University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

What can districts do to retain their high school principals?

(USC Thesis Other)

What can districts do to retain their high school principals?

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content What Can Districts Do to Retain their High School Principals?
Jeannie Eamnarangkool
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
A dissertation submitted to the faculty
in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree of
Doctor of Education
May 2024

1
© Copyright by Jeannie Eamnarangkool 2024
All Rights Reserved

2
The Committee for Jeannie Eamnarangkool certifies the approval of this Dissertation
Dr. David Cash, Committee Chair
Dr. Joelle Greene, Committee Member
Dr. Maria Ott, Committee Member
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2024

3
Abstract
This study uses a phenomenological approach to highlight the personal experiences of public
high school principals in order to challenge the current assumptions and practices that affect their
mobility decisions. The purpose of this study is to provide insight into what high school
principals perceive as barriers to their retention and the supports needed from the district office.
A semi-structured interview protocol was used to interview 10 public high school principals
within Los Angeles County. Interviews were recorded on Zoom and transcribed using Otter.ai.
Codes and categories were of an inductive manner, and not based on pre-set codes and categories
that were suggested by research literature. Findings from this study indicate that a principal’s
workload and work-life balance was the most mentioned barrier to retention, followed by the
difficulties navigating various adult educational partners. District level supports that help
principals persist in their role included the accessibility of district office personnel to support
principals in making decisions, relevant training and professional development, and
compensation. Findings suggest the need for districts to reduce the heavy workload and time
commitment so that principals can have a better work-life balance, help principals navigate adult
educational partners, be accessible to to talk through the decisions that need to be made, provide
mentors to listen and help talk through how a principal is feeling throughout the decision-making
process, and to provide quality and relevant onboarding and ongoing professional development.
This study offers school districts insight into the barriers that may lead to principal turnover and
suggests support districts can offer high school principals in their roles to promote their
retention.

4
Dedication
To mom, Roman, and Paula: thank you for empowering me to believe in myself.

5
Acknowledgements
Thank you, Amy Price, my research partner and friend. Your support encouraged and fueled me
throughout this entire process. I would also like to thank Dr. Cash for providing me with the
feedback and confidence I needed. Thank you to Dr. Greene for taking the time to walk me
through the coding process and how to honor the voices of my participants. Thank you Dr. Ott
for your insight and believing in the significance of my research. I would also like to thank the
principals who participated in this study; your stories and experiences are valuable and need to
be heard.

6
Table of Contents
Abstract 3
Dedication 4
Acknowledgements 5
List of Tables and Figures 8
Chapter One: Overview of the Study 8
Background of the Problem 8
Statement of the Problem 10
Purpose of the Study 11
Significance of the Study 12
Limitations and Delimitations of the Study 12
Definition of Terms 13
Organization of the Study 14
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature 15
General Role of Principal 15
School Administrator Impact on Schools 16
Instructional Leadership 17
Principal Turnover 18
Statistics 18
Implications on School Impact 19
Implications of Turnover on Impact and Equity 20
Barriers to Retention 22
Work Conditions 22

7
Relationships with Educational Partners 23
Heavy Workload 23
School and Student Characteristics 24
Compensation 26
Evaluation Practices/Instructional Leadership Support 27
Decision Making Authority 28
Professional Development 29
Administrator Supports 30
Theoretical Framework: A Phenomenological Approach 32
Summary of the Literature 33
Chapter Three: Methodology 34
Statement of Problem 34
Purpose of Study 35
Selection of the Population 35
Design Summary 36
Methodology 36
Instrumentation and Protocols 37
Data Collection 38
Data Analysis 39
Trustworthiness and Credibility 39
Researcher Positionality 40
Summary 41
Chapter Four: Results 42

8
Participants 42
Pathway to Principalship 43
Self-Reported Role of a Principal 44
Career Aspirations 45
Researcher Positionality 46
Results 46
Results Research Question 1 46
Community Relations 48
Policy 49
Relations with District Office 51
Workload/Work-Life Balance 53
Pressures of the Work 54
Compensation 56
Discipline 57
Personnel 58
Discussion Research Question 1 58
Results Research Question 2 59
Frequency of Interactions with District Personnel 59
Supports Currently Receiving 61
Supports Perceived as Most Important 63
Decision Making Support. 63
Priorities. 64
Problem Solving. 64

9
Time Management. 65
Goals. 66
Culture And Communication. 66
Accessibility 67
Proactive and Responsive Support 68
Training/Professional Development 69
Team Building 70
Instructional Leadership Help 70
Compensation 71
Discussion Research Question 2 71
Summary 72
Chapter 5: Discussion 74
Background of the Problem 74
Purpose of the Study 75
Discussion of Findings 76
Research Question 1: Barriers to Job Retention 76
Research Questions #2: District Level Supports Necessary to Persist in Role 78
Limitations 80
Implications for Practice 81
Future Research 85
Conclusion 86
References 87
Appendix A - Initial Email Sent to Principals 94

10
Appendix B- Follow Up Email Sent to Principals 95
Appendix C - Preliminary Survey 96
Appendix D - Initial Email to Principals for Interview 98
Appendix E - Interview Protocol 99
Appendix F - Coding Categories 101

11
List of Tables and Figures
Table 1: Demographics of Participants………………………………………………………… 46
Figure 1: Barriers to Retention…………………………………………………………………..51
Figure 2: District Supports………………………………………………………………………67

12
Chapter One: Overview of the Study
Background of the Problem
High school principals have a demanding job. Their responsibilities include management
roles for teachers, curricula, and budgets (Milner, 2013). They hold the formal responsibility to
create the schoolwide conditions to promote student achievement. Principles, along with their
administrative team, have the responsibility to build the capacity of staff members and cultivate
positive working conditions (Hitt & Tucker, 2016). However, Honig and Rainey (2020) found
that many teachers, parents, district office leaders, and community members expect principals to
engage in many other tasks that take them away from their roles as instructional leaders.
In 2004, a study by Leithwood et al. sought to highlight the significance of school
leadership, more specifically, principalship on schools and student learning. Previous to this
research, not much attention and investment was placed on improving leadership. Leithwood et
al. (2004) found that among school factors, school leadership was second only to teaching in its
effect on student learning. Since then, studies focused on school leadership began to change and
improve what we know about the significance of school leadership.
Almost two decades later, a study by Grissom et al. (2021) expanded on the research by
Leithwood et al. (2004), and found that the impact of school leadership has been understated.
The study found that principalship is not second to teaching, but has the same impact on student
achievement as teachers. The study also found that the impact of school principals also expands
to other outcomes, such as teacher satisfaction and retention, student attendance, and reductions
in exclusionary discipline. Principal retention and tenure, therefore, has huge implications for
students’ school experiences and success.
The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) (2022) refers to principal mobility

13
or attrition status as a stayer, mover, or leaver. A stayer is a principal who stayed in the same
position at the same school, a mover moved to a position as a principal at another school, and a
leaver stopped working as a principal. Data sets from the 2008-09 and 2016-2017 school years
show a 2% decline in leavers, and a 3% increase in stayers. Although this data looks promising,
principal tenure data in 2016-17 shows that the national average tenure of principals in their
schools was four years, with 35% of principals being at their school for less than two years, and
18% of principals leaving their positions after one year. In high poverty schools, this percentage
goes up to 21% (Levin & Bradley, 2019). This high turnover rate disrupts schools. In terms of its
effect on student achievement, Milner (2013) found that student achievement continues to fall
two years after principal turnover and then rises over the next three years. The negative outcomes
also include interruption of program or reform implementation, low teacher morale, and the
development of a school culture that is resistant to change (Farley-Ripple et al., 2012; Fullan,
2001). Therefore, it is important for a principal to remain at a school site for five or more years.
Principals who feel supported by their district office are more likely to remain in their
position (Levin et al., 2020). Administrators feel supported when they feel they have an open line
of communication with their district office to help with problem solving (Chadwick, 2020).
Principals also feel supported when the district helps them grow in their role as instructional
leaders (Honig & Rainey, 2020). Principals have reported that professional development has
mainly been focused on the operational side of their role, even though their evaluations are
highly focused on their strengths as instructional leaders (Honig & Rainey, 2020).
The workload, time commitment, and complexity of job responsibilities can bring a large
emotional and mental toil on high school principals. The unsustainable nature of the role is
problematic for schools with high principal turnover because school leaders play an important

14
role in building school wide structures, instructional planning, and creating a positive climate at a
school site (Grissom et al., 2021; Hitt & Tucker, 2016). This research seeks to further understand
the district level support that contributes to the retention of principals at their school site, as well
as the main barriers that lead to turnover. This study will focus on supports at the district level
and barriers that impact a high school principal’s decision to remain at their school.
Statement of the Problem
Administrator turnover has negative outcomes for a school site. These negative outcomes
include decline in student achievement, interruption of program or reform implementation, low
teacher morale, and the development of a school culture that is resistant to change (Bartanen et
al., 2021; Farley-Ripple et al., 2012; Grissom & Bartanen, 2019). It also has effects on high
quality teacher retention and the hiring of qualified teachers (Superville, 2022).
In the United States, about 16%-18% of public high school principals leave their
positions each year (NCES, 2019), with a national average tenure of four years, and 35% of
principals remain at their school site for less than two years (Levin & Bradley, 2019). An
intensive research project on principal turnover found five main reasons why principals leave
their jobs: (1) inadequate preparation programs and professional development, (2) poor working
conditions, including access to support and the ratio between the duties and time needed to
complete the duties, (3) low salaries, (4) lack of authority of the work environment through
decision-making, and (5) high-stakes accountability policies that create a disincentive for
principals to remain at low-performing schools (Levin et al., 2020). However, not much research
exists around the principals who choose to stay, especially regarding what support from the
district office they perceive as helpful for them to persist. This study will focus on understanding
both the barriers that exist for principals when deciding to stay in their jobs and supports from

15
the district office that helps their retention.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study is to provide insight into what high school principals perceive
as barriers to their retention and the supports needed from the district office. Interviews will be
conducted to shine light on principals’ experiences and perspectives of district support.
This study takes a phenomenological approach to highlight how the experiences of the
principal participants could potentially guide and influence the support districts can provide to
their principals.
The following research questions were used to guide this study:
1. What do public high school principals perceive as barriers to staying in their jobs?
2. What supports at the district level do public high school principals perceive as necessary
to persist in their role?
Significance of the Study
This research study will provide insight into what supports public high school principals
perceive as necessary for their retention at their school sites. Principals play a central role in
student achievement and success (Honig & Rainey, 2020). The intention of this study is to help
inform school district decision making when considering the hiring, onboarding, ongoing
development, and necessary support to retain principals in their school site. Previous studies
have focused on reasons why principals have left (Levin and Bradley, 2019), the conditions
principals perceive will attribute to them leaving their school sites, and implications for policy
based on the findings (Levin et al., 2020). However, this study seeks to gain deep insight from
current high school principals about district supports they perceive as necessary for their
retention. Past research on turnover has served a similar purpose by helping district and school

16
policy efforts to address turnover in schools (Farley-Ripple et al, 2012). This research study will
provide current added insight to the factors that lead to a principal's decisions to stay at their
school which can be used by districts in their strategic planning when thinking about how to
retain administrators (Farley-Ripple et al, 2012).
Limitations and Delimitations of the Study
The study was limited to public high school principals in Los Angeles County in
California and their self-reported personal narratives and perceptions in the principal role. The
interview questions about the barriers faced by principals and impact of support from the district
were limited to the perceptions of and the relevance of the research participants’ positionality,
intersectionality, and personal experiences.
The delimitations of this study were limited to the role at the school (principal), type of
school (public), school level (high school), geographic region (Los Angeles Country), and
number of principals surveyed and interviewed.
Definition of Terms
Administrative team: principals and assistant principals
Authority= autonomy
Barrier: factors perceived by administrators that would potentially lead to turnover from their
school site; barriers are looked at within the three levels: personal, school site, and district)
Burnout: a psychological phenomenon among people who do ‘people work’ in which they
experience a syndrome of emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and reduced personal
accomplishment (Maslach and Jackson, 1981, p.1). Maslach and Leiter (2016) more recently
described the nature of burnout in three dimensions: (a) exhaustion dimension: emotional
exhaustion, feeling emotionally drained, and experiencing loss of energy (b) cynicism

17
dimension: could manifest as depersonalization or negative and inappropriate attitudes toward
others, irritability, loss of idealism, and withdrawal (c) inefficacy dimension: reduced
productivity or capability, low morale, and inability to cope
Leaver: a principal who stopped working as a principal
Mover: a principal who moved to a position as principal at another school
Principal:
Experienced Principal: more than three years of experience
Novice Principal: 0-3 years of experience
Retention: an administrator remains at their school site
School characteristics: school performance, school conditions, school level and size, school
urbancity (Levin & Bradley, 2019)
School Leadership: principal
Stayer: a principal who stayed in the same position at the same school
Student characteristics: student race and ethnicity, student socioeconomic status, and the
proportion of special education students (SPED) at a school (Levin & Bradley, 2019)
Support: actions, strategies, and or climate perceived by school administrators to contribute to
their retention at their school site
Turnover: when an administrator leaves their school site
Organization of the Study
This study is organized into five chapters. Chapter 1 provides an overview of the study
and introduces data about the impact of principals on student achievement, principal turnover,
and frames the purpose of the study. Chapter 2 presents a literature review in the following areas:
role of principals, impact of principals, significance of retention of principals at their school

18
sites; perceived barriers or factors that may lead to principal turnover, and perceived supports or
factors that may help with retention of principals at their school sites. Chapter 3 describes the
methodology selected for this research study and includes: sample and participant selection,
interview questions, survey questions, and data analysis. Chapter 4 provides the results of the
research findings. Chapter 5 includes a summary of findings, potential next steps for
practitioners, conclusions drawn from the study, and recommendations. This study is meant to
uncover the supports principals perceive as necessary for their retention and inform future
district level support for high school principals to encourage their retention.
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature
This literature review will examine the significance of the principalship, why their
retention is important for schools, and the barriers to their retention. The review begins by
establishing the general role of a principal and their impact on schools. It highlights how the role
has increased in its scope and expectations to ensure student achievement. The work of school
improvement can take five to seven years to implement successfully (Fullan, 2001), however, the
statistics discussed show that principals usually turnover before that. This has major implications
on a school and student achievement, especially for historically marginalized students. Next, the
review will examine the barriers to principal retention. Because a principal’s work is mainly
done through their interactions with adult educational partners, many of their barriers are related
to their satisfaction of interaction in those relationships, as well as the workload that can stem
from them. Lastly, the review will touch on what is known about the supports that can be
provided to retain principals.

19
General Role of Principal
The role of the modern day principal has changed drastically over the last few decades
(Alvoid & Black Jr., 2014). School leaders today are not only expected to be effective building
managers, but disciplinarians, public relations experts, and instructional leaders as well. As
administrative leaders, principals set budgets and manage the school facility (Parylo, 2013). As
instructional leaders, principals play a big part in creating and maintaining a culture and climate
that fosters student learning. They do this in large part through their interactions with various
educational stakeholders and through ensuring teacher well-being and retention (Alvoid & Black
Jr., 2014).
Principals accomplish their primary work of enhancing student outcomes mainly through
their interactions with teachers and other adults in the community (Hitt & Tucker, 2016). Their
role as administrative leaders requires them to develop relationships with the broader community
(Parylo, 2013). Educational partners include students, parents, teachers, school boards and
superintendents (see, for example, Davis, Darling-Hammond, LaPointe, & Meyerson, 2005;
Richardson, Short, & Prickett, 1993). Principals hold an extensive range of roles in schools
(Grissom et al., 2021). Understanding the many responsibilities they hold helps to better
understand the factors that lead to their mobility decisions.
School Administrator Impact on Schools
The far reaching impact principals have on student success have been underestimated.
For many years, educational research reinforced the idea that teaching is the most important
school related influence on student learning (Leithwood et al., 2004). Grissom et al. (2021)
expanded on this research, and found that the impact of school leadership has been understated.
The study found that principalship is not second to teaching, but has the same impact on student

20
achievement as teachers (Grissom et al., 2021). Current research points to a principal’s impact as
more significant than a teacher’s (Grissom et al., 2021). A principal’s leadership is essential to
ensuring effective teaching by helping teachers succeed (Honig & Rainey, 2020). Additionally,
the impact of school principals expands schoolwide to other outcomes, such as teacher
satisfaction and retention, student attendance, and reductions in exclusionary discipline (Brewer,
1993; Grissom et al., 2021; Hitt & Tucker, 2015; Superville, 2022).
Much research has found how connected and important school principals are for teachers’
well-being and retention (Dicke et al., 2020). Like principal retention, teacher retention has great
implications for student achievement. Griffith (2004) studied the direct effect of principal
transformational leadership to school staff turnover and school performance. Principals who
were able to inspire, connect with staff on an individual basis, and facilitate growth in their staff
were able to establish job satisfaction and have higher percentages of staff retention. Principal
transformational leadership led to staff job satisfaction, which reduced school staff turnover and
increased student achievement progress.
Instructional Leadership
School principals are key to the instructional work of teachers and drive how teachers
teach and they do this in big part by shaping school culture (Hitt & Tucker, 2016). As
instructional leaders, principals have to develop the competencies centered around data,
curriculum, and pedagogy (Alvoid & Black Jr., 2014). Additionally, they have to develop the
capacity of their staff to better impact student achievement (Fullan, 2014; Grissom et al., 2021;
Hitt & Tucker, 2016). As key instructional leaders on campus, school principals set the stage for
teacher learning, engage in instructional conversations, align resources to support the work, and
build a positive and productive culture (Fullan, 2014).

21
A school that is set up for a culture of learning has teachers who meet to look at data and
have conversations around teaching and learning (Allensworth & Hart, 2018; Alvoid & Black Jr.,
2014; Hitt & Tucker, 2016). School principals are responsible for facilitating collaboration and
professional learning communities (Grissom et al., 2021). A study by Allensworth and Hart
(2018) also supports that principals most influenced student learning by fostering strong learning
climates. This climate consists of teachers working together to find solutions, and schedules
structured so that teachers’ meeting time is used for a planned purpose, and teacher teams are
supported by the principal. A principal’s organizational management abilities can remove the
barriers and create or refine the conditions that influence school culture. This helps to unleash the
potential of other teachers and stakeholders (Hitt & Tucker, 2016).
Effective principals are constantly engaging in instructionally focused interactions with
teachers. Much of instructional leadership encompasses evaluation and coaching practices
(Alvoid & Black Jr., 2014). Principals must be able to function not only as evaluators but also
also as instructional coaches. Grissom and Bartanen (2019) define these interactions as forms of
engagement with teachers that center on instructional practice, such as teacher evaluation,
instructional coaching, and the establishment of a data-driven, school-wide instructional program
to facilitate such interactions.
Principal Turnover
Statistics
A look at the national principal mobility or attrition data in the United States and the
District of Columbia found that on average about 18-20% of school principals leave their
position each year, with about half of new principals leaving after three years (Parylo et al.,
2013; Superville, 2022). A study by Beckett (2018) focused on the principal mobility between

22
2010-2015 in Colorado urban schools. It found that only 23.7% of principals stayed at their
schools for five years with most schools experiencing a change in their leadership every two and
a half years. 18% of principals left their school to become employed at another school in the
same district while 58.3% left the district in general (Beckett, 2018). When a school leader
moved schools, they typically moved to a school with a lower percentage of students of color,
disabilities, and free and reduced lunch (FRL) (Beckett, 2018).
A principal’s effectiveness played a part in their mobility pathway (Grissom & Bartanen,
2019). Given that principals and school administrators tend to have few job protections, they are
more likely to be at risk of being moved by the district than teachers (Grissom & Bartanen,
2019). Less effective principals tended to leave the education system or get demoted to a lower
school level position. Demotions to other school level positions, constitute nearly one fifth of
principal turnover (Grissom & Bartanen, 2019). High performing principals were promoted to
central office positions (Beckett, 2018; Grissom & Bartanen, 2019; NCES, 2022).
Implications on School Impact
A principal’s impact has been found to be more evident when a principal remains in a
school for five years or more (Fullan, 2001; Guthrey & Bailes, 2022; Superville, 2022), but
principals tend to depart, on average, the year prior to that (Superville, 2022). Statistics show that
principals in high needs schools tend to depart even before that (Beckett, 2018). Steady
leadership is important in schools because it takes time to learn about a campus, build capacity,
cultivate relationships, and foster positive working conditions which contribute to school
improvement (DeMatthews et al., 2023). Research indicates that leading school improvement
can take five to seven years (Fullan, 2001), therefore, principals need to stay in their school for
five to seven years to create large-scale change and move past the stage of early implementation

23
in reform work (Beckett, 2018). Constant turnover of principals can make it difficult for schools
to implement new policies, programs, and commit to improvement (Miller, 2013). Grissom and
Bartanen (2019) found that higher-rated principals are more likely to be promoted to the central
office. Given what is known about steady leadership, the study suggests that district leaders
should consider the potential costs of moving effective leaders out of schools alongside the
presumed benefits of having those leaders assume district leadership positions (Grissom &
Bartanen, 2019).
Principal retention and tenure has implications for students’ school experiences and
success. Turnover of principalship within a school has been found to have a negative impact on a
productive school climate which impacts student achievement (Grissom et al., 2021; Mascall &
Leithwood, 2010; Miller, 2013). One study found that student scores fell before a principal left
and continued to fall during the first two years of a new principal’s tenure before achieving the
original baseline again (Snograss Rangel, 2018).
Principal retention also has implications for hiring practices. Superville (2022) found that
by their fifth year at school, principals had become better at hiring teachers who would stay in
the school for three years. By their seventh year, principals in the study had become really good
at hiring teachers who stay in the school for five years. The longer a principal stays in a school,
the more likely that principal is to hire teachers who will remain at that school (Superville,
2022).
Implications of Turnover on Impact and Equity
Principal turnover has shown to be a chronic problem for schools that would benefit the
most from strong and sustained leadership. The link between performance and turnover suggests
that prioritizing hiring or placing effective principals in schools with large numbers of

24
low-income or low-achieving students can serve to lower principal turnover rates in high-needs
environments (Grissom & Bartanen, 2019). However, high-stakes accountability policies could
be counterproductive by creating disincentives for principals to remain in low- performing
schools and can influence principals’ mobility decisions (Levin & Bradley, 2019).
Effective principals are not equitably distributed across schools (Grissom & Bartanen,
2019). High poverty schools have higher rates of principal turnover than low-poverty schools. A
study by Clotfelter et al (2006) shows that principals who leave their schools go to schools with
significantly less poverty, which suggests that poorer schools also take the brunt of principal
inexperience. Retaining effective and experienced principals is important for student
achievement at all schools, but especially at schools with higher percentages of minority and low
income students (Grissom et al., 2019; Miller, 2013). In Griffith’s (2004) study, the higher levels
of school staff job satisfaction that came with a principal’s leadership were associated with
smaller achievement gaps between minority and non-minority students. Replacing a below
average principal, with someone in the above average category, can add the equivalent of 2.9
more months of learning in math and 2.7 more months of learning in reading during a single
school year (Superville, 2022).
Schools that would especially benefit from strong and sustained leadership are schools
with low resource access, low achievement, and higher populations of historically disadvantaged
students (Grissom et al., 2019; Miller, 2013). Beckett (2018) used longitudinal data from the
Colorado Department of Education from 2010-2015 to study seven independent variables of
principal turnover in Colorado urban schools. The study found that the variable predictive of
high principal turnover is the percentage of students of color and free reduced lunch (FRL).
Principals that stay at their schools have higher percentages of White students and lower

25
percentages of FRL (Beckett, 2018). Levin and Bradley’s (2019) findings also confirm that in
schools with more principal turnover, the likelihood of a principal leaving are much stronger due
to the relationships between school and student characteristics rather than the relationship
between a principal’s personal characteristics, such as a principal’s gender, sex, age, race,
experience, and education (Snodgrass Rangel, 2018). Similarly, a study by Yan (2020) shows
that principals in schools with high concentrations of students of color are about 60% to 70%
more likely to move to other schools than principals in schools in the lowest quartile of
percentage of students of color.
Barriers to Retention
In the United States, about 16-18% of public high school principals leave their positions
each year (NCES, 2019), with a national average tenure of four years, and 35% of principals
remain at their school site for less than two years (Levin & Bradley, 2019). Turnover rates in
high poverty schools and urban areas are much higher around 23% with an average tenure of
under three years (Levin & Bradley, 2019). Increased job demands, staff shortages, and
politicization of education have contributed to a decline in principals’ job satisfaction and
retention (Superville, 2023). There are different ways principal retention has been conceptualized
in literature. Some research has measured turnover as principal retention within a school while
others measured it as a single departure from a school. For the purpose of this study, principal
retention or tenure is defined as a principal remaining at their school site. Recent research on
principal turnover and retention identified five main categories that affected principal mobility
decisions. These categories were: working conditions, compensation, accountability systems and
evaluation, decision-making authority, and professional learning (Levin & Bradley, 2019).

26
Work Conditions
A principal’s work conditions have a large impact on their mobility decisions. Work
conditions include relationships with educational partners, workload, student characteristics, and
school characteristics (Levin & Bradley, 2019; Snodgrass Rangel, 2018). There is a lot of
previous research on a principal’s workload and how it affects their job satisfaction and mobility
decisions. In a study by Levin and Bradley (2019), factors that contributed to what principals
considered poor working conditions included a lack of access to support, the complexity of the
job, and the amount of time needed to complete all necessary activities. Likewise, in another
study, the work conditions reported by principals had to do with a heavy workload and the lack
of support from districts to help alleviate the workload. The heavy workload contributed to long
work hours that principals said were not sustainable (Levin et al., 2020). This is consistent with a
study by Alvoid and Black Jr. (2014) which found that all the roles a principal has creates a
workload and competency expectations that are unsustainable.
Relationships with Educational Partners
A principal’s work conditions also include the relationships the principal has with all
educational partners. Levin and Bradley (2019) describe these relationships to be with
colleagues, parents, students, as well as the disciplinary climate in the role. Farley-Ripple et al.
(2012) focused on collegial relationships and found that positive relationships with supervisors,
peers, and subordinates gave principals more autonomy and contributed to their decision to
continue to serve as a principal at their school. Principals who felt supported by their districts
were more satisfied in their position and less likely to leave (Levin et al., 2020; Oberman, 1996).
On the other hand, principals who felt less supported or had negative relationships were more
likely to be dissatisfied and leave their positions. A study of Chicago schools found that negative

27
relationships with school councils, parents, and the broader community were factors that
contributed to principals leaving, because they perceived that working with them created more
work and led to more political conflict (Oberman, 1996).
Heavy Workload
A principal’s workload plays a big role in their job satisfaction and therefore, their
mobility decisions. Fuller (2015) found workload to be among the most important factors
concerning principal retention. Principals considered the complexity of their jobs, heavy
workload, and the long hours needed to complete all necessary activities as not sustainable
(Levin & Bradley, 2019; Levin et al., 2020). Alvoid and Black Jr. (2014) found that with the
changing nature of principalship, and districts’ decision to move toward site-based management
created more and new work, including new administrative duties and an emphasis on community
relations. This led principals to feel overwhelmed with demands they could not respond to and
that often conflicted with locally articulated priorities and policies (Alvoid & Black Jr., 2014).
The amount of time a principal is at work affects their retention and turnover rates.
Studies have found that on average, principals spend as much as 59 hours per week (about 12
hours per day) on all school-related activities before, during, and after school. About 4.1% of
principals work 40 hours or less per week, more than 90% of principals work 50 hours or more
per week, and about 60% of principals work 60 hours or more per week on all school-related
activities (Yan, 2020).
School and Student Characteristics
School characteristics are another factor that affects a principal’s work conditions. The
relationship between the principal’s characteristics and a school’s characteristics affected their
job mobility. School characteristics are defined as school performance, school conditions

28
(discipline), school level and size, school urbancity (Levin & Bradley, 2019). Lower
performance schools on standardized tests is related to higher principal turnover (Levin &
Bradley, 2019). Studies have found a positive relationship between a better disciplinary
environment and principal retention (Loeb et al., 2010; Sun & Ni, 2015; Tekleselassie &
Villarreal, 2011). An increase in reported disciplinary incidents was related to an increase in the
principal's intentions to change schools (Levin & Bradley, 2019). In a study by Yan (2020) a one
standard deviation improvement in the school disciplinary environment rating lowered the odds
of principals moving to another school by 36.4%. This indicates that the disciplinary
environment of a school plays a big role in principal mobility. High school principals were more
likely to turnover than elementary school principals. The larger the school size, the less likely a
principal is to leave (Ni et al., 2015). Schools in more urban areas have more frequent turnover
of principals (Beckett, 2018).
The relationship between a principal’s characteristics and student characteristics was also
found to have an impact on principal mobility. Student characteristics are defined as student race
and ethnicity, student socioeconomic status, and the proportion of special education students
(SPED) at a school (Levin & Bradley, 2019). The mismatch relationship between a principal’s
characteristic and student characteristics at a school increased a principal’s likelihood of turnover
compared with solely the principal’s personal characteristics (Levin & Bradley, 2019). This is
consistent with the findings by Beckett (2018), which found that principal turnover is related to
more of the relational aspects of the job, such as interacting with students, than fixed
characteristics, such as school type (Levin & Bradley, 2019). Studies have found that principals
are more likely to leave schools with higher proportions of minority and low-income students. A
study by Clotfelter et al (2006) found that when principals moved schools, they moved to schools

29
with significantly less poverty. In a study done in Illinois, a one point increase in the percent of
minority students at a school was related to a 28% increased probability of a principal changing
schools and a 52% increase in the probability of a principal changing positions (Gates et al.,
2006). However, this was moderated by a principal’s own race. If the race of a principal matched
the student characteristics, that principal was 25% less likely to move or leave (Gates et al.,
2006). In schools with higher Special Education (SPED) percentage, the higher the percentage,
the more likely principals were to move schools or move to the district office (Solano et al.,
2010).
Compensation
One of the factors in school principals’ retention is compensation (Levin et al., 2020).
Salaries matter to principals when deciding whether to stay (Levin & Bradley, 2019), and there is
a lot of research around principal salary as predictors of turnover and retention (Snodgrass
Rangel, 2018). Principals’ compensation was related to their mobility plans (Levin & Bradley,
2019). Tran and Buckman (2017) found that the reason principals moved to a new district was
associated with a salary increase. However, salaries that were higher relative to those of peers in
the same job market were related to greater stability in the same school (Baker et al., 2010). Low
salaries that do not adequately compensate principals and are not competitive with other jobs
lead to higher rates of principal departure (Levin & Bradley, 2019). Financial obligations were
also related to their mobility plans (Levin & Bradley, 2019). Principals planning to leave were
more likely to report leaving for jobs that would better compensate them to pay off student loan
debt from principal preparation programs (Levin et al., 2020).
In many districts, school leadership salaries are tied to teacher salaries (Alexander et al.,
2015). In some states within the United States “... if a school teacher is the sole source of income

30
for a family of four, his/her child would qualify for federal reduced-price meals as a student in
school (Alexander et al., 2015, p. 248)”. The data from a study that compares teacher
compensation practices around the world shows that teacher compensation within the United
States is greatly lacking compared to other countries around the world. In many other countries
the economic status of teachers deem them a respected and sought out profession (Alexander et
al., 2015). The study compared teacher salaries to student achievement; in locations where
teachers were paid more, student achievement was higher (Alexander et al., 2015). Therefore, if
principal’s salaries are tied to teacher’s salaries (Alexander et al., 2015), and teachers salaries are
not commensurate with other jobs with similar degrees, principals are also not receiving the
compensation that is commensurate with their degrees, qualifications, and job demands. This
poses a problem when considering high quality principal retention and tenure. This becomes an
inequity issue when we consider the need for high quality principals in high needs schools. Data
indicates that principal turnover is higher in schools that have higher percentages of students of
color and free reduced lunch (Beckett, 2018).
Evaluation Practices/Instructional Leadership Support
Principal evaluations may influence principals to leave their positions. More than half of
principals planning to leave reported that their evaluations were not constructive and do not trust
the results of the evaluation system (Levin et al., 2020). Evaluation practices that affect principal
retention fall into three categories; the accountability measures that are set by the state (Levin et
al., 2020), those that are set by the district to evaluate the principal (Levin & Bradley, 2019), and
a principal’s support to be instructional leaders at their school sites (Honig & Rainey, 2020).
About a third of principals reported that high-stakes accountability systems and evaluation
practices set by the state influences their mobility decision (Levin et al., 2020). These systems

31
and practices serve as disincentives for principals to remain in low-performing schools (Levin &
Bradley, 2019) where effective principals are greatly needed.
District leaders are charged with helping their principals learn to grow in their
instructional leadership to ensure student success (Honig & Rainey, 2020) and they evaluate
principals according to their strength as instructional leaders. In a lot of cases, principals have
stated that they received inadequate support for unreasonable expectations (Levin & Bradley,
2019). In practice, principals find little time each day to work with their teachers on teaching and
learning (Honig & Rainey, 2020). Instead, despite their district's formal emphasis on instruction,
principals are pulled in too many directions by their teachers, parents, central office leaders, and
community members. They are expected to engage in various tasks that ensures the smooth
operation of their school as well as engaging parents, supervising lunch and recess, managing the
school budget, dealing with discipline and conduct, and attending school and community events
(Honig & Rainey, 2020). District offices have not traditionally supported principals in their roles
as instructional leaders, and the professional development they provide for principals typically
reinforced the broad operations and compliance part to the role (Honig & Rainey, 2020) instead
of the support as an instructional leader.
Decision Making Authority
Principals are not the only decision makers in the school system. Influences from other
constituents such as state, local school boards, school districts, teachers, and parents can be either
prohibiting or supportive to principals’ influences in their school (Yan, 2020). Principals are
more likely to leave their positions when they believe they do not have a lot of control and
decision making authority at their schools, and too much management by the district office leads
principals to feel less in control of their own workspace (Levin and Bradley, 2019; Levin et al.,

32
2019). However, not all areas are equally important to principals. Yan (2020) found that
principals would like more autonomy on determining teacher professional development and
financial allocation for school improvement efforts and school operations. On the other hand,
they would like more support in the area of setting student performance standards. Principals
have reported dissatisfaction with their lack of authority to make decisions regarding spending,
teacher hiring and evaluation, student discipline, and curriculum (Levin & Bradley, 2019; Levin
et al., 2020). In a study by Levin et al. (2020) one-third of the principals who were planning to
leave reported that they lacked decision-making authority over their school’s curriculum. This
percentage was higher for principals in high-poverty schools and cities. Almost three-quarters of
principals planning to leave their schools reported that they lacked the authority to dismiss
poorly performing staff.
Professional Development
Professional development and learning opportunities take place both before and during
principalship. Inadequate preparation and professional development are barriers to principal
retention. Professional learning opportunities that are associated with principal retention are
high-quality preparation programs that carefully select and prepare principals for challenging
schools (Levin & Bradley, 2019). However, the most common obstacle to pre-service
professional preparation was the cost of the programs and exams. Almost a quarter of all
principals and almost a third of those planning to leave identified preparation program costs as a
hurdle to accessing principal preparation (Levin et al., 2020).
During principalship, principals benefit from authentic, sustained, job embedded
professional learning opportunities (Honig & Rainey, 2020), access to in-service training,
mentoring, and coaching that continue to support and develop principals, as well as opportunities

33
for collaboration between learning programs and school districts can help with principal
retention (Levin & Bradley, 2019). In a study by Levin et al (2020), principals indicated a need
for professional development to meet the needs of their students. They indicated that they needed
further development to support students’ social-emotional development, physical and mental
health, strategies to lead schools to improve student achievement, use of school and student data
to inform continuous improvement, and strategies to guide staff to focus on students’
higher-order thinking skills.
Honig and Rainey (2020) found that the importance of principals having access to
differentiated supports in both one on one settings as well as in groups or professional learning
communities (PLCs) have been highlighted, however, Chadwick (2020) found that leaders in
collaborative spaced tend to respond by talking about their own problems when someone shares
what they are struggling with and turns the conversation back to themselves. Therefore, leaders
need help to develop their capacity to actively listen, synthesize, and operationalize in order for
collaboration opportunities to be effective for retention (Chadwick, 2020). Other obstacles
principals face to professional learning opportunities was lack of time, which was cited by 75%
of principals and lack of money, which was cited by 36% of principals (Honig & Rainey, 2020).
Administrator Supports
School leaders who feel supported are more likely to remain at their school sites.
Principals reported that their districts did not have effective strategies to ensure their retention
(Levin et al., 2020), and not much research exists on the support principals need to remain in
their role at the school sites. Research that does exist suggests that school districts create safe
spaces for leaders to feel like they can talk about their areas of growth without being chastised or
judged (Chadwick, 2020). School districts could also provide access to differentiated supports

34
for principals in both one on one and group settings, facilitate good working relationships
between principals and educational partners, and compensate principals accordingly (Chadwick,
2020).
High quality preparation programs (Levin & Bradley, 2019) and sustained, job-embedded
professional learning opportunities (Honig & Rainey, 2020) are associated with principal
retention. However, 36% of principals reported they lacked the money to pay for the high quality
programs that would prepare them for challenging schools (Honig & Rainey, 2020). 75% of
principals reported they lacked the time to engage in professional learning opportunities while in
their roles as principals. Districts could support principals by offering to fund residencies for
principal training academies or provide leadership pipelines that are free for educators in their
districts (Carver-Thomas & Darling-Hammond, 2017). For ongoing opportunities in professional
development, districts could provide more time in the area of instructional leadership so that it is
aligned with their evaluations (Levin et al., 2020).
Work conditions consist of the workload and the relationships principals have with their
educational partners. A principal’s workload plays a big role in their job satisfaction, and
therefore, their retention. Districts who support principals by alleviating some of their workload
could help with their retention (Levin et al., 2020). Districts could do this by taking on
principal’s roles as public relations experts and providing principals with necessary resources to
be instructional leaders and effective building managers at their sites (Alvoid and Black Jr.,
2014). Positive relationships between principals and their educational partners contribute to their
retention (Farley-Ripple et al., 2012). Educational partners are considered to be colleagues,
parents, students, and supervisors. Districts could help support principals by facilitating
opportunities for principals and educational partners to build positive working relationships.

35
Districts that provide salaries that are competitive to other jobs can help with principal
retention (Baker et al., 2010; Levin & Bradley, 2019). Principals’ compensation and financial
obligations were related to their mobility plans. Levin et al. (2020) found that principals planning
to leave their schools reported that they were not fairly compensated. However, salaries that were
higher relative to those of peers in the same job market were related to greater stability in the
same school (Baker et al., 2010). Oftentimes, principals who leave their schools often move to
another district that offers a higher salary (Tran & Buckman, 2017).
Theoretical Framework: A Phenomenological Approach
This study will use a phenomenological approach to address the two research questions.
A phenomenological approach is used in qualitative research to focus on the personal
experiences of the participants being studied (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). This approach is
particularly effective at shining light on the experiences and perceptions of individuals to
challenge current assumptions and practices (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Since this research will
be focused on the perceptions of principals, I will use interviews as the primary instrument to
gather information directly from the source (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016) to gain understanding of
their views, experiences, and perception of how effective district supports are to their retention as
school principals. Before a researcher can begin interviewing, they must reflect on their own
experiences with the phenomenon in order to understand their biases, viewpoints, and
assumptions (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). As an assistant principal, I have to be aware of how my
experiences in school leadership could influence how I ask questions and interpret what
principals say about their experiences in their role as principals. Then, I need to put the biases or
assumptions that I have aside to focus on analyzing the experiences of the principals interviewed
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). A second component of the phenomenological approach that is used

36
in this study is horizontalization. Horizontalization requires looking at all the data as if it has
equal value at the initial analysis stage and then organizing it into clusters or themes (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016). This approach is used when coding the interview transcripts.
The goal of this study is to better understand the perspective of principals in their role.
The phenomenological approach will be used throughout the process of this study as I reflect on
my own experiences, conduct interviews, and code transcripts. The purpose of gathering these
perspectives is to give school district leaders a better understanding of the lived experiences of
principals in their role. An understanding of the perspectives of principals of their barriers to
retention and necessary support will help district leaders make informed decisions on how to
support them. This study seeks to acquire information directly from its participants to gain
understanding of their views, experiences, and perceptions of how effective district supports are
for their retention.
Summary of the Literature
The role of a school principal spans many different areas. A principal’s leadership helps
teachers succeed (Honig & Rainey, 2020). Their impact expands schoolwide to other outcomes,
such as teacher satisfaction and retention, student attendance, and reductions in exclusionary
discipline (Brewer, 1993; Grissom et al., 2021; Hitt & Tucker, 2015; Superville, 2022). Statistics
show principal turnover rates to be around 18-20% (Parylo et al., 2013; Superville, 2022). The
statistics are higher in high poverty schools with students of color and high levels of FRL
(Beckett, 2018). Principals leave their schools well before the five to seven years research has
shown is needed for successful implementation of programs and policies required for school
improvement (Fullan, 2001; Parylo et al., 2013; Superville, 2022). This frequent turnover has
implications for a productive school climate that impacts student achievement and hiring

37
practices (Beckett, 2018; DeMatthews et al., 2023; Grissom et al., 2021). Previous literature has
found barriers to principal retention to include: work conditions, relationships with educational
partners, heavy workload, school and student characteristics, low compensation, evaluations
practices and support in instructional leadership, lack of decision making authority, and low
quality professional development. Not much research exists on the support districts can provide
to help retain their principals. The research that does exist points to supporting principals to
navigate their work with educational partners and reducing their workload.
Chapter Three: Methodology
Statement of Problem
School leaders help to create the conditions necessary to promote student achievement
(Superville, 2021). When school leaders remain at a school site for five to seven years they are
able to build capacity, cultivate relationships, and foster positive working conditions that
contribute to a school's improvement (Dematthew et al., 2023; Fullan, 2001). This work is
disrupted when administrator turnover is present at high levels in a school. The average turnover
rate of public school principals in the United States range from 16-18% each year. In high
poverty schools, this increases to around 23% or principals leave their positions each year (Levin
& Bradley, 2019).
School administrators have cited that barriers such as a heavy workload, lack of support
from the district, job transitions, and compensation all contributed to their decision to leave their
positions (Bartanen et al, 2021; Levin et al, 2020). However, the research is limited when
determining the barriers that exist for school administrators in persisting in their role at a school
site. Additionally, there are limited studies that look into the supports that a district could or does
provide that help school principals remain at their school site. Since administrators have a high

38
impact on schools and there is currently a high turnover rate for the position, it would be
beneficial to school districts if they can understand the barriers that exist for and effective
support for keeping school administrators at their schools. This study will dive deeper into the
perspectives of public high school principals about the barriers that exist in their jobs that might
cause them to leave and how their districts could work to support them in their role.
Purpose of Study
The purpose of this study is to provide insight into the perspectives public high school
principals have about the barriers and supports that contribute to their decisions to stay or leave
their current school. This study will look at the barriers principals perceive to staying in their
role. It will also look into the supports at the district level that principals perceive as beneficial
for their retention. Interviews will be conducted to determine the experiences and perceptions of
principals.
The following research questions were used to guide this study:
1. What do public high school principals perceive as barriers to staying in their jobs?
2. What supports at the district level do public high school principals perceive as necessary
to persist in their role?
Selection of the Population
The study participants are public high school principals who are employed in school
districts across Los Angeles County. Currently, there are 80 public school districts in Los
Angeles County (LACOE). This study used non-probability sampling, therefore, results of the
study cannot be used to make broader generalizations (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016) about the
experiences and perceptions of all high school principals. Convenience sampling was used by
emailing high school principals with a survey and an invitation to participate in a Zoom

39
interview; principals who expressed interest were contacted to schedule their participation time
and date.
Contact information was found through looking at all of the districts in Los Angeles
county for their public high schools and then looking on school websites to find the email
addresses of the principals. The initial email with the survey and invitation to participate was
sent out to approximately 150 principals throughout Los Angeles County. Nine principals
indicated interest in participating in an interview. A total of 10 public high school principals
participated in this study. Five semi-structured interviews were conducted from the initial nine
principals who expressed interest. The five principal participants were from various sized school
districts across Los Angeles County and experiences ranged from two months to six years. Five
other principals from the same school district participated in the study after emails were sent to
superintendents of six different school districts within Los Angeles County. Their experiences
ranged from three months to six years.
Design Summary
This study will be a qualitative study. The goal of this study is to understand the
experience of principals in their roles. A qualitative study focuses on understanding a person's
experience in their natural setting and uses the researcher as the primary instrument for data
collection (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The primary instrument of interviews will be used as the
method of collecting data as this aligns with Merriam & Tisdell’s (2016) interpretation of
methodology used in qualitative research. A phenomenological approach will be used because of
its emphasis on the lived experience of the participants (Lester, 1999).
The study will be structured in the following way: chapter one will include the research
problem and purpose of study, chapter two will include a research of the literature, chapter three

40
will address the methodology and sample of the study, and chapter four and five will focus on
analyzing, interpreting, and reporting the data.
Methodology
This study uses a qualitative approach that includes the use of data from open-ended
semi-structured interviews to better understand participants’ perspective of barriers to retention
as well as district support. Open-ended semi-structured interviews are helpful in understanding
participants’ perspectives (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). A semi-structured interview protocol was
developed to help allow for flexibility in questioning depending on how participants responded
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The semi-structured interviews (see Appendix E) were used to
address both research questions in this study.
An initial survey was sent out to gather demographic information and have principals
indicate interest in participating in the interviews. The survey was not used in the analysis of
results because of the small sample size of responses and because of the phenomenological
framework of the study. The interviews allowed for the phenomenological approach by allowing
participants to share their own lived experiences in their narratives (Lester, 1999; Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016).
Instrumentation and Protocols
An initial survey was sent to recruit participants for the study (see Appendix C). Then
qualitative data was collected using an open-ended semi-structured interview protocol. The
interview protocol consists of 12 questions and was designed to uncover perspectives of
participants of the research questions (see Appendix E). The first four questions are introductory
questions, questions five, six, and seven address the perception of barriers to retention, and
questions eight through 12 target available support from the school district and perceptions of

41
each support. Merriam and Tisdell (2016) discuss the significance of follow up questions, or
probes, to help clarify information. Follow up questions were asked throughout the interview to
help clarify participants’ meaning and ensure accuracy of interpretation.
Pilot testing was conducted with a convenience sample, using members of a cohort of
doctoral students at the Rossier School of Education at the University of Southern California.
Pilot testing is important because it is the most rigorous way to pretest the content, design, and
process of an instrument (Robinson & Leonard, 2019). The pilot test was able to help determine
if the questions were clear, identify those that were problematic, and help to reorder some of the
questions.
Data Collection
An initial survey was sent to high school principals throughout Los Angeles County.
Principals’ contact information were found on the school websites. An email with the survey was
sent to principals to request their participation in this study (see Appendix A). A follow up email
was sent one week later to principals who did not respond to the initial email (see Appendix B).
The initial survey asked principals to indicate the number of years they have been in their current
role, and to rank their perception of the impact of each district support listed in the survey (see
Appendix C). The last question asked participants to indicate if they were interested in
participating in an interview. Those who indicated interest were emailed to set up an interview
time using Calendly (see Appendix D).
Informed consent was obtained before the interviews to ensure that participants
understand their responses would be held anonymous (Maxwell, 2013). Interviews were
conducted via Zoom video conferencing. Interviews began with me explaining the purpose of the
study, reminding participants of the confidentiality agreement, and building rapport. I also asked

42
for permission from the participant to record the interview to ensure that I accurately capture
their perspective (Maxwell, 2013), and assure them that the recording will not be seen by
anybody but me. The recordings were recorded to my laptop device and not to the cloud.
Throughout the interview, I asked follow up questions to make sure I fully understood their
perspectives. The interviews ranged from approximately 40 minutes to one hour and fifteen
minutes long. At the end of the interview I asked participants if I can contact them for clarifying
questions and to ensure that I have interpreted their perspectives accurately. After each interview,
the recording was uploaded into Otter.ai to be transcribed. The transcriptions were saved onto my
password protected device.
Data Analysis
Data analysis is the process of making meaning out of the data (Merriam & Tisdell,
2016). Following the process recommended by Merriam and Tisdell (2016), the analysis of the
data will also occur in conjunction with data collection. As data was collected, I took notes about
key ideas to develop initial and tentative ideas about categorization and themes. Once an
interview was completed, I used Otter. Ai to transcribe each interview. The next step, as
suggested by Merriam and Tisdell (2016), will be to sort the categories I formed in a highly
inductive manner. Review of the transcription along with my initial notes helped to establish and
refine categories for coding. Codes and categories based on the interview protocol are provided
in Appendix F. Codes and categories were of an inductive manner, and not based on pre-set
codes and categories that were suggested by research literature.
Trustworthiness and Credibility
Milner (2007) reminds us that our racial and cultural backgrounds influence how we
experience the world, and therefore, what we emphasize in our research, and how we evaluate

43
and interpret our participants’ experiences. As a vice principal researching the types of district
support principals perceive as helpful to their job retention, my bias about this topic lies in what I
have heard from working with my principals, and my own experiences in school leadership. As
an educator in Catholic education, I have not experienced quality support, nor do I know of
principals who believe they are receiving much support. This bias can lead me to interpret any
district support as beneficial instead of truly probing participants and interpreting the data more
objectively. These biases could impact my study since I am the primary instrument of data
collection, as interviews were the way I gathered information. I used field testing of instruments
to ensure validity of my interview questions. I used peer review as a part of my research process
in order to reduce the biases that could occur in the interpretation of results. I worked with a peer
to review my analyzes and check for biases that I believe could be present because of my
positionality. By having a peer review how I interpreted the data this helped remove biases in
interpretation that will inevitably exist (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
My study is designed with a phenomenological framework to highlight perspectives of
participants, and used non-probability sampling, therefore, results of the study cannot be used to
make broader generalizations. By design, this study is to gain a deeper understanding around the
themes and perceptions of specific participants. As a qualitative study, the questions I used in my
interviews would not be standardized questions that have been tested for its validity and
reliability, but pilot tested. Pilot testing took place with a few participants because of the
limitations on time. These factors limit my ability to ensure that my interview questions are free
from as much bias as possible, and that they are truly going to elicit the response they are
intended to surface.

44
Researcher Positionality
In my research, I seek to gain an understanding of district supports that promote principal
retention through a case study analysis of principals who remain in their positions at their school
sites. Researchers often pick their questions based on their experiences and must be careful not to
let personal experience influence how data is collected or interpreted (Maxwell, 2013). My
personal experience as an administrator played a role when deciding my research questions. My
positionality includes my role as an Asian American cis gender heterosexual woman. I must
always be aware of how my positionality can impact my research. I interacted with participants
who do not share the same identity markers as myself. This difference in identity could impact
how I interpret what other people are saying or how my questions are interpreted. Milner (2007)
says this requires me to consider the cultural and racial heritage of the participants in my study,
how my participants’ racial and cultural backgrounds influence how they would experience the
world and support they receive from districts, what my participants believe about race and
culture in education, how those beliefs are attended to in both theirs and my convictions, and
how I come to know the answers to these questions.
Since my positionality is ever present as a researcher, when relevant, I addressed it head
on with the participants and acknowledged it. In the analysis of data I acknowledged my
positionality and how it could influence the way I analyze results. For example, I was cognizant
that what I might view as a negative could be viewed as a positive support for a different
administrator and that their views are valid and acceptable even if it does not align with my own
(Milner, 2007). I engaged in continuous self-reflection, reflected with my chair and committee
members, and a peer to help interpret my data/findings.

45
Summary
This study used a qualitative approach with open ended semi structured interviews with
participants as the main data source. The data collected from interviews with public high school
principals across Los Angeles County was analyzed to address the research questions:
1. What do principals perceive as barriers to staying in their jobs?
2. What supports at the district level do high school principals perceive as necessary
to persist in their role?
These findings will be presented in chapter four, with a discussion of the findings in chapter
five.
Chapter Four: Results
The aim of this study was to understand the perceptions of public high school principals
when deciding to remain as principal at their current site. The study was conducted using
interviews that asked public high school principals about their favorite parts of their job, the
difficult parts of their job, why they believe other high school principals have left their positions,
and the support from, interactions with, and experiences with their school district. A grounded
theory approach was used to uncover themes and factors from interviews. Factors were
categorized based on how many times they were mentioned by principals.
Participants
The participants in this study were public high school principals within Los Angeles
County. There are eighty public school districts in Los Angeles County (LACOE.edu). This
study interviewed 10 public high school principals from six different school districts. District
size was coded as either small, medium, or large districts. Small districts had one to three high
schools, medium districts had four to seven high schools, and large districts had eight or more

46
high schools. Five principals were from the same large sized district, and the other five work in
different districts. Of those different districts, three were small sized districts, and two were
medium sized districts.
The principals interviewed ranged in experience from two months to six years in their
position as principal at their current school site. The two leaders who were in their first year as
principal at their school sites have served at their current sites in other capacities and within the
same district in various other capacities.
See Table 1 below for a breakdown of the participants and pseudonyms that will be used
in analysis for the remainder of the study analysis.
Table 1: Demographics of Participants
Principal Time at Current Site District District Size
Leader A 6 years District 1 small
Leader B 2 years District 2 medium
Leader C 2 years District 3 small
Leader D 3 years District 4 small
Leader E 2 months District 5 medium
Leader F 4 years District 6 large
Leader G 6 years District 6 large
Leader H 3 years District 6 large
Leader I 3 years District 6 large
Leader J 3 months District 6 large
This study used semi-structured interviews of the participants. Additionally, a survey was
sent beforehand to understand the demographics of the participants and allow them to indicate

47
their interest in participation. The survey was not a prerequisite to participation in the
semi-structured interviews.
Pathway to Principalship
The interviews revealed that all participants served as high school assistant principals
before becoming high school principals. All principals except for Leader C worked in various
other capacities within the same district before becoming a high school principal at their current
district. Leader C worked as a high school assistant principal at another district, left schools to
join the private sector, and then returned to be a high school principal. Leader I began their
career in the private sector, became involved in high schools as a sports coach, and then “fell in
love and moved up the ranks” (Leader I). Leader E was a head football coach before moving into
administration. Leaders A and D were recruited by their superintendent and assistant
superintendents to be the principal at their current site. Their previous experiences were
principalship at other school levels and assistant principal positions at other high schools in the
same district. Leader D moved from a district office position to be a high school principal.
Self-Reported Role of a Principal
When asked about the role of a principal, every leader brought the purpose of every facet
of their role back to student success and student well-being. Leader A compared their role to that
of a city mayor because of the political aspects as well as the multiple responsibilities required in
the role. They said, “the role of a principal is to be the face of the school, and you have a
community that is dependent on you to not only make good decisions, but provide a positive
learning environment for all students, and that can be a heavy burden”. Leader I spoke of the
political role of a principal when they explained that the role is that of a “quasi politician- I serve
as a liaison to the community, district, student advocate, and staff advocate”.

48
Every leader expressed that communication was a major role. One leader said that their
role was to be the “chief communication officer” (Leader G). One leader described their
philosophy as a site principal as “ visibility, transparency and communication. You got to be
visible- your office is the school in a community. You got to be visible and approachable to your
teachers and staff so there is this transparency, there's no hidden agenda, what you see is what
you get. And clear communication, giving everyone a clear understanding of what it is we have
to do”. The role of a listener in communication was mentioned by two leaders. Both leaders said
they needed to listen to understand so they can provide the resources, guidance, and make
decisions that are best for students.
School safety was another role mentioned by many principals. Leader B spoke about the
need to be proactive in school and site safety. Leader E spoke about ensuring the physical,
emotional, and mental safety of all students on campus. One principal said “I'm accountable for
School Safety. You know, like right now we're checking in every single child in at one point of
entrance to our school. So I'm in charge of a process where 2400 kids in one hour have to
check-in with a scan into a database and there's a Raptor system, so we are keeping safety
number one right now”.
As a second year principal at their school, leader C spoke of their current role to learn
more about the school, build relationships, and create structures to ensure move their school
forward in their three year plan for school improvement. Leader C was the only leader who
spoke about the importance of creating structures that will last because they said “leaders come
and go, we don’t stay the rest of our lives in our schools, teachers do…it’s my role to create that
structure that when I leave, that structure is still going”.

49
Leader F also spoke about the role of a principal to set school goals, and was the only
principal to mention the term “instructional leadership”.
Career Aspirations
Although this study did not focus on principals’ career aspirations as a barrier to
retention, answers from the interview showed that many principals do desire to move into a
district office position in three to five years. Leaders E and J, who are new to their schools
expressed they would like to remain at their site for the next three to five years, and one leader
expressed wanting to move into superintendency or a role in the cabinet but expressed that they
are too close to retirement to do so. Leader A was the only principal who expressed that they did
not have any desire to be in the district office, but were unsure of where they would like to be
because their current role did take up a lot of time from their family.
Researcher Positionality
As a current vice principal researching the types of district support principals perceive as
helpful to their job retention, my bias about this topic lies in what I have heard from working
with principals, and my own experiences in school leadership. As an educator in Catholic
education, I have not experienced quality support, nor do I know of principals who believe they
are receiving much support. Since I am the primary instrument of data collection, my biases can
lead me to interpret any district support as beneficial instead of truly probing participants and
interpreting the data more objectively.
Results
The results are presented below and organized by research question. For each question,
the results are presented in the themes that emerged from participants' answers. A summary of

50
results related to each research question is presented, with a summary presented at the end of the
chapter. The two research questions guiding and organizing this chapter are:
1. What do high school principals perceive as barriers to staying in their jobs?
2. What supports at the district level do principals perceive as necessary to persist in their
role?
Results Research Question 1
Research question one asked: What do high school principals perceive as barriers to
staying in their jobs? Interview questions coded and analyzed for this research question were: (a)
describe the most difficult part of your job (b) if you know school principals who have left their
roles, what are the reasons why you think they left their school principal jobs?, and (c) if you
don’t know anybody, what parts of the role do you think might cause a principal to leave?
Additionally, some principals offered insight into what they perceived as difficult parts of their
jobs when they explained how they would describe their role as a school principal to somebody.
The interview responses provided insight into what ten public high school principals in
Los Angeles County perceive as barriers to persisting in their jobs. Eight main themes or
categories emerged as perceived barriers: community relations, policy, discipline, relations with
district office, pressure of work, personnel, workload/work-life balance, and compensation (See
Figure 1).

51
Figure 1 Barriers to Principals Persisting
Community Relations
Chart 1 shows community relations as a barrier to persisting in their role. All ten of the
public high school principals in this study spoke of how their role is highly political because it is
such a public position. Leader D described it as “you are one bad decision away from making the
front page of the newspaper because the role is so public”. Participants described the hierarchical
structure that can be hurdles to them making decisions that impact their school sites and their
students. For example, the need to get board approval for decisions surrounding curricula. In
cases like these, they believe their place of “middle managers” (Leaders B and I) can be
contradicting because they are responsible for “running the show” (Leader I) but they actually
have to follow regulations set by the district and school board (Leader B).

52
Job security was also mentioned by two principals as a difficulty of navigating a school
board. One leader said, “if for some reason, let's say there's parents in a certain community that
had a run in with that principal, because they didn't get their way, doesn't mean they were right or
wrong, but they didn't get their way, then those parents can go to the school board and say, you
know, this principal at this school is not cooperating, our test scores are too low and this and that,
even though they might be working hard, but then the school board could say, well, you know,
we need to make a change. And so it’s hard because you work at the behest of the school board.
You don't have a union contract that saves you”. Another leader said“ in addition to the political
structure that you're dealing with, you know, as I think there's always been, it's an unsaid
element, or factor, but it is what it is, sometimes you see that people have been promoted, but not
being approved by the board and your position, and your placement is dependent upon the
approval of the board. And if some of the board members you don't have relationship with, it
could be a politically motivated. It has that kind of influence”.
Principals spoke of the burden and wear and tear of navigating the various educational
partners, such as the school board, community, parents, and unions. The various constituents
create pressures for principals by pushing their own agendas. Leader J spoke about how parents
have agendas and concerns that they voice that take time from the work they can be doing with
students. They spoke about how some parents “could just be so relentless and not care how busy
you are…they take up so much time, time I could be spending with kids or working with
teachers”. Another leader shared that “we take a lot of flak [blame or criticism] from
parents…and it’s hard because we’re a punching bag, we have no defense, we have no, we can’t
fire something off. But it’s that moment of I wish that I had the same ability to be like, you know
what, stop yelling at me. But ultimately, I’m in it. What happens is I end up in a three hour

53
meeting at the district office. But I wish that this district and this school board had the ability to
tell a parent ‘no’. Leader G explained that a big barrier is “ working with the union in a way that
ultimately benefits students, and support staff…the union's focus can be so singularly [focused]
on staff…I have a lot of stakeholders that I need to work with, and so that's hard to work with a
group that's so kind of singularly focused”.
Policy
Principals interviewed mentioned that the policies and the mandates principals must
uphold and follow oftentimes made their jobs difficult. Leader B spoke about the difficulty of
staying up to date on policies that are changing all the time. The principal warned that “different
policies change back and forth all the time so you have to kind of be aware and follow what is
legal at the time”, and how that makes decision making on the job time consuming and stressful.
They were mixed in their perceptions of their role in enforcing initiatives, policies, and mandates
set by the district. A few leaders spoke about how they have to separate their personal beliefs
from what the school policy is, because of the conflict with their personal beliefs. Leaders gave
examples of the current “hot topics right now- CRT- we don’t have a lot of control over what
kind of books and curriculum we can choose for our students, and the transgender stuff… other
people make the decisions and we have to follow it, even if we don’t agree”. Another leader said
“You know, there's a lot of controversy about the curriculum. There's a lot of controversy right
now about transgender parent notification. That's another one you hear in the news. So some
districts take a stance, ‘oh, we need to notify the parents when we know a kid is going through a
change’, and then some districts, you don't notify them. So then you got to be careful, because
you just need to follow what the policy is. You know, and so sometimes you have to separate
your personal beliefs from what the school policy is”.

54
A frustration four participants had was following policy and mandates in their role as
middle managers. Principals expressed that they are wedged between unsatisfied or disgruntled
parents, faculty, staff, students, and other community members when they have to follow
mandates that are set by the district or from people in legislation. One leader expressed
“mandates really bothered me, I get it, and I will uphold what they're asking to do, but at the
same time, I was bothered by mandates whether it's not necessarily pandemic driven, but
mandates for education- just what's good for one is not good for everybody. So that kind of stuff
bothered or bothers me”. Leader A also expressed that it is difficult to follow policy created by
“people in legislature [who] do not understand and make decisions without getting input from
people in the trenches”. Leader G, however, expressed that they did not mind following district
initiatives and policy, just that they would feel more supported if “the district made it more clear
that they are backing the initiative so that I can have an easier time moving people forward in
that direction”.
Relations with District Office
Four principals spoke about navigating their relationship with the district office as
something that makes their role difficult. These relationships range from not enough support
from the district office to the perception of being micromanaged with a top-down management
approach by the district office. One principal who spoke about not receiving enough support
from the district office spoke of having to spend time teaching their supervisor about the job
because they do not have experience in secondary education. For example, Leader A explains
“the most difficult and challenging part of the job is when people in legislature or even just
higher levels don't understand, and that that's becoming more evident when, as we continue to
move forward and more people retiring, you don't have that secondary level experience at the

55
district level all the time. So I have to do a lot of teaching and help people understand the why.
And those things take a lot of time”. Another shared that they knew a colleague that left the role
because they did not receive support from their district and “it became a lonely and scary place
to solve issues on their own”. The principal, Leader D, said that “bigger things happened at their
school and they took the blame for it even though it was not their fault. They lacked support
from the district office, and when you’re doing something so public, it’s hard to navigate, and
without that support, you’re being hung out to dry”. One principal knew a colleague who left the
role due to a “ lack of district support. It can become a lonely place where you're on this island
by yourself to solve all the problems- and the support is not there. When I say support, I mean
you don't have the visible cabinet, their arm when you make a decision to address certain
situations. It's like ‘no, you make that decision’. And then it's, you fall on your sword, you get
crucified for it”. One principal described their district office as “they're in all facets, but at the
same time, sometimes that becomes problematic because they micromanage. Sometimes they get
out a little ahead of themselves and they'll be doing things with our teachers. And it's like, ‘well,
wait a minute, maybe we needed to bounce that off me first, before we went that direction, or
share with me and let me be the voice of it’, versus they'd be the voice. It’s not always a negative
thing, but sometimes it becomes a negative when your teachers are going straight to the district
versus coming to me”.
Five principals mentioned justifying their budgets and allocation of resources to their
district office as a factor that makes their role difficult. Principals expressed that their role is to
establish and implement goals for their schools that align with the district goals, however,
determining where to get the money to fund programs slows their progress. Principals say they
spend a lot of time trying to figure out where funds can come from to support various programs

56
and then justify it with the district office. For example, one leader describes trying “to
incorporate a restorative justice program, and it took time to get people [in the district office] to
see the bigger vision- the why, but then it takes money to do that, right? And when I sit down and
go through it, and say, I'm gonna use this fund, I'm gonna use this one…but then it can get lost in
either the cabinet or things like that. So that’s going to take more time, and those are some of the
hurdles that slow progress down”. One principal describes that they had to “help people
understand that yes, you can use Title One funds for that, and no, you can’t use Title One funds
for this PD” and then put the onus on themselves by saying “I gotta do a better job of helping
[the district] understand what we’re trying to do”.
One leader spoke about the difficulties with hiring for their schools because of the part
the district takes in the process. The principal said “once I find somebody, and I'm like, ‘okay, I
want to offer the job to this person’, then it's all in their [the district’s] hands. So I'm like, ‘hey,
like, they have to clear that, like, go in and negotiate the salary and all those things, and then
clear the person and everything else’. So, I'm definitely waiting for them. A lot of that is on
them. Like once I do my little part…and we’re months into the school year and still have a
vacancy”.
Workload/Work-Life Balance
Although connected to the responsibility of the role, it is important to distinguish that the
amount of work and therefore, the work-life balance, was the most mentioned barrier to
retention. This was the main factor most principals reported their colleagues leaving their role,
and the main reason principals report their roles are so difficult. Principal interviewed said they
knew at least one colleague who left their role due to “burnout” from the time commitment of
being a principal. Principals reported knowing colleagues who left their role to find more time

57
for their families because the “demands of a principal is a hurdle to supporting your family”
(Leader I). One said that the time commitment “wasn't in alignment with his family. You know, it
was like taking up too much time, too many hours in the day, where he couldn't spend with his
family to do something else”. One principal knew a colleague who left to become a teacher again
to have, “better work life balance, kind of trying to return some time to their family”. Another
described that “our job really demands so much time, and the time is beyond what the
contractual hours are asking for. There's that commitment. And oftentimes, in my experience that
I know, because I lost one assistant principal this year, and one reason is that she has no more
time to be with the kids. And also my colleague right now, as far as I can think of, all of us that
assume the principal position, either have no kids- like me, or the kids are grown up college- no
elementary and middle school kids. And I think, to me, that's one of the barriers of the job that
we do”. Principals reported that at the very least, the principalship is a “Monday through Friday,
7am to 7pm job” (Leader C) because there is something to do every night at the high school
level, and they easily “spend four to six nights a week at work” (Leader D). One described a day
as “I got to work at 6:30. I had two really terrible parent meetings. I tried to reach out to
somebody- it didn't go well. We had a fight at lunch. All of a sudden, I didn't eat. I ended up at a
water polo game at 3:30 until five that turns into, you know, me ordering Taco Bell being
delivered. And then I have the choir show that night. And now it's midnight. I've been working
for 18 hours. All I've eaten was a handful of almonds and now a Taco Bell dinner. I'm driving
home in a downpour and all I can think of is, ‘I'm a terrible husband. I'm a terrible father. I'm a
terrible friend’. Similarly, a principal reported that realistically, they are “on call 24 hours a day,
seven days a week, 365 days a year” (Leader D) because “at the end of the day, whatever
happens at [their] school site is [their] responsibility” (Leader B), so they do not feel like they

58
can take a day off (Leader G). Another principal explained “It's I can't just take a day off. I still
take 30 phone calls. I still get emergencies. I mean like I don't get a day off even when I have a
Spring Break because sprinkler broke or you know, whatever it is”. One principal reported that
the nature of the role has changed to be more demanding because people have instant and
constant access to them. The principal said, “People have access to me all the time, it’s changed
the nature of the job and made it more challenging. I am always getting texts, emails, and phone
calls even on the weekend- I am always on call”.
Pressures of the Work
Similar to the findings by previous researchers, the principals interviewed expressed that
the amount of pressure that comes with the role of a public high school principal is a barrier to
remaining in the job. This pressure comes from the responsibility of having to navigate so many
different areas of leading a high school as well as the perceived “sole responsibility for
everything that happens at any time of the day”. Principals also spoke about the constant
interaction with various constituents and the constant flow of people needing things and time
from them. One principal said “nobody actually cares how busy you are. They just need things
done”. Another principal said “so you’re nurse, doctor, physician, mentor, educator…so you
have a lot of students, you have a lot of programs, you have a city, you have a community that is
dependent on you to not only make good decisions, but provide a positive learning environment
for students. And that can be a heavy burden”. Leader F shared that their colleague left their role
as principal because they “couldn’t separate outside pressures from the role” which “led to
mental health and health issues”. Another principal described the reason for their colleague’s
departure from “ the stress. The pandemic was very stressful for a lot of different ways. The
mandates were very stressful on some administrators in a lot of different ways. Coming back to

59
face the political struggles or the political pressures, whether it be they're pushing a certain
curriculum, whether they're being they're pushing an agenda, depending on where you're at. They
couldn't separate in my opinion, they weren't able to separate their work with what the outside
pressures were. And so they just chose to say, "forget it, I'm gonna get out”.
Multiple principals spoke of the pressures that come from the responsibility of the vast
amount of challenges that come on a daily basis, and being able to be on top of them to address
them. Leader D described this as having to “learn how to build a plane while you’re flying it”.
Over half of the principals expressed in some form that there is too much pressure with the
“workload- lots of things going on: accidental deaths, students, staff members, Covid” because
ultimately, “at the end of the day, whatever happens at your school is your responsibility”. One
explained why their colleague left as “just the pressure of being the principal- he said parents
were on his case and there was just like, too much pressure- because at the end of the day,
whatever happens at your school, is your responsibility. It could be, it could be some student
walking home from practice, soccer practice at 7pm…you might be home already, but you know,
maybe they didn't get home on time, or there's some mystery as to where they are. They're gonna
be calling you and you're gonna have to be dealing with it”.
One principal shared the heavy responsibility of always having “to be proactive about
campus safety- you have to think about both- the things from the outside- the community stuff
and making sure it doesn’t come inside, and the threats from the inside- like students who are
withdrawn. I always look for students who need a way to be connected to the school or to
something”. Leader G shared that they do not feel like they can leave their responsibilities
behind and go off site for professional development opportunities. They shared that “the other

60
one [barrier], quite honestly would be professional development. I don’t feel like I can leave this
site”.
Leader F’s perspective held a different theme from the others. Other principals spoke
about how their roles require a constantly changing and vast amount of problem solving and
multitasking. One spoke about the necessity to have to “be proactive and anticipate what could
happen and go wrong, but you can’t because nothing ever goes as planned, so you have to be
able to adapt and think on your feet”. However, Leader F spoke about the role as having to “do
the same thing year after year” and how that is a perceived barrier for them when thinking about
remaining in the role for the next three to five years.
Compensation
Compensation for the amount of hours worked was a common theme when principals
talked about why their colleagues left the role. The obligations to attend events after school,
community events, evening meetings, etc. took time from principals without overtime pay or
perceived compensation. Principal E reported that they knew two colleagues who left because
the salary was not worth the time they needed to give to work. One principal told a story of a
conversation he had with a colleague who left the principalship, they said “what other jobs [do
you] spend 18 hours at work without being compensated? Yeah. I mean, realistically, I can work
three hours a day and I get paid the same, right? So he basically said, it's about the money; I can
go make $100,000 somewhere else. So he said ‘I quit’. And the dude just left”.
Discipline
The topic of discipline was brought up by three principals. Leader E expressed that
discipline is about 90% of their job. Leader F shared that disciplinary issues are contentious
because “different stakeholders have different beliefs around discipline and how to discipline and

61
when to discipline”. With the need to follow and implement Positive Behavior Interventions and
Supports (PBIS), Leader E reported “that takes a lot of time and the safety plans and the reentry
plans and the and not even just mental health, just in general- we do the same process for general
discipline and suspensions. We have a reentry meeting with that kid and family to sign the
contract”. Leader D said that “high school problems are bigger with bigger demands” and that
many of the problems are “grown up problems, but they are still children”. When discipline is
brought into the criminal arena, Leader E said it is difficult to navigate various agencies, the law,
and maintain a campus where all students feel safe when they are bound by law to keep the
students involved on the same campus. Leader E said “there was a situation where the police was
involved- it was a civil case, but the kid is legally allowed back on campus, so now I have to
navigate other students feeling safe on campus because they don’t know if it’s legal or illegal,
they don’t care, they just know they don’t want to be around that person”.
Personnel
Principals also shared that the responsibility of both managing negative staff members
and disciplining personnel makes their jobs difficult. Principals spoke about having to navigate
staff members who are negative. Principals speak about navigating negative staff and “leading
veteran teachers through change and getting them to recognize that students and times have
changed and students and their learning styles have changed, especially after the pandemic”
(Leader I). Principals describe disciplining staff as difficult particularly because they have “built
a relationship with that staff member and then have to discipline them”. This is especially true in
regard to staff members or teachers who make decisions or mistakes that are potentially harmful
to students. Principals expressed that they have the responsibility to “protect the students but you
have to ensure the rights of the staff member is protected” (Leader C) as well.

62
Discussion Research Question 1
This research question sought to explore what high school principals perceive as barriers
to retention. The interview responses provided insight into what public high school principals in
Los Angeles County perceive as barriers to staying in their jobs. Some of the results were
consistent with what was found in previous studies. The study by Superville (2023) found that
increased job demands, staff shortages, and the politicization of education were factors that
contributed to principal turnover. Consistent with the study by Superville (2023), this study
found that increased job demands and the politicization of education have contributed to a
decline in job satisfaction and retention. Workload and work-life balance was the most
mentioned barrier to retention, followed by the political role of the job. However, what was
surprising was that none of the principals reported staff shortages as a barrier or difficulty.
In regards to the categories by Levin and Bradley (2019) and Levin et al. (2020), working
conditions, compensation, decision-making authority, and lack of professional learning were all
identified as barriers to retention with the principal participants in this study. Principals however,
did not mention the categories of accountability systems and evaluation as barriers to their
retention.
Unlike what was found in previous research (Beckett, 2018; Levin & Bradley, 2019; Ni et
al., 2015), school and student characteristics did not come up as difficult parts of their jobs or
barriers to retention. With the exception of student discipline, the findings from this study show
that most of the barriers principals face have to do with interactions with other adults as opposed
to principals’ interactions with students.

63
Results Research Question 2
Research question two asked: What supports at the district level do principals perceive as
necessary to persist in their role? Interview questions coded and analyzed for this research
question were: (a) what do you believe is the role of a district office? (b) how much interaction
do you have with your district office? (c) what supports do you receive from your district office?
(d) what supports do you think are most important from a school district for principals? And (e)
if you were a district employee in charge of mentoring a principal, what would your plan be to
support them in their role?
Frequency of Interactions with District Personnel
Every principal interviewed in this study reported having constant contact with the
district office. Principals defined this constant contact as communication on both weekdays and
weekends. One principal said “probably talking to somebody at the district office every day,
every other day, but from different departments: administrative services, which is like our
maintenance department, all the way from Ed services to Tech…Student Services. So I would
say- with somebody every day. In terms of like, how often I interact like with my superintendent,
less often than like [with] directors and assistant sups and stuff like that”. Another reported “I'm
in touch with them all the time. We constantly, at least five days a week and even weekends were
either in text or on the phone or virtual meetings or in person”. All but one principal reported that
they were in contact with somebody from the district office daily. Leader D was in contact with
somebody a “couple of times a week- with different people”.
Principals reported they could access district personnel through phone calls, texts, and
emails. Leader E reported that there was “not a lot of interaction with them at the school site, but
a lot on the phone”. Leaders C and I reported they had regular scheduled campus visits by district

64
personnel, and leaders from District 6 reported that district personnel do both scheduled and
non-scheduled campus visits weekly, if not a few days a week. One principal explained that they
“see one of the assistant sups at least two times a week, and it's usually not the same one, that's
usually someone just cycling through”. Another explained that “sometimes they'll schedule.
Others, they just show up just to pop in and just do the check-ins like, ‘hey, how's it going? What
do you got going on?’ and, you know, ‘I was in the area. It's kind of like principals in
classrooms- we try to get out in the classroom to do the random pop-ins- not to disrupt
instruction or anything like that, just so they have our presence, and they know that we're there”.
In regard to access to communication with superintendents, Leader A said it was
“different for every principal in their district. It kind of depends on your relationship with themthat determines your comfort level. Some people reach out to one another instead”. Leader A
said they worked with people who have been in the district for a long time who have become
superintendents. Therefore, Leader A believes they have a good relationship and good
communication with the current and past superintendents in the district. Leader J also reported
having a direct line to the superintendent. However, Leader D reported that they have less
accessibility to the superintendent in their district, and more constant communication with other
personnel such as the assistant superintendent and directors.
In addition to accessibility of district personnel for day to day needs, principals also
reported having scheduled meetings for all high school principals at the district office. These
meetings ranged from weekly Zoom meetings to bi-monthly in-person meetings. A principal
who meets bi-monthly said, “we meet every other Wednesday- so like, the first Wednesday of the
month is only secondary principals. We meet at 3:00 to 5:00. And it's all the secondary principals
with the assistant sup and the superintendent”.

65
Supports Currently Receiving
When principals were asked about the types of support they were currently receiving
from their district office, answers included business items in the scheduled principal meetings,
being provided with resources, check ins, and walkthroughs. All leaders reported that their
scheduled meetings were predominantly business meetings where they received updates and
were provided with reminders. One principal described their weekly Zoom meetings as “mainly
business meetings. Well, we'll have some, some talk about professional growth and, and how are
we doing, but most of it is business”. Another said their bi-monthly meetings, their assistant
superintendents and superintendents “bring whatever's happened: we're doing testing, they'll
bring the testing person in, and, you know, teacher evaluations will bring HR in”. However, some
meetings also allowed time for connection and collaboration. Leaders H and J spoke about the
resources their district office provided. Leader J said that in his district, “if you need help, it’s
readily available. I can call, but my AP can also do it. As a principal, you can’t do it all, so it’s
good to get to delegate that to my APs”. Leader H spoke about the importance of support,
connection, and clarification on matters from the district office as a good resource. They said,
“we interact, either by phone or email or whatnot, seeking their support, clarification,
connection...I like the clarification piece. That's helpful”. Leader J spoke about being provided
with a checklist of things they needed to know, and a folder for all the files they needed when
they first started as a principal, “a things you need to know list- checklist” and how that folder is
always being updated. They also spoke about a “management retreat where all other principals
give advice”. As mentioned in the previous section, Leaders from District 6 have various
personnel from the district office who come on site to check in with them regularly on different
aspects of the school.

66
Leader C reported that their district has a more formalized and systematic monthly
walkthrough of high school campuses. Leader C described that District 3 practices monthly
walkthroughs at each site with “principals from other high schools, assistant principals, our
directors from different offices of the district will join us.. it's really good for them to see that
you've you invested in this amount of dollars, and this was helping us right now”. They spoke
about how these walkthroughs help establish buy in from staff because the feedback from them is
“something that I can bring to my staff and say, ‘are we not doing this? How can we make it
better? Yeah, what's the average?...because the walkthrough sees that consistently. It's not
learning from me, it's coming from the other people from the outside, who sees that. If it’s from
me all the time, there was gonna be bias- I might have prejudice in terms of the implementation,
but coming from the outside [it] becomes more formative”.
Supports Perceived as Most Important
The two latter questions: (d) what supports do you think are most important from a
school district for principals? And (e) if you were a district employee in charge of mentoring a
principal, what would your plan be to support them in their role? Sought to gather insight into
what principals perceive would be most helpful for them to persist in their role. The questions
did not seek to distinguish whether or not principals are currently receiving these supports.
Figure 4 shows the reported themes or categories as well as how many times it was mentioned by
principals.

67
Figure 2 District Supports
Decision Making Support.
Factors related to support in decision making were the most mentioned and talked about
category when it comes to support principals perceive as important for them in their role. These
factors mostly included the need to have support navigating day to day things that come up in a
way that prioritizes the goals that are set at the school site. The decision making support category
could be further broken down into five subcategories: decision making support with priority
setting, problem solving, time management, goals, and culture and communication help.
Priorities.
Leaders C, D, and F mention that it would be helpful for the district office to support
principals by helping them determine what their priorities are because the principal role is so
extensive. Leaders would like the district communication to be specific about what is important

68
work for principals to do. Leader C articulates this as the support to “help principals see their
priorities and which battles to pick”. Leader A shared that they would mentor a principal by
letting them know “you have to know how to prioritize urgent from not so urgent matters. There
are also times that you have to use a strategy to identify your priority. Geez, do I have to face this
battle? Or do I have to have to deal with this war or should I not, you know, that type of situation
I think is really, really important”. Leader F provided that the district could “help create the top
five things we need to focus on”. Leader D explains the purpose in more depth by explaining that
“everybody thinks everything is a priority at the high school and you can’t do it all, and you’re
gonna think you need to do it all, and you’re going to be afraid not to do it all. So what’s really
critical? So helping somebody navigate what do you focus on? What are your priorities? How do
your priorities align with the district priorities?” would be a helpful support from the district
office.
Problem Solving.
Every principal interviewed discussed the importance of the district office helping them
to problem solve in both day to day issues as well as larger ongoing issues like curricular choices
and hot topics in politics. Principals expressed the need to have somebody to talk through
dilemmas with and to help navigate hard conversations with parents, staff, students, and
community members. A principal shared that as a district office employee, they would do what
they can to make the principal “ feel secure in being able to talk through what's hard about thisbecause it's not an easy job. It's a hard job, and you can't be an expert at everything. So you have
to know who to go to when things happen, right? Particularly in high school, you're gonna run
into crises and people making poor decisions, discipline decisions that are complicated, you have

69
to know who to go to to be able to get help, because you're not going to be an expert in
everything”.
A principal expressed that the “district office job is to support the principals… everything
that they do is to help us do our jobs here on the campus- because if you look at it from the
business perspective, you know, the students are who we are serving, you know, that is our
business model and so without the students, we have nothing. And so, with that being said, you
know, we are kind of the middle line managers, but really we're, we're running the show. And so
any kind of barriers or roadblocks or things that are distracting campus, that our district, you
know, I mean, they are in there in the trenches with us helping conduct investigations, if
necessary, dealing with staff members and removing those distractions from us. And so that's
been a huge, huge benefit, because it allows us to focus on serving our students”.
Time Management.
Principals expressed the importance of the district office helping them find ways and
things to delegate their tasks and responsibilities to others. Leader D spoke about how
“everybody wants the principal’s attention” and “if you’re going to try and do it all as a high
school principal, you’re going to burn out faster than you can realize”. A principal believed it
would be helpful for the district office to help principals create and navigate a system of
delegation in order to best utilize their time and energy. That principal said “people will be mad
that you’re not doing it all, so helping somebody navigate how it is that you are passing
somebody off to someone else in a way that doesn’t cause hurt feelings” can really help to free
up a principal’s time to work on other aspects of their role where their priorities are. Leader G
specifically spoke about the desire for help to “establish a clear system to show a principal how

70
they could step away for their own PD time” because they believe that continuous learning and
growth is important but cannot find a good time and way to access professional development.
Goals.
Principals expressed that it would be helpful for the district office to work with principals
on goal setting and accomplishment. Leaders E and F said they would like support in aligning
their goals to the district goals, and to WASC goals, receive support throughout the year, and
then receive feedback at the end of each school year. One principal expressed they feel it is the
“district’s role to continue to make sure that we’re meeting those goals, and hold me accountable
to ensure that my students are meeting not only attendance, go to graduation goals, but state
assessments- those performance measures that we’re required to do”. Another principal shared,
“my opinion- the role of the district office is a role of sharing goals and direction and then
supporting us to be able to reach those goals and follow that direction”.
Culture And Communication.
Leaders talked about the importance of receiving support in building relationships with
their various constituents. Particularly, Leader G would like support on “how to communicate up
front with families so that they know what their students are going to encounter in the
classroom”. Leader I would like “help with establishing and communicating the school vision
and school culture” with families, staff, parents, and community members. Leader D spoke about
the support to both build the relationships with “whoever your people are” as well as support in
“figuring out who those people are”. A principal spoke about the importance of the district office
clearly communicating their support for a principal’s decisions to the various constituents. They
said it would be helpful for them to “help everyone understand so people won’t be able to go
behind your back and say ‘oh, this is a top down principal decision’, because ‘no, this is a

71
decision that the district is supporting along with the board…and that’s where you don’t feel like
you're on your own- because they are courageous decisions that we have to make, but it all lands
on the site administrator, right? And if you don't have that support, where you’re left out there by
yourself, the blowback, the pressures, those things can make someone feel like you know, what's
the point?”
Accessibility
Accessibility factors were mentioned by principals. Leader B spoke about the importance
of a principal having an open line of communication with the district office and the
comfortability “to reach out and not feel afraid to call and ask a silly question, and ask for
support”. Another principal spoke about the importance of district office employees building a
good relationship with principals so that principals “feel safe and secure in being able to talk
through…because we have to remember that we’re here to serve kids, and in order to do that,
people have to feel secure and confident in their ability to ask for help…and be honest about it”.
Leader J also spoke about the importance of being able “to go to any office and get a clear idea
of who to call to get the help they need”.
Proactive and Responsive Support
Principals mentioned the significance of the district office being proactive and responsive
in their support five different times. In regards to districts being proactive, Leader B talked about
the importance of a district office regularly reaching “out to schools to find out what is exactly
happening in the school” instead of waiting for schools to contact the district for direction or
support. Another leader talked about the district office “needs to be the voice of that political
mess that’s on the outside” and the value of a district office “filtering what’s important to us at

72
the site and making sure we’re getting the information that we need to be able to move in the
right direction”, and Leader H mentioned the need for “clear guidance”.
When it comes to the types of responsive ways district offices can support principals,
principals talked about the political aspects of their role. One principal believed it would be
helpful for the district office to “be the voice of the political mess that’s on the outside” so that
principals can focus on their school sites. Another principal spoke about the policies created by
the district office. They believed it would be helpful to “create policy that is responsive to what
schools are facing and the needs of the school”. One principal expressed “I wish that this district
and this school board had the ability to tell a parent, no- put out a parent policy for
communication- you know, this is your role as a parent. But we're like seven or eight years into
this moment where parents feel they can just come and say whatever they want to us.”. Leader G
suggested having “monthly meetings around relevant topics to address issues at site, such as how
to handle conflict among staff, manage parents who are questioning curriculum and books, and
how to support teachers. Lastly, a leader expressed that frequently validating the work they are
doing would be extremely helpful for them to feel supported enough to persist on the harder
days.
Training/Professional Development
Principals mentioned factors related to training and professional development four times.
Some principals mentioned continuous professional development regarding compliance with law
and policy because”things change back and forth, different policies change back and forth, so
you have to kind of be aware and follow what is legal at the time”. Other principals talked about
the need for more training and development specifically around finances and the budget. Leader
F spoke specifically about the importance of onboarding new principals specifically in this area.

73
He spoke about a new principal in his district who “has consistent communication with the
business office to make sure that he's staying up on his budget and spending appropriately, and
watching it in different areas”. He also said that “that kind of happens with all of us [in our
district]. I'm in my 11th year, and I'm still getting support from the district office on budget
stuff”.
When asked about how they would support a new principal, Leader H spoke about “PD
on budget, the role of a principal, goal setting, planning documents, help with planning staff
meetings- especially the first one, and help with determining the metrics of success”. One
principal expressed the desire for opportunities for professional development in general. They
said “ I feel like since stepping into this role, I've not had the same level, or opportunity for
professional development as I did previously. I think, as a teacher and counselor and seeking out
professional development, I felt like those things were always presented to me and, and, you
know, there was a clear system as to how I would go about it, and I felt okay, stepping away from
my role for a minute to do it. It's just not like that, as an administrator”.
Team Building
Leader G mentioned the need for the district to support team building between principals
and between leadership and the district office in three different ways. Leader G talked about how
beneficial it would be to bring principals together for the opportunity to truly collaborate and
learn from one another. They said “there are a lot of us in our district, so there's so much for us to
learn from each other”. Leader G felt as though the district office formally established itself as
the support for principals, but principals can be assets to one another, and the district could foster
that more. A principal said it would be helpful to “bring the group together at least monthly, and
dress certain issues, you know, from your personal kind of mental health and well being and how

74
you're managing the stress of the job”. A principal also spoke about the possible benefits of
protecting time and space in the agenda to allow for connection and community building among
leadership during the scheduled meetings instead of having such a “tight schedule and agenda all
the time”.
Instructional Leadership Help
Two leaders spoke about the value of receiving instructional leadership support from the
district office. Leader J spoke about the significance of having a role or office in the district that
directly supports instruction and student services. Another principal spoke of the desire to have
continuous support in “meeting goals set around A-G requirements, helping with establishing
and maintaining success markers, and establishing students’ success as freshmen”. One principal
spoke about the value of the district’s help in helping principals lead good faculty and staff
meetings to “steer the ship” and how it is important to be able to come up with a good “agenda,
or presentation because if we're not being thoughtful about your agendas, and you are not kind of
always connecting it back to whatever the focus of the school is, you're wasting your time and
everybody else's… because [the meetings is] kind of weaving everything together”. Another
principal spoke about the importance of the district’s support in helping a new principal set up
their first meeting with their faculty and staff. They said the first meeting is where they “lay my
cards…set expectations…share goals…and guide culture”.
Compensation
Two leaders mentioned the need to better compensate principals as a good way to help
them persist in their role. Leader A spoke about the need to “compensate appropriately and so
there is no burnout”. A principal said “none of us get paid what we should…I believe that you
need to reward middle management so that teachers and classified and other people in the

75
community can respect that profession and value their professional life…you're working a lot of
hours, you're making a lot of decisions, you have a lot of burden responsibility. Let's make sure
we support that. At the end of the day, you don't have to support the site administrators by
compensating them so that people will realize, ‘they are making some decisions that we don't
have to make’ and that will keep more people in this profession…and will attract more people
into leadership as well”.
Discussion Research Question 2
This research question sought to explore what district supports principals perceived as
helpful for them to persist in their roles as principals. Interview questions coded and analyzed for
this research question were: (a) what do you believe is the role of a district office? (b) how much
interaction do you have with your district office? (c) what support do you receive from your
district office? (d) what supports do you think are most important from a school district for
principals? And (e) if you were a district employee in charge of mentoring a principal, what
would your plan be to support them in their role?
Previous studies on district support for principals found work conditions, compensation,
relationships, evaluation practices, professional development, and decision making authority
contributed to a principal’s retention at their school site (Levin & Bradley, 2019; Levin et al.,
2020). The results of this study found that principals believed that support in decision making
would really help them to persist in their role. Unlike previous studies, principals interviewed in
this study did not mention evaluation practices as a support, and instructional leadership was
only mentioned twice. In regards to professional development, principals expressed the need for
new principals to be trained in budget and financial matters, one principal expressed the desire to
have more opportunities for PD, but principals did not mention opportunities their districts

76
provided that they perceived as good professional development. All principals reported they met
weekly or biweekly with the district office, however, it was mainly business and they did not
consider it to be for development purposes.
Summary
This study aimed to gain insight into the perceptions of public high school principals
when deciding to remain as principal at their current site. Ten public high school principals in
Los Angeles County were interviewed in semi-structured interviews to gain their insight to
answer two research questions:
1. What do high school principals perceive as barriers to staying in their jobs?
2. What supports at the district level do principals perceive as necessary to persist in their
role?
Research question one sought to gather the perceptions public high school principals saw
as barriers to remaining as principal at their school site. Questions from the interview that sought
to gain insight to answer this question included: (a) describe the most difficult part of your job
(b) if you know school principals who have left their roles, what are the reasons why you think
they left their school principal jobs?, and (c) if you don’t know anybody, what parts of the role
do you think might cause a principal to leave? Some insight was also gathered when principals
talked about what they perceived as difficult parts of their jobs when they explained how they
would describe their role as a school principal to somebody.
Results show that the community relations aspect of their role, followed by the
workload/work-life balance were the biggest barriers to their retention. When principals talked
about the community relations aspect of their role, they also talked about how the policies as
well as difficulties around budgeting and resource allocation served as the difficult parts of their

77
role. Other categories principals mentioned to be barriers to their retention were the pressures
associated with their work, relations with their district office, compensation, and then their role
in discipline.
The second research question sought to gain insight into what district supports principals
perceived as necessary for principals to remain in their roles at their school site. Interview
questions used for this research question were: (a) what do you believe is the role of a district
office? (b) how much interaction do you have with your district office? (c) what supports do you
receive from your district office? (d) what supports do you think are most important from a
school district for principals? And (e) if you were a district employee in charge of mentoring a
principal, what would your plan be to support them in their role?
Results show that principals overwhelmingly perceived district support for decision
making as the most helpful for them to persist in their role. This support would include deciding
what their priorities are day to day as well as throughout the year, how to solve problems that
arise, time management, establishing and working toward the school goals, and how to establish
culture and appropriate communication. This is followed by proactive and responsive support,
training and professional development, accessibility and team building, and then instructional
leadership support and compensation.
Chapter 5: Discussion
Chapter Five discusses the findings as related to its implications for practice within the
educational community. Key research findings are summarized and then discussed with the
intention to inform current and future district office leadership of the types of support public high
school principals perceive as necessary and helpful for their retention at their school sites.

78
Limitations of this study as well as recommendations for future research are also provided within
the context of this study.
Background of the Problem
High school principals have a demanding job. They play a crucial role in creating an
effective school environment that fosters student learning. Principals accomplish their primary
work of enhancing student outcomes mainly through their interactions with teachers and other
adults in the community (Hitt & Tucker, 2016). In addition to a wide range of responsibilities,
principals have many educational partners including students, parents, teachers, school boards
and superintendents (Hitt & Tucker, 2016). Because of the overarching roles a principal has,
principal turnover disrupts schools. Principal turnover interrupts program or reform
implementation, affects teacher morale, and contributes to the development of a school culture
that is resistant to change (Farley-Ripple et al., 2012). Additionally, Milner (2013) found that
student achievement continues to fall two years after principal turnover and then rises over the
next three years.
It is important for a principal to remain at a school site for five or more years because
leading school improvement can take five to seven years (Fullan, 2001). However, principal
tenure data in 2016-17 shows that the national average tenure of principals in their schools was
four years, with 35% of principals being at their school for less than two years, and 18% of
principals leaving their positions after one year. In high poverty schools, this percentage goes up
to 21% (Levin & Bradley, 2019). There is a lack of research that studies current barriers to
principal retention as well as types of support districts can provide to principals for them to
persist in their role.

79
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study is to provide insight into what public high school principals
perceive as barriers to their retention at their school sites, as well as the types of support from the
district office they perceive as necessary for their retention. The intention is to help inform
school districts when considering the hiring, ongoing development, and support of school
leaders. This research is guided by two research questions:
1. What do high school principals perceive as barriers to staying in their jobs?
2. What supports at the district level do principals perceive as necessary to persist in their
role?
Participants in this study were public high school principals within Los Angeles County.
An initial survey was sent out to gather initial demographic data and interest in participation in
the study. A qualitative approach was taken for this study. Ten principals who were chosen using
convenience sampling, participated on Zoom in a 45-60 minute semi-structured interview with
the use of an interview protocol. Interviews were recorded and then transcribed using Otter.ai.
Inductive analysis was used to code and discover the themes from the interviews. This grounded
approach allows for the perception of the principal to emerge from their narrative instead of
trying to categorize their perspectives into pre-set themes.
Discussion of Findings
The findings of this study identify main barriers public high school principals face, and
the support district offices can provide to help retain their principals. The community relations
aspect of their role, followed by the workload/work-life balance were the biggest barriers to their
retention. Other barriers mentioned were the pressures associated with their work, relations with
their district office, compensation, and then their role in discipline. Principals overwhelmingly

80
perceived district support for decision making as the most helpful for them to persist in their role.
This is followed by proactive and responsive support, training and professional development,
accessibility and team building, and then instructional leadership support and compensation. The
sections below present a summary and discussion of key findings for each research questions in
this study. Six themes emerged from the study that answered the study’s two research questions.
Research Question 1: Barriers to Job Retention
The first research question was, what do public high school principals perceive as
barriers to staying in their jobs? The interviews of 10 public high school principals in Los
Angeles County produced three key findings. The first finding was that the workload and
pressure from the work created an undesirable work-life balance that all principals say led to
their colleagues’ burnout and the reason for their colleagues leaving. The second finding was that
their role as “middle managers” often places them in a difficult position with the community and
requires them to follow policies set by either the district office or other political entities (i.e., the
school board and state legislatures). The last finding had to do with managing and disciplining
staff and faculty.
All 10 principals talked about the heavy workload as a barrier to retention. They all
recalled a colleague they knew who left because of burnout from the long hours required, and to
re-establish a more sustainable work-life balance. Previous studies have shown that a principal’s
workload plays a big role in their mobility decisions; they reported that the long hours needed to
complete all the necessary activities is not sustainable (Levin & Bradley, 2019; Levin et al.,
2020). Principals in this study reported that there is a lot of pressure knowing that whatever
happens at their school is their responsibility, and situations can arise outside of school hours,
which creates an undesirable work-life balance. This is consistent with previous findings that

81
show that principals could spend an average of 12 hours per day on all school-related activities
before, during, and after school (Yan, 2020).
The relationships principals have with educational partners contribute to a principal’s
work conditions (Levin & Bradley, 2019). Principals interviewed spoke about the wear and tear
that comes from having to navigate various adult educational partners: school board, community,
parents, and unions who are singularly focused on pushing their own agendas. This is consistent
with findings from Yan (2020) that found that influences from other constituents could prohibit
or support a principals’ influences in their school. Principals interviewed say that their role as
middle managers can put them in difficult positions with various educational partners because
they are responsible for “running the show” but have to follow regulations set by the district and
the school board. This hierarchical structure oftentimes creates hurdles to them making decisions
that impact their school sites and students. Previous studies also found that principals are more
likely to leave their positions when they believe they do not have a lot of decision making
authority at their schools, and too much management by the district office leads principals to feel
less in control of their own workspace (Levin and Bradley, 2019; Levin et al., 2019).
Previous studies focused on a principal’s impact on hiring and retaining faculty and staff
at their schools (Griffith, 2004; Supervill, 2022). Interviews with principals suggest that
managing and disciplining staff and faculty is perceived by a few as a difficult part of a
principal’s job. However, this was not a big theme that emerged from this study. A few principals
mentioned that working with negative staff was difficult to navigate. A few also mentioned the
difficulty of having to discipline staff who make decisions that are harmful to students, especially
because of the relationship they have with them.

82
Research Questions #2: District Level Supports Necessary to Persist in Role
The second research question was what supports at the district level do public high
school principals perceive as necessary to persist in their role? The interviews revealed three
key themes about district level supports that help principals persist in their role. The first theme
that emerged was the accessibility of district office personnel to support principals in making
decisions. The second theme was training and professional development. The third theme was
compensation.
Many of the principal participants talked about the accessibility of district office
personnel to help them be proactive and responsive in the decisions they must make. In previous
studies, principals reported that a barrier to their retention was the lack of access and support
from districts to alleviate their complex workload (Levin & Bradley, 2019; Levin et al., 2020;
Snodgrass Rangel, 2018). Principals in this study said the areas they needed support in decision
making include: priority setting, problem solving, time management, determining goals, and
culture and communication help. Principals shared how numerous the decisions and tasks they
are faced with every day. They expressed that they would want to have a constant and open line
of communication with the district office to help them feel supported and not isolated in the
decisions they have to make. The accessibility would help them with time management and
alleviate the pressures of the many tasks, decisions, and problems they face in their role.
Principals in this study also expressed the desire for the district office to help with establishing
and maintaining culture with their faculty and staff, particularly if they are new to their schools.
New principals in this study expressed wanting help getting to know the culture and needs of
their campus better, and help to set up at least the first faculty and staff meeting of the year.
Principals in this study also talked about wanting support in their communications with various

83
educational partners. They would like help to find the best way to communicate with parents up
front about the student experience and curriculum as they navigate high school. They also would
like assistance in the ongoing communication of the school vision to staff and the community.
Lastly, with the many decisions principals have to make, principals expressed they would feel
supported if the district office clearly communicated their backing of the decisions they make to
all educational partners. In addition to proactive and responsive communication, principals
talked about how districts can support by “filtering what’s important…at the site”, giving clear
guidance on what needs to be done, and giving them the information they need to move in the
right direction. In addition to acting as a filter, principals expressed that it would be helpful for
the district office to act as a shield from certain community constituents so that they can focus on
their school sites instead of the “political mess that’s on the outside”.
Previous research points to the importance of professional development both before and
during principalship (Honig & Rainey; Levin & Bradley, 2019). Although previous research
pertains to preparation programs, principals in this study spoke of support districts can provide to
new principals before the school year begins that can continue during their tenure. Principals
found professional development and training on goal setting and planning documents as helpful.
They say that as both a new and veteran principal, one could get lost in the multitude of things
that arise daily, so initial and ongoing support in their instructional leadership role of goal
setting, meeting goals around A-G requirements, success markers and metrics, as well as
planning meaningful faculty and staff meetings would be helpful. Many principals mentioned the
need for initial and ongoing support around budgets. One principal, in their 11th year, still finds
the support valuable. One principal spoke about the need to include time for true collaboration
and team building with their colleagues during their meeting and professional development time.

84
A few principals talked about the need for professional development around state policy and
laws. Principals expressed that because these can change back and forth, a process for continued
development and communication around them will help to ensure they stay legal and compliant.
There is a lot of research on compensation as predictors of turnover and retention (Baker
et al., 2010; Levin & Bradley, 2019; Levin et al., 2020; Snodgrass Rangel, 2018; Tran &
Buckman, 2017). Previous studies found that principals were more likely to move into schools
and districts that paid higher (Tran & Buckman, 2017), or leave for jobs that paid higher (Levin
et al., 2020). In this study, however, only two principals mentioned the need for better
compensation as a support to help with their retention. One principal mentioned that the long
hours could be better reflected in salaries to try to alleviate burnout. Another principal attributed
the need for higher salaries to reflect the complexity of the role and the hard decisions that need
to be made by principals daily.
Limitations
The limitations of this study were in the generalizability of the study because of the small
sample size, and in its internal validity because of the reliance on self-reported data and the
positionality of the researcher. The small sample size does not allow the conclusions of this study
to be generalized to the experiences of all public high school principals in Los Angeles County
or beyond. However, given the qualitative design of the study, its purpose was not meant to be
generalizable (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The study’s purpose, however, was meant to provide a
deeper look into the experiences and perceptions of high school principals to better understand
the barriers they face in their roles and the support at the district level needed for their retention.
Although findings are not generalizable, findings could still be used by district leaders. Internal
validity is a limitation in this study because of the use of interviews as the primary instrument for

85
data collection (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). However, research questions were focused on
perceptions of principals rather than whether or not their perceptions were true. However, the
amount of convergence across principal participants in most cases, and the alignment with the
larger research literature, suggests some degree of internal validity. My positionality as an
assistant principal serves as another limitation in this study. My positionality could impact the
analysis and interpretation of the data. Peer review was used during the analysis process as an
attempt to address and mitigate my biases.
Implications for Practice
This study examined the perceptions of principals regarding the barriers that exist in their
roles and support they need from their district office. The findings of this study can be used by
district leaders to inform the practices they use to support principals to promote their retention.
Both the barriers uncovered as well as the support shared by principals could be used to inform
new practices from the school district.
The first implication is the need for school districts to reduce the heavy workload and
time commitment so that principals can have a better work-life balance. All 10 principals in this
study spoke about knowing a colleague who left the principalship because of the time
commitment required in their role. The other aspect of the workload was the pressure of constant
responsibility over everything that happens on campus or off campus with students, faculty, and
staff at any time of day. Principals report that their job responsibility is “24 hours a day, 365 days
a year”. These findings indicate the need for school districts to consider how they can alleviate
the workload and time commitment from principals. Districts could help principals with time
management and alleviate the pressures they face in their roles by helping them set goals, sort
through the many tasks and decisions, and help solve problems. With the many things that come

86
up and the many decisions that need to be made, it would be helpful for district office personnel
to keep the bigger picture in perspective for the principal so they would not feel the need to
spend unnecessary time with the smaller tasks that can be delegated. For example, since
principals need to be available and present for bigger issues that arise, attendance at after school
events and activities could be limited for principals and delegated to other staff. School districts
could consider how they can filter information from outside of school constituents and political
entities so principals can focus on their school site and students. Principals in this study
mentioned how relations with the outer community and adult educational partners take up a lot
of their time. Districts can act as filters regarding various policies or messaging that take place
outside of school and present them to principals in ways that are relevant to their roles as site
leaders. Relevant information could be presented in weekly meetings or as a memo sent out in an
email.
Districts can shield principals from some of the repercussions that come from decisions
principals have to both make and follow by publicly showing support for the principal and the
decision. Principals in this study expressed the difficulties of being “middle managers…who
work at the behest of the school board” or who do not have “a union contract that saves you[r
job]” in cases when parents or other constituents are unhappy with the hard decisions they have
to make or the regulations they must follow. Although some principals report having to follow
regulations they do not agree with as difficult parts of their job, the barrier to retention for most
principals lies in the lack of the district backing them publicly. When a decision is communicated
in writing, support can be shown through including the superintendent or district office
personnel’s signature alongside the principal’s signature. When a difficult decision or
circumstance is to be communicated in person, the visibility of the superintendent with the

87
principal at the time of the communication would be helpful to publicly show support for that
principal.
Another implication is for the district office and district office personnel to be accessible
to principals during the decision making process. There is a nuance in the support principals
expressed during the decision making process: the accessibility to talk through what the actual
decision needs to be and the accessibility of district personnel to listen and help talk through how
a principal is feeling throughout the process. Principals are responsible for what happens at their
school site and ensuring that students are achieving. The roles incorporate many different aspects
that require them to make many decisions throughout each day, which can be a lonely place if
they feel like they are the sole decision maker and must maintain confidentiality. Principals in
this study expressed that they are in frequent communication with their district office personnel
and feel comfortable reaching out when they need guidance. However, many report that they are
the ones who have to initially reach out to establish the relationships. Principals also stated that
some principals feel more established in their relationships with their district office personnel,
while others resolve to reach out to other principals for support. While other principals hold
experience and knowledge, support from the district office could carry more weight because of
their supervisory role. School districts could improve in this area by creating an intentional
positive culture around support. Districts can ensure they establish a district office culture which
initiates, builds, and maintains relationships with their principals. Districts can do this by
providing an assigned mentor for each principal that is from the district office. Mentoring has
been found to be a way to help new principals succeed if they are able to take place both
formally and informally (Parylo, et al., 2013). Formal mentoring is important for principals to be
able to call for advice, which provides them with a safety net and valued support (Parylo, et al.,

88
2013). With a positive and intentional culture around support, informal mentoring relationships
can occur more naturally and allow for mentors to be accessible to principals when principals
need the space to be heard and talk through their feelings before it leads to the feeling of
isolation and burnout.
The last implication is for district offices to be intentional about the types of onboarding
and ongoing professional development provided for their principals. To be effective, onboarding
of principals could take place first one on one with the district office personnel and then in group
settings (Honig & Rainey, 2020). One principal in the study spoke specifically about the
importance of onboarding new principals in budgeting. This would begin with how to look at a
school budget and then how to maintain and spend appropriately throughout the year. A new
principal in this study expressed needing support in how to lead their first faculty meeting. Part
of the onboarding process could include “help with establishing and communicating the school
vision and school culture” (Leader I) with families, staff, parents, and community members.
Another part of culture building is building relationships with “whoever your people are” as well
as support in “figuring out who those people are” (Leader D). District office personnel could be
instrumental in helping principals in this area. Because time management was the most
mentioned barrier to retention, new principals would benefit from onboarding in the areas of goal
setting and establishing three to five priority areas to focus on throughout the year. These areas
could then be expanded upon and revisited during principals’ ongoing professional development
to help principals stay anchored when many different issues and decisions come up.
Ongoing professional development could include all of the same areas as onboarding.
Veteran principals in this study mentioned the need for continued support in managing and
staying up to date with their budgets throughout the year. Likewise, establishing and maintaining

89
a positive culture is an ongoing process that will need ongoing development. It takes time and
intentional work to learn about a campus, build capacity, cultivate relationships, and foster
positive working conditions which contribute to school improvement (Dematthews et al., 2023;
Fullan, 2001). Districts could provide more professional development opportunities in the area of
instructional leadership so that it is aligned with their evaluations (Levin et al., 2020). This
ongoing professional development would be beneficial as one on one support so that it can be
site specific, and in PLCs so that ideas can be shared and innovation can be fostered. Principals
in this study also expressed the desire to have time to connect and collaborate with their
colleagues throughout the year as part of their professional development time. Findings indicate
that principals could have both similar and different perceptions of what valuable development
entails. In addition to the ones mentioned, districts could improve in this area by asking
principals in their district what ongoing development they would find beneficial, and what they
believe could have been more helpful in their onboarding process to better onboard new
principals.
Future Research
This study’s review of the literature did not find much on the supports high school
principals see as helpful for their retention. Likewise, the barriers found in previous research
were limited. Previous research does not highlight the principal’s role as middle managers who
have to navigate multiple educational partners as a barrier to their retention. The findings of this
study provided insights on the support school districts could provide their principals to help them
persist in their role.
The research questions in this study aimed to uncover the barriers to retention and the
support district offices can provide to promote high school principal retention. Future research

90
could apply these research questions to principals who have left their roles as principals. This
would include principals who have moved back into the classroom, a counseling position,
another position in education, and those who have left education altogether. This would not
include principals who moved into the district office roles. By uncovering the barriers principals
who left their roles for non-promotional reasons, as well as the supports they perceive could have
helped with their retention, districts would have a better understanding of what the actual barriers
are and the supports that could have helped with their retention.
The phenomenological approach of this study does not allow for generalizability of its
findings. Rather, it provided insight on the experiences and perceptions of 10 principals from
school districts across Los Angeles County. Future research could use mixed methods to
strengthen the generalizability of the study’s findings. The addition of a quantitative component
could allow for a larger sample size and the opportunity for triangulation to support findings
from the qualitative data. The generalizability of the findings would be pertinent and applicable
to school districts.
The final recommendation for future research is to research the quality of interactions
between district office personnel and principals. Although principals in this study shared that
they are in constant communication with their district offices, principals shared the need for more
accessibility and for district offices to be both more proactive and responsive in their support.
Principals also expressed the need for interactions to be non-judgmental and a safe place to talk
through what is needed. Further investigation into the types and quality of interactions principals
have with district office personnel would help deepen the understanding of how districts can
support their principals.

91
Conclusion
The research questions in this study sought to explore the perceptions of public high
school principals regarding the barriers that exist in their roles and support they need from school
districts to persist in their role. The findings highlighted the unsustainable workload principals
have that affect their mobility decisions (Fuller, 2015; Levin & Bradley, 2019; Levin et al.,
2020;Yan, 2020). Findings also highlighted that principals’ workload consisted of the difficulties
of navigating the various adult educational partners and how that takes time and energy away
from their work with students. Although principals in this study shared that they are in constant
communication with their district offices, principals suggest the need for more accessibility to
help with the decision making aspects of their role and for district offices to be both more
proactive and responsive in their support. Additionally, findings suggest the need for districts to
provide principals with onboarding and ongoing professional development. This study offers
school districts insight into the barriers that may lead to principal turnover and suggests support
districts can offer high school principals in their roles to promote their retention.

92
References
Alexander, K., Salmon, R. G. & Alexander, F. K. (2015). Financing Public Schools: Theory,
Policy, & Practice. London, Routledge.
Allensworth, E.M., & Hart, H. (2018). How do principals influence student achievement?
Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Consortium on School Research.
Baker, B. D., Punswick, E., & Belt, C. (2010). School leadership stability, principal moves, and
departures: Evidence from Missouri. Educational Administration Quarterly, 46, 523–557.
Beckett, L. O. (2018). Predictors of urban principal turnover. Urban Education, 56(10),
1695–1718. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085918772629
Bartanen, B., Grissom, J. A., & Rogers, L. K. (2019). The impacts of principal turnover.
Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 41(3), 350–374.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373719855044
Bartanen, B., Rogers, L. K., & Woo, D. S. (2021). Assistant principal mobility and its
Relationship With Principal Turnover. Educational Researcher, 50(6), 368–380.
https://doi-org.libproxy2.usc.edu/10.3102/0013189X21993105
Brewer, D. J. (1993). Principals and student outcomes: Evidence from U.S. high schools.
Economics of Education Review, 12, 281–292.
Carver-Thomas, D., & Darling-Hammond, L. (2017). Teacher turnover: Why it matters and what
we can do about it. Palo Alto, CA: Learning Policy Institute.
Chadwick, P. (2020, July 15). A Leadership Stimulus Package. IEDP. Retrieved August 15,
2022, from https://www.iedp.com/articles/a-leadership-stimulus-package/

93
Carpenter, D., DeHerrera, M., Oleson, M., & Taylor, J. (2022). Effects of principal turnover on
school performance. NASSP Bulletin, 106(1), 55-70.
https://doi.org/10.1177/01926365211070488
Cieminski, A. B., & Asmus, A. (2023). Principal turnover is too high. Principal supervisors can
help. The Learning Professional, 44(1), 34-38.
http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/principal-t
urnover-is-too-high-supervisors-can/docview/2830558415/se-2
Clotfelter, C., Ladd, H. F., Vigdor, J., & Wheeler, J. (2006). High-poverty schools and the
distribution of teachers and principals. North Carolina Law Review, 85, 1345– 1378.
Darmody, M., & Smyth, E. (2016). Primary school principals’ job satis- faction and occupational
stress. International Journal of Educational Management, 30, 115–128.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-12-2014- 0162
DeMatthews, D., Carrola, P., Reyes, P., & Knight, D. (2021). School leadership burnout and
job-related stress: Recommendations for district administrators and principals. The
Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 94(4), 159-167,
https://doi.org/10.1080/00098655.2021.1894083
DeMatthews, D., Reyes, P., Carrola, P., Edwards, W. & James, L. (2023). Novice principal
burnout: Exploring secondary trauma, working conditions, and coping strategies in an
urban district. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 22(1), 181-199,
https://doi.org/10.1080/15700763.2021.1917624
Dicke, T., Marsh, H. W., Parker, P. D., Guo, J., Riley, P., & Waldeyer, J. (2020). Job Satisfaction
of Teachers and Their Principals in Relation to Climate and Student Achievement.

94
Journal of Educational Psychology, 112(5), 1061–1073.
https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000409
Ediger, M. (2014). The changing role of the school principal. College Student Journal, 48(2),
265-267.
Farley-Ripple, E. N., Raffel, J. A., & Welch, J. C. (2012). Administrator career paths and
decision processes. Journal of Educational Administration, 50, 788–816.
Farley-Ripple, E. N., Solano, P. L., & McDuffie, M. J. (2012). Conceptual and meth- odological
issues in research on school administrator career behavior. Educational Researcher, 41,
220–229.
Hitt, D. H., & Tucker, P. D. (2015). Systematic review of key leader practices found to influence
student achievement: A unified framework. Review of Educational Research, 86,
531–569.
Hitt, D., & Tucker, P. (2016). Systematic review of key leader practices found to influence
student achievement: A unified framework. Review of Educational Research, 86(2),
531-569.
Honig, M.I., & Rainey, L.R. (2020). Chapter 1. From supervision to support. In Supervising
principals for instructional leadership (pp. 1-34). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education
Press.
Fullan, M. (2001). Leading in a culture of change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Fullan M. (2014). The principal : three keys to maximizing impact. Wiley.
Gates, S. M., Ringel, J. S., Santibanez, L., Guarino, C., Ghosh-Dastidar, B., & Brown,
A. (2006). Mobility and turnover among school principals. Economics of Education
Review, 25, 289–302.

95
Keating, L. , Heslin, P. & Ashford, S. (2017, August 10). “Good Leaders Are Good Learners.”
Harvard Business Review
Griffith, J. (2004). Relation of principal transformational leadership to school staff job
satisfaction, staff turnover, and school performance. Journal of Educational
Administration, 42(3), 333–356. https://doi.org/10.1108/09578230410534667
Grissom, J. A., & Bartanen, B. (2019). Principal effectiveness and principal turnover. Education
Finance and Policy, 14(3), 355–382. https://doi.org/10.1162/edfp_a_00256
Grissom, J.A., Egalite, A.J., Lindsay, C.A. (2021). Research Report: How principals affect
students and schools: A systematic synthesis of two decades of research. Wallace
Foundation: New York, NY.
Guthery, S., & Bailes, L. P. (2022). Building experience and retention: The influence of principal
tenure on teacher retention rates. Journal of Educational Administration, 60(4), 439–455.
https://doi.org/10.1108/jea-09-2021-0172
Hitt, D., & Tucker, P. (2016). Systematic review of key leader practices found to influence
student achievement: A unified framework. Review of Educational Research, 86(2),
531-569.
LACOE: https://www.lacoe.edu/education/districts
Leithwood, K., Seashore, K., Anderson, S., & Wahlstrom, K. (2004). Review of research: How
leadership influences student learning. Wallace Foundation: New York, NY.
Lester, S. (1999). (PDF) an introduction to phenomenological research. Retrieved May 1, 2023,
from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/255647619_An_introduction_to_phenomenolog
ical_research

96
Levin, S. & Bradley, K. (2019). Understanding and Addressing Principal Turnover: A Review of
the Research. Reston, VA: National Association of Secondary School Principals.
Levin, S., Scott, C., Yang, M., Leung, M., & Bradley, K. (2020, May). Supporting a strong,
stable principal workforce: What matters and what can be done. NASSP and LPI
Research Agenda: Understanding and addressing principal turnover.
https://www.nassp.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/LPI-and-NASSP-Research-Agenda-F
inal-Report.pdf
Lochmiller, C.R. & Lester, J. N. (2017). An introduction to educational research: Connecting
methods to practice. Sage Publications.
Maslach, C., and S. E. Jackson. 1981. The measurement of experienced burnout. Journal of
Organizational Behavior 2 (2):99–113. doi: 10.1002/job.4030020205.
Maslach, C., and M. Leiter. 2016. Understanding the burn- out experience: Recent research and
its implications for psychiatry. World Psychiatry : Official Journal of the World
Psychiatric Association (WPA) 15 (2):103–11. doi: 10.1002/wps.20311.
Mascall, B., & Leithwood, K. (2010). Investing in leadership: The district’s role in managing
principal turnover. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 9, 367–383.
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. (3rd ed.). SAGE.
Merriam, S., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation
(4th ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Miller, A. (2013). Principal turnover and student achievement. Economics of Education Review,
36, 60–72.
Milner, H. R. (2007). Race, culture, and researcher positionality: Working through dangers seen,
unseen, and unforeseen. Educational Researcher 36(7), 388-400.

97
National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). (2022). Principal turnover: Stayers, movers,
and leavers. Condition of Education. U.S. Department of Education, Institute of
Education Sciences. Retrieved [2023, February 19], from
https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator/slb.
Oberman, G. L. (1996). A report on principal turnover in the Chicago public schools (ERIC No.
ED410655). Chicago, IL: Chicago Public Schools Department of Research, Evaluation,
and Planning.
Parylo, O., Zepeda, S. J., & Bengtson, E. (2013). The different faces of principal mentorship.
International Journal of Mentoring and Coaching in Education, 1(2), 120–135.
https://doi-org.libproxy2.usc.edu/10.1108/20466851211262860
Rangel VS. A Review of the Literature on Principal Turnover. Review of educational research.
2018;88(1):87-124. doi:10.3102/0034654317743197
Robinson, S. B., & Firth Leonard, K. (2019). Designing quality survey questions. Sage.
Snodgrass Rangel, V. (2018). A Review of the Literature on Principal Turnover. Review of
Educational Research, 88(1), 87-124.
https://doi-org.libproxy2.usc.edu/10.3102/0034654317743197
Solano, P. L., McDuffie, M. J., & Farley-Ripple, E. N., & Bruton, J. (2010). Principal retention
in the state of Delaware. Newark, DE: University of Delaware, Center for Community
Research and Service.
Superville, D. R. (2021, March 3). Top-tier principals spark big gains in student learning. A new
study shows how much. Education Week. Retrieved February 25, 2023, from
https://www.edweek.org/leadership/top-tier-principals-spark-big-gains-in-student-learnin
g-a-new-study-shows-how-much/2021/02

98
Superville, D. R. (2022, June 16). Why understanding principal turnover is important for teacher
retention. Education Week. Retrieved February 6, 2023, from
https://www.edweek.org/leadership/why-understanding-principal-turnover-is-important-f
or-teacher-retention/2022/06
Tran, H., & Buckman, D. G. (2017). The impact of principal movement and school achievement
on principal salaries. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 16, 106– 129.
Warren, M. (2013). Leadership succession and retention: It’s time to get serious about a principal
retention policy. Leading & Managing, 19(2), 1–14.
Yan, R. (2020). The Influence of Working Conditions on Principal Turnover in K-12 Public
Schools. Educational Administration Quarterly, 56(1), 89–122.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X19840391

99
Appendix A - Initial Email Sent to Principals
Hello,
My research partner, Jeannie, and I are doctoral students at USC and Assistant Principals at
schools in Los Angeles. We are conducting a dissertation study about the retention of school
administrators and district supports that support school leaders in remaining in their positions.
During the study, we will be interviewing current school administrators to learn more about their
experiences with school district supports and why they chose to remain in their current role.
We would love to speak with you as a part of this study because of your current role. If you are
interested in participating in our study please fill out this quick survey and we will follow up
with you to schedule a 30-45 minute virtual interview.
Thank you for your time and consideration!
Best,
Amy Price and Jeannie Eamnarangkool

100
Appendix B- Follow Up Email Sent to Principals
Hello,
I reached out to you last week to inquire about the possibility of you participating in my research
partner, Jeannie, and I's USC dissertation study. We are both Assistant Principals at schools in
Los Angeles and are conducting a dissertation study about the retention of school administrators
and district supports that support school leaders in remaining in their positions. During the
study, we will be interviewing current school administrators to learn more about their
experiences with school district supports and why they chose to remain in their current role.
We would love to speak with you as a part of this study because of your current role. If you are
interested in participating in our study please fill out this quick survey and we will follow up
with you to schedule a 30-45 minute virtual interview.
If you have already filled out this survey, thank you for your interest and you will be contacted
by one of us soon.
Thank you for your time and consideration!
Best,
Amy Price and Jeannie Eamnarangkool

101
Appendix C - Preliminary Survey
USC Dissertation Study: Administrator Retention Survey
Hello!
We are a team of researchers working on our dissertation at USC Rossier School of Education.
We are interested in learning about the barriers to school leader retention as well as supports that
districts provide to support school leader. We would love to learn more about your experience as
a school leader.
If you are interested in being a participant in our study please fill out the form below and we will
contact you for a virtual interview with one of us.
Thank you,
Jeannie and Amy
Survey:
Email:

102
Please select the position that most applies to your current role:
- Principal
- Assistant Principal
How many years have you been in your current role?
Please rank how impactful you believe each district support is to your decision to remain in your
current position: (1 = not very impactful; 5 = very impactful)
Would you be willing to participate in a follow up interview about your experiences in your
current role?
- Yes
- No
If yes, what is the best way to contact you? (Please enter the contact information here)

103
Appendix D - Initial Email to Principals for Interview
Hello,
Thank you for participating in our survey. You have indicated on your survey that you are willing
to participate in a follow-up interview about your experiences in your current role.
The interview will take 30-45 minutes and it will be via Zoom. Please click on the following link
to schedule an interview time that works best for you. If none of these times work for you please
reach out to me and we can arrange a time.
Looking forward to connecting with you.
Best,
Jeannie

104
Appendix E - Interview Protocol
Introduction
Thank you for agreeing to participate in my study. I appreciate the time that you have set aside
to answer my questions. As I mentioned when we last spoke, the interview should take about an
hour, does that still work for you?
Before we get started, I want to remind you about this study. I am a student at USC and am
conducting a study on the aspects of school leadership. I am particularly interested in
understanding the district’s role in supporting school leaders. I am talking to multiple school
leaders to learn more about this, and to gain further information from their perspectives.
I want to assure you that I am strictly wearing the hat of researcher today. What this means is
that the nature of my questions is not evaluative. I will not be making any judgments on how
you are performing as a school leader. My goal is to understand your perspective.
Do you have any questions about the study before we get started? I have brought a recorder
with me today so that I can accurately capture what you share with me. The recording is solely
for my purposes to best capture your perspectives and will not be shared with anyone outside the
research team. May I have your permission to record our conversation? I will erase the recording
once it has been transcribed.
Questions (with transitions)
The first few questions I will be asking are more general questions around your job as a
principal
Intro questions:
1) What led you to become a school principal?
2) If you had to explain what your role as a school principal is to somebody, how would you
describe it (hypothetical)?
a) What would you say are the responsibilities you hold as a school principal?
(knowledge)
3) Describe your favorite parts of your job.
4) In 3-5 years, if you are exactly where you want to be in your career, what would you be
doing? (ideal position)
The next set of questions are regarding some of the barriers you face as a school principal.
I want to remind you that the hat I am wearing is only of a researcher and that all of your
answers are confidential. However, please know that if you do not feel comfortable
answering any of the questions, you can skip or pass it.
Barriers:
5) Describe the most difficult parts of your job (barriers to retention; interpretive).

105
6) If you know school principals who have left their roles, what are the reasons why you
think they left their school principal jobs (barriers to retention)?
a) If you don’t know anybody, what parts of the role do you think might cause a
principal to leave (barriers to retention; hypothetical/)?
7) Some say that the role of a school principal can be stressful at times. What strategies do
you think might be helpful to cope with the stresses of their role as a school principal
(personal, district supports; hypothetical)?
a) Which strategies do you use?
Now, I would like to move into asking you about your district. Again your answers and this
interview is completely confidential and I am solely wearing the hat of a researcher.
Supports:
8) What do you believe is the role of a district office (district supports; opinion/values)?
9) How much interaction do you have with your district office (district supports;
knowledge/experience)?
10) What support do you receive from your district office (district supports; knowledge)?
a) What supports do you think are most important from a school district for
principals (district supports; opinion/values)?
11) If you were a district employee in charge of mentoring a principal, what would your plan
be to support them in their role (perceived district supports; hypothetical)?
12) What didn’t I ask you that I should have?
Closing
Thank you so much for sharing your thoughts with me today! I really appreciate your time and
willingness to share. Everything that you have shared is really helpful for my study. If I find
myself with a follow-up question, can I contact you, and if so, if email is ok? Again, thank you
for participating in my study.

106
Appendix F - Coding Categories
Interview Question CODING
CATEGORY
1) What led you to become a principal?
2) If you had to explain your role as a principal to somebody, how
would you describe it (hypothetical)?
RAPPORT BUILDING
1) Describe your favorite parts of your job. FAVORITE PART
1) In 3-5 years, if you are exactly where you want to be in your
career, what would you be doing?
CAREER PLAN
1) Describe the most difficult parts of your job (barriers to
retention; interpretive).
DIFFICULT PART
1) If you know principals who have left their roles, what are the
reasons why you think they left their school principal jobs
(barriers to retention)?
REASONS FOR
LEAVING
1) What do you believe is the role of a district office in supporting
administrators (district supports; opinion/values)?
BELIEF OF DISTRICT
ROLE
1) How much interaction do you have with your district office
(district supports; knowledge/experience)?
2) What supports do you receive from your district office (district
supports; knowledge)?
INTERACTIONS
WITH DISTRICT
Other things that didn’t fit well into other domains that should be added;
this should be used sparingly and only for things highly relevant to your
work.
OTHER

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

What can districts do to retain high school assistant principals?

PDF

Public school district principals in California: preparation, recruitment, and retention

PDF

High-performing school district superintendents: preparation, recruitment, and retention

PDF

The attributes of effective equity-focused high school principals

PDF

The attributes of effective equity-focused elementary school principals

PDF

The art of leadership: investigating the decision-making process of how charter school leaders utilize the arts

PDF

The preparation, recruitment, and retention of California K-12 principals

PDF

The attributes of effective equity-focused high school principals

PDF

Latinx principal belonging and mattering

PDF

Developing longevity in the K-12 principal position: strategies for preparation, recruitment, and retention

PDF

Why I can't see myself in school? Hiring and retaining ethnically diverse leadership in public schools

PDF

School leadership: preparation, recruitment, and retention of principals

PDF

Principal leadership influences teacher retention in schools identified for comprehensive and targeted support: an evaluation study

PDF

Response to the growth of charter schools in California school districts: an evaluation study

PDF

How urban high school principals implement social and emotional learning (SEL)

PDF

Why can’t I see myself in my school? Hiring and retaining ethnically diverse leadership in public schools

PDF

How principals lead Title I schools to high academic achievements: a case study of transformative leadership

PDF

Are students better off? An analysis of administrators’ commitment to serving transitional kindergarten students in multilingually diverse communities in Central Coast California

PDF

Analyzing middle school teachers’ implementation and sustainability of professional development regarding non-exclusionary discipline practices

PDF

Fostering leadership resilience: examining the influence of social networks on female administrators’ capacity to lead in times of crisis or organizational change

Asset Metadata

Creator Eamnarangkool, Jeannie (author)

Core Title What can districts do to retain their high school principals?

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Degree Conferral Date 2024-05

Publication Date 04/08/2024

Defense Date 03/11/2024

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

Tag Administration,administrator,district,Principal,retain,retention,school,school leadership,turnover

Format theses (aat)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Cash, David (committee chair), Greene, Joelle (committee member), Ott, Maria (committee member)

Creator Email jeamnara@usc.edu,jeankool09@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC113871207

Unique identifier UC113871207

Identifier etd-Eamnarangk-12773.pdf (filename)

Legacy Identifier etd-Eamnarangk-12773

Document Type Dissertation

Format theses (aat)

Rights Eamnarangkool, Jeannie

Internet Media Type application/pdf

Type texts

Source 20240408-usctheses-batch-1137 (batch), 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 author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright.

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu