Can Superintendents Raise Test Scores?

John Deasy, who was appointed superintendent of the 672,000-student Los Angeles district in January, will be evaluated … on improvement in the graduation rate, student proficiency and attendance. But he also has the opportunity to earn up to $30,000 in bonuses if the district sees an 8 or more percentage point increase in 3rd-grade scores on the state’s reading test, the percentage of students scoring proficient or advanced in 9th-grade algebra, and the four-year-graduation rate….

Jean-Claude Brizard, the chief executive officer of the 409,000-student Chicago schools, will be evaluated on such performance measures as: increasing the percentage of high schoolers who graduate within five years from 55.8 to 60 percent; improving from 27 to 35 percent the share of high schoolers who earn at least a 20 out of 36 on the ACT college entrance exam, and increasing the percentage of students passing the state standardized test for 3rd-grade reading from 57.8 to 70 percent….

Because school boards and mayors assume that measures of good schools can be found  in rising test scores, high school graduation rates, and college admissions, they hire superintendents to be instructional leaders, astute managers, and wily politicians to carry out board mandates and ensure that desired improvements occur. They also push out superintendents–just ask Chicago’s Jean-Claude Brizard who just left days ago after 17 months in office.

So superintendent contracts include clauses on raising test  scores. But can they do so? The literature on the superintendency, with few exceptions, answers  “yes” to the question.  When writers, policy makers, and administrators mention successful school chiefs they point to increasing scores on standardized achievement tests, high percentages of graduates entering college, and National Merit Scholarship finalists (SuperintendentLeadership)

Yet when superintendents are asked how they get scores or graduation rates to go up, the question is often answered with a wink or a shrug of the shoulders. Even among most researchers and administrators who write and grapple with this question of whether superintendents can improve test scores, there is no explicit model of effectiveness.

How exactly does a school chief who is completely dependent on an elected school board, district office staff that prior superintendents appointed, a cadre of principals in schools whom he or she may see monthly, and teachers who shut their doors once class begins–raise test scores, decrease dropouts, and increase college attendance? Without some model by which a superintendent can be shown to have causal effects, test scores going up or down remain a mystery, a matter of luck that the results occurred during that school chief’s tenure.

Many school chiefs, of course, believe they can improve student achievement. They have in their heads what I call the Rambo or Michelle Rhee model of superintending. Strong leader + clear reform plan + swift reorganization + urgent mandates + crisp incentives and penalties =  desired student outcomes. Think former New York City Chancellor Joel Klein, ex-Miami-Dade Superintendent Rudy Crew, and Alan Bersin in San Diego.

There are, of course, other models that are less heroic and mirror more accurately the complex, entangled world of moving policy to classroom practice through a school board, superintendent, principals, teachers, students, and parents. One model depicts indirect influence where superintendents shape a district culture of improvement, spend time on instructional issues, train principals to run schools, and work closely with teachers in supporting and prodding them to take on new challenges in their classrooms. Think Carl Cohn in Long Beach (CA), Tom Payzant in Boston (MA) and Laura Schwalm in Garden Grove (CA). Such an indirect approach is less mythical, takes a decade or more, and is less dependent upon the superintendent being Superman or Wonder Woman.

Whether school chiefs or their boards have a Rambo model, one of indirect influences, or other models in their minds, some theory exists to explain how they have an impact on student academic performance. Without some explanation for how they influence district office administrators, principals, teachers, and students to perform better than they have, most school chiefs have to figure out their own personal cause-effect model or rely upon chance.

Some superintendents, for example, figure that working 60-70-hour weeks insures that there will be payoff in student improvements. Other superintendents figure that showering the district with reforms will eventually produce some results that might improve student performance. And even other superintendents size up the situation as mysterious; they hope that they will get lucky and the students tested next year will make higher scores than this year’s group. The lack of attention to linkages between superintendent actions and student outcomes prompts those in office to keep their fingers crossed behind their backs.

What is needed are GPS navigation systems imprinted in school board members’ and superintendents’ heads that contains the following:

*A map of the political, managerial, and instructional roles superintendents perform, public schools’ competing purposes, and the constant political responsiveness of school boards to constituencies that inevitably create persistent conflicts.

*a clear cause-effect model of how superintendents influence others to do what has to be done,

*a practical and public definition of what will constitute success for school boards and superintendents.

Such a navigation system and map are steps in the direction of accurately answering the question of whether superintendents can raise test scores.


Filed under school leaders, school reform policies

11 responses to “Can Superintendents Raise Test Scores?

  1. I know nothing about being a superintendent, but I think a legit turnaround takes longer than the average tenure of a school chief (3ish years). No matter what you think of Michelle Rhee, if you can’t weather political storms to see change through you weren’t very effective…just leaves a mess behind for someone else to mop up. I think a fine line needs to be walked between professional respect, accountability, and growing a culture of reflection and learning. No small task.

  2. Gary Ravani

    Well, there is one clear and “successful” way superintendents can drive up test scores in their districts: cheating.

    As demonstrated in Atlanta, and now El Paso Texas, superintendents have managed to get those test scores to soar. In Atlanta it was a widespread atmosphere of fear and intimidation that got it done. In El Paso, taking a more direct route, the superintendent just “pushed out hundreds of low-performing sophomores to prevent them from taking accountability tests.” (AP news) Not only did he get those test scores, but also $56,000 in bonuses.

    Some may suggest this was going too far, but what the hey, when it comes to “improving test scores” the sky is the limit.

    Did I mention that the superintendent now faces 3 1/2 years in prison? There’s a downside to everything I guess. I wonder if Deasy, down in LAUSD, knows about this?

  3. Ajay Srikanth

    Terrific article. One minor correction: did you mean Joel Klein, former chancellor of NYC, instead of Joel Levin? Also, I would argue that the Rambo model of school reform has been proven to do more damage than good as it encourages cheating (see Wahsington DC, El Paso, Atlanta) and stat games. And the phenomenon you describe appears not to be limited to education. The television series The Wire does a terrific job of demonstrating this

    • larrycuban

      Many thanks for pointing out the error I made in Joel Klein’s name. Of the 500 who clicked onto that post, you were the only one to point my mistake. I made the correction. I appreciate that and references to the El Paso superintendent who will go to jail for cheating and, of course, what happened in season four of “The Wire” around the teacher, the school, and district data. Although fictitious, “The Wire” had much truth in it.

  4. Pingback: Links 10/19/12 | Mike the Mad Biologist

  5. Joseph McCauley

    We used to describe the jobs of a super:A politician who keeps education at the front of the public eye and can rally public support for schools..or
    An inspiring educational leader who has the loyalty of the teachers, who keeps teachers on the beam with “best practices”. .or maybe an excellent manager who keeps resources going to where they are needed most.
    A run-of-the-mill super is one of these things. A good super is two of these things, and there ain’t too many folks around who can do all three, yet it is worth the trouble to find them.
    It also needs to be an educator’s last job.

    • larrycuban

      Thanks, Joseph, for ranking the roles that superintendents must perform. Evaluating whether they perform well one, two, or three roles is one I had not considered.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s