No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded
from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subject
to discrimination under any educational programs or activity receiving
federal financial assistance.
--From the preamble to Title IX of the Education Amendments
of 1972
The most significant role played by the federal government in advancing
the state of sex equity in educational administration, as well as
in most other issues involving social change, has been through legislation.
"Old habits and time-honored gender roles," write Gupton
and Slick (1996), "are nebulous and stubbornly resistant to
change throughout a society. The two alternative approaches to .
. . discrimination [are] using mandates or changing societal attitudes"
(p.145). These authors make the point that discrimination of women
in the workplace will continue to need legislative backing until
there is concrete evidence supported by hard data and women's experiences
to prove sex equity in the world of work has indeed been achieved
to a level no longer justifying legislative overseeing. Unfortunately,
this seems to be how many societal prejudices and biases are overcome
and ultimately (over much time) widely changed. And so, the federal
level's role in addressing issues of discrimination is a critical
one in facilitating societal change. "Political pressures and
laws and regulations have been, and continue to be, a potent force
in removing barriers in both society and education systems"
writes Adams (1982) quoted in Flansburg and Hanson (1993).
As a result of these varied pieces of legislation (e.g., Title
IX, Equal Pay Act, Women's Educational Equity Act) related to equity
issues in schools and in the workplace, federal funding has been
made available for nearly three decades to states, various agencies,
colleges/universities, and interest groups to provide skill development,
professional enhancement, and other training opportunities for women.
In the field of education, many of these activities have been designed
to raise the level of women's participation in the decision-making
process in the field of education and, more importantly, to increase
the number of women administrators at the local, state and national
levels.
This paper seeks to inform the reader by (1) describing a few of
the more significant federally funded initiatives related to increasing
sex equity (with particular attention to those aimed at improving
the status of women aspiring to or currently in educational administration),
(2) analyzing the strengths and weaknesses of these efforts, and
(3) concluding with the authors' up-to-date analysis of the paradigm
shifts that should occur in the current thinking about the issue
of underrepresentation of women in educational administration; key
suggestions for women seeking administrative careers in education;
recommendations for making federally funded programs and services
geared toward achieving gender equity more effective for today's
women; and the authors' concluding thoughts about this topic. Ultimately,
this paper reinforces the paradigm shifts in thinking about women
in education that should undergird future research and guide reflection,
discussion, policy-making, and practice. These shifts move from
the current trend of focusing on womenís skills that will
enable them to perform above and beyond their job descriptions and
capabilities toward training administrators with the power to recruit,
hire, mentor, retain and promote women in leadership positions.
While it is important to continue enriching womenís experiences
and upgrading their skills, these activities (by themselves) have
not resulted in fully opening and/or significantly expanding
the opportunities for women in the workplace, and this includes
women in leadership roles in education.
Federally-funded Initiatives Advancing Women in
Educational Administration
Southeastern Desegregation Assistance Center
One of the federally-funded, non-profit organizations charged with
the responsibility of providing professional development for women
educators in order to enhance their visibility and increase their
numbers in educational leadership is the Southeastern Desegregation
Assistance Center (SEDAC). Known for its work in desegregation
and equity across race, national origin and sex/gender, one of SEDACís
goals is to provide technical assistance and training which will
improve the overall status of women in educational leadership and
administration in the States of Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky,
Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina and Tennessee.
This section of the paper looks at a random sampling of conferences,
institutes and training agendas that SEDAC has co-sponsored, supported
financially, and/or endorsed for nearly three decades. To
assess the effect of SEDAC activities, a number of women who
have participated in SEDAC activities on sex/gender issues in general,
and women in administration events in particular, were interviewed
regarding their perceptions, professional and personal development.
It is strongly suggested here that there is a need to establish
collaborative working relationships and/or viable partnerships
between those who are now in key administrative positions and (potential)
women leaders. The challenge is to develop meaningful alternatives
which will maximize the use of women's talents and skills, respect
and acknowledge their ability to contribute in the decision-making
process, and be accorded equal status in educational leadership.
The Southeastern Desegregation Assistance Center was among the
first organizations in the United States to receive federal support
to carry out the civil rights mandates regarding desegregation and
equity across race, national origin, sex/gender and different abilities.
There are ten Desegregation Assistance Centers in the country, however,
SEDAC's work in the "deep south" is complicated by the
region's history of segregation that has resulted in the persistence
of racism and sexism in both rural and urban communities.
Over the span of nearly 30 years, SEDAC has received approximately
$800,000 per year or $24 million in federal funds. An important
part of the grantís initiative is that, in addition to dealing
with desegregation, race and national origin issues, SEDAC will
also deliver technical assistance to state and local education agencies
to improve the quality of education for female students and the
participation of women in education administration. To this
end, records show that SEDAC has provided support (only upon request
of organizations, colleges or universities, state and local education
agencies) in the following ways:
1. By becoming members of and/or subscribing to womenís
professional organizations and interest groups including: American
Association of University Women (AAUW), National Organization for
Women (NOW), National Coalition for Sex Equity in Education (NCSEE)
and Womenís Sports Society.
2. By co-sponsoring conferences, institutes and training programs
which address issues pertaining to women in administration and Title
IX (educational equity for women in sports, math, science and other
traditionally male-oriented fields).
3. By providing financial assistance to individuals, organizations
and educational institutions in order to meet specific expenses
for seminars, workshops, conferences, meetings and other events
(e.g., honorariums for speakers, registration and expenses of participants,
cost of meeting rooms, and so on).
4. By working closely with the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) and
the Department of Justice on current policies and mandates regarding
womenís rights, sexual harassment, affirmative action and
equal employment opportunity.
The description above gives a misleading picture of the actual
SEDAC support, performance and commitment to womenís issues.
For instance, memberships to organizations and interest groups have
not translated into meaningful SEDAC participation in and/or lending
a voice for womenís causes. In co-sponsored events,
SEDACís involvement ìbehind the scenesî have
been limited to giving financial support for specific activities.
On questions regarding legal matters (e.g., sexual harassment, hiring/firing
policies, grievance process), SEDAC usually refers inquirers to
OCR, private civil rights lawyers, consultants, state and/or local
education agencies. Moreover, throughout its history, SEDAC
has never hired a part or full-time staff dedicated to addressing
womenís issues (in July 1996, under a new administration,
the Centerís Assistant Director also bears the responsibility
of ìGender Equity Coordinatorî).'
When compared with other SEDAC activities, SEDACís overall
involvement in the area of ìwomen in administrationî
may be best described as insignificant when considering the amount
of time, resources and actual dollars expended on girls/womenís
issues. Therefore, it is not surprising to find that in SEDACís
constituency, the southeastern states, there has been very little
progress (if any) for women administrators in terms of qualitative
and quantitative placements in educational leadership.
A former middle school principal (African-American woman who now
directs a cultural diversity program) commented:
You will find more women hired as principals in elementary schools.
If we are in high school settings, women are more likely to be found
in smaller or less prestigious schools. From what I can see,
men tend to get assigned to the best schools with the most resources
and community support. I might add that the men in these positions
also tend to be White. This is why I gave up being a principal.
I felt that I was on a dead-end job. No matter how I try and
apply, I will never move up to a bigger and better school.
A woman who was recently appointed as an assistant principal in
a high school magnet academy summarized her feelings in the following
way:
I was very happy when I received this appointment. But that
wore off very quickly. Ever since I became an AP, I feel like
a doormat -- I welcome parents and other people who are visiting
the school and I get to show them around. I was given a walkie-talkie
to monitor the hallways, cafeteria, bathrooms, and school grounds.
This is not the job that I applied and interviewed for. As a single
mother, I need this job. As a well-educated person, my mind
is in a wasteland.
An in-depth analysis of training agendas designed to broaden womenís
skills, talents and marketability indicates that:
1. While participants generally express satisfaction on the timeliness
and types of training they have received, there are no indicators
on how such training will affect short and/or long-term job retention
and upward mobility.
2. Training topics tend to raise the level of womenís performance,
efficiency and management of their everyday lives (e.g., time and
stress management, improving womenís health, networking,
dealing with discrimination and sexual harassment in the workplace,
variety of ìhow toísî). Although the topics
seem to raise womenís self-esteem and competency in their
current positions, there are no indicators of how participants could
move effectively in higher level positions or gain acknowledgment
and respect in their respective workplaces.
3. Conferences, institutes and training sessions tend to showcase
women and men who have already reached or are reaching positions
of leadership, expertise and prominence in their respective fields.
Even though participants gain a better perspective on ìwhoís
who,î ìwhoís where,î and/or ìwhoís
involved with what,î such events rarely (if ever) provide
direct linkages between participants and the educational experts/leaders
that would lead to, i.e., mentor-apprentice relations.
4. Federal funds are granted based on proposerís goals and
objectives. In the case of Desegregation Assistance Centers,
performance monitoring and accountability have been lax particularly
on womenís issues. For example, the January 1997 meetings
of the ten regional DACs reveal that directors have placed sex/gender
as very low in their priorities by not including womenís
equity issues in any part of their agenda (race, national origin
and physical abilities were the prevailing equity issues).
Attendance records in SEDACís co-sponsored activities indicate
that the southeastern states have an abundance of highly qualified,
skilled and capable women with strong leadership potential.
The thousands that have attended local, state and national professional
development institutes have included mid-level administrators, college
instructors, principals, assistant principals, master/lead teachers,
consultants, directors and coordinators of educational programs.
They come from different racial and cultural backgrounds -- Asian/Pacific
Islanders, Blacks/African-Americans, European Americans/Caucasians,
Hispanics/Latinos, Native Americans, and those from mixed heritage.
It seems that the underrepresentation of women and minority groups
in educational leadership can be explained by other factors, not
from lack of available, talented women.
A regular participant in SEDACís co-sponsored annual event
for women educators, an administrator from Dade County Public Schools,
shared the following opinion:
In every conference, you hear speakers and workshop presenters talk
about the ìglass ceilingî for women
in management positions. What are they talking about?
Many of us are outside the so-called ìglassî and
far from worrying about the so-called ìceiling.î I
feel that I am being constantly by-passed by people with
little or no experience -- younger men and women from different
backgrounds have been hired for the
positions that I applied for. Right now, I am training my
new boss how our office operates and Iím
supervising our office staff until he gets familiar with each personís
responsibilities.
These comments denote several levels of concern which include racism,
sexism and ageism. That is, in spite of qualifications, experience
and loyalty to the organization, other considerations seem to weigh
heavily in the process of hiring and/or promoting women.
The prevailing agendas of SEDACís co-sponsored activities
tend to reflect the idea of conferencing and training ìfor
the women, by the women.î For instance, event committees
and subcommittees are almost always led by and composed of (predominantly)
women. Male membership is usually reserved for ìmale-feministsî,
those who are user-friendly to womenís causes, and/or donors
of monetary and/or in-kind contributions on the movement for equity/
equality issues. However, it seems that women dominated committees
and subcommittees responsible for launching and maintaining professional
development activities have had very little impact, if any, on the
recruitment, selection, retention and promotion of women in administration.
Another trend which needs scrutiny is the overdevelopment of women
above and beyond their already high credentials. Prevailing
agendas seem to emphasize the need for women to develop further
skills to cope with stress resulting from (greater) demands on their
intellectual, mental and physical abilities. For instance,
sociological studies show that in spite of modern technology (e.g.,
office computers, interoffice communication systems, vacuum cleaners,
microwave ovens, washers and dryers), the amount of time and energy
required to do womenís work has not diminished significantly.
If anything, modern machines and technology have created a false
perception that women today have more leisure and easier time when
compared with their pre-modern era counterparts. It would
seem that time and stress management training would do little to
improve womenís skills unless more time (beyond 24 hours
a day) is provided to perform their work and home-related expectations.
The observation of a literacy program director exemplifies the
points mentioned above:
School district restructuring forced a reduction in the number of
office personnel. But the work that
needed to be done was not decreased at all. Instead, the work
was redistributed to the different
departments which now have lesser number of employees. Most
of us (women) began to share
clerical and support staff. I noticed that most men in our
building retained their secretaries and other
folks. So, even though the responsibilities look like they
had been redistributed evenly to key people,
women administrators did not have the extra help that men were provided.
To get things done, I have
had to work late and, in most cases, take work home on weekends.
Separate interviews of three women who have succeeded in acquiring
leadership positions in their local school districts in Florida,
Georgia and Kentucky indicated that they did not know about federally
funded opportunities for womenís professional development.
The Georgian remarked:
You could say that I am "ìhomegrown." My
parents lived here all their lives, I grew up here and
everybody knows my family. I went to college on scholarship
and that was the only time I left home.
I came back after college and began teaching. Years later,
I decided to go for my masterís degree and
I am now working on my doctorate. It may be true that it is
"who you know" that counts. Sometimes
I wonder if I would have had the same opportunity in cities or towns
where I am a stranger.
The administrator from Florida had a different experience. She
earned her bachelorís degree in Puerto Rico and taught there
for a few years. She married and joined her husband in New
York City. The couple moved to Florida in order to find what
they deemed desirable educational opportunities for their two small
children. She related that:
Good timing, good luck and my Spanish-speaking ability must have
worked for me when I looked for a job.
I started substitute teaching and doing volunteer work at my childrenís
school so I could be near them.
Everybody got to know me -- the superintendent, the principal, the
children, all the teachers and staff. The number of Spanish-speaking
families was increasing at that time, and I volunteered to translate
for parents and their children. When I got a job offer to
work for a private company, I announced the possibility of ending
my volunteer work. At the urging of the school principal who
vouched for my abilities, a job was created for me at the school
district. Since then, I have worked hard and moved to bigger
and better positions.
The Kentucky educator was proud of her growth from a classroom
teacher to a school district administrator. Throughout her
graduate school years, her professor guided her career growth and
opened the doors for job possibilities. She noted:
I was working full-time as a teacher while going to graduate school
part-time. Even though there were many times when I wanted
to give up working on my masterís degree, I had a wonderful
relationship with all my professors. One of my them became
my lifetime mentor. She gave me pep-talks and was patient
in listening to my ideas and interpretation of what I was learning.
This is not to say that she was easy on me. On the contrary,
she demanded the best out of me and I, in turn, made sure that I
met her expectations.....Even now, with a fax or phone call, she
would readily write a letter of recommendation on my behalf.
This was an ideal mentor-apprentice relationship.
The above examples suggest that there are various settings and
alternatives which can be developed and explored to raise womenís
status in educational leadership. There is a common element
which seems to have contributed to the three womenís paths
to success: familiarity with the people who had the authority to
hire them. Such familiarity has raised the level of confidence
that the decision to hire the women is a good one -- that, in addition
to meeting the basic qualifications for specific positions, the
women have a well-grounded history of desirable personal
character which complement the organizationís goals.
The Women's Educational Equity Act - Equity Resource
Center
The Women's Educational Equity Act (WEEA) passed in 1974 was designed
to take proactive steps toward making education more equitable for
girls and women by providing incentives and guidance to schools
and community groups. The WEEA Program, operating under the
auspices of the U.S. Department of Education, funds projects aimed
at developing model educational programs, training, materials, and
research to promote educational equity and transform educational
systems. WEEA projects must have national, statewide, or general
significance and address all levels of education. WEEA grant
recipients may provide direct services to a target group or may
develop educational materials that are disseminated through the
WEEA Equity Resource Center.
In addition, to numerous grants, the WEEA Program established two
support mechanisms: (1) the National Advisory Council on Women's
Educational Programs and (2) the WEEA Publishing Center, now titled
the Equity Resource Center. The National Advisory Council was established
by Congress to inform the secretary of education about educational
equity issues, make recommendations related to WEEA's operation,
and to assess WEEA's funded projects. The council was dissolved
by Congress in 1988 because of increasing pressure from women's
groups who felt that the council as formed by then-President Reagan
was having a counter-productive effect on gender-equity issues.
The second WEEA mechanism (still operative) is the WEEA Equity
Resource Center. The Center, located at Education Development Center,
Inc. and under the direction of Katherine Hanson, was established
to support the work of WEEA-funded projects. In FY 1997 with a budget
of $2,000,000 the Women's Education Equity program awarded the following
grantees:
Montclair State University $72,566
Upper Montclair, NJ
Yakima Valley Community College $61,678
Yakima, WA
School District of Palm Beach $205,560
West Palm Beach, FL
South Dakota Dept. of Labor $163,746
Pierre, SD
Board of Education of Prince George's County $199,275
Upper Marlboro, MD
Massachusetts Pre-Engineering Program, Inc. $181,515
Boston, MA
Source: Melissa Oppenheimer with the U.S. Dept. of
Education - Office of the Under Secretary, Budget Service (See Appendix
C for WEEA's funding history from 1976 to 1997)
According to a report on Title IX and WEEA, the Center "...provides
assistance to grantees in developing products and in publishing
and disseminating those products. In this way, work is shared nationally,
and internationally, and allows others to learn from and build on
the efforts taking place in local schools and communities. The publishing
center maintains a national network of organizations and individuals
working in sex and race equity, and works to keep equity issues
visible within education discussions, as well as to link individual
projects with national educational equity work" (Flansburg
& Hanson, 1993, p.5).
In 1992 the Center expanded its networking capacity with the addition
of electronic networking. Through its initial link with EquityNet,
the Center now shares resources and information with over 4,000
social service organizations and individuals who subscribe to EquityNet
which has greatly increased gender equity awareness and access to
WEEA resources in a market that had heretofore been difficult to
reach (Oppenheimer, 1997).
The Center also moderates EDEQUITY (Educational Equity Discussion
List), a theory and practice discussion list that focuses on educational
equity and serves as a forum for over 500 subscribers who discuss
how to attain equity, improving education for all. [To subscribe,
send the message subscribe edequity (without a "subject"
line) to MAJORDOMO@CONFER.EDC.ORG].
Word is WEEA's newsletter (formerly titled Digest) and is distributed
free to those interested in gender equity and multicultural education.
The August (1990) issue of the newsletter is devoted entirely to
women in school administration and the barriers to their advancement.
This issue includes valuable information on resources and publications
available to women seeking administrative positions in education.
The WEEA Equity Resource Center can be accessed with WEEAPUB@EDC.ORG
on the internet.
Women's Bureau - U.S. Department of Labor
The Women's Bureau was created by Congress on June 5, 1920,
and given this mission: to formulate standards and policies which
shall promote the welfare of wage-earning women, improve their working
conditions, increase their efficiency, and advance their opportunities
for profitable employment. Most of the Bureau's work over the past
seventy years has focused on entry level issues pertaining to women's
access to non-traditional jobs and training outside the professions.
In the 1980's the Bureau began to advocate more forcefully policies
and practices to help make work and family needs more compatible
- an issue that women administrators cite often as a complex problem
and barrier to their advancement into higher levels of administration
in the profession. For the 1990's, as women in educational administration
and other fields of work continue to enter the workforce at ever-increasing
rates, the Bureau continues to emphasize the need for helping people
resolve conflicts in balancing work and family responsibilities.
From its position in the Office of the Secretary of Labor, the
Bureau participates in departmental policy making and program planning,
and serves as a coordinating body in the Department of Labor for
programs affecting women. The Bureau has ten regional offices headed
by regional administrators whose work is to implement national programs
and policies, develop local initiatives to address local needs and
disseminate information and publications that support fair treatment
of women in the workplace. In addition, the Bureau initiates and
supports research pertaining to women in the work force, tests innovative
ideas and approaches through demonstration projects that help prepare
women to enter or reenter the work force, move into new areas of
work, or move up on their careers. It carries out an information
and education program through publications, audiovisuals, media
relations, feature articles, and public speaking (The Women's Bureau:
Milestones, 1990).
Valuable statistics and information on the history and current
status of women and work in the U.S. can be obtained from the Women's
Bureau (i.e., the completion of four major studies of women and
work funded by the Bureau and released in February of 1992). One
of these studies, "Breaking the Glass Ceiling in the 1990's"
by Terry Scandura of the University of Miami, investigated the career
experiences of top level female executives to identify obstacles
to women's career advancement to top-level positions. Important
findings related to women pursuing educational administrative careers
of Scandura's study include (1) the path to the top for women is
through line authority; (2) positive perceptions of career mobility
potential were more prevalent for males than for females; (3) having
a mentor appears to be an important characteristic of the career
of women to make it to the top of their organizations; (4) having
a mentor was positively and significantly associated with higher
salary levels and better self-concepts; (5) a significant lack of
family-supportive policies existed, or if they did, they were rarely
implemented; (6) women with dependent children under age 18 living
at home had lowered career promotion expectations, increased job
stress, more intent to leave the organization, and less mentoring
than women without dependents.
(U.S. Dept. of Labor, Scandura, 1992).
A particularly helpful publication issued by the Women's Bureau
is the 1993 Handbook on Women Workers: Trends and Issues. In the
introduction, the Bureau explains that "(T)his handbook is
more issue-oriented than previous handbooks published by the Women's
Bureau; thus, it attempts to create a better understanding of some
of the forces that influence women's participation or nonparticipation
in the work force and that affect their general economic well-being"
(p.xiii). Chapter 12 of the handbook is titled "Legal
Rights of Women Workers" and includes a detailed account of
recent legal developments and federal government initiatives affecting
women in the workplace. A section of this chapter describes the
work of the Department of Labor in dealing with the proverbial "glass
ceiling" that is particularly pertinent to women educators
in advancing their administrative careers. The authors admit that
"...partially because of the difficulty in evaluating top executive-level
recruitment and promotion patterns, corporate mid- and upper-level
management has rarely been routinely included in compliance reviews
performed by the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs.
As a result, they conclude, "corporate employment practices
with regard to executive opportunities for women and minority employees
have not received the attention that the opportunities for lower
level employees have received" (p. 218).
The Glass Ceiling Commission - Office of the Secretary of Labor
Chapter 12 of The Handbook on Women Workers also includes the findings
of a yearlong study of the "glass ceiling" titled "A
Report on the Glass Ceiling Initiative." Partly as a result
of this study that documented substantial barriers to women's advancement
up the corporate ladder past the middle-management level, the Civil
Rights Act of 1991 mandated the establishment of a Glass Ceiling
Commission housed in the office of the Secretary of Labor.
This Commission, composed of 21 members, is charged with conducting
a study of opportunities for and artificial barriers to the advancement
of women and minorities to management and decision-making positions
in business. This chapter also describes the status of women in
state and local government positions where they state that "(A)
glass ceiling in government limits the participation of women at
the highest levels of the policy-making process. Few women
hold high-level political appointments to cabinet positions. In
addition, the majority of women in government, especially women
of color, still face barriers that restrict their opportunity to
advance beyond the lowest level jobs" (pp. 221-222).
This Glass Ceiling Commission obviously funds numerous studies,
some of which were reviewed by the authors of this paper.
One of these reports confirms the existence of sex discrimination
in the workplace by concluding the following in its executive summary:
* Race/ethnic and gender employment segregation is widespread
in the U.S. economy. The allocation of many women of all ethnic
backgrounds and minority men to lower quality jobs than they can
perform directly creates gender and race/ethnic earnings inequalities.
* Both racial and gender occupational segregation and earnings
inequalities have been reduced since the civil rights legislation
of the 1960s, but reductions in inequalities are uneven, reversible,
and incomplete.
The summary draws many conclusions and includes a number of helpful
recommendations pertaining to hiring and promotion, job stereotyping,
public and private policy initiatives, and research initiatives.
In a special section on "glass ceilings" the authors
conclude that the segregated job structures for women and minorities
prevent them from ever competing for top managerial and professional
positions in large corporations and government agencies. "The
higher one rises in a managerial or professional hierarchy the more
likely future promotions are based on trust, social similarity and
access to the informal networks of power and influence in the organization.
Women and minorities are particularly disadvantaged on these dimensions
in many workplaces," they contend, and they go on to say that
the job of integrating lower levels of management is far easier
than cracking glass ceilings (U.S. Dept. of Labor: Report by Thomaskovic-Devey,
1994).
Still another example of the work of the Glass Ceiling Commission
is a report entitled "Managing Diversity and Glass Ceiling
Initiatives as National Economic Imperatives" written by Cox
and Smolinski (1994). These authors attest to the dilemmas
often caused by the workforce composition unique to the United States:
a workforce that is among the most gender and racioethnically diverse
in the world. One of the most critical challenges posed by diversity
in the workplace is to eliminate barriers to entry and success in
middle and senior manager jobs which may be related to group identity
factors such as gender and race (i.e., break the "glass ceiling").
Reports such as these give needed reinforcement, increased visibility,
and helpful recommendations to issues of discrimination that must
continue at the national level in order for equity to be achieved
throughout the country.
National Center for Education Statistics - Office
of Educational Research and Improvement
The center is described as "...the primary federal entity
for collecting, analyzing, and reporting data related to education
in the United States and other nations. . . . NCES activities are
designed to address high priority education data needs; provide
consistent, reliable, complete, and accurate indicators of education
status and trends; and report timely, useful, and high quality data
to the U.S. Department of Education, the Congress, the states, other
education policymakers, practitioners, data users, and the general
public" (U.S. Dept. of Education, National Center for Education
Statistics, Kopka and Korb, 1993, p. ii).
One of this center's publications relevant to women in education
is Women: Education and Outcomes released in September of 1996.
Included among its 99 pages of tables, charts, and graphs depicting
statistical information on the trends of all descriptions in the
participation by women in higher education and in the labor market
in the U.S. is information on the doctoral degrees in education
conferred by institutions of higher education by sex, 1970 to 1993.
The data reveal that in 1970-71 21% of the doctoral degrees in education
were earned by women while they earned 59% percent of the doctoral
degrees in education in 1992-93. Charts depicting the ratios of
men to women teachers at the university level as well and the ratios
of men to women K-12 teachers dramatically portray the dominance
of male professors in higher education and female teachers in K-12
schools (pp. 58-59). Not listed in the Table of Contents,
but buried in an Appendix of Additional Tables, there is even a
table depicting the distribution of male and female principals,
with the information broken down by grade levels; indicating the
dominance of male principals in middle and upper schools, and the
concentration of female principals at the elementary levels (pp.
83-84). What is missing, however, is also noteworthy: no mention
is made of the numbers of male superintendents to female superintendents,
the top-level executive position in public school education. Certainly,
it seems not only reasonable, but also desirable for a book published
by the National Center for Education Statistics that is expressly
focusing on women in education to include vital statistics regarding
how many women are advancing to the office of chief administrator
of schools in this country. Where else should this information be
collected if not by the country's officially designated and publicly
funded Office of Educational Research and Improvement? Research
on this topic is too often impeded by the scarcity of readily available,
complete data regarding gender and administrative positions in education.
Paradigm Shifts About the Underrepresentation of
Women in Educational Leadership
From the perspective of shifting our paradigms, there is a need
to examine what has worked well for women who have attained success
in obtaining high-level administrative positions (with or without
participation in federally-funded professional development for women).
In their recent book, Highly Successful Women Administrators: The
Inside Stories of How They Got There (1996), Gupton and Slick report
the results of their national study to determine what women in positions
of power in education did to achieve their career goals. In chapter
nine of their book, the authors describe the evolution of issues
pertaining to women's underrepresentation in leadership positions
in education (as well as other fields). The change in many of the
causes for women's underrepresentation in educational administration
has created new areas of concern which, in many instances, replace
or need to be added to current thinking about the issue. These changes,
the authors suggest, have created the need for rethinking (or shifting
our paradigms) about where the attention and work need to be focused
in order to help women advance in the field in an equitable fashion
to their male counterparts. These shifts are revisited, expanded,
and reinforced in this paper based not only on Gupton's cited work
but also on the experiences and research of this paper's co-author,
Assistant Director of SEDAC, Rose Marie del Rosario:
1. The need to shift from focusing most of the attention on women's
lack of aspirations for administrative careers to their need for
better support systems. As both Gupton and del Rosario have observed
from their research and work with women educators; for the most
part, women aspiring to positions of educational leadership have
good skills and the proper credentials to be successful in administration.
What they most need is assistance in sharing the responsibilities
of work and home and supportive work environments that recognize
and nurture their potentials for success as leaders.
2. The need to shift from women's lack of necessary qualifications
(they now make up almost 60% of the persons receiving doctor's of
administration degrees in education) to a greater scrutiny of the
kinds of training and education they are experiencing. This shift
speaks to del Rosario's concern that most of SEDAC's activities
are conducted "for the women, by the women" without important
involvement of male colleagues who need to be included if significant
change in the hiring, assigning of duties, mentoring, and promotion
of women in the workplace is likely to occur, since these functions
are primarily dominated by White males.
3. The need not only to continue but to expand entry level equity
concerns to include on-the-job and retention problems of women who
acquire administrative positions. A positive step taken by the OFCCP
is the inclusion in their compliance handbook for businesses and
corporations of a chapter added only recently addressing the glass
ceiling phenomenon experienced by many middle-management women.
This chapter includes several new areas to which organizations must
be sensitive if they are to perform equitable personnel practices
(e.g., Identifying High Potential Employees - does the company have
any mechanism for identifying persons with high potential for advancement?
What is the race and gender composition for these people so identified?
Relocation and Overseas Assignments - are relocation and overseas
assignments important to advancement? Are there safeguards to ensure
that prejudgment on willingness to move does not bias job offers
involving relocation? and Cash Bonuses, Stock, and Stock Options
- at what level are employees eligible for cash bonuses, stock grants,
and stock options? Among those eligible, what standard is used to
determine whether a person receives cash bonuses or stock?)
4. The ultimate shift, of course, is from access to equity wherein
societal attitudes, and thus practices, related to gender and minority
equity are changed to the extent that true equity is genuinely sought
and achieved, not just token pieces of it attended superficially
and sporadically to meet legal compliance or to satisfy the latest
federal mandate.
Suggestions For Women Aspiring To Administrative Careers
What seems poignantly clear is that:
1. Education in the appropriate field is the first and foremost
consideration. Human resource personnel look at the level
of education as a primary criterion for hire. It is important
to have a bachelorís, masterís and/or doctoral degree
from accredited schools in the United States*. The degree must be
in line with the required position. (In recent years, hirers
have found the value of considering people from ìrelated
fieldsî when educational background is combined with experiences
in, e.g., teaching in the classroom, education administration, work
with children and youth-related programs, and so on.)
2. Meaningful experience counts. Quality of experience is
analyzed according to the position applied for. According
to a personnel administrator in Dade County, Florida, it is not
necessary for ìexperienceî to be derived from a paid
position. Rather, the experience must be related to the desired
job and should demonstrate capabilities and personal traits which
degrees, by themselves, could not provide. Experience covers
a wide range of talents, skills and abilities that tend to enrich
oneís educational background and the ìcapacity to
leadî in educational leadership. In most instances,
experience is earned over a period of time. For example, the
first few lines of a typical job announcement for a program director
state the minimum requirement as , i.e., a master's degree in education,
child psychology, counseling or related field and five yearsí
experience working with at-risk youth. In spite of the relatively
broad description of requirements, focus of the initial sorting
of applicants is based upon the basic description; in other words,
those without a masterís degree and five years experience
need not apply.3
3. Record of improving and updating professional qualifications
is important. Changes in technology (i.e., modern machines,
access to and use of computers and hard/ software), transitions
in the course of human affairs (i.e., demographic character of urban
and rural communities, attitudes toward people from different backgrounds,
increased awareness of environmental and global concerns), and socio-political
forces governing the workplace and local/national priorities in
education present challenges which leaders must contend with in
the process of day to day administration. In keeping with
the trend of ìpreparing for leadership in the 21st century
and beyond,î women who aspire to be a part of todayís
and tomorrowís administration must be well equipped to deal
with the transformations affecting the educational environment.
For instance, children/students are now exposed and have access
to sophisticated methods of modern communications such as e-mail,
internet and worldwide web. On the other hand, there is a
noticeable rise in the number of students who are non-English speakers
(both from the American ethnic enclaves and immigrants from third
world or developing countries) with a broad range of intellectual
and linguistic proficiencies -- some are fully prepared to meet
the challenges of a global community, but most are in need of special
assistance to keep up with the academic level of (same age or cohort)
mainstream American society. More and more, those aspiring
to become education administrators must gain new knowledge, skills
and proficiencies that are appropriate in today's world. Participation
in professional development opportunities is critical. And,
women should consider investing and re-vesting in themselves to
stay competitive in the current and future job market.
4. Networking should be an ongoing personal and professional pursuit.
Who you know remains an important element in lateral and upward
mobility. While it is important to generate and maintain linkages
with oneís peers, those who aspire to achieve higher positions
must develop networks beyond like me professionals (i.e., those
in higher positions and includes people from disciplines different
from oneís own area of expertise). This means that
there is a need to create opportunities and professional settings
where meaningful and lasting personal connections can be initiated
between (potential) mentors and apprentices or mentees, as well
as between employers (persons with the authority to hire) and women
aspirants. The idea here is to generate a friendly environment where,
through authentic networking, women are able to demonstrate talents
and skills in the course of dialogue and social interaction.
Over time, the authenticity of the socialization process between,
i.e., mentors and mentees, establishes familiarity -- an element
which tends to validate women's worthiness for valued positions.
5. Strategic and long-range planning should guide the direction
of one's career. When compared with male counterparts, women seem
more likely to zigzag through a career path. In a brief interview
of five women aspirants for high level administrative positions,
all experienced deviations from their original tracks due to marriage,
children, family priorities, lack of geographic mobility, and other
reasons. The interruptions have served as barriers to womenís
aspirations, although such interruptions have very little, if any,
significant impact in men's career path plans or upward mobility.
The need to shift paradigms challenges women to determine the importance
of career objectives in relation to other priorities. Self-determination
(along with personal virtues and social values which support one's
ambition) and a well-planned strategy can be used to direct and
guide oneís road to attaining the desired position,
in spite of expected and perceived interruptions along the way.
Supportive Action Needed At The Federal Level
Recommendations for federal level activity to improve women's workplace
status include:
1. To a lesser degree, maintain current professional development
opportunities for women.
2. Promote greater collaboration among organizations and agencies
that are vested in the status of women in general, women in educational
leadership and administration in particular.
3. Engage employers, particularly those with the authority to create
jobs and hire people, in developing and nurturing opportunities
for women to advance.
4. Take immediate action through established offices such
as the Women's Bureau, OERI, and especially the National Center
for Education Statistics, to collect, disseminate, and make readily
available more detailed information and statistics related
to the numbers of men compared to women in positions of educational
administration at the state and local levels of government.
5. Continue to fund federal initiatives such as WEEA, the Desegregation
Assistance Centers, the "set-aside" funding component
(repealed in the summer of 1995) for sex equity programs under the
provisions of the Carl Perkins Vocational Education Act, and other
federally funded state-level personnel and projects related to sex
equity issues. Do a better job of targeting, coordinating and making
known the existence of these services to women educators, school
systems, and universities.
6. Require better accountability of federally funded initiatives.
Evaluate and collect pertinent data to demonstrate and document
the effectiveness of initiatives in promoting women's career advancement.
7. Be the foremost example. Use government as the model of fair
practices and treatment of employees for the ultimate good of all
- the employees, the organization and the nation.
Conclusion
In spite of the seemingly broad implications of federal initiatives
for women, little is known about the actual impact of such
initiatives on the state of women's participation in educational
leadership. While there seems to be an increase in the number
of women holding key administrative positions (e.g., principals,
assistant principals, superintendents, and so on) in many school
districts, there are questions about the "qualitative"
and "quantitative" factors in regard to such placements.
For instance, how do such positions compare with men's placements
in similar positions in terms of salary, fringe benefits, school
image, prestige, geographic location, students/ faculty's demographic
profile, community support and chances for upward mobility?
And, within school districts, state and national levels, which leadership
positions are more likely to be assigned to women than men? A good
way to investigate the issue of parity is by asking the right -
although oftentimes hard - questions . . . then having the courage
and commitment to make needed changes for the ultimate good of all.
References
Cox, T. & Smolinski, C. (Jan., 1994). Managing diversity
and glass ceiling initiatives as national economic imperatives.
(Report for U.S. Dept. of Labor Glass Ceiling Commission). Ann Arbor,
Michigan: The University of Michigan.
Flansburg, S. & Hanson, K. (1993). Legislation for change
(A working paper #3). Newton, MA: Center for Equity and Cultural
Diversity, Education Development Center, Inc.
Gupton, S. L. & Slick, G. A. (1996). Highly successful women
administrators: The inside stories of how they got there. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.
(1996). Women: Education and outcomes, NCES 96-061.
Washington, DC
U.S. Department of Education, Office of the Under Secretary - Budget
Service. (1997, March). Program data on women's educational equity
(CFDA No. 84,083). (taken from program files and faxed by Melissa
Oppenheimer to authors). Washington, DC.
U.S. Department of Labor, Glass Ceiling Commission. (1994). Race,
ethnic, and gender earnings inequality: The sources and consequences
of employment segregation. (Report by Donald Thomaskovic-Devey
at North Carolina State University). Washington, DC.
U.S. Department of Labor, Glass Ceiling Commission. (1994). The
impact of recruitment, selection, promotion and compensation policies
and practices on the glass ceiling. (Report prepared by Roosevelt
Thomas, Jeff Porterfield, John Hutcheson, and Carol Pierannunzi
with The American Institute for Managing Diversity). Washington,
DC.
U.S. Department of Labor, Women's Bureau. Breaking the glass
ceiling in the 1990s. (1992). (Study conducted by Terry A. Scandura,
University of Miami). Washington, DC.
U.S. Department of Labor, Women's Bureau. (1990). Milestones:
The women's bureau celebrates 70 years of women's labor history.
Washington, DC1990.
U.S. Department of Labor, Women's Bureau.(1993). Handbook on
women workers: Trends and issues. Washington, DC: 1993.
' SEDAC has given high priority to the organizationís goals
regarding desegregation and race (Black and White). It has included
national origin and other minority issues among its priorities only
in recent years.
2 Unless the applicant has provided evidence of ìequivalencyî
to U.S. earned degrees, education obtained from foreign countries
is usually considered insufficient to meet required qualifications.
Equivalency may include formal statement(s) from accredited U.S.
colleges/universities and/or coursework at a local institution of
higher education to meet internship, certification or other requirements.
3 Human resource personnel are quick to add that
the definition of ìmeaningful or related experienceî
is flexible and negotiable depending upon the scope of the position,
individuals or members of the group responsible for reviewing applications,
letters of recommendations, references.
Sandra Gupton is Associate Professor of Educational Administration
at the University of Southern Mississippi in Hattiesburg, Mississippi.
E-Mail: sgupton@ocean.st.usm.edu
Rose Marie Del Rosario is President of Genesis Network
and former Assistant Director/Gender Equity Coordinator for the
South Eastern Desegregation Assistance Center. E-Mail: gennetwork@aol.com
AWL Journal Home Page
AWL Journal Volume
1, Number 2, Winter 1998
|