"Normally, the concept of decentralization will be attached to power of some kind. It can also be understood in the territorial way as location of authority and power over formal rights to educational decision-making (Levin and Young 1994). Decentralization movements from the centre to the periphery and centralization movements in the opposite direction will normally lead to tension, not only between central and local bodies, but also among various institutions and groups at the central and local levels" (Karlsen, 2000: 526). This short description of the centralization and decentralization notions of educational systems represents the essence of the potential problematic and conflict situations that the superintendents may be confronted with in their role. Thus, in countries where the educational systems are decentralized, such as Sweden, Norway, Finland and the US, one may observe different patterns of relationships between superintendents and their role partners above and beneath their organizational hierarchy. In Sweden, the Swedish Government and the Riksdag/parliament has increased the policy stream from 1994 toward changing the school system. The challenges for superintendents and principals have been to muddle through the increased demands for accountability and improvement of student outcomes. Additionally, a new School Act has been approved, which granted the principals with increased responsibility for implementation – a reality that imposed a change in the superintendents' role. In Norway, researchers may witness a series of state initiatives towards the Norwegian municipalities at the purpose of changing and improving school practices and raising academic student achievements. This stream of state policies, paired with policy demands from the municipal school board, places the municipal school superintendent in the middle of multiple and often conflicting pressures.

In Finland, the shift from the centralized and system-oriented education system into the decentralized and result-oriented one has radically changed the position of the superintendent. The position is now juridically fragile and due to societal changes more essential and challenging than ever before. In the US, processes of decentralization and devolution of authority for education to local school districts heighten attention to how superintendents mediate community social norms, interest group politics and coalitions, and how the political dimensions of superintendent-school board relations are defined. In Israel, a country that has undergone a transition from a centralized toward decentralized educational system, the decentralization policies have not resulted in redefining the superintendents' role, thus exposing them to a role conflict.

In this symposium, the participating members of the superintendency multi-nation research project will characterize their national educational systems on the centralization-decentralization continuum, and discuss the implications of these characteristics on the superintendents' role perceptions in the school district. The panel, consisting of representatives from Sweden, Norway, Finland, USA and Israel will aim at answering two research questions:

* What are the tensions embedded in the superintendency role in centralized vs. decentralized countries, and how are they mediated?

* What is the effect of the centralized vs. the decentralized system of the school district governance on the political role of the school district superintendents?