0.3 Preparing and training superintendents for the mission of  (Page 5/23)

Policy and procedures in school districts often appear to be management statements. The division betweensuperintendent, leadership, and management might be:

• Leadership is“influencing”the community, staff, board, and students.
• Leadership is“guiding”in setting abstracts such as goals, vision, etc.
• Leadership is“persuading”staff to put aside self interests.
• Management is“shaping”district management systems to produce results.
• Management is“supervising”and insuring worker productivity.

Leadership overall recognizes the total school district and attempts to influence it or its employees in acertain direction. Management is actually accomplishing the task (Hersey&Blanchard, 1988).

As Lunenberg and Ornstein (2000) point out, a school organization does not need good leadership to survive. Poorleadership in a district may not affect the overall operation for years. However, poor management quickly impairs the organizationeffectiveness.

A Management Training Platform

Most education leadership literature is strangely silent about district level management as the essentialfoundation or platform necessary for productive district system leadership. Without a solid district level management platform,leadership strategies of any type are likely to flounder or be seriously impeded. It is a challenge to find a high academicachieving district without competent fiscal, budget, facilities, personnel, curriculum, and support services management. A plethoraof school based activities, if well supported by the central office, allow principals to better focus on the tasks of academicimprovement.

If this management support is not present, principals may be likely to be in a continual struggle“against”the central office. This dichotomy of the principal’s struggle to improve achievement and the struggle with a district central officeis likely a strong contributor to“failing schools.”Superintendents in high achieving districts are often characterized as being effective leaders; and those in chronically poor achievingdistricts are frequently thought of as ineffective leaders (Education Writers Association, 2003). Seldom is there discussionas to whether they are effective or ineffective managers in“leading”district management efforts.

By necessity, massive urban districts supporting hundreds of schools have created large hierarchical“classical”bureaucracies featuring a reliance on classical“scientific management”theory (now reinforced by NCLB). The number and complexity of essential management functions is difficult tosee if looking from outside the organization. Few reformers and critics realize these large bureaucracies are very much a partoffederal and state government actions created over a hundred years. In many respects they mirror any large governmentalbureaucracy. They are unlike large corporations that change organizational structure when threatened with loss of profits andpossible extinction. Smaller districts (like smaller private sector businesses) are usually closer to“customers”and can change organizational structures to meet public demand.