Rural Superintendents as Political Agents: Grassroots Advocacy in Appalachian Districts of Southeast Ohio

This qualitative inquiry explores the narratives of rural superintendents regarding their roles as moral agents in the politics of public school settings and how they view their moral and political advocacy as grassroots activism for student and community rights. Insights from superintendent narratives provided themes about the history, practice, and expectations of school leaders as political agents within their respective communities. These themes focused on activism and advocacy for equitable funding and policymaking that specifically related to transportation, testing, and technology. Findings describe and define how superintendents make meaning of their political and public obligations and provide data that can help leadership preparation programs better prepare candidates for meaningful political practice. Introduction With shifts in power from the local education agency to federal legislature under No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), and back to the state under Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), the political roles assumed (or not assumed) by school superintendents have become increasingly critical to the present and future state of education. Netusil and Dunkin (1974) acknowledged that superintendents and other district stakeholders did not believe that educational leaders, including superintendents, should participate in a political role, especially at the state level. One participant in this study acknowledged this position, stating, “I have to tell you back in 1987 when I started as an educator I had no idea that I would testify before the house or the senate in the State of Ohio. Or anything. I didn’t realize that education was political” (Personal communication, 2016). According to Netusil and Dunkin (1974) this opinion developed most likely due to the idea that education and politics should not mix. Over time this mindset has changed. Scholars have noted a growing emphasis being placed on the superintendent as a political agent the district leader’s responsibility for gaining needed resources and improving the educational experience for students in their districts (Antonucci, 2012; Cuban, 1985; Elmore, 2000). The purpose of this study was to examine the opinions of practicing school superintendents in rural Appalachian Ohio regarding the roles they assume as advocates for students and look at ways they provide the local education agency with a political voice at the state or even federal levels. Primarily the study aimed to gain an understanding of the superintendent’s role as a moral agent engaged in school politics, and subsequently create a more in depth image of his or her experience in activism at the local and state level for meaningful school change. As such, the researchers sought to determine what characteristics rural superintendents valued most in politics of school leadership. The research attempted to identify and prioritize the critical factors involved in educational leadership, from the perspectives of district superintendents as political agents. Journal of Research Initiatives Vol. 3 No. 1 November 2017 ISSN: 2168-9083 digitalcommons.uncfsu. edu/jri 2 Research Problem As school district leaders, superintendents have a unique obligation beyond the immediate needs and interests of their students and various stakeholders that involves a broader scope of political engagement. Specifically, superintendents are responsible for all aspects of educational policy, including local, state, and federal issues. This can create a dynamic and complex political environment. According to Noguera and Wells (2011), Policymakers typically develop and legislate new education policy in state capitols based on ideas that may be politically popular (i.e., phonics versus whole language or opposition to bilingual education), but without consulting with educators or educational researchers. In many cases, educational policies are more likely to be based on politics and ideology than on objective educational research. (p. 10) The problems and concerns of school superintendents in rural regions of the United States, such as the Appalachian region of southeast Ohio, include distinctive difficulties with technology, high-stakes testing, and inadequate school funding (Howley & Howley, 1995; Meier & Wood, 2004; Nichols & Burliner, 2007; Ravitch, 2011). Historically, rural Appalachian school districts have been economically and educationally disenfranchised due to unconstitutional funding models (Obhof, 2005), overuse of standardized testing (Howley, 2001), and unstable enrollments due to competition with non-traditional schools (Carnoy, 2000). These factors have lead to a perception of sub-standard quality of education in the region (Shaw, DeYoung, & Rademacher, 2004). However, while these difficulties are unique, these problems are not exclusive. The perceptions and opinions of these superintendents about the actual and perceived political forces in these often-isolated areas lay down a foundational narrative that informs leadership practice and preparation. Superintendents from rural school districts were interviewed using a questionnaire that delves into the way in which superintendents advocate and engage in activism concerning political issues impacting their respective districts. Past research from three decades ago (Cuban, 1985; Netusil & Dunkin, 1974) showed that superintendents did less in actual political roles than they thought they should do. As such, this investigation explored the notion of whether or not that is still the case and look at ways in which superintendents successfully (and unsuccessfully) engage in relevant politics. Research Questions The overarching research question for this study was, “How do rural superintendents in the Appalachian school districts of Southeast Ohio perceive themselves as political agents? ” Underlying this principal question were two additional questions. First, “What expectations do Appalachian superintendents in rural districts have regarding their own moral obligation to be politically engaged? ” In other words, how do rural superintendents define political agency? Second, “What do these rural superintendents perceive to be the primary political concerns for their stakeholders and what activities do they undertake to face these concerns? ” Theoretical Framework Political agency can be viewed as influence, power, authority, and persuasion demonstrated by leaders in local, state, and federal contexts. Superintendents function as political agents through advocacy leadership to make education worthy to call it an education (Anderson, 2009; Apple, 2009). In Anderson’s (2009) words, the term advocacy leadership refers to . a more politicized notion of leadership . that acknowledges that schools are sites of struggle over material and cultural resources and ideological commitments. Political Journal of Research Initiatives Vol. 3 No. 1 November 2017 ISSN: 2168-9083 digitalcommons.uncfsu. edu/jri 3 alliances of leaders may have to be built among superintendents, principals, teacher leaders, union leaders, student leaders, and community leaders in order to defend the democratic goals of public schooling against those who to replace the political democracy with a logic of the marketplace. (p. 13) By taking a role of advocacy leaders, superintendents engage in political activities that focus not only on local community realities but also on the impact that state and federal policies have on their communities. Thus, political agency refers to organizational processes, individual and collective efforts, formal and informal acts, and rational and affective demonstrations for impacting political spaces, events, processes, or outcomes (Barnett, 2008; Häkli, & Kallio, 2014; Lestrelin, 2011). Educational leaders, as political actors, exercise political agency in many facets of their work, and if these leaders are working toward equitable and socially just access for all students, they demonstrate competencies and dispositions of advocacy leadership (Anderson, 2009; Apple, 2009). Political agency, although a highly disputed and multifaceted concept (Brewer, 2011; Thomas, 2009; Wright, 2010), relates to the political behaviors of school superintendents in a dynamic and dimensional practice at the local, state, and federal levels of policymaking and public influence. Fostering true transformation and change has become an urgent need in the educational enterprise of closing the achievement gap and promoting equity and justice (Friedman & Mandelbaum, 2011). However, change demands school leaders find new ways of establishing connections with school stakeholders. Superintendents face a need to acquire and utilize power to disrupt the historical, social, and economic marginalization of their learning communities. Challenging trends in budgeting and standardization in the education may necessitate developing a strong public and democratic presence at all levels of policymaking. Context of the Study Geographically speaking, Southeast Ohio is synonymous with Appalachian Ohio. The region is comprised of 32 counties ranging from Clemont County in the southwestern region eastward along the Ohio River north of Kentucky, to the southeastern corner sharing a border with West Virginia, and then north up the Pennsylvania border to the northeastern most county of Ashtabula at Lake Erie (Appalachia Rural Commission, 2016). Appalachian Rural Commission (ARC) (2016) defines Appalachia as “a 205,000-square-mile region [including] the Appalachian Mountains from southern New York to northern Mississippi” (p. 1). The Appalachian area of Ohio is home to 327,102 people living in poverty (Ohio Development Services Agency, 2016). The Appalachian counties with the highest population in poverty are Mahoning with 40,784 and Trumbull with 35,147; the county with the highest percentage of population in poverty is Athens at 31.6%. Images of Appalachian Ohio, such as those perpetuated by Vance’s Hillbilly