groups relating to priorities of superintendent duties. The largest discrepancy

noted was that shared superintendents apply a reduced amount of time on school

improvement planning and implementation than any of the other groups of

superintendents; however, a 1.336 standard deviation demonstrates a wide array of

76

responses from shared superintendents related to school improvement planning.

Although the superintendents did not specifically mention school improvement during

the interview, all of the superintendents discussed school improvement initiatives.

Superintendent A shared that the school districts he serviced aligned their curriculum a

few years ago. He went on to state, “this will make the transition to whole grade sharing

easier.”

In summary, although the shared superintendents responding to the survey

indicate less emphasis on school improvement planning than comparison groups, shared

superintendents interviewed did discuss initiatives implemented by the shared

superintendents that would indicate school improvement planning.

Although all superintendent groups ranked budget and budget management as the

task requiring the most time, shared superintendents reported allocating a greater amount

of time on budget management and referendums (a mean score of 3.36) than the

comparison groups (means scores of 3.23, 3.21, 3.29). Superintendents C and D

indicated the workload as a shared superintendent was elevated initially due to one or

both school districts experiencing financial difficulties; however, the same

superintendents stated the emphasis on budgets reduced once financial stability was

attained. Superintendent C stated “you have to really keep good bookkeepers and

secretaries in each building informed. They have to take on more responsibility.”

When evaluating the emphasis on tasks completed by superintendents, the group

of superintendents with the largest distinction from the comparison groups was the

principal/superintendent group. The principal/superintendent group responding to the

77

survey reported spending considerably more time interpreting student achievement data,

interacting with parents, and teacher observations and evaluations. In short,

principal/superintendents responding to the survey indicated a greater emphasis on

instruction. As a result, other facets of the superintendent position experience less

emphasis by principal/superintendents responding to the survey. The areas that

principal/superintendents report spending less time than comparison groups include

board member relationships and supervising other administrators.

Logically, shared superintendents must deal with the demands of at least twice

the number of board members in comparison to other superintendents. However, shared

superintendents do not report spending more time on board member relationships than

their colleagues. No distinguishable difference was noted relating to shared

superintendents’ time spent on board member relationships (mean of 2.86) compared to

the other superintendent groups (mean of 2.46, 2.86, and 3.14).

Superintendent A stated, “The down side [of the shared superintendent position]

is that I have to attend a lot of meetings. With the additional board meetings and the

meetings related to the board, I don’t seem to do much else.” As a result of the shared

superintendent position, Superintendent D stated, “After I took on the second district, we

went to board meetings one time a month instead of two which had previously happened.

I find I email and call board members a lot more than I used to do, because of fewer

meetings. They just have to get used to not seeing me as much.” Superintendent D went

on to state the board chair was invested in ensuring the shared relationship was

78

successful, which made it easier for Superintendent D to make changes related to board

meetings. Superintendent D laughed as he stated, “afterall , he got us into this.”

A survey question queried the superintendents’ satisfaction with responsibilities

relating to board member relationships. Table 9 defines the frequency correlation for

board member relationships. Responses to a question regarding the superintendent’s job

satisfaction related to board member relationships are reported on Table 9 with the

number (N) and percentage (%) of each response identified. An average job satisfaction

score relating to board member relationships was calculated by using a score of 1 for

very dissatisfied, 2 for somewhat dissatisfied, 3 for moderately satisfied, and 4 for very

satisfied.

Table 9

Frequency Distribution of Superintendent Satisfaction with

Board Member Relationships

Shared

Superintendent

Part-time

Superintendent

Principal/

Superintendent

Full time

under 1,500

N=14

f(%)

N=30

f(%)

N=24

f(%)

N=70

f(%)

Satisfaction with Responsibilities related to Board Member Relationships

Very Dissatisfied 2 (14.3%) 2 (6.7%) 2 (8.3%) 3 (4.3%)

Somewhat Dissatisfied 2 (14.3%) 5 (16.7%) 3 (12.5%) 9 (12.9%)

Moderately Satisfied 5 (35.7%) 7 (23.3%) 8 (33.3%) 23 (32.9%)

Very Satisfied 5 (35.7%) 16 (53.3%) 11 (45.8%) 35 (50.0%)

Average response 2.93 3.23 3.17 3.29

Note regarding average response. Very Dissatisfied=1, Somewhat Dissatisfied=2, Moderately

Satisfied=3, Very Satisfied=4;

A one-way ANOVA revealed no significant difference in responses related to the

satisfaction of the relationship with board member relationships, F (3,134) = .613,

79

p = .61, although a slightly elevated percentage of shared superintendents indicated

dissatisfaction with board member relationships (28.6%) in relation to comparison

groups (23.4%, 20.5%, and 17.2%). None of the shared superintendents interviewed

indicated the shared relationship led to difficulties with board member relationships

other than the dissatisfaction with an increase in the amount of time spent at board

meetings.

In brief, shared superintendents spend equivalent amounts of time dealing with

board member relationships compared to other superintendents groups. Interviews

indicated mixed information regarding the emphasis shared superintendents place on

board member relationships. One shared superintendent reported frustration due to

increased board meetings; another shared superintendent indicated meetings were

replaced by alternative communication means. Overall, shared superintendents

responding to the survey indicated a slightly lower job satisfaction related to board

member relationships as indicated in Table 9. However, interviewed superintendents

indicated no concerns regarding board member relationships other than additional board

meetings.

Another area studied was the perceived level of funding for the school district.

Superintendents responding to the survey were requested to rate the level of funding for

their school district:

Underfunded to the point that the quality of education we are able to offer is

significantly below my expectations.

80

Underfunded to the point that the quality of education we are able to offer is

slightly below my expectations.

Adequately funded to the point that the quality of education we are able to

offer is in line with my expectations.

Funded to the point that the quality of education we are able to offer is in line

with my expectations, and we have a budget surplus.

Table 10 uses a frequency distribution to demonstrate the responses of

individuals in relation to the level of funding for their school district.

Table 10

Frequency Distribution of Superintendent Perception of Funding Impact

on their School District

Shared

Superintendent

Part-time

Superintendent

Principal/

Superintendent

Full time

under 1,500

N=14

f(%)

N=30

f(%)

N=24

f(%)

N=70

f(%)

Underfunded to the point that

the quality of education we

are able to offer is

significantly below my

expectations

5 (35.7%) 8 (28.6%) 12 (52.2%) 18 (27.7%)

Underfunded to the point that

the quality of education we

are able to offer is slightly

below my expectations

7 (50%) 13 (46.4%) 7 (30.4%) 37 (56.9%)

Adequately funded to the

point that the quality of

education we are able to offer

is in line with my

expectations

2 (14.3%) 6 (21.4%) 3 (13.0%) 7 (10.8%)

Funded to the point that the

quality of education we are

able to offer is in line with

my expectations and we have

a budget surplus

0 (0%) 1 (3.6%) 1 (4.3%) 3 (4.6%)

No Response 0 2 1 5

81

A Cramer’s V did not reveal a significant difference between superintendents’

perceptions of funding for school districts, χ2 (1, 130 = .144, p=.528). Table 10

demonstrates that more than 75% of superintendents in each of the comparison groups

indicated school districts are underfunded. Shared superintendents had the highest

percentage of superintendents with 85.7% designating underfunding; part-time

superintendents were the most optimistic with only 75% of superintendents indicating

underfunding. Sample sizes were small, so data should be interpreted cautiously.

None of the shared superintendents indicated school districts were funded to the

point that the quality of education is in line with the expectations of the superintendent

and allow the district to have a budget surplus. All three of the comparison groups had at

least one respondent denote the district they served had a budget surplus.

To summarize the similarities and differences of Minnesota superintendents in a

shared superintendent position compared to superintendents in a nonshared position, the

shared superintendent group was the only exclusively male superintendent group. Shared

superintendents responding to the survey were more experienced than any of the

superintendent comparison groups. Shared superintendents are utilized more often in

school districts of larger sizes than any of the alternative superintendent models.

Although, shared superintendents spent a greater portion of their time on budgets

and referendums; superintendents interviewed indicated time spent on budgets reduced

as the districts serviced became financially stable. Principal/superintendents spent a

greater portion of their time on efforts related to instruction than any of the other

82

superintendent groups. In turn, principal/superintendents spent less time on board

member relationships and supervising administrators.

On the other hand, shared superintendents placed similar effort on board member

relationships despite the increased demands of two separate school boards. Shared

superintendents interviewed indicated increased meetings could result because of the

responsibilities of two school boards; although, alternative means to communicate with

board members were also utilized including electronic mail and phone calls. Shared

superintendents indicated a slightly lower job satisfaction in relation to board member

relationships. Shared superintendents had the highest rate of individuals indicating

school districts were underfunded.

Research Question 3

Are there differences in the job satisfaction of shared and nonshared

superintendents?

In previous studies, job satisfaction was identified as an ongoing concern for

shared superintendents. Using a modified Likert scale, respondents were asked to

indicate if they were very dissatisfied, somewhat dissatisfied, moderately satisfied, or

very satisfied with the two areas of job satisfaction. Table 11 demonstrates the frequency

distribution of superintendent responses to questions regarding enjoyment with the

position as a superintendent and satisfaction with their performance as a superintendent.

83

Table 11

Frequency Distribution of Superintendent Job Satisfaction Related to Enjoyment

with the Position and Satisfaction with Performance

Shared

Superintendent

Part-time

Superintendent

Principal/

Superintendent

Full time

under 1,500

N=14

f (%)

N=30

f (%)

N=24

f (%)

N=70

f (%)

Enjoyment with the position as superintendent

Very dissatisfied 0 (0%) 1 (3.3%) 1 (4.2%) 0 (0%)

Somewhat dissatisfied 1 (7.1%) 1 (3.3%) 3 (12.5%) 5 (7.2%)

Moderately satisfied 7 (50%) 16 (53.3%) 11 (45.8%) 27 (39.1%)

Very satisfied 6 (42.9%) 12 (40%) 9 (37.5%) 37 (53.6%)

No response 0 0 0 0

Satisfaction with your performance as a superintendent

Very dissatisfied 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%)

Somewhat dissatisfied 0 (0%) 1 (3.3%) 0 (0%) 1 (1.4%)

Moderately satisfied 8 (57.1%) 19 (63.3%) 14 (58.3%) 39 (56.5%)

Very satisfied 6 (42.9%) 10 (33.3%) 10 (41.7%) 30 (42.0%)

No response 0 0 0 0

At least half of the responding superintendents in all four categories reported

being moderately to very satisfied in relation to enjoyment with the position and

satisfaction with their performance as a superintendent. Only one shared superintendent

responding to the survey indicated being dissatisfied with the position (7.1% of all

shared superintendents); this was a lower percentage reporting dissatisfaction than

principal/superintendents (16.7%) and full-time superintendents (7.2%).

Superintendents were also generally satisfied with their performance as a

superintendent. None of the shared superintendents responding to the survey indicated

being dissatisfied with their performance; only one part-time superintendent and one

full-time superintendent indicated dissatisfaction with their performance as a

superintendent.

84

To test for the degree of difference between the four groups of superintendents

related to job satisfaction, a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed.

Table 12 shows the results of the ANOVA between superintendent groups related to

enjoyment with the position and satisfaction with their performance.

Table 12

Analysis of Variance of Superintendent Responses to Enjoyment with the

Position and Satisfaction with Performance

Sum of

Squares df

Mean

Square F Sig.

Q1 Between Groups 1.745 3 0.582 1.247 0.295

Within Groups 62.007 133 0.466

Total 63.752 136

Q2 Between Groups 0.624 3 0.208 0.745 0.527

Within Groups 37.128 133 0.279

Total 37.752 136

Note: Q1=Enjoyment with the position; Q2=Satisfaction with your performance;

The ANOVA revealed no significant differences between superintendent group

responses relating to the enjoyment with the position or satisfaction with their

performance.

The survey results related to enjoyment with the position and satisfaction with

their performance as a superintendent are consistent with the comments made by the four

shared superintendents interviewed. All of the superintendents interviewed indicated the

shared relationship induced high job satisfaction due to the challenges the position

creates; however, Superintendent A stated that individuals filling shared superintendent

positions required a personality that beseeches challenges. Superintendent D stated, “I

85

find my job is more exciting since taking on two school districts.” Superintendents A

and C both mentioned the shared relationship resulted in increased satisfaction due to

“every day being new” or being able to “start the day over each day twice.”

In summary, no notable differences were identified in survey responses between

shared superintendents and nonshared superintendents related to enjoyment with the

position or satisfaction with their performance as a superintendent. On the whole,

superintendents surveyed indicated being satisfied with the superintendent position.

Interviews were consistent with survey results; shared superintendents interviewed were

able to identify advantages of the shared superintendent position resulting in higher job

satisfaction. Advantages leading to increased job satisfaction included the challenges

posed by the position and the ability to start fresh each day.

A lack of personal time available can lead to reduced job satisfaction. As a result,

superintendents surveyed were asked to rate their job satisfaction related to personal

time available. Table 13 demonstrates the frequency distribution of their responses.

Table 13

Frequency Distribution of Job Satisfaction Related to

Personal Time Available

Shared

Superintendent

Part-time

Superintendent

Principal/

Superintendent

Full time

under 1,500

N=14

f (%)

N=30

f (%)

N=24

f (%)

N=70

f (%)

Satisfaction with the amount of personal time you are able to take as a superintendent

Very dissatisfied 4 (28.6%) 3 (10.3%) 5 (20.8%) 9 (13.0%)

Somewhat dissatisfied 4 (28.6%) 8 (27.6%) 9 (37.5%) 28 (40.6%)

Moderately satisfied 5 (35.7%) 9 (31%) 7 (29.2%) 28 (40.6%)

Very satisfied 1 (7.1%) 9 (31%) 3 (12.5%) 4 (5.8%)

No response 0 1 0 1

86

All four groups of superintendents reported much lower satisfaction with the

superintendent position when considering the amount of personal time available.

Specifically, 57.2% of shared superintendents responding to the survey were dissatisfied

with the amount of personal time available compared to 58.3% of

principal/superintendents and 56.9% of full-time superintendents dissatisfied with the

amount of personal time available as a superintendent. Part-time superintendents

responded with the highest degree of satisfaction; only 37.9% of part-time

superintendents indicated being somewhat dissatisfied to very dissatisfied with the

amount of personal time available.

A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test for the degree of

difference between the superintendent groups related to personal time available as a

superintendent, F (3,136)=2.309, p=.079. Tukey post-hoc comparisons were performed

to identify if any statistically significant differences were identified between the

superintendent comparison groups. No significant differences were identified between

any of the superintendent groups related to personal time available.

Due to previous studies’ reports of increased workload, interview questions were

asked of shared superintendents related to workload. Superintendent A stated his

workload increased as a result of the number of meetings requiring his attendance, but he

attested that every superintendent position has at least one element that results in

increased workload. Superintendent B stated the workload was not an issue and

compared the position to colleagues in nonshared school districts. Superintendent B

stated, “the grass is always greener on the other side, it is all in our perspective.”

87

Superintendent C enumerated increased mandates, which have increased the workload

for everyone. He went on to state “more work is a good challenge, it keeps me

enthused.” Further, Superintendent C indicated the workload was addressed by teaching

others what needs to be accomplished. Superintendent D concurred that the workload

was no more than any other superintendent if the secretary, business manager, and

principal were reliable. Superintendent D expounded, “I could never do the job without

good people supporting the district.”

Superintendent C went on to state the workload for a shared superintendent

position was less than the workload for a principal/superintendent. He stated, “You can

never get be to go back to working as a principal/superintendent again. That job is

impossible.” He expounded, “It is especially difficult if it [the superintendent position] is

combined with a high school principal position.” Superintendent C stated, “The job of

the high school principal is impossible; it is harder than any superintendent position.”

In summary, surveyed superintendents reported dissatisfaction with the position

related to the amount of personal time available. Part-time superintendents reported the

highest degree of satisfaction related to personal time available (37.9%) compared to the

other superintendent groups; at least 56.9% of all remaining superintendents groups

reported dissatisfaction related to personal time available. Interview results affirmed the

survey results; shared superintendents interviewed indicated the workload of a shared

superintendent is no higher than for nonshared superintendents.

88

Research Question 4

Are there differences in the role of shared and nonshared superintendents as an

instructional leader?

The shared superintendent’s ability to be an instructional leader has been a

concern expressed throughout many of the previous studies conducted in the field. As

stated previously, Table 8 demonstrates the rank order of time superintendents spend on

various roles. Shared superintendent responses to instructional leadership roles such as

“Student Achievement,” “Achievement Data,” and “Teacher Observations and

Evaluations” were not significantly different than part-time superintendents or full-time

superintendents. Principal/superintendents did spend more time addressing instructional

leadership roles than any of the other superintendent groups.

Superintendents responding to the survey were asked to identify their job

satisfaction related to instructional leadership on a Likert scale. Table 14 demonstrates a

frequency distribution of the responses by comparison group.

Table 14

Frequency Distribution of Job Satisfaction Related to Instructional Leadership

Shared

Superintendent

Part-time

Superintendent

Principal/

Superintendent

Full time

under 1,500

N=14

f (%)

N=30

f (%)

N=24

f (%)

N=70

f (%)

Ability to be an instructional leader

Very dissatisfied 1 (7.1%) 1 (3.3%) 0 (0%) 2 (2.9%)

Somewhat dissatisfied 4 (28.6%) 8 (26.7%) 6 (25%) 14 (20.3%)

Moderately satisfied 5 (35.7%) 15 (50%) 12 (50%) 43 (62.3%)

Very satisfied 4 (28.6%) 6 (20%) 6 (25%) 10 (14.5%)

No response 0 0 0 1

89

Survey results demonstrate the shared superintendent position did beget a slightly

lower job satisfaction related to the ability to be an instructional leader. Table 14

demonstrates shared superintendents were moderately to very satisfied with their

performance as an instructional leader 64.3% of the time compared to the other

superintendent groups being satisfied 70%, 75%, and 76.8% of the time.

A more comprehensive analysis of the shared superintendents’ role related to

instructional leadership was conducted as part of interviews with four shared

superintendents. Superintendent A indicated the shared superintendent position made

instructional leadership more difficult than the non shared superintendent position.

However, Superintendent A state, “It is possible [to be an instructional leader] if you

place it as a priority.” The districts he serviced will transition to whole grade sharing

during the 2012-13 school year; Superintendent A stated, “The change [whole grade

sharing] will certainly make it easier to fill the role as an instructional leader.”

Superintendent C affirmed that instructional leadership is not impacted by the shared

superintendent position when the districts have whole grade sharing in all grades when

he stated, “Due to our arrangement, my position is really no different than any other

superintendent when it comes to instructional leadership.”

The districts Superintendents B and D service did not participate in whole grade

sharing; Superintendents B and D affirmed the role of instructional leadership was

reduced as a result of the shared superintendent relationship. Superintendent B stated, “I

cannot possibly be an instructional leader with all of the other duties. That is something

we [shared superintendents] have to give to principals.” However, it should be noted the

90

two districts Superintendent B services have aligned the curriculum between districts

during the past few years; this would indicate Superintendent B has actualized a role as

an instructional leader in the participating districts. Superintendent D asserted

instructional leadership was not a priority role for shared superintendents. However, he

gave examples of how the sharing enhanced his instructional leadership; “The sharing

arrangement helped us work toward our instructional goals by implementing mentoring,

using teachers in opposite districts to share ideas, and sharing the cost of presenters.”

In order to achieve goals related to being an instructional leader, Superintendents

B, C, and D stressed the importance of employing exemplary principals and office staff

to allow time for the shared superintendent to complete the instructional leadership

duties. Superintendent B stated, “I put all of that on the principal; it just isn’t possible

with the duties of being superintendent in two school districts.” Superintendent D went

on to state, “I couldn’t do this without great secretaries. They help me ensure I get

everything done and manage the mountains of paperwork.” He went on to state, “I am

blessed to work with great people.” Superintendent C further explained the close

relationship with the principal led to easing instructional leadership duties. He stated,

“Having the same principal across the two districts really helps us in this area. We have

worked together for about 7 years now.”

In summary, shared superintendents spend equivalent amounts of time on

instructional leadership roles as part-time superintendents and full-time superintendents.

Survey results indicate shared superintendents responded with a slightly lower job

satisfaction related to the ability to be an instructional leader compared to nonshared

91

superintendents. Interview results indicated the shared superintendent’s role, as an

instructional leader, was limited unless the school districts served participate in whole

grade sharing.

Summary

A survey of results from 219 Minnesota superintendents and interview results

from four shared superintendents were analyzed to help determine a more clearly

defined status of shared superintendents in Minnesota in 2012. When school districts

contemplate reducing administration, various superintendent models are considered

including shared superintendents, part-time superintendents, superintendents also acting

as principals, and full-time superintendents. Comparisons were made between the four

superintendent models to assist school districts in determining the best option to meet

each district’s needs.

Demographic data regarding superintendents and school districts using the

various superintendent models was summarized, and a frequency analysis was

completed to determine comparisons. Comparisons between the four groups were also

completed related to job satisfaction, time spent on various roles, satisfaction with board

member relationships, and perception of funding impacts on school districts. Interview

responses were compared and contrasted to each of the areas of survey results.

Additional analysis was completed regarding shared superintendent interview responses

regarding the perceived reasons school districts initiated the shared superintendent

92

model. Comparisons were made between survey results, interview results, and previous

studies completed regarding shared superintendents.

Chapter V summarizes the findings of the study, draws conclusions, compares

the responses to previous studies, and offers recommendations for further study.

93

Chapter V

DISCUSSION

Despite an additional $50 per pupil added to the funding formula for the 2011-12

school year, almost every school district in Minnesota had lower state aid per pupil

during the 2011-12 school year than the 2002-03 school year when considering inflation

adjustment (Douglass, 2011). The American Association of School Administrators

(AASA) preformed a series of 10 studies since 2008 to determine the impact of the

economic downturn on school districts. The studies indicated the Midwest was impacted

to a greater degree by inadequate funding than other areas in the United States (McCord

& Ellerson, 2008). In 2008, school districts across the county made adjustments as far

from the classroom as possible; school districts adjusted bus routes, reduced non-

essential travel, adjusted thermostats, reduced consumable supplies, and delayed

textbook purchases (McCord & Ellerson, 2008). By the 2011-12 school year, 67% of

school districts anticipated increasing class size as a budget reduction strategy (Ellerson,

2010b).

One alternative some school districts have chosen as a budget reduction method

was to share a superintendent between two or more school districts. During the 2011-12

school year, 29 Minnesota school districts chose the shared superintendent model with

14 superintendents filling shared superintendent positions (Minnesota Department of

94

Education, 2012). However, school districts and superintendents need guidance to

ensure the shared superintendent relationship is successful.

The purpose of the study was to describe situations in which shared

superintendents were utilized in Minnesota and the impact the role had on the

superintendent position. The study also examined the demographics of superintendents

and the roles superintendents fulfilled when comparing shared and nonshared

superintendent positions. The data were analyzed and findings organized according to

each research question.

Research Questions







challenges?


superintendents?



95

For this study, a survey was conducted with the assistance of the Minnesota

Association of School Administrators (MASA); MASA sent a survey to all

superintendents via an online electronic mail request. Responses were received from 219

superintendents. Fourteen responding superintendents indicated they serviced two or

more school districts. According to the Minnesota Department of Education (2012),

there were 14 shared superintendents during the 2011-12 school year. Assuming the

MDE superintendent list was accurate and the respondents all responded accurately,

100% of shared superintendents responded to the survey.

Data from the survey were downloaded into a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet to

allow for analysis and disaggregation of data. The data were analyzed in relation to each

of the research questions. Additional data analysis was completed using the Statistical

Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) when post-hoc tests were necessary.

Initial demographic information was gathered in a frequency distribution for all

superintendents responding to the survey. Survey respondents were then coded to one of

the comparison groups. If individuals indicated their position was in two of the

comparison groups such as a part time, shared superintendent position, the responses

were duplicated so the individual could be coded into both the shared superintendent

group and the part-time superintendent group. A frequency analysis was completed on

the following variables for each comparison group: demographics of the superintendent,

size of districts served, job satisfaction of superintendents, satisfaction with board

member relationships, and impact of funding on school districts.

96

An analysis of variance (ANOVA) was also completed on the variables related to

job satisfaction and satisfaction with board member relationships. As defined by

Creighton (2007), “Analysis of variance (ANOVA) is a procedure for evaluating the

mean difference between two or more samples” (p. 102). None of the variables indicated

a statistically significant difference; however, the job satisfaction related to personal

time available warranted further analysis. A Tukey post hoc test was completed to

compute a single value related to the sample groups (Creighton, 2007). A descriptive

analysis was determined by calculating the means and standard deviation for the roles of

superintendents in each of the comparison groups. A rank order analysis was also

completed to determine the comparison of priorities for each superintendent group.

The second strand of the study included an interview of four shared

superintendents. Superintendents servicing two independent school districts were

selected to be interviewed; the list was generated based on the directory of

superintendents provided by the Minnesota Department of Education (2012). Two of the

shared superintendents interviewed had been in their current position for more than 5

years, and two of the shared superintendents had been in their current shared

superintendent position for less than 5 years. Interview responses were divided into

small units such as a phrase or a sentence. The responses were then coded to correlate

with each of the research questions. Themes were developed based on the codes; the

themes were connected with each of the research questions.

It should be noted that the responses to the survey do not align with information

available from the Minnesota Department of Education. According to the Minnesota

97

Department of Education (2012), only one superintendent services three school districts;

however, three individuals responding to the survey indicated serving three or more

school districts. One individual indicated serving two school districts in the metropolitan

area; however, no shared superintendents are listed as serving the metropolitan area on

the Minnesota Department of Education (2012) superintendent list. Caution should be

utilized when interpreting the results due to these inconsistencies and small sample sizes.

Research Question 1

What are the shared superintendents’ perceptions of the reasons Minnesota


In 1990 and 1992, superintendents and school board members indicated the

primary reason, and often the only reason, school districts shared superintendents was

due to financial reasons (Bratlie, 1992; Decker & McCumsey, 1990). In 2010, the reason

school districts chose to utilize shared superintendents remained primarily due to

financial reasons; however, stakeholders were able to identify additional reasons for the

sharing (Horn, 2011).

All of the superintendents interviewed as part of the current study identified the

reasons for initiating a shared superintendent relationship were at least indirectly related

to financial reasons; however, only Superintendent B stated the reason was solely due to

financial savings. The districts serviced by Superintendent B started sharing 20 years

ago, around the time the studies were completed by Decker, McCumsey, and Bratlie.

The other three superintendents stated the reasons extended beyond financial reasons.

98

Superintendent A stated that one superintendent could be more efficient than two part-

time superintendents. The districts serviced by Superintendent C utilized a shared

superintendent model for increased efficiency as a result of whole grade sharing.

Superintendent D indicated his employing district initiated sharing to help a neighboring

district and reduce the need to eliminate administrative positions in the future.

Advantages need to be in place for school districts to continue the shared

relationship. In 1990 school board chairs could not identify any advantages to the shared

superintendent relationship other than the financial savings (Decker & McCumsey,

1990). However, by 2011 noticeable changes had taken place in the attitude toward the

shared superintendency. Stakeholders interviewed by Horn (2011) could not identify any

disadvantages of the shared superintendent relationship.

When comparing Horn’s (2011) responses to those of the four shared

superintendents interviewed in this study, similar findings were identified. Three themes

emerged as advantages of the shared relationship. Financial savings, as a result of

decreased administrators, was certainly the most common advantage. However, the

ability to initiate additional forms of sharing due to the assistance of the shared

superintendent was also a common advantage identified by stakeholders interviewed by

Horn and superintendents interviewed as part of the current study. The advantage

identified by all superintendents interviewed in the current study were the challenges the

shared superintendent position offers which keeps the job exciting. Superintendent C

perceived an advantage for his districts not mentioned by previous studies; each

community was able to have a high level of involvement and feeling of ownership in the

99

school districts. Superintendents A and C also identified an advantage they felt in being

the superintendent’s ability to start each day over twice.

Research Question 2

Are there any differences in shared and nonshared superintendent positions for

Minnesota superintendents in the following areas: gender and experience of

superintendents, size of school districts utilizing this model, roles fulfilled, satisfaction

with board member relationships, and perceptions of budgetary challenges?

When districts are considering various superintendent options, the shared

superintendency is not always a viable option. School districts are not able to participate

in a shared superintendent relationship if there are no neighboring school districts

interested in participating in such a relationship (Chirls, 2010); in other situations laws

make sharing difficult or impossible (Hinton, 2010; Johnston, 2011; Novak, 2011;

Wright, 2010). Alternatives to the shared superintendency include a part-time

superintendent, principal and superintendent combination, or maintaining a full-time

superintendent. However, no studies have been completed comparing these alternatives.

The results of this study help school districts determine if there is a difference between

shared and nonshared superintendent positions.

Shared superintendents responding to the survey were the only superintendent

group that was exclusively male; shared superintendents were also the most experienced

group of superintendents with 76.9% indicating 12 or more years as a superintendent.

The experience of shared superintendents surveyed was consistent with Decker and

100

Talbot’s (1991) study in 1989 when 83.3% of shared superintendents indicated 10 or

more years of experience as a senior administrator.

Bratlie (1992) indicated shared superintendents and board chairs ranked finance

as the most important task completed by shared superintendents. Survey results in this

study agreed with this conclusion; shared superintendents ranked budgets and budget

management as the task requiring the most amount of time compared to all

superintendent duties. However, all four of the superintendent groups ranked budget and

budget management as the task requiring the most emphasis. When comparing the

emphasis superintendents placed on a variety of duties, shared superintendents indicated

similar priorities as the part time and full-time superintendent groups.

Shared superintendents did indicate less emphasis on school improvement with a

mean score of 2.29 compared to the comparison groups with a mean score of 2.47 (part-

time superintendents), 2.79 (principal/superintendents), and 2.90 (full-time

superintendents). None of the shared superintendents interviewed mentioned school

improvement; however, each of the shared superintendents interviewed implemented

various initiatives within the district that could be construed as school improvement

planning. These initiatives included aligning the curriculum, transitioning to whole grade

sharing, and instigating a mentoring program.

With at least twice as many board members as other superintendents, it is likely

that shared superintendents will have a lower degree of job satisfaction related to board

member relationships compared to the comparison groups. When comparing the mean

job satisfaction scores of shared superintendents (2.93), it is apparent that shared

101

superintendents have a slightly lower job satisfaction related to board member

relationships compared to the comparison groups (3.23, 3.17, and 3.29).

No differences were noted related to school funding with 75% or more of all

superintendent comparison groups noting their school districts are underfunded. It is not

surprising that such a significant amount of school districts number of school districts

report a perception of underfunding considering the increased expenditures and

decreased revenue (Douglass, 2011; McCord & Ellerson, 2008; Yee, 2010).

Although there are no significant differences between shared and nonshared

superintendents related to gender and experience of superintendents, size of school

districts, roles fulfilled by superintendents, satisfaction with board member relationships,

and perceptions of budgetary challenges, some slight differences were noted including

shared superintendents being the only group of superintendents that is exclusively male.

Shared superintendents have lower job satisfaction related to board member

relationships and place less emphasis on school improvement. All superintendent groups

place the greatest emphasis on budget and budget management and all generally

perceive that their school district as being underfunded.

Research Question 3

Are there differences in the job satisfaction of shared and nonshared

superintendents?

Survey and interview results indicate shared superintendents’ job satisfaction was

not impacted by the shared superintendent position; these findings are contrary to

102

findings in the 1990s and consistent with findings by Horn in 2011. Dose (1994)

identified shared superintendents had a lower level of job satisfaction in the work itself.

Decker and McCumsey (1990) and Decker and Talbot (1991) also expressed concern

about decreased job satisfaction. Decreased job satisfaction of shared superintendents

was not indicated in the study by Horn (2011). One of the two superintendents

interviewed by Horn stated the “virtually impossible situation has provided him with a

great deal of job satisfaction” (p. 94).

The four superintendents interviewed as part of this study unanimously agreed

the additional challenges associated with the shared superintendent position made the

position more satisfying. Superintendent C noted his current position was much more

satisfying than his previous position as a principal/superintendent. Survey results also

confirmed the shared superintendent position did not lead to decreased job satisfaction

compared to other superintendent groups. Only one shared superintendent (7.1%)

indicated being somewhat dissatisfied with the superintendent position.

In the early 1990s, superintendents and board members were all concerned about

the workload of shared superintendents (Decker & McCumsey, 1990; Decker & Talbot,

1991; Winchester, 2003). Horn (2011) identified different results when the two shared

superintendents did not observe that the position led to higher workload. The results of

this study agree with the findings of Horn. Shared superintendents interviewed did not

indicate the workload was higher than nonshared superintendents.

Survey results indicated principal/superintendents perceived a lower level of job

satisfaction related to the personal time available than any of the other superintendent

103

groups. Shared superintendents indicated they had learned to address the workload by

compensating through other means such as delegating duties and depending heavily

upon principals and other central office staff.

It appears as though the workload and job satisfaction of shared superintendents

has changed since the early 1990s (Decker & McCumsey, 1990; Decker & Talbot,

1991). These differences could be due to the small sample sizes of this study and the

study by Horn (2011). Changes in job satisfaction could be due to the increased access

to technology making it easier to manage a school district from a distance. It is also

possible that superintendents and school districts have gained from the experiences of

pervious shared superintendents; individuals may have learned that shared

superintendents must be able to delegate workload to central office staff and principals.

Additionally, individuals may have learned that the shared superintendent position

requires a personality that enjoys challenges.

Previous studies indicate school districts should not plan on having an individual

in a shared position for longer than 5 years due to concerns regarding professional

burnout (Bratlie, 1992; Decker & McCumsey, 1990; Decker & Talbot, 1991). It appears

as though this limitation of time is no longer needed.

Research Question 4

Are there differences in the role of shared and nonshared superintendents as an

instructional leader?

104

An ongoing concern mentioned throughout the literature is the increased

emphasis of shared superintendents on managerial responsibilities and decreased time

available for instructional leadership. Decker and Talbot (1991) indicated 78.6% of

shared superintendents agreed their primarily role was as a manager and not an

instructional leader. In 2010, Horn (2011) identified mixed results with advantages and

disadvantages of shared superintendents in the instructional leadership role.

Interviews conducted as part of the current study also indicate mixed results

regarding instructional leadership by shared superintendents. Shared superintendents

indicated instructional leadership is a challenge due to the shared superintendent

relationship. Whole grade sharing positively impacted the ability of a shared

superintendent to be an instructional leader. Superintendent B admitted shared

superintendents must rely more heavily on principals; Superintendent D concurred that

his role as an instructional leader was limited. Superintendent D was able to identify

strengths of the shared relationship because of the greater array of educators with a

variety of skills; the skills of these educators were utilized by both districts to facilitate

mentoring and staff sharing of strategies.

Contrary to interviews with shared superintendents that they spend less time as

an instructional leader due to the shared relationship, the survey indicated shared

superintendents spent the same amount of time on instructional leadership (student

achievement, interpreting student achievement data, student behavior, and teacher

observations) as part-time superintendents and full-time superintendents.

Principal/superintendents did spend more time on instructional leadership than other

105

superintendent models due to the dual professional role. Shared superintendents did have

a lower level of job satisfaction related to their ability to be an instructional leader

compared to other superintendent comparison groups.

The sample size for the shared superintendent group was too small to generalize

the findings to other groups of shared superintendents. These findings can be used as an

informal knowledge base to apply to future studies (Rea & Parker, 2005).

In summary, this study found mixed results relating to shared superintendents’

roles with related to instructional leadership. However, the findings generally indicated

the role of shared superintendents has increased from minimal to no role as an

instructional leader in the early 1990s (Decker & Talbot, 1991) to the majority of shared

superintendents having some role as an instructional leader. The role of the shared

superintendent as an instructional leader is augmented in school districts participating in

whole grade sharing.

Perhaps the reason for the increase of the shared superintendents’ role with

instructional leadership is due to changing views of the role of superintendents in general

related to this key factor for student achievement. Belden Russonello and Stewart (2005)

indicated contemporary superintendents are taking a more active role related to

instructional leadership than has previously been the perceived role. Another reason for

increases in instructional leadership roles is due to the increased attention towards

student achievement and test scores implemented by the No Child Left Behind Act

(Education Week, 2011).

106

Recommendations for Professional Practice

The following recommendations are made based on the research study and the

conclusions drawn from the data.

1. Of the superintendents responding to the survey, 121 of the superintendents

work in a school district with 1,500 students or less, 54.8% of those

superintendents work in an alternative superintendent model, such as a shared

superintendent, principal/superintendent, or part-time superintendent. Clearly

school districts need guidance when making staffing decisions. Information

about the emphasis placed on roles by each group of superintendents will

help school boards determine what roles to assign superintendents.

2. Shared superintendents indicated they were able to successfully fulfill the

roles as a shared superintendent by delegating duties to central office staff

and principals. The skills and abilities of the principals and central office staff

should also be evaluated by board members to determine if the shared

superintendent will be able to delegate duties to other staff.

3. Repeatedly, shared superintendents expressed the importance of shared

superintendents needing to have a personality craving challenges. As a result,

school district entering a shared superintendent arrangement should ensure

the individual filling the position has a personality suited for multiple

challenges. Board members need to carefully screen applicants through

reference checks and interview to ensure candidates crave a high workload

and a fast paced work environment.

107

4. If school districts would like to place an emphasis on school improvement

planning, efforts should be made to identify an alternative to the shared

superintendent model such as a full-time superintendent or

principal/superintendent model. Survey results indicate shared

superintendents place a lower emphasis on school improvement planning

than the comparison groups.

5. If a school district wants the superintendent to spend time on building board

member relationships or supervision of other administrators within the

partnering districts, the school district should examine the full-time

superintendent or shared superintendent model because survey results

indicated principal/superintendents place less emphasis on these areas. In

these cases the

Recommendations for Further Study

Based on this research study and the conclusion drawn from the data, the

following recommendations are made for further research.

1. Longitudinal studies of individuals in shared superintendent roles focused on

a small number of shared superintendents should be conducted. In these

studies, the research should explore strategies utilized by shared

superintendents for board member relationships, budget management, and

instructional leadership for multiple school years.

108

2. Further studies should be conducted on school districts that have ended the

shared superintendent relationship to determine why the model was

discontinued, who initiated the termination of the agreement, and what model

the school districts utilized following the shared superintendent arrangement.

3. Further studies should be conducted to examine principals in a position

combined with a superintendent position to individuals acting exclusively in

a principal position related to job satisfaction and roles with instructional

leadership, board member relationships, referendums, and budget

management.

4. Case studies should be completed on one or two individuals in the part-time

principal/superintendent, and full-time superintendent models to gather in-

depth information related to superintendent roles with instructional leadership

and job satisfaction.

5. A study should be completed replicating the study by Winchester (2003)

which found school districts did not realize the same financial savings from

the shared superintendent model 5 years after the sharing was initiated.

6. The survey completed should be replicated at a national level to yield larger

sample sizes and comparisons of superintendent job satisfaction and roles

between states and superintendent models.

109

Conclusion

This study was a mixed method study examining the status of the shared

superintendent in Minnesota. A survey of all superintendents in Minnesota indicated

there are fourteen shared superintendents in Minnesota; all of the shared superintendents

are male. The shared superintendent model is primarily used in school districts between

500 to 1,500 students (42.9%); the majority of shared superintendents have 12 or more

years of experience (76.9%).

The shared superintendent group was compared to superintendent models used in

school districts with 1,500 students or less. The models utilized as comparison groups

included the principal/superintendent model, part-time superintendents, and full-time

superintendents.

The majority of shared superintendents are satisfied with their position. Shared

superintendents prioritize tasks similar to the part time and full-time superintendent

groups. Shared superintendents place less emphasis on school improvement than any of

the comparison groups. Principal/superintendents spend more time on instructional

leadership than the comparison groups. Shared superintendents interviewed indicated the

shared superintendent relationship makes instructional leadership more difficult unless

the districts participate in whole grade sharing. Shared superintendents indicated a

greater level of dissatisfaction related to their ability to be an instructional leader

compared to the comparison groups.

The shared superintendent relationship also resulted in a slight decrease in job

satisfaction related to board member relationships. However, shared superintendents

110

placed the emphasis on board relationships as the second greatest amount of time, which

was consistent with part time and full-time superintendents.

In 1990 and 1992, shared superintendents indicated the reason school districts

started using a shared superintendent model was purely financial (Bratlie, 1992; Decker

& McCumsey, 1990). In the more recent study by Horn (2011), superintendents

indicated the reasons for the relationship were at least indirectly related to financial

reasons. However, other reasons for sharing identified in this study included increased

efficiencies due to whole grade sharing and increased efficiencies compared to two part-

time superintendents. One superintendent interviewed indicated the reasons for sharing

were to help out a neighboring district and to prevent the need for future administrative

reductions.

Shared superintendents stress the importance of highly skilled principals and

central office staff to make the shared relationship successful. Shared superintendents

also indicated the individual entering a shared superintendent position must be a skilled

delegator. The prevailing message from all shared superintendents interviewed was that

shared superintendents have the desire to take on challenges. The study of shared

superintendents is important because school districts need to be aware of the strengths

and limitations when making changes for this pivotal position within school districts.

111

REFERENCES

112

REFERENCES

Bard, J., Gardener, C., & Wieland, R. (2006, Winter). National rural education

association report. The Rural Educator, pp. 40-47.

Barnett, L. A. (2007). “Winners” and “Losers”: The effects of being allowed or denied

entry into competitive extracurricular activities. Journal of Leisure Research,

39(2), 316-344.

Barry, J. (2006). The effect of socio-economic status on academic achievement,

(Unpublished master’s thesis) Wichita State University, Wichita, KS. Retrieved

from

http://soar.wichita.edu/dspace/bitstream/handle/10057/616/Barry_Jennifer.pdf?se

quence=1

Beem, K. (2006). In the name of survival: The dual superintendency. The School

Administrator. 63(3).

Belden Russonello & Stewart Research and Communications. (2005). From the top:

Superintendents on instructional leadership. Retrieved from

http://www.edweek.org/media/wallace.pdf

Bradford, S. G, & Birchbauer, L. J. (2011). Compression in the superintendent ranks:

The increasing use of part-time district leaders as a cost-savings measure may be

contributing to full-time fallout. The School Administrator. 68(4), 20-24.

113

Bratlie, R. (1992). Shared superintendent: A good idea? Paper presented at the

International Rural and Small Schools Conference, Grand Forks, ND. Retrieved

from http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED345902.pdf

Briscoe, C. M. (1980). The history of special education in southwestern Minnesota

(Unpublished master’s thesis). Mankato State University, Mankato, MN.

Canales, M., Tejeda-Delgado, C., & Slate, J. (2010). Superintendents/principals in small

rural school districts: A qualitative study of dual roles. Retrieved from

http://cnx.org/content/m33853/1.2

Chirls, S. (2010). Partner lacking for shared superintendent plans. Retrieved from

http://madison.patch.com/articles/partner-lacking-for-boe-superintendent-plans

Christie, C. A., (2010). Shared services study: Reduce costs, increase effectiveness,

improve efficiency. St. Peter, MN: Minnesota School Boards Association

Cooper, B., Fuscarelli, L., & Carella, V. (2000). Career crisis in the school

superintendency? Arlington, VA: American Association of School

Administrators.

Creighton, T. B. (2007). Schools and data: The educator’s guide for using data to

improve decision making (2nd

ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Darling, N., Caldwell, L., & Smith, R. (2005), Participation in school-based

extracurricular activities and adolescent adjustment. Journal of Leisure Research,

37(1), 51-76.

114

Dawis, R. V., England, G., & LofQuist, L. H. (1964). A theory of work adjustment

(Minnesota Studies in Vocational Rehabilitation: XV, under support of the U.S.

Department of Health, Education, and Welfare). Minneapolis: Industrial

Relations Center, University of Minnesota.

Decker, R. H., & McCumsey, N. L. (1990, October). The Iowa shared superintendency:

The school board president’s perspective. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting

of the National Rural Education Association, Colorado Springs, CO.

Decker, R. H., & Talbot, A. P. (1991). The shared superintendency. Journal of Research

in Rural Education, 7(3), 59-66.

Deloitte Research. (2005). Driving more money into the classroom: The promise of

shared services. Retrieved from http://www.deloitte.com/assets/Dcom-

UnitedStates/Local%20Assets/Documents/us_fed_DrivingMoreMoneyintotheCla

ssroom_031411.pdf

Dose, T. A. (1994). A comparison of perceived job satisfaction levels among shared and

nonshared superintendents in Iowa (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Des

Moines, IA: Drake University.

Douglass, K. (2011). Declining funding, degrading quality: 2011 survey of Minnesota

superintendents. Retrieved from

http://www.scribd.com/doc/63527118/Declining-Funding-Degrading-Quality

Eamon, M. K. (2005). Social-demographic, school, neighborhood, and parenting

influences on academic achievement of Latino young adolescents. Journal of

Youth and Adolescence, 34(2), 163-175.

115

Education Week. (2011, July 7). Achievement gap. Retrieved from

http://www.edweek.org /ew/issues/achievement-gap

Ellerson, N. M. (2009, August). Schools and the stimulus: How America’s public school

districts are using ARRA funds. Retrieved from http://www.aasa.org

/uploadedFiles/Policy_and_Advocacy/files/AASAStimulusSurveyAug09.pdf

Ellerson, N. M. (2010a). A cliff hanger: How America’s public schools continue to feel

the impact of the economic downturn. Retrieved from

http://www.aasa.org/uploadedFiles/Policy_and_Advocacy/files/CliffHangerFIN

AL(1).pdf

Ellerson, N. M. (2010b). Surviving a thousand cuts: America’s public schools and the

recession. Retrieved from http://www.aasa.org/uploadedFiles

/Policy_and_Advocacy/files/AASAThousandCutsFINAL121610.pdf

Ellerson, N. M., & McCord, R. S. (2009). One year later: How the economic downturn

continues to impact school districts. Retrieved from

http://www.aasa.org/uploadedFiles/Resources/files/OneYearLater%20FINAL.pdf

Federal Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations. (1961). Governmental

structure, organization, and planning in metropolitan areas (Report A-5).

Washington, DC: Author.

Flam, S., & Keane, W. (1997). Public schools private enterprise. Lancaster, PA:

Technomic Publishing Company, Inc.

116

Gable, E. (2010). Some school districts find success with a dual superintendent.

Retrieved from http://mymassp.com/content

/some_school_districts_find_success_dual_superintendent

Giles, D. E., & Giles, S. (1990). Where do all the superintendents go? Retrieved from

ERIC database. (ED 326938)

Gillaspy, T. (2011). The long run has become the short run: Budget implications for

demographic change. Retrieved from http://www.demography.state.mn.us

/resource.html?Id=31880

Ginsberg, R., & Multon, K. D. (2011). Leading through a fiscal nightmare: The impact

on principals and superintendents. Phi Delta Kappan, 92(8), 42-47.

Goldman, J. P. (2010). On the road with high-test in his tank. The School Administrator,

67(10), p. 55.

Gordon, N., & Knight, B. (2008). The effects of school district consolidation on

educational cost and quality. Public Finance Review, 36(4), 408-430.

doi:10.1177/1091142107305219

Grady, M. L., & Bryant, M. (1988, September). Superintendent turnover in rural

districts. Paper presented at the National Rural Education Research Forum,

Bismarck, ND. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED308032.pdf

Hinton, D. (2010, August 9). State proposal on part-time superintendents would affect

Thomasboro. The News-Gazette. Retrieved from http://www.news-gazette.com

117

Horn, R. R. (2011). Shared superintendency in Iowa: An investigation of organizational

perceptions of leaders in districts that employ a shared superintendent

(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Cedar Falls, IA: University of Northern

Iowa.

Johnston, S. (2011). Salary cap complicates agreement to share superintendent. North

Jersey. Retrieved from

http://www.northjersey.com/news/114467279_Shared_super_involves_legal_spit

balling_.html

Klein, R. E. (1988, September). Combination administrative positions in North Dakota

schools. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the National Rural

Education Association, Bismarck, ND. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov

/PDFS/ED309010.pdf

Kowalski, T. J., McCord, R. S., Petersen, G. J, Young, I. P., & Ellerson, N. M. (2010).

The American school superintendent: 2010 decennial study. Alexandria, VA:

American Association of School Administrators.

Kyte, C. (2011, July 8). On the road with Charlie. Correspondence to

[email protected]

Lamkin, M. L. (2006). Challenges and changes faced by rural superintendents. The

Rural Educator, 28(1), 17-24.

Laws of Minnesota for 1979. Chapter 211, House File No. 487.

Laws of Minnesota for 1987, Chapter 397, House File No. 753.

118

Lombard, B. (2011, November 18). Boardcaster. St. Peter, MN: Minnesota School

Board Association. Retrieved from http://www.mnmsba.org/

Lyons, A. F. (1987). A study of large scale student sharing programs by smaller Iowa

school districts (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Drake University, Des

Moines, IA.

Manzi, N., & Urahn, S. (1992). Regional education organizations. The school district

perspective: A research report. St. Paul, MN: Research Department, Minnesota

House of Representatives.

McCord, R. S., & Ellerson, N. M. (2008). Impact of the economic downturn on schools.

Alexandria, VA: The American Association of School Administrators. Retrieved

from http://www.aasa.org/uploadedFiles/Newsroom/

Press_Releases/2008/AASAEconomicImpactSurvey2008.pdf

Mewes, T (2011, April 21). G-E superintendent leaves Lyle public schools. Albert Lea

Tribune. Retrieved from http://www.albertleatribune.com/2011/04/21/g-e-

superintendent-leaves-lyle-public-schools/

Meyer, A. (1990). Shared superintendency: expectations and perceptions of shared

superintendents and school board presidents (Unpublished master’s thesis).

Drake University, Des Moines, IA.

Miller, S. (2011, May 20). Employer medical costs expected to rise 8.5% in 2012.

Alexandria, VA: Society for Human Resource Management. Retrieved from

http://www.shrm.org/hrdisciplines/benefits/Articles/Pages/MedicalCosts2012.aspx

119

Minnesota Department of Education. (2011a). Consolidation or dissolution of a school

district. Retrieved from http://education.state.mn.us/MDE/

Accountability_Programs/Program_Finance/Facilities_Health_Safety/

Organization_Reorganization/index.html

Minnesota Department of Education. (2011b). Federal stimulus update. Retrieved

from http://education.state.mn.us/MDE/About_MDE

/Fed_Stimulus_Update/index.html

Minnesota Department of Education. (2011c). School district financial profiles: 2010

expenditures by percentage [Data file] Retrieved from

http://education.state.mn.us/MDE/Accountability_Programs/Program_Finance/Fi

nancial_Management/School_District_Financial_Profiles/index.html

Minnesota Department of Education. (2012). School district superintendents [Data file].

Retrieved on April 24, 2012 from http://education.state.mn.us /Directories

/report_c5.jsp

Minnesota Management and Budget. (2011). Impact of American recovery and

investment act. St. Paul, MN: Author. Retrieved from

http://www.mmb.state.mn.us/recovery/index.php/impact-hidden

Minnesota Statutes 2010, section 123B.143, subdivision 1; MINN. STAT 123B.143

(2010); MINN. STAT. ANN. 123B.143

120

Murray, D. (2011, March 23). If Felske leaves, Wyoming and Godwin will probably find

own superintendents. Grand Rapids News. Retrieved from

http://www.mlive.com/news/grandrapids/index.ssf/2011/03/if_felske_leaves_wy

oming_and_g.html

Novak, S. J. (2011, May 31). Great Meadows Regional, Allamuchy Township school

districts likely to hire own superintendents after state rejects shared service. The

Express-Times. Retrieved from http://www.leighvalleylive.com

O’Leary, J., & Bealse, J. R. (1994). When opposites attract: Public schools and private

enterprise. Mackinac Center. Retrieved from http://www.mackinac.org/133

Paige, R. (2003). Letter to Superintendent of Education, State Department of Education.

US Department of Education. Retrieved from http://www.aesa.us/Research

/Dept%20Ed%20Letter%20re%20ESAs2.pdf

Parker, T. S., Kusmin, L. D., & Marre, A. W. (2010). Economic recovery: Lessons

learned from previous recessions. Amber Waves. Retrieved from

http://www.ers.usda.gov/amberwaves/march10/features

/EconomicRecovery.htm

Pine, P. (1971). Shared services and cooperatives: Schools combine resources to

improve education. Washington, DC: National School Public Relations

Association.

Rea, L. M., & Parker, R. A. (2005). Designing and conducting survey research: A

comprehensive guide (3rd

ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

121

Roberts, C. M. (2004). The dissertation journey: A practical and comprehensive guide to

planning, writing, and defending your dissertation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin

Press.

Rural Assistance Center. (2011). Schools frequently asked questions. Retrieved from

http://www.raconline.org/info_guides/schools/schoolsfaq.php#consolidation

Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey. (2007). Shared services in school districts.

Newark, NJ: Institute on Education Law and Policy.

Salmon, T. M. (2009). Auditor’s survey of shared services in Vermont school systems.

Montpellier, VT: Vermont State Auditor.

Sederberg, C. H. (1987). Economic role of school districts on rural communities.

Research in Rural Education. 4(3), pp. 125-130.

Sederberg, C. H. (1988). The federated district: A planning model for rural schools.

Research in Rural Education, 5(1), 1-5.

Siggerud, M. (2011). Superintendent search tips from the pros. St. Peter, MN:

Minnesota School Board Association.

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory

procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Stinson, T., & Gillaspy, T. (2011). Minnesota and the new normal [PowerPoint slides].

Retrieved from http://www.amsd.org/docs/2011%20winter

%20conference/Gillaspy%20Stinson%20ppt.pdf

122

Sutton, C. A., & Jobe, M. P. (2008). 2007 state of the superintendency mini-survey:

Aspiring to the superintendency. Retrieved from http://www.aasa.org

/WorkArea/linkit.aspx?LinkIdentifier=id&ItemID=6180

Thiele, F. W. (2011). State mandate relief package includes two Thiele proposals to

reduce school costs. Retrieved from http://assembly.state.ny.us/mem/Fred-W-

Thiele-Jr/story/43591

Weldon, T. (2011). Share-a-superintendent becomes law in Oklahoma. The Council of

State Governments. Retrieved from http://knowledgecenter.csg.org

Winchester, C. B. (1999). The shared school superintendency in Nebraska: Is it

efficient? (Field study). Kearney, NB: University of Nebraska at Kearney.

Winchester, C. B. (2003). A multi-site case study of the shared superintendency in

Nebraska (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Lincoln, NE: University of

Nebraska.

Winchester, C. B. (2006). My experience as a shared superintendent. The School

Administrator, 63(3).

Woll, D. (1988). Do two hats spell double trouble? The School Administrator, 45(11),

40-41.

Wright, P. (2010, May 21). Letter to division superintendents. Retrieved from

http://www.doe.virginia.gov/administrators/superintendents_memos/2010/121-

10.shtml

Yee, C. M. (2010, November 7). Open enrollment: A year to pay attention. Star Tribune,

Retrieved from http://www.startribune.com/business/106795933.html

http://www.startribune.com/business/106795933.html

123

APPENDICES

124

APPENDIX A

Superintendent Survey

141

APPENDIX B

Interview Consent

142

Shared Superintendents

Consent for Interview

Informed Consent

You are invited to participate in a research study of shared superintendents in Minnesota. You were

selected as a possible participant because of your current status as a superintendent of more than one

public school.

This research project is being conducted by Sarah Mittelstadt to satisfy the requirements of a Doctorate

Degree in Educational Leadership at St Cloud State University.

Background Information and Purpose

With increased expenditures and decreased revenue, school districts are examining all possible alternatives

to reduce spending. One consideration used by districts is sharing a superintendent. The purpose of this

study is to research the effect of this arrangement.

Procedures

If you decide to participate, the Investigator will arrange a date and time of your convenience for a phone

interview. The Investigator will ask a series of predetermined questions; some probing of answers may

occur. This interview will be recorded digitally and transcribed at a later date. It is anticipated the

interview will take no longer than one hour.

Risks

Risks to participation are minimal. Risks to participation are similar to those experienced in day-to-day

life. There are no foreseeable risks to participation. You may request to withdraw at any time.

Benefits

No participant will receive any kind of direct benefit for this study.

Confidentiality

Information obtained during this study which could identify you will be kept confidential. Tapes and

transcripts of interviews will be kept in a locked file cabinet and secure electronic files. The summarized

findings with no identifying information may be published in an academic journal or at professional

conferences.

Although the names of individual subjects will be kept confidential, there is a possibility you may be

identifiable by your comments in the published research. You will have an opportunity to review the text

and withdraw comments prior to publication.

Research Results

At your request, I am happy to provide a summary of the research results when the study is completed.

Contact Information

If you have questions right now, please ask. If you have additional questions later, you may contact me at

507-848-5933 or [email protected] or John Eller at [email protected] 320-308-4272. You

will be given a copy of this form for your records.

Voluntary Participation/Withdrawal

Participation is voluntary. Your decision whether or not to participate will not affect your current or future

relations with St. Cloud State University, the researcher, John Eller, or the Minnesota Association of

School Administrators. If you decide to participate, you are free to withdraw at any time without penalty.

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

143

Acceptance to Participate

Your completion of the interview indicates that you have read the information provided above and have

decided to participate. You may withdraw from the study at any time without penalty. When the phone

interview starts, you will be asked to give verbal consent for the interview.

144

APPENDIX C

Horn Interview Questions Consent to Replicate

Shared Superintendents: A Minnesota Perspective

Documents

Transcript of Shared Superintendents: A Minnesota Perspective