Los supervisores de escuelas encaran demandas aumentadas de liderazgo de componentes diversos, los desafíos debido a corriente condiciones, y debido a las oportunidades económicas y políticas colocadas evolucionando tendencias y reformas. Los supervisores están en el puesto clave de hacer mejoras sistémicas de escuela una prioridad mayor, para asignar recursos para promover la importancia y la implementación de esas mejoras, y para dirigir y apoyar lo que directores deben hacer para mantener liderazgo instruccional en el foco claro y a la cabeza de sus órdenes del día. Cumplir mejor tales responsabilidades, los supervisores deben escoger resueltamente quedarse corriente con demandas existentes y para dirigir futuras necesidades. Este artículo presenta los resultados de un estudio preliminar en la auto-identificación de supervisores de necesidades profesionales de desarrollo se basaron en estándares reconocidos de liderazgo y las preferencias de esos supervisores para métodos profesionales de entrega de desarrollo.

Superintendents of schools are expected to efficiently manage school system operations while thriving as “strong instructional leaders, conversant with information about educational best practice, and the process of change” (Maxfield, Wells, Keane, & Klocko, 2008, p. 13). In both instances, they are increasingly confronted by stakeholders’ demands to do more in their positions as school system leaders, and to do it better (Helsing, Howell, Kegan, & Lahey, 2008).

The growing expectations of what superintendents should accomplish in their jobs are paralleled by the necessity of being able to function in and respond to evolving, complex, and often tenuous environments (Lewis, Rice, & Rice, 2011). Superintendents’ duties require them to understand and respond appropriately therein to the demands of current conditions. They also are responsible for recognizing and comprehending the potential challenges and opportunities of emerging educational reforms and continually developing trends in teaching, learning, and leadership.

Superintendents must understand what they need to do as leaders and how to adjust the manner in which they perform as leaders to promote the likelihood for bringing about improved school system-wide educational outcomes in all areas. If they are to survive and be successful leaders, superintendents must first be able to recognize the extent of their leadership knowledge and the limitations of their leadership abilities and skills. Then, they must know how to identify their specific areas of need and how to purposefully address them through opportunities for leadership growth and development.

Practicing superintendents, especially those with longer tenure in the position who graduated years ago from leadership programs, were not always fully prepared for the work they needed to do (Reeves & Berry, 2009). Academic institutions responsible for the preparation of new administrators, however, acknowledged the ever increasing demands school leaders were required to address and responded by revising their programs to provide more comprehensive and relevant leadership skills, competencies, and experiences (Orr, 2006).

The revision of educational leadership programs by colleges and universities was also influenced by the prominence of recognized program standards and performance standards. Program standards, such as the Educational Leadership Constituent Council (ELCC) Program Standards, served to “guide [the] planning, implementing, and accrediting of administrator preparation programs” (National Policy Board for Educational Administration, n. d., p.1). Performance standards, such as the Educational Leadership Policy Standards: ISLLC 2008, established leadership “performance expectations [to] facilitate curriculum development, candidate assessment, and accountability” (Council of Chief State School Officers, 2008, p. 11).

Leadership standards were referred to as “the heart of 21^st-century school leadership, as they inform what school leaders should know and be able to do” (Green, 2010, p. 9). School leaders were described as needing

Research over a decade ago showed that superintendents, new as well as veteran, desired continuing, post-collegiate professional development to help them “effectively deal with the demands and complexities of the job” (Holloway, 2001, p. 85). The same applied with respect to superintendents’ needs for on-going ways to gain insights about and to receive training in emerging leadership trends, practices, and reform initiatives (Wong & Nicotera, 2007).

Compared to the literature and research about the professional development of teachers, less information existed about school leaders’ professional development (Firestone, Hayes, Robinson, & Shalaby, 2008). Most of what was available in that regard pertained largely to the roles and responsibilities of principals (Chapman, 2005; Lunenburg & Ornstein, 2008).

Information in the literature and research was less prevalent regarding superintendents’ professional development. Some recognition was given, however, that superintendents’ professional development should be based on “a coherent model that is grounded in national standards” (Holloway, 2001, p. 85). The limited amount of existing data indicated the content of superintendents’ professional development was largely generalized “rather than aligned with specific needs of superintendents or district problems, [was] rarely standards based, and employ[ed] questionable pedagogical practices [that were] short term, trainer focused, and context free” (Hoyle, Bjork, Collier, & Glass, 2005, p. 13).

Some instances were documented over the years about the availability of organized professional development for superintendents through leadership networks, partnerships, and professional organizations (Hardy, 2004; Kronley & Handley, 2001; Orr, 2007). Many organized professional development programs, however, were not readily available in all areas of the country or were often referred to as “fleeting, one-shot experiences” (The Wallace Foundation, 2009, p. 2).

Professional development can help superintendents stay current with changing conditions and demands and prepare them for what lies ahead. To do both, however, opportunities for superintendents’ professional development should be on-going (Green, 2010).

There has been a lack of information from the research regarding how administrators - including superintendents - “continue their professional learning over the course of their careers” (Leithwood, Louis, Anderson, & Wahlstrom, 2004, p. 67). Prior to engaging in such activities, however, the areas in which professional development is needed and/or desired must be identified (Lunenburg and Ornstein, 2008). There has also been a scarcity of information about how superintendents do that and how they determine their preferences for professional development delivery methods to meet their needs.

Participating in professional development activities derived from their self-identified needs should enhance the likelihood for superintendents to more successfully accomplish what they do and enhance how they behave as leaders (Mizell, 2010). Using recognized leadership standards as a framework from which to identify superintendents’ needs serves two purposes. First, the standards help clarify the needs because they are succinctly worded in terms of common leadership knowledge and skill areas that can be assessed. Second, because the standards are written in common leadership terms, superintendents can seek colleagues with similar needs who may be interested in sharing professional development activities.

Are superintendents able to use recognized leadership standards as a framework from which to self-identify their professional development needs? Are superintendents able to identify their preferences for methods of professional development delivery? Are there any commonalities among the self-identified professional development needs of superintendents in a given geographic region? Are there any commonalities among the preferences for professional development delivery methods of superintendents in a given geographic region?

Superintendents’ self-identification of professional development needs based on recognized leadership standards should be explored. Identifying superintendents’ preferences for professional development delivery methods to address their needs should also be investigated.

This study was designed as a preliminary examination of the self-identified professional developments needs of a population of public school district superintendents of schools (superintendents) in a geographically identified region of New York State. The study was used as a base for the development of a wider investigation of similar information from a larger population of superintendents in other regions of New York State and throughout the state. The preliminary study was made in conjunction with a comparable study of the self-identified professional development needs of a population of public school district building-level principals in the same geographic region.

The superintendents were asked to complete a needs assessment to identify their levels of need for their personal professional development for each of the 31 functions contained within the six Educational Leadership Policy Standards: ISLLC 2008 (ISLLC Standards). The needs assessment also asked the superintendents to consider eight different professional development delivery methods and to identify for each of them their level of preference for its use as a way to address their identified professional development needs. Information was also sought from the superintendents about their districts’ enrollments and five items of personal information.

This preliminary study provided the participating superintendents and the researchers with data about the extent to which professional development needs based on the ISLLC Standards were shared among the respondents. The results supply information for use in developing regionally shared professional development activities for the superintendents. The ability to develop those activities should be enhanced because the superintendents’ identified needs were based on the same standards.

The results also provide information about commonalities among the superintendents’ rankings of various professional development delivery methods. Awareness of that information should facilitate the ability to design the content and offer the delivery of professional development activities to superintendents through methods that are known to them and that are aligned with their preferences.

The means used to obtain the results of the study may provide superintendents in other Board of Cooperative Educational Services (BOCES) regions with ways to identify their own professional development needs as well as their preferred professional development delivery methods.

The districts’ enrollments and the superintendents’ personal information from the study provide a baseline for comparisons and statistical analyses with similar data to be collected from larger populations of superintendents. The superintendents’ levels of need for professional development based on the ISLLC Standards and their preferences for delivery methods also give a baseline for comparisons to be made with the same type of data from the parallel study of public school district building-level principals in the same geographic region.

All superintendents – new and veteran – face myriad increasing leadership demands from diverse constituents, challenges due to current conditions, and opportunities posed by evolving trends and developing reforms. Superintendents are the most familiar with such dynamics and the impacts they have on their respective jobs and abilities. Superintendents are in the best position to identify the areas in which they need professional development to augment their leadership knowledge and skills. Accordingly, they should be provided with well-reasoned ways to identify their specific professional development needs and delivery preferences to optimize their abilities to more ably fulfill their duties and responsibilities. Doing so is essential because the superintendent’s job of “leading an educational organization demands a lifetime of learning [and] requires professional development over the course of a career” (Reeves & Berry, 2009, p. 9).

The population in the study consisted of 66 superintendents of 66 public school systems located within part of the western-central region of New York State. The geographically identified region of New York State used for this study consisted of four contiguous BOCES supervisory districts. The four BOCES supervisory districts contained within them all of the 66 public school systems in the study. Organized under section 1950 of New York Education Law, BOCES “is a voluntary, cooperative association of school districts in a geographic area that share planning, services, and programs to provide educational and support activities more economically, efficiently, and equitably than could be provided by an individual district” (New York State School Boards Association and the New York State Bar Association, 2010, p. 123). Because the BOCES supervisory districts were already recognized as units of public school systems, they were used to identify the region for this study rather than trying to identify some other groupings.

An anonymous needs assessment was distributed in the late fall of 2010 to each of the 66 superintendents through their respective Regional District Superintendents (i.e., the four superintendents of the four BOCES). Approximately two weeks later, follow-up reminders were sent to all of the superintendents via email messages. The needs assessment was adapted from that used by Salazar (2001). Salazar’s (2001) needs assessment was found to be valid and reliable following field testing, a pilot study, and subsequent revisions.

First, the needs assessment distributed in the late fall of 2010 sought information from each of the superintendents about the student enrollments of their school districts and about five categories of personal information: gender, age, highest earned degree, years of experience as an administrator, and years in their current position.

Second, the needs assessment asked each of the superintendents to use a four-point Likert-type scale to select their level of need for their own personal professional development for each of the 31 functions reflected in the six ISLLC Standards. The four levels were: 1 = Not a Need, 2 = Low Need, 3 = Moderate Need, or 4 = High Need.

Third, the needs assessment asked each of the superintendents to use a four-point Likert-type scale to select their level of preference for each of eight different professional development delivery methods. The four levels were: 1 = Not a Preference, 2 = Low Preference, 3 = Moderate Preference, or 4 = High Preference.

Of the 66 needs assessments distributed, 60, or 90.9%, were returned.

The high response rate (90.9%) indicated the participating superintendents were very interested in identifying their levels of need for their own professional development based on the 31 functions of the six ISLLC Standards. The high response rate also indicated the superintendents were interested in identifying their preferences for methods of delivering professional development.

The data in column 4 of Table 3 show there was substantial agreement among the respondents in terms of areas of high need for their professional development. Ten of the 31 functions were identified as areas of high need for professional development by 25% or more of the respondents. When the respondents’ selections for moderate need were combined with their selections for high need, the same ten functions were selected by 70% or more of the responding superintendents.

Five of the ten top-ranked functions identified in Table 3 were contained within ISLLC Standard II, “An educational leader promotes the success of every student by advocating, nurturing and sustaining a school culture and instructional program conducive to student learning and staff professional growth.” The two functions identified in Table 4 were also contained within ISLLC Standard II. This information indicated high interest among the respondents for professional development pertaining directly to instruction; specifically in areas of developing assessment and accountability systems to monitor student progress, monitoring and evaluating the impact of instructional programs, creating a comprehensive, rigorous, and coherent curricular program, maximizing time spent on quality instruction, and creating a personalized and motivating learning environment for students.

Of the remaining six of the ten top-ranked functions, only two were contained within the same ISLLC Standard. These were contained in ISLLC Standard VI, “An educational leader promotes the success of every student by understanding, responding to, and influencing the political, social, economic, legal and cultural context.” This indicated the responding superintendents were also interested in professional development related to influencing local, district, state, and national decisions affecting student learning and in areas of assessing, analyzing, and anticipating emerging trends and initiatives in order to adapt leadership strategies.

There was also agreement among the respondents regarding their top-ranked preferences for professional development delivery methods. The same three methods (workshops, small study groups, and mentoring/coaching) were identified when ranked as high preference as well as when ranked as moderate preference and high preference combined. Compared to the other five delivery methods, the three top-ranked selections are aligned with networking and with face-to-face formats. Also, the three top-ranked methods would appear to provide more direct involvement by the superintendents in their professional development activities than the other methods. That is, workshop, small study group, and mentoring/coaching delivery methods should offer and provide participation that is more active, interpersonal, and collegial than the other methods.

With the possible exception of professional development via a self-paced on-line format, the workshop, small study group, and mentoring/coaching delivery methods are more informal in nature than the other methods. The three can also be more readily offered on “home ground” as opposed to traveling to state and/or national conferences or attending professional development activities in more formal settings, such as at a college or a university.

The focus of the present study was limited to identifying the professional development needs of superintendents based on recognized leadership standards and their preferences for delivery methods. One of the next pursuits will be to use that data to determine the specific professional development content the superintendents desire. Such an approach may help to minimize the potential for professional development content that is “general rather than aligned with specific needs of superintendents or district problems, is rarely standards based, and employs questionable pedagogical practices [that are] short term, trainer focused, and context free” (Hoyle, Bjork, Collier, & Glass, 2005, p. 13).

As with other educators, the major purpose of professional development for superintendents is to present on-going opportunities to “learn new skills, acquire new knowledge, and develop new attitudes” (Kowalski, Lasley, & Mahoney, 2008, p. 230). The intended outcomes of professional development opportunities based on the superintendents’ self-identified areas of need are to increase their capabilities to more effectively lead their school systems, especially in the areas of teaching and learning. Research has confirmed that the quality of those three areas and the quality of instructional leadership are directly related to and are the most significant factors for continually improving the levels of student achievement (Mizell, 2010).

Superintendents are in unique positions to underscore and to support through their actions the importance of professional leadership development for other district-level and building-level leaders (Teitel, 2006). Their abilities in that regard are crucial because, as the chief instructional leaders of their school systems, “superintendents must be models of continuous professional learning” (Sparks, 2002, p. 5). By modeling the importance of and participation in on-going professional leadership development, superintendents send powerful messages to their principals. Prime among them is that the continuing growth of principals as building-level instructional leaders is “a fundamental ingredient of successful school improvement” (Nicholson, Harris-John, & Schimmel, 2005, p. 19).

The present study was preliminary in nature. It sought and examined a limited amount of self-reported information from a small population of public school superintendents in a geographically identified region of New York State. The superintendents were asked to identify (a) brief demographic information, (b) their professional development needs, (b) their preferences for professional development delivery methods. Since the study was limited to one region, the results are not intended to be generalized to other parts of New York State, let alone to other areas of the country.

Another recognized limitation of the present study was that it did not seek information from the respondents about their number of years of service as superintendents of schools prior to the number of years as superintendents in their current positions. The present study also did not ask the respondents about the nature or the duration of their other administrative positions prior to becoming superintendents.

The format of the present study involved the superintendents self-reporting their professional development needs and their preferences for its delivery. Although the use of such techniques has been recognized in some instances as being “vulnerable to self-report bias in which [the respondents] may report results that are self-serving” (Goldring, Huff, Spillane, & Barnes, 2009, p. 206), the intent of the present study was to seek exactly that type of result.

The 31 functions contained within the six ISLLC Standards were used by the participating superintendents to identify their perceived levels of need for professional development. The 31 functions provided common descriptors for the superintendents’ consideration. The six ISLLC Standards and the 31 functions have been regarded as important because they “set parameters for developing professional development and evaluation systems that can readily facilitate performance growth of all education leaders” (Council of Chief State School Officers, 2008, p. 16).

The present study was paralleled by another preliminary investigation of similar data regarding the self-identified professional development needs of public school principals in the same geographically identified region. Because both of those studies were preliminary in nature and confined to a particular region, their results can not be able to be generalized to other settings. However, the results of both studies can be used to prepare more comprehensive investigations and analyses of the professional development needs and the preferred delivery methods identified by the principals and by the superintendents of public school districts throughout other regions of New York State. In particular, such research could examine if there are regional and state-wide commonalities and differences between and among:

While principals are central for leading instructional improvements at school building levels, the instructional leadership of superintendents is essential for those improvements to occur throughout their school systems. Superintendents are in the key position to make systemic instructional improvement a major priority, to allocate resources to promote its progress and importance, and to direct and support what principals need to do to keep instructional leadership at the top of their agendas. To better and more ably fulfill such significant responsibilities, superintendents must purposefully choose to remain up-to-date with current conditions and to recognize the opportunities and challenges that lie ahead. Superintendents can enhance their potential for successfully doing so by investing in personal, on-going professional development based on their self-identified levels of needs that are framed within recognized leadership standards.