Rural education has been the backbone of American education since the mid-1700s. As late as 1913, one-half of the school children in the United States were enrolled in the country’s 212,000 one-room schools. Today, 43% of the nation’s public schools are in rural communities, and nearly one-third of America’s school-aged children attend public schools in these communities (United States Department of Education, 2003). As such, these percentages reflect that “one of every six school-age child or youth attends a rural school” (Arnold, 2004, p. 4). In Texas, 53% of the 1,044 school districts have less than a thousand students enrolled (Texas Association of School Boards, 2004). Thus, rural school districts in Texas continue to be a significant part of the educational landscape and play an important role in the education of Texas children.
Effective leadership of rural school districts can be very complex and challenging (Canales, Tejeda-Delgado, & Slate, 2008). In fact, Arnold (2004) argued that “Rural school districts face a different set of challenges in recruiting administrators than do their urban and suburban counterparts (p. 8). Rural administrators must develop, execute, and supervise the total school program. Because administrators must do whatever is necessary to operate the program and support staff is frequently not available, administrative roles and responsibilities are many and varied. Under steady pressure from state departments of education, small schools’ boards of education find themselves forced to find ways to become more effective and efficient (Arnold, 2000). A common problem facing many small school districts is the lack of financial resources (Arnold, 2004). One common method of cutting costs in small districts is to combine the functions of administrators (Woll, 1988), with the most common combination being the superintendent/principal position. In many small school districts, the superintendent may be the sole administrator in the district. School boards are also inclined to favor the high degree of accountability that is handed down to the single administrator. When the superintendent is also the principal, layers of administration which sometimes shield poor performance or hinder communication are eliminated. Superintendent/principals also do not have to worry about dissention within the administrative staff. What the superintendent decides is communicated exactly as he or she imagines. It cannot be questioned by the elementary school principal, for example, because the superintendent and the principal are one (Woll, 1988).
An obvious benefit of combining administrative positions comes in the form of financial savings. Combining the superintendent and principal positions can save a district as much as 30,000 to 50,000 dollars per year (Woll, 1988). These savings can be very attractive to school boards, but the negative effects on the educational program can sometimes outweigh the financial gains.
Administrators in small rural school districts face particularly challenging jobs (Canales et al., 2008). Where job descriptions exist, they are frequently impossible to fulfill and at the same time, sufficiently ambiguous to allow for a variety of actions by those who control their positions. Small school administrators confront the responsibility of the customary task of running a school, including staffing, scheduling, conducting faculty meetings, drawing up a budget, and leading curriculum development. One of the primary differences between small school administrators and large school administrators is that the latter can delegate some tasks, whereas the former is often responsible for not only seeing that tasks are accomplished, but for actually performing the tasks (Wylie & Clark, 1991).
Superintendent/principal positions would be very beneficial to small schools if there were no negative consequences on the educational system. Unfortunately, small school superintendent/principals are not superhuman. “They are not able to do twice the work of their counterparts in large schools” (Woll, 1988, p.40). They are forced to prioritize their responsibilities (Canales et al., 2008), thus leaving many important duties undone. Curriculum development is a primary example. Debating against the need for comprehensive review and curriculum development is difficult. However, with having to manage the daily crises and routines, including discipline, communications with parents, and board members, it is easy to see how curriculum development can get neglected (Woll, 1988).
The dual administrative position also places a large amount of wear and tear on administrators and consequently, contributes to a high degree of stress and job turnover (Canales et al., 2008). Few administrators take this type of positions with the goal of staying there for the remainder of their careers. These dual positions are usually seen as stepping stones to higher single administrative positions, thus contributing to a high rate of turnover in the small school superintendency (Nachtigal, 1987).
An additional problem faced by the superintendent/principal is the lack of vertical insulation within the organization to protect the superintendent from every problem, issue, or concern that happens on a daily basis in a school district. In schools with full-time principals, many of these time consuming, relatively unimportant problems are addressed before they reach the superintendent’s desk, which allows more time to work on other issues such as curriculum development (Woll, 1988).
Safety concerns must also be dealt with when a superintendent doubles as the principal. For example, who is in charge when the dual administrator is absent or attending a meeting off campus? Generally, the district must depend on the cooperation of a teacher or business manager to take charge of the building – usually a person who is not a certified administrator. In small school districts where one administrator has the dual role of superintendent/principal, completing all the tasks in all operational areas becomes very burdensome due to the multiplicity of roles and limited personnel available for assistance. The small school administrator has to carry out a variety of functions not required by large district superintendents. Support personnel, curriculum specialists, and the administrative staff required by the ever-expanding state and federal programs are usually not affordable (Angney, 1986).
