Superintendent turnover is often described as inevitable—but the current level of churn is not simply a feature of the role. It is a signal. When superintendents leave at elevated rates, it reflects a misalignment between the demands of the position and the conditions districts create for leaders to succeed. If districts want sustained improvement, they cannot focus only on hiring strong leaders; they need to build the governance, support, and coherence that make it possible for those leaders to stay.
The superintendent is the highest-ranking official within a district, responsible for translating vision into practice across an entire system. When they leave, the effects are immediate—and often long-lasting. Leadership teams shift, strategic initiatives stall, and districts can lose momentum on key priorities.
“Turnover adds uncertainty for staff, students, and families. It can also build into a lack of trust,” longtime Meriden superintendent Mark Benigni says. “Staff need to know that their leader is committed to seeing their initiatives through to fruition. Change and improvement efforts take time.”
A Complex Picture: Stability and Churn Coexist
Across Connecticut and the nation, concern about turnover remains high, even as data complicate common assumptions. While the role is often described as a “revolving door,” with leaders lasting only a few years, The School Superintendents Association’s (AASA) 2025–26 Superintendent Salary & Benefits Study places the average tenure closer to 5.4 to 6 years.
And yet, churn is real and consequential. In the nation’s 500 largest districts, turnover reached approximately 23% in the 2024–25 school year, according to Education Week. Closer to home, leadership transitions in districts like Hartford, New Haven, and Norwalk reflect a landscape in motion, where one departure often triggers a chain reaction of vacancies.
The data also reveals inequities: on average, women superintendents serve shorter tenures—by roughly 15 months—and turnover is higher in districts serving larger proportions of students experiencing poverty or students of color.
These numbers also have real stakes, as the impact is ultimately upon young people. As Fran Rabinowitz, Executive Director of the Connecticut Association of Public School Superintendents (CAPSS), puts it, the stakes are clear: “We have an issue, and we have to face it. In the end, we hurt the kids if we don’t.”
Beyond “Taking a New Job”: Why Superintendents Leave
Many assume that churn is about career advancement, but recent research and practitioner experience point to a consistent set of pressures that make the role increasingly difficult to sustain.
As Rabinowitz observes, “I would say I had a wake-up call in the fall. I attended a conference and learned that Connecticut was in the red zone for the number of superintendents who left their districts under less-than-stellar circumstances. They left unhappily, not to retire or for another job.”
Her observation underscores a shift: departures are not simply part of a natural career cycle, but often reflect strain within the role itself. Today’s superintendents operate in a highly visible, politically charged environment, balancing instructional leadership with operations, legal issues, and community expectations. The scope of the role has expanded significantly—and with it, the intensity.
Increasingly, superintendents are taking on new responsibilities. Historically, superintendents were expected to be organizational leaders, then they were asked to become instructional leaders, and now even more. Jennifer Cheatham of the Harvard Graduate School of Education explained in Education Week that superintendents are increasingly becoming civic leaders, managing partnerships and politics in service of the greater educational good. “It is a team sport to ensure the health, wellness, and education of our communities and young people.”
That expanded role brings cumulative strain. Rabinowitz points to the growing complexity: “So many complications have been added, like having to beg for every damn penny. There’s a shallower pool of superintendents today and more are ill-prepared for the role. The job is a complex position.”
Bethel superintendent Christine Carver, who is about to retire, acknowledges the strain of the position. “I think the job has fundamentally changed. It’s become much more political,” she says. “To be honest, it’s exhausting. The demands are amped up, and people’s reactions can be intense at times. It can be a lot.”
These structural and political challenges have a personal cost. Superintendents are expected to be constantly available—visible, responsive, and decisive. Over time, this can lead to significant burnout. As Carver puts it, “The burnout shouldn’t be underrated. There’s not one day off. It’s a 24-hour job.”
A Misalignment of Time and Incentives
One of the clearest underlying causes of churn is a structural mismatch between expectations and reality. The timeline for meaningful system-level change rarely aligns with the expectations placed on superintendents.
Improvement at scale—whether in instruction, culture, or outcomes—typically takes longer than five years. Yet contracts, evaluation cycles, and political pressures often demand visible results much sooner. This mismatch creates a dynamic in which leaders are expected to produce rapid change in systems that require sustained effort.
Carver emphasizes that lasting improvement depends on building shared understanding: “If it’s anything really important, you have to get people to see the value and the why. If you don’t have people on board to do the work, you’re not going to be successful.”
Without that alignment, even effective leaders may choose to leave in search of a school system where long-term work is more viable.
The Central Role of the Board
If conditions drive churn, the board-superintendent relationship is one of the most decisive factors shaping those conditions. Board turnover itself can contribute to instability.
Rabinowitz is direct about this: “The basic issue is the board-superintendent relationship is a nut I haven’t been able to crack. Half or more of the board leaves every two years,” she notes, “and the new members may not like the superintendent the last board chose.” Strong board chairs are critical in maintaining stability and coherence.
Patrice McCarthy, Executive Director and General Counsel of the Connecticut Association of Boards of Education (CABE), reinforces the importance of this relationship: “We know that stable, collaborative board/superintendent leadership contributes to student success.” She adds that professional development on roles and responsibilities is essential to establishing that foundation.
From his work with districts, Partners’ executive director Richard Lemons sees the consequences when that relationship breaks down. Superintendents who leave often do so reluctantly. “They want to stay and see the work through, but find themselves managing individual agendas of board members, buffering general attacks on public education, and sometimes weathering personal vendettas.’” In these cases, departure becomes less about opportunity and more about personal survival.
What Makes Leaders Stay
The experiences of superintendents who stay help clarify what conditions that support longevity look like in practice.
As Christine Carver prepares to retire from Bethel Public Schools after more than a decade, she credits her longevity to the district’s culture. “What made it possible to stay was a culture rooted in trust, shared purpose, and a board that gave me autonomy and didn’t micromanage,” she said.
Similarly, Mark Benigni points to a similar sense of purpose. Having served for 16 years in Meriden, the same community where he grew up and raised his own children, he remains committed to the long arc of the work. “I love my home community and believe I am making a difference,” he says.
These examples reinforce a central point: retention is not accidental. It depends on intentional conditions—trust, coherence, shared purpose, and stable governance.
Districts can choose to move beyond viewing turnover as an individual issue and instead examine the environments they create for leadership. This may include investing in board development, clarifying roles and responsibilities, aligning expectations with realistic timelines, and building the trust necessary for long-term work. Districts may also consider formal board training on governance roles, longer and more aligned evaluation cycles, and structured onboarding and coaching for superintendents and board chairs.
As Rabinowitz cautions, incremental adjustments will not be sufficient: “We must do something. It’s a new world, and we can’t just do the same old, same old.”
Ultimately, the question is not simply how to retain superintendents, but how to create an environment in which strong leadership can endure. As Benigni and Carver’s experiences suggest, staying is not about endurance alone—it is about whether the system enables the work to be sustained over time.
