Leadership matters. Strong superintendents attract strong administrators and teachers. They create stability, build systems of accountability and unify boards, staff and communities.
When those seats are vacant—or filled poorly—it is students who pay the price. That is why the superintendent shortage should alarm every stakeholder in education.
At some point, we’re going to wake up and realize we’ve created a national leadership crisis in school systems—specifically at the superintendent level. If we don’t take bold action, there will be far too few qualified and willing leaders to guide our schools.
This problem won’t resolve itself. Without mobilized boards of education, communities, unions and stakeholders, the gap will continue to widen—and fast.
The shrinking pool
In July 2024, Meridian CUSD 223 posted for superintendent early in the fiscal year—hoping to cast a wide net. This is an award-winning district, financially stable, with a proven track record of student success and national recognition for continuous improvement.
By any reasonable measure, it is the kind of job that should have attracted dozens of highly qualified leaders. Instead, we received 15 applicants, interviewed six and only one had superintendent experience.
A handful of the others were hired elsewhere during the same cycle. That is what the supply looks like.
Nationally, the numbers are just as troubling. Superintendent turnover has climbed from 14.2% in 2019–20 to 17.1% in 2022–23, with 37% of states reporting rates above 20%. Among the 500 largest districts, one in five—20%—replaced their superintendent in 2023–24.
Between March 2020 and September 2022, 49% of large districts changed leadership, and 27 operated under interims rather than permanent leaders. Today, nearly 22% of all districts nationwide are run by interim superintendents.
Every vacancy, every interim appointment, every shallow applicant pool weakens district stability and chips away at the supply of leaders we can still call upon. And when the pool shrinks, students are the ones who lose.
Politicization of the role
One major reason the pool is drying up is the politicization of the role itself.
Superintendents once were viewed as civic leaders—educators trusted to steward resources and lead schools. Today, they are too often lightning rods in culture wars. Ask superintendents why they left, and you’ll hear familiar stories: public hostility, personal attacks, threats and board meetings that devolve into battlegrounds.
I’ve lived it. I’ve had the personal attacks at board meetings and in online forums. But in many ways, I’ve gotten off easy. Around the country, the examples are far worse.
In one well-publicized case in Pennsylvania, a superintendent resigned after months of threats and harassment—including messages directed at his family. In Texas, another received death threats tied to curriculum debates. These aren’t isolated incidents—they are the reality of the job.
This isn’t just inconvenient—it’s corrosive. Leaders are drained of the mental energy that should go to students. Families are dragged into the hostility.
And aspiring leaders look at the role and say, “No thanks.” In fact, 88% of superintendents now cite political intrusion as one of the greatest stresses of the job.
No one enters this profession to be a politician, but today the political battles have become the work. And the more we allow the job to be defined this way, the fewer leaders will step forward.
Broken leadership pipeline
The superintendent shortage is not just about today’s candidates—it’s about tomorrow’s.
We are already in a teacher shortage. That weakens the principal pipeline.
And when you have fewer principals, you have fewer prepared candidates for superintendent. Teacher → principal → superintendent. Break one link, and the whole system falters.
Compensation accelerates the collapse. In many districts, teachers earn more than assistant principals, and sometimes even principals. Why would someone take longer hours, more stress and heavier scrutiny for less pay?
And at the next rung, the superintendency offers only marginal increases for exponentially greater responsibility.
Culture compounds the problem. I’ve seen entire districts lose strong leaders not because they lacked skill, but because the environment was toxic.
Every effort was met with resistance. Progress was fought internally and externally. Those leaders left, found healthier districts, and never looked back. Word spreads fast, and fewer people even consider the job.
We also undermine the profession in the way we describe it. Too often, leaders themselves emphasize the burnout and the hostility. I hear “I’d never want your job” 10 times more than I hear someone say they aspire to it.
The result? We’re dismantling our own pipeline.
Scrutiny dilemma
Even when the right person is willing, public perception adds another hurdle.
In small towns and rural communities, superintendents are often among the top earners. That visibility turns salaries into lightning rods, even though compensation is lower than in many suburban and urban districts. Meanwhile, leaders in affluent districts may earn double, yet face far less scrutiny because their salaries don’t stand out.
The message to aspiring leaders is clear: take your talent where you will be paid more and criticized less. That leaves the communities that need strong leadership most—those with fewer resources and bigger challenges—with fewer options.
Let’s be honest: superintendents are well-paid compared to many professions, but nowhere near what peers with equivalent responsibility earn in the private sector. If I were managing a $25 million budget and 250 employees in industry, my compensation would be dramatically higher.
And while I chose this work knowingly, it’s not enough to draw the next generation into a role already defined by scrutiny and stress.
Raising salaries may be necessary as supply dwindles, but in small communities, higher pay often increases criticism rather than easing it. Which only shrinks the pool further.
Where we’re headed if we don’t act
The warning signs are everywhere: fewer applicants, growing interim appointments, rising turnover, higher burnout. If we continue to ignore them, we will face a full-blown leadership crisis.
And this is not just a rural problem. Urban and suburban districts are feeling it, too. But smaller communities are the most vulnerable. A single failed hire can set back an entire generation of schooling.
What boards and stakeholders must do
If we want to keep high-capacity leaders in the profession, boards of education must become part of the solution. That means:
- Building cultures grounded in respect and professional trust
- Offering competitive compensation, because supply is shrinking while demand is rising
- Supporting leaders publicly, not just privately
- Re-recruiting superintendents every year, the same way you would any high-impact hire
- Ensuring accountability is fair and feedback is two-way—but dignity is never optional
This is not about giving superintendents free passes. It is about making the role sustainable enough to attract and keep the people we need most. The harder we make it, the fewer people will choose it.
We can no longer treat this as a slow-moving problem. The crisis is already here. The question is simple: will we act now, or will we wait until the shortage grows so severe that our students pay the price?
FETC 2026: Change management strategies for IT leaders
Find your next story in our slideshow
