University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

A comparative study of the role of the principal in conventional public schools and in charter schools

(USC Thesis Other)

A comparative study of the role of the principal in conventional public schools and in charter schools

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF THE ROLE OF THE PRINCIPAL IN
CONVENTIONAL PUBLIC SCHOOLS AND IN CHARTER SCHOOLS
by
Mary Louise Welch
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
August, 2002
Copyright 2002 Mary Louise Welch
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
UMI Number: 3094381
UMI
UMI Microform 3094381
Copyright 2003 by ProQuest Information and Learning Company.
All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
ProQuest Information and Learning Company
300 North Zeeb Road
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
School of Education
Los Angeles, California 90089-0031
This dissertation, written by
_________ Mary L. Welch__________________
under the direction o f h£JL-Dissertation Committee, cmd
approved by all members o f the Committee, has been
presented to and accepted by the Faculty o f the School
o f Education in partialfulfillment o f the requirements for
the degree of
D o c to r o f E d u c a t io n
T SSS
Sean
DissertptM
'hairperspn
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to thank Dr. Robert Ferris for his support, encouragement, and
assistance at each stage of the dissertation process. His time and patience, as well
as his advice, have been invaluable. Dr. Stuart Gothold and Dr. Michael
McLaughlin have also been a source of inspiration and support as my committee
members, and I am grateful for their help.
I am also deeply indebted to my colleagues, friends, and family members
who have been critical in providing mentoring, sponsorship, and assistance with
this process. Dr. Don Shalvey, CEO of Aspire Public Schools, has helped shape
my thinking about public education and, in particular, about the promise of charter
schools. His mentorship and support during this dissertation process, as well as in
my educational career, has been a source of inspiration and has greatly influenced
me. I also want to acknowledge the support of Deborah Erickson who encouraged
me to start the doctoral program and offered continual motivation. A special
thanks is given to my parents, John and Roberta Welch, who have always
encouraged me to keep reaching the goals I set for myself. Finally, I want to thank
the many charter school principals who I talked with during this project. I applaud
them for the heroic work they do in a very challenging public education
environment, all for the purpose of making a difference in the lives of children.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgements........................................................................................... ii
List of Tables.....................................................................................................v
Abstract.............................................................................................................. vii
Chapter
I THE PROBLEM....................................................................... 1
Introduction................................................................... 1
Background of the Problem.........................................3
Statement of the Problem.............................................6
Purpose of the Study.................................................... 6
Significance of the Study.............................................7
Research Questions...................................................... 8
Assumptions of the Study............................................9
Limitations of the Study............................................... 10
Delimitations of the Study...........................................10
Research Design and Methodology............................ 11
Selection of the Sample Population............................ 13
Definition of Terms...................................................... 14
Organization of the Study............................................ 15
II REVIEW OF THE RELATED LITERATURE.....................17
The Evolving Role of the Principal............................ 17
The Emergence and Development of
The U.S. Charter School Movement.............. 26
The Role of the Principal in
Decentralized Public/Private
Schools and Schools of Choice.......................37
III RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY................. 45
Research Questions...................................................... 46
Research Methodology................................................47
Selection of the Sample...............................................48
Instrumentation.............................................................50
Pilot Study..................................................................... 52
Data Collection.............................................................53
Analysis of Data............................................................54
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
iv
IV............. FINDINGS.............. ..................................................................56
Organization of the Chapter........................................ 56
Factors That Motivated Principals to Become
Charter School Principals...............................57
Comparison of Job Satisfaction Levels..................... 65
Comparison of Leadership Roles...............................72
Comparison of Managerial Roles..............................88
Time Spent on Weekly Role Activities.................... 101
Created Structures and Supports to Accomplish
Increased Tasks................................................105
Characteristics, Skills and Training Needed..............109
Summary of Findings...................................................119
Implications...................................................................132
V SUMMARY, SELECTED FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
Summary.......................................................................135
Selected F indings......................................................... 138
Conclusions...................................................................142
Recommendations........................................................144
REFERENCES.........................................................................146
APPENDICES..........................................................................154
A. Letter to Participating Principals.....................154
B. Interview Guide................................................ 155
C. Murphy’s Functions of an Instructional
Leader: A Comprehensive
Framework.......................................... 159
D. Percentage of Time Spent on Role Tasks.......160
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
V
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1 Frequency Distribution: Factors that Motivated Job Change................ 62
2 Frequency Distribution: Fears or Concerns ...................................... 64
3 Frequency Distribution: Level of Job Satisfaction as a
Conventional School Principal................................................... 67
4 Frequency Distribution: Factors Contributing to Levels of
Dissatisfaction as a Conventional School Principal.................. 68
5 Frequency Distribution: Level of Job Satisfaction as a Charter
School Principal........................................................................... 71
6 Frequency Distribution: Factors Contributing to Levels of
Job Satisfaction of Charter School Principals............................72
7 Frequency Distribution: Leadership: Perceived Differences
in Vision/Goal Setting Role........................................................ 75
8 Frequency Distribution: Leadership: Perceived Differences in
Decision-Making Role.................................................................77
9 Frequency Distribution: Perceived Differences in Instructional
Leadership Role........................................................................... 82
10 Frequency Distribution: Leadership: Perceived Differences
in School Governance R ole........................................................ 84
11 Frequency Distribution: Leadership: Perceived Differences in Role of
Building and Extending the Community................................... 88
12 Frequency Distribution: Perceived Differences in the Role of Managing
Budgets and School Finance....................................................... 92
13 Frequency Distribution: Perceived Differences in Role of Human
Resources Management...............................................................93
14 Frequency Distribution: Perceived Differences in Role of Managing
Facilities/Maintenance.................................................................96
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
vi
Table Page
15 Frequency Distribution: Perceived Differences in Role of
Marketing School, Public Relations...........................................98
16 Frequency Distribution: Perceived Differences about Role in
Day-to-Day Operations/Administration..................................... 100
17 Frequency Distribution: Types of Structures and Support Added
to Accomplish Increased Role Tasks..........................................109
18 Frequency Distribution: Characteristics of Charter School
Principals....................................................................................... 112
19 Frequency Distribution: Additional Skills and Training Needed by
Charter School Principals............................................................116
20 Frequency Distribution: Types of Training Models Suggested by
Principals....................................................................................... 119
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
vii
ABSTRACT
The charter school movement holds a great deal of promise for public
school reform. However, as with any successful school, there must be a strong
leader guiding the direction and instruction of the school This study examined the
similarities and differences of the role of the charter school principal and the
conventional school principal. The results suggest new aspects of the role of the
principal that need to be considered, how current charter school principals are
defining and managing their role effectively, and what types of support, alternate
structures, and training are needed in order for future charter school principals to
lead highly effective schools.
The focus of the study was eight selected elementary charter school
principals who have also had experience as conventional public school principals.
Semistructured interviews were conducted with these principals. Qualitative data
was reported using frequency distributions and direct quotations to illustrate
particularly relevant concepts. This information was used to determine the
perceived similarities and differences between the roles they experienced as
conventional school principals as compared to the roles they experienced as
charter school principals. Also studied were the motivational factors for becoming
a charter school principal, comparison of job satisfaction levels, the structures
principals have set up to handle the increased managerial tasks, and the selected
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
viii
principals’ beliefs about the characteristics, skills and additional training needed
for future charter school leaders.
This study found that the role demands on charter school principals are
larger in breadth, greater in number, more complex, and more challenging.
Charter school principals, however, reported that even though their work year and
work days are longer, they have experienced higher job satisfaction levels in their
charter school roles. At their charter schools they found that they have a more
comprehensive role in curriculum and instructional issues, and spend considerably
less time on reports and policy implementation. All of the principals reported
greatly increased demands in the managerial roles they perform, particularly in the
area of school budget and finance, and facilities and maintenance. These
principals are finding creative ways to manage these additional role demands.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
1
CHAPTER I
THE PROBLEM
Introduction
Fifteen years after the release of the landmark education report, “A Nation
at Risk” (National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983), a group of the
nations’ most prominent education reformers, business leaders, and policymakers
issued a follow-up report, “ A Nation Still at Risk” (1998). This educational
manifesto acknowledged that although the nation today does not face “imminent
danger of economic decline or technological inferiority”, the state of our children’s
education is still very, very far from what it ought to be. Evidence suggests that,
compared to the rest of the industrialized world, American students lag seriously in
critical subjects vital to the nation’s future. Even though many gains have been
made, large numbers of students are at risk and a dual school system is being
created with separate and unequal educational opportunities for students.
The group writing this report proposed ten changes for schools in the 21st
century. The main renewal strategies centered on the implementation of standards,
assessments, and accountability; and the acceptance of competition and choice.
The latter strategy of choice was further described in the report proposals as
recommendations for a) implementation of public school choice by the removal of
school assignment based on home address, and b) an increase in strong charter
school laws to promote this type of school choice.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
2
The increase in charter schools as a very popular type of public-sector
choice has been well documented. A U.S. Department of Education report (RPP
International, 2000) estimates that 1,700 charter schools are serving at least
250,000 students in 36 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. Between
September 1998 and September 1999, about 421 charters opened - - the biggest
annual increase thus far (Bowman, 2000).
The U. S. Department of Education’s financial support for charter schools
“has grown from $6 million in 1995 to $100 million in the 1999 fiscal year”
(Watkins, 1999). Former President Clinton promoted charter schools in two State
of the Union addresses and called for 3,000 charters to be established by 2002
(Medler, 1999). The appropriation for fiscal 2000 was $145 million, $15 million
more than requested (Olson, 2000).
The growth in charter schools is expected to continue as the current public
system continues to receive unfavorable appraisals. Freed of many restrictions
placed on traditional public schools, charter schools are allowed to innovate and
establish different ways of educating students as long as student outcomes are met
within a certain period of time, or they may have their charters revoked by their
sponsors. In essence, they exchange autonomy for accountability.
A great deal of promise lies in the charter school movement. However, as
with any successful school, the leader is the key to a successful school. The late
Ron Edmonds, whose work on effective schools in the 1980’s influenced a
generation of educators, argued that strong leadership from the principal is the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
single most important factor in schools that work (Edmonds, 1979). The effective
schools research had a powerful impact in the 1980’s on the thoughts of
commissions and other groups discussing school improvement efforts. A
consistent finding was that the “United States cannot have excellent schools
without excellent leaders”(National Commission for the Principalship, 1990).
Phillip Hallinger and Ronald Heck, in their review of research conducted from
1980 to 1995 on the principal’s role in school effectiveness supported the notion
that efforts of the principal to sustain a schoolwide purpose focused on student
learning do have a positive impact (Hallinger, Heck, 1996). Further research in the
latter part of the 1990’s again confirmed that strong and consistent leadership by
the school principal was critical to the development of successful schools
(Hawley,et.al. 1997; Keller, 1998; NASBE, 1999; Teske and Schneider, 1999; US
Dept, of Ed., 1999).
Background of the Problem
The autonomy for accountability model of charter schools grants charter
school principals a great deal of flexibility, but it also places a tremendous amount
of responsibility on these individuals. Founders and leaders of charter schools
must take on many diverse tasks that are unfamiliar to most public school
administrators. The existing barriers to the formation and operation of a charter
school are extensive and can be overwhelming even to an experienced school
administrator (Lane, 1998); Lack of clear leadership skills in multiple areas and
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
4
technical know-how threatens the current and future outlook for the charter school
movement. “Developing strong leaders and founders of charter schools is
essential to the future success of charter schools, and more importantly, to the
academic success of our students” (Lane, 1998).
It is imperative that leaders be adequately prepared to lead the schools of
the 21st century. With the growing number of charter schools, this includes leaders
who will be able to direct successful charter schools. In the UCLA Charter School
Study conducted by Amy Stuart Wells (Wells, 1999), there was a consistent
finding that a strong leader who could provide the catalyst for reform was an
essential ingredient. This study further suggests that the characteristics of this
leader do vary from the more traditional model of principals as instructional
leaders or even more recent collaborative models.
The role of the principal has evolved into a very complex and sometimes
ambiguous role (Murphy & Louis, 1994). A great number of researchers have
examined the leadership and management skills needed for principals of
conventional public schools. Emerging perspectives on the multidimensional roles
of this job have indicated that the principal must be focused on instructional
improvement (Elmore, 2000) and student learning results (Marsh, 1997).
However, the myriad demands of the various constituencies the principal must
attend to, as well as the never-ending school reform initiatives, often detract from
the focus on student learning.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
5
These increasing responsibilities and complexities of the job are taking its
toll on U.S. principals. The United States is facing a current shortage of qualified
applicants for this important position (ERS, 2000). The three common barriers to
attracting candidates were: 1) compensation was insufficient compared to
responsibilities, 2) the job was too complex and stressful, and 3) too much time
was required. (ERS, 2000). In interviews with both current and past principals
during an exploratory study (NAESP,NASSP, ERS, 1998) it was clear that
increased attention needs to be directed towards training and support for principals
(Andersen, 1997). Building the capacity of principals to be effective leaders was
found to be a major need if we are to retrain and attract qualified individuals to this
position.
By the very nature of charter schools, charter school principals have
additional dimensions to be considered in their roles. Financial and business
management becomes an issue as they attempt to make better use of resources.
Enrollment-based funding and attracting and retaining families contribute to their
need to be entrepreneurial as they work in the new “educational marketplace”
(Whitty, Power, & Halpin, 1998).
There is sparse research available on the role of charter school principals.
In the absence of this research questions arise about how the roles of both
conventional and charter school principals are similar and different? How does the
charter school principal balance the instructional improvement role and the new
dimensions of the role associated with being an educational entrepreneur in a
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
6
marketplace environment? Are the barriers to job satisfaction going to be a factor
in attracting qualified individuals to lead charter schools? What are the leadership
needs of charter school principals? What models of training are needed to
adequately prepare charter school principals?
Statement of the Problem
It is essential that the role of the charter school principal be more clearly
defined and the leadership needs for this position be studied. For charter schools
to fulfill their promise of improved student performance, knowledgeable and
skilled principals must be prepared to lead them. If charter schools are to have the
additional effect of impacting the conventional public school system, it is
hypothesized that the role of their leaders will have different dimensions than the
conventional public school principal. Appropriate preparation for this position
needs to be in place as more and more charter schools are started. The research is
clear that without strong principals charter schools will struggle just as other
schools without good principals have done.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to identify the specific role similarities and
differences that exist between conventional school principals and charter school
principals, as perceived by principals experienced in both conventional and charter
public schools.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
7
This study sought to identify current elementary charter public school
principals who have also been conventional elementary public school principals
and examine the following factors related to charter school principals: a) the
factors that motivated these principals to leave the conventional public school
system and become a charter school principal, b) the level of job satisfaction as a
result of this job change, c) the perceived leadership role similarities and
differences between charter school principals and conventional public school
principals, d) the perceived managerial role similarities and differences between
charter school principals and conventional public school principals, e) the amount
of time these principals typically devoted to various role tasks as conventional
school principals and as charter school principals, f) the structures and supports
created by these charter school principals to accomplish the increased managerial
demands of their role, and g) the kinds of characteristics, skills, and training
needed for future charter school leaders.
Significance of the Study
If charter schools are to be a viable and successful public school choice
option, there must be a strong leader guiding the direction and instruction of the
school. This study examined how the role of the charter school principal and the
conventional school principal are similar and how they are different. The results
suggest ways that current charter school principals are defining and managing their
role effectively. The study also pointed to what types of support, training, or
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
8
alternate structures are needed in order for charter school principals to lead highly
effective schools.
Research Questions
The research questions in this study were developed by analyzing the
research available on the role of the principal in various settings including
conventional public schools, decentralized schools, and charter schools. The
following seven questions, addressed through this study, were designed to
investigate and more completely understand the similarities and differences
between the role of principals in charter schools and conventional public schools:
1. What factors motivated these principals to become charter school
principals, and to what degree have these reasons for the job change
been realized?
2. How do these principals perceive their job satisfaction level as charter
school principals as compared with their job satisfaction level as
conventional school principals?
3. How do these charter school principals compare their leadership roles
with the leadership roles they experienced as conventional school
principals?
4. How do these charter school principals compare their managerial roles
with the managerial roles experienced as conventional school
principals?
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
5. What role tasks do charter school principals spend time on as compared
with their conventional school experiences? How would charter school
principals prefer to spend their time?
6. In order to accomplish the leadership roles and the increased
managerial roles of the principal, what structures and supports have
these charter school principals created at their schools?
7. What additional characteristics, skills, and training do these charter
school principals perceive as necessary for future charter school
principals?
Assumptions of the Study
In conducting this study, the following assumptions were made:
1. There are role similarities and differences between conventional
school principals and charter school principals.
2. The research design selected was appropriate for this study.
3. The participating principals reported their perceptions of role
similarities and differences honestly and accurately.
4. The interviewer’s notes were accurate and reflected the opinions of
the interviewees.
5. The data gathered in this study will be beneficial to future charter
school principals, as well as developers of administrator training
programs.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
10
Limitations of the Study
This study was affected by the following limitations:
1. The findings of the study may not be generalized to other charter
school principals throughout the state.
2. The findings can be generalized only to charter school principals of
classroom-based elementary charter schools.
3. The data gathered for the study was limited to perceptions of
principals gathered only during in-depth interviews.
4. The method of data collection was based upon a semi-structured
interview process, with results based upon a descriptive design.
The results, therefore, may be subjective.
Delimitations of the Study
The following delimitations served to narrow the focus of this study:
1. This study was delimited to charter school principals who had had a
minimum of two years experience in their current charter school
position and who had been conventional public school principals
for at least two years.
2. The charter school principals chosen were delimited to eight
selected individuals in California.
3. The study was delimited to charter school principals at classroom-
based, elementary charter schools only.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
11
Research Design and Methodology
This study focused on understanding the specific role similarities and
differences that exist between conventional school principals and charter school
principals, as perceived by principals experienced in both conventional and charter
public schools. Understanding that role was accomplished by gathering
qualitative data reported by selected charter school principals who have also had
experience as conventional school principals.
A qualitative research design was utilized with an interview research
approach. The study gathered qualitative data through semistructured interviews
containing both structured and open-ended questions which were employed to
elicit principal’s perceptions about similarities and differences of their roles as
charter school principals and as conventional public school principals.
When designing the interview protocol, the past literature on the role
dimensions of the principal were used, as well as the research framework used by
theNWREL study (Lane, 1998) and Gewirtz and Ball’s notions (as in Whitty,
et.al., 1998) of the differences that exist between the bureau/professional role and
the “new managerial” roles. These research studies provided an additional lens for
developing the interview protocol.
First, a semi-structured, in-depth interviewing protocol was developed to
query respondents about similarities and difference between their roles as
conventional public school principals and charter school principals. Open-ended
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
12
questions were designed to permit each principal to interpret the changes that had
taken place in their new roles.
When using the interview as the primary data source, there are always
concerns about the reliability and validity of interview findings (Kvale, 1996;
Marshall & Rossman, 1995; Rubin & Rubin, 1995). Given the focus of the study,
it would be difficult to find more reliable data than the principals’ own words on
what they were experiencing in their professional work lives. Consistency checks
were embedded in the study. Structural corroboration using multiple interview
items was used since this was self-report data. In this way some items asked for
similar information from respondents but were worded differently. The use of
multiple items was helpful in cross-checking responses for consistency in how
each principal articulated individual perceptions of work role similarities and
differences (Marshall & Rossman, 1995). Interviews lasting from 45 to 90 minutes
were conducted with principals in their schools. Audio recordings were made of
the interviews so that actual quotes from the participants could be used when
possible. Using conventional field study notations, the researcher recorded all
responses in field notes using a combination of symbols and researcher-developed
shorthand. To check for accuracy of recorded responses and to develop transitions
between questions, the investigator frequently repeated recorded responses to the
interviewee. After each interview, the researcher spent time recording additional
information in her field notes and checking for accuracy of recorded responses.
The information gleaned from the eight interviews formed the data set that was
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
13
amenable to various analytical strategies including cross-checking for consistency
of responses within respondent sets, pattemmaking across all response sets, and
iterative processes of theme identification (Marshall & Rossman, 1995).
A pilot study of two principals outside the selected sample was conducted
to field test the techniques for data collection and to correct any possible
weaknesses in the methods described.
Selection of the Sample Population
The sample selected was eight current charter school principals working
throughout the state of California who had at least two years experience at a
conventional public school and who had been in their charter school principalship
for at least two years. The districts in which they served ranged from urban to
suburban to rural and ranged from as far south as San Diego County to as far north
as Shasta County, and from as far west as the Central Coast to as far east as the
eastern San Joaquin Valley. Four of the principals were at newly created start-up
charter schools and four principals were at conversion charter schools.
Principals were identified through discussions with the Executive Director
of CANEC (California Association of the Network of Educational Charters), the
director of the Charter School Leadership Institute in California, a lead researcher
at RPP International, and a member of the researcher’s dissertation committee.
The principals were recommended based on their past successful experiences in
schools and the criteria for experiences mentioned earlier for this study.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
14
The researcher contacted all of the principals recommended. Some
principals did not qualify based on their lack of conventional public school
experience, or had changed positions. The group of principals of conversion
charter schools was selected purposefully from a mixture of large urban districts,
as well as suburban and rural districts. These principals were also selected from
various regions throughout all of California.
It was particularly difficult to find start-up school charter principals who
had had previous conventional public school experience. Since there were only
forty-seven start-up elementary, classroom-based charter schools in California that
had been operating at least two years, final selection of these principals came from
individual phone calls by the researcher to possible qualified participants until the
needed number was found. Even though there were a very small number of these
start-up charter school principals throughout the state of California who met this
criteria, the final sample group represented a mixture of suburban, urban, and rural
districts and also represented the regional mixture characteristic of the four
selected conversion charter school principals.
Definition of Terms
The following terms were defined for purpose of this study:
Charter School - An independent public school of choice, given a charter or
contract for a specified period of time (typically five years) to educate children
according to the school’s own design, with a minimum of bureaucratic oversight.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
15
It may be a new school, started from scratch, or an existing one that secedes from
its school district. It is held accountable to the terms of its charter and continues to
exist only if it fulfills those terms. As a public school of choice, a charter school is
attended by students whose families select it and staffed by educators who choose
to teach in it.
Conventional Public School - The traditional public school in a school district
which is subject to the rules, regulations, and policies of the state and local Board
of Education. Attendance is generally based on home address of the student.
Principal - The administrative leader of a school. In charter schools this position
may also be called “director”, “coordinator”, or various other names.
Conversion Charter Schools - Pre-existing public schools which have developed a
charter and has been approved for conversion to charter status by the sponsoring
agency.
Newly Created Charter Schools or Startup Charter Schools - Schools which are
“bom” with their charters. This type of school is sometimes referred to as a
“startup” charter school.
Organization of the Study
Chapter 1 discusses the problem addressed by the study and its purpose.
The research questions to be answered and the reasons for undertaking the study
are described. The research procedures are stated and definitions of terms are
provided.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
16
Chapter 2 is a review of related literature on the role of the public school
principal, the role of principals in decentralized schools, and the emergence of
charter schools.
Chapter 3 provides a comprehensive description of the research procedures
that were used in this study. It emphasizes selection of the sample, the
development of the interview protocol, the collection of the data, and the
procedures for analysis of the data.
Chapter 4 presents the results of the responses as they relate to each of the
research questions. Research findings are presented in frequency distribution
tables.
Chapter 5 summarizes the study and the selected findings. Conclusions
derived from the findings, along with recommendations, are also contained in
Chapter 5.
This study concludes with references and an appendix.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
17
CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF THE RELATED LITERATURE
Introduction
Chapter Two examines the literature and research as it relates to the areas
of a) the evolving role of the principal, b) the emergence and development of the
charter school movement, and c) the role of the principal in schools of choice.
The Evolving Role of the Principal
Throughout the twentieth century, educational theorists and writers have
studied the evolving role of the school principal. During the last forty years this
role has evolved from that of program manager, to instructional leader, to
transformational leader (Hallinger, 1992).
From the 1920s until the 1960s, the predominant role emphasis of
American principals has been one of an administrative manager. Historically,
organizations in the first quarter of the centuiy were built on the principles of
scientific management. This type of organization evolved from the needs of an
economy changing from an agricultural focus to one based on a production focus.
Production was characterized by many individuals working together and to make
this new process work, a bureaucratic form of management was needed. This type
of organization was hierarchical in nature with higher levels in the system
controlling and supervising the next lower level. Very explicit rules and
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
18
regulations governed behavior, thus making the organization function effectively
and fairly for everyone (Odden, 1995). It was believed that there was “one best
way” to perform any job. (Tyack, 1974).
Schools in the early part of the century were also influenced by the
principles of scientific management (Callahan, 1962). Principals exercised heavy-
handed supervision of teachers and gave them little control over school matters.
This scientific management perspective contributed to the rise of the professional
education administrator and the control of school systems by those “professionals”
(Tyack, 1974).
During the second quarter of the century the human relations approach
began to be an emphasis. This belief system subscribed to the notion that the
individual social and psychological needs of workers were critical aspects of
productivity. The work of Elton Mayo during the 1930’s in the Hawthorne plant
produced the research on the Hawthorne Effect. This work promoted the belief
that by simply paying attention to the social or psychological needs of workers,
their motivation, productivity and job satisfaction could be increased. The
influence of this work was seen in the subsequent development of worker
participation in decision-making. In schools this was the beginning of principals
including teachers in some of the decisions made so that there would be more
teacher acceptance of system goals, objectives, and procedures (Conley, 1991).
This approach, however, did not alter the basic structure of the hierarchical form of
school management... it just helped to make the bureaucracy work better.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
19
During the third quarter of the century, the open systems approach became
the dominant influence on organization and management (Odden, 1995). With this
emphasis, organizations were viewed as not existing in a vacuum, but rather
existing in the context of the current environment. Systems management
influenced school administration as input was sought, reactions were developed to
the input, and then school outputs in the form of new programs were put back out
to the community (Wirt and Kirst, 1992). Many schools had to alter the ways
they functioned as they began to listen to the community’s concerns (Guthrie and
Reed, 1986).
The 1960s and 1970s: The Principal as Program Manager
During the 1960s and 1970s, a new role emphasis emerged for American
principals as they became more responsible for program and curriculum
management. In earlier roles their orientations was towards maintaining the status
quo. With increased federal intervention in local policy, they had the added job of
managing program and curriculum changes that were externally devised solutions
to a social or educational problem (Hallinger, 1992). The principal’s role was
limited to managing the implementation of these changes from policy makers
outside the local school. The emphasis on program implementation was on
program compliance rather than improved outcomes for student learning (Fullan,
1991; Leith wood, 1991). This approach to change in the system limited the
ownership by local educators and, therefore, did not encompass an improvement
orientation which was intended to accompany these innovative programs (Fullan,
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
20
1991), By the mid-1970s the role of the principal included all of the
responsibilities that go along with program and curriculum management.
Thel980s: The Principal as Instructional Leader
The work of Ron Edmonds during the 1970s had a profound effect on the
change in the role of the principal during the 1980s. His work on the
characteristics of instructionally-effective schools pointed to the critical aspect of
the principal’s leadership in effective schools. He believed that the leadership of
the principal was the single most important factor in creating an effective school
(Edmonds, 1979). This watershed conclusion created major shifts in the role of
the school principal. Principals were called on to engage more actively in leading
the school’s instructional program. The role of the principal became more central
to the work of the school in educational improvement. As a result, numerous
researchers elaborated on Edmond’s conclusion as they attempted to describe what
it meant to exercise instructional leadership (Ellis, 1986; Hallinger and
Murphy, 1986; Grady, 1989).
By the mid-1980s, it was unacceptable for principals to focus their efforts
solely on maintenance of the school or even on program management.
Instructional leadership became the new educational standard for principals
(Murphy, 1991). Comprehensive in-service efforts were aimed at developing the
instructional leadership of principals. Principals were expected to be
knowledgeable about curriculum and instruction and be able to work directly with
teachers in making instructional improvements.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
21
Samuel Krug (1992) set forth a five-factor taxonomy that encompassed all
of the activities that the role definition of instructional leadership included. These
included: defining a mission, coordinating curriculum and instruction, closely
supervising teachers, monitoring student progress, and promoting an instructional
climate.
This model of instructional leadership continued to entail the
implementation of changes conceived by policy makers outside the school
(Hallinger, 1992). The predominant beliefs were still that the practices of teaching
and leadership could be standardized and controlled as a managerial function
(Barth, 1986; Smylie and Conyers, 1991). Principals were seen as the catalysts for
successful implementation of the effective schools model.
The emphasis during the 1980s was to reform the managerial behavior of
principals into an instructionally-focused role. However, instructional leadership
remained one of the more controversial characteristics associated with effective
schools (Lezotte, 1994). Lezotte believes there are still veiy few principals who
are described as instructional leaders. Principals frequently returned from training
centers to work contexts that made little or no provision for enhancing or
supporting new skills in the instructional leadership domain (Marsh, 1992). “Even
though the instructional leadership image became firmly entrenched in the
professional rhetoric, changes in administrative practice were less evident
(Hallinger, 1992)”.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
22
Leithwood and his colleagues have concluded:
“An emphasis on instructional leadership was wholly appropriate and
timely to bring to school leadership in the early 1980s when the term
gained a widespread following. But “instructional leadership” conveys a
meaning which encompasses only a portion of those activities now
associated with effective school leadership (Leithwood, et.al, 1991).”
In synthesizing the research on the instructional leadership role it was
reported that principals did not actually carry out this role (Murphy and Louis,
1994). Murphy points to several reasons for this finding - dramatic changes in the
work environment including a turbulent policy environment, an overwhelming
scale and pace of change, and a new view of teacher involvement. This summary
of research on the school principal noted the role overload and increased role
ambiguity associated with this role. While expectations were being added to the
role, little was being deleted from the principal’s role.
The 1990s: The Principal as Transformational Leader
In 1986 the Carnegie Report on Education and the Economy concluded that
fundamental changes were needed in the organizational structure, professional
roles, and goals of American public education (Carnegie, 1986). An assumption
was made that those people closest to students are in the best position to make the
best judgements about changes that need to be made in the educational program.
Reformers recommended the decentralization of authority over curricular and
instructional decisions from the school district to the school site. This report also
proposed expanded roles for parents and teachers in the decision-making process
resulting in more site-based management. This devolution of decision-making
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
23
resulted in school leadership expanding to include teachers, parents, and the
principal.
This move to “restructured” schools emphasized the diffuse nature of
leadership. The term “instructional leader” implies that others have to be the
followers. In a conversation with Sergiovanni, he suggests that the legitimate
instructional leaders ought to be the teachers. And principals should be the leaders
of leaders. The role of the principal needs to be that of developing the
instructional leadership of teachers (Brandt, 1992). This new role of the principal
became increasingly referred to as transformational leadership.
At school sites, the role of the principal as transformational leader assumed
the perspective of helping staff and parents with problem finding and goal setting
based on the defined problems. This focus on problem solving and collective
capacity building calls attention to role of principal as head learner (Barth, 1990).
The transformational leader’s task is to transform the principalship and the
school itself by successfully integrating both the management and the instructional
leadership domains (Terry, 1996). This role calls for the principal to “lead from
the center” (Murphy and Louis, 1994; Kouzes and Posner, 1995; O’Toole, 1995).
No longer is the principal in the “top-down” role. The principal must now act as a
collaborative facilitator, a team builder, while keeping everyone focused on the
goal which is improved student learning. Building a learning community is a
necessity for the transformational leader (Fullan, 1993, Barth, 1997, Hord, 1997).
The principal must be an active learner who is able to bring the necessary
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
24
knowledge needed to the school community to solve problems. Murphy (1998)
believes that tomorrow’s principals will need to have knowledge of instruction at
the forefront of their leadership skills as they maintain a focus on teaching and
learning. Principals in this role place themselves physically and psychologically
among the faculty, stimulating discussion of teaching and learning at every
opportunity, and providing support for staff learning (Hord, 1997).
Murphy and Louis (1994) in their synthesis of research on the changing
role of the principal groups the role changes under the following four headings:
leading from the center, enabling and supporting teacher success, managing
reform, and extending the school community. A dilemma found in many schools
studied nationally and internationally was that the role of managing reform was
often coming at the expense of the instructional role. This pull is exasperated as
the job of the principal becomes increasingly complex. New responsibilities are
“layered” atop old ones, sometimes in contradictory ways (Williams and Portin,
1997). The result is principals are working harder and being kept off balance by
the “constant bombardment of new tasks and continual interruptions (Fullan,
1998).” Fullan believes that it’s important to realize “there is no silver bullet” and
accept that there are no clear solutions.
Leaders are searching for the right balance between managing and leading.
Cascadden (1997) found that principals believed both management and leadership
functions are essential. However, they reported the demands of the reform
movement have made their roles even more complex and contradictory. The
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
25
pressure to restructure schools has pushed more management decisions to the
school site. At the same time, the current reforms have highlighted the necessity
of collaborative, empowering leadership. Oftentimes, management, with its more
immediate demands, may crowd out leadership (Williams and Portin, 1997).
A 1997 study of California school principals (EdSource, 1998) found
principals are struggling to keep up with the demands of the job. In an analysis of
their daily activities, many stated they would like to spend about half the amount
of time they now do to taking care of budget, maintenance, and administrative
details. Most principals wanted to spend almost twice the amount of time on
instructional and curriculum issues. They also stressed the importance of spending
time creating a culture of trust where collegiality and collaboration can flourish.
Future Directions for the Role of the Principal
Marsh (1997) believes that the current focus of the system on high student
performance standards and high stakes assessment will establish a results
orientation for the role of the principal. When this occurs he suggests that two
types of strategic leadership will be needed that are not currently in
transformational leadership: a) leadership focused on results-
indicators/accountability, and b) substantive leadership to reshape the school to
help all students meet the high performance standards. This will require school-
based teams to build a dramatically improved vision of teaching and learning that
is linked to the results. This will require continual redesigning and refining over
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
26
time. Again, the role of the principal will be pivotal as he/she interfaces between
management functions and the educational program.
Richard Elmore (2000) posits that the role of principal should emphasize
the guidance and direction of instructional improvement. This definition he
believes will be an imperative as standards-based reform forces the questions of
how to improve instruction and student performance. He suggests that this can be
accomplished only if distributed leadership comes into place in a school system.
This type of leadership suggests multiple sources of guidance and direction from
the “experts” in the organization, which are made coherent through a common
culture. The job of the educational leader then becomes one of
“enhancing the skills and knowledge of people in the organization,
creating a common culture of expectations around the use of those skills
and knowledge, holding various pieces of the organization together in a
productive relationship with each other, and holding individuals
accountable for their contributions to the collective result.” (Elmore, 2000,
p. 15)
The Emergence and Development of the U.S. Charter School Movement
When charter schools emerged in the U.S. in 1991, education reform was
nearing a stalemate. Political and interest groups were legislating what reforms
should be instituted in schools, differing opinions about what public schools
should do to improve were growing, and more and more regulations were being
hoisted upon conventional public schools. As a result, many believed the cure was
to step outside of the system and “create” a new way of schooling freed from the
bureaucracy of the public school system. The first charter school law was passed
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
27
in Minneapolis in 1991 to do just this. From there the movement has grown to 36
states and is affecting over 250,000 students. (RPP International, 2000). The
demand for charter schools remains high - 70% of charter schools report that they
have a waiting list.
As a public school, a charter school is open to all who wish to attend it, is
paid for with tax dollars, and is accountable for its results to an authoritative public
body as well as those who enroll and teach in it. In the charter contract, which is
approved by a sponsoring agency, the elements of the school are described as well
as how it will evaluate its outcomes.
Four key features distinguish charter schools from standard-issue public
schools: they can be created by almost anyone; they are exempt from most state
local regulations and are essentially autonomous in their operations; they are
attended by youngsters whose families choose them and staffed by educators who
choose to work in them; and they can be closed by the public authority that
authorizes them if they fail to produce satisfactory results (Manno, Finn,
Vanourek, 2000).
Charter schools are redefining what is meant by public education. “No
longer must public schools be run by a government, managed by a superintendent
and local board” (Olson, 2000). The growing charter school movement is
allowing the public to consider that a public school is any school open to the
public, paid for by the public, and accountable for its results. “It turns out these
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
28
schools represent a fundamental overhaul of the assumptions and power structures
of U.S. public education” (Manno, et. al., 2000).
Charter schools usually originate from “conversions” of pre-existing public
schools or are “startups” bom with their charter (Manno, et.al., 1998). Seventy
percent of new charter schools are newly created, sometimes known as startup
schools. These schools tend to be smaller on average than converted pre-existing
public schools. The median enrollment in all charter school sites is 137 students
per school (RPP International, 2000). Other characteristics of charter schools
reported in the National Study of Charter Schools - Fourth Year Report (RPP
International,2000), included the following:
Nearly two-thirds of newly created charter schools were
founded as a way to provide an alternative vision of
schooling. One-quarter were founded primarily to serve a
special target population of students.
• About one-third of conversion charter schools converted to
gain autonomy from district and state regulations.
• The majority of charter schools reported having primary
control over most areas critical to school operations,
including purchasing, hiring, scheduling, and curriculum.
Compared to newly created schools, fewer conversion
charter schools reported this level of autonomy.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
• Nationwide, students in charter schools have similar
demographic characteristics to students in all public schools.
However, charter schools in some states serve significantly
higher percentages of minority or economically
disadvantaged students.
• Charter schools are held accountable to their sponsoring
agencies. They must provide financial and student
achievement reports to different constituencies.
A central tenet of the charter school movement is the belief that
competition between schools will increase efficiency, effectiveness, and
productivity (Brown, 1995; Nathan, 1996). They argue that if parents select a
higher-performance school, schools that do not meet performance criteria
acceptable to their clients will be forced to improve or close (Hill, 1995, Nathan,
1996). When public schools begin to loose students to charter schools, they will
be forced to reexamine their practices.
Another belief of charter school advocates is that excessive regulation
strangles the creativity and entrepreneurial spirit needed in public school, and is a
reason many of the educational reforms do not work in the long term. (Hill, 1995).
Charter school reformers believe that the solution lies in market-based reform
initiatives. Charter schools are promising innovations as long as they are not
increasingly regulated by the current public school system or excessive state
requirements (Vanourek, Manno and Finn, 1997).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
30
As charter laws have passed in various states, charter school advocates
have had to make significant compromises that resulted in many charter laws
looking different than the original charter school idea. Hassel (1998) of the
Brookings Institution found that state laws regarding charter schools could be
characterized as strong or weak based on five characteristics. The following
description of these characteristics represents the “strong” laws which firmly
support charters.
a) Allows multiple entities to approve charters
b) Allows a wide range of individuals and groups to propose charter
schools
c) Allows charters to have significant legal and fiscal independence
from local school district; allocates realistic per-pupil funding
levels
d) Exempt from a wide range of public school laws
e) Allows large number of charters to open and provides enough
resources
States where so many compromises had to be made for the charter law to pass
have had the most difficulty implementing successful charter schools. The biggest
limitation affecting charter schools’ abilities to challenge the existing system was
the restriction on the number of charters that could open in a state. Arizona’s 1994
law is the strongest, featuring multiple charter-granting agencies, freedom from
local labor contracts, fifteen-year charter periods, and large numbers of permitted
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
31
charters (Rebarber, 1997), More than 70 percent of charter schools are found in
states with the strongest laws: Arizona, California, Colorado, Massachusetts,
Minnesota, and North Carolina.
Since charter-school legislation in most states is less than a decade old,
state-sponsored studies tend to be preliminary evaluations that avoid overarching
conclusions regarding students’ academic progress or charters’ effects on the
greater education system. However, initial reports and surveys look promising.
According to a Hudson Institute survey of students, teachers, and parents from
fifty charters in ten states, over sixty percent of parents said charter schools were
better in terms of teaching quality, individual attention from teachers, curriculum,
discipline, parent involvement, and academic standards. Most teachers said they
felt empowered and professionally fulfilled (Vanourek, et al, 1997). Similarly, the
Center for Education Reform, gathered over 50 reports on charters’ progress
across a number of indicators, and found that 80 percent of the charter schools
studied are achieving their stated goals (CER, 2000).
There are also examples that the charter idea has stimulated improvements
in the broader education system. For example, Minnesota districts that had refused
to create Montessori schools did so after frustrated parents began discussing
charters (Nathan, 1999). To lure students back to district schools, Flagstaff Public
Schools recently opened a new magnet school focused on academics, technology
and character development and began funding an all-day kindergarten (Pardini,
1999). Competition from charter schools also inspired the Williamsburg School
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
32
District to begin an afterschool program (R.ofes, 1999). According to the Center
for Education Reform, seven out of eight national state studies that evaluated
charters’ effects on their home districts demonstrate “a positive ripple effect”
manifested in low and high cost reforms, increased accountability, improved
academic programs, and adoption of innovative, “charter-like” practices, (CER,
2000).
Many studies on charter schools have reported on the implementation and
startup obstacles. Most newly created schools are plagued by resource limitations
for startup funds and facilities. Other startup issues become opposition from local
boards, teacher unions, and other people who feel threatened by something new.
Although doing more with less may be a worthy goal, constant fund-raising
pressures “can divert educators and parents from paying adequate attention to the
education business of schools (Medler, 1999).” Other barriers to charter school
development include the lack of financial and organization skills needed for the
sustained operation of the school, and policy and regulatory issues such as special
education requirements, acquisition of Title 1 funds, and the hiring of uncertified
teachers (RPP International, University of Minnesota, 1997).
Who originates charter schools? Manno and associates (1998) identify
three interrelated groups of charter-school founders: reform-minded educators,
visionary parents dissatisfied with the public schools, and for-profit and non-profit
organizations. In 1999, charter school founders’ primary motivations for opening
a school were a) the hope to realize an alternative educational vision (58%), the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
33
desire to serve a special population of (at-risk) students (23%). and need to gain
autonomy from the public school system 9(%) (Bowman, 2000).
Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory in a study by Lane (1998)
found that individuals who start and administer charter schools have varying levels
of background in school administration. They have the passion and the desire to
develop and sustain the charter school, but the technical skills needed to handle the
administrative, financial, and public relations duties may be missing. Even
experienced school administrators have seldom, if ever, dealt with the diverse
tasks required of charter school leaders. The NWREL study identified five core
content areas of expertise that are needed to develop, operate, and sustain a charter
school. They were: start-up logistics, curriculum standards and development,
governance and management, public relations/media relations, and regulatory
policy issues.
The Hudson Institute final report (Finn, et.al., 1997) and the 1997 Colorado
Charter Schools Evaluation Study found that the needs of charter school leaders
may vary due to the different barriers the schools face through three separate
stages of operation. The three stages are a) the planning and pre-operational stage,
b) the first year of operation, and 3) the renewal stage (schools in the 2n d and 3rd
year).
While it is important to attend to each of these stages, Lane in the NWREL
study posits that the skills needed in all three stages need to be addressed with the
initial training of charter school principals. It is not enough to train people to start
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
34
a school if they don’t have the means to sustain it. Leaders must gain the
expertise in the multiple areas, or develop the ability to access expertise in the
areas identified.
Amy Stuart Wells in her 1999 UCLA study of 10 charter school in districts
throughout California briefly studied the role of the principal in charter schools
and concluded that a well-connected leader is crucial to the success or failure of a
charter school (Wells, 1999). While many times the principals they studied served
as strong instructional leaders as described in the Effective Schools literature, their
use of strong networks to gamer support from political, private groups, parents,
community members and other constituencies was crucial. She found that many
had a high degree of “business savvy”. The “strong” leaders in her study provided
entrepreneurial leadership, in addition to, or instead of instructional leadership. In
conversion charter schools, she found the principal used the charter to market the
school and increase enrollment as well. In start-up charter schools, the enormous
amount of work caused turnover. The schools affected found that “few leaders can
fulfill the numerous tasks required to keep start-up charters running (Wells 1999,
p. 41).” Wells’ conclusion was that the characteristics of strong charter leaders
vary from the more traditional model of principals as instructional leaders or even
as transformational leaders. She posits that:
Leaders in charter schools need to be more savvy in terms of hustling
resources and running the business side of the charter schools. To the
extent that many of these savvy leaders were not also instructional leaders
leads us to wonder to what extent chart school reform requires a form of
leadership in which the very substance of education - what happens in the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
35
classroom - is of less concern than keeping the electricity going. The long
term consequences of such a requirement as it relates to the quality of
education provided for students remains to be seen (p.42).
Additional challenges facing charter schools that have implications for the
role of the principal are many and varied. Joe Nathan (1996) addresses the need
for charters to develop valid, reliable and inexpensive student assessments so
accountability is at the forefront. Also, governance systems that work best need to
be explored. Organizing teaching and learning effectively must be of paramount
importance. Dealing with skeptical educators and helping districts see the benefit
of embracing charter schools is a key issue as well. The whole issue of student
achievement is still being studied and will ultimately prove the degree of success
for charter schools.
Implications for Leaders
Indeed, the role of the principal in charter schools is critical and demands
more attention if charter schools are to be a successful systemic reform of our
public schools.
Certainly the skills needed for creating this new type of educational setting are
complex. Sarason (1998) believes in any new educational setting sophisticated
planning and anticipation of predictable issues and problems must be a part of the
training. Too often, founders’ enthusiasm and optimism lead the principal to
underestimate the consequences of limited resources. There needs to be a
conceptual road map when creating a new setting. Individual leaders need to
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
36
determine if they are suited to leading a new startup, or a developed or
chronologically mature setting.
Other implications charter schools have for the role of the school leader
revolve around developing expertise in the following areas or having access to this
expertise:
a) Governance - The leader must be able to create a
collaborative decision-making structure that is also efficient
(Weiss, 1997).
b) Educational issues- The leader needs to pay more attention
to curriculum, assessment, and instructional issues than has
been done in the past by charter leaders (Sarason, 1998).
There should be time devoted by someone on the team to
instructional issues.
c) Public relations - The leader must be ready for criticism
from the school system and be ready to convince others of
the school’s merit.
d) Resources - The leader needs to be creative in obtaining
additional resources and in stretching the existing resources
most effectively. This may require hiring an individual to
oversee this operational function (Bowman, 2000).
Handling the complexity of a new setting will require new skills of a
principal. Maintaining and keeping the school moving forward will also require
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
37
skills that are different than those needed in the first stage of a new charter school,
NWREL (1998) has provided a model of what training and skill sets are necessary
for charter school principals, but this work is still in its beginning stages. More
research is needed on the nature of the role of charter school principals.
The Role of the Principal in Decentralized Public/Private Schools and Schools
of Choice
Private or independent schools and decentralized public schools are
characterized by site-based decision making and management. They are also
schools of choice which introduce market forces into the school management
arena. The research and literature on the role of the principal in these schools can
offer another perspective on the implications for the role of charter school
principals.
The concepts of school choice, teacher empowerment, and school-based
management represent new organizational arrangements in which school leaders
must function. Hallinger and Hausman (1992) studied one school over a period of
four years as it implemented a reform program that included parental school
choice, school-based management (decentralization of authority from the central
office to the school), shared decision-making, and a magnet theme related to
school-community partnerships.
This study found the principal’s role was significantly altered to include a)
environmental leadership and b) a changed role in instructional leadership.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
38
Parental choice plans have placed a greater premium on the principal’s ability to
manage the school’s environment and has been confirmed by other researchers
(Goldring, 1992; Vandenberghe, 1992). Principals are under greater pressure to
legitimate the school’s decisions so as to maintain community support. The
recommendation made was that principals need to allocate more time and effort to
such activities. Crow as stated in Hallinger (1992) says this increased pressure on
the principal and the staff to attract and retain students requires the principal to
assume the role of an “entrepreneur who must define, redefine, and maintain a
market that is attractive to those making the choice.” The principal must market
the school and its services. Principals in the school studied indicated the added
new responsibilities of developing brochures, conducting numerous parent tours
and parent meetings, as well as other “customer service” activities.
The other finding of Hallinger’s study suggests that the leadership of the
principal in the instructional area becomes one of facilitator, and a leader of
leaders. Teachers and other staff assist with the program coordination and have a
greater responsibility for instructional leadership. The principal must be able work
effectively in group problem solving, and manage complex change in collaboration
with other school-based leaders - both parents and teachers.
The research on the role of the principal in private schools also has bearing
on the role of principal in schools of choice. Because private or independent
schools are self-governed and are also subject to market forces, individuals who
operate private schools have to build and reinforce a goal consensus among staff,
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
39
parents, and students, but also must share their authority with these groups (Bryk,
Lee and Holland, 1993). Principals must emphasize collective problem solving by
empowering their school participants (Chubb and Moe, 1988). As principals they
are less likely to be autocratic and more willing to spend their energies on building
a collective vision and establishing a rapport with participants (Madsen, 1997).
A study of three private school principals by Jean Madsen (1997) found
that both the leadership and management skills of principals to be critical to the
success of these independent schools. Principals must be able to empower the
participants as well as to be responsive to the needs of the school community. She
contends that a participatory management style is essential. They must be experts
at attaining goal consensus and then also be responsive to the needs of the parents.
This pressure is felt since parents can remove their children at any time if they are
not satisfied. Openness, diplomacy, and coping skills are needed, as well as the
ability to keep the vision of the school at the forefront.
The private school principal must not only administer the school program,
but is also responsible for fiscal management of the school budget, fundraising,
school marketing and tours, fundraising, staff selection, and student admissions.
Student performance evaluation is a constant demand on the role of the principal
since accountability is key to the success of the school.
Goal setting and problem solving are key functions of the principal in a
privatized setting (Madsen, 1996). Teachers need to be empowered to participate
in improving the school program as well as their performance in the classroom.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
40
Other constituents on the school council and in the school community must also be
given voice in decisions. The facilitative role of the principal is key to the success
of this endeavor.
As the role of the principal is studied it is important to look at the body of
literature and research on decentralized public schools. Internationally, some
school systems have devolved authority and decision-making entirely to the local
school, and have introduced market forces into the educational arena. England,
Australia, Wales, Sweden, New Zealand and other countries have been involved in
this work for the last ten years and their work has many implications for the role of
charter school principals.
The self-managing school, as decentralized schools are often referred to,
are freed of many of the governmental controls most conventional public schools
have. Brian Caldwell (1996) outlines the roles that principals in this kind of
school will need to address. First, is the manager of a total budget. In a
conventional public school, a principal has control over less than 5% of the school’
resources. This increases to more than 90% in a self-managing school. Second,
the principal will be the manager of a total workforce plan. The staffing mix will
be determined locally instead of centrally as it is in current conventional public
schools.
Third, the principal must take on the role of an educational strategist. The
principal will need to have a very broad-based knowledge of teaching, learning,
and curriculum and will need to use this in a broad leadership role.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
41
Fourth, Caldwell speaks of the role of the cultural leader where the
principal leads the school in becoming a culture of self-management. Fifth, the
principal must exercise the role of the responsive leader as he/she comes to terms
with accountability. There must be quick responsiveness to the community’s
expectations, especially as they relate to high student performance for all children.
Sixth, principals will need to be a leader of high-performing teams across
the school. Since the principal cannot do all of this alone high-performing work
teams must be built and maintained.
Finally, the principal must subscribe to the role of being a strategic thinker.
Garratt (1995) defines this in these terms:
‘Strategic thinking’ is the process by which an organizations’
direction- givers can rise above the daily managerial processes and crises
to gain different perspectives of the internal and external dynamics causing
change in their environment and thereby give more effective direction to
their organization. Such perspectives would be both future-oriented and
historically understood. Strategic thinkers must have the skills of looking
both forwards and backwards while knowing where their organization is
now, so that wise risks can be taken by the direction-givers to achieve their
organization’s purpose, or political will, while avoiding having to repeat
the mistakes of the past (p. 2).
In the examination of the leadership of decentralized schools Ball (1994)
identifies three variants on the self-management of these kinds of schools: financial
management, entrepreneurial management, and professional management. The
importance of the role of the principal in the area of financial management
highlights education as a financial enterprise and encourages educational leaders to
examine the economic realities of schooling. The role of entrepreneurial
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
42
management focuses on the market forces of education. And the role of
professional management emphasizes the planning and work linked to teaching and
learning. Caldwell and Spinks (1992) place a great importance on all of the roles a
principal must participate in if they are to transform operations of schools in the
direction of greater self-management. These roles which were enumerated above
arise out of the new self-management of schools which includes introduction of
markets in education.
Grace (1995) contrasts this “old” and “new” style of educational
management arising out of this market phase of school leadership. Gerwitz and
Ball (1996) in a research review by Whitty, Power, and Halpin (1998) have
identified a framework in which to look at the old “bureau-professional ism type of
management and the “new managerialism”. This framework contrasts a public
service ethos vs. a customer-service ethos; decisions given by commitment to
“professional standards” and values vs. decisions driven by efficiency, cost-
effectiveness and search for a competitive edge; emphasis on collective relations
with employees, trade unions vs. emphasis on individual relations, through new
management techniques such as total quality management and human resource
management; consultative vs. macho; substantive rationality vs. technical
rationality; cooperation vs. competition; managers socialized within field and
values of specific education sector vs. managers socialized generally within field
and values of management.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
43
Looking at the available research Whitty, Power, and Halpin (1998)
conclude that the changing role of the school principal is beginning to look more
like that of a chief executive officer. There is a radically increased emphasis on
budgetary considerations, carrying with it the implication that principals are less
preoccupied than previously with leadership roles that stress teaching and learning.
Blackmore etal’s study (1996) of decentralized, self-managing schools in Victoria
found that principals reported shifts away from teaching and learning. Odden’s
(1995) work on Victoria schools also found a move away from direct instructional
leadership to other and broader leadership roles. These roles included setting
visions, developing strategic plans, working on budget and personnel issues,
raising funds and marketing the school. Taking on more financial and
administrative responsibilities is heightened by the need to survive in the education
market place. As a result, principals are moving away from roles embodying
academic leadership towards ones which resemble corporate director, business
director and entrepreneur.
Studies in America, England, and New Zealand confirm that these
increasing workload requirements are causing role conflicts for principals who do
want to spend time on innovations that address children’s learning needs (Levacic,
1995). Decentralized public schools continue to experience the strain from the
role changes of the principal.
Vincent Ferrandine, the executive director of the National Association of
Elementary School Principals, said his organization is looking at ways to free up
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
44
principals to focus on instructional leadership - including the idea of creating a
business manager’s position as many charter schools have done (Bowman, 2000).
As the role continues to become more complex, solutions such as these may
become more commonplace and more effective for providing the strong leadership
needed at school sites.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
45
CHAPTER III
RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY
This study focused on investigating the perceptions and beliefs of eight
charter school principals regarding their current role compared to their previous
roles as conventional public school principals. Qualitative data was gathered and
analyzed from these eight school principals. These principals were selected based
on having had experience in both a charter school setting and a conventional
public school setting.
The seven research questions which guided this study were developed from
a review of the research in these three areas: the emerging role of elementary
school principals, the role of principals in decentralized schools, and the existing
research on the role of charter schools and their principals. The emerging theme
throughout the research was that the role of the principal has fundamentally
changed as schools have become more complex. More specifically, the conflicting
demands of leading the teaching and learning at the school, along with the
administrative, managerial tasks has led to more role complexity and demands.
With the introduction of choice in public schools in the form of charter schools,
market forces are now introduced as well as more stringent accountability
measures. The additional flexibility that charter schools have has also added more
oversight responsibilities to the principal as well. The literature suggests that the
leaders of these schools must take on some broader roles, while still maintaining
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
46
some of the traditional roles of the principal. As charter schools become more
prevalent, it is imperative that the leaders of these schools have the skills necessary
to build strong school communities united in a purposeful educational vision, to be
responsive to their constituents, and to be able to manage the school’s resources in
a fiscally accountable manner, while also providing improved academic results.
Research Questions
The following research questions directed the study:
1. What factors motivated these principals to become charter school
principals, and to what degree have these reasons for the job change
been realized?
2. How do these principals perceive their job satisfaction level as charter
school principals as compared with their job satisfaction level as
conventional school principals?
3. How do these charter school principals compare their current leadership
roles with the leadership roles experienced as conventional school
principals?
4. How do these charter school principals compare their current
managerial roles with the managerial roles experienced as conventional
school principals?
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
47
5. What role tasks do charter school principals spend time on as compared
their conventional school experiences? How would charter school
principals prefer to spend their time?
6. In order to accomplish the leadership roles and increased managerial
roles of the principal, what structures and supports have these charter
school principals created?
7. What additional characteristics, skills and training do these charter
school principals perceive as necessary for future charter school
principals?
Research Methodology
This study employed qualitative methodology with reporting that described
the perceptions of eight principals about the similarities and differences in their
role as charter school principals and as conventional public school principals. In-
depth, in-person interviews were conducted to gain an insight into the motivation,
role, skills and activities of these principals, and their perspectives on the type of
support structures, skills and training needed for future charter school leaders. A
semistructured interview guide was developed and used to obtain the data.
According to Kvale (1996):
The qualitative research interview attempts to understand the world from
the subjects’ points of view, to unfold the meaning of peoples’ experience,
to uncover their lived world prior to scientific explanations (p. 1).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
48
The researcher used a balance between an open conversation and a highly
structured questionnaire. The interview guide focused on certain themes and
included suggested questions. In the more structured portions of the interview, the
interviewer posed specific questions to get detail, examples and context (Rubin &
Rubin, 1995). According to Marshall & Rossman (1995):
Typically, qualitative in-depth interviews are much more like conversations
than formal events with predetermined response categories. The researcher
explores a few general topics to help uncover the participant’s meaning
perspective, but otherwise respects how the participant frames and
structures the responses. This, in fact, is an assumption fundamental to
qualitative research - the participant’s perspective on the phenomenon of
interest should unfold as the participant views it, not as the researcher
views it (p. 80).
The researcher analyzed all of the responses gathered during the eight interviews
in order to develop core concepts about the perceptions of the participants
regarding their role similarities and differences as charter school principals and as
conventional public school principals.
Selection of the Sample
The sample population of eight California public charter school principals
was selected according to several criteria. First, all eight principals had to be
currently working as a charter school principal for at least two years. In addition,
they also had to have at least two years experience as a conventional public school
principal.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
49
Another consideration in selecting the sample was to locate principals in a
variety of districts and regions throughout the state of California. The districts in
which they served ranged from urban to suburban to rural, and ranged from as far
south as San Diego County to as far north as Shasta County, and from as far west
as the Central Coast to as far east as the eastern San Joaquin Valley.
A third criteria was to select principals from both conversion charter
schools and from newly-created or startup charter schools. Four of the principals
chosen were at newly created startup charter schools and four principals selected
were at conversion charter schools.
Principals were identified through discussions with the Executive Director
of CANEC (California Association of the Network of Educational Charters), the
director of the Charter School Leadership Development Institute in California, a
lead researcher at RPP International, and a member of the researcher’s dissertation
committee. The principals were recommended based on their past successful
experiences in schools and the criteria for experiences mentioned earlier for this
study.
The researcher contacted all of the principals recommended. Some
principals did not meet the selection criteria based on their lack of conventional
public school experience, or they had recently changed positions. The group of
principals of conversion charter schools was selected purposefully from a mixture
of large urban districts, as well as suburban and rural districts. These principals
were also selected from various regions throughout all of California.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
50
It was particularly difficult to find startup school charter principals who
had had previous conventional public school experience. Since there were only
forty-seven, elementary, classroom-based startup charter schools in California that
had been operating for at least two years, final selection of these principals came
from individual phone calls by the researcher to possible qualified participants
until the needed number was found. Even though there were a very small number
of these startup charter school principals throughout the state of California who
met this criteria, the final sample group did represent a mixture of suburban, urban,
and rural districts and also represented the regional mixture characteristic of the
four selected conversion charter school principals.
Instrumentation
The research questions used in the study were developed by analyzing the
research available on the changing role of the principal in public and decentralized
schools, and the emerging research on the leadership needs of charter school
principals. Questions were drafted and then submitted to the chair of the
committee and the two other members of the dissertation committee. From their
review, evaluation, and recommendations, a working set of seven questions was
developed to study, investigate, and more fully understand the perceptions of the
role of charter school principals Compared to their role as former conventional
school principals.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
51
The researcher then developed a semistructured interview instrument for
the eight principals selected for this study. Prior to developing this instrument, the
researcher reviewed the literature on the methods and tools of qualitative research,
and most specifically on in-depth interview research using the semistructured
interview. The research emphasized the importance of an interview guide which
had both structured and open-ended questions. It involves asking a series of
structured questions and then probing more deeply using open-form questions to
obtain additional information (Gall & Borg, 1996). In the more structured portions
of the interview, the interviewer poses specific questions to get detail, examples
and context. In the less structured parts, the interviewee does most of the talking,
explaining the meaning behind an idea, an event, or giving some background
information. This approach has the advantage of providing reasonably standard
data across respondents, but of greater depth than can be obtained from a very
structured, standardized interview.
A working semistructured interview guide was developed for the principals
to assure clear and consistent communication between the interviewer and the
respondent. It included prompts to ensure answers were focused on the interview
guide. This interview guide also included a matrix which linked each research
question with corresponding interview questions. (See Appendix B).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
52
Pilot Study
The principals’ interview guide was pilot tested with two principals who
also met the criteria for the study. During two phone conversations they were
given an overview of the questions on the interview guide and then in-person
interviews took places at their schools. They agreed to the taping of the interview
and did not believe this would be objectionable to other participants in the study.
The pilot study interviews lasted approximately sixty minutes. Following the
interview, questions were asked about the effectiveness of the questions in
eliciting the information. As a result of their suggestions, the final semistructured
interview guide was revised to add two additional questions and to clarify the
meaning of two of the questions on the guide.
The final interview guide consisted of twenty-four questions. All of the
questions were in-depth, open-ended in structure, and helped principals to focus on
the comparison of their current role as charter school principals with their former
roles as conventional public school principals.
The pilot study also resulted in refining the selection of interviewees. It
was clear from the interview of one principal that selection of the interviewees
should not include highly dependent charter school principals. These were charter
school principals whose schools were so closely dependent on the chartering
district that the flexibility normal in most charter schools was not present for them.
This made their role as charter school principals almost identical to their formal
role as conventional public school principals. Their experience was considered by
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
53
them, and other practitioners in the field, as not typical or representative of most
charter school principal experiences, and would most likely not contribute to the
purpose of this study.
Data Collection
All eight principals were initially contacted by telephone, with some email
follow-ups. At this time, the researcher explained to them the purpose for the
study and thanked them for their willingness to participate. An overview of the
interview guide was shared to help them prepare for the interviews. Also, the
procedures regarding confidentiality of their responses was explained. Informed
consent letters and forms were mailed to each participant explaining the purpose of
the study, the procedures regarding confidentiality and their participation, the use
of a tape recording, and the length of time notes and audio recording would be
kept. This form was approved by the University Park Institutional Review Board
(See Appendix B). In addition a letter was included in this mailing confirming the
date and time of the interview (See Appendix A).
Interviews were scheduled and the researcher traveled to each school site to
conduct in-person interviews. Each interview was scheduled for one hour. All but
one interview stayed within this time frame. . . the exception to this was one
interview that lasted 90 minutes.
Prior to starting the interview, a short time was spent with each subject
establishing rapport and gathering background information about the principal’s
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
54
experience. The interview guide was used to focus the conversation with follow-up
questions used to probe or elicit further explanation to the initial question. Each
interview was audiotaped and the researcher also took field notes on each answers
elicited. At the conclusion of the interviews, each principal was asked to record on
a chart the amount of time spent in various tasks as a charter school principal and
also the amount of time spent on those tasks as a conventional school principal.
This information was used to corroborate the questions asked regarding the
particular leadership roles and managerial roles the principal engaged in as both a
conventional public school principal and as a charter school principal. A copy of
this chart can be found in Appendix D.
At the conclusion of the interviews, each principal was thanked for their
willingness to share their perceptions of their roles. The principals were very
cooperative and indicated they would be willing to answer any further questions
should they arise as the research continued.
Analysis of Data
The purpose of this study was to investigate the perceptions of the role
similarities and differences of charter school principals and conventional school
principals. Their perspectives on additional support structures, skills, and training
that could help future charter school principals were also a focus of the study.
This was accomplished by eliciting responses from eight current charter
school principals in a semistructured interview format. Data collected by notes
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
and tape recordings of the principals’ interviews were organized in many ways.
First, each question from the interview was matched to a corresponding research
question for which data was provided. The participants’ responses were coded and
tabulated, and when possible reported in a frequency distribution of responses.
These responses were also reported as themes or categories. Direct quotations
were used to illustrate insightful thoughts about the motivation for changing to a
charter school, the perceptions of the various roles of the principal, and their ideas
about support structures, skills, and training that would be beneficial to future
charter school leaders.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
56
CHAPTER IV
FINDINGS
Organization of the Chapter
The purpose of this study was to examine the specific role similarities and
differences that exist between conventional school principals and charter school
principals, as perceived by principals experienced in both conventional public
schools and charter schools. The study sought to examine the following factors
related to charter school principals: a) the factors that motivated these principals to
leave the conventional public school system and become a charter school
principal, b) the level of job satisfaction as a result of this job change, c) the
perceived leadership role similarities and differences between charter school
principals and conventional public school principals, d) the perceived managerial
role similarities and differences between charter school principals and
conventional public school principals, e) the amount of time these principals
typically devoted to the various role tasks as conventional school principals and as
charter school principals, f) the structures and supports created by these charter
school principals to accomplish the increased managerial demands of their role,
and g) the kinds of characteristics, skills, and training needed for future charter
school leaders.
This chapter is organized into three sections. The first section examines
the responses of the eight selected principals to the semistructured interview
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
SI
questions as they relate to the research questions for his study. A summary of the
chapter follows as the second section. The chapter concludes with a final section
on the implications of this study’s findings.
Factors That Motivated Principals to Become Charter School Principals
The first research question attempted to determine what factors motivated
these principals to leave the conventional public school system and become a
charter school principal and the degree to which these reasons were fulfilled.
Three interview questions addressed this aspect of role change for these principals:
why they left their former position for a charter school, what concerns or fears they
had about leaving their position, and to what degree do they believe these reasons
have been fulfilled with their new positions. Two of the principals indicated that
initially the reasons centered around a need for a change in location due to
personal and family issues. However, as they began to study charter school law
and the charter school they would be leading or starting up, they were inspired by
many other aspects that a charter school might provide for the community. As a
result, the personal reasons for the initial interest became less of a factor in their
decision.
All of the principals (100%) cited the need for local control in making
decisions for their site as a major factor in becoming a charter school principal.
They felt the decisions handed down by the district and the state were often “off
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
58
the mark” for their sites, and not always in the best interests of kids. One
conversion school principal commented:
We needed control over our school, local control over educational
decisions, curricular decisions, instructional practices, hiring, and finance
because at that time we were with a superintendent who was very
controlling, and kids weren’t being served the best they could. Also the
staff had ideas they wanted to implement and parents wanted to be
involved in new ways... they didn’t just want to be baking the brownies,
they wanted to be involved beyond site council.
One principal cited the need for local control because although the priority of the
school during his first five years there was to make the school a safe and orderly
learning environment (it had a reputation of being one of the two worst in the
district), to let teachers go who did not want to be there, and to improve the site in
many ways mandated by the district and state, they were not impacting student
achievement. And so his school was looking for alternatives. As he put it:
Life in the district was not something that any of us found desirable. We
saw the charter law as an opportunity to break ranks with those we were
continually pointing our fingers at. That was the main impetus. We
thought that if we were in control we could make a difference. We felt that
between the two entities, the district bureaucracy and the unions and
associations that we had very little decision-making power, and yet total
responsibility for everything.
Principals (100%) believed that local control would lead to empowerment
of staff and parents. These principals saw charter schools as a way to increase
parental involvement through more substantive roles in the school.
Not surprisingly, 100% of the principals looked towards innovation and
new possibilities as a reason to become a charter school principal. As one
principal declared:
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
59
I am a creative thinker, I like to think outside the box. There was no w a y
in my old setting that I could have done this... it was a very defined, and
straight and narrow path.
All of the principals talked about the need to put “cutting edge” ideas into
practice. As one principal said, “Charter schools are an excellent way to cook
innovative ideas in education.”
One of the key elements of charter schools is their flexibility and their
freedom from many of the rules and regulations that govern conventional public
schools. Nearly all of the principals (88%) cited this desire for flexibility as a key
factor in their decision. “They were meant to strip away the red tape so the needs
of kids can be met more directly,” emphasized one principal. This idea of
bureaucratic inflexibility, as well as voluminous laws and regulations, was
frequently mentioned as a frustration by the principals and one of the highly
desirable elements in the charter law. One principal stated that:
Flexibility is one of the most appealing parts of charter schools. Having
the ability to respond quickly to a site need without all of the restrictions
placed on schools by the Ed. Code and district mandates sounded like the
way to make important differences in student learning. Not having to abide
by union contracts also was a refreshing idea. I could see how I could have
much more time to spend on the things that really matter.
Nearly all of the principals interviewed (88%) said they were willing to
leave their job as a conventional school principal because there was some
disillusionment with the conventional public school system. Three of the
principals had been principals for 10 to 20 years. They expressed a strong concern
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
60
about continuing to work within the current system. As one conversion school
principal put it:
I have been a principal at this school for 20 years, 16 of those years was in
the conventional role, and I felt we had gone as far as the system would let
us go, I needed a new challenge. But I knew I wanted to remain at the site.
.. the charter school opportunity offered a new lease on life... we could
make the changes needed that we couldn’t make if we stayed within the
conventional model.
This disillusionment with the job felt by many of the principals found its
salvation in the promise of a charter school principalship. Several principals
(63%) believed they needed a new challenge where there would be new
possibilities for building quality schools. They believed that they had gone as far
as they could go in bringing about the change they saw was needed in public
education within conventional public schools. Charter schools were seen as a
fresh, new venue for their next step as an educational leader. One principal
commented, “Once I got there (to his new school), I realized how much I fit this
type of school.” A startup principal relished the challenge of “starting from
scratch”. In his former position, he could not see continuing much longer and was
contemplating other possibilities in education outside of the role of principal. One
other principal believed he would have taken an early retirement if he had not
made the change to a charter school. Educational philosophy differences with the
district leadership contributed to one principal’s disillusionment. He believed that
a charter school would offer him a new challenge to try out new possibilities that
were not welcome in his past district.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
61
Another frequently mentioned factor that motivated principals to make the
job change to charter school principal was the desire to work with a group of like-
minded individuals in building a common vision for students. Sixty-three percent
of the principals stated that having a staff that believed in a common philosophy of
schooling was very appealing. The idea that staff at the school would be there by
choice and not because of union contracts was a motivating factor for five of the
eight principals. One principal asserted:
Taking over a regular school, I knew that I could do it, but I didn’t know if
I wanted to do it. This was something new and starting from nothing with
a group of people and building that common vision for students... I
wanted to be a part of that process. Taking what is ideal for schools and
making it come to life with a group of like-minded people was pretty
interesting to me.
Three of the principals (38%) mentioned the characteristic of small schools
as a motivating factor. All of these principals had come from larger conventional
public schools where schools were growing at a phenomenal rate, and they
believed small schools could make a difference in what could be achieved for
children. This was an element that appealed to them.
Three of the principals (38%) also discussed that a motivating factor for
them was the possibility of making a difference in public education. They saw the
charter school movement as a way to make the conventional public school system
better and they wanted to be a part of it. One principal avowed:
I believe that charter schools can make a big difference in the public school
system as they begin to take a market share of students. Local public
schools are going to have to ask the questions of why they are losing
students to a charter school when they begin to lose ADA. It is my hope
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
62
that this will serve as a catalyst for change in conventional public school
districts.
Table 1 provides a frequency distribution of the factors that motivated
these principals to make the change from their conventional school to a charter
school.
Table 1
Frequency Distribution: Factors That Motivated Job Change
Reasons No. %
Local control for decisions 8 100
Opportunity for innovation,
to think “outside the box” 8 100
Flexibility - Freedom from laws, union contracts 7 88
Disillusionment with current public school system 7 88
Building a common vision for students 5 63
Small school 3 38
Making a difference in public education 3 38
After eliciting the reasons that motivated the principals to move to a charter
school principalship, each principal was asked to what degree their reasons have
been fulfilled. Without exception, 100% of the principals have found that the
reasons they made the job change were realized to a very high degree. One
principal added that:
In all ways, my reasons for making this job change have been fulfilled.
And the exciting part is that there were so many hidden results that have
occurred that I didn’t expect. For us one of those things has been the
stability we have been able to create at our site because we are not so
influenced by the tides of the state. An example is Prop. 227. We were
able to maintain a strong bilingual program that is working for our kids and
now we have developed into a dual immersion program which has made a
big difference. If we were still a conventional school this could not have
happened so smoothly.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
63
Even though there have been some rough parts along the way, these
principals wholeheartedly agreed their original purpose in changing jobs has been
realized. One principal who had considered changing positions before her school
converted to a charter school added that, “I’m here, we’ve come such a long way,
and this would not have happened if we had not been able to write our charter and
start with a fresh beginning.”
In an effort to explore underlying concerns or fears about leaving the
conventional school principal position, the principals were asked what fears,
hesitations, or concerns they had as they made this shift. Most of the principals
(75%) articulated that they were concerned about how broad their new role would
be. They were unsure about how they would manage to get even more done.
These principals felt the concern and pressure of being more publicly accountable
for the results. They believed that they had to be successful and were somewhat
laying their careers on the line.
Fifty percent (50%) also had some hesitations about not having a district
support system available, if needed. This was mostly true of the startup principals.
They knew they would be setting up new systems and laying infrastructure.
Having “nothing in place” was both exciting and fear provoking for these
principals.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
64
One of the principals captured the essence of what so many said when he
stated:
Doing something new and outside the box is risky. I felt that this was high
stakes accountability and so I was concerned that we were successful. I
also knew that as a charter school principal I would literally have to do
everything, especially at first, while systems were put in place and
infrastructure was created. The breadth of the role worried me because I
know how much time a regular principal’s job takes... I was worried about
the additional time demands this job might have. How would I manage
doing more?
Two of the startup charter school principals (25%) also added the concern
that they had during this time in California education and that was the shortage of
teachers. They were concerned if they could find excellent teachers “who would
be willing to take a risk in a new startup, without the comforts and security of a
conventional school district.”
Table 2 provides a frequency distribution of the fears, concerns, and
hesitations articulated by these principals.
Table 2
Frequency Distribution: Fears or Concerns
Responses No. %
Breadth of role would increase 6 75
Accountability and being successful 6 75
Increase in work load and strain on personal 5 63
lives
Being out there “on your own” without 4 50
systems and infrastructure in place
Finding the right teachers for the job 2 25
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
65
Comparison of Job Satisfaction Levels
With principals facing an increasingly complex job, heavier workloads, and
less community support, many principals are finding the job less fulfilling. In the
ERS study (2000) about the current state of the principalship, some of the barriers
to attracting new leaders included the increasing amount of time required, the
stressful nature of the job, the level of responsibility not matched with fair
compensation, and the unrealistic role expectations for one person to accomplish.
In a 1997 EdSource survey of California principals, the issue of administrative
overload and not being able to focus on their instructional leadership role has
contributed to the frustrations of the job, and the declining numbers of educators
who want to become principals. While most principals are still enthusiastic about
their jobs, their level of satisfaction has changed as the job has become more
complex.
In charter schools where there is more site-based management, the role of
the principal often takes on more breadth and new, additional tasks that require
even more time to accomplish (NWREL, 1999). Within this context, the second
research question explored how this new role as a charter school principal
influenced each principal’s level of job satisfaction and how this compares to the
job satisfaction level experienced as a conventional public school principal.
The three interview questions sought to explore this research question by
asking these principals to describe their level of job satisfaction in both their
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
66
current role as a charter school principal and in their past role as a conventional
public school principal.
The majority of the principals (88%) felt either “somewhat dissatisfied” or
“very dissatisfied” in their roles as conventional public school principals. All of
these principals felt they were not as empowered as they would like to be as
leaders and they had a lowered sense of efficacy in their positions. They also
believed that their staff felt this way and that a sense of being in control of
important decisions was out of their realm. Most of the principals (88%) also
pointed out that increasing district mandates and policies that didn’t match the
goals of the school kept coming “top-down” from the district and the state which
contributed to this lowered sense of efficacy. As one principal put it:
I felt I was always implementing what the district wanted, or what was
coming down from the state, whether or not it really fit our site or our
students. Everything was top-down decision-making and I did not feel
empowered to make the kinds of changes I felt needed to be made at our
school to make it better.
Many principals (63%) were also concerned about the level of parent
participation at their school. They sensed that parents needed to have more
substantive involvement, but that most of the decisions were made by the district
without parent input. If school staff did not have a part in the decision-making,
they didn’t foresee the district altering the process to include parents. “If we want
parents to be partners with us, we have to open our doors and make them part of
the decision - making process” stated one of the principals.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
67
Another common factor cited for job dissatisfaction in their role as a
conventional public school principal was the bureaucratic restrictions and “red
tape”. Fifty percent (50%) of the principals emphasized that this bureaucracy
made it so difficult to make things happen and did not allow them to be the type of
responsive leader they felt they needed to be. As one of the principals shared:
There were so many hoops to jump through to get even simple requests
processed. The delay affected how I could respond to teacher and student
needs in the classroom... and this definitely impacted the learning at my
school. I knew there must be a better and more efficient way to do things.
Table 3 displays a frequency distribution of the principals’ descriptions of
their job satisfaction levels in their past role as a conventional public school
principal.
Table 3
Frequency Distribution: Level of Job Satisfaction as a Conventional School
Principal
Levels No. %
Very Satisfied 0 0
Somewhat Satisfied 1 13
Somewhat Dissatisfied 4 50
Very Dissatisfied 3 38
Table 4 displays a frequency distribution of factors that contributed to the
principals’ ratings of “somewhat dissatisfied” or “very dissatisfied” as
conventional school principals.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
68
Table 4
Frequency Distribution: Factors Contributing to Levels of Dissatisfaction as a
Conventional School Principal
Factors No. %
Lowered sense of efficacy and empowerment
for self, staff 7 88
Increasing district mandates, policies that
didn’t match goals of school 5 63
Lack of parent participation 5 63
Bureaucracy made it difficult to make things happen,
to be responsive 4 50
There was only one principal who expressed that as a conventional school
principal she was somewhat satisfied and this rating fell to “somewhat
dissatisfied” in her new role as a charter school principal. She stated that she
enjoyed the support provided by the district office in her conventional school, but
as a startup charter principal she was experiencing difficulties not having others to
call on to assist. As she explained, traditionally a principal has district personnel
who they can ask about maintenance and operations issues, or budget and finance
questions, and other day-to-day issues. This lack of infrastructure and systems to
support the local site contributed to her rating as being “somewhat dissatisfied” as
a charter school principal.
Far more common among the principals interviewed was a sense of greater
job satisfaction as a charter school principal (88%) than what they experienced as a
conventional school principal. Four of the principals were seriously considering
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
69
other career options prior to becoming a charter school principal due to their lack
of job satisfaction. As one principal summarized:
I was fifty and the thought of even five more years as a district principal
was an overwhelming thought. I just didn’t know if I could do it. We are
now almost eight years down the road and I thoroughly enjoy what I do,
and I’ve long since passed 55 and I’m still here. Being a charter school has
changed all of our lives. Starting with the children and their families and
the community, it really has empowered us. We were powerless before.
Another principal similarly added:
I felt we had gone as far as we could at my school. Converting to a charter
gave us a chance to get on the same page and re-look at our school. I don’t
think I could have continued on the way were going. In fact, I was looking
for other jobs. Now I feel empowered and my staff and parents also feel
this way. We have created a more collaborative process at the school... It
is not me making all of the decisions. We now make them together.
Of all of the principals rating their current job satisfaction level as “very
satisfied” or “somewhat satisfied”, 100% of this group stated that two of the
reasons contributing to this level of satisfaction was a) freedom from bureaucratic
regulations and b) control of decision-making in hiring, curriculum, and finance.
The majority of this group of principals (71%) also cited an increase in
empowerment for themselves, their staff and parents. As one principal put it:
We’ve eliminated the fingerpointing. There’s absolutely no one we can
blame anywhere for any condition that exists. So if there’s something
that’s not working, we better fix it. So that’s really the biggest change.
We have control over the decision-making process and over the money and
those two items give us the ability to really make progress. It is very
gratifying, we can see tangible results.
Another frequently mentioned factor (71%) in their job satisfaction level
was the ability to be more collaborative. No longer was it the district who told the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
70
school what curriculum materials they must use, how many teachers they could
hire, nor was it the district’s vision or other policies coming “top-down” for them
to adopt. Many spoke of using collaborative skills to facilitate decision-making
where all stakeholders had a voice.
Two other factors mentioned by 57% and 43% respectively of this group of
principals were a) the impact they now felt they could make on student learning
and building a more student-centered school, and b) the opportunity for creativity
and resourcefulness. An example that illustrated this was one principal’s use of
alternative resources to build an arts program at the school. She explained:
By becoming a charter we are able to really see what our school needs and
then go out into the community to see how we can fill that need. Our
community really felt strongly about putting the arts back into the school,
and our teachers really felt tire need for some collaborative planning during
the week. So we found several artists in the community and combined
their skills with parent resource experts and now they run a special arts
program every Friday morning while the teachers can have time to
collaborate. We didn’t have to check with union contracts or get district
approval. We just used our creativity and found the resources to make this
happen. Now student needs have been met as well as teacher needs. I love
the freedom and the opportunity for being creative that this new role in a
charter school now offers me.
Finally, in this group, several principals (43%) mentioned that they can be
more responsive and can “make things happen”. A principal asserted that:
Now when we identify a problem, we don’t see it as a problem and we
approach it as such. Therein lies the difference between a district school
and our charter school. We can make things happen quicker and in a better
way.
It was noted that there was a difference in many of the job satisfaction
ratings between the group of conversion school principals and the group of startup
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
71
principals. All of the conversion school principals rated their experiences as
highly satisfied, and only one of the start-up principals rated her experience as
highly satisfied. When asked about this, the startup principals said they could see
that once they were more established, they believe the satisfaction in their jobs
would rise. But because of the even greater complexity involved in “starting
something from nothing”, they were still not seeing as much of the rewards of the
job as those who did not have to deal with facilities issues and the other obstacles
that face startup schools.
When each of the charter school principals were asked if they would
consider going back to a conventional public school, 88% emphatically said no.
One principal captured the sentiment of the group:
I could never go back. This is where I want to invest my time and energy.
I feel renewed as an educator. And even though the job is much harder and
is a lot more work, in the end it is more rewarding and fulfilling to me.
Table 5 displays a frequency distribution of the principals’ ratings of their
job satisfaction levels in their current role as charter school principals.
Table 5
Frequency Distribution: Level of Job Satisfaction as a Charter School Principal
Levels No. %
Very Satisifed 5 63
Somewhat Satisfied 2 25
Somewhat Dissatisfied 1 13
Very Dissatisfied 0 0
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
72
Table 6 displays a frequency distribution of the factors that contributed to
the principals’ ratings of “very satisfied” or “somewhat satisfied” as charter school
principals.
Table 6
Frequency Distribution: Factors Contributing to Levels of Job Satisfaction of
Charter School Principals
Factors No. %
Freedom from bureaucratic regulations 7 100
Control of hiring, finance, curriculum decision 7 100
Empowerment of self, staff, parents 5 71
More collaborative setting - not top-down 5 71
Impact on student learning - student-centered 4 57
Can make things happen, can be more responsive 3 43
Opportunity for creativity, resourcefulness 3 43
Comparison of Leadership Roles
The research refers to the role of the principal as being complex, varied and
often with distinctions made between the leadership roles of the principal and the
managerial roles. In particular, there is a compelling demand for principals to be
more focused on the instructional leadership aspect of the role so that there is a
strong emphasis on teaching and learning at the school. The third research
question examines the perceived similarities and differences of the eight selected
principals in their leadership role as principals in conventional public schools and
in their current charter school principalship. Four interview questions elicited the
responses which are presented in the following five subsections: developing and
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
73
implementing the vision/goal setting, decision-making role, instructional
leadership role, governance, and building and extending the school community
Developing and Implementing the Vision/Goal Setting
All of the charter school principals (100%) believed that one aspect of their
leadership role in both conventional and charter schools involved developing and
implementing the vision for the school, and then leading the school in setting goals
based on student needs aligned with the vision. They believed that maintaining the
school community’s focus on that vision was a similar leadership role they
engaged in regularly in both types of schools.
The differences every principal (100%) responded to about this part of their
leadership role was in how they carried out this role. At the conventional school,
principals believed they had to implement the district’s vision and that the process
was “top-down” in nature. Goals were often set based on district needs and state
mandates, rather than on specific site-based needs. The process was not nearly as
inclusive, nor as responsive to the school site. One principal stated:
I carried out my leadership role in vision and goal setting at my charter
school in a very different way than as a district principal. As a
conventional school principal I had to implement the district’s vision and
goals. Schools had some flexibility, but we all had to be on the same page.
At our charter school, we brought lots of people together and developed
our own vision based on the needs of students, parents, and teachers.
As charter school principals, 88% of the principals believed that their role
involved much more of a collaborative process, gathering people from all
segments of the community and creating a vision and a set of goals unique to that
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
74
school site, and independent of the chartering school district. Their role tended to
be more facilitative in nature. One principal explained:
At the charter, my role was more of a facilitator in building a collaborative
process including students, staff, parents, and other community members.
We were able to start from scratch looking at the ideas and needs based on
our school’s student achievement, site needs, building on our strengths. I
worked with the community to do this and it was not a top-down process as
it was in my experience as a conventional school principal.
Another principal believed that while there was some flexibility at his
conventional school in building their own vision, the basic elements were still
guided by the district. As he reflected on the differences, he commented that:
Now at the charter school we have created our own vision that is unique to
our school and our needs. It feels like we own this and we must follow it.
It also feels like it came from us and so I think there’s more of a buy-in
since it was not a top-down vision guided by the district’s vision. As the
principal, I also felt I had to facilitate this process so that it included
everyone. Parents and community members had to be a part of this since
they are our customers. I had to do a lot of team building and relationship
building to make this happen. I took on more of a shared leadership role,
with me being one member, one vote.
Another difference some charter school principals (50%) saw in their role
of developing and maintaining a vision and set of goals was in the amount of effort
and time they no longer needed to spend on convincing “resistors” and “doubters”
about the vision. They found it much easier to build consensus on the
development of the vision, but more importantly they found it was far less tedious
to maintain a vision made at the charter school. Many principals pointed to the
fact that the charter becomes the school’s guiding document. New staff members
who become teachers at the school and new parents who send their children must
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
75
make a choice to support the vision before they even make a decision to come to
the school. A principal commented on his experiences:
At my last school (conventional) I had staff members who were at many
different levels of their career and who had been at the school a long time.
There were different philosophies. Defining the vision wasn’t as difficult
as implementing it. I had to move in very deliberate steps to build a critical
mass so we could move forward. We were sometimes diverted by resistors
or “the crocodiles in the swamp”. A large part of my role there was then
getting the adults all on the same page and keeping them geared up to
move forward. At the charter school, we started out with people who had a
common vision and every time we have an opening we look for “kindred
spirits”. I’m not spending so much time trying to convince people of the
vision any more.
Table 7 lists the perceived differences of the leadership role in vision/goal
setting at charter school sites.
Table 7
Frequency Distribution: Leadership: Perceived Differences in Vision/Goal Setting
Role
Differences No. %
Opportunity to create vision/goals more site driven
than district driven 8 100
More of a collaborative process
with principal as facilitator 7 88
Less difficult to maintain the vision 4 50
Decision-Making Role
Most principals believed the symbolic leadership role the principal holds is
the same at both types of schools. “You are seen as the one who guides and
directs the school. People look to you for symbolic leadership, for stability and
guidance,” one principal emphasized.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
76
As leaders of both conventional and charter schools, principals agreed that
the principal has the central leadership role in decision-making. One principal
reflected this by saying, “Whether you’re at a conventional or a charter school,
people will always look to the principal as the bottom line”.
Even this traditional leadership role, however, looks somewhat different at
charter schools. All of the principals (100%) agreed that they, as a school
community, had much more control over the decisions they made. The flexibility
of charter schools gave them this type of autonomy.
Many of the principals (88%) believed they had to become much more
collaborative than they had been at their conventional school. One principal gave
as an example the following:
When we see something’s not working, like a reading program, we don’t
have to wait for the district to adopt a new program. We can make those
decisions at our school site more quickly.
Setting up a shared decision making process was the way most of the
principals (63%) carried out this decision-making role. Nearly all of the schools
had a governance council or advisory council where decisions were made using a
collaborative process. Mostly this was due to the desire to be inclusive of all, but
also in recognition that as a school of choice they had to be open to their customers
if they were to survive. One principal captured the essence of this role difference:
I work for this school community - before I worked for the school district.
Many of the directions and decisions came from top-down. Now I see
myself as sharing the decision-making role with this community. I don’t
consider myself the boss, I’m just another employee of the school. I am
one person on our governing council with one vote. I facilitate the groups,
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
77
and any major activity must be approved by the groups. We operate more
like a business than a school because we recognize who our customers are.
Many of the principals (63%) also perceived that one of the differences in
their decision-making role as a charter school principal was the need to be more
responsive and sensitive to the parents and the external community. These
principals believed that they had to listen more and be more open to suggestions
and feedback. They could no longer stand behind district policy and continue to
say, “This is the way it has been done in the past and so this is the way we’ll do it
now.” One principal explained:
When a parent or community member has a complaint, a suggestion, or an
idea I feel as part of a more collaborative team I must really listen to what
is being said. I cannot send that person to my superintendent. So when
making decisions I really need to take in all viewpoints and help people
realign decisions we make with our common vision. I also feel that timely
responses are more important and if an adjustment needs to made on my
part, or the school’s part, then I need to act. We don’t want to operate like
a traditional school bureaucracy.
Table 8 summarizes the perceived differences in the leadership role of
decision-making at charter school sites.
Table 8
Frequency Distribution: Leadership: Perceived Differences in Decision-Making
Role
Differences No. %
More control over site decision-making process-
not district influenced 8 100
Facilitating a collaborative process is more critical 7 88
Have to use shared decision-making 6 63
Must be more responsive and sensitive to parents, 6 63
external community
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
78
Instructional Leadership Role
The role of the principal as an instructional leader is discussed in this
section and includes the many aspects included in Murphy and Louis’s
comprehensive framework (1994) (See Appendix C). These aspects include
managing the education production function, promoting an academic learning
environment, and developing a supportive environment. Acting as an instructional
leader is a dominant part of the principal’s leadership role. Principals who fully
utilize the functions of this role can lead a school towards a high degree of focus
on teaching and learning. During the interviews, the various aspects in Murphy
and Louis’s framework were referred to by the researcher in probing questions to
elicit more specifically the principals’ perceptions of the similarities and
differences of this role at their conventional and charter public schools.
Similar to the two preceding sections on leadership roles, the principals
agreed that there are many similarities between the instructional leadership role,
whether at a conventional school or at a charter school. All of the functions exist
at both schools. Ensuring a safe, positive learning environment with high
expectations was perceived to be the same for all principals at both their
conventional and charter schools. Monitoring and improving the teaching and
learning at the school remains the same, but the methods for doing it may be more
flexible in charter schools where union contracts do not govern the evaluation
process. Even though all of the principals indicated more time was spent on
aspects of instructional leadership as a charter school principal, they felt in both
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
79
experiences there still was not enough time devoted to this important area due to
the other role demands.
When looking at the major differences in this aspect of the role, all of the
principals (100%) believed that the instructional leadership role in coordinating the
curriculum and instructional practices was much more comprehensive in their
charter school experiences. In their conventional schools, curriculum was
designed, textbooks were selected and adopted, and professional development was
prepared at the district level, usually by a curriculum coordinator. Although
teachers and administrators might have input into this process, the work was
limited at the site, as was the flexibility in choosing programs to be used. One of
the principals asserted:
When I was a conventional school principal the district told us what to do
for the different curriculum pieces. There was a curriculum department
who provided this type of service. In our charter school, we’re our own
curriculum designers and evaluators. We’re constantly creating and
inventing what we need based on results and student needs. It takes a lot
more time and collaboration at the site level.
Another difference is the reliance of principals at charter schools on the
expertise of teachers. Since they are creating curriculum and looking for the best
instructional practices, 88% of the principals at these schools look more to their
experts, the teachers.
One principal said he is constantly trying to gain an even greater knowledge base
and so he spends more time in classrooms and in dialogue with teachers about
instruction so that he can be a more effective leader. As he stated:
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
80
I thought I knew a lot about curriculum and instruction. But now that we
pretty much start from scratch in the process of searching for best practices
and effective programs, I realize I have a lot to learn. I really depend on
teachers to help with the decisions in this area. My role is to facilitate the
work and add to the decisions based on what I’ve learned.
Another principal approaches this instructional role by forming lead
teacher groups who help with the coordination of curriculum and the monitoring of
school results. She said:
Without a curriculum director, my role seems larger and I must rely on my
lead teachers to help guide us as well. When hiring, I try to seek teachers
with varying experiences who can add this type of leadership and expertise
where we might be missing it.
Due to the more comprehensive leadership role in curriculum/instruction at
charter schools, nearly all of the principals have devoted resources and time to
developing the instructional leadership of their teachers (88%) and /or distributing
this instructional leadership role to others such as lead teachers, an instructional
coordinator or similar role (63%). At one very large charter school, the principal
hired an instructional leader to guide the staff in the focus on teaching and
learning. While the principal still maintains the oversight of this role, it gives him
more time for the increased day-to-day tasks and managerial roles that must be
addressed. At another school the principal who acts more as a “mini
superintendent” she has allocated stipends to teachers who take on leadership roles
in instructional areas.
There is no way I can do it all. So I allowed teachers to take on some of
these instructional roles. Not only has it helped the school but it has also
nurtured the leadership of these teachers. They lead committees on the
Arts, Literacy, Technology and other instructional areas.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
81
Several of the principals (63%) also perceived their instructional role to be
different at a charter school due to the more extensive monitoring of results that
must take place. Although accountability and results were major issues at their
conventional school, at their charter schools they believe they need to have more
of a variety of measures that monitor student progress, and other indicators of the
school’s success. The emphasis on results and accountability issues are much
greater at charter schools. One principal explained this increased role pressure in
this way:
I feel like I have to have more data at my fingertips to show how our
students are making progress. While this was somewhat important at my
former school, it mostly centered on standardized tests. I also want to have
other results available to show how students are progressing. So I spend
more time collecting data from classrooms, talking to teachers about
individual student’s achievement, and discussing their plans for
improvement. The media and surrounding district are constantly viewing
our results and I sometimes feel like we are in a fishbowl.
Sixty three percent of the principals believed that as a charter school
principal, their instructional leadership role was more influential on the curriculum
and instruction of the school than at their conventional public school. This was
especially true for the conversion school principals whose schools were further
along in their development and they, therefore, had more time to spend on aspects
of their instructional leadership roles. One hundred percent of these conversion
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
82
school principals indicated they had more influence as compared to only 50% of
the startup school principals.
Another surprising difference of this role to many of the principals (63%)
was that they were able to spend more time in the classrooms monitoring
instruction. While they wanted to spend even more time visiting and working in
classrooms, they believed they were able to use more time for supporting teachers
in classroom instruction at their charter schools. Part of this was due to the
decreased demands from other district duties and reduced student discipline issues,
as well as their need to be more knowledgeable about teaching and learning at the
school. Again, one hundred percent (100%) of the conversion school principals
indicated this difference, compared to only 50% of the startup school principals.
The startup school principals explained that since their schools were relatively
new, their attention was still on more day-to-day operations and they could not
give this part of their role as much attention at this time. All stated that it was one
of their goals as more systems and infrastructure were established at the school.
Table 9 is a frequency distribution of the perceived differences of the
instructional leadership role at charter schools.
Table 9
Frequency Distribution: Leadership: Perceived Differences in Instructional
Leadership Role
Differences No. %
Role in coordinating curriculum/instructional issues
much more comprehensive 8 100
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
83
Table 9 (continued)
Differences No. %
More emphasis on building instructional
leadership expertise in teachers 7 88
Instructional leadership responsibilities
are more distributed 5 63
Results/ monitoring of student progress more
ongoing, extensive 5 63
Principal’s effect on curriculum/instructional
issues is greater 5 63
More time is spent in classrooms and monitoring
Instruction 5 63
Governance
Most of the principals expressed that there were many similarities in their
governance roles at both their conventional and charter schools. At their
conventional school sites, this usually involved a Site Council which was
responsible for the SIP monies and other categorical funds. It involved working
with this group in a much smaller breadth about the resources and activities of the
school than at their charter schools. 63% of the principals of the charter schools
have more formal boards which are similar to school boards. These principals felt
their role emulated a “mini-superintendent” rather than a principal on a Site
Council. This difference in governance structure required them to keep board
members apprised of issues at the school in a much different way than they had to
do with typical School Site Councils. These principals reported that it required
more meetings which tended to be longer and more frequent. Their role in the
meeting was more as a facilitator and involved a more collaborative process than
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
84
experienced in their conventional School Site Councils. As one principal
explained:
I am more like a “mini-superintendent”. I work with our board regularly
and keep them in the communication loop on all the issues that come up at
the school. It’s not just about budget, it’s about policies, personnel,
facilities, maintenance issues, as well as program issues. It is a much more
comprehensive role than when I worked with a School Site Council.
Nearly all of the principals (88%) expressed the belief that the governance
role also required them to research school law issues as they applied to charter
schools. As their school governance groups made policy decisions, principals
believed it was imperative that they were in compliance with the most recent
charter laws and any other school laws applicable to the administration of charter
schools. This sometimes required principals to seek advice from the Charter
Schools Unit at the California Department of Education, or from legal counsel.
Often the answers were vague, but the principal had to have at least working
knowledge of the laws, and then advise the governance group.
Table 10 summarizes the perceived differences in the role of school
governance at charter school sites.
Table 10
Frequency Distribution: Leadership: Perceived Differences in School Governance
Role
Differences No. %
Many more meetings involving a collaborative
process 7 88
Role is more like a superintendent with
aboard 5 63
Need to know about school laws applicable to charters 5 63
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
85
Building and Extending the School Community
Part of the leadership role of the principal involves building a strong school
community and a school culture that promotes and builds collaboration and
cohesion amongst its members. In the literature Murphy and Louis (1994) refer to
one of the emerging leadership roles of the principal as one that also extends this
school community. They posit that principals must expand the boundaries of the
school so that they are more interactive with parents and community members.
Principals must work with school councils or governing boards and spend more
time in the external environment. They must be willing to spend more time with
parents.
All of the interviewed principals believed that in both their conventional
and charter school experiences they focused heavily on building a strong school
culture through a variety of activities. Building cohesion among staff and parent
groups was a focus of their time. They also were very involved in building more
parent involvement at their schools. In this way, this role was similar at both types
of schools.
However, one of the differences perceived by principals (88%) at their
charter school sites was the relative ease in facilitating this type of collaborative
and cohesive culture building because teachers and parents held more of a
common vision. They had chosen to be at the school due to their belief in this
clear and common focus. One principal said:
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
86
My role in building a cohesive community of learners is so much easier to
do at the charter school. Even though we have a diverse population, we
came together at this school for a common purpose. Maintaining this
culture by continually referring back to our charter vision helps us stay
focused and cohesive.
Another difference indicated by 75% of the principals was that they
included more members in their charter school experiences in building the
community. At their conventional school they sometimes included parents, but
rarely included community members -at-large. They might seek business partners
and local community groups such as the Lions or the Kiwanis, but there was
limited interaction. As charter school principals, however, they saw the external
community as important to their success. This included the political groups, the
local district, other charter school leaders, and business leaders. One principal
stated:
About 20% of my time is spent on external community relations because I
believe it is so important. We need to be involved with our political
leaders so that the needs of charter schools are heard. I also think it is
important to extend ourselves to other charter school leaders so that we
have a strong network of support.
Another principal indicated the importance of extending the community to the
local district so that one day “we might have an impact on the local public
schools.”
One of the groups included in community building in a more substantive
way was parents. Eighty-eight percent of the principals indicated that one of the
differences in their leadership role of community building was the extent to which
they involved parents. Parents were given opportunities to serve in more
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
87
meaningful ways at their charter schools. Their expertise in finance, maintenance,
human resources, instruction, and so on were solicited and utilized. They were
seen as a key to the success of the school. One principal declared:
I have always included parents in the activities at school. At my
conventional school, only a few came forward. However, at the charter
from the get-go, parents became so involved. Part of that was because they
were able to do more at the charter... there weren’t as many restrictions
due to contractual and insurance issues... but also, I needed them to be
involved to help us get all the work done. I don’t know what I’d do
without them. Literally, I don’t know how I could do this without our
parents.
While many of the principals (50%) believed that external community
building was important in their charter schools, realistically they reported they did
not have the time to do what they would like. They set this as a “worthy goal” and
hoped that they would be able to “branch out” and do this one day in the near
future. As a conventional school principal, they believed that this external
community building was done more by district leaders, and was not a role
expectation for the principal, as it is at charter schools. A principal explained it in
this way:
I know I need to get out more and build relationships with the external
community. As a conventional school principal, this was not necessary.
But I feel if we are to have an influence in the area I need to take on that
role. Right now I’m so enmeshed in just making sure my school is doing
excellent work I haven’t devoted as much time as I should to this. This is
one of my goals in the near future.
Table 11 summarizes the perceived differences in the leadership role of
building and extending the community at charter schools.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
88
Table 11
Frequency Distribution: Leadership: Perceived Differences in Role of Building
and Extending the Community
Differences No. %
Easier to build a cohesive, collaborative
culture 6 75
More inclusive of all members of the community 7 88
Parents have more substantive input at the school 7 88
More need to be attuned to external community 4 50
Comparison of Managerial Roles
The research on the role of the principal indicates increasing role
complexity and conflicting demands between the need to attend to the educational
functions of the school and the day-to-day, managerial operations. This
conflicting demand promotes a tension between the leadership and managerial
roles a principal must accomplish to make the school effective. The fourth
research question explored the perceived similarities and differences o f the various
managerial roles the principals have experienced as conventional school principals
and as charter school principals. Principals were asked five questions to elicit
responses about the managerial roles they engage in. One question was designed
so that principals’ perceptions included, but were not limited to, the area of school
budget and finance, human resource management, facilities and maintenance,
marketing of the school/public relations, student contact/discipline, and day-to-day
operations and administration.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
89
All of the principals (100%) emphatically stated that the managerial role of
the principal was the biggest area of role difference that they have experienced
since becoming a charter school principal. The time needed for the additional
managerial tasks increased significantly from their conventional school
experiences, with some principals indicating the increase was about 40%. These
various role areas are discussed in the following subsections: school budget and
finance, human resources management, facilities and maintenance, marketing of
the school/public relations, student contact/discipline, and day-to-day operations
and administration.
School Budget and Finance
All of the principals (100%) agreed that budget and finance was the area in
which they have experienced the greatest difference in the managerial roles they
engage in as charter school principals. In their conventional schools, most had
little control of the budget. Their budget management usually involved only
school supply monies, textbook funds, and some categorical funding. However, at
the charter school, principals now had control of the entire school budget, many
times totaling in the millions of dollars. The advantage was the flexibility to use
their resources, but along with that came the oversight and reporting
responsibilities. While most contracted with an outside source or with the
chartering district to do the everyday bookkeeping and monitoring, 100% of the
principals spent considerably larger amounts of time making sure they kept track
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
90
of where the funds were being expended than they did as a conventional school
principal. As one principal explained:
I never even knew what our school’s electricity bill was until I came to a
charter school. Now I know where all the money goes... which gives us a
lot of flexibility to save money here and transfer it to areas we need more
money in for, let’s say science materials. But, things like purchasing,
accounts payable, and bookkeeping we have contracted out because it was
just too much to do. I, myself, spend a lot more time figuring out how to
best budget the money we do get, so that more goes to the classroom. It’s
time consuming, but it gives us more control.
As another principal commented:
At my conventional school, the district took care of all of our expenditures
for facilities, maintenance, utilities, personnel costs, everything. We just
had control of our textbook funds, our student supply budget, and our SIP
monies. Now, we have control of it all. It’s a huge responsibility and there
is a lot of pressure to be financially solvent. So I spend a lot of time,
making sure we are within our budget.
All of the principals (100%) commented that this additional oversight of
the budget also meant they needed to be much more knowledgeable about
California school finance since they had to know all of the different revenue
sources that were available to them, what funding applications had to be filled out,
and what state reports needed to be completed to receive the actual funding. Most
had some help in this area by an employee they had hired, or they contracted the
service to an outside source. As one principal added, “While I need to have a
comprehensive knowledge of this area as the chief overseer of the budget, I also
recognized I didn’t have the expertise.”
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
91
All of the principals(100%) believed the difference in this role area has
created more paperwork in bill paying, bookkeeping, and other business services
than they had experienced in their conventional schools. Most of the principals
have contracted some, if not all of this, to an outside source or hired an employee
to manage the paperwork and the budget books. Many of the principals with
newer schools were still trying to determine how to best manage this increased
workload.
Many principals (75%) also said one of the main differences in their
managerial role with the budget was the decrease in time spent convincing the
“powers that be” that expenditures were justified. One principal said:
I don’t have to go to my superintendent or supervisor and “beg” for money
for a staff training. We can just do it... our board approves the expenses
because they are aligned with our goals. This is much more time efficient
for me.
Four of the principals (50%) also believed a difference in their school
finance role was in being able to use their creativity to increase the revenue into
the school by operating businesses at the school, renting out the facility, doing
their own food services, and so on. One school brought in an additional $60,000 a
year from operating their own food services department, a parent coffee shop at
the school, and a fee-based preschool. The principal responsible for this said:
Of course I had help from our budget person, but we never could have done
something this entrepreneurial as a conventional school. This type of
budget control, while giving us more work, gives us more possibilities to
be creative.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
92
Table 12 summarizes the perceived differences in the role of managing
budgets and school finance at the charter school sites.
Table 12
Frequency Distribution: Perceived Differences in the Role of Managing Budgets
and School Finance
Differences No. %
Control over entire budget requires
more oversight and managing 8 100
Much more paperwork in bill payment,
bookkeeping, etc... 8 100
Need to be more knowledgeable on CA
school finance 8 100
Less time needed to convince “powers”
for monies 6 75
Ability to create additional revenue streams 4 50
Human Resources Management
Most of the principals manage their own hiring using a site committee of
staff and parents to find qualified individuals. While this is somewhat similar to
their role in their conventional public school, the difference is that at the charter
school there is no personnel department to advertise the positions, accept
applications, and build an eligibility pool from which to interview. At their
charter schools, all of the principals (100%) reported this required a lot more time
from the beginning a position was created until it was filled. Most principals
(88%) did contract with the local district to do the actual fingerprinting and
credential monitoring, but many still had to prepare employment contracts. One
principal explained the difference like this:
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
93
When we needed someone for a position, we did the advertising, the paper
screening, the interviewing, the reference checking, and then the contracts.
At my conventional school, these jobs were done by the personnel
department. The unions usually had a part in the salary and contractual
agreements. Now we negotiate this as we hire staff, and get guidance
from legal counsel and final approval from our Board. At my conventional
school I had very little role in all of this except in the interviewing and the
recommendation for hiring.
Another area of personnel that was very different for some of the principals
(63%) was the need to call for substitutes. In their conventional schools, they had
nothing to do with this role. At the charter school, however, they have had to
devise their own system of how to handle this critical need. One principal had
found resources through a temporary agency who was authorized to hire teachers.
Another principal shared the responsibility with the school secretary, while another
one did this independently. Several principals even talked about how they had to
“pitch in” and help as the custodian, or as a food service worker, when they could
not find someone to substitutive. Often they turned to parents for help.
Table 13 summarizes the perceived differences in the role of human
resources management at charter school sites.
Table 13
Frequency Distribution: Perceived Differences in Role of Human Resources
Management
Differences
Must do own advertising, contracts, and
hiring without a personnel dept.
Substitute calling, filling in for missing people
No. %
8 100
5 63
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
94
Facilities and Maintenance
One of the greatest challenges charter school leaders face is finding
facilities or facilities funding. While nearly all of the principals interviewed had
solved this part of the facilities issue, they explained that it was a struggle. All of
the startup principals (100%) have much more involvement with getting a facility
underway. However, at a couple of the conversion schools, they too, are facing
facilities issues as they are planning to add additional space.
All principals (100%) mentioned that managing the facilities and
maintenance issues was not a role they engaged in as conventional school
principals. These issues were dealt with at the district level. They might have had
to work with the designated department in getting what they needed, but they had
little else to do with facilities issues. This was a completely new role for them.
At their charter schools, most of them have figured out who to call for assistance,
or they have contracted for services from an outside agency. As one principal put
it:
At my conventional school I could call the district when there was a
problem with bees or with the heating system. Now there is no one to call.
You are expected to solve the problem. The solution isn’t to call someone
and tell them about the problem, the solution now is what are we going to
do about it.
All of the principals (100%) felt they had to learn more about
facilities/maintenance issues. In particular, they had to learn how to solve
maintenance issues in a cost-effective way. Often parents were a resource, or the
yellow pages. Most found this actually was quicker than when they were a
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
95
conventional school principal and had to wait for a work order to be processed and
then completed by the district maintenance group.
Many of the principals (63%) have experienced the need in this new role to
know how to bring a facilities project through the various planning and approval
stages. One startup principal shared his experiences with moving his school to a
new site of portable buildings.
It was a very long process and we went through a lot of difficult times to
finally get it approved with the city council. Then we had to deal with the
actual setting up of the facility... making sure it was ADA compliant, that
it had adequate parking, that the H/VAC system was working properly, and
that the fire safety codes were followed. There were so many details, I had
little time then for anything else. Now we’re trying to add a playground
structure, a garden, shelving, and lots of other enhancements. Fortunately,
our parent group has expertise in many of these areas. But I show up for
all of the workdays and it does take an incredible amount of hard work and
time.
Finally, some of the principals (38%) mentioned another dimension of this
new role was the way it could be creatively used to bring in additional revenue
streams for the school. A common way this was accomplished was through rental
of the facility which added on the subsequent tasks of drawing up rental
agreements, ensuring the renters had adequate insurance, sending out invoices for
payment, bookkeeping, and, of course, making sure the facility was open and
ready for the group. While their conventional school facility may have been
rented out, this was all taken care of by district personnel.
Table 14 summarizes the perceived differences in the role of managing
facilities/maintenance at charter school sites.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
96
Table 14
Frequency Distribution: Perceived Differences in Role of Managing
F acilities/Maintenance
Differences
Completely new role
Must be able to solve maintenance issues
No.
8
%
100
on your own
Must be able to bring a facilities project
8 100
through steps or know who to
consult
Must be more creative in use of facilities for rental
5 63
for additional revenue streams 3 38
Marketing of the School. Public Relations
Much of the literature on schools of choice indicates a greater role on the
part of the principal in the marketing of the school. However, all of the selected
principals interviewed (100%) indicated they have not found this a major role for
them in either their conventional schools or their charter schools. At their
conventional schools, there was little, if any, part they needed to play in the
marketing of the school. Communication of activities with existing families was
the extent of this work. They never held meetings to explain the school program
to prospective parents or held tours for interested families.
The exception to this finding was in the role of startup principals. This
group (50%) did express that they had to spend a great deal of time in this role in
the formation of the school, but all principals (100%) indicated they spent little
time actually marketing the school as time went on. Conversion school principals
generally took in most of their attendance area students, even though parents were
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
97
given a choice. There was always little room for students outside of the attendance
area. All of the conversion and startup principals believed what they had to do
was make the school successful and this would speak for itself. All of them
reported this had happened and they all had waiting lists.
In terms of public relations, 88% of the principals believed their role to be
similar in this area at both the conventional school and their charter school. One
principal found she spent more time in the first year at her charter school because
the school was so new to the community and there was a lot of curiosity and
interest. But as time passed, this has not been a major role she has had to spend
time on.
The element of choice, while not affecting considerably the role of the
charter principal in marketing the school, it did, however, create for the principal
the need to make sure there were positive public relations with the media and the
external community. Principals valued their school’s reputation and made sure
they were viewed in a positive light so that they could continue to attract families.
Choice did influence one of the activities. Sixty-three percent of the
charter school principals reported giving school tours. Many had scheduled this at
specific times of the month, so it did not interrupt the daily operations of the
school on a frequent basis. As conventional school principals they rarely, if ever,
gave school tours.
Table 15 summarizes the perceived differences in the role of marketing the
school/public relations at charter school sites.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
98
Table 15
Frequency Distribution: Perceived Differences in Role of Marketing School.
Public Relations
Differences No. %
Some marketing, but mostly at opening of school 8 100
Most marketing is in producing a successful school
- word of mouth then helps sell school 8 100
More tours of the school 5 63
Dav-to-Dav Operations and Administration
Nearly all of the principals (88%) commented that the day-to-day running
of the school had many similarities to their work as a conventional school
principal. The scheduling of activities and assemblies, production of bulletins and
newsletters, and supervisorial responsibilities were essentially the same. In the
area of student contact, principals believed the amount of time spent with students
was very similar at both types of schools. However, what was different was the
nature of the contact at charter schools. Nearly all of the principals (88%) believed
that the student contact in discipline matters was greatly reduced. They believed
this was due to the fact that the schools tended to be smaller, staff members held
similar philosophies which tended to dispel some of the discipline issues, and
parents also were supportive of the schools’ standards for behavior.
In terms of other administrative duties, 100% of the principals reported that
their role had changed in that there were fewer reports to fill out from the state for
special programs. Also, 100% of the principals were freed of the role of
implementing district policies and programs. They no longer had to fill out so
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
99
many state and district reports because of the fewer regulations that now governed
their charter schools. One principal stated:
As a conventional school principal, it seemed like I was always filling out
reports, making sure program plans were in order. I also went to so many
district meetings to learn about laws, policies, and new programs that had
to be implemented. Curriculum directors needed data and other
information about the school. Categorical programs needed reports and
information on a number of things also. I was swamped in paperwork all
the time. This is a refreshing change!
Although principals had to be more creative in finding good services, and
setting up systems for purchasing, 100% agreed that the procedures they were able
to implement made their role in administration more expedient. There was less
“red tape” they needed to go through to get a task or a service accomplished.
However, what did require more attention and sometimes provided greater
interruptions during the day was the “crisis” that would appear without warning.
Often, in their conventional schools, the principals explained they could call the
district office and turn the problem over to someone in the appropriate department.
However, at the charter schools the principals had to do the problem solving
themselves and seek out the resources necessary to solve the problems that arose.
As one principal described:
One day we had an infestation of crickets and ants. At my conventional
school I would have called the head of Maintenance and Operations and
they would have taken care of the whole problem. At my charter school I
had to stop what I was doing and call pest control companies, get bids for
the work, make sure that what they would do was compliant with school
safety standards, and then be there when they were able to do the work.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
100
Another principal explained that:
Whenever the burglar alarm or fire alarm was set off, I had to manage how
it would be taken care of. At my conventional public school, the Security
Dept, or the Maintenance and Operations supervisor would be notified and
they would take care of the problem. They might notify me that something
was going on, but I didn’t have to be directly involved in it.
Table 16 summarizes the perceived differences in the role of day-to-day
operations/administration at charter school sites.
Table 16
Frequency Distribution: Perceived Differences about Role in Dav-to-Dav
Operations /Administration
Differences No. %
Student contact time is same, but mostly
for supervision and visitation in classes 8 100
Discipline contact - very reduced 7 88
Less reports to fill out from state for special
Programs 8 100
Less time implementing district policies and
Programs 8 100
Less regulations from state and district to adhere
to, so less paperwork 8 100
Faster to get services, supplies, activities done -
less “red tape” 8 100
You need to be able to do “everything”, if needed
- no one to call at central office, day 7 88
may be more interrupted with “crisis”
As the researcher talked with each of the principals they commented
throughout the interviews that it was necessary for them to acquire many
additional skills while “on-the-job” which they had not been trained to do, nor had
experience with as conventional school administrators. They mentioned they
needed to acquire more in-depth knowledge in many areas, especially in school
finance and facilities projects. They also said they had to spend more time
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
101
overseeing the operations of the entire school. And they had to have more ability
to access resources, or have the ability to delegate or find a parent to help. Nearly
all of the principals found their learning curve in the area of management of the
school was huge and continued to be an area of growth for them.
Time Spent on Weekly Role Activities
The fifth research question examined the amount of time principals spent
on weekly role activities in their conventional school positions and at their charter
school sites. To guide this question during the interview, principals were given a
chart (See Figure 1) to refer to as they answered how they divided their time up
during a typical week as a conventional school principal, and then as a charter
school principal. It also allowed the researcher to clarify the description of the role
tasks listed so that all respondents had the same frame of reference. An additional
question also probed for any other kinds of activities they might spend time on that
were not listed on the chart. The mean percentage of time was calculated using the
responses from all eight principals. The results are displayed in Figure 1. Finally,
participants were asked in which areas they would prefer to spend less time and in
which areas they would prefer to spend more time at their charter school sites.
As principals talked about the time spent on each task, it was evident there
were significant differences in the way they spent their time at their conventional
school sites and at their charter school sites. Clearly, principals spent more time in
their charter schools on the managerial roles involving budget, administration, and
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
102
Role Tasks % of time as a
Conventional
Principal
% of time as a
Charter Principal
Budget, Admin., Maintenance 7.7 12.4
District Business/ Reports/Policy
Implementation -State &
District
17.3 6.8
Instructional & Curriculum
Issues/ Monitoring Teaching and
Learning
15.5 23.5
Marketing of School 2.9 4.7
External Community Relations 5.3 5.9
Parent Relations 15.5 17.9
Student Contact/Discipline 22.7 16.9
Program Planning/Evaluation 13.1 11.9
Figure 1. Percentage of Time Spent on Role Tasks
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
103
facilities/maintenance. They reported 12.4% of their time was spent on these roles
tasks at their charters schools compared to 7.7% at their conventional schools.
Compared to their conventional school positions, they spent 61% more time on
this area at their charter schools.
Another notable difference was in the area of curriculum/instruction issues
and monitoring teaching and learning. Principals at charter schools spent 23.5%
of their week, compared with 15.5% in their conventional schools. Charter school
principals spent almost 52% more time in this area than they were able to spend as
conventional school principals. This reflects what principals reported about their
instructional leadership role. Sixty-three percent were surprised they were able to
be in classrooms more and even believed they had more influence over
curriculum/instruction at their charter school sites, than they had experienced as
conventional school principals.
In the role of marketing the school, principals at conventional schools spent
2.9% compared with 4.7% at their charter schools. Even though the total
percentage of the time is low, it represents 62% more time spent on this particular
task as charter school principals than in their conventional schools.
Two areas where principals at charter schools spent considerably less time
were in the area of a) district business items, district and state reports, and policy
implementation, and b) student contact/discipline. Charter school principals spent
6.8% of their time on the former item, compared to 17. 3% as conventional
principals. At their charter schools, principals spent almost 61% less time working
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
104
on district business, writing district and state reports, and implementing policies.
In the role of student contact/discipline, principals at charter schools spent only
16.9% of their week in these role tasks compared to 22.7% in their conventional
school experiences. As all of the charter school principals stated while rating this
issue, the nature of the contact is considerably different. As charter school
principals, there were greatly reduced discipline-related time with students. Most
of the contacts revolved around supervision or visitations in the classroom.
Three areas with the greatest similarities in the amount of time spent at
charter schools mid conventional schools were external community relations,
parent relations, and program planning/evaluation. With the exception of program
evaluation/planning, there was slightly more time spent in these areas as charter
school principals.
When asked in which area(s) the principals would like to spend more time
and in which areas they would like to spend less time at their charter school sites,
100% stated they definitely would want to spend even more time on
curriculum/instruction, and less time on the budget, administration, and facilities
issues. Fifty percent also indicated they would like to spend slightly more time on
external community relations. Although the principals are doing this as compared
to their jobs as conventional school principals, they still are not satisfied with the
balance between their leadership roles and the time it takes to accomplish the
managerial roles. This finding mirrors the finding of the EdSource study of the
principalship (1997) in which principals want to eliminate more of the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
105
administrative duties, while increasing more attention to the tasks related to
instructional leadership.
Created Structures and Supports to Accomplish Increased Managerial Tasks
All of the charter school principals pointed to the fact that their role as
charter school leaders was much larger in breadth and that, in particular, the
managerial tasks were far greater than those they had experienced as conventional
public school principals. The sixth research question examined how the eight
selected principals were managing the new complexity of these roles in creative
ways so that their schools were effective. Many had experimented with different
designs and were still in the process of finding out what would work. All
principals said that even with the different designs they had created, their work
year was longer and that they were working many more hours as compared to their
jobs as conventional school principals.
All principals (100%) said that in order to manage all of their tasks they
needed to share leadership and managerial tasks with other staff members as well
as parents. One principal spoke about how she divided up many of the tasks that
needed to be done and asked for teachers to volunteer to lead and/or manage
certain projects. Teachers were then paid additional stipends for this extra work.
This principal appointed teachers to facilitate groups such as parent education,
maintenance, glee club, after school technology, the arts program, and so on.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
106
Teachers then hired the necessary personnel, supervised the program, and
generally were responsible for their own project. As this principal put it:
I could not do everything and so I let teachers choose what their passion
was and then we paid them for the extra work involved. A great result,
though unexpected, was the building of many teacher leaders who took
more ownership in the school programs. It also allowed me to focus on the
budget and finance issues and really to be more of an overseer of the whole
school. Now my job has evolved into more of a CEO, or a mini
superintendent. I have talented, skilled people doing many of the jobs that
they know more about than me, and for which I just didn’t have time to do.
Another principal spoke of the difference between their current charter role
and their role as a conventional public school principal and explained how the
need for sharing leadership and managerial tasks was critical. He stated his views
in this way:
The scope of a principal’s job is huge and it is even more so in a charter
school. Since we don’t have personnel from the district office taking care
of some of the curriculum issues and categorical program issues I have
developed the skills and leadership of several of my staff members so that
they take shared responsibility for some of the work that needs to be done.
I also had to hire some specialized people who could do the attendance
accounting, purchasing, and bookkeeping, or more of the curriculum
leadership. This has been a key part of what has made our school work.
Other principals (75%) discussed how increased reliance on parent
involvement has been a critical strategy to complete some of the work usually
done by district officials or paid personnel. One of the principals organized his
parent groups into smaller ad-hoc and standing groups so that issues related to
their focus goes directly to that group rather than to him. As an example, parents
who have expertise in facilities improvements formed a facilities group, parents
who had business backgrounds joined the finance group. These groups then
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
107
review the needs and make recommendations to the governing board for approval.
In this way, the principal has increased parent involvement at the school, while
also getting the work done.
A couple of the schools cited required parent volunteer hours as a way to
delegate some of the tasks. A school wide survey is required at these two schools
and parents volunteer for areas they are interested in. Again, parent involvement is
assured, and the tasks get completed, allowing the principal to focus on other areas
of leadership.
A third widely used strategy was the use of committees by 63% of the
principals. The committees involved teachers as well as parents. At one school
the principal explained that the jobs that he needed help with were listed, and then
committees were formed to address those jobs. Parents and teachers joined these
committees and were responsible for making sure that their projects were
successful.
Another model described by three of the principals (38%) was creating a
lead teacher structure at their school. These teachers took on many of the
instructional leadership duties normally assigned to the principal. While the
principal guided this leadership, the lead teachers were able to help guide other
staff in the curriculum and instructional issues at the site. In some schools they
assisted with data collection and helped teachers reflect on the results and create
strategies for improvement. In some of the schools they were leaders in designing
parent education programs and other school improvement programs that would
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
108
make a difference in the lives of the students. Some of their job duties also
included observing and helping grade level team members and facilitating the
collaborative work of the teams. As one principal commented:
I rely on my lead teachers to help oversee that we are putting in place best
practices and that teams are working together to continue to improve what
is happening in the classrooms. We meet regularly as a leadership team
and discuss what is happening around the school and what needs are
arising. This has been a godsend to me as I can then spend more time in
finding and managing the resources necessary to support classroom
instruction. My lead teachers have also found this new role for them
empowering and has developed their leadership skills. If we had hired
someone specifically to do this role then the professional growth they have
experienced would not have been one of the unexpected results of this
strategy. It has become almost like a career ladder for teachers at our
school, and one that some are now aspiring to.
All of the principals realized that what they have created to support the
teaching and learning at the school is a “work-in-progress.” As they continue to
survey the needs of the students and community, and as they continue to see what
resources they have available they indicated they will continue to “tweak the
structures” they have currently set up.
Finally, in two of the schools (25%) with little district interaction and
infrastructure support and with larger student populations, the role of the principal
was divided into separate jobs. This typically involved a leader in charge of
business and operations, and one in charge of educational leadership. For these
principals, they believed that this was essential. As one principal argued:
We realized early on that it was extremely hard for a principal to do it all -
that is, be an instructional leader and also a manager and fiscal leader,
especially in our very large school. So we chose to come up with a co
directorship. As the Executive Director I am CFO and handle the business,
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
109
financial issues, community relations and the governing board. My co
director is Director or Curriculum and Instruction. When I retire she will
become the CEO/CFO overseeing the whole operation and we will hire a
financial manager. This will maintain the consistency and stability of the
leadership as we look to the future.
Adding an additional administrator has been “the salvation” for these
principals as they describe it. They are able to really focus in depth on their
individual roles and do what they believe is a more thorough job to meet the needs
of their schools.
A frequency distribution of their responses is displayed in Table 17.
Table 17
Frequency distribution: Types of Structures and Support Added to Accomplish
Increased Role Tasks
Created Structures No. %
Shared Leadership 8 100
Increased Reliance on Parent Groups 6 75
Use of Committees 5 63
Lead Teacher Roles 3 38
Creation of a Co-Director 2 25
Characteristics, Skills, and Training Needed
In addition to investigating the perceptions of the eight selected principals
about the comparison between the roles of charter school principals and
conventional public school principals, this study also sought to determine what
characteristics, and what additional skills and training were necessary for future
charter school leaders. The seventh research question explores these areas in
further depth. These eight principals were asked questions to find out if there were
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
110
special characteristics necessary for charter school leaders, as well as some
additional skills charter school principals should develop. The principals were
also asked about what kinds of additional training may be needed specifically for
charter school principals.
Characteristics
One hundred percent (100%) of the principals believed that anyone who
wanted to be a charter school principal must be a person who is an “above-
average” risk-taker.
As one principal commented:
This person must be willing to let go of the security of the public school
system and try something new, and where there is no guarantee of success.
He/she must be willing to go out on a limb and do something contrary to
what everyone else is doing. This is so difficult for a district principal to
think of “busting out” and doing something different.
All of the principals (100%) also believed that future charter school leaders
must be creative and resourceful and willing to think “outside of the box”. They
believed that this person should have somewhat of an entrepreneurial nature.
Most principals (88%) stated that the position of charter school principal
also required someone who had a “high tolerance for ambiguity”. One principal
even characterized this as the quality of someone who did not mind working
amidst chaos. This means that the principal must be very flexible and able to
adjust to the situations as they present themselves. One principal explained:
So much of what happens at charter schools is new and there is not always
a blueprint in place as the events unfold. You have to be able to move with
the flow, without always having clarity about exactly how you will move.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
I l l
This type of ambiguity is certainly not for everyone, and certainly not for
many principals currently employed by public school systems.
As charter schools develop, 88% of the principals believed that the leader
should be a person who is collaborative. This is not a position where one
implements the wishes of a district. Instead, the principal must be able to
collaborate with teachers, parents, and community members to build a school that
meets the needs of the students it serves. Sharing the leadership and decision
making is critical if this school is going to be responsive to all the stakeholders
involved. As one principal stated:
As a charter school principal you need to be willing to really listen, and act
on what you hear. Parents and teachers want to be at a school that is not
just doing what the top-down management has determined. They want to
be involved in the activities and the directions of the school.
Nearly all of the principals (88%) mentioned that it is very important that
future charter school leaders have a very strong work ethic. They commented
several times that this role is much more complex and demanding and sometimes
the principal will need to step in and be the custodian, or the noon duty supervisor,
or the traffic director. There is no end to the duties you may need to take on. The
infrastructure so common in districts is not available to charters, especially as they
are getting underway. As one principal put it, “you have to roll up your sleeves
and get in there and just do the work”. Many principals commented on the longer
work year and workdays they put in, and believed this willingness to work hard is
a necessity.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
112
Perhaps in alignment with the collaborative characteristic necessary for the
job, seventy-five percent (75%) of the principals also believed that it is essential
that charter school principals be open-minded and responsive. Because charter
schools have a high degree of accountability, they must be willing to reexamine
areas where their desired results have not been achieved, and then they must
respond quickly. There is no time to wait until the next state adoption of textbooks
to alter a piece of the curriculum if it is not working. A charter school principal
must be constantly open and willing to reexamine the school’s program to see
what improvements are needed. Another principal cited an example of a parent
who does not like a certain school policy. As a conventional school principal this
might be viewed as “unchangeable” since it is a district policy. At a charter
school, the principal must be open and responsive to ideas and comments, and
willing to change if necessary.
Table 18 displays a frequency distribution of the characteristics of charter
school principals most frequently mentioned by these principals.
Table 18
Frequency Distribution: Characteristics of Charter School Principals
Characteristics No. %
Greater risk taker, entrepreneurial nature, can
think “outside the box” 8 100
High tolerance for ambiguity 7 88
Collaborative in nature 7 88
Strong work ethic 7 88
Open-minded and willingness to be 6 75
responsive and change
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
113
Additional Skill and Training Areas
This seventh research question also elicited some very common answers
among the participants in this study as to the kinds of additional skills and training
that charter school leaders need, above and beyond the typical skills school
administrators develop.
First and foremost, all of the principals (100%) said that additional
expertise in the area of school finance was needed. It was believed that current
principals do not get the kind of in-depth fiscal training needed to run a school.
Typically, principals only deal with simplified site budgets and some categorical
budgets. However, as a charter school principal, it is likely that the principal will
be working with budgets in the millions of dollars. There is little training that
principals receive for this. As one principal stated:
Suddenly I had a $4.5 million dollar budget, and I had to learn so much
about how to manage this. I had never learned how to do this as a
conventional school principal. Usually, I just had limited oversight of the
budget.. .usually a supply budget and some categorical monies. The
district business department would monitor the budget and approved or
disapproved my requests.. Now, I have to learn what I can and then know
when and where to access the expertise of others. I am in charge of the
whole thing now!
One principal likened the type of training needed for the position to be something
similar to an MBA. Perhaps this type of degree coupled with a degree in
Educational Leadership would be the perfect match, suggested one of the
principals.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
114
Another part of the fiscal skills needed was knowing what funds were
available to charter schools, and which reports must be filled out so that those
funds were properly allocated. Tapping into all of these financial resources was
not always clear to charter schools and usually not to their chartering districts.
Charter school principals felt they needed some expertise in determining what
revenue was due their school so that they could ensure that they were maximizing
their resources.
Nearly all of the principals (88%) also emphasized the need for skills in the
area of charter school law. They believed a principal needs to know what codes
charter schools are exempt from, as well as which laws they must follow. An
example of this is in the area of special education. Principals found they needed
much more knowledge in the area of special education law as it applies to charter
schools. One principal commented that:
We need to know how to administer the special education laws as a charter
school... what funds should be expected from the chartering agency or
what services should they be supplying. This has been a very unclear area
and more skill in this area would really help me.
Much of the research on charter school leaders’ needs has found that
finding, building, and maintaining facilities is one of the biggest obstacles and
challenges for charter schools. Most of the selected principals in this study (88%)
frequently mentioned facilities issues as an area in which they needed additional
skill development. All of the startup principals indicated this was an area of need,
as well as three of the conversion charter school principals. For startup schools,
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
115
principals need to be able to understand all of the elements of effective school
design, what codes must be followed, and then be able to shepherd a project
through city or county agencies. One principal emphasized her needs in this way:
I needed to know about building permits, experts to contact on septic and
well systems, fire safety and burglar alarm systems, playground equipment
standards, and heating/air conditioning systems. I also needed to know a lot
about the basic maintenance of the facility, who to call and when to
schedule just normal preventative maintenance. In my former district, I
just called M&O (Maintenance and Operations) and they took care of
everything, even though the service wasn’t quick.
Principals, particularly the conversion school principals, commented on
how they needed to find the most cost effective way to deal with facilities issues
and this was very time consuming since they did not have skills in this area. The
learning curve was very high for most of these principals. Most of them found that
the district maintenance departments were slow and not as responsive as they
preferred. So they spent a great deal of time finding individuals and companies
they could contract with for services.
Another area cited for additional skill development and training was in the
scope of building facilitation skills. Many of the principals (63%) suggested that
formal training in facilitation skills would be valuable to them. Working with
varied groups of people in a more collaborative process required them to hone in
on these skills. Consensus building, conflict management skills, building powerful
group dynamics, and managing meetings more effectively were important
facilitation skills principals mentioned. In traditional administrative training
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
116
programs, this is an area that is not formally addressed. It is almost assumed that
principals have these skills. As one principal put it:
For my work as a conventional school principal I had some basic skills in
facilitating groups. However, with the importance of bringing together
various groups o f people and really building a collaborative process of
working together, I found I needed more training in facilitating meetings
and decision-making. There are professional training programs for
business professionals that would be so appropriate for this job.
The last area most commonly mentioned for additional skill building and
training was in resource procurement and management. Principals wanted to
know about obtaining services, both operating and professional services, from the
private and the public sector. It also involved finding resources charter schools
could access, such as private foundations, public grants, community resources,
parent resources, and other available monies that could help them in more
effectively running their schools.
Table 19 displays a frequency distribution of the additional skills and
training needed by charter school principals.
Table 19
Frequency Distribution: Additional Skills and Training Needed by Charter School
Principals
Skill and Training Areas No. %
School Finance 8 100
Charter School Law 7 88
Facilities 7 88
Facilitation Skills 5 63
Resource Procurement 5 63
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
117
Different models for training are being created to address the needs of
charter school leaders. The Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory and the
California Network of Educational Charters has designed in-depth training
modules. Work is also underway in this area at the University of Arizona. An
innovative approach designed by a group of entrepreneurs, and now being
implemented in Chicago and New York, is New Leaders for New Schools
(NLNS). This high quality program finds exceptional individuals to lead new
schools, trains them in a high intensity summer program with four follow-up
weeks throughout the year. During the year following their summer training, they
are placed with a mentor principal and serve as an intern for one year so that they
get on-the-job training.
The eight selected principals were asked what type of training model might
fulfill the needs of charter school principals. Ideally, most principals (75%)
believed that experience first as a conventional public school principal would be
very helpful so that they could see some of the effective systems and structures
that are in place at a regular school. It would also give them an opportunity to
practice some of the basic skills needed by a principal in the area of educational
leadership. In addition to this, many of the principals (63%) believed that an
internship model would be an excellent training method. Some of them suggested
that the internship might be divided into six week sections to learn some of the
needed skills such as fiscal management, facilities, community relations, and so
on. The interns would then be placed with different charter school principals
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
118
known for their expertise in designated skill areas for each of the six-week
sessions.
The Charter Schools Development Center courses offered in California
were also believed by 63% of the principals to be a good model for training.
These courses are taught in modules on specific topics such as charter school law
and finance, or special education. They deal with in-depth issues that face charter
school leaders and also provide a support network of professionals to consult with
when needed. An in-depth summer institute is also offered for new charter leaders.
Finally, several principals (50%) mentioned adding in business courses to
the typical school administrator training. A combination MBA/Educational
Leadership degree or credential program was suggested by one principal. This
would also include important skill training in group facilitation skills as well, and
entrepreneurial training.
Not one of the principals believed their training properly prepared them for
the breadth of the role of the charter school principal. As one principal
commented:
The complexity of the job is so great, it would be hard to design a
comprehensive training that wouldn’t take a great deal of pre-service
training. But with the growth of charter schools, there is definitely a need
for a more in-depth model of training, particularly in the area of budgets
and business. The training might also include an overview of the scope of
the job of the charter school principal. Then you could start planning what
skill sets you need to learn, and what services you would need to contract
out.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
119
Table 20 displays a frequency distribution of the types of training models
that would be helpful.
Table 20
Frequency Distribution: Types of Training Models Suggested by Principals
Data collected in this study have been analyzed and presented in sections
corresponding to the research questions from this study. All of the data were
derived from responses to these research questions by eight selected principals
who have had at least two years of experience as a conventional public school
principal and at least two years of experience as a charter public school principal.
Analysis of the data resulted in the following findings as summarized for
each research question.
Question One: What factors motivated these principals to become charter
school principals, and to what degree have these reasons for the job change
been realized?
All of the principals (100%) cited two common factors for their decisions
to become charter school principals. First, they wanted to have more local control
for decisions made at their school site. Second, the opportunity for innovation and
new possibilities, and thinking “outside of the box” was very appealing to them.
Types of Training
Experience as a conventional school principal
Intern/apprenticeship model
CSDC workshops
Business-type courses
No
6
5
5
4
%
75
63
63
50
Summary of Findings
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
120
Nearly all of the principals (88%) also cited as reasons motivating them to make
the job change: a) flexibility and freedom from laws, regulations, and union
contracts, and b) varying degrees of disillusionment with the current public school
system. Many principals (63%) cited the interest in building a common vision for
students with like-minded individuals as an appealing element supporting a move
to charter schools. Three principals (38%) also indicated they liked the idea of
leading a smaller school and they were looking for new possibilities for making a
difference in public education. In making this job change, principals expressed the
following fears, hesitations, and concerns: increased breadth of the role (75%),
more pressure for public accountability and success (75%), increased workload
and strain on personal lives (63%), independence from familiarity of public school
system - (i.e. being on one’s own without familiar systems and infrastructure in
place (50%), and possible difficulties finding the types of teachers needed in a
time of critical teacher shortage (25%). In spite of these underlying fears,
concerns, and hesitations, the principals moved forward with their job changes.
Without exception, 100% of the principals reported their original reasons for
making the job change have been fulfilled.
Question Two: How do these principals perceive their job satisfaction level as
charter school principals as compared with their job satisfaction level as
conventional school principals?
Nearly all of the principals (88%) reported being either “somewhat
dissatisfied” or “very dissatisfied” in their roles as conventional public school
principals. Different reasons contributed to this low job satisfaction level. Nearly
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
121
all principals (88%) indicated that a lowered sense of empowerment and efficacy
for staff and self contributed to this level. Increasing district mandates and
policies that didn’t match the goals and needs of the school was mentioned as a
reason by 63% of the principals. The lack of parent participation and the desire to
build more substantive parent involvement with input into decision-making added
to this low job satisfaction level as mentioned by 63% of the principals. Half of
the principals (50%) also were dissatisfied with the bureaucratic system which
made it difficult to be more responsive and make things happen.
Reports of job satisfaction levels by these principals in their current charter
school positions revealed dramatically different results. Nearly all of the
principals (88%) expressed a sense of greater job satisfaction in this newer
position. All of these principals (100%) cited two factors contributing to this
greater job satisfaction level. They were a) freedom from bureaucratic regulations,
and b) control of decision-making in hiring, curriculum, and finance. Nearly all of
the principals (71%) also cited an increase in empowerment for themselves, their
staff, and their parents, and the opportunity to work in a more collaborative
environment. Other factors that contributed to this greater job satisfaction level
were a) the greater impact they could make on student learning and building a
more student-centered school (57%), b) the opportunity for creativity and
resourcefulness (43%), and c) the increased level of responsiveness they have to
“make things happen” (43%). In response to the question of whether they would
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
122
ever go back to a conventional public school, 88% answered with an emphatic
“no”.
Differences were noted in the reports by conversion charter school
principals and startup charter school principals. Although startup principals’ job
satisfaction level was higher than experienced as conventional school principals,
they were not as highly satisfied as the conversion school principals interviewed.
Only 25% of the charter startup principals were “highly satisfied” compared with
100% of the conversion school principals. However, startup principals believed
their level of satisfaction would rise as their school became more established and
more systems were established and refined. The obstacles and the greater
complexity of issues they have encountered in the startup phases of their school,
particularly in the area of facilities, have diverted their attention more from the
school issues they would prefer to address in more depth. Still 50% of these
principals rated their job satisfaction level as “somewhat satisfied” and 25% rated
the job satisfaction level as “highly satisfied”.
Question Three: How do these charter school principals compare their
leadership roles with the leadership roles they experienced as conventional
school principals?
All of the principals (100%) believed that there were more similarities than
differences in the leadership roles they experienced at their conventional schools
and at their charter schools. All experienced significant leadership roles in
developing and implementing the vision, goal setting, decision-making,
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
123
instructional leadership, and in building and extending the school community in
both school settings.
However, the main differences encountered involved how the role was
accomplished, or the breadth of the role. All principals were involved in
developing and implementing the vision and goal setting. However, 100%
perceived the difference at their charter schools to be one that involved the
creation of a vision and development of goals that were more site-driven, rather
than district-driven. Eighty-eight percent of the principals perceived this as a more
inclusive, collaborative process with their role being more of a facilitator. Many
of the principals (50%) believed their role in maintaining the vision and moving
the school forward was easier at their charter schools since the process was more
collaborative, and those who joined the school were generally in agreement with
the charter vision. Less time was spent “convincing” and negotiating with
“resistors”.
In the leadership role of decision-making, all of the principals interviewed
(100%) believed they held the symbolic leadership role of being the “bottom-line”
for decisions to be made. However, at charter school sites principal cited the
differences as: a) much more site-control for decisions made, rather than district
control (100%), b) facilitation of a collaborative process was critical (88%), c)
shared decision-making was the method most used (63%), and d) decision-making
required more responsiveness and sensitivity to parents and external community.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
124
In the area of instructional leadership, all principals had similar role
functions they engaged in at both their conventional and charter school sites.
However, the perceived differences were: a) the coordination of
curriculum/instruction was much more comprehensive (100%), b) more time was
devoted to building the instructional leadership of teachers resulting in more
shared instructional leadership (88%), and c) there was a tendency to distribute
instructional leadership roles to other staff members such as lead teachers,
curriculum specialists, and others employed for this purpose, thereby making the
principal’s instructional leadership role at these sites more of an oversight role
(63%). Surprisingly, nearly 2/3 of the principals (63%) found that they spent
more time in classrooms and monitoring instruction. Principals at charter schools
(63%) put more emphasis on results and spent more time monitoring individual
student progress with teachers. Many of the principals (63%) believed their effect
on curriculum to be greater at their charter schools than what they had experienced
at their conventional school.
In the leadership role of governance, many principals expressed they had a
similar role at their conventional school sites. However, many of the principals
(63%) stated that the role at their charter schools had more breadth and depth with
governing groups more similar to school boards than the traditional site councils
they worked with at their conventional sites. Nearly all of the principals (88%)
said this required more meetings involving a collaborative process with their role
being one of a facilitator. The additional governance responsibilities involving
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
125
policy creation, school finance, and other charter school issues created another
difference in the need for the principal to be more knowledgeable about school
legal issues and, more specifically, charter laws.
Finally, in the leadership role of building and extending the community all
of the principals found similarities in their role building school culture and school
community, and focused significant time in these areas in both school settings.
The perceived differences again were in how this role was carried out at their
charter schools as compared to their conventional schools. Nearly all of the
principals (88%) responded that at their charter schools they were more inclusive
in this process. Community members-at-large were involved more frequently, as
were parents. Principals (88%) pointed out that more substantive involvement was
solicited from parents. Parents were frequently involved in roles at school not
traditionally given to this group. Building a cohesive, collaborative school culture
and community was also seen as more easily done at the charter sites, 75% of the
principals reported as another difference. Again, they spent less time negotiating,
managing conflict, and convincing resistors of the importance of working
collaboratively.
As a conventional school principal building external community relations
was not seen as a role principals engaged in, with the exception of occasional work
with business partners and community groups. The superintendent usually
engaged in this activity, and there was not a role expectation for the principals.
While 50% of the principals believed that external community building was a part
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
126
of their role at charter schools, they lacked the time to do this to the degree they
believed was necessary. Most have set it as a future goal.
Question Four: How do these charter school principals compare their
managerial roles with the managerial roles they experienced as conventional
school principals?
All of the principals (100%) emphatically stated that the managerial role of
the principal was the biggest area of role difference between their experiences as a
conventional school principal and as a charter school principal. Principals (100%)
indicated the additional managerial roles, as well as the depth and complexity of
each role, increased significantly at their charter schools.
All of the principals (100%) agreed that the greatest difference was in the
role of managing the budget and school finance issues. At their conventional sites,
they had very limited budget oversight. They found the differences at their charter
school sites to be in a) management of an entire budget requiring more oversight,
more fiscal paperwork, and more time (100%), b) the need to be more
knowledgeable about California school finance procedures, reports, and revenue
streams (100%), and c) the ability to create additional revenue streams (50%).
One positive difference noted was that due to the site control of money, there was
less time devoted to justification of expenditures to district officials (75%).
In the role o f human resources management all of the principals indicated
the role was similar at both sites in terms of interviewing the final pool of
applicants for new positions. However, charter schools principals (100%)
participate in a much more comprehensive role in the hiring process: posting
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
127
advertisements, accepting and screening applications, interviewing all of the
screened applicants (rather than just those who were approved for the eligibility
pool), and negotiating and issuing employment contracts. An additional role in
this area involved the role of finding substitutes. Over half of the principals (63%)
have responsibility for this task, and sometimes must be the “substitute” for the
missing employee when no one can be located.
In the role of managing facilities and maintenance issues, this role was
described by the principals (100%) as completely new and different from their
conventional school sites. At conventional schools, these functions were handled
by district personnel. At the charter schools, principals (100%) must be able to
solve maintenance issues on their own without the support of a district department.
Several principals (63%) commented they also needed to be able to guide a
facilities project through the necessary steps, or know who to consult. Three of the
principals (38%) mentioned another dimension of this new role was in creatively
using the facility to bring in additional revenue streams.
In the area of marketing the school, principals reported engaging in this
activity rarely at their conventional schools. Surprisingly, all of the principals
(100%) found that while they had to do some marketing at their charter school
(particularly at startups in the first year), this was not a role they engaged in
frequently. In fact, all of the principals (100%) believed that making the school
successful was the best marketing tool they used. They felt their time was better
spent making sure the school program was excellent. Half of the principals (50%)
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
128
did comment they gave school tours which was something they did not do in their
conventional schools. This helped interest potential funders, and provided a
positive link with new families to the school. In the area of public relations,
principals (88%) also reported more similarities than differences in their roles as
conventional school principals and charter school principals. At both sites,
principals believed they promoted a positive public image of their school and spent
similar amounts of time accomplishing this. There were no significant differences
reported in this role by principals.
Finally, in the area of day-to-day operations and administration of the
school, nearly all of the principals (88%) reported that the day-to-day operations of
the school were very similar. Scheduling, communication, supervisory
responsibilities, and student contact remained the same. However, the differences
perceived by the charter school principals were a) student contact involved
dramatically reduced discipline contacts (88%), b) less state reports to complete
for special programs (100%), c) less time for implementation of district policies
and programs (100%), d) less regulations to implement from state and districts
resulting in far less paperwork (100%), and e) less “red tape” resulting in greater
speed in acquiring services, supplies, and accomplishing tasks (100%). Eighty-
eight percent of the principals reported a “crisis” tended to interrupt the day more
at a charter school because there was seldom a support department to call for
assistance. The attention of the principal was needed for these events.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
129
Question Five: What role tasks do charter school principals spend time on as
compared to their conventional school experiences? How would charter
school principals prefer to spend their time?
These eight selected principals reported significant differences in the time
spent on the various role tasks in which they engage. In the managerial roles
involving budget, administration, and facilities/maintenance, principals spend
12.4% of their time as compared with 7.7% at their conventional sites (61% more
time at charters). They also spend more time in instructional/curriculum issues
and the monitoring of teaching and learning: 23.5% at charter sites, 15.5% at their
conventional school sites. This represents 52% more time on this task at charters
than at conventional schools. In the role of marketing the school, charter school
principals spend 4.7% of their time, compared with 2.9% at their conventional
schools. Even though the total percentage is small, this still represents 62% more
time spent on this task at the charter school than at the conventional school.
Areas in which charter school principals spend significantly less time than
at their conventional sites were a) district business duties, district and state reports
and policy implementation (6.8% at charters, 17.3% at conventional schools), b)
and student contact/discipline (16.9% at charters, 22.7% at conventional schools).
One hundred percent of the principals also explained that the nature of the student
contact time was very different with greatly reduced discipline contacts at the
charter school sites.
Three areas with the greatest similarities in the amount of time spent at
charter schools and conventional schools were external community relations (6.2%
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
130
at charters, 5.3% at conventional schools), parent relations (17.9% at charters,
15.5% at conventional schools), and program planning/evaluation (11.6% at
charters, 13.1% at conventional schools).
Charter school principals (100%) responded that they would like to spend
more time on curriculum/instruction, and less time on budget, administration, and
facilities/maintenance. Fifty percent of the principals said they would also like to
spend slightly more time on external community relations.
Question Six: In order to accomplish the leadership roles and the increased
managerial roles of the principal, what structures and supports have these
charter school principals created?
Accomplishing all of the tasks at charter schools has required the eight
selected principals (100%) to work longer hours and a longer school year. In
addition, they have had to create structures and supports to manage the new
breadth and complexity of their role. One hundred percent of the principals have
created a shared leadership structure, delegating tasks to teachers, other staff
members, and parents. Increased reliance on substantive parent involvement has
been a strategy used by 75% of the principals. Use of committees was another
widely used strategy by 63% of the principals. Another strategy used was the
creation of a lead teacher structure by 38% of the principals. The lead teachers
share in the instructional leadership roles along with the principals. Two of the
principals (25%) at the very large schools of the principals have divided their role
into two co-director jobs. Most principals indicated that discovering the best way
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
131
to manage all the tasks is a “work-in-progress” and something they are continually
revising.
Question Seven: What additional characteristics, skills and training do these
charter school principals perceive as necessary for future charter school
principals?
Beyond the basic characteristics needed to be an effective school leader,
the charter school principals (100%) felt that new charter school principals needed
to be an “above-average” risk-taker who liked to think “outside of the box” and
have an entrepreneurial nature. Eighty-eight percent of the principals indicated
charter school principals need to have a high tolerance for ambiguity, have a
collaborative leadership style (88%), be open-minded and responsive (75%), and
possess a very strong work ethic (88%).
Additional skills and training are also needed for charter school leaders,
above and beyond the typical skills school administrators develop. These include
additional, in-depth training in school finance (100%). Nearly all of the principals
emphasized the need for additional skills and training in the area of charter school
law. Eighty-eight percent of the principals also mentioned additional skill training
was need in the area o f facilities. Many principals (63%) emphasized how helpful
it would be to have formal training in facilitation skills due to the very
collaborative nature of the job and the diverse groups one works with. Finally,
more training in the area of resource procurement was suggested by 63% of the
principals. Knowing how to find and procure resources in the public and private
sector would be very advantageous for charter school principals.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
132
In terms of training models that might be most useful, 75% of the
principals felt the best preparation was gain experience first as a conventional
school principal. Sixty-three percent believed that in addition to this experience,
an internship model of training, where aspiring principals work alongside a mentor
charter school principal would be one of the best forms of training. Many
principals (63%) also suggested enrollment in the courses being offered by the
Charter Schools Development Center as a way to build skills and also build a
support network of professionals to consult with when needed.
Finally, several principals (50%) suggested adding in-depth business
management courses to administrator training programs. A combination
MBA/Educational Leadership degree or credential program was suggested for
charter school principals, and any one aspiring to lead a self-managing school.
One hundred percent of the principals (100%) agreed that their pre-service training
did not adequately prepare them for the breadth of the role of a charter school
principal. A more in-depth model of training is needed, particularly in the area of
business and finance.
Implications
The findings of this study revealed some consistencies and inconsistencies
with the literature which have implications for reexamining the emphasis that
needs to be placed on skill development for charter school principals. Consistent
with the literature, charter school principals do need to have a much greater
understanding of school budget and finance. Fiscal management and the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
133
capability to operate a school in ways similar to a business have many implications
for the training and recruitment of charter school principals.
Second, the curriculum and instructional skills of charter school principals
need to be an area of greater strength. Since charter schools develop and select
their own curriculum, the principal must have an in-depth knowledge of
curriculum development as well as a greater understanding of research-based
instructional practices. Charter school principals must be able to either be deeply
involved in curriculum planning and instructional improvement, or know how to
access the expertise needed for this important function. The results orientation of
charter schools requires a leader who can help direct the work of the school in
curriculum and instruction.
Third, the findings of this study indicate that the emphasis placed on the
importance of skills in marketing the school may be overstated. If principals have
the skills necessary to build an effective school, this study suggests that the
marketing of the school becomes secondary. Building a record of achievement is
perhaps the best way to market the school.
Finally, the findings of this study suggests guidelines to consider for
individuals responsible for the recruitment of future charter school principals. It is
important that individuals are selected who are skilled at collaboration and
facilitation of groups. The ability to tolerate a high degree of ambiguity, to make
order out of chaos, to problem solve “outside of the box”, to be a risk-taker with an
entrepreneurial spirit, and to enjoy the creative challenges involved in charter
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
134
school development are also necessary characteristics. When seeking startup
charter school principals, these characteristics become even more critical. It is
essential that recruiters determine if a potential candidate is suited to a developed
or more chronologically -mature site, or if the individual would thrive in creating a
new setting. The findings imply that when there is a good match the job
satisfaction level can be very high.
Summary
This qualitative research design, utilizing the semi-structured interview
method, gathered data from eight selected principals in California. These
principals had experience as both conventional public school principals and charter
public school principals, enabling them to compare the similarities and differences
of their roles in both types of school. The findings have been detailed in this
chapter. The next chapter consists of a summary of the study, selected findings
and conclusions, and recommendations to aspiring principals, current principals,
universities, professional organizations, and recommendations for further research.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
135
CHAPTER V
SUMMARY, SELECTED FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
Summary
A great deal of promise lies in the charter school movement. However, as
with any successful school, there must be a strong leader guiding the direction and
instruction of the school. The research is clear that without strong principals,
charter schools will struggle just as other schools without good principals have
done. This study sought to examine how the role of the charter school principal
and the conventional school principal are similar and how they are different. The
results suggest new aspects of the role of the principal that need to be considered,
how current charter school principals are defining and managing their role
effectively, and what types of support, alternate structures, and training are needed
in order for charter school principals to lead highly effective schools.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to identify the specific role similarities and
differences that exist between conventional school principals and charter school
principals, as perceived by principals experienced in both conventional and charter
public schools.
This study sought to identify current elementary charter public school
principals who have also been elementary conventional public school principals
and examine the following factors related to charter school principals: a) the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
136
factors that motivated these principals to leave the conventional public school
system and become a charter school principal, b) the level of job satisfaction as a
result of this job change, c) the perceived leadership role similarities and
differences between charter school principals and conventional public school
principals, d) the perceived managerial role similarities and differences between
charter school principals and conventional public school principals, e) the amount
of time these principals typically devoted to various role tasks as conventional
school principals and as charter school principals, f) the structures and supports
created by these charter school principals to accomplish the increased managerial
demands of their role, and g) the kinds of characteristics, skills, and training
needed for future charter school leaders.
Methodology
This study employed a qualitative design utilizing interview research with
eight selected principals who have experience at both charter and conventional
schools. After a pilot study of the semi-structured interview instrument was
conducted, the data from these eight selected principals were gathered, analyzed
and reported. One-on-one in-depth interviews were conducted by the researcher at
the principals’ charter school sites.
The interview instrument contained both open-ended and structured
questions to gain better insight into the motivation, roles, and activities of these
principals, and their perspectives on the type of support structures, skills and
training needed for future charter school leaders.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
137
Research Questions
The following seven questions, addressed through this study, were
designed to investigate and more completely understand the similarities and
differences between the role of principals in charter schools and conventional
public schools:
1. What factors motivated these principals to become charter school
principals, and to what degree have these reasons for the job change been
realized?
2. How do these principals perceive their job satisfaction level as charter
school principals as compared with their job satisfaction level as
conventional school principals?
3. How do these charter school principals compare their leadership roles with
the leadership roles they experienced as conventional school principals?
4. How do these charter school principals compare their managerial roles with
the managerial roles experienced as conventional school principals?
5. What role tasks do charter school principals spend time on as compared
with their conventional school experiences? How would charter school
principals prefer to spend their time?
6. In order to accomplish the leadership roles and the increased managerial
roles of the principal, what structures and supports have these charter
school principals created at their schools?
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
138
7. What additional qualities, skills, and training do these charter school
principals perceive as necessary for future charter school principals?
Selected Findings
Analysis of the data provided the following selected findings:
1. The primary factors that motivated principals to become charter
school principals were: more local control for decisions, the opportunity
for innovation and new possibilities, flexibility and freedom from laws,
regulations, and union contracts, and varying degrees of disillusionment
with the current public school system.
2. All of the principals believed the reasons motivating them to
become charter school principals had been realized in their current
principalship.
3. Nearly all of the principals (88%) had higher job satisfaction levels
in their role as charter school principals than in their role as conventional
school principals.
4. All of the principals attributed their higher job satisfaction levels to
freedom from bureaucratic regulations, and local control of decision
making in hiring, curriculum, and finance. Other contributing factors were
a greater sense of empowerment for self and others, opportunity for
creativity, and a greater impact on student learning at the school site.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
139
5. The job satisfaction level of startup principals, while higher than
that experienced as conventional school principals, was not as high as the
reports by conversion school principals.
6. All of the principals (100%) stated they would not want to return to
the role of a conventional public school principal.
7. All principals reported similar leadership role activities at both
charter schools and conventional schools. The perceived differences were
in how the role was accomplished and the breadth of the role. Principals
reported experiencing at charter schools more inclusive, collaborative
processes where decision-making was localized, and not “top-down” from
the district or state.
8. All principals (100%) reported that the instructional leadership role
of the principal, in particular, was much more comprehensive for charter
school principals. Not only did they spend more time in this role, but they
believed their impact on the teaching and learning at the site was greater
than at their conventional school sites.
9. While most principals believed external community relations was
not a role expectation for conventional school principals, they do see it as
an important role for charter principals. However, due to time constraints
and other priorities at their sites, most have not yet been able to engage
meaningfully in this role at this time.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
140
10. All of the principals believed their managerial roles had increased
significantly as charter school principals. Not only were there more roles,
but the roles also had greater breadth and depth. Two notable areas that
were vastly different were school budget and finance, and facilities and
maintenance.
11. The major role difference between the experiences at conventional
public schools and charter schools reported by 100% of the principals was
the fiscal management required at charter schools. Managing the entire
budget and all of the other business services of a school operation was
significantly more demanding of a principal’s time and expertise.
12. Principals at charter schools spend significantly more time on the
areas of curriculum/instruction, and budget, facilities, and administration
than experienced as conventional school principals. They spend
significantly less time on district business, district and state policy
implementation, and preparation of state/district reports, and student
contact. Their student contact also is different in nature, with much fewer
discipline contacts.
13. Principals at charter schools spend more time marketing their
school, particularly in the first year at a startup school. However, beyond
that, the role of marketing the school is not a significant role. All of the
principals (100%) believe that creating and sustaining an excellent school
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
141
is the best marketing tool they use, and to this end, this is where they spend
their time.
14. Charter school principals commented that they would prefer to
spend more time in curriculum/instructional issues, slightly more time in
external community relations, and less time in budget, administration, and
facilities/maintenance issues.
15. To manage the increased workload, principals report working a
longer work year and a longer workday than they did as conventional
school principals. In addition, they have created a variety of support
structures at the school to handle the additional demands. These include
use of committees, lead teachers, additional coordinators, contracting to
outside agencies for assistance, and in some cases, dividing the position
into an operations role and an educational role.
16. All or nearly all of the principals commented that aspiring charter
school principals should possess these additional characteristics: be an
“above-average” risk-taker, possess a high tolerance for ambiguity, have a
strong work ethic, be open-minded and responsive, and have a
collaborative leadership style.
17. All of the principals (100%) emphasized the need for additional
skills and training in the area of school finance. Nearly all of the principals
(88%) also recommended more training in charter school law and facilities.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
142
Other areas frequently mentioned were resource procurement and
management and formal facilitation training.
18. Seventy-five percent of the principals believed the best training
experience for aspiring charter leaders was in the role of a conventional
public school principal. Sixty-three percent of the principals also
suggested an internship model of training where aspiring principals work
with practicing charter school principals.
Conclusions
Through analysis of the findings in this study, the following conclusions
are reported:
1. The selected charter school principals are highly committed to
building schools of choice in their new role outside of the conventional
public school system. They are accomplishing this in an environment
where the role demands on the principal are larger in breadth, greater in
number, more complex, and more challenging.
2. The selected charter school principals consistently reported higher
job satisfaction levels than experienced in their conventional school
principal roles. The autonomy provided to charter schools has given them
the freedom and flexibility to be innovative, and carry out their role in a
way that has a greater impact on student learning. None of the principals
has the desire to return to the role of conventional public school principal.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
143
3. While there are many role similarities in the types of leadership
tasks performed at charter schools and at conventional schools, these
principals perceived the major difference in their charter school roles was
that the leadership functions needed to be more collaborative, more
inclusive, and of a facilitative nature.
4. The selected charter school principals are able to spend more time
in their role of instructional leader and believe they have a greater impact
on the school’s curriculum and instructional practices than they
experienced at their conventional school sites. The decrease in time they
need to spend on district and state reports and policy implementation
allows them to expend more time in this important area.
5. All of these principals have experienced greatly increased demands
in the managerial roles they perform, particularly in the areas of school
budget and finance, and school facilities and maintenance. Their past
training and experiences did not adequately prepare them for the
knowledge and skills needed in these areas.
6. Contrary to the literature on schools of choice, marketing the school
has not been a major role difference experienced by these principals. All
of these charter school principals believe their best marketing strategy is to
build a highly effective school which becomes the greatest marketing tool.
7. The selected charter school principals have found creative ways to
manage these additional role demands through shared leadership, creative
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
144
staffing, and accessing additional expertise when necessary. In addition,
all of these principals reported they have had to increase their work day and
work year to accommodate these extra demands
8. The obstacles and challenges facing startup charter school
principals in the first two years are far greater than those facing conversion
school principals. The role demands are particularly more difficult for
startup principals who also face the dilemma of facilities issues.
Recommendations
The conclusions of the study suggest the following recommendations:
1. Aspiring charter school principals seek comprehensive training in
school budget and finance, charter school law, facilities development, and
formal facilitation training.
2. Aspiring charter school principals seek or be provided with
internship opportunities with experienced charter school principals who
have expertise in school budget and finance, charter school law, facilities
development, and who have outstanding collaborative leadership skills.
3. University administrator training programs introduce more
comprehensive courses in school budget and finance, business
management, school law (particularly charter school law), and facilities
development.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
145
4. Universities and professional organizations place more emphasis in
their training programs on the development of collaborative leadership
styles with formal training in facilitation skills, conflict management, and
consensus-building.
5. Legislative leaders and educational policy makers need to ensure
that regulatory laws governing charter schools do not increase the
bureaucratic “red tape” and reduce the flexibility of principals to be
innovative, responsive leaders
6. Legislative leaders and educational policy makers need to consider
the special facilities needs of startup charter schools with legislation
designed to allow greater funding for facilities development. This would
greatly alleviate the role demands on startup charter school principals so
they could focus on the important educational issues.
7. Charter school principals need to continue to explore ways to
manage their very complex roles in ways that decrease the heavy workload
so that they can continue to be effective leaders.
8. This study should be replicated to study the role differences
between conversion charter school principals and startup charter school
principals.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
146
REFERENCES
Andersen, A. (1997). Annual report on the Jersey City and Paterson public
schools. Prepared for the New Jersey Legislature Joint Committee on Public
Schools.
Ball, S.J. (1994). Education reform: A critical and post-structural approach.
Buckingham: Open University Press.
Barth, R. (1986). On sheeps and goats and school reform. Phi Delta Kappa.
68(4), 293-296.
Barth, R. (1990). Improving schools from within.
Barth, R. (1997, March 5). The leader as learner. Education Week.
Blackmore, J., Bigum, C., Hodgens, J., and Laskey, L. (1996). Managed
change and self-management in schools of the future. Leading and Managing.
2(3), 195-220.
Bowman, D. (2000, Feb. 16). Charter movement growing rapidly study
shows. Education Week. 19(23). 5.
Brandt, R. (1992). On rethinking leadership: A conversation with Tom
Sergiovanni. Educational Leadership. 49(51.48.
Bryk, A., Lee, V., Holland, P. (1993). Catholic schools and the common
good. Cambridge. MA: Harvard University Press.
Brown, F. (1995). Privatization of public education: Theories and concepts.
Education and Urban Society. 27(2). 114-126.
Caldwell, B.J., and Spinks, J.M. (1992). Leading the self-managing school.
London: Falmer Press.
Caldwell, B. J. (1996). Paper presented at the International Principal’s
Institute at the University of Southern California, July 27, 1996.
Callahan, R.E. (1962). Education and cult of efficiency: A study of the
social forces that have shaped the administration of the public schools. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
147
Carnegie Forum on Education and the Economy (1986). A nation prepared:
Teachers for the 21st century. Washington, D.C.: Carnegie Foundation.
Cascadden, D. (1997). Principals as managers and leaders: implication for
teaching educational administration. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
American Educational Research Association, Chicago.
Center for Educational Reform (2000). Survey of charter schools 1998-
1999. executive summary. Washington, D.C.: Center for Educational Reform.
Chubb, J., Moe, T. (1988). Politics, markets, and the organization of
schools. American Political Science Review. 82(4). 1065-1087.
Conley, S. (1991). Review of research in education. Washington. D.C.:
American Educational Research Association.
Edmonds, R. (1979). A discussion of the literature and issues related to
effective schooling. (ERIC Reproduction Service No. ED 170 394).
EdSource (1998, March). California’s school principals: At the center of
school improvement efforts. Palo Alto, CA.
ERS (2000). The principal, keystone of a high-achieving school: Attracting
and keeping the leaders we need. Arlington. VA: Educational Research Service.
Ellis, T. (1986). The principal as instructional leader. Research Roundup.
3(1). (ERIC Reproduction Service No. ED 274 031).
Elmore, R. (2000). Building a new structure for school leadership. The
Albert Shanker Institute (in press).
Finn, C., Manno, B., Bierlein, L., Vanourek, G. (1997). Charter schools in
action project: Final report. Indianapolis, IN: Hudson Institute.
Finn, C.E., Manno, B., Vanourek, G. (2000). Charter schools in action:
Renewing public education. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Fullan, M. (1991). The new meaning of educational change. New York:
Teachers College Press.
Fullan, M. (1993). Change forces: Probing the depths of educational
reform. London: Falmer Press.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
148
Fullan, M. (1998). Breaking the bonds of dependency. Educational
Leadership. 6-10.
Gall, M., Borg, W. (1996). Educational research: an introduction. (6th ed.)
New York: Longman Publishers.
Garratt, R. (1995). Developing strategic thought: Rediscovering the art of
direction-giving. London: McGraw-Hill.
Goldring, E. (1992). System-wide diversity in Israel: Principals as
transformational and environmental leaders. Journal of Educational
Administration. 30 (3).
Grace, G. (1995). School leadership: Beyond education management. An
essay in policy scholarship. London: Falmer Press.
Grady, M. (1989). A review of effective schools research as it relates to
effective principal. UCEA monograph series. (ERIC Reproduction Service No.
304 743).
Guthrie, J.W., Reed, R.J. (1986). Educational administration and policy.
Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Hallinger, P., Murphy, J. (1986). Instructional leadership in effective
schools. (ERIC Reproduction Service No. ED 309 535).
Hallinger, P., Hausman, Chj. (1992). The changing role of the principal in
schools of choice: A longitudinal case study. Paper presented at the annual
meeting o f the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA,
April 20-24,1992. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 347 683.)
Hallinger, P., Heck, R. (1996)._Reassessing the principal’s role in school
effectiveness: A review of empirical research, 1980-1995. Education
Administration Quarterly. February. 1996. 5-44.
Hallinger, P. (1992). The evolving role of American principals: From
managerial to instructional to transformation leaders. Journal of Education
Administration. 30(3). 35-48.
Hargreaves, D. (1994). Changing teachers, changing times: Teachers’ work
and culture in the postmodern age. London: Cassell.
Hassel, B. (1998). The charter school challenge: Avoiding the pitfalls,
fulfilling the promise. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
149
Hawley, W.D., et al. (1997). An outlier study of school effectiveness.
Symposium presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational
Research Association, Chicago.
Hill, P.T. (1995). Reinventing public education. Santa Monica, CA:
RAND.
Hord, S. (1997). Professional learning communities: Communities of
continuous inquiry and improvement. Southwest Educational Development
Laboratory. (ERIC Reproduction Service No. 410 659).
Keller, B. (1998, November). Principal matters. Education Week. 25-27.
Kouzes, J.,Possner, B. (1995). The leadership challenge: How to keep
getting extraordinary things done in organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Krug, S. (1992). Instructional leadership: a constructivist perspective.
Educational Administration Quarterly. 28 (3). 430-443.
Kvale, S. (1996). InterVews: An introduction to qualitative research
interviewing. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc.
Lane, B. (1998). A profile of the leadership needs of charter school
founders. Portland, OR: Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory.
Leithwood, K., Begley, P., Cousins, B. (1991). Developing expert
leadership for future schools. Briston, PA: Falmer Press.
Leithwood, K., Montgomery, D. (1992). The role of the elementary school
principal in program improvement. Review of Educational Research. 52.(31. 309-
339.
Lezotte, L. (1994). The nexus of instructional leadership and effective
schools. The School Administrator, 51(6), 20-23.
Levacic, R. (1995). Local management of schools: Analysis and practice.
Buckingham: Open University Press.
Madsen, J. (1996). Private and public school partnerships: Sharing lessons
about decentralization. London: Falmer Press.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
150
Madsen, J. (1997). Leadership in decentralized schools. Journal of School
Leadership. 7 . 110-137.
Manno, B. and others (1998). How charter schools are different: Lessons
and implications from a national study. Phi Delta Kappan. 79(7). 488-498.
Manno, B., Finn, C., Vanourek, G. (2000). Beyond the schoolhouse door:
How charter schools are transforming public education. Phi Delta Kappan. 81(10).
736-744.
Marsh, D.(1992), School principals as instructional leaders: The impact of
the California school leadership academv.Education and urban society. May.
Marsh, D. (1997). Educational leadership for the 21st century: Integrating
three emerging perspectives. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the
American Educational Research Association, Chicago, March, 1997. (ERIC
Reproduction Service No. ED 408 699).
„ j
Marshall, C., Rossman, G. (1995). Designing qualitative research. 2 Ed.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Medler, A. (1999). The federal role in the charter movement. School
Administrator. 10-11.
Murphy, J. (1991). Restructuring schools: Capturing and assessing the
phenomenon. New York: Teachers College Press.
Murphy, J. & Louis, K.S. (1994). Reshaping the principalship: Insights
from transformational reform efforts. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Murphy, J. (1998). What’s ahead for tomorrow’s principals. NAESP
Principal Online, (September, 1998). Online: http://www naesp.org/.
Nathan, J. (1996). Charter schools. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, Inc.
NAESP, NASSP, ERS (1998). Is there a shortage of qualified candidates
for opening in the principalship? An exploratory study.
Arlington, VA: Educational Research Service.
National Association of State Boards of Education. (1999). Principals of
change: What education leaders need to guide schools to excellence. Alexandria,
VA.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
151
National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk:
The imperative for educational reform. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government
Printing Office.
National Commission for the Principalship. (1990). Principals for our
changing schools: Preparation and certification. Fairfax. VA.
A Nation “still” at risk. An education manifesto. (April, 1998). (ERIC
Reproduction Service No. 422 455).
Odden, A. (1995). Decentralized school management in Victoria, Australia.
Paper prepared for the World Bank, Consortium for Policy Research in Education,
Madison, WI.
Odden, A. (1995). Educational leadership for America’s schools. New
York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Olson, L. (2000, April 26). Redefining ‘public’ schools: charter and
voucher program bring lots of choices, little consensus. Education Week. 19(33),
1,24-27.
O’Toole, J. (1995). Leading change: overcoming the ideology of comfort
and the tyranny of custom. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Rebarber, T. (1977). Charter school innovation: keys to effective charter
reform. Policy study 228. Los Angeles, CA. (ERIC Reproduction Service No. ED
412 595).
RPP International (2000). The state of charter schools 2000: National study
of charter schools. Fourth-year report. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of
Education.
Rofes, E. (1999). The catalyst role of charter schools. School
Administrator. 56(7). 14-18.
RPP International and University of Minnesota (1997). A study of charter
schools. First year report. Washington. D.C.: U.S. Department of Education.
Rubin, H. & Rubin, I. (1995). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing
data. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
152
Sarason, S. (1998). Charter schools-another flawed educational reform?
Columbia University: Teachers College Press.
Smylie, M., Conyers,J. (1991). Changing conceptions of teaching influence
the future of staff development. Journal of Staff Development 12(11.12-16.
Terry, P. (1996). The principal and instructional leadership. Paper
presented at the Annual Meeting of National Council of Professors in Educational
Administration, Corpus Christi, TX, August, 1996. (ERIC Reproduction Service
No. ED 400 613).
Teske, P., Schneider, M. (1999). The importance of leadership: The role of
school principals. Arlington, VA: PricewaterhouseCoopers Endowment for the
Business of Government.
Tyack, D. (1974). The One Best System. Cambridge: Harvard University
Press.
U.S. Dept, of Education (1999). School leadership: Principals at the center.
Transcript of a Satellite Town Meeting (June 15,1999).
Vandenberghe, R. (1992). The changing role of primary and secondary
principals in Belgium. Journal of Educational Administration.30(3).
Vanourek, G., Manno, B., Finn, C. (1997). Charter schools as seen by
those who know them best: Students, teachers, and parents. Charter schools in
action: A Hudson Institute Report. Washington, D.C.: Hudson Institute.
Watkins, T. (1999). The charter challenge. The American School Board
Journal. 34-46.
Weiss, Abby. (1997). Going it alone. Boston: Institute for Responsive
Education, Northeastern University.
Wells, A. S. (1999). Beyond the rhetoric of charter school reform: A study
of ten California School Districts. Los Angeles: University of California, Los
Angeles.
Whitty, G., Power, S., Halpin, D. (1998). Devolution and choice in
education: The school, the state and the market. Buckingham: Open University
Press.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
153
Williams, R., Portin, B. (1997). The changing role of the principal in
Washington state. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American
Educational Research Association, Chicago. (ERIC Reproduction Service No. ED
408 655).
Wirt, F., Kirst, M. (1992). Schools in conflict. Berkeley. CA: McCutchan.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
154
Appendix A
Letter to Participating Principals
September 22,2001
Name of Participant
Address
Dear
Thank you for agreeing to meet with me for an interview o n_______________
at_______________ in your office. As I mentioned on the phone, the information
I am gathering is for the completion of my dissertation at the University of
Southern California. My research seeks to better understand the similarities and
differences between the role of conventional and charter school principals. As a
principal with both experiences, your insights will be a valuable source of
information. I will be asking you questions regarding your perceptions of the
similarities and differences between your role as a conventional school principal
and as a charter school principal. I have enclosed an informed consent letter for
you to review ahead of time.
Should you have any questions or would like additional information, please
contact me a t___________ . I look forward to meeting with you.
Sincerely,
Mary L. Welch
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
155
Appendix B
Interview Gnide for Charter School Principals
Prepared by Mary L. Welch
September, 2001
Research Question 1: What factors motivated these principals to become
charter school principals and to what degree have these reasons for the job
change been realized?
Your previous experience was as a conventional public school principal, but you
moved to a charter school (fill in # of Ivears ago.
1. What were some of the reasons you chose to leave the conventional school
principalship and become a charter school principal?
2. Did you have any fears, concerns, or worries in making this job change? If
so, what were they?
3. How has your experience thus far as a charter school principal matched the
reasons you mentioned for leaving your conventional school principal
position? To what degree have those reasons been fulfilled?
Research Question 2: How do these principals perceive their job satisfaction
level as charter school principals as compared with their job satisfaction level
as conventional school principals?
The recent research on some of the reasons contributing to the principal shortage
has produced concern about the job satisfaction levels of principals.
4. How would you describe your job satisfaction level when you were a
conventional school principal? Prompt: (If the participant does not state
specific reasons to support their se lf assessment, ask, What factors
contributed to this level you have described?) If you had to rate your level
of satisfaction, would you rate it as very satisfied, somewhat satisfied,
somewhat dissatisfied, or very dissatisfied?
5. How would you compare this to your description of your job satisfaction
level now as a charter school principal? Prompt: (If the participant does
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
156
not state specific reasons to support their assessment, ask, What factors
contributed to this level you have described?) If you had to rate your level
of satisfaction, would you rate it as very satisfied, somewhat satisfied,
somewhat dissatisfied, or very dissatisfied?
6. Do you see yourself returning to the conventional public school system as a
principal in the future? Why or why not?
Research Question 3: How do these charter school principals compare their
leadership roles with the leadership roles they experienced as conventional
school principals?
The research on the role of the principal describes the importance of the leader
building and guiding the vision, being an instructional leader, engaging the entire
school community in the work of the school, guiding the decision-making at the
school, as well as other leadership roles.
7. In your role as a conventional school principal, what leadership roles did
you engage in? Prompt: Refer back to the specific roles mentioned above
if not specifically addressed by the participant.
8. How has this role been the same for you at your charter school? What has
been different?
9. How would you compare your role as an instructional leader at the charter
school to your role as an instructional leader at your conventional public
school? Prompt: Refer to Murphy and Louis’s instructional leadership
framework to elicit responses to particular roles, if not mentioned by
participant.
10. What do you see as the major differences in your leadership role at a
charter school as compared with your conventional public school?
Research Question 4: How do these charter school principals compare their
managerial roles with the managerial roles they experienced as conventional
school principals?
11. In your role as a conventional school principal what were some of the
managerial roles you engaged in? Prompt: I f participant does not mention
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
157
work in the following areas, ask specifically for a response: school
budget/finance, human resources, facilities/maintenance, governance,
marketing the school, public relations, admin, reports, district business &
policy implementation, student contact/discipline, and day-to-day
operations/administration.
12. How has this role been similar for you at your charter school?
13. What do you see as the major differences in your managerial roles at a
charter school?
14. How has the element of parental choice affected your role in your charter
school? Has this affected your behavior and actions as a principal? If so,
please explain.
15. Do you experience a tension between the leadership and the managerial
roles? If so, describe how you manage to get accomplished what needs to
be done.
Research Question 5: What role tasks do charter school principals spend
time on as compared with their conventional school experiences? How would
charter school principals prefer to spend their time?
16. As you look at the time you typically spend each week on these various
activities, what percentage of your time would you estimate you spent on
each area as a conventional school principal? As a charter school
principal? Give each participant a guide chart listing role tasks. Let them
know they can add any other categories that may not be listed.
17. As a charter school principal what would you prefer to spend more time
on? Less time on?
Research Question 6: In order to accomplish the leadership roles and the
increased managerial roles of the principal, what structures and supports
have these charter school principals created at their schools?
18. Describe some of the systems, structures and supports you have created in
your charter school that help you to accomplish the many roles and tasks.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
158
19. What difficulties have you encountered in creating these supports or
structures?
20. Have these additional tasks affected your workday and/or work year?
Research Question 7: What additional qualities, skills, and training do these
charter school principals perceive as necessary for future charter school
principals?
One of the purposes of this study is to determine the types of qualities, skills, and
training future charter school principals should have.
21. What are some of the important qualities or characteristics necessary to be
successful charter school principals?
22. Are there some special skills that you feel need to be developed in charter
school principals that may be unique to this group?
23. What types of additional training should future charter school principals
have that conventional principals do not normally receive?
24. What advice do you have for educators who wish to become future charter
school principals?
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
159
Appendix C
MURPHY’S FUNCTIONS OF AN INSTRUCTIONAL LEADER
A COMPREHENSIVE FRAMEWORK
DEVELOPING MISSION AND GOALS:
1. Framing school goals
2. Communicating school goals
MANAGING THE EDUCATION PRODUCTION FUNCTION
1. Promoting quality instruction
2. Supervising and evaluating instruction
3. Allocate and protect instructional time
4. Coordinating the curriculum
5. Monitoring student progress
PROMOTING AN ACADEMIC LEARNING ENVIRONMENT
1. Establishing positive expectations and standards
2. Maintaining high visibility
3. Providing incentives for students and teacher
4. Promoting professional development
DEVELOPING A SUPPORTIVE ENVIRONMENT
1. Creating a safe and orderly learning environment
2. Providing opportunity for meaningful student involvement
3. Developing staff collaboration and cohesion
4. Securing outside resources in support of school goals
5. Forging links between the home and school
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Appendix D
160
Role Tasks % of time as a
Conventional
Principal
% of time as a
Charter Principal
Budget, Admin., Maintenance
District Business/ Reports/Policy
Implementation -State &
District
Instructional & Curriculum
Issues/ Monitoring Teaching and
Learning
Marketing of School
External Community Relations
Parent Relations
Student Contact/Discipline
Program Planning/Evaluation
Figure 1. Percentage of Time Spent on Role Tasks
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

A study of effective superintendents and how critical incidents contributed to their success

PDF

A quantitative and qualitative study of computer technology and student achievement in mathematics and reading at the second- and third-grade levels: A comparison of high versus limited technolo...

PDF

A study of the significant changes in a small urban school district from 1991--2001 as perceived by educators in the city of Pereslavl -Zalessky in the Russian Federation

PDF

A descriptive study of probation officers' views of delinquency in males and females

PDF

Correlates of job satisfaction among high school principals

PDF

Communication techniques utilized by superintendents with their governing boards that develop trust, unity, and a clear understanding of roles and responsibilities

PDF

Differential characteristics of beginning teachers

PDF

Corporate investment in education: Motivational factors and trends in direct giving

PDF

A case study of Long Beach Unified School District: How elements of effective reading strategies can be implemented at the secondary level

PDF

A closer look at the impact of teacher evaluation: A case study in a high performing California elementary school

PDF

Effects of the STAR testing program on teachers and the curriculum

PDF

An analysis of Long Beach Unified School District's EXCEL model of providing gifted programs for urban students and their effect on student achievement

PDF

Chinese parents' attitudes toward parental involvement: A case study of the ABC Unified School District

PDF

Characteristics of juvenile court/correction teachers and job satisfaction

PDF

An examination of California school districts' response to AB 1626, AB 1639, and SB 1370: The Pupil Promotion and Retention Act of 1998

PDF

Academic and social adjustment of Korean "parachute kids" in Southern California

PDF

HP2 schools achieving in spite of: A case study looks at programs, culture, and leadership

PDF

Exploring a team-based model for organizing schools: The case of Fenton Avenue Charter School

PDF

An evaluation of probation supervision and its role in performance of students identified as living in poverty in Shasta County Court and Community Schools

PDF

Effective strategies used by K--12 superintendents and principals in developing and sustaining a positive school climate

Asset Metadata

Creator Welch, Mary Louise (author)

Core Title A comparative study of the role of the principal in conventional public schools and in charter schools

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education

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

Tag education, administration,OAI-PMH Harvest

Language English

Contributor Digitized by ProQuest (provenance)

Advisor Ferris, Robert (committee chair), Gothold, Stuart (committee member), McLaughlin, Michael (committee member)

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c16-546325

Unique identifier UC11334710

Identifier 3094381.pdf (filename),usctheses-c16-546325 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier 3094381.pdf

Dmrecord 546325

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Welch, Mary Louise

Type texts

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

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the au...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus, Los Angeles, California 90089, USA