This is a sample of my chapter 1 and my research questions, so you can get a feel of my work.
Chapter I
INTRODUCTION
The underrepresentation of women in leadership is an ongoing dilemma impacting not only the social constructs of our lives, but of utmost importance, public education. The fact that there is a dearth of Hispanic females in administration and many of them are leading rural schools, begs the question of why. In 1939, Brewton wrote “one of the nation’s greatest educational problems is to discover ways and means of improving rural school and through them the quality of life in rural America” (p. 397). The scarcity of research in the area of Hispanic female leaders and their roles in rural schools has yet to be fully examined. In 1991, only one case-study on Hispanic women superintendents had been carried out (Brunner, p. 126). “Research on women in educational administration has focused primarily on white females. Although this research area is rich with data concerning women, there is limited information on minority female administrators” (Brunner, 1999, p. 125). Nationally only 20% of school superintendents are women, yet an overwhelming 75% of teachers are female; these statistics do not reflect equity (Manuel & Slate, 2003; Keller, 1999). In 1982, the American Association of School Boards reported only four Hispanic female school superintendents in the entire United States (Brunner, 1999).
Research Questions:
Why do Hispanic women superintendents work at small rural school districts?
To what extent have Hispanic female superintendents in this sample felt discriminated against when applying for superintendent positions?
To what extent do the experiences of Hispanic women superintendents impact their current leadership practices?
And, these are the 10 pages I have on my literature review so far:
“Mexican-American female superintendents are a small, unique, but nonetheless important population. Hispanic females whether Mexican American or Cuban or Puerto Rican or Central or South American- are severely underrepresented in all educational administrative positions, especially considering the superintendency” (Mendez-Morse, 1999, p. 125 [Sacred Dreams book]). Despite efforts to build leadership capacity among women in educational programs and the slight increase of females in leadership positions, both in and outside of public education, the fact remains Hispanic women continue to be underrepresented in the position of school superintendent (Brunner & Kim, 2010; Brunner, 2000; Tallerico, 2000). Even more dismal is the limited body of knowledge available to explicate this phenomenon. This chapter will provide an overview of the literature which emphasizes the underrepresentation of Hispanic women in leadership positions, specifically in the school superintendency and the fact this study is critical in adding knowledge to the scarce availability of literature on the topic of female Hispanics as school superintendents. Emphasis will also be placed on literature-based rationales for the underrepresentation of females in leadership. Chapter two will provide a review of the literature which will cover: history of women in public school systems, Hispanic women as educational leaders, history of rural schools, and women as school superintendents in rural schools, in order to provide background information which will answer the research questions.
It must be acknowledged there are more women in leadership positions in general as well as in the school superintendency; there was a marked increase during the 1990s (Gates, et al., 2003). As per the American Association of School Administrators 2000 survey, the number of women superintendents doubled since 1992, to thirteen percent (p. 20). Regarding minority superintendents, a bit over five percent were represented in the United States; that was a thirty percent increase since 1992 as well (p. 20). However, the number of women in school leadership positions, specifically superintendents, remain inequitable in comparison to the amount of women in the field of education; in fact, “at the current annual rate of increase, it won’t be until the year 2035 that we will see a 50-50 gender ratio in superintendents” (Derrington&Sharratt, 2008, p. 8). It is clear that despite these gains we can quantify gaps in the number of female representation in leadership; therefore, a related history behind this trend should be noted.
History of Women in Public School Systems
Madden (2005) describes five principles within a sociocultural context to offer a historical of women’s positions in higher education administration and leadership. An early group of women leaders included the Predecessors; they were women who were leaders during World War II and the Great Depression. These women tended to embody male models of leadership. The Instigators resulted from the civil rights and anti-war movements in the 1960s. They participated in a feminist movement looking for scholarly opportunities in education and in the workplace. The Inheritors were women that emerged in the 1990s and held “the Instigatorsas role models and visionaries” (p. 4). There is acknowledgement of progress in equity between men and women, however gender stereotyping continues to affect leadership. Women were viewed as competent, if they were not “feminine enough” or “not nice”. Women in administrative positions tend to emphasize male driven characteristics so they are not stereotyped as weak. The underrepresentation of women in higher education penetrates through leadership positions in general, but specifically in school superintendent positions. “Because people more easily perceive men as being highly competent, men are more likely to be considered leaders, given opportunities, and emerge as leaders than women” (p. 5).
Need a lot more history!!
Hispanic Women as Educational Leaders
Christman& McClellan (2008) identify components found in women administrators in educational leadership programs, which make them resilient in finding and maintaining leadership positions. Key components and markers of resiliency, ranked by women, in order from most to least important were: type A personality/somewhat driven; perseverance; appreciating relationships/valuing people;role models for others; sense of having to succeed/failure not an option;support from families, partners, husbands, and colleagues; optimism; voice for minority women; excited about responsibility; feelings of successand satisfaction with teaching and scholarship; and tenure (p. 14). The researchers expected women leaders to embrace their feminine characteristics or components; on the contrary, women exhibited more male-type leadership styles. Christman& McClellan’s research also revealed that when women wanted to initiate change, their credibility decreased in comparison to male-initiated change. Brunner (2000) echoed this burden: “sometimes beliefs and actions quite natural for men superintendents were unnatural for the women because of the gender-specific expectations of our culture” (p. 83). Again, Brunner (1999) emphasized female administrators do not conform to the “social gender expectation” of the typical leader (p. xi). A factor contributing to this includes people being placed in gender categories where women should behave like women and men should act like men (p. 6). The ability to overcome adversity, referred to as resiliency theory, was key for women maintaining their leadership positions. In terms of Social Role Theory, Valverde (1980) alluded to conflict in roles of Hispanic leaders which are compromised between the expectations of their communities and their workplaces.
Research also sheds light on the fact varied leadership styles between men and women may be contributing to the underrepresentation of females in leadership positions (De la Rey, 2005). De la Rey discussed the following traits as associated with leadership: effective communication, task completion responsibility, problem solving, and originality, among others (p. 5). Some argue there are no differences in leadership styles practiced by men and women; however, many women who pursue non-traditional leadership positions reject feminine characteristics and tend to practice similar styles as men (XXX, 20xx, p. xx). On a larger scale, others argue that women tend to be more: participatory, democratic, sensitive, nurturing, and caring (XXX, 20xx, p. xx). Good conflict management, interpersonal skills, excellent listeners, being tolerant, and having empathy are other characteristics found in women leaders (p. 5). Women also encourage more collaboration, consultative decision making, and lean towards more collegial workplace, in contrast to men, which tend to be more autocratic and have a directive style (XXX, 20xx, p. xx). “The differences are attributed to gender-specific socialization practices and life experiences” (p. 6). Regardless of leadership styles and whether men and women practice a specific type or a blend of styles, the fact remains “women’s access to leadership positions has been hindered by discrimination and stereotyping” which will be further expanded upon in the next section (p. 6). Brunner (2000) and Marcano (1997) also allude to leadership style, indicating female superintendents reported they had to be “lady” like and could not be too direct for fear they would be labeled as “bitches”(XXX, 20xx, p. xx).
Add research on Leadership Styles (Northouse)/ those associated with men v. women?
Leaders face a plethora of challenges and decision-making circumstances which are compounded by the perplexities of managerial demands. Marcano (1997) explained how Hispanic women relayed their experiences in educational leadership; she researched women’s leadership in terms of experiences, challenges, and victories. These women stressed language and culture were at times a hindrance, but also gave way to success. When communities of the schools they headed were majority Hispanic, the women were embraced and accepted; yet, in situations where school communities were unlike the Hispanic female leader, the opposite occurred. One participant shared the fact her campus lost quite a few families because the communities doubted her leadership capacity and skills due to her gender and race. Oftentimes “the women protested the way in which their leadership was questioned in terms of gender and culture. This created a highly stressful work environment for the women who constantly had to prove themselves” (p. 2).
The majority of the ten participants in Marcano’s study reported sexual and racial harassment, both overt and covert. Participants also felt isolated because of their gender and race which led them to question their own leadership capabilities. Even when successful leadership was observed by the school community or student performance, it was difficult for the Hispanic women to accept the accolades of their leadership. Because of culture and race, most of these women felt they could not “sing their own praises”; they attributed success to teamwork and collaborative efforts. According to Ortiz, “the match and best fit between the Hispanic female and the school districts is one in which the superintendent serves to represent the Hispanic groups who may be sources, or perceived as sources, of conflict or unrest in the school district” (Brunner, 1999, p. 96). Unfortunately, some of the Hispanic women’s supervisors perceived the female superintendents’ gender and race as a weakness instead of trying to understand the underpinnings of race, gender, and culture in the women’s responses to power and/or success. The women also reported being continuously scrutinized to gauge whether they were acting “too Hispanic” (p. 4). Undeterred by race and gender expectations of what Hispanic female leaders are supposed to be, these women forged their own support systems by “creating opportunities to teach and lead others into understanding” as a result of the “worst situations” they encountered (p. 5). This emphasizes the need for the voices and experiences of Hispanic women superintendents of rural schools to be further explored.
In reference to harassment, Brunner (1999) and Marcano (1997) reveal that it still exists and has in fact led to the departure of women from the position of superintendent. Harassment is defined as to annoy persistently or to create an unpleasant or hostile situation for especially by uninvited and unwelcome verbal or physical conduct (Merriam, 2014).Marcano’s study acknowledges various forms of sexual and racial discrimination, as well as women encountering criticism in relation to their gender. However, harassment may not be overt; as a matter of fact, Brunner (2000) asserts these types of obscure practices resemble silence; silence concerning women having to hide their emotions, expressing themselves differently when among their male counterparts, and “the discomfort they felt in groups of men because of the nature of their conversations” (p. 91).
Focusing on the realm of education, research attests to the underrepresentation women in the superintendency. Brunner (1999) confirms there are contentions among many school boards to hire female superintendents. Manuel & Slate (2003) support the former; their study revealed that over 50% of Hispanic women felt school boards failed to recruit females and that school boards also perceived women as “unqualified’ to deal with fiscal issues. To reiterate this pattern, Brunner & Kim (2010) maintain school board’s prejudices with respect to women involve women not being able managers and women are not proficient with school budget demands (p. 300). These biases serve as catalysts for what Brunner describes as the impetus or turning point for women, which invokes a conversion from the teacher or “preleadership” role to that of superintendent (p. XX).Need more on discrimination
The literature also reveals other issues women have faced as superintendents: power and harassment as previously described. Oftentimes power is linked to grandeur or authority, but in terms of how women view the paradigm of power, the emotional and analytical arrangements are quite unique. A qualitative study carried out by Brunner (2000), elaborated on how women view power. The majority of the twelve participants, all women superintendents, felt they did not have power; instead the women in the study “downplayed” the power their superintendency represented. Their ideas with respect to their power included the following: “power was a gift to her from others; power to me means serving; and you really give yourself power when you watch the success of those that you work with…be all they can be” (Brunner, 2000, p. 88). In essence, “women in this study talked about power as a collaborative, inclusive, consensus building model with their own voices heard in concert with others” (p. 88). “The discussion about power ‘with/to’ and power ‘over’ reflects one of the current debates within the feminist research community” (Brunner, 1999, p. x).
An additional concern addressed through the literature is the fact more women than men enrolled in educational leadership courses and superintendent certification programs, however, women are not represented in the actual school superintendent position (Brunner, 2000; Tallerico, 2000). To support the latter statement, 37% of females (ages 25-29) completed their bachelor’s degree in comparison to only 30% of males within the same age range; only 5.7% of males completed a master’s degree in comparison to 9.2% of females; and doctoral degrees conferred in the area of Educational Leadership and general administration were 63% for women and 29% for men (U.S. Department of Education, 2014).
When women are ready to embrace the position of school superintendent, Brunner (1999) affirms the following are “critical stages” they must have experienced: participated in a leadership project, made a commitment to the school superintendent position candidacy and role, as well as deep contemplations of the implications and responsibilities that the superintendency embodies. Trying to understand the role of women superintendents is a challenge; not only the struggles, factors, and biases women face, but the fact “it is only during the past 20 years that one finds research directed specifically to women superintendents” (Tallerico, 1999, p. 29 as cited in Brunner, 2000).
The strife met by women superintendents is a glimpse into the peculiar situation female Hispanic superintendents experience due to the combination of their gender and race. Tallerico’s (2000) study of superintendent searches and their practices, referred to as headhunting, sheds light on the barriers which keep women minorities from reaching school superintendent positions as easily as white males. The term “headhunting” is often used to describe the process of school superintendent recruitment. Headhunting rings a bit negative when the purpose of hiring a superintendent should be a positive process because it should promote learning, sponsor student advocacy, and ultimately increase student success. Tallerico explains how Lewin’s Gatekeeping Theory is aligned to superintendent headhunting when dealing with minorities and females. Gatekeeping is a “flow process” that controls which applicants advance to the next stage of the process; this process has several stages and “each section of channels reflects “in” or “out” decisions points…controlled either by “a set of impartial rules” or by a person with differing degrees of power” (p. 19). Tallerico also utilizes Riehl& Byrd’s Career Mobility Model to explain how gender-related circumstances negatively impact women’s career advancement in educational administration. Both Gatekeeping Theory and the Career Mobility Model shape the fact that
positive effects of personal and socialization factors such as aspirations, qualifications, and experience do not assure women equity with men in administrative career development, given the powerful gender-stereotyped contextual, structural, and social forces that serve to counterinfluence individual action for advancement (p. 22).
Supporting Tallerico’s findings, a plethora of research has also brought to light race, gender, and “ethnic factors that parallel these gendered obstacles to accessing the superintendency, including systemic biases, professional socialization patterns, tokenism, and cultural exclusion” which continue to hinder career advancement (Hudson, 1991, 1994; Ortiz 1982, 1999 as cited in Tallerico, 2000, p. 22). As a result of Tallerico’s study, three observations can be established: how best qualified is defined, stereotyping and cultural issues, and the influence of “good chemistry” during the interview process. Most importantly, these three areas can impede aspiring Hispanic women superintendents since the majority of superintendent search corporations are comprised of white males and their inherent susceptibility to Byrne and Kanter’s similarity-attraction theory (p. 37). Need brief definition.
Mendez-Morse (2000) holds a different perspective, which demands the role and significance of female Hispanic superintendents not be explicated as “atypical”. She asserts the strength, capability, and innate drive in Hispanic women should be viewed as normal and inherent to their race and gender. Mendez-Morse’s first premise posits that Hispanic women do not fit the stereotype of relations with men, traditional domestic roles, and limited out-of-home work and educational opportunities. Mendez-Morse contends the reasons Hispanic women are viewed as such is a result of the scarce research on Hispanic women leaders and the fact there are very few Hispanic women leaders, relative to non-minority males and females, in leadership positions to research (p. 584).
The unending challenges people experience in the work place are constant. When Hispanic women are placed in this configuration, the demands are no different except when gender based biases further exacerbate their career challenges. When race is yet another facet which can impact women’s careers, then supplementary complexities surface; such are the trials many Hispanic female school superintendents deal with throughout their careers. Great strides have been made to improve equality in terms of gender and race in the realm of public school leadership, unfortunately we cannot turn our eye from the fact many women’s “unsettled experiences were the result of the social norm that suggest it is “not natural” to have women in the role of superintendent, given the gendered cultural beliefs governing attitudes about whether a particular job in an “acceptable” position for a women” (Brunner, 2000, p. 83).
