Gender differences in perceived barriers of aspiring superintendents

Abstract

Discrepancies in the number of females occupying superintendent positions in the United States continue to exist; therefore, this study utilized a survey design to examine the perceived barriers to achieving the top positions in education as well as differences by gender among aspiring superintendents in K-12 in Illinois. Statistical analyses (Mann-Whitney U test and factor analysis) were performed on the results from the Aspiring Superintendents Perceived Barriers Questionnaire developed by Dulac, and its underlying constructs were used to investigate the extent to which aspiring female and male administrators perceived barriers to the superintendency position. Eighty-four participants completed the survey either online or on paper. The study found significant differences between male and female aspiring superintendents in 10 of the 21 perceived barriers. Factor analysis yielded two factors (societal issues and workplace expectations) as barriers identified by females, and three concepts (societal issues, workplace expectations, and masculinity in leadership) as barriers identified by males.

Keywords

gender and the superintendency perceived barriers to the superintendency superintendency

Introduction

K-12 superintendency is the highest and most male-dominated executive position of any profession in the United States (Dobie and Hummel, 2001; Fowler, 2013). It is a complex and multifaceted position usually occupied by an effective decision maker with strong financial, operational and political leadership skills and who is also equipped to lead curriculum and instruction (Dana and Bourisaw, 2006). In 2000, Glass found that of the 13,728 school superintendents in the United States, 11,744 were men and only 1,984 were women; however, Hansen (2011) reported that 72% of classroom teachers were female. While there was an increase in female superintendents from 2000 (Glass, 2000), the upward trend in the number of females accessing administrative positions (Mertz, 2003; Mertz and McNeely, 1988; Tallerico and Blount, 2004) shows a disproportionately low representation of women in educational administration nationwide (Bell and Chase, 1993; Grogan, 1999). More recently, Derrington and Staratt (2009), Gullo and Sperandio (2020), and the North Carolina Department of Public Instruction (2015) found a lack of representation of females in the superintendency. The 2016 American Association of School Administrators’ study of the superintendency found that only 24% were female (Finnan and McCord, 2017), and Grogan and Shakeshaft (2011) argued that ‘women did not fill administrative positions in proportion to their numbers in teaching or in proportion to those who are now trained and certified to become administrators’ (p. 28). Instead, as Skrla (1999) found, men are 40 times more likely to advance from teaching to the superintendency, and as Grogan and Shakeshaft’s (2011) study showed, the average annual increase of women in the superintendency was 0.7%. Shakeshaft (1989) explained, ‘Women have seldom attained the most powerful and prestigious administrative positions in schools, and the gender structure of males as managers and females as workers has remained relatively stable for the past 100 years’ (p. 51).

The disparities in the superintendency are not limited to representation but also to longevity, superintendent salaries, and workplace expectations. Women have had access to historically predominantly male jobs due to the increase in job vacancies and worsening of working conditions (Matthaei, 1982; Tallerico and Blount, 2004). Thus, this study investigated the perceived barriers to occupying a superintendency position and the effect of gender on aspiring superintendents from public K-12 school districts in Illinois.

Literature overview

Many factors are likely to influence the quest to the superintendency. Historically, men dominated the teaching profession in the early 1800s, working by themselves in schoolhouses throughout the United States. By the mid-1800s, an interesting trend developed with the emergence of female teachers. As females entered the profession, local and state officials created a domain of school administration reserved for men, starting the gender disparity in school administration (Blount, 1998).

Superintendency and gender disparity

In 1909, Chicago superintendent Ella Flagg Young expressed optimism about women taking the reins of schools: ‘to show cities and friends alike that a woman is better qualified for this work than a man’ (Shakeshaft, 1989: 18). A century later, women make up 27% of the superintendency in Illinois (Hefferman and Wasonga, 2017), but nationally only 24% of superintendents are female (Finnan and McCord, 2017; Kowalski et al., 2010). Although the progress of females accessing the superintendency position has been slowly increasing, the level of men and women is still disparate. Grogan (1996) explained that superintendents are viewed as being male or female, and Brunner (2000) supported the idea that women are always women in the role of superintendent and their gender is always associated with their role, putting women at a disadvantage due to gender ideals and biases (Grogan, 1996; Tallerico, 2000).

Inequalities between genders at the superintendency position were documented in Björk’s (2000) six stages of research regarding gender disparities. The first stage presented information about the 1800s’ male/female ratios of teachers in which they were nearly balanced, but by the early 1900s, women held 70% of all teaching positions (Blount, 1998). Between 1950 and 1970, 3% of women were superintendents, increasing to 5% between 1970 and 1990. The percentage of women superintendents did not change until 1991 when it reached 6.6% (Glass, 1992), and it doubled in 1999 to 13.2%, the highest level achieved (Glass, 2000). The second stage produced information about the lives and accomplishments of women in the superintendency, while the third stage (1970s–1980s) uncovered issues related to women’s barriers to becoming superintendents. The fourth stage highlighted female superintendents’ experiences with inequality at the highest levels of decision making in America’s public schools, including the nature of gender bias; women’s role in perpetuating gender bias; and issues of power, silence, style, responsibility, and relations with people (Brunner, 2000). In the fifth stage, Grogan (2000) contended that women needed to become part of the discourse of professional preparation so they could assume their place of influence in the superintendency. The sixth stage urged redefinition of ‘the superintendency and building theory rather than simply corroborating generalizations affirmed by the dominant paradigm’ (Björk, 2000: 13). These stages set the ground for status of women in the superintendency today.

Barriers and gender differences regarding upper-mobility to the superintendency

Research has established that fewer women advance into the position of superintendent due to the glass ceiling effect (Blount, 1998; Grogan, 1996; Meier and Wilkins, 2002; Peterson, 2017). Barriers such as career advancement and career pathways, mentoring, leadership styles, and selection processes are impacted by gender. Glass (2000) identified several reasons for women’s lack of mobility to the superintendency, including limited career positions leading to advancement to superintendency as well as entering the field of education for different reasons and at an older age. Additionally, Young and McLeod (2001) found that women lack career planning compared to men, which can impede their preparation and entrance into school administration.

Ramsey (2000) found fewer developed mentoring systems for women and suggested that the limited mentoring and coaching opportunities for women diminished in-district mobility. In addition, women tend to remain in teaching longer than men before trying to obtain an administrative position. Just as mentoring and coaching were lacking for females seeking to advance into leadership positions (Denneson, 2016; Goffney and Edmonson, 2012; Lane-Washington and Wilson-Jones, 2010; Shakeshaft et al., 2007), so was women’s ability to network with peers (Eagly and Carli, 2007; Garn and Brown, 2008; Katz, 2006).

Bell and Chase (1995) concluded that women did not differ in leadership styles compared to men, but they differed in their strategies. Bolman and Deal (2003) observed that subordinates in administrative positions viewed men and women leaders similarly; however, women tended to be more democratic or participative than men. While traditional views of power, domination and control were associated with men, female power came from working collaboratively with others (e.g., being patient and a good listener) (Brunner, 2000). Funk et al. (2002) described strengths of female administrators as ‘including collaborative leadership; focus[ing] on curriculum and instruction; inclu[ding] all stakeholders in decision making processes; and empower[ing] teachers, students, and parents’ (p. 2). Because of these skills, Funk (1998) contended that women’s communicative and integrative leadership styles were necessary for successful school reform.

The selection process to recruit candidates is another barrier (Newton, 2006; Tallerico, 2000). Sharp et al. (2004) found that board of education members were predominantly male; however, ‘where females are in a majority on the board of education, female superintendents tend to be hired more often’ (p. 26). Connell et al. (2015) indicated, ‘The good-old-boy fraternity often excluded females by virtue of gender’ (p. 42) because the recruiting language was inclined to favour males. Kamler and Shakeshaft (1999) found that search consultants acted as gatekeepers, promoting or preventing women from obtaining superintendent positions. In 75 searches in which a woman was a finalist, only 12% (nine superintendents) were hired. Thus, school boards and school board composition may be a factor or gatekeeper in who gets hired as the superintendent.

Theoretical framework

Gatekeeping theory and feminist perspectives provide the theoretical framework for this study.

Gatekeeping theory

Gatekeeping theory was developed by Lewin (1947, 1951) and broadened by Shoemaker (1991). It was built on the assumption that gatekeepers influenced how widespread social changes are produced. In studying food habits in a population, Lewin concluded that members were not equally important for determining what kind of food arrived on the table. The entrance to the channel (grocery stores and family gardens) and to each home (members of family) were the gates and gatekeepers. Lewin (1951) claimed that gates and gatekeepers influenced the travel of news, movement of goods, and social locomotion. Shoemaker (1991) explained that gatekeeping processes were a complex rather than impartial set of rules or individual decisions. Shoemaker recognized the influence of a profession’s routines and organizational norms. He stated that ‘although individuals and routine practices generally determine what gets past the gate and how it is presented, organizations hire gatekeepers and make the rules’ (p. 53). For example, school boards hire consultant firms and establish the criteria for the ideal candidate. Consultants represent the school board’s interests, a process of gatekeeping that involves making critical decisions about who advances to the superintendency based on informal and/or formal criteria.

Feminist perspective

‘A feminist perspective is one that recognizes that there are social inequalities which rest on gender difference’ (Grogan, 1996: 21). The female perspective of social reality is that women have not been given equal opportunities for advancement in education and other professions in comparison to their male peers. Grogan (1999) argues, ‘The idea that superintendent is synonymous with man has emerged in the discourse of educational administration, due to the overwhelming number of men who have held the job and the association of traditional male leadership attributes with the role’ (p. 201). While feminist theories explain women’s exclusion and marginalization and challenge hegemonic practices and power relations as oppressive; they also explore ways by which power can position women on paths to opportunities and possibilities. According to Dentith et al. (2006), feminists’ perspectives view power not only as a means of control but also as ‘ways that might facilitate another’s abilities or provide support and response’ (p. 386). Postmodern feminists have used this argument to support leadership that empowers all participants in the process of framing, discussing, and resolving problems women experience in their quest for advancement.

The gatekeeping theory and the feminist perspective form a theoretical lens for understanding barriers to the superintendence. The purpose of this study was to determine the perceptions of upward mobility among female and male aspiring superintendents. Research questions guiding the study were (1) to what extent do aspiring superintendents perceive barriers in their upward mobility? (2) what constructs are identified as barriers to aspiring superintendents? and (3) What are the differences between men’s and women’s perceived barriers as aspiring superintendents?

Methodology

A survey design was used to investigate the perceived barriers of aspiring administrators to the superintendency position as captured by the Aspiring Superintendents Perceived Barriers Questionnaire developed by Dulac (1992). The researchers complied with IRB requirements to recruit, contact, and collect data from aspiring superintendents from K-12 public school districts in Illinois. Participants responded to a 15-minute online survey utilizing a repository website (Survey Monkey). SPSS 24 was utilized to run a Mann-Whitney U test to analyse differences in male and female participants’ perceptions of barriers and factor analysis to determine latent constructs from the survey questions.

Instrument

Twenty questions concerning the perception of barriers from the Aspiring Superintendents Perceived Barriers Questionnaire (Dulac, 1992) and 12 demographic questions were utilized for this study. The survey employed a semantic differential scale, with a scale of 1 representing not a major barrier to 5 representing a major barrier. Dulac reported a Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient of 0.96 for perception of barriers and 0.86 for strategies. In this study, Cronbach’s reliability of the perception of barriers section was α = 0.94.

Demographic information of participants

The instrument was administered to 84 (male = 38, female = 46) assistant principals, principals, central office administrators, and assistant superintendents in public school administration who were aspiring to the superintendency. Seventy-two participants were Caucasian/White (males = 30, females = 42). More than half of the participants were 40 or more years old (males = 27, females = 34). Most of the participants were married (males = 32, females = 39) with two or three children (males = 26, females = 32). Most of the participants (n = 53) held a master’s degree (males = 22, females = 31). The majority of the participants’ experience ranged from 6 to 20 years in the school setting (males = 35, female = 30).

Findings

The extent to which female and male aspiring superintendents’ perceived barriers to their upward mobility (RQ1) was assessed by performing a Mann-Whitney U test. Out of 21 questions, 10 indicated statistical differences in perceptions of the magnitude of the barrier (Table 1). Mean ranks were analysed to establish the variations and the concentration of the respondents. The data showed differences in perceptions of the barriers, indicating that female respondents gave a higher median score compared to male respondents for the statistically significant questions.

Table 1.

Mann-Whitney U test of perceived barriers.

Questions	Male (n = 36), M _rank	Female (n = 44), M _rank	Mann-Whitney U	p
Q13. Conflicting demands on career and family.	37.79	42.72	694.50	0.33
Q14. Lack of ability to relocate as a result of personal commitment.	44.88	36.92	634.50	0.12
Q15. The belief that women do not make good administrators.	36.53	43.75	649.00	0.07
Q16. Inappropriate career path experiences.	43.90	36.73	633.50	0.14
Q17. Childhood socialization to ‘proper’ roles for men and women.	40.86	40.20	779.00	0.88
Q18. The predominance of male candidates for administrative positions.	31.66	46.64	478.00	0.00**
Q19. Lack of a mentor.	40.03	40.89	775.00	0.87
Q20. Existence of the ‘buddy system’ in which men refer other men to jobs.	32.01	47.44	486.50	0.00**
Q21. Doubt by those in a hiring position of women’s long-term career commitment.	31.46	45.72	474.50	0.00**
Q22. Lack of self-confidence in ability to succeed in top jobs.	39.39	40.51	752.00	0.81
Q23. Gender bias in the screening and selection process.	31.01	48.26	450.50	0.00**
Q24. Exclusion from informal socialization process of ‘Good Old Boy Network’.	34.32	45.56	569.50	0.03*
Q25. Lack of acceptance by male administrators and staff.	30.63	47.45	442.00	0.00**
Q26. Lack of acceptance by female administrators and staff.	34.44	45.45	574.00	0.03*
Q27. Lack of political ‘know how’.	38.21	42.38	709.50	0.41
Q28. Lack of motivation to compete for top jobs.	41.26	39.88	764.50	0.78
Q29. The belief that women must be better qualified than men in order to attain top-level administrative positions.	29.96	48.41	412.50	0.00**
Q30. Lack of strong women’s network similar to the ‘Good Old Boy Network’.	29.18	49.06	384.50	0.00**
Q31. Covert sex discrimination.	33.64	44.27	547.50	0.03*
Q32. Overt sex discrimination.	36.29	42.12	640.00	0.22
Q33. Potential colleagues’ insubordination in working for a female boss.	35.72	44.41	620.00	0.06

Scale: Not a Major Barrier = 1 to A Major Barrier = 5.

*p < .05; **p < .001.

Since latent variables or constructs cannot be directly observed because they are not measured directly, the constructs were inferred from the collected data. The nature of the construct is related to items of the survey. Thus, to determine the latent constructs (RQ2) underlying the instrument, the factorability of the data to produce constructs was assessed. Data were checked for patterned relationships among variables. This procedure eliminated three questions (conflicting demands on career and family, lack of ability to relocate as a result of personal commitment, and lack of motivation to compete for top jobs) due to low correlation coefficients (r < .30) (Field, 2009; Yong and Pearce, 2013). The remaining questions were subjected to factor analysis using Principal Axis Factoring and orthogonal Varimax rotation to determine latent constructs and differences in perceived barriers between men and women (RQ3). Three factor analyses were run: (1) all participants’ responses (Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure (KMO) = 0.90; Bartlett’s Test of sphericity χ²(153) = 1047.27, p < .001; and 71% of the total variance); (2) male respondents (KMO = 0.76; Bartlett’s Test of sphericity χ²(153) = 542.10, p < .001; and 73% of the total variance explained); and (3) female respondents (KMO = 0.83; Bartlett’s Test of sphericity χ²(153) = 656.38, p < .001; and 74% of the total variance).

For the all respondents and the female respondents’ constructs, there were three factors: Factor 1 is societal culture, Factor 2 is workplace expectations, and Factor 3 is women’s external bias. For the male respondents there were four constructs: Factor 1 is societal culture, Factor 2 is workplace expectations, Factor 3 is women’s external bias, and Factor 4 is masculinity in leadership.

The societal culture factor grouped questions indicating that values related to societal consensus about gender and leadership are constructed over time within society. These values are widely practised in society and are often beyond the direct control of those aspiring to superintendency. Although these aspects of societal culture impact all aspiring superintendents, they tend to marginalize women. Table 2 presents the factor loadings of the societal culture for all, male, and female participants. Male respondents showed factor loadings <.50 within this construct for questions Q20, Q30, Q24, Q32, Q25, and Q18, which were deemed as a fourth construct for men.

Table 2.

Societal culture: Factor loadings.

Questionnaire items	All	Male	Female
Q31. Covert sex discrimination	0.74	0.82	0.87
Q23. Gender bias in the screening and selection process	0.66	0.79	0.77
Q29. The belief that women must be better qualified than men in order to attain top-level administrative positions.	0.63	0.54	0.60
Q21. Doubt by those in a hiring position of women’s long-term career commitment.	0.58	0.75	0.55
Q20. Existence of the ‘buddy system’ in which men refer other men to jobs.	0.85	0.17	0.87
Q30. Lack of strong women’s network similar to the ‘Good Old Boy Network’.	0.84	0.46	0.84
Q24. Exclusion from informal socialization process of ‘Good Old Boy Network’.	0.79	0.19	0.85
Q32. Overt sex discrimination.	0.76	0.49	0.87
Q25. Lack of acceptance by male administrators and staff.	0.70	0.48	0.58
Q18. The predominance of male candidates for administrative positions.	0.67	0.12	0.52

The workplace expectations factor included questions related to the place of work such as lack of mentors, career path experiences, political savviness or confidence in doing the job. The workplace expectations refer to potential created in the workplace and the steps taken to set up a career path leading to a superintendency position. Table 3 shows the factor loadings for workplace expectations. The factor loading was less than .50 for Q26 for the male respondents.

Table 3.

Workplace expectations: Factor loadings.

Questionnaire items	All	Male	Female
Q16. Inappropriate career path experiences.	0.79	0.74	0.73
Q27. Lack of political ‘know how’.	0.78	0.81	0.75
Q22. Lack of self-confidence in ability to succeed in top jobs.	0.70	0.64	0.75
Q19. Lack of a mentor	0.69	0.66	0.77
Q26. Lack of acceptance by female administrators and staff.	0.57	0.31	0.79

The women’s external bias latent construct indicated others’ subjective attitudes towards women aspiring to the superintendency that cannot control. Table 4 displays the items grouped under women’s external bias. Male factor loading shows a weak correlation for all three questions within this construct, indicating this factor cannot be formed. Moreover, factor loadings for female respondents indicate that Q33 had a weak correlation (r = .14) to this factor, leaving two questions in the construct and limiting the reliability of the factor (Yong and Pearce, 2013).

Table 4.

Women’s external bias: Factor loadings.

Questionnaire items	All	Male	Female
Q15. The belief that women do not make good administrators	0.82	0.05	0.80
Q33. Potential colleagues insubordination in working for a female boss	0.62	0.25	0.14
Q17. Childhood socialization to proper roles for men and women	0.53	0.15	0.85

The masculinity in leadership factor was found among male respondents. Table 5 shows the questions grouped in this construct reveal male respondents perceived the superintendency as a masculine job. These preconceived attitudes are likely latent among males and likely influence the choice of the superintendent.

Table 5.

Masculinity in leadership: Factor loadings.

Questionnaire items	Male
Q20. Existence of the ‘buddy system’ in which men refer other men to jobs.	0.87
Q25. Lack of acceptance [of female administrators] by male administrators and staff.	0.87
Q30. Lack of strong women’s network similar to the ‘Good Old Boy Network’.	0.85
Q32. Overt sex discrimination.	0.82
Q24. Exclusion from informal socialization process of ‘Good Old Boy Network’.	0.76
Q18. The predominance of male candidates for administrative positions.	0.70

The factors had acceptable levels of internal consistency, and the solution was relatively stable. As measured by Cronbach’s alpha, the reliability coefficients for the factors were

Societal culture (all = .954, male = .921, female = .959)

Workplace expectations (all = .842, male = .826, female = .865)

Women’s external bias (all = .708, male = N/A, female = N/A)

Masculinity in leadership (all = N/A, male = .884, female = N/A)

Discussion

The purpose of this study was to delineate perceived barriers to the superintendency by gender. In addition, a factor analysis was applied to create concepts from the questions that would be the basis for understanding barriers to the superintendency, differentiation between females and males, and contextual intervention. Three concepts of societal culture, work place expectations and masculinity in leadership emerged, with masculinity being specific to men. The data analysis found that perceived barriers to the superintendency among those aspiring to the superintendency were impacted by gender. While some of the perceived barriers to upward mobility were experienced similarly, other were perceived differently based on gender favouring men. Like other studies, this study confirmed findings that women report higher levels of perceived barriers in their quest for the superintendency (Brunner, 2003; Brunner and Grogan, 2005; Skrla et al., 2000).

Women perceived a greater magnitude in barriers concerning societal culture compared to men. Societal cultures are internalized norms or climate that determe how people behave with cultural values influencing society functions and treatment of members (Hasegawa et al., 2007). These cultural expectations are gatekeepers that favour men aspiring to the superintendency. In this study, societal cultures manifest in the number of male candidates applying for superintendency positions, the support for men for these positions, and the inherent biases in the hiring processes, including the belief that the superintencency is a man’s job. Although both women and men indicated unequal treatment, the volume of factors against women put them at much greater disadvantage in terms of upward mobility to the superintendency. Those who get there as explained by Brunner (2000) and Grogan (2000), have to overcome many of the barriers and are ‘sensitive to the prevailing gender stereotypes’ (p. 237).

In this study, female respondents also perceived a greater magnitude of barriers regarding workplace expectations compared to men. Work place expectations were exemplified in the areas of, lack of mentors, self-confidence in the position, acceptance by female administrators and staff, and knowing how to navigate the political environment of the superintendency position. The women faced greater levels of scrutiny, including their credentials and a leadership style that is more collaborative. For example, Grogan (1996) found that female candidates were expected to have credentials validating their knowledge for the position and prior experiences as an administrator. For this reason, Brunner and Grogan (2005) explained that the pressures of the educational system and its changes incline some female superintendents to emphasize some credentials more than others to fit expectations assumed for men.

Masculinity in leadership was expressed by male respondents. Masculinity relates to advantages because of the larger presence of men in the position enabling men to support each other to secure a superintendent position. Among barriers related to masculinity were the higher number of male candidates for superintendency positions, socialization in the old-buddy-system to support other men, and greater levels of acceptance of males by male administrators and staff. Studies (e.g., Dana and Bourisaw, 2006; Glass, 2000; Kowalski and Stouder, 1999) found that being part of male networks positively influenced securing a superintendent position. The male driven groups are important, as the good-old-boys relationships support their own for success (Wickham, 2007). Grogan (2000) argued that most of the literature, including in educational leadership and educational curriculum, focuses on the male perspectives of leadership.

In general, this study indicates that the propensity of males in the superintendency may be explained by the cumulative perceived barriers against women.

Conclusions

Although these results cannot be generalized, the constructs generated indicate that women are at a disadvantage when aspiring to the superintendency. Shoemaker (1991) found that societal culture and workplace expectations were barriers for women accessing the superintendency. Therefore, hiring agencies should apply conscious efforts to consider the roles of societal culture, workplace expectations, and masculinity in their decisions when hiring a superintendent. Because these constructs are often beyond individual’s ability to control, hiring agencies and institutions should find ways to intervene so the constructs are not actual barriers, especially for women. As suggested by the feminist perspective (Grogan, 1999), masculinity should not equal leadership and those hiring should not view leadership positions as based on traditional characteristics of male roles. The complexity of leadership requires inclusion of female leadership qualities. Indeed women are working towards enhancing the values of femininity in leadership including managing conflicting demands of family, abilities to relocate, and inclusion in the informal socialization process of the Good-Old-Boy-Network (Bernal et al., 2017; Connell et al., 2015; Davis, 2010; Kowalski and Stouder, 1999; Shakeshaft, 1989).

Participants’ responses indicate the need for raising awareness about barriers for both women and men aspiring to superintendency positions. Societal culture and workplace expectations have the potential to influence individual and organizational cultures in terms of their decisions, relationships, and performance. To make it fair for both man and women, hiring protocols and credential expectations should be clear, specific, and inclusive of strengths of both women and men. In addition, hiring agencies should include women in similar proportions to men with their voices given power to influence decisions.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

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

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Ximena D Burgin

References

Bell

Chase

(1993) The underrepresentation of women in school leadership. In: Marshall

(ed.) The New Politics of Race and Gender. Washington, DC: Palmer, pp. 141–154.

Bell

Chase

(1995) Gender in theory and practice of educational leadership. Journal for a Just and Caring Education 1:200–223.

Bernal

Monosov

Stencler

, et al. (2017 ) Gender bias within the superintendency: a comparative study. Journal of School Administration Research and Development 2(1):42–52.

Björk

(2000) Introduction: women in the superintendency – advances in research and theory. Educational Administration Quarterly 36(1):5–17.

Blount

(1998) Destined to Rule the Schools: Women and the Superintendency, 1873–1995. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Bolman

Deal

(2003) Reframing Organizations: Artistry, Choice, and Leadership, 3rd edn. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Brunner

(2000) Unsettled moments in settled discourse: women superintendents’ experiences of inequality. Educational Administration Quarterly 36(1):76–116.

Brunner

(2003) Invisible, limited, and emerging discourse: research practices that restrict and/or increase access for women and persons of color to the superintendency. Journal of School Leadership 13(4):428–450.

Brunner

Grogan

(2005) Women superintendents and role conception. In: Björk

Kowalski

(eds) The Contemporary Superintendent: Preparation, Practice, and Development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, pp. 227–249.

10.

Connell

Cobia

Hodge

(2015) Women’s journey to the school superintendency. Alabama Journal of Educational Leadership 2:37–63.

11.

Dana

Bourisaw

(2006) Women in the Superintendency: Discarded Leadership. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Education.

12.

Davis

(2010) Navigating the labyrinth: women school superintendents in North Carolina. Doctoral dissertation, Appalachian State University, NC, USA.

13.

Denneson

(2016) The impact of mentorship on women superintendents in Minnesota. Culminating Projects in Education Administration and Leadership. 20. Available at: https://repository.stcloudstate.edu/edad_etds/20 (accessed 24 September 2019).

14.

Dentith

Brady

Hammett

(2006) Feminism and theories of leadership. In: English

(ed.) Encyclopedia of Educational Leadership and Administration (Vol. 1). London: Sage Publications, pp. 384–388.

15.

Derrington

Staratt

(2009) Female superintendents: breaking barriers and challenging life styles. Delta Kappa Gamma Bulletin 75(2):8–12.

16.

Dobie

Hummel

(2001) Successful women superintendents in a gender biased profession. Equity and Excellence 34(2):22–28.

17.

Dulac

(1992) Women superintendents and school board presidents: profiles and perceptions of barriers and strategies that have an effect on women in attaining the superintendency. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Boston College, MA, USA.

18.

Eagly

Carli

(2007) Through the Labyrinth: The Truth About How Women Become Leaders. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

19.

Field

(2009) Discovering Statistics Using SPSS, 3rd edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

20.

Finnan

McCord

(2017) 2016 AASA Superintendents’ Salary & Benefit Survey. Arlington, VA: American Association of School Administrators.

21.

Fowler

(2013) Policy Studies for Educational Leadership: An Introduction, 4th edn. London: Pearson.

22.

Funk

(1998) What women bring to executive school positions. In: Irby

Brown

(eds) Women Leaders: Structuring Success. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company, pp. 33–42.

23.

Funk

Pankake

Schroth

(2002) Archetypes of Outstanding Female Superintendents. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 481-622.

24.

Garn

Brown

(2008) Women and the superintendency: perceptions of gender bias. Journal of Women in Educational Leadership 6(1):49–71.

25.

Glass

(1992) The 1992 Study of the American Superintendency: America’s Education Leaders in a Time of Reform. Arlington, VA: American Association of School Administrators.

26.

Glass

(2000) Where are all the women superintendents? AASA School Administrator. Available at: http://www.aasa.org/SA/june0005.htm (accessed 24 September 2019).

27.

Goffney

Edmonson

(2012) Perceptions of race and gender in the superintendency. Journal of Texas School Women Executives 1(1):3–17.

28.

Grogan

(1996) Voices of Women Aspiring to the Superintendency. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

29.

Grogan

(1999) Equity/equality issues of gender, race, and class. Educational Administration Quarterly 35(4):518–536.

30.

Grogan

(2000) Laying the groundwork for a reconception of the superintendency from feminist postmodern perspectives. Educational Administration Quarterly 36(1):117–142.

31.

Grogan

Shakeshaft

(2011) Women and Educational Leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

32.

Gullo

Sperandio

(2020) Gender and the superintendency: the power of career paths. Frontiers in Education 5:68.

33.

Hansen

(2011) An Exploratory Study of the Ascendency of Women to the Position of K12 Superintendent. Fullerton, CA: California State University.

34.

Hasegawa

Shinohara

Broadbent

(2007) The effects of ‘social expectation’ on the development of civil society in Japan. Journal of Civil Society 3(2):179–203.

35.

Hefferman

Wasonga

(2017) Demographic effects on quality of life among superintendents. Athens Journal of Education 4(2):149–168.

36.

Kamler

Shakeshaft

(1999) The role of search consultants in the career paths of women superintendents. In: Brunner

(ed.) Sacred Dreams: Women and the Superintendency. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, pp. 51–62.

37.

Katz

(2006) Influencing others: women superintendents speak (reluctantly). Educational Leadership 4(2):103–111.

38.

Kowalski

McCord

Petersen

, et al. (2010) The American School Superintendent: 2010 Decennial Study. Arlington, VA: American Association of School Administrators.

39.

Kowalski

Stouder

(1999) Female experiences related to becoming a superintendent. Contemporary Education 70(4): 32–40.

40.

Lane-Washington

Wilson-Jones

(2010) Women superintendents: challenges, barriers and experiences as senior level leaders. National Forum of Educational Administration and Supervision Journal 27(4):2–7.

41.

Lewin

(1947) Frontiers in group dynamics: channels of group life, social planning, and action research. Human Relations 1:143–153.

42.

Lewin

(1951) Field Theory in Social Science: Selected Theoretical Papers. New York, NY: Harper.

43.

Matthaei

(1982) An Economic History of Women in America: Women’s Work, the Sexual Division of Labor and the Development of Capitalism. New York, NY: Schocken Books.

44.

Meier

Wilkins

(2002) Gender differences in agency head salaries: the case of public education. Public Administration Review 62(4):405–411.

45.

Mertz

(2003) The promise of title IX: longitudinal study of women in administration 1972–2002. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the American Educational Research Association, SIG: Research on Women, Knoxville, TN.

46.

Mertz

McNeely

(1988) The changing profile of school leadership: women in administration. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Research Association, New Orleans, LA.

47.

Newton

(2006) Does recruitment message content normalize the superintendency as male? Educational Administration Quarterly 42(4):551–577.

48.

North Carolina Department of Public Instruction: Division of Communication and Information Services (2015) North Carolina Education Directory. Available at: http://www.ncpublicschools.org/docs/nceddirectory/education.pdf (accessed 29 September 2019).

49.

Peterson

(2017) Stress and the female superintendent: contributing factors and stress management strategies from the voices of California female superintendents. Dissertations. 153. Available at: https://digitalcommons.brandman.edu/edd_dissertations/153 (accesed 2 October 2019).

50.

Ramsey

(2000) Domestic relationship of the superintendency: a research study examines the impact of the superintendent’s husband on her career. AASA on the Personal Side. Available at: http://www.aasa.org/personalside/ramsey.htm (accessed 2 October 2019).

51.

Shakeshaft

(1989) Women in Educational Administration. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

52.

Shakeshaft

Brown

Irby

, et al. (2007) Increasing gender equity in educational leadership. In: Klein

(ed.) Handbook for Achieving Sex Equity Through Education, 2nd edn. Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins Press, pp. 103–129.

53.

Sharp

Malone

Walter

, et al. (2004) Women superintendents: why so few? Educational Research Quarterly 27(3):22–37.

54.

Shoemaker

(1991) Gatekeeping. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

55.

Skrla

(1999) Femininity/masculinity: hegemonic normalizations in the public school superintendency. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the American Educational Research Association, April 1999, Montreal, Canada.

56.

Skrla

Reyes

Scheurich

(2000) Sexism, silence, and solutions: women superintendents speak up and speak out. Educational Administration Quarterly 36(1):44–75.

57.

Tallerico

(2000) Gaining access to the superintendency: headhunting, gender, and color. Educational Administration Quarterly 36(1):18–43.

58.

Tallerico

Blount

(2004) Women and the superintendency: insights from theory and history. Educational Administration Quarterly 40(5):633–662.

59.

Wickham

(2007) Female superintendents: perceived barriers and successful strategies used to attain the superintendency in California. Doctoral dissertation, University of the Pacific, CA, USA.

60.

Yong

Pearce

(2013) A beginner’s guide to factor analysis: focusing on exploratory factor analysis. Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology 9(2):79–94.

61.

Young

McLeod

(2001) Flukes, opportunities, and planned interventions: Factors affecting women’s decisions to become school administrators. Educational Administration Quarterly 37(4):462–502. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X01374003