INVESTIGATING THE UNDER-REPRESENTATION OF WOMEN IN POSITIONS OF AUTHORITY IN EDUCATION

by Diane L. Jackson

A Paper Submitted in Partial Fulfillment Of The Requirements for

ED812 The Governance of Educational Institutions

Capella University,  June, 2001

INTRODUCTION

In her book, Failing the Future, Kolodny states her reasons for entering administration:

To begin with, I had become impatient with feminist studies of academe that cataloged unfair promotion and tenure practices or that analyzed how university decision-making structures continued to marginalize female and minority staff and faculty. Too often these analyses settled for the conclusion that, because power structures in the university are always contingent and provision, they are available to change. 'The ways things always were,' in other words, did not mean the ways things had to be in the future. Unfortunately, the potentially liberating insight of such studies seemed to me muted by the lack of concrete plans of action. (p. 6)

She believed she had the qualities necessary to change what has been termed the under-representation of women in decision making positions. Unfortunately, by the end of the book, she had changed her mind and became somewhat cynical in her outlook as she described incident after incident proving the intransigence of the male domination model of authority. In this paper, the author would like to delve into both the statistics and reasons for this phenomenon. It would appear that the issue is not as clear cut as portrayed in the popular media as illustrated by Tempest Williams' quote (as cited in Dorney, 2000): "And if she found herself in a board of directors' meeting and the truth as she felt it was not being told, she would place all her cards on the table as a sign that the games of men are not the games of women" (p. 10).

STATISTICS SHOW UNDER-REPRESENTATION

While the similarity of men's and women's games may be debated, what is obvious, however, is the fact that women and other minorities are, indeed, under-represented in higher positions of responsibility. Although Logan and Scollay (1999) point out that federal legislation such as the Equal Pay Act, the Women's Educational Equity Act, and Title IX have, indeed, advanced professional enhancement and educational opportunities for women, societal attitudes have not concurrently changed. "The US public school superintendency continues to be the most gender-stratified executive position in the country with men 40 times more likely to advance from teaching to the top leadership role in schools than are women" (Skrla and Reyes, p. 45).

In other words, although 74% of the workforce in public schools is female, only 7% are superintendents (Skrla et al., p. 46). Wolverton (1999) states that even within the small group of female superintendents, 64% of them work in districts serving fewer than 1,800 students (p.3). Arguably, as this position represents the pinnacle of academia in the non-university environment, perhaps the statistics are different for other educational levels. They are not. Prichard and Deem (1999) find that women make up 18% of principals, 34% of second tier managers, e.g. vice-principals, 42% of department heads and a little over 50% of program co-ordinators. The trend is clear: women teach and men manage.

The prevalence of female superintendents working in smaller districts mirrors the grouping of principals as well. Most male principals work in rural and small town schools while 39% of principals in urban/rural areas are female (Zheng and Carpenter-Hubin, p. 12). The problem, however, is not limited to the continental United States. Malik and Lie (as cited in Bown, 1999) conducted an international survey depicting similar statistics regarding the status of women in administrative positions.

It would appear then that, as Lafferty and Fleming (2000) point out, women are, in addition, "disproportionately concentrated in areas and institutions with the lowest level of research funding" (p. 263) which has led to inequitable outcomes for many women regarding the funding of grants and future tenure awards. Winkler (2000) reports that although women in biology published less than their male colleagues, the number of citations per article was greater. However, even though there are fewer women, more and more are addressing research topics. Bjork (2000) reports that "during the past five years … women authored or coauthored with male colleagues 70% of scholarly articles on the superintendency published in EAG, the Journal of School Leadership, and the Journal of Educational Administration" (p. 6).

At the tertiary level, there are more female deans of nursing than any other single department (Wolverton and Gonzales, 2000). As Wallin (1999) writes, the inequality of women is structural and embedded into the system. Mere legislation will not go far enough to adequately address the inequity. In their analysis of Chief Academic Officers, McKenny and Cejda (2000) found that the female profiles differs from that of her male peers in that she has held more positions for shorter periods of time. Arguably, one of the reasons for fewer women was always that there were not enough enrolled in appropriate graduation programs. However, those figures are changing. According to Shepard (1999), in 1994, 40% of the students were women while, by 1998, that number had surpassed 50%. Logan and Scollay's research (1999) corroborates the results that show more and more women are preparing for school administration careers.

Contrary to popular opinion, statistics from earlier in the century paint a different picture. During the time period from 1910-1950, Blount (1999) reports that nearly 25% of country superintendencies and 10% of all superintendencies were held by women. A closer look at the historical changes occurring at this time might provide some insight regarding this statistical change.

HISTORICAL ORGANIZATION OF EDUCATIONAL HIERARCHIES

"Historically, authoritarian leadership has been the pattern for school administration" (Logan and Scollay, p. 99). Specifically, men were thought to be better disciplinarians and, as teaching was perceived as an offshoot of motherhood, females were regarded as the better nurturers. However, during the period right after the Civil War, women were teaching and administrating as there was a paucity of available men. With the growth of the suffrage movement, women continued to enter the education field and to be, by all accounts, quite successful, as they worked their way upwards, gaining firsthand experience along the way. This trend continued, more or less, up until after World War II.

At that time, schools began to recruit returning veterans. At first, the men resisted because teaching was thought to be "women's" work. To overcome this perception, a number of changes were instituted. First, men were recruited "with the promise they would receive rapid promotion to school administration" (Blount, p. 6). Then the newly organized University Council for Educational Administration began expanding their course offerings of educational administration preparation programs. This was, of course, in response to the government's initiation of the GI Bill that allowed veterans to complete their education at government expense. Females, of course, were not included. That this program impacted on the turnaround of female to male principals and supervisors was evidenced as late as 1971 when a survey conducted by the American Association of School Administrators found that "nearly 70% of all superintendents that served that year had been assisted in their studies by the GI Bill" (Blount, p. 7). In addition to the GI Bill, a number of school districts began to consolidate because, in that way, a larger tax base could be used to determine both the budget and administrators' salaries. By 1960, the percentage of female elementary school principals had declined from 56% in 1950 to 4% (Blount, p. 13).

While previous supervisors had learned through experience, the new group were educated in the best practices of the day. As "the historically accepted concept of educational administration demands that those in authority positions keep power to themselves and tightly control the workings of the organization" (Limerick and Anderson, p. 408), typically masculine characteristics needed to be exemplified. It was during this time that a writer for the American School Board Journal described the necessary characteristics of a successful school superintendent:

The man selected could not be labeled as an effeminate being. He was a former collegiate athletic hero. His physique was comparable to any of the mythical Greek gods. He was truly the ultimate in manliness. (Blount, p. 11)

As Blount goes on to write, men were expected to be athletic and married. These developments were to have lasting effects on the nature of educational administration. Modern studies (Prichard and Deem, 1999; Street and Kimmel, 1999; Ruhl-Smith & Shen, 1999; Limerick and Anderson, 1999), have documented that the very nature of educational authority is changing. What was once regarded as a necessary military-style management style is now changing in favor of an approach that supports and empowers individuals, essentially a masculine to feminine shift.

The concept of shared policy making power was identified as a behavioral competency for educational administrators as early as 1955 but school governance changes of the 1990s have altered empowerment of stakeholders from a recommended behavior to an operational necessity. Administration in restructured schools of the 1990s focuses on teaching and learning. School based decision making emphasized collaboration and consensus. This change alters the traditional image of school principals and superintendents. School principals must have strong communication skills and be able to nurture leadership in others. Superintendents, as well as principals, must focus on instructional improvement and be collaborative leaders who can deal with site based management. Thus, changing perceptions of school administration shifts expectations of leadership characteristics to favor those skills that are more compatible with cultural expectations and socialization patterns for women than was previously true. New school leadership paradigms hold promise for positive change in beliefs about the appropriateness of women for the secondary principalship and the superintendency. (Logan et al., p. 100)

Through various educational reforms, even the concept of teaching has changed as Perriton (1999) writes, from being regarded not as an action or an outcome but as a process, "an emotional and intellectual connection between teacher and learner" (p. 302). It was this change as well that called into question the more traditional and conventional administrative tendencies. However, the changes have not become embedded into the cultural mores of the society yet and, as a result, "women who wished to enter and succeed in leadership roles had to develop and emphasize high levels of masculine gender traits" (Street et al., p. 223).

MASCULINE VS FEMININE TENDENCIES

In an effort to delineate characteristics of both male and female administrators, Street et al., (1999) conducted a study using the Sex Role Trait Inventory (SRTI) where the respondents were asked to identify characteristics as either male or female using the Likert scale. The study incorporated groupings of ideal man, ideal woman, most men, and most women. Although differences and similarities were found between the men and women in the study, there was a general correlation on some characteristics whereby compassion and deference were seen as female and intellect, sexuality, and power were identified as masculine. The researchers themselves found that "administrators value and model androgynous gender roles but that, among members of the sample, sex-typed stereotypes of women and men remain strong" (p. 236).

Patriarchal and male power has(sic) shaped the construct of leadership, its culture, discourse, imagining and practice for centuries. Alternative conceptions of leadership have to attempt to legitimate themselves against the pervasive influence of these established models … As a result, management is commonly conceptualized as 'masculine', concerned with 'male' qualities of rationality and instrumentality. (Reay and Ball, p. 145)

Of course, the inequity experienced by females is not indigenous to the education field only. The relation between education and business can be seen in that the ratio of male/female students "at top B[usiness] schools hovers below 30% -- virtually unchanged from a decade ago" (Reingold, p. 58). Because of the apparent similarity of the statistics and the fact that recent educational reform has appeared to mimic a business model, we can begin to see that it is the very nature of the educational hierarchy contributing to the inequity. Whereas males were able to chart a career path, women are not prone to "plotting linear career paths" (Lively, p. A34). In a study conducted by Blackmore and Sachs (2000),

[t]he feeling amongst many academic women … was that women were positioned disadvantageously within their institutions, largely because of their life career paths, and because for many their concept of selfhood was tied tightly to teaching, service, and care. (p. 13)

According to Bjork (2000), common attributes of women leaders identified in studies conducted over the past 30 years confirm that women approach school leadership differently then men do and, more importantly, that these differences correspond to the emerging tenets of school reform that classifies teaching as a relationship between the educator and the learner.

For example, they tend to be caring and child centered; they have an understanding of child development and student achievement; and they are experts at instruction and knowledgeable about learning, teaching, and curriculum. Women are also perceived as being more likely to be facilitative and collaborative in their working relationships, and they tend to use democratic leadership styles and power, which contribute to achieving high levels of job satisfaction among staff. They are also viewed as being change agents deeply involved in reform and working toward creating common visions of schooling for children and climates conducive to learning. they also are regarded as being relational, community sensitive, and politically savvy and as valuing working with parents and the community. Furthermore, they tend to be ethically oriented and efficient; they are task oriented and problem solvers; and they have high expectations of others and of themselves. (Bjork, p. 9)

Others (Limerick et al., 1999, Ruhl-Smith et al., 1999, Bjork, 2000), have found corroborating evidence that female administrators do conceptualize leadership differently to many male administrators. Some believe that males might, in fact, have been rewarded in the past for their tightly controlled administrative procedures, whereby women may be better prepared to deal with the challenges of the future than more traditional male leaders. Others believe women focus on using leadership to empower others through collaboration while men view promotion as a status symbol (Ruhl-Smith, et al., p. 599).

Rather than embracing classical male tendencies to view power as dominance and assert an authoritarian stance, women adopted notions of power as shared and exhibited softer approaches to leadership. This work disrupts the traditional settled discourse of men who dominate the field of educational administration and lays important groundwork for a new pattern of discourse and action. (Bjork, p. 9)

However, the notion of a female self that transcends authority and maintains itself through promotion and responsibilities is argued by others to just not be true. For example, Morrison (cited in Reay et al., 2000) found that men and women exhibited very similar characteristics while in positions of executive leadership.

The conflation of leadership with masculinity has significant implications for women headteachers and the ways in which they can, and do, manage and this is evidenced in various empirical studies. Morrison (1987) found that the psychological profiles of women who succeed in positions of executive leadership may be more like those of their male counterparts than they are like those of women in general, while Schein (1974), found that female senior managers were often 'more like men then men themselves'. Meta Kruger found in her study of 98 paired male and female headteachers in Holland that women were no different to their male counterparts in terms of 'internal communication' and 'personal management'. (p. 146)

It has, in fact, been suggested (Prichard et al., 1999) that one of the reasons women adapt so readily to male behavior patterns is because "they are desperate to get on and they've never been offered promotion before" (p. 323). Be that as it may, females still find it difficult to maintain a balance between their personal ambition, professional identity and institutional authority. This is particularly evident at the tertiary level where, in addition to their teaching and mentoring duties, they are expected to conduct viable research.

Women tend to have a stronger level of commitment to teaching, as well as to 'pastoral' and other informal responsibilities concerning the progress of students … yet the administrative and pastoral responsibilities associated with this role can come at the expense of publications and research income, which can be assessed through quantitative measures. For women, enforced absences, partner's careers, the 'mobility' factor and child care generally all tend to work against the combination of a family life and academic careers. In order to meet the criteria for promotion, female academics are finding it increasingly difficult to combine family responsibilities with the investment of time needed to ensure satisfactory outcomes in the prerequisites for advancement. (Lafferty et al., p. 262)

"DOUBLE BIND"

Lafferty et al., (2000) and Winkler (2000) both believe that as more and more women enter graduate programs and complete PhD degrees, the available pool of qualified females will enable more to achieve senior management positions. Already this is becoming evident in some recent studies. Tschannen-Moran et al. (2000) cited Campbell and Newell who, in 1973, reported that 98% of professors were male. By 1986, the proportion of women had reached 19% and, by 1994, 20% (p. 363). Clayton (2000) reported that, since 1986, the proportion of women college and university presidents has doubled from 9.5% to 19.3% in 1998 (p. 14).

Shepard (1999) reports that some of the barriers to continued enhancement for females have been identified to include:

negative attitudes, socialization patterns, level of aspiration, lack of support, and mobility … However, negative attitudes and socialization patterns still exist that are acting as barriers. The lack of support continues to be an issue. (p. 3)

As cited in Logan et al., (1999), Pounder "found the most difficult obstacle to placement of women candidates comes from role stereotyping" (p. 118). However, Logan et al., (1999) found that 68% of department chairs answer 'yes' when asked if women often have more difficulty than men in obtaining employment as high school principal. The barrier noted most often was concern about women's ability to handle discipline (p. 110). Clayton (2000) has indicated that the women's movement has helped in three general areas.

Women have proved they can handle the job. With more women earning PhDs in recent decades, more women are at the rung one step below the presidency. Men are more accepting … Precedents. It's not dangerous or groundbreaking to hire a woman as president. (p. 14)

In general, it would appear that present day barriers to women's continued advancement can be classified as two different types: structural and cultural. Structural barriers would include the more traditional administrative patterns including: networking, tenure, types of research, and salary differential. On the other hand, cultural barriers include the "double bind", "glass ceiling", a perceived lack of interest, choice of different disciplines, and lack of mentors/models.

Ruhl-Smith et al., (1999) analyzed both males and females trying to determine whether there were any unique characteristics that would help to distinguish between male and female reasons for both entering and leaving administration. "Specifically, a larger number of women compared to men drop out of academe, at all stages of their career; a larger percentage of women simply do not obtain tenure; and a larger percentage of women are not promoted or are promoted at a more advanced age. (Winkler, p. 14) Interestingly, two statistically significant discriminate functions were found that uniquely correlated with whether or not the individual was male or female.

…[w]hat distinguished men from women on reasons for entering administration … to work with teachers in school improvement efforts, to have a personally satisfying job, to make a contribution to society, to pursue an interesting career with interesting colleagues, and I like to work with adults … [W]omen decided to enter administration more because of collegiality and the intrinsic reward of the job … [w]hat distinguished men from women on reasons for leaving administration … opportunity to do something else more rewarding, administration related problem, and student related problems … [W]omen were less likely to leave administration because of administration related problems and student related problems but they were more likely to leave because of the opportunity to do something else more rewarding. The results seem to indicate that women are more resistant to student and administration related difficulties … (Ruhl-Smith, et al., p. 599)

BARRIERS

STRUCTURAL

Networking.

Women report that when they are hired for administrative positions, additional barriers arise. One that has been mentioned by Wallin (1999) involves the old boys network that is still in operation, an informal network where decisions are made, and which often excludes females. "This working in isolation leads to a lack of networking with other administrators which is very important for new, learning administrators" (p. 11).

Tenure.

Differential treatment of women faculty in the process of tenure makes it an uncomfortable topic of discussion for both males and females as the exact requirements are not always made clear to individual candidates. Ostensibly, tenure is based on the number of published, journaled articles, frequency of citations, teaching evaluations, and professional peer reviews (Winkler, p. 239). However, fewer females are awarded tenure. Bennett, (cited in Winkler, 2000) found that "both men and women students fail to rate women faculty as being more accessible than male faculty in formal evaluations, even when they receive more attention and time from women faculty. Students also tend to rate female professors as less knowledgeable and demand a higher standard of preparation from them" (p. 740).

Types of Research.

Winkler (2000) also suggests that women faculty have adopted a research style that focuses more on quality rather than quantity. Sonert and Holton (cited in Winkler, 2000) found that the female survey respondents: 1) felt they were almost perfectionist in their research methodology; 2) favored a "quality" approach; 3) chose comprehensive research topics; and 4) placed greater weight on the thoroughness of research as compared to male faculty. Along with fewer publications, women faculty generally received less grant money which may have contributed to fewer tenure appointments.

Salary Differential.

In some disciplines, women faculty members receive up to $18,000 less per annum than their male counterparts (Winkler, p. 739). Although Zheng et al., (1999) found that the average annual salaries for both male and female principals were not statistically different, further analysis determined that, in fact, there was a statistically different salary basis when one compared the schools and their locations with male principals receving more. At least one other author, Pounder, has suggested that perhaps the difference in salary is due less to gender differences and more to school locations (cited in Logan et al., 1999).

CULTURAL

Disciplines of Study.

Bown (1999) warns that although parity may actually be visible across the broad spectrum of subject disciplines, this relationship breaks down upon further examination, as women appear more frequently employed in certain disciplines, typically those of the social sciences, at the expense of science and mathematics.

Lack of Interest.

One of the more interesting historical barriers has been an apparent lack of interest for advancement on the part of female staff. For example, Wallin (1999) writes that "women tend to submit applications for positions only when it is suggested by someone else" (p. 10). Kamau, McLean, and Ardishvili (1999) offer the suggestion that successful female academics indicate their greatest source of support is their immediate family, specifically, their spouses, and it is this support system they use for career advancement.

Of course, as mentioned earlier, the nature of education and administrative leadership is changing with the advent of school reform. What may also be occurring is the nature of employment for women has changed. Traditionally, women's careers were secondary to that of their husband's and, in fact, weren't considered "careers" but merely jobs that provided extra money. The women were still primary caregivers and balancing their own career possibilities with the needs of their families was not possible. However, with the advent of more two income families as well as single parent households, women are able to focus on their own career needs as well. As women have not been able to gain the experience that their female counterparts did before World War II, they have concentrated on entering graduate programs to gain the needed expertise to enable them to actively compete with others for higher academic positions.

"Double bind".

Perriton (1999) and Skrla (2000) suggest that it is very difficult for women administrators to function effectively as feminine entities. Somehow they must satisfy both the feminine characteristics, by being warm and nurturing, as well as the more masculine characteristics of competence and knowledgeability for their professional image. This, "double bind", has been exacerbated by the "unwritten societal and professional rules discouraging women …from publicly acknowledging unequal treatment and by the unyielding silence of those in the profession" (p. 10).

"Glass Ceiling".

The President of Marygrove College, referred to the glass ceiling that women used to put upon themselves in Clayton (2000). "'Now they see themselves in these higher roles, aspiring to them, and being successful'" (p. 14).

Mentors.

Of all the areas that appear to cause barriers to promotion, one suggested by several authors (Limerick et al., 1999, and Duncan, et al., 1999), was the paucity of role models to act as both mentors and guides.

…worked in an educational system whose administrative levels were dominated by men … They had very few roles models of what a good female school administrator might look like. However, they did not appear to have simply followed the accepted (male) model of school administration. (Limerick, p. 404)

RECONCEPTUALIZATION

Grogan (cited in Bjork, 2000) builds a foundation for reconceptualizing the superintendency. She conveys the notion that women bring to practice many characteristics currently missing and necessary for reform.

Although the women's movement and equity legislation may have positively influenced the attitudes of some individuals, they have not dramatically altered the norms and values that perpetuate the glass ceiling that limits career advancement for women in the superintendency. She observes the traditional, dominant paradigm leadership strategies have had little success in emerging contexts, and reformers are calling for superintendents to enact different approaches to leadership to enable them to deal with the fragmented and contradictory environment. (Bjork, p. 11)

Shakeshaft (cited in Bjork, 2000) noted that gender research in educational administration has progressed through six different stages:

provided descriptive information about the number of women serving as school and district administrators;

investigated and chronicled the lives and accomplishments of noteworthy women;

raised the issue related to barriers experienced by women aspiring to administrative careers, investigated factors contributing to their being disadvantages, and inquired into the effectiveness of corrective policies and practices;

used female perspectives to guide research on women's experiences in administration how women superintendents perceive, construct, and enact their roles in a male dominated profession;

focused on the effects of gender on human behavior in school organizations and the effectiveness of women in educational administration; and

focused on understanding women's and men's experiences together. (p. 7-12)

It is this last step that is critical in understanding what is meant by a reconceptualization of our processes of thinking regarding male and female distinctions. Up till recently, gender studies have focused on the "us/them" dilemma and women felt they needed to make a decision as to whether or not they reflected professional (male) or nurturing (female) characteristics. The same decisions had to be faced by males who needed to prove their virility in order to obtain positions in education during the 1950s. In essence, if the situation is to improve, what needs to be reformed, in fact, are the stereotypical images of male and female characteristics. In some ways, these traits are digitized by western society. One is either female or male and there is nothing in-between. In Asian cultures, however, the traits are thought to reside most comfortably as balancing each other.

This is the critical component then of Shakeshaft's sixth stage, the understanding of men's and women's experiences together.

Studies that coincide with this stage are directed toward developing an understanding of leadership that is sensitive to differences in gender, ethnicity, and race and toward redefining the superintendency and building theory rather than simply corroborating generalizations affirmed by the dominant paradigm. (Bjork, p. 12)

Unless research can focus more on the behaviors and characteristics of both sexes, serious changes in administrative policy and collective hiring will not progress. To administrate in an exclusively male or female style will not be good enough. Although liberal feminism strives for a society in which all individuals have the opportunity to realize their potential, early feminist tracts created the same animosity traditional male hierarchical power instills. Elshtain (cited in Wallin, 1999) considered that liberal feminism contains major flaws on three grounds:

its claim that women can become like men if they set their minds to it, or the belief that nurture is the only difference between men and women;

its claim that most women want to become like men, and overestimating the number of women who want to abandon roles such as 'wife' and 'mother' for roles such as 'citizen' and 'worker; and

its claim that all women should want to become like men, to aspire to masculine values. (p. 7)

Realizing that new thinking is necessary (Podmolik, 2000) suggestions are being

made to encourage and support women in administration. Gupton and Slick (1996) and Gupton and Del-Rosario (1997) have outlined four major shifts necessary:

a shift from women's lack of aspiration for administrative positions to their need for a better support system;

a shift from women's lack of necessary qualifications and leadership ability to a greater concern about the quality of their preparation and recognition of their leadership talents;

a shift from focusing solely on too few women acquiring positions in educational administration expanding to include on the job maintenance and retention issues; and

the ultimate shift -- from access to equity. (cited in Wallin, p. 11)

The suggestion that women need a better support system along with a shift to the recognition of their leadership talents has been mentioned by others as well (Zheng et al., 1999 and Johnson, 2001). The realization that although women make up the majority of classroom teachers, they constitute a minority of school administrators at all levels, has forced the issue for many institutions.

Bown (1999) suggests that a UK wide audit of women's positions in university leadership be taken on a regular basis and that the professional associations should be enlisted to campaign for change in the, still present, hierarchical nature of institutions. Interestingly, mandated changes originating from within the government may, in fact, have very little effect on internalized attitudes and behaviors, such as found in cultural behaviors listed above.

It may be possible that the solution to this inequity is already in action with the greater number of women entering graduate programs, the lack of qualified teachers, the predicted need for many more teachers to accompany the growing numbers of students, the proliferation of online educational programs of both a synchronous and asynchronous nature. Australia's foray into the school-based management (SBM) system as educational reform was predicted by Limerick, et al., (1999), to possibly lead to a "regendering of the educational labour market" (p. 402). However, when interviewed, primary school teachers felt the SBM "allowed them further space to do thing their way rather than be constrained by the hierarchical systems of coordination of a centrally controlled system" (p. 404).

SUMMARY

The hierarchical structure of administrative leadership at all levels of education, from primary to secondary to tertiary, has been closely linked to the predominance of males within those leadership positions. Historically, in the United States, this trend began shortly after World War II ended. At that time, many returning veterans were anxious to obtain higher education degrees and the government wanted to support its veterans through the GI Bill. Although teaching was seen to be primarily a female's job because of the nurturing component, many men were brought into the field with promises of administrative positions.

It could hardly have been known at the time how long that trend would continue. In fact, by 1960, the percentage of female elementary school principals had declined from 56% in 1950 to 4% (Blount, p. 13). In addition to the historical precedent, the nature of women's employment earlier in the century was supplemental in the sense that the extra income generated was "pocket money" and not intended to be perceived as a career. However, with the advent of more and more two income families as well as single households, women have begun to address their own needs and career aspirations. Slowly, the number of women entering post-graduate administrative programs has grown. With that growing number, there will be a larger pool of women to choose from for the job vacancies that arise. Additionally, the larger pool of qualified women will allow more women to see others as mentors and role models and the early novelty of a woman administrator will not occur.

As the 21^st century begins, strategies (Logan, et al., 1999) for overcoming barriers to employment of women for administrative positions have included: mentoring, hiring advocacy, and professional networking. Contrary to Kolodny's pessimism, many regard the growing number of qualified women as a positive measure and look forward to the time when educational leadership will "closely reflect the composition of our student pools" (Lively, p. A34).

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bjork, L.G., (February, 2000). Introduction: Women in the Superintendency -- Advances in Research and Theory, Educational Administration Quarterly, 36(1), 5-18.

Blackmore, J. and Sachs, J., (2000). Paradoxes of Leadership and Management in Higher Education in Times of Change: Some Australian Reflections, International Journal of Leadership, 3(1), 1-16.

Blount, J.M., (April, 1999). World War II and the Great Gender Realignment of School Administration, Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, April 19-23, 1999, 1-15.

Bown, L., (March, 1999). Beyond the Degree: Men and Women at the Decision-Making Levels in British Higher Education, Gender & Education, 11(1), 5-26.

Clayton, M., (September, 2000). More Women are Climbing to the Top of the Ivory Tower, Christian Science Monitor, 92(208), 14.

Dorney, J., (Summer, 2000). "Turning Anger into Knowledge": Exploring Anger and Advocaty with Women Educators. Retrieved on May 27, 2001 from the World Wide Web: http://www.advancingwomen.com/awl/summer2000/m3_dorney.html

Duncan, P.K., Seguin, C.A., Spaulding, W., (1999). The Perfect Match: A Case Study of a First Year Woman Principal, Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association (Montreal, Quebec, Canada, April 19-23, 1999), 1-14.

Johnson, R., (March, 2001). Adding to Minority Ph.D.'s in Science and Math, Chronicle of Higher Education, 47(27), B12.

Kamau, d.G, McLean, G.N., Ardishvili, A., (1999). Women Entrepreneurs: Maintaining Business Success Through Human Resource Development, Symposium: Women Entrepreneurs: Maintaining Business Success Through Human Resource Development", 1-34.

Kolodny, A., (1998). Failing the Future: A Dean Looks at Higher Education in the 21^st Century, Duke University Press, Durham: UK.

Lafferty, G. and Fleming, J., (June, 2000). The Restructuring of Academic Work in Australia: Power, Management, and Gender, British Journal of Sociology of Education, 21(2), 257-268.

Limerick, B. and Anderson, C., (1999). Female Administrators and School-Based Management: New Models in an Era of Change?, Educational Management & Administration, 27(4), 401-414.

Lively, K., (June, 2000). Women in Charge, Chronicle of Higher Education, 46(41), A33-36.

Lively, K., (June, 2000). Female Provosts Weigh Many Factors in Deciding Whether to Seek Presidencies, Chronicle of Higher Education, 46(41), A34.

Logan, J.P. and Scollay, S., (March, 1999). The Gender Equity Role of Educational Administration Programs: Where Are We? Where Do We Want To Go?, Journal of School Leadership, 9, 97-124.

McKenney, C.B. and Cejda, B.D., (April, 2000). Women Chief academic Officers of Public Community Colleges: Significant Predictors for Their Career Paths, Paper Presented at the Annual Conference of the council for the Study of Community Colleges 42^nd, Washington, D.C., April 7-8, 2000, 1-28.

Perriton, L., (September, 1999). The Provocative and Evocative Gaze Upon Women in Management Development, Gender and Education, 11(3), 295-307.

Podmolik, M.E., (June, 2000). Liberal Arts College Hits the Books in Turnaround, Crain's Chicago Business, 23(25), 4-6.

Pounder, D.G., (1999). Book Review of Sacred Dreams: Women and the Superintendency by C. Cryss Brunner, Educational Administration Quarterly, 36(1), 143-149.

Prichard, C. and Deem, R., (September, 1999). Wo-managing Further Education: Gender and the Construction of the Manager, Gender and Education, 11(3), 323-342.

Reay, D. and Ball, S.J., (2000). Essentials of Female Management: women's Ways of Working in the Education Market Place?, Educational Management & Administration, 28(2), 145-159.

Reingold, J., (May, 2000). It's Still a Guy Thing, Business Week, 3682, 58.

Ruhl-Smith, C.D. and Shen, J., (1999). Gender Differences in Reasons for Entering and Leaving Education Administration: Discriminant Function Analyses, Journal of Psychology Interdisciplinary & Applied, 133(6), 596-605.

Shepard, I.S., (October, 1999). Level of Aspiration, Mobility, and Persistence: Factors Impacting the Number of Women in Educational Administration, Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of Women in Educational Leadership (Lincoln, NE, October 25, 1999), 1-38.

Skrla, L. and Reyes, P., (February, 2000). Sexism, Silence, and Solutions: Women Superintendents Speak Up and Speak Out, Educational Administration Quarterly, 361), 44-76.

Street, S. and Kimmel, E., (1999). Gender Role Preferences and Perceptions of University Administrators, NASPA Journal, 36(3), 222-239.

Talbert-Johnson, C., (November, 2000). Introduction, Education & Urban Society, 33(1), 3-8.

Tschannen-Moran, M, Firestone, W.A., Hoy, W.K., Johnson, S.M., (August, 2000). The Write Stuff: A Study of Productive Scholars in Educational Administration, Educational Administration Quarterly, 36(3), 358-391.

Wallin, D.C., (October, 1999). Liberal Feminism and Educational Administration: Recruiting and Supporting Women in Educational Administration, Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of the University Council for Educational Administration (Minneapolis, MN, October 29-31, 1999), 1-32.

Winkler, J.A., (November, 2000). Faculty Reappointment, Tenure, and Promotion: Barriers for Women, Professional Geographer, 52(4), 737-750.

Wolverton, M., (1999). Advancing Women in Leadership. Retrieved on May 22, 2001 from the World Wide Web: http://www.advancingwomen.com/awl/spring99/Wolverton/wolver.htm.

Wolverton, M., Gonzales, M.J., (April, 2000). Career Paths of Academic Deans, Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association (New Orleans, LA, April 24-28, 2000), 1-31.

Zheng, H.Y. and Carpenter-Hubin, J., (April, 1999). Exploring Gender Differences in America's School Administrator Workforce: Statistical Evidence from National Surveys, Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association (Montreal, Quebec, Canada, April 19-23, 1999), 1-29.

Go To Top