Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
Best practices of school districts in the recruiting, retaining, and mentoring of principals at Title I elementary schools in southern California
(USC Thesis Other)
Best practices of school districts in the recruiting, retaining, and mentoring of principals at Title I elementary schools in southern California
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
Running head: ELEMENTARY PRINCIPALS AT TITLE I SCHOOLS 1
BEST PRACTICES OF SCHOOL DISTRICTS IN THE RECRUITING, RETAINING,
AND MENTORING OF PRINCIPALS AT TITLE I ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS IN
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
by
Joseph Neilson Ledoux
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
December 2016
Copyright 2016 Joseph Neilson Ledoux
ELEMENTARY PRINCIPALS AT TITLE I SCHOOLS 2
Dedication
This dissertation is dedicated to my loving wife and our two beautiful children who
supported me throughout this entire process and had patience with me as I wrote and completed
my classes and dissertation. I especially would like to acknowledge my wife for holding down
the home front and for her love, support, and unending patience. I also want to dedicate this
dissertation to my father who showed me that life is an adventure. Finally, I want to dedicate
this dissertation to my mother, Christine, who showed me the importance of a college education
and that, through hard work, you can achieve your goals.
ELEMENTARY PRINCIPALS AT TITLE I SCHOOLS 3
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank the members of my dissertation committee: Dr. Rudy Castruita
(dissertation chair), Dr. Pedro Garcia, and Dr. Larry Hausner for their mentoring and guidance
throughout the entire dissertation process. I am also grateful for the support that I received from
my Elementary Director, Dr. Terry Petersen, who continued to check in with me and encourage
me to keep working hard and take it one step at a time.
I would also like to thank my fellow USC doctoral candidates for their invaluable support
during the entire doctoral process. I want to especially acknowledge and thank my good friends
Collin Felch, Eric Maxey, and Angela Baxter for their constant support and motivation as we
worked together to complete our classes and encouraged each other throughout the entire
doctoral program.
Finally, I would also like to thank all the school district officials who took the time to
complete my survey and also to allow me to personally interview them. Each and every one of
these individuals inspired me to continue to do the hard work and advocate for all students.
ELEMENTARY PRINCIPALS AT TITLE I SCHOOLS 4
Table of Contents
Dedication 2
Acknowledgements 3
List of Tables 6
Abstract 7
Chapter One: Introduction 9
Background of the Problem 9
Statement of the Problem 10
Purpose of the Study 11
Research Questions 12
Significance of the Study 12
Summary of Methodology 13
Assumptions 14
Limitations and Delimitations 14
Definitions of Terms 15
Organization of the Study 17
Chapter Two: Literature Review 18
History of Elementary School Site Leadership 18
Characteristics of Effective Principals in Title I Schools 20
Leader as Transformational Change Agent 22
Recruitment of Qualified People for the Principal Position 24
Mentorship 26
Coaching 29
Retaining Effective Principals 30
Collaboration 34
Conclusion 35
Chapter Three: Methodology 36
Background of the Problem 36
The Purpose of the Study 37
Research Questions 37
Design Summary 38
Selection of the Population 40
Instrumentation and Protocols 41
Data Collection Protocols 42
Data Analysis 43
Figure 1. Triangulation of Findings 44
Validity Concerns 44
Ethical Considerations 45
Summary 46
Chapter Four: Results 48
Background of the Problem 48
Statement of the Problem 49
Purpose of the Study 50
Research Questions 51
Methods 51
ELEMENTARY PRINCIPALS AT TITLE I SCHOOLS 5
Coding of Data 52
Findings 54
Research Question 1 56
Findings: Survey Responses 56
Findings: Interviews 57
Research Question 2 64
Findings: Survey Responses 64
Findings: Interviews 65
Research Question 3 69
Findings: Survey Responses 69
Findings: Interviews 70
Research Question 4 75
The Recruiting Process 75
Findings: Survey Responses 76
Findings: Interviews 76
Summary 79
Chapter Five: Conclusions, Implications, and Recommendations 83
Background of the Problem 84
Statement of the Problem 84
Purpose of the Study 85
Research Questions 86
Review of Current Literature 86
Methodology 87
Key Findings 88
Implications 90
Recommendations for School District Officials: 90
Recommendations for Future Research 92
Conclusion 93
References 95
Appendix: Interview Protocol 108
ELEMENTARY PRINCIPALS AT TITLE I SCHOOLS 6
List of Tables
Table 1: Survey and Interview Selection Criteria of Principals and District officials 41
Table 2: Sample and Data Collection Interviews 54
Table 3: Frequency of Key Themes Emerging from the Data 55
Table 4: Recruiting Practices 59
ELEMENTARY PRINCIPALS AT TITLE I SCHOOLS 7
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to learn how public school districts in southern California could
better recruit, retain, and mentor new principals in Title 1 schools. Currently, school districts
throughout southern California are finding it difficult to recruit and retain principals to work in
Title 1 elementary schools. The purpose of this study encompassed two components: (1) to
understand the role school district officials play in successfully recruiting candidates for the
position of elementary school principal at a Title I school, (2) to identify the research-based
characteristics of successful Title I elementary principals in southern California and what
processes school districts use to retain and mentor these individuals. The research questions used
to guide this study were: (1) What are the processes that districts in southern California utilize in
order to recruit potential elementary school principals? (2) What are the processes or practices
that school districts utilize in order to retain elementary school principals past three years? (3)
How do school districts perceive their role in mentoring new elementary principals? (4) How do
school districts evaluate themselves to ensure that they are recruiting and retaining quality
principals? This study used the mixed methods approach in which 24 school district officials
responded to an online survey and 10 school district officials who completed the survey were
interviewed in person. Through the process of triangulation, the study’s findings indicate that
while almost every public school district has the same recruiting practices, school districts vary
from each other in terms of formal and informal recruiting practices. Results from this study
show that school districts prefer to hire principals that they are familiar with and have had some
degree of administrative experience. Overall the results from this study show the majority of
school districts do not have a strategic plan in order to recruit, retain, and mentor new principals
at Title 1 elementary schools in southern California. The study concluded by sharing practical
ELEMENTARY PRINCIPALS AT TITLE I SCHOOLS 8
implications for school district officials and the need for additional research to be done on the
topic of supporting principals of Title 1 elementary schools.
ELEMENTARY PRINCIPALS AT TITLE I SCHOOLS 9
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
The educational problem being addressed in this study is the best practices for recruiting,
retaining, and mentoring principals at Title I elementary schools in southern California.
Retaining a school site principal is a problem because the national average principal failure or
dropout rate is 50% in the first five years at the school site (Fuller & Young, 2008). This problem
is important to address because, in the current educational atmosphere, the principal is the engine
that drives the accountability train.
A principal’s leadership has a profound overall effect on an elementary school. Often, the
principal is the only administrator on an elementary school campus. According to Leithwood,
Seashore Louis, Anderson, and Wahlstrom (2004), classroom teachers have the greatest impact
on students’ academic success, but principal leadership comes in a close second. After six years
of research on this topic, Leithwood et al. (2010) claimed that they had not seen one case of a
school’s academic improvement without a talented administrator who was dedicated to
instructional leadership. A 2010 West Ed study proposed, “strong, focused school-site leadership
is a critical component in student and school success” (Kearney, 2010, p. iv).
Background of the Problem
The educational problem addressed in this study is the processes school district officials
use in order to recruit, retain, and mentor principals at Title I elementary schools in California.
School districts in California, in recent years, have expressed concerns about the dwindling pool
of applicants for the principal position and their overall preparation for the job (Groon &
Rawlings-Sanaei, 2003). There has been a revolving door at the principal position for schools
who are most in need of a strong, experienced, and capable school leader (Papa, 2004). This is an
important issue because, in the current educational atmosphere, the school principal is the engine
ELEMENTARY PRINCIPALS AT TITLE I SCHOOLS 10
that drives the accountability train under the Elementary and Secondary Schools Act (ESEA)
otherwise known as the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001.
Currently, significant achievement gaps exist within the United States for different
groups of students. Latino and Black students have historically had lower academic achievement
levels when compared to white students with similar backgrounds (Darling-Hammond, 2004;
Ogbu & Simons, 1998; Rumberger & Palardy, 2005). Low socio-economic status (SES) students
also achieve at significantly lower levels as compared to their more affluent peers. Research has
shown that a family’s low SES has a significant impact on a student’s academic achievement
(Carlson et al., 1999; Sirin, 2005). Title I elementary schools are in need of strong principals who
can help close the achievement gap between white and non-white students.
There is a large variation in principal quality between school districts. Papa, Lankford,
and Wyckoff (2002) identified a large gap between experienced and inexperienced principals in
urban school districts. Urban elementary schools with students who do not perform at grade level
on summative state tests are more likely to be led by a new principal who has fewer years of
administrative experience (Papa et al., 2002). This can directly affect successful student
outcomes and achievement levels, especially in low SES Title I schools.
Statement of the Problem
In today’s quick-paced and high-stakes educational environment, school principal burn
out is higher than in any other time in public school history (Fuller & Young, 2008). The
demands of the job can be a significant turnoff for any teacher who is looking to make the
transition into administration or staying in the principal role at a Title I elementary school long
term. According to recent studies, elementary school principals cited the following frustrations as
impediments to their job: increased pressures relating to high stakes testing, the increased role of
ELEMENTARY PRINCIPALS AT TITLE I SCHOOLS 11
principals as instructional leaders, and school choice issues (Hart & Bredesen, 1996; Murphy,
1994; Whitaker, 1999; Williams & Portin, 1997). The position of elementary school principal
has never been an easy one, but with today’s changing educational landscape it continues to
become more and more daunting.
The recruiting and hiring practices of successful principals at Title I schools have a
significant impact on student achievement. A meta-analysis of research about the elementary
principal position has shown the most successful principals have a positive impact on student
achievement while ineffective principals have little impact on student achievement (Marzano,
Waters, & McNulty, 2005). In their study, Marzano et al. (2005) identified 21 categories of
successful school leadership or responsibilities of leaders. They found that situational awareness
and flexibility have the highest correlation to student achievement. The research suggests that
some principals are more effective than others at raising overall student achievement. Marzano,
et al.’s (2005) research suggests the importance of having a strong leader at a Title I school
where there is a significant gap between students’ test scores and those of their more affluent
peers.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study encompassed two components. The primary purpose was to
understand the role school district officials play in successfully recruiting candidates for the
position of elementary school principal at a Title I school. A secondary purpose was to identify
the research-based characteristics of successful Title I elementary principals in southern
California and what processes school districts use to retain and mentor these individuals.
ELEMENTARY PRINCIPALS AT TITLE I SCHOOLS 12
Research Questions
This study was guided by the following research questions:
1. What are the processes that districts in California utilize in order to recruit potential
elementary school principals?
2. What are the processes or practices that school districts utilize in order to retain
elementary school principals past three years?
3. How do school districts perceive their role in mentoring new elementary principals?
4. How do school districts evaluate themselves to ensure that they are recruiting and
retaining quality principals?
Significance of the Study
This study adds to the body of existing literature on how school districts select and retain
top-notch elementary school principals in southern California. This study identified the critical
skills, experience, knowledge, and mentorship needed to be successful as a Title I principal. This
study also addressed the challenges of retaining and supporting Title I principals long-term in
California. By providing new insights and adding to the existing body of literature, this study
provides useful information for superintendents, aspiring principals, elementary directors, hiring
committees, human resource directors, and educational researchers.
This study’s findings benefit school district officials who need a framework to guide their
selection of Title I elementary school principals. This study provides detailed data from
successful school districts on their recruitment practices and how they retain Title I elementary
principals. School districts throughout California can use this study’s findings to improve their
hiring process and, conversely, support their Title I principals throughout their time in a Title I
school. School districts may also use the findings to create a mentorship program within their
ELEMENTARY PRINCIPALS AT TITLE I SCHOOLS 13
district in order to prepare future principal candidates as well as to support their current Title I
principals.
This study is also significant for aspiring principal candidates who want to gain important
information or knowledge regarding what it takes to be successful in a Title I elementary school.
Aspiring elementary school principals frequently depend on their administrative preparation
programs in order to equip them with prerequisite skills to be successful in their new
administrative positions. This study outlines the specific skills, knowledge, training, and
background experiences that school districts seek, which, in turn, can help guide the preparation
of future aspiring principal candidates.
This study is also significant for educational researchers because it will guide future
studies regarding Title I elementary principal selection. This study’s results provide educational
researchers the criteria that district officials use in their selection of highly qualified principal
candidates (Portin, 2000). Researchers can use these findings to conduct future studies, both
quantitative and qualitative, which may provide further evidence and researched-based
suggestions for successful recruiting and retention practices. School districts across southern
California struggle to both recruit and retain Title I principals due to the constant and high
demands of leading school change. Currently, there is a revolving door at the principal position
for schools most in need of a strong, experienced, and capable school leader (Papa, 2004).
Summary of Methodology
To answer the research questions posed in this study, a mixed-methods approach was
used. The mixed-methods approach consisted of a qualitative and a quantitative component
(Merriam 2009). Information was gathered through ten open-ended, semi-structured interviews.
The quantitative component consisted of 17 questions on a survey completed by five urban
ELEMENTARY PRINCIPALS AT TITLE I SCHOOLS 14
school district officials. The collection of quantitative data allowed for a detailed analysis of the
Title I principal election process by various superintendents. The qualitative component of this
study consisted of interviews of 10 district office officials from five different school districts.
The qualitative interviews provided rich and detailed information about the recruiting and
retention processes that school districts use with Title I elementary school principals. In addition,
data were uncovered through the use of documents, field notes, interviews, and electronic voice
recordings.
Assumptions
The study assumed the following:
1. The school district officials who were interviewed provided accurate, up-to-date and
truthful responses to the survey questions.
2. School districts strive to hire the very best elementary school principal candidates for
Title I elementary schools in the hope that these individuals can improve the overall
school culture and raise student achievement.
3. School district officials will provide ongoing support or mentoring principals throughout
their careers as a Title I school principal.
4. The methods, procedures, and tools used to collect and analyze data are based upon prior
research and are, therefore, valid.
Limitations and Delimitations
This study includes three limitations. First, the restriction of time and resources limited
this study to survey three superintendents and to interview 22 school district officials. Second,
the qualitative nature of the study lends itself to potential bias of interpretation based on the
analysis of the researcher. Third, the study was limited to volunteer Title I principals, elementary
directors, human resource directors, assistant superintendents of human resources, and
ELEMENTARY PRINCIPALS AT TITLE I SCHOOLS 15
superintendents. The delimitations are that the school district officials are all from suburban or
urban school districts and that the school district officials interviewed all had been in their school
districts for five years or more.
Definitions of Terms
Below are definitions for terms used in this study.
Accountability: Educational leaders are held responsible for student achievement results based
on the testing requirements mandated by federal and state laws (Marzano et al., 2005).
Achievement: Achievement refers to students’ meeting performance expectations on
standardized tests and school or district based assessments. Typically, there is a cut-off level
where a student is considered met or exceeded on a set of academic standards (Marzano et al.,
2005).
Achievement Gap: The gap between the academic outcomes of different groups of students. It is
often used when comparing different racial subgroups, but it can be used to compare any group
of students to another group of students based on common characteristics such as ethnicity or
family income levels (California Department of Education, 2013).
Assessments: The use of standardized tests to measure student achievement (California
Department of Education, 2013).
Disadvantaged Students: Students who have traditionally performed below their peers on
academic measures because of factors like poverty, neighborhood composition, and race
(California Department of Education, 2013).
Elementary Principal: The principal or head of an elementary school. Elementary schools
typically include grades K through 5 or K through 6, and usually work with students ages 5
through 12 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2001).
ELEMENTARY PRINCIPALS AT TITLE I SCHOOLS 16
Elementary School: For the purposes of this study, an elementary school is any school with a
combination of grades that fall within the span of Transitional Kindergarten (TK) through sixth
grade of a school whose grades span from TK completely through eighth grade.
Income Eligibility Guidelines (IEGs): The United States Department of Agriculture uses the IEG
guidelines in determining eligibility for free and reduced price meals or free milk for public
school students (Clifford et al. 2012).
High Needs Schools: High needs schools are in need of teachers because they have difficulty
filling job vacancies or retaining teachers, or they have teachers who are not qualified or who
teach in subjects outside their field. High-needs schools also serve communities with higher
poverty rates and larger than normal populations of at-risk students (California Department of
Education, 2013).
Mentoring: Mentoring refers to the process of one individual with significant experience
providing individual support and challenge to a new member of the profession (Bush, 2009). For
the purposes of this study, a mentor is someone in the field of education who has significant
experience as either a school site principal or a school district official.
No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001: Is the most recent iteration of the ESEA, the major
federal law authorizing federal spending on programs to support K-12 schooling. The intent of
the program was to close the achievement gap for at-risk or disadvantaged students (Clifford et
al. 2012).
Socio Economic Status (SES): Socio-economic status is comprised of certain variables, such as
an individual’s occupation, education, personal income, their overall wealth, and where they live
or reside.
ELEMENTARY PRINCIPALS AT TITLE I SCHOOLS 17
Title I Program: Title I (Part A) of the ESEA, offers financial assistance to local educational
agencies and public schools with high percentages of students from low SES families in order to
assist all children meeting the challenging state academic standards of their individual state
(Clifford et al. 2012).
Transformational Leadership: Transformational leadership is a “process that inspires creativity
through a clearly defined and communicated shared vision. It requires innovation, flexibility, and
conscious awareness of the current state of one’s organization and the direction one needs to go
in order to produce cultural change” (Hamilton, McGee, Taylor, & Tos, 2012).
Organization of the Study
This study is organized into five chapters, with an overview, context, and purpose of the
study in the first chapter. A review of current literature on the process of recruitment and
retaining of successful Title I elementary school principals in California is included in the second
chapter. The methodology for surveying and interviewing district officials and elementary school
principals in Title I schools in southern California is outlined in Chapter Three, and the data
gathered through this process is discussed in Chapter Four. The study concludes in Chapter Five
with a discussion of findings, implications, and recommendations regarding the successful
recruitment and retaining of Title I elementary school principals in California.
ELEMENTARY PRINCIPALS AT TITLE I SCHOOLS 18
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
A major professional administrator organization in California projected, in 2008, an
approximate 40% turnover in the ranks of principals over a four-year period (2008-2012). This
loss was thought to be primarily caused by principal retirements and/or movement to central
office positions to replace retiring baby boomer superintendents (Association of California
School Administrators [ACSA], 2008). A qualitative study by Gates et al. (2006) found that
principals in Illinois and North Carolina, from 1988 through 2001, were 50% more likely than
their counterparts in suburban and rural schools to switch schools and that schools with higher
minority enrollment were more likely to experience principal turnover.
A preliminary review of existing literature as it relates to the recruiting and retaining of
elementary school principals at Title I schools identified several themes. However, the literature
revels there is a growing need to mentor and support new principals. For the purposes of this
literature review, the topics most directly connected to the research questions are explored at
greater length: (a) history of the elementary school site principal, (b) recruiting for the principal
position at a Title I elementary school, (c) mentorship of new principals, and (d) retaining
successful elementary principals in Title I schools. The literature review in this chapter provides
the context to help answer key research questions.
History of Elementary School Site Leadership
Pressure has been an essential aspect of the urban school principalship since the position
was created in the 19th century. In the past, as it remains largely until today, the principal’s daily
work life has been intended to follow a routine script of scheduled meetings, observations,
appearances, tasks, and rituals; this anticipated daily routine has been frequently fractured by
unscheduled, unanticipated, and often high-intensity events (West, Peck, & Reitzug, 2010).
ELEMENTARY PRINCIPALS AT TITLE I SCHOOLS 19
Cuban (1988) examined principal studies from 1911 to 1981 and discovered three overlapping
roles: instructional, managerial, and political. He also noted that principals characteristically
“skip from one task to another” and “spend between two-thirds to four-fifths of their time talking
and listening to people of all ages in the school community” (Cuban, 1988, p. 61).
The demands on elementary school principals have steadily grown and intensified. For
instance, state and district school accountability measures began in the 1980s in response to A
Nation at Risk which was a report commissioned by President Ronald Reagan. The National
Commission on Excellence in Education found that American schools were in danger of falling
behind other competing countries like Germany and Japan if something was not done about the
United States’ mediocre schools. This report also contributed to the ever-growing view that
American schools were failing, which, in turn, touched off a wave of local, state, and federal
school reform initiatives.
Currently, the K-12 school system is transitioning from the NCLB legislation which
began in 2002 and ended in 2014. One of the central features of the NCLB legislation, signed
into law by president George W. Bush, was a mandate that individual states establish school
academic performance accountability systems in order to receive federal educational funding.
States utilized standardized tests to measure student academic performance and introduced
sanctions intended to spur improvement at schools where students underperformed (Vinovskis,
2009). Such rigid accountability mechanisms directly affected urban schools and school districts,
which had historically performed poorly in terms of student achievement and graduation rates.
Principals of low-performing schools are subject to the relentless accountability demands to
create test score growth each year (Sunderman, Orfield, & Kim, 2006). This growth is expected
ELEMENTARY PRINCIPALS AT TITLE I SCHOOLS 20
regardless of extenuating factors such as the addition of new low-performing students or students
with special needs.
President Obama signed a new federal educational act into law at the end of 2015. This
new act is called the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). This new piece of
legislation is seen more generally as giving increased local control to school districts to make
key instructional decisions for their unique student populations. The role of the site principal is
now viewed as that of an instructional leader whose role is critical to the success of a school
district. As Duke (2004) states, increased accountability at the school site level has made it
necessary for superintendents to delegate and shift many of the decisions regarding individual
student decisions to principals. Numerous research studies by Hallinger and Heck (1996) and
Leithwood et al. (2005) demonstrated, over time, that the strong correlation between the positive
relationship between elementary school principal and student achievement is second only to the
role of a student’s classroom teacher.
Characteristics of Effective Principals in Title I Schools
Scholars and researchers have attempted to identify the characteristics of effective school
principals (Schmeider & Cairns, 1996). Despite the numerous studies and efforts to define
effective school leaders, some researchers argued that little is actually known about school
leadership apart from the conventional wisdom (Papa et al., 2002). According to Covey (1996),
the author of The Seven Habits of Successful People, an effective principal is “one who creates a
culture of value system based on the principles of service, integrity, fairness, and equity” (p. 33).
However, most researchers agreed that the longstanding role of the plant manager changed into
that of an instructional leader who focuses on outstanding academic results and achievement for
all the students in his or her school (Murphy, 2002).
ELEMENTARY PRINCIPALS AT TITLE I SCHOOLS 21
Marzano et al. (2005) identified 21 specific categories or responsibilities of leadership
that correlate with student achievement. Among them, they found that situational awareness and
intellectual stimulation had the highest correlation with student achievement. A principal who
has situational awareness is aware of the details and the trends in the operation of the school and
uses this information to remedy current and potential problems. According to the authors,
principals with a high level of intellectual stimulation ensure that teachers are aware of the latest
trends in educational research and make sure that the discussion of research is a common
practice in a school’s culture. Marzano et al.’s (2005) findings are insightful as to what makes an
effective principal. However, there remains a need for further research into what quantifies these
21 leadership traits and how to identify them in potential principal candidates.
Bolman and Deal (2008) identified four distinct leadership frames that successful leaders
need. The four leadership frames are structural, human resources, political, and symbolic.
Principals who are skilled in the structural framework are better able to use formal relationships,
division of labor, systems, logic, and specialized roles to achieve organizational goals. They
analyze the organization and find solutions by focusing on structure. The human resources
framework focuses on leaders who are adept at accommodating the needs of the individuals in
the organization and making their employees feel like part of the family. Political leaders
bargain, negotiate, compromise, and occasionally coerce individuals in order to compete for
limited resources. Symbolic leaders are individuals who inspire others and who use symbols to
capture attention. Furthermore, according to Bolman and Deal, leaders are usually stronger in
some of the frameworks and weaker in others. Effective principals are usually competent in all
four frameworks and are able to skillfully use the different frameworks to advance a school’s
culture and improve student achievement.
ELEMENTARY PRINCIPALS AT TITLE I SCHOOLS 22
Gaziel (2003) conducted a study where he measured the effectiveness of principals based
on their own perception of their leadership abilities and the perception of their teachers. The
principals’ views in the study were centered around Bolman and Deal’s (2008) four leadership
frames: human resource, political, structural, and symbolic. Gaziel found that the best predictors
of a principal’s effectiveness as a manager were the human resources and structural frames.
However, one limitation of Gaziel’s study was that he did not incorporate student test scores into
his study. Instead, he relied mostly on teachers’ perceptions of whether the principal was
effective or not.
This section of the literature review discussed what the current body of research says
about what makes a principal effective. The research clearly specifies many qualities that make
principals effective. The problem is that the research is limited in its usefulness for hiring
effective principals because many of the leadership qualities from the research can be difficult to
immediately recognize in an individual candidate. For instance, district staff must rely on
resumes, interviews, background information, and other limited information during the hiring
process to identify candidates who are most likely to succeed. Papa (2002) asserted that, even if
district office staff members were able to articulate the qualities of an effective principal,
identifying candidates who have these qualities is extremely difficult. The following section
provides a comprehensive overview of what the literature says regarding the recruitment and
hiring of effective elementary school principals.
Leader as Transformational Change Agent
Principals in Title I schools need to be transformational change agents in most cases to
improve their schools’ academic performance since most schools are in program improvement.
All schools and local educational agencies that do not make Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)
ELEMENTARY PRINCIPALS AT TITLE I SCHOOLS 23
are identified for program improvement under NCLB. Program improvement schools and local
educational agencies must implement required program components and student interventions.
Under the old NCLB system, schools could face consequences for not improving their students’
academic outcomes of performance.
In the current educational environment, principals are chosen to lead transformation in
order to get their schools out of program improvement. In Beyond Change Management,
Anderson and Anderson (2010) identified three types of change: “developmental change,
transitional change, and transformational change” (p. 51). During the developmental change
phase, minor tweaks occur to what already exists, but some new ideas are introduced in order to
improve the situation. However, during the transformational change period, big, new ideas are
brought to bear which can change your organization into an entirely new being (Anderson &
Anderson, 2010). Another researcher, Donald Anderson (2012), had a different way of
describing the organizational change process. He stated that organizations go through different
types of change and can be either planned or unplanned.
Due to the different pressures that drive change, transformational change can often feel as
if it is being done to you; it feels as if it has a life of its own (Anderson & Anderson, 2010).
Sometimes, the changes come from the top down. For instance, a school district official may
mandate that all students in an elementary school have to take a writing test three times
throughout the school year. Other times, change can come from the bottom up through a school
site leadership team or a group of teachers who want to spearhead an initiative, whether
academic or non-academic. In Beyond the Change Management, Anderson and Anderson (2010)
put it this way, “When transformational change is done well it can lead to extraordinary
breakthrough results. When led poorly, it can lead to breakdown throughout the organization.
ELEMENTARY PRINCIPALS AT TITLE I SCHOOLS 24
Transformation is one of the most challenging yet potentially rewarding undertakings for
leaders” (p. 59).
Recruitment of Qualified People for the Principal Position
According to the research, there seems to be a shortage of qualified candidates applying
for the position of elementary school principal. Some researchers have clearly defined a shortage
of principal candidates in hard to staff schools in urban and rural areas (Pounder & Crow, 2005;
Roza, Cello, Harvey, & Wishon, 2003). Researchers have based the assumption that principals
avoid these hard to staff schools for reasons such as high staff turnover, limited financial
resources, and low student achievement (Gates, Ringel, Santibanez, Ross, & Chung, 2003;
Lashway, 2003). A large majority of affluent suburban schools do not face shortages in quality
applicants; furthermore, affluent students are not as greatly affected by the quality of school
leadership when compared to disadvantaged students (Raudenbush, 2009). Thus, the students
who are in the greatest need of effective school leadership are the least likely to have it (Papa et
al., 2002).
Due to the shortage of qualified candidates applying for the principal position in urban
elementary schools or hard to staff schools, school district officials need to skillfully recruit
quality candidates to their school district. In some cases, new candidates and aspiring principals
may be overlooked by school districts. Gajda and Militello (2008) recommended that school
districts improve their recruitment of new administrators by targeting them early on in their
careers. Stark-Price, Munoz, Winter, and Petrosko (2006) suggested that school districts could
make the unattractive positions more desirable by redesigning the job to free the site principal to
focus more on instruction and less on managerial tasks.
ELEMENTARY PRINCIPALS AT TITLE I SCHOOLS 25
The Whitaker study of 2001 also noted the lack of teachers who were willing to go into
administration. Whitaker (2001) selected 176 superintendents at random in the state of Colorado.
Their school districts were having some difficulty in finding applicants in their local area. The
school district officials went out and actively recruited minority candidates, especially Hispanics,
for K-12 positions, only to later discover that few of them had ever turned in their completed
applications. The 176 superintendents’ responses collected clearly reflected that they believed in
diversity in the hiring of principals and wanted to hire more K-12 minority leaders for their
rapidly growing minority student population in their state (Whitaker, 2001).
The Tennessee New Teacher Project (2006) offers four recommendations for school
district officials in order to attract highly qualified candidates to the principal position; proactive
recruitment practices, stronger initial eligibility screening, heightened school district competency
screening, and school fit interview panels. Each of these recommendations is positive on the
surface, but each also presents some challenges. It is not always practical to have so many steps
in the hiring practice. Towards the end of the school year, districts are busy closing up school,
preparing for promotion ceremonies, and generally showing signs of fatigue and burnout. The
Tennessee New Teacher Project (2006) also asserts that the current timelines and hiring practices
for new principals in urban school districts is not sufficient to hire the best and brightest
principals. The current practice of waiting until late June or July to hire new principals is too late
in the year to attract sitting principals who may be looking to make a lateral move to another
school district. In this article, the Tennessee New Teacher Project (2006) argues that many top-
notch candidates for the principal position simply withdraw their application out of frustration or
are picked up by other school districts by the time the interview process rolls around in late
summer.
ELEMENTARY PRINCIPALS AT TITLE I SCHOOLS 26
Mentorship
Due to the fact that the responsibilities of the principal changed so rapidly, the need for
mentorship is stronger than ever. “Few jobs have as diverse an array of responsibilities as the
modern principalship (Darling-Hammond, Meyerson, LaPointe, & Orr, 2010, p.8). There is a gap
between the information that a new principal receives and what they actually need. “The
information and support that districts provide for them in order to be successful and satisfied at
the beginning of their administrative career has always been a problem” (Kearney, 2010, p. 28).
Some school district officials believe that it is the responsibility of veteran principals to “mold
beginning principals with the necessary tools to be successful” (Fleck, 2007, p. 26). School
districts can facilitate this mentorship process by creating a high-quality principal mentorship
program for all new principals (Fleck, 2007; Weingartner, 2009).
The role of a mentor can be defined in a number of ways. Goddard (1998) writes that a
mentor is a well-skilled, experienced educator who mentors a less skilled educator and can, thus,
be a critical force in determining the retention of new and emerging educational leaders.
Solorzano (1998) addressed mentoring and its impact on one’s social mobility—or movement
through the educational pipeline under the umbrella of what he termed “social mobility.”
Solorzano (1998) also discusses that, through social networks and processes like mentoring,
people are chosen to move up and into the best positions within the government, corporate
world, and academia. Overall, studies show that a high-quality mentoring program can lead to
improved principal job performance and increased job promotion rate, greater job satisfaction,
and the perception of one’s overall influence within a given organization (Hill & Bahniuk, 1998).
Zellner, Jinkins, Gideon, Doughty, and McNamara (2002) surveyed 3,000 principals on
how to make principal preparation programs more supportive. Zellner et al. looked into ways to
ELEMENTARY PRINCIPALS AT TITLE I SCHOOLS 27
improve the recruiting and mentoring of new school administrators as well as ways to support
experienced administrators throughout their careers. The School Leadership Initiative, a 3-year
pilot mentor program, was designed mainly for assistant principals. The Richardson Mentor
Principal program was created for seasoned administrators recognized for their achievements
(Zellneret al., 2002). The researchers found out that new principals especially needed support
networks and continuous support throughout every stage of their careers. According to Zellner et
al. principal preparation programs need to stress leadership practices. Future leaders need
opportunities to engage in planning, developing, directing, and implementing school programs.
Darling-Hammond (2014) stated that providing a new principal or even an experienced
principal with a mentor or accomplished administrator is desirable. This mentor principal could
help their mentee by making them aware of the current and most up-to-date educational research
on sound leadership practices. The mentor would also focus on the, “professional standards that
are used to assess educators’ practices from pre-service preparation to induction and through the
remainder of the career” (Darling-Hammond, 2014, p. 19). The mentor principal or coach would
meet with their mentee at least once a week to check in, see if there are any unanswered
questions, and make suggestions.
Thomas (2001) conducted a study of racial minorities in the United States and came to
the conclusion that the minorities who were the most successful in their careers all had one
characteristic in common, they developed strong networks that were able to nurture the
professional development of minority leaders. Thomas (2001) concluded:
Diversity has become a top priority in Corporate America. Despite the best intentions
though, many organizations have failed to achieve racial balance within their executive
teams. Some revolving doors are occurring for talented minorities, recruiting of the best
ELEMENTARY PRINCIPALS AT TITLE I SCHOOLS 28
and the brightest only to see them leave, frustrated and even angered by the barriers they
encountered. (p. 98)
In California and many parts of the world, women continue to be underrepresented in
educational leadership and management, even though they generally form a majority of the
teaching force (Coleman, 2002). According to Magdaleno (2009), one organization is actively
seeking a solution to the issue of poor support for minority administrators. The California
Association of Latino School Administrators (CALSA) implemented a mentor program in 2003.
It has served hundreds of assistant principals, principals, and directors. According to Magdaleno,
the CALSA program seeks to support Latinas and Latinos who want to further their career
interests as educational leaders.
Heck (2003) studied 150 assistant principals and their supervising principals over a two-
year period. He concluded that the assistant principals who became principals had developed a
clear understanding of their role and responsibilities as administrators (p. 247). Numerous
individuals attributed their success directly to the support given to them by their mentors. These
new administrators established support network, which in turn, sustained them over the trials and
tribulations of their first months on the job.
California does not currently have a mentorship component built into the majority of
administrative preparation programs for principals in their first or second year (“Administrative
Services Credential for Individuals,” 2014). California currently has an induction program that
has a requirement of two years of “successful” administrative duties in order to clear the
preliminary administrative credential (“Administrative Services Credential for Individuals,”
2014). However, the state does not offer any additional mentor support for new principals. Due
ELEMENTARY PRINCIPALS AT TITLE I SCHOOLS 29
to this lack of formal support, many first-year principals are left on their own to navigate the first
years of their administrative career.
Coaching
The goal of the coaching approach is to be supportive of the site administrator. Coaching
appears to work best when training is thorough and specific, when there is careful matching of
coach and coachee, and when it is integral to the wider learning process (Bush, Glover, & Harris,
2004). Burke (2004) also argued that the continual improvement cycle of professional learning is
an important concept to improve all teachers’ instructional practices and there never is an end
point or destination, just checkpoints. Because the principal mentorship issue is not only limited
to one school or one school district, but is a systematic issue, principals will need to be supported
and guided by the superintendent and a one on one mentor in order to improve (Burke, 2004).
Research on the effects of peer coaching of teachers yielded favorable results.
Researchers discovered that teachers who observed other teachers in action and then shared
feedback with one another were more likely to transfer the newly learned skills and adapt them
into their teaching methods (Showers & Joyce, 1996) However, over time, some researchers
have seen the importance of peer coaching for administrators as well. What they discovered is
principals’ creation of their own networking in which peers can discuss school related issues is a
fundamental component to a support system (Brooks, 2003). Using a pre- and post-study
questionnaire for 41 participants of a Peer-Assisted Leadership Program, Dussault and Barnett
(1996) showed positive, collegial interactions between administrators. The majority of the
participants showed reduced feelings of isolation.
The coaching or mentor model would be seen as a second order change by Waters et al.
(2004) because it breaks with tradition and challenges the status quo. This second order change
ELEMENTARY PRINCIPALS AT TITLE I SCHOOLS 30
asks school district officials who work directly with new principals to look in the mirror and ask
themselves if they are doing everything they can to support and nurture new principals (Waters
et al., 2004). Bjork and Murphy (2005) were thinking about their experiences in the United
States public school educational system when they commented that “most courses are delivered
using lecture format that is viewed as being isolated, passive and sterile knowledge acquisition”
(p. 15). These classes that are often meant to expand the learner’s mind and, thus, their
professional practice often represent what Waters et al. (2004) refer to as first order change and
does not address the needs of the site administrator in the field.
Retaining Effective Principals
Recent research showed a strong connection between the current high-stakes environment
of state testing and principal turnover. Ladd (1999) investigated the consequences of district
accountability reforms in Dallas and noted yearly principal turnover from 4.7% before the
reforms to 28.5% thereafter. The researcher further noted that poorly performing elementary
schools saw turnover rise from 2.4% to 24.6% after the reform was in place. Clearly, there is a
need to address the stress that comes with the principal position and ways to assist principals in
being more effective.
According to Young (2007), an effective principal can able identify, hire, and retain an
effective teacher, which leads to academic success at that particular school. Hiring the right
person to sit in the principal chair can make or break a school’s academic performance.
However, educators in the 21st century need incentives, understanding and support in order to
take on the principal position. Kathryn Whitaker (2006) of the University of Northern Colorado
examined the reasons principals experience burnout and what their supervisors can do to better
support them. Effective strategies for positively influencing new principals, according to
ELEMENTARY PRINCIPALS AT TITLE I SCHOOLS 31
Whitaker (2006), include workload reduction, on-going personal and professional support,
mentorship for principals, providing increased salaries and benefits, developing partnerships with
universities, and encouraging and developing teachers and assistant principals. Cushing, Kerrins,
and Johnstone (2003) also offer possible solutions, such as the notion of co-principals, increased
release time, rethinking job responsibilities by delegating less technical work to administrative
assistants, and other actions that would help principals with skill development and resiliency
including time management and built in time for reflection.
Another educational researcher, Papa (2004), compares the attributes, qualifications, and
career paths of principals and examines the perceived shortage of principals. The results indicate
that the least experienced principals are most likely to lead schools in urban districts and where
student performance is lowest, there are more individuals certified to be principals and under the
age of 45 than there are principal positions in the state, the compensation of principals at schools
in urban districts is similar to or less than the salaries paid to principals of schools in the
surrounding suburbs, and the salaries paid to new principals are very similar to the salaries of
veteran teachers within the same school district. Cushing et al. (2004) state,
With all of these demands the stress is high and the rewards are few. The pay differential
between a beginning principal and an experienced teacher is often negligible; when
salaries are calculated on an hourly basis, teachers often come out well ahead (p.1).
Papa (2004) also examined the impact of principal and school characteristics on the
likelihood that a principal will remain in the same school, as opposed to moving to a different
school within the district or to a different district. Results indicate that schools in urban districts
are more likely to have a principal move to a different school within the district than are schools
in suburban and rural districts, and schools in rural districts are more likely to have their
ELEMENTARY PRINCIPALS AT TITLE I SCHOOLS 32
principal move to a different district than are schools in suburban and urban districts. As a
school’s percentage of students with limited English proficiency increases, the likelihood that the
school will retain its principal decreases. In addition, as the number of students in a school
increases, the likelihood that the school will retain its principal decreases, and districts paying
higher salaries to principals are more likely to retain their principals (Papa, 2004).
Fuller, Young, and Baker (2011) studied principal retention rates for the state of Texas
and found “the turnover rate for principals over a three year-span, from 2004-2007, was 50
percent for elementary principals and 60% for high school principals” (p. 173). Moreover, they
also found that the turnover rate for principals in 50% economically disadvantaged schools was
75% when examining a five-year period. This is a startling statistic because the schools that have
the greatest need for effective, strong leadership often have the highest turnover rate. Lankford,
Papa, and Wyckoff (2002) also has the same theme that urban schools are more likely to be led
by principals who have fewer years of administrative experience.
The demands of the job can be a significant deterrent to any teacher looking to make the
transition into administration. Portin (2000) conducted research involving a 55-item
questionnaire sent to the majority of the membership of the Association of Washington School
Principals. From the 2,431 questionnaires mailed, 840 useful questionnaires were returned.
Portin discovered principals cited the following frustrations as impediments to their job: site-
based or collaborative decision making, increasing pressures relating to high stakes testing and
accountability, the increased role of management, altered relationships with community, and
dilemmas related to school choice, to name a few. The position of school principal has never
been an easy one, but with today’s changing educational landscape, it continues to become more
daunting (Portin, 2000).
ELEMENTARY PRINCIPALS AT TITLE I SCHOOLS 33
Gonzalez (2007) found that long-term stress in the workplace could make individuals
twice as likely to be depressed. He identified 10 workplace stressors: lack of control over daily
tasks, office politics, lack of communication, inconsistent or unreliable performance reviews,
lack of appreciation (whether perceived or real), work-life conflicts, lack of company leadership
or director, unclear job expectations, random interruptions, and unreasonable workloads. Other
researchers found that, after a few years on the job, many principals develop “health issues such
as high blood pressure and weight gain” because of the stressful work conditions (Cushing et al.,
2003, p. 29). Kraft (2006) found that those who work long hours and under prolonged stress are
probably not exercising, eating healthy, and spending time with family and are likely feeling
isolated.
In the report Seven Habits of effective Principal Preparation, David and Jazzar (2005)
presented a framework that contains essential seven traits that effective preparation programs
need in order to develop effective principals. The framework includes (a) curriculum and
instruction, (b) clinical learning internships, (c) mentors, (d) collaborative learning experiences,
(e) authentic assessments, (f) research-based decision making, and (g) turnkey transitions. The
researchers suggested that, if these components are integrated into principal preparation
programs, the likelihood of principal candidates being successful increases. Hess and Kelly
(2005) suggest principal candidates need to be exposed to diverse perspectives of educational
and organizational management so they can implement strategies that work in different contexts.
McEwan (2003) formulated a list of 10 traits that characterize highly effective principals.
In creating his 10 traits, McEwan surveyed 108 educational experts who identified the traits they
felt were the most important. In order to fine-tune his list, McEwan performed case studies of
highly effective principals in order to find out what essential traits they shared in common. To
ELEMENTARY PRINCIPALS AT TITLE I SCHOOLS 34
help identify these individuals, McEwan created a checklist of 98 indicators of highly effective
principals. The McREL researchers examined the body of research that associated principal
leadership with student achievement and came up with 21 traits or responsibilities of effective
principals (Anonymous, 2005). O’Malley (2012) found several key factors in successfully
recruiting elementary principals. These factors were competitive salary/benefits package, a
school district’s reputation, advertising in the industry periodical Ed-join, and successful aspiring
administrators program.
Collaboration
Referencing a series of intensive case studies done by Elmore et al. (2004); Fullan (2015)
stated, “The main feature of successful schools was that they built a collaborative culture that
combined individual responsibility, collective expectations, and corrective action—that is,
internal accountability” (p.4). If each principal feels responsible and accountable to their
students, they will feel more compelled to seek advice and collaboration with other principals or
his or her teammates. Leadership in isolation or trying to reinvent the wheel on your own is a
recipe for either avoidance or failure. Principals will need to meet in monthly common planning
time sessions where they review formative assessments and student work samples.
Fullan (2015) backs up this assertion that group learning is more important and
worthwhile than principals learning going it alone:
Groups with commitments to a compelling moral purpose and to each other (rather than
merely teams which are collections of people drawn together to perform particular tasks)
act in more responsible and accountable ways than an external force can make them do
(p. 6).
ELEMENTARY PRINCIPALS AT TITLE I SCHOOLS 35
Conclusion
As a state, California continues to undergo transformative changes through the adoption
of the Common Core State Standards process, which adds a further responsibility to the
principal’s plate: the role of a transformational leader. Anderson and Anderson (2010) explained
the transformational change is full of ups and downs, requiring course correction along the way.
In addition, some researchers clearly defined a shortage of principal candidates in hard to staff
schools in urban and rural areas (Pounder & Crow, 2005; Roza et al., 2003). The role of the
principal is constantly changing and being reinvented. Schlueter and Walker (2008) suggested
that district leaders need to view their principals as critical players and to hire leaders who can
create and sustain significant changes.
This literature review analyzed pertinent research regarding how principals are recruited,
mentored, and retained in Title I elementary schools. The literature showed that school district
officials are choosing from a limited pool of candidates to head up the most affected and low
SES schools. The review also showed how new and inexperienced principals are often chosen to
lead Title I schools in most urban school districts. The literature regarding the unique
characteristics it takes to lead an elementary Title I school serving mostly low SES students of
color was also discussed. The final section discussed the need to mentor new principals so they
do not experience burn out.
Despite the large amount of research on this subject, there are still critical gaps in the
literature, which needs to be addressed. Little is known about how to effectively recruit and
retain elementary principals in challenging or difficult schools (Papa et al., 2002). Further,
research is needed to determine what school districts look or when hiring elementary school
principals to serve in urban, Title I elementary schools in California.
ELEMENTARY PRINCIPALS AT TITLE I SCHOOLS 36
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
Chapter three commences with a restatement of the problem, purpose, and research
questions posited in Chapter One. A summary of the methodological design, participants and
settings, data collection, data analysis, and ethical considerations will follow. Chapter Three
concludes with a review of information encompassed in this chapter, and an internal preview of
chapters four and five.
Background of the Problem
The issue of retaining principals in Title I schools is a critical educational issue since the
national average for principal dropout rate is 50% in the first five years at the school site level
(Fuller &Young, 2008). This problem is important to address because, in the current educational
atmosphere, the principal is the engine that drives the accountability train, and he or she is
expected to be a transformational leader. However, if the principal does not last more than five
years, then it is very difficult for them to make any meaningful or lasting change (Fuller &
Young, 2008).
There have also been recent concerns expressed about the shrinking pool and
questionable quality of principal applicants (Groon & Rawlings-Sanaei, 2003). This issue of
recruiting and retaining principals at Title I elementary schools is important to address because,
in the current educational atmosphere, the principal is not only expected to be the site manager,
but also the chief instructional leader (Fuller & Young, 2008). School districts across California
struggle to both recruit and retain principals of Title I schools due to the constant and high
demands of leading school change. Currently, there is a revolving door at the principal position
for schools most in need of a strong, experienced, and capable school leader (Papa, 2004).
ELEMENTARY PRINCIPALS AT TITLE I SCHOOLS 37
The Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study encompasses two components. The primary purpose is to
understand the role school district officials play in the successful recruitment of principals for the
position of elementary school principal at a Title I elementary school. A secondary purpose of
the study was to identify the research-based characteristics of successful Title I elementary
principals in California and what processes school districts use to retain these individuals.
According to Maxwell (2013), the goals of a qualitative study are to help understand
whether a study is worth doing. Secondly, Maxwell points out that the goals justify the study, and
explain why results and conclusions matter. The first goal of this dissertation was to examine
whether there is a connection between the recruiting practices of a school district in searching for
a principal for a Title I school and whether the school district can retain that principal past three
years. Another goal was to analyze whether the role that district officials (elementary directors,
human resource directors, assistant superintendents of instruction or human resources) play in
mentoring could help to recruit and retain a principal in a Title I school. The following research
questions helped to drive this study.
Research Questions
This study was guided by the following research questions:
1. What are the processes that districts in California utilize in order to recruit potential
elementary school principals?
2. What are the processes or practices that school districts utilize in order to retain
elementary school principals past three years?
3. How do school districts perceive their role in mentoring new elementary principals?
4. How do school districts evaluate themselves to ensure that they are recruiting and
retaining quality principals?
ELEMENTARY PRINCIPALS AT TITLE I SCHOOLS 38
Design Summary
Creswell (2008) identified six explicit steps in conducting a research study: (a)
identification of a research problem, (b) review of the current literature, (c) having a purpose for
research, (d) the collection of data, (e) analysis of the data, and, finally, (f) reporting the
evaluation of the research. This study was framed by the six steps.
For this study, it was important to conduct a qualitative and quantitative research so that
the researcher interacted with the participants in their natural setting and interpreted how the
participants made sense of their world and their experiences (Merriam, 2009). Further, the
mixed-methods approach enabled production of results from supporting evidence to answer the
research questions (Maxwell, 2013).
Furthermore, according to Patton (2003), there are three main types of protocols: open-
ended; qualitative interview protocols; the informal, conversational method; the interview guide
method; and the standardized, open-ended method. For the purposes of this study, the researcher
selected the standardized, open-ended protocol. Another advantage of the standardized open-
ended interview is that it supports novice interviewers because questions are written out in
advance (Merriam, 2009; Patton, 2002). At the beginning of the interview process, the researcher
used predetermined interview questions, but changed and adjusted the questions between
interviews as emergent patterns became evident.
Qualitative research seeks to make meaning rather than determine the cause and effect of
a problem or phenomenon. “Qualitative researchers are interested in understanding how people
interpret their experiences, how they construct their worlds, and what meaning they attribute to
their experiences” (Merriam, 2009, p. 5). This study’s design was deliberate in attempting to
focus on emergent and flexible conditions and make changes throughout the study. This study
ELEMENTARY PRINCIPALS AT TITLE I SCHOOLS 39
sought to uncover richly descriptive words and pictures that would help tie together a story for
the reader (Merriam, 2009).
The quantitative portion of this research was composed of a 17-question survey based on
the research questions. The survey questions were generated by carefully analyzing the body of
research germane to recruiting and hiring effective elementary school principals. Many of the
questions were based on the 21 specific categories of leadership, or responsibilities of leaders,
which would be correlated with gains in student achievement (Marzano et al., 2005). The
participants who completed the surveys were either central district officials or principals at Title
I schools in California. The survey was the tool of choice for the quantitative component because
it allowed for a large collection of data from principals in Title I schools in southern California,
which could be statistically analyzed to find significant trends.
In this study, the general qualitative approach was utilized to allow for flexibility to
change components as the data were gathered through interviews and observations. Some of the
most useful information was gathered through three open-ended, semi-structured interviews.
Dexter (as cited by Merriam, 2009) stated that it is best to use interviews when these will enable
gathering of more data than other methods (p. 88). Bogdan and Bilken (2007) define an
interview as “purposeful conversation” that is directed by an individual in order to get
information from another person (p. 103).
This study also utilized what Patton (2007) calls the standardized open-ended interview,
which consisted of a set of questions that were predetermined and posed in the same order during
all three of the interviews. This open-ended approach allowed the researcher the flexibility to
change the interview protocol questions from interview to interview as themes emerged.
Maxwell (2013) defines sampling as a way of selecting interviewees to generalize to a
ELEMENTARY PRINCIPALS AT TITLE I SCHOOLS 40
population of interest. However, Maxwell (2013) does point out that, because the nature of the
sampling size is rather small, it can only offer suggestive answers to a question framed in general
terms.
Convenience sampling was utilized in order to interview and survey officials from public
school districts in southern California. Convenience sampling supported the study that the
number of respondents for an interview was limited due to the requirements of school district
officials in southern California (Maxwell, 2013; Merriam, 2009). In addition, the sampling was
purposeful as the study needed school district officials in school districts that had at Title I
schools specifically, and purposeful sampling is used when unique attributes in an interviewee
are required (Merriam, 2009). Because the researcher’s focus was on principals at Title I schools
overall—regardless of race or color—the interviewees selected represented varied racial/ethnic
backgrounds and had two or more years of school district experience.
Selection of the Population
The researcher interviewed and surveyed school district personnel to better understand
the process of recruiting and retaining Title I principals. Gaining this knowledge from the
interviews and surveys may support aspiring principals and district office personnel in navigating
the educational system to pursue the position of principal in a California public school.
Participants were ten district officials serving in California public schools during the year
2015–2016 school year. Information on which district personnel to select for the survey and
interview was retrieved from the California Department of Education’s website. During the
selection of the participants, some names and a person’s exact district office position were not
easily discerned, and, as a result, the researcher made telephone calls and/or used the Internet to
identify the individual’s exact role and responsibility within the organization. The survey and
ELEMENTARY PRINCIPALS AT TITLE I SCHOOLS 41
interview participants were either district officials or elementary principals currently serving in
public school districts with student populations ranging from 2,500 to 70,000 students. Table 1
shows the survey and interview criteria for the individuals who were selected.
Table 1
Survey and Interview Selection Criteria of Principals and District officials
Survey Interview
2 years or more 2 years or more
Public school district w/ at least 2,500
students
Public school district w/ at least 2,500
students
Serving in California Serving in California
Instrumentation and Protocols
The two instruments used were a 17-question survey and an interview protocol based on
the research questions. The 17-question survey was the quantitative component of this mixed-
methods study, and the interview was the qualitative component. The questions in the 17-
question survey required a response based on a 5-point Likert scale. Respondents read a
statement about the recruiting and retaining of elementary school principals in Title I schools and
identified the item as (1) not important, (2) minimally important, (3) somewhat important, (4)
important, or (5) very important. The questions in the survey were organized in 6 distinct
categories. The first four categories were based on different principal leadership responsibilities
and duties. These four categories included principal background, instruction, human relations,
and management. The other two categories contained questions related to the recruiting and
mentoring of elementary principals. The survey questions were created based on principal
attributes, hiring criteria, and recruiting criteria that researchers determined to be correlated with
effective principals.
ELEMENTARY PRINCIPALS AT TITLE I SCHOOLS 42
The qualitative interview protocol included the research questions. To supplement these,
several follow-up and sub-questions were added under each of them. This instrument was
calibrated to elicit open-ended responses that would provide rich and detailed information to help
answer the research questions.
This study was centered on Merriam’s (2009) and Creswell’s (2009) steps for conducting
a research study. The study focused on the research problem and purpose in Chapter One, and a
review of the literature in Chapter Two. Chapter three addresses the manner in which the data
were collected. Chapters Four and Five emphasize analyzing, interpreting, and reporting the data.
Data Collection Protocols
The online district officials survey protocol was emailed to 42 school districts in April of
2016, using Google Forms. The email contained an introduction and a request to participate in
the study. The email contained a link to the online survey. The data from the online surveys were
automatically tabulated for later use in the statistical analysis. The qualitative data were collected
from the ten personal interviews conducted in May and June of 2016. The interviews were tape-
recorded and the responses were analyzed and coded to find trends and patterns among the
school district officials.
The quantitative data were analyzed with descriptive statistics. The purpose of the
statistical analysis was to find significant trends and correlations from the responses. The raw
data were first ordered and analyzed to find the items most frequently scored as important by
district officials and compared to what principals in Title I schools identified as less important.
An analysis was completed by tabulating the survey data item by item and finding the mean and
standard deviations. The data were coded, scored, and analyzed using the Statistical Package for
the Social Sciences (SPSS) software version 18.0. The means and standard deviations for each
ELEMENTARY PRINCIPALS AT TITLE I SCHOOLS 43
item in the survey were computed. Further tests of variance and covariance were administered to
test for statistical significance and correlations with the other items and demographic
information. The means for items in the questionnaire were compared using a One-Way
Repeated Measures ANOVA. Each item on the survey was also tested for internal reliability and
consistency using Cronbach’s alpha. Cronbach’s alpha is a measure of internal consistency,
meaning how closely related a set of items are as a group. It is considered to be a measure of
scale reliability.
The qualitative interview data were analyzed and compared with the results of the
quantitative survey data. Responses from the different superintendent interviews were coded and
compared to find similarities that added depth and understanding to the research questions.
Creswell’s (2008) six steps were used in the data analysis and interpretation of the qualitative
data.
Data Analysis
This study’s design was qualitative. Punch (1998) states that qualitative research is
empirical research where the data gathered and the findings are not presented in the forms of
numbers. This approach focused on involving an interpretive, naturalistic approach to the subject
studied. Studying the actions of district officials in their natural settings and attempting to
interpret these actions required the use of multiple instruments: in-depth interviews and online
surveys. Qualitative research is grounded in an interpretivist philosophy and aims to produce
rounded understandings on the basis of rich, contextual, and detailed data (Merriam, 2009).
Open coding allowed flexibility for themes to emerge organically. The researcher used
what Maxwell (2013) describes as a similarity and a contiguity approach to categorizing. The
researcher identified how various data were similar and different across the diverse sample of
ELEMENTARY PRINCIPALS AT TITLE I SCHOOLS 44
sites and respondents (similarity). Finally, the researcher used contiguity relationships. This
process involved identifying how the coded data, based on the a priori codes, connected to
answering the research question.
At the conclusion of data analysis, the researcher constructed reports, and a process was
implemented to triangulate findings from the literature review. Figure 2 illustrates the
triangulation of the quantitative and qualitative methods with the literature review. The utility of
triangulating the data is identifying points of convergence and divergence between data sets and
data sources (Patton, 2002).
Figure 1. Triangulation of Findings
Validity Concerns
Merriam (2009) describes the importance of internal validity and credibility in how the
research findings effectively describe what is happening. In short, a credible or valid set of
findings accurately describes the phenomenon, event, or interaction being researched, and the
conclusions drawn can be supported by the research and are credible to those who interpret and
analyze the study. In this study of the recruitment and retaining of principals at Title I elementary
ELEMENTARY PRINCIPALS AT TITLE I SCHOOLS 45
schools in California, surveys were chosen as primary sources of data collection and openly code
the data (Creswell, 2009; Stemler, 2001). The researcher used Merriam’s (2009) description of
ensuring validity through the use of triangulation, a method of checking results from more than
one avenue to ensure credibility. Specifically, the researcher used multiple sources of data in the
form of three interviews using the same interview protocol. This allowed for “investigator
triangulation” of data (Merriam, 2009) not only due to the multiple respondents and sites used,
but also due to the fact that the researcher reviewed the raw data from all interviews (p. 216). In
addition, reflexivity was also an important component to ensure validity. As Merriam (2009)
describes, researchers in qualitative analysis have an inherent bias, which informs the method,
data collection, and presentation of the results. Reflecting critically and stating one’s biases is
essential to valid qualitative results.
External validity is an important component to a research project. Particularly, the
researcher must collect data and present it using thick descriptions, as described by Merriam
(2009), to allow for the possibility of practitioners studying the results and using them in their
own setting. Using a maximum variation sampling–a diverse and purposeful group of
respondents or subjects across diverse settings–also promotes the acquisition of data that can be
transferable and/or credible to researchers and practitioners.
Ethical Considerations
An ethical approach to research is described as one in which the researcher is sensitive to the
participants and rigorous with the process of ensuring valid and reliable findings. Merriam
(2009) identifies ten items that ought to be considered to ensure an ethical study as presented by
Patton (2002). For this study, the researcher adhered to the following:
ELEMENTARY PRINCIPALS AT TITLE I SCHOOLS 46
Clearly explaining the purpose of the inquiry and the methods to be used.
1. Risk assessment – ensuring no undue risk to those being studied (IRB).
2. Confidentiality of the respondents and sites.
3. Informed consent via a signed waiver.
4. Expert advice from the dissertation chair.
Although there are other elements identified by Merriam (2009), for the purpose of this
study, the five mentioned above carried the most weight and ensured a methodical and
systematic approach to ethical and appropriate data collection and result dissemination. All five
elements enhance the relationship between the investigators and the subjects to allow for
building rapport and trust.
Acknowledging this study involved human participants, institutional review board
guidelines and procedures set forth by the University of Southern California were adhered to at
all times. In order to obtain the university’s authorization as well as individual school districts’
permission to conduct the study, information was submitted to the board for approval prior to
contacting participants. All participants were assured of confidentiality in reporting results.
Pseudonyms were used in place of participants’ names, and schools’ names were specifically
identified in any findings.
Summary
This study utilizing qualitative data gathered via online surveys and face-to-face, in-depth
interviews of principals at Title I schools and district officials. Emergent findings from these
sources, along with those from a review of literature, and the review of documents were
triangulated in order to provide increased depth of understanding in relation to the research
ELEMENTARY PRINCIPALS AT TITLE I SCHOOLS 47
questions. These results of the data analysis are presented in Chapter Four, and recommendations
for further research are posited in Chapter Five.
ELEMENTARY PRINCIPALS AT TITLE I SCHOOLS 48
CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS
The educational problem addressed herein is the practices and processes school district
officials use in order to recruit, retain, and mentor principals at Title I elementary school districts
in Southern California. School districts, in recent years, have expressed concern about the
shrinking pool of principals and the questionable quality of principal applicants (Groon &
Rawlings-Sanaei, 2003). There has been a revolving door at the principal position for schools are
most in need of a strong, experienced, and capable school leader (Papa, 2004). Constantly
replacing elementary principals is an important issue because, in the current educational
atmosphere, the principal is the engine that drives the accountability train under the ESEA
otherwise known as NCLB.
Background of the Problem
Currently, there are significant achievement gaps in the United States among different
groups of students. Latino and Black students have historically had lower academic achievement
levels when compared to White students with similar backgrounds (Darling-Hammond, 2004;
Ogbu & Simons, 1998; Rumberger & Palardy, 2005). Poor students also achieve at significantly
lower levels as compared to their more affluent peers. Research has shown that a family’s SES
has a strong impact on student academic achievement (Carlson et al., 1999; Sirin, 2005). Title I
elementary schools are in need of strong principals who can help close the achievement gap
between white and non-white students.
There is a large variation in principal quality among school districts. Papa et al. (2002)
identified a large gap between experienced and inexperienced principals in urban school districts.
Urban schools with students who perform at lower academic levels are more likely to be led by
new principals who have fewer years of administrative experience and who attended less
ELEMENTARY PRINCIPALS AT TITLE I SCHOOLS 49
competitive colleges for their undergraduate education (Papa et al., 2002). This turnover rate
among site administrators can directly affect student outcomes and achievement levels,
especially in low SES Title I schools.
Statement of the Problem
In today’s quick-paced and high-stakes educational environment, school principal burn
out is higher than in any other time in public school history (Fuller & Young, 2008). The
demands of the job can be a significant turnoff for any teacher looking to make the transition into
administration or staying in the principal role at a Title I elementary school. According to recent
studies, principals cited the following frustrations as impediments to their job: site-based or
collaborative decision making, increasing pressures relating to high stakes testing and
accountability, the increased role of management, altered relationships with community, and
dilemmas related to school choice, to name a few (Hart & Bredesen, 1996; Murphy, 1994;
Whitaker, 1999; Williams & Portin, 1997). The position of school principal has never been an
easy one, but, with today’s changing educational landscape, it becomes more daunting.
According to the research, there seems to be a shortage of qualified candidates applying
for the position of elementary school principal. Some researchers clearly defined a shortage of
principal candidates in hard to staff schools in urban and rural areas (Pounder & Crow, 2005;
Roza et al., 2003). Researchers based the assumption that principals avoid these hard to staff
schools for reasons such as high staff turnover, limited resources, and low student achievement
(Gates et al., 2003; Lashway, 2003). A large majority of affluent suburban schools do not face
shortages in quality applicants; furthermore, affluent students are not as greatly affected by the
quality of school leadership when compared to disadvantaged students (Raudenbush, 2009).
ELEMENTARY PRINCIPALS AT TITLE I SCHOOLS 50
Thus, the students who are in the greatest need of effective school leadership are the least likely
to have it (Papa et al., 2002).
The recruiting and hiring practices of successful principals at Title I schools has a direct
effect on student achievement. A meta-analysis of principal literature showed that the most
effective principals have a direct positive impact on student achievement while ineffective
principals have a negative impact on students (Marzano et al., 2005). Marzano et al. (2005)
identified 21 categories of successful school leadership or responsibilities of leaders. They found
situational awareness and flexibility have the highest correlation to student achievement. The
research suggests that some principals are more effective than others at raising overall student
achievement. Marzano et al.’s research suggests how important it is to have a strong leader at a
Title I school.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study consists of two components. The primary purpose is to
understand the role district officials play in the successful recruitment of principals for the Title I
school. A secondary purpose of the study was to identify the research-based characteristics of
successful Title I elementary principals in California and what processes districts use to retain
them.
This chapter includes an analysis of multiple forms of data to provide answers to the
research questions. As noted earlier, little is known about the efficacy of different policies to
attract and hire effective principals and much of the research is based on studies that use self-
reported data from limited geographical areas (Papa, 2002). These studies are limited and may
not provide appropriate generalizations to other contexts. Further research is needed to determine
what effective California school district officials, including superintendents, look for when
ELEMENTARY PRINCIPALS AT TITLE I SCHOOLS 51
recruiting elementary school principals at Title I elementary schools. In order to adequately
address these research questions, this chapter presents a detailed analysis of the quantitative and
qualitative data from this study. The quantitative data from the survey were analyzed utilizing
descriptive statistics, select demographic information of the respondents, and an ANOVA. The
qualitative data were coded, organized and analyzed using Creswell’s six steps (Creswell, 2008).
The analysis in this chapter comes from the robust data collected from 34 school district
officials in Southern California. The quantitative data were compiled from 24 surveys from
urban school district officials in Southern California, and the qualitative data were compiled
from in-depth personal interviews with three assistant superintendents, one human resources
director, one elementary education director, and five superintendents. The qualitative and
quantitative data weave together to tell a story that answers the research questions.
Research Questions
This study was guided by the following research questions:
1. What are the processes that districts in southern California utilize in order to recruit
potential elementary school principals?
2. What are the processes or practices that school districts utilize in order to retain
elementary school principals past three years?
3. How do school districts perceive their role in mentoring new elementary principals?
4. How do school districts evaluate themselves to ensure that they are recruiting and
retaining quality principals?
Methods
Quantitative data were collected through a survey using electronic questionnaires were
distributed to 42 officials in Southern California public school districts with student populations
ELEMENTARY PRINCIPALS AT TITLE I SCHOOLS 52
ranging from 6,500 to 56,000. The officials surveyed either directors, assistant superintendents of
instruction, and/or superintendents. Twenty-four out of 42 surveys were answered, providing a
response rate of 57.1%. All of the survey respondents reported they have been in education 11 or
more years, with 92% reporting they have been in education for over 16 years. Finally, 54% of
the respondents had previously held the position of principal at a Title I elementary school.
Qualitative data were gathered using one-on-one interviews with ten district officials in
chosen using the same criteria as that for the district officials surveyed. Of the survey
respondents, five superintendents were selected and interviewed and are referred to as
Superintendent A through Superintendent E. The researcher ensured the confidentiality of each
official and superintendent was preserved throughout the entire process.
When conducting this research, a semi-structured approach was used during the
interviews, which consisted of 10 questions. The semi-structured protocol allowed the researcher
the flexibility to probe and ask additional follow-up questions as needed. The interview protocol
captured behaviors and feelings from the respondents that could not be observed (Merriam,
2009).
A mixed-methods data approach was conducted using data from the surveys and
interviews (Merriam, 2009). The data were then interpreted and analyzed using triangulation in
that multiple sources of information were applied to support the findings. All of the data were
maintained and protected for confidentiality, especially age, race/ethnicity, and the number of
years in the profession.
Coding of Data
To conduct data analysis to answer the research questions, the researcher had to
consolidate, reduce, and interpret what the participants stated in the interviews as well as
ELEMENTARY PRINCIPALS AT TITLE I SCHOOLS 53
answered on the survey (Merriam, 2009). As recommended by Maxwell (2013), the first step in
the qualitative analysis was to reread the interview transcripts and listen to the interview tape. As
the researcher completed each of these steps, the researcher reviewed memos taken during the
interview and developed categories for the data. The researcher looked for recurring themes in
the data to align with the research questions (Merriam, 2009). When the researcher reviewed the
interviews, codes were assigned to pieces of the data that supported the research questions to
begin to construct categories. According to Merriam (2009), this process of assigning the codes
is referred to as open coding.
After reviewing all of the interview data as well as the data from the survey results, the
researcher finalized categories and subcategories and coded the information. Each of the
categories had multiple subcategories. As the researcher reviewed the subcategories, connections
were made to the literature review, and some of the themes from the data were the same that
have been documented in past research. After all the data were formally coded, formal analysis
was conducted to extrapolate the findings from the study that were directly tied to the research
questions. The researcher used the interviews with all ten participants to answer the third
research question about how district officials see their own role in mentoring principals at Title I
schools. Because the researcher was a novice researcher, he employed a general qualitative
approach to data analysis (Lichtman, 2014).
The second cycle of coding applied was pattern coding, or creating umbrella codes to
synthesize data into smaller, more manageable chunks of information (Miles et al., 2014). Upon
listening to the interviews, themes began to emerge. The researcher followed Maxwell’s (2013)
advice, and went back to the transcripts, and began coding around three central themes. First,
principals at Title I schools are recruited exactly the same as any other prospective principal, but
ELEMENTARY PRINCIPALS AT TITLE I SCHOOLS 54
expectations of their prior knowledge and work experience were different. Second, district
officials try to retain principals at Title I schools in the same manner as they would any other
principal. Third, upon listening to the interviews for a third time, it became apparent that all
principals require a mentor and guidance from an experienced district official or retired principal.
However, being a principal at a Title I school made this mentorship even more pertinent. Once
these three themes emerged the researcher formed a codebook looking for “beliefs,”
“challenges” “experience,” “instructional leader,” “mentoring,” “recruiting,” “retaining,” and
“support.” Once the researcher conducted all ten interviews, he developed frequency chart (Table
2). This table highlights the various district officials interviewed and their length of experience in
the field of education.
Table 2
Sample and Data Collection Interviews
Participants: Number of years in education: Length of interview:
Trish, Elementary Director 40 years 23 minutes
Steve, Human Resources
Director
18 years 21 minutes
Billy, Asst. Supt. of Curriculum
and Instruction
23 years 28 minutes
Lauren, Asst. Supt. of
Curriculum and Instruction
34 years 26 minutes
Carrie, Asst. Supt. of Admin
Services
15 years 24 minutes
Supt. A 25 years 31 minutes
Supt. B 35 years 28 minutes
Supt. C 26 years 24 minutes
Supt. D 41 years 38 minutes
Supt. E 38 years 37 minutes
Findings
According to Merriam (2009), after creating the categories and coding the data, it is
important to speculate how the data are interrelated and to move toward an explanation of the
ELEMENTARY PRINCIPALS AT TITLE I SCHOOLS 55
data’s meaning as they pertain to the research questions. The data analysis that follows aimed to
understand the practices that school districts use to recruit, retain, and mentor principals at Title I
elementary schools in Southern California. The data gathered from the interviews and survey
questions were analyzed in an attempt to answer each of the research questions.
Analysis of the data from the ten interviews conducted yielded consistent themes that
address the research questions. Specifically, the dominant themes revealed are beliefs about
Title I principals’ recruitment process, beliefs about how to best retain them, and what role
district officials play in supporting and mentoring them. The following table defines these
key themes as they apply to this study and notes the frequency with which they were
demonstrated in observations and/or referred to during interviews. Table 3 illustrates each
theme during the observations. The definitions are given as well and the frequency for each
theme that was discussed during the interview. In analyzing Table 3, it is apparent that the
theme of recruitment was discussed the most during these surveys with retaining coming in a
close second.
Table 3
Frequency of Key Themes Emerging from the Data
Theme Definition Frequency
District Recruitment Practices
for Principals of Title I Schools
Identifying advertising, word of mouth,
compensation, paper screening used in
district recruitment practices
34
Practices for
Retaining/Supporting
Principals of Title I Elementary
Schools
Identifying the compensation, professional
development, support from colleagues, and
other practices used to retain principals at
Title I elementary schools
51
District Officials Mentorship
Practices for Principals of Title
I Elementary Schools
Identifying the practices used to mentor
Title I principals through the use of
assimilation, coaching, and mentoring
57
ELEMENTARY PRINCIPALS AT TITLE I SCHOOLS 56
Research Question 1
The first research question asked, “What are the processes that districts in southern
California utilize in order to recruit potential elementary school principals?” The survey
questions were framed to determine the common practices that school district officials used
when recruiting principals at Title 1 schools. Next, the interview questions were posed to gather
a deeper understanding of how school district officials felt about their school district’s current
formal and informal practices of recruiting principals. The following section describes the survey
response data regarding research question 1.
Findings: Survey Responses
The school district officials who participated in the online survey rated each item on a 5-
point Likert scale. Respondents read a statement about the hiring and recruiting of elementary
school principals and identified the item as (1) Not important, (2) Minimally important, (3)
Somewhat important, (4) Important, (5) Very important. From the online survey, 87.3% of
district officials felt that advertising was either somewhat or very important in recruitment.
The data in Table 4 highlights the main questions from the survey sent to district officials
on recruiting principals at Title I elementary schools in Southern California. In looking at this
data, it is apparent that previous administrative experience and a proven track record of
improving student outcomes was very valued. A principal candidate’s being an internal district
candidate was not seen as necessary in order to be a principal at a Title I elementary school.
Finally, when analyzing the data from Table 4 several challenges emerged when school districts
are trying to recruit principals for the position of elementary principal at a Title I school.
ELEMENTARY PRINCIPALS AT TITLE I SCHOOLS 57
Table 4
Recruiting Practices
Importance in
Recruiting
N Minimum Maximum Mean Std.
Deviation
Advertising 24 1 5 3.6 1.29
High level of
pay/compensation
24 1 5 3.875 1.48
Previous admin
exp.
24 3 5 4.2 0.93
30 years or older 24 1 5 3.75 2.94
Candidate is
bilingual
24 2 5 3.375 1.67
Internal candidate 24 1 3 2 3.09
Letters of Rec. 24 1 5 3.79 1.64
Proven track
record
24 1 5 3.92 1.41
Previous administrative experience. The third question on the online survey revealed
that 79.2% of respondents felt that having previous administrative experience was important in
individuals recruited. On average, having previous administrative experience was viewed as
important, as this item had the smallest standard deviation (0.2) and a ranged between three and
five.The data also revealed that some district officials placed a high value on hiring internal
candidates, while other superintendents show little or no preference.
The compensation that various school districts give to principals at Title I elementary
schools can be an issue. Most (87.5%) of the survey respondents felt that a high level of pay was
important in order to recruit potential principal candidates.
Findings: Interviews
Through the interviews, it was evident that most school districts follow a similar
recruiting process. This section is organized into five sections.
ELEMENTARY PRINCIPALS AT TITLE I SCHOOLS 58
Hiring process. Lauren, who is an assistant superintendent of instructional services,
outlined the process that her school district uses in the hiring process. The first step is the
director of human resources, the director of elementary education, and she go out to the school
site to gather stakeholders’ input as to what virtues they would like their new principal to
possess. The next step in the process is to post the position externally through the Edjoin online
website system for at least 10 days. All applicants are required to submit a letter of introduction,
three letters of reference, and supporting documents in regards to their educational background.
In Lauren’s school district the next step in the process is that the elementary director will conduct
a paper screening along with other elementary principals after the position closes. Typically, five
to seven applicants will be invited to either an in-person interview or a phone/virtual interview.
From this point, the interview team, consisting of elementary principals and the elementary
director will make recommend sending two or three candidates forward to the second round. The
second round of interviews are typically conducted by cabinet level school district officials. The
assistant superintendent of educational services, the assistant superintendent of human resources,
and sometimes the superintendent of schools will interview the top candidates in person. The
next level in the hiring process is background and reference checks. The final step in the process
is a formal recommendation to the school board to hire a candidate.
From the interview with Superintendent C, it was apparent that he likes to be very
involved in the hiring process:
Then, we move to the next level, and that’s the finalist round, which actually is here with
me and, typically, my two deputies or cabinet level people, but I think it’s really
important that I’m involved in it. Frankly, I think that probably some of the most
important hires we have in the district are principals. They really do both, by research and
ELEMENTARY PRINCIPALS AT TITLE I SCHOOLS 59
experience, make an incredible difference one way or the other at our schools.
Sometimes, people question why I rearranged my calendar and so forth to get there, but I
think it’s that important.
Again, I want to see the questions beforehand. I want to have input into the
questions. As I said, I’m just going to tell you with elementary folks, absolutely I
want them to describe to me, and I will ask for clarifying explanation relative to
that literacy process. The other thing that I’ll usually throw at them is some off-
the-wall question. I want to know how they deal with the unknown and how they
process against that.
Advertising. All ten district officials interviewed stated their school districts use a
national online resource called Edjoin in order to advertise or recruit potential candidates to be
principals at Title I elementary schools.
The qualitative data from the interviews revealed that administrative experience is
important, but the experience is only valuable if it is the type of experience that is likely to
translate into success in the new position. When superintendent C was asked whether he thought
it was important that principal candidates have previous administrative experience, he responded,
It’s not important to me. There are people that have skills that are, let’s call them quasi
administrative. They haven’t been in administrative roles. Not in this district, but I’ve
been in districts along the way where I’ve literally plucked somebody out of the teaching
or certificated ranks. We had even one here, I guess, a couple of years ago; she was one
of our curriculum specialists, so not in an administrative role, more like a teacher content
PD role. We put her into that, and there were some misgivings of, “She’s never been an
administrator.” What did you want her to be able to do before you got there? All those
ELEMENTARY PRINCIPALS AT TITLE I SCHOOLS 60
questions, I think, had been answered. Actually, in another place, Jim was a counselor at
the elementary level. I said, “Jim, I need you to be the principal.” He says, “I’m not ready
and I didn’t...” the mantra. I said, “Yeah, but you know how to do all this stuff.” He
ended up being, A, really good principal and, B, an award-winning principal regionally
and beyond based on the work that he did there.
On the other hand, Superintendent D preferred her new principals to have administrative
experience before taking on the role at a Title I elementary school. She responded,
For a principal role, yes. For an assistant principal role, no, but, to become a principal, I
strongly feel that it’s a tough job, and, if you go into it blind, I think it’s really tough. I do
believe that there are opportunities available to teachers that better prepare them for being
a site administrator. I was a special projects teacher, which removes you from the
classroom, and kind of gives you some exposure to the administrative side of things. I
think it’s that lack of exposure that does in a lot of administrators. They can have the
people skills, and great with kids, and all that stuff, but you’re still going to get caught up
in the manufacture of, you’ve got to do the paperwork, you’ve got to be compliant.
Especially in a Title I district, there’s a lot of strings attached to all of that money that
you get to spend. You need to know how to respond to those demands. I really do think
that being an AP, or having that kind of administrative experience, better prepares you for
that.
With the exception of Superintendent C, all district officials interviewed preferred that a
principal candidate have administrative experience prior to assuming the principal position at a
Title I elementary school.
ELEMENTARY PRINCIPALS AT TITLE I SCHOOLS 61
Internal versus external candidates. Superintendent E, who is from a medium-sized
school district, which has seven Title I elementary schools out of 23 elementary schools, stated
that he also recruits from other superintendents and other human resource directors in order to
get the strongest applicant pool possible. This statement suggests there is an informal network as
a formal network of recruiting as well. Along these same lines of informal recruiting,
Superintendent D, who is in a school district where all elementary schools qualify for Title I
funding, advertises externally, but she hires the majority of the time from within her own school
district:
District X is a unique place. I don’t think we have hired an elementary principal from
outside the district in a really, really, really, long time. We are very good at promoting
from within. I see the benefit in that in that I know who and what I am getting. I know
that when I place somebody. I’ve been in this district 35 years. I know most of the staff,
and I have a good working knowledge of who’s working in this district. Their strengths,
their weaknesses, everything. It is very beneficial for me because I can look at somebody
and know if they’re going to be a fit at a school or not. I’ve also worked at most of the
schools in the district as a teacher or a principal, assistant principal, in some capacity. I
know the school, and the climate, and the community pretty well in this district.
All of the ten district officials had a similar hiring process of advertising both internally
through email posting then going outside through Edjoin. All ten officials reported they have a
paper screening committee, usually comprised of elementary principals and either an elementary
or HR director. Following the paper screening, an initial interview is set up with a committee
consisting of elementary principals and/or district coordinators and sometimes teachers. The
second round of interviews usually involved meeting with senior -level district officials, which
ELEMENTARY PRINCIPALS AT TITLE I SCHOOLS 62
may or may not have included the superintendent. The final step in the hiring process was the
formal recommendation to the school board.
Recruiting challenges. From the data gathered, the demands of the job can also be a
challenge in recruiting principal candidates for Title I schools. The majority of individuals
interviewed identified their school districts’ recruiting practices of as fine, but the process could
use some modification if the district wants to recruit or attract more high-quality Title I principal
candidates. The recruitment practices were mentioned 34 times throughout the ten interviews.
Trish, Superintendent D, and Superintendent E spoke at length regarding the necessary
prerequisite skills a candidate would need to possess in order to be successful as a Title I
principal in their district. They discussed that some kind of prior leadership responsibilities, such
as being an assistant principal, teacher on special assignment (TOSA), a teacher leader, or a 504
coordinator as being an important factor to get passed the initial paper screening committee.
Trish stated,
Yes, I believe in our school district a principal would have to have some type of
administrative experience, be it a TOSA, be it a Teacher Leader that would move into an
AP position…you would have to have been a principal of a smaller school in another
district for us to be probably serious about taking them into consideration.
Steve agreed with Trish that a Title I principal candidate needed to have some quasi-
admin experience. However, he disagreed that they needed to be a principal in another school
district.
The two school district officials, Steve and Trish, confirmed that there are several
challenges to recruiting Title I principals to our school district. Trish stated, “the other piece is
they look at the pay scale and they’re, like, nope, can’t do it. I can make more up here.” She also
ELEMENTARY PRINCIPALS AT TITLE I SCHOOLS 63
pointed out that other school districts have more support structures in place to assist Title I
principals. Other school districts may have an assistant principal to lower the student to
administrator ratio or a TOSA to help out with IEPs and/or 504s:
I think it’s, in general, people know the demands of the job. Our elementary principals
work long hours. They deal with a range of issues. You’re really supporting not only the
whole child, but the whole parent, the whole community. Your job is definitely varied, as
far as the demands. All of them are critically important. I mean, the instructional focus is
critically important, the building the connection with parents is critically important, the
connection with students, supporting social emotional learning. Now, we have a heavy
focus on bringing enrichment activities to our students that they might not be
experiencing outside of school, technology integration, professional development. In
addition to the fact that it’s obviously a people-heavy business, this education enterprise.
You deal with, sometimes, the unique quirks that come with personalities on staff, and
you have to be able to balance all of that and do it effectively.
Salary can be an issue. The compensation that various school districts give to principals
at Title I elementary schools can be an issue. Billy, an assistant superintendent of instructional
services who is from a small Title I elementary school district, spoke of the lack of financial
incentive to become a principal at a Title I elementary school. Steve, who is a director of human
resources in a medium-size school district also spoke to the challenges of recruiting elementary
principals in general. He mentions three key findings involving pay, internal versus external
candidates, and lack of mentoring new principal candidates:
In our school district, we always have a challenge when we compare to other districts in
our area. Our salary compensation package is not as competitive as other school districts.
ELEMENTARY PRINCIPALS AT TITLE I SCHOOLS 64
Occasionally, our application pool is not as strong as we would like it to be as compared
to outside candidates. On the inside candidates, it is because we don’t have many Title I
schools, and we really don’t grow a skill set where internal candidates would be as viable
as outside candidates to be a Title I principal.
Billy, who is an assistant superintendent of curriculum and instruction, spoke to the small
difference in the pay between teachers and administrators if broken down by per diem.
I think that’s, sometimes, a deterrent to someone saying that...If you really break down
the number of hours that a principal works, and you look at a teacher pay scale and say,
“Okay, what’s the incentive?” If that’s what you’re looking at, you’re certainly not
getting a fiscal incentive, you know, to take on that job. You really have to know that
that’s just the track that you want to be on, you want to be in that position and have a
passion for it.
Research Question 2
The second research question asked, “What are the processes or practices that school
districts utilize in order to retain elementary school principals past three years?” Several themes
emerged from the online survey regarding what it takes in order to retain a principal at a Title I
elementary school. Some of the reoccurring themes were coaching, staying at one school for an
extended amount of time, compensation and pay, providing public recognition for quality work,
mentorship, and support. The following section describes the survey response data regarding
research question 2.
Findings: Survey Responses
The survey responses did not yield as much valuable information as the interviews did. In
fact, there were only three questions in the survey that addressed the topic of what the important
ELEMENTARY PRINCIPALS AT TITLE I SCHOOLS 65
factors were in retaining successful principals. However, of the 24 school district officials
surveyed, 21 (87.5%) felt that public recognition plays an important role in retaining successful
principals. Also, 19 (79.1%) survey respondents felt that a high level of pay was important in
retaining successful principals. Finally, 24 of the 24 district officials who were surveyed agreed
that principal mentoring was “very important” in retaining successful principals at Title 1
schools.
Some of the statements from the comment section of the survey were valuable in
answering research question 2. One respondent wrote, “School districts should provide quality
mentoring and coaching for principals. In addition, providing ongoing recognition for quality
work, and highlighting and publicizing student and teacher successes helps to improve morale.
Superintendents should consistently remind administrators to maintain an appropriate balance
between work and personal life. The superintendent should model the same. Superintendents and
other district personnel should maintain a high profile on school campuses.”
Findings: Interviews
One individual survey stated on the survey, “I believe coaching support is one of the most
important aspects of retaining principals at Title I schools.” Another respondent spoke more to
the unique circumstances of working in a Title I school, “The work is hard at a Title I school,
and often with heartache. Quiet acknowledgement of the work, support from the District office,
and an opportunity to collaborate with peers is important.”
Public recognition. One comment from a district official on the survey provided key
insights into what they thought was a good way of going about retaining a principal: “School
districts should provide quality mentoring and coaching for principals. In addition, providing
ongoing recognition for quality work, and highlighting and publicizing student and teacher
ELEMENTARY PRINCIPALS AT TITLE I SCHOOLS 66
successes helps to improve morale.” Another respondent stated, “District level admins should be
visible on the campus and check in frequently to see where support is needed. District admins
should nurture relationships with principals and praise often for a job well done.”
Not moving schools. Most superintendents used to have a practice of moving principals
every five to seven years. The research at the time showed that principals’ leadership typically
plateaued between five and seven years, and, after that point, they were generally maintaining
the culture or system that they set up. However, in interviewing all ten school district officials,
the conventional thinking appears to have changed. Superintendent D, who is from a Title I
elementary district, stated that moving a principal from one school to another might have
unintended consequences:
All people are different, and some people don’t deal well with change. When you move
them, sometimes, the move is more detrimental than the outcome you were looking for.
I’ve seen that happen here because somebody subscribed to the fact that, 5 to 8 years, you
got to move people. I saw one of our most effective principals go from being, this was
many years ago, I wasn’t even an administrator at the time, go from being probably one
of the most effective principals in the district to a surly, unhappy. It was a 180 in their
whole personality, their demeanor and everything.
All five superintendents interviewed did not support moving a principal for no reason. They also
cited the fact that it takes time to build rapport within a school community, especially at a Title I
school.
Support. All 10 interviewees felt all principals were supported in some form. However,
they all had different views of what that support looked like. Trish, the elementary director of
instruction stated,
ELEMENTARY PRINCIPALS AT TITLE I SCHOOLS 67
In our school district, we have a variety of ways in which we support our principals. We
have K-12 joint leadership team meetings and the Ed. Services supports them with
instructional decisions. We have monthly elementary leadership meetings where
principals are working in groups of 6 or 7 like schools, so all the principals of Title I
schools are grouped together. We also have principal partners where a new principal is
partnered up with a veteran principal.
Steve, the HR director had feelings similar to Trish’s, but framed it in more global terms:
We’re a big district that seems small. Everyone is very personable and on a first name
basis. I would say that they (principals) are not only going to get support, but they’re also
going to have a face-to-face personal relationship and support for almost any area they
are going to encounter as a new principal.
Compensation and pay. While Steve stated clearly that the school district supported
principals new to the district, he conceded that there are some challenges to retaining principals
of Title I elementary schools. He stated,
Another (challenge) would be looking at local salaries. We’re not too far off, yet there’s
always the concern with the new LCFF that some of our neighboring districts that are
closer to 100% unduplicated count may be able to offer salaries that are far more
competitive then we can come up with. Also, we are geographically isolated in southern
Lemon County.
According to Cushing et al. (2004),
With all of these demands the stress is high and the rewards are few. The pay differential
between a beginning principal and an experienced teacher is often negligible; when
salaries are calculated on an hourly basis, teachers often come out well ahead (p. 1).
ELEMENTARY PRINCIPALS AT TITLE I SCHOOLS 68
Trish stated,
There is not enough support given to a new principal for them to feel successful and they
get burned out and they leave. They feel frustrated with the system. They don’t feel
supported. It’s a very litigious environment, so retention has to do with supporting a new
hire.
While most of the interviewees felt there were varying levels of support for new
principals, they all agreed there was not enough support given overall. To Steve, it was the poor
salary compensation and the geographic isolation of the school district. However, Trish felt there
were a number of supports that the school district has in place to retain new principals.
During the interview, Steve spoke about the need for ongoing support for principals, but
he also acknowledged that full support of the school site principal is not always possible:
I don’t think we have a lot of support. I do think you’re expected to do the job, and so I
personally struggle with support in a lot of ways in that I need you to do your job, and,
so, if somebody makes an error, let’s say, or gets off-track, I think they do need to be
realigned, coached, but I’m not going to coach you again. This is not a volunteer position.
We’re in a performance-based setting, and, so, getting them on the right track is
important, but there also comes a point where recruit, retain, release, you may be heading
toward the release sooner if you can’t figure it out.
He brings up a valuable point that there are limits to coaching and support. All five
superintendents acknowledged they have had to either let principals go in the past or put them
back into the classroom. In most cases, the superintendents or other district officials attempted to
coach or mentor the principal for a prolonged period of time before making the decision to end
the principal’s tenure.
ELEMENTARY PRINCIPALS AT TITLE I SCHOOLS 69
Research Question 3
The third research question asked, “How do school districts perceive their role in
mentoring new elementary principals? The role of a mentor can be defined in a number of ways.
According to Bell (1996), the best mentors are teachers who act to the best of their ability within
plain sight of their protégé and who engage in a compassionate and mutual search for wisdom.
Goddard (1998) found that a mentor is a well-skilled, experienced educator who mentors a less-
skilled educator and can thus be a critical force in determining the retention of new and emerging
educational leaders. Solórzano (1998) addressed mentoring and its impact on one’s social
mobility—or movement through the educational pipeline under the umbrella of social mobility.
Solórzano (1998) also discussed that, through social networks and processes like mentoring,
people are chosen to move up and into the best positions within the government, corporate
world, and academia. Samier (2000) defined the task of a mentor as being a unique, trusting
relationship with his or her protégé and to fulfill a need unmet by any other relationship. Studies,
overall, indicate that mentoring leads to improved administrator job performance and increased
job promotion rate, early career advancement, greater upward mobility, higher income, greater
job satisfaction, enhanced leadership ability, and perceptions of greater success and influence in
an organization (Hill & Bahniuk, 1998). The following section describes the survey response
data regarding research question 3.
Findings: Survey Responses
There were mixed results when the survey respondents were asked about whether a
principal should receive on-going support from an instructional coach. Only 13 (54.1%) thought
that it was important. However, in the comments section of the survey respondents noted that
there is a strong need and value for on-going principal mentorship. One respondent wrote,
ELEMENTARY PRINCIPALS AT TITLE I SCHOOLS 70
“Mentoring should be tailored to meet the individual and unique needs of site administrators.
Consider hiring an outside consultant to provide the mentoring. The mentoring should be a
confidential conversation between the principal and the mentor. The mentoring should be
scheduled at a time that is convenient for the administrator. The meetings should be face-to-face
although it is beneficial for the mentor to be available by phone as well.” Another survey
respondent wrote, “Principaling an elementary school can be a lonely job. Having an
experienced leader regularly meeting with the principal can make the job better in every way,
and can give the principal the support and strength the need to stay on the job.”
Findings: Interviews
All ten interviewees agreed that principals need some form of mentorship as a support for
the demanding job of school site principal. Trish stated that she has been a formal mentor to
principals in her district in the past. When asked what she thought the most important thing about
being a mentor was, she stated, “Deadlines. Making sure we meet deadlines. Making sure all the
i’s are dotted and the t’s are crossed within the Single School Site Plan and making sure the
budget pieces were all lined up.” Her thoughts about being a mentor were very specific.
Superintendent C’s answer was a bit more global in perspective and reflected more of an ideal
for all new principals in the district:
If we had someone at the district level who really could do shadowing and coaching
where they would be able to go out, you know, particularly the first trimester and say,
hey, let’s do your day together. Let’s sit in on an IEP meeting, let’s talk over your tough
parent things. We actually did that previously a couple of times. We had retired principals
that we hired come back and do the shadowing.
ELEMENTARY PRINCIPALS AT TITLE I SCHOOLS 71
Gunn (1995) states that mentoring is a way to help new employees learn about
organizational culture in order to facilitate personal and career growth and development and to
expand opportunities for those traditionally hampered by organizational barriers, such as women
and minorities.
Superintendent D spoke to the idea of what a mentor would look like in an ideal world
for new principals at Title I elementary schools:
I would have a hip-to-hip mentor with them for at least 1 or 2 days a week for the first
year. I know that’s pie in the sky, but, you know as well as I do, day-to-day in a school,
every day is different, and every situation is different. The day that you have a mentor
there with you, working with you, may be a breezy day that nothing happens, but the
following day could be miserable. If you had somebody, maybe twice a week is too
much, maybe even just once a week, I think that the spectrum of incidences that you
would be exposed to, with your mentor there to help guide you through that would be
pretty encompassing, I would think.
Superintendent C had a different take on what a mentor would look like in an ideal world. He
spoke to breaking down the hierarchical barriers that might exist between the school site
principal and the district office. He spoke of a more ongoing dialogue in order to help support
and hopefully retain principals:
I committed to Stan. I said, “Okay, I’m asking you to do something. I realize you’re
stepping out of the box and you need to go talk to your family and all those kinds of
things,” but I said, “The other side is you can count on me. You can call me any time of
the day or night and I’m going to be there for you. Don’t think you’re the lone ranger and
you can’t ask for help.” The notion of mentoring or coaching is when you need help, you
ELEMENTARY PRINCIPALS AT TITLE I SCHOOLS 72
need to self-declare that a little bit. In other words, it’s not like me saying, “I thought it
over and you need this.” Sometimes that happens, but it’s more likely and more effective
when you say, “I’m not sure about X, and, so, what do I do, or am I going to get in
trouble” or all those kinds of questions. I think that coaching and mentoring role is
important. Part of what we have to do is deescalate the rank that’s involved with a
superintendent because, sometimes, there’s this notion that people want to come in and
salute and do all that kind of stuff which is not helpful in terms of creating an equitable
partnership where we can talk together about whatever we need to talk about. The bigger
the district, probably the further we get in that, unfortunately, but I think that we’ve got to
keep working to push it back together because the conversation between principals and
the superintendents I think is critically important.
Steve had this to say about what he thought an ideal mentoring situation would look like:
We currently do not have an induction program to clear their credentials now. That’s the
new process, so we don’t have that. I would love to see, for all rookie admin, a one- to
two-year program of support, not necessarily like the induction program, but monthly
meetings orchestrated in such a way to have a logical sequence. You’d work with Ed
services. You’d work with business. You’d work with facilities and maintenance. You’d
work with HR. You’d work with student services. You’d work with Special Ed. by the
time they get through the whole year, they have a very strong understanding of each
department. HR would come in probably twice; one early on for evaluations and one later
on for hiring. Business would come in early on for budgeting and later on for budgeting.
Special Ed would come in so they’re prepared for IEPs. Ed Services, you already get a lot
of Ed Services through your regular meetings, but I think, then, probably two or three of
ELEMENTARY PRINCIPALS AT TITLE I SCHOOLS 73
the months, you would want Ed Services to also provide sort of the district vision and
then at least once towards the end, should be the superintendent meets with them just
really as the, “Here is myself as the messenger of the board and this is where you’re
going.”
Billy had this to say when asked what would his school district do to mentor a new principal.
Ultimately, from an Ed Service perspective, it’s important that you’re sitting down with
that individual and looking at the outcomes, the varied measures at that school site to
ensure that there’s an understanding of where the school stands right now, and then
connecting that to expectations as to where the school needs to go. Ensuring that they
understand all of the resources that are available to make that happen. I think, in general,
just as far as a mentoring position, letting them know that you have an open door, and
that’s one of the things in our district we are always clear, and we call it the District X
Way, which might sound corny. In many district, the district office, I think, is seen as this
kind of entity that you don’t really interact with, you don’t have a relationship with.
Each of the 10 district officials interviewed stated that their individual districts had informal
mentoring systems, but there is not a formal mentor program for new principals. The data
indicated that the level of mentoring and type or mentoring varied by district and person.
However, Billy may have put it best when he stated,
While you want to be available to brainstorm ideas with principals, you don’t want to
foster a dependence on it. You want them to be able to be independent problem solvers.
Superintendent D followed up this same line of thinking when she stated, “If I am doing their job
for them, why do I need them?”
ELEMENTARY PRINCIPALS AT TITLE I SCHOOLS 74
Additional resources. The ten district officials interviewed indicated that principals at
Title I schools had additional resources at their disposal. These extra financial resources came
from either the federal government through Title I funds, which is determined by a school’s free
and reduced-price lunch count or from extra funds the individual district allocated. Trish stated,
Though formal training we do, we do allocate district funds for Title I principals to attend
professional workshops, trainings such as AVID, anything having to do with English
learners, struggling learners, impoverished communities to build their capacity and skill
set. In addition, Title I all principals attend a monthly elementary leadership meeting
where we work as colleagues and try to maximize resources from our district. But Title I
principals also meet once a month on a site and every month those Title I principals have
the opportunity to do a walk-through of that school. We then come back. We reflect on
that and then we from that develop our next agenda on any support we need to give them.
They have twice as much mentoring and coaching as our other elementary principals
currently.
District official E who is an assistant superintendent of administrative services also spoke about
additional resources that a principal at a Title I school has. In her district, each elementary school
has an instructional coach who works with the principal to design professional development
during staff meetings and demonstrate model lessons in classrooms. She stated during her
interview, “This instructional coach does not assist in evaluating teachers, but is a good resource
in improving the quality of instructional within a school. If that is ELD lessons or ELA lessons
or math lessons; the instructional coach is there to help.”
ELEMENTARY PRINCIPALS AT TITLE I SCHOOLS 75
Superintendent C added that the role of a mentor goes beyond professional development
opportunities. “I think there’s a variety of PD kinds of things that we can do, but at the end of the
day, it’s probably more of what I call a mentoring role rather than a PD role.”
Research Question 4
The fourth research question asked, “How do school districts evaluate themselves to
ensure that they are recruiting and retaining quality principals?” The following section presents
the findings related to research question 4.
The Recruiting Process
The Tennessee New Teacher Project (2006) offers four recommendations for
superintendents in order to attract highly qualified candidates to the principal position: proactive
recruitment practices, stronger initial eligibility screening, heightened school district competency
screening, and school fit interview panels. Each of these recommendations is positive on the
surface, but each also presents some challenges. It is not always practical to have so many steps
in the hiring practice. Towards the end of the school year, districts are busy closing up school,
preparing for promotion ceremonies, and generally showing signs of fatigue and burnout. The
Tennessee New Teacher Project (2006) also asserts that the current timelines and hiring practices
for new principals in urban school districts is not sufficient to hire the best and brightest
principals. The current practice of waiting until late June or July to hire new principals is too late
in the year to attract sitting principals who may be looking to make a lateral move to another
school district. In this article TNTP (2006) makes the argument that many top-notch candidates
for the principal position simply withdraw their application out of frustration or are picked up by
other school districts by the time the interview process rolls around in late summer.
ELEMENTARY PRINCIPALS AT TITLE I SCHOOLS 76
Findings: Survey Responses
One respondent from the survey stated the following when asked how their school
ensures that they are recruiting and retaining successful principals. “District level admins should
be visible on the campus and check in frequently to see where support is needed. District admins
should nurture relationships with principals and praise publicly often a job well done.” Another
school district official put it this way, “individual principal coaching, structures in place to lead
school level instructional conversations (such as Instructional Leadership Teams), housing of
school district operations/systems as resources and templates for principals to utilize.” It was
apparent from the survey responses that there was no one answer or template on how school
measure if they are successfully recruiting and retaining successful principals at Title 1 schools.
Findings: Interviews
Superintendent D takes it upon herself to recruit a principal candidate from within her
school district and mentor how they perform:
I don’t think we have hired an elementary principal from outside the district in a really,
really, really, long time. We are very good at promoting from within. I see the benefit in
that in that I know who and what I am getting. I know that when I place somebody. I’ve
been in this district 35 years. I know most of the staff, and I have a good working
knowledge of who’s working in this district. Their strengths, their weaknesses,
everything. It is very beneficial for me because I can look at somebody and know if
they’re going to be a fit at a school or not. I’ve also worked at most of the schools in the
district as a teacher or a principal, assistant principal, in some capacity. I know the
school, and the climate, and the community pretty well in this district.
ELEMENTARY PRINCIPALS AT TITLE I SCHOOLS 77
Superintendent C discussed how he follows through with informal meetings with his new
principals after they start the job:
We’ve tried to create some informal settings. We’ll meet with our new administrators
once a month and have an open agenda dialogue and kind of move things forward and
they can identify areas. We’ve tried to work with others and say we have a bookshelf of
reads that we think are intriguing and important things to maybe think about.
Each of the interviewees had a different view of how their school district evaluated and
monitored the process of recruiting, retaining, and mentoring principals at Title I elementary
schools. However, in each school district, there was a formal process set up to ensure that a high
quality candidate was recruited and hired for the position. The gap between the information and
support that a novice principal needs and the information and support that districts provide for
them in order to be successful and satisfied at the beginning of their administrative career has
always been a problem (Kearney, 2010).
Once the data were analyzed, there were indications that varying degrees of support were
offered after the principal was hired. In every case, the district did not offer any extra salary
incentive other than moving over to the next column on the pay salary scale. There was no
incentive or merit pay offered for improving student test scores of improving a staff’s
instructional capacity. In some cases, new candidates and aspiring principals may be overlooked
by school districts. Gajda and Militello (2008) recommended that school districts improve their
recruitment of new administrators by targeting them early on in their careers. District Official D
discussed some informal networking sessions in which his school district attempted to identify
aspiring principals:
ELEMENTARY PRINCIPALS AT TITLE I SCHOOLS 78
I’ve run a couple of cohorts here internally for aspiring administrators, where we’ve had
a series of professional development sessions for anybody who either was seeking an
admin position. We’ve done mentoring for our assistant principals where our associate
superintendent of pupil services has met with them at frequent intervals to talk about
different topics that would be of interest to them, and seeking a principal position.
Might not be a good fit. One of the questions posed doing the interviews was how they
dealt with or supported a principal who was struggling. Trish stated,
When it gets to the point where they [are] struggling, it would usually come forth through
concerns from parents, concerns from teachers, concerns from district members who are
seeing the struggles. At that point in time, I do more confidential coaching of which can
range from just having one meeting and providing resources to meeting on a regular basis
to supporting them and designing their staff meeting. I can also support them in coaching
them on communication, assisting with actually writing communications or surveys. It’s
done more based on an individual’s needs and their individual struggles.
All district officials surveyed discussed the need to get the right person for the position of
principal. Superintendent C stated that he tries to provide additional support to a struggling
principal through dialogue and brainstorming sessions:
The other thing is that, at some point, depending upon the circumstance, that may begin
to show up in their evaluation, but, again, there’s a commitment, not to say that the
evaluation ought to be, “These are some areas we ought to work on,” but it’s the ideas
that we ought to work on. How do I help you? How do you help me? How do we work
together to make that improvement? Those certainly shouldn’t be deal killers. They
should be actually the opposite. That goes back to Carol Dweck’s growth mindset and so
ELEMENTARY PRINCIPALS AT TITLE I SCHOOLS 79
forth. In other words, if we’re going to work through this and we’re going to get better,
we got to have what I’ll call an authentic dialogue and conversation about where we are
and what are some areas of need.
District Official D discussed in depth the process his school district follows after they
supported a principal, and it is not going to work out in the long run:
We don’t have a lot of turnover with principals. We had one principal that went back to a
dean position recently. We have had a couple of principals that have been transitioned
back to the classroom. We actually had three current classroom teachers who used to be
principals in the district, which, I think, is not always a common practice. I think, when
the time comes, when both the individual and the district determine this is not the best
position for the individual, and then you have to make those moves. As far as people
staying in the position, we have some veteran administrators that have been in these
positions for many, many years. We don’t often see someone either chooses to leave the
position, and, usually, I think we make the right selections where we don’t have people
that have to be transitioned out. As I said, sometimes it does happen, and when it needs to
happen it takes place.
Summary
This chapter presented a comprehensive analysis of the quantitative and qualitative data
from this study. The chapter was divided into four sections that corresponded with the four
research questions. In each section, the quantitative data were analyzed for descriptive statistics
and the data was compared through an ANOVA to find significant correlations between the
school district officials’ ratings and their demographics. The qualitative data was analyzed and
compared with the results from the quantitative data.
ELEMENTARY PRINCIPALS AT TITLE I SCHOOLS 80
The first section of this chapter included an analysis of the data on what school district
officials look for when hiring elementary principals to work at Title I schools. The survey results
revealed that the highest-rated trait for candidates was to have a strong background in
instructional leadership. This conclusion is intuitive, since elementary school principals are the
instructional leaders for the school (Fuller, 2008). In addition to instructional background,
officials highly valued a high level of pay and previous administrative experience. However,
nine officials interviewed did not think the hiring process was different for principals at Title I
elementary schools.
The survey and interview data suggest that the advertising of new principal positions has
become easier and more effective through the Edjoin system. Many districts still post openings
in educational newsletters, periodicals, and through internal communication systems. However,
Edjoin is the source that provides the most exposure to potential external candidates. Finally, in
addition to attracting candidates to apply for positions, some districts successfully groom their
own candidates from within. Results were mixed on whether school district officials valued
internal versus external candidates (Merriam, 2009).
The data revealed that, in the first round of principal interviews, the panel members rank
the candidates and typically coalesce around the top three to five. These top candidates go to the
second round of interviews where the superintendent usually makes a decision with the cabinet
members. If a candidate is not selected in the second round of interviews, the top candidate or
candidates may be called back to do a performance assessment or to meet personally with the
superintendent one final time before being offered the position. The selected candidate is
presented to the board for approval, and, as long as there is established trust with the board and
superintendent, the recommended elementary principal candidate is approved and hired.
ELEMENTARY PRINCIPALS AT TITLE I SCHOOLS 81
The second section of this chapter analyzed the data germane to how school district
officials recruit quality elementary principal candidates to their school districts. The survey
results showed that the highest-rated item was to offer a high level of pay and public recognition
for outstanding job performance. The interview data confirmed this notion, but added that there
is a wide range between schools in compensation due to California’s new per-student funding
formula. School districts with high levels of students who are either ELLs, foster youth, or from
a low socio-economic background receive more funding. Thus, the school districts that have
these unduplicated students receive greater state funding and, in most cases principals, earn more
money. Thus, it is important for districts to at least be in the same general compensation range as
neighboring districts if they want to retain their principals at Title I elementary schools. Perhaps
the most important factor in attracting quality candidates is for districts to have a reputation of
success, support, and high-functionality. The district needs to be a desirable place to work where
principals can foresee themselves receiving the necessary support for them to be successful in
their positions.
In the third section of this chapter, mentoring was discussed as a way to retain principals.
The majority of the both the survey participants and the 10 interviewees revealed that districts
currently have informal mentoring systems in place. This is important because the gap between
the information and support that a novice principal needs and the information and support that
districts provide for them in order to be successful and satisfied at the beginning of their
administrative career has always been a problem (Kearney, 2010). Some believe that it is the
responsibility of veteran principals to “mold beginning principals with the necessary tools to be
successful” (Fleck, 2007, p. 26).
ELEMENTARY PRINCIPALS AT TITLE I SCHOOLS 82
In the fourth section of this chapter discussed at length what school districts do in order to
evaluate their own internal hiring practices. While all district officials stated that they have a
formal process for advertising and interviewing candidates, they also spoke of the informal
process of tapping internal candidates whom they thought could be a good job as an elementary
principal. All five superintendents interviewed also discussed how their school districts formally
and informally support these new principals. Finally, all five spoke about how they support
struggling principals and how they coach them, if necessary, into leaving the principal position.
This is important because the turnover rate among site administrators can directly affect student
outcomes and achievement levels, especially in low SES Title I schools (Papa et al., 2002).
From the qualitative and quantitative data, conclusions were drawn about what
characteristics matter most for elementary principal candidates in Title I schools. The most
valued trait is to have a strong instructional background. This conclusion corresponds with the
research literature, since elementary school principals are the instructional leaders for the school.
In addition, district officials highly valued previous administrative experience. Superintendents
especially look for successful administrative experience that will likely translate into success as a
new elementary principal.
In Chapter Five a discussion of the research is presented, further conclusions and
implications of the research are also discussed. Finally, recommendations for future research are
reported.
ELEMENTARY PRINCIPALS AT TITLE I SCHOOLS 83
CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
In today’s quick-paced and high-stakes educational environment, school principal burn
out is higher than in any other time in public school history (Fuller & Young, 2008). The
demands of the job can be a significant turnoff for any teacher looking to make the transition into
administration or staying in the principal role at a Title I elementary school. According to recent
studies principals cited the following frustrations as impediments to their job: site-based or
collaborative decision making, increasing pressures relating to high stakes testing and
accountability, the increased role of management, altered relationships with community, and
dilemmas related to school choice, to name a few (Hart & Bredesen, 1996; Murphy, 1994;
Whitaker, 1999; Williams & Portin, 1997). The position of school principal has never been an
easy one, but with today’s changing educational landscape it continues to become more
daunting.
According to Groon and Rawlings-Sanaei (2003), there seems to be a shortage of
qualified candidates applying for the position of elementary school principal. A school district’s
recruiting, retaining, and mentoring practices have a direct effect on successful principals at Title
I schools, which, in turn, has a direct effect on student achievement. A meta-analysis of principal
literature showed that the most effective principals have a direct positive impact on student
achievement while ineffective principals have a negative impact on students (Marzano et al.,
2005). In their study, Marzano et al. identified 21 categories of successful school leadership or
responsibilities of leaders and found situational awareness and flexibility has the highest
correlation to student achievement. The research suggests that some principals are more effective
than others at raising the overall student achievement. Marzano et al. suggest the importance of a
strong leader at a Title I school.
ELEMENTARY PRINCIPALS AT TITLE I SCHOOLS 84
Chapter Five presents a summary and discussion of the findings and data presented in
Chapter Four. This chapter first reviews the statement of the problem, purpose of the study,
research questions, and summary of the research methodology. Next, the chapter outlines the
study’s key findings. Finally, this chapter presents the research recommendations and
implications for practice and future research.
Background of the Problem
The educational problem addressed is the practices and processes school district officials
use in order to recruit, retain, and mentor principals at Title I elementary school districts in
Southern California. School districts, in recent years, have expressed concern about the shrinking
pool of principals and the questionable quality of principal applicants (Groon & Rawlings-
Sanaei, 2003). There has been a revolving door at the principal position for schools most in need
of a strong, experienced, and capable school leader (Papa, 2004). This is an important issue
because in the current educational atmosphere the principal is the engine that drives the
accountability train under the ESEA.
There is a large variation in principal quality between school districts. Papa et al. (2002)
identified a large gap between experienced and inexperienced principals in urban school districts.
Urban schools with students who perform at lower academic levels are more likely to be led by
new principals who have fewer years of administrative experience and who have attended less
competitive undergraduate colleges (Papa et al., 2002). This can directly affect successful
student outcomes and achievement levels, especially in low SES Title I schools.
Statement of the Problem
As school site leadership becomes even more important in the face of increased
administrative complexity, mandated accountability, and public pressure to deliver a top-notch
ELEMENTARY PRINCIPALS AT TITLE I SCHOOLS 85
educational program, research is lacking. Public school districts in southern California
experience difficulty in recruiting, retaining, and mentoring elementary school principals to work
in Title I schools. As such, an investigation into how school districts presently recruit principals
both formally and informally was necessary. Also, it is necessary to investigate what school
districts practices are for retaining elementary school principals in Title I schools and whether
mentoring or coaching them has a profound effect and may or may not lead to longevity in the
position.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study encompasses two components. The primary purpose is to
understand the role school district officials play in the successful recruitment of principals for the
position of elementary school principal at a Title I school in Southern California. A secondary
purpose of the study was to identify the research-based characteristics of successful principals at
Title I elementary school in California and what processes school districts use to retain and
mentor these individuals.
The analysis in this chapter comes from the robust data collected from 24 school district
officials. The quantitative data was compiled from 24 surveys from urban school district
officials, and the qualitative data was compiled from in-depth personal interviews from three
assistant superintendents, one human resources director, one elementary education director, and
five Southern California superintendents. The qualitative and quantitative data that are analyzed
in this chapter assist in drawing conclusions and to make recommendations.
ELEMENTARY PRINCIPALS AT TITLE I SCHOOLS 86
Research Questions
In order to better understand how the strategies school districts employ to recruit, retain,
and mentor principals at Title I elementary schools, a conceptual framework. This framework led
to the following four research questions that guided this study:
1. What are the processes that districts in southern California utilize in order to recruit
potential elementary school principals?
2. What are the processes or practices that school districts utilize in order to retain
elementary school principals past three years?
3. How do school districts perceive their role in mentoring new elementary principals?
4. How do school districts evaluate themselves to ensure that they are recruiting and
retaining quality principals?
Review of Current Literature
According to the research, there seems to be a shortage of qualified candidates applying
for the position of elementary school principal. Some researchers have clearly defined a shortage
of principal candidates in hard to staff schools in urban and rural areas (Pounder & Crow, 2005;
Roza et al., 2003). Researchers based the assumption that principals avoid these hard to staff
schools for reasons such as high staff turnover, limited resources, and low student achievement
(Gates et al., 2003; Lashway, 2003). A large majority of affluent suburban schools do not face
shortages in quality applicants; furthermore, affluent students are not as greatly affected by the
quality of school leadership when compared to disadvantaged students (Raudenbush, 2009).
Thus, the students who are in the greatest need of effective school leadership are the least likely
to have it (Papa et al., 2002).
ELEMENTARY PRINCIPALS AT TITLE I SCHOOLS 87
Due to the shortage of qualified candidates applying for the principal position in urban
elementary schools or hard to staff schools, district officials need to skillfully recruit quality
candidates. In some cases, new candidates and aspiring principals may be overlooked. Gajda and
Militello (2008) recommended that school districts improve their recruitment of new
administrators by targeting them early on in their careers. Stark-Price et al. (2006) suggested that
school districts could make the unattractive principal positions more desirable by redesigning the
job to free up the site principal to focus more on instruction and less on managerial tasks.
Whitaker (2001) also noted the lack of teachers who were willing to go into
administration. Whitaker sampled 176 randomly selected superintendents in Colorado. The
superintendents were experiencing particular difficulty in finding applicants in their area. They
were actively recruiting minority candidates, especially Hispanics, for K-12 positions, but only a
few had applied. The superintendents’ responses showed that they believed in diversity and
wanted to increase the number of K-12 minority leaders for their growing minority student
population in Colorado (Whitaker, 2001).
Methodology
Quantitative data were collected from a survey using electronic questionnaires distributed
to 45 school district officials in southern California public school districts with student
populations ranging from 6,500 to 56,000. The district officials surveyed were directors, assistant
superintendents of instruction, and/or superintendents. Twenty-four out of 45 surveys were
answered, providing a response rate of 51.1%. All survey respondents reported that they have
been in education 11 or more years, with 92% reporting that they have been in education for over
16 years. Finally, 54% of them had previously been a principal at a Title I elementary school, but
ELEMENTARY PRINCIPALS AT TITLE I SCHOOLS 88
60% of the district officials interviewed had previously been a principal at a Title I elementary
school.
Qualitative data were gathered using one-on-one interviews with ten district officials in
Southern California public schools chosen with the same criteria used for the district officials
surveyed. Of the survey respondents, five superintendents were selected and interviewed and are
referred to as Superintendent A through Superintendent E. The researcher ensured the
confidentiality of each official and superintendent was preserved throughout the entire process.
Key Findings
The key findings are based on the analysis of the data from Chapter Four. The findings
below are organized around the four research questions. The first section below lists the findings
regarding what school district officials in Southern California look for in elementary school
principal candidates.
First, the majority individuals interviewed preferred candidates have some prior
administrative experience. The candidates did not necessarily have to have principal experience,
although the interviewees preferred someone with admin designee, assistant principal, or TOSA
experience. Second, candidates who had previous administrative experience or significant
leadership experience or someone who has already shown leadership skills as an administrator
was seen as a safer choice than a candidate who has not. In particular, superintendents look for
candidates who are knowledgeable about current instructional research and teaching strategies.
Third, advertising new principal positions has become easier and more effective through the
Edjoin system. Many districts still post openings in educational newsletters and periodicals, but
Edjoin provides the most exposure to potential candidates. Fourth, all officials interviewed and
ELEMENTARY PRINCIPALS AT TITLE I SCHOOLS 89
surveyed expressed the need for a principal to be an instructional leader who can help teachers
improve instructional practices through leading site-based professional development.
Regarding hiring, during the first round of interviews, the panel members rank and talk
about the candidates, and typically coalesce around the top three to five candidates. The top
candidates go to the second round of interviews where the superintendent usually makes a
decision with the cabinet level members. The selected candidate is presented to the board for
approval, and as long as there is established trust between the board and superintendent, the
recommended elementary principal candidate is approved and hired.
The second part of the data analysis in Chapter Four resulted in four key findings
germane to the retaining elementary principals. First, offering a competitive salary and benefits
package helps attract quality principal candidates to a school district. Candidates look for school
districts that have a salary scale that is competitive with their surrounding school districts.
Second, the school district also needs to be a desirable place to work where principals can
foresee themselves receiving the necessary support to be successful. Third, some districts have
successful programs that groom elementary teachers to become successful elementary principals
within the district. The interview data revealed that one particular district almost hired
exclusively from within their district because of the quality and the familiarity with their internal
candidate pool. Fourth, the number of principals hired by a school district was significantly
correlated with the school district officials’ responses about offering a strong compensation
package to candidates.
The third part of the data analysis in Chapter Four resulted in two key findings about the
process that is used to mentor successful elementary principals at Title I schools in Southern
California. First, if a new principal is given continuous, ongoing support, they are more likely to
ELEMENTARY PRINCIPALS AT TITLE I SCHOOLS 90
stay in a school district beyond three years. This support can either be through a formal or
informal peer coach who is available to be a sounding board for the new principal. Second, the
study showed that officials preferred to pair the new principal with either a veteran principal or a
person who had previously been a principal at a Title I elementary school.
Implications
Principal candidates are recommended to teach for at least three years and to become
instructional leaders among their peers. Superintendents specifically look for principal
candidates who are masters in instruction and who are able to help other teachers improve their
teaching. Future principal candidates should volunteer for any leadership opportunity that is
available at their school or district. Superintendents, in particular, want to see a proven record of
leadership in different capacities.
Individuals interested in becoming elementary principals should apply or volunteer to be
an assistant principal or summer school administrator to gain hands-on administrative
experience. If assistant administrative experiences are not available at the elementary level,
candidates may be able to get important assistant principal experience at the middle school level.
School district officials also highly value candidates that have TOSA experience as a literacy
coach, instructional coach, and/or technology coach. School district officials also value principal
candidates who have coordinator experience at the district level in assessment or other
instructional services related areas.
Recommendations for School District Officials:
1. School district officials are recommended to be diligent in checking all possible
references and conducting a thorough interview process to ensure that the best elementary
principal candidate is selected. The quality of the elementary principals in a district will
ELEMENTARY PRINCIPALS AT TITLE I SCHOOLS 91
have a significant impact on the success of the school district. The time and energy spent
in selecting the right candidate is well worth the effort.
2. It is also recommended that districts create and sustain a viable district program that
assists in grooming future elementary principals. Inside candidates are already known and
trusted, and they can be vetted within the district through internship programs. School
district officials can work with their principals to identify teachers within who have
significant leadership potential to become a future elementary principal.
3. It is also recommended that school district officials identify principal candidates who
have been teachers and have experience working in a Title I elementary school. It is
critical that the principal know and be able to identify with the population they serve.
Having previous experience working with categorical programs, like Title I and Title II,
Part A, is critical to a new principal’s success at a Title I elementary school.
4. Furthermore, district officials should develop a formal mentoring program to assist new
principals. These mentors should, ideally, have experience working as a school site
principal in a Title I elementary school. Ideally, this mentor should work with the
principal for at least 2-3 years in order to develop and work on personal and professional
goals.
5. Furthermore, compensation needs to be competitive with surrounding school districts.
Since principals at Title I schools work with a low SES population, extra resources
should be allocated to the school in order to increase equity with more affluent
elementary schools.
ELEMENTARY PRINCIPALS AT TITLE I SCHOOLS 92
Recommendations for Future Research
The findings from this research are significant and add to the body of research regarding
the hiring and recruiting of successful elementary principals. Although the findings were
significant, there are still unanswered and partially answered questions that require future
research. The following recommendations are targeted at future researchers who are interested in
providing a clearer picture on how successful school district officials recruit, retain, and mentor
the best possible elementary principal candidates to be principals at Title I elementary schools in
Southern California.
Further research is needed to identify the different processes that school districts utilize in
order to recruit, retain, and mentor successful principals at Title I elementary schools in Southern
California. This research found there is commonality between how school districts initially
identify potential candidates and go about interviewing and hiring them. However, the level at
which districts are able to retain them varies widely and may be dependent on the level of
support and mentorship they receive once in the position.
Future research can also expand the scope of this study by including district officials
from throughout California in districts of all sizes and with all types of student demographics to
see how their responses compare to the responses of the respondents herein. Furthermore, urban,
suburban, and rural school districts may compete for principal candidates, so future research can
uncover this relationship and offer recommendations to help urban school districts hire the best
possible principal candidates.
Finally, as noted earlier, little is known about the efficacy of different policies to attract
and hire effective principals, and much of the research is based on studies that use self-reported
data from limited geographical areas (Papa, 2002). These studies are limited and may not provide
ELEMENTARY PRINCIPALS AT TITLE I SCHOOLS 93
appropriate generalizations to other contexts. Further research is needed to determine what
school district officials in Southern California, including their superintendents, look for when
recruiting principals for Title I elementary schools. Furthermore, more research is needed into
how districts retain and mentor principals at these elementary schools.
Conclusion
This study adds to the existing body of literature germane to the recruitment and selection
of elementary principals. The findings closely correlate with the existing literature on effective
elementary principals and add valuable insight into the actual hiring process used by successful
superintendents. School district officials can use the results of this research to help them recruit
and select the best possible elementary principal candidates. In addition, aspiring elementary
principals can use these results to better prepare themselves to successfully pursue and assume a
principal position.
This study identified how school district officials, including superintendents, recruit
principals for Title I elementary schools. After analyzing the research, it is clear that district
officials do not have a separate process to hire principals specifically for Title I elementary
schools. While some officials expressed they would like to match the principal’s ethnic
background with the population they serve, most did not believe that it was essential. The study
showed that district officials focused more on the candidate’s background and overall
preparation for the principal position.
Trish, an elementary director, might have summed up the job of a principal at Title I
elementary school when she stated:
I think it’s, in general, people know the demands of the job. Our elementary principals
work long hours. They deal with a range of issues. You’re really supporting not only the
ELEMENTARY PRINCIPALS AT TITLE I SCHOOLS 94
whole child, but also the whole parent, the whole community. Your job is definitely
varied, as far as the demands. All of them are critically important. I mean, the
instructional focus is critically important, the building the connection with parents is
critically important, the connection with students, supporting social emotional learning.
Now, we have a heavy focus on bringing enrichment activities to our students that they
might not be experiencing outside of school, technology integration, and professional
development. In addition to the fact that it’s obviously a people-heavy business, this
education enterprise. You deal with, sometimes, the unique quirks that come with
personalities on staff, and you have to be able to balance all of that and do it effectively.
Superintendent D spoke to the idea of what a mentor would look like in an ideal world for new
principals at Title I elementary schools:
I would have a hip-to-hip mentor with them for at least 1 or 2 days a week for the first
year. I know that’s pie in the sky, but, you know as well as I do, day-to-day in a school,
every day is different, and every situation is different. The day that you have a mentor
there with you, working with you, may be a breezy day that nothing happens, but the
following day could be miserable. If you had somebody, maybe twice a week is too
much, maybe even just once a week, I think that the spectrum of incidences that you
would be exposed to, with your mentor there to help guide you through that would be
pretty encompassing, I would think.
ELEMENTARY PRINCIPALS AT TITLE I SCHOOLS 95
References
Allison, D. G. (1997). Coping with stress in the principalship. Journal of Educational
Administration, 35(1), 39.
Anderson, D. (2012). Organizational development: The process of leading organizational
change. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications.
Anderson, D. & Anderson, L.A. (2010). The change leader’s roadmap: How to navigate your
organization’s transformation (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Pfieffer.
Anonymous. (2005). McREL’s Balanced leadership framework. Leadership, 35(1), 34.
Arounsack, A. (2014). A qualitative study of minority school district administrators in the
central valley of California: Their career pathways, barriers, and perseverance (Doctoral
dissertation). California State University, Stanislaus. Retrieved from ProQuest
Dissertations Publishing. (3633303)
Association of California School Administrators (2008). New program encourages principal
leadership. Retrieved from www.acsa.org/FunctionalMenu-
Categories/Media/EdCalNewspaper/2008/Oct27/Principalprogram.aspx.
Baker, B. D., & Cooper, B. S. (2005). Do principals with stronger academic backgrounds
hire better teachers? Policy implications for improving high-poverty schools.
Educational Administration Quarterly, 41(1), 449-479.
Baker, B. D., Orr, M. T., & Young, M. D. (2007). Academic drift, institutional production and
professional distribution of graduate degrees in educational administration. Educational
Administration Quarterly, 43 (3), 279-318
ELEMENTARY PRINCIPALS AT TITLE I SCHOOLS 96
Bassett, S. (2001, May). The use of phenomenology in management research: An exploration of
the learners’ experience of coach mentoring in the workplace. Paper presented at the
Qualitative Evidence-Based Practice conference, Coventry, UK.
Bell, C. R. (1996). Managers as mentors: building partnerships for learning. San Francisco:
Berret-Koehler Publishers.
Black, W.R., Bathon, J., and Poindexter, B. (2007). Looking in the mirror to improve practice: A
study of administrative licensure and master’s degree programs in the state of Indiana.
Indianapolis, IN. Indiana Department of Education. Retrieved from
http://education.iupui.edu/soe/highlights/pdf/black26.pdf.
Bloom, G., Castagna, Moir C. E., & Warren, B. Blended coaching: Skills and strategies to
support principal development. New York: SAGE.
Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2008). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership
(4th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey -Bass.
Brooks, D. R. (2003). An analysis of principal perceptions regarding the availability and
effectiveness of mentoring support (Doctoral dissertation). La Sierra University,
Riverside, CA. Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations Publishing. (3095969)
Brooks-Gunn, J., & Duncan, G. (1997). The effects of poverty on children. The Future of
Children, 7, 55-71.
Bryant, S. E. (2005). The impact of peer mentoring in organizational knowledge creation and
sharing. Group and Organizational Management, 13(1), 83-94.
Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2001). Occupations with the greatest retiree replacement needs,
projected 1998-2008. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor.
ELEMENTARY PRINCIPALS AT TITLE I SCHOOLS 97
Burke, Jim. "School Smarts: The Four C's of Academic Success." Education Review//Reseñas
Educativas (2004).
Bush, T. (2009). Leadership development and school improvement: contemporary issues. in
leadership. Educational Review, 61(4), 375-389.
Bush, T., and Glover, D. (2004). Leadership development: Concepts and beliefs. Nottingham,
UK: National College for School Leadership.
Bush, T., Glover, D., & Harris, A. (2007). Review of school leadership development.
Nottingham, UK: National College for School Leadership.
California Commission on Teacher Credentialing. (2014) Administrative Services Credential for
Individuals Prepared in California. Retrieved from http://www.ctc.ca.gov/credentials/
leaflets/cl574c.pdf
California Department of Education. (2013). Executive summary explaining the Academic
Performance Index (API). Retrieved from http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/ap/
documents/apiexecsummary.pdf.
Carlson, E. A., Sroufe, L. A., Collins, W. A., Jimerson, S., Weinfield, N., Hennighausen, K.,
Meyer, S. E. (1999). Early environmental support and elementary school adjustment as
predictors of school adjustment in middle adolescence. Journal of Adolescent Research,
14(1), 72-94. doi:10.1177/0743558499141005
Capobianco, L. J. (1999). Peer coaching: an effective means of increasing collegiality for
professional growth (Doctoral dissertation). Seton Hall University, South Orange, NJ.
Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations Publishing. (9933440)
Clifford, M., Condon, C., Greenberg, A., Williams, R., Gerdeman, R.D., Fetters, J., and Baker,
B. (2012). A descriptive analysis of the principal workforce in Wisconsin (Issues &
ELEMENTARY PRINCIPALS AT TITLE I SCHOOLS 98
Answers Report, REL 2012-No. 135). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education,
Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs.
Coleman, J. S. (1990). Foundations of social theory. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.
Covey, S. R. (1996). Three roles of the leader in the new paradigm. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-
Bass.
Cooper, B. S., & Conley, S. C. (2011). Keeping and improving today’s school leaders: Retaining
and sustaining the best. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Education.
Cuban, L. (1988). The managerial imperative and the practice of leadership in schools. Albany,
NY: State University of New York Press.
Cushing, K. S., Kerrins, J. A., & Johnstone, T. (2003). Disappearing principals. Leadership,
32(5), 28-29.
Cushing, K. S., Kerrins, J. A., & Johnstone, T. (2004). Work worth doing: Despite the hardships
of the job, most principals keep at it because they believe it is work worth doing. but
there are supports that can mediate the difficulties and make the job much rewarding.
Leadership, 33(3), 12.
Darling-Hammond, L., Meyerson, D., LaPointe, M., & Orr, M. (2010). Preparing principals for
a changing world: Lessons from effective school leadership programs. San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.
David, J., & Jazzar, M. (2005). The seven habits of effective principal preparation programs.
National Association of Elementary School Principals, 84(6).
DiPaola, M., & Tschannen-Moran, M. (2003). The principalship at a crossroads: A study of the
conditions and concerns of principals. National Association of Secondary School
Principals Bulletin, 87(6), 43-65.
ELEMENTARY PRINCIPALS AT TITLE I SCHOOLS 99
Dufour, R., DuFour, R., Eaker, R., & Karhanek, G. (2010). Raising the bar and closing the gap:
Whatever it takes. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.
Duke, D. (2004). The turnaround principal: High-stakes leadership. Principal Magazine, 84(1),
12.
Educational Research Service. (1998). Is there a shortage of qualified candidates for openings in
the principalship? An exploratory study. [Report Prepared for the National Association of
Elementary School Principals and National Association of Secondary School Principals].
Arlington, VA.
Educational Research Service, National Association of Elementary School Principals, &
National Association of Secondary School Principals. (2000). The principal, keystone of
a high-achieving school: Attracting and keeping the leaders we need. Arlington, VA:
Educational Research Service.
Ferrandino, V. L., & Tirozzi, G. N. (2000). Our time has come. Retrieved from
www.naesp.org/misc/edweek_article2-23-00.htm
Fink, D., & Brayman, C. (2006). School leadership succession and the challenges of change.
Educational Administration Quarterly, 42(1), 62-89.
First Minority Awareness Summit. (2004). Increasing diversity in school leadership. Retrieved
from http://www.doe.state.in.us/:pla/pdf/RoundtableDiscussion.pdf
Fleck, F. (2007). The balanced principal: Veteran principal’s best practices are a new principal’s
strongest weapon, Principal, (September-October), 24-31.
Forsyth. P. B., & Smith, T. O. (2002, April). Patterns of principal retention: What the Missouri
case tells us. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational
Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
ELEMENTARY PRINCIPALS AT TITLE I SCHOOLS 100
Friedman, I. A. (1995). School principal burnout: The concept and its components. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 16(1), 191-198.
Fuller, E, & Young, M. D. (2008). The revolving door: Principal turnover in Texas. Texas Study
of Secondary Education, 17(2), 14-19.
Fuller, E., Young, M., & Baker, B. D. (2011). Do principal preparation programs influence
student achievement through the building of teacher-team qualifications by the principal?
An exploratory analysis. Educational Administration Quarterly, 47(1), 173-216.
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0011000010378613
Gajda, R., Militello, M. (2008). Recruiting and retaining school principals: What we can learn
from practicing administrators. AASA Journal of Scholarship and Practice, 5(1), 14-20.
Gates, S.M., Ringel, J. S., Santibanez, L., Ross, K.E., and Chung, C. H. (2003). Who is leading
our schools? An overview of school administrators and their careers. Santa Monica, CA:
RAND.
Gaziel, H. (2003). Images of leadership and its effect upon school principals’ performance.
International Review of Education, 49(5), 475-486.
Glass, T. E., Bjork, L., & Brunner, C. C. (2000). The study of the American superintendency,
2000: A look at the superintendent of education in the new millennium. Lanham, MD:
Rowman & Littlefield Education.
Glass, T. E., Franceschini, L. A., American Association of School Administrators, & American
Association of School Administrators, Arlington, VA. (2007). The state of the American
school superintendency: A mid-decade study. Lanham, Md: Rowman & Littlefield
Education.
ELEMENTARY PRINCIPALS AT TITLE I SCHOOLS 101
Gmelch, W. H., & Gates, G. (1998). The impact of personal, professional and organizational
characteristics on administrator burnout. Journal of Educational Administration, 36(2),
146-159. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09578239810204363
Goddard, J. T. (1998). Croaks from the lily pad: Towards the provision of a peer mentoring
program for principals. International Electronic Journal for Leadership in Learning, 2.
Gonzalez, M. (2007). Labour pain: Mental heath in the workplace. Maclean’s, 120(9), 10.
Grant, A. M., & Cavanuagh, M. J. (2004). Toward a profession of coaching: Sixty-five years of
progress. International Journal of Evidence Based Coaching and Mentoring, 2(1), 1-16.
Grant, A. M., Green, L. S., & Rynsaardt, J. (2010). Developmental coaching for high school
teachers: Executive coaching goes to school. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice
and Research, 62(3), 151-168. doi:10.1037/a0019212
Gronn, P., & Lacey, K. (2006). Cloning their own: Aspirant principals and the school-based
selection game. Australian Journal of Education, 50(2), 102-121.
Gronn, P., Rawlings-Sanaei, F. (2003). Recruiting schools principals in a climate of leadership
disengagement. Australian Journal of Education, 47(2), 172-184.
Gunn, E. (1995). Mentoring: The democratic version. Minneapolis: Lakewood Media Group.
Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. (1996). Reassessing the principal’s role in school effectiveness: A
review of empirical research, 1980-1995. Educational Administrative Quarterly, 32(1), 5-
44.
Heck, R. (2003). Examining the impact of professional preparation on beginning school
administrators. In P. Hallinger (Ed.). Reshaping the landscape of school leadership
development: A global perspective (pp. 237-255). Lisse, Netherlands: Swets and
Zeitlinger.
ELEMENTARY PRINCIPALS AT TITLE I SCHOOLS 102
Hill, S. K., & Bahniuk, M. H. (1998). Promoting career success through mentoring. Review of
Business, 19(3), 4.
Jones, E. H. (1983). Black school administrators: A review of their early history, trends in
recruitment, problems and needs. Arlington, VA: American Association of School
Administrators.
Kawaguchi, C. J. (2014). Barriers women face while seeking and serving in the position of
superintendent in California public schools (Unpublished doctoral dissertation).
University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA.
Kearney, K. (2010). Effective principals for California schools: Building a coherent leadership
development system. San Francisco: West Ed.
Kraft, U., (2006, June 1). Burned out. Scientific American. Retrieved from
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/burned-out/
New Teacher Project. (2006). Improved principal hiring: The new teacher’s project’s findings
and recommendations for urban schools. Brooklyn, NY: Author.
Kram, K. E., & Isabella, L. A. (1985). Mentoring alternatives: The role of peer relationships in
career development. The Academy of Management Journal, 28(1), 110-132.
doi:10.2307/256064
Ladd, H. F. (1999). The Dallas school accountability and incentive program: An evaluation of
impacts on student outcomes. Economics of Education Review, 18(1999), 1-16.
Lashway, L. (2003). Finding leaders for hard-to-staff schools. ERIC Digest. Retrieved from
http://www.ericdigests.org/2005-1/leaders.htm
Leithwood, K., Seashore, L. K., Anderson, S., & Wahlstrom, K. (2005). How leadership
influences student learning. New York: The Wallace Foundation.
ELEMENTARY PRINCIPALS AT TITLE I SCHOOLS 103
Leithwood, K., Seashore, L. K., Anderson, S., & Wahlstrom, K. (2010). Investigating the links to
improved student learning: Final report of research findings. New York: The Wallace
Foundation.
Magdaleno, K. (2009). CALSA: Transforming the power structure. Leadership. 3(1), 28-29.
Marzano, R. J., Waters, T., & McNulty, B. A. (2005). School leadership that works: from
research to results. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.
Maslach, C., & Leiter, M.P. (2005) Banishing burnout: Six strategies for improving your
relationship with work. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (Vol. 41).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
McEwan, E. K. (2003). 10 traits of highly effective principals: From good to great performance.
Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Melendez, T. (2008). Association of California School Administrators. Retrieved from
http://www.acsa.org/FunctionalMenuCategories/AboutACSA/CommitteesGro
ups/WLN/OpeningtheSuperintedency.aspx
Melnyk, S. A. (2012). What types of support programs have pennsylvania school districts
established to aid principals as building leaders? (Doctoral dissertation). Lehigh
University, Bethlehem, PA. Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.
(3510168)
Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. Hoboken,
NJ: John Wiley.
ELEMENTARY PRINCIPALS AT TITLE I SCHOOLS 104
Monge, P. R. & Contractor, N. S. (2003). Theories of communication networks. New York, NY:
Oxford University Press.
Mumin, K. N. (2008). Effective practices for recruiting, hiring, and retaining African American
administrators in suburban public schools: What practitioners say works (Doctoral
dissertation). University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA. Retrieved from ProQuest
Dissertations Publishing (3322283)
Murphy, J. (2002). Reculturing the profession of educational leadership: New blueprints.
Educational Administration Quarterly, 38(2), 178-191.
Myung, J., Loeb, S., & Horng, E. (2011). Tapping the principal pipeline: Identifying talent for
future school leadership in the absence of formal succession management programs.
Education Administration Quarterly, 47(5), 695-727.
Norton, M. S., Webb, D. L., Dlugosh, L. L., & Sybouts, W. (1996). The school superintendent
and board of education. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Allyn and Bacon.
Ogbu, J. U., & Simons, H. D. (1998). Voluntary and involuntary minorities: A cultural-
ecological theory of school performance and some implications for education.
Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 29(2), 155-188.
O’Malley, D. R. (2012) Urban superintendents and their selection of successful elementary
school principals (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Southern California,
Los Angeles, CA.
Ortiz, F. I. (1982). Career patterns in education: Women, men, and minorities in educational
administration. New York: Praeger.
ELEMENTARY PRINCIPALS AT TITLE I SCHOOLS 105
Papa, F.C., Lankford, H., & Wyckoff, J. (2002). The attributes and career paths of principals:
Implications for improving policy. Report submitted to the New York State Education
Department. Retrieved from http://www.teacherspolicyresearch.org
Papa, F., Jr. (2004). The career paths and retention of principals in New York state: An
exploratory analysis (Doctoral dissertation). State University of New York at Albany.
Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations Publishing. (3164606)
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: SAGE.
Portin, B. S. (2000). The changing urban principalship. Education and Urban Society, 32(4),
492-505. doi:10.1177/0013124500324005
Pounder, D. & Crow, G. (2005). Sustaining the pipeline of school administrators. Educational
Leadership, 62(8), 56-60.
RAND Corporation. (2004). The career of public school administrators. Santa Monica, CA
Author.
Reis, S. B., Young, I. P., & Jury, J. C. (1999). Female administrators: A crack in the glass
ceiling. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 13(1), 71-82.
doi:10.1023/A:1008002221974
Riehl, C. J. (2008). The principal’s role in creating inclusive schools for diverse students: A
review of normative, empirical, and critical literature on the practice of educational
administration. Journal of Education, 189(1-2), 183.
Riggins, C. (2001). Making connections: The power of networking. Principal, 81, 65-66.
ELEMENTARY PRINCIPALS AT TITLE I SCHOOLS 106
Roza, M, Cello, M. B., Harvey, J. & Wishon, S. (2003). A matter of definition: Is there truly a
shortage of school principals? University of Washington: Center for Reinventing Public
Education.
Rumberger, R. W., & Palardy, G. J. (2005). Does segregation still matter? The impact of student
composition on academic achievement in high school. Teachers College Record, 107(9),
1999-2045.
Samier, E. (2000). Public administration mentorship: conceptual and pragmatic considerations.
Journal of Educational Administration, 38(1), 83-101.
Schmieder, J. H., Cairns, D. (1996). Ten skills of highly effective principals. Lancaster, PA:
Technomic Publishers.
Schlueter, K., & Walker, J. (2008). Selection of school leaders: A critical component for change.
NAASP Bulletin, 92 (5).
Showers, B., & Joyce, B. (1996). The evolution of peer coaching. Educational Leadership,
53(6). 12-16.
Sirin, S. (2005). Socioeconomic status and academic achievement: A meta-analytic review of
research 1990-2000. Review of Educational Research, 75(3), 417-453.
Solórzano, D. (1998). Critical race theory, racial and gender microaggressions, and the
experiences of Chicana and Chicano scholars, International Journal of Qualitative
Studies in Education, 11, 121-136.
Stark-Price, G. A., Munoz, M. A., Winter, P. A., & Petrosko, J. M. (2006). Recruiting principals
to lead low-performing schools: Effects on job attractiveness. Journal of Personnel
Evaluation in Education, 19(1-2), 69-83.
ELEMENTARY PRINCIPALS AT TITLE I SCHOOLS 107
Thomas, D. A. (2001). The truth about mentoring minorities: race matters. Harvard Business
Review, 79(4), 98-107.
Vinovskis, M. (2009). From “A Nation at Risk” to No Child Left Behind: National education
goals and the creation of federal education policy. New York: Teachers College Press.
Ward, B. K. (2009). The impact of personal and organizational factors on school
administrators’ burnout (Doctoral dissertation). The University of Texas at San Antonio.
Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations Publishing. (3354828)
Waters, T. J., & Marzano, R. J. (2006). School District Leadership That Works: The Effect of
Superintendent Leadership on Student Achievement. Denver, CO: MidContinent
Research for Education and Learning.
West, D. L., Peck, C., & Reitzug, U. C. (2010). Limited control and relentless accountability:
Examining historical changes in urban school principal pressure. Journal of School
Leadership, 20(2), 238.
Weingartner, C. J. (2009). Principal mentoring: A safe, simple, and supportive approach.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
West Ed (2014). Instructional practice and coaching. Retrieved from http://www.wested.org/
service/instructional-practice-coaching/
Whitaker, K. (2001). Where are the principal candidates? perceptions of superintendents. NASSP
Bulletin, 85(625), 82-92. doi:10.1177/019263650108562509
Whitaker, K. S. (2003). Principal role changes and influence on principal recruitment and
selection: An international perspective. Journal of Educational Administration, 41(1), 37-
54. doi:10.1108/09578230310457420
ELEMENTARY PRINCIPALS AT TITLE I SCHOOLS 108
Appendix
Interview Protocol
I. Introduction
Thank you for agreeing to participate in my study…I appreciate the time that you have
set aside to answer some of my questions…. The interview should talk about 20 minutes, does
that work for you?
Before we get started, I want to provide you with an overview of my study and answer
any questions you might have about participating…. I am currently a dissertation candidate at
USC… the primary purpose of this study is to learn school districts best practices in recruiting,
retaining, and mentoring principals at Title I elementary schools. I have been asked to conduct
both interviews and surveys. “I am particularly interested how school district officials perceive
their role in mentoring new elementary principals?”
I want to assure you that I am strictly wearing the hat of researcher today. What this
means is that the nature of my questions (and observations) are not evaluative. I will not be
making any judgments on how you are performing as an administrator…. None of the data I
collect will be shared with other school district administrators or officials…
I am happy to provide you with a copy of my final paper or executive summary if you are
interested. Do you have any questions about the study before we get started? …. If you don’t
have any (more) questions I would like to have your permission to begin the interview… I have
a recorder with me today so that I can accurately capture what you share with me. May I also
have your permission to record our conversation?
II. Setting the Stage (Developing Rapport and Priming the Mind, Demographic items of interest
(e.g. position, role, etc.)
1. I am hoping we could start with you telling me what your school district is
looking for in an elementary principal…
2. What do you think are important leadership qualities…
3. Does your school district recruit principals specifically to be principals at Title I
elementary schools?
ELEMENTARY PRINCIPALS AT TITLE I SCHOOLS 109
I. Heart of the Interview
1. I am wondering what process your school district utilizes in order to select new principals
at Title I schools, could you walk me through the process?
2. Do you believe inside or outside candidates are better suited to be principals at Title I
elementary schools in your district?
3. What might be some of the challenges you might face in recruiting new principals at Title
I elementary schools…
4. Suppose a candidate does not have any administrative experience… How would you deal
with the situation? Is prior administrative experience important to you and/or your school
district?
5. In an ideal world, what would you do to help support a new principal once he or she was
hired?
6. Does your school district offer any formal mentoring opportunities for principals,
specifically principals at Title I schools?
ELEMENTARY PRINCIPALS AT TITLE I SCHOOLS 110
7. If a principal was struggling what supports does your school district offer? Do principals
at Title I schools have a formal or informal mentor?
8. How do you measure if a principal is being successful at a Title I elementary school? Do
you use a different measure than a principal at a non-Title I school?
9. What would you say is the average length of time that a principal stays at a Title I
school? Do you think there is or is not a reason for this?
IV. Closing Question (Anything else to add)
I am wondering if there is anything that you would add to our conversation today that I
might not have covered?
V. Closing (thank you and follow-up option):
Thank you so much for you sharing your thoughts with me today! I really appreciate
your time and willingness to share. Everything that you have shared is really helpful for my
study. If I find myself with follow-up questions, I am wondering if I might be able to contact
you, and if so, if email is ok? Again, thank you for participating in my study.
VII. Special Considerations and Probing
i. Transitions
So, we have spent most of our time talking about….
Now I would like to change gears a little bit and ask about….
(Is there anything else you would like to add before we transition?)
ii. Probing Statements/Questions
That is interesting, could you please tell me a little bit more about…
I want to make sure I understand, could you please tell me what you mean by…
I am wondering how you were feeling in that moment?
It would be great if you could walk me though…
Abstract (if available)
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to learn how public school districts in southern California could better recruit, retain, and mentor new principals in Title 1 schools. Currently, school districts throughout southern California are finding it difficult to recruit and retain principals to work in Title 1 elementary schools. The purpose of this study encompassed two components: (1) to understand the role school district officials play in successfully recruiting candidates for the position of elementary school principal at a Title I school, (2) to identify the research-based characteristics of successful Title I elementary principals in southern California and what processes school districts use to retain and mentor these individuals. The research questions used to guide this study were: (1) What are the processes that districts in southern California utilize in order to recruit potential elementary school principals? (2) What are the processes or practices that school districts utilize in order to retain elementary school principals past three years? (3) How do school districts perceive their role in mentoring new elementary principals? (4) How do school districts evaluate themselves to ensure that they are recruiting and retaining quality principals? This study used the mixed methods approach in which 24 school district officials responded to an online survey and 10 school district officials who completed the survey were interviewed in person. Through the process of triangulation, the study’s findings indicate that while almost every public school district has the same recruiting practices, school districts vary from each other in terms of formal and informal recruiting practices. Results from this study show that school districts prefer to hire principals that they are familiar with and have had some degree of administrative experience. Overall the results from this study show the majority of school districts do not have a strategic plan in order to recruit, retain, and mentor new principals at Title 1 elementary schools in southern California. The study concluded by sharing practical implications for school district officials and the need for additional research to be done on the topic of supporting principals of Title 1 elementary schools.
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
Best practices charter school CEOs are implementing to recruit and retain teachers
PDF
An examination of the leadership practices of Catholic elementary school principals
PDF
Use of Kotter’s change model by elementary school principals in the successful implementation of inclusive education programs for students with disabilities in K-6 elementary schools in Southern ...
PDF
Common Core implementation decisions made by principals in elementary schools
PDF
Efective leadership practices used by elementary school principals in the implementation of instructional change
PDF
A comparative analysis of teacher evaluation systems utilized by public and charter schools in Southern California
PDF
Examining Hispanic students’ access to AP courses in high schools in the Inland Empire
PDF
Examining Hispanic students’ access to AP courses in high schools in Los Angeles County
PDF
Instructional coaching in California public K-12 school districts: instructional coaching programs in elementary, middle, and high schools and the impact on teacher self-efficacy with educational...
PDF
Instructional coaching and educational technology in California public K-12 school districts: instructional coaching programs across elementary, middle, and high schools with educational technolo...
PDF
Elementary STEM policies, practices and implementation in California
PDF
Effective leadership practices used by middle school principals in the implementation of instructional change
PDF
Effective STEM initiatives in high-poverty elementary schools
PDF
An examination on educational management and the fostering of leadership sustainability in Hawaiian Catholic K-12 schools
PDF
Let's hear it from the principals: a study of four Title One elementary school principals' leadership practices on student achievement
PDF
Instructional coaching, educational technology, and teacher self-efficacy: a case study of instructional coaching programs in a California public K-12 school district
PDF
Common Core implementation: decisions made by Southern California superintendents of unified school districts
PDF
A case study of promising leadership practices employed by principals of Knowledge Is Power Program Los Angeles (KIPP LA) charter school to improve student achievement
PDF
Unprepared for college mathematics: an investigation into the attainment of best practices to increase preparation and persistence for first-time California community college freshmen in remedial...
PDF
Preparing the next generation of global leaders: how principals in international studies high schools promote global competence
Asset Metadata
Creator
Ledoux, Joseph Neilson
(author)
Core Title
Best practices of school districts in the recruiting, retaining, and mentoring of principals at Title I elementary schools in southern California
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Education
Publication Date
10/11/2016
Defense Date
09/29/2016
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
education,mentor,OAI-PMH Harvest,Principal,recruit,retain,Title 1
Format
application/pdf
(imt)
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Castruita, Rudy (
committee chair
), Garcia, Pedro E. (
committee member
), Hausner, Larry (
committee member
)
Creator Email
jnledoux@usc.edu,jnledoux1@yahoo.com
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c40-315344
Unique identifier
UC11214755
Identifier
etd-LedouxJose-4875.pdf (filename),usctheses-c40-315344 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-LedouxJose-4875.pdf
Dmrecord
315344
Document Type
Dissertation
Format
application/pdf (imt)
Rights
Ledoux, Joseph Neilson
Type
texts
Source
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Access Conditions
The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...
Repository Name
University of Southern California Digital Library
Repository Location
USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA
Tags
education
recruit
retain
Title 1