University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

New principals in a turnaround middle school: analysis of the transition period (first 90 days)

(USC Thesis Other)

New principals in a turnaround middle school: analysis of the transition period (first 90 days)

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content NEW PRINCIPALS IN A TURNAROUND MIDDLE SCHOOL:
ANALYSIS OF THE TRANSITION PERIOD (FIRST
90 DAYS)
by
Gerald Kosch
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
May 2007
Copyright 2007Gerald Kosch
ii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to thank my parents, Marcia and Jerry Kosch, for the continual
support and guidance they have given me in life, especially during the tough times.
I would also like to thank the staff, students, and parents of the Torrance and
Culver City schools, who have made my work in the field of education a rewarding
experience, both personally and professionally.
Finally, I would like to thank the faculty of the University of Southern Califor-
nia for providing me a professionally relevant and academically rigorous learning
experience. I am especially grateful to my committee members—Dr. Lawrence Picus,
Dr. Michael Escalante, and Dr. Scott Price—for their scholarly and critical analysis of
my work.
ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS. ............................................ ii
LIST OF TABLES. .................................................. vi
LIST OF FIGURES. ................................................. vii i
AB S TR AC T. ....................................................... ix
Chapter 1: THE PROBLEM AND ITS UNDERLYING FRAMEWORK. . . . . . . 1
Statement of the Problem........................................ 5
Purpose of the Study. .......................................... 7
Importance of Study............................................ 8
Limitations................................................... 9
Delimitations................................................. 9
Assumptions..................................................10
Methodology.................................................10
Definitions of Terms. .......................................... 11
Transition/Entry Period...................................... 11
Turnaround School. ........................................ 11
Organization of Study. ......................................... 12
Chapter 2: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE. ........................... 13
Accountability/Responsibility. ................................... 13
Role/Conflict.............................................. 23
Accountability Conflict...................................... 25
Autonomy Conflict. ........................................ 26
Responsibility Conflict. ..................................... 27
Principal Training/Mentoring. ................................... 30
Context of Principal Training Programs.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Methods of Principal Training Programs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Structure of Principal Training Programs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
University-Based Programs. ................................. 41
School Districts............................................ 44
Third-Party Organizations. .................................. 46
Partnership Programs. ...................................... 48
Induction and Transition. ....................................... 51
School Culture and Climate. ..................................... 65
Leadership Principles........................................... 75
Transformational Leadership. ................................ 78
Transactional Leadership. ................................... 79
iii
Total Quality Management. .................................. 79
Instructional Leadership. .................................... 81
James Collins. ............................................ 84
Warren Bennis. ........................................... 85
Michael Fullan. ........................................... 86
Richard Elmore............................................ 87
Steven Covey. ............................................ 88
Richard Marzano: Balanced Leadership Approach. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
Lee Bolman and Terrence Deal................................ 94
Conclusions. .................................................104
Chapter 3: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY. ............................105
Methodology Approach. ........................................105
Research Questions. ...........................................107
Research Design...............................................108
P opul a t i on/ S a m pl e . ........................................108
Instrumentation. ...........................................109
Theoretical Base. ..........................................113
Conceptual Framework......................................114
Data Collection Procedures. .....................................115
Data Analysis. ................................................116
Chapter 4: FINDINGS...............................................117
Research Questions. ...........................................118
Background on School G. .......................................119
Background of Other Schools in Study. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .122
Information About Principal G. ..................................124
Information About Other Principals in Study. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .125
Research Question #1: Importance of Transition Period. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .126
Perspective of Principal G. ..................................126
Perspective of Other Principals in Study. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .127
Research Question #2: Analysis. .............................130
Research Question #2: Useful Strategies and Conceptual Frameworks. . . .131
Marzano Instrument. .......................................134
Survey Based on Bolman and Deal (2003). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .157
School G Conclusions/Analysis: Research Question #2. . . . . . . . . . . .167
Combined Schools Conclusion/Analysis: Research Question #2. . . . .170
Research Question #3: Importance of University Programs. . . . . . . . . . . . .172
Principals. ...............................................173
Immediate Supervisors. .....................................176
Research Question #3: Analysis/Conclusions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .179
Chapter Conclusion. ...........................................183
School G. ................................................183
iv
Chapter Conclusion: Combined Schools in Study.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .185
Chapter 5: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE
RESEARCH..................................................187
C o nc l us i on/ A na l y s i s . ..........................................189
Research Question #1. ......................................189
Research Question #2. ......................................190
Research Question #3. ......................................194
Suggestions for Future Areas of Research. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .196
Principal Accountability/Responsibility. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .197
Principal Training/Mentoring/Induction.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .197
Leadership Principles. ......................................198
REFERENCES CITED. ..............................................200
Appendix A: IMMEDIATE SUPERVISOR INTERVIEW.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .212
Appendix B: PRINCIPAL INTERVIEW. ...............................216
Appendix C: TEACHER SURVEY. ...................................222
v
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1:The 21 Responsibilities of a School Leader. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
Table 2:Bolman and Deal’s Management Task Chart. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
Table 3:Primary Reasons That Immediate Supervisors Identified Schools
in Sample as Turnaround. ...................................122
Table 4:2005-2006 School Accountability Report Card Analysis of Case
Study Schools: Part 1.......................................123
Table 5:2005-2006 School Accountability Report Card Analysis of Case
Study Schools: Part 2.......................................124
Table 6:Interview Question #1: Principal’s Pathway to the Principalship. . . . .125
Table 7:Interview Question #2: Principals’ Evidence to Support
Categorization of School as Turnaround. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .126
Table 8:Interview Question #5: Significance of First 90 Days of Princi-
palship...................................................128
Table 9:Interview Question #6: What Point in First 90 Days Principal
Felt Credibility Was Established. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .128
Table 10:Significant Actions Mentioned by Principals Regarding the
Transition Period (First 90 Days). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .129
Table 11:Significant Actions Taken by Principals During Transition Period
(First 90 Days) as Supported by Research. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .132
Table 12:Marzano-Based Actions of Sample Principals During the
Transition Period. .........................................137
Table 13:Marzano-Based Actions of Sample Principals During the
Transition Period (First 90 Days), According to Principals’
Immediate Supervisors ......................................140
Table 14:Marzano-Based Actions That Immediate Supervisors Believed
Were Most Important for a Successful Principal in a Turnaround
School. ..................................................142
vi
Table 15:Marzano-Based Actions of Principals During Transition Period
(First 90 Days), According to Teachers (N = 208). ................149
Table 16:Marzano-Based Actions That Teachers Believed Were Most
Important for a Successful Principal in a Turnaround School (N =
208).....................................................151
Table 17:The Five Most Important Marzano-Based Strategies Frequently
Utilized by New Principals During the Transition Period (First
90 Days) From Perspective of Principals, Immediate Super-
visors, and Teachers. .......................................157
Table 18:Bolman and Deal Survey: Percentage of Time Principals Spent
in Each of the Four Frames...................................159
Table 19:Bolman and Deal Survey: Percentage of Time Principals Should
Have Spent in Each of the Four Frames. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .161
Table 20:Interview Question #7: How University Programs Prepared
Principals for Their Job......................................174
Table 21:How University Programs Prepared Principals With Respect to
Training and on-the-Job Knowledge. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .175
Table 22:Reasons That University Programs Do Not Help, According to
Principals’ Responses. ......................................176
Table 23:How University Programs Prepare Principals for the
Principalship, According to Immediate Supervisors.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .177
Table 24:How University Programs Prepare Principals With Respect to
Training and on-the-Job Knowledge, According to Immediate
Supervisors. ..............................................178
Table 25:Reasons That University Programs Do Not Help, According to
Immediate Supervisors’ Responses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .179
vii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1:Four Frames Chart rankings by Principal G’s actions by
teacher responses (N = 22). ..................................163
Figure 2:Four Frames Chart rankings by importance of Principal G’s
actions by teacher responses (N = 22)...........................164
Figure 3:Four Frames Chart rankings by frequency of all principals’
actions by teacher responses (N = 154)..........................166
Figure 4:Four Frames Chart rankings of importance of all principals’
actions by teacher responses (N = 154)..........................167
viii

ABSTRACT
The requirements of state and federal accountability under the No Child Left
Behind law, combined with the dynamic nature and scope of the job, have placed tre-
mendous pressure on principals across the nation, especially new principals during the
transition period (first 90 days). The existing principal shortage makes it apparent that
more should be done to recruit, educate, and support new principals so that they will be
better prepared to face the challenges of the transition period.
Ten case studies of southern California turnaround middle school principals
were conducted by a cohort of University of Southern California doctoral students. The
purpose was an attempt to answer important questions regarding the transition period of
new principals. In addition to the principals, the principals’ immediate supervisors and
four department chairs at each school were interviewed and the schools’ teachers were
surveyed to obtain their perceptions of the transition period. Qualitative and quantita-
tive data as well as leadership literature from both the business and educational sectors
were analyzed and synthesized to gain insight on the importance of the transition period
(first 90 days), the important strategies and conceptual frameworks that were useful to
new principals during the transition period, and the effectiveness of university programs
in preparing new principals for the transition period. It was found that the transition
period is a critical time in a new principal’s career, especially regarding establishing
credibility with staff. The research tested the usefulness of applicability of educational
leadership theories to the transition period, such as Marzano’s Balanced Leadership
ix
Framework and Bolman and Deal’s Four Frames. While principals engaged in a variety
of Marzano-based actions during the transition period, the most frequently used and
important actions during the transition period were culture, focus, and visibility. It was
also found that the Bolman and Deal framework was useful and applicable to new
principals and that they primarily operated under the structural and human resource
frames during the transition period. There were mixed perceptions among principals
and immediate supervisors regarding whether or not university programs prepared new
principals for the transition period (first 90 days). We found that while new principals
are carrying over some of the skills/concepts that they are learning in university pro-
grams, there is a general consensus that university programs would benefit by incorpo-
rating more practical hands-on learning experiences and collaboration into their pro-
grams.
1
CHAPTER 1

THE PROBLEM AND ITS UNDERLYING FRAMEWORK
The modern school accountability movement commenced with the 1980 elec-
tion of President Ronald Reagan. Less than 2 years after taking office, the President
and Secretary of Education Terrell Bell assembled the National Commission on Excel-
lence in Education (NCEE) to report on the quality of education in the United States.
The report, A Nation at Risk (National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983),
found that the American education system was producing mediocre results; among the
remedies was the establishment of a common core curriculum, or academic standards.
President Reagan left the work of establishing academic standards to the states. The
result is the diversity of state education systems that are now in place. Individually, the
states began implementing education reform measures geared at defining a basic set of
knowledge that students were expected to achieve at certain grade levels. By 1990, the
National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES; as cited in National Conference of
State Legislatures [NCSL], 2006) reported that nearly 40% of high school graduates
met the core curriculum requirements in A Nation at Risk. The standards-based ac-
countability (SBA) movement was making progress at the state level.
The early years of the SBA can be described as turbulent at best. The movement
stagnated due to political shifts in Congress and increasing partisan division over what
the federal government’s role in education should be. In 1994, the political tide
switched back to a call for accountability, and the federal government became
2
reengaged in the accountability movement when President William J. Clinton signed
the Improving America’s Schools Act (IASA) of 1994. IASA is prior reauthorization
and revision of the original ESEA. Among the requirements, states had to develop
challenging standards, develop three levels of performance standards, develop and
implement assessments aligned with the standards, develop a benchmark for improve-
ment, and develop consequences for schools who did not improve. It became clear that
the federal government was investing in standards and assessment as the means to hold
schools more accountable for the performance of their students. States were still al-
lowed the autonomy to develop their own education systems. To continue receiving
federal funds, however, the states had to comply with the general requirements of IASA
(NCSL, 2006).
When President George W. Bush took office in 2000, he placed education as the
top priority in his domestic policy agenda. On January 8, 2002, President Bush signed
into law a bipartisan education package that greatly expanded the federal role in public
education. The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB; 2002) provides an unprece-
dented increase in federal resources to states to improve low-performing schools. In
exchange, the federal government expects more accountability from state education
systems and the guarantee that no child will be left behind. To meet this end, states are
required to increase student testing; collect and disseminate subgroup results; ensure
that a highly qualified teacher is in every classroom; and guarantee that all students,
regardless of socioeconomic factors, achieve a “proficient” level of education by the
2014-2015 school year. Schools that contain subgroups that fail to meet their Adequate
3
Yearly Progress (AYP) of improvement based on the standardized tests face the harsh-
est sanctions in history. For example, the state is allowed to replace school personnel
responsible for the failure to make AYP, extend the school day or year, change the cur-
riculum, or restructure the school and reopen it as a charter or under private manage-
ment (Georgia Department of Education, 2006; NCSL, 2006).
Complying with the requirements of NCLB is going to be a challenge if states
want to continue receiving federal funding for education. While federal money may
only account for approximately 8% of a state’s education budget, most states cannot
afford to forfeit this money in the current fiscal climate. The reality of NCLB has re-
quired states and school districts to make substantial structural changes as to how
schools are operated. Furthermore, the goal that all students, regardless of ethnicity,
language, or socioeconomic status, perform at a proficient level on standardized tests by
2015 is considered extremely optimistic and places enormous pressure on the teachers
and administrators who work in public schools (Georgia Department of Education,
2006).
The jobs of principals who are working seriously at reform and school improve-
ment have become more difficult. Federal legislation, court mandates, funding issues,
and equity issues have had an immense impact on school districts and on the daily oper-
ations of schools. Conflicts between local governance and state and district mandates,
between the need for strong leadership and shared power, and between expectations and
needed resources have also confounded principals. These changes have shifted the ori-
entation of the principal’s work toward managerial tasks and away from curriculum and
4
instruction. An analysis of in-depth interviews with 13 principals revealed how princi-
pals perceived and experienced their roles. The study found that principals were agents
of accountability, were involved with social agencies, were concerned with the safety
and security of students, and had extended their day through participation on parent
advisory councils and with other community groups (Meyer & Macmillan, 2001).
Two studies conducted in the state of Washington investigated changes in the
role of the principal. In a series of focus groups and a follow-up survey, principals re-
ported the following changes to their role: (a) more collaboration in decision making,
(b) eroding authority, (c) becoming a change agent, (d) additional responsibility, (e)
conflicting community demands, and (f) an expanded work week (Williams & Portin,
1997; Wulff, 1996). The results of these changes resulted in increased management
responsibilities, a longer work week, more efforts to seek resources from external
sources, increased levels of frustration, and less enthusiasm about the job. In Califor-
nia, the pressures and responsibilities placed on principals are particularly overwhelm-
ing—with an average of 534 students per principal or vice principal compared to their
counterparts in the rest of the United States, which averages 366 students per school
leader (Bell, 2001).
The United States and California are looking to their principals to resuscitate
troubled schools, yet the pool of veteran educators willing to take on the job is shrink-
ing. A recent survey by the Association of California School Administrators (ACSA; as
cited in Bell, 2001) found that 90% of districts reported shortages of high school princi-
pal candidates, and 73% reported shortages of elementary principal candidates (Bell,
5
2001). A national survey found similar shortages. Furthermore, many qualified candi-
dates who hold administrative credentials are not taking jobs because of the increasing
stress and responsibilities. For example, the California Commission on Teacher Cre-
dentialing (CCTC; as cited in Bell) has more than 34,000 people on file with adminis-
trative credentials in California—more than enough to fill the 23,000 school adminis-
trative positions. However, many educators with administrative credentials are instead
seeking administrative work such as teacher mentors or curriculum directors—jobs that
carry less responsibility. Experienced teachers who might have seen leading a school as
their ultimate goal now question why they should step into high-pressure roles and
work a longer year for a salary not much greater than a classroom teacher’s.
As principals complain that there is too little support to help them cope, educa-
tional leaders and politicians are beginning to listen. They are taking the first steps
toward reforms to help principals manage the job. School districts are experimenting
with leadership academies, new recruitment strategies, mentoring, and creating new
models for the principal’s job. Universities are focusing training for principals more on
real-life problems in schools and less on theory.
Statement of the Problem
The increase of accountability on schools by state and federal government, com-
bined with the increased scope of the job, has placed tremendous stress on principals
across the nation—more so now that tests scores are published regularly in the local
media. The increase in accountability has created a work environment that demands
6
rapid results in achievement and organizational change. In addition to ensuring that
students receive standards-based instruction (SBI) and achieve academically on high-
stakes standardized tests, principals face many challenges pertaining to leadership and
management that include (a) the evaluation of employees; (b) providing effective staff
development; (c) managing budgets and other financial issues; (d) maintaining effective
discipline among students; (e) promoting parent involvement; (f) navigating the politics
involved in relationships with parents, teachers, students, and district office personnel;
(g) creating a professional learning community (PLC); and so on. This increase in ac-
countability has created a sense of urgency among the public and politicians for schools
and principals to produce results.
The fact that there are many California teachers with administrative credentials
who decide to remain in the classroom exemplifies how the job is perceived by most—a
thankless job that requires countless hours of dedication to be successful. This has
helped contribute to a shortage of qualified school administrators. The crisis has not
reached the point where principals are working without training or credentials, but
without candidates, the field could definitely be heading in that direction. Although
policymakers and district officials have created scattered research-based programs and
practical guides relating to principal training and induction, it is obvious that research-
ers need to take a serious look at issues pertaining to the principalship as well as at
existing programs and their effectiveness.
The literature base in business appears to include many research-based concep-
tual frameworks relating to leadership as well as leaders’ transition period (i.e., first 90
7
days). In fact, leadership theorists such as Watkins (2003) have gone as far as to claim
that the transition period is a critical time for new leaders and that the actions that new
leaders take during the transition period will largely determine whether they succeed or
fail. If Watkins’s theory holds true, then the lack of research on the transition period of
a new principal is a tremendous injustice to the field, especially considering the current
administrator shortage. Therefore, it is important to examine the leadership practices of
principals during the transitional period to determine if this period contributes to the
success of principals. To examine these issues, the following research questions were
developed to guide the study:
1. Do principals in a turnaround situation find the transition period (first 90
days) to be important?
2.What strategies and conceptual frameworks (leadership theories) were
useful to new principals during the transition period (first 90 days) in a turnaround
school?
3.Did university programs prepare new principals for success during the
transition period (first 90 days) in a turnaround school?
Purpose of Study
The purpose of the study was to determine whether the transition period (first 90
days) is important to the success of new middle school principals in turnaround schools.
Turnaround schools are defined as schools that were identified by a superintendent as
being in trouble—schools that needed to get back on track. The present study
8
attempted to identify the important elements within the transition period for turnaround
principals, whether turnaround principals were using formal or informal transition
plans, and the strategies and conceptual frameworks turnaround principals engaged in
during their first 90 days. This research study identifies existing frameworks and
models of entry plans from both business and educational sectors and attempts to sup-
plement this knowledge. The study should contribute to the literature base relating to
public school principals.
Importance of Study
Although there are many practical manuals and articles to assist the new princi-
pal, there is limited research on the transition period as it relates to educational leader-
ship and the job of school principal. This study examined the current literature and
frameworks relating to leadership and the transition period of new leaders found in
business to determine whether they applied to educational leadership, especially leader-
ship during the transition period of the school principal. This is an important contribu-
tion to the literature base in education, for there has been little written regarding the
important leadership qualities and strategies new principals utilize that might make or
break their careers early on.
The study should provide further insight and information relating to a turn-
around principal’s transition, identify key elements and factors experienced by turn-
around principals in their first 90 days, and contribute to the development of a frame-
work that may be used by new turnaround principals. The study should be of particular
9
interest to colleges/universities, professional organizations, and training programs that
prepare aspiring and new principals with a framework of the key elements that princi-
pals experience during the transition period. The study should be informative to school
districts that are looking to groom, support, and retain new principals during the transi-
tion period and beyond.
Limitations
Limitations of the study include the following:
1.The study was limited to individuals who participated voluntarily.
2.The study was limited to the number of individuals surveyed and inter-
viewed, as well as the amount of time available to conduct the study.
3.The validity of this study was limited to the reliability of the instruments
used.
4.The study was limited to the validity and manner in which the personal in-
terviews were conducted by the other members of the cohort.
5.Accuracy of information as disclosed by individuals may vary.
Delimitations
Delimitations of the study included the following:
1.Participation in the study was limited to middle school principals who had
just completed their 1 year in a southern California urban school.
st
2.Participation in the study was limited to principals who had a recollection of
the transition period (first 90 days).
10
3.Participation was limited to schools identified as turnaround by district
superintendents.
Assumptions
The following assumptions were made regarding the study:
1.Participants were truthful in their responses.
2.The instruments were valid and reliable.
3.Participants were able to recall elements and factors of their experiences
within the transition period of their principalship with reasonable accuracy.
4.Depth of interview responses were limited by time constraints.
Methodology
The study, which was carried out my a cohort of researchers form the Rossier
Graduate School of Education at the University of Southern California (USC), con-
sisted of a mixed-methodology approach to research using both qualitative and quanti-
tative components. The study incorporated a mixed-methods, concurrent-procedures
strategy, converging quantitative and qualitative data to provide a comprehensive anal-
ysis of the research problem (Creswell, 2003). This approach allowed the data to be
analyzed on various levels. The quantitative component consisted of a various surveys
that were issued to a small population of turnaround middle school principals, teachers,
and superintendents from the state of California. The quantitative analysis focused on
simple statistics, such as comparing means/averages, to add a mathematical element to
this primarily qualitative study. The qualitative component is especially important due
11
to the limited literature base relating to the transition period (first 90 days) of new
principals. Creswell (2003) states that a primary reason for conducting qualitative
studies is that the study is exploratory in nature. The qualitative component, which
included interviews with turnaround principals, teachers, and superintendents along
with document analysis, was designed to explore the practices and frameworks in which
turnaround principals engaged during the transition period. The qualitative interviews
and open-ended questionnaires were used to provide depth and context to the data col-
lected from the survey. This mixed-methodology approach facilitated and ensured the
triangulation of the data collected and findings.
The data were analyzed to examine the importance of the transition period for
turnaround principals to identify key elements, factors, strategies and conceptual frame-
works in which turnaround principals engaged during the transition period.
Definitions of Terms
For the purpose of this study, the following terms are defined.
Transition/Entry Period
The timeline of a principal’s entry, defined as the first 90 days. The 90-day time
frame was adopted from the framework outlined by Watkins (2003).
Turnaround School
Defined as a school identified by a superintendent as being in trouble and
needing to get back on track.
12
Organization of Study
This dissertation is divided into five chapters. Chapter 1 provides an overview
of the study. It consists of an introduction and background of the problem; the research
questions developed to guide the study; the purpose and importance of the study; and
the limitations, delimitations and assumptions of the study. It also includes an over-
view of the methodology and definitions related to the study.
Chapter 2 is a literature review that focuses on the following issues relating to
the new principal: importance of induction and transition, school culture and environ-
ment, responsibilities and accountability, history of the principalship, leadership princi-
ples, and effective training.
Chapter 3 is the methodology for the study and details the sampling strategy,
process for instrument development, process for piloting the instrument, and process for
data collection and analysis.
Chapter 4 consists of data analysis and findings of the study. The findings were
guided by the research questions of the study.
Chapter 5 presents a summary, conclusion, and recommendations for future
studies.
13
CHAPTER 2

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Although the literature regarding the transition period (first 90 days) of the
middle school turnaround is quite limited, there are numerous resources relating to
educational leadership and business leadership that are applicable to the topic. An ex-
amination of the literature base in education and business will be reviewed, with discus-
sion on the applicability of conceptual frameworks and principles related to the impor-
tance of the transition period for turnaround middle school principals.
This chapter will provide a literature review on the issues surrounding the
middle school turnaround principalship and conceptual frameworks on leadership in the
fields of education and business. It begins with a discussion on the dynamic role of the
principal and how increasing accountability and pressures have led to a principal short-
age in the United States. The review continues with a presentation of current training/
mentoring programs that exist for principals and surveys their effectiveness. The chap-
ter then examines the significance of the induction/transition period (first 90 days) of
new principals. The chapter concludes with an analysis of how the creation of a posi-
tive school culture and the utilization of effective leadership strategies can benefit the
new principal during the transition period.
Accountability/Responsibility
The education community has recently focused a great deal of attention on the
need to attract and retain highly qualified educators to serve school administrative roles.
14
A primary reason is the shocking shortage of qualified administrators available to fill
current and foreseeable school principal openings. These shortages largely exist for
specific positions, such as the high school principalship or the district superintendency,
or in specific geographic locations, such as remote rural areas or challenging urban
communities (Forsyth & Smith, 2002; Pounder, Galvin, & Shephard, 2003). When
analyzing these shortages, a general trend is clear: Educators increasingly see the role
of the school administrator as being more challenging and less desirable than the job is
worth (Lindle, 2004, Pounder & Merrill, 2001).
The national need for principals has existed for quite some time, and the situa-
tion is expected to worsen due to a raise in the school principal retirement rate. The
National Association of Elementary School Principals (NAESP; 2006) began a 10-year
study in 1998 that is revealing that not only are principals retiring earlier (average age:
57), but also that more than half plan to retire as soon as they are eligible, continuing
the 40+% turnover rate in the next decade. The NAESP members who responded to a
one-question survey in 2002 indicated that 66% would retire in the next 6-10 years.
Finally, the NAESP estimates that there will be a 13% increase in job openings for edu-
cation administrators between 2000 and 2010 and that a large proportion of education
administrators are expected to retire by 2010.
Results of a number of studies over the past several years have made it clear that
qualified professionals are not seeking the position of school principal (Educational Re-
search Service [ERS], 1998; Hough, 2000; Institute for Educational Leadership [IEL],
2000; National Policy Board for Educational Administration [NPBEA], 2001; U.S.
15
Department of Education [USDOE], 2000). For example, an exploratory study com-
missioned jointly by the NAESP, the National Association for Secondary School
Principals (NASSP) and the ERS in 1998 (as cited in NAESP, 2006) indicated that
approximately half of the school districts surveyed reported a shortage in the labor pool
for K-12 principal positions they were trying to fill that year, regardless of the schools’
grade levels and whether they were rural, suburban, or urban schools. Furthermore, a
1999 California study by the same organizations indicated that 73% of 376 superinten-
dents reported a shortage of qualified candidates for elementary school principal posi-
tions (ERS, 1999). Finally, a 1999 Indiana survey conducted by the Indiana Associa-
tion of School Principals (IASP)/Ball State University (as cited in NAESP, 2006)
indicated that 72.9% of the responding superintendents described the pool of candidates
from which they had hired principals during the previous 3 years as much smaller than
in previous years, defining the pool as a shortage. The situation seems especially bleak
for America’s secondary schools, where the shortage in the labor pool is particularly
alarming (Marnik, 1998; Yerkes & Guaglione, 1998). For example, a 2000 survey by
the Association of California School Administrators (ASCA) found that 90% of dis-
tricts reported shortages of high school principal candidates and 73% reported shortages
of elementary candidates.
There are many factors that contribute to the lack of interest of qualified candi-
dates. Modern-day principals report growing concerns about the barriers of stress and
time as well as about changes in the principalship, including increased responsibility
and decreased authority and autonomy (ERS, 1999; IEL, 2000; Portin, Shen, &
16
Williams, 1998; Public Agenda, 2001; USDOE, 2000). In a 1998 NAESP study (as
cited in Doud & Keller, 1998), the organization surveyed district superintendents in a
nationwide study and found that the top three discouraging factors were insufficient
compensation compared to responsibilities (58%), too much time required (25%), and
job too stressful (23%). These percentages were comparable across community-type
and grade-level subgroups. The study indicated that the typical principal puts in 9-hour
days and 54-hour weeks. The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics agreed that the princi-
pal’s job is time consuming and stated that many education administrators work more
than 40 hours a week, including some nights and weekends, during which they oversee
school activities (as cited in ERS, 1999). Another factor that contributes to the lack of
interest in the principalship is that principals are not paid commensurately with their
responsibilities and accountability. A studies by the NAESP (as cited in Parks, Pro-
theroe, & Williams, 2002) found that salaries for new principals could be as little as
10% more than veteran teachers. When comparing the salaries of highly experienced
teachers to new administrators, the average daily pay rate (because administrators are
usually on longer-period contracts) may actually be less for the principal.
In California, a 2000 ASCA survey revealed that the CCTC has more than
34,000 people on file with administrative credentials in California—more than enough
to fill the 23,000 school administrative positions. The study concluded that many edu-
cators with administrative credentials are instead seeking administrative work as teach-
er mentors or curriculum directors—jobs that carry less responsibility. Experienced
teachers who might once have envisioned themselves leading a school as their ultimate
17
goal are now questioning why they should step into high-pressure roles and work a
longer year for a salary not much greater than a classroom teacher’s. California school
leaders, with an average of 534 students per principal or assistant principal, have much
more responsibility than their colleagues in the rest of the United States, which averages
366 students per school leader (ASCA).
High-stakes standardized testing, accountability for factors out of their control,
fragmentation of their time, and focus on management issues rather than instructional
leadership all contribute to principals’ job-related stress. The difficult and seemingly
overwhelming responsibilities of principals continue to grow amid calls for increased
accountability by local school boards, as well as state and national officials. Principals
find themselves in the “eye of the tornado” as a society conditioned by instant gratifica-
tion and change expects immediate results from the latest reform effort (Copeland,
2001; Donaldson, 2001; Taylor & Williams, 2001). This situation places the principal
in a daunting position motivated by stakeholders’ expectations to produce positive
outcomes without regard to process, bureaucratic factors, or taking the right approach
(Sergiovanni, 2000).
The concept of accountability has long been visible in education. Historically,
principal accountability involved a more general approach of doing a job well, assum-
ing the role of instructional leader, maintaining strong teacher relationships, and exhib-
iting sound budgeting practices (Lashway, 2000). The focus has shifted from account-
ability for how money and resources are used to accountability for outcome measures or
student achievement (Elmore, Abelman, & Fuhrman, 1996). Olson (1999) reported that
18
48 states test students, 36 issue report cards, and 16 states have the authority to take
over failing schools. Politicians currently mandate accountability through systems
involving student academic targets, assessment standards, and dissemination and wide
publication of test results to the media (Popham, 2001). Consequences for failing to
meet growth targets affect student graduation, teacher bonuses, district funding, and
retention of principals (Bonstingl, 2001). These consequences increase pressure on
principals to collaborate with teachers to ensure that student learning goals are linked to
effective instructional strategies. The increasing complexity of the role of the principal
and teacher, combined with the perception that schools continue to decline, has resulted
in a call for more effective principal leadership to address the additional accountability
placed on local school districts (Christie, 2000). This presents a challenge for the
school principal, who must now find time to develop solutions to raise student achieve-
ment levels that were nurtured and sustained through the students’ early years in ele-
mentary and middle school. The emphasis that has been placed on accountability has
resulted in additional pressures and recommendations for new principals’ roles
(Brewer, 2001; King, 2002; Tirozzi, 2001).
Popham (2001) reported that the increasing emphasis on testing has resulted in a
reduction of the curriculum, and Kohn (2001) has gone as far as to characterize schools
as testing centers. In many cases, principals have modified existing programs to raise
test scores. Increasing pressure from school boards and principals to focus on teaching
the curriculum that exists on standardized tests has led to a reduction of art, music, and
other enrichment courses that are not a part of the standardized testing system. Daggett
19
(2002) indicated that teachers and administrators expressed anger and frustration due to
the pressure to teach a narrow set of skills for short-term gains in lieu of concepts that
students needed to learn for long-term success. He argued that high-stakes standardized
testing impacts job security for teachers and administrators.
On January 8, 2002, President George W. Bush signed into law a bipartisan edu-
cation program that greatly expands the federal role in public education. The NCLB
law provides an unprecedented increase in federal resources to states to improve low-
performing schools. In exchange, the federal government expects more accountability
from state education systems and the guarantee that no child will be left behind. To
meet this end, states are required to increase student testing; collect and disseminate
subgroup results; ensure that a highly qualified teacher is in every classroom; and guar-
antee that all students, regardless of socioeconomic factors, achieve a “proficient” level
of education by the 2014-2015 school year. The NCLB law requires states to set AYP
standards for each statistically significant subgroup at the school. The law also requires
states to issue a standards-based test as well as a nationally norm-referenced test to
certain grade levels. Standardized test scores are then disaggregated by ethnicity, socio-
economic status, English Language Learner (ELL), and special education. Under the
law, not only are schools expected to improve school-wide, but also all statistically sig-
nificant subgroups are expected to make AYP toward the goal of having all students
proficient or higher by 2014. The consequences for meeting the accountability require-
ments of NCLB are stringent, and the penalties are harsh. For example, states are al-
lowed to replace school personnel responsible for the failure to make AYP, extend the
20
school day or year, change the curriculum, or restructure the school and reopen it as a
charter school under private management. Experts have predicted that numerous
schools will fall into the needs-improvement category (Rentner, 2003).
For principals of identified Title I schools that receive supplemental funding
from the federal government, the pressures of meeting AYP requirements are even
stronger. Schools that do not make AYP must undergo a series of improvement strate-
gies and corrective actions that become more severe the longer the failure persists.
School choice and supplemental services requirements are part of the process. Title I
schools that do not make AYP for 2 consecutive years or more must give students the
choice of transferring to another public school or public charter school in the same
district that has not been designated as needing improvement. Title I schools that fail to
make AYP for 3 consecutive years must offer public school choice as well as supple-
mental educational services to their low-income students. The school choice and sup-
plemental services requirements will definitely place more pressures on principals of
schools with large enrollments and greater numbers of minority students in that the
more subgroups in a school, the greater the chance that one or more subgroups will not
make AYP (Rentner, 2003). Principals of diverse urban schools with high percentages
of students in poverty will likely fall into the needs-improvement category, causing
them a great about of stress and pressure to raise student achievement.
The effect that NCLB has had on school principals has been extraordinary. In
the swirling wake of NCLB, a vortex of educational changes now affects the way public
educators at all levels conduct daily business. School principals, in particular, now find
21
themselves in a relentless public spotlight as they are held accountable for student
achievement. While there has been intellectual debate for years about instructional
leadership—driven by scholars such as Kenneth Leithwood, Joseph Murphy, and
Richard Elmore—educational administration programs, for the most part, have not
focused on the importance of instructional leadership (Levine, 2005). For the first time
in 40 years, the idea that principals become instructional leaders is not rhetoric, but the
law (NCLB, 2002; see Title II, Section 2113 [c], subparts 1-13). The law draws a clear
and insistent link between instructional leadership and academic achievement: meeting
AYP requirements. Specifically, the law calls for principals to have “the instructional
leadership skills to help teachers teach and students learn,” and “the instructional lead-
ership skills necessary to help students meet challenging State student academic
achievement standards” (NCLB, 2002, Title II, Section 2113 [c]). Principals now face
a dilemma. First, what exactly is instructional leadership? Second, if they can become
instructional leaders, will that be enough for them to meet new accountability demands?
There is a complicated and ambivalent mindset among school leaders with
regard to NCLB. Although it is clear to principals that the law is here to stay, few think
that it will work in its current state. Although many principals agree with the spirit of
the law, most say adjustments are needed, and many question the political intent behind
it. In 2003, the Wallace Foundation released a report entitled Rolling Up Their Sleeves:
Superintendents and Principals Talk About What’s Needed to Fix Public Schools,
which was based on responses provided by a diverse sample of 925 K-12 principals.
Administrators were sharply divided on NCLB’s purpose. Fewer than half (40%) of the
22
principals surveyed considered the NCLB law an effort to improve public schools, 29%
said the law was motivated solely by politics, and 18% called it a disguised effort to
attack and destroy public education. The biggest issue that principals seem to have with
NCLB is that the federal government does not provide adequate resources to fulfill the
obligations of the law; in fact, 88% of principals called the law an unfunded mandate.
Principals were especially concerned about the special education requirements of
NCLB that severely constrain their budgets. Sixty-five percent of principals responded
that they were obligated to spend far too much on special education, and most felt inun-
dated with paperwork and a growing sense of entitlement among special education
parents. The survey also found that school leaders use and value standardized tests, but
73% of principals reported that NCLB relies too much on testing. Nearly half (48%)
stated that the requirement that test scores of special education students and ELLs show
adequate yearly progress is unreasonable and undoable. Nearly 6 in 10 principals re-
ported that the sanctions and consequences for not meeting NCLB goals are unfair.
Despite the pressures that principals face to raise student achievement under NCLB,
only 33% of those surveyed in the Rolling Up Their Sleeves report indicated that imple-
menting NCLB is the most pressing issue in their district.
In an effort to discern what changes practicing principals believe have occurred
in the secondary principalship and what changes they believe should occur, a national
study examined the contemporary high school principalship (Goodwin, Cunningham, &
Childress, 2003). In this study, principals from every state described the changes in the
principalship, the role of the contemporary principal, and the preferred future direction
23
of the principalship. The study concluded that the principalship has increased in com-
plexity and that there is substantial conflict in the principals’ perceptions of the require-
ments for their position. The results of the study were presented as a series of conflicts
that principals face in their jobs. The conflicts can be described as follows:
1.Role conflict—conflict between the roles of strategic leader, instructional
leader, organizational leader, and political and community leader;
2.Accountability conflict—conflict between being inclusive and being ac-
countable, between meeting the diverse needs of students and meeting high standards;
3.Autonomy conflict—conflict between being responsive to mandates and
being autonomous; and
4.Responsibility conflict—conflict between increased responsibility and the
need for both professional and clerical assistance.
Role Conflict
Principals perceive that many different types of leadership are important to their
work: instructional leadership, organizational leadership, strategic leadership, and
community and political leadership. Principals identified being an instructional leader
as their primary role and expressed that the other types of leadership conflicted with
instructional leadership. Principals projected a future secondary curriculum that will be
standards based, will consider new research, and will meet the needs of a high-technol-
ogy—all criteria that will require principals to have opportunities for continual profes-
sional growth. Despite the principals’ emphasis on instructional leadership, they also
24
identified a dichotomy between effective leadership and effective management.
Principals cited the multiplicity of programs, the need for skills in collaboration and
cooperation, and concerns about paperwork and security as factors in causing them
stress. The study found that the role of secondary principal has changed in many ways,
but the most significant was that principals were no longer just instructional leaders for
their buildings. They were also security specialists, fund raisers, political activists, and
day- care and after-school providers; and they provided for the indoctrination, language
training, and culturalization of new immigrants from other countries. Principals recog-
nized the expectation that they look outward toward the community, but the discussion
involving political and community leadership revealed some suspicion toward the
mandates that required them to do so (Goodwin et al., 2003).
The study of Goodwin et al. (2003) reinforced the conclusions of the Public
Agenda (2001) report that in the perspective of principals, bureaucracy and politics
have become substantial barriers to the work of the school. Despite their suspicions of
the litigious political climate, principals recognized a pressing need to become active in
the community and in the political arena as advocates for public education. Principals
identified a “disconnect” between what they perceived as important and what were the
daily requirements of the job, but they emphasized the importance of establishing the
mission and vision for the school and being leaders for change. Despite the complexity
of the principal’s position and the conflict between roles, the participants in the study
repeatedly and powerfully concurred that the principal is the key to school success.
25
Accountability Conflict
A second theme that emerged from the study by Goodwin et al. (2003) was the
conflict between being inclusive and being accountable, between meeting the diverse
needs of students and meeting high standards. Principals realized the effect that the
ongoing emphasis on standards, assessment, and accountability has had on their work,
but they contrasted that initiative with increased demands in other areas and especially
demands created by more serious student needs arising from “poverty, unemployment,
illiteracy, crime, drug addition, malnutrition, and poor physical health” (Murphy, 1998,
p. 16 ). They emphasized the stress that they and their teachers experience as a result of
striving to meet higher standards and stricter measures of accountability in contrast to
the responsibility for meeting the growing academic, social, emotional, physical, and
moral needs of students. The effect of the multitude of special education requirements
was strongly stated, and many principals commented regarding compliance with special
education requirements using terms such as headache, nightmare, and killing to reflect
frustration with the paperwork, the legal issues, and the time requirements. Principals
noted that the requirements as instructional leader were tied to the standards that the
states, districts, and professional organizations have developed to guide them in im-
proving achievement for all students. This process requires a deep understanding of
what the benchmarks are/should be, the instructional strategies necessary to help stu-
dents achieve, and the ability to work with teachers to retool and rethink their interac-
tions with students and with the curriculum.
26
Autonomy Conflict
In 2001, a report by Public Agenda defined authority and autonomy as key
issues for school leaders, including both principals and superintendents. The principals
in the study by Goodwin et al. (2003) also identified a conflict between being respon-
sive to mandates and being autonomous; they agreed that in an ideal future, the princi-
pal’s autonomy should be commensurate with his or her responsibility. In particular,
principals emphasized the need for increased responsibility and autonomy in resource
management, including hiring teachers. The theme of conflict between mandates and
the need for autonomy recurred in strategic, instructional, organizational, and political
areas of discussion. Principals expressed that a loss of autonomy brought about by leg-
islative and bureaucratic mandates conflicted with a sense of responsibility to build the
relationships that generate and nurture student growth and development—the purpose
of the school. Although the participants in the study believed that the autonomy of the
principalship must be increased, they also saw the need to be more cooperative and
collaborative in working within the school and community. Principals saw the need for
principals not only to have skills in collaboration and cooperation but also to help
teachers and students develop these skills. Despite the need for autonomy, principals
expressed that they would like to see an increase in their responsibility for increasing
community involvement and building cohesiveness between the school and community.
27
Responsibility Conflict
The final theme addressed in the study by Goodwin et al. (2003) described the
complexity of the principalship and the conflict between increased responsibility and
the need for both professional and clerical assistance. Murphy (1994) asserted that “a
nearly universal concern is the expanded work load confronting principals in restructur-
ing schools” (p. 95). Federal legislation, court mandates, funding issues, and equity
issues have had a tremendous impact on the daily operation of schools. When discuss-
ing the increased responsibilities, the participants identified the need for better compen-
sation for principals, but as one principal emphasized, “We need more help. If you are
going to increase responsibility, you need to increase assistance. I cannot do everything
that is required no matter how much money you pay me” (Murphy, 1994, p. 97).
Specifically, when principals discussed a preferred future for the principalship, they
concurred on three components of the principals’ role on an administrative team:
1.There should be an administrative team with the principal providing leader-
ship to the team.
2.There should be an increase in administrative staffing to include persons
with a variety of responsibilities.
3.An administrative team should be used to reduce school size by creating
houses or schools within schools in order to increase personal contact with students.
The implementation of technology in schools is a prime example of the recent
expansion of principals’ responsibilities. Contemporary principals must be able to
navigate technological advances and their many uses relating to education and school
28
administration. The days are over when enhancing educational technology meant de-
termining the number of computers per classroom. Principals must now tackle more
substantive issues such as how to plan for technology that will improve classroom in-
struction and relieve administration functions. Keeping up with technological advances
is a daunting task for principals. Combine this with securing the resources to outfit a
school with hardware and software and a principal can be overwhelmed. While the
tasks of a technology coordinator could and probably should belong to someone else,
data have suggested that principals are assuming this responsibility, too, according to
the 1998 NAESP report (as cited in NAESP, 2006). Technology is, after all, part of the
school curriculum plan required of the principal.
As part of the growing SBA movement, a set of standards has been developed to
guide principals in their jobs. The Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium
(ISLLC), organized by the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO), was
formed for the purpose of developing model standards and assessments for school
leaders. ISLLC’s primary constituency is the state education agencies responsible for
administrator licensing. It includes representatives of state agencies/departments of
education and processional standards boards, with considerable participation by profes-
sional associates. In addition to raising quality within the profession, it is the hope of
the ISLLC that the development of model standards will promote action on two fronts.
First, ISLLC member states believe that the standards will provide useful information
for decision making within each state on a wide array of topics, such as program de-
velopment and review, licensure, and advanced certification. Second, Consortium
29
members expect that creation of common standards will promote collaboration among
the states, either collectively or in smaller groupings, on topics of mutual interest, such
as reciprocity of licensure and candidate assessment. Five of the ISLLC states (Illinois,
Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri, and North Carolina) and the District of Columbia
joined together to fund the development of an innovative performance assessment de-
signed for licensure of school principals. Educational Testing Service (ETS), the de-
velopment contractor, contributed funds as well. Delegates from these states sat on the
ISLLC Development Team and met periodically throughout the assessment develop-
ment process to oversee and discuss the work, which was managed by Educational
Testing Service (CCSSO, 2006).
The six ISLLC Standards for School Leaders are as follows:
1.Facilitating the development, articulation, implementation and stewardship
of a vision of learning that is shared and supported by the school community;
2.Advocating, nurturing, and sustaining a school culture and instructional
program conducive to student learning and staff professional growth;
3.Ensuring management of the organization, operations, and resources for a
safe, efficient, and effective learning environment;
4.Collaborating with families and community members, responding to diverse
community interests and needs, and mobilizing community resources;
5.Acting with integrity, fairness, and in an ethical manner; and
6.Understanding, responding to, and influencing the larger political, social,
economic, legal, and cultural context (CCSSO, 2000).
30
The role that the ISLLC standards play regarding principal accountability is
gradually increasing. While the School Leaders Licensure Assessment (SLLA) was
only used by 8 states in 2000, the number has almost doubled to the current number of
15 member states that utilize the SLLA as a factor in new principal certification
(CCSSO, 2006). The SLLA is a 6-hour exam that consists of 25 constructed-response
questions, ranging from short vignettes requiring a brief response to much longer case-
study exercises (ETS, 2006). In addition to a standards-based exam, many of the
member states are collaborating on a principal evaluation format based on the ISLLC
standards (CCSSO, 2006). Since the SSLA exam’s effect on state administrator li-
censure has not been researched, one can only speculate on the possible effects that the
exam might have relating to the current principal shortage. While it might be a viable
option for students who do not want to attend the traditional university training pro-
gram, the verdict is still out regarding whether or not candidates who pass the SSLA are
as prepared for the job as traditional program participants.
Principal Training/Mentoring
Despite the principal shortage, educational administration programs are graduat-
ing an increasing number of certified school leaders. Unfortunately, the processes and
standards by which many principal preparation programs traditionally screen, select,
and graduate candidates are often ill defined, irregularly applied, and lacking in rigor.
As a result, many aspiring administrators are too easily admitted into and passed
through the system on the basis of their performance on academic coursework rather
31
than on a comprehensive assessment of the knowledge, skills, and dispositions needed
to successfully lead schools (National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education
[NCATE], 2002). Although these aspiring administrators are certified, they may not be
equipped for the shifting role of the principal from manager to effective instructional
leader.
Principal preparation/training programs have a long record of perceived futility
among professional educators. A recent Public Agenda survey found that 69% of prin-
cipals and 80%s of superintendents believed that typical leadership programs were not
in touch with the realities of what it takes to run a modern public school (as cited in
Farkas, Johnson, Duffett, Foleno, & Foley, 2003). Over 85% of both groups believed
that overhauling preparation programs would help improve leadership. University
professors have even joined in on the criticism of preparation programs. Murphy
(2001) has described traditional approaches as being “bankrupt.” Michelle Young,
head of the University Council for Educational Administration, has argued that univer-
sities are often slow to change and faculties are often complacent about standards and
out of touch with the realities of public education (as cited in Norton, 2002). Despite
the claims that principal training programs are inadequate for the realities faced on the
job, there has been very little research completed to support the critics. After a review
of the literature, Wildman (2001) found that while there have been scattered studies that
evaluate different dimensions of leadership programs, research is lacking that would
permit any conclusions about their overall effectiveness. McCarthy (2002) found that
while some studies indicate positive perceptions about redesigned programs, there is no
32
hard evidence that there is a correlation between leadership programs and principal
effectiveness (as measured by teacher perceptions).
Although the literature base relating to principal training is deficient, small-
scale case studies and surveys supplemented by professional judgment exist that have
sparked debate among educational professionals. One hot topic has to do with who
makes the best principal candidates. This debate is manifested by how different states
address the principal certification process. For example, in California, one can become
a principal without any university coursework by passing the SLLA exam, holding a
teaching credential, and having 3 years’ experience in a public school. On the other
hand, in New Jersey, people who hold a master’s degree in business administration,
public administration, or management science qualify for provisional licensure. There
is a faction of professionals who maintain that effective programs should weigh a can-
didate’s leadership potential more heavily than his/her academic record. A final debate
that exists among professionals relates to admittance to university principal training
programs. One side has argued that programs should simplify admittance procedures to
increase the pool of eligible candidates, while others have called for more stringent
selection criteria (Hess, 2003).
The literature that does exist relating to principal training programs emphasizes
two important themes. One theme relating to the effectiveness of principal training
programs has to do with the notion that a one-size-fits-all approach to training does not
work. Leithwood, Seashore-Louis, Anderson, and Wahlstrom (2004) argued that there
are differences in the administrative skill set needed to lead different types of schools
33
and that selection procedures should match candidates’ characteristics and qualifica-
tions with the context in which they will be working, including the type of school as
well as the school/community demographic, cultural context, and economic stability.
For example, the skills required to lead a large, urban, low-income high school are quite
different from the skills required to lead a small, suburban, middle-income elementary
school. In part because of the recognition that the context matters to the types of com-
petencies and situational knowledge required of school leaders, new approaches to
principal training are beginning to surface. A second theme from the literature regard-
ing principal training programs has to do with the essential features of principal training
programs. Research by the National Commission for the Advancement of Educational
Leadership Preparation (NCAELP; as cited in Peterson, 2001; Young, 2002) led to the
publication of a set of recommendations pertaining to principal inservice programs that
call for programs to promote life-long learning activities tailored to meet individual
needs at various stages of a principal’s career. Although the NCAELP recommenda-
tions are supported by research on effective principal practice, there is little empirical
evidence that indicates whether or how the kinds of learning opportunities provided by
program features enable principals to become more effective in their practice. The
NCAELP makes recommendations that relate to principal preparation programs’ con-
tent, methods, and structure.
34
Content of Principal Training Programs
The content of principal preparation programs and professional development
should be based on current research pertaining to instructional leadership, management,
and school leadership in general. Furthermore, the content should be aligned with the
program’s mission, and courses should progress in a way where important disciplinary
theories and concepts build on each other. Furthermore, the theories and concepts
taught in principal training programs should be linked to internship experiences as well
as state licensing standards.
Principal training programs should incorporate knowledge of change manage-
ment, organizational development, instruction, as well as leadership skills. Standards
for leadership programs as well as research on leadership behaviors that relate to stu-
dent improvement support the need to change and/or reprioritize the content of many
preparation and development programs (Jackson & Kelley, 2002; Knapp, Copland, &
Talbert, 2003). These changes include (a) distributing leadership practices, (b) creating
a culture of collegiality and community, (c) developing knowledge that will allow
school leaders to better promote successful teaching and learning, (d) developing strat-
egies regarding collaborative decision making, (e) creating processes for organizational
change and renewal, and (f) developing management competence in the analysis and
use of data and technology to guide school improvement activities (Knapp et al., 2003;
Waters, Marzano, & McNulty, 2003). Regarding the content of programs, the literature
also reveals an expanded interest in ethical leadership practices and social and cultural
practices that relate to schooling. The increasing diversity of American schools
35
necessitates that principals have a greater knowledge base relating to issues of race,
class, gender and equity. Finally, the literature reveals that programs that engage
participants in reflection and critical analysis will allow participating principals to learn
from practice.
Jackson and Kelley (2002) argued that the most reputable principal training
programs are described in terms of their goals, purposes, and vision, and the degree to
which they are internally and externally coherent. Knapp et al. (2003) considered a
well-defined and coherent program as one that links goals, learning activities, and can-
didate assessments around a set of shared values, beliefs, and knowledge about effec-
tive administrative practice. The research indicates that principal training programs that
offer a logical and sequential variety of coursework, learning activities, and program
structures that combine theory and practice are superior and have a better chance of
leading to successful practice. Furthermore, the program should be framed around the
principles of adult learning theory. The learning activities provide scaffolding on which
new self-directed knowledge is constructed and that link past experiences with newly
acquired knowledge, foster self-reflection, are problem rather than subject centered, and
offer multiple venues for applying new knowledge in practical settings (Lave, 1991).
Finally, a synthesis of the research relating to successful principal training programs
indicates that the knowledge base in which the programs are grounded, as well as the
instructional strategies, are closely aligned with professional standards such as those
offered by the ISLLC.
36
Methods of Principal Training Programs
The content of principal training programs should be delivered using a variety of
methods that best meet the needs of adult learners and strive to allow principals or
aspiring principals to apply the concepts and strategies learned in the program curricu-
lum to authentic settings and real-world problems and dilemmas. The research shows
that there is a need to create both real and simulated leadership experiences for partici-
pants in preparation programs who would otherwise lack the experiential base. A syn-
thesis of the research regarding methodology pertaining to principal training programs
mentions four popular methods: problem-based learning, mentorships, field-based
internships, and cohort groups.
It is generally agreed upon by educators that effective preservice programs
feature instructional activities that concentrate on problems of practice and stimulate
effective problem solving and reflection. According to Hallinger and McCrary (1992),
principals must not only have a repertoire of behaviors, but they must also know how
and when to use them and carefully monitor them as they relate to student learning.
Consequently, over the past decade, the use of problem-based learning (PBL) has
become exceptionally popular in principal preparation programs (Bridges & Hallinger,
1993). PBL activities are designed to simulate the complex real-world problems that
principals face, promote the integration of textbook and practical knowledge, improve
problem-solving skills, and provide experiences for principals that help develop a posi-
tive self-concept. Through their participation in relevant and challenging simulations,
participants in PBL programs experiment with variegated leadership roles, develop new
37
attitudes and skills, and practice self-reflection to improve practice. Finally, PBL
methodology provides opportunities for program participants to test new leadership
skills and receive feedback through authentic assessments and demonstrations.
A second popular method of providing training to administrative candidates as
well as experienced principals is the use of cohort groups. Supporters of cohort group-
ing argue that adult learning is best accomplished when it is part of a socially cohesive
activity structure that focuses on opportunities for collaboration, teamwork in practice-
oriented and shared authority for learning (Barnett, Basom, Yerkes, & Norris, 2000).
The positive effects of cohort-structured learning events include enhanced feelings of
group affiliation and acceptance, motivation, social and emotional support, persistence,
group learning, and mutual assistance. Cohorts model the type of team building that is
increasingly encouraged among school faculty through professional learning communi-
ties (Browne-Ferrigno & Muth, 2001). Leithwood Jantzi, Coffin, and Wilson (1996)
presented evidence that the use of cohort groups in training school administrators
promotes academic learning and facilitates program completion among administrative
credential candidates. Faculties who are led by administrators who went through cohort
programs consistently give higher approval ratings to their principals’ leadership prac-
tices, most likely because similar collaborative structures had been used in their respec-
tive training programs (Leithwood et al., 1996).
There is research that indicates most adults learn best when they are exposed to
real-life situations requiring the application of acquired skills, knowledge, and problem-
solving strategies combined with critical self-reflection. Studies of cross- disciplinary
38
experiential learning indicate that real-world application of textbook concepts, knowl-
edge, and skills can increase a leader’s ability to contemplate, analyze, and systemati-
cally plan strategies for action (Kolb & Boyatzis, 1999). Professional internships in
engineering, medicine, and most recently educational administration align with this
premise (Baugh, 2003). Murphy (1992) indicated that more than 90% of all administra-
tive credential programs require some type of internship experience. An “ideal” school
internship model would provide candidates with an intense, extended opportunity to
experience the daily demands of the principalship under the careful supervision of an
expert mentor who links critical reflection to the intern’s theoretically based course-
work (Daresh, 2001).
Although mentoring has existed for thousands of years, it is only in the last 30
years that mentor/protégé relationships have received increasing academic and profes-
sional interest. Typically, mentors are experienced administrators within the school in
which the candidate works, although other models are possible. In a well-structured
mentoring program, the mentor and inexperienced school administrator make a mutual
commitment to work collaboratively toward the accomplishment of an individualized
professional development plan (Daresh, 2001). Mentoring relationships should strive
to reduce the distance between a learner’s independent problem-solving performance
and his/her potential development level achieved through problem solving with guid-
ance from an expert. The primary goal of the mentor is to counsel the learner as he/she
searches for strategies to solve problems, to boost self-confidence, and to construct a
broad repertoire of leadership skills. Competent mentors do this through (a) modeling,
39
(b) coaching, (c) gradually removing support as the mentee’s competence increases, (d)
questioning and probing to promote self-reflection and problem-solving skills, and (e)
providing feedback and counsel (Lave, 1991).
School districts must be wary when constructing mentoring programs to assist
new principals. Increasing evidence suggests that matching an intern to the appropriate
school and to the right mentor are critical components of the intern’s education. Dis-
tricts must therefore be ready to work closely with those programs to ensure that their
schools benefit from an appropriate match (Cordeiro & Smithsban, 1995). For exam-
ple, Albuquerque Public Schools’ Extra Support for Principals (ESP) program was
created in 1994 as a support system for new principals. The resulting program features
a coordinator who examines beginning principals’ backgrounds, asks them to supply a
list of experienced principals with whom they would like to work and then matches
them with veteran leaders. Results indicate that new principals, as well as their men-
tors, benefit significantly from ESP (Weingartner, 2001).
Taking Albuquerque’s lead in creating mentoring programs from within, offi-
cials in Santa Cruz County, California, designed a program entitled “Growing Our
Own” that focused on redefining the role of assistant principal. Dissatisfied over the
traditional role played by the assistant principals, who were usually assigned a narrow
range of responsibilities, Santa Cruz educators decided to reinvent the principal/
assistant principal relationship by establishing a mentor/apprentice agreement that
committed the parties to shared outcomes. This program emphasizes teamwork while
40
pursuing the stated goal of producing future school leaders who have the skills, atti-
tudes, behaviors, and courage to lead public schools (Bloom & Krovetz, 2001).
Structure of Principal Training Programs
Regardless of the curriculum content and methods used, programs reflect a
variety of structures, collaborations, and institutional arrangements. Research indicates
that enhanced collaboration between university programs and school districts can have
a positive effect on the training and staff development of principals. Traditional princi-
pal training programs often fail to seek out or establish interdisciplinary links within the
university or to fully utilize potential outside resources in schools and other organiza-
tions. Likewise, most school district-based professional development efforts have
failed to incorporate the intellectual resources available in local universities. The need
for stronger clinical training has led to universities and school districts forming bonds
of collaboration, where they are equal partners in the design, implementation, and
assessment of principal preparation programs. Advocates of the collaborative univer-
sity/ school district design argue that close collaboration enhances program consistency
and helps to develop a sense of shared purpose and a “common vocabulary” between
districts and local colleges of education. In these collaborative-type programs, practic-
ing administrators are used to mentor interns, assist professors regarding the assess-
ments of candidates participating in fieldwork, participate in the university screening
process of applicants, serve as members of the university’s program advisory commit-
tee, and sometimes teach courses (Norton, O’Neill, Fry, & Hill, 2002). Collaboration
41
between universities and districts regarding inservice principal staff development is also
on the rise. University professors are more frequently working with school district of-
ficials in the development of inservice programs and are reaching out to school districts
by teaching customized university courses at school district locations. Such collabora-
tive efforts are thought to support and sustain both university-based programs and
district initiatives.
Most preparation programs fall under one of four general types and should be
assessed relative to other programs within the same category: university-based pro-
grams, district-initiated programs, programs run by third parties, and programs run
through partnerships with stakeholders. In contrast, principal inservice training is pro-
vided through many disparate sources, including school districts, universities, profes-
sional associations, county and state departments of education, regional laboratories,
comprehensive school reform programs, and independent consultants. The diversity
among these inservice programs makes it very difficult to evaluate and compare pro-
gram effectiveness given variations in clientele, training design, underlying learning
theories, and specific learning objectives.
University-Based Programs
The first type includes programs established by higher education institutions.
University programs typically offer courses for prospective administrators that are top-
ical in nature, such as school finance, school law, personnel management, and so forth,
rather than interdisciplinary themes that are tied to individual states’ administrative
42
credentialing requirements. A diverse group of individuals enroll in principal prepara-
tion programs, but most enrollees are teachers who are contemplating a career in educa-
tional administration. While many of these teachers are serious about a career as an
educational leader, others enroll in administrative credentialing programs to obtain
credits for salary scale advancement. Most university programs have minimal admis-
sion standards, are open to anyone who wants to enroll, are not targeted to meet the
needs of specific populations, and are not sensitive to the variations in school/com-
munity settings.
Despite the fact that most university programs lack innovation and an interdisci-
plinary theme, there are many programs that are trying incorporate strategies found to
be successful such as clinical internships with strong mentoring relationships, collabo-
rations with school districts for high quality placements, and cohort groups engaged in
studying a tighter, more coherent and more relevant curriculum. For example, the Uni-
versity of Connecticut’s Administrative Preparation Program (UCAPP) is a 2-year
program designed for working professionals who aspire to positions in school leader-
ship. A vital part of the UCAPP is the internship, an experiential component of the
program, which prepares students for leadership roles. Prior to the beginning of an
internship, great care is taken to match each student intern with an appropriate mentor
administrator. Following a meeting concerning each intern’s professional goals, work
schedule, and UCAPP objectives, a 2-year internship is developed. The internship
consists of 90 hours per semester of onsite/offsite administrator activities that are de-
signed to develop proficiency as outlined by NCATE standards. UCAPP students
43
remain and work together in group cohorts for 2 years, allowing them the opportunity to
build relationships with one another as aspiring administrators, to collaborate together
on projects, and to plan time together academically and socially. Courses, seminars,
and modules in UCAPP are grounded in adult learning theory with an emphasis on ex-
periential learning. Priority is placed on the relevance of coursework to the internship
and the actual world of the educational administrator. PBL modules are integrated
throughout the 2-year program. Students are also guided through the process of inter-
viewing for positions in school leadership, which includes the preparation of an elec-
tronic professional portfolio that demonstrates administrative competency, as outlined
by NCATE standards (University of Connecticut, 2006).
A second example of an innovative and progressive university principal prepa-
ration program is the University of San Diego’s Educational Leadership Development
Academy (ELDA). ELDA is a collaboration of the University of San Diego and local
school districts designed to produce and build a pool of high quality principals and in-
structional leaders who can successfully lead the improvement of instruction in their
schools. In the ELDA program, aspiring and existing administrators acquire the skills
and competencies they need to be highly successful in leading continuous instructional
improvement. The customized leadership credentialing programs and tailored profes-
sional development include a continuum of university coursework, experiential learn-
ing, and reflective practice. Before entering the program, prospective applicants must
complete the Leaders Exploring Administration Possibilities (LEAP) program, which
engages participants in initial leadership development prior to entering an
44
administrative credential program. This program provides candidates opportunities for
candidates to learn more about their leadership capacity in a 3-day summer institute and
continued work from September through March in monthly seminars. Secondly, in
order to receive a Tier I Administrative Services Credential (which, when complete,
would enable participants to obtain their first administrative position), students must
complete the Aspiring Leaders Program. The Aspiring Leaders Program is a 2-year
program that combines university coursework, district mentoring and professional de-
velopment, and apprenticeship to an exemplary principal. Finally, the University of
San Diego offers the New Leaders Program for students who wish to obtain their Tier II
Professional Administrative Services Credential. This program provides new adminis-
trators the professional mentoring and additional skill development necessary to support
them in their positions and strengthen their role as instructional leaders (University of
San Diego, 2006).
School Districts
Some programs are developed and operated by school districts, sometimes in
collaboration with third-party professional development organizations. Due to liberal-
ized policy developments and certification requirements in some states, the emergence
of district-owned and operated programs has become an increasingly attractive way of
feeding the administrative pipeline with qualified candidates who are well versed in the
cultures, structures, and needs of the sponsoring district. For example, the Los Angeles
Unified School District’s ( LAUSD) Administrative Academy was created in 1999 to
45
provide support and training for administrators throughout the district. Using research-
base resources, aspiring, new, and experienced administrators gain additional informa-
tion, ideas, strategies, and skills to assist them with both the management and instruc-
tional elements of the job of school administrator to improve student achievement and
close the present achievement gap (LAUSD, 2006).
The New Principal Academy was developed to provide essential training for
administrators assigned to their first position as school principals. The Academy has
recruited retired principals to serve as coaches for this program. They facilitate job-
alike groups at the training for principals and are also available to visit schools when
needed. LAUSD’s New Administrator Program (NAP) is a second mandatory induc-
tion program that all new administrators complete. Participants attend 3 days of train-
ing and, upon completion of the induction component, matriculate into the bimonthly
NAP training. The program has been designed to provide meaningful and practical
training on the topics that have been identified through a variety of needs assessment
activities and focus groups discussions. Instructional strategies focus on current learn-
ing theory and address a variety of learning modalities. The modules are taught by
administrators working in teams to develop the curriculum and deliver the instruction
(LAUSD, 2006).
In 1999 the Commission on Teacher Credentialing (CCTC) authorized LAUSD
to offer nonuniversity credits toward the Professional Administrative Services Creden-
tial. LAUSD is the only district in the state of California with a curriculum that has
been accredited by this state licensing agency. While many large urban school districts
46
such as LAUSD provide inservice professional development, only a few offer preserv-
ice preparation programs or wrap-around programs that help teachers prepare for the
principalship and then support their practice once they become school leaders (LAUSD,
2006).
Third-Party Organizations
A relatively new program type consists of programs operated by third-party
organizations, including nonprofits, for profits, and states. These types of programs
typically serve multiple districts and focus on a particular theory or leadership that they
aim to develop.
Nonprofits
An example of third-party nonprofit is the Big Picture Company, which operates
the Principal Residency Network, works in partnership with several Rhode Island
school districts, Johnson and Wales University, Providence College, and Rhode Island
College to prepare a select group of principals who champion educational change
through the leadership of small, innovative schools focused on students’ personal
growth. Candidates receive a Rhode Island principal certificate upon completion of a
12-month internship. The program features an individualized learning program for
each candidate and a personal mentor/coach (The Education Partnership, n.d.).
A second example of this genre is the New Leaders for New Schools (NLNS;
2006) program, which recruits educators and noneducators to become principals in
urban schools. The NLNS program consists of coursework and a year-long internship
47
with an experienced principal, as well as ongoing networking with peers after gradu-
ation. The NLNS program works in collaboration with universities located in or around
urban areas to fulfill state certification requirements. There is a belief that these third-
party types of programs may underscore traditionally structured higher education pro-
grams. However, most programs in this category are so new and have so few graduates
that there is a limited basis from which to judge their effectiveness.
Statewide Leadership Academies
In addition to nonprofit organizations, states are also providing school adminis-
trators with professional development options. Many states have developed leadership
academies to sustain ongoing development of principals. These academies often
provide a diverse selection of activities for leaders, or leadership teams, at different
stages of their careers and facing different challenges. Their strategies include work-
shops and institutes that occur throughout the academic year and can be organized as
part of a long-range professional development plan, as well as principal networks and,
in some cases, coaching or internship models.
An example of a state-sponsored program would be the AB75 program in Cali-
fornia. AB75 is a 3-year mandated professional development program funded by the
California Department of Education and the Gates Foundation that is designed to
support instructional leadership (as cited in LAUSD, 2006). Each participant in the
AB75 program completes 80 hours of institute training, followed by 80 hours of prac-
ticum activities to be completed at the school site. Administrative teams are assigned to
48
a part-time retired administrative coach to serve as a support provider to the extended
learning opportunities and leadership team development. The AB75 curriculum
includes core academic standards and school fiscal and personnel management, using
pupil and assessment instruments and technology to improve student achievement
through the use of case study and data specific to each administrator’s school. The goal
is that all K-12 school-based administrators will cycle through the AB75 program to
meet the state requirements.
Academies often partner with local universities and districts to meet particular
needs. Examples include the Missouri Leadership Program, Georgia’s Leadership In-
stitute for School Improvement (GLISI), and North Carolina’s Principal Fellows Pro-
gram (21 Century Schools, 2006). In Georgia, GLISI provides a multitude of profes-
st
sional development programs, including an introductory course for teachers who aspire
to become principals. The professional development opportunities culminate in ongo-
ing, structured networking for principals who have participated in the GLISI programs
(GLISI, 2006).
Partnership Programs
A fourth and growing category of principal training programs are partnership
programs, with the partnership usually consisting of a university and a local school
district. These partnerships typically occur in areas where the district and university
partners have developed a common vision of education and school leadership and
where the principal preparation offered by the university is closely consistent with the
49
instructional initiatives of the district and features internships in the district’s schools.
These problems are highly contextualized. Faculty may include district officials as well
as university staff. Participants in this type of program are often selected by the school
district, who pays for the participant’s tuition and looks at it as an investment to stock-
pile future school administrators. Sometimes the district and university come together
to offer a continuum of professional experiences, from preparation to ongoing develop-
ment. In these types of programs, the university often maintains authority over princi-
pal preparation while the district tends to take a stronger role in ongoing professional
development, although these distinctions in some cases are blurred. Examples of these
types of programs can be found throughout the United States; model partnerships can
be found in San Diego (University of San Diego/San Diego Unified School District)
and New York (Bank Street College/Region 1 New York City School District).
Local professional developments have been established in some communities as
public/private partnerships to ensure ongoing, district-relevant professional develop-
ment for school administrators. These types of partnerships are unique and are often
more stable than publicly funded programs due to the fact that they are privately funded
and are not at the mercy of states’ dynamic education budgets. There are two “models”
of successful public/private partnerships that are most frequently mentioned in the lit-
erature. For example, the Mayerson Academy (2006) is a joint venture between Cin-
cinnati Public Schools and local businesses. The program offers an ongoing principal’s
network for new and experienced principals and assistant principals who meet monthly
for staff development and dialogue.
50
A second example of a public/private partnership relating to principal training
has been established in Kentucky. The Gheens Professional Development Academy, a
partnership with Jefferson County Public Schools, is funded by the Gheens Foundation
(2006). The academy was created in 1983 and originally focused on teacher develop-
ment; however, it currently offers many programs, including a job-embedded training
program for school principals. The program features cohort groupings, a summer insti-
tute, job-embedded training programs and staff development days for principals
throughout the school year. Furthermore, the academy supports new administrators
through New Principal Induction and New Assistant Principal Induction programs.
With the plethora of training and inservice programs available to school admin-
istrators, one would think that new principals would be well prepared for the job;
however, there has been very little empirical research completed to evaluate the effec-
tiveness of the existing programs. This is perhaps due to the “newness” of the many
innovative programs that can be found across the United States. Regardless of how
well prepared new principals are entering the profession, every new principal experi-
ences a transition period (first 90 days) to his/her job. There is growing interest among
educators as to how the transition period relates to principal effectiveness. While
voluminous research exists pertaining to the transition period of new business execu-
tives, little exists as it relates to new principals. However, the literature from the bus-
iness world can be viewed from the lens of a principal to gain tremendous insight about
the importance of the transition period.
51
Induction and Transition
If experienced principals find their jobs to be exhausting and stressful—and
most surveys indicate that they do—then what is it like for newcomers? Not surpris-
ingly, words such as “shell-shocked,” “lost,” and “overwhelmed” pervade the literature
on 1 -year principals. Traditionally, rookie principals have been left to sink or swim.
st
Having completed a university training program, it is assumed that they are prepared
and get little direction beyond encouragement or an occasional practical tip. However,
the attitude that principals are prepared for the job is changing as schools realize that a
scarcity of high-quality principals means that promising leaders should not only be
energetically recruited but carefully nurtured once they are on board.
New administrators experience intense and constant stress as they try to adapt
the theories and methodologies they learned at the university to the realities of running
a school. They have to master technical skills, learn to deal with a variety of stakehold-
ers, and tackle with self-doubts about personal adequacy—all in a fast-paced environ-
ment that leaves little time for reflection and thoughtfulness (Parkay & Rhodes, 1992).
Furthermore, new principals are frequently haunted by the fear that a moment of inat-
tention will turn into a crisis (Hartzell, Williams, & Nelson, 1995).
Stress for new principals during the transition period is primarily caused by the
overwhelming tasks that must be completed; however, the need for quick assimilation
into a new culture can pose challenges for new principals as well. Every school is a
unique organization with a unique culture; it has its own history, environment, and cast
of characters. New principals have to learn not only how things are done but also how
52
things are done at the new school site (Crow & Mathews, 1998). According to Aiken
(2002), new principals must go from stranger to insider, discerning the unwritten rules
and identifying the real movers and shakers. Finally, many new principals report a
strong sense of isolation at their new school site. Unlike new teachers, who can usually
find an experienced and sympathetic colleague nearby, principals literally have no peers
in the building. The isolation can be magnified when they receive little feedback from
supervisors.
Formal principal induction programs are too new to have generated a significant
body of empirical research, but there is a growing literature base that articulates a ra-
tionale for such programs, describes the efforts of districts to nurture new leaders, and
provides early testimony that induction efforts are well received. Sociologists have
pointed out that the 1 year is a crucial period in administrators’ socialization, the
st
process by which they internalize the skills, values, and dispositions of the profession
(Aiken, 2002; Crow & Mathews, 1998; Normore, 2003). While new principals will
enter the job with both informal and formal preparation, they still face the critical task
of “organizational socialization,” in which information learned in university classrooms
must be adapted to the realities of running a school. In adapting to the school, new
principals often experience role conflict between the immediate demands of the job and
the district’s reform agenda. For example, early career principals interviewed by Aiken
described a tension between the “custodial” and “innovative” dimensions of the job;
they felt they had to effectively run the school as it was before taking it in a new
53
direction. A well-designed induction program can help novice principals articulate
such dilemmas and find a way of achieving balance.
Despite the shortage of research relating to new principals’ transition periods,
there is research from the business world that expresses the importance of the transition
period, or first 90 days, for new leaders. Much of the education research that exists re-
garding new principals’ transition periods fits nicely with the research that exists on
transitions from the business world.
According to Watkins (2003), the actions that leaders take during the first 90
days of a new job will largely determine whether they succeed or fail. He described
transitions as periods of opportunity, a chance to start afresh and to make needed
chances in an organization. However, he expressed that transition periods are times of
acute vulnerability because new leaders lack established working relationships and a
detailed understanding of their new roles. Watkins claimed that if leaders fail to build
momentum during the transition period, they will face an uphill battle from that point
forward.
Watkins’s (2003) research provides a blueprint for dramatically condensing the
time it will take leaders to get on top of the job. He claimed that if leaders succeed in
this, it will free up time to concentrate on fixing problems and exploiting opportunities
in their new organizations. Furthermore, he argued that a new leader’s goal should be
to arrive as rapidly as possible at the “breakeven point,” where he/she is a net contribu-
tor of value to the new organization. Watkins’s research pointed out that the average
“breakeven” point of a mid-level manager in an organization was 6.2 months. He
54
concluded that the purpose of transition acceleration is to help new leaders reach the
breakeven point earlier. Watkins’s book provides a road map to help new leaders create
a 90-day acceleration plan. The conceptual backbone of the road map is 10 key transi-
tion challenges and he encourages new leaders to (a) promote themselves, (2) accelerate
their learning, (c) match strategy to situation, (d) secure early wins, (e) negotiate suc-
cess, (f) achieve alignment, (g) build their team, (h) create coalitions, (I) keep their
balance, and (j) expedite everyone.
Kotter (1998), a colleague of Watkins at Harvard Business School, also men-
tioned the importance of creating coalitions in the process of transforming an organiza-
tion. Kotter’s research was similar to that of Watkins (2003) in the sense that their
leadership strategies were designed for the “business world” but could be applied to the
transition period of a new principal. Many of their principles, such as creating early
wins, overlap and can help new principals form a strategy for attacking the transition
period and making it successful. Like Watkins, Kotter argued that successful leaders
must win the support of key stakeholders throughout the organization. Because leaders
are likely to meet resistance from unexpected quarters, building a strong guiding coali-
tion is essential. Kotter offered three keys to creating such alliances: engaging the right
talent, growing the coalition strategically, and working as a team—not just as a collec-
tion of individuals. In addition to his advice on building coalitions, Kotter also offered
leaders advice for transforming their organizations in eight steps. The steps were as
follows: (a) establish a sense or urgency; (b) form a powerful guiding coalition; (c)
create a vision; (d) communicate a vision; (e) empower others to act on the vision; (f)
55
plan for and create short-term wins, (g) consolidate improvements and produce still
more change; and (h) institutionalize new approaches.
Aiken’s (2002) research relating to the induction period was more education
specific and addressed the needs of new principals during the transition period. Her
ideas were similar to those of Kotter (1998) and Watkins (2003); and her principles
paralleled the research relating to business in many ways, especially in regard to the
importance of creating a vision, the need to form alliances and networks, and the need
to make connections with the larger community. She similarly viewed a new princi-
pal’s transition period in theoretical terms as a form of socialization. In socialization,
individuals move from outsider to insider while learning how things are done at that
particular site. While every principal enters with hopes of shaping the school in partic-
ular ways, schools are not easily molded and the leader must reconcile a vision to
certain institutional realities. The outcome of that process can have a long-term effect
on the principal’s sense of what is possible. Aiken interviewed a dozen principals who
had successfully navigated the induction process and who were now regarded as espe-
cially effective. Reflecting on their own induction experiences, these principals identi-
fied five key needs that characterize the induction period. Aiken noted that the follow-
ing themes emphasize the cultural component of socialization—the development of
social “maps” that lead to an influential and productive role in the life of the school: (a)
the need to find one’s voice and vision, (b) the need to form alliances and networks, (c)
the need to develop a leadership persona, (d) the need to find a balance between custo-
dianship and innovation, and (e) the need to make connections with the larger
56
community. Watkins’s concept of promoting oneself fit nicely with Aiken’s concepts
of the need to find one’s voice in vision and developing a leadership persona. Sec-
ondly, Watkins’s stress on the importance of team building and creating coalitions fit
nicely with Aiken’s concept of needing to make connections with the larger commu-
nity. Finally, Watkins argued that it is important for new leaders to match strategies
and situations, which followed Aiken’s insistence that new leaders must find a balance
between custodianship and innovation. Aiken concluded that formal mentoring pro-
grams are most valuable when they demystify the principal’s role and offer structured
opportunities for collaborative and reflective learning.
In today’s accountability-obsessed educational environment fueled by the
NCLB law, improving student achievement is the overriding theme in virtually every
school district. While definitions of education leadership vary, there is a strong consen-
sus that no school will advance far without a principal who can implement a coordi-
nated instructional improvement effort. The challenge is especially formidable for new
principals, who are expected to lead change even before they fully understand the status
quo. Knapp et al. (2003) created a guide to assist new principals in building the instruc-
tional leadership skills required to lead successfully during the induction period. The
authors’ in-depth review of school leadership concluded that the principal has the ulti-
mate responsibility for five elements of instructional leadership: (a) establishing a
focus on learning, (b) building professional learning communities, (c) engaging the
external environment to support learning, (d) acting strategically and sharing leader-
ship, and (e) creating coherence. The principles of Knapp et al. can be applied to the
57
research of Aiken (2002), Kotter (1998), and Watkins (2003) to assist new leaders.
Both Aiken and Kotter argued the importance of creating a vision and that by applying
principles of Knapp et al., the new principal could incorporate a focus on learning into
the vision. Furthermore, the argument of Knapp et al. on the significance of profes-
sional learning communities can be justified by Kotter’s point that it is important for
leaders to empower others to act, Watkins’s claim that building a team and creating
coalitions is important, and Aiken’s stress on the importance of creating networks.
Finally, the advice of Knapp et al. that principals engage the external environment fits
nicely with Aiken’s insistence that principals connect with the larger community and
create alliances/networks. Knapp et al. concluded that principals do not necessarily
have to exercise hands-on control in all these tasks, but they do have the responsibility
for seeing that the tasks are accomplished. While the resource book of Knapp et al.
would be helpful to principals even as a stand-alone document, the authors emphasized
its value in induction programs where the ideas could be analyzed, critiqued, and
extended.
Principal induction/transition has become almost synonymous with mentoring.
Most newcomers will benefit from having an empathetic, experienced colleague who
can provide coaching in technical skills, guide them through political crises, and pro-
vide a perspective that encourages reflection. Despite the potential success of men-
toring programs, there are also pitfalls. Mentors may become too controlling or over-
protective, may try to shape the new principal into a clone of themselves, or may pres-
ent only a narrow perspective on the newcomer’s situation (Crow & Mathews, 1998).
58
Nevertheless, mentoring programs are generally welcomed by beginners (A. Howley,
Chadwick, & C. Howley, 2002; Ricciardi, 2000). Dukess (2001), after interviews with
mentors, new principals, and supervisors of mentoring programs in six New York City
community districts, concluded that good mentors rendered three forms of assistance to
new principals:
1.They provided instructional support by keeping newcomers’ attention
focused on learning issues and offering models of success in practice;
2.They provided administrative and managerial support not just by giving
practical tips but by helping the new principals set priorities; and
3.They provided emotional support by listening carefully and being present at
particularly stressful moments.
An important point that Dukess made based on her research was that good results do
not automatically come just by putting a new principal and mentor together. Key steps
included careful matching of mentors and new principals; clear expectations and guide-
lines for participants; adequate time for the mentor; and selection of mentors who have
a record of success and who are reflective, compassionate, good listeners, good commu-
nicators, and able to speak the hard truth.
A practical guide that school district personnel directors would find useful in
their creation of mentoring programs for new principals is a work entitled The Portable
Mentor: A Resource Guide for Entry-Year Principals and Mentors (Lindley, 2003).
While it is not a book about mentoring, it fills the need as a tool that can bridge the gap
between theory and practice. This is an especially strong need for induction programs
59
that are heavy on well-intended rhetoric but leave participants to work out the details.
Lindley’s guide begins with a detailed summary of the ISLLC standards; the following
chapters provide a monthly to-do list in which each necessary task is connected to a
standard. For example, before the beginning of the school year, principals should
familiarize themselves with the school’s academic performance record, a task related to
ISLLC Standard 2. The guide helps new principals connect the abstract standards
learned in preparation programs to the multitude of mundane tasks that fill the princi-
pal’s day. While the book can be used in the absence of a mentor, its greatest potential
value is that it provides an avenue for a structured dialogue between new principals and
their experienced colleagues. For that reason, Lindley devoted a section to advice for
mentors that emphasized three points:
1.Make one’s expectations clear—decide how long the relationship will last
and whether or not an agenda will be followed.
2.Build the relationship first—mentors should take the initiative to build
comfort and trust.
3.Recognize the continuum of professional development; the novice will
gradually be ready to refine existing skills and develop new ones.
The book includes a number of hypothetical leadership scenarios that can be used as the
basis of discussion.
School districts are increasingly taking to a “grow-your-own” approach in pro-
viding newcomers with a smooth transition tailored to the context of the district.
Although almost any assistance would be of assistance to new principals, early
60
experience with induction programs suggests some basic principles that can guide
district efforts. First, although new principals often worry the most about technical
skills, induction programs should help candidates stay focused on the big picture.
Aiken (2002) recommended that induction should support principals through paradox,
help to demystify leadership practice, and provide opportunities for collaborative and
reflective learning. At the same time, induction programs must satisfy the immediate
needs of the new principals. Howley et al. (2002) found that new principals in a leader-
ship academy expressed a strong preference for focusing on practical, hands-on survival
strategies; they were much less interested in reflective portfolio activities centered
around the ISLLC standards. Striking the right balance of activities is a key challenge
for successful principal induction programs.
In just 7 years, the ISLLC standards have tremendously influenced initial train-
ing programs for principals. Many states have aligned certification programs with the
standards or have required new principals to pass the School Leadership Assessment
based on the standards. Since many new principals are familiar with ISLLC, and many
have already developed portfolios aligned with the standards, it makes sense to use
ISLLC as the foundation for induction programs. The standards themselves, however,
are considered by many to be a broad statement of best practices, not a developmental
program. However, there are guides available for school districts that will assist them
in using the ISLLC in principal induction programs.
One well-known principal guide based on the ISLLC standards is West Ed’s
2003 release entitled Moving Leadership Standards into Everyday Work: Descriptions
61
of Practice. WestEd’s guide addresses two problems often encountered in putting the
standards to work. First, it provides concrete descriptions of leadership actions that
exemplify each standard, making it easier for both new principals and their mentors to
visualize the target behavior. Secondly, the guide recognizes that achieving a standard
is more a series of attempts that progressively move closer to the desired level of prac-
tice. At one end of the continuum, principals exhibit practice that is directed toward the
standards, showing a basic knowledge of the expectations but not practicing deep
understanding or consistent behavior. At the other end of the scale, leaders demonstrate
practice that exemplifies the standard, consciously synthesizing the standard into their
practice and using it strategically. The middle of the spectrum is where administrators
on improvement plans would fall; principals may consequently approach the standard
or meet the standard. West Ed’s guide subdivides the six core ISLLC standards into
more specific, practical statements, each of which is accompanied by descriptions of
characteristic behaviors at the four levels of development. The descriptions are not
explicit, because each leader operates in a different context, and the authors note that
terms like appropriate or effective are subjective matters for local discussion. Further-
more, the descriptions are not prescriptions that could be used for evaluation. However,
they do provide a very practical tool that can guide the induction process.
If the transition period of the new principal presents a steep learning curve, what
should new principals be learning? Some experts believe that new principals should be
concentrating on purely practical needs, while others advocate a “best-practices” strat-
egy based on ISLLC standards. Research by Portin and Schneider (2003), in which they
62
interviewed 21 public and private school principals, indicated that there was a third
approach to creating successful principal induction programs. In their 2003 paper,
Making Sense of Leading Schools: A Study of the School Principalship, the authors
asserted that the core skill needed for a successful principalship is the ability to diag-
nose and act on a school’s needs. Only the principal, they found, is in a position to do
this. While the interviews also stressed the importance of seven domains of leadership
(instructional, cultural, managerial, human resources, strategic, external development,
and micropolitical), they did not suggest that principals must exercise direct leadership
in each area. The researchers found that some new principals operated independently,
some operated by laying down a theme and delegating to a few key players, while
others were masters of delegation and coordination. Asked about the responsibilities of
their new jobs, new principals tended to be dismissive of their university programs,
recalling little that was helpful. They referred to experience as the best teacher. More
recent graduates, however, tended to be better satisfied with their training, suggesting
that either programs are improving or that they are more relevant to the needs of new
principals. While the report did not articulate an explicit agenda for the induction
period, its findings did suggest the importance of addressing the principal’s broad
leadership strategy. New principals are often driven by a perceived need to do every-
thing, which the study found can be counterproductive. The researchers argued that
induction programs should ask principals to reflect on their school’s needs, culture, and
human resources; consider their own strengths and weaknesses; and then begin to
cultivate leadership wherever they see the need and opportunity. Distributing
63
leadership is a task that challenges even highly experienced leaders, but it also holds an
important place in the induction agenda.
According to Watkins (2003), it is critical for the new leader to methodically
diagnose the status of his/her organization in order to avoid potential problems and to
facilitate change. Watkins emphasized the importance for new leaders to match appro-
priate strategies to the situations they inherit. He defined the four types of situations
with which new leaders must contend are start-up, turnaround, realignment, and sus-
taining success. In start-up schools, leaders are charged with assembling the capabili-
ties (people, funding, and technology) to get a new school off the ground. In turnaround
schools, which are the focus of this dissertation, leaders are charged with taking on a
unit or group that is recognized to be in trouble and working to get it back on track.
Start-up and turnaround schools are similar in the sense that they involve much
resource-intensive construction work; there isn’t much existing infrastructure and
capacity for the new principal to build on. These environments can be beneficial for
new leaders due to the fact that they get to start fresh, but both situations require the
new leader to make tough calls early.
Compared to start-up and turnaround schools, in realignment and sustaining-
success schools, new principals enter organizations that have significant strengths but
also serious limits as to what can and cannot be done. In realignment, the new princi-
pal’s challenge is to revitalize a school that is drifting into trouble. In a sustaining-
success school, new principals have the responsibility of preserving the strengths of the
school and taking it to the next level. In both situations, new principals typically have
64
some time before major decisions have to be made, which allows them to learn about
the school’s culture and begin building coalitions.
According to Watkins (2003), there are potential challenges to the new leader
relating to turnaround schools that include (a) reenergizing demoralized employees and
other stakeholders, (b) handling time pressure and having a quick and decisive impact,
and (c) going deep enough with painful cuts and difficult personnel choices. However,
he also presented some special opportunities for turnaround leaders, such as the follow-
ing:
1.Everyone recognizes that change is necessary;
2.Affected constituencies may offer significant external support; and
3.A little success goes a long way.
The induction/transition period (first 90 days) of a new principal has been de-
scribed as an intense and stressful time by most principals. While the literature base
indicates a rationale for principal induction programs, they are too new to have gener-
ated significant empirical research as to their effectiveness. However, there have been
numerous numerous practical guidebooks designed to assist new principals during the
transition period. Sociologists and business leadership authors have indicated that the
1 year, especially the first 90 days of a new leader’s career, are critical to a new leader
st
being successful for the long term. Research from the business world can be applied to
the educational sector to assist new principals during the transition period. One of the
ways that the new principal can attack the issues of a turnaround school is by helping to
shape a positive school culture and climate.
65
School Culture and Climate
Every school has a culture, a history and underlying set of unwritten expecta-
tions that shape everything about the school. A school culture influences the ways
people feel, think, and act. Being able to understand and shape the culture is key to a
school’s success in promoting staff and student learning. As Fullan (2001) recently
noted, “Reculturing is the name of the game” (p. 4). Principals are central to shaping a
positive and professional school culture and climate. Their daily work and value-driven
behaviors shape a positive set of underlying norms, values, and beliefs that foster learn-
ing. Without leadership in this area, cultures can become stagnant and toxic (Deal &
Peterson, 1999). School cultures are complex webs of traditions and rituals that have
been built up over time as teachers, students, parents, and administrators work together
and deal with crises and accomplishments (Deal & Peterson, 1999; Schein, 1985).
There is evidence in both the business and educational sectors that a positive
workplace culture can positively affect an organization’s productivity. In the business
world, evidence is accumulating to show the significant role that culture plays in finan-
cial performance. For example, a study by Kotter and Heskett (1992) compared top-
performing firms with less successful ones in the same business environment. They
found that those with strong cultures attuned to prevailing business conditions outper-
formed their counterparts in several ways: (a) revenue increased by an average of 682%
compared to 166%; (b) the workforce grew by 282% versus 36%; (c) stock gained
value by 901% contrasted with 74%; and (d) income rose by 756%, eclipsing that of 1%
in less cohesive firms. Furthermore, Collins and Porras (1997) found similar results in
66
their study of visionary companies—places where cultural values infused all aspects of
everyday practice. In comparing these visionary companies with other top-ranked firms
and with average performers, they found that investors whose 1926 dollar was placed
in visionary companies would today see a portfolio worth $6,356. In the business
world, culture stands out as a strong predictor of financial results. However, does this
same culture/performance link apply in education?
When one analyzes whether a positive school culture affects performance of
staff and students from a historical perspective, he/she does not have to look very far to
find a research link. In the late 1970s and early 1980s, the research on effective schools
consistently showed that these schools had a climate and ethos that were purposeful and
conducive to learning (Levine & Lezotte, 1990). These were places where a clear
mission focused on student learning was a key element in a culture that supported high
expectations for all students. The studies provided vivid proof of the power of culture.
More recently, numerous studies of school change have identified the organizational
culture as critical to the successful improvement of teaching and learning (Fullan, 1998;
Rossman, Corbett, & Firestone, 1998). In study after study, where the school culture
did not encourage and support reform, that improvement did not occur. However, im-
provement efforts were likely in schools where positive professional cultures had
norms, values, and beliefs that reinforced a strong educational mission. Culture was a
key factor in determining whether improvement was possible. Research completed by
Deal and Peterson (1999) supported the notion that strong, positive, collaborative
67
cultures have power effects on many features of schools. The authors suggested the
following:
1.Culture fosters school effectiveness and productivity.
2.Culture improves collegial and collaborative activities that foster communi-
cation and problem-solving practices.
3.Culture fosters successful change and improvement efforts.
4.Culture builds commitment and identification of staff, students, and admin-
istrators.
5.Culture amplifies the energy, motivation, and vitality of a school staff.
6.Culture increases the focus of daily behavior and attention on what is impor-
tant and valued.
The combined evidence from both the business and educational sectors shows
that culture is a critical aspect of organizational cohesion and performance. Although
the importance of a positive school culture is widely accepted throughout the educa-
tional community, principals may not be focusing on it, choosing to spend their time on
other duties of the principalship. Furthermore, principals, and especially new principals
during the transition period, might need assistance in finding a balanced way to frame
and attack educational issues at his/her school.
Bolman and Deal (2003) have identified four lenses, or “frames,” on which
people rely to frame, assess, and respond to situations. First, a human resource frame
emphasizes people’s needs, skills, and the importance of a caring, trusting climate.
Next, the structural frame emphasizes goals, efficiency, policies, a clear chain of
68
command, and results. Third, the political frame highlights a world of scarce resources,
power, conflict, negotiations, and compromise. Finally, the symbolic frame focuses
attention on meaning and the symbols, rituals, ceremonies, stories, or other symbolic
forms in which faith and hope are encompassed and communicated. In the world of
education, some lenses are more prominent than others. For example, today’s account-
ability movement is largely based on the structural frame, with its goals, standards, and
restructuring. Furthermore, the human resource frame is highly visible in schools today
with the constant human interactions and consequently personnel issues that exist for
principals to resolve. Finally, the political frame will always be important with people
using power and influence behind the scenes to get what they want. The frame that is
usually neglected and considered soft is the symbolic frame, which is the most impor-
tant frame relating to creating a positive school culture. Deal and Peterson (1999)
argued that one of the most significant roles of leaders is the creation, encouragement,
and refinement of the symbols and symbolic activity that give meaning to the organiza-
tion. Schein (1985), an organizational psychologist, stated the case for cultural leader-
ship even more forcefully, saying that “there is a possibility underemphasized in leader-
ship research, that the only thing of real importance that leaders do is create and manage
culture and that the unique talent of leaders is their ability to work with culture” (p. 2).
Principals and other school leaders can and should shape school culture. Deal
and Peterson’s (1999) research on building positive school culture provides principals
with research-based and useful theoretical framework to analyze the elements of school
culture. They argued that in order to build a positive school culture, principals must do
69
the following: (a) develop a focused vision and mission; (b) identify core norms,
values, and beliefs; (c) generate new rituals, traditions, and ceremonies; (d) foster
norms of behavior that are unique to the school; (e) attend to the symbols, artifacts,
history, and logo; and (6) celebrate early successes. Deal and Peterson (2002) argued
that principals build school culture through three key processes. First, they read the
culture, understanding the culture’s historical sense as well as analyzing current norms
and values. Second, they assess the culture, determining which elements of the culture
support the school’s core purposes and the mission and which ones hinder achieving
valued ends. Finally, they actively shape the culture by reinforcing positive aspects and
working to transform negative aspects of the culture.
According to Deal and Peterson (2002), principals can learn the history of a
school by talking to the school’s storytellers; looking through prior school improvement
plans for signs about what is really important, not just required; or using a faculty
meeting to discuss what the school has experienced, especially in professional develop-
ment, over the past 2 decades. The authors stressed the importance of examining con-
temporary aspects of the culture and recommended that principals conduct a series of
exercises with faculty to determine the core norms and values, rituals, and ceremonies
of the school and their meanings. They recommended that principals create with their
faculty a time line of rituals and ceremonies for the year—asking when they occur, what
symbols and values are important in each, and what the ceremonies communicate about
the school and its commitment to professional learning.
70
Deal and Peterson (2002) argued that after reading a school’s culture, principals
then assess the culture. This can be done by principals leading staff in answering a
series of central questions:
1.What aspects of the culture are positive and should be reinforced?
2.What aspects of the culture are negative and harmful and should be
changed?
3.What norms and values support learning?
4.Which depress or hinder the growth of energy, motivation, and
commitment?
5.What symbols or ceremonies are dead and dying and need to be buried or
resuscitated?
Besides the Deal and Peterson (2002) approach, there are other approaches for
assessing a school’s culture. For example, principals could use the School Culture
Survey (Richardson, 2001) to examine core norms and values. After implementing the
survey to school staff members, principals could collect and analyze the survey results
to see how strongly held different norms or values are, then determine whether they fit
the culture the school wants.
After reading and assessing the culture, Deal and Peterson (2002) urged princi-
pals to shape and reinforce the positive aspects of the school’s culture by celebrating
successes in staff meetings and ceremonies; telling stories of accomplishment and col-
laboration whenever they have the opportunity; and using clear, shared language created
during professional development to foster a commitment to staff and student learning.
71
Furthermore, the authors argued that leaders can reinforce norms and values in their
daily work, their words, and their interactions. They can establish traditions and rituals
that make staff development an opportunity for culture building as well as learning.
Deal and Peterson (2002) also emphasized the importance of principals changing nega-
tive and harmful aspects of the culture, which is not easy. However, the authors
claimed that it can be done by addressing the negative directly, finding examples of
success to counteract stories of failure, impeding those who try to sabotage or criticize
staff learning, and replacing negative stories of professional development with concrete
positive results.
There is other research that supports Deal and Peterson’s (2002) arguments that
culture can be embodied and transformed through such channels as the school’s shared
values, heroes, rituals, ceremonies, stories, and cultural network and that motivation
and academic achievement must be communicated and celebrated in as many forums as
possible. There are a variety of practical ways that goals can be communicated. For
example, organizational culture specialist John Davis (1989) cited several studies that
indicated that school leaders could communicate their goals by using a wide variety of
concrete and symbolic tools:
An extremely important component of the climate of the effective school is the
presence of visible symbols which illustrate and confirm what is considered to
be important in the school. Put another way, visible symbols manifest the
school’s underlying values and assumptions. . . . School newsletters, statements
of goals, behavior codes, rituals, symbols, and legends are all part of the culture
of the organization and convey messages of what the school really values. (n.p.)
72
Johnston’s (1987) work supported this point when he said, “Values are the
bedrock of any institution. They articulate the essence of the organization’s philosophy
about how it goes about achieving success” (p. 82). He agreed with Davis (1989) that a
school’s values are communicated and analyzed through familiar means: leaders and
heroes, the cultural network, and rituals and ceremonies. The dynamics and logistics of
most schools are such that the principal cannot possibly oversee the motivational needs
of each and every student; however, groups of people can be affected by the culture in
which they participate, and this domain is under the control and stewardship of the
principal.
The literature on educational leadership and school change recognizes clearly
the role and influence of the campus leader (usually the principal) on whether or not
change will occur in the school. It seems clear that transforming the school organiza-
tion into a PLC can be done only with the leader’s sanction and active nurturing of the
entire staff’s development as a community. According to DuFour and Eaker (1998),
schools that are professional learning communities (a) share mission, vision, and
values; (b) promote collective inquiry; (c) utilize collaborative teams; (d) focus on
action and experimentation; (e) focus on continuous improvement; and (f) use assess-
ment regularly to measure improvement. Research by Aiken (2002), Kotter (1998), and
Watkins (2003) supported the leadership techniques required of principals in the cre-
ation of professional learning communities. Furthermore, Deal and Peterson’s (2002)
principles regarding how leaders can shape the school closely aligned with the princi-
ples of DuFour and Eaker’s (1998) assertion that school culture must be extremely
73
positive for professional learning communities to exist. DuFour and Eaker presented
many effective strategies for shaping school cultures as they relate to professional
learning communities, including (a) articulating, modeling, promoting, and protecting
the shared values that have been identified; (b) systematically engaging staff in reflec-
tive dialogue that asks them to search for discrepancies between the values they have
endorsed and the day-to-day operation of the school; (c) inundating staff with stories
that reflect the culture at work; and (d) celebrating examples of shared values and
progress in the improvement process with ceremonies and rituals. The authors went
beyond Peterson and Deal’s (2002) argument that celebration of early successes in
shaping school culture is important; they emphasized that the link between the celebra-
tion and the value that is being promoted should be clear and explicit, and it should be
everyone’s job to identify individuals and teams that warrant this special recognition.
Finally, DuFour and Eaker claimed that the most important element regarding special
recognition is that the strategies for celebration should ensure many winners so that
everyone in the school feels that he or she can be recognized for contributing to the
improvement process.
Morrisey and Cowan (2002) analyzed teachers’ perceptions of actions taken by
principals to create and maintain a PLC. They found that principals in professional
learning communities (a) were action oriented; (b) had positive perceptions of teachers’
capabilities; (c) balanced the delicate interaction between support and pressure by
letting go of traditional role expectations and also by encouraging teachers to take new
roles; (d) developed shared values and vision; (e) supported shared decision making;
74
(f) promoted continuous learning; (g) encouraged collaboration; (h) provided support;
(I) engaged all teachers in collaborative reflection, inquiry, problem solving, learning,
and teaching; and (j) provided regular opportunities to learn and grow.
Morrisey and Cowan’s (2002) research indicated that school culture either
enhances or hinders professional learning. Culture enhances professional learning
when teachers believe that professional development is important, valued, and “the way
we do things around here.” Professional development is fostered when the school’s
history and stories include examples of meaningful professional learning and a group
commitment to improvement. Staff learning is enhanced when sharing ideas, working
collaboratively to learn, and using newly learned skills are recognized symbolically and
orally in faculty meetings and other school ceremonies. The most positive cultures
value staff members who help lead their own staff development, create well-defined
improvement plans, organize study groups, and learn in a variety of ways. Cultures that
celebrate, recognize, and support staff learning enhance the professional community.
Having a firm grasp on the concepts and principals of building a positive school
culture will definitely assist new principals during the transition period (first 90 days).
The existence of a positive workplace culture will set the stage and cultivate an arena
for new principals to implement the research-based leadership strategies that are more
likely to lead to their success as a school administrator.
75
Leadership Principles
Principals play a critical role in student improvement (Cotton, 2003; Sebring &
Bryk, 2000). In fact, as the recent analysis of Leithwood et al. (2004) of the research
confirms, “Leadership is second only to classroom instruction among all school-related
factors that contribute to what students learn at school” (p. 23). Principals’ effects on
student performance tend to be largest, moreover, “where and when they are need most.
. . . Indeed, there are virtually no documented instances of troubled schools being turned
around without intervention by a powerful leader” (p. 23). There is voluminous and
dynamic research regarding effective leadership practices relating to both education and
the business world. Leithwood et al. (2004) claimed that reviewing the available
research and having the courage to test successful leadership strategies would definitely
benefit new principals during the transition period.
In this era of accountability and high-stakes testing, raising achievement scores
is just one challenge confronting today’s principals. Facing multiple instructional pri-
orities with layered administrative tasks, principals spend time on teaching and learn-
ing, ensuring that teachers have the support necessary to do their work while at the
same time making sure that the cafeteria and grounds are safe and orderly. Creating a
learning community requires a planned effort, yet principals can easily be distracted by
everyday urgent but unimportant matters. Despite widespread agreement that instruc-
tional leadership is a key ingredient of successful schools, the 1999-2000 federal
Schools and Staffing Survey found that less than 10% of teachers agreed strongly that
their principals talked with them frequently about their instructional practices; 34%
76
agreed somewhat, and more than half disagreed either strongly or to some extent
(NCES, 2003).
Throughout history, schools have needed strong principals, but the constantly
changing nature of their jobs and enhanced expectations through accountability have
led to the mystification of what truly defines the successful principal. As Davis,
Darling-Hammond, LaPointe, and Meyerson (2005) pointed out,
the role of principal [in U.S. schools] has swelled to include a staggering array
of professional tasks and competencies. . . . Principals are expected to be educa-
tional visionaries, instructional and curriculum leaders, assessment experts,
disciplinarians, community builders, public relations/communications experts,
budget analysts, facility managers, special programs administrators, as well as
guardians of various legal, contractual, and policy mandates and initiatives. In
addition, principals are expected to serve the often conflicting needs and inter-
ests of many stakeholders, including students, parents, teachers, district office
officials, unions, state and federal agencies. (p. 4)
While principals of the past had more flexibility regarding what elements of
school leadership/management they wanted to focus on, the rise of the standards-based
accountability under Title II of the federal NCLB (2002) mandates principals to serve
first and foremost as instructional leaders in their schools. New formulas for calculat-
ing AYP under NCLB has increased the pressure on principals to raise the academic
achievement of all students, including ELLs, minority students, special education stu-
dents, and students of low socioeconomic status. Principals whose schools do not meet
AYP requirements can be held accountable under the law; consequences range from
diminished control over school management, to dismissal, to dissolution of the entire
school. Stepped-up requirements for parental notification and enhanced media accessi-
bility to test scores under NCLB have increased public scrutiny of principal
77
performance in many low-performing schools as well, increasing the pressure from
school boards, community leaders, and parents to produce results fast. Elmore’s (2000)
research indicated that the central challenge that principals face today is enhancing
communication to faculty regarding standards and accountability and supporting teach-
ers in their efforts to raise student achievement. Elmore argued that principals who
approach the heightened expectations of NCLB as an opportunity to focus more time
and attention on galvanizing staff members around school improvement will be several
steps ahead of the game.
While there are many theories of leadership that can assist principals, especially
during the transition period, the primary focus of the present research is grounded in the
research of Marzano, Waters, and McNulty (2005). The conclusions that they offered
in School Leadership That Works: From Research to Results refuted the arguments of
those who have suggested that research on school leadership provides no guidance as to
specific leadership behaviors and to those suggesting that school leadership does not
affect student achievement. Instead, their research asserts the opposite—that research
over the last 35 years has provided tremendous guidance on specific leadership behav-
iors for school administrators and that those behaviors can positively affect student
achievement. Since 1970, there have been many prominent theories and theorists on
educational leadership, and the leadership meta-analysis of Marzano et al. strongly
supports the major elements of the following theories/theorists.
78
Transformational Leadership
Two terms that resound in discussions regarding educational and business lead-
ership are transformational and transactional leadership. Both theories are deeply
rooted in the work of James Burns (1978), who is generally considered the founder of
modern leadership theory. Its importance relating to education was confirmed by Leith-
wood (2005), who argued that aside from instructional leadership, it is the most impor-
tant leadership concept for principals to grasp and implement. The transformational
leadership model places strong emphasis on mission building and instructional practice.
It emphasizes the importance of the principal working with his/her staff to build capac-
ity and personal commitment relating to organizational goals. His model included three
broad categories of practice: (a) setting directions, (b) developing people, and (c) rede-
signing the organization. The importance of transformational leadership relating to
educational leadership is substantiated by research from both the education and busi-
ness sectors. For example, transformational leadership’s calling for leaders to have a
focused vision and mission has been supported by numerous authors (Aiken, 2002;
Bonstingl, 1996; Deal & Peterson, 1999); DuFour & Eaker, 1998; Knapp et al., 2003;
Kotter, 1998; Morrisey & Corwin, 2002). Similarly to other authors, the model calls on
leaders to focus on instructional practice and provide intellectual stimulation to employ-
ees through professional development (Knapp et al., 2003; Morrisey & Corwin, 2002).
The model stresses the importance of building capacity with staff and creating a collab-
orative culture—common themes in research relating to creating positive workplace
cultures (Aiken, 2002; Collins, 2001; DuFour & Eaker, 1998; Knapp et al., 2003;
79
Kotter; Morrisey & Corwin, 2002; Watkins, 2003). Finally, transformational leadership
theory calls on leaders to create positive and powerful community relationships similar
to those discussed by Aiken (2002) and Knapp et al. (2003).
Transactional Leadership
Transactional leadership is different from transformational leadership in the
sense that while transformational leadership focuses on change, transactional leadership
focuses on trading one thing for another. Bass and Avolio (1994) described three forms
of transactional leadership: management-by-exception-passive, management-by-
exception active, and constructive transactional. Sosik and Dionne (1997) argued that
constructive transactional leadership is the most effective of the three styles, for this
type of leader sets goals, clarifies desired outcomes, exchanges rewards and recognition
for accomplishments, suggests or consults, provides feedback, and gives employees
praise when it is deserved. The authors noted that the critical element that makes this
style successful is that subordinates are invited into the management process and in
most cases respond to and achieve expected performance goals.
Total Quality Management
The concept of Total Quality Management (TQM) was developed by Edward
Deming after World War II as a method to improve the production quality of goods and
services. At first, the concept was not taken seriously by Americans, who were hesitant
to abandon the assembly line factor model. The Japanese adopted the concept in 1950
and used it to dominate world markets by 1980. The concept of TQM is applicable to
80
academics and school management, and many educators believe that its principles are
needed for educational reform to occur. Bonstingl (1996) categorized four TQM prin-
ciples needed for educational reform: synergistic relationships, continuous improve-
ment and self-evaluation, a system of ongoing process, and leadership. He argued that
principals should run their schools like TQM organizations, with a focus on supplies
and customers—everyone is both a customer and supplier. Teamwork and collabora-
tion are essential to building synergistic relationships, and the concept suggests that
performance and production are enhanced by pooling the talent and experience of in-
dividuals. Secondly, principals would benefit by accepting the TQM notion that noth-
ing less than total dedication to continuous improvement throughout the organization is
acceptable. Principals should promote self-evaluation as part of a continuous improve-
ment process and advise staff to focus on students’ strengths, individual learning styles,
and multiple intelligences.
According to Bonstingl (1996), the third principle of TQM that can be applied
to school leadership is that principals should view the school as a system and the work
done within the school as an ongoing process. In the new paradigm of learning, contin-
ual improvement of learning processes based on learning outcomes must replace the
outdated teach to the standardized test mode. Finally, the author emphasized that lead-
ership from top school management is critical to the success of the TQM model work-
ing in schools and that a school’s teachers must establish the context in which students
can best achieve their potential by continuous improvement that results from teachers
and students working together. He explained that teachers who focus on content area
81
literacy and principle-centered teaching provide the leadership, framework, and tools
for continuous improvement related to learning. Bonstingl (1996) suggested six ways
that the TQM principles can assist principals relating to leadership of schools: (a) re-
define the role, purpose and responsibilities of schools; (b) improve schools as a way of
life; (c) plan comprehensive leadership training for educators at all levels; (d) create
staff development that addresses the attitudes and beliefs of school staff; (e) use
research- and practice-based information to guide both policy and practice; and (f)
design comprehensive child development initiatives that cut across a variety of agencies
and institutions.
Many of Bonstingl’s (1996) TQM-based suggestions have been supported by
more recent research on educational and business leadership. For example, his sugges-
tion that leaders redefine the role, purpose, and responsibilities of schools is substanti-
ated by the numerous pieces of existing research that stress the importance of leaders
having a focused vision and mission (Aiken, 2002; Knapp et al., 2003; Deal & Peter-
son, 1999; DuFour & Eaker, 1998; Kotter, 1998; Morrisey & Corwin, 2002). Bon-
stingl’s (1996) stress on the importance of comprehensive leadership training and staff
development for educators at all levels coincides nicely with the research of Knapp et
al. (2003), Leithwood (2005), and Morrisey and Corwin (2002).
Instructional Leadership
One of the most popular themes in educational leadership over the past 20 years
has been instructional leadership. Leithwood, Jantzi, and Steinbach (1999) argued that
82
instructional leadership is one of the most frequently mentioned educational leadership
concepts in North America. However, although the concept is mentioned in NCLB, it
is not very well defined. Many experts believe the concept is rooted in transforma-
tional leadership.
Leithwood (2005) claimed that the instructional leadership model attempts to
draw principals’ attention back to teaching and learning and away from the administra-
tive and managerial tasks that continue to consume most principals’ time. The model
includes three main categories of practice: (a) defining the school’s mission, (b) man-
aging the instructional program, and (c) promoting a positive school learning climate.
According to Leithwood, principals must help school staffs define the school’s mission
by overseeing the development of specific school goals and ensuring that they are com-
municated clearly to all members of the school’s community. His ideas regarding how
the creation and communication of a mission can lead to a positive school culture is
supported by voluminous other research (Aiken, 2002; Bonstingl, 1996; Deal & Peter-
son, 1999; DuFour & Eaker, 1998; Knapp et al., 2003; Kotter, 1998; Morrisey & Cor-
win, 2002). However, Leithwood’s definition of vision and mission is most similar to
that of Knapp et al. (2003) in the sense that both directed leaders to create visions and
missions that focus on learning and instruction. Secondly, Leithwood called on prin-
cipals to supervise and evaluate instruction, coordinate the curriculum, and monitor
school progress. His ideas integrated nicely with the concept of the PLC, where leaders
focus on action and experimentation, continuous improvement. and use assessment
regularly to measure improvement (DuFour & Eaker, 1998). Finally, Leithwood men-
83
tioned the importance of principals working to create a positive school learning climate
by protecting instructional time, promoting professional development, maintaining high
visibility, providing incentives for teachers, and providing teachers incentives for
learning. The importance of providing meaningful professional development to staff on
a regular basis was supported by the research of Bonstingl (1996), Defour & Eaker,
(1998), Knapp et al. (2003), and Morrisey and Corwin (2002).
Others have proposed slightly different lists of the defining characteristics of
instructional leadership, but they largely support Leithwood’s (2005) definition. For
example, in their Reflection-Growth model (RG) model, Blasé and Blasé (1999) identi-
fied the following characteristics: (a) encouraging and facilitating the study of teaching
and learning, (b) facilitating collaborative efforts among teachers, (c) establishing
coaching relationship among teachers, (d) using instructional research to make deci-
sions, and (e) using the principles of adult learning when dealing with teachers.
Glickman, Gordon, and Ross-Gordon (1995) offered yet another similar opinion on
instructional leadership, arguing that principals must provide direct assistance to teach-
ers in their day-to-day activities, develop collaborative groups among staff, design and
procure effective staff development activities, develop curriculum, and use action re-
search. While almost all of the characteristics of instructional leadership can be found
in transformational leadership, the key concept is that everything the principal does is
through the lens of instructional improvement.
84
James Collins
Collins’s (2001) popular work on how businesses can go from good to great can
be applied to education as well as the business world. In his book, he asserted that in
order for leaders to become great, they must become what he terms Level 5 leaders. He
explained that these types of leaders are more interested in building a great company
than they are in drawing attention to themselves. Level 5 leaders possess humility,
which they blend with intense personal will. They are intensely committed to doing the
right things for their companies, regardless of how difficult things become. If some-
thing in their company goes wrong, they look inward to solve the problem rather than
blame external factors. Level 5 leaders also (a) entertain difficult questions regarding
the future of their companies; (b) surround themselves with the right people to do the
job; (c) honestly look at the facts regarding their company; (d) rely on high standards as
the primary vehicle for attaining goals, as opposed to personal charisma; and (e) create
a culture of discipline.
Many of Collins’s (2001) ideas connect with other theories and principles of
effective leadership previously mentioned in the chapter. For example, in his analysis
of TQM, Bonstingl (1996) made the argument that it is critical for leaders to redefine
the role, purpose, and responsibility of schools. When new leaders do this, it will un-
doubtedly challenge them with difficult questions regarding the futures of their schools.
Analysis of Collins’s and Bonstingl’s research justifies an importance for new leaders,
such as turnaround principals, to take on the challenge of reshaping the problematic
components of their schools. Furthermore, Collins’s notion that leaders should
85
surround themselves with the right people to do the job can be linked to the ideas of
many other researchers in the fields of business and educational leadership who men-
tion the importance of engaging the external environment and creating powerful coali-
tions (Aiken, 2002; Bonstingl, 1996; Kotter, 1998; Knapp et al., 2003; Watkins, 2003).
Finally, Collins mentioned the importance for leaders to rely on having high standards
for their staff rather than using personal charisma to obtain goals. Leithwood (2005)
supported this notion of high standards being important, and Aiken (2002) mentioned
that high standards play a role in developing a leadership persona.
Warren Bennis
Bennis (2003), in his book, On Becoming a Leader, attempted to predict the
behaviors necessary for successful leadership in the 21 century. Bennis’s principles
st
can be applied to both business and education. Similar to Collins (2001), he argued that
there is more to successful leadership than relying on charisma and personal skills to
produce change. Furthermore, the following principles of Bennis can be linked to other
research relating to business and educational leadership. According to Bennis, there are
four critical characteristics of leadership. First, leaders must be able to engage others
through the creation of a shared vision (Aiken, 2002; Bonstingl, 1996; Deal & Peterson,
1999; DuFour & Eaker, 1998; Knapp et al., 2003; Kotter, 1998; Leithwood, 2005; Mor-
risey & Corwin, 2002). Second, leaders must develop a distinctive voice that is charac-
terized by self-confidence and a sense of purpose and self (Aiken, 2002; Kotter, 1998;
Morrisey & Corwin, 2002). Third, leaders must have strong morals and a belief in a
86
higher good that motivates them (Fullan, 2001; Sergiovanni, 2000). Finally, Collins’s
notion that leaders must be able to adapt to the pressures of change is similar to research
presented by Watkins (2003), who called on leaders to match their strategies to specific
situations, and by Aiken (2002), who called on leaders to find a balance between custo-
dianship and innovation. In Leaders: Strategies for Taking Charge, the arguments of
Bennis and Nanus (2003) related the assertion that leaders must be adaptable to the
pressures of change to transformational leadership.
Michael Fullan
Fullan’s ideas about leadership focused on the process of change and leadership
for change. His ideas should inform principals on successful ways to bring about
change at their school sites. In Leading in a Culture of Change, Fullan (2001) offered a
plan for leading change that was based on the premise that the knowledge base regard-
ing effective leadership has reached a point that provides clear guidance to principals
and that all principals can be effective. He explained five characteristics of effective
leadership for change: moral purpose, understanding the change process, strong rela-
tionships, sharing knowledge, and connecting new knowledge with existing knowledge.
Many of Fullan’s (2001) ideas can be found in other elements of leadership
research pertaining to business and education. For example, his notion that leaders
must have a moral purpose was shared by researchers such as Bennis (2003) and Ser-
giovanni (2000). Fullan’s (2001) research echoed the numerous studies and theories
that stress the importance of building strong relationships (Aiken, 2002; Bonstingl,
87
1996; Kotter, 1998; Knapp et al., 2003; Watkins, 2003) and sharing knowledge (Aiken,
2002; Collins, 2001; Covey, 1989; DuFour & Eaker, 1998; Knapp et al., 2003; Kotter;
Morrisey & Corwin, 2002; Watkins, 2003).
In his book, Change Forces: Probing the Depths of Educational Reform, Fullan
(1993) argued that the battle of education reform is not winnable due to the system’s
dynamic nature. He suggested new ways of looking at change: that leaders see prob-
lems as opportunities, realize that change cannot be mandated, ensure that individual-
ism and collectivism have equal power, and design schools to become learning commu-
nities. All of these new ways of looking at change were supported by DuFour and
Eaker (1998) in their PLC model.
Richard Elmore
Elmore’s (2000) perspective on educational leadership is relatively unique
compared to other theorists. While he agreed with the concept of instructional leader-
ship in the sense that he called on principals to work with teachers regarding effective
practices relating to curriculum, instruction, and assessment, Elmore argued that the
knowledge base regarding these topics is vast and very difficult for a principal to
master. His argument of distributive leadership was supported by the research of Mor-
risey and Cowin (2002), who encouraged principals to inspire teachers to take leader-
ship roles. He suggested that organizations distribute the responsibility of leadership.
Furthermore, Bonstingl’s (1996) research on TQM demonstrated a similar connection
by calling on leaders to plan comprehensive leadership training for educators at all
88
levels. Although the principal might not have time to master every aspect of curricu-
lum, instruction, and assessment, others within a school might do so. New business
leaders or principals during the transition period might want to distribute leadership as
Elmore suggested.
Steven Covey
The work of Covey is similar to that of Collins (2001) in the sense that it has
been highly influential in education, even though it was intended to be applied in the
business world. In his most famous book, The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People,
Covey (1989) mentioned seven behaviors that generate positive results in a variety of
situations. He directed leaders to be proactive and control the environment by respond-
ing to key situations and circumstances. Begin with the end in mind means that leaders
always ultimately focus on the goals of the organization. Put first things first refers to
focusing on behaviors that are directly related to the goals of the organization. Think
win-win means that leaders should ensure that all members of an organization benefit
when goals are realized. The importance of goal setting and the communication of
goals as they relate to organizational improvement were further substantiated by the
research of Knapp et al. (2003) and Leithwood (2005). Research by Kotter (1998) and
Watkins (2003) indicated that it is especially important for new leaders to create these
goal-based early wins to establish credibility in their respective organizations. Seek
first to understand and then to be understood emphasizes the importance of leaders
listening and understanding the needs of people within the organization. Bolman and
89
Deal’s (2003) notion that leaders must analyze their organizations through a human
resource lens supports this notion. Synergize refers to the importance of collaboration
and cooperation and the end result of higher production that will result from them. The
importance that leaders create an environment of culture and collaboration is a theme
that resounds in educational and business research (Aiken, 2002; Collins, 2001; DuFour
& Eaker, 1998; Knapp et al., 2003; Kotter, 1998; Morrisey & Corwin, 2002; Watkins,
2003). Sharpen the saw explains how leaders must learn from their mistakes and
develop skills to ensure that they are not repeated.
A second work by Covey (1992) that expanded on his ideas is Principle-Cen-
tered Leadership. The book expands on the seven habits and emphasizes the need for
leaders to have a strong sense of purpose in their own lives and principles that guide
their daily actions. He argued that effective leaders must communicate through their
actions a clear sense of purpose and what their lives stand for. In The 8th Habit: From
Effectiveness to Greatness, Covey (2005) referred to this concept as moral authority
and called on leaders to interact with people in a way that would communicate to them
their worth and potential so clearly they would come to see it in themselves. The idea
of leading with a moral purpose is not new and was advocated in earlier works by
Bennis (2003) and Fullan (2001).
Richard Marzano: Balanced Leadership Framework
The balanced leadership framework of Marzano et al. (2005) was based on
results of a recent meta-analysis of the 70 most rigorous studies that examined the
90
effects of principal leadership on student achievement. The meta-analysis identified 21
essential leadership responsibilities and 66 associated practices that had a statistically
significant effect on student achievement. The literature that Marzano et al. reviewed to
complete the balanced leadership framework was not new research; however, what is
new is the quantification of the relationship that each responsibility has with student
academic achievement. The framework that the authors created is perhaps the first
framework in the history of U.S. leadership research that expresses a set of competen-
cies (responsibilities) that are research-based. Table 1 summarizes the 21 responsibili-
ties of the school leader and the major research that supports these responsibilities.
Numerous other smaller-scale research studies that were used to support the 21 respon-
sibilities, but they are not mentioned in this literature review.
An underlying concept of the balanced leadership framework is that it is not
simply enough to know what to do; principals also need to know why, how, and when
to do things. Effective principals need to know how to balance pushing for change with
keeping structures or practices in place that have worked (Marzano et al., 2005).
In addition to realizing that there are leadership behaviors that directly affect
student achievement, principals during the transition period would benefit by knowing
the level of change that they are leading in order to determine what leadership practices
would be most appropriate and effective. Marzano et al. (2005) used the terms first
order and second order to distinguish between the magnitudes of change. First-order
change is consistent with current norms and values and adjustments to the existing
structure, is built on established programs, and is implemented with existing knowledge
91
Table 1
The 21 Responsibilities of the School Leader

Characteristic/
behavior
School principal
should
Informed by major
leadership research
CultureFoster shared beliefs and sense of

community and cooperation.
-----
OrderEstablish set of standard operating

procedures and routines
Lashway (2002)
DisciplineProtect teachers from issues and
influences that would detract from

their teaching time or focus
Elmore (2000)
ResourcesProvide teachers with material and
professional development neces-
sary for successful execution of

their jobs
Elmore (2000); Ful-
lan (2001)
Involvement in curriculum,
instruction, and assessment
Be directly involved in design and
implementation of curriculum, in-

struction, and assessment
-----
FocusEstablish clear goals and keep
those goals in the forefront of the

school’s attention
Fullan (1993);
Leithwood (2005)
Knowledge of curriculum,
instruction, and assessment
Is knowledgeable about current
curriculum, instruction, and assess-

ment
Elmore (2000); Ful-
lan (2001)
VisibilityHave quality contact and interac-

tions with teachers and students
Blasé and Blasé
(1999)
Contingent rewardsRecognize and reward individual

accomplishments
-----
92
Table 1 (continued)
Characteristic/
behavior
School principal
should
Informed by major
leadership research
OutreachBe an advocate and spokesperson

for school to all stakeholders
Cotton (2003)
InputInvolve teachers in design and im-
implementation of important deci-

sions and policies
Bonstingl (2001);
Leithwood (2005)
AffirmationRecognize and celebrate school

accomplishments
Collins (2001); Lash-
way (2002)
RelationshipsDemonstrate an awareness of the
personal aspects of teachers and

staff
Elmore (2000); Ful-
lan (2001)
Change agentBe willing to and actively challenge

the status quo
Fullan (2001).
OptimizerInspire and lead new and challeng-

ing innovations
-----
Ideals/beliefsCommunicate and operate from
strong ideals and beliefs about

schooling
Bennis (2003)
Monitors/evaluatesMonitor effectiveness of school
practices and their impact on stu-

dent learning
Elmore (2000)
FlexibilityAdapt leadership style to the needs
of the current situation and be com-
fortable with dissent
Bennis (2003; Col-
lins (2001); Fullan
(2001); Lashway

(2002)
93
Table 1 (continued)
Characteristic/
behavior
School principal
should
Informed by major
leadership research
Situational awarenessBe aware of details and undercur-
rents in running school and use in-
formation to address current and

political problems
Lashway (2002)
Intellectual stimulationEnsure that faculty and staff are
aware of the most current theories
and practices and make the discus-
sion of these a regular aspect of
school’s culture
Fullan (2001); Lash-
way (2002)
Based on School Leadership That Works: From Research to Results, by R. J. Marzano, T.
Waters, and B. A. McNulty, 2005, Alexandria, VA: McRel.
and skills. It is an extension of what has already been done. However, second-order
change is a break with the past—a change in the way of doing things that requires new
knowledge and skills to implement. When involved in the day-to-day first-order
changes and corrections that a school faces, the school leader must attend to all 21 re-
sponsibilities as a regular aspect of managing the school. When involved in second-
order change initiatives that are dramatic departures from the past, the leader must
emphasize seven responsibilities (i.e., knowledge of curriculum/instruction/assessment,
optimizer, intellectual stimulation, change agent, monitoring/evaluating, flexibility, and
ideals/beliefs).
94
Marzano et al.’s (2005) findings can be organized into a set of coordinated
actions that a principal can use to enhance the achievement of students in his/her
school. The plan includes five steps: (a) developing a strong school leadership team,
(b) distributing some responsibilities throughout the leadership team, (c) selecting the
right work, (d) identifying the order of magnitude implied by the selected work, and (e)
matching the management style to the order of magnitude of the change initiative. The
authors’ findings were justified by other research pertaining to educational and business
leadership and can be used by principals during the transition period (first 90 days). For
example, similar to Marzano et al.’s findings, other researchers have emphasized the
importance of having strong school leadership teams (Aiken, 2002; DuFour & Eaker,
1998; Elmore, 2000; Fullan, 2001; Knapp et al., 2003; Leithwood, 2005; Morrisey &
Corwin, 2002). The importance of distributing leadership was also echoed in numerous
pieces of research (Elmore, 2000; Kotter, 1998; Morrisey & Corwin). The concept of
leaders matching their management style to the order of the change initiative was
similarly stated in research by Watkins (2003), who argued that matching strategies to
situations is critical to the success of new leaders during the transition period.
Lee Bolman and Terrence Deal
Bolman and Deal (2003) suggested that there are many ways people have to
view organizations and encourage leaders to step back and reexamine the operation of
their organization through the use of various frames or windows. These different lenses
can bring organizational life into a different or clearer focus. Bolman and Deal’s four
95
frames (structural, human resource, political, and symbolic) allow the leader to view the
workplace from different images to make judgments, gather information, and get things
done. The authors’ claim that leaders who are well versed in the four frames will learn
the importance of stepping back and looking at a situation from multiple perspectives.
They argued that this is vitally important for leaders, because most leaders have the
tendency to look at situations from a narrow perspective that hinders their ability to be
effective and visionary leaders.
When a new leader analyzes his/her organization through the lens of Bolman
and Deal’s (2003) four frames, he/she will notice that many of the research-based ed-
ucation and business leadership theories mentioned previously can be applied. The
four frames concept of Bolman and Deal (2003) is different than most of the previous
research mentioned in this chapter in the sense that it is not a prescription or guide for
leaders to solve organizational problems; rather, it is a framework designed for leaders
to help them assess organizational issues from a broader perspective. When looking at
an organizational issue from the perspective of Bolman and Deal, the framework pre-
sents many different ways or solutions to issues that leaders might be facing, but the
leader must ultimately decide which frame to use after an assessment of the organiza-
tion’s current culture. When looking at organizational issues through the lens of Bol-
man and Deal’s framework, leaders will realize that organizations are unique and
dynamic in nature. There is not a magic formula or a one-size-fits-all approach to
address organizational issues and situations. Each of the four frameworks approaches
management tasks differently, as shown in Table 2.
96
97
98
99
Bolman and Deal’s (2003) structural frame encourages leaders to look at the
social context of work and not simply at individuals. Once an organization has defined
the specific roles of employees, the next decision is to structure them into working
units. Coordination and control of these groups by the leader are achieved either verti-
cally or laterally. The best structure depends on the organization’s strategies, goals, and
environment. Bolman and Deal listed six assumptions for the structural frame:
1.Organizations exist to achieve established goals and objectives.
2.Organizations work best when rational thought prevails over personal
preferences and external pressures.
3.Structures must be designed to fit organizational circumstances.
4.Organizations increase efficiency and enhance performance through social-
ization and division of labor.
5.Appropriate forms of coordination and control are essential to ensuring that
individuals and units work together in the service of organizational goals.
6.Problems and performance gaps arise from structural deficiencies and can be
remedied through restructuring.
This approach can be useful when goals are clear; when cause/effect relations
are well understood; when technology is strong; and when there are little conflict, low
ambiguity, low uncertainty, and a stable legitimate authority.
From a structural standpoint, new leaders who have organizational issues
relating to the setting and attainment of goals and objectives might look to the research
of Covey (1989) and Leithwood (2005), who described processes relating to goal
100
setting. The structural frame also encourages leaders to create rational structures that
are fit to organizational circumstances. Watkins (2003) argued that the new leader must
remain objective in his/her role of organizational architect and should bring the organiza-
tion’s strategy into alignment with his/her vision for the organization. In order to
promote rational solutions to organizational issues, Covey (1989) argued that leaders
should seek first to understand and then be understood. Finally, Collins (2001) advo-
cated that leaders use structure to create a culture of discipline. Another fundamental of
the structural frame (Bolman & Deal (2003) is that socialization and division of labor
increase efficiency. The idea that new leaders should divide labor has been supported
by substantive research (Elmore, 2000; Morrisey & Corwin, 2002). The concept of
promoting socialization within the organization has also been widely advocated by
numerous pieces of business and educational research (Aiken, 2002; Collins, 2001;
Covey, 1989; DuFour & Eaker, 1998; Knapp et al., 2003; Kotter, 1998; Morrisey &
Corwin; Watkins, 2003).
The human resource frame (Bolman & Deal, 2003) is a second window that will
allow leaders to look at their organizations from a unique perspective. It views an
organization like a large, extended family. From the human resource perspective, an
organization consists of unique individuals who have needs, feelings, prejudices, limi-
tations, and skills. The goal of the leader using this frame is to mold the organization to
meet the needs of its people. The leader should seek to blend the peoples’ need to feel
positive about what they are doing with the ability to effectively get the job done. This
approach is appropriate in both situations where employee morale is high or rising or
101
when employee morale is low or declining. Organizations that have abundant re-
sources, low conflict, and low diversity should be especially successful in using the
human resource approach.
Concepts from leadership and educational research can be used to attack organi-
zational issues from a human resource perspective. Similar to the structural frame,
Bolman and Deal (2003) argued that collaboration is important from a human resource
perspective in order to solve organizational problems. Similar to other researchers, this
frame calls on leaders to incorporate processes for helping people to grow and improve
into organizations (Bonstingl, 1996; DuFour & Eaker, 1998; Fullan, 2001; Leithwood,
2005; Morrisey & Cowin). Bolman and Deal pointed out that the creation of collabora-
tive structures and professional development strategies will help develop relationships,
support and empower employees, maintain a balance between human needs and formal
roles, and keep people involved.
The political frame is a window that looks at the workplace as a chaotic and
competitive environment in which different people compete for power and limited re-
sources. Bolman and Deal (2003) argued that the workplace is one of constant conflict
immersed in negotiating, bargaining, compromise, and coercion. They offered five
different propositions as a summary of this frame:
1.Organizations are coalitions of various individuals and interest groups.
2.There are inherent differences among coalition members in beliefs, interests,
information, values, and perceptions of reality.
102
3.Most important decisions revolve around the allocation of scarce resources
and what gets done.
4.Scarce resources and persisting differences make conflict a center role in
organizational dynamics and generally make power the most important resource.
5.Goals and decisions emerge from bargaining, negotiating, and jockeying for
position among different stakeholders.
The political leader understands the political realities of organizations and can
live with them. He or she understands that interest groups with separate agendas play a
key role in organizational politics. This leader recognizes major constituencies and
develops ties to their leadership. Bolman and Deal’s (2003) idea of redistributing
power was substantiated by research by Elmore (2000), Kotter (1998), and Morrisey
and Corwin (2002). Furthermore, the political leader is a skilled conflict manager who
creates arenas for negotiating differences and coming up with reasonable compromises.
Finally, skilled political leaders work at articulating what different groups have in
common and helps to identify external enemies for groups to fight together. The politi-
cal approach works best when resources are scarce or declining, where there is goal/
value conflict, and where diversity is high. The importance of coalition building and its
relation to the political environment is supported by extensive research (Aiken, 2002;
Fullan, 2001; Knapp et al., 2003; Kotter, 1998; Leithwood, 2005; Watkins, 2003).
The symbolic frame builds on cultural and social anthropology and can be ex-
tremely powerful if used effectively. It views organizations as unique cultures driven
by stories, ceremonies, rituals, and heroes in contrast to organizations being driven by
103
rules, authority, or policies. Symbolic leaders view vision and inspiration as critical
and adhere to the concept that people need something to believe in—that it is important
for individuals within the organization to feel what they do is very important. Symbolic
leadership emphasizes team building and views the development of high-performing
teams as a spiritual network also enhanced by rituals, ceremonies, and myths. Symbolic
leaders tend to be very visible and energetic and manage by walking around. Further-
more, these leaders tend to rely heavily on organizational traditions and values as a base
for constructing a common vision and culture that provides cohesiveness and meaning.
The symbolic approach seems to work best when goals and information are unclear and
ambiguous, where cause/effect relationships are poorly understood, and where there is
high cultural diversity (Bolman & Deal, 2003).
Leaders who are interested in enhancing their knowledge relating to symbolic
leadership issues will benefit from the highly detailed research on school culture that
relates to the symbolic frame. While the importance of creating and communicating a
shared organizational vision and mission is well documented relating to both business
and education (Aiken, 2002; Bonstingl, 1996; Deal & Peterson, 1999; DuFour & Eaker,
1998; Knapp et al., 2003; Kotter, 1998; Leithwood, 2005; Morrisey & Corwin, 2002),
Bolman and Deal’s (2003) insistence that the communication of vision and mission
must contain certain symbolic elements such as rituals, ceremonies, and myths is more
closely aligned with the specific research on school culture (Davis, 1989; Deal &
Peterson, 1999; Johnston, 1987).
104
Conclusions
Despite the fact that only limited research exists relating to the middle school
turnaround principal’s transition period (first 90 days), there are numerous pieces of
work relating to business and educational leadership that can be applied to the topic.
The research suggests that the accountability movement, especially under the NCLB
law (2002), combined with the multitude of responsibilities that go with the modern
principal’s job, have led to less people wanting to enter the profession. Furthermore,
the unresearched status of principal training/mentoring programs has led many educa-
tional professionals to question their effectiveness and has bred a common perception
that they do not prepare new principals for the rigors of the job. The research that exists
regarding the induction/transition period of new principals is scarce, although there is
literature from the business world that justifies the argument that it is a critical time in a
new leader’s career. The limited educational-based research on the principal’s transi-
tion period supports this notion. Finally, the literature from both the realms of educa-
tional and business leadership suggests that the creation of a positive workplace culture
and the utilization of effective leadership strategies will definitely assist new leaders
during the transition period.
105
CHAPTER 3

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The research study was conducted by a cohort of graduate students from the
Rossier Graduate School of Education at the USC as part of a thematic doctoral disser-
tation. The thematic doctoral dissertation process is a collaborative approach to con-
ducting research where a cohort of researchers examine a common theme. A group of
10 doctoral candidates comprised this thematic dissertation group, with the goal of
studying the induction period (first 90 days) of new middle school principals in turn-
around schools. The cohort collaborated on the literature review, methodology, and
data collection.
The research study was designed to investigate three major areas relating to the
transition period (first 90 days) of new middle school principals in turnaround schools.
The cohort evaluated the importance of the transition period (first 90 days) of a new
middle school principal as well as identified key strategies and conceptual frameworks
(leadership theories) that were useful to new principals during the transition period.
The cohort’s research addressed whether or not university or other programs prepared
new principals for success during the transition period in a turnaround school.
Methodology Approach
The study consisted of a mixed-methodology approach to research that included
both qualitative and quantitative components and used a concurrent procedures ap-
proach that enabled the data to be converged to provide a comprehensive analysis of the
106
research problem (Creswell, 2003). The quantitative component consisted of closed-
ended questionnaires that were issued to the new principals as well as the teachers who
worked with them during the transition period (first 90 days). The qualitative compo-
nent consisted of interviews with the principal’s immediate supervisor, the principal,
and teachers who worked with the principal. The interviews were conducted by the
cohort of 10 graduate students and were designed to gain more in-depth information on
the practices and frameworks that new turnaround middle school principals engaged in
during the transition period. In addition to interviews, the qualitative component also
consisted of the collection and analysis of documents such as the principals’ beginning-
of-the-year newsletter, memos to the staff, faculty meeting agendas, and parent newslet-
ters. The mixed-methodology approach ensured the triangulation of the data and
findings.
This chapter contains a description of the methodology of the research, proce-
dures for the collection and analysis of the data, and a description of the conceptual
frameworks used to analyze findings. The chapter includes (a) the research questions
the study was to answer; (b) a description of the sample and process for selection, (c) a
description of the instruments and process for the development of the instrumentation,
(d) the theoretical base of the study, (e) description of the conceptual frameworks used
in the study, and (f) procedures for data analysis.
107
Research Questions
The research questions were designed to examine the issues encountered by a
turnaround middle school principal during the transition period (first 90 days). The
study addressed whether or not new turnaround principals valued the transition period.
The questions were based on conceptual frameworks (leadership theories) from busi-
ness and educational literature on traditional leadership and effective leadership. The
questions were intended to discover whether new turnaround principals did indeed
utilize conceptual frameworks (leadership theories) during the transition period. The
study also addressed whether or not new turnaround principals felt that university
programs prepared them for success during the transition period. The following ques-
tions were used to guide the development of the instruments for the survey and inter-
view:
1.Do principals in a turnaround situation find the transition period (first 90
days) to be important?
2.What strategies and conceptual frameworks (leadership theories) were
useful to new principals during the transition period (first 90 days) in a turnaround
school?
3.Did university programs prepare new principals for success during the tran-
sition period (first 90 days) in a turnaround school?
108
Research Design
Population/Sample
The parameters for the population and selection of the sample were determined
collaboratively and agreed upon by the members of the cohort. The parameters for the
selection of the sample consisted of the following:
1.Principals who took part in the study served in urban southern California
middle schools (Grades 6-8). Principals from charter and magnet type schools were
omitted from the study.
2.Principals interviewed for the study had just finished their 1 year of the
st
principalship and had a recollection of the transition period (first 90 days).
3.Principals for the study were identified by their superintendent as being
located in what he/she perceived as being in a turnaround school.
4.Principals who participated in the case studies did not work in the same
school district as the researcher.
The sampling strategy used for the survey was a single-staged sampling proce-
dure. This strategy type was one where the researcher had access to names in the
population and sampled the individuals directly (Creswell, 2003). This strategy was
selected because it was conducted in conjunction with urban local southern California
school districts, whose superintendents provided the names of potential candidates for
the research study.
A nonprobability sampling strategy was selected for the study. This means that
the sample selected for the study was based on convenience and availability (Creswell,
109
2003). This strategy was selected because of the difficulty in finding principals who
met the research criteria. The 10 USC researchers contacted school districts individu-
ally until they found a successful candidate for the study. The end result was a sample
(N = 10) that consisted of urban middle school principals, located in southern Califor-
nia, who were perceived by a superintendent as working in a turnaround school. Al-
though this strategy did not provide a representative sample that can be generalized, it
provided critical information about the transition period that is applicable to urban
school districts with turnaround schools across the United States.
Instrumentation
The instruments used for this study were designed in collaboration with the
members of the cohort after a review of the literature, the development of a conceptual
framework, and preliminary pilot interviews with various principals that helped refine
the surveys and interview guides. In order to ensure the effectiveness of the instru-
ments, the 10 members of the cohort piloted the instruments twice and brought the
results back to the group’s collaboration sessions. The process resulted in research in-
struments that were research based and finely tuned to extract the necessary and rele-
vant information from participants to answer the research questions. The cohort
achieved their primary goal of developing a combination of quantitative and qualitative
instruments that would provide triangulation of the data.
110
Immediate Supervisor Interview Guide
(Appendix A)
The process began with each researcher contacting an urban school district in
southern California that was believed to have potential middle school turnaround
principals who had a recollection of the transition period (first 90 days). One of the
first goals of the immediate supervisor interview was to locate a principal who fit the
characteristics of the study. The immediate supervisor interview contained both quanti-
tative elements (Start-up/Turnaround/ Realignment/Sustaining Success [STRS] Chart
and Characteristics and Behavior Chart) and qualitative elements (open-ended inter-
view questions).
The quantitative element of the immediate supervisor interview included the
STRS chart and the Characteristics and Behavior Chart. For the STRS chart, the imme-
diate supervisor was asked to think about a principal who worked in his/her district who
matched a given category identified on the STRS chart. The categories were (a) start-
up—a new school to get off the ground, (b) turnaround – school identified as being in
trouble and needing to get back on track, (c) realignment—school unaware that it was
drifting into trouble and needed to be revitalized, and (d) sustaining success —success-
ful school that needed to be taken to the next level. The expectation was to gauge how
the principal perceived the school. The Characteristics and Behavior chart was based
on research by Marzano et al. (2005) and had the principal’s immediate supervisor
place a value on 21 behaviors and characteristics of good leaders. The immediate
supervisor was then issued the same chart of characteristics/behaviors and was asked to
111
choose 7 behaviors/characteristics that the new principal exhibited most frequently.
These data were compared with the responses of the other 9 principals in the study
using frequency counts, means, and other simple statistics.
The qualitative element of the immediate supervisor interview included open-
ended questions that were designed to provide richness to the quantitative data. Imme-
diate supervisors participating in study were probed with questions inquiring about their
perceptions of the principal’s role; they were asked about the significance of the transi-
tion period. Furthermore, immediate supervisors were asked about the degree of sup-
port that new turnaround principals received from the school district, as well as their
perceptions relating to the usefulness of university educational administration training
programs. In addition to the interview, various documents were collected for analysis
from the turnaround principals, such as his/her beginning-of-the-year newsletter, staff
memos, faculty meeting agendas, and parent newsletters.
Principal Interview Guide (Appendix B)
The principal interview guide was a collaborative effort among the 10 USC
researchers. The interview guide was field tested multiple times and edited to ensure its
effectiveness. The cohort sought to create a balance between qualitative and quantita-
tive data to ensure triangulation. Once each of the 10 USC researchers located a turn-
around principal situated in an urban middle school, the interview process began. The
quantitative section of the interview included the same STRS chart and Characteristics
and Behavior Chart that were administered to the immediate supervisors; however, a
112
third quantitative element was added to the principal interview guide: the Principal’s
Four Frames Chart. This chart was based on research by Bolman and Deal (2003) that
classified research in four frames: structural, human resource, political, and symbolic.
Principals were asked to indicate the percentage of time they spent and should have
spent on certain activities that were classified on the chart. The data were compared to
other principals in the study and analyzed using quantitative measures such as comput-
ing means, frequency counts, and other simple statistics. The qualitative section of the
interview consisted of primarily open-ended questions through which an attempt was
made to supplement the mathematical data with more detailed information. The inter-
view questions focused on topics such as the pathway to the principalship, the signifi-
cance of the transition period (first 90 days), the extent to which university programs
prepared new principals for the job, the support received by the new principal and from
whom, and leadership theories that new principals utilized during the transition period.
Teacher Interview Guide (Appendix C)
The 10 USC researchers collaboratively developed a survey instrument designed
to test teachers’ perceptions the principals in the study. The survey was administered to
each turnaround principal’s respective teaching staff. The number of surveys that were
collected from each school site varied depending on the school’s size. The survey con-
sisted of both qualitative and quantitative components and had similar components to
the interview guides for the immediate supervisor and principal interview. Quantita-
tively speaking, for example, the teacher interview guide included a STRS Chart, the
113
Characteristics and Behaviors Chart, and the Principal’s Four Frames Chart. However,
the Four Frames Chart and the Characteristics and Behaviors Chart for the teacher
interviews were slightly different in the sense that they asked teachers to rank how the
principal actually spent his/her time, as well as how the teacher perceived the principal
should have spent his/her time. The quantitative elements of the teacher interview
guide provided mathematical data such as means, frequency counts, and other simple
statistics that allowed the researchers to make connections among the 10 different case
studies.
To facilitate triangulation of the data, open-ended qualitative interview ques-
tions were also included in the principal interview guide. The questions focused on
issues such as how teachers perceived the significance of the transition period (first 90
days), what actions helped the new principal most during the transition period, and
finally, at what point the principal established credibility with the teacher.
Theoretical Base
This study is qualitative in nature as it is designed to explore and gain further
understanding of the topic of a middle school turnaround principal’s transition (first 90
days). The literature base is limited in this area, specifically with respect to the transi-
tion of a middle school turnaround principal. The study followed the assumption of
qualitative research inquiry, where the literature base is utilized to learn from the par-
ticipant and not prescribed by questions derived by the researcher (Creswell, 2003).
114
Applying this premise, the literature base was instrumental in the development of the
interviews and surveys.
Although the study was qualitative in nature, a mixed methodology was used
with the assumption that collecting diverse types of data best provided an understanding
of the research problem (Creswell, 2003). This methodological pluralism was superior
to a single-method approach because it drew on the strengths and minimized the weak-
ness of each type of research (Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004; Tashakori & Teddlie,
2003). This concept is referred to as triangulation and is based on the premise that all
methods have limitations and that the use of other methods enables a researcher to neu-
tralize or cancel any bias inherent in a single method (Creswell). The quantitative
components of the research study – the STRS Charts, Characteristics and Behaviors
Charts, Four Frames Charts- were designed to explore the application of conceptual
frameworks and key elements of a participant’s transition from a small sample, en-
abling the findings to be generalized to a similar population.
Conceptual Framework
The use of conceptual frameworks for providing research guidance and facilitat-
ing the development of research questions and study design is well documented (Patton,
2002). The 10 researchers from the USC cohort did an extensive review of the litera-
ture and developed a conceptual framework based on the work of Bolman and Deal
(2003), Marzano et al. (2005), and Watkins (2003). The cohorts identified important
concepts pertaining to new principals in their jobs and developed indicators for
115
measuring the practice and experiences of a middle school turnaround principal’s
transition (first 90 days).
Data Collection Procedures
Each of the 10 researchers selected a principal for the study based on the estab-
lished criteria of the cohort. It was expected that to qualify for the study, a principal
must have been identified as being located in a turnaround school by his/her immediate
supervisor. Furthermore, the principals studied were also required to have just finished
their 1 year as principal and have a recollection of the transition period (first 90 days).
st
The researchers contacted urban southern California school districts until they found a
candidate for the study. When the final sample was complete, it included 10 principals.
Once a qualified candidate for the study was located, the researcher scheduled
an interview with the principal’s immediate supervisor and administered the immediate
supervisor interview guide. Next, the researcher administered the principal interview
guide to the turnaround principal being studied and collected documents for analysis.
Finally, the researcher visited the principal’s school site and issued the teacher inter-
view guide to all faculty members. Finally, principals selected four department chairs
with whom he/she had worked closely during the transition period and they were
interviewed them at length. This purposive sampling procedure allowed researchers to
talk to teachers who had substantive knowledge about the principal’s transition period.
116
Data Analysis
The process of research allowed each researcher to establish a detailed case
study that was shared with the cohort. The cohort of researchers then shared data and
established connections between what turnaround middle school principals experienced
during the transition period (first 90 days). For the qualitative part of the study, all in-
terviews were audiotaped and transcribed and transcriptions were disseminated to all
members of the cohort for analysis. Interviews were analyzed by the cohort to deter-
mine common themes and patterns applicable to our research questions. Quantitative
data from the closed-ended questionnaires were computed by each individual researcher
and brought to the group for comparison and analysis. The group determined trend data
between the 10 principals studied using simple descriptive statistics, such as means, and
conducted a frequency analysis of the findings by principal. The overall findings are
reported in chapter 4 using the principal research questions as the guiding framework.

117
CHAPTER 4

FINDINGS
In order to learn more about the transition period (first 90 days) of middle
school principals in turnaround schools, the cohort of 10 USC researchers analyzed and
compared the data from 10 case studies that were conducted in southern California
middle schools. The mixed-methodology approach to the research included both qual-
itative and quantitative elements from interviews and questionnaires that were adminis-
tered to the schools’ principals, the schools’ teachers (including four department chair-
persons at each school), and the principals’ immediate supervisors. The qualitative and
quantitative instruments were designed to ensure triangulation of the data; the surveys
provided quantitative data that allowed the researchers to make mathematical compari-
sons regarding the similarities and differences of the different cases. The interview data
provided the researchers with rich, detailed qualitative data that embellished the quanti-
tative data and allowed them to look at the cases holistically.
The resulting data gathered for the study included 10 cases from southern Cali-
fornia turnaround middle schools led by 2 -year principals who had a recollection of
nd
the transition period (first 90 days) of the job. Each member of the cohort began by
selecting a school and scheduling an interview with the principal’s immediate supervi-
sor. In order to protect the privacy of both schools as well as individuals within the
school, each school/case was assigned a letter (A-J) for identification purposes. The
research process began for each student after the immediate supervisor indicated that
118
the school was indeed a turnaround school. Once a school was identified, each re-
searcher interviewed the immediate supervisor and administered a survey, interviewed
the principal and administered a survey, interviewed four department chairs at the
school, and visited a faculty meeting and administered a survey. Each researcher
created a case study about his/her own individual school based on the data gathered.
The data were combined and calibrated by the cohort in an effort to make connections
between the schools, as well as to analyze similarities and differences among the 10
cases.
Research Questions
Three research questions were designed to examine the issues encountered by a
turnaround middle school principal during the transition period (first 90 days). The
study addressed whether or not new turnaround principals valued the transition period.
The questions were based on conceptual frameworks (i.e., leadership theories) from
business and educational literature on traditional leadership. The questions were
intended to discover the conceptual frameworks that new turnaround principals utilized
during the transition period. The study also addressed whether or not new turnaround
principals felt that university programs prepared them for success during the transition
period. The following questions were used to guide the development of the instruments
for the surveys and interviews:
1.Do principals in a turnaround situation find the transition period (first 90
days) to be important?
119
2.What strategies and conceptual frameworks (leadership theories) were
useful to new principals during the transition period (first 90 days) in a turnaround
school?
3.Did university programs prepare new principals for success during the
transition period (first 90 days) in a turnaround school?
Background on School G
School G served sixth-, seventh-, and eighth-grade students. The city it served
had a population of approximately 63,780 at the time of the study. It is located at the
foot of the San Jacinto Mountains 90 miles southeast of Los Angeles, 80 miles north-
east of San Diego, and 40 miles from Palm Springs. The school district is one of the
geographically largest in the state, covering 700+ topographically diverse square miles
and consisting of 26 elementary, secondary, and alternative schools. In common with
the rest of southern California, the area was growing with an accompanying school-age
population surge. The district enrollment has continued to grow with a total student
population of 21,276 in 2004-2005. This growth pattern is expected to continue or ac-
celerate. School G was one of 5 middle schools in the district. It had a student popula-
tion consisting of 265 sixth graders, 277 seventh graders, and 249 eighth graders,
resulting in a total school population of 791 students. The school was racially/eth-
nically diverse with a population that was 48% White (non-Hispanic), 40% Hispanic/
Latino, 6% African American, 2% Asian, and 4% other/multiple/no response.
120
Student achievement for students of School G was measured by annual perfor-
mance in the state’s Standardized Testing and Reporting program (STAR). For middle
schools such as School G, participation in the STAR program means that all students in
Grades 6-8 take the California Standards Tests (CST) in language arts and mathematics.
Students with significant cognitive disabilities who are unable to take the CST are
tested using the California Alternate Performance Assessment (CAPA). All students in
Grade 8 are required to take the science and social science CST. Students in Grade 7
take a national norm-referenced test called the California Achievement Test (CAT) in
reading, language arts, spelling, and mathematics. Results of student performance in
the STAR are calculated into an Academic Performance Index (API) for each school,
with the current goal being set at 800. Schools that are identified as Title I under
NCLB, such as School G, must also meet AYP criteria for all statistically significant
subgroups of the school’s population. Failure to do so will result in the school being
identified as Program Improvement (PI) and lead to sanctions by the federal govern-
ment.
According to the 2006 API Growth Report, School G’s API was 716, which is
well below the state’s goal of 800; however, the school had been showing recent im-
provement due to the fact that its 2005-2006 growth of 55 points was well above the
state’s 7-point goal for the school. Looking at the school’s API over the last 5 years,
there has been a pattern of instability and fluctuation despite the school’s recent im-
provement. Since School G was identified as a federal Title I school and was heavily
diverse, it was required to make AYP in several subgroups. In the past, the school had
121
been identified as PI Year 1 due to the failure of Hispanics, low-socioeconomic stu-
dents, ELLS, and students with disabilities to make AYP for 2 years in a row. In 2005-
2006, School G exited PI because academic achievement was raised among Hispanics,
low-socioeconomic students, and ELLS. The students-with-disabilities AYP issue
became inconsequential due to the fact that the school reduced the group’s population
to a subgroup that was not statistically significant at the school
Under NCLB schools are required to report teacher and staff information on
their School Accountability Report Card (SARC) on a yearly basis. According to the
2005-2006 SARC, the average class size at School G was 31.5 in CORE classes (math,
science, English, social science); 62.2% of the school’s teachers were deemed “highly
qualified” under NCLB. There had not been a history of mid-year teacher vacancy at
the school, with only one since 2003. There had been no teacher misassignments at the
school over the past 3 years. In 2004-2005, there were 33 teachers at School G, which
was a significant reduction from 54 during the 2002-2003 school year. This reduction
was the result of the school redefining school district boundaries in 2004. Seventy-nine
percent of the teachers had a full credential, with the rest of them taking part of alterna-
tive routes to certification. Other significant components of the school staff included a
principal, two assistant principals, one librarian, two psychologists, one nurse, one
speech/language/hearing specialist, and three resource specialists.
When asked to classify School G based on Watkins’s (2003) STRS chart, both
Immediate Supervisor G and Principal G identified the school as a turnaround school;
91% of the sample of teachers at School G identified the school as being in the
122
turnaround category. Half of the department chairs (50%) placed the school in the
turnaround category as well.
Background of Other Schools in Study
The nine comparison schools in the study were all identified as middle school
turnaround schools by the respective principals’ immediate supervisors. They were
identified as such for different reasons, such as inconsistent progress, curriculum issues,
poor school culture, and low API (see Table 3).
Table 3
Primary Reasons That Immediate Supervisors Identified Schools in Sample as Turn-
around
Reason A B C D E F G H I J %
Inconsistent progressXXXXXX60
Poor school cultureXXXX40
Low APIXXX30
Curriculum issuesXX20
Note. Immediate Supervisor C is not included due to incomplete data. API = Aca-
demic Performance Index.
The majority of schools in the sample served relatively large culturally diverse
populations with significant percentages of ELLs and students of low socioeconomic
status (see Table 4). All of the schools were located in southern California.
123
Table 4
2005-2006 School Accountability Report Card Analysis of Case Study Schools: Part 1
Pe r c e ntage

Free/reduced- African Anglo/
SchoolGradesEnrollmentELLs price lunchHispanicAmericanAsianEuropean
A 7-8 1,139 5 30 37 4 4 54
B6-81,22423864911134
C5-81,0451335531438
D6-82,010287395004
E6-81,5475898782000
F6-8 741 7 47 67 510 14
G6-8 84513 7645 61 44
H6-81,1092771777114
I7-81,3283376661777
J6-81,0144296731842
Note. ELLs = English language learners. From School Reports, by Ed-Data Partnership, 2006, retrieved
November 12, 2006, from http://www.ed-data.k12.ca.us/welcome.asp
In addition to the sample of schools having been identified as middle school
turnaround schools by the immediate supervisor, all of the schools selected were di-
verse middle schools located in southern California. Although it was not a criterion to
qualify for the sample, each of the middle schools’ API was below the state of Califor-
nia’s goal of 800 for middle schools. Half of the schools (50%) had met its API growth
in 2005-2006; the other half had not. Approximately 90% of the teachers working at
the schools had full teaching credentials (see Table 5).
124
Table 5
2005-2006 School Accountability Report Card Analysis of Case Study Schools: Part 2
API API
Administrator/pupilTeacher/pupilTeacher cre-basegrowth

School ratioratio dentials(5/06) targetAPI
A570:125:194%720724709
B360:128:195%676682668
C348:122:192%731739753
D500:130:191%661663648
E515:130:167%588594546
F382:128:196%738748765
G281:122:187%667675716
H1,109:123:198%654657646
I443:122:195%643655660
J422:125:188%588594619
Note. From School Reports, by Ed-Data Partnership, 2006, retrieved November 12,
2006, from http://www.ed-data.k12.ca.us/welcome.asp
Information About Principal G
The principal of School G had been principal of the school for 18 months and
had worked in the field of education for 11 years. He received his B.A. degree in
history at California State University, Long Beach, and his M.A. degree at California
State University, Fullerton. At the middle school level, he taught every subject with the
exception of physical education, but his passion was for teaching history. In addition to
his teaching duties, he served as a teacher on special assignment and coordinated Asso-
ciated Student Body (ASB) activities. Prior to becoming principal of his school, he
worked as an assistant principal for a neighboring district.
125
Information About Other Principals in the Study
The backgrounds of the sample of principals were very similar prior to assum-
ing the principalship at their respective schools. All 10 of the principals expressed in
their interviews that they had some type of leadership experience. Nine of the 10 prin-
cipals (90%) expressed that they had classroom teaching experience. Eight (80%) had
previously served as an assistant principal prior to becoming a principal. The princi-
pals’ experience in the field of education varied, but members of the sample had at least
7 years of experience in the field of education (see Table 6).
Table 6
Interview Question #1: Principals’ Pathway to the Principalship
Experience A B C D E F G H I J
Taught at various levelsXXXXXXXXX
Leadership experienceXXXXXXXXXX
Leadership encouraged by administrationXXXXXX
Served as assistant principalXXXXXXXX
Average years in field1225+232212+211125157+
Identical to the responses of the immediate supervisors, all 10 principals in the
sample indicated that their school was indeed a turnaround school, defined as a school
that was in trouble and needed to get back on track. The schools in the sample were
identified by principals as turnaround schools for various reasons. For example, 70% of
the schools were identified as being a turnaround school due to low academic
126
achievement. Fifty percent of the schools were identified as turnaround due to having a
negative inertia (reluctance to change), and 40% of the schools were identified as turn-
around due to low staff morale. Six of the 10 schools (60%) were identified as a turn-
around school for multiple reasons (see Table 7).
Table 7
Interview Question #2: Principals’ Evidence to Support Categorization of School as
Turnaround
Evidence A B C D E F G H I J %
AchievementXXXXXXX70
StaffX10
MoraleXXXX40
AdministrationXX20
InertiaXXXXX50
Research Question #1: Importance of Transition Period
Do principals in a turnaround situation find the transition period (first 90 days)
to be important?
Perspective of Principal G
Principal G responded that the transition period (first 90 days) was extremely
important and emphasized that it was vital for new principals to establish credibility
and build rapport right away. He stated that the transition period was probably one of
the most significant, if not the most significant, time period of any leader. He described
127
the importance of building communication lines and obtaining staff buy-in. One
method he used to build communication was the creation of a form where staff could
give positive/negative feedback about school programs. Principal G established a
shared decision-making process at his school, built a leadership team, and created an
“open- door policy.” During the transition period, he made the student discipline a top
priority and led teachers in the creation of a schoolwide discipline policy.
Perspective of Other Principals in Study
The 10 combined principals who participated in the study responded that the
transition period (first 90 days) was either significant (20%) or very significant (80%) in
support of Principal G’s response, making for a total of 100% of the principals viewing
the transition period as being an important period of a new principal’s career. Seven of
the 10 (70%) principals responded that it was within the first 90 days that they estab-
lished credibility as leaders (see Tables 8 and 9).
When qualifying their answers regarding whether or not the transition period
(first 90 days) was significant, the 10 principals responded in very different ways and
took different actions at their respective schools. While the principals’ answers varied
in general, there were some commonalities among the respondents. For example, 70%
of the principals mentioned in their interviews that the transition period was an impor-
tant time to establish credibility. Half of the principals (50%) responded that the cre-
ation of an open-door policy was an important action during the transition period days.
Thirty percent spoke about the importance of building a leadership team/facilitating
128
Table 8
Interview Question #5: Significance of First 90 Days of Principalship
SignificanceABCDEFGHIJ %
Very significantXXXXXXXX80
SignificantXX20
Table 9
Interview Question #6: What Point in First 90 Days Principal Felt Credibility Was
Established
Time frame A B C D E F G H I J %
First 90 daysXXXXXXX70
Later than 90 daysXXX30
129
collaboration during the transition period; 30% also emphasized the importance of
establishing a plan/mission and communicating it to the staff. Twenty percent ex-
pressed that enforcing their vision of high expectations through the evaluation process
was an important stand they took during the transition period. Twenty percent also
expressed that leading their respective staffs in using data for planning/making deci-
sions was an important action that they took during the transition period. Finally, there
were four actions that 10% of the principals mentioned as being important during the
transition period: reorganizing the office layout, maintaining visibility, establishing a
new discipline policy, and establishing new procedures (see Table 10).
Table 10
Significant Actions Mentioned by Principals Regarding the Transition
Period (First 90 Days)
SignificantMentioned by
action principals %
Established credibilityA, C, D, F, H, I70
Created an open-door policyC, D, G, H, I50
Built leadership teamD, H, I30
Established plan/missionE, G, J30
Made decisions based on dataG, J20
Dealt with personnel issuesA, B20
Reorganized office layoutC10
Maintained visibilityF10
Established discipline policyG10
Established new proceduresH10
130
Research Question #1: Analysis
The transition period of principals working in middle school turnaround schools
is very important, according to all 10 principals surveyed in this study. Due to the dif-
ferent natures of their respective schools, the 10 principals qualified their answers to the
research question differently; however, most of their responses could be backed by
leadership research from both the public and private sectors. For example, 5 of the
principals (50%) mentioned that the creation of an open door policy was important
during the transition period (first 90 days). The importance of leaders being accessible
is backed by significant research (Elmore, 2000; Fullan, 2001; Knapp, 2003; Kotter,
1998; Watkins, 2003). Four of the principals (40%) mentioned that the transition
period was an important time to establish credibility; this factor was also backed by the
research (Aiken, 2002; Kotter; Morrisey & Cowan, 2002; Watkins). Also, the impor-
tance of building a leadership team/fostering a collaborative culture was mentioned by 3
of the principals (30%). Both have been factors in the development of PLCs, whose
importance was mentioned in numerous pieces of research (Aiken; Blasé & Blasé,
1999; Bonstingl, 2001; Collins, 2001; Covey, 1989; DuFour & Eaker, 1998; Knapp,
2003; Leithwood, 2005; Morrisey & Cowan; Watkins, 2003). Finally, 3 of the princi-
pals (30%) responded that the establishment of a plan/mission was important during the
transition period (first 90 days). The importance of leaders creating a plan/ mission and
communicating it to stakeholders is rampant in leadership research from both business
and education (Aiken, 2002; Bonstingl, 1996; Deal & Peterson, 1999; Dufour & Eaker,
1998; Fullan, 1993; Knapp, 2003; Kotter; Leithwood, 2005; Morrisey & Cowan;
131
Watkins). Other actions that the sample of principals stressed as important during the
transition period days) were also backed by research; they included introducing staff to
data-based decision making (Blasé & Blasé, 1999; DuFour & Eaker; Kotter, 1998),
maintaining visibility around campus (Blasé & Blasé), establishing a student discipline
policy (Collins; Elmore; Lashway; Leithwood), and establishing innovative procedures
(DuFour & Eaker; Kotter). By implementing and adapting the above mentioned leader-
ship strategies at their schools, new principals entering the transition period would most
likely have a greater chance of success during this important time of a new principal’s
career (see Table 11).
Research Question #2: Useful Strategies and
Conceptual Frameworks
What strategies and conceptual frameworks (leadership theories) were useful to
new principals during the transition period (first 90 days) in a turnaround school? The
cohort of 10 USC researchers set out to discover what strategies and conceptual frame-
works (leadership theories) were useful to new principals during the transition period
(first 90 days) in a turnaround school. Through close-ended surveys issued to princi-
pals, immediate supervisors, department chairs, and teachers at each of the 10 schools
in the sample, the cohort attempted to make quantitative connections as to whether or
not principals used research-based leadership strategies such as those presented by
Bolman and Deal (2003) and Marzano et al. (2005). Through open-ended question-
naires, the researchers attempted to discover whether any other strategies/conceptual
132
Table 11
Significant Actions Taken by Principals During Transition Period (First 90 Days) as
Supported by Research
Significant
action
Mentioned by
principals % Support by research
Established credibilityA, C, D, F, G,
H, J
70Aiken (2002); Kotter (1998); Morrisey
and Cowan (2002); Watkins (2003)
Created an open-door pol-
icy
C, D, G, H, I 50Aiken; Kotter (1998); Morrisey &
Cowan; Watkins
Built leadership teamD, H, I 30Elmore (2000); Fullan (2001); Knapp
et al. (2003); Kotter ; Watkins
Established plan/missionE, G, J 30Aiken; Blasé and Blasé (1999); Bon-
stingl (2001); Collins (2001); Covey
(1989); DuFour & Eaker (1998);
Knapp et al.; Kotter; Leithwood
(2005); Morrissey & Cowan; Watkins
Made decisions based on
data
G, J 20Blasé and Blasé; DuFour & Eaker;
Fullan (2001); Knapp et al.; Lashway

(2002); Leithwood
Dealt with personnel is-
sues
A, B 20
Reorganized office layoutC 10
Maintained visibilityF 10Blasé and Blasé
Established discipline pol-
icy
G 10Collins; Elmore; Lashway; Leithwood
Established new proce-
dures
H 10DuFour and Eaker; Kotter
133
frameworks were useful to new middle school turnaround principals during the transi-
tion period.
Before analysis of strategies/conceptual frameworks that middle school turn-
around principals found useful during the transition period can begin, it must be con-
sidered where new principals are learning the strategies that they are implementing
during the period. Research question 3 shows that although new principals carry over
some important knowledge/strategies from university programs, immediate supervisors
and principals largely view university preparation programs as in need of reform. The
principals and immediate supervisors in the sample overwhelmingly stated that while
university programs teach some useful information, hands-on, practical learning experi-
ences and application are lacking in most programs. If university programs are unsuc-
cessful at preparing new principals for the transition period, one must wonder how new
principals are learning the vast concepts and skills that are required to run a K-12
school, not to mention a turnaround school that needs to get back on track.
If university programs are not preparing new principals to be successful during
the transition period, one must question how they are learning their jobs. According to
the 10 principals in the study, it was most definitely not due to any formal training they
received during the transition period from their respective school districts. In fact, 8 of
the 10 principals (80%) responded that they received no support from their respective
district during the transition period. Only 1 of the principals (10%) responded that the
district provided formal training for new principals.
134
While the principals in the sample largely perceived a lack of support from
school district officials, their immediate supervisors felt that they were indeed provid-
ing support to the new principals. For example, 8 of the 10 (80%) immediate supervi-
sors in the sample stated that they provided the principal an informal mentor. Five of
the 10 immediate supervisors (50%) believed that they offered the new principal sup-
port by holding formalized monthly meetings and/or providing them a formal mentor.
Two of the 10 immediate supervisors (20%) stated that they supported new principals
by having an open-door policy and/or by providing the new principal the opportunity to
participate in the state of California’s AB 75 New Principal Training Program. Finally,
one of the immediate supervisors (10%) mentioned that his/her district mandated the
new principal to attend a mandatory summer academy that was run by the school
district.
Marzano Instrument
Background Information
The cohort of 10 USC researchers designed a close- ended survey (Characteris-
tics and Behaviors Chart) based on the popular work Marzano et al. (2005) to quantita-
tively test which strategies the sample of principals engaged in during the transition
period (first 90 days). Furthermore, a survey based on the work of Marzano et al. was
issued to the sample of 10 immediate supervisors to discover which strategies the
principal engaged in during the first 90 days and to determine which strategies they
thought were most important for a successful new principal. Finally, a similar survey
135
was given to a sample of teachers at each principal’s school, including four department
chairs, in order to reveal their thoughts on which behaviors the new principals had
engaged in during the transition period, as well as which behaviors they thought were
most important for a successful principal.
Principals
Principal G’s Perspective: Marzano survey. When asked to select seven char-
acteristics and behaviors based on Marzano et al. (2005) in which he engaged during
the transition period (first 90 days) of the principalship, Principal G choose the follow-
ing: order; discipline; resources; knowledge of curriculum, instruction, and assessment;

visibility; communication, input.
Responses of combined principals in sample: Marzano survey. Each of the 10
principals in the sample was issued a survey based on Marzano et al.’s (2005) “Bal-
anced Leadership Framework.” The principals were asked to select seven behaviors in
which they engaged during the transition period (first 90 days) of their principalship.
The most commonly cited actions in which the sample of principals engaged were
communication and visibility, with 70% of the principals engaging in those behaviors.
The second most popular behaviors among principals were culture, resources, and
focus, with 60% of the principals selecting them. Fifty percent of the principals en-
gaged in situational awareness. Forty percent selected change agent and optimizer.
Thirty percent of the principals selected order; discipline; and knowledge of curriculum,
instruction, and assessment. Behaviors that were selected less frequently included
136
design of curriculum, instruction, and assessment (20%); input (20%); monitors/ evalu-
ates (20%); outreach (10%); flexibility (10%); and intellectual stimulation (20%).
None of the principals mentioned contingent rewards or optimizer (see Table 12).
Analysis of principals’ responses: Marzano survey. The 10 principals in the
sample engaged in many Marzano-based actions during the transition period (first 90
days), with some being more commonly cited than others. This was most likely due to
the differing situations and challenges that principals were facing at their respective
schools. While principals in the sample engaged in 19 of the 21 Marzano-based actions
during the transition period, the most popular were visibility, communication, culture,
resources, focus and situational awareness.
Immediate Supervisors
Immediate Supervisor G’s perspective: Marzano survey (Marzano et al., 2005).
Immediate Supervisor G was issued a Marzano-based survey similar to the 10 princi-
pals in the sample. When asked to select the seven Marzano-based actions in which
Principal G engaged most frequently during the transition period, she selected culture,
order, discipline, focus, visibility, outreach, and flexibility. The data showed that
Principal G and Immediate Supervisor G had different perceptions of the Marzano-
based actions in which Principal G engaged during the transition period. Of the seven
actions selected on the survey, the principal and immediate supervisor agreed on only
three of them: order, discipline, and visibility.
137
Table 12
Marzano-Based Actions of Sample Principals During the Transition Period
Action A B C DE F G H IJ Total %
Culture X X X X X X 6 60
Order X X X 3 30
Discipline X X X 30
Resources X X X X X X 6 60
Design of curriculum, instruction,
and assessment
X X 2 20
Focus X X X X X X 6 60
Knowledge of curriculum, instruc-
tion, and assessment
X X X 3 30
Visibility X X X X X X X 7 70
Contingent rewards 0 0
Communication X X X X X X X 7 70
Outreach X 1 10
Input X X 2 20
Affirmation X X X 3 30
Relationship X X X 3 30
Change agent X X X X 4 40
Optimizer 0 0
Ideals/beliefs X X X X 4 40
Monitor/evaluator X X 2 20
Flexibility X 1 10
138
Table 12 (continued)
Action A B C DE F G H IJ Total %
Situational awareness X X X X X 5 50
Intellectual stimulation X 1 10
Note. Based on School Leadership That Works: From Research to Results, by R. J. Mar-
zano, T. Waters, and B. A. McNulty, 2005, Alexandria, VA: McREL.
Immediate Supervisor G was issued a second part to the survey where she was
asked to select the seven Marzano-based actions that she felt were the most important
for a successful principal in a turnaround school. She selected culture, order, discipline,
focus, visibility, outreach, and input. The characteristics that she felt were the most
important were very similar to the ones that she stated that Principal G engaged in most
frequently, with “input” being the only difference.
Perspective of combined immediate supervisors in study: Marzano survey
(Marzano et al., 2005). The 10 immediate supervisors in the sample were asked to fill
out a closed-ended survey where they selected seven Marzano-based actions that the
principal he/she supervised engaged in most frequently during the transition period
(first 90 days). According to the immediate supervisors, the most common Marzano-
based strategies in which the principals engaged were culture (70%); focus (70%);
visibility (60%); order (50%); knowledge of curriculum, instruction, and assessment
139
(50%); discipline (40%); design of curriculum, instruction, and assessment (40%);
optimizer (40%); and ideals/beliefs (40%). The Marzano-based strategies that were
selected the least were resources (10%), contingent rewards (10%), flexibility (10%),
and situational awareness (0%; see Table 13).
The second part of the Marzano-based questionnaire for immediate supervisors
asked them to select the seven characteristics that they believed were the most impor-
tant for a successful principal in a turnaround school. The characteristics that they
selected as being most important were culture (80%); monitors/evaluates (60%); order
(60%); design of curriculum, instruction, and assessment (50%); focus (50%); resources
(40%); relationship (40%); and ideals/beliefs (40%). Marzano-based characteristics
that immediate supervisors felt were less important were flexibility (10%), intellectual
stimulation (10%), and contingent rewards (0%; see Table 14).
Analysis of immediate supervisors’ responses: Marzano survey. The responses
of the sample of principals and immediate supervisors when asked to select seven
Marzano-based actions that the principal engaged in during the transition period (first
90 days) of the principalship varied greatly, but there were some similarities. For ex-
ample, 70% of the immediate supervisors and 60% of the principals responded that cre-
ating a positive school culture (fostering shared beliefs and a sense of community and
cooperation) was a behavior in which the principal engaged during the transition period.
Seventy percent of the immediate supervisors and 60% of the principals responded that
creating a focus (i.e., establishing clear goals and keeping these goals in the forefront of
140
Table 13
Marzano-Based Actions of Sample Principals During the Transition Period (First
90 Days), According to Principals’ Immediate Supervisors
Action A B C DE F G H IJ Total %
Culture X X X X X X X 7 70
Order X X X X X 5 50
Discipline X X X X 4 40
Resources X 1 10
Design of curriculum, instruction,
and assessment
X X X X 4 4 0
Focus X X X X X X X 770
Knowledge of curriculum, instruc-
tion, and assessment
X X X X X 5 50
Visibility X X X X X X 6 60
Contingent rewards X 1 10
Communication X X X 3 30
Outreach X X X 3 30
Input X X X 3 30
Affirmation X X 2 20
Relationship X X X 3 30
Change agent X X X 3 30
Optimizer X X X X 4 40
Ideals/beliefs X X X X 4 40
Monitor/evaluator X X X 3 30
Flexibility X 1 10
141
Table 13 (continued)
Action A B C DE F G H IJ Total %
Situational awareness 0 0
Intellectual stimulation X 1 10
Note. Based on School Leadership That Works: From Research to Results, by R. J. Mar-
zano, T. Waters, and B. A. McNulty, 2005, Alexandria, VA: McREL.
142
Table 14
Marzano-Based Actions That Immediate Supervisors Believed Were Most Important
for a Successful Principal in a Turnaround School
Action A B C DE F G H IJ Total %
Culture X X X X X X X X 8 80
Order X X X X X X 6 60
Discipline X X X 3 30
Resources X X X X 4 40
Design of curriculum, instruction,
and assessment
X X X X X 5 50
Focus X X X X X 550
Knowledge of curriculum, instruc-
tion, and assessment
X X X 3 30
Visibility X X 2 20
Contingent rewards 0 0
Communication X X X 3 30
Outreach X X X 3 30
Input X X X 3 30
Affirmation X X 2 20
Relationship X X X X 4 40
Change agent X X X 3 30
Optimizer X X 2 20
Ideals/beliefs X X X X 4 40
Monitor/evaluator X X X X X X 6 60
Flexibility X 1 10
143
Table 14 (continued)
Action A B C DE F G H IJ Total %
Situational awareness X X 1 10
Intellectual stimulation X 1 10
Note. Based on School Leadership That Works: From Research to Results, by R. J. Mar-
zano, T. Waters, and B. A. McNulty, 2005, Alexandria, VA: McREL.
the school’s attention) was an important action that the principal engaged in during the
transition period. Seventy percent of the principals and 60% of the immediate supervi-
sors agreed that visibility (i.e., having quality contact and interactions with teachers and
students) was an important action in which principals engaged during the transition
period. Finally, to a lesser extent, principals and immediate supervisors (40%) gener-
ally agreed that having ideals/beliefs (i.e., communicating and operating from strong
ideals and beliefs about schooling) was an action that principals engaged in during the
transition period.
A comparison of the principal and immediate supervisor surveys also revealed
that there were some Marzano-based actions in which principals generally did not
engage during the transition period (first 90 days). For example, less than 10% of both
the principals and immediate supervisors responded that the new principal did not
engage in intellectual stimulation, flexibility, or contingent rewards. There were also
other discrepancies in the surveys worth noting, such as the fact that while 70% of the
144
principals responded that communication was an action in which they engaged during
the transition period, only 30% of the immediate supervisors supported this notion.
Furthermore, while 50% of the principals responded that situational awareness was an
action in which they engaged during the transition period, none of the immediate super-
visors agreed with them. The fact that immediate supervisors did not believe that situ-
ational awareness as an area where new principals were spending their time might be
due to the nature of their jobs. The immediate supervisors in the sample most likely
worked in school district offices with a positive workplace culture, and the workplace
culture is not as dynamic as at a school site. The immediate supervisors in the study did
not work at the school site, and situational awareness among a culture of a small group
of employees located at the district office is much different than situational awareness
as it applies to a large culture at a school site. Principals, on the other hand, most likely
engaged in situational awareness because their schools suffered from a negative school
culture, and being aware of the details and undercurrents in running their schools and
using information to correct problems assisted them with building a positive school
culture.
The data showed that the sample of principals engaged in some actions that the
immediate supervisors believed to be most important during the transition period (first
90 days). For example, 80% of the immediate supervisors indicated that creating a
positive school culture was important and 60% of the principals engaged in the action.
Other Marzano-based actions that a majority of immediate supervisors found important
that principals actually engaged in were focus (60%) and resources (60%).
145
Despite the above mentioned similarities, a disconnect in the data existed when
comparing what the immediate supervisors believed to be important Marzano-based
actions during the transition period to the actions in which the sample of principals
actually engaged. For example, 70% of the principals selected communication and
visibility as actions in which they engaged during the transition period; however, less
than half of the immediate supervisors believed those actions to be important. Sixty
percent of the immediate supervisors indicated that order and monitors/evaluates were
important actions, while less than half of the principals engaged in the actions.
Teachers
Perspective of School G teachers: Marzano survey. When the 22 teachers at
School G were issued the Marzano-based survey asking them to select seven character-
istics in which the principal engaged most frequently during the transition period (first
90 days), the most common actions mentioned by the teachers were focus (86%), af-
firmation (64%), monitors/evaluates (59%), communication (55%), order (55%), and
resources (50%).
An analysis of the Marzano et al. (2005) data from the School G principal
survey, the immediate supervisor survey, and the teachers’ surveys showed that there
was a disconnect between what Marzano-based strategies Principal G implemented at
the school and what strategies the teachers perceived the principal as implementing.
The three most popular choices of the teachers—focus (86%), affirmation (64%), and
monitors/evaluates (59%)—were not selected by Principal G when he responded to the
146
same survey. Many of the Marzano-based actions that Principal G stated that he imple-
mented during the transition period (first 90 days) were not confirmed by the teacher
surveys, such as visibility; knowledge of curriculum, instruction, and assessment; dis-
cipline; and input. On the other hand, there were some Marzano-based actions that
Principal G implemented with which the teachers agreed, but not overwhelmingly, such
as communication (55%), order (55%), and resources (50%). To further illustrate this
apparent disconnect regarding the Marzano-based survey, the only action of the 21 that
Immediate Supervisor G and the School G teachers agreed that the principal engaged in
during the transition period was creating order at the school.
In order to gain the perspective of teachers who knew the principal more inti-
mately, the Marzano-based surveys of four department chairs were analyzed separately
from the other teachers. The department chairs agreed with Immediate Supervisor G
and their fellow School G teachers that Principal G definitely created a focus (100%)
and maintained order at the school (75%), even though Principal G did not mention
them as important actions he took during the transition period (first 90 days). Finally,
while Principal G, Immediate Supervisor G, and the School G teachers as a whole
failed to mention visibility as being an action in which Principal G engaged during the
transition period, 75% of the department chairs mentioned visibility as being an impor-
tant action in which Principal G engaged during the transition period.
When asked what Marzano-based actions were most important for new princi-
pals to engage in during the transition period (first 90 days), the responses of the School
G teachers confirmed actions mentioned by the principal and immediate supervisor as
147
being important: visibility (73%), discipline (59%), and communication (55%). The
teachers’ selection of visibility and communication was supported by the four depart-
ment chairs, who responded that they were important as well. The School G teachers
(55 %) generally agreed with Principal G that providing resources was an important
action in which the principal engaged during the transition period. The School G
teachers (64%) generally agreed with the immediate supervisor that providing a focus
was an important action in which the principal engaged during the transition period. A
final Marzano-based action selected by the School G teachers as being important for
new principals to engage in during the transition period was monitors/evaluates (55%),
although its importance was not confirmed by the principal or immediate supervisor.
Perspective of combined teachers in study: Marzano survey. Each of 10 USC
researchers issued a Marzano-based survey to a sample of teachers at each school in the
study to determine what strategies teachers perceived principals using during the transi-
tion period (first 90 days). The result of this procedure was a total of 208 surveys from
various teachers who participated in the study. The responses determined that the most
common Marzano-based actions in which principals engaged as a whole were focus
(50%), visibility (49%), culture (48%), order (44%), and resources (41%). Department
chairs generally agreed with the teachers regarding actions the principal engaged in
during the transition period and emphasized that visibility (65%) and focus (53%) were
strategies used by their respective principals. Department chairs selected communica-
tion (53%) as a strategy new principals used during the transition period; however,
teachers disagreed with them, with only 38% reporting that communication was a
148
strategy used by principals during the transition period. This would seem natural, as
department chairs would probably have more frequent interactions with the principals
through bodies such as site collaborative teams and leadership teams.
Marzano-based strategies that were less frequently engaged in by principals
during the transition period, as perceived by teachers, were contingent rewards (22%),
change agent (22%), intellectual stimulation (21%), and optimizer (20%). The data
gathered from the department chairs generally confirmed the data from the teachers
regarding less frequently used strategies; they also selected optimizer (23%), contingent
rewards (20%), change agent (18%), and intellectual stimulation (10%) as less fre-
quently used strategies. On the other hand, contrary to their teacher counterparts, de-
partment chairs also held strong opinions that situational awareness (23%) and outreach
(18%) were actions in which new principals engaged less frequently during the transi-
tion period (see Table 15).
A second question that the cohort asked the sample of teachers regarding the
transition period of middle school turnaround principals had to do with the Marzano-
based actions that they viewed as being the most important during the transition period.
The sample of teachers selected the following as the most important Marzano-based
strategies for new principals to engage in during the transition period: communication
(64%), visibility (55%), discipline (52%), culture (50%), resources (50%), focus (46%),
and order (43%). The responses of the department chairs confirmed and substantiated
the responses gathered from the teacher questionnaires, because department chairs also
selected visibility (75%), communication (65%), culture (55%), discipline (53%), and
149
Table 15
Marzano-Based Actions of Principals During Transition Period (First 90 Days),
According to Teachers (N = 208)
Action A B C DE F G H I J Total %
Culture12216 4619 5265 4 99 48
Order 4110 881012204 15 92 44
Discipline 22 4 34 4 8 83 17 55 26
Resources104 6 461311192 10 85 41
Design of curriculum,
instruction, and assess-
ment
31 5 73 8 5131 4 50 24
Focus 65181161419141 9 103 50
Knowledge of curricu-
lum, instruction, and as-
sessment
41 4 7515 7134 8 68 33
Visibility 4524 4715 9223 9 102 49
Contingent rewards 5310 32 8 2 50 8 46 22
Communication 5317 541112150 6 78 38
Outreach 4211 12 8 2158 5 58 28
Input 23 6 52 7 6163 5 55 26
Affirmation 6414 82 414163 5 76 37
Relationship113 9 1516 3132 8 71 34
Change agent 44 7 42 3 6 55 6 46 22
Optimizer 43 4 2316 2 33 2 42 20
Ideals/beliefs 51 8 6816 2 77 4 64 31
Monitor/evaluator 22 6 721213132 8 67 32
Flexibility107 5 6415 4174 7 79 38
150
Table 15 (continued)
Action A B C DE F G H I J Total %
Situational awareness 5011 36 5 4123 8 57 27
Intellectual stimulation 30 2 64 6 9104 0 44 21
Note. Based on School Leadership That Works: From Research to Results, by R. J. Mar-
zano, T. Waters, and B. A. McNulty, 2005, Alexandria, VA: McREL.
focus (53%) as important actions for new principals to engage in during the transition
period (first 90 days). The strategies that the sample of teachers found least important
for new principals to engage in during the transition period were outreach (13%); opti-
mizer (15%); ideals/beliefs (17%); intellectual stimulation (17%); knowledge of curric-
ulum, instruction & assessment (18%); and contingent rewards (18%). While the
department chairs’ responses confirmed the teacher data that intellectual stimulation
(13%), optimizer (20%), and ideals/beliefs (20%) were among the least important
Marzano-based actions new principals could take, the data showed that affirmation
(15%) and design of curriculum, instruction, and instruction (28%) were generally not
important characteristics of new principals to department chairs (see Table 16).
School G: Conclusion, Marzano Survey
The principal of School G and his immediate supervisor agreed that the princi-
pal utilized three Marzano-based strategies at the school: order, discipline, and
151
Table 16
Marzano-Based Actions That Teachers Believed Were Most Important for a Success-
ful Principal in a Turnaround School (N = 208)
Action A B C D E F G H I J Total %
Culture15414 5 819 3215 9 103 50
Order 7110 4 511 8209 15 90 43
Discipline 34 912111613255 11 109 52
Resources11414 5 61412246 7 103 50
Design of curriculum,
instruction, and assess-
ment
60 6 1 713 3104 6 56 27
Focus 9315 5 41414193 10 96 46
Knowledge of curricu-
lum, instruction, and
assessment
42 3 1 510 4 03 6 38 18
Visibility1552312 61216143 9 115 55
Contingent rewards 41 2 2 3 6 3 82 6 37 18
Communication1062112 82012217 16 133 64
Outreach 7110 1 3 2 3 62 3 28 13
Input 5511 7 3 910181 8 77 37
Affirmation 66 6 5 2 310 63 7 53 26
Relationship103 9 9 411 3128 5 74 36
Change agent 32 4 3 017 4 55 6 49 24
Optimizer 41 7 1 0 6 3 41 4 31 15
Ideals/beliefs 50 3 4 2 9 1 52 4 35 17
Monitor/evaluator 13 9 2 31412113 5 63 30
Flexibility 9412 5 311 7132 4 70 34
152
Table 16 (continued)
Action A B C D E F G H I J Total %
Situational awareness 51 8 6 512 7122 8 66 32
Intellectual stimulation 10 3 3 3 4 6 83 4 35 17
Note. Based on School Leadership That Works: From Research to Results, by R. J. Mar-
zano, T. Waters, and B. A. McNulty, 2005, Alexandria, VA: McREL.
visibility. However, a disconnect existed due to the fact that most of the principal’s
perceived actions did not match what the immediate supervisor said happened at the
school. There are many possible reasons for this, such as a lack of communication
between the principal and immediate supervisor. The fact that the principal established
order at the school was confirmed by both the teachers (55%) and department chairs
(75%); creating discipline was confirmed by 75% of the department chairs; and being
visible was confirmed by 75% of the department chairs.
There were many important Marzano-based actions that occurred at the school
despite Principal G’s failure to include them as responses in his survey. Although the
principal failed to mention it as an important action he took, the immediate supervisor,
teachers (86%), and department chairs (100%) responded that creating a focus was an
action in which Principal G engaged during the transition period (first 90 days). Super-
visor G responded that Principal G was extremely visible during the transition period,
and this was confirmed by 75% of the department chairs; however, visibility was not
153
mentioned as an action that Principal G engaged in by School G teachers as a whole,
which may be attributed to Principal G being “selectively visible” to certain members
of the staff. Interestingly, when interviewed, Principal G mentioned that there was a
segment of his faculty that was negative and resistant to change. He stated that in order
to build his team, he would start with his new hires and people who shared a willing-
ness to be innovative and try new things. Principal G was obviously visible to the
immediate supervisor, his department chairs, and perceived leaders within the school;
however, he was generally not visible to the teachers as a whole.
Other Marzano-based actions in which Principal G engaged that could be
supported by data were the provision of resources, which was confirmed by 50% of the
teachers, and communication, which was confirmed by 55% of the teachers. However,
there were many Marzano-based actions that Principal G or Immediate Supervisor G
mentioned that the principal engaged in during the transition period (first 90 days) that a
majority of the teachers failed to confirm: culture; discipline; knowledge of curriculum,
instruction, and assessment; outreach; input; and flexibility. Finally, there were
Marzano-based actions that the principal engaged in during the transition period that
apparently Principal G and Immediate Supervisor G were unaware of—64% of the
teachers believed that Principal G engaged in affirmation, and 50% of the teachers
believed that Principal G engaged in monitoring/evaluating the staff.
There were four actions that both Principal G and Immediate Supervisor G
agreed were important during the transition period (first 90 days): order, discipline,
visibility, and input. All four of the actions were confirmed as being important by
154
either the teachers as a whole or the department chairs. For example, order and com-
munication were confirmed as being important by 55% of the teachers at the school,
and discipline and visibility were confirmed as being important by 75% of the depart-
ment chairs.
There were a few Marzano-based actions that were important to School G’s
teachers and department chairs that were not important to either Principal G or his im-
mediate supervisor. For example, many of the teachers (64%) responded that affirma-
tion was important to Principal G’s transition period. Half of the department chairs
(50%) responded that flexibility and intellectual stimulation were important actions that
Principal G engaged in during the transition period.
Combined Schools in Study: Conclusions/Analysis
for Marzano Survey
The fact that every school in the sample was different regarding their nature and
problems they faced made analysis of the data difficult; however, there were three
Marzano-based actions in which the principals engaged during the transition period
(first 90 days) that could be confirmed by the responses of a majority of immediate su-
pervisors, teachers, and department chairs: culture, focus, and visibility. For example,
70% of the principals maintained visibility, as confirmed by 60% of the immediate
supervisors, 49% of the teachers, and 65% of the department chairs. Sixty percent of
the principals engaged in enhancing the school culture, as confirmed by 70% of the
immediate supervisors and 48% of the teachers. Finally, 60% of the principals engaged
155
in creating a focus at the school, as confirmed by 70% of the immediate supervisors,
50% of the teachers, and 53% of the department chairs.
There were other Marzano-based actions that were engaged in by a majority of
principals during the transition period (first 90 days) that were confirmed by substantial
supplemental data from immediate supervisors, teachers, and department chairs, but not
necessarily a majority of all of the groups. For example, 60% of principals engaged in
the allocation of resources, as confirmed by 40% of the teachers but not by a majority of
immediate supervisors or department chairs. Seventy percent of the principals engaged
in enhancing communication, as confirmed by 21% of the department chairs but not a
majority of the immediate supervisors or teachers.
There were other data from the study that were interesting and useful, but the
lack of confirmation by all stakeholders in the study limited its applicability. For ex-
ample, 50% of the principals responded that they engaged in situational awareness;
however, it was not an action witnessed by a majority of immediate supervisors, teach-
ers, or department chairs in the study. Fifty percent of immediate supervisors re-
sponded that knowledge of curriculum, instruction, and assessment was a Marzano-
based action that new principals took during the transition period (first 90 days); how-
ever, this was not confirmed by a majority of principals, teachers, or department chairs.
According to the 10 principals in the sample, the most important Marzano-
based actions during the transition period included maintaining visibility (70%), en-
hancing communication (70%), enhancing school culture (60%), allocating resources
(60%), and creating a focus (60%). The importance of these actions was confirmed by
156
other participants in the study. For example, the importance of visibility was confirmed
by half of the teachers (50%) and a majority of department chairs (55%). Secondly, the
importance of enhancing communication was confirmed by a majority of teachers
(64%) and department chairs (65%). Also, the importance of enhancing school culture
was confirmed by a majority of all participants in the study (immediate supervisors,
80%; teachers, 50%; and department chairs, 55%). The importance of resource alloca-
tion was confirmed by half of the teachers (50%). Finally, the importance for new
principals to create a focus during the transition period was confirmed by 46% of the
teachers and 53% of the department chairs.
There were other Marzano-based actions that specific groups who participated
in the study felt were important to the transition period that could not be confirmed by
other groups in the study. For example, a majority of teachers (52%) and department
chairs (53%) responded that maintaining discipline was an important Marzano-based
action for principals to engage in during the transition period, but its importance was
not confirmed by principals or immediate supervisors. A majority of the immediate
supervisors (60%) responded that establishing order was an important action for new
principals to engage in, but no other group supported this notion. Also, half of the im-
mediate supervisors responded that design of curriculum, instruction, and assessment
was an important Marzano-based action for new principals to engage in, but this re-
sponse was not validated by other data. Finally, 60% of principals responded that mon-
itoring/evaluating staff was an important action during the transition period, but this
157
was not confirmed by immediate supervisors, teachers, or department chairs (see Table
17).
Table 17
The Five Most Important Marzano-Based Strategies Frequently Utilized by New Prin-
cipals During the Transition Period (First 90 Days) From Perspective of Principals,
Immediate Supervisors, and Teachers

Immediate
CharacteristicPrincipalssupervisorsTeachers
CultureXX, OX, O
OrderX, OX
DisciplineO
ResourcesXX, O
Design of curriculum, instruction, and assessmentO
FocusXX, OX
Knowledge of curriculum, instruction, and assessmentX
VisibilityXXX, O
CommunicationXO
Monitor/evaluatorO
Note. Based on School Leadership That Works: From Research to Results, by R. J. Marzano,
T. Waters, and B. A. McNulty, 2005, Alexandria, VA: McREL. X = Marzano-based character-
istics in which new principals engaged during the transition period; O = Marzano-based char-
acteristics deemed most important for new principals to engage in.
Survey Based on Bolman and Deal (2003)
Background
Bolman and Deal (2003) suggested that there are many ways for people to view
organizations. These authors encourage leaders to step back and reexamine the opera-
tion of their organization through the use of various frames or windows. These
158
different lenses can bring organizational life into a different or clearer focus. Bolman
and Deal’s four frames (structural, human resource, political, and symbolic) allow the
leader to view the workplace from different images in order to make judgments, gather
information, and get things done. The authors claimed that leaders who are well versed
in the four frames will learn the importance of stepping back and looking at a situation
from multiple perspectives. They argued that this is vitally important for leaders be-
cause most leaders have the tendency to look at situations from a narrow perspective,
which hinders the ability to be effective and visionary leaders.
Bolman and Deal Survey Results: Principal G
A portion of all the variants of the survey (Four Frames Chart) was designed by
the cohort of USC researchers to determine how much time the sample of principals
acted in a way that could be attributed to one of the four frames during the transition
period (first 90 days). Given a chart listing the four frames and the behaviors that
would fall under each of the frames, Principal G responded that he spent 60% of his
time in the structural frame, 20% in the human resource frame, 10% in the political
frame, and 10% in the symbolic frame. A second part of the survey asked Principal G
to rank the frames in the order of how he should have spent his time. He indicated he
would not have changed anything; he ranked structural frame as number one, the human
resource frame as number two, the political frame as number three, and the symbolic
frame as number four.
159
Bolman and Deal Survey Results: Combined
Principals in Study
As part of the principal interview process, each member of the cohort issued the
Principal’s Four Frames Chart to the respective principals and asked them to indicate
the percentage of time spent in each frame during the transition period (first 90 days).
Although the percentage of time spent in certain frames varied across the schools due to
each school’s individual nature and issues, general conclusions could be drawn from
the data. During the transition period, the sample of principals spent the most time
(37.8%) operating in the human resource frame and the second most amount of time
(29.44%) operating in the structural frame. Principals spent less time operating in the
symbolic and political frames, spending 17.78% and 17.22% in them, respectively (see
Table 18).
Table 18
Bolman and Deal Survey: Percentage of Time Principals Spent in Each of the Four
Frames
Frame A B C D E F G H I J Mean
Structural1515250602560---254029.44
Human resource654 030604 01520- --403037.78
Political155302003510- --103017.22
Symbolic104 0152002510- --251517.78
Note. Principal H is not included due to incomplete data. Based on Reframing Orga-
nizations, by L. Bolman and T. Deal, 2003, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
160
A second part of the Principal’s Four Frame Chart asked principals to take a
retrospective look at how they used the four frames during the transition period (first 90
days) and to place a percentage ranking on how they should have spent their time when
operating from the lens of the four frames. The data largely confirmed that the sample
of principals was confident that they spent most of their time appropriately according to
Bolman and Deal’s four frames. Principals responded that they would have spent the
most time operating (33.10%) in the human resource frame, the second most amount of
time (29.29%) in the structural frame, the third most amount of time (23.81%) in the
political frame, and the least amount of time (15.96%) operating in the symbolic frame.
Looking at the data, one can see that the sample of principals indicated that they were
spending about the right amount of time in the structural frame, would have spent less
time operating in the human resource frame, would have spent more time in the politi-
cal frame, and would have spent slightly less time in the symbolic frame. These data
were not surprising in the sense that the structural frame forms the backbone of school
operations and it is obvious that acting in this frame is important to keep the school up
and running. Furthermore, the nature of their jobs and working with people force
principals to operate in the human resource frame continually. However, political activ-
ities such as agenda setting, mapping the political terrain and networking/building
coalitions takes more time, perhaps much longer than the transition period (first 90
days). Finally, the fact that new principals are spending the least amount of time in the
Symbolic Frame can also be attributed to the time it takes to learn the history and values
of the school, understand the group identity of the staff and learn about school rituals
161
and ceremonies. An argument can be made that actions made within the political and
symbolic frames are not as urgent to the principal’s transition period 90 days) and take
more time to cultivate (see Table 19).
Table 19
Bolman and Deal Survey: Percentage of Time Principals Should Have Spent in Each
of the Four Frames
Frame A B C D E F G H I I Mean
Structural30.025.030.00.050.0---------30.040.029.29
Human resource4 5.025.020.060.016.7---------35.030.033.10
Political2 0.025.040.020.016.7---------15.030.023.81
Symbolic5.025.010.020.016.7---------20.015.015.96
Note. Principals F, G, and H are not included due to incomplete data. Based on Re-
framing Organizations, by L. Bolman and T. Deal, 2003, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
School G Teachers’ Perspectives
The 22 teachers at School G who participated in the survey were given a
Bolman and Deal Four Frames Chart and asked to rank the frames according to the
actions of Principal G during the transition period (first 90 days), as well as their impor-
tance. Responses were calculated into quadrants of data: higher frequency/importance
(i.e., teacher ranked the frame either first or second in order of principal’s actions/
importance) or lower frequency (i.e., teacher either ranked the frame third or fourth in
162
order of principal’s actions/importance). The four department chairs’ responses were
calculated in the same way and were used to qualify the teachers’ responses.
An overwhelming majority of the teachers at School G (91%) rated the struc-
tural frame as a higher-frequency frame that Principal G operated in during the transi-
tion period. These data were confirmed by the four School G department chairs who
were interviewed for the study; 100% of them rated the structural frame as a higher-
frequency frame when considering Principal G’s actions during the transition period..
While Principal G operated out of the human resource frame frequently, according to a
large faction of School G teachers (45%), a majority of them (54%) felt that the human
resource frame was a lower-frequency frame. This was confirmed by the responses of
the department chairs, where 75% of them rated the human resource frame a lower-
frequency frame regarding the principal’s actions. According to a strong majority
(63%) of the teachers of School G, Principal G spent less time operating out of the
political frame; they rated it a lower-frequency frame. However, the views of the de-
partment chairs conflicted with the general population of the teachers, with 75% of the
department chairs rating the political frame as higher frequency. Finally, according to
the vast majority of School G teachers (72%), Principal G neglected the symbolic
frame; they rated it a lower-frequency frame. This was confirmed by the responses of
the department chairs, where 100% of them responded that the symbolic frame was a
lower-frequency frame as well (Figure 1).
163
Higher frequency Lower frequency
Frame
1
Most
Frequent
2
» º
3
4
Least
Frequent
º
Structural18(82%)2(9%)20(91%)1(5%)1(5%) 2(10%)
Human resource 2(9%)8(36%)10(45%)8(36%)4(18%)12(54%)
Political 1(5%)7(32%) 8(37%)6(27%)8(36%)14(63%)
Symbolic 1(5%)5(23%) 6(28%)7(32%)9(32%)16(72%)
Figure 1. Four Frames Chart rankings by Principal G’s actions by teacher responses
(N = 22). Based on Reframing Organizations, by L. Bolman and T. Deal, 2003, San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
As a second part to the questionnaire, the 22 School G teachers were asked to
rank the four frames according to how Principal G should have spent his time during
the transition period. The data reflected the sense that the teachers of School G gener-
ally felt that Principal G spent his time in the appropriate frames to bring about school
reform. The vast majority of School G teachers (91%) believed that Principal G should
have acted primarily in the structural frame, which he did. The importance of the struc-
tural frame as a higher importance frame was confirmed by 100% of the department
chairs. Although considered important by 45% of the teachers, the majority of teachers
(54%) rated the human resource frame a lower importance frame. A majority of the
department chairs (75%) also rated the human resource frame a lower importance frame
at School G. The majority of teachers of School G responded that the symbolic frame
(64%) and the political frame (72%) were lower importance frames at School G. The
department chairs generally agreed with the teachers regarding the lack of importance
164
of the symbolic and political frames at School G, for 75% of them rated both frames as
lower importance (see Figure 2).
Higher importance Lower importance
Frame
1
Most
Important
2
» º
3
4
Least
Important
º
Structural14(63%)6(28%)20(91%)2(10%)0(0%) 2(10%)
Human resource 4(18%)6(28%)10(45%)5(23%)7(32%)12(54%)
Political 2(10%)4(18%) 6(28%)8(36%)8(36%)16(72%)
Symbolic 2(10%)6(27%) 8(37%)7(32%)7(32%)14(64%)
Figure 2. Four Frames Chart rankings by importance of Principal G’s actions by
teacher responses (N = 22). Based on Reframing Organizations, by L. Bolman and
T. Deal, 2003, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Combined Teacher Responses
Each of the 10 researchers issued a Bolman and Deal survey to the teaching staff
at each of the 10 schools school in the study. The survey was issued separately to four
department chairs selected by the principal in order to gain further insight into the Four
Frames. The purpose of the survey was to gain the teachers’ perspective as a whole
regarding the frames under which the new principals operated during the transition
period, as well what frames the principals should have operated under as a whole.
The 154 teachers who participated in the survey were given a Bolman and Deal
Four Frames Chart and were asked to rank the frames according to the actions of their
principal during the transition period, as well as the importance of the actions.
165
Responses were calculated into quadrants of data: higher frequency (i.e., teacher either
ranked the frame first or second in order of principal's actions/importance) or lower
frequency (i.e., teacher ranked the frame either third or fourth in order of principal’s
actions/importance). The 40 department chairs’ responses were calculated in the same
way and were used to qualify the teachers’ responses.
The vast majority (72%) of teachers indicated that new principals spent signifi-
cant time in the structural frame during the transition period (first 90 days). This notion
that it was a higher frequency frame was supported by 75% of the department chairs.
The human resource frame was also a popular frame for new principals to operate in,
with 54% of the ranking it a higher frequency frame. However, a conflict in the data
existed due to the fact that a majority of department chairs (56%) rated it a lower fre-
quency frame. When asked about the political frame, a majority of teachers (59%) rated
it as a lower frequency frame due to the fact that their principal spent less time in it.
This was confirmed by a majority (58%) of the department chairs. Finally, the frame
under which principals operated least during the transition period, according to a major-
ity of teachers (66%), was the symbolic frame; this was confirmed by 61% of the de-
partment chairs (see Figure 3).
As a second part to the questionnaire, the 154 teachers in the sample were asked
to rank the four frames according to how their principal should have spent his/her time
during the transition period (first 90 days). The data largely confirmed that in general,
the sample of teachers believed that their principals were budgeting their time appropri-
ately within the frames. The vast majority of teachers (75%) believed that their
166
Higher frequency Lower frequency
Frame
1
Most
Frequent
2
» º
3
4
Least
Frequent
º
Structural62(40%)49(32%)111(72%)34(22%) 9(6%) 43(28%)
Human resource42(27%)42(27%) 84(54%)37(24%)33(21%) 70(45%)
Political24(16%)37(24%) 61(40%)50(32%)42(27%) 92(59%)
Symbolic27(18%)26(17%) 53(35%)33(21%)69(45%)102(66%)
Figure 3. Four Frames Chart rankings by frequency of all principals’ actions by
teacher responses (N = 154). Based on Reframing Organizations, by L. Bolman and
T. Deal, 2003, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
principal should have spent his/her time operating in the structural frame, which had the
highest frequency rating as far as actions were concerned. The structural frame was
also important to department chairs, with 58% of them rating it as a higher importance
frame. Secondly, the human resource frame was also viewed as being important to
teachers, with 59% of them rating it as a higher importance frame. The majority of de-
partment chairs (67%) rated the human resource frame as being of higher importance
than the structural frame. The frames that were rated by teachers as having a lower
importance were the political and symbolic frames—consequently, the frames in which
principals spent the least about of time. Fifty-nine percent of the teachers rated the
political frame of lower importance, and 66% teachers rated the symbolic frame of
lower importance. The department chairs held a similar view of the importance of the
political and structural Frames, with 64% of them believing that the political frame was
167
of lower importance and 67% of them believing that the symbolic frame was of lower
importance (Figure 4).
Higher importance Lower importance
Frame
1
Most
Important
2
» º
3
4
Least
Important
º
Structural56(36%)60(39%)116(75%)31(20%) 8(5%) 39(25%)
Human resource50(32%)42(27%) 92(59%)35(23%)27(18%) 62(41%)
Political21(14%)28(18%) 49(32%)51(33%)54(35%)105(68%)
Symbolic27(18%)24(16%) 51(34%)37(24%)65(42%)102(66%)
Figure 4. Four Frames Chart rankings of importance of all principals’ actions by
teacher responses (N = 154). Based on Reframing Organizations, by L. Bolman and
T. Deal, 2003, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
School G Conclusions/Analysis: Research
Question #2
A majority of the School G teachers, Immediate Supervisor G, and Principal G
expressed that School G was a Turnaround school due to low test scores and the fact
that the school was in PI due to subgroups not making their Adequate Yearly Progress
(AYP) in certain subgroups on the California Standardized Testing and Reporting
(STAR) exam. Other reasons School G was identified a turnaround school were that
the faculty was change resistant, suffered from past poor administration, and had poor
culture/low morale. It is important to note that each of the schools in the study were
identified as turnaround for different reasons, which helps to explain the varying actions
that principals took at their respective schools during the transition period (first 90
168
days). Principals who are entering the transition period (first 90 days) at a middle
school turnaround school in trouble because of test scores and a negative school culture
would find this case study to be especially interesting and informative. Compared to
the other principals in the study, Principal G was especially well versed in leadership
theories such as those provided in the works of Richard Marzano, John Collins, Richard
DuFour, and Mike Schmoker.
The nature of the school's problems, primarily based on test scores, partially
explains why Principal G spent the majority of time focusing on “structural” activities
during his transition period. Some of the structural types of actions in which Principal
G engaged during the transition period, which his immediate supervisor and faculty felt
were significant, were the creation of short- and long-term goals for the staff with a
focus on state standards, the revamping of a schoolwide discipline policy, enhancing
structures for parent and community involvement, and using data for decision making at
the school. According to all of the participants in the study at School G, Principal G
spent a significant amount of time operating in the human resource frame. In fact,
many of Principal G’s actions involved structures that were put in place to facilitate
employee relationships and communication, such as creating a collaborative culture/
leadership team and having an open-door policy. The fact that Principal G spent most
of his time in the structural and human resource frames and that they were the most
important at School G during his transition period was confirmed by his staff and
immediate supervisor. There was an overwhelming consensus that Principal G spent
169
little time in the political and symbolic frames during the transition period and that
those frames were considered less important by all participants in the study.
Principal G was unique in the sense that he was one of only two principals
(20%) in the study who was familiar with Marzano’s strategies of effective leadership.
The Marzano-based strategies that Principal G engaged in during the transition period
were significantly different than those engaged in by principals at the other nine
schools, because the data showed that most of them were operating primarily out of a
human resource perspective. The fact that the majority of teachers at School G failed to
confirm that “culture” was an important Marzano-based action that Principal G engaged
in during the transition period confirmed the notion that School G principal’s method of
reform was primarily structural in nature.
At School G, responses to the Marzano questionnaire were diverse according to
the group surveyed (principal, immediate supervisor, teachers, department chairs). The
data revealed that most the Marzano-based actions of Principal G during the transition
period were structural or human resource in nature. For example, the combined data
from all who participated in the School G study confirmed that the important Marzano-
based actions on which Principal G focused the most during the transition period were
order, discipline, visibility, and input. The teacher data confirmed that Principal G also
engaged in creating a focus, providing resources, and monitoring/evaluating staff,
which can be linked to both the structural and human resource frames. Finally, the
combined data confirmed that Principal G spent little time engaging in Marzano-based
170
strategies that the staff perceived as being less important, such as providing intellectual
stimulation, being flexible, and providing contingent rewards.
Combined Schools Conclusions/Analysis: Research
Question #2
When considering what leadership strategies and conceptual frameworks were
useful to the sample of principals during the transition period, it is important to remem-
ber that each of the principals were facing different issues and problems that put their
school in the turnaround category. When directly asked what leadership strategies and
conceptual frameworks they used, only half referred to formal types of leadership strat-
egies taught in textbooks (e.g., Marzano, Bolman and Deal, Collins, DuFour, etc.).
However, 100% of the principals mentioned personal characteristics such as being
flexible, listening, being approachable, and so on. Through the interviews and ques-
tionnaires, it was discovered that the sample of principals were both knowingly and
unknowingly implementing formal leadership strategies, such as Marzano et al.’s
(2005) and were knowingly and unknowingly operating under the four frames of
Bolman and Deal (2003). Principals who are considering a career in the principalship
and principals who are just entering the transition period (first 90 days) will find this
section to be particularly useful.
Similarly to the Principal of School G, the vast majority of school principals
(72%) considered the structural frame to be a higher frequency frame in which they
operated during the transition period. Furthermore, a majority of the principals (54%)
responded that the human resource frame was a higher frequency frame as well.
171
Similar to School G, the political and symbolic frames were rated as lower frequency
frames that utilized less frequently during the transition period. The data from the
teachers and department chairs confirmed the notion that the principals primarily oper-
ated within the structural and human resource lenses during the transition period. The
data confirmed that the majority of teachers believed that the structural (75%) and
human resource (59%) frames were the most important ones for the principal’s transi-
tion period. An interesting note is that department chairs, unlike the teachers as a
whole, rated the human resource frame of higher importance than the structural frame.
Finally, the data confirmed that similarly to principals, a majority of the teachers
viewed the political and symbolic frames as being of lower importance during the
transition period.
The principals in the study engaged in three Marzano-based strategies during the
transition period that could be confirmed by a majority of teachers, immediate supervi-
sors, and department chairs: focus, visibility, culture. There was some evidence (con-
firmed by either teachers or department chair data) that principals frequently engaged in
the allocation of resources and communication. Fifty percent of the principals stated
that they engaged in situational awareness, but this was not confirmed by a majority of
intermediate supervisors, teachers, or department chairs.
There appeared to be certain Marzano-based actions that immediate supervisors
would have liked to see occurring at schools during the transition period that were not
happening. For example, 50% of the immediate supervisors responded that knowledge
of curriculum/instruction/assessment was an important action, and 60% mentioned
172
order as being important. Unfortunately, these data could not be confirmed by a major-
ity of teachers or department chairs. A majority of immediate supervisors failed to
confirm that the most important Marzano-based actions according to teachers—visi-
bility and communication—were important to them as well. Despite these differences,
80% of the immediate supervisors did agree with the teachers that the creation of a
positive school culture was one of the most important actions for new principals to
engage in during the transition period.
There were five Marzano-based actions that were viewed by a majority of prin-
cipals to be important during the transition period that were also confirmed by the
teacher and department chair data: visibility, communication, culture, allocating re-
sources, and creating a focus. Although the majority of principals did not view it as one
of the more important characteristics, maintaining discipline was reported as being
important to a principal’s transition period by 52% of the teachers. When looking at
these Marzano-based actions that were viewed as important to the transition period
from the lenses of Bolman and Deal (2003), most of the actions fell under the structural
and human resource frames.
Research Question #3: Importance of University Programs
Did university programs prepare new principals for success during the transi-
tion period (first 90 days)?
173
Principals
School G Principal’s Perspective
The principal of School G generally expressed a lack of confidence in the effec-
tiveness of university programs in preparing new principals for the rigors of the job. He
expressed that school administration courses at his university were “hit or miss.” He
mentioned that within his university coursework, there were certain instructors who
influenced him through hands-on learning experiences such as visiting school board
meetings and observing principals on K-12 campuses. However, the principal ada-
mantly stated that the most important learning experiences for new principals occur by
“getting into the fire.” He stated that practical experience and having “people skills”
are more important than classroom learning for new principals during the transition
period.
Perspective of Other Principals in Study
There was a mixed response from the 10 principals who participated in the
study. During the interview component of the study, principals were asked whether
university programs prepared them for their job as principal. The responses of the prin-
cipals were varied according to their school and situation. Only 1 principal’s (10%)
response was extremely positive about university programs. Three principals’ (30%)
responses were generally positive about university programs. This made a total of 4
principals (40%) of the 10 in the sample who were positive about the effectiveness of
university programs. On the other hand, 6 of the 10 (60%) principals were generally
174
negative regarding the effectiveness of university programs, with 1 (10%) stating that
he or she was not confident at all in university principal preparation programs (see
Table 20).
Table 20
Interview Question #7: How University Programs Prepared Principals for Their Job
Response A B C D E F G H I J %
Extremely positive about programsX10
Generally positive about programsXXX30
Generally negative about programsXXXXX50
Not confident about university programsX10
Principals qualified their answers to the research question in different ways ac-
cording to their university experience and current situation. Seven of the 10 principals
(70%) mentioned in their interview that there were indeed some positive elements of
university training programs that helped prepare them for their current situations. For
example, 4 principals (40%) responded that university programs provide necessary
leadership training for new principals. Three principals (30%) stated that university
programs enhanced their knowledge of educational theory and curriculum and assisted
them in positive implementation. Two principals (20%) responded that university
programs prepared them to deal with personnel issues, helped them to learn/analyze the
California Education Code, and helped them with administrative procedures/functions/
175
responsibilities. Finally, 1 principal (10%) stated that university programs prepared
him/her regarding the legal/financial elements of running a school (see Table 21).
Table 21
How University Programs Prepared Principals With Respect to Training and on-the-
Job Knowledge
Training A B C D E F G H I J %
Leadership trainingXXXX40
PersonnelXX20
California Education CodeXX20
Help with theory and curriculumXXX30
Administrative functions/responsibilitiesXX20
School financeX10
Note. Principals G, H, and J did not mention these topics.
Despite the positive elements of principal training programs that principals in
the sample mentioned, the overwhelming majority of principals (70%) stated that uni-
versity preparation training programs do not help because they fail to provide practical
knowledge and experience for new principals. Along these same lines, 2 of the 10
principals (20%) responded more specifically that their university programs were fail-
ures due to the fact that there was “no induction model” and consequently no hands-on
learning opportunities. One principal (10%) mentioned that university programs fail to
adequately address school reform. Finally, 1 principal (10%) explicitly stated that it
depends on the university program (see Table 22).
176
Table 22
Reasons That University Programs Do Not Help, According to Principals’ Responses
Reason A B C D E F G H I J %
Fail to provide practical knowledge/experienceXXXXXXX70
Fail to provide an “induction” modelXX20
Fail to adequately address school reformX10
Depends on the programX10
Immediate Supervisors
School G Immediate Supervisor’s Perspective
When asked whether university programs prepare new principals for success
during the transition period, the immediate supervisor of Principal G responded that it
depends on the program. She argued that university programs based on practical appli-
cation made a difference for the principals whom she supervised as a whole. She men-
tioned that collaborative and practical programs such as the University of LaVerne
teach a certain leadership style that her district was looking for in new principals. She
stated that principals who have doctorates do not need as much coaching as principals
who do. According to Supervisor G, principals with doctorates “just know how. All I
have to do is say, ‘You know, if you did something like this . . .,’ and they knew how to
implement it.”
177
Perspective of Other Immediate Supervisors
in Study
When asked whether or not they thought university programs prepare adminis-
trators for the principalship, the sample of 10 immediate supervisors was divided.
When asked to qualify their responses to the question, the comments from half of the
immediate supervisors (50%) were classified as being extremely positive (20%) or
generally positive (30%) about university programs. On the other hand, half of the
respondents’ (50%) comments were classified as being generally negative (30%) or
expressed a lack of confidence in university programs (20%; see Table 23).
Table 23
How University Programs Prepare Principals for the Principalship, According to
Immediate Supervisors
Response A B C D E F G H I J %
Extremely positive about programsXX20
Generally positive about programsXXX30
Generally negative about programsXXX30
Not confident about university programsXX20
When asked whether or not university programs prepared administrators for the
principalship, the responses from the 10 immediate supervisors in the sample varied.
Six immediate supervisors (60%) responded that university programs provide principals
with critical knowledge of educational theory and curriculum. Four immediate supervi-
sors (40%) responded that university programs help to prepare new principals for their
178
jobs by providing leadership training, training relating to background and implementa-
tion of the California Educational Code, training relating to administrative functions/
responsibilities, and training relating to school finance. Finally, 3 immediate supervi-
sors (30%) mentioned that university programs prepare new principals to deal with the
sensitive personnel issues that occur in K-12 education (see Table 24).
Table 24
How University Programs Prepare Principals With Respect to Training and on-the-Job
Knowledge, According to Immediate Supervisors
Training A B C D E F G H I J %
Leadership trainingXXXX40
PersonnelXXX30
California Education CodeXXXX40
Help with theory and curriculumXXXXXXX70
Administrative functions/responsibilitiesXXXX40
School financeXXXX40
Note. Immediate Supervisors C, D, and H did not mention these topics.
Despite the positives mentioned about university programs, when asked whether
or not university programs prepare new administrators for the principalship, eight of the
ten immediate supervisors (80%) responded that university programs fail to provide
practical knowledge and experience for new principals. Two of the immediate super-
visors (20%) mentioned that university programs could be improved by following more
of an “induction model” in order to provide more hands-on learning experience for new
principals; 1 immediate supervisor (10%) mentioned that he/she would have benefited
179
more from his/her program if the university had provided a mentor/role model to work
with. One immediate supervisor (10%) criticized university programs because they fail
to adequately address school reform. Finally, 2 of the immediate supervisors (20%)
argued that the degree to which university programs prepare new administrators for the
principal depends on the program (see Table 25).
Table 25
Reasons That University Programs Do Not Help, According to Immediate Supervisors’
Responses
Reason A B C D E F G H I J %
Fail to provide practical knowledge/experienceXXXXXXXX80
Fail to provide an “induction” modelXX20
Fail to adequately address school reformX10
Fail to provide mentors/role modelsX10
Depends on the programXX20
Research Question #3: Analysis/Conclusions
The sample of 10 principals and immediate supervisors varied on their opinions
on university programs and whether or not they prepare administrators for the princi-
palship. While 40% of the principals and 50% of the immediate supervisors made
positive comments about university programs, 60% of the principals and 50% of the
immediate supervisors were generally negative about them. Based on the comments of
the principals and immediate supervisors, the quality of principal training programs
varies according to the university.
180
There was a general perception by both principals and immediate supervisors
that programs based on practical, hands-on learning experiences and that are collabora-
tive in nature are superior to other programs. In 1991, a study revealed that 69% of
principals and 80% of superintendents believed that typical leadership programs are not
in touch with the realities of what it takes to run a modern public school (Farkas et al.,
2003). The data from this study provided a modern-day confirmation of this notion, for
70% of principals and 80% of immediate supervisors stated that university programs
fail to provide practical knowledge/experience to aspiring principals.
The research showed that principal training programs should teach prospective
principals to (a) distribute leadership practices, (b) create a culture of collegiality and
community, (c) develop knowledge that will allow school leaders to better promote
successful teaching and learning, (d) develop strategies related to collaborative decision
making, (e) create processes for organizational change and renewal, and (f) develop
management competence in the analysis and use of data and technology to guide school
improvement activities (Knapp et al., 2003; Waters et al., 2003).
Despite the perception that university programs fail to provide practical knowl-
edge/experience to aspiring principals, new principals were indeed implementing some
of the positive research-based elements from university programs. The fact that 40% of
principals and immediate supervisors in the sample expressed that universities prepared
new principals in leadership strategies is encouraging. The fact that 70% of immediate
supervisors and 30% of principals responded that universities prepared new principals
181
regarding educational theory/curriculum was an accomplishment that was supported by
the research.
The responses from the sample of 10 immediate supervisors showed that they
valued university programs much more than the principals did. For example, 40% of
the immediate supervisors responded that university programs helped new principals
deal with issues pertaining to the California Education Code (compared to 20% of the
principals). Forty percent of the immediate supervisors responded that university pro-
grams helped new principals with administrative procedures/functions/responsibilities
(compared to 20% of the principals). Forty percent of the immediate supervisors re-
sponded that university programs help new principals with legal/financial elements of
running a school (compared to 10% of principals). Finally, 30% of the immediate
supervisors responded that university programs helped new principals deal with person-
nel issues (compared to 20% of the principals).
An analysis of the data led to the conclusion that university programs are not
effectively preparing prospective administrators for the principalship. While universi-
ties are doing a somewhat respectable job at preparing principals regarding leadership
training and training pertaining to educational theory/curriculum, it is disappointing that
less than half of the 10 immediate supervisors/principals stated that university programs
are satisfactorily preparing new principals in personnel issues, California Education
Code, administrative procedures/functions/responsibilities, and legal/financial issues in
education. Furthermore, it was disappointing that none of the principals/immediate
supervisors surveyed specifically mentioned that important research-based strategies,
182
such as creating organizational change and renewal, implementation of effective profes-
sional development activities, and use of data/technology in decision making, were
learned at the university level and transferred to professional practice. It was also dis-
appointing that none of the respondents (principals/immediate supervisors) mentioned
that universities taught them the important research-based strategy of reflection, which
would facilitate critical analysis and allow new principals to learn from practice (Knapp
et al., 2003; Waters et al., 2003).
While research pertaining to the effectiveness of university programs in training
new principals was extremely limited, it indicated that principal training programs that
offer a logical and sequential variety of coursework, learning activities, and program
structures that combine theory and practice are superior and have a better chance of
leading to successful practice. The program should be framed around the principles of
adult learning theory. The learning activities provide scaffolding on which new self-
directed knowledge is constructed, past experiences are linked with newly acquired
knowledge, and self-reflection is fostered. They should be problem rather than subject
centered and offer multiple venues for applying new knowledge in practical settings
(Lave, 1991). The data from the sample of 10 principals/immediate supervisors showed
that the transfer of knowledge from university programs to professional practice was
unfortunately not occurring in most cases. University programs would benefit by
making sure that their missions and goals are aligned with the best practices found in
the research. Despite the fact that most university programs lack innovation and an
interdisciplinary theme, there are many programs that are trying to incorporate
183
strategies found to be successful, such as clinical internships, with strong mentoring
relationships; collaborations with school districts for high-quality placements; and
cohort groups engaged in studying a tighter, more coherent and more relevant curricu-
lum.
Chapter Conclusion
School G
Although the School G case study should be of interest to a large body within
the field of education research, the School G case study should be of particular interest
to new principals working in Grade 6-8 turnaround middle schools and can greatly
facilitate the transition period, especially principals of small-scale (School G had ap-
proximately 845 students), diverse schools with large percentages of free- and reduced-
price lunch students. The fact that the API of School G rose 49 points to 715 based on
the 2005-2006 STAR showed that it was a school on the rise. At the time of his inter-
view, Principal G had 11 years of experience in the field of education and was a former
assistant principal and teacher; both experiences most likely assisted him in his efforts
to turn school G around. School G was identified as a turnaround school by Immediate
Supervisor G primarily because of the low morale.
Principal G expressed that the transition period (first 90 days) as principal had
been the most significant time in his career at the school. He mentioned that it was an
important time to establish credibility and build rapport. Among his first acts as prin-
cipal were creating a shared decision-making process at the school, maintaining an
184
open-door policy, and making school discipline a top priority. One of his first acts as
principal was the creation of a staff feedback form, which he used to address staff
concerns. He mentioned that the resulting collaborations that resulted from the survey
were keys in changing what had been a negative, closed culture at the school.
In his interview, Principal G casually mentioned that authors/leadership frame-
works that were important to his transition period were Jim Collins, Robert Marzano,
Mike Schmoker, and John Warden. The data reported in this chapter showed that Prin-
cipal G engaged in Marzano-based behaviors during the transition period and that many
of these behaviors were viewed by Immediate Supervisor G and the School G teachers
as being important to the transition period. Finally, data gathered from the implementa-
tion of the Bolman and Deal survey at School G indicated that Principal G operated
under the context of Bolman and Deal’s (2003) four frames during the transition period,
with a primary focus on the structural and human resource frames, both of which were
viewed as higher importance frames during Principal G’s transition period by the par-
ticipants in the study.
Both Principal G and Immediate Supervisor G expressed a lack of confidence in
university programs and whether they help to prepare new principals for their jobs.
Principal G expressed that university courses were often “hit or miss” and emphasized
the importance of practical, hands-on collaborative experiences for prospective princi-
pals. Immediate Supervisor G argued that university programs vary by university and
agreed with Principal G that practical application and collaboration should be key
features of university programs.
185
Chapter Conclusion: Combined Schools in Study
The data from the combined schools should be of particular interest to new
principals entering the transition period in a turnaround middle school. They should
also be of interest to researchers interested in the transition period of new principals, as
well as researchers interested in the quality of university programs as they relate to prin-
cipal preparation. The primary reasons that schools within the sample were identified
as turnaround were low academic achievement, negative inertia (reluctance to change),
and low staff morale. A majority of the schools were identified as being turnaround
schools for multiple reasons.
It was unanimous among the sample of principals that the transition period is
important to a principal’s career. A majority of principals responded that it was within
the transition period that they established credibility as leaders. In their interviews, a
majority of principals stated that creating an open-door policy, building a leadership
team, facilitating collaboration, establishing a plan/mission, and having high expecta-
tions for staff were all important actions during the transition period (first 90 days).
In their interviews, the sample of principals casually mentioned that the work of
popular leadership theorists such as Lee Bolman, Jim Collins, Terry Deal, Richard
DuFour, Patrick Finn, Katie Haycock, Robert Marzano, Mike Schmoker, Peter Senge,
and John Warden were important to formulating a strategy to successfully attack the
transition period. The data from this chapter demonstrated that the sample of principals
did indeed engage in Marzano-based behaviors during the transition period and that
186
many of these behaviors were viewed by immediate supervisors as well as teachers as
being important to the transition period. Finally, data gathered from the implementa-
tion of the Bolman and Deal survey at the schools indicated that the sample of princi-
pals did indeed operate under the context of Bolman and Deal’s (2003) four frames
during the transition period, with a primary focus on the structural and human resource
frames, both of which were viewed as higher importance frames for principals to
operate under during the transition period.
When asked whether or not university programs adequately prepare prospective
principals for the principalship, the responses from the sample of principals and imme-
diate supervisors were mixed. The immediate supervisors were generally more positive
regarding university programs than the principals. It was mentioned frequently by both
principals and immediate supervisors that the quality of program depended on the uni-
versity. While there was by no means a consensus or overwhelming data to confirm the
following, there was some evidence that university programs are providing prospective
principals with a background in leadership theory, knowledge about curriculum/in-
struction, knowledge about the California Education Code, strategies relating to admin-
istrative procedures/functions/responsibilities, and information relating to personnel
issues. However, an overwhelming majority of the principals and immediate supervi-
sors in the sample stated that university programs fail to provide practical knowledge/
experience to prospective principals.
187
CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE

RESEARCH
The pressures of state and federal accountability measures such as NCLB,
combined with the increased scope of the job, have placed tremendous pressure on
principals across the nation. The increase in accountability has created situations in
K-12 schools that demand rapid results in student achievement and organizational
change. The challenges of raising student achievement can be overwhelming for
principals, considering the limited instructional minutes and numerous mandated
supplemental-type programs, such as character development, that compete for minutes
with the standards-based curriculum. In addition to the increasing amounts of instruc-
tional leadership that they must provide to raise test scores, principals face many chal-
lenges pertaining to leadership/management that include the evaluation of employees;
providing staff development; managing budgets and other financial issues; maintaining
effective discipline among students; promoting parent involvement; navigating the
politics involved in relationships with parents, teachers, students, and district office
personnel; setting a vision; creating a positive school culture; and so on.
The increase in state and federal accountability under NCLB has created a sense
of urgency among the public and politicians for schools and principals to produce
results, especially principals in diverse Title I schools. The NCLB law states that all
students will be “proficient” in mathematics and language arts by 2015. This includes
188
subgroups that have historically struggled and continually pose challenges for schools
due to societal issues that principals cannot control, such as ELLs, students of low
socioeconomic status, and students with disabilities. Failing to meet the goals set in
NCLB will result in the school being negatively labeled as being PI and consequently
placed in a progressive system of consequences leading to the district’s loss of control
over the school.
The pressures of NCLB accountability and the demands of the job are causing
many educators to think twice regarding entering the field of school administration.
The situation throughout the United States is much the same as it is in California, where
future school site leaders such as teachers/counselors, many with administrative creden-
tials, are hesitant to take principal jobs because of the new accountability as well as the
fact that they are perceived as thankless jobs that require countless hours of dedication
and hard work to be successful. The fact that there is no job protection often com-
pounds the on-the job stress that principals face on a daily basis. Furthermore, the
challenges that diverse Title I school districts face in recruiting qualified and well
prepared leaders are daunting. Although policy makers, university leaders, and school
district officials have created scattered, research-based programs relating to principal
training and induction, it is obvious that researchers need to take a serious look at issues
pertaining to the principalship, as well as existing programs and their effectiveness.
The fact that many potential school leaders are thinking twice about a career in school
leadership makes it imperative to focus on the training and transition period of new
principals so that they will be successful and stay on the job.
189
The purpose of this study was to determine the importance of the transition
period (first 90 days) for turnaround principals, to gauge whether or not turnaround
principals utilized formal or informal transition plans, and to determine the strategies
and conceptual frameworks (from business and educational leadership theory) that
turnaround principals utilized within their first 90 days. The study also addressed the
perceived effectiveness of university programs by principals who had successfully
navigated the transition period. To examine these issues, the following research ques-
tions were developed to guide the study:
1.Do principals in turnaround schools find the transition period (first 90 days)
to be important?
2.What strategies and conceptual frameworks (leadership theories) were
useful to new principals during the transition period (first 90 days) in a turnaround
school?
3.Did university programs prepare new principals for success during the
transition period (first 90 days) in a turnaround school?
Conclusion/Analysis
Research Question #1
Do principals in a turnaround situation find the transition period (first 90 days)
to be important? The transition period of principals working in middle school turn-
around schools was very important, according to all 10 principals in the study. Eighty
percent of the principals responded that the transition period was very significant, while
190
20% mentioned that the transition period was significant. Seventy percent of the
principals responded that the transition period was when they established credibility as
a leader. When qualifying their answers regarding whether or not the transition period
was significant, the 10 principals responded in different ways and took unique actions
that depended on the issues that their individual schools were facing.
While the principals’ answers to the question varied in general, there were some
commonalities among the respondents, and most of the principals actions that were
deemed important by the sample of principals during the transition period were sup-
ported by research. For example, actions that the sample of principals stated as being
important during the transition period, such as creating an open-door policy, building a
leadership team, creating professional learning communities, establishing a focused
plan/mission, making decisions based on data, maintaining visibility, establishing a
discipline policy, and establishing innovative procedures, were all backed by significant
research from the business and educational sectors. By implementing and adapting the
above mentioned leadership strategies at their schools, new principals entering the
transition period would have a greater chance of success during this important time of a
new principals career.
Research Question #2
What strategies and conceptual frameworks (leadership theories) were useful to
new principals during the transition period (first 90 days)? When asked what leader-
ship theories are vital to the transition period, the principals’ responses were varied.
191
Most of the principals responded with descriptions of behaviors that are vital for suc-
cess during the transition period but not necessarily comprehensive leadership frame-
works studied in university or school district leadership programs. However, during
their interviews, various principals in the sample casually mentioned authors and
theorists such as Lee Bolman, Jim Collins, Terry Deal, Richard DuFour, Patrick Finn,
Katie Haycock, Robert Marzano, Mike Schmoker, Peter Senge, and John Warden. The
inconsistency in the awareness of the sample of principals regarding leadership the-
ories/frameworks/strategies that could potentially assist them during the transition
period was evidence that new principals are not prepared to attack the issues that turn-
around schools are facing with a formalized plan learned in a university program, but
with a plan that is constructed from lifelong learning in a variety of arenas, including
personal experience in the field. It was perhaps just a coincidence that three of the
authors who were casually mentioned by principals in their interviews—Robert Mar-
zano (balanced leadership framework) and Lee Bolman and Terry Deal (four frames)—
created the frameworks that constituted the primary focus of the cohort’s research.
Despite the differing natures of the turnaround situations that the sample of
principals were facing in their respective schools, there were three Marzano-based
actions that principals engaged in during the transition period that could be confirmed
by a majority of immediate supervisors, teachers, and department chairs: culture, focus,
and visibility. These three Marzano-based actions were also confirmed as being among
the most important by a majority of all participants in the study, and their importance
was backed by research. Finally, the Marzano data indicated a general consensus that
192
the creation of an orderly environment should be a top priority of principals entering the
transition period. This is not surprising, for in order for learning to take place in class-
rooms, the environment must be orderly and free from internal and external distractions
for both the teacher and the learner. The creation of an orderly school environment
applies to both teachers and learners. It is important for new principals to realize that a
majority of teachers and department chairs responded that maintaining discipline is an
important Marzano-based action during the transition period. New principals would be
wise to assess student discipline and immediately take corrective action if they want to
gain the support of teachers at their school. Similarly, the majority of immediate super-
visors responded that establishing order was an important action for new principals to
engage in during the transition period and that they would be relieved to know that a
majority principals in the sample viewed monitoring/evaluating staff as an important
action during the transition period. While creating order encompasses structural sys-
tems other than student discipline and employee evaluation, the creation of structures
that facilitate an orderly environment should be a top priority for new principals during
the transition period.
Regarding results from the four frames survey (Bolman & Deal, 2003), the vast
majority of school principals in the sample (72%) considered the structural frame a
higher frequency frame in which they operated during the transition period. This was
followed by the human resource frame, which 54% of the principals indicated was a
higher frequency frame. A majority of the sample of teachers and department chairs
confirmed that principals indeed primarily operated within the structural and human
193
resource frames during the transition period. A strong argument can be made that im-
portant and frequently utilized Marzano-based actions, such as culture, focus, and visi-
bility, primarily fall under the structural and human resource frames; however, there are
political and symbolic elements to the actions as well, hence exemplifying the flexibil-
ity of Bolman and Deal’s framework. Finally, a majority of all groups in the study
indicated that principals in the study spent far less time operating in the political and
symbolic frames during the transition period; they also deemed the political and sym-
bolic frames as being lower importance frames during the transition period. These
results were not surprising due to the fact that many of the political and symbolic char-
acteristics listed on the survey require significantly more time to implement than the
transition period (first 90 days) permits. On the other hand, new principals must imme-
diately engage in structural and human resource activities to keep the organization
running smoothly.
While a majority of the principals did not mention that they operated under
Bolman and Deal’s (2003) four frames or Marzano et al.’s (2005) balanced leadership
framework, the responses of all participants in the study on the Characteristics and
Behavior Chart indicated that principals valued and frequently utilized many of Mar-
zano et al.’s leadership strategies during the transition period. Principals entering the
transition period, especially in turnaround schools, would benefit by having an under-
standing of the Marzano-based characteristics/behaviors that helped the sample of
principals in the study succeed during their transition period. Furthermore, the re-
sponses of all participants in the study indicated that Bolman and Deal’s four frames is
194
applicable to the principal’s transition period and that new principals would benefit by
having an understanding of the four frames, especially the frames under which the
sample of principals most frequently operated during their transition period, as well as
which frames principals, teachers, and department chairs found to be the most impor-
tant during the transition period.
Research Question #3
Did university programs prepare new principals for success during the transi-
tion period (first 90 days)? The sample of 10 principals and immediate supervisors
varied on their opinions of university programs and whether or not they prepare admin-
istrators for the principalship. While 40% of the principals and 50% of the immediate
supervisors made positive comments about university programs in their interviews,
60% of the principals and 50% of the immediate supervisors were generally negative
about them. Based on the comments of principals and immediate supervisors, the
quality of principal training programs varies according to the university. Furthermore,
an overwhelming majority of principals and immediate supervisors in the study stated
that university programs fail to provide practical knowledge and experience to aspiring
principals. The responses from the sample of immediate supervisors showed that they
valued university programs much more than the sample of principals, although only
half had positive comments about the programs. They mentioned that university pro-
grams help new principals learn about the California Education Code, prepare new
principals to manage administrative procedures/functions/responsibilities, assist new
195
principals in dealing with the legal/financial elements of running a school, and help new
principals manage personnel issues. If the sample of immediate supervisors was correct
regarding their observations about the strengths of university programs (which are pri-
marily structural and human resource in nature), their opinion helps to explain why new
principals operated under and valued the structural and human resource frames the
most. It is quite possible that university programs are neglecting the importance of the
political and symbolic elements of leadership training. It is also possible that while
political and symbolic elements can be taught in a university setting, their effective
implementation relies more heavily on the personal characteristics and social tendencies
of the new principal.
An analysis of the data from this study indicated that university programs are
not effectively preparing prospective administrators for the principalship, especially
when it comes to preparing principals with a specific, research-based framework in
which to successfully attack the transition period (first 90 days). The fact that nearly all
of the principals in the sample did not mention the important work of Marzano or Bol-
man and Deal in their interviews and did not have a firm grasp on leadership theory was
disheartening. However, research in the area of university program effectiveness as it
pertains to the principal’s transition period was extremely limited, and more work
should be done in this area. The data from the sample of principals/immediate supervi-
sors showed that the transfer of knowledge from university programs to professional
practice was unfortunately not occurring in most cases. To counter this, more and more
university programs are trying innovative approaches to teaching prospective principals
196
(e.g., cohorts, mentoring, work experience programs, etc.) and are attempting to bridge
the gap between textbook knowledge and “real world experience.” Unfortunately, the
programs are so new that little research has been done to judge their effectiveness. The
effectiveness of university programs as they relate to the principal’s transition period
(first 90 days) is an opportunity for future research that will provide very interesting
conclusions.
Suggestions for Future Areas of Research
The literature base in business includes many research-based conceptual frame-
works relating to general leadership as well as leaders’ transition periods (first 90 days).
On the other hand, although there are numerous pieces of practical literature designed to
help new principals, a shortage of research-based literature exists relating to new prin-
cipals as they enter the position. This dissertation, although a relatively small study,
attempted to fill a void that exists in the research relating to new principals’ transition
period. The future looks bright for researchers who are interested in the principal’s
transition period, and many opportunities exist that will most likely reveal crucial data
that will benefit new principals during this period. Although this study contributes to
the knowledge base of the new principal’s transition period in turnaround schools,
future researchers might investigate the following areas of educational leadership
research as it pertains to the principal’s transition period.
197
Principal Accountability/Responsibility
There are many new accountability standards that affect principals’ actions
during the transition period, such as the NCLB law and administrator standards such as
the ISLLC standards. For example, NCLB forces new principals to organize the curric-
ulum and instructional minutes at their respective schools to ensure that all students are
learning. In a school where certain subgroups are not meeting AYP, principals may be
forced to abandon electives to create proficiency classes. Furthermore, standards such
as the ISLLC’s that guide many districts’ principal evaluation process most likely guide
principals’ actions during the transition period. Due to the relative newness of NCLB
and the ISLLC standards, there is not a great deal research regarding how they affect a
principal’s transition period.
Due to the fact that the principal’s role in schools is dynamic and constantly
shifts with the latest political tides, ongoing research regarding the pressures that prin-
cipals face on the job is critical, especially considering the fact that there is a principal
shortage in many areas and teachers/counselors are increasingly hesitant to take on ad-
ministrative positions. In order to recruit/retain new principals and support them effec-
tively in their new jobs, it is essential that research continues regarding K-12 adminis-
trative shortages, especially as shortages pertain to certain geographic areas.
Principal Training/Mentoring/Induction
Perhaps the largest gap in the research as it pertains to new principals’ transition
period relates to the effectiveness of principal training/mentoring programs. Questions
198
have been raised in the existing research regarding who makes the best principal candi-
dates and the criteria used in their selection to university programs. It has been argued
that principals in different geographic regions need different types of personalities and
skill sets to be successful principals. Furthermore, there is potential for research on the
topic of what types of content/methods of instruction make the most successful princi-
pals. Currently, university programs and school districts integrate many types of strat-
egies into their programs: cohort groups, problem-based learning, internships, mentor-
ing, university/district partnerships, school district leadership academies, third-party
organizational programs. However, there is little specific research as to how effective
these strategies are at preparing principals for their jobs, especially as the preparation
relates to the transition period. Future research relating to principal training/mentoring/
induction should be especially meaningful to the field, especially research that isolates
these specific strategies and tests them for their effectiveness. The fact that many
immediate supervisors and principals in the sample mentioned that the effectiveness of
university programs depends on the program, it would be interesting to see research that
isolates specific programs to determine their effectiveness.
Leadership Principles
The sample of principals and immediate supervisors in this study casually men-
tioned many leadership strategies/conceptual frameworks that assisted them during the
transition period, including Marzano et al.’s (2005) balanced leadership framework and
Bolman and Deal’s (2003) four frames. While the cohort found that the sample of
199
principals did indeed utilize these principles, it would be interesting to test some of the
other leadership strategies/frameworks as they apply to the principal’s transition period.
This study was limited to middle school turnaround principals who worked in
southern California schools. Whether or not the data apply to more general populations
would have to be tested by further experimentation. It would be interesting to see
whether the results carry over to other types of middle schools, as defined by Watkins’s
(2003) STRS framework, (start-up, realignment, sustaining success), especially the
Marzano and Bolman and Deal data. Furthermore, it would be beneficial to know
whether the results carry over to geographical areas other than southern California,
which would strengthen the study. Finally, the research was limited to middle schools
(Grades 6-8), and it would be interesting to see if the findings can be confirmed by
similar studies conducted in elementary and high schools.
200
REFERENCES CITED
Aiken, J. (2002). The socialization of new principals: Another perspective on princi-
pal retention. Education Leadership Review, 1(3), 32-40.
Association of California School Administrators. (2000, June). Study confirms princi-
pal shortage in California. EdCal, 29, (39). Retrieved January 27, 2001 from
http://www.asca.org/publications/EDCAL/EDL_06.26.2000/principals.html
Barnett, B. H., Basom, M. R., Yerkes, D. M., & Norris, C. J. (2000). Cohorts in educa-
tional leadership programs: Benefits, difficulties, and the potential for developing
school leaders. Educational Administration Quarterly, 36, 255-282.
Bass, B. M., & Auolio, B. J. (1994). Improving organizational effectiveness through
transformational leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Baugh, D.F. (2003). The school-based administrative internship: Requirements and
student expectations. Connections, 4(4), 7-12.
Bell, E. (2001, September 23). Fewer teachers want the principal’s jobs growing
challenges. San Francisco Chronicle, pp. 1-4. Retrieved July 3, 2006, from
http://www.teachers4america.net
Bennis, W. (2003). On becoming a leader. New York: Basic Books.
Bennis, W., & Nanus, B. (2003). Leaders: Strategies for taking charge. New York:
Harper & Row.
Blase, J. J., & Blase, J. (1999). Principals instructional leadership and teacher devel-
opment: Teachers’ perspectives. Educational Administration Quarterly, 35, 349-
380.
Bloom, G., & Krovetz, M. (2001, January/February). A step into the principalship.
Leadership, 30(3), 12-13.
Bolman, L., & Deal, T. (2003). Reframing organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.
Bonstingl, J. J. (1996). On the road to quality: Turning stumbling blocks into stepping
stones. The School Administrator, 53(7), 16-24.
Bonstingl, J. J. (2001). Are the stakes too high? Principal Leadership, 1(5), 8-14.
201
Brewer, H. (2001). Ten steps to success. Journal of Staff Development, 22(1), 30-31.
Bridges, E., & Hallinger, P. (1993). Problem-based learning in medical and manage-
rial education. In P. Hallinger, K. Leithwood, & J. Murphy (Eds.), Cognitive
perspectives on educational leadership (pp. 253-267). New York: Teachers’
College Press.
Browne-Ferrigno, T., & Muth, R. (2001, November). Issues related to the effort of
cohorts on learners. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the University
Council for Education Administration, Cincinnati, OH.
Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper and Row.
Christie, K. (2000). Leadership comes around again. Phi Delta Kappan, 82, 528-533.
Collins, J. C. (2001). Good to great. New York: Harper Collins.
Collins, J. C., & Porras, J. I. (1997). Built to last: Successful habits of visionary
companies. New York: Harper Business.
Copeland, M. A. (2001). The myth of the superprincipal. Phi Delta Kappan, 82, 528-
533.
Cordeiro, P. A., & Smithsban, E. (1995, April). Apprenticeships for administrative
interns: Learning to talk like a principal. Paper presented at the annual meeting of
the American Research Association, San Francisco, CA.
Cotton, K. (2003). Principals and student achievement: What the research says. Al-
exandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Council of Chief State School Officers. (2006). Promising practices: Interstate
school leaders licensure consortium. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved
June 14, 2006, from http://www.ccsso.org
Covey, S. R. (1989). The 7 habits of highly effective people: Powerful lessons in per-
sonal change. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Covey, S. R. (1992). Principle-centered leadership. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Covey, S. R. (2005). The 8 habit: From effectiveness to greatness. New York: Free
th
Press.
202
Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed meth-
ods approaches (2 ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
nd
Crow, G., & Mathews, J. (1998). Finding one’s way: How mentoring can lead to dy-
namic leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Daggett, W. R. (2002). Moving from standards to instructional practice. NASSP
Bulletin, 84(620), 66-72.
Daresh, J. C. (2001). Leaders helping leaders: A practical guide to administrative
mentoring. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Davis, J. (1989). Effective schools, organizational culture, and local policy initiatives.
In M. Holmes, K. Leithwood, & D. Musella (Eds.), Educational policy for effective
schools (p. 28). New York: Teachers’ College Press.
Davis, S., Darling-Hammond, L., LaPointe, M., & Meyerson, D. (2005). School
leadership study: Developing successful principals. Stanford, CA: Stanford
University Educational Leadership Institute. Retrieved September 29, 2005, from
http:// www.gsb .stanford .edu
Deal, T., & Peterson, K. (1999). Shaping school culture: The heart of leadership. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Deal, T., & Peterson, K. (2002). Shaping school culture fieldbook. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
DuFour, R., & Eaker, R. (1998). Professional learning communities at work: Best
practices for enhancing student achievement. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree.
Donaldson, G. A. (2001, October 1). The lose-lose leadership hunt. Education Week,
21(5), 42.
Doud, J. L., & Keller, E. P. (1998). The K-8 principal in 1998. Principal, 78(1), 5-12.
Dukess, L. (2001). Meeting the leadership challenge: Designing effective principal
mentor programs—the experiences of six New York City community school dis-
tricts. New York: New Visions for Public Schools.
Ed-Data Partnership. (2006). School reports. Retrieved November 12, 2006, from
http://www.ed-data.k12.ca.us/welcome.asp
203
The Education Partnership. (n.d.). The Educational Partnership leadership initiatives:
Preparing and supporting leaders. Providence, RI: Author. Retrieved July 15,
2006, from http://edpartnership.org/failid/Prin_Leadership_Brochure.pdf
Educational Research Service. (1998). Is there a shortage of qualified candidates for
openings in the principalship: An exploratory study. Alexandria, VA: Author.
Retrieved July 6, 2006 from http://www.naesp.org/misc/shortage.htm
Educational Research Service. (1999). Study of the principalship. ERS Bulletin,
26(6), 12-22.
Educational Testing Service. (2006). Frequently asked questions about the School
Leadership Series (SLS). Ewing, NJ: Author. Retrieved 6/14/06 from http://
www.ets.org
Elmore, R. (2000). Building a new structure for school leadership. Washington, DC:
Albert Shankar Institute.
Elmore, R., Abelman, C., & Fuhrman, S. (1996). The new accountability in state ed-
ucation policy. In H. Ladd (Ed.), Performance-based strategies for improving
schools (pp. 65-98). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
Farkas, S., Johnson, J., Duffett, A., Foleno, T., & Foley, P. (2003). Trying to stay
ahead of the game: Superintendents and principals talk about school leadership.
Washington, DC: Public Agenda.
Forsyth, P. B., & Smith, T. D. (2002). Patterns of principal retention: What the
Missouri case tells us. Paper presented at the annual conference of the American
Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
Fullan, M. (1993). Change forces: Probing the depths of educational reform.
London: Falmer Press.
Fullan, M. (1998). Leadership for the 21 century: Breaking the bonds of dependency.
st
Educational Leadership, 55(7), 6-10.
Fullan, M. (2001). Leading in a culture of change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Georgia Department of Education. (2006). No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB).
Atlanta: Author. Retrieved July 15, 2006, from http://www.doe.k12.ga.us/
support/plan/nclb.asp
204
Georgia’s Leadership Institute for School Improvement. Georgia’s Leadership
Institute for School Improvement. (2006). Atlanta: Author. Retrieved July 15,
2006, from http://www.galeaders.org/site/default.htm
Gheens Foundation. (2006). Gheens Professional Development Academy. Louisville,
KY: Author. Retrieved July 15, 2006, from http://www.jefferson.k12.ky.us/
departments/gheens/AboutGheens.html
Glickman, C. D., Gordon, S. P., & Ross-Gordon, J. M. (1995). Supervision of instruc-
tion: A developmental approach. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Goodwin, R. H., Cunningham, M. L., & Childress, R. (2003). The changing role of the
secondary principal. NASSP Bulletin, 87(634), 26-42.
Hallinger, P., & McCrary, C. E. (1992, March). Developing the strategic thinking of
instructional leaders (Occasional Paper No. 13). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Grad-
uate School of Education National Center for Educational Leadership.
Hartzell, G., Williams, R., & Nelson, K. (1995). New voices in the field: The worklives
of first year assistant principals. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Hess, F. M. (2003). A license to lead? A new leadership agenda for America’s
schools. Washington, DC: Progressive Policy Institute.
Hough, J. (2000). Principal supply and demand report. Charleston, WV: West Vir-
ginia Department of Education.
Howley, A., Chadwick, C., & Howley, C. (2002). Networking for the nuts and bolts:
The ironies of professional development for rural principals. Journal of Research
Education, 17, 171-187.
Institute for Educational Leadership. (2000). Leadership for student learning: Rein-
venting the principalship—report of the Task Force on the Principalship. Wash-
ington, DC: Author. Retrieved June 2006, from http://www.iel.org
Jackson, B. L., & Kelley, C. (2002). Exceptional and innovative programs in educa-
tional leadership. Education Administration Quarterly, 38(2), 192-212.
Johnson, R.., & Onwuesbuzie, A. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research para-
digm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14-26.
Johnston, H. J. (1987). Values, culture, and the effective school. NASSP Bulletin,
71(497), 79-88.
205
King, D. (2002). The changing shape of leadership. Educational Leadership, 59(8),
61-63.
Knapp, M. S., Copeland, M. A., & Talbert, J. E. (2003). Leading for learning: Re-
flective tools for school and district leaders. Seattle, WA: Center for the Study of
Teaching and Policy.
Kohn, A. (2001). Fighting the test: A practical guide to rescuing our schools. Phi
Delta Kappan, 82, 434-439.
Kolb, D. A., & Boyatzis, R. E. (1999). Experiential learning theory: Previous research
and new directions. In R. J. Sternberg & L. F. Zhang (Eds.), Perspectives on
learning and cognitive thinking styles (pp. 20-25). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erl-
baum.
Kotter, J. P. (1998). Winning at change. Leader to Leader, 10, 24-30.
Kotter, J. P., & Heskett, J. L. (1992). Corporate culture and performance. New York:
Free Press.
Lashway, L. (2000). Who’s in charge? The accountability challenge. Principal Lead-
ership, 1(3), 8-13.
Lave, J. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Leithwood, K. (2005). Educational leadership (rev. ed). Philadelphia: Temple Uni-
versity, Center for Research in Human Development and Education, Laboratory for
Student Success. Retrieved October 18, 2005 from http://www.temple.edu
Leithwood, K., Jantzi, D., Coffin, G., & Wilson, P. (1996). Preparing school leaders:
What works? Journal of School Leadership, 6, 316-342.
Leithwood, K., Jantzi, D., & Steinbach, R. (1999). Changing leadership for changing
times. Philadelphia: Open University Press.
Leithwood, K., Seashore-Louis, K., Anderson, B., & Wahlstrom, A. (2004). Executive
summary: How leadership influences student learning. New York: Wallace
Foundation, Learning from Leadership Project.
Levine, A. (2005). Educating school leaders. New York: Columbia University,
Teachers’ College, Education Schools Project.
206
Levine, D. U., & Lezotte, L. W. (1990). Unusually effective schools: A review and
analysis of research and practice. Madison, WI: National Center for Effective
Schools, Research and Development.
Lindle, J. (2004). Trauma and stress in the principal’s office: Systematic inquiry as
coping. Journal of School Leadership, 14, 378-410.
Lindley, F. A. (2003). The portable mentor: A resource guide for entry-year princi-
pals and mentors. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Los Angeles Unified School District. Instructional Services. (2006). Administrative
Academy. Los Angeles: Author. Retrieved July 15, 2006, from http://iss.lausd
.net/adminacademy/
Marnik, G. (1998, February). Reflections on the high school principalship. The High
School Magazine, 6(2), 4-9.
Marzano, R. J., Waters, T., & McNulty, B. A. (2005). School leadership that works:
From research to results. Alexandria, VA: McRel.
Mayerson Academy. (2006). Professional learning communities of practice. Cincin-
nati, OH: Author. Retrieved July 15, 2006, from http://www.mayersonacademy
.org/plcop/plcop.htm#
McCarthy, M. (2002). Educational leadership preparation programs: A glance at the
past with an eye toward the future. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 1(3), 201-
221.
Meyer, M. J., & Mcmillan, R. B. (2001). The principal’s role in transition: Instruc-
tional leadership ain’t what it used to be. International Electronic Journal for
Leadership in Learning, 5(13), 1-14.
Morrissey, M. S., & Corwin, D. (2000, April). Creating and sustaining a professional
learning community: Actions and perceptions of leadership. Paper presented at
the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New
Orleans, LA.
Murphy, J. (1992). The landscape of leadership preparation: Reframing the educa-
tion of school administrators. Newbury Park, CA: Corwin Press.
Murphy, J. (1994). Redefining the principal in restructuring schools. NAASP Bulletin,
79(560), 94-100.
207
Murphy, J. (1998). What’s ahead for tomorrow’s principals. Principal Leadership,
78(1), 13-16.
Murphy, J. (2001, September). Re-culturing the profession of educational leadership.
New Blueprints Paper commissioned for the first meeting of the National Commis-
sion for the Advancement of Educational Leadership Preparation. Racine, WI.
National Association of Elementary School Principals, (2006). Fact sheet on the prin-
cipal shortage. Alexandria, VA: Author. Retrieved June, 28, 2006, from http://
www.naesp.org
National Center for Education Statistics. (2003). Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS).
[CD-ROM, restricted use data with electronic codebook (rev. ed.)]. Washington,
DC: U.S. Department of Education.
National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The im-
perative for educational reform. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
Retrieved July 1, 2006 from http://www .ed.hgov/pubs
National Conference of State Legislatures. (2006). No Child Left Behind Act of 2001.
Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved July 15, 2006, from http://ncsl.org/programs/
educ/nclbhistory.htm
National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education. (2002). Professional stan-
dards for the accreditation of schools, colleges, and departments of education.
Washington, DC: Author.
National Policy Board for Educational Administration for the Educational Leadership
Council. (2001). Recognizing and encouraging exemplary leadership in Amer-
ica’s schools: A proposal to establish a system of advanced certification for ad-
ministrators. Arlington, VA: Author. Retrieved June 25, 2006, from http://www
npbea.org
New Leaders for New Schools. (2006). Program overview. New York: Author.
Retrieved July 15, 2006, from http://www.nlns.org/NLWeb/Program.jsp
Normore, A. (2003, May). Professional and organizational socialization processes of
school administrators: A literature review. Paper presented at the Hawaii Interna-
tional Conference on Education, Honolulu, HI.

Norton, J. (2002). Preparing school leaders: It’s time to face the facts. Atlanta, GA:
Southern Regional Education Board.
208
Norton, J., O’Neill, K., Fry, B., & Hill, D. (2002). Universities in the lead: Redesign-
ing leadership preparation for student achievement. Atlanta, GA: Southern
Regional Education Board.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 20 U.S.C. Sections 6301 et seq. U.S.C. (2002).
Olson, L. (1999, January 11). Shining a spotlight on results. Education Week, 18(17),
8-10.
Parkay, F. & Rhodes, J. (1992). Stress and the beginning principal. In F. Parkay & G.
Hall (Eds.), Becoming a principal: The challenges of beginning leadership (pp.
103-122). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Parks, M. C., Protheroe, N., & Williams, A. R. (2002). Salaries and wages paid
professional and support personnel in public schools, 2001-2002: A reference tool
for school administrators and education leaders—national survey of salaries in
wages in public schools (29 ed.). Arlington, VA: Educational Research Service.
th
Patton, M. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3 ed.). Thousand
rd
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Peterson, K. D. (2001). The professional development of principals: Innovations and
opportunities. Education Administration Quarterly, 38, 213-232.
Popham, W. J. (2001). The truth about testing. Alexandria, VA: Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Portin, B., & Schneider, P. (2003). Making sense of leading schools: A study of the
school principalship. Seattle, WA: University of Washington, Center on Rein-
venting Public Education.
Portin, B. S., Shen, J., & Williams, R. C. (1998). The changing principalship and its
impact: Voices from principals. NASSP Bulletin, 82(602), 1-8.
Pounder, D. G., Galvin, P., & Shephard, P. (2003). An analysis of the United States
educational administrator shortage. Australian Journal of Education, 41(2), 133-
145.
Pounder, D. G., & Merrill, R. (2001). Job desirability of the high school principalship:
A job choice theory perspective. Educational Administration Quarterly, 37(2),
25-57.
209
Public Agenda. (2001). Trying to stay ahead of the game: Superintendents and prin-
cipals talk about school leadership. New York: Author. Retrieved June 29, 2006,
from http://www.publicagenda.org
Rentner, D. S. (2003). First signs of the new accountability. Principal Leadership,
5(5), 1-4.
Ricciardi, D. (2000, April). Experiences of Kentucky principal intern program par-
ticipants: Job assistance provided the entry year. Paper presented at the annual
meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
Richardson, J. (2001). School culture survey: Tools for schools. Providence, RH:
Brown University, Annenberg Institute for School Reform. Retrieved July 5, 2006,
from http://www.annenberginstitute.org
Rossman, G. B., Corbett, H. D., & Firestone, W.A. (1998). Change and effectiveness
in schools. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Schein, E. H. (1985). Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.
Sebring, P. B., & Bryk, A. S. (2000). School leadership and the bottom line in
Chicago. Phi Delta Kappan, 440-443.
Sergiovanni, T. J. (2000). Standards and the lifeworld of leadership. School Leader-
ship, 58(8), 6-12.
Sosik, J. J., & Dionne, S. D. (1997). Leadership styles and Deming’s behavior factors.
Journal of Business and Psychology, 11, 447-462.
Tashakori, A., & Teddlie, T. (2003). Handbook of mixed method methods in social
and behavioral research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Taylor, R., & Williams, R. D. (2001). Accountability, threat or target? School Admin-
istrator, 56(6), 6-12.
Tirozzi, G. N. (2001). The artistry of leadership: The evolving role of the secondary
principal. Phi Delta Kappan, 82, 434-439.
21 Century Schools. (2006). The North Carolina Principal Fellows Program. Cha-
st
pel Hill, NC: Author. Retrieved July 15, 2006, from http://21stcenturyschools
.northcarolina.edu/index.xml
210
U.S. Department of Education. (2000). Eliminating barriers to improving teaching: A
report from the U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: Author. Re-
trieved June 25, 2006, from http://www.ed.gov/inits.teacers/barrier-s2000/
Barriers2000.pdf
University of Connecticut. Neag School of Education. (2006). University of Con-
necticut Administrative Preparation Program. Storrs, CT: Author. Retrieved
July 15, 2006, from http://www.education.uconn.edu/departments/edlr/
edamin_UCAPP.cfm
University of San Diego. (2006). History of the Educational Leadership Development
Academy at the University of San Diego. San Diego, CA: Author. Retrieved
July 15, 2006, from http://www.sandiego.edu/academics/soles/acadprog/elda/
history.php
Wallace Foundation. (2003). Rolling up their sleeves: Superintendents and principals
talk about what’s needed to fix public schools. Washington, DC: Author.
Waters, T., Marzano, R. J., & McNulty, B. (2003). Balanced leadership: What 30
years of research tells us about the effects of leadership on student achievement.
Aurora, CO: McRel.
Watkins, M. (2003). The first 90 days: Critical success strategies for new leaders at
all levels. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Weingartner, C.J. (2001). Albuquerque principals have ESP. Eugene, OR: ERIC
Clearinghouse on Education Management, University of Oregon, College of Edu-
cation.
West Ed. (2003). Moving leadership standards into everyday work: Descriptions of
practice. San Francisco: Author.
Wildman, L. (2001, August). Research on the preparation of school administrators.
Paper presented to the Board of the National Council of Professors of Educational
Administration, Bakersfield, CA.
Williams, R., & Portin, B. (1997, March). The changing role of the principal in Wash-
ington state. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational
Research Association, Chicago, IL.
Wulff, K. L. (1996). The changing role of the principal in Washington state. (Doc-
toral dissertation, University of Washington). Dissertations Abstract International,
156/09A, 3778.
211
Yerkes, D. L., & Guaglianone, C. L. (1998). Where have all the high school adminis-
trators gone? Thrust for Educational Leadership, 28(2), 10-15.
Young, M. D. (2002). NCAELP Wingspread Report: Ensuing the universities’ capac-
ity to prepare learning-focused leadership. Racine, WI: Wingspread Conference.
Prepared by dissertation cohort, USC Rossier School of Education, 2006.
1
212
APPENDIX A
IMMEDIATE SUPERVISOR INTERVIEW
1
1.What makes you define this principal as successful?
2.STRS Chart: In which category would you place the school when the principal
attained the position?
What evidence did you have to support this categorization?
3.What three important actions helped the principal make the biggest positive
gains?
4.Characteristics and Behaviors Chart
A.Which of these behaviors did the principal engage in during the first 90
days? (Choose 7.)
B.Which of these behaviors do you think are most important for a successful
principal? (Choose 7.)
5.How significant were the first 90 days for this principal?
6.What types of support did the district provide to the principal for the first 90
days?
7.How do you think university programs prepare administrators for the
principalship?
Prepared by dissertation cohort, USC Rossier School of Education, 2006.
2
213
STRS CHART
2

Start-up
A new school to get off the ground.

Realignment
The school was unaware it was drift-
ing into trouble and needed to be re-
vitalized.

Turnaround
The school was identified as being in
trouble and needed to get back on
track.

Sustaining Success
Preserving the vitality of an organiza-
tion and taking it to the next level.
Prepared by dissertation cohort, USC Rossier School of Education, 2006.
3
214
CHARACTERISTICS AND BEHAVIORS CHART
3
A.Which of these behaviors did the principal engage in during the first 90 days?
(Choose 7.)
B.Which of these behaviors do you think are most important for a successful
principal? (Choose 7.)
Characteristic/

Behavior The extent to which the principal . . . A B
CultureFosters shared beliefs and a sense of community and
cooperation
OrderEstablishes a set of standard operating procedures and
routines
DisciplineProtects teachers from issues and influences that would
detract from their teaching time or focus
ResourcesProvides teaches with the material and professional
development necessary for the successful execution of
their jobs
Curriculum, Instruction,
& Assessment
Is directly involved in the design and implementation
of curriculum, instruction
FocusEstablishes clear goals and keeps those goals in the
forefront of the school’s attention
Knowledge of Curricu-
lum, Instruction, & As-
sessment
Is knowledgeable about current curriculum, instruc-
tion, and assessment practices
VisibilityHas quality contact and interactions with teachers and
students
Contingent RewardsRecognizes and rewards individual accomplishments
CommunicationEstablishes strong lines of communication with teach-
ers and among students
OutreachIs an advocate and spokesperson for the school to all
stakeholders
InputInvolves teachers in the design and implementation of
important decisions and policies
AffirmationRecognizes and celebrates school accomplishments
and acknowledges failures
Characteristic/

Behavior The extent to which the principal . . . A B
215
RelationshipDemonstrates an awareness of the personal aspects of
teachers and staff
Change AgentIs willing to and actively challenges the status quo
OptimizerInspires and leaders new and challenging innovations
Ideals/BeliefsCommunicates and operates from strong ideals and
beliefs about schooling
Monitors/EvaluatesMonitors the effectiveness of school practices and
their impact on student learning
FlexibilityAdapts his or her leadership behavior to the needs of
the current situation and is comfortable with dissent
Situational AwarenessIs aware of the details and undercurrents in the running
of the school and uses the information to address cur-
rent and political problems
Intellectual StimulationEnsures that faculty and staff are aware of the most
current theories and practices and makes the discus-
sion of these a regular aspect of the school’s culture
Prepared by dissertation cohort, USC Rossier School of Education, 2006.
1
216
APPENDIX B
PRINCIPAL INTERVIEW
1
1.What was your pathway to the principalship?
•What is your major?
•How many years have you been in the field of education?
•How long did you teach?
•At what levels?
•What subjects?
•What leadership roles or positions have you held previously in schools?
•How many years have you been in your current district?
2.STRS Chart: In which category would you place your school when you
attained your principalship?
•What evidence did you have to support this categorization?
•Who provided you with information about your school?
3.Principal’s Four Frames Chart
• Indicate what percentage of your time during the first 90 days of your principal-
ship was spent in the following areas.
• Rank the areas from 1 to 4 (1 = most important, 4 = least important) as to how you
should have spent your time.
4.Characteristics and Behaviors Chart
•Which of these activities did you engage in during your first 90 days? (Choose 7.)
5.How significant were the first 90 days to your principalship?
6.At what point in the first 90 days did you feel you established credibility?
•Describe a specific event or incident.
7.How did your university program prepare you for your job as principal?
•What was useful?
•What was not useful?
•Did any of your formal training focus on the transition period or strategies for
success during your first 90 days as principal?
8.What types of support did your district provide for your first 90 days?
•Was the assistance helpful?
217
•What kind of assistance would have been helpful?
•What was not helpful?
•Did you have a mentor?
•Did your school district provide staff development as a new principal?
•Were district office personnel available for support during the transitional period?
•Where did you get your most useful insights into the school culture within the first
few weeks?
9.What leadership theories are vital for the first 90 days of a principalship?
Prepared by dissertation cohort, USC Rossier School of Education, 2006.
2
218
STRS CHART
2

Start-up
A new school to get off the ground.

Realignment
The school was unaware it was drift-
ing into trouble and needed to be re-
vitalized.

Turnaround
The school was identified as being in
trouble and needed to get back on
track.

Sustaining Success
Preserving the vitality of an organiza-
tion and taking it to the next level.
Prepared by dissertation cohort, USC Rossier School of Education, 2006.
3
219
PRINCIPAL’S FOUR FRAMES CHART
3
A.Indicate what percentage of your time during the first 90 days of your principalship
was spent in the following areas.
B.Rank the areas from 1 to 4 (1 = most important, 4 = least important) as to how you
should have spent your time.
Prepared by dissertation cohort, USC Rossier School of Education, 2006.
4
220
CHARACTERISTICS AND BEHAVIORS CHART
4
Which of these behaviors did you engage in during the first 90 days of your princi-
palship? (Choose 7 in column A.)
Characteristic/

Behavior The extent to which the principal . . . A B
CultureFosters shared beliefs and a sense of community and
cooperation
OrderEstablishes a set of standard operating procedures and
routines
DisciplineProtects teachers from issues and influences that would
detract from their teaching time or focus
ResourcesProvides teaches with the material and professional
development necessary for the successful execution of
their jobs
Curriculum, Instruction,
& Assessment
Is directly involved in the design and implementation
of curriculum, instruction
FocusEstablishes clear goals and keeps those goals in the
forefront of the school’s attention
Knowledge of Curricu-
lum, Instruction, & As-
sessment
Is knowledgeable about current curriculum, instruc-
tion, and assessment practices
VisibilityHas quality contact and interactions with teachers and
students
Contingent RewardsRecognizes and rewards individual accomplishments
CommunicationEstablishes strong lines of communication with teach-
ers and among students
OutreachIs an advocate and spokesperson for the school to all
stakeholders
InputInvolves teachers in the design and implementation of
important decisions and policies
AffirmationRecognizes and celebrates school accomplishments
and acknowledges failures
RelationshipDemonstrates an awareness of the personal aspects of
teachers and staff
Characteristic/

Behavior The extent to which the principal . . . A B
221
Change AgentIs willing to and actively challenges the status quo
OptimizerInspires and leaders new and challenging innovations
Ideals/BeliefsCommunicates and operates from strong ideals and
beliefs about schooling
Monitors/EvaluatesMonitors the effectiveness of school practices and
their impact on student learning
FlexibilityAdapts his or her leadership behavior to the needs of
the current situation and is comfortable with dissent
Situational AwarenessIs aware of the details and undercurrents in the running
of the school and uses the information to address cur-
rent and political problems
Intellectual StimulationEnsures that faculty and staff are aware of the most
current theories and practices and makes the discus-
sion of these a regular aspect of the school’s culture
Prepared by dissertation cohort, USC Rossier School of Education, 2006.
1
222
APPENDIX C
TEACHER SURVEY
1
23.Circle the category in which you would place the school when the principal
attained the position?
Start-up
A new school to get off the ground.
Realignment
The school was unaware it was drifting
into trouble and needed to be revitalized.
Turnaround
The school was identified as being in
trouble and needed to get back on track.
Sustaining Success
Preserving the vitality of an organization
and taking it to the next level.
24.Why did you choose this category?
25.How significant were the first 90 days (or first semester) for this principal?
26.What three important actions helped the principal make the biggest positive
gains in the first 90 days (or first semester)?
223
27.At what point did the principal establish credibility with you?
28.Using the following chart:
A.Rank from 1 to 4 how the principal actually spent his/her time in the first
90 days (or first semester).
B.Rank from 1 to 4 how the principal should have spent his/her time in the
first 90 days (or first semester).
(1 = most time, 4 = least time)
224
225
7.Using the following chart:
C.Which of these behaviors did the principal engage in during the first 90 days
(or first semester)? (Choose 7 in column A.)
D.Which of these behaviors do you think are most important for a successful
principal? (Choose 7 in column B.)
Characteristic/

Behavior The extent to which the principal . . . A B
CultureFosters shared beliefs and a sense of community and
cooperation
OrderEstablishes a set of standard operating procedures and
routines
DisciplineProtects teachers from issues and influences that would
detract from their teaching time or focus
ResourcesProvides teaches with the material and professional
development necessary for the successful execution of
their jobs
Curriculum, Instruction,
& Assessment
Is directly involved in the design and implementation
of curriculum, instruction
FocusEstablishes clear goals and keeps those goals in the
forefront of the school’s attention
Knowledge of Curricu-
lum, Instruction, & As-
sessment
Is knowledgeable about current curriculum, instruc-
tion, and assessment practices
VisibilityHas quality contact and interactions with teachers and
students
Contingent RewardsRecognizes and rewards individual accomplishments
CommunicationEstablishes strong lines of communication with teach-
ers and among students
OutreachIs an advocate and spokesperson for the school to all
stakeholders
InputInvolves teachers in the design and implementation of
important decisions and policies
AffirmationRecognizes and celebrates school accomplishments
and acknowledges failures
RelationshipDemonstrates an awareness of the personal aspects of
teachers and staff
Change AgentIs willing to and actively challenges the status quo
Characteristic/

Behavior The extent to which the principal . . . A B
226
OptimizerInspires and leaders new and challenging innovations
Ideals/BeliefsCommunicates and operates from strong ideals and
beliefs about schooling
Monitors/EvaluatesMonitors the effectiveness of school practices and
their impact on student learning
FlexibilityAdapts his or her leadership behavior to the needs of
the current situation and is comfortable with dissent
Situational AwarenessIs aware of the details and undercurrents in the running
of the school and uses the information to address cur-
rent and political problems
Intellectual StimulationEnsures that faculty and staff are aware of the most
current theories and practices and makes the discus-
sion of these a regular aspect of the school’s culture

Abstract (if available)

Abstract The requirements of state and federal accountibility under the No Child Left Behind law, combined with the dynamic nature and scope of the job, have placed tremendous pressure on principals across the nation, especially new principals during the transition period (first 90 days). The existing principal shortage makes it apparent that more should be done to recruit, educate, and support new principals so that they will be better prepared to face the challenges of the transition period.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

The first 90 days of the new middle school principal in a turnaround school: in-depth case study of the transition period (first 90 days)

PDF

The transition period principals -- the first 90 days: a case study

PDF

The first 90 days of the principalship in a turnaround school

PDF

The first 90 days of the new middle school principal

PDF

The successful leadership strategies of new principals in turnaround middle school settings: the first 90 days

PDF

The successful leadership strategies of new principals in turnaround middle school settings: the first 90 days

PDF

The first 90 days of the principalship: significance of the transition period

PDF

The first 90 days: securing early success in the superintendency

PDF

School leadership: preparation, recruitment, and retention of principals

PDF

Managing leadership transitions in an international school context

PDF

The preparation, recruitment, and retention of principals in southern California

PDF

Building capacity in urban schools by coaching principal practice toward greater student achievement

PDF

An analysis of the preparation, recruitment, and retention of principals

PDF

Sun Valley Middle School: a case study analysis of a California state scholastic audit school and the development of a clear conceptual framework to turning around a failing school, doubling stud...

PDF

Effective leadership practices used by middle school principals in the implementation of instructional change

PDF

Reallocating resources to reform schools: a case study of successful school turnarounds in five Los Angeles charter schools

PDF

The 21st-century principal: the recruitment, mentoring, and retention of principals

PDF

Future ready schools: how middle and high school principals support personalized and digital learning for teachers and students at a mid-sized urban middle/high school

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

School board and superintendent accountability: a policy analysis regarding the implementation of the Ralph M. Brown Act

Asset Metadata

Creator Kosch, Gerald G., Jr. (author)

Core Title New principals in a turnaround middle school: analysis of the transition period (first 90 days)

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 04/25/2007

Defense Date 03/03/2007

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag Bolman and Deal,first 90 days,leadership,Marzano,OAI-PMH Harvest,Principal,transition,turnaround,Watkins

Place Name California (states), USA (countries)

Language English

Advisor Price, Scott (committee chair), Escalante, Michael F. (committee member), Picus, Lawrence (committee member)

Creator Email gkosch@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m340

Unique identifier UC1141668

Identifier etd-Kosch-20070425 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-329968 (legacy record id),usctheses-m340 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-Kosch-20070425.pdf

Dmrecord 329968

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Kosch, Gerald G., Jr.

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Repository Name Libraries, University of Southern California

Repository Location Los Angeles, California

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu