The format of the conference involved a midmorning breakdown into three discussion panels. Three panels of five practicing superintendents and faculty from the EAPS department discussed various aspects of the role of the grade k-12 district superintendent in the mid 1990's. One panel began with the sharing and collaborating function, another with the negotiating and bargaining aspects of the role and the third panel started with concerns for implementing and restructuring

The logistics for each panel were handled by two doctoral students in the EAPS program and a great academic interest in the school administration and the superintendency; Sally Rojek, William Kennedy, Micheal Smith, Hollis Palmer, Rosemarie Rosen and Lorraine Sleezer. Although not originally slated to be a convenor, Art Recesso also helped in this role. The student convenors were responsible for starting the panels, recording the proceedings and providing summary notes of what transpired.

Because the students were in a unique position to hear the panel discussions and reflect upon what was said, their perspectives are especially valuable in guessing at the meaning of the k-12 superintendency in the future. Lorraine Sleezer, Art Recesso and RoseMarie Rosen have provided the thoughts the conference triggered after thinking about what was discussed for a few months. Each offers an interesting supplement to the perspectives of the four superintendents about mindframes, needs for transforming changes and conceding the political reality of our times.

Change can be difficult. Reluctance to change in school districts is sometimes a legitimate reaction to experiences of "changing for change's sake" rather than to an in depth needs assessment or long range plan. In situations where change occurs because of a new "cure" to problems in education, the change initiative is likely to be quickly reversed as staff reverts to the comfort of former actions.

To overcome reluctance and effect long term positive change, the superintendent must involve as many stakeholders as possible to establish a vision for the district. A gap analysis can clearly show the discrepancy between what is and what should be. Without a shared vision, however, the district is likely to imitate the dilemma of Alice in Wonderland when trying to implement change -- "if you do not know where you are going, any road will take you there. "

It is unrealistic to believe that each and every stakeholder will become immediately involved or to share a common vision. To achieve as much participation as possible, the superintendent must recognize there are different styles of personal involvement. Knowing a participant's style is as important as knowing the frame of mind they have in approaching the task of helping schools improve.

The explorers have a natural style of curiosity. They will be out in front with the change oriented superintendent, willing to try new things and assisting in process of constant restructuring. The frontiersmen (and women) are right behind the explorers and are naturally willing to support restructuring. Where explorers are likely to work alone, the frontier folk like to innovate as teams. Either way, these are natural allies to start and "pilot" change efforts.

As important as explorers and frontier types are, participants with the settler style are the ones that determine is change endures. Settlers demand evidence of successful new practice that can be compared with previous track records of actual experience. Like a town or city growing, the first wave of settlers will be more focused upon what "works" in their personal setup (i.e. the teacher's own classroom), while later waves of settlers may capitalize on providing support to those who arrived first (i.e. general support for the school's reform effort).

Finally, the superintendent must accept that the style of some people is to not be convinced of change no matter what. This attitude is prevalent regardless of whether the person is "pro school" or not. The obligation of the superintendent is to keep the door of participation open with the attitude, "wait and see and, perhaps, join us later." On the other hand, the superintendent who is facing active sabotage of change efforts because of this style preference must make the "don't stand in our way" warning crystal clear.

The acid test for changes that actually become embedded is when people view new attitudes and actions as natural and commonplace. Restructuring is not accomplished in a day, week or month. Restructuring is a process as much as a change result is a goal. A constant review of the vision and its pragmatic translation into action steps must be done. Performance results and the state of mind of the stakeholders involved tell the tale. If the vision needs changing, the district needs the courage to do so.

When we think of state wide reform initiatives to improve the public schools we must remember the level of disjointedness in commitment and communication among school people and citizens. In order for large scale change to occur there must be a basic threshold of unity in understanding, possibly with a common vision. The individuality preserved by the decentralization and closed nature of the public school system works against such an expression of unity.

The state mandate for Shared Decision Making committees at each local school site is a large step toward involvement of the local public in educational matters but does not solve the fractured and fragmented nature of schooling state wide. The structure of disjointed may be actually reinforced with Shared Decision Making mechanisms in operation. Inflexibility in scheduling, physical structures, lack of development in staff and feeling of isolation by the general community may remain.

Introducing partnerships, creating short term dreams of what things might be done and facilitating community involvement do not guarantee major systemic changes. There is a much larger need for what it takes to challenge the immobility of public schools and create a real reform of New York State public education. The investment in changing must focus upon the involvement of teachers and the expectation that the system needs help from top to bottom. This does not mean sending teachers to a couple of inservice seminars or conferences and hoping they incorporate some new ideas into classroom practices. There must be a sense of common destiny that public education will be transforming into something better. There must be a sense of professional expectation that commitment and communication as educators will find the common unity.

The trouble has always been that change initiatives start, politics change, funding dries up and we look desperately for the next "something new." One locality cannot stand against the tide and perpetuate a long term initiative. The general overhaul of public schools demands a concession to the time it takes to really change State Education Department focus and leadership, to change the university/college preparation of future educators, to change the community/business/industry perceptions of authentic partners in educating children for life after school. Only a general sense of unity will overcome such disjointedness. Without expectations for the common glue of unity, long term persistent change efforts become a joke.

A modern day superintendent's time is spent nurturing a vision of change and trying to move some or all members of the school community toward it. Whether that change involves labor contracts, budgets, student performance standards, assessment, enrollment patterns or plant configurations, the superintendent pushes and pulls, cheerleads and doing whatever is necessary to go forward.

I was very impressed with the superintendents at the conference who were expressing the above statements. It seemed the doctoral student with enough energy and the right strategy could advance toward success in the superintendency.

Three things have changed my mind since that time. First, I applied for a superintendency. Second, I happened to have conversations with a teacher and parent in two of the districts represented at the conference. Third, a district with which I am familiar and which I found myself doggedly resistant to shared decision making is receiving awards and public acknowledgment for great success in implementing this state mandate.

In the first case, I had done my homework, researched the statistics on the district and writing an application that I thought contained exciting ideas about education and change. I did not even get an initial interview with the Board. I was told by the consultant helping with the hiring that the Board found my papers "intimidating."

In the second case I had been very impressed by the success of two participants at the conference who had talked about their success in winning teachers over to a new set of performance standards in one case and gaining passage of a budget in a conservative community in the other. In both cases, the subsequent "on site" impressions were very different. Teachers and parents felt that they were being pushed too hard by a too aggressive superintendent and were feeling uncomfortable with the outcomes. They felt the superintendent had a lot of fence mending to do.

In the final case, what I am observing is a district that, by outside measures like standard test scores and college acceptance rates, is exhibiting strong academic success. Yet, there is very little impetus for real change in the district and very strong resistance for any meaningful parent or teacher participation in the district's shared decision making.

What does this mean for the discussion and impressions of the conference? My rethinking leads me to conclude that the psychological and political chemistry between a superintendent and the school community is far more complex than the conference discussions leads one to believe. A good example of the education chemistry at work is the selection of the superintendent. The CEO of a multi-million dollar corporation can be hired by the simple nod of the right head. Superintendent candidates must agree cheerfully to any number of public meetings and be prepared to offer all the universal truths with offending any important group of stakeholders. Not only does this impossible task raise the order of abstraction in any impression giving but the superintendent candidate may go home believing he or she has a contract only to find out the next morning that a new rolling of the bones caused the Board to change its vote.

Certainly, the psychological and political chemistry needed for a school superintendent rests with the notion of "fit." Conference discussions of fit emphasized that it is essential to achieve tenure but also to get things done while in office. fit can be called the secular context of mores, culture, zeitgeist. Sometimes, unfortunately, context rests on race, gender, or socio-economic predisposition. The superintendent that fits must match in personal values and style.

There are three sources in the literature that may help other doctoral students thinking on these matters. Since the mid l950's writers such as Andrew Halpin have asserted that public service administrators could only be charged with the public management task by a consensus from the community. Administrator success is to be judged by the degree such consensus is achieved and perpetuated. My experience since the conference suggests that the Board and general community may provide different perceptions and political meanings about the meaningful participation of parents and citizens in shared decision making. The particular meaning of "representation," like the concept of "fit," depends upon the actual description of the local context.

Second, Lawrence Miller writes that particular frames of mind lead to administrator styles and that these styles must be coupled to the life cycle of the organization. A beginning organization and a mature organization may want the same administrator for very different reasons or, more likely, want administrators with very different styles. Miller identifies the styles of prophet, barbarian, the builder, the manager and the aristocrat. Prophets and barbarians try to bring change at any cost. This style fits only with organizations just starting up or facing certain failure. In contrast, an organization that has achieved order and long term stability will fit with the manager or aristocratic styles. We may wish to think of how the concepts of citizen participation and Board stability fit with the ideas of Lawrence Miller.

Finally, Bolman and Deal identify four frames of decision making perceptions; structural, human relations, political and symbolic. A human resource manager, for example, frames decision outcomes in terms of the extent of participation and the extent information was shared. The authors imply there are "best matches" between each of the four decision frames and personal repertoires for achieving organizational insight, versatility, energy and a tough skin to criticism.

We may want to remember the literature schemes the next time we hear panels of superintendents describing "what works" for them in successful administrative behaviors. Over generalization is a common problem in conference communication and it is the district context that reconfirms that school politics remains a special brand of reality.

Ms. Rosen suggests the following literature;

Andrew Halpin, "Ways of Knowing" in R. Campbell and R. Gregg(ed) Administrative Theory as a Guide to Action ( University of Chicago, l959)

Andrew Halpin, "The Fumbled Torch" in A. Kroll(ed) Issues in American Education

( Oxford Press, l970)

Lawrence Miller, Barbarians to Bureaucrats: Corporate Life Style Strategies ( Ballantine Books, l989)

L. Bolman and T. Deal, Modern Approaches to Understanding and Managing Organizations ( Jossey-Bass, l989)