A systematic review of research on educational superintendents

Abstract

This study aimed to contribute to knowledge about research on educational superintendents as decision-maker through a systematic review of research on this topic undertaken between 2000 and 2022. A literature search followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) approach. Of the 313 articles identified, 36 met the inclusion and quality criteria of the mixed-methods appraisal tool (MMAT) 2018. Six main areas emerged in research on superintendents’ decision-making tasks: policy implementation (n = 9), contextual issues (n = 7), general decision-making processes (n = 7), decision-making competence (n = 5), gender (n = 4), and values/ethics (n = 4). Results showed that most articles (28) were about research in the US. The review identified a lack of research about superintendents’ tasks as decision-makers, such as 1. knowledge about the significant differences between superintendents’ roles as decision-makers in urban and rural areas, 2. professional development programs for superintendents’ as decision-makers, and 3. studies about gender issues as the majority of teachers were women, while the majority of superintendents as decision-makers are men.

Keywords:

• Superintendent
• education
• systematic literature review
• decision-making

REVIEWING EDITOR:

• H. L. Wendy Pan, Tamkang University, China

SUBJECTS:

• School Leadership
• Management & Administration; Sustainability Education
• Training & Leadership; Education Policy & Politics

Introduction

Several countries have experienced the marketizing of education as a result of political decisions (Lundahl et al., 2013). Business-influenced movements have reformed public education, (Ford, 2020). Societal changes in how education is managed puts demands on the roles of professionals. One actor who becomes more important when education undergoes marketization is the superintendent as a manager. The superintendent role is not easy to identify, because the approach varies depending on contextual differences, as well as societal expectations and policies. There have been several large-scale reforms in the US during the last two decades, with a stronger focus on marketization and societal demands to improve education. Superintendents have been seen as key actors in supporting and implementing policy-driven changes (Björk et al., 2014). Unlike the US, where superintendents have been serving schools since 1911 (Buck, 2005), some countries have only recently introduced, or re-introduced. superintendents to their education systems (Rapp et al., 2022). Thus, the formation and development of superintendents’ professional roles differ across countries. One notable fact is that even if female teachers are in the majority, only 24.1% of superintendents in the US are female (Maranto et al., 2018).

Superintendents face challenges in terms of how they position themselves within a politicized administrative system between principals and the district board, and how they interpret and implement various policies (Davidson & Hughes, 2019). Since the 1980s, publicly funded school systems in most Western democracies have been decentralized in an effort to cope with increasing complexity and to tackle a variety of local contexts and demands (Burns & Köster, 2016). Local school boards, to which members are either elected or appointed, are accountable for schools and educational quality in their respective districts (Hooge & Honingh, 2014). A superintendent, for example, the district’s chief executive officer (CEO), has the role within the chain of governance of assisting the school board to implement national policies and merge them with local policies and local schools’ educational ventures (Rapp et al., 2017).

Laws, regulations and policies guide and support superintendents’ decision-making. The superintendent has a pivotal function in the chain of governance as a mediator between these policies, school boards, administrative managers, principals, and teachers to ensure educational quality (Paulsen et al., 2014). A challenge for superintendents’ decision-making is situations where the superintendents’ personal values differ from the policies they are required to support in their professional role (Norberg & Johansson, 2007). To manage and implement the local policies, superintendents require good collaboration skills to navigate an education system characterized by loose or weak connections between various actors or tiers with a variety of responsibilities (Hautala et al., 2018; Weick, 1976). Thus, it is necessary to look more deeply at the foundation of superintendents’ strategic decision-making in terms of the considerations of various stakeholders (Brazer & Keller, 2006). Several studies have examined the link between educational or instructional leadership at the administrative level and student learning (Leithwood & Jantzi, 2008; Louis, 2015). However, there are wide variations in terms of how superintendents view themselves and how their roles as decision-makers are defined. Apart from playing a vital role in local policy-making processes, superintendents must sometimes play multiple, divergent roles as mediators, implementers, or gatekeepers (Johansson & Nihlfors, 2014). This review has been conducted to establish a knowledge base about superintendents’ roles as decision-makers in educational settings by summarizing research findings in the field.

Aim and research question

This systematic literature review (Hart, 2018) addresses the abovementioned gap, with the aim of contributing knowledge about research into the decision-making tasks undertaken by educational superintendents, and understanding the characteristics of superintendents’ duties as decision-makers at the administrative level. Thus, this study is guided by the following research questions:

1. What characterizes research on educational superintendents’ decision-making tasks at the administrative level?

2. What aspects of educational superintendents’ duties as decision-makers are considered in research?

Materials and methods

We based our review on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Statement (Moher et al., 2009; Page et al., 2021), following its flow diagram (see Figure 1). The PRISMA approach was used to ensure “a transparent, complete, and accurate account of why the review was done, what they did, and what they found” (Page et al., 2021: p. 1).

Figure 1. PRISMA flowchart.

Search strategy

Although there are differences between and within countries in terms of how education is governed, many democratic countries appoint a top executive in a school district with the authority to administer, create, implement, and enforce educational policy in accordance with local school boards’ visions. Thus, a critical task when identifying search terms in this review was to find a widespread term for educational leadership serving directly under the local education authority (LEA). An initial mapping of the topic area was undertaken on the basis of background information, idea searches, and the extant literature (Hart, 2018; Stenmark & Mumford, 2011), and two terms were found to be most widely used: superintendent and CEO. Both roles exist in a variety of contexts, for example, in the health-care sector, and they are often treated as indistinguishable (Rapp et al., 2022), although some argue that the term CEO is connected to the function of the superintendent as a member of the board, which only occurs in some countries, for example, the US (Honingh et al., 2020). Another search term could have been district director, but our focus was on the local level of educational government, rather than the district level. In line with this reasoning, superintendent was deemed a suitable umbrella term for the top executive in an LEA, although other terms were occasionally used, such as director of education (Rapp, 2011), or district director (Smith & Beckmann, 2014).

Search string

The search string used for the search conducted on 18 May 2022 was: (a) “school superintendent*” OR “superintendent*” OR “educational superintendent*” OR “school board*” OR “local school district governance” AND (b) “decision-making” OR “decision-making process” OR “decision-making in school administration”.

Databases

The systematic review searched for peer-reviewed scientific articles in three databases: Education Resources Information Center (ERIC), Education Research Completed (ERC), and Web of Science (WoS). The databases were chosen to represent a broad range of databases (i.e. general, education-specific and regional databases). Articles had to be peer-reviewed and published between 2000 and 2022 in international scientific journals. Gray literature, any journals other than international peer-reviewed scientific journals, and reference lists of relevant articles were excluded from the search in an effort to capture research articles in a systematic way, following the design of a systematic review (Hart, 2018). The database search focused on the Western context, and articles written in English, and the range of articles was therefore limited to some extent by excluding studies that were published in other languages or not in searchable databases available to researchers in a Western university.

Screening

The database search identified 415 articles, which were imported into Rayyan (Ouzzani et al., 2016), where both authors independently checked the title and abstract of each article in the first step of the analysis. This resulted in the identification and deletion of 102 duplicates, leaving 313 articles.

Eligibility criteria

The inclusion and exclusion criteria were sorted into “population,” “context,” and “item type” (see Table 1). “Population” called for a significant focus on the superintendent. Studies focusing on other roles in the education system (e.g., the principal or head of the board) were not considered in this study. “Context” restricted the focus to the role of the top executive in relation to specific areas of the education system, rather than other areas of superintendency or specific methods or outcomes. “Item type” restricted the empirical output to articles in peer-reviewed academic journals from 2000 to 2022.

Table 1. Inclusion and exclusion criteria.

	Inclusion criteria	Exclusion criteria
Population	Focus on the superintendent AND/OR the superintendent in relation to principals, the state or the local board or democracy	Focus on students, teachers, principals, other stakeholders where focus is not on the superintendent
Context	K–12 education, pre-school, primary school, elementary school, secondary school, upper secondary school - Focus on the role of the superintendent	Post-secondary education, higher education, vocational education, college education, other education not part of the national school system Focus on methods, outcomes, or teaching
Item type	Empirical, peer-reviewed articles published in scientific journals between 2000 and June 2022	Theoretical studies, editorial review studies, conference papers, not in English, no full text available, chapters in books

Full-text review

The screening identified 58 articles (18.5%) out of the total of 313 articles that both authors agreed should be included in the full-text review, 212 (67.7%) that they agreed should be excluded, and 43 articles (13.7%) on which they disagreed. Cohen’s kappa (Pérez et al., 2020) was calculated, and the result (0.63) showed significant agreement.

The articles about which the authors disagreed were discussed until a resolution was achieved, which resulted in eight additional articles being included, resulting in 66 articles that were available for the quality check. Finally, after a quality check using the mixed-methods appraisal tool (MMAT, Bartlett et al., 2018), which involved a careful reading of the full text of each article, 28 articles were excluded in the first round, and two more articles were excluded in the final reading because they did not satisfy the qualitative checklist of the MMAT in that they were not based on clear research questions. Thus, a total of 36 articles were included for data extraction and synthesis. The results of the MMAT quality check are presented in Appendix A.

Data extraction and data synthesis

The second author undertook a descriptive analysis, the results of which were recorded in a spreadsheet, which summarized the year, country, aim, theory, method, and results of each of the 36 remaining articles.

Data were then extracted using a standardized form designed collaboratively by the authors that included the following information to increase inter-rater reliability: (a) author and publication year; (b) country of the researcher/s; (c) country of the participants; (d) number of participants; (e) aim; (f) theory; (g) method/s; and (h) result/s. A template was used to increase the inter-rater reliability of the coded data extraction. A descriptive coding (Saldaña, 2014) of items (a) to (h) was carried out by the second author, and then checked for reliability by the first author.

As a framework for the next step in the analysis, a thematic analysis aimed at capturing aspects of interest in the included articles was undertaken (Belotto, 2018). This involved two steps. First, the second author coded the categories, which were reviewed by the first author. Then, the categories were determined collaboratively by both authors.

Results

The first research question addressed the characteristics of research on educational superintendents’ tasks as decision-maker at the administrative level. The descriptive analysis of the 36 articles included showed that 28 (78%) were from the US, and eight (22%) were published by researchers from outside the US: three from Canada (Langlois, 2004; Menna, 2010; Walker & Kutsyuruba, 2020), two from Israel (Margolin, 2013; Reingold & Avidov-Ungar, 2019), one from the Nordic countries (Björk & Browne-Ferrigno, 2016), one from Sweden (Rapp et al., 2020), and one from South Korea (Cha, 2016).

Characteristics of the included articles

The descriptive analysis showed that there was only one article per author, and there was an increase in the number of articles in the second decade, with only 10 of the 36 articles published in the first 10 years of the study period. All articles were published by researchers who lived in the same country as the participants with one exception (Björk & Browne-Ferrigno, 2016). Twenty-two articles adopted a qualitative approach, nine adopted a descriptive quantitative approach, and five adopted a mixed-methods approach. There was a wide variety in terms of the number of participants, with 13 studies having more than 100 participants and 10 studies having fewer than 10 participants.

Educational superintendents as decision-makers – aspects in focus

The second step of the analysis was to identify what aspects of educational superintendents as decision-makers were considered in the research analyzed. The analysis searched for what aspects of superintendents as decision-makers were each study’s focus. Table 2 shows these aspects. Aim, theory, methods, and results of each study are shown.

Table 2. Articles sorted by main research focus.

Category	Main research focus		N
1	Policy implementation	Andero (2000); Björk and Browne-Ferrigno (2016); Cha (2016); Decman et al. (2018); Filippi and Hackmann (2019); Menna (2010); Oakley et al. (2017); Reingold and Avidov-Ungar (2019); Stewart et al. (2012)	9
2	Contextul issues	Abrego and Pankake (2011); Cox and McLeod (2014); Davis (2000); Hart (2018); Hemmer et al. (2017); Jones and Howley (2009); Margolin (2013)	7
3	General decision-making processes	Brazer et al. (2010); Gawlik and Allen (2020); Melton et al. (2019); Noppe et al. (2013); Opfer and Denmark (2001); Patterson et al. (2006); Touchton and Acker-Hocevar (2011)	7
4	Competence	Davidson et al. (2019); Hyle et al. (2010); McClellan et al. (2008); Petersen and Short (2001); Rapp et al. (2022)	5
5	Gender	Beard (2012); Katz (2012); Polka et al. (2014); Sperandio and Devdas (2015)	4
6	Values, ethics	Alsbury and Whitaker (2007); DeVore and Martin (2008); Langlois (2004); Walker and Kutsyuruba (2020)	4
		Total	36

Policy implementation

Various aspects of policy implementation were the focus of nine articles: Abrego and Pankake (2011); Björk and Browne-Ferrigno (2016); Cha (2016); Decman et al. (2018); Filippi and Hackmann (2019); Menna (2010); Oakley et al. (2017); Reingold and Avidov-Ungar (2019); and Stewart et al. (2012). First, the context in which the policy was expected to be enacted had an impact on perceived implementation possibilities. Only three cultural contexts other than the US and Canada were examined: namely, Nordic countries (Björk & Browne-Ferrigno, 2016), Israel (Reingold & Avidov-Ungar, 2019), and Korea (Cha, 2016). The analysis showed differences between contexts in superintendents’ duties to implement policies. In the Nordic countries, the superintendents’ role is more or less that of a team member, rather than a manager. They see their mission as helping colleagues to implement educational policies by acting in a micro-political context, and have no choice as to whether they must engage in politics. Instead, they are seen as working micro-politically to facilitate the implementation of educational reforms (Björk & Browne-Ferrigno, 2016).

This differs significantly from the contextual challenges presented in Korea, where the Ministry of Education have decided about changes in education policy, which is in contradiction with the newly decentralized role as decision-makers superintendents are given (Cha, 2016). Superintendents are supposed to remain politically neutral, as required by law, but they are elected by political processes. Some of the laws have been criticized by the superintendents, who have refused to implement them. One example is the requirement to record instances of violence on students’ scholastic records, which has been ignored by some superintendents. Such resistance is also found in Western societies, albeit in other forms. Menna (2010) studied superintendents’ planning and assessment of education in the Canadian context and found that the relationship between facts and values is an important issue for superintendents who have to implement policies that sometimes contradict their own educational or personal values regarding what is defined as a good quality of life. The superintendents sometimes found it hard to separate their personal values from those that the policy required them to implement.

In the context of Israel, this commingling of personal values and policy was even more pronounced because the role of the superintendent is more that of an administrative manager, facilitating external professional development programs or engaging consultants to visit schools and support them with the materials they need to implement government policies (Reingold & Avidov-Ungar, 2019). The researchers identified a gap between the superintendents’ desire to work with content and the pedagogical planning of the implementation process, upon which they had no impact. Instead of monitoring the interventions, they wanted to be involved at the planning level, with responsibility for the design of the program. The successful superintendents had overcome various barriers identified by Stewart et al. (2012). They found that superintendents and educational boards, who have a good knowledge of school reforms, also have a more developed capacity to implement changes and systematic plans for change. They expressed barriers for change to a low degree. Instead, supervisors in contexts where passive resistance to change was discernable encountered numerous barriers to implementing educational reforms.

One US study (Filippi & Hackmann, 2019) examined successful superintendents who used distributed leadership, and found that their successful implementation included four key behaviors: facilitating collaboration, assessing the capacity for implementation, developing understanding in the groups in which the implementation was to take place, and coordinating developmental programs and instructional coaching. Teacher stress was also identified as a challenge when implementing policy changes in the educational context.

Decisions about policy implementation also has a strong focus on student learning outcomes, as well as definitions of learning and educational goals. Andero (2000) found that the role of superintendents had changed from that of administrative leaders to one of educational providers by showing that about 50% of the superintendents’ roles were within this area. He also highlighted the importance of collaborative processes in successful policy implementation. This was confirmed by later studies such as that of Decman et al. (2018), who found that communication skills, collaborative work, financial conditions, student focus and trust between the superintendent and the school board were all important factors in educational development. Oakley et al. (2017) examined the role of superintendents in not only the level of student learning, but also in acting as change agents regarding state-level legislation and policy-making. To facilitate change at this level, it is important for superintendents to be involved in professional organizations because their administrative experience enables them to exert influence at this level.

The analysis shows the difference between how the educational superintendent is experienced among countries and the different expectations held on the person who holds the position, from implementing policies and changes in a top-down perspective to managing changes in collaboration with teachers who have the authority to decide by themselves how to design instruction. The pedagogical issues become more or less critical regarding what social context the superintendent is placed in.

Contextual issues

Contextual issues are essential for superintendents’ decision-making, where principals, teachers, and local authority boards have to be managed. Seven articles were categorized under this category: Abrego and Pankake (2011); Cox and McLeod (2014); Davis (2000); Hart (2018); Hemmer et al. (2017); Jones and Howley (2009); and Margolin (2013). Establishing infrastructure is an important task for superintendents’ decision-making, and social networking can facilitate commitment in decision-making processes (Margolin, 2013). Leading collaborative work in teams and understanding the importance of establishing learning environments enabled leaders to adopt a more holistic perspective. In line with this, Abrego and Pankake (2011) examined sustained learning communities at the school district level and found that the various stakeholders (teachers, principals, central office staff, superintendents, and board members) shared similar views following a project lasting 10 years. The professional learning community included system-driven decision-making tools and continuous improvement planning.

The context can also be broader, as shown by Cox and McLeod (2014), who examined social media marketing and communication strategies, and superintendents’ communication with their stakeholders. More immediate and frequent interactions were developed, which had a positive impact on the superintendents’ personal and professional growth by enabling them to forge stronger connections with stakeholders. There was also greater transparency regarding decision-making processes.

One important group of colleagues for superintendents is school principals, who are significant contacts in the social context. The relationship between the superintendent and the school principal was examined by Davis (2000), who found that superintendents attributed principals’ loss of their jobs to internal insufficiencies. Conversely, the principals often referred to conflicts with the superintendent and the board. How principals are hired is an important contextual issue that superintendents have to consider, and their communication and leadership skills when interacting with teachers, parents, and students differ from the skills required by superintendents.

Superintendents seek advice from district officials, community representatives, and other superintendents, but the students whose interests they are required to safeguard are also important stakeholders (Hart, 2018). However, in a survey of 640 superintendents, Jones and Howley (2009) found that very few superintendents devoted the majority of their time to educational leadership. In particular, superintendents in rural districts with low levels of enrollment spent more time in managerial roles.

Far beyond the school context is the contribution of companies in the school district to the local economy. Hemmer et al. (2017) found that superintendents needed to understand how to handle the different effects of a strong or weak economy on the school sector. One problem that was identified was that when the economy was strong, the municipality was generally less focused on student achievement.

Superintendents in smaller school districts are expected to decide in more situations than superintendents in larger districts, and the context also includes to negotiate with school staff as well as board members. More research is needed to find out how the different expectations on educational superintendents can be understood.

General decision-making processes

General decision-making processes are related to communication and negotiation processes between the superintendent and those who decide the policies and execute the policy implementation. Seven articles were categorized under the general decision-making processes aspect of the superintendent’s role: Brazer et al. (2010); Gawlik and Allen (2020); Melton et al. (2019); Noppe et al. (2013); Opfer and Denmark (2001); Patterson et al. (2006); and Touchton and Acker-Hocevar (2011). All of these articles stated that their aims pertained to how to negotiate and communicate with stakeholders, such as board members, principals, and teachers. Brazer et al. (2010) pointed out the importance of the superintendent having the ability to make collaborative decisions by involving board members in the decision-making process. Furthermore, if collaborative decision-making is not practiced by the superintendent beyond the board, for example, with principals, implementation can be difficult. Gawlik and Allen (2020) showed the importance of principals to superintendents, in terms of both improving their knowledge base and assisting them in implementing instructional plans. Their study was focused on a charter district, which might have led to the strong focus on instructional planning. Meanwhile, superintendents must also be policy actors and political leaders. Melton et al. (2019), argued that superintendents’ political leadership skills are of such importance that learning them should be included in leadership training. Furthermore, superintendents need to be able to identify key stakeholders to give them a say in the best course of action and network with them. In this context, communication is seen as crucial to success. Noppe et al. (2013) found that decision-making differed between regions, as well as between male and female superintendents in some states. In one state, female superintendents were more likely to reach a compromise in an effort to satisfy all parties, while male superintendents were more likely to make data-based decisions. How the superintendent was viewed in terms of decision-making skills was also found to affect how board members acted in relation to school-level issues (Opfer & Denmark, 2001). If the superintendent had a positive relationship with the board members, this had a positive impact on their views regarding the principal. Conversely, if the superintendent was not proactive in directing the board members’ work, the board members became more involved in decisions at the school level (Opfer & Denmark, 2001). This had the potential to lead to poor decision-making, and even school closure, as Pattersson et al. (2006) found. In their study, the superintendent and board members did not listen to the parents and school patrons, and thus made decisions that could have been avoided if the communication had been better. To facilitate democratic decision-making, the superintendent needs to build relationships with and between community members, listen to others, and involve numerous groups in the decision-making process. Participating in decision-making increases the likelihood of making people accountable for their decisions (Touchton & Acker-Hocevar, 2011).

In this category, the focus is on how the superintendent communicates with other agents concerned about the decisions. It means that the superintendent has to convince and negotiate with board members to enhance the ability to establish decisions with the potential to enhance student results and the quality of education, and teachers who are supposed to implement and work in line with the decisions made. The research does not focus on how processes are made if the participants are satisfied, or what is essential to establish coherent decisions.

Competence

Five articles have had a focus on decision-making competence: Davidson et al. (2019); Hyle et al. (2010); McClellan et al. (2008); Petersen and Short (2001); and Rapp et al. (2022). Here, the focus was on the competence needed to serve as a superintendent, not only regarding decision-making. The studies included views from stakeholders, as well as the superintendents’ own thoughts. Davidson et al. (2019) identified six competence factors: financial management, educational quality, relationships with employees, implementing long-term plans, student achievement as assessed by the state, and creating a safe environment for the students. Having a good relationship with the board was also an important skill, as well as educating and training board members to act as educational decision-makers.

Rapp et al. (2022) examined superintendent competence from the perspective of the board members in a Swedish context, and found that superintendents in Sweden have numerous opportunities to influence board decision-making. The expectations were mainly that superintendents should first display leadership, and then financial management skills, while student achievement was not ranked highly in the Swedish context of this study. Petersen and Short (2001) examined the point of view of board presidents in the US and found that their three most important requirements in terms of superintendent competence were trustworthiness, expertise, and social attractiveness, while other important attributes were assertiveness and emotiveness. This indicates that personal traits have an impact on how superintendents affect board decision-making, and their own decision-making skills. McClellan et al. (2008) also studied the influence of superintendents in the US context and found that relational competence was important, enabling superintendents to work with all stakeholders and to mentor in collaboration. The superintendent should not be seen as the most knowledgeable person, but rather the role of the superintendent is to facilitate and contribute to knowledge sharing for better decision-making. The superintendent has to be both a teacher and a learner.

Some studies found differences between smaller and larger districts in relation to superintendents. Hyle et al. (2010) examined the expectations of superintendents in small school districts, where the superintendent has to be in the center of a wheel, and to negotiate with numerous stakeholders, whereas in larger districts, tasks can be divided among several people. In smaller districts, how the superintendent acquitted themselves was more important than what was done.

The difference between small and large districts still stands out as an essential aspect of how superintendents’ role as decision-makers can be understood and supported. By that, there are different competence requirements. More research is needed to study what tasks superintendents in different settings are working with, what decisions they should make, and how the process is carried out.

Gender

Four articles focused on gender differences: Beard (2012); Katz (2012); Polka et al. (2014); and Sperandio and Devdas (2015). All of the articles confirmed that the majority of superintendents were male. However, the number of females is increasing, probably as a result of a change in the superintendent role from a more management-focused position to an increased focus on instructional leadership (Sperandio & Devdas, 2015). People’s lifestyles affected their choices regarding applying for a superintendent position, with females traditionally having more responsibility for work in the home, which affecting their willingness to apply for roles as superintendents. Polka et al. (2014) surveyed 258 superintendents and found that there were more female superintendents (77.4%) in rural areas, and 22.6% were in urban areas. Of the male respondents, 47.9% reported being placed in rural areas. Furthermore, they found that gender differences were not crucial in terms of how the superintendents viewed and executed their assignments. Rather, the geographic context (i.e., rural or urban) had a significant impact on how the role was defined. In smaller rural districts, superintendents were more likely to bring different approaches to their work, especially in situations where they had fewer administrators to support their work.

If gender differences are mainly a result of the lower proportion of female superintendents, factors other than gender might have an impact on the ways in which female superintendents undertake their work. Both Beard (2012) and Katz (2012) studied black female superintendents, who were even less prevalent than white female superintendents. Examining the intersection of race, gender and social class, Beard (2012) found one female superintendent who had managed to close the achievement gap in her district. Her background, which provided her with an understanding of the challenges the students faced, inspired her to adopt a different approach, and the revised framing of problems changed the ways in which they could be solved. Katz (2012) supported that finding, stating that a superintendent who is seen as an outsider relative to those who are usually appointed can bring a fresh perspective to the job, resulting in a better understanding of what changes are needed.

Values and ethics

Four articles were categorized as having a focus on value and ethics in superintendents’ decision-making: Alsbury and Whitaker (2007); DeVore and Martin (2008); Langlois (2004); and Walker and Kutsyuruba (2020). DeVore and Martin (2008) overlapped with the previous category of gender by focusing on ethical decision-making by female and male superintendents, finding that male superintendents were more frequently identified as authoritative, while female superintendents were identified as more collaborative and reflective decision-makers. In addition, they found a strong alignment between personal and professional ethics, with the female superintendents stating that their spiritual beliefs guided their decision-making, leading them to focus on respect for others. Langlois (2004) identified decisions that were complex and required ethical responses, for example, dismissing school principals and dealing with cases of sexual harassment of students. A complex problem involves two or more possible, often contradictory, choices wherein a moral compass is needed for decision-making. Langlois (2004) argues that this moral compass might be a Roman Catholic heritage, rather than a matter of a professionally-driven ethic to apply values in handling complex problems.

Walker and Kutsyuruba (2020) examined one difficult-to-handle situation: namely, the decline of organizations, in which there is a risk that the decline will be handled in an unethical manner. They found that participants applied their own ethical values to problem-solving, which is a general moral capacity of human beings rather than a specific professional guideline. However, similar to the findings of Langlois (2004), they found that this might result in using ethical values from other fields rather than those related to children’s educational needs and based on societal values.

The analysis points out differences between rural and urban contexts, small and large districts, where female superintendents are more frequent in rural and small contexts. Furthermore, female superintendents strongly focus on collaboration and act more frequently based on values and ethical issues than male superintendents.

Discussion

This systematic literature review aimed to contribute to knowledge about research on educational superintendents as decision-makers. The research questions were about the focus of research on educational superintendents as decision-makers at the administrative level and what aspects of educational superintendents’ decision-making are in focus. Even if the study intended to be international, there is a bias as most articles were from North America (28 or 78%), with only eight (22%) from elsewhere. The position of superintendent in the US has a long tradition dating back to 1911 (Sharp et al., 2004) and a developed marketization of management of education in the US over the last two decades (Björk et al., 2014), which might explain this imbalance.

The quality of the articles needs to be discussed, as well as the approaches used. A majority of small studies used a qualitative approach, with none identified as using quantitative non-randomized or randomized controlled trials. About 10% of the articles were excluded because they did not fulfill the MMAT quality check criteria. The main issue was the lack of a clear research question, with several small descriptive case studies mainly aiming to simply describe the superintendent’s work situation. The body of research on superintendents, is in this study merged to capture a bigger picture of the knowledge we have in this field. The results can be used to design the professional development that is needed to enhance superintendents’ skills in an educational context. By merging the results, we identified some key factors, detailed below.

The focus of superintendents categorized the articles as decision-makers considered in the research. We identified six aspects of focus in the analyzed literature: policy implementation (n = 9), contextual issues (n = 7), general decision-making processes (n = 7), competence (n = 5), gender (n = 4), and values/ethics (n = 4). Most articles focused on the superintendents’ decision-making when implementing policy. Because the superintendent is placed between the school board, which is the political level, and the principal, who is an official, the role is highly connected to the enactment and implementation of educational policy. This micro-political level (Björk & Browne-Ferrigno, 2016) leads to the next aspect, namely, how the superintendent collaborates with the board members and the principal. Collaborative work in teams, leading by collaboration, and an understanding of establishing learning environments were skills that enabled superintendents to adopt a more holistic perspective (Margolin, 2013). In this context, superintendents’ decision-making was enhanced when collaboration with board members and principals was positive (Brazer et al., 2010). An ability to work collaboratively, combined with the six competence factors identified by Davidson et al. (2019), namely, financial management, educational quality, relationships with employees, implementing long-term plans, student achievement as assessed by the state, and creating a safe environment for the students, are requirements sought by school principals. Regarding gender, the review showed that the majority of superintendents are male, even though the majority of teachers are female (Maranto et al., 2018). Four studies focused on this issue, and found that female superintendents were more prevalent in rural contexts (Polka et al., 2014). The change in the superintendent’s role from a management to a pedagogical focus might result in an increase in the number of female superintendents (Sperandio & Devdas, 2015). The final category, values and ethics, presents difficulties for superintendents, who are required to make political decisions that might conflict with their personal preferences. Norberg and Johansson (2007) found that superintendents were committed to implementing the required policies, even if they conflicted with their personal values. Another ethical challenge for superintendents related to potential conflicts between their religious preferences and professional policy requirements (DeVore & Martin, 2008; Langlois, 2004).

The review identified some gaps in the literature. First, there are significant differences between urban and rural contexts in relation to the superintendent role, and the level of administrative support that is provided for superintendents affects how the role is defined. This implies that policymakers should ensure that these roles are standardized across contexts, and that a uniform level of support is provided regardless of the context. Second, although our analysis identified several key skills that superintendents need, none of the studies discussed superintendents’ professional development programs. This points to the need for the design of appropriate professional development programs for superintendents to support them in their roles and expected duties, as well as how these differs between contexts. Third, even though the majority of teachers are female, the majority of superintendents are male, and thus further research is required to identify the factors that are preventing females from becoming superintendents. Policymakers should not only pay attention to this issue when recruiting new superintendents but also investigate the superintendents’ working conditions to discover whether there are any issues related to the superintendent role that present obstacles that women are finding difficult to overcome.

The study’s implication is to contribute knowledge that can be used to develop professional development programs, enhancing the quality of superintendents’ decision-making processes. Furthermore, the results also point out gaps in research regarding what kind of decisions superintendents are supposed to make and what skills are needed to make such decisions. Besides, the differences between the superintendents’ authorities in rural and urban contexts and small and large districts must be addressed. Another gap found is research on the differences between women and men and the limited amount of female educational superintendents.

Limitations

This study had several limitations. First, it is possible that the search terms unintentionally excluded articles that focused our study’s subject, but used a term other than “superintendent.” Search terms such as “superintendent” might also have different meanings in different languages or contexts. The role of the superintendent is generally related to countries with decentralized education systems; consequently, corresponding positions might have been missed in countries with centralized education systems. However, in the event that those systems do not use superintendents in their educational systems, no research would be available.

Conclusions

This study identified six key factors in research on educational superintendents: policy implementation, the local context, general decision-making, competence, gender, and values/ethics. The results showed that the majority of the included articles (28 out of 36) were published in the US (78%). The review identified three gaps in the literature: first, there are significant differences between urban and rural contexts in relation to the superintendent role, and the level of administrative support provided to superintendents affects how the role is defined. Second, none of the studies discussed superintendents’ professional development. Third, even though the majority of teachers are female, the majority of superintendents are male. Further research is therefore required to identify the factors preventing women from becoming superintendents.

Acknowledgments

We thank Geoff Whyte, MBA, and Melissa Leffler, MBA, from Edanz (https://www.edanz.com/ac), for editing a draft of this manuscript.

Disclosure statement

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Mona Holmqvist

Dr Mona Holmqvist (PhD) is professor of Educational Sciemces at Lund University. Her research interests include teaching and learning in differnt educational settings from preschool to higher education, and educational policy.

Martin Lantz Ekström

Martin Lantz Ekström is a doctoral student in Education at Malmö University. His research interest is educational management, with a specific focus on educational superintendents.

Appendix A:

Quality check based on mixed methods appraisal tool (MMAT), version 2018

Table

Category of study designs	Methodological quality criteria
		Yes	No	Articles
Screening questions (for all types)	S1. Are there clear research questions?	x		All 36 included articles
	S2. Do the collected data allow to address the research questions?	x
1. Qualitative	1.1. Is the qualitative approach appropriate to answer the research question?	x		Alsbury T L and Whitaker KS (2007), Beard KS (2012), Brazer et al., (2010), Cha SH (2016), Cox and McLeod, (2014), Decman JM, Badgett K, Shaughnessy B et al. (2018), Filippi and Hackmann, (2019), Gawlik and Allen, (2020), Hart WH (2018), Hemmer L, Aguilar I and Fleming K (2018), Hyle AE, Ivory G and McClellan RL (2010), Katz SJ (2012), Langlois (2004), McClellan et al. (2008), Margolin (2013), Melton TD, Reeves L, McBrayer JS et al. (2019), Menna (2010), Opfer VD and Denmark V (2001), Patterson JA, Koenigs A, Mohn G et al. (2006), Reingold and Avidov-Ungar (2019), Touchton and Acker-Hocevar (2011), Walker KD and Kutsyuruba B (2020)
	1.2. Are the qualitative data collection methods adequate to address the research question?	x
	1.3. Are the findings adequately derived from the data?	x
	1.4. Is the interpretation of results sufficiently substantiated by data?	x
	1.5. Is there coherence between qualitative data sources, collection, analysis and interpretation?	x
2. Quantitative randomized controlled trials	2.1. Is randomization appropriately performed?
	2.2. Are the groups comparable at baseline?
	2.3. Are there complete outcome data?
	2.4. Are outcome assessors blinded to the intervention provided?
	2.5 Did the participants adhere to the assigned intervention?
3. Quantitative non-randomized	3.1. Are the participants representative of the target population?
	3.2. Are measurements appropriate regarding both the outcome and intervention (or exposure)?
	3.3. Are there complete outcome data?
	3.4. Are the confounders accounted for in the design and analysis?
	3.5. During the study period, is the intervention administered (or exposure occurred) as intended?
4. Quantitative descriptive	4.1. Is the sampling strategy relevant to address the research question?	x		Andero, (2000), Björk and Browne-Ferrigno, (2016), Davidson FD, Schwanenberger M and Wiggall R (2019), Davis SH (2000), Noppe R, Yager S, Webb C et al. (2013), Noppe R, Yager S, Webb C et al. (2013), Rapp et al.,(2022), Sperandio and Devdas (2015), Stewart et al. (2012)
	4.2. Is the sample representative of the target population?	x
	4.3. Are the measurements appropriate?	x
	4.4. Is the risk of nonresponse bias low?	x
	4.5. Is the statistical analysis appropriate to answer the research question?	x
5. Mixed methods	5.1. Is there an adequate rationale for using a mixed methods design to address the research question?	x		Abrego and Pankake (2011), DeVore and Martin (2008), Oakley DL, Watkins SG and Sheng BZ (2017), Petersen GJ and Short PM (2001), Polka WS, Litchka PR, Calzi FF et al. (2014),
	5.2. Are the different components of the study effectively integrated to answer the research question?	x
	5.3. Are the outputs of the integration of qualitative and quantitative components adequately interpreted?	x
	5.4. Are divergences and inconsistencies between quantitative and qualitative results adequately addressed?	x
	5.5. Do the different components of the study adhere to the quality criteria of each tradition of the methods involved?	x