Three possible explanations for superintendent succession focus on poor administrative performance, district response strategies, and the politics of the chief executive's relationship with the school board. To analyze succession in the context of declining enrollment, a case study survey was conducted of 56 school districts whose peak enrollment year was 1970-71 or before. Data from these districts were gathered over a 10-year period to allow enough time for succession to occur. Performance was measured according to three variables (pupil-teacher ratio, per pupil expenditures, and facility utilization), district response according to 10 strategies (including lobbying for tax increases, freeze hiring, and reduction-in-force), and the politics of succession in terms of the superintendent's relationship to three constituencies: the board, teachers, and community. Results of discriminant analysis of survey findings confirm the usefulness of performance, strategy, and political variables as predictors of executive succession. The data suggest that the superintentent's relationships with the board and the community are of particular political significance and that bold administrative response strategies and high per pupil expenditures tend to result in succession. Superintendent-community relations, superintendent-board relations, response scope, and per pupil expenditures thus emerge as the four principal factors distinguishing succession and nonsuccession districts. A 44-item reference list is appended. (JBM)