University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

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

(USC Thesis Other)

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

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content
THE FIRST 90 DAYS OF THE NEW MIDDLE SCHOOL PRINCIPAL
IN A TURNAROUND SCHOOL: IN-DEPTH CASE STUDY
OF THE TRANSITION PERIOD (FIRST 90 DAYS)
by
Marco A. Baeza
__________________________________________________________________
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
December 2010
Copyright 2010 Marco A. Baeza

ii
DEDICATION
I dedicate this dissertation to those persons who have had a significant role in my
life and education. First, I dedicate this work to my wife, Paula Gutierrez-Baeza, and my
two sons, Marco Alejandro and Andres Antonio. Without their love and support and their
belief in my abilities to accomplish my educational endeavors, I could not have com-
pleted this dissertation. I thank them for their patience, love, and support. I also thank my
mother, Concepcion Baeza, who unfortunately was taken from me too soon due to a
terminal illness. Although she had only a third-grade education, she believed that I would
achieve my dreams and believed in the power of education, and she always supported my
educational pursuits. She loved me greatly and instilled in me my faith in God, who has
helped these dreams to become a reality.

iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I thank my wife, Paula, and my two sons, Marco Alejandro and Andres Antonio,
who have been extremely patient, supportive, and understanding. Despite the challenges,
they each remained patient and confident, continuously encouraging me through my
pursuit of a doctorate from the University of Southern California (USC), Rossier School
of Education. Without support from each of them I could never have completed this
journey.
I am blessed to have had the opportunity to build lasting relationships with my
classmates and cohort members and with USC professors, such as Dr. Gabriela Mafi. I
thank Janet Britz (cohort member) for her support through the dissertation writing
process.
As a first-generation United States citizen and the youngest of 12 children grow-
ing up in a ―gang and drug‖-infested neighborhood, I thank three very special people who
have inspired my life and have molded my purpose in life. These three are the ―wind
beneath my wings‖: my mother, Concepcion; my father, Ramon; and my wife, Paula
Gutierrez-Baeza.
My mother, Concepcion, a Mexican immigrant, often shared childhood experi-
ences of growing up in west Texas, attending a one-room school. She shared stories of
the teacher and classmates who made fun of her because she could not speak English and
because she was a poor Mexican immigrant ―cotton picker.‖ Her life experiences have
inspired in me the moral belief of providing an opportunity to learn for all students,

iv
regardless of their circumstances. It is unfortunate she passed away, but her life story
lives in me.
My father, Ramon, grew up in Cuchillo Parado, Chihuahua, Mexico, a small town
on the border of Mexico and Texas. He shared his childhood stories of being a sheep
herder on the Rio Grande. He often shared that he stared across the border into the flat-
lands of Texas and wished to immigrate to the United States in hopes of finding a land of
opportunities. At the age of 18 he immigrated. If he had not immigrated, I would not have
had the opportunity to pursue a higher education.
My wife, Paula, was born in El Tule, Chihuahua, Mexico. She often tells me
about her life experiences as an immigrant. Her family immigrated to California when
she was 3 years old. She started kindergarten at the age of 5 and remembers not speaking
a word of English. The story that has truly inspired me is the story of having to return to
Mexico as a third-grade student to visit her ill grandmother. She traveled to Mexico by
car and was there on independent study. She returned to the United States by crossing the
Rio Grande because her immigration documents had not been approved at that time. She
remembers how important it was for her parents to be sure that she and her sisters return
to school as soon as possible so that they could continue to learn. She often shares how
grateful she is for the teachers who impacted her life. She eventually graduated from
Stanford University and Loyola Law School on full scholarships. Today she practices law
and is a productive U.S. citizen. She has inspired in me the important role that teachers
play in all the lives of all students.
My doctoral studies at USC and this dissertation are the culmination of the
dreams and aspirations of these three people who have inspired me to pursue a career as

v
an educator and as a school administrator. Their life stories have inspired in me to pursue
this career. I hope to impact the academic and social lives of students who share similar
experiences and who also believe that education opens the doors to greater opportunities,
especially for those who come from economically and socially disadvantaged back-
grounds.
I also thank Dr. Scott Price for his patience and continuous support in this disser-
tation process. As the chair, he provided invaluable step-by-step support and helped me
to complete the project. I am extremely thankful for having the opportunity to participate
in the dissertation cohort. Participating in this group provided me an opportunity to learn
new strategies, research, and theories that have helped me to assume the principalship. I
also thank Dr. Kathy Stowe for her insight and support. Finally, I thank Dr. Guilbert C.
Hentschke for his generosity with his time, his knowledge, and his probing questions.
God has blessed my life in so many ways, including placing people in my path
who greatly impacted my life. He has opened so many doors and made academic and
career opportunities available. I pray that God bless those who have reached out to help
me and who have supported my academic aspirations.

vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Dedication ii
Acknowledgments iii
List of Tables x
List of Figures xii
Abstract xii
Chapter 1: Overview of the Study 1
Background 1
Accountability and the Change in the Role of Principals 4
Administrative Training 9
Statement of the Problem 13
Research Questions 14
Purpose of the Study 14
Importance of the Study 15
Limitations 17
Delimitations 17
Assumptions 18
Methodology 18
Definitions of Important Terms 19
Organization of the Dissertation 20
Chapter 2: Review of the Literature 21
Conceptual Framework 23
Brief History of the School Site Principal 24
The Rise of Standards-Based Education 25
The Principal as Instructional Leader 28
Principals Unsure of Their Current Role 29
Expanding Role of the Principal 31
The Transition Period in Education 32
Mentoring During Induction and Transition Period 35
Summary 39
Accountability and Responsibility 40
Principals Must Provide a Safe Learning Environment 41
Principals Must Provide Good Community Relationships 41
Instructional Responsibilities 42
Manager and Leader 43
State Standards for Leadership 44
Student Achievement 48

vii
Leadership Principles 49
Instructional Leadership 52
Community Leaders Strong Communicators 54
Visionary Leader 56
Distributive Leadership 57
Transformational Leadership 58
Situational Leadership 59
Bolman and Deal 60
Marzano 60
Kotter 62
School Culture and Climate 63
James Collins 74
Michael Fullan 75
Training and Mentoring 76
University Credential Programs 78
District-Level Training Programs 79
University and Professional Organizations Specialized Programs 81
Colloquium for New and Aspiring Principals 81
Analysis of Principal Preparation Programs 82
Induction and Transition 86
Conclusion 99
Chapter 3: Research Methodology 102
Research Questions 103
Research Design 103
Description of the Population 105
Description of the Instruments 107
Instruments 107
Charts 109
Data Collection 110
Data Analysis 112
Chapter 4: Research Results and Findings 113
Summary of the Study’s Framework and Research Questions 114
Introduction to Case H 115
Introduction to Case Studies A-J 119
Findings 119
Research Question 1: Importance of the Transition Period 119
Case study H: Identification/evidence of turnaround
school 121
Cross-case data: Identification/evidence of turnaround
school 122
Case study H: Factors supporting categorization as a
turnaround school. 123
Cross-case analysis: Factors supporting categorization
as a turnaround school 123
Case study H: Information regarding school situation 125

viii
Cross-case analysis: Information regarding school situation 126
The significance of the first 90 days 126
Case study H: The significance of the first 90 days 127
Cross-case analysis: The significance of the first 90 days 128
Case study H: Which actions helped the principal to
make the biggest gains? 134
Summary of findings: Literature and research comparison 136
Research Question 2: Useful Strategies and Frameworks 138
Findings in case study H related to question 2 139
Provide affirmation and contingent rewards with all
stakeholders 143
Focus on building relationships with all stakeholders 143
Focus on building a positive school culture 144
Focus on building strong lines of communication with
all stakeholders 144
Findings in cross-case analysis related to research
question 2 144
Summary of Findings and Comparison to Literature for
Research Question 2 150
Marzano’s 21 characteristics 150
Bolman and Deal time survey 156
Summary of findings: Literature and research comparison 159
Research Question 3: Adequacy of Professional Development
Programs 162
Professional experience prior to turnaround principalships 162
Case study H: Professional experience prior to turnaround
principalship 162
Cross-case analysis: Professional experience prior to
turnaround principalship 162
District support 163
Case study H: District support 163
Cross-case analysis: District support 164
Cross-case analysis: District support during the transition
(the first 90 days) 167
Formal preparation 167
Pathway to the principalship 173
Findings in cross-case analysis related to research question 3 178
University programs 178
Summary of findings: Literature and research comparison 180
Conclusion 183
Chapter 5: Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations 185
Purpose of the Study 185
Summary of Findings 186
Research Question 1 186
Research Question 2 186
Research Question 3 188

ix
Conclusions 188
Areas of Accomplishment 189
Areas for Further Research 190
Implications 191
References 192
Appendices
A. Immediate Supervisor Interview 204
B. Principal Interview 207
C. Teacher Survey 211

x
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: 2005-2006 School Accountability Report Card (SARC) for the 10
Case Study Schools 117
Table 2: Principals’ Responses to Question 1: Circle the Category in
Which You Would Place the School When the Principal Attained
the Position 120
Table 3: Responses to Question 2: In Which Category Would You
Place Your School When You Attained Your Principalship? 123
Table 4: Responses to Question 2: What Evidence Did You Have
to Support This Categorization? 124
Table 5: Responses to Question 2: Who Provided You With Information
About Your School? 127
Table 6: Responses by the Supervisors to Question 5: How Significant
Were the First 90 Days of the Principalship? 128
Table 7: Responses to Question 5: How Significant Were the First 90 Days
of the Principalship? 130
Table 8: Responses by the Principals to Question 5: How Significant
Were the First 90 Days of the Principalship? 131
Table 9: Responses by the Teachers to Question 3: How Significant Were
the First 90 Days (or First Semester) for This Principal? 133
Table 10: Responses of Immediate Supervisors: What Makes Principal
Successful? 135
Table 11: Strategies Used by Principals During the Transition Period 146
Table 12: Principal’s Characteristics or Strategies Reported by Direct
Supervisors 147
Table 13: The 21 Responsibilities and Their Average Correlation (r) With
Student Achievement 151
Table 14: Top 10 Characteristics of the Principal Chosen by the Teachers 155
Table 15: Responses by Supervisors to Question 6: What Type of
Support Did the District Provide to the Principal for the
First 90 days? 164

xi
Table 16: Responses by Principals to Question 6: What Type of Support
Did the District Provide to You in the First 90 days? 168
Table 17: Responses by Principals to Questions Regarding the Role
of University Programs in Preparation for the Principalship 174
Table 18: Responses by the Principals to Question 1: What Was Your
Pathway to the Principalship? 175
Table 19: Supervisor View on the Areas in Which University Programs
Helped to Prepare Principals for Success 179
Table 20: Principal View on How University Programs Helped to Prepare
Principals for Success 180
Table 21: Principals’ Reasons Why University Programs Fail to Principals
for Success 181
Table 22: Supervisors’ Reasons Why University Programs Fail to Prepare
Principals for Success 181
Table 23: Did Supervisors Believe That Their Formal Training Focused
on the Transition Period? 183
Table 24: Did Principals Believe That Their Formal Training Focused on the
Transition Period? 183

xii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Manske’s comparison of leaders and managers 45
Figure 2: Bolman and Deal management task chart 61
Figure 3: Reframing leadership 62
Figure 4: Kotter’s eight-stage process for creating major change in an
organization 63
Figure 5: The 21 responsibilities of the school leader 67
Figure 6: Four organizational settings according to Watkins 71
Figure 7: Responses by principals in this study to the Bolman and Deal time
frame, which shows how they allocated their time during their first
90 days 158

xiii
ABSTRACT
This study analyzed skills, strategies, and theories that new middle school prin-
cipals used to be successful during their transition period (the first 90 days) in turnaround
schools. Based on research on transitions, three research questions guided the study:
1. Do middle school principals in a turnaround school situation find the transition
period (first 90 days) to be important?
2. What strategies and conceptual frameworks (leadership theories) were useful to
new principals during the transition period (first 90 days) in a turnaround school?
3. Did any programs, formal or informal, prepare new principals for success
during the transition period (first 90 days) in a turnaround school?
The mixed-methods study (using both qualitative and quantitative research ele-
ments) was completed by a cohort of 10 researchers. Each cohort case study focused on a
new middle school principal in southern California. The cohort members analyzed the
leadership strategies that these principals utilized during the first 90 days. Cross-case
analysis revealed the following results:
1. New principals must to gain ―early wins‖ during the first 90 days in order to
gain credibility and trust of the stakeholders and to create momentum.
2. New principals must gain the trust of and develop relationships with stakehold-
ers of the organization within the first 90 days.
3. The first 90 days constitute a critical period for the new middle school prin-
cipal, during which the new leader accelerates to the ―break-even‖ point.

xiv
4. The contemporary university and preparation programs do not adequately
prepare principals to assume the new roles and responsibilities. New principals are not
adequately prepared for the demanding responsibilities of the position.
It was concluded that formal and informal training programs are needed to
provide principals with the practical skills, knowledge, and strategies to assume the de-
manding and challenging responsibilities of turnaround middle school. These programs
can achieve these goals by establishing appropriate mentorship programs. They can also
implement fieldwork that provides on-site practical experience.

1
CHAPTER 1
OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
Historically, school site principals have served in the United States since the
beginning of the formal education structure in the 1600s. Since that time, several reform
efforts and policy changes have redefined the role of school site principals and the object-
ives that they seek to achieve. Three factors have greatly impacted the role of the school
site administrator (principal): public opinion, politics, and public policy (Hallinger &
Wimpelberg, 1992).
The role of today’s school site administrator has been impacted and defined by
public policy, starting with the report published during the Reagan Administration called
A Nation at Risk (National Commission on Excellence in Education [NCEE], 1983) and
later with President George W. Bush’s Reform of the Elementary and Secondary Educa-
tion Act (ESEA) in 2002. Today’s school administrators, especially middle school princi-
pals, are no longer facility managers. Policy changes have changed the role of the princi-
pal from manager to that of a strong educational leader (Drake & Roe, 1994). With strin-
gent achievement expectations from both state and federal government, today’s middle
school principal must have the knowledge and skills to affect student achievement posi-
tively. According to Marzano (2003), the role of school principals and their behaviors
have direct correlation to student achievement.
Background
In 1983 senior Reagan Administration officials established an 18-member
commission to review America’s public education system. The study lasted 18 months
and the panel focused primarily on secondary education. At the end of the extensive

2
study the commission published the report A Nation at Risk in 1983 (NCEE, 1983). This
report stated that the American public education system was in a crisis. The report made
four primary recommendations. The first recommendation was that schools strengthen
graduation requirements to enable all students to learn the basic foundations in English,
mathematics, science, social studies, and computer science. The second recommendation
was that schools and colleges adopt higher and measurable standards for academic per-
formance. The third recommendation was that students spend more time engaged in
learning. The fourth recommendation was to strengthen the teaching profession through
higher standards for preparation and professional growth. In short, this report found that
the American education system needed extensive improvement (NCEE, 1983).
The commission’s report reached the following scathing conclusion:
If an unfriendly power had attempted to impose on America the mediocre educa-
tional performance that exists today, we might well have viewed it as an act of
war. As it stands, we have allowed this to happen to ourselves. We have even
squandered gains in achievement made in the wake of the Sputnik challenge.
Moreover, we have dismantled essential support systems which helped make
those gains possible. We have, in effect, been committing an act of unthinking,
unilateral educational disarmament. (NCEE, 1983, p. 5)
Since this landmark report, there has been bipartisan acceptance of the need for
America’s schools to improve. In addition to concern about program improvements,
curriculum changes, and higher standards, there has been great concern about the level
of leadership that principals provide to their schools. For example, shortly after the
publication of A Nation at Risk, the National Commission on Excellence in Educational
Administration, in Leaders for America’s Schools (1987) identified several areas of
concern in connection with preparation programs for school leaders. The first cited
concern was the lack of definition of good educational leadership. There was also con-

3
cern about lack of collaboration among school site administrators and the low number of
minorities in the field of leadership. In addition, Leaders for America’s Schools expressed
concern about the lack of systematic professional development and the poor quality of
candidates available for preparation programs. Finally, the report identified the need for
licensure systems that promote excellence. As shown more fully below, these concerns
continue to exist today. As shown more fully below, these concerns continue today.
In 1994 the movement toward accountability measures continued under President
Clinton, who signed the Improvement America’s Schools Act (IASA) in 1994. The IASA
revised and reauthorized the ESEA. Under IASA the states had to develop standards,
create a system of three performance standards, and implement assessments that directly
correlated with the standards. States also had to implement a plan of interventions and
consequences for poor performing schools.
Twenty years after A Nation at Risk (NCEE, 1983) President George W. Bush
vowed to close the achievement gap between those who had and those who did not have.
His vow was to ―leave no child behind.‖ In fact, his report supported the findings of A
Nation at Risk. In an effort to reform America’s public education system, the Bush
Administration sought to reform the system by implementing new requirements in the
reauthorization of ESEA in 2001. The ESEA contains a rigorous accountability system
that has greatly impacted both student achievement and the roles of principals.
First, the ESEA has impacted student achievement by establishing content
standards regarding what all students should learn. According to the National Council on
Education Standards and Testing (NCEST), standards-based education should identify
everything a student should know and be able to do (NCEST, 1992). Content standards

4
were adopted in English Language Arts, Social Studies, Mathematics, and English
Language Development as a result of the educational reforms discussed above. The
content standards described the range, skills, and knowledge that every student should
obtain. The demand to raise student achievement throughout the nation has been unpre-
cedented. Forty-nine states, including California, have adopted these K-12 curriculum
standards.
The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) expanded the federal govern-
ment’s role in public education. This act had strict accountability measures to close the
achievement gap between minority and dominant ethnicity students, such as African
American and Hispanic students. These accountability measures forced states to improve
low-performing schools. The act requires that all states close the achievement gap and
that they ―leave no child behind‖ and that all students be proficient in English Language
Arts and Mathematics by the 2014-2015 school year.
The California Department of Education (CDE) developed the Academic Per-
formance Index (API) as the formal measurement of school and district progress in
student achievement. Standardized assessments are taken annually by students and API
results are recorded based on student performance. API is an improvement model; each
school has an annual target, and significant subgroups have to achieve targets. The goal is
that all California schools achieve API score of 800. API is a cross-sectional look at
student achievement (CDE, 2009).
Accountability and the Change in the Role of Principals
A Nation at Risk began the move towards accountability (Goodwin, Cunningham,
& Eagle, 2005). This demand to raise student achievement by establishing content

5
standards has had a direct impact on the roles of principals by making them accountable
for student achievement. The accountability of school site administrators is a critical
element in strengthening the public education system. Accountability is the foundation of
NCLB and the role of the principal is critical in such a foundation.
In the past, principals worked primarily as school site managers. They worked 40
work hours per week. They had the summer off for vacation. Today, the middle school
principal’s role has changed from school site facility manager to instructional leader, who
works 60 or more hours a week (Dwyer, 1985). A large amount of the principal’s work
day as instructional leader is spent in the classroom looking at instruction and student
management (Doud & Keller, 1998).
Thus, the middle school principal’s role has changed from school site manager to
instructional leader with a direct responsibility for student achievement (Hale &
Moorman, 2003). According to A Nation At Risk, ―Nobody can say for certain how the
schools of the new century will differ from those of the past century—but there can be
little doubt that these schools will require different forms of leadership‖ (NCEE, 1983,
p. 1). Accordingly, while the role of public education continues to be educating children
in grades K-12, the responsibilities of the principal have changed drastically under
NCLB. The principal is no longer a building manager; middle school principals are now
required to be instructional leaders.
Since the inception of NCLB there has been a consensus that the old school of
―command and control‖ leadership does not work well in today’s high-accountability
systems (Hale & Moorman, 2003). In fact, good leadership for today’s schools is shared
leadership. A common model of leadership in today’s middle schools is shared responsi-

6
bilities, where school responsibilities are shared by all stakeholders. The old model of
leadership that had a strict separation of management and production is no longer
effective.
Principals must serve as leaders for student learning. They must know academic
content and pedagogical techniques. They must work with teachers to strengthen
their skills and finally they must collect, analyze data to cause change in student
achievement. (Institute for Educational Leadership [IEL], 2000, p. 2)
The intense pressure to have principals who are change agents and instructional
leaders is more common in today’s education. Middle school principals must be able to
implement standards-based reform and establish a collaborative school culture that
focuses on continuous improvement in student achievement (Zmuda, Kuklis, & Kline,
2004). The intense pressures and instructional leadership responsibilities are integral
elements of today’s accountability systems.
States, including California, have implemented accountability systems to close the
achievement gap between students of various subgroups and to conform to the federal
requirements. These accountability systems led to a significant increase in school site
administrators becoming directly involved in upholding California and federal law
requirements. This great effort to improve student achievement by implementing NCLB
mandates and the accountability systems in California have directly impacted the role of
principals by holding schools, and especially principals, directly accountable for student
achievement (Goertz & Duffy, 2003, p. 59).
Accordingly, in order for principals to be successful under strict accountability
measures, they must be literate about the law, they must be knowledgeable about peda-
gogy, and they must be instructional leaders (Stewart, 1984). With strict accountability
measures and high-stakes testing, raising student achievement is one of the most crucial

7
challenges faced by today’s principal. In order to ensure that student achievement is
raised, the principal is confronted with multiple instructional strategies, management
tasks, budgeting challenges, public relation obligations, and the task of supporting
teachers in instruction (Blasé & Blasé, 2004).
Administrators complain, with justification, that their jobs have become more
burdensome in the past twenty-five years. From NCLB to budget constraints;
from state-required drug awareness presentations to violence in schools; from
personnel issues to making excellent use of critical thinking, differentiated
instruction, and cooperative learning; from textbook selection and staff develop-
ment to classroom management; from meetings and conferences to required, often
complex forms and tests—it is the rare administrator who believes he or she has
enough time to stay on top of all of the new demands, let alone get the daily job
done. (Goldberg, 2006, p. 3)
In short, today’s principals must have a great deal of information and must possess many
skills to succeed (Goldberg, p. 101).
The new middle school principal under NCLB is faced with many challenges
under today’s accountability directives. Principals need effective training prior to
beginning their first assignment. Although principals participate in preparation programs,
many make mistakes because they lack practical knowledge and skills that prepare them
to face the multitude of issues confronted on a daily basis as a principal (Bulach, Boothe,
& Picket, 1998; Davis, 2004).
According to Bradt, Check, and Pedraza (2006), 40% of school site leaders going
into a new position fail in their first 18 months. What directly causes this high failure rate
is undetermined. To answer this, some researchers have posited various ideas. For
example, although there is a great deal of research in the educational field about the skills
required of principals, there is no conclusive evidence that principals are receiving appro-
priate training. Not enough is known about existing programs to train new principals, not

8
enough is known about the frameworks that preparation programs are using to train new
principals, and not enough is known about the challenges for implementing such prepara-
tion programs.
According to Bradt et al. (2006), the failure of school site leaders may be attri-
buted to the fact that many principals make mistakes during their induction period into
the position of principal.
[Leaders] miss one of the crucial tasks that must be accomplished in their first 100
days. Some don’t understand the impact of their early words and actions and
inadvertently send their new colleagues all the wrong messages. Some focus on
finding a new strategy, but fail to get buy-in and fail to build trust with their new
team. Some do a lot of work without accomplishing the one or two things that
their bosses are looking for. (p. 1)
Prior to NCLB, principals were typically older (45 years or older) White males
who had a desire to become managers and ascend the management ladder. Generally,
males were chosen for principal positions because they were seen as strong assertive
managers. The progression to the position of principal was typical, from teacher to
assistant principal to principal. Today, the progression process to the position of principal
is different for each principal. For example, most principals assume the position of school
site administrator after having experienced various positions in education other than
classroom teaching. Some principals were teachers, then assumed an intermediate
management position at the school district other than that of school site administrator.
Others were teachers, then assistant principals, then principals. Others were teachers who
later assumed a district position in the areas of curriculum and instruction before
assuming the position of principal. Others were team leaders, department chairs, or
school site budget administrators before they assumed the role of principal (Grady, 2004).
Accordingly, the progression to the position of principals is currently atypical.

9
Administrative Training
Schools of leadership in the United States are confronted with a disconnect
between preservice training and inservice training, and the current realities and demands
of the job of instructional leader. An IEL study examined how well prepared principals
were to fulfill a variety of roles for schools in the 21st century. This variety of roles
included instructional leader, community leader, and visionary leader. First, instructional
leaders are focused on strengthening teaching, learning, and professional development.
Instructional leaders are data driven in their decision making and are focused on account-
ability. Second, community leaders are persons who envision the major role that schools
play in society. Community leaders are administrators who share leadership between
educators and community partners. Community leaders have a close relationship with
parents. Third, visionary leaders demonstrate a commitment to the conviction that all
children will learn at high levels. Visionary leaders inspire others with this vision, inside
and outside the school building (IEL, 2000).
Studies (e.g., IEL, 2000) have shown that principals play a crucial role in improv-
ing teaching and learning. Today’s principals serve as leaders for learning. They must
have knowledge of academic content and pedagogy, support instruction, and help
teachers to strengthen their skills. In addition, they should work with community leaders
and businesses. These various demands placed on principals in the age of accountability
have led many to shy from entering the position when there is a great need for qualified
candidates to fill vacancies.
According to recent studies, the expected growth in number of students in
America’s public schools over the next 10 years will require 2.2 million new teachers.
The expected growth in the number of students in public schools will also require many

10
new school site administrators. In a 1998 survey of 403 school district superintendents,
―Half reported a shortage of qualified candidates for principal vacancies‖ (IEL, 2000,
p. 5). The study attributed this shortage to retirement by principals. It can be inferred
from such shortages that there are not enough qualified candidates for vacant principal
positions. This shortage of qualified candidates is expected to increase as the demand for
new principal positions increases.
Another reason for the shortage of qualified candidates is that some in the educa-
tional field, including many teachers, do not want to assume the position of principal.
These teachers have provided several reasons for their lack of interest in assuming the
position of principal, including too little pay, long hours, too many responsibilities, poor
teacher quality, difficult parents, and chiefly the responsibility for raising student
achievement. The study found that the shortage of qualified candidates is also due to the
fact that few are adequately prepared to assume the position of principal (IEL, 2000).
The shortage of qualified candidates is also felt in California. The need to hire
experienced and knowledgeable principals has become a challenge due to the lack of
interested administrators entering the work force. According to Bottoms and O’Neill
(2001), increased teaching salaries, accountability measures, and student achievement
measures have discouraged teachers from becoming school site principals. In fact, strict
accountability measures imposed by NCLB and state accountability standards have
caused many school site administrators to leave their positions. These moves have
resulted in teachers fearing the responsibilities of school site principal. Based on the
shortage of qualified candidates for principal positions, it is critical that those who choose
to assume the role be trained to ensure that they can succeed in their new roles.

11
Thus, today’s new principals must be prepared to assume the role of the educa-
tional leader. They must have knowledge and skills to affect student achievement. Being
a principal today can be complex, with so many decisions and influences such as disci-
pline, NCLB, instruction, and facility issues that bombard the principal on a daily basis.
In order to manage the complex decisions, new middle school principals must begin to
develop relationships and begin to build a team that collectively manages a school site’s
complex system (Maxwell, 2005; Watkins, 2003).
Prior to assuming the position, the new principal must diagnose the situation of
the school. Understanding the history of the school is vital because this allows the pro-
spective principal to understand the challenges and opportunities of the school situation.
New principals can utilize four start-up situations identified by Watkins (2003) to diag-
nose the situation of the subject school: (a) start-up—the organization is brand new and
starting from the ground up, (b) turnaround—the organization has drifted off track and is
need of change and employees realize that the organization needs to change, (c) realign-
ment—the organization has drifted off track and is in need of change but the employees
fail to realize that the organization is in trouble, or (d) sustaining success—the organiza-
tion is doing well and needs to maintain that success and be taken to the next level.
Although Watkins’s (2003) research was designed for the business setting, it can
be applied to the education setting. Today, a turnaround school is defined as a school that
has drifted off track and needs immediate change. The school and the stakeholders recog-
nize that the school is in trouble. Watkins might suggest that, in this situation, the school
needs an instructional leader to help get the school back on track. Thus, new middle

12
school principals must begin to make difficult decisions early on in the principalship, and
educational goals must be set and met early on during the principalship.
Thus, the principal in a turnaround situation must learn the insides of the new
organization by accelerating his/her own learning. The new principal must have a clear
diagnosis of the school situation and must himself/herself as the new school leader. In
order to build credibility and create momentum, the principal must secure some early
wins. Watkins (2003) stated that the principal must ―create a pervasive sense that good
things are happening‖ (p. 13). The principal must develop relationships, beginning
conversations regarding the situation, expectations, style, and resources. In addition, the
principal should begin to develop a team that will meet the new demands of the situation.
The new principal should create coalitions in order to be in a position to continue to
influence others that are outside the direct line of control. The new principal should
maintain a balance and preserve the own ability to make good decisions and judgments.
Finally, the new principal should help all members of the organization accelerate their
own transitions.
Principals face serious challenges as instructional leaders. In a turnaround situa-
tion, principals are vital to bringing a school back on track. The new principal in a turn-
around school must be ready to make decisions early in the transition period (Watkins,
2003). The new principal of a turnaround school must recognize the opportunities to
succeed. In the turnaround school stakeholders recognize that change is necessary. There
is support from individuals outside the school site that want the school to succeed and
small successes to go a long way. Accordingly, stakeholders begin to gain trust in the
new principal.

13
With a shortage of qualified principals, today’s challenge for school districts is to
prepare principals to succeed in today’s demanding and political situations. Because each
school can have unique needs depending on how the school situation is identified (turn-
around, start-up, realignment, or sustaining success), each situation demands a unique
approach for the new principal. Thus, the new principal must be prepared to enter the
school situation and have the right tools and strategies to succeed. Each of the four situa-
tions contains its own unique challenges (Watkins, 2003).
Statement of the Problem
The first few days and weeks of being a principal can be overwhelming (Brock &
Grady, 2004), based on the number of responsibilities and decisions that are required.
Today’s principals are required to ensure that students receive a standards-based educa-
tion and that all students achieve on standardized testing measures. They are also in
charge of maintaining facilities; evaluating teaching, learning, and instruction; providing
staff development; managing budgets; and being school disciplinarians (Ralls &
Highsmith, 1986).
Unfortunately, although principals must learn to survive in a world of high-stakes
accountability measures, not much research exists about the knowledge and skills nece-
ssary for making an effective transition to principal during the first few months in the
position.
Because today’s schools require high-quality leaders who are not only middle
managers but are also instructional leaders who hold themselves accountable for student
achievement and closing the achievement gap, it is important that such leaders receive
appropriate training (Hale & Moorman, 2003).

14
Literature in the business world provides research-based frameworks to guide
leaders during the transition period (first 90 days). Watkins (2003) stated that the transi-
tion period of a leader is a pivotal time, marking it as the time in which the new leader
must take action and have a transition plan in order to ensure success. If Watkins’s
theories hold true for all leaders, then the decisions made by new principals during the
transition period may have a critical impact on the success of that principal.
Research Questions
Watkins’s (2003) research on transitions generates many questions regarding the
transition process of a new principal in a turnaround school situation. To understand the
transition period of a new principal in a turnaround school, three research questions were
developed for the study.
1. Do middle school principals in a turnaround school situation find the transition
period (first 90 days) to be important?
2. What strategies and conceptual frameworks (leadership theories) were useful to
new principals during the transition period (first 90 days) in a turnaround school?
3. Did any programs, formal or informal, prepare new principals for success
during the transition period (first 90 days) in a turnaround school?
Purpose of the Study
Based on the issues discussed above, this study examined the necessary skills,
strategies, or theories that new middle school principals used to be successful during their
transition period as new principals in a turnaround school. The transition period is
defined as the first 90 days of assuming the role of principal. A turnaround school is a
school that is in an ―underperforming‖ status; the majority of the members of the

15
organization (stakeholder) are aware that the school needs improvement (Watkins, 2003).
Second, this study was an attempt to identify effective leadership strategies that new
principals should apply to be successful in a turnaround setting. Third, this study was
designed to identify whether the principals viewed their first 90 days as important to their
success as a principal. Fourth, the study was designed to identify whether current
preparation programs adequately prepare school leaders for the position of principal.
The study was an attempt to determine whether the transition period (first 90
days) was important to the new middle school principal of a turnaround school. The study
primarily examined new principals who were deemed to have had a successful transition
experience. This was determined by investigating the strategies, skills, and theories that
the successful new principals used during their first 90 days. In addition, the study
analyzed whether the subject principals shared any common elements. These common
elements or themes were compared to contemporary research regarding successful leader-
ship skills, strategies, characteristics, and theories. The study identified frameworks used
in both the business world and the education field to add information to the transition
period of the principal in a turnaround school.
Importance of the Study
This study has important implications for the person who is assuming the position
of principal in a turnaround school setting. Today’s school principals are required to
assume the role of instructional leader focused on continuous improvement. When a
school is not making mandated improvement, the school is deemed to be underperform-
ing and needing improvement. Today, there is a shortage of principals. Moreover, it is
anticipated that 45% of current administrators will leave the profession in the next 7 years

16
(Normore, 2004). Finding principals to fill turnaround positions is a challenge. The
increasing shortage of principals will make that challenge greater in years to come. New
principals must deal with myriad problems and issues during their first few months in the
position. Research shows that leaders in a business setting can make or break their future
success during their first few months in the position (Bradt et al., 2006). It can be
assumed that principals as leaders can make or break their future and success as school
site administrators during their first few months in the position. Therefore, principals
must be prepared to confront decisions during their first few months in the position.
Based on this, new principals need appropriate knowledge and skills to survive this
transition.
This study began the process of identifying the types of skills, resources, and
knowledge that helped new principals to have a successful transition as a new school site
leader. The data collected and reviewed by this study can provide important information
about the skills, resources, strategies, and knowledge needed for new principals in a
turnaround setting. This study will contribute to the current literature base on educational
leadership, especially regarding the new middle school principal in a turnaround setting.
The data collected in this study provides important information for universities,
graduate programs, administrative credentialing programs, and especially districts that
are implementing leadership academies. These data can shed light on leadership strate-
gies used frequently by new principals in turnaround settings. Most important, the data
can assist training programs to design effective, practical knowledge-based curricula that
prepare new principals for the challenges in a turnaround setting. The data support the
efforts of organizations such as Association of California School Administrators (ACSA),

17
National Association of Secondary School Principals (NASSP), and Association of
Supervision and Curriculum and Development (ASCD), whose foremost endeavors are to
support school administrators. Finally, this study will set the precedent for further studies
regarding effective strategies, skills, and practice most utilized by the new principal in a
turnaround setting.
Limitations
Limitations of this study include the following:
1. Due to dissertation deadlines, there was a limited amount of time for follow-up
interviews with teachers at the school site.
2. The study was conducted in schools in southern California.
3. The results of the study were limited to the time of the study.
4. The study was conducted by 10 members of a dissertation cohort and may
reflect bias from the individual members.
5. The definition of a ―successful‖ principal used by superintendents and/or
supervisors is subjective, because each maintains a unique definition of ―successful‖
principal at a turnaround school.
6. The results of the study were limited by the number of participants surveyed
via interviews.
Delimitations
There were several delimitations implicated in this study. Delimitations of this
study included the following:
1. The selection of subjects was purposeful because the sample focused on
turnaround school settings and new principals.

18
2. Because the dissertation group used purposeful sampling methods, the data
gathered in this study may not be easily generalized.
3. The principals who participated in the study served in southern California
turnaround middle schools.
4. The teachers who participated in the study were delimited to department chairs
or teachers in leadership positions and teachers who voluntarily chose to participate in the
study.
Assumptions
Four following assumptions were made in this study:
1. It was assumed that the superintendents, principals, and teachers were honest in
their responses to the survey and interview questions.
2. It was assumed that the superintendents and/or supervisors selected principals
who met the parameters of the study (i.e., successful beginning principals in a turnaround
school setting).
3. It was assumed that the instruments used in the study were valid and reliable.
4. It was assumed that the interview responses were limited by time constraints.
Methodology
This study was completed by a cohort of 10 researchers from the Rossier
Graduate School of Education at the University of Southern California. This dissertation
was a mixed methodology study (Patton, 2002); both qualitative and quantitative research
elements were used in the study. Qualitative findings came from data collected in in-
depth, open-ended interviews. Quantitative findings came from the responses to the
charts in the surveys and interviews. According to Patton, the data for qualitative analysis

19
generally derive from fieldwork. Here, the interviews of the district superintendents,
teachers, and principals were qualitative in nature. The Characteristics Chart, the
Frequency Count Chart, and the Four Frames charts were primarily quantitative in nature.
The researchers used the process of concurrent triangulation to examine the data.
According to Creswell (2003), the triangulation method provides a process for evaluating
a research problem in a more conclusive manner. In order to validate triangulated data,
this study employed simple statistics such as frequency counts, averages, and means.
These were the quantitative components of the study. These simple statistical results were
formulated from the responses on the charts. In an effort to establish reliability, all of the
instruments of this study were field tested, results were shared with cohort members, and
the instruments were refined to ensure consistency of results.
The dissertation cohort members collected, transcribed, and analyzed all of the
data based on interviews with school superintendents, principals, and teachers. The data
were gathered via surveys completed by 10 successful new principals of turnaround
schools. Then the dissertation members used the data to validate the results and to deter-
mine whether a relationship existed between the theories and strategies used during the
first 90 days of assuming the role of principal and their success. In addition, the cohort
focused efforts to determine the strategies and theories that were deemed successful to
help principals during the transition period (first 90 days).
Definitions of Important Terms
Academic Performance Index (API): A score between 0 and 1000 that is used to
indicate student achievement as measured by state standardized assessments.
Transition period: The first 90 days in the position of principal.

20
Turnaround school: A school that is in an ―underperforming‖ status and the
majority whose members (stakeholders) are aware that the school needs improvement.
This could also be a school in program improvement or a school identified by the district
superintendent as a school in trouble and needing help to get back on track.
Organization of the Dissertation
This dissertation is divided into five chapters. Chapter 1 presents the introduction
of the study, including the statement of the problem, the background of the study, and
historical perspectives on the changing role of the principal. Chapter 2 presents a review
of literature and research related to new principals. Chapter 3 describes the design of the
study, including procedures, instruments, and data analysis process. Chapter 4 provides a
presentation and analysis of the research findings regarding practices and procedures
used by the new principals during the first 90 days in the position. Chapter 5 presents a
summary of the student, discusses conclusions drawn by the research, and presents
recommendations for further study and for effective transitions and practices of new
principals during the first 90 days in the position.

21
CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Schools are changing constantly. During the past 10 to 20 years terms such as
school improvement, education reform, closing the achievement gap have become
common points of focus in educational research for educators and especially for educa-
tional administrators, or as commonly stated in this paper, principals. Educational reform
efforts that have been implemented to reform public education (Marzano, Pickering, &
Pollock, 2001) are many.
Unfortunately, although change is common in the field of education, one of the
greatest challenges is that the change process differs based on the situation (Beckhard &
Pritchard, 1992; Nadler & Tushman, 1995a; Quinn, 1996). Each organization demands a
different approach to the change process.
If we are to understand and manage change, then we need a language system that
will help us to comprehend some of the different types of changes facing organ-
izations. . . . Such a language system would also help us to grasp how different
approaches to change management are appropriate to different types of change.
Each type of change poses different demands and requires different kinds of
managerial strategies and techniques. (Nadler & Tushman, 1995b, p. 17)
There is no doubt that education is changing at a rapid rate. Student demographics
have changed dramatically. Immigrant populations are impacting public schools. The gap
between the poor and wealthy is growing. As a result of concerns about public education,
parents are choosing alternative methods of education, such as home schooling and
charter schools. Interest groups and factions continue to support accountability measures
in order to improve the quality of public education (Marzano et al., 2001).

22
The public’s view of public education has also changed over time. In fact,
Glickman (1998) stated that public education system ―is being attacked continuously,
with some calling to replace schools with privatization, tuition vouchers, and unbridled
free choice‖ (p. 1).
Nonetheless, in a society in which education is experiencing many demands,
constant changes, and the fact that each organization faces a different change process
(Beckhard & Pritchard, 1992; Nadler & Tushman, 1995b; Quinn, 1996), there is no doubt
that effective leadership is a key component to effective change (Hargreave & Fullan,
1998). Research by the Board of Directors of Mid-Continent Research for Education and
Learning (McREL) suggested,
Without high-quality, skilled, and sustainable leadership at the school . . . the
transformation of public schools will not occur. Change will require strong
leaders—those who can build, maintain, and strengthen collaborative
relationships within schools and outside schools. (2001, p. 1)
Today, the challenge is to support principals with the knowledge, skills, and the
characteristics of leadership that sustain and create reform. Fortunately, a large amount
of research exists on effective leadership skills and strategies used by effective school
principals (Davis, 2004). Unfortunately, little research has been done on the transition
period of the new middle school principal in a turnaround situation (Watkins, 2003).
Most of the current research provides insight to the leadership strategies that make princi-
pals successful. For the purpose of this study, literature with a business perspective was
used to develop a conceptual framework to determine successful leadership strategies that
can be employed by a new middle school principal in a turnaround situation during the
transition period (Fullan, 2006; Murphy, J., & Meyers, 2008; Watkins, 2003).

23
Conceptual Framework
To develop a conceptual framework for this study, the researcher reviewed the
literature from Michael Watkins (2003), Robert Marzano (Marzano, Waters, & McNulty,
2005), Lee Bolman and Terrence Deal (2003), and Joseph Murphy and Coby Meyers
(2008). The conceptual framework guided the formulation of research questions for the
study. Watkins conducted research from a business perspective, showing the importance
of knowing the situation of the organization. He identified four organizational situations.
He noted that new administrators (in the case of this study, new middle school principals)
need a plan to assist them through the transition process. This study uses Watkins’s
(2003) research as a framework to establish the traits that apply in an educational leader-
ship setting or, in the case of this study, a new middle school principal in a turnaround
school. Thus, new administrators or new middle school principals have 90 days to make a
successful transition into a new organization. His framework can be applied in an
educational setting for new middle school principals entering one of the four situations
that he described. Marzano et al. conducted research on effective characteristics of
principals that affect student achievement. For the purposes of this study, research by
Marzano et al. (2005) provides a framework for effective characteristics of effective
school principals. Bolman and Deal provide a framework for which of the four quadrants
(structural, human resources, political, or symbolic) a new middle school principal spends
most of the time during the transition period. Fullan researched effective turnaround
leadership strategies used by principals. Murphy and Meyers also researched effective
strategies used by new administrators during the transition period.

24
Thus, the research discussed in this chapter provides a framework by which to
analyze the findings of the study. The research questions to guide the study were as
follows:
1. Do middle school principals in a turnaround school situation find the transition
period (first 90 days) to be important?
2. What strategies and conceptual frameworks (leadership theories) were useful to
new principals during the transition period (first 90 days) in a turnaround school?
3. Did any programs, formal or informal, prepare new principals for success
during the transition period (first 90 days) in a turnaround school?
Brief History of the School Site Principal
Prior to looking at the literature as it relates to the three research questions that
guided this study, it is important to look at the principal’s role from a historical perspect-
ive and to understand how the principal’s roles and responsibilities have changed over
time.
The position of school principal first appeared around 1838. Horace Mann
referred to a head principal in his 1841 research (Pierce, 1935). Historically, prior to the
position of principal there was the position of head teacher and eventually the position of
principal as teacher. Principal as teacher became more professional as time passed.
These two positions eventually evolved into the position of the principal. The nonteach-
ing position of principal as administrator became the norm as early as 1860 (Grady,
1990).
The role of the principal gradually evolved into one of administrator and manager
in the 20th century (Pierce, 1935). The role of principal as manager generally continued

25
until the past few decades. As discussed fully below, principals are no longer just school
site managers. They have greater accountability and must assume various roles as leaders
of their school sites, including instructional leaders (Doud & Keller, 1998).
In the 1980s the principal’s role changed from plant manager to implementer of
school reform, instructional leader, and visionary. In the late 1990s the federal govern-
ment expanded the role of the principal to include instructional leader (Goodwin et al.,
2005). One of the main responsibilities of the principal as an instructional leader is to
maintain a combination of supervision, staff development, and curriculum development
(Blasé & Blasé, 2004).
The Rise of Standards-Based Education
In order to understand the changing role of the principal, it is important to under-
stand the legislative factors that have most impacted and defined the changing roles and
responsibilities of the principal. The first legislative factor was standards-based education
reforms at both the federal and state levels. The second legislative factor was NCLB
legislation at the federal level.
Standards-based education can be traced back to 1983, when the NCEE released
the report A Nation at Risk. The NCEE concluded that there was a ―crisis‖ in education,
including low expectations, mediocre instructional practices, and foreign competition. As
a result of this report, several states reformed public education. For example, then
Governor Clinton of Arkansas began to promote ideas about an educational system
measured by student achievement. In 1989 President George H. W. Bush began to pursue
local and statewide goals for education (Elmore, 2005). In 2000 President George W.

26
Bush began the implementation of standards-based education through NCLB (Smith, E.,
2005).
NCLB was designed to change the focus and the culture of America’s schools.
NCLB requires states to describe how they will close the achievement gap and make all
students, including disadvantaged students, achieve academic proficiency (U.S. Depart-
ment of Education [USDOE], 2004). Although NCLB provides federal funds to states to
improve low-performing schools, the federal government holds states accountable for
achieving NCLB’s goal of ensuring that no child is left behind in the educational system.
NCLB requires that public elementary school and public secondary schools make
adequate yearly progress (AYP). The result is that states are responsible to ensure that
there are ―highly qualified‖ teachers in every classroom, increase student testing to
measure the students’ levels of proficiency, collect and report testing results, and guaran-
tee that all students, including economically disadvantaged students, achieve proficiency
in identified subject areas by school year 2014-2015. Under NCLB, states must adminis-
ter a standards-based test and a nationally norm-referenced test to certain grade levels.
The standardized test scores are disaggregated by several categories of students, includ-
ing ethnicity, socioeconomic status, English Language Learner (ELL), and special educa-
tion. NCLB requires that schools improve on a school-wide basis and that statistically
significant subgroups make AYP in order to achieve NCLB’s goal of ensuring that all
students are proficient by the year 2014-2015 (USDOE, 2004).
NCLB imposes great penalties on schools that do not meet their AYP goals. Such
schools are known as needs improvement schools or schools in program improvement.
For example, if the subject schools do not make AYP, states may replace state-appointed

27
school administrators and personnel in charge of such schools. States also have the option
of extending the school day or year or changing the curriculum in those schools. Under
NCLB, states may also restructure the schools and reopen them as charter schools.
Schools that are identified as Title I schools under NCLB receive supplemental
federal funding. NCLB requires Title I schools that do not make AYP to undergo a series
of improvement strategies and actions to correct such failure. For example, Title I schools
that do not make AYP for 2 consecutive years or more must give students the choice of
transferring to another public school or public charter school in the same district that has
not been designated as a needs improvement school. Title I schools that do not make AYP
for 3 consecutive years must offer students both the choice of transferring to another
school in the district and supplemental educational services to students meeting low-
income guidelines. This results in great pressure on principals of Title I schools to make
AYP. Rentner et al. (2003) suggested that schools that have more subgroups, such as
higher numbers of minorities, low-socioeconomic students, and ELL students, have a
greater risk that one or more of the subgroups will not make AYP. When the Annual
Measurable Objective (AMO) or targeted goals have not been met for 2 years, the
schools go into program improvement status. Accordingly, principals of Title I schools
that have several subgroups are held to a high standard of accountability for raising
student achievement and face more challenges than their counterparts in non-needs
improvement schools. The pressure of closing the achievement gap and satisfying the
targeted growth requirements on state testing can make the challenges of the position less
attractive to the prospective principal. Principals are evaluated on being instructional

28
leaders and making an impact on academic achievement. When students do not achieve,
principals have not met their expectations.
NCLB has thus had a great effect on the role of school principals, especially new
middle school principals in a turnaround school. There are great political and public
pressures to ensure that schools make AYP. These pressures include political and public
pressure to meet student academic targets and assessment standards, as well as pressure
resulting from distribution of test results to the media and the media’s broad publication
of such results (Popham, 2001). According to Bostingl (2001), the failure to meet AYP
impacts student graduation, teacher bonuses, district funding, and retention of principals.
This in turn impacts the role of the principal and requires that the new middle school
principal assume the role of instructional leader even though educational administrative
programs generally have not focused on this area (Levine, A., 2005).
The Principal as Instructional Leader
The legislation that impacted and defined the changing role of the principal was
NCLB. The legislative act redefined the role of the principal as not only a plant manager
but also an instructional leader.
The NCLB directly links instructional leadership and academic achievement
(Title II, Section 2113(c), subparts 1-13). NCLB requires that principals (in terms of the
focus of this research project, new middle school principals) have ―the instructional
leadership skills to help teachers teach and students learn‖ (Title II, Section 2113(c)).
Thus, new middle school principals now face the additional responsibility of becoming
instructional leaders to ensure that the goals of NCLB are met.

29
The principal as the instructional leader is in a pivotal position to affect student
achievement. Anita and Wayne Hoy (Hoy & Hoy, 2003), in Instructional Leadership: A
Learning-Centered Guide, stated that principals can improve student achievement by
improving instruction, which happens by ―providing a school culture and climate where
change is linked to the best knowledge about student learning‖ (p. 3). Principals cannot
be expected to know everything. Thus, it is assumed that principals will make an effort to
stay knowledgeable about effective instructional practices and that they will encourage
and support school staff to implement instructional strategies that impact student achieve-
ment (Harris, 2005).
Principals Unsure of Their Current Role
As a result of the changing role of the principal and the impact of NCLB on defin-
ing the role of the principal, current and new principals have had to accept their changing
roles and responsibilities. New principals have had to recognize the demands of the
principalship.
Goodwin (2002) studied the changing role of the secondary principal, which
specifically includes middle school principals. Goodwin’s study focused on the current
position of secondary principals, the changes that such principals perceived had happened
to that position, and the changes that such principals believed should occur. The study
showed that the role of the middle school principal has become more complex since the
rise of standards-based education. The study reported great conflict in the following
areas: role conflict, accountability conflict, autonomy conflict, and responsibility conflict.
Specifically, the principals participating in the study reported great tension or con-
flict in the various roles expected of them, including the roles of strategic leader, instruc-

30
tional leader, organizational leader, and political and community leader. The participants
agreed that these leadership roles were relevant to their positions. They identified the
instructional leader as the primary role in the school. The study found that the role of the
secondary principal had changed because such principals are no longer just instructional
leaders for their schools; they are also political activists, fundraisers, security specialists,
day care and after-school providers, and providers of language training and acculturation.
Although the participants recognized the need to be community and political leaders, they
questioned the mandates that required them to assume these roles. The participants
agreed that the principal is the key to the success of the school (Goodwin, 2002).
The secondary principal who participated in the Goodwin (2002) study identified
a conflict between being inclusive and being accountable for student achievement. There
was also a conflict between meeting the diverse needs of students and the high standards
expected of principals. They recognized that the great emphasis on standards, accounta-
bility, and student assessment largely impacted their position as principal. They reported
a conflict between these responsibilities and the demands created by serious student
needs arising from ―poverty, unemployment, illiteracy, crime, drug addiction, malnutri-
tion, and poor physical health‖ (Murphy, S. L., 1998, p. 4). Similarly, they expressed
concern about the stress that principals and teachers face as a result of trying to achieve
the higher standards and being accountable for student achievement while continuing to
have responsibility for meeting needs of individual students, including social, emotional,
physical, and moral needs.
The secondary principal who participated in the Goodwin (2002) study identified
tension between being responsive to mandates and being autonomous as leaders of their

31
schools. They agreed that they should have increased responsibility and autonomy in
resource management, including the hiring of teachers. They noted a loss of autonomy as
a result of the legislative and bureaucratic mandates, stating that this loss of autonomy
conflicted with the need to build strong relationships with the community, teachers, and
students to generate and nurture student growth and development.
The Goodwin (2002) study identified a conflict between increased responsibility
and the need for both professional and clerical assistance. The study showed that federal
legislation, court mandates, funding issues, and equity issues had greatly impacted the
daily operation of schools. The participating principals identified a need for better com-
pensation and greater assistance. They emphasized the need for an administrative team
with the principal providing leadership to the team, the need for an increase in adminis-
trative staffing to include persons with a variety of responsibilities, and the need for an
administrative team to reduce school size by creating an environment that fosters com-
munity schools to ensure more personal contact with students.
Expanding Role of the Principal
As a result of NCLB, the role of the principal currently includes many duties
other than the instructional role. According to Leithwood and Duke (1999), principals
must be knowledgeable about and well trained to deal with six forms of leadership to face
the many challenges of their position. First, principals must be knowledgeable about their
role as an instructional leader. As instructional leader, the principal must have the ability
to influence the work of teachers to improve student achievement. Second, the principal
must be trained and able to act as a transformational leader. As a transformational leader,
the principal must be committed to developing the capacity or abilities of the school staff.

32
Third, the principal must be aware of the importance of being a moral leader. The moral
leader has deep-rooted values and ethics and is committed to doing only what is right for
the students. Fourth, the principal must be trained to be a participative leader of a larger
school community. Participative leaders seek to involve other stakeholders in the
decision-making process and ensure that such stakeholders have buy-in on the decisions.
Fifth, the principal must act as manager of the school site, focusing on maintaining the
school facilities. Sixth, the principal should be able to practice contingent leadership
theory (Hallinger, 2003). As a contingent leader, the principal should be able to adapt to
various situations to meet the needs of the whole. Other theorists list the roles of princi-
pals in various formats and names. The salient point in the literature is that the role of the
principal has expanded and will continue to expand. The remainder of Chapter 2 is a
summary of the literature as it relates to the three research questions.
The Transition Period in Education
This section reviews literature related to the transition period of principals. The
transition period is directly related to research question 1, which asked, Did principals in
a turnaround situation find the transition period (first 90 days) to be important?
Aiken (2002) provided insight from the education research perspective. Aiken’s
research examined the induction period of new middle school principals. The research
showed that certain leadership traits are critical for success in school site and business
settings. For example, it is critical for new middle school principals to create a vision,
recognize the need to form alliances and networks, and recognize the importance of
connecting to the surrounding community during the transition period. These principles
are similar to those discussed by Watkins (2003), which include creating a vision and

33
building teams and alliances. Aiken viewed the transition period for new principals in
theoretical terms as a form of socialization in which the new principals must move from
outsider to insider and learn how the particular school site functions. Aiken explained
that, although new principals assume their new role with the hope of shaping their school
sites in specific ways, they must reconcile their visions to the institutional realities
because schools are not easily changed.
Aiken (2002) interviewed a dozen principals, including new middle school
principals, who had survived the induction process and who were considered to be highly
effective. The principals participating in Aiken’s study identified the following five key
needs as critical to the induction period: (a) the need to find one’s voice and vision,
(b) the need to form alliances and networks, (c) the need to develop a leadership persona,
(d) the need to find a balance between custodianship and innovation, and (e) the need to
make connections with the larger community. These needs are similar to the transition
challenges discussed by Watkins (2003). For example, Watkins’s emphasis on the need
for leaders to promote themselves during their first 90 days in the organization is similar
to Aiken’s emphasis on the need for principals to find their voice, vision, and leadership
persona. Both Watkins and Aiken emphasized the importance of building teams and
creating coalitions. However, Aiken described the latter as making connections with the
surrounding community. Watkins’s emphasis on the importance of matching strategies
and situations parallels Aiken’s emphasis on the importance of finding a balance between
custodianship and innovation. Aiken’s research showed that formal mentoring programs
are most valuable when they demystify the role of the principal and when they allow
principals an opportunity for collaboration and reflective learning. The research reported

34
by Aiken (2002) and Watkins is vitally important to the transition period of the new
middle school principal in a turnaround school.
Similarly, a guide was designed by Knapp, Copeland, and Talbert (2003) to help
new principals during the transition period to build the necessary instructional leadership
skills during the induction period. Knapp et al. found that new principals are responsible
for the following five elements of instructional leadership: (a) establishing a focus on
learning, (b) building professional learning communities, (c) engaging the external
environment to support learning, (d) acting strategically and sharing leadership, and
(e) creating coherence. According to Knapp et al., although it is not necessary for new
principals to directly control the five elements, it is important for them to ensure that they
are accomplished. Knapp’s (2003) guide is important to induction programs; its use in
such programs would allow new principals to analyze the elements and implement them.
The leadership elements proposed by Knapp et al. (2003) are similar to those
discussed by Watkins (2003), Kotter (1998), and Aiken (2002). For example, Knapp’s
emphasis on the importance of establishing a focus on learning is similar to Kotter’s and
Aiken’s focus on the importance of creating a vision. New middle school principals can
combine Knapp’s five elements of instructional leadership and incorporate into their
vision a focus on learning. In addition, the emphasis placed by Knapp on building pro-
fessional learning communities and creating coherence is similar to the emphasis placed
by Watkins on building a team and creating coalitions. These are also similar to the
emphasis placed by Aiken on the importance of creating networks and the emphasis
placed by Kotter on the importance of empowering others to act. Knapp’s emphasis on
the importance of engaging the external environment to support learning is similar to

35
Aiken’s focus on the importance of principals connecting with the larger community to
create alliances and networks.
In short, Knapp’s (2003), Kotter’s (1998), and Aiken’s (2002) findings are similar
to Watkins’s research (2003), which suggests that new principals need to learn of the
organizations situation, build alliances, and establish a team. These findings are important
strategies for new middle school principals in a turnaround school.
Mentoring During Induction and Transition Period
New middle school principals in turnaround schools generally welcome mentor-
ing or induction/transition programs (Howley, 2002; Ricciardi, 2000). Research indicates
that new middle school principals benefit from having an experienced colleague provide
mentoring in technical skills and guidance on political issues. Research also indicates that
new middle school principals benefit from having mentors who share their experiences
with the new principals. For example, Laura Dukes (2001) interviewed mentors, new
principals, and supervisors of mentoring programs in six New York City community
districts. Dukes found that good mentors provided three types of assistance to new princi-
pals: (a) They provided instructional support by keeping the attention of the new princi-
pals focused on learning issues and by offering models of success in practice; (b) they
provided administrative and managerial support by giving practical tips and by helping
the new principals set priorities; and (c) they provided emotional support by listening
carefully to the concerns of the new principals and by being present at particularly stress-
ful moments. However, Dukes emphasized that, in order for such mentoring or induction/
training programs to be successful, it is critical that school districts carefully match
mentors and new principals, that they establish clear expectations and guidelines for

36
participants of the programs, that they provide adequate time for the mentoring, and that
they select mentors who have a record of success and who are reflective, compassionate,
good listeners, good communicators, and able to speak honestly.
Similarly, Lindley’s (2003) guide The Portable Mentor: A Resource Guide for
Entry-Year Principals and Mentors provided insightful advice and information that
would benefit those in charge of creating mentoring programs for new principals because
it links theory and practice. Lindley’s guide summarizes the standards established by the
ISLLC and provides a monthly to-do list that links a necessary task to a specific standard.
This format helps new middle school principals to apply the theories and concepts that
they learned in their preparation programs to their daily tasks. Lindley’s guide contains a
section on advice for mentors that would be beneficial in induction programs because it
would allow the participants to discuss the standards identified in the guide and the
applications of these standards in the daily routines at the school site. Lindley’s section
on mentoring recommends that mentors make their expectations clear, that they decide
how long the mentoring program will last and whether the program will be structured
with an agenda, that mentors focus on building the relationship first so that comfort and
trust is established, and that mentors recognize the continuum of professional develop-
ment. Finally, mentoring programs for new middle school principals in turnaround
schools could use the hypothetical scenarios in Lindley’s guide to allow discussion and
sharing of ideas between participants.
In an effort to provide mentoring support during the transition period, many
school districts are now taking responsibility to provide their own induction programs for
new middle school principals and to help these principals through the transition process.

37
Research indicates that these programs should focus on certain goals to be most success-
ful. For example, Aiken (2002) suggested that induction programs should help to
demystify the leadership role and should provide opportunities for collaboration and
reflective learning. These programs should also satisfy the practical needs of new
principals. Howley (2002) found that new principals in a leadership academy wanted to
focus on practical, hands-on, survival strategies that they could incorporate in their daily
tasks at the school site. These participants were not as interested in activities that pro-
vided for reflection and discussion of ISLLC standards that were highlighted in Lindley’s
(2003) research.
The number of states that have used the ISLLC standards (ISLLC, 1996) as a
factor in new principal certification has almost doubled (CCSSO, 1996). Because many
new principals are familiar with ISLLC, these standards are often used as a foundation
for induction programs. For example, Moving Leadership Standards into Everyday Work:
Descriptions of Practice by WestEd (2003) is a guide for principals based on the ISLLC
standards. The WestEd principal guide provides concrete examples of leadership actions
that fall within each standard. This makes it easier for new middle school principals and
their mentors to visualize the standard. The WestEd guide also recognizes that it takes a
series of attempts or steps to achieve a standard. For example, at one end of the spectrum,
principals take action directed at a standard that shows a basic knowledge of the
standard’s expectations but they do not have a deep understanding of the standard and
they do not practice consistent behavior. Principals on improvement plans would fall in
the middle of the spectrum. These principals may approach the standard or meet the
standard identified by the WestEd guide. At the other end of the spectrum, principals

38
demonstrate practice that exemplifies the standard and they consciously synthesize the
standard into their practice and use the standard strategically. WestEd explained that the
descriptions are not explicit because leaders operate in different contexts, and terms such
as appropriate or effective are subjective. Although the descriptions provide a practical
tool to guide the induction process, they cannot be used for evaluation of the principal.
Although some experts and principals believe that the ISLLC standards and
opportunities for reflective discussion are most useful in induction programs, others hold
that such programs should focus on practical strategies that the principals can apply to
daily tasks. Research by Portin, Scheider, DeArmand, and Gundlach (2003) suggests a
third approach for successful induction programs. Portin et al. interviewed 21 public and
private school principals. Their paper, ―Making Sense of Leading Schools: A Study of
the School Principalship,‖ stated that the key skill that a successful principal needs is the
ability to diagnose and act on a school’s needs. Portin et al. found that only the principal
is in the position to diagnose and act on a school’s need. They focused on seven domains
of leadership: instructional, cultural, managerial, human resources, strategic, external
development, and micropolitical.
Although Portin et al. (2003) did not state that principals should exercise direct
leadership in each of the seven domains, their study suggested that broad leadership
strategy was critical. The study found that, although some new principals operated inde-
pendently, others established a theme and delegated authority to a few leaders within the
school site. Others delegated various tasks and coordinated with various staff members at
the school site. Most of the study participants did not agree that their university programs
had been helpful; instead, they indicated that they had learned by experience. More recent

39
graduates were more likely to be satisfied with their university training. This indicated
that training programs are improving or that the theories taught are more relevant to the
needs of new principals.
Portin et al. (2003) suggested that induction programs should ask principals to
reflect on their schools needs, culture, and human resources; consider their own strengths
and weaknesses; and then begin to cultivate leadership wherever they see the need and
opportunity. Portin’s and Scheider’s research indicates that the needs of new middle
school principals in turnaround schools are unique and varied regarding induction and
training programs.
Summary
Because most new middle school principals who have participated in studies have
identified their transition period as very stressful, it is important to have induction pro-
grams for new principals. Accordingly, the research on business leadership indicates that
the first 90 days after a new leader assumes a position is critical to that leader’s success in
the organization. The research and principles on business leadership are relevant and
should assist new principles during their first 90 days as principal. New middle school
principals need mentoring and induction programs that support their needs during the
transition period. In short, while Watkins (2003) found the transition period to be import-
ant for new middle principals in a turnaround school, he also expressed the challenges of
the role of the principal and the challenges posed during the transition period.
The next three sections are all related to research question 2. These sections are
Accountability and Responsibility, Leadership Principles, and School Culture and
Climate.

40
Accountability and Responsibility
This section is a summary of literature related to accountability and responsibility
of principals. The topic of accountability and responsibility of principals is related
directly to research question 2, which asked, Which strategies and conceptual frame-
works (leadership theories) were useful to new principals during the transition period
(first 90 days) in a turnaround school?
The increased demands placed on the new middle school principal in the age of
accountability, public and political pressures to meet AYP, responsibilities as instruc-
tional leader, the need to build relations with parents and community, and the public’s
expectations for immediate results make the role of the principal stressful (Copeland,
2001; Donaldson, 2001; Taylor, R., & Williams, 2001). Robbins and Alvy (2003) stated
that successful principals of the 21st century, the age of accountability, share several
traits. The first is that principals demonstrate a commitment to students. This means that
all decisions are based on what is best for students. Practices, celebrations, norms, values,
rituals, and rewards reflect this commitment to students and student achievement.
Second, leaders are life-long learners; they pursue knowledge about effective practice.
Third, leaders build relationships based on a high level of trust. Gordon’s (2002) research
showed that student achievement and learning grows in a positive direction in schools
that have high levels of trust. Strong principals also act with integrity, are ethical, and
have high morals. In addition, strong leaders are committed and hold themselves
responsible for student achievement and to the professional development of teachers.
High-performing principals also impact culture. They motivate staff and create a learner-
centered organization. They have mechanisms to support new members of the school
organization. They are dedicated to becoming instructional leaders. They are committed

41
to foster good and best teaching practices. They are good managers and can handle the
day-to-day tasks and responsibilities for which principals are held accountable.
Principals Must Provide a Safe Learning Environment
Principals are also held accountable for maintaining a safe learning environment.
―If teachers and students do not feel safe, they will not have the necessary psychological
energy for teaching and learning‖ (Marzano, 2003, p. 53). Principals are held accountable
for maintaining safety because, without a safe and conducive learning environment, the
school has almost no chance to affect student achievement. Likewise, Edmonds (1981)
called for a safe and orderly learning environment. D. U. Levine and Lezotte (1990),
instead, emphasized a ―productive climate and culture.‖ Likewise, Levine and Lezotte
emphasized a ―productive climate and culture.‖
Principals Must Provide Good Community Relationships
The accountability demands and additional roles and duties placed on principals
as a result of standards-based education and NCLB, together with the public perception
that schools are continuing to fail, have resulted in the need for more effective principal
leadership and recommendations that principals assume new roles (Brewer, 2001; King,
2002; Tirozzi, 2001). For example, principals recognize that a strong parent-school
partnership is a valuable resource to raise student achievement. Principals should be
proactive, not reactive, in communicating with parents regarding school policies and
school needs. Parents must be notified when their child is not making progress so they
can intervene; also, they should be able to celebrate their child’s student achievement.
From one principal’s perspective,
What I try to do is stay right on the fringes of all groups so that they’re com-
fortable with me and me with them. But, I don’t want to drink beer with them, or

42
whittle at the courthouse, or hunt and fish or haul wood. I just want to be close
enough to them so I can sit and be comfortable, and them with me. But that’s it.
(Robbins & Alvy, 2003, p. 229)
Principals must not only recognize the importance of communicating with parents; they
must also recognize that they must communicate with community-based organizations,
community businesses, teachers, teacher unions, and school district officials.
Instructional Responsibilities
In addition to balancing simultaneously the roles of manager and leader, today’s
principals are responsible and accountable for the role of instructional leader. Leithwood,
Jantzi, and Steinbach (1999) stated that instructional leadership is synonymous with
effective school leadership. Instructional leadership is currently one of the most popular
leadership concepts in the United States. Although the concept is evident in NCLB, the
term is not well defined by the Act. Some experts contend that the notion of instructional
leadership is closely related to that of transformational leadership.
[Transformational leadership is] the process that changes and transforms indivi-
duals. It is concerned with emotions, values, ethics, standards, and long-term
goals, and includes assessing followers’ motives, satisfying their needs, and
treating them as full human beings. Transformation leadership involves an
exceptional form of influence that moves followers to accomplish more than what
is usually expected of them. It is a process that often incorporates charismatic and
visionary leadership. (Northouse, 2004, p. 169)
Leithwood and Jantzi’s (2005) model of instructional leadership focuses the
principal’s awareness on teaching and learning. Leithwood posited that the focus of the
instructional leader is not on managing. Leithwood’s model describes three forms of
practice: (a) defining the school’s mission, (b) actively managing the instructional pro-
gram, and (c) a positive learning climate. Leithwood stated that principals must help
school staff to define the school’s mission and that creating and communicating a focused
mission leads to a positive school culture.

43
This belief is evident in research reported by other authors (e.g., Aiken, 2002;
Bostingl, 1995; Deal & Peterson, 1999; Dufour & Eaker, 1998; Knapp et al., 2003;
Kotter, 1998; Morrisey & Cowan, 2004). For example, Leithwood and Jantzi (2005),
Knapp (2003), and Kotter (1996) agreed that new principals should create visions and
missions that focus on learning and instruction. Leithwood and Jantzi maintained that
principals should supervise and evaluate instruction. These ideas are similar to the
concepts of the professional learning community emphasized by Dufour and Eaker in
which leaders focus on action and experimentation, encourage continuous improvement,
and use assessment regularly to measure improvement. Marzano et al. (2005), Dufour
and Eaker, as well as Leithwood, stated that principals are responsible for creating a
positive school learning climate when they protect instructional time, facilitate pro-
fessional development, and are visible. Several experts, including Blasé and Blasé
(2004), Bostingl (2001), Dufour and Eaker (1998), Harris (2005), Knapp et al. (2003),
Morrisey and Cowan (2004), and Whitaker (2003), stated that it is critical for principals
to provide focused and purposeful professional development to their staff. While almost
all of the above elements of instructional leadership are evident in the theory and
definition of transformational leadership, the main difference is that the principal acting
as the instructional leader emphasizes and focuses on instructional improvement.
Manager and Leader
Today’s principals are in a quandary in assuming the dual roles of leader and
manager. They must be focused on student achievement and student outcomes. Managers
are focused on completing tasks. Principals should inspire teachers to achieve outstanding
results. ―It’s about helping people make sense of what’s going on around them and

44
making people feel that complicated and challenging things can actually be done‖
(Senge, 1990, p. 27). Likewise, Field Marshal Montgomery stated, ―Leadership is the
capacity and the will to rally men and women to a common purpose and the character
which inspires confidence‖ (Manske, 1987, p. 3). As school site leaders, principals must
energize and motivate others. They must provide a vision for the future and inspire
people to make the vision a reality. ―Outstanding [principals] are future oriented. They
love to dream about what could be and to involve others in their dreams‖ (Manske, 1999,
p. 3). Manske delineated differences between the leader and the manager (Figure 1).
State Standards for Leadership
In order to hold principals accountable to their responsibilities, California adopted
the California Leadership Standards in an effort to hold principals accountable to specific
performance standards. The changes and expectations relating to the roles of the principal
resulted in a need to establish leadership standards to guide the principal. High-quality
student performance is dependent on high-quality school leadership. Research on
effective schools indicates that highly skilled school administrators are crucial to
successful teaching and learning. The state of California has established principal
leadership standards in an effort to evaluate principals and hold them accountable.
In an effort to define effective leadership expectations, California adopted
standards for principals. The first leadership standard in California states that the school
administrator must act as an educational leader. This person promotes the success of all
students by facilitating the development, articulation, implementation, and stewardship
of a vision of learning that is shared and supported by the school community. School
administrators work within their school site organization to develop a shared school

45

Leaders tend to Managers tend to
Stress relationships with others, values
and commitment—the emotional and
spiritual aspects of the organization.
Stress organization, coordination, and
control of resources (e.g., plant,
equipment, and people).
Create and articulate a vision of what
the organization could achieve in the
long run.
Focus on achievement of short term
objectives and goals.
Move the organization in new
directions—being unsatisfied with
maintaining the status quo.
Concentrate on maximizing results
from existing functions and systems.
Empower people to act on their own to
achieve objectives.
Insist that people check with him/her
on every detail before they act.
Favor taking risks and making changes. Fear uncertainty and act cautiously.
Generate a feeling of meaning in
work—its value and importance.
Enforce fulfillment of agreements and
contracts for work.
Frequently think strategically. Seldom think strategically.
Have an insatiable passion to
continuously develop themselves—
eager to learn.
Tend not to push themselves to learn
new things.

Figure 1. Manske’s comparison of leaders and managers. Source: Secrets of Effective
Leadership (p. 7), by F. A. Manske, 1999, Columbia, TN: Leadership Education
Development.

vision for student learning. The vision becomes the central focus of how the members of
the organization will develop the instructional plan of the school. The principal must
align resources to match the instructional priorities of the school (California School
Leadership Academy at WestEd, 2001).

46
The second California standard states that the ―school administrator is an educa-
tional leader who promotes the success of all students by advocating, nurturing, and
sustaining a school culture and instructional program conducive to student learning and
staff professional growth (WestEd, 2003, p. 13). Thus, school administrators should focus
on the school as a learning environment. This means, first and foremost, that the school is
about learning and that administrators must develop a system to monitor student learning
and student achievement.
The third California standard states that the principal is an educational leader who
promotes the success of all students by ensuring management of the organization, opera-
tions, and resources for a safe, efficient, and effective learning environment. In short, this
means that the principal must support the core work of learning and teaching. The princi-
pal must also maintain a safe learning environment. Most important, the principal must
maintain a rigorous learning environment that allows students to learn high standards.
The fourth California standard states, ―A school administrator is an educational
leader who promotes the success of all students by collaborating with families and com-
munity members, responding to diverse community interest and needs, and mobilizing
community resources‖ (p. 33). This means that the principal is visible. The principal must
communicate with parents and children. Most important, the principal must engage the
support of external resources for the school to promote the success of all students.
The fifth California standard states that the school administrator is an educational
leader who promotes the success of all students by modeling a personal code of ethics
and developing professional capacity. This means that the school administrator acts as a

47
role model and behaves professionally. The principal has high moral and ethical
standards.
The sixth California standard states, ―A school administrator is an educational
leader who promotes the success of all students by understanding, responding to, and
influencing the larger political, social, economic, legal, and cultural context‖ (p. 51).
This means that the principal is committed to the public education system’s democratic
principles. The principal is an active member in educating diverse learners and multi-
cultural students.
Similarly, on a national level, the Council of Chief State School Officers
(CCSSO) organized the Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium (ISLLC) to
develop model standards and assessments for school principals. The primary participants
of ISLLC are the state education agencies responsible for licensing administrators,
including representatives of state educational agencies and professional standards boards.
ISLLC seeks to increase quality within the administrative profession and to develop
model standards to provide administrators with useful information for decision making
within each state in several areas, including program development and review, licensure,
and advanced certification. ISLLC also seeks to create common standards to promote
cooperation between states on topics of mutual interest. ISLLC established the following
six Standards for School Leaders: (a) facilitating the development, articulation, imple-
mentation and stewardship of a vision of learning that is shared and supported by the
school community; (b) advocating, nurturing and sustaining a school culture and instruc-
tional program conducive to student learning and staff professional growth; (c) ensuring
management of the organization, operations and resources for a safe, efficient, and

48
effective learning environment; (d) collaborating with families and community members,
responding to diverse community interests and needs, and mobilizing community
resources; (e) acting with integrity, fairness and in an ethical manner; and (f) understand-
ing, responding to, and influencing the larger political, social, economic, legal, and
cultural context. The number of states that have used the above standards as a factor in
new principal certification has almost doubled from eight states in 2000 to 15 states in
2006 (CCSSO, 1996).
Student Achievement
Regarding the role of principals in influencing student achievement through
leadership, there is no doubt that the principal has a direct effect on student achievement.
The meta-analysis study by Marzano et al. (2005) confirmed leadership practices impact
student achievement. Their study indicated that principal leadership responsibilities and
practices had a direct correlation with student achievement. Specifically, the study looked
at the many responsibilities that principals assume, measuring the correlation between the
duties and characteristics of principals and student achievement. This research was
important because
in an era of accountability when student achievement is paramount and evidenced
of the effects of principal leadership on student achievement continue to accumu-
late, it is not enough to just know what is important; principals must also know
what is essential. (Waters & Grubb, 2004, p. 1)
This research has a direct impact on the success of the principal.
First, we posit that when school leaders fail to identify and focus on the school
and classroom practices that are most likely to improve student achievement, their
leadership can have a negative impact. Second, when they fail to understand the
magnitude of change they are leading, they may actually use the wrong leadership
practices, and thus, have a negative influence on student achievement. Con-
versely, when school leaders focus on the right school and classroom practices

49
and accurately estimate the magnitude of the change they are leading, their
leadership can positively affect student achievement. (p. 3)
Leadership Principles
This section reviews literature related to leadership principles. The topic of
leadership principles is directly related to research question 2, which asked, Which
strategies and conceptual frameworks (leadership theories) were useful to new principals
during the transition period (first 90 days) in a turnaround school?
Marzano (2003) stated that strong leadership in a new middle school principal in a
turnaround school is not enough. What matters is that the principal has chosen and that
he/she places the right focus and estimates accurately the magnitude of the necessary
change. Depending on the magnitude of change (first order or second order), some
leadership responsibilities should be emphasized by the principal more than others.
Specifically, some should be emphasized by the principal when leading changes with
second order implications, while others might best be fulfilled by a school’s leadership
team.
According to Marzano (2003), first order changes happen when changes are ―an
extension of the past‖ and are within the existing paradigm. Changes continue to
constitute first order change when the changes are ―consistent with prevailing values and
norms‖ (p. 72). First order changes happen in small steps and occur with existing knowl-
edge and skills of members of the organization.
In contrast, second order changes occur when changes are ―a break with the past
and these changes‖ (Marzano, 2003, p. 73) are outside the existing paradigm. Second
order changes directly involve change in the culture of the organization. Second order
changes occur when the changes are different from current values and norms. Sometime

50
these changes are complex and require new knowledge and skills to implement. Stake-
holders of the organization cause second order changes to take place (Waters & Grubb,
2004, p. 3). Second order change would be similar to putting a school back on the right
track or similar to a turnaround school situation (Watkins, 2003).
Similar to Marzano’s research, Bolman and Deal (2003) stated that effective
leaders or effective new middle school principals must work in the four frames of
political, human resources, structural, and symbolic in order to be effective leaders. Many
of the 24 characteristics identified by Marzano (2003) are listed in Bolman and Deal’s
four frames. Their research suggests that effective leaders, or in the case of this study,
effective middle school principals, should know which frames are their strongest and then
surround themselves with persons who have strengths in the frames in which the leaders
are weakest.
Bolman and Deal (2003) contended that effective principals rely on the four
frames to analyze, assess, and respond to situations. The first frame, known as the human
resource frame, emphasizes people’s needs, skills, and the importance of a caring, trust-
ing climate. The second frame is the structural frame, which emphasizes goals, effici-
ency, policies, a clear chain of command, and results. The third frame is the political
frame, which highlights a world of scarce resources, power, conflict, negotiations, and
compromise. The fourth frame is the symbolic frame, which focuses on meaning and the
symbols, rituals, ceremonies, stories, or other symbolic forms that encompass and
communicate faith and hope.
In the world of education, for principals some lenses are more prominent than
others. For example, today’s accountability movement is largely based on the structural

51
frame, with its goals, standards, and restructuring. The human resource frame is highly
visible in schools, with the constant human interactions and personnel issues that exist for
principals to resolve. Bolman and Deal (2003) stated that human resource leaders or
principals often refer to their employees as partners, owners, or associates. They make it
clear that employees have a stake in the success of the organization and a right to be
involved in making decisions. Human resource leaders or principals work directly with
people. They tend to be people oriented and to spend a great deal of time with employees.
They are often observed practicing their theory of management by wandering around
(Peters, B. G., 1999). Human resource principals believe in employee satisfaction. In
short, human resource managers ―advocate openness, mutuality, listening, coaching,
participation, and empower subordinates‖ (Greenleaf, 1973, p. 4). The Bolman and Deal
human resource category is directly correlated with culture.
The political frame will always be important with principals using power and
influence behind the scenes to get what they want. All of the above frames affect culture.
Unfortunately, the frame that is usually neglected by principals is the symbolic frame,
which is the most important frame for creating a positive school culture (Bolman & Deal,
2003). Similarly, Marzano (2003) recommended that principals understand the level of
change because school culture can be affected.
A great deal of research on leadership has been reported in the disciplines of busi-
ness and education. In fact, the members of the education sectors ascribe to research and
literature regarding leadership in the business sector. Research by Marzano et al. (2005)
indicates that leadership is the key component of a successful high achieving school.
Thus, according to Marzano et al., the principal as a school leader plays a very important

52
role in schools. Marzano et al. provided insight on the characteristics and behaviors of
school principals that affect student achievement. Effective school principals must be
strong visionary leaders, instructional leaders, community leaders, and strong communi-
cators, and must have strong leadership skills. These leadership skills of effective princi-
pals are discussed in this section.
Instructional Leadership
The principal of a successful school is the instructional leader and the coordinator
of teachers (Glickman, 1991, p. 7). Instructional leadership is a combination of super-
vision, staff development, and curriculum development (Blasé & Blasé, p. 11). Research
indicates a strong correlation between instructional leadership and effective school
improvement (Smith, W., & Andrews, 1989). Studies by Sheppard (1996) indicated a
strong relationship between effective instructional leadership behaviors and teacher
commitment, professional involvement, and innovativeness.
Effective instructional leaders are also referred to as instructional supervisors.
Good principals who have instructional leadership skills have the ability to confer with
teachers, which is a complex skill. This means that, as instructional leaders, principals
must have the knowledge and the mastery of a range of complex abilities. For example,
principals must be well skilled in classroom observation and must have various methods
of gathering data. They should also have strong communication skills to convey
suggestions for improvement.
Once mutual concerns and ideas are shared, and suggestions are discussed, [the
conference] becomes a planning conference in which teacher and supervisor,
collaboratively, decide on continued use of effective, observable teaching
behaviors, further collection of observational data, and/or work on a plan for
development of specific teaching behaviors that enhance the teaching process.
(Ovando, 1991, p. 21)

53
Principals, as instructional leaders, promote staff development that emphasizes
the study of teaching and learning. They support collaboration among teachers. They
support coaches and use action research techniques to guide the decision-making process.
They also use resources to design programs.
In short, the principal, as the instructional leader, builds an atmosphere and
processes of democracy. Instructional leadership is necessary to implement important
improvement in the instructional practices, curricular programs, and learning conditions
of students. As the instructional leader, the principal can assess the effects of instruction
and the climate of the school. The instructional leader promotes necessary staff develop-
ment related to curriculum and instruction (Blasé and Blasé, 2004).
Instructional leaders support reflective practices. Reflective practice is defined as
―the experience of reflective thinking about teaching-learning problems in the same way
it has been shown to be potent in enhancing the problem-solving skills of experts‖ (Blasé
& Blasé, p. 85, p. 85). Reflective thinking ―involves (1) a state of doubt, hesitation, per-
plexity, mental difficulty, in which thinking originates, and (2) an act of searching, hunt-
ing, inquiring, to find material that will resolve the doubt, settle and dispose of per-
plexity‖ (Dewey, 1933, p. 12).
An instructional leader is visible. Marzano et al. (2005) reported that visibility had
a high affect on student achievement. Visible principals make themselves available,
provide autonomy, and support instructional efforts to demonstrate that they care about
teachers and are extremely supportive. Principals who are instructional leaders use praise
to build staff morale, motivation, and self-esteem of teachers. For example, praise by

54
principals has been shown to positively and strongly affected teachers’ motivation, self-
esteem, and confidence (Blasé & Blasé, 2004, p. 128).
Community Leaders Strong Communicators
According to Marzano et al. (2005), leaders must have the ability to communicate
effectively. The ability to communicate effectively has been identified as a necessary
skill for school site principals. Principals must be able to communicate clearly and fre-
quently. According to Marzano et al. (2005), principals must establish and foster clear
lines of communication to and from the staff. Principals should be accessible to teachers,
students, and parents. Principals should establish effective vehicles by which teachers can
communicate with each other. Finally, principals should maintain open and effective
lines of communication with staff. Thus, the fundamental task of the new principal in a
turnaround school is to foster good feelings in those whom they lead. That occurs when
principals create resonance—a reservoir of positive feelings that brings out the best in
people.
At its root, the primal job of the principalship is emotional. Emotional intelligence
matters for leadership success of the new middle school principal of a turnaround school
(Watkins, 2003). Furthermore, principals’ moods and actions can have a strong impact
on those whom they lead and inspire. The moods and actions can arouse passion and
enthusiasm and help to keep people motivated and committed, or they can have the
opposite effect and ―poison‖ the emotional climate of the workplace (Goleman, Boyatzis,
& McKee, 2002).
Communication is important because it affects the behavior of individuals in the
organization. What principals do or do not say, what they communicate or how they

55
implement, and how they arrive at decisions have a symbolic impact on members of the
organization. The principal’s behavior is perceived as symbolic communication of the
principal’s values, priorities, and concerns.
Covey (1989) and McEwen (2003) also emphasized the importance of good
communication skills. McEwen (10 Traits of Highly Effective Principals: From Good to
Great Performance) found that the ability to communicate was ranked as the most
important skill for a principal. According to McEwen’s study, successful principals
communicate all day. Principals spend 100% of their time listening, speaking, writing,
and reading (p. 1). The study concluded that a highly effective principal is a strong
communicator. In addition, a highly effective principal is
a genuine and open human being with the capacity to listen, empathize, interact,
and connect with individual students, parents, and teachers in productive, helping,
and healing, and healing ways, as well as the ability to teach, present, and
motivate people in larger group settings. (p. 3)
Principals must remember that communication is a two-way process. Leaders
must seek information and provide information cohesively and with clarity. It is not
surprising that ―successful leaders . . . are great askers, and they do pay attention‖
(Bennis & Nanus, 1985, p. 177).
The turnaround of a company requires many changes to be made in the way the
business is run. These changes can best be accomplished by the people the
company already has. In short, you must accept that demoralization has begun;
that it can only be modified by gross attitudinal changes; that these can be
affected only by strong leadership exhibited through positive communication
efforts. To succeed, you must motivate the company’s current employees to
accept and advance change. (Finkin, 1987, p. 31)
Principals who act as community leaders are focused on strengthening teaching
and learning, professional development, data-driven decision making, and accountability.
Principals shape an organization by demanding and supporting excellent instruction.

56
Thus, effective principals are community leaders. Community leaders have a big vision
of the school and their role in society. They demonstrate commitment to the conviction
that all children will learn at high levels and are able to inspire others inside and outside
the school building with this vision. The principal builds parent-school partnerships as
well as establishing school partnerships with outside organizations that can influence
student achievement (Hale & Moorman, 2003).
Visionary Leader
Research on effective schools indicates that strong and visionary instructional
leaders head such schools (Bolman & Deal, 2003). Thus, effective middle school princi-
pals in turnaround schools should be visionary leaders (Watkins, 2003). Effective leaders
help articulate a vision, set standards for performance, and create focus and direction
(Bolman & Deal, 2003; Clifford & Cavanagh, 1985; Kouzes & Posner, 1987; Peters, T.
J., & Austin, 1985). Good principals are passionate about their work. They believe that
there is little in life more important than doing good work (Bolman & Deal, 2003,
p. 340). Further, good principals have the characteristic of trust. They are inspirational
and they build and sustain relationships (Bolman & Deal, 2003; Bennis & Nanus, 1985;
Kotter, 1988; Maccoby, 1981). In addition to having a vision, passion, and trust, good
principals also have many attributes associated with effective leadership, including task
competence, flexibility, self-confidence, interpersonal skills, managing by walking
around, intelligence, decisiveness, an understanding of followers, and courage (Bolman
& Deal, 2003; O’Reilly & Chatman, 1994).
Leithwood (1994) suggested that leaders must articulate their vision of where they
want the school to be in the future. Kanter (2004) suggested that visionary leadership

57
develops capacity with a focus on student achievement results. Hargreave (2003, as cited
in Fullan, 2006) suggested that the visionary leader combines social movement aspects
and school improvement strategies. Visionary principals motivate an educator to:
1. rekindle their moral purpose
2. open their actions and minds to parents and communities concerning their
mission.
3. working with unions to become agents of change, and
4. extend professional responsibility beyond their own classrooms to schoolwide
and districtwide efforts that improve the system as a whole. (p. 42)
Principals who place their organizations on the path to reintegration are cognizant that
―the way people feel in the position can make them perform like cripples or champions‖
(Goodman, 1982, p. 97). ―The attitudes of the people within the organization are more
critical in a turnaround situation than at any other time in a company’s life‖ (Goldstein,
J., Keleman, & Koski, 1998, pp. 110-111). Leaders also understand that achieving a new
vision and enhancing productivity are heavily dependent on the knowledge and skills
possessed by the institution’s employees.
Distributive Leadership
A principal with strong distributive leadership skills delegates or distributes jobs
and responsibilities to other members in the organization. A principal practicing distribu-
tive leadership delegates responsibilities to committees, grade-level team leaders, depart-
ment chairs, and assistant principals. ―Any strategic vision for a turnaround must there-
fore involve the concept of teamwork‖ (Shelley & Jones, 1983, p. 72). A principal who
builds leadership capacity in others and trusts others demonstrates distributive leadership
practices. The principal as the instructional leader recognizes the value of distributive

58
leadership in the areas of instruction, curriculum, and student achievement (Elmore,
2000). ―Participation of organization members is an important key to any turnaround
strategy‖ (Ashmos & Duchon, 1998, p. 224). The new middle school principal of a turn-
around school (Watkins, 2003) must rely on distributive leadership. The new principal
needs to be sure that all of the right people are on their leadership team and everyone is
on the ―right seat on the bus‖ (Collins, 2001). The new middle school principal of a
turnaround school must have the right people to move the organization forward (Watkins,
2003).
No corporate turnaround or restructuring is the result of one individual working
alone. Success is the result of melding and motivating a team—diverse talents
working together with a common purpose to achieve a desired goal. (Clausen,
1990, p. 103)
Transformational Leadership
In order to make improvements, the transformational leader maintains a strong
focus on completely changing the organization. The transformational leader builds
leadership capacity in members of the organization (Marzano et al., 2005). Research
indicates that turnaround chief executive officers (CEOs) have transformation leadership
qualities of courage and persistence (Austin, 1998; Gerstner, 2002; Silver, 1992). Turn-
around leaders make important decisions. The organization’s recovery calls ―for a speed
of decision and ruthlessness in decision making: a willingness to take unpleasant deci-
sions and face criticism‖ (Taylor, B., 1982-1983, p. 6). Similarly, Watkins (2003) stated
that turnaround leaders must make decisions in a short period of time. The transforma-
tional motivates and inspires members of the organization. The leader is often seen as a
charismatic leader (Northouse, 2004). Accordingly, the new middle school principal must

59
encompass transformational leadership qualities to completely change the organization
and the structure and to put the organization on the right track (Watkins, 2003).
Situational Leadership
Situational leadership provides the school principal the ability to improve
management capability and employee performance. The goal of the situational leader
―should be to gradually increase competence and confidence of your people so that you
can begin to use less time-consuming styles—supporting and delegating—and still get
high-quality results‖ (Blanchard, Zigarmi, & Zigarmi, 2007, p. 4). Throughout the pro-
cess, the principal works closely with the employee to assess the current stage and work
towards the next stage of development. There are four stages of situational leadership.
1. The leader provides specific instruction and closely supervises task
accomplishment.
2. The leader continues to direct and closely supervise task accomplishment, but
also explains decisions, solicits suggestions, and supports progress.
3. The leader facilitates and supports efforts toward task accomplishment and
shares responsibility for decision making.
4. The leader turns over responsibility for decision making and problem solving to
subordinates. (p. 8)
Bolman and Deal (2003) would agree with Blanchard that different situations require the
leader to use different types of leadership. In short, the new principal of a turnaround
middle school would encounter situational leadership scenarios. The principal must be
able to build capacity in the organization and in the stakeholders of the organization.
The following section is a summary of seminal research on the topic of leadership
principles. The following authors are key contemporary theorists. The following research
is directly related to new principals in turnaround schools (Watkins, 2003).

60
Bolman and Deal
The definition of leadership used by Bolman and Deal (2003) goes beyond
individualistic and narrow views of leadership. Bolman and Deal posited that leaders can
be categorized by a ―four frames‖ model. Figure 2 provides an interpretation of the four
organization processes. Leaders must be able to develop the skills necessary to evolve in
the four frames of leadership: structural, human resource, political, and symbolic.
Bolman and Deal (2003) recommended that ―ideally, managers combine multiple
frames into a comprehensive approach to leadership‖ (p. 365). But the reality is that no
one leader can exist in all frames during the right time. Therefore, a wise leader recog-
nizes personal strengths and weaknesses and works to minimize weaknesses. In short, an
effective new middle school principal in a turnaround school (Watkins, 2003) builds
teams that can offer an organization leadership in all four modes or frames. Figure 3
provides a description of the four leadership styles and how they can be both effective
and ineffective.
Marzano
According to Marzano (2003), leadership is considered the single most critical
element for the successful functioning of a school and the most effective principals are
those who demonstrate Marzano’s leadership characteristics. Marzano argued that a
successful leader must understand the following six elements and the impact of these
elements on student achievement. School leaders in turnaround situations should analyze
the above elements to determine what changes they should make to these elements to
improve the operations of the school and consequently improve student achievement.

61

62

Frame
Leadership is effective when
leader is: process is:
Leadership is ineffective when
leader is: process is:
Structural Analyst,
architect
Analysis,
design
Petty tyrant Management
by detain and
fiat
Human
Resource
Catalyst,
servant
Support
empowerment
Weakling,
pushover
Abdication
Political Advocate,
negotiator
Advocacy,
coalition
building
Con artist,
thug
Manipulation,
fraud
Symbolic Prophet, poet Inspiration,
framing
experience
Fanatic, fool Mirage,
smoke and
mirrors

Figure 3. Reframing leadership. Source: Reframing organizations: Artistry, Choice, and
Leadership (p. 349), by L. G. Bolman & T. E. Deal, 2003, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-
Bass.

Kotter
Kotter’s (2003) research is relevant to educational leadership and turnaround
situations. Kotter suggested that leaders follow eight steps to change organizations
effectively from within: (a) increasing urgency, (b) building the guiding team, (c) getting
the vision right, (d) communicating for buy-in, (e) empowering action, (f) creating short
term wins, (g) not letting up, and (h) making change stick. Kotter’s research affirms
Watkins’s (2003) research regarding the importance of the transition period (the first 90
days). Figure 4 sets forth Kotter’s eight-stage process for creating major change in an
organization.

63
The Eight-Stage Process of Creating Major Change
1. Increasing urgency: Examining the market and competitive realities; identi-
fying and discussing crises, potential crises, or major opportunities
2. Creating the guiding coalition: Putting together a group with enough power to
lead the change; getting the group to work together like a team
3. Developing a vision and strategy: Creating a vision to help direct the change
effort; developing strategies for achieving that vision
4. Communicating the change vision: Using every vehicle possible to constantly
communicate the new vision and strategies; having the guiding coalition role
model the behavior expected of employees
5. Empowering broad-based action: Getting rid of obstacles; changing system or
structures that undermine the changed vision; encouraging risk taking and
nontraditional ideas, activities, and actions
6. Generating short-term wins: Planning for visible improvements in perform-
ance, or ―wins‖; creating those wins; visibly recognizing and rewarding people
who made the wins possible
7. Consolidating gains and producing more change: Using increased credibility to
change all systems, structures, and policies that don’t fit together and don’t fit
the transformation vision; hiring, promoting, and developing people who can
implement the change vision; reinvigorating the process with new projects,
themes, and change agents
8. Anchoring new approaches in the culture: Creating better performance through
customer and productivity oriented behavior, more and better leadership, and
more effective management; articulating the connections between new
behaviors and the organization process; developing means to ensure leadership
development and succession

Figure 4. Kotter’s eight-stage process for creating major change in an organization.
Source: Leading Change (p. 21), by J. P. Kotter, 1996, Boston: Harvard Business School
Press.

School Culture and Climate
This section reviews literature related to school culture and climate. School
culture and climate is the third section that is directly related to research question 2,

64
which asked, Which strategies and conceptual frameworks (leadership theories) were
useful to new principals during the transition period (first 90 days) in a turnaround
school?
During the first 90 days the new middle school principal of a turnaround
(Watkins, 2003) school recognizes ―a demanding culture—care is combined with high
expectations all around to address challenging goals‖ (Fullan, 2006, p. 178). Thus, the
new middle school principal recognizes that each school maintains its own culture and
has its shared beliefs and values (Peterson, K. D., & Deal, 2002). Bolman and Deal
(2003) wrote that schools that have positive school culture maintain common traits. First,
they contain their own mission and vision of high expectations. They have their own set
of values and expectations.
A school’s culture is embedded in an informal network of who does what: who
socializes with the new hires, who transmits information and gossip, who are
exemplars of core values, and who are the keepers of the school’s history. The
principal will become a ―bifocal leader‖ shaping culture in his/her managerial role
and smoothing the feeling/tone in the symbolic role. (p. 107)
Robbins and Alvy (2004) shared that school culture is where members of the
organization share history. Culture evolves over time and it impacts or influences the way
in which stakeholders of the organization think, believe, feel, and act as professionals.
Some cultures can be nurturing, while others can be divisive and negative. Today,
principals must be able to learn, understand, and shape school culture. Principals must
understand how they can affect culture and ultimately how culture impacts the organiza-
tion. Research shows that culture directly impacts student achievement and professional
development.

65
Roland Barth (2001) agreed that culture is a powerful force.
The most important and most difficult job of a leader is to change the prevailing
culture of the school. A school’s culture has far more influence on life and
learning in the schoolhouse than the president of the country, the state department
of education, the superintendent, the school board, or even the principal, teachers
and parents can have. (p. 20)
Fullan (2001) stated that, for school principals, ―reculturing is the name of the game‖
(p. 17). Principals as school site leaders share the majority of the responsibility of shaping
the culture of the school. Their work ethic, values, morals, and traditions are the founda-
tional elements of a school culture. If principals neglect culture, the school culture can
become toxic and destructive to the organization (Deal & Peterson, 1999). K. D. Peterson
and Deal stated that the principal plays a key role in shaping the culture of a school.
Bolman and Deal (2003) agreed that the most important aspect of a school leader is to
shape and manage the culture of a school.
Harris (2005) agreed that principals are key leaders in affecting and changing
school culture. ―The culture of the school captures the school’s atmosphere and gives it
unique identity. The climate closely related to the culture of the school refers to patterns
of behavior that manifest the culture‖ (p. 33). Thus, new middle school principals in a
turnaround (Watkins, 2003) school must be able to see what is working and what should
be changed. The principal is central in affecting school culture. When principals create a
culture of high expectations and maintain a no-excuse attitude, positive student achieve-
ment results.
The principal as the leader is in a pivotal position to affect and change culture and
school climate so that the focus is on student achievement. When it comes to the
role principals play with influencing school culture, there is no doubt that the
principal has a direct effect on student achievement.

66
Similarly, in School Leadership That Works: From Research to Results Marzano
et al. (2005) suggested specific leadership responsibilities that directly impact student
achievement and impact school culture. The main idea behind Marzano’s meta-analysis
research (Marzano et al., 2005) is that effective principals must know how to balance
needed change and at the same time maintain structures or practices that have worked
prior to their assuming the leadership position. Marzano et al. asserted that change affects
school culture. Therefore, the new middle school principal should determine what leader-
ship characteristics will be most effective during the transition period (Watkins, 2003).
New middle school principals in turnaround situations (Watkins, 2003) can use
the findings of Marzano et al. (2005) to establish a plan for improving school culture..
Watkins provided a five-step plan that focuses on student achievement and methods of
positively affective school culture. First, school principals must develop a strong school
leadership team. Second, they must distribute responsibilities throughout the leadership
team. Third, they must select the right work. Fourth, they must identify the order of
magnitude implied by the selected work. Fifth, they must match management style to the
order of magnitude of the change initiative. Figure 5 defines and describes the 21 charac-
teristics found in Marzano’s (2003) study. It also provides a descriptor of what the school
principal should do to demonstrate each characteristic.
According to Kotter (1996), leaders should not overlook the role that culture plays
in an organization. In many cases, principals are hired because they fit in the culture of
the organization. These principals become indoctrinated to the new organization.
Culture refers to norms of behavior and shared values among a group of people.
Norms of behavior are common or pervasive ways of acting that are found in a
group and that persist because group members tend to behave in ways that teach
these practices to new members, rewarding those who fit in and sanctioning those

67

68
who do not. Shared values are important concerns and goals shared by most of the
people in a group that tend to shape group behavior and that often persist over
time even when group membership changes. (p. 148)
According to Kotter (1996), recognizing and learning the culture of the new
organization is critical for new middle school principals. Principals impact change in
culture only at the end of the transformation process. It is important to implement new
practices clearly so that the organization’s culture is not overcome by old traditions and
processes. Kotter described the transformational process as having eight stages and being
difficult to implement because change often takes so much time and requires so much
leadership from so many people.
Collins and Porras (1996) shared Kotter’s position about culture. They argued
that, for culture change, leaders must build a core ideology of values and must have a
purpose that becomes the core of the vision of the organization.
Fullan (2001) shared similar views about culture, noting that ―reculturing‖ is one
of the main responsibilities for principals. Principals must develop a culture that has a
positive and professional climate. If principals neglect the value of culture, a school
culture can become stagnant and toxic (Deal & Peterson, 1999). Today, principals are
measured by student achievement outcomes, which is one of the main reasons new
middle school principals in turnaround schools should focus on creating a positive culture
(Watkins, 2003).
Deal and Peterson (1999) suggested that (a) culture fosters school effectiveness
and productivity, (b) culture improves collegial and collaborative activities that foster
communication and problem solving practices, (c) culture fosters successful change and
improvement efforts, (d) culture builds commitment and identification of staff, students,

69
and administrators, (e) culture amplifies the energy, motivation, and vitality of a school
staff, and (f) culture increases the focus of daily behavior and attention on what is
important and valued.
Watkins (2003) suggested that new leaders, like new middle school principals,
entering a new organization should learn the culture and norms of the organization.
Watkins argued that a leader cannot change a culture if the leader does not understand the
culture. Watkins provided the following framework for analyzing a culture:
1. Symbols signs, including logos and styles of dress; they distinguish one culture
from another and promotes solidarity.
2. Norms are shared social rules that guide ―right behavior.‖ What behaviors get
encouraged or rewarded in your unit? What elicits scorn or disapproval?
3. Assumptions are the often-unarticulated beliefs that pervade and underpin
social systems. (p. 53)
Furthermore, Watkins recommended that the new leader learn about the organization’s
culture by recognizing the three viewpoints of an organization’s culture:
1. Organizational culture: This element of culture in the organization is the
manner in which staff treat one another, the values they share, and the schedules
and routines that exist.
2. Professional culture: The culture consists of managers and includes the
characteristics that they have as a group within the organization.
3. Geographical culture: The cultural differences that exist because of different
geographical locations. (p. 55)
In the case of turnaround schools, the new middle school principal should recog-
nize the challenges and opportunities that exist for the new middle school principal in a
turnaround school (Watkins, 2003). These challenges impact the culture of the organiza-
tion. First, the new middle school principal must reinvigorate a demoralized staff.
Second, the principal is working under pressure and must quickly make important

70
decisions. Third, the principal must make difficult and painful cuts. While there are
challenges, there also exist several opportunities for the new middle school principal of a
turnaround school (Figure 6).
Likewise, Deal and Peterson (1999) agreed that cultural leadership is one of the
most significant roles of leaders. Leaders must create, encourage, and refine the symbols
and symbolic activity that give meaning to the organization. Deal and Peterson (1999)
argued that, in order to build a positive school culture, middle school principals must do
the following: (a) develop a focused vision and mission; (b) identify core norms, values
and beliefs; (c) generate new rituals, traditions and ceremonies; (d) foster norms of
behavior that are unique to the school; (e) attend to the symbols, artifacts, history, and
logo; and (f) celebrate early successes. K. D. Peterson and Deal (2002) posited that
principals build school culture through three key processes. First, they read the culture,
understanding the culture’s historical sense and analyzing current norms and values.
Second, they assess the culture, determining which elements of the culture support the
school’s core purposes and mission and which hinder achieving valued ends. Third, they
actively shape the culture by reinforcing positive aspects and working to transform
negative aspects of the culture. New middle school principals in turnaround schools can
change culture. They must change beliefs and norms.
Change of culture does not happen immediately; it poses challenges for principals
because they must make difficult decisions and make changes happen immediately in a
turnaround school situation (Watkins, 2003). According to K. D. Peterson and Deal
(2002), principals can learn the history of a school by talking to the school’ storytellers,
looking through prior school improvement plans for signs about what is really important,

71

Setting Challenges Opportunities
Start-up
 Building structures and systems
from scratch without a clear
framework.
 Welding together a cohesive
high-performing team.
 Making do with limited
resources.
 You can do things right
from the beginning.
 People are energized by
the possibilities.
 There is not preexisting
rigidity in people’s
thinking.
Turnaround
 Reenergizing demoralized
employees and other
stakeholders.
 Handling time pressure and
having a quick and decisive
impact
 Going deep enough with painful
cuts and difficult personnel
choices
 Everyone recognizes
that change is
necessary.
 Affected constituencies
may offer significant
external support.
 A little success goes a
long way.
Realignment
 Dealing with deeply ingrained
cultural norms that no longer.
 Convincing employees that
change is necessary.
 Restructuring the top team and
refocusing the organization.
 The organization has
significant pockets of
strength.
 People want to continue
to see themselves as
successful.
Sustaining
success
 Playing good defense by
avoiding decisions that cause
problems
 Living in the shadow of a
revered leader and dealing with
the team he or she created.
 Finding ways to take the
business to the next level.
 A strong team may
already be in place.
 People are motivated to
succeed.
 Foundations for
continued success may
be in place.

Figure 6. Four organizational settings according to Watkins. Source: Critical Success
Strategies for New Leaders at All Levels: The First 90 Days (p. 66), by M. Watkins,
Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

72
not just required, or using a faculty meeting to discuss what the school has experienced in
terms of professional development over the past 2 decades. The authors discussed the
importance of examining contemporary aspects of the culture and recommended that
principals conduct a series of exercises with faculty to determine the core norms and
values, rituals, and ceremonies of the school and their meanings. They recommend that
principals create with their faculty a timeline of rituals and ceremonies for the year—
asking when they occur, what symbols and values are important in each, and what the
ceremonies communicate about the school and its commitment to professional learning.
Research by Morrisey and Cowan (2004) indicated that school culture either
enhances or hinders professional learning. Culture enhances professional learning when
teachers believe that professional development is important and is valued. Professional
development is fostered when the school’s history and stories include examples of
meaningful professional learning and a group commitment for improvement. Staff
learning is enhanced when principals recognize the concepts of sharing ideas, working
collaboratively to learn. The most positive cultures value staff members who lead their
own staff development, create well-defined improvement plans, organize study groups,
and learn in various ways. Cultures that celebrate, recognize, and support staff learning
enhance the professional community.
The literature on educational leadership through the school principal and school
change recognizes clearly the role and influence of the site principal on whether change
will occur in the school. It seems clear that transforming the school organization into a
professional learning community can be done only with the principal’s sanction and
active nurturing of the entire staff’s development as a community. According to Dufour

73
and Eaker (1998), schools that are professional learning communities (a) share mission,
vision, and values; (b) promote collective inquiry; (c) utilize collaborative teams; (d)
focus on action and experimentation; (e) focus on continuous improvement; and (f) use
assessment regularly to measure improvement. Research by Watkins (2003), Aiken
(2002), and Kotter (1998) is consistent with that of Dufour and Eaker regarding the
leadership techniques required of principals in the creation of professional learning
communities. Furthermore, the principles discussed by K. D. Peterson and Deal (2002)
regarding how principals can shape the school closely align with the principles of Dufour
and Eaker’s assertion that school culture must be extremely positive for professional
learning communities to exist. Dufour and Eaker presented many effective strategies for
shaping school cultures as they relate to professional learning communities, including
(a) articulating, modeling, promoting, and protecting the shared values that have been
identified; (b) systematically engaging staff in reflective dialogue that asks them to search
for discrepancies between the values they have endorsed and the day-to-day operation of
the school; (c) inundating staff with stories that reflect the culture at work; and (d) cele-
brating examples of shared values and progress in the improvement process with cere-
monies and rituals. The authors went beyond the assertion by Peterson and Deal that
celebration of early successes in shaping school culture is important. For example,
Dufour and Eaker emphasized that the link between the celebration and the value that is
being promoted should be clear and explicit, and that it is everyone’s job to identify
individuals and teams that warrant this special recognition. Dufour and Eaker claimed
that the most important element relating to special recognition is that the strategies for

74
celebration ensure many winners so that everyone in the school feels that he or she can be
recognized for contributing to the improvement process.
The new principal in a turnaround school must recognize how the position of
principal impacts culture from many aspects. Watkins (2003) suggested that the new
principal must get to know the culture of the new school in 90 days or less. The new
principal must learn about the school before the first day at the school site begins. The
new principal must develop a vision and build a new team within the first 90 days. The
new principal of a turnaround school must transform the entire school organization.
When the principal addresses the elements of school culture, culture is changed. Princi-
pals impact culture when they demonstrate their interest and concerns. They also impact
culture when they allocate rewards or recruit, select, and excommunicate leaders.
Ceremonies and traditions reinforce the school vision (Bolman & Deal, 2003).
Combined evidence from the business and educational sectors shows that culture
is a critical aspect of organizational cohesion and performance. Although the importance
of a positive school culture is widely accepted throughout the educational community,
principals may not be focusing on it, choosing to spend their time on other duties of the
principalship. Principals, especially new principals in the transition period, might need
assistance in finding a balanced way to frame and attack educational issues at the school.
James Collins
According to Collins (2001), highly effective middle school principals have
mastered the ―hedgehog‖ concept—the ability to focus on one big idea and follow it
through to completion (p. 41). These new middle school principals believe that maintain-

75
ing a culture of high standards is one of the primary ways to achieve their goals, and they
create a culture of discipline.
Like Collins (2001), Northouse (2004) emphasized the importance of the leader-
ship team: ―Teams are organization groups composed of members who are interdepend-
ent, who share common goals‖ (p. 209). This was echoed by Larson and LaFasto (2003),
who argued that the following are characteristics of team excellence: (a) setting clear
elevating goals, (b) results-driven structure, (c) competent team members, (d) unified
commitment, (e) collaborative climate, (f) standards of excellence, (g) principled leader-
ship, and (h) external support (p. 20).
Michael Fullan
In Leading in a Culture of Change (2001) Fullan argued that principals should
focus on the process of change and leadership for change. Fullan provided new middle
school principals with a guide of how to bring about change to promote student achieve-
ment. Fullan offered a plan for leading change and changing a school culture. He stated
that principals should have the following five characteristics to change: moral purpose,
understand the change process, strong relationships, share knowledge, and connect new
knowledge with existing knowledge.
Fullan’s (2001) theories on leadership apply to both the fields of business and
education. Bennis et al. (2003) and Sergiovanni and Starratt (2002) shared Fullan’s belief
that principals must have a moral purpose. Fullan’s belief that strong principals must
build relationships with the stakeholders of an organization was shared by the many
experts in the fields of business and education (e.g., Aiken, 2002; Bostingl, 1995; Kotter,
1998; Knapp et al., 2003; Watkins, 2003). Others have agreed that sharing knowledge is

76
critical (e.g., Aiken, 2002; Collins, 2001; Covey, 1989; Dufour & Eaker, 1998; Knapp et
al., 2003; Kotter, 1998; Watkins, 2003).
In Change Forces: Probing the Depths of Educational Reform Fullan (1993)
argued that middle school principals must find new ways of looking at change. He stated
that school principals must learn to see problems as opportunities to promote change and
promote student achievement. This is similar to Covey’s CLI because such leaders see
mistakes as learning opportunities that they can use to make better decisions in the future
to reach their goals.
New middle school principals in turnaround situations (Watkins, 2003) can
ascribe to Fullan’s theory on leadership even though it is centered in the business field.
Applying Fullan’s research would mean that a middle school principal must be focused,
must understand the change process, must have a ―moral purpose‖ and understanding of
the true purpose of their job, and be the school leader who builds relationships.
Training and Mentoring
This section reviews literature related to the training period, which is the topic of
research question 3. The training period is directly related to research question 3, which
asked, Did university programs prepare new principals for success during the transition
period (first 90 days) in a turnaround school? This section reviews the literature related
to programs that prepare new middle school principals for success during the transition
period (first 90 days).
As the demands on the principal have become more rigorous under NCLB and
API testing standards, it is evident that training programs are necessary to support new
middle school principals in turnaround situations (Watkins, 2003). In the past, training

77
has been provided through both formal and informal channels. In most cases, aspiring
middle school principals have received training through university programs. In some
cases, aspiring principals have received training through county or local educational
agencies. Today, with the demands by federal and state agencies placed on principals in
middle schools in turnaround situations (Watkins, 2003), new middle school principals
need training. ―The [middle school] principal’s job [in a turnaround school (Watkins,
2003)] is so complex that any knowledge or skills you gain before you start are going to
heighten your chances for success‖ (as cited in Duffrin, 2001, p. 1).
Although colleges and universities across the nation continue to graduate large
numbers of aspiring principals, current research indicates that there is a need for princi-
pals, especially qualified principals. However, school preparation programs do not
maintain a standard preparation curriculum and training program (National Council for
Accreditation of Teacher Education [NCATE], 2003). In a recent study of principals and
superintendents, nearly 69% of principals and 80% of superintendents agreed that that
school leadership programs had failed to prepare principals with the skills necessary to
assume the challenges at the school site (Farkas, Johnson, Duffett, & Foleno, 2001).
Research by the Southern Regional Education Board (Bottoms & O’Neill, 2001)
indicates that, if school districts want a high-performing school, they must hire principals
who can lead their schools to high-performing levels. The challenge today is that school
districts and states do not have enough highly qualified or willing candidates to hire
especially qualified principals to assume the position as the new middle school principal
in a turnaround situation (Watkins, 2003). Although school districts recognize the

78
important role of the principals, they continue to hire principals from preparation
programs and licensing institutions that are not producing high-performing leaders.
Today’s high-performing middle school principals have the four qualities dis-
cussed below. First, the high-performing principals understand what school and class-
room practices improve student achievement (Bottoms & O’Neill, 2001). Second, they
―know how to work with teachers to bring about positive change‖ (p. 1). Third, high-
performing principals ―support teachers in carrying out instructional practices that help
all students succeed [and] can prepare accomplished teachers to become principals‖
(p. 1). In short, school districts face a hiring environment that perpetuates ―hit-or-miss‖
practices. Middle school principals with ―high-quality‖ characteristics are scarce.
Because they are scarce, the result is a shortage of qualified principals.
School district leaders frequently report that the supply of principals is diminish-
ing rapidly. However, the problem is not a lack of certified principals but rather a
lack of qualified principals. Every state has plenty of people with certificates as
school administrators. No state has plenty of people with the knowledge and skills
to lead schools to excellence. (p. 1)
In addition to university formal training programs, many states have adopted
measures to address the shortage of middle school principals and administrative certifi-
cation. Some states offer tests instead of coursework. For example, in California aspiring
school leaders receive a Tier I Administrative Credential if they pass the School Leader-
ship Licensure Assessment (SLLA) examination. There is little research that addresses
the success of these tests.
University Credential Programs
Traditionally, most school principals receive their formal training, knowledge,
and skills through university programs. In California most school administrators have

79
attended a university program and received a California Administrative Credential and/or
a master’s degree in school administration. The university credentialing programs have to
align California Teacher Commission (CTC) requirements.
A person who holds the Tier I, Preliminary Administrative Services Credential,
which is valid for 5 years from date of issuance, has met the following require-
ments: (a) holds a Bachelor’s degree, (b) has passed the California Basic Educa-
tional Skills Test (CBEST), (c) holds valid teaching or other professional educa-
tion services credential, (d) has worked at least 3 years as a full-time staff member
in private or public schools, and (e) is a graduate from a CTC-approved adminis-
trative preparation program or approved CTC-membership. A Tier II: Pro-
fessional Clear Administrative Services Credential is valid for 5 years and is
renewable upon completion of professional growth and services requirements.
A person holding this credential (a) has worked at least 2 years as full-time
administrator on preliminary services credential and (b) has completed CTC-
approved course of study through a university. (EdSource, 2001, p. 5)
The CTC can influence school principalship in the following areas: (a) licensure, certi-
fication, and accreditation requirements; and (b) principal training and professional
development.
District-Level Training Programs
In an effort to prepare qualified new middle school principals, some school
districts have assumed responsibility for training principals through programs often
referred to as leadership academies. Some districts have joined efforts with universities
to accomplish this or they maintain their own preparation academies. In some cases,
principals attend classes provided by the county office of education and/or the district.
State legislation and state funding mechanisms have provided for such programs.
Research shows that local districts and states can provide proper training to
develop school principals. For this reason, many districts have assumed the responsibility
to train and groom their own principals. The research shows that entities should look for
potential principals in school districts. These new principals should have a strong knowl-

80
edge of curriculum and instruction. Districts and states should provide quality learning
and training opportunities for potential new middle school principals.
To have school leaders with a comprehensive understanding of instruction and
school practices and who work with others to solve problems, local districts must
initiate a screening process to identify and tap future leaders who have
demonstrated these qualities and have a passion for getting students to meet high-
performance standards. (Bottoms & O’Neill, 2001, p. 18).
These programs should help new middle school principals face the many
challenges of the position. The training programs should help new principals to learn to
be building managers, personnel managers, change agents, disciplinarians, and instruc-
tional leaders of the school site. New principals must learn how to juggle these multiple
responsibilities. New middle school principals must learn to be prepared to face the great
challenge of being responsible for school improvement and managing the pressures of
accountability (Fullan, 1999; Lambert, 1998; Rosenholtz, 1989).
Under NCLB and Assembly Bill 75, principals in underperforming schools and
Title I schools must attend a principal’s training program that contains three training
modules. The first module addresses standards-based education programs and how to
implement a standards-based program. This module addresses effective forms of assess-
ment and how to monitor student learning through data. The second module trains princi-
pals to utilize both external and internal resources to support student achievement. The
third module addresses the use of technology and discusses building culture and account-
ability for all stakeholders in the organization.
In short, it is important that local districts and county offices of education assume
the responsibility of preparing principals to face these challenges.
A theory of action around recruitment and induction, then, would put these three
domains—the system, the school and its community, and the individual—in an

81
interactive relationship with each other. The success of recruitment and induction
(measure in terms of a principal who is successful in the systems, the schools and
communities, and the individual’s expectations) depends on a complex process of
lifting these three domains together on a case-by-case basis, school-by-school,
and principal-by-principal. (Elmore & Burney, 2000, p. 23)
University and Professional Organizations
Specialized Programs
The University of California, Santa Cruz, offers a training program for new and
aspiring principals known as the School Leadership Development Division (SLDD). The
program emphasizes development of instructional leadership. The program has three
components: (a) Principal Induction, (b) Principal Professional Development, and
(c) Systematic Approaches to School Achievement.
Some universities, such as the University of California, Los Angeles, (UCLA)
provide an annual Principal Leadership Institute. This institute offers continuous educa-
tion for current principals in the following focus areas of the principalship: (a) curricu-
lum; (b) management and governance; (c) leadership; and (d) political, legal, and cultural
contexts of schools.
Colloquium for New and Aspiring Principals
ACSA offers an institute for new and aspiring principals. The institute discusses
the challenges of new principals: (a) confusion around the actual dimensions of the role
of principal; (b) feelings of isolation and loss of socialization; (c) need for specific skill
assistance on issues dealing with affecting change and student achievement; and (d)
balancing the demanding forces of parents, students, politics, community, and student
achievement. This program also addresses the California Professional Standards for
Educational Leaders (CPSELS).

82
Analysis of Principal Preparation Programs
It is important to note that aspiring new principals experience many paths of
professional experience and training prior to the middle school principalship. In fact,
Aiken (2002) concluded that principals pass through many journeys prior to assuming the
position as new middle school principal. Aiken indicated that early experiences prior to
assuming the position of middle school principal prepare school administrators to assume
the challenges of that position. Successful principals learn about the need for human
connections, personal style, political alliances, and community relationships (Bolman &
Deal, 2003). Aiken concluded that certain resources were needed to train, sustain, and
socialize new principals. The study found that educational programs must help new
principals acquire the norms, values, and behaviors of transformational middle school
principals. New principals must be socialized as new principals. Training institutions
must prepare new principals to understand the cultural organizations of schools. Aspiring
and new middle school principals must have opportunities to learn in the position and to
participate in mentorship programs. Training institutions should provide opportunities for
collaboration with other leaders to share talents and skills that support the goals of the
school. The new middle school principal should understand that principals do not live in
a perfect world. School districts should look for opportunities to train and groom their
own leaders. Finally, Aiken noted that training and learning to be a leader continue after
completion of formal training programs and after the person assumes the position of
principal, especially the new middle school principal in a turnaround situation (Watkins,
2003).
Aiken’s (2002) research on preparation of principals is supported by other
research. For example, a large body of research shows that the socialization process or

83
the early learning experiences are evidence of whether a new middle school principal will
be successful in the position (Cline & Necochea, 2000; Greenfield, 1985; Hart & Risley,
1995; Leithwood, 1994). Leithwood, Begley, and Cousins (1990) described the socializa-
tion process of the principal as the process by which the person selectively acquires
knowledge, skills and dispositions needed to perform effectively in the role of school
leader. Their research showed that, when new principals with broad experience were
socialized into the position of principal, they assumed the leadership role more easily. In
short, the process of socialization of principals is very important for today’s school
leaders, who must be prepared to assume the challenges of school improvement and
school site accountability measures.
The turnover of principals for our nation’s schools presents those individuals who
prepare new leaders and those who provide professional development for school
principals with perhaps the greatest challenge ever—how to prepare and sustain
school leaders who can respond to the challenges, conflicts, and changes that
define current leadership context. As promising new school leaders move into
leadership positions, they can find themselves struggling with feelings of isola-
tion, problems of time management, a complexity of student/family problems,
curricular mandates, and unfamiliar challenges associated with working through
the art of political compromise as one learns to deal with school boards, teacher
unions, human services, and state department mandates (Daresh, 1992; Ericson &
Maslow, 1996; Leithwood, Begley, & Cousins, 1994; Nygren, 1996). Given the
changing context and ambiguous environment in which new principals find them-
selves, the need for school leaders who possess the knowledge, skills, and disposi-
tions which will help sustain their leadership long enough to make a difference for
the schools they serve has never been greater. (IEL, 2000, p. 7)
In order to create a pool of highly qualified principals, state legislatures,
Congress, schools, universities, and school districts must analyze what they are doing to
prepare and train new principals (Crow, Hausman, & Paredes-Scribner, 2002). Because
aspiring school principals have many choices in training, inservice, and preparation
programs, it could be assumed that the inservice and preparation programs are preparing

84
aspiring principals to assume the principalship. Unfortunately, training programs cannot
teach all of the practical skills, strategies, and techniques necessary to prepare an aspiring
new middle school principal. This is a result of the fact the principal’s job is so complex
and demands many levels of skills and knowledge. Nevertheless, because the demands on
today’s principals are so complex and principals assume many roles, it is necessary that
aspiring new middle school principals learn strong leadership skills. Leadership skills
must be taught so that aspiring principals can succeed under today’s demands. Accord-
ingly, Watkins (2003) stated that leaders are life-long learners as they gain leaderships
skills through practical experiences, not through theory.
Current training programs are theory based. Unfortunately, principal training
programs often fail to teach how theory can be applied at a practical level. Training
programs can bridge the theory-to-practice gap by utilizing a variety of strategies.
Aspiring leaders can gain practical knowledge by observation or through the use of a
reflection journal of practical problems. Aspiring leaders can also benefit from utilizing
portfolios, peer coaching, mentoring, collaboration groups, or academies that teach
practical skills.
In order to best prepare new middle school principals, preparation programs
should focus on developing people who improve the function of schools and recognize
the challenges and opportunities that exist in the situation of the school (Watkins, 2003).
In short, school leaders must be able to improve and develop curriculum, instruction, and
student learning. School leaders need a broad understanding of how to apply research-
based theory and knowledge in a practical format to deal with problems in the field
(Bottoms & O’Neill, 2001).

85
Several principals who were identified as successful principals expressed opinions
that their university programs had failed to emphasize curriculum and instruction, student
achievement, and teaching and learning. They also stated that they had developed knowl-
edge and skills in these areas primarily on their own initiative (Elmore, 2000).
Research on school improvement strategies used by successful middle school
principals show the same results. According to research on successful leaders and effect-
ive schools preparation programs, coursework is not closely aligned with what principals
need to know and with what they must attend to at their schools (Kronley, 2000). For
example, courses rarely address the skills that principals need to lead successful schools,
including the use of data to improve instruction and the use of effective teaching and
learning strategies to make decisions about aligning courses, classroom assignments, and
student work standards (Bottoms & O’Neill, 2001; Kronley, 2000; Sykes, 2000). Current
university programs emphasize traditional theoretical models of school administration,
school finance, school law, facilities, and planning (Sykes, 2000).
Rigorous contemporary school administration programs should teach the content
that produces principals who can turn schools around and make significant changes. For
example, principals must know how to implement rigorous academic instructional pro-
grams. They must know how to motivate and engage students in learning. They must
know how to create school cultures that actively expect students to achieve high
standards. They need support mechanisms that enable students to meet high standards.
Middle school principals can no longer be the Lone Ranger; they need to have shared
leadership standards, where teams work together and establish consensus. They must

86
know how to apply research-based knowledge in a practical process to address challenges
in schools (Bottoms & O’Neill, 2001).
Principals can make mistakes if they do not have the necessary training and
knowledge to apply theory into practice. These mistakes could cost new principals their
job. Today, although principals participate in preparation for instructional programs, this
does not ensure that they will not make mistakes. There is little research on new principal
mistakes. Because little research on this topic exists, it can be assumed that many new
principals believe that they can never make mistakes (Bulach, Pickett, & Boothe, 1998;
Davis, 1998). This belief places a burden on new principals.
Induction and Transition
Watkins (2003) would agree that middle school principals in a turnaround
situation should assume a plan and take action during the first 90 days. According to
Watkins, the success or ultimately the failure of a new leader is determined during the
first 90 days. Therefore, he suggested that principals find opportunities to establish
themselves as leaders. He contended that leaders and new principals who do not follow
his model will face greater challenges to create change, build momentum, gain the faith
of the stakeholders, and/or establish themselves as successful principal of the
organization.
New middle school principals face many challenges on a day-to-day basis.
Quality and purposeful training is important for all new middle school principals, but it is
even more important for the new middle school principal in a ―turnaround‖ situation.
Watkins (2003) noted that the new principal in a ―turnaround‖ setting has only 90 days in
which to accelerate a plan. If new principals fail to make important decisions during the

87
first 90 days, they can endanger their own careers and ultimately affect the organization.
New principals must work toward the ―break even point,‖ which ―is the point at which
the new principals have contributed as much value to their new organization as they have
consumed from it‖ (p. 2). Watkins estimated that the average break-even point is approxi-
mately 6.2 months but he recommended that new leaders reach the point sooner than the
norm. His book The First 90 Days is exactly that: a plan to help new leaders and new
principals to accelerate their plan and reach the break-even point.
Watkins’s (2003) research on the ―first 90 days‖ can be applied to the new middle
school principal in a turnaround situation. He recommended that leaders (in this case,
new middle school principals) do the following to ensure a successful leadership transi-
tion period:
1. Promote yourself. This means to mentally depart from the old job and to take
charge as the new leader in the new job.
2. Accelerate your own learning: You will need to climb the learning curve as fast
as you can in your new organization. You will have to be systematic and focused
about deciding what you need to learn and how you will learn it most efficiently.
3. Match the strategy to the situation: There are no universal rules to success in
transitions. You need to diagnose the situation and clarify its challenges and
opportunities.
4. Secure early wins: The leader needs to find opportunities to create some early
wins to establish credibility. These wins must support future endeavors.
5. Negotiate success: As a middle manager, the leader pays attention to building a
working relationship with the new boss. This process includes clarifying expecta-
tions for the new job, communicating frequently and effectively to the boss, and
developing a plan on how to work successfully with the boss.
6. Achieve alignment: The principal becomes an organizational leader. The new
leader learns the root causes of poor performance in the past and aligns strategies,
skills, and culture to address these issues. The higher you rise the more you have
to play the role of the organization’s architect.

88
7. Build your team: If you are inheriting a team, you will need to evaluate the
members and perhaps restructure it to better meet the demands of the situation.
Your willingness to make tough personal calls your capacity to select the right
people for the right positions are among the most important drivers of success
during your transition. You will need to be both systematic and strategic when
building your own team.
8. Create coalitions: Support from stakeholders does not automatically come with
any title or position. Building relationships is key to establishing the management
team and a team of supporters. For internal and external stakeholders, the leader
must map the networks of influence and identify whose support is critical to job
success in the first 90 days.
9. Keep your balance: Your success will depend on your ability to influence
people outside your direct line of control. Supportive alliances, both internal and
external, will be necessary to achieve your goals. You should therefore start right
away to identify those whose support is essential for your success.
10. Expedite everyone: Finally, you need to help everyone in the organization—
direct reports, bosses, and peers—accelerate their own transitions. A common
sentiment among new school principals is that they find the job too stressful and
that they truly are unprepared to assume the job. As a result of principal shortages
and a shortage of highly-experienced principals, many districts have begun to
groom and prepare their own school site leaders. School districts realize that they
must provide quality training to ensure a principal’s success. (pp. 12-15)
Other research, mostly in the business field and some limited research in the field
of education, shares elements of Watkins’s framework of the transitional leader. Both
disciplines emphasize the importance of early wins, team building, getting to know the
culture of the organization, and creating success (Collins, 2001; Fullan, 2006; Marzano et
al., 2005; Murphy, J., & Meyers, 2008; Watkins, 2003).
Early wins can energize others, serve as a model for ethical performance within
the organization, and build leadership capacity (Watkins, 2003). Early wins build credi-
bility. Marzano (2003) emphasized that a leader must do homework to attain credibility
and early wins.
Watkins’s (2003) research also identified negotiating success as a key component
for building momentum as a middle manager or principal within the first 90 days. Simi-

89
larly, Maxwell (2005) suggested that the transition period of a middle-level leader (a new
middle school principal) is a time of opportunity to begin to make important decisions.
Maxwell’s book The 360 Degree Leader provides a description of the specific skills
needed to lead as a middle manager.
Bolman and Deal (2003) suggested that new middle school principals must
establish important relationships to get things done. Collins (2001) identified the leader
as a bus driver. He stated that the leader should get the right people on the bus and the
wrong people off the bus. Once the right people are on the bus, the leader must get people
in the right seats and get the organization moving in the right direction (Watkins, 2003).
Similarly, Watkins recommended that the leader put the people in right places during the
transition period. In short, the principal cannot lead a school without the right team that
will help deliver the plan.
New principals (as in this case study, new middle school principals) experience
great stress as they try to implement at their school site the theories and methodologies
that they learned in their training programs or universities. Many principals doubt their
abilities to effectively run their school site and fear that, if they do not have their attention
on every detail, a crisis will result. (Hartzell, Williams, & Nelson, 1995). They have to
learn many skills, including how to communicate with a variety of stakeholders in an
overwhelming environment that does not allow for much time to reflect about the tasks at
hand (Parkay, Gmelch, & Rhodes, 1992).
Principals must learn to function at their school site. Because each school site is
unique, with its own history, culture, and environment, the new middle school principal
in a turnaround situation (Watkins, 2003) must learn how things are done at that school

90
site (Crow & Mathews, 1998). Aiken (2002) stated that new principals must make the
transition from outsider to insider. Principals accomplish this by observing the school
environment, the code of conduct, and those actions that are respected by colleagues.
Sociologists have pointed out that the principal’s 1st year is a crucial period in
terms of socialization, which is the process by which principals gain the necessary skills
and values to effectively run the school site (Aiken, 2002; Crow & Mathews, 1998;
Normore, 2004). Although little research exists on assuming the role of principal or the
transition period of a principal, there is research in the business world that provides a
road map, a plan, or an agenda for new middle schools principals in a turnaround situa-
tion (Watkins, 2003) to consider when entering a school as principal.
Watkins’s (2003) book The First 90 Days provides new leaders with practical
frameworks for diagnosing their situations and developing customized transition
acceleration plans. Watkins identified 10 key transition challenges in the 90-day accelera-
tion plan. One of those challenges is securing ―early wins.‖ These early wins are actions
that the principal takes to build credibility, value, and trust.
Early wins build your credibility and create momentum. They create virtuous
cycles that leverage the energy you are putting into the organization to create a
pervasive sense that good things are happening. In the first few weeks, you need
to identify opportunities to build personal credibility. In the first 90 days, you
need to identify ways to create value, improve business results, and get to the
breakeven point more rapidly. (p. 13)
It is important to secure an ―early win‖ during the transition period. New middle school
principals should remember that it is difficult to recover from an early loss during the
transition period. Some of the common traps that affect new leaders are the failure to
focus, not looking at the business situation carefully, not adjusting to culture, failing to
get wins that matter, and letting the means undermine the ends (Watkins, 2003).

91
Watkins (2003) noted that it is easy for new middle school principals to lose
focus when entering a new organization. One reason for this is that there is too much
happening. New principals should understand that they cannot achieve results in more
than one or two areas during the transition period. Thus, they must identify opportunities
in the first 90 days that will translate into early wins. Because early wins differ from
organization to organization, new principals must keep the context and goals of the
organization in mind. For example, taking time to discuss challenges in a turnaround
situation during the transition period can be difficult and sometimes a waste of time
because there is very little time to make drastic changes. Therefore, the principal as
leader should look for opportunities or issues to build momentum. In some organizations,
early wins are gained individually; in other organizations, early wins are achieved
collectively or with a leadership team. Leadership teams exist in business and education
settings. Watkins argued that the leader must protect the process in which the early win is
gained. A new principal as the new leader can gain a ―double win‖ if the leader accom-
plishes an early win in a way that exemplifies the behavior that the leader hopes to instill
in the new organization (Watkins, 2003).
Other research recommends that leaders or new middle school principals gain
early wins by day 60 of the transition period. For example, Bradt et al. (2006) suggested
that new principals, as the new leader of an organization, invest in early wins to gain
confidence from the members of the organization.
Early wins are all about credibility and confidence. People have more faith in
people who have delivered. You want your boss to have confidence in you. You
want team members to have confidence in you and in themselves. Early wins fuel
that confidence. To that end, identify potential early wins by day 60 and deliver
them by the end of your first six months. (p. 10)

92
Based on the above, new middle school principals in a turnaround setting should deter-
mine what early wins they will seek to accomplish before they assume the new position.
Watkins (2003) suggested five propositions that promote the transition accelera-
tion of a new leader, or in the case of this study, new middle school principals in a turn-
around situation. The first proposition is that the root cause of transition failure is that
leaders or principals fail to use their strengths to take advantage of the existing opportuni-
ties or to recognize the pitfalls of the situation. Thus, failure occurs when new principals
as new leaders do not understand the organization, when they lack the necessary skills
required for the position, or when they do not have the flexibility to adapt to new situa-
tions. Watkins’s second proposition is that there is no systematic method that new princi-
pals as leaders can use to both lessen the likelihood of failure and to reach the break-even
point. Watkins’s third proposition is that new principals as leaders should strive to build
momentum by creating virtuous cycles that build credibility and should avoid getting
caught in vicious cycles that damage credibility. Watkins’s fourth proposition is that
transitions test the strength and patience of leaders and are critical for their leadership
development. The final proposition promotes the position that adoption of a standard
framework for accelerating transitions can yield big returns for the organization. In short,
when new principals as new leaders adopt a transition plan to accelerate their transition,
they maintain success as the leader of the new organization.
Watkins (2003) maintained that new principals as the new leaders should assume
a plan and take action during the first 90 days. According to Watkins, the success or
ultimately the failure of a new principal is determined during the first 90 days. Therefore,
he suggested that leaders find opportunities to establish themselves as leaders. He con-

93
tended that leaders who do not follow his model will face greater challenges to create
change, build momentum, gain the faith of the stakeholders, and/or establish themselves
as successful new principal of the organization.
Watkins’s (2003) research provides a road map or blueprint for shortening the
time for leaders or new middle school principals to succeed in their new jobs. Watkins
posited that, if new principals succeed in this time frame, they will have more time to
concentrate on fixing problems and finding new opportunities for their organizations. In
addition, Watkins suggested that new principals as the new leader strive to arrive as
quickly as possible at the break-even point where they are net contributors of value to
their new organization. According to Watkins, 6.2 months was the average breakeven
point for midlevel managers in an organization. However, Watkins argued that the
purpose of the transition acceleration is to assist new leaders to reach the break-even
point sooner. Watkins provided a road map to help new leaders create a practical
framework for developing a customized 90-day transition acceleration plan. Watkins
presented 10 transition challenges that he considered to be critical for leaders: (a) pro-
mote yourself, (b) accelerate your learning, (c) match strategy to situation, (d) secure
early wins, (e) negotiate success, (f) achieve alignment, (g) build your team, (h) create
coalitions, (i) keep your balance, and (j) expedite everyone. Bolman and Deal (2003)
shared Watkins’s belief in the importance of establishing a team.
Watkins (2003) argued that in the business organization or an educational setting
it is critical for new leaders to methodically diagnose the status of their organization in
order to avoid potential problems and to facilitate change. Watkins emphasized that new
principals as the new leader should match appropriate strategies to the situations at hand.

94
According to Watkins, there are four business situations or transition frames for leaders.
In order for a new leader to be successful during the transition, it is important to identify
the business situation. The four broad types of business situations that new leaders must
deal with are start-up, turnaround, realignment, and sustaining success. According to
Watkins, realignment occurs when employees of the organization are unaware that
change is necessary. In a turnaround situation, on the other hand, there is no doubt that
changes must be made quickly and employees should expect that change will take place.
According to Watkins (2003), a new middle school principal who is the new
leader faces many challenges in a turnaround situation. The first challenge is to energize
demoralized employees and other stakeholders. The new principal should convey the
message that there is a dire need for change and then restructure the top team and refocus
the organization. Turnaround situations also pose many opportunities for new middle
school principals. For example, leaders can become change agents and help everyone to
recognize the new changes and the direction or vision of the organization. In addition,
new leaders will recognize that ―early wins‖ will gain the faith of the members of the
organization.
Watkins’s (2003) research and models are relevant to the school setting. For
example, in start-up schools principals are responsible for assembling the necessary
components to get a new school established, including the necessary funding, staffing,
and technology. In turnaround schools leaders are responsible for improving and imple-
menting new changes in a school. The challenges could include improvement efforts in
schools that are not meeting API or AYP requirements, or they could include positive
changes to turn a dysfunctional and demoralized staff culture to a positive cultural

95
environment. In realignment schools the new principal is responsible for revitalizing a
school that is not meeting its expected requirements. In a sustaining success school new
principals have the responsibility of preserving the strengths of the school and taking it to
an even higher level. Watkins noted that leaders or principals in start-up and turnaround
situations may not have much time to make important decisions; those in realignment and
sustaining success situations have more time to think about the situation at hand and to
make decisions.
In short, training and mentoring new principals is vital in today’s schools. The
increasing demands on the new middle school principals, public and political pressures,
and myriad roles that principals must play in this age of accountability have led to a
shortage of qualified candidates to serve as school administrators. Many teachers and
other potential candidates are reluctant to assume the role of school administrator because
of the challenges and demands placed on the principal. The burdens of the job and duties
that a principal must assume are increasingly considered greater than the benefits and
rewards of the position (Lindle, 2004; Pounder & Merrill, 2001). Districts find that
recruiting qualified candidates is challenging. Thus, as a result of a shortage of qualified
candidates, school districts should consider looking for opportunities to train new and
aspiring principals. They should also prepare new principals to assume leadership roles in
the possible situations: sustaining-success, start-up, turnaround, and/or realignment.
The need to train new principals is most critical now because there is a shortage
of qualified candidates for the role of principal that is expected to increase as student
populations increase and as current principals reach retirement age. For example, a 10-
year study conducted by National Association of Elementary School Principals (NAESP)

96
beginning in 1998 demonstrated that principals are retiring at a much younger age than in
the past, at an average retirement age of 57 years. The NAESP study showed that more
than half of the principals surveyed planned to retire as soon as they were eligible to
retire. Indeed, 66% of the NAESP members responding to the survey indicated that they
planned to retire in the next 6 to 10 years. This means that the current turnover rate of
over 40% would continue well into the early part of this century. The preliminary reviews
of the NAESP study indicating a shortage of qualified candidates to assume the role of
principal are supported by other studies that show that many in the education field are not
interested in assuming the role of principal (Educational Research Service [ERS], 1998;
Hough, 2000; IEL, 2000; National Policy Board for Educational Administration
[NPBEA], 1995; U.S. Department of Labor, 2000).
For example, a study by NAESP, NASSP, and ERS (ERS, 1998) reported a
shortage in the labor pool for K-12 principal positions in approximately half of the school
districts that participated in the study. The shortage existed for all grade levels and
applied to rural, suburban, and urban school districts. Similarly, a 1999 study by the same
organizations focused on California and found that 73% of 376 superintendents partici-
pating in the study indicated that they had a shortage of qualified candidates for openings
for the position of elementary school principal. A study by the Indiana Association of
School Principals (IASP) and Ball State University (1999) was consistent with the above
findings and revealed that approximately 73% of the superintendents who responded to
the survey indicated that the pool of candidates for principal positions during the previous
3 years had been much smaller than in previous years.

97
According to Marnik (1998) and Yerkes and Guaglianone (1998), the shortage of
qualified candidates for secondary school principal positions is even greater than that for
elementary school positions. A 2000 survey by ACSA showed that 90% of the districts
that participated in the survey indicated shortages of candidates for high school principal
positions and 73% indicated shortages of candidates for elementary school principal
positions. The principal shortage poses many challenges for school districts. The greatest
challenge is finding willing and able candidates. The second challenge is finding highly
qualified candidates who are able to assume the role of principal in a school under NCLB
mandates, principles of standards-based education, and state school performance
requirements.
One of the reasons for the shortage of principals is the increasing reluctance of
those in education to assume the position. There are many reasons that potentially
qualified candidates are reluctant to assume the role of the principal. For example, there
is great concern about the increasing demands placed on principals, including increased
instructional responsibilities and their accountability for student achievement. In addition,
there is concern about increased responsibility and decreased authority and autonomy
(ERS, 1998; Farkas et al., 2001; Portin, Shen, & Williams, 1998). NAESP’s study The
K-8 Principal in 1998 (Doud & Keller, 1998) surveyed district superintendents through-
out the nation. This study found that the main three factors that discouraged candidates
from assuming the role of principal were that (a) there was insufficient compensation
compared to the responsibilities of the position (58%), (b) the position required too much
time (25%), and (c) the position was too stressful (23%). The study also found that the
reported percentages applied to various types of communities and grade-level subgroups.

98
The study reported that principals in general worked 9-hour days and approximately 54
hours per week. The study’s findings that principals worked long hours was supported by
a report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, which found that the position of principal is
very time consuming and that many principals generally work more than 40 hours per
week and that many also work nights and weekends to oversee school activities (ERS).
Potential candidates are not interested in assuming the role of middle school
principal because compensation is insufficient compared to the responsibilities. Over the
past decade teachers’ salaries have increased. This has resulted in potential administrative
candidates having less interest in administrative salaries. This finding is supported by a
study by the ERS (2002), which found that, in certain cases, the salaries of new principals
were as little as 10% more than the salaries paid to veteran teachers (ERS, 1998). More-
over, because administrators usually work longer hours than teachers and must work
more contract days per school year, the average daily pay rate for principals may actually
be considerably less than the average daily pay rate for veteran teachers (ERS). Thus,
districts may have to consider adjusting pay for principals and recruiting younger
candidates who are paid less than a veteran teacher.
A 2000 ACSA survey revealed that the California Commission on Teacher
Credentialing had more than 34,000 people on file with administrative credentials. The
survey found that many of those with such credentials preferred administrative positions
such as curriculum director or teacher mentor instead of assuming one of the 23,000
principal positions. One of the reasons for this decision was that the other administrative
positions carried less responsibility than the position of principal. The survey further
found that principals of schools in California generally had an average of 534 students

99
per principal or assistant principal, compared to the national average of 366 students per
principal or assistant principal (ACSA, 2000). In addition, experienced teachers who in
the past may have assumed the role of principal were wary of assuming the role because
it carried with it more responsibility, more stress, a longer work year, and little increase
in pay. The above issues are likely contributing to the problem of recruiting qualified
candidates for school principal, especially the new middle school principal in a turn-
around situation (Watkins, 2003).
This shortage in qualified principals is problematic for today’s schools because
there is no doubt that the school site principal is the catalyst for the success or failure of a
school and student achievement (Marzano et al., 2005). Although principals are critical
components in improving student achievement, they face the many demanding challenges
and responsibilities such as those discussed above. Principals have stated that their job
currently involves ―more work, more pressure and frustration, greater demands, and more
responsibilities than even when they assumed the position‖ (Mertz & McNeely, 1998, p.
197). One can speculate that these demands have contributed greatly to today’s challenge
of recruiting qualified principals, or as in the case study, new middle school principals in
a turnaround situation (Watkins, 2003).
Conclusion
This review of literature supports the efforts of the study in an attempt to indicate
which strategies are useful for the new middle school principal in a turnaround school
(Watkins, 2003). Although much of the above research is business centered, the
researcher contends that business leadership principles are applicable to education leader-
ship. Therefore, new middle school principals in a turnaround situation can ascribe to

100
both the business and education field. The theories described in this chapter apply to
school principals. New principals can apply these leadership principles in the field and in
a practical format. Principals must learn how to apply theory to practical situations.
Although the research on the transition period is limited, the research in this study can
help principals in the transition period (first 90 days).
Further research needs occur in the area of training programs. This literature
review identified weaknesses in current training programs. The principal’s role is
constantly changing, and training programs have not kept up with the demands of the
principalship. Training programs remain theoretical in nature and not practical. The
review of literature indicates that principals need practical skills and strategies to
succeed. The reported research indicated that training programs, both formal and
informal, are not preparing principals to face the challenges and demands of the
principalship. Furthermore, the research indicates that principals are not being prepared
adequately to face the transition (first 90 days) of their first principalship.
The reviewed literature identifies important aspects that help new middle school
principals during the transition period. The research suggests that certain characteristic
traits affect student achievement. Principals should focus on characteristics that have a
greater effect on student achievement. Also, culture of a school is an area that all princi-
pals must recognize during the transition period. Barth (2001) wrote, ―More than any-
thing else, it the culture of the school that determines the achievement of teacher and
students alike‖ (p. 33).
Research has demonstrated that strong leaders affect and create learning cultures.
Bennis and Nanus (1985) shared similar thoughts on successful leadership. They stated

101
successful leaders are ―perpetual‖ or life-long learners. Schlechty (2001) agreed, stating,
―If the principal is to help teachers improve what they do, the principal must continuously
be learning to improve what he or she is doing‖ (p. 145). Senge (1990) noted that good
leaders instill in others the desire to learn. Good leaders guide and lead members of an
organization to achieve its mission. In short, not all leaders are born leaders; leaders must
assume the notion of being life-long learners and being role models life-long learners.
Thus, the literature indicates that there are many formulas for ―leadership‖ in the
business and educational fields. Many of the formulas share common elements. Many of
the formulas are the same in that they presume that vision, early wins, and goal setting
are some of the most important elements. Unfortunately, there is a lack of research that
correlates the formulas and elements to leadership during the 90 days of the transition
process of a new principal. The literature reviewed in this chapter was selected because it
directly relates to the new middle school principal in a turnaround situation (Watkins,
2003).

102
CHAPTER 3
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The policies of NCLB have redefined the role of school principals from school
site managers to that of instructional leaders for teachers and students. Today, the precise
role of the principal is not clearly established, consisting of various duties and responsi-
bilities. One of the main responsibilities is to work with students and teachers as the
instructional leader (Grady, 2004, p. ix).
Today’s school principals are under the scrutiny of the public and of state and
federal government requirements. They are held accountable under the federal AYP
legislation requirements and the state of California’s API growth requirements (Tucker &
Codding, 2002). Thus, today’s principals find themselves in a challenging position when
they enter the principalship. This challenge can be heightened when entering a new
position as principal in a school that is in a turnaround situation.
To further complicate matters, although principals receive their formal training
in various university programs and various induction programs, research indicates that
the transition period of entering the principalship is not addressed in such programs.
Although there is limited research on the transition to the principalship, it can be con-
cluded from the reviewed literature that new principals who enter the turnaround school
settings have received little to no training in how to make the transition into the principal-
ship (Elmore, 2000; Haller, Brent, & McNamara, 1997; Kronley, 2000; Peterson, 2000;
Sykes, 2000).

103
Research Questions
Three research questions were designed by the thematic dissertation group to
examine the transition period (first 90 days) for new principals in a turnaround situation.
The research questions were designed to examine the necessary skills, strategies, and
theories that new middle school principals of turnaround schools use in their first 90 days
in that position.
1. Do middle school principals in a turnaround situation find the transition period
(first 90 days) to be important?
2. What strategies and conceptual frameworks (leadership theories) were useful to
new middle school principals during the transition period (first 90 days) in a turnaround
school?
3. Did university programs prepare new principals for success during the transi-
tion period (first 90 days) in a turnaround school?
Research Design
This study was part of a thematic doctoral dissertation cohort study. It was
designed and conducted by a cohort of 10 graduate students from the Rossier School of
Education of the University of Southern California. The thematic dissertation process
allows students to study a similar topic in a collaborative format. All of the cohort
members developed the research instruments and charts and determined the parameters of
the population used in this study.
Because there is limited research and literature related to the topic, this study
expanded on the literature related to this topic (McMillan & Schumacher, 2001, p. 397).
This study also carefully explored the conceptual frameworks, strategies, and theories

104
that may be utilized, consciously or not, by new middle school principals who have been
identified by their supervisors as ―successful.‖
This study was a mixed methodology study. Therefore, it contains qualitative and
quantitative research elements. Mixed methodology has the following approach. It
generates pragmatic knowledge with a collection of quantitative and qualitative data
sequentially. ―Mixed methods approach is one in which the researcher tends to base
knowledge claims on pragmatic grounds‖ (Creswell, 2003, p. 18). The mixed methods
approach involves strategies of collecting data that are numeric in nature and data that
consist of text information. The interviews of district superintendents, teachers, and
principals were qualitative in nature. On the other hand, the Characteristics Chart, the
STRS Chart, and the Four Frames charts were primarily quantitative in nature (Appendix
A, Appendix B).
Creswell (2003) stated that qualitative data use alternative strategies of inquiry,
including narratives, phenomenologies, ethnographies, grounded theory, and/or case
studies. In order to validate data, this study triangulated the qualitative data with quanti-
tative simple statistics such as frequency counts, averages, and means. These simple
statistical results were formulated from numerical items on surveys and interviews. In an
effort to establish reliability, all of the instruments used in the study were field tested,
data were shared with the thematic group members, and the instruments were refined to
ensure consistency of results.
Each of the 10 thematic cohort members focused on one case study. First, each
member interviewed a district superintendent or district administrator who identified a
―successful‖ middle school principal who was at a turnaround school. Second, each

105
member interviewed that principal. Third, each member interview four teachers who had
been purposely selected by the principal. These two teachers were department chairs or
members of the leadership team. The cohort members collected, transcribed, and
analyzed all of the data.
Description of the Population
The 10 cohort members defined the parameters of the study and identified new
middle school principals as the population. The new middle school principals had to meet
the following parameters in order to be considered for the study:
1. The principal had completed his/her 1st year as principal during the 2005-2006
school year.
2. The principal could not have been promoted from within the same school.
3. The principal had to be identified as successful by his or her supervisors.
4. The principal had to begin his or her 2nd year in fall 2006.
5. The principal had to be at a school site that was identified by the principal’s
immediate supervisors as a turnaround school.
6. The principal had to be a principal of a middle school in southern California.
7. The school where the principal worked could be a charter or magnet school.
Thus, the population of this thematic dissertation cohort consisted of 10 princi-
pals. Each member of the cohort purposefully selected an individual principal to inter-
view. This sampling procedure is known as the single-staged sampling procedure. In this
process, the researchers gained direct access to the names of the people sampled in the
study (Creswell, 2003). The principal was identified after an interview conducted by the
researcher with the direct supervisors or school district superintendent. The 10 successful

106
principals from turnaround schools in 10 urban school districts in southern California
were selected based on information received at the interview with the school district
superintendent or district office supervisors from each school district.
A nonprobability sampling procedure was used to identify the principals. This
process suggests that the samples used in the study were based on convenience and
availability (Creswell, 2003). The ―successful‖ principals of a turnaround school who
were identified by their superintendent or supervisors were interviewed, surveyed, and
audio taped, and the answers were transcribed. These principals were considered as
―reputational,‖ appropriate candidates for the study because they were had been identified
by experts in their field as being successful principals in a turnaround school setting
(McMillan & Schumacher, 2001, p. 402). Following each of the interviews, the
researcher analyzed the procedure and strategies used by the principal during the first 90-
days of assuming the first position as principal in a turnaround school. In addition, this
study used all of the surveys, interviews, and recommendations using the conceptual
frameworks provided by Watkins (2003), Bolman and Deal (2003), and Marzano et al.
(2005) regarding effective school leadership strategies.
The third subject group interviewed consisted of teachers who were interviewed
during a staff meeting held at each of the school sites. Each teacher was required to
complete a teacher survey that contained the STRS Chart, the Principal’s Time Chart, and
the Characteristics and Behaviors Chart. A follow-up interview was conducted with two
selected teachers. The same questions were used during the follow-up interview.
After the interviews and the charts were completed, all data were analyzed in
order to triangulate the data for validity. According to Patton (2002), triangulation

107
strengthens a study by combining various methodological approaches. This means that
the researcher can use various methods or data, including both quantitative and qualitat-
ive research approaches. Denzin (1978) wrote that there are four types of triangulation
research models. The first type is known as data triangulation, in which the researcher
uses various types of data sources in the study. The second type is known as investigator
triangulation, in which the research is done by more than one researcher and evaluated by
them. The third type is known as theory triangulation, which means that data are inter-
preted from many perspectives. The fourth type is known as methodological triangula-
tion, which means that the study involves multiple methods to study a single problem or
program.
All members of the cohort field tested the interview guides and charts by inter-
viewing various principals and teachers. This was done several times to ensure reliability
and validity. After each field test the members of the cohort collaboratively analyzed the
data. The data from all of the interviews and each subpopulation group was analyzed and
triangulated to verify the validity of the results.
Description of the Instruments
Instruments. Interview guides (Appendices A, B, and C) used in the interviews
were designed by all of the members of the cohort. In order to ensure that the instruments
were purposeful for identifying the data, the 10 members of the cohort pilot tested the
instruments. The final instruments used in this study were research based and valid tools
to identify relevant information for this study. All instruments in this study were designed
to provide for a mixed-methods research approach in which both qualitative and quanti-
tative data could be gathered.

108
The interview guides were used to interview the superintendent or immediate
supervisor of the principal, the principal, and the four teachers. The four teachers were
selected by their principal. The teachers were team leaders or department chairs. They
were selected because they were most familiar with the principal’s performance, style,
and leadership abilities.
The first interview instrument (Appendix A) was an immediate supervisor inter-
view instrument containing seven items. This was a semi-structured interview with one of
the 10 principals’ immediate supervisor. The instrument questions were centered on the
three research questions. This survey was used to interview superintendents in order to
identify a successful principal in a turnaround school.
The second instrument (Appendix B) was the interview guide used to interview
the principal. It contained nine open-ended items. This interview guide was used for a
semistructured interview centered on the research questions. Three charts were attached
to the interview instrument: the STRS Chart (Watkins, 2003), the Principal’s Time Chart,
and the Characteristics and Behaviors Chart (Marzano et al., 2005). The principal was
asked to complete each of the charts after the interview while the researcher conversed
with the principal. The instrument contained questions that were designed (a) to provide
information about whether the principal felt that the transition period of the principalship
in his/ her experience was important, (b) to generate information to determine what
strategies or frameworks were employed by the principal during the transition period of
the principalship, and (c) to identify whether the principal had participated in any formal
training, mentoring, or education programs that had helped him or her to prepare for the
job of the new principal in a turnaround school. In addition, the survey explored

109
questions in the following areas: the principal’s background, the principal’s education,
and the principal’s practice of research-based strategies (Appendix B). The questionnaire
gathered information regarding the procedures and practices utilized by principals during
the first 90 days of the principalship.
The third interview instrument (Appendix C) was a teacher survey containing two
parts. The first part was a survey consisting of four open-ended items related to the
research questions. The survey also included and utilized the three charts: the STRS
Chart, the Principal’s Time Chart, and the Characteristics and Behaviors Chart. The
second part was a direct teacher follow-up interview, containing the same questions as
found on the teacher survey to verify consistency in the responses.
Charts. Three charts included in the principal and teacher surveys were used to
gather data. The STRS Chart was based on Michael Watkins’s (2003) research. The
respondents were asked to fill in the chart to describe the situation of the school. This was
used to verify whether the superintendent, principal, and teachers identified the school as
a turnaround school (Appendix D).
The Principal’s Time Chart was based on Bolman and Deal’s (2003) four frames
research: (a) human resources, (b) political, (c) structural, and (d) symbolic. Respondents
were asked to identify the actual percentage of time spent in each frame and what they
believed would be the ideal time spent in each frame (Appendix E). Bolman and Deal
suggested rules or strategies that leaders can practice to be successful leaders.
The Characteristics and Behaviors Chart was based on research by Marzano et al.
(2005) on the 21 characteristics of school leaders (Appendix F). To distill these 21
characteristics, Marzano et al. (2005) conducted a meta-analysis of 69 leadership studies.

110
As a result of their meta-analysis, the researchers concluded that there were 21 leadership
characteristics that were directly correlated with student achievement. In this study, the
principal was asked to identify the seven most common behaviors in which he/she
engaged during the first 90 days in the assignment as a middle school principal in a turn-
around school. Then the supervisors and the teachers were asked to identify the seven
behaviors in which their principal engaged and then the seven behaviors that they felt
were most important for a principal. After all of the charts were completed, the members
of the cohort compared and analyzed the results to determine the extent to which the
participants had selected the same characteristic traits.
Data Collection
All surveys and interviews were conducted during the 2006-2007 school year.
The researchers utilized the research instruments with new successful middle school
principals and teaching staff. Furthermore, the researchers conducted interviews with
superintendent or district office supervisors, selected case study principals, and the
teachers at the principals’ school and the four purposefully selected teachers at each
school.
All of the data were collected from the school sites immediately after the inter-
views were conducted. These instruments and surveys were both qualitative and quanti-
tative in nature. All data were collected, recorded, and transcribed. The quantitative data
were collected through the use of charts and the qualitative data were collected through
the interviews.
The University of Southern California’s Institutional Review Board (IRB)
reviewed each of the interview instruments and charts. The IRB approved these instru-

111
ments before the research was conducted. Each member of the committee used appro-
priate procedures for research of human subjects. All human subjects provided informed
consent.
Prior to conducting the interviews and surveys, a letter of request to interview
principals was mailed to 10 school district superintendents or direct supervisors of the 10
school districts. These people responded and provided a scheduled time to interview the
supervisor or school superintendent. Then an interview appointment was scheduled with
each principal, usually before or after school in the principal’s office. Each interview
began with an introduction in which the principal was assured that the interviews would
remain confidential. In order to avoid interview bias, the interview schedule was highly
structured and the interviews were audiotaped and transcribed. Follow-ups were kept to a
minimum, and all interviews ranged from 30 to 60 minutes. The interview began with a
brief introduction and a brief review of the purpose of the study. Then the interviewer
asked the questions and asked the principals to complete the STRS Chart, the Principal’s
Time Chart, and the Characteristics and Behaviors Chart.
First, this study analyzed whether principals in turnaround schools found the
transition period (first 90 days) to be important. Second, the study was an attempt to
identify what strategies or specific conceptual frameworks new principals utilized in a
turnaround school during the first 90 days of the principalship. Third, the study was an
attempt to identify whether any formal or informal programs had helped to prepare the
new principals for success during the transition period (first 90-days) in a turnaround
school.

112
Data Analysis
The data analysis included analysis of each of the interview transcripts, surveys,
and charts from each of the superintendents/immediate supervisors, principals, and
teachers. The transcripts and surveys were reviewed to identify general response cate-
gories. These responses were tabulated on response forms and used to make conclusions
regarding the differences and similarities in strategies utilized by the new middle school
principals in turnaround schools and whether they had had formal training that helped to
prepare them for the job. The quantitative and qualitative data were used to generate a
data set of the responses from all 10 principals, 10 principals, and hundreds of teachers in
the cohort study. This allowed the researchers to find trends and evaluate the results
across the study.

113
CHAPTER 4
RESEARCH RESULTS AND FINDINGS
Since the inception of NCLB, school improvement has become a very important
topic of research and discussion. NCLB increased accountability of student performance.
The accountability falls mostly on the shoulders of school site principals and educational
leaders who need to turn failing schools around (turnaround schools) and put them back
on track.
Although NCLB established clear expectations and clear accountability measures,
it has become evident that there are no clear strategies, pathways, or frameworks in place
to guide principals or school leaders in the process of turning schools around. Also lack-
ing are appropriate training programs, induction support mechanisms, and/or university
programs that provide current practical knowledge to help principals to turn schools
around.
The transition period of leaders in a business organization has become a popular
area of research. In fact, such research has focused on the transition period for the first
90-100 days of the turnaround business leader and the strategies used by successful
business leaders during this period. Unfortunately, prior to this study, the area of effective
school site principals as turnaround leaders has not been studied. This study compares the
effective practices of business leaders in turnaround situations (Watkins, 2003) with the
effective practices of successful principals in turnaround school situations. Specifically,
this study investigated the transition period of a new middle school principal in a
turnaround school situation.

114
This chapter also presents an analysis of quantitative and qualitative findings of
this study (study H) as they relate to the three research questions. This chapter first
summarizes how the study was conducted and the research questions were addressed.
The chapter then presents case study H data (the case that the researcher conducted as
outlined in Chapter 3), followed by a cross-case analysis of the other nine studies. Finally
the chapter analyzes the data in comparison to the literature findings.
Summary of the Study’s Framework and Research Questions
The research cohort consisted of 10 researchers who focused on strategies that
new middle school principals of a turnaround school utilized to make the transition
period (the first 90 days) successful. The study included 10 principals from 10 southern
California school districts. The study identified the schools and administrators as schools
A through J to protect their identity. The researcher of this study analyzed data from
school H. The findings from school H were compared to the findings from the other nine
schools. In total, studies A-J surveyed a total of 214 teachers. Among the 10 studies, 22
teachers’ responses contained responses that were not related to the study. There were
also seven blank responses. All of the cross-case data were analyzed and triangulated.
Each case study had to meet the following criteria: the immediate supervisor of the
principal defined the principal as successful and the school was described as a turnaround
school.
The qualitative and quantitative data were collected through the use of the follow-
ing instruments (Appendices A, B, and C): Immediate Supervisor Interview (Appendix
A), Immediate Supervisor STRS Chart; Principals Interview (Appendix B), Principal’s
Time Chart; Principal 21 Characteristics/Behavior Chart, Principal Interview Guide,

115
Principal STRS Chart; Teachers Interview (Appendix C), Teacher Time Chart Teacher
STRS Chart, Teacher (Department Chairperson) Interviews; and Teacher 21
Characteristics/Behavior Chart.
Three research questions were developed for this study. Each question focused on
the period of entry into the middle school principalship. The research team used the terms
transition period and induction period interchangeably. This case study, case study H,
used the term transition period (the first 90 days) to describe the first 90 days or induc-
tion period of the new middle school principal. This chapter presents the findings related
to each of the following research questions.
1. Did the principals in a turnaround situation find the transition period (the first
90 days) to be important?
2. What strategies and conceptual frameworks (leadership theories) were useful to
new principals during the transition period (first 90 days) in a turnaround school?
3. Did any programs, formal or informal, prepare new principals for success
during the transition period (first 90 days) in a turnaround school?
The collective data were organized and analyzed and are presented in this chapter
using the research questions as the primary organizational structure. To understand the
data within the context of the questions, it is necessary to discuss the subject schools and
the analytical structure used.
Introduction to Case H
The researcher of study H scheduled an appointment to interview the supervisor
of principal H. During the meeting, the researcher summarized the study and introduced
the data collection instruments used in the study. This meeting gave the supervisor an

116
opportunity to identify a candidate who met the qualifications of the study. The super-
visor gave the researcher approval to conduct the study. Based on this meeting, the
researcher scheduled an appointment to meet and interview the principal identified as the
new middle school principal of a turnaround school.
The middle school in this study is identified as School H. This school is an urban
middle school with approximately 1,090 seventh- and eighth-grade students (school’s
SARC for 2006). The school is located in southern California, in the outskirts of an urban
area, in an older established community. School H feeds into two of the four high schools
in this district. The student population is socially and economically diverse, with approxi-
mately 70% of the students eligible and receiving free or reduced-price lunches. The
student population was 72% Hispanic descent, 18.0% Anglo, and 7.1% African
American. Of the 1,090 students, 29% were ELL students (Principal H interview and
SARC report of the anonymous participating school district).
Academically, the school made improvements as measured by the API measures.
For the 2004-2005 school year the API score was 652 (NCLB considers an API score of
800 to be satisfactory); for the 2005-2006 school year, which marked the 1st year for the
principal at the school, the API increased from 652 to 660. Table 1 presents the 2005-
2006 SARC data for all 10 schools that participated in the study.
The principal at school H is a middle-aged Hispanic female. She had worked in
several school districts prior to working for this school district. She began her career as
an educator. She stated, ―I never planned to become a principal‖ (personal communica-
tion, March 15, 2007). She originally wanted to be a high school Art teacher but, through
a university program in which she worked with elementary school students during the

117

118
summer, she realized that she wanted to work with elementary school children. In 1973
she was offered an elementary school teaching position. She taught in three school
districts and then became a Bilingual Coordinator at the district office. During this time
she earned an administrative credential. She then became an elementary school assistant
principal and eventually went to another district to be a Bilingual Coordinator. After
some time working in the district office, an opening for a middle school principal became
available and she applied. At the time of the interview, it was her 2nd year as the new
middle school principal of school H.
Case study H provided some unique data results in comparison to the other nine
studies. Of the 10 cases, School H produced the most teacher responses (47). Four
questionnaires were returned with blank answers and 11 did not provide direct responses
to the questions that were posed. The nondirect and nonresponsive responses may have
been related to the fact that 15 teachers were new teachers and were unable to answer the
questions because they lacked background knowledge of the principal’s transition period
(the first 90 days). The data gathered in the surveys provide information from prior years.
Case study H had 15 new (1st-year) teachers who had not been at the school during the
principal’s transition year. The other nine studies had less teacher participation and
collected fewer surveys. Each study had teachers who provided responses that were not
directly related to the question; in fact, there were 22 (11%) nonresponsive answers
across case studies. Two other studies, case studies D and E, had teachers who left blank
responses. In case study H, although teachers may have attempted to complete the
questionnaire, their responses were, by virtue of their absence, not counted in the final

119
results. Therefore, of the 47 responses, only 32 were considered valid responses for case
study H.
Introduction to Case Studies A-J
As indicated above, the cohort studied 10 turnaround middle schools and their
principals (see Chapter 3 and appendixes). The data showed several common trends.
Across the 10 studies, there were several uncredentialed teachers at each school. Also, the
10 schools had an average of 125 points below the acceptable 800-point threshold
established by NCLB.
Other common trends emerged. For example, the principals shared common
career experiences before becoming principals. Nine of the 10 principals had taught at
various grade levels. All 10 principals shared previous leadership and administrative
experiences prior to becoming principals. Eight of the 10 principals had been assistant
principals. As a group, the principals’ work experience prior to becoming principal
ranged from 7 to 25 years.
Findings
This section presents the findings of this study. First, it begins with an analysis
and review of the data from School H. Then it provides a cross-case analysis of the other
nine studies. After the cross-case analysis, reference is made to the literature analyzed in
Chapter 2, and then a section summary is provided.
Research Question 1: Importance
of the Transition Period
Research question 1 asked, Did principals in a turnaround situation find the
transition period (first 90 days) to be important? This question was developed to identify
whether principals agreed that the transition period was vital for the new middle school

120
principal. The question also provided data on why the first 90 days were seen as import-
ant to the success of the transition process or induction period.
First, the researchers established that the principals who participated in the study
were in turnaround middle schools. In the case of school H and the other nine cases
studied, the supervisors of the new middle school principals identified the schools as
being in a turnaround situation. Principals were required to identify their school situa-
tions. As shown in Table 2, all 10 principals identified their schools as being in a turn-
around situation. This was also demonstrated by the results of the STRS Chart (Appendix
A). The STRS Chart was inserted in the instruments as question 2 of the Superintendent
Survey, question 2 of the Principal Interview, and question 1 of the Teacher Survey.
STRS describes the situational environment that may exist at a school site in which new
leaders can begin their transition. A staff in a ―turnaround school‖ recognizes that the
school is ―in trouble‖ and that changes are needed to improve the school. In a turnaround
school, new leaders can move more quickly to change the environment around them
(Watkins, 2003).

Table 2

Principals’ Responses to Question 1: Circle the Category in Which You Would Place the
School When the Principal Attained the Position

Category f

Start-Up 0
Turnaround 10
Realignment 0
Sustaining Success 0

121
The STRS Chart, which was provided to the participants, allowed the participants
to select which of four situations describing their school: Turnaround, Start-Up, Realign-
ment, or Sustaining Success (Watkins, 2003).
Case study H: Identification/evidence of turnaround school. In the interview,
through the use of the STRS Chart, the supervisor of principal H identified that school H
was a turnaround school. The supervisor also stated that he had advised Principal H of the
situation at school H. The supervisor told principal H that there was a lack of consistent
leadership at the school and that the school had been exposed to several principals. The
principal prior to her was from out of state and had caused the school to experience many
problems, from poor academic performance to a poor school culture. Through direct
communication with her supervisor, Principal H became knowledgeable of the school
culture, environment, and school situation. Principal H became particularly knowledge-
able about the school situation, which was described by her supervisor as a turnaround
situation. During the immediate supervisor’s interview, supervisor of principal H stated
the following about principal H:
She had and was in a difficult position, where she took over a school that was in a
difficult predicament. She worked hard to develop the culture of the school and
establish herself as the leader. She was setting the tone and getting buy-in of all of
the stakeholders. The school stakeholders knew their school was in trouble and
they needed a leader to move them in right direction.
The data provided by the supervisor in charge of Principal H identified school H
as a turnaround school. The supervisor also indicated that the stakeholders, including the
teachers, were aware that their school was in trouble and needed improvement. The
supervisor of Principal H identified the school as a turnaround school based on several
factors. First, the supervisor used academic performance as a factor. He stated that the

122
school was in trouble and needed to be back on track academically. He also stated that
there was a series of poor administrators who failed to lead the stakeholders of the
organization in the right direction. Next, the supervisor stated that the staff had a low
morale. He further stated that the stakeholders of the organization recognized that their
school was not on the right track and the school needed to be put back on the right track.
As indicated above, Principal H identified the school as a turnaround school.
Principal H provided several factors to explain why the school was in a turnaround
situation. Principal H stated that maintaining API and student achievement was the main
indicator. She also stated that most of the teachers knew that the school was going in the
wrong direction, which is a characteristic of a turnaround situation (Watkins, 2003). The
morale of the staff was low and the school needed a stable school administrator.
As evident in the teacher survey results, the majority of the teachers identified the
school as a turnaround school. Thirty-two teachers at School H identified their school as
a turnaround school.
Cross-case data: Identification/evidence of turnaround school. All of the
supervisors were required to complete the STRS chart. The supervisors in all 10 studies
selected turnaround situation as the identifier of the school situation when the new
principal assumed his/her position. In short, 100% of the supervisors also identified the
school as a turnaround school.
In response to question 2 of the principal survey, principal H and the other
nine principals also identified the school as a turnaround school. Table 3 shows how each
principal responded to this question. The results indicate that all of the principals (100%)
agreed that their schools were ―turnaround‖ schools.

123
Table 3

Responses to Question 2: In Which Category Would You Place Your School When You
Attained Your Principalship?

Category A B C D E F G H I J

Start-Up
Turnaround X X X X X X X X X X
Realignment
Sustaining Success

Case study H: Factors supporting categorization as a turnaround school. As
stated above, both the supervisor of principal H and principal were aware that school H
was turnaround school. They identified the factors discussed above of school H as a
turnaround school. Most of the factors identified to support their identifications were
academic performance, morale, and previous failed school leadership.
Cross-case analysis: Factors supporting categorization as a turnaround
school. Immediate supervisors in all 10 case studies were asked to complete the STRS
chart. They were then asked to provide evidence to support their school identification. In
most of the 10 cases, supervisors chose academic performance or the inconsistent school
progress as indicators of a turnaround situation.
A subquestion to question 2 of the principal interview asked, ―What evidence did
they have to support the categorization?‖ When single factors were considered, eight of
the 10 principals (80%) stated that achievement was an indicator of their school being
described as being in turnaround situation. One principal (10%) indicated that staff was
an indicator. Five (50%) stated that morale was an indicator. Two (20%) stated that

124
administration was an indicator, and six (60%) stated that inertia was an indicator. Table
4 summarizes the responses to this question. Only two principals chose administration as
an indicator. Achievement was the most common indicator that principals used to
identify their school as a turnaround school. Achievement and morale may have been the
most popular because of the ―high-stakes‖ accountability pressures that principals face
under NCLB.

Table 4

Responses to Question 2: What Evidence Did You Have to Support This Categorization?

Evidence A B C D E F G H I J

Achievement X X X X X X X X
Staff X
Morale X X X X X
Administration X X
Inertia X X X X X X

As indicated above, most of the principals in the 10 studies chose achievement
(eight), inertia (six), and morale (five). These top three responses could be interrelated
because the schools were underperforming and lacked leadership and a positive school
culture. A school that is not achieving could have bad morale and no direction or leader-
ship to help the school to achieve again. Lack of achievement, low morale, and inertia are
characteristics of a turnaround school. Accordingly, ―reenergizing a demoralized staff‖

125
and ―recognizing need for change‖ are related to achievement, inertia, and morale.
Watkins’s research (2003) indicates that in a turnaround situation these are common
challenges and opportunities.
Case study H: Information regarding school situation. While question 1 of the
principals’ survey helped to identify whether principals believed that the transition period
was vital for the new middle school principal and whether the first 90 days were import-
ant to the success of the transition process or induction period, question 2 provided
information on whether the principals received important information that prepared them
to assume the principalship and identified who provided that information. ―Accelerating
their learning‖ is a critical component of a 90-day ―acceleration plan‖ (Watkins, 2003).
Having important historical or situational information provides an opportunity for the
principal to be prepared to assume the leadership role. This also provides an opportunity
to have a plan or a road map for the transition process. Watkins recommended that the
transition process begin prior to Day 1 on the job. New leaders should be provided
background information about the organization to plan the transition.
In case study H, the principal had received much of the important information
about the school from her immediate supervisor, the assistant superintendent, prior to
interviewing and becoming the principal. Prior to starting at the school, she knew that
achievement and administrative stability were key issues at her school. She also knew
that she was going to build trust and she was going to have to work to build staff morale,
since it was so low.
My first 90 days, the Assistant Superintendent visited often. My director was
here. We would email and we talked. I feel like we had strong communication.
They were on campus a lot and that was important. The Assistant Superintendent
gave me a lot of history about the school. The department chairs were the key

126
people. I felt that they felt comfortable in that they could talk to me and I felt
confident in them that we could work things out or they could let me know about
anything that was going on. A lot of support from the leadership team. (Personal
communication, March 15, 2007)
Except for oral conversations with superintendents, a few teachers, those kinds of
things, most of the information I actually got about the school I got by either
online or by looking at data. I created focus groups initially because I wanted to
hear what people had to say in a way where I could track it to listen to themes;
what seemed to be the biggest issues for people and why. So I wouldn’t say that I
really had anybody mentoring me even from the district. I mean it was like,
―Okay, here’s your school. See if you can fix it.‖ (Personal communication,
March 2007)
Cross-case analysis: Information regarding school situation. Ninety percent of
the principals stated that they received information about the school situation of their
school before entering the job assignment. Each principal identified different sources of
where they received the information.
Table 5 provides a description of who provided the important information about
the school to the principal. Based on principals’ responses, 60% of the principals stated
that their immediate supervisor provided the information, while 20% of the principals
relied on teachers to provide the information. Thirty percent (30%) stated that support
staff had provided the information, and one principal stated that a parent had provided the
information. For 80% of the principals, others outside of these common sources had
provided information about the school. Many gained information from electronic
resources on the Internet, such as the SARC reports.
The significance of the first 90 days. Question 5 of the principal’s survey,
question 3 of the teacher’s survey, and question 5 of the superintendent’s survey provided
data on how the first 90 days were perceived by the principal, supervisors, and teachers.
The responses to these questions showed whether the transition period (the first 90 days)

127
Table 5

Responses to Question 2: Who Provided You With Information About Your School?

Source A B C D E F G H I J

Supervisor(s) X X X X X X
Teachers X X
Support staff X X X
Parents and
community members X
Others X X X X X X X X

was believed to be a significant time period for the success of the new middle school
principal (Watkins, 2003).
Case study H: The significance of the first 90 days. Supervisor of Principal H
identified the transition period (the first 90 days) as a critical time period. This is an
opportunity for the principal to impact the culture of the school. This was also a critical
time period for principal H to establish herself as the instructional leader.
Principal H stated that the transition period (the first 90 days) is a vital time for
the success of a new principal. She stated that ―it was important because your stepping
into a new situation and everyone is watching you.‖ This was an opportunity for her to
build trust and establish relationships. She also stated, ―I wanted to make them feel like
they were actively involved in the all of the decision making process.‖ She tried to be
humorous to help everyone feel comfortable and recognize that she was not always
serious and only meant business.

128
In addition, when teachers responded to question 3 of the teacher interview, ―How
significant were the first 90 days for the principal?‖ 100% of the teachers stated the first
90 days were very important. In fact, some the teachers stated the following:
The first 90 days were very significant. She immediately valued our input. She
attempted to connect with all stakeholders.
This time is significant Principal H made sure she wasn’t snobbish. She was
amicable. She celebrated our traditions and culture. She built relationships and a
focus of where we were going.
Cross-case analysis: The significance of the first 90 days. The same question
was asked of the supervisors in question 6 of the supervisor’s or immediate supervisor’s
interview: ―How significant were the first 90 days for this principal?‖ Three supervisors
rated the transition (first 90 days) as important to success of a middle school principal,
and seven superintendents rated the transition as significant, critical, or extremely
significant. Table 6 summarizes the responses by the supervisors.

Table 6

Responses by the Supervisors to Question 5: How Significant Were the First 90 Days of
the Principalship?

Rating f %

Not important 0 0
Significant, critical, or
extremely significant 10 100

129
Responses from principals and their supervisors substantiated Watkins’s (2003)
suggestion that the 90-day period is an opportunity to do promote oneself, accelerate
learning, match strategy to situation, secure early wins, negotiate success, achieve
alignment, build teams, create coalitions, and keep balance. Similarly, Bradt et al. (2006)
suggested that the principal plan the first 100 days, decide how to engage the new culture,
make a powerful first impression, get buy-in for one burning imperative, use key mile-
stones, invest in early wins, and get the right people in the right roles.
Supervisors provided comments regarding the significance of the transition period
for the principal whom they supervised.
Critical! [The principal is] developing the culture of the school and you are
establishing yourself as a leader of the school. You are setting the tone for the rest
of school year. You are setting the expectations and the attitudes of your staff,
your students and your parents. (Supervisor of School H)
They were extremely significant because he realized that there were some things
that needed to be put in place in order for him to be successful as the instructional
leader of that school. He also realized that he was going into a situation where
staff had been lax. There were clear differences in the leadership styles of the two
administrators. (Supervisor of School E)
I think it was very significant. In the first 90 days, people have a tendency to
judge what the expectation levels of individuals are. I think that she, through her
focus skills set the bar high enough that people felt challenged but also along the
way created benchmarks so they could take baby steps towards success.
(Supervisor of School F)
All 10 supervisors categorized the first 90 days or transition as significant or very
significant. Four of the 10 supervisors stated that the transition is critical, significant, or
extremely significant because the principal builds a community, makes connections, and
establishes themselves as the new leader. Since this was an open-ended question in the
supervisors’ interviews, all of their responses were collapsed into one category of critical,
significant, or very significant.

130
Table 7 shows that all principals (including Principal H) agreed that the first 90
days were significant or very significant. The answers by Principal H were different from
those of eight other principals, who stated that the transition period (first 90 days) was
very significant versus significant. The principal from school J was in agreement with
school principal H that the transition period was only significant. These data were
obtained from question 5 of the principal’s interview. The research group calibrated the
responses into significant and very significant responses. However, it became clear
during the calibration that there was only a slight difference between significant and very
significant and that, in reality, all principals in the study agreed that the first 90 days were
vital to the success of the new principal. Watkins (2003) stated that ―root causes of transi-
tion failure always lie in a pernicious interaction between the situation, with its
opportunities and pitfalls, and the individual, with his or her strengths and vulnerabilities‖
(p. 4).

Table 7

Responses to Question 5: How Significant Were the First 90 Days of the Principalship?

Response A B C D E F G H I J

None given
Very significant X X X X X X X X
Significant X X

131
Table 8 provides the same data as Table 7, except that the data are presented in a
different format and are quantified. Based on the principals’ responses, all 10 principals
strongly agreed that the entry period of the first 90 days is very significant to the success
of the school site principal: Eight stated that the transition period (first 90 days) was very
significant and two stated that the transition period (first 90 days) was significant. In fact,
none of the principals rated the first 90 days as not significant. Table 8 quantifies the
principals’ responses. Therefore, the responses by all 10 principals significantly and
quantifiably validated that the transition period (first 90 days) is important and vital to the
success of assuming the position of the middle school principal. The data results are
congruent with Watkins’s (2003) research, which suggests that the first 90 days are vital
to the success of new administrators in a new organization. Accordingly, principals
shared anecdotal indicators as to why the first 90 days were important:

Table 8

Responses by the Principals to Question 5: How Significant Were the First 90 Days of
the Principalship?

Rating f %

Very significant 8 80
Significant 2 20
Total 10 100

Extremely significant! In the first 90 days I would have recognized whether I was
going to make it or not make it. If I had not established those relationships, built

132
that team (we formed a leadership team). Let the staff see who I am and what I’m
about . . . I don’t think we would have pulled it together like a staff if we had not
set myself out there from the very beginning. It’s scary when you’re the new
person and an outsider—you have to put yourself out there. You have to drop
your guard and open yourself up. (Principal D)
It was very important because I’m stepping into a situation where I think every-
body was watching me. With the previous principal leaving, it was critical that I
was open with my teachers. I follow protocol procedures and I wanted to make
them feel that, you know, they were part of my decision making because a lot of it
I learned from them. (Principal H)
I think the first 90 days were really crucial. There were make or break days. In
order to be the instructional leader on a school, you have to establish yourself in a
leadership capacity. That doesn’t mean it’s just all top down, you’re mandating by
fiat. It means you have to be able to lead people, which means you now have to
somehow garner their respect and get them to come onboard and join you in this
adventure of changing what they do. (Principal F)
The same question was asked of the teachers in question 3 of their survey:
―How significant were the first 90 days (or first semester) for this principal? Explain.‖
Table 9 summarizes the responses of 214 teachers to this question. Seven responses not
included because they responses were left blank.
In case study H, approximately 45% stated that the first 90 days were significant
for their principal, 23% stated that the first 90 were not significant. In case study H. It is
important to remember that the 9% who left blank responses and the 23% who provided
nonresponsive comments may have represented the 15 new teachers at school H when the
study was conducted. Therefore, the 32% who were not able to respond were possibly
unable to answer the question because they had not been present during principal H’s 1st
year as principal. The studies of schools D and E reported similar data results. For
example, school D had three ―blank or other responses‖ and school E had five ―blank and
other responses.‖ School H had four ―blank‖ and 11 ―other responses‖ When analyzing

133
Table 9

Responses by the Teachers to Question 3: How Significant Were the First 90 Days (or
First Semester) for This Principal?

School H Nine other case studies
Rating f % f %

Significant 21 45 139 83
Not significant 11 23 14 8
Blank 4 9 3 4
Nonresponsive 11 23 11 7
Totals 47 167

the SARC reports of these three schools, the schools showed that they had the largest new
teacher groups.
When comparing School H to the other nine case studies, there were similar
results. The majority of teachers, 77%, agreed that the first 90 days were significant for
their principal. Only 12% of the teachers across the 10 case studies did not believe that
the first 90 days were significant to the principal. In case study H, approximately 23% of
the respondents from school H stated that the first 90 days were not significant. Similarly,
nine schools, except for J, had teachers who provided nonresponsive responses. Studies
D, E, and H had teachers with blank responses.
Regarding those teachers who stated that the first 90 days were significant, there
was one teacher who summarized the overall feeling of the teachers about the principal’s
first 90 days:

134
The first 90 days were important because this was the first opportunity we were
going to have to work with her (new principal). When working with her, we
realized how she valued everybody. She tried to reconnect with everybody. When
she arrived she did an activity where each teacher had to write a timeline of their
personal tenure here at the school. This validated our history with the school.
(Teacher at School H, personal communication, March 15, 2007)
Case study H: Which actions helped the principal to make the biggest gains?
Question 1 of the supervisor’s survey asked, ―What makes you define the principal as
successful (Appendix A)?‖ By this question, the researchers sought to ascertain the skills
or strategies that the individual principals used to make them good candidates to lead in a
turnaround school environment.
Supervisor of Principal H was asked, ―What three important actions helped the
principal make the biggest positive gains?‖ The supervisor identified three actions. The
first was remaining proactive and visible. The second was providing the stakeholders a
chance to gain ownership of their school and the decision making process. The last action
was remaining open and honest as leaders. These actions mentioned by the teacher
underscored the importance of the first 90 days and, because of these and other actions,
the principal of Case Study H gained credibility.
Seventy-seven percent of the 47 teachers at school H stated that the new middle
school principal established credibility during the first 90 days. Eleven teachers in case
study H stated that they were unable to answer the question because they weren’t
teaching at school H during the first 90 day transition period. These teachers represent 11
of the 15 new teachers in case study H.
Across the 10 studies, answers varied. The reasons most cited by supervisors for
the success was establishing a vision. They also identified the importance of the principal
being an effective instructional leader. Finally, supervisors noted the importance of the

135
principal remaining collaborative with all stakeholders as critical for success. Table 10
provides a summary of responses to question 1 of the supervisors’ interview.

Table 10
Responses of Immediate Supervisors: What Makes Principal Successful?
________________________________________________________________________
Reasons for success Case Study
________________________________________________________________________
Principal established a vision B, C, D, E, F, G, J
Principal maintained effective communication skills A, D, H
Principal was an effective instruction leader E, F, G, H, J
Principal establish credibility C, I, H
Principal had strong teaching experience A, C
Principal used data to implement change E, J
Principal was collaborative and involved all stakeholders B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J
Principal was an effective disciplinarian E, H, J
Principal conducted a needs assessment J
Principal cares for school and stakeholders B, D, G, H
Principal had a successful assistant principalship experience A, D
Principal held teachers accountable B, J

Principal H also stated three actions. She believed that she was visible. She also
believed she gave the stakeholders of the organization an opportunity to feel trust.

136
Finally, she established strong lines and open lines of communication with all of
stakeholders.
The 47 teacher responses at school H showed that the teachers had similar
responses. Several teachers believed the principal cared about the school and she had a
strong interest in the students. They believed she remained visible and she worked to gain
their trust.
Summary of findings: Literature and research comparison. The importance of
the transition period (first 90 days) for new leaders is substantiated by research. In the
current study, the supervisors and principals agreed that the first 90 days of the new
principal are significant. The responses of the principals and supervisors were in
agreement with research by Kotter (1996), Watkins (2003), J. Murphy and Meyers
(2008), and Bradt et al. (2006), who stated that the first 90-100 days are very critical to
the new leader. According to Watkins, the first 90 days can ―make it or break it‖ for the
new leader. Accordingly, the first 90 days will help to establish the new principal as the
new leader of the organization.
Supervisors’ beliefs regarding the importance of the transition period for new
leaders were similar to the research reported by Bradt et al. (2006) and Watkins (2003).
According to Bradt et al., the first 100 days is an important transition period for a new
leader. It is the period in which the new leader will use key milestones to drive team
performance and get the right people in the right roles. Similarly, Watkins suggested that
transition periods are periods of challenges and opportunities and that the leader must
know the situation of the organization to know what kinds of obstacles can exist and what

137
kinds of opportunities will be available. When the leader recognizes challenges and their
opportunities, the leader can have a successful transition or induction period.
The findings that address research question 1 are consistent with research results
reported by Watkins (2003) pertaining to the transition period in turnaround organiza-
tions. Watkins recommended that ―clarity of the situation you are confronting helps you
decide what you need to do in the first 90 days‖ (p. 69). Watkins recommended that the
leader be made aware of the situation. In these 10 case studies, all of the principals were
aware that the schools were in a turnaround situation prior to assuming the leadership
position. In the case of School H and the other schools, the immediate supervisors of the
principals had clearly made the new principal aware that the school needed to be put
―back on track.‖
The results from School H and the other nine studies verified that the first 90 days
of a new principal are vital and that this is a critical time period in the new principal’s
career. Findings from this question indicated that the new principals created successful
transition by creating a road map (Watkins, 2003). Principal H and several of the other
principals found opportunities for early wins, accelerated their learning, identified the
situation of the school, matched strategies to the situations, and they built coalitions. For
example, Principal H was briefed about the school’s morale, culture, history, previous
administration, and achievement data. This information allowed Principal H to create a
plan to rebuild morale and trust in the organization.
The 10 case studies show that the transition period is a crucial time period for the
principal’s success in a turnaround school. This was established through the data results
of the teacher interviews, supervisor’s interviews, principal interviews, and survey

138
quantitative and qualitative data. Finally, this conclusion was supported by Watkins
(2003), who stated that the first 90 days is a make-or-break time period for new leaders.
Therefore, new leaders need to establish their credibility by gaining early wins (Bradt et
al., 2006; Murphy, J., & Meyers, 2008; Watkins, 2003). Accordingly, educational
literature also suggests that it is important for a principal to be able to quickly identify the
situation of the school, diagnose the problems, and immediately present a list of strengths
and weaknesses that can be improved.
In short, question 1 established that the first 90 days is in fact a vital time period
for a principal of a turnaround school. There were common themes and common strate-
gies used among the 10 cases and 10 principals during the first 90 days. These threads
included the importance of communication with all stakeholders, an important emphasis
on building relationships, maintaining visibility, and remaining personable with staff.
Although some principals did not name exact frameworks or authors, the strategies that
were mentioned can be directly correlated to contemporary theories, frameworks, strate-
gies, and actions that have been cited in literature review in Chapter 2. These threads
included the importance of communication with all stakeholders, an important emphasis
on building relationships, maintaining visibility, and remaining personable with staff.
Research Question 2: Useful Strategies and Frameworks
Research question 2 asked, Which strategies and conceptual frameworks (leader-
ship theories) were useful to new principals during the transition period (first 90 days) in
a turnaround school? This question was developed to identify whether the principals
used any specific strategies or theories to help them during the transition process (first 90
days). Questions in the instruments relating to this research question included item 9 on

139
the principal’s survey (Appendix B), item 3 on the supervisor’s survey (Appendix A),
and item 4 on the teachers’ survey (Appendix C).
Findings in case study H related to research question 2. Prior to interviewing
the principal, the researcher asked the district-level assistant superintendent, ―What three
important actions helped the principal make the biggest positive gains?‖ The supervisor
from district H stated that four actions impacted principal H’s positive gains. The first
action was that principal H immediately began building relationships and established a
positive school culture by providing an opportunity for the teachers to gain ownership of
the school. Principal H wanted to foster shared beliefs, a sense of community, and a sense
of cooperation. Second, Principal H began to provide contingent rewards by acknowledg-
ing individual accomplishments and recognizing the history of individual accomplish-
ments of each stakeholders to the school. Accordingly, she provided each teacher an
opportunity to share his/her history with the school and talk about the history with the
organization. This allowed the teachers to show that they were stakeholders of the
organization. The third action was that the principal remained visible and proactive;
she continued to build relationships, communicate frequently, and she frequently had
dialogue with the staff regarding the issues. Finally, she was visible. The final action
was that principal H began to build a positive culture by dealing with the morale of the
school.
Principal H’s responses to this question were similar to those of her supervisor
(the assistant superintendent of middle schools). When Principal H was asked what
positive actions had impacted the transition period, she stated that she had worked hard to
gain the trust of the members of the school site by building relationships with all

140
stakeholders, especially the key stakeholders (leadership). She said that it was important
to gain the trust of her teachers and to remain visible. Working as a mediator among staff
had helped her to gain the trust of the staff. When Principal H was asked what positive
actions had impacted the transition period, the principal stated that they had worked to
build relationships and trust with key stakeholders. She also stated that is was important
to celebrate the contributions and the history of each stakeholder. She accomplished this
by doing an activity to show the stakeholders their value and history in the organization.
The principal also maintained visibility in the classrooms and on campus.
I think it is important for your staff to trust you and for you to communicate with
your staff. You need to be visible and out there with them because many times
you can just troubleshoot just by being outside, watching the students, walking in
the classrooms, in the lounge. So being a principal you need to be there for them
in a timely manner and being out there with kids. (Personal communication,
March 2007)
Thus, Principal H worked hard to turn a negative culture into a collaborative, positive,
and professional culture. Finally, she also worked hard to establish strong lines of
communication with all stakeholders, including leadership, students, parents, support
staff and teachers.
The strategies utilized by Principal H are directly correlated to the Marzano et al.
(2005) seminal research which suggests that principals impact a school organization
when they assume the responsibilities of culture and communication, develop relation-
ships, affirm stakeholders, provide contingent rewards, and maintain visibility.
Teacher’s responses were similar to Principal H’s responses but they did not
identify leadership theories and they supported Principal H’s actions. Teachers stated the
following about Principal H’s actions:

141
The principal helped to re-establish a professional climate at the school.
She visited all of the classrooms and she took a genuine interest in what was
happening in the classrooms.
She established a professional learning community that had a sincere interest with
students.
She was aware of the staff frustrations.
She was immediately willing to work with everybody.
She had gung-ho attitude.
She was willing to listen to our concerns and took note of them.
She was willing to observe.
She created a warm and inviting atmosphere and maintained an open door policy.
She maintained an open channel for communication.
In question 4 in the teachers’ survey, about important actions taken by the princi-
pal, teachers were asked, ―At what point did the principal establish credibility with you?‖
While initially the research team had hoped for a response that would outline a timetable
for when the principal had gained credibility, many teachers responded by listing actions
that generated credibility. Although these answers were surprising to the investigators,
they were also fortuitous because they provided additional clues regarding what strate-
gies, actions, or characteristics demonstrated by the principal had produced a positive
response from these teachers. Specific responses from teachers about the principal’s
actions that created credibility included the following.
She had a sincere interest in the classroom and sincere interest in her colleagues.
She established credibility as the school leader by establishing a professional
learning community that values what is happening inside the classrooms.
She acknowledged that as a school we lacked guidance and she was going to be
our leader to guide us.

142
She focused on our needs. She listened to our new ideas and suggestions. The
previous principal basically said, ―This is the way it is!‖ and [principal H] allowed
us to be part of the decision-making process.
For teachers who indicated a timeline regarding the ―credibility‖ question, all said that
credibility was gained within the first 90 days. In fact, their responses were similar to the
supervisor’s response and the principal’s response in case study H.
When asked at what point during the first 90 days the principal had established
credibility, 60% of the teachers provided specific moments during the first 90 days and
40% provided specific actions or strategies of the principal that helped the principal to
gain credibility. Thus, 100% of the teachers reported that principal H had gained credi-
bility during the first 90 days. The data show that 60% gave an approximate time period
within the 90-day period in which the principal gained credibility and 40% described
specific means or specific strategies by which the principal gained credibility during
these 90 days. For example, several teachers indicated that the principal had made a point
to go directly to each teacher and introduce herself. She built a level of trust and she
established relationships with all of the stakeholders. She also went into each classroom
and shared highlights of her observations. This validated the teachers and their practice. It
was also a winning opportunity because it provided the foundations for building a strong
level of trust with the principal.
In short, there were five key leadership characteristics or strategies that helped
Principal H gain success during the transition period (the first 90 days). The leadership
characteristics or strategies that helped set-up Principal H for success during the first 90
days were: affirmation and contingent rewards; building relationships; building a positive
school culture; and building strong lines of communication.

143
Provide affirmation and contingent rewards with all stakeholders. The first
event that was a success for principal H during the transition period (the first 90 days)
was recognizing the contributions of the stakeholders, celebrating their accomplishments
and acknowledging their failures. At the first staff meeting, Principal H asked that each
teacher talk about a significant experience or memory in teaching at school H. They were
required to write the date and time that they started teaching and the important memory.
Then they were required to create a time line of all of the individual memories. Teachers
explained that this experience had helped to validate teachers, individual contributions
and history at school H. They felt that Principal H recognized their individual accom-
plishments.
Focus on building relationships with all stakeholders. Building relationships
was a critical strategy utilized by Principal H. Principal H mentioned the importance of
building relationships during the interview.
Talking to the leadership team and individual teachers. The department chairs and
I think those were the key people who had been in this school for more than 25
years. They were still here back when teachers who had seen principals come and
go, they were the people, maybe one or two key people that would meet with me,
come in and my door would be open and just want to let me know certain things
or I might be aware of this or just let me know—so there was staff and I think that
was very supportive and I that was—I felt that they felt comfortable in that they
could talk to me and I felt confident in them that we could work things out for
they could let me know about anything that was going on.
In fact, this was validated by her supervisor and by every teacher through the
interviews and surveys. Teachers talked about how principal H came into classrooms and
met with a few of them individually. The following are a few comments describing how
the teachers felt that principal H helped foster positive relationships:
She came into the classrooms. She had a sincere interest of what was going on in
the school and classroom.

144
She was willing to work with everyone. She didn’t want to make waves. She
listened to staff frustrations.
She had a open willingness to listen to us.
Focus on building a positive school culture. Principal H also worked hard to
rebuild the poor morale of the school staff. Principal D wanted to work on shaping the
value, feelings and beliefs of the staff. She wanted to build a cohesive staff. This was
evident from one of the teacher’s comments:
We had been with a number of leaders and the very few leaders that we had for a
short period of time weren’t successful. Meaning they didn’t fit well with the
staff. The one thing that I think principal H did, was not come in with a rubber
mallet. She came in to observe, foster relationships, and build the school morale.
Focus on building strong lines of communication with all stakeholders.
Principal H also utilized communication as a key strategy during the transition period
(the first 90 days). Principal H immediately went into the classrooms to talk with the
teachers. She had an open door policy and invited teachers to come in and talk to her
directly. Principal H stated, ―I created a warm and inviting atmosphere and an open door
policy to my office that allowed others to come in and communicate with me without
feeling threatened.‖
Findings in cross-case analysis related to question 2. Principal H shared
common background experiences with the other 10 principals in the study. She had
extensive background experiences in education before she became a principal of a
turnaround school. She utilized her previous experiences and the background knowledge
that her direct supervisor provided to prepare for the transition into the new school. In
fact, principal H’s direct supervisor stated that he talked to her about the school situation.
Additionally, in the interview with the researcher, the supervisor and principal H
described the school as a turnaround school, as did the principals of the other nine case

145
studies. When the supervisor talked about the specific strategies that principal H utilized
during the first 90 days, the supervisor talked about her ability to build relationships with
key stakeholders, remaining visible, building lines of communication, positively trying to
build school culture, and remaining an approachable person by instilling trust.
The principal in case study D spoke about building trust by being open, honest,
and showing the stakeholders that you are a normal person:
Sometimes you also just need to go by your gut. You’ve got to open yourself up
so that the staff sees that you are real even if you have to take a few shots. But
you need to go back out there, lead them…
Additionally, Principal H had other commonalities with the other principals in this
study. Principal H, like some of the other nine principals, found it crucial to build trust,
build relationships, building strong lines of communication, celebrated each individual,
and remaining visible. These five strategies were supported by the actions taken and the
philosophies held by the other nine principals in the cross-case analysis. In the other nine
studies, the district-level supervisors or administrators provided many specific examples
of the strategies that new principals used to attain success during the first 90 days in a
turnaround school. Table 11 shows correlations among the 10 case studies.
The data results from the 10 studies of the principals, teachers, and supervisors
show direct correlations among the responses about the strategies that made a positive
impact during the transition period (the first 90 days).
As shown by the data in Table 11, the principals did not rely on one strategy but
used various strategies that helped them during the transition period (the first 90 days).
Focus on building relationships was a common characteristic and strategy shared by the
principals in schools A, C, D, F, H, I, and J. These principals found it crucial to have

146
Table 11
Strategies Used by Principals During the Transition Period

Strategy A B C D E F G H I J

Visibility X X
Relationships X X X X X X X
Transformational X X X
Structural X X X X
Flexibility X X
Communication X X X X X

direct conversations with teachers, an open door office policy, and direct and open
conversations with leadership, as well as all stakeholders of the school. The data also
showed the importance of building open lines of communication. Principals in schools A,
D, F, G, and I believed that communicating directly and openly was a key to their
transition success.
Direct supervisors were asked, ―What three important actions helped the principal
make the biggest positive gains?‖ The supervisors identified several characteristics and
strategies that the principals used. Table 12 describes the strategies and characteristics
that the supervisors believed that the principals used. Based on the supervisors’
responses, the data indicated that the principals did not share one common strategy but
they that the principals utilized various strategies. The supervisor of Principal B stated

147
Table 12

Principal’s Characteristics or Strategies Reported by Direct Supervisors

Strategy Case study

Established trust A, C, D, E, F, G, H, I
Established a collaborative culture A, C, D, E, F, G, H, I
Established a vision D, F, G, I
Establish strong lines of communication B, E, G, H, J
Used data to drive programs E, F, I
Modeled instructional leadership H, J
Maintained visibility D, J, H
Built relationships A, C, D, E, F, G, H, I
Shared decision making B, C, F, G
________________________________________________________________________

that the principal provided ―shared decision making‖ and maintained a ―focus on building
trust and respect.‖ The supervisor of Principal C stated,
Immediate changes instructionally in terms of the master schedule. The second
thing was to establish and administrative team that coalesced and would take
matters and concerns seriously. Third, she established herself as the instructional
leader of the school, not just the principal. She got the right people on the bus.
She was building trust by understanding the culture that she went into, but that
she did not have a lot of time and the culture itself had to turnaround. (Personal
communication, March 2007)
The supervisor of Principal F stated that the principal was successful in establish-
ing department leaders. The principal was effective at analyzing data and provided
opportunities for teachers to get involved. The supervisor shared that the principal was

148
effective at building relationships. The principal focused the staff on defining success and
the principal was established as the instructional leader.
The supervisor of Principal G stated that the principal was effective at establish-
ing a vision and communicating that vision to stakeholders. The above examples indicate
that the principals utilized instructional leadership strategies. For example, they under-
stood the importance of building relationships. They also understood that they had to
validate stakeholders such as teachers and be open to the current situation of the organ-
ization so that they could make important decisions.
Most of the principals and supervisors in the 10 case studies identified some
common leadership characteristics, theories and strategies. In most cases, they identified
some of Marzano’s (2005) 21 leadership characteristics. First, the principals and their
supervisors stated that building relationships and gaining the trust of the stakeholders was
significant. Both groups also identified the importance of being visible. Visibility was
significant in helping them to establish credibility as a leader. In addition, flexibility and
transformational leadership were commonly used by the other principals in the other
studies (Marzano et al., 2005).
Teachers provided data about which characteristics, strategies, or theories were
used to support the principal the during the transition period (the first 90 days). There
were 216 teacher responses. The teachers were allowed to identify more than one
strategy. The most common responses to this question were focus, visibility, culture,
order, flexibility and communication. The teachers’ responses showed that 103 chose
focus, 102 selected visibility, 99 chose culture, 92 chose order, 79 chose flexibility, and
78 chose communication.

149
In all 10 schools, approximately 207 teachers responded to question 5 of the
teacher survey, which asked, At what point did the principal establish credibility with
you?. Forty-seven percent agreed that the principal had established credibility during the
first 90 days, and 14% stated that it took the principal longer than 90 days. The remaining
39% did not respond to the question, perhaps because they were new teachers who did
not have a historical frame of reference to answer the question appropriately.
When the research team analyzed the data regarding ―actions‖ that the teachers
identified as creating the biggest gains for the principal, they found an interesting distinc-
tion between ―schoolwide‖ actions and ―personal‖ actions. ―Schoolwide‖ actions were
those actions that created a repeatedly noticed pattern, such as, ―she demonstrated a
sincere interest in all of her teachers.‖ In contrast, ―personal‖ actions described a specific
interaction between the teacher and principal that had great significance, such as, ―When
I was sick, she took my class and sent me home to get better.‖
Nearly 91% of the responses provided specific examples related to actions that
affected the entire school rather than actions that affected individuals. Almost 90%
responded by describing actions that had affected them as individuals. For example, some
teachers discussed the first-day history staff development activity, which had validated
each of them as an individual. One teacher reported that the principal made time to visit
her classroom and showed an interest in what was happening in the classroom. Another
teacher talked about how the principal resolved a personnel matter. Despite the distinc-
tion between ―personal‖ and ―schoolwide‖ actions, it is interesting to note that enough
―personal‖ actions could end up creating a ―schoolwide‖ perception.

150
In short, when comparing the three groups (supervisors, principals, and teachers)
who participated in the 10 case studies, there was a direct correlation between all three
groups choosing communication, visibility, trust, and culture as critical factors.
Summary of Findings and Comparison to Literature for Research Question 2
It is evident that a new middle school principal in a turnaround situation can
achieve success when using appropriate strategies or conceptual frameworks. It is also
evident that the supervisors, principals, and teachers who participated in this study
believe that the transition period (the first 90 days) is a crucial time period for the new
middle school principal in a turnaround school. The data also indicated that success
during the transition period (the first 90 days) can be achieved when principals utilize
various strategies, theories, or employ various leaderships characteristics. Furthermore,
the data indicate that principals in some of the 10 case studies shared a common core of
strategies, frameworks, or theories that can be directly connected to literature. This
section, identifies some of the successful strategies, leadership characteristics, and
theories that were identified in the 10 case studies. This section also connects the 10 case
studies to the strategies, leadership characteristics, and theories to the literature and the
frameworks.
Marzano’s 21 characteristics. First, all of the actions reported by the
supervisors, principals, and teachers reflected one or more of the 21 characteristics that
Marzano et al. (2005) discussed in School Leadership That Works: From Research to
Results. This research showed how a principal’s leadership had a direct correlation to a
school’s success. The research also indicated which characteristics contributed to the
principals’ success and the school’s success and achievements. Table 13 identifies 21

151
Table 13

The 21 Responsibilities and Their Average Correlation (r) With Student Achievement

Responsibility Extent to which principal: r

Situational awareness Is aware of the details and undercurrents of school
and uses the information to address problems .33

Flexibility Adapts their leadership behavior to the needs of
the current situation and is comfortable with dissent .28

Discipline Protects teachers from issues and influences that
would detract from teaching .27

Outreach Is an advocate and spokesperson for the school .27

Monitor/evaluates Monitors school practices and their impact on
student learning .27

Culture Fosters shared belief and a sense of community
and cooperation .25

Order Establishes standard operating procedures and
routines .25

Resources Provides teachers with the material and training
necessary for successful execution of their jobs .25

Knowledge of curriculum Is knowledgeable about curriculum, instruction,
and assessment practices .25

Input Involves teachers in the decision-making process .25

Change agent Is willing to and actively challenges the status quo .25

Focus Establishes clear goals and keeps them in the
forefront of the school’s attention .24

Contingent rewards Recognizes and rewards individual accomplishments .24

Intellectual stimulation Ensures that staff are aware of the most current
theories and practices .24

152
Table 13 (continued)

Responsibility Extent to which principal: r

Communication Establishes strong lines of communication with
teachers and students .24

Ideals/beliefs Operates from the strong ideals and beliefs .22
about education.

Involvement in curriculum Is directly involved in the design and implementation
of curriculum, instruction, and assessment practices .20

Visibility Has quality interactions with teachers and students .20

Optimizer Inspires and leads new and challenging innovations .20

Affirmation Recognizes and celebrates school accomplishments
and acknowledges failures .19

Relationship Demonstrates an awareness of the personal aspects
of teacher and staff .18

principal leadership responsibilities and ranks them in order of their affect size on student
achievement, which translates into school success or turning a school around.
In response to the 21 Principal Leadership Characteristics and Behaviors Chart,
the 10 principals were asked to identify the seven leadership characteristics and behaviors
most used during the first 90 days on the job as the new middle school principal of a
turnaround school. They were asked to identify the seven characteristics and behaviors in
which the principals engaged most frequently during the first 90 days. Then they were
asked to rank the seven leadership characteristics they should have chosen during the
transition period (the first 90 days).

153
Principal H chose seven most frequently used characteristics and behaviors that
she demonstrated during the first 90 days of the principalship: (a) culture, (b) resources,
(c) curriculum and instruction, (d) visibility, (e) affirmation, (f) monitoring and evalua-
tion, and (g) situation awareness (Marzano et al., 2005). When asked to choose seven
characteristics she should have chosen, she chose the exact seven that she used during the
transition period (first 90 days).
The supervisor principal responded to the same chart. The supervisor reported that
Principal H engaged in the following: (a) culture; (b) discipline; (c) curriculum, instruc-
tion, and assessment; (d) focus; (e) knowledge of curriculum, instruction, and assessment;
and (f) relationship. When asked to identify the characteristics that the principal ―should
have‖ engaged in, the supervisor chose the same characteristics that he felt Principal H
engaged in most frequently during the first 90 days of the principalship. The supervisor
of Principal H may have chosen similar characteristics as those chosen by Principal H
because he had worked closely with Principal H. During the transition period, he briefed
principal H about the school setting. He helped Principal H with the transition and
walked the school several time with her. When comparing the supervisor’s choices to the
principal’s choice, they shared only two common choices. Both the principal and the
supervisor commonly chose culture and curriculum and instruction. In the interview, the
supervisor of principal H stated that principal gained success because she built relation-
ships, established trust, and positively affected culture. Building relationships, establish-
ing trust and affecting culture are also on the list of 21 leadership characteristics.
Teachers interviewed by the researcher of case study H were also asked to
identify leadership characteristics that the principal engaged in during the first 90 days of

154
the principalship. Five responses of the teachers at School H were similar to the super-
visor’s responses and the principal’s response. The principal and teachers commonly
shared the following characteristics: culture, resources, visibility, affirmation, monitor
and evaluate, and situational awareness. The teachers agreed that the principal immedi-
ately spent time on communication; relationship building; being flexible and providing
contingent rewards. These responses are similar to the principals’ responses to question 9
of the interview, which asked, ―What leadership theories are vital for the first 90 days of
the principalship?‖
While the teachers identified five characteristics that were similar to those
selected by the principal, the supervisor identified only two characteristic that were
similar to those selected by the principal. The principal identified curriculum and
instruction and culture. Of interest is the fact that in the oral interviews the supervisor
stated that he believed that principal H gained success by building relationships, estab-
lishing trust, and affecting culture. These three leadership characteristics were also on
the list of 21 leadership characteristics but weren’t selected on the survey item 4, the
characteristics and behavior chart.
The remaining teachers who were not interviewed by the researcher of case study
H were asked to identify on the survey the seven leadership characteristics that Principal
H utilized during the first 90 days of the principalship. Table 14 presents the rank order
of the 10 highest teachers’ choices from the 21 characteristics. The table also compares
the choices of case study H teachers compared to the other nine case studies.
The findings indicated similarities in all 10 cases studies. Teachers in five of the
10 schools selected culture as a characteristic that the principal implemented during the

155
Table 14

Top 10 Characteristics of the Principal Chosen by the Teachers

School H 10 schools
Characteristic f Rank f Rank

Culture
ab
26 1 99 3
Order
b
20 3 92 4
Resources
a
19 4 85 5
Focus 14 10 103 1
Visibility 22 2 102 2
Communication
b
15 9 78 7
Outreach
a
15 8
Input
ab
16 7
Affirmation 16 6 76 7
Flexibility
ac
17 5 79 6
Knowledge of curriculum,
instruction, and assessment
ac
68 8
Ideals and beliefs
ac
64 10
Monitors and evaluates
ac
67 9

a
Identified as having the highest effect on student achievement.
b
Identified as the four
characteristics negatively correlated to second order change.
c
Identified as the seven
characteristics positively correlated to student achievement at second order change.

first 90 days of the principalship, seven schools chose order, seven schools chose
resources, six schools chose building relationships, nine schools chose focus, seven
schools chose visibility, five schools chose communication, five schools chose affirma-
tion, and six school chose flexibility. The teachers most frequently chose the following
characteristics as those used by the principal during the first 90 days: focus, visibility,

156
culture, order, resources, flexibility, communication, affirmation, knowledge of curricu-
lum and instruction, and monitoring/evaluating.
The research also indicated that, regardless of the rankings and effect size, all 21
responsibilities are important in the day-to-day responsibilities of managing a school
(Marzano, 2005). Therefore, in order to be a successful leader and affect student achieve-
ment, a school principal cannot focus on one responsibility and neglect the others. There-
fore, school leaders should consider the 21 responsibilities as a management tool for
effective school leadership. For example, because demonstrated visibility of school
leaders has a high effect, principals should remain visible on the campus and in the
classrooms. It was evident across the 10 studies that several principal stated that they
were successful during the transition period (first 90 days) because they remained visible.
Bolman and Deal time survey. Bolman and Deal’s (2003) research indicated that
there are four frames in which leaders tend to exist (structural, human resource, political
activities, and symbolic activities). The Bolman and Deal (2003) time survey was com-
pleted by all 10 new principals in this study as well as the teachers in the 10 case studies.
Principals and teachers were asked to complete the principal’s four frames chart. On this
chart principals and teachers were required to rank in order from 1 to 4 how the principals
spent their time in the four frames during the transition period (the first 90 days; Bolman
& Deal, 2003). Then they were asked to rank in order, in retrospect, from 1 to 4 where
the principals should have spent their time in each of the four frames.
The results indicated some difference between how principals reported that they
spent their time and how teachers perceived that principals should have spent their time.

157
It was hoped by the research team that the Bolman and Deal lens might capture common-
alities in time usage displayed by successful principals in turnaround situations.
Based on the Bolman and Deal (2003) time survey (Appendices A, B, and C), the
principals’ responses suggested that they spent most of their time in the human resource
time frame. The teachers’ responses suggested that they believed that the principal spent
most of his/her time on issues in that ―frame.‖ The majority of the teachers from School
H indicated that the principal had spent most of her time in the human resources frame
based on their observation that the principal immediately began to rebuild the pro-
fessional culture of the school by gaining the trust of the teachers.
The teachers from school H also completed the second part of the Principal’s
Time Chart based on the Bolman and Deal quadrants to identify how the principal should
have spent her time in the first 90 days. Results indicated that the teachers believed that
the principal should have spent her time on issues that affected the school as a whole.
Most of the teachers indicated that the principal should have spent time in the structural
quadrant. This is contrary to where Principal H believed that she should have spent her
time. The majority of the teachers in case study H identified specific actions by the
principal that resulted in the principal making positive gains. They agreed that the
principal gained their trust by making herself visible and developing relationships with
stakeholders. The teachers indicated that they wanted the principal to spend time re-
establishing a ―professional environment.‖
Figure 7 displays how the 10 principals allocated their time during the transition
period (the first 90 days). Based on the chart, it is evident that principals spent the

158

Figure 7. Responses by principals in this study to the Bolman and Deal time frame,
which shows how they allocated their time during their first 90 days.

majority of their time in the human resources frame, followed by the structural frame and
the political frame.
Bolman and Deal (2003) recommended that leaders match the strategies to the
situation or, in this case, use strategies from the four frames. The findings from the
current study indicated that the new turnaround principals primarily operated from the
frames of human resources and the structural frame to gain early wins and gain success
during the transition period (the first 90 days).
Accordingly, the findings indicated that turnaround Principal H spent much time
in the human resources frame developing relationships. The principal encouraged auto-
nomy and worked hard to understand the needs of her teachers. The principal wanted to
gain the trust from the teachers. According to Bolman and Deal (2003), a leader would
employ this frame when there is declining staff morale within the organization. A

159
declining staff morale in the organization is a characteristic of a turnaround situation
(Watkins, 2003).
The second frame utilized by the Principal H was the political frame. According
to Bolman and Deal (2003), this frame is utilized when ―the focus is not on resolution of
conflict but on strategy and tactics. Conflict has benefits as well as costs but conflict can
benefit an organization‖ (p. 197). Conflict can be a benefit to the organization because it
benefits the status quo. Learning about past administration, principal H and several other
principals across the 10 case studies handled past conflict regarding administration in a
positive way so that they could create a more effective school culture (Kotter, 1985). The
new turnaround principals in the current study identified existing relationships and built
new relationships to build coalitions and communication networks. The principals identi-
fied agents of influence to learn and map the political terrain. The principals also began to
heal old wounds to build trust and gain early wins with the teachers.
Summary of findings: Literature and research comparison. The results
indicated that the new principals assumed many of the traits of highly effective principals
discussed in McEwen’s (2003) research. McEwen’s research is similar to Marzano’s
research on the 21 responsibilities and Kotter’s research on leading change in an organ-
ization. McEwen suggested that highly effective principals are effective communicators
and effective educators who act as instructional leaders. Effective leaders also set a vision
for an organization and simultaneously facilitate the change. They affect positive cultures
and promote positive change that affects student achievement. They are active partici-
pants in mobilizing people. They produce positive results. They create relationships with
member of the organization. Similarly, Kotter (1996) suggested that effective leaders

160
communicate a sense of urgency. They build relationships and leadership coalitions to
implement change. They maintain a vision and are strong communicators of change.
They create short-term wins and look for ways to influence cultural changes.
The new principals in the case studies employed all of the above strategies and
characteristics by establishing a vision and maintaining strong lines of communication.
They emphasized a sense of urgency to create change during the first 90 days to get the
school back on track. They utilized these characteristics to build relationships and coali-
tions and to create focus to get the school on the right track. In all 10 current studies, the
principals recognized that their school was in a turnaround situation and that they had to
gain early wins to earn trust as the leader Watkins (2003). Evident in all of the principals
was their focus to gain the trust of the teachers. ―Successful turnaround leaders display
the ability to pull together employees, solidifying relationships, and throw a cloak of
support around the organization‖ (Goldstein, A. S., 1988, p. 110). The leaders were
skilled and able to foster relationships (Shelley & Jones, 1983).
Research by Marzano et al. (2005) indicated that leadership is the second most
important factor that affects student achievement. Analysis of the data from principals,
their supervisors and their teachers in the current study showed that the principals
modeled many of the 21 characteristics highlighted in Marzano’s research. It was also
evident that they modeled behaviors that affected student achievement, such as knowl-
edge of curriculum and instruction, building trust and relationships, instilling intellectual
stimulation, visibility, communication, and culture.
The study revealed in several cases across the 10 case studies that principals made
a concerted effort to build relationships with the stakeholders of the organization. This

161
was evident in case studies A, C, D, E, F, G, H, and I. Principals in case studies C, D, F,
and H stated that they wanted to build trust with the staff immediately. Principals D and J
stated that they had a hard time gaining the trust of the stakeholders of the organization.
Gaining the trust of the stakeholders can be connected to Watkins’s (2003) concept of
―early wins‖ as well as Collins’s research (2001). The concept and importance to gaining
early wins was discussed in Chapter 2.
Early wins according to Watkins (2003) can be summarized as the time when the
leader or in this case, the principal, carefully assesses the school situation. They chose to
complete a task that will gain them trust or an early win by the stakeholders. The princi-
pals in case studies A, C, D, E, F, G, H, and I chose to make an impact on the organiza-
tion by gaining trust and building relationships. This helped them each gain credibility as
a leader and it also helped them gain a positive momentum during the transition period
(the first 90 days).
In short, principals need to carefully analyze their school situations before taking
action as the new school leader. Having the ability to take action and make difficult
decisions is a great challenge for turnaround principals. The importance of assessing the
school environment before becoming principal is evident in the data (Elmore, 2000;
Fullan, 2001; Watkins, 2003).
Watkins (2003) recommended that the new leader carefully analyze the situation
of the organization. Identifying the situation of the school would prevent the principal
from making poor choices and allow the principal to make choices that support positive
change.

162
Research Question 3: Adequacy of Professional
Development Programs
Research question 3 asked, Did any programs, formal or informal, prepare new
principals for success during the transition period (first 90 days) in a turnaround school?
This question sought to identify how well school administrators are prepared through
informal and formal training programs to assume the role of the principal in a turnaround
school.
Professional experience prior to turnaround principalships. Prior to analyzing
the principals and supervisors’ responses that were related to question 3, it is important to
know the experiences of the principals prior to their assuming the principalship. Under-
standing their previous experience allows the researcher to see when and what types of
formal education, or informal education experiences, helped prepare the principal for the
transition period (the first 90 days).
Case study H: Professional experience prior to turnaround principalship.
Each of the 10 principals had very diverse personal experiences. For example, Principal
H began her career by teaching elementary school. She taught for about 3 years and was
then promoted to be Bilingual Coordinator. She then became an elementary assistant
principal and later earned an administrative credential and assumed the middle school
principal position. She earned her administrative credential and master’s degree from
California State University, San Bernardino.
Cross-case analysis: Professional experience prior to turnaround principal-
ship. Similarly, eight of the 10 principals had taught before becoming a principal. Each
had taught various grade levels. Each had been assistant principal for at least a few years,
which is a beginning administrative job. Likewise, each principal had various experiences

163
as an assistant principal. As indicated above, Principal H had a unique career road map
experience prior to entering the principalship; she had worked in the district office.
Principal H’s experiences were similar to those of Principal F, who had been a curricu-
lum coordinator and consultant prior to becoming a principal.
District support. Survey item 9 asked, ―What support did the district provide you
in the first 90 days?‖ This question provided more information about how the district may
have supported the principals during the transition period (the first 90 days). In this study,
support is identified as formal or informal preparation that helped the principal during the
transition period. Table 15 summarizes the supervisors’ responses to this question. The
table lists specific forms of support that principals received from their school district dur-
ing the 90-day transition period. One of the most common forms of support was relation-
ship and mentorship support. Table 15 identifies the supervisor’s perspective the type of
support provided to the new middle school principals during the transition period (the
first 90 days).
Case study H: District support. When asked this question, the supervisor for
School H stated that the district provided direct mentoring support for the principal. The
supervisor also stated that the district worked with Principal H one on one. In fact, the
supervisor helped the principal to develop the master schedule because the principal had
little or no experience in developing master schedules. The supervisor stated, ―The school
had some major changes involving teachers, so they had to redo the entire master
schedule.‖ In addition to all of the staff changes, the middle school campus had endured a
major remodeling and renovation project. The supervisor and a few department heads
from the district provided support for the principal throughout the major construction and

164
Table 15

Responses by Supervisors to Question 6: What Type of Support Did the District Provide
to the Principal for the First 90 days?

Support A B C D E F G H I J

Open door policy X X
Improved infrastructure X
Formal meetings
Relationship building X X X X X X
Staff development X
Fail to provide mentors/
role models X X X X X
District supportive
overall X X X

moving process. The school had to be moved temporarily to an alternate location until the
renovation project was complete. According to the supervisor the district ―gave her the
best advice they could give their administration‖ (personal communication, February
2007).
On a personal and humorous note, the supervisor provided Principal H the
following advice: ―Keep your liquor cabinets stocked‖ (personal communication,
February 2007).
Cross-case analysis: District support. Principal supervisors from the nine case
studies provided important information on how principals received support from the
district office. The supervisor from 1 of the 10 districts stated that the district had

165
provided no support. The supervisor for School B stated that the district had provided the
principal with a variety of training, including training all principals on curriculum,
assessments, evaluating teachers, and data management. This district also provided the
principal with a mentoring system, offering partnering with a principal of choice. In this
program, the new principal is invited to call any principal in the district. The supervisor
described the district as very supportive of its principals.
The supervisor for School C said that the district provided most of the support for
the new principal. Since the school had to undergo modernization, the principal received
support from the directors of the modernization project. When the principal asked for
concrete walkways, the district responded immediately. The principal knew that the
district was a team that supported the school sites. The district also supported the princi-
pal by providing counseling and helping her to make adjustments with the administrative
team.
The supervisor for School D reported that the district role in supporting the
principal is crucial. Particularly, the district should provide support to new school site
administrators. The district held monthly meetings. The human resources department
provide direct training and support for new principals regarding contract information and
business services talks about budgeting. At the same time principals were encouraged to
hold dialogues with colleagues to support each other through common experiences.
The supervisor for School E stated that the district provided the new principal
with a great deal of support. First, the human resources department provided mentor
support by a former principal. The district hired retired principals to work two to three
times a week as a mentor and advisor at the school site. There were principal cluster

166
meetings. The cluster teams, made up of other principals from feeder schools within the
district, discussed staff development, time management, protection of instructional time,
and how to ensure that instructional programs were standards based. The meetings helped
principals learn how to maximize their leadership teams. The new principals also
collectively read a selection of about 30 books each year and shared them with the other
principals regarding how the books could be used at a practical level.
The supervisor for School F stated that principals in the district wanted more
direction and support in teacher evaluation and supervision. These two themes were focus
areas to empower principals. Principals were provided training on how to supervise
instruction and how differentiated instruction takes place.
The supervisor for School G stated that new principals were provided extensive
support. They trained principals on how to assume the coaching role.
We were there to support all new principals in all areas of need. I served as the
sounding board. I provided guidance and direction whenever needed. The
superintendent also was very supportive of the new principal. The superintendent
often visits the schools and spent time with the new principal. The new principal
got help from every facet. The principal also participated in AB 75 training.
(Personal communication, March 2007)
The supervisor for School J stated that new principals were provided mentor
support for operational questions or questions that related to being a new principal.
As her supervisor, we had three conferences a year. We would meet to discuss
resources and site budgets. The district supported the principal by providing them
the resources they needed to improve instruction. The principals’ meetings are
only used as professional development meetings. There are department chairs
who discuss curriculum and program changes. I sponsor a monthly breakfast
group for new principals who are in needs improvement schools. The principals
share concerns. We review data and research. The focus of the breakfast group is
continuous improvement. (Personal communication, March 2007)

167
Cross-case analysis: District support during the transition (the first 90 days).
In short, when asked the question, ―What type of support did the district provide to the
principal for the first 90 days?‖ three of the supervisors did not describe the type of
support that the district provided. The remaining seven supervisors described how the
district provided support to the principal. Six supervisors stated that the district supported
the principal through relationship building. Two stated that the district maintained an
open door policy.
When the principals responded to the same question, ―What support did the
district provide you in the first 90 days?‖, their responses varied by the type of support
they received during the transition period (the first 90 days). Responses to this question
are presented in Table 16. Interestingly, principals A, B, E, F, G, H, I and J stated that
they received no support. This is contrary to the supervisors’ responses. Principal A
stated that the district provided support by relationship building. Principals A and C
stated that the district did not provide any role models or mentors. Principals in A, C, and
F stated that the district provided them support but it was directly related to the transition
period. In addition to analyzing the type of the support that district provided to the princi-
pals during the transition period, this study also attempted to look at whether, and if so,
how the principals formal education helped prepare the new principal for the transition
period (the first 90 days).
Formal preparation. The supervisors were asked, in question 7, ―How do you
think university programs prepare administrators for the principalship?‖ The supervisors
of District H stated that the university program did not prepare Principal H. The
supervisor of District H stated that the university programs tend to focus on theory, and

168
Table 16

Responses by Principals to Question 6: What Type of Support Did the District Provide to
You in the First 90 days?

Support A B C D E F G H I J

None X X X X X X X X
Relationship building X
Staff development
Failed to provide
mentor/role models X X
District support
overall X X X

theory is not real life. Schools and students are different, and these two factors drive how
one teaches. The supervisor further stated that today’s administrators do not know how to
put theory into practice. ―It would be like you and I reading a book on how to fight a war
and go out and command troops‖ (personal communication, March 2007).
The supervisor for School B stated that it would be nice if formal training
programs kept up with the demands of today’s schools. The supervisor suggested that
formal training programs should have internship programs in which new principals could
receive on-the-job training. The superintendent stated that university programs do not
adequately prepare new principals for the changes that take place when they become
principals.

169
The supervisor for School C reported a lack of confidence in today’s formal
training programs, saying that they do not prepare individuals to become school
administrators.
University programs follow strict certification requirements as mandated by
states, but a certificate does not mean an individual is prepared to be a principal.
Formal training programs fail to provide today’s administrator with the skills
necessary to be effective administrators. Formal training programs provide future
administrators with the conceptual and theoretical knowledge, but not the
practical skills.
This supervisor shared Peter Drucker’s position that public schools are overadministered
and undermanaged. The supervisor noted that today’s schools cannot be administered;
they must evolve into instructional programs. Training programs do not train people for
all they need to know as future administrators, particularly because a great deal of the job
is relational and principals must develop relations with parents, teachers, and students.
This is in agreement with the literature that indicates that formal university and training
programs are not providing the practical knowledge and skills necessary (Lauder, 2000).
The supervisor for school D stated that school districts have improved the
induction process for new teachers and that the induction process for principals will soon
follow. The supervisor stated that earning an administrative credential is a complicated
process and prevents administrators from focusing on the process of being an effective
principal. Many aspiring administrators do not engage in leadership theories. Aspiring
leaders do not take risks in making good decisions or try to embrace theories that they
learn in formal university training programs. They are challenged with putting theory into
practice. When districts finally hire new principals, they tend to leave them alone at the
school site.

170
As I believe it kind of like, ―Okay you’re on your own, you know, you went to the
classes, you got the degree . . . show me your stuff.‖ Often what I have witnessed
is administrator freeze. ―It is like they are afraid to make a decision because it
could be wrong.‖ (Personal communication, February 2007)
This results in new principals relying on the current momentum of the school site and
slowly moving them along the process.
The supervisor for School E stated that new administrators get theory and
collaboration. As a result of being in a university program, aspiring administrators are
able to communicate with other colleagues about programs and processes. New adminis-
trators learn application and practical knowledge only after they have been assigned a
school site.
The supervisor for School F stated that formal training programs, such as
university programs, are not as effective as the district would prefer. In fact, the district
contends that university programs do not do enough in preparing administrators in work-
ing with school reform and fail to work with principals in assuming the role of change
agent. University programs do well at preparing principals to assume the day-to-day
administrative responsibilities but they fail to promote knowledge in the area of curricu-
lum, instruction, effective practices and teaching principles. The supervisor also believed
that university programs fail to focus on the effective practices and teaching principles
that are evident in effective schools research. Today’s formal training programs provide
knowledge of leadership theory but university programs should focus on changing the
culture of the school, or how to move a group of people, and how to get buy-in from
teachers.
The supervisor for School G stated that university programs make a difference for
all principals.

171
I do know that principals with doctorates need less training and support because
they know how to do the right things. University programs that are based on
practical application information make a difference as a whole. It is best when
principals tend to theoretical knowledge and the ability to put it into practical
application. (Personal communication, March 2007)
The supervisor for School J happened to work in a university that his district
thought was effective in preparing principals to assume the position. The program
emphasized theory and research but also addressed practical knowledge. The program
brought in many knowledgeable persons from the field who shared practical experience
and knowledge. Although some programs prepare administrators, several do not.
Unfortunately, administrators encounter situations in their school site that many
administrators do not encounter in other places. Administrators need to have good
judgment and common sense.
Like supervisors, principals share their personal perspectives and views regarding
training programs. Principal H stated that the training programs were focused on the
elementary level because she was an elementary school administrator.
Fortunately, I had a good instructor in the area of curriculum and instruction.
School was useful because we were required to observe different board meetings.
We had to evaluate different reports. We also had to evaluate different depart-
ments, such as nutritional services. These hands-on experiments broadened my
knowledge. I am a hands-on person; therefore, I prefer practical experiences.
None of the formal training programs trained me to be prepared for the transition
period, the first 90 days. (Personal communication, March 2007)
Principal A stated that university programs are good in theory.
The university program did not prepare me to be the principal. There are so many
scenarios and factors that are not discussed in the classroom. The fieldwork was
the most useful because it provided me some practical experience and knowledge.
The classes on the educational code were important. Unfortunately, many of the
readings that my program had us read were not useful at all. None of the formal
training program prepared me for the transition period, the first 90 days. (Personal
communication, March 2007)

172
Principal B stated that the strengths question was most useful. This experience
helped the trainees to identify their strengths and weaknesses. This provided them an
opportunity to build on strength as opposed to focusing on weaknesses as an adminis-
trator. The principal rated statistics as least useful.
Principal C stated that preparing for the principalship requires many tools and
experiences.
The formal training received in a university program is only one of the tools.
University programs do not teach organization, common sense and people skills.
The university training only provided me with the nuts and bolts of leadership.
The most useful was the relationships that I built during the program. The most
practical preparation experience was the ACSA principals academy. (Personal
communication, March 2007)
Principal D stated that the university program had not prepared the principal for
the position.
There were some good things that I learned. The knowledge and skills gained
prepared me to be an assistant principal. Fortunately, there were a few principals
who served as my mentors. Many of the basics, I learned from experience on the
job. (Personal communication, March 2007)
Principal E had graduated from USC and considered it to be a good program,
useful in terms of leadership pieces of team building.
The program was very helpful. Unfortunately, the administrative credential pro-
gram at a different university was not practical. It did not prepare me to be a
principal. The programs provided theoretical knowledge but not the practical
knowledge necessary to be an effective principal in today’s schools. Unfortun-
ately, there were no courses that prepared me for the first 90 days of the principal-
ship. (Personal communication, March 2007)
Principal F stated that the administrative Tier I and Tier II programs were very
similar. Principal F did not feel that the programs provided them the practical skills,
knowledge, and strategies necessary to be successful as a new administrator.

173
Table 17 shows how principals rated their formal training or their university
programs. Principal E rated the program as extremely positive. Principals B, C, and F
rated their university as generally positive. Fifty-percent (50%) of the principals
(principals A, D, H, G, and I), however had a negative rating for their university training
program. Significantly, most of the principals, 80% (A, B, D, E, F, G, H and J), stated
that the university programs did not prepare them for the transition period (the first 90
days) of the new middle school principal. Another 40% of the principals (Principals B, D,
E, and F) felt that the programs provided them with leadership training. Thirty-percent
(30%) of the principals (Principals A, E, and I) believed that the program provided them
support with theory and curriculum. The majority of the principals, 70% of the principals
(Principals A, B, D, F, G, I, and J), believed that the formal university program did not
provide them any practical knowledge or experience. This response is similar to the
comments given by the supervisor of principal H who believed that university programs
do not provide principals the practical skills and knowledge necessary to be an effective
school leader.
Pathway to the principalship. The principals in this study had similar
background experiences on their way to the principalship. Nine of the principals,
including Principal H, had taught at various levels; four had taught in high school or
elementary and middle school; two had worked in various district positions. Principal H
had taught only at the elementary school level. All 10 principals had some type of
leadership experience, and all 10 had served as assistant principal. Principal H had
worked only in elementary school as an assistant principal prior to becoming a middle
school principal. Eight had been middle school assistant principals. Four of the principals

174
Table 17

Responses by Principals to Questions Regarding the Role of University Programs
in Preparation for the Principalship

Item and response category A B C D E F G H I J

Rating of program
Extremely positive X
Generally positive X X X
Generally negative X X X X
Not confident X

Focus on first 90 days?
Yes X
No X X X X X X X X

Areas of help
Leadership training X X X X
Personnel X X
CA Education Code X X
Theory, curriculum X X X
Administration X X
School finance X

How it did not help
No practical knowl-
edge or experience X X X X X X X
No ―induction‖ model X X
No adequate help
in school reform X
Depends on program X

had served as department chairs and nine had taught middle school grades. Four of the
nine principals had taught at all levels of public education. Four had been department
chairs, two had worked in the district office in various administrative roles, nine had
taught in middle school. Table 18 summarizes the background and professional
experience of the principals

175
Table 18

Responses by the Principals to Question 1: What Was Your Pathway to the
Principalship?

Pathway A B C D E F G H I J

Taught at various levels X X X X X X X X X
Leadership experience X X X X X X X X X X
Leadership encouraged
by administration X X X X X X
Assistant principal X X X X X X X X
Years in the field 12 25+ 23 22 12+ 21 11 25 15 7+

Principal H had started her career as an educator.
I never planned to be a principal. In the beginning, my goal was to be a high
school art teacher. This goal changed when I did a summer camp with Santa Ana
Unified School District, where I began to build a strong attachment to elementary
school children. It was in 1973 that I was offered an elementary school teaching
position. I taught for Santa Ana Unified for 6 years. Eventually, I went to teach
for Riverside Unified School District as a Kindergarten teacher. I taught Kinder-
garten for 2 years and then became a bilingual resource teacher for the district for
5 years. I was an elementary school assistant principal and eventually became an
elementary school principal. Eventually, I became a bilingual coordinator. I
applied for the middle school principalship position, and here I am today, middle
school principal. (Personal communication, March 2007)
Principal A had been an assistant principal for 9 years and a teacher for 12 years.
The principal had worked in a couple of districts as department chair and eventually
grade-level coordinator.
I was fortunate to experience many different levels of assistant principal position.
(Personal communication, March 2007)

176
Principal B had worked as a coach in several middle schools, including some
private schools.
I earned a multiple subject teaching credential. I also served as BLD facilitator
and I have served on many committees. (Personal communication, March 2007)
Principal C had earned a social science degree and a secondary certificate in
Oregon. He had taught about 23 years in both middle school and high school.
In middle school, I taught both English and History. During my later teaching
years, I served as faculty chair, department head, and many other leadership
positions. The principal helped encouraged building leadership capacity in me.
(Personal communication, March 2007)
Principal D had been an English teacher. This principal has been in the field of
education for 31 years, 22 of which were in the classroom.
Those twenty-two years have had a significant impact on me as administrator.
During those years I have perfected myself as a teacher. I worked as an assistant
principal of discipline and eventually as an assistant principal of curriculum.
Curriculum is my area of strength. (Personal communication, March 2007)
Principal E had been an RSP teacher in Virginia, had relocated to Palos Verdes,
and eventually had become Dean of Compton High School.
Then I became an assistant principal of pupil services and later assistant principal
in a middle school. I spent two years as a middle school assistant principal. I have
spent a total of 11 years in the field of education. (Personal communication,
March 2007)
Principal F had majored in mathematics, had earned a master’s degree in curricu-
lum and instruction, and was currently in a doctoral program. The principal had been in
education for 21 years, 13 of which were in the classroom as a teacher at all levels. Prior
to becoming a principal, the principal had served as assistant principal, department chair,
variety of committees, and school site council, and had worked in the district office as a
coordinator and a district consultant.

177
Principal G had majored in history, then earned a master’s degree in Educational
Administration, and was currently on the 11th year in education. The principal had taught
Grades 7 and 8 in all subjects, including physical education.
Prior to administration, I served as activities director, taught an ASB class, and
coached basketball. (Personal communication, March 2007)
Principal I had a master’s degree in Education and Administration and a master’s
degree in behavioral science for mediation and conflict resolution.
I have been in education for 15 years. I have taught about seven of the 15 years. I
have been an administrator for the other 8 years. I taught middle school. I taught
social studies, world history, U.S. history, government, and economics. In addi-
tion, I worked in the district office where I handled state and federal projects
finances. Eventually I became an assistant principal of a high school and eventu-
ally transitioned as principal of middle school. (Personal communication, March
2007)
Principal J had begun as an elementary school teacher and then later moved into
middle school as a teacher.
Eventually, a principal provided me opportunities to take on leadership responsi-
bilities. Then I began to work towards my Administrative credential. During this
time, I got a science coaching position. I was assigned to 8 schools to help new
and experienced teachers in the area of science. Eventually I began an assistant
principal position. Eventually, after 6 years as an assistant principal, I applied for
principalship positions and landed here. (Personal communication, March 2007)
Principal H stated that the training programs were focused on the elementary level
because she was an elementary school principal.
Fortunately, I had a good instructor in the area of curriculum and instruction.
School was useful because we were required to observe different board meetings.
We had to evaluate different reports. We also had to evaluate different depart-
ments, such as nutritional services. These hands-on experiments broadened my
knowledge. I am a hands-on person; therefore, I prefer practical experiences.
None of the formal training programs trained me to be prepared for the transition
period, the first 90 days. (Personal communication, March 2007)

178
Principal A stated that university programs are good in theory.
The university program did not prepare me to be the principal. There are so many
scenarios and factors that are not discussed in the classroom. The fieldwork was
the most useful because it provided me some practical experience and knowledge.
The classes on the educational code were important. Unfortunately, many of the
readings that my program has us read were not useful at all. None of the formal
training program prepared me for the transition period, the first 90 days. (Personal
communication, March 2007)
Findings in cross-case analysis related to research question 3. When it came to
district level support, 80% of the principals stated that they received no support from the
district. None of the districts stated they provided staff development assistance to new
principals. Only one district stated that the district provided support through relationship
building. Two of the principals stated that the district provided mentors.
In analyzing the responses of the 10 principals, only four principals felt that the
district was overall supportive. These response contradicted the response of the super-
visor who reported that they provided support to the principals. Mentoring was the most
popular form of support. Eighty percent of the principals received mentoring support
according the supervisors. Fifty percent of the districts claimed that the principals
received support through formal monthly meetings.
University programs. The supervisors in the 10 cases studies were evenly
divided regarding their perceptions about the quality of university programs in preparing
principals. Five stated that the university programs did not prepare participants for the
principalship in a turnaround school, and five stated that principals were well prepared.
The supervisors provided specific recommendations on how university programs can
prepare new principals. For example, they recommended that the programs provide
insight on how new principals can approach the demands of the principal position. The

179
majority of the supervisors also expressed concerns that university programs are focused
on theory versus providing practical skills and knowledge.
Likewise, the principals in all 10 case studies indicated that the university pro-
grams had not prepared them for their positions. This is similar to the literature regarding
training that suggests that current formal and informal principal training programs are not
providing principals with the skills necessary to assume the principalship. Current pro-
grams provide theory but they lack practical skills, and as shown by this research study,
principals need practical skills to prepare them for the transition, the first 90 days. A
summary of literature findings provides data that validate these findings. These responses
are evident in Table 19 and Table 20.

Table 19
Supervisor View on the Areas in Which University Programs Helped to Prepare
Principals for Success

Help A B C D E F G H I J

Leadership X X X X
Personnel X X X
Education code X X X X
Theory and curriculum X X X X X
Administrative functions
and responsibilities X X X X X
School finance X X X X

180
Table 20
Principal View on How University Programs Helped to Prepare Principals for Success

Help A B C D E F G H I J

Leadership X X X X
Personnel X
Education code X X
Theory and curriculum X X X
Administrative functions
and responsibilities X X
School finance X

Supervisors and principals gave examples of how university programs provided
them the knowledge and skills necessary for success as a beginning principal. There were
positive responses to specific categories such as leadership, the California Educational
Code, theory, and curriculum development. Principals and supervisors had similar
responses.
Based on Tables 21 and 22, it was evident that both the principals and supervisors
agreed that university programs were failing new principals. Both cohorts agreed (a) that
university programs fail to address school reform, practical skills and knowledge, and
putting theory into practice; and (b) that there is a lack of induction models.
Summary of findings: Literature and research comparison. The findings from
the supervisor and principal data support the research by Whittle (2005) that stated that
university programs are focused on theory versus practical skills, knowledge, and

181
Table 21
Principals’ Reasons Why University Programs Fail to Principals for Success

Reason A B C D E F G H I J

Fail to provide
practical knowledge X X X X X X X
No induction programs X X
Fail to address X
school reform
Depends on the program X
________________________________________________________________________

Table 22
Supervisors’ Reasons Why University Programs Fail to Prepare Principals for Success

Reason A B C D E F G H I J

Fail to provide X X X X X X X X
practical knowledge
No induction programs X
Fail to address X
school reform
Depends on the program X

experience. University programs in the business sector address the transition period,
while university programs in educational leadership fail to address the transition period
for new principals.

182
The findings of the current study are supported by the research of Hale and
Moorman (2003), which found that university programs are not preparing principals.
Preparation programs fail to address the challenges that new principals face in today’s
schools. In addition, the current study found that 9 of the 10 principals agreed that
practical experiences were contributing factors that had led to their success regarding the
knowledge and skills needed to be a successful principal.
As evident from Tables 19 and 20, both principals and supervisors believed
leadership, theory and curriculum helped prepare them for the principalship. Theory,
curriculum, and leadership are possibly favored because they can be taught and
generalized to various settings (Watkins, 2003). Both principals and supervisors believed
that their program failed to provide them practical knowledge and skills to help them
succeed as principals. The principals and supervisors both stated that they wanted
programs to give them the practical skills necessary to succeed in the principalship of
today’s schools. In short, the principals believe that the university and district support
systems failed to prepare them for the transition period (the first 90 days). Finally, the
greatest finding from these data, as shown on Table 22 and Table 23, indicated that only
one of the 10 principals felt that the university programs prepared them for the transition
period (the first 90 days).
Table 23 shows how preparation programs were perceived by the supervisors and
Table 24 shows how preparation programs were perceived by the principals.
Both principals and supervisors reported that their programs had failed to provide
practical knowledge and skills to help them to succeed as principals. They stated that they
wanted programs to give them practical skills necessary for the principalship of today’s

183
Table 23

Did Supervisors Believe That Their Formal Training Focused on the Transition Period?

Response A B C D E F G H I J

Yes
No X X X X X X X X X

Table 24
Did Principals Believe That Their Formal Training Focused on the Transition Period?

Response A B C D E F G H I J

Yes X
No X X X X X X X X

schools. The principals reported that the university and district support systems had failed
to prepare them for the transition period (the first 90 days).
Conclusion
This chapter summarized the analysis of the qualitative and quantitative data
collected in the study. The summary included cross-case data results, summary and
analysis, and comparison to current research and literature. The data addressed the three
research questions. The chapter also provided a brief description of the first 90 days
experiences of the new middle school principal and strategies utilized by successful
principals during their first 90 days in that role.

184
This study sought to determine whether principals believed that the first 90 days
of the principalship were important. The results indicate that the first 90 days are vital to
the success of the transition of the middle school principalship. This study concluded that
the transition period was vital to the success of the new middle school principal in
turnaround situations. In addition, this study sought to identify specific strategies,
theories or actions that were used by principals during the transition period. Data results
of the study indicated that there were some similar theories and actions that principals
used across the 10 case studies. Some of the strategies commonly used by most or some
of the 10 case studies were building culture, building trust, building relationships,
communication, and most importantly gaining early wins. This study found a direct
correlation between these strategies and the literature and research. Unfortunately,
success in the transition process was not attributed to formal or informal training or
educational programs. In fact, most of the principals stated that formal training programs
were theoretical in nature and not practical. In some of the cases, the principals agreed
that there was not enough support from their district office, which they contended could
provide more staff development and support for new principals.
The principals agreed that, for the most part, they had not been well trained to
assume the position as a middle school principal of a turnaround school. Further research
is needed to determine whether supervisors or school district provide enough information
to help principals assume the new position as principal of a turnaround school and further
research should determine how supervisors or school districts can support middle school
site principals to help them succeed in turning schools around.

185
CHAPTER 5
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This chapter contains a summary of the current literature, a review of the purpose
of the study, and the three research questions. In addition, the chapter includes the con-
clusion, implications, and recommendations. Recommendations and successful strategies
utilized by new principals during their first 90 days are listed in this chapter. Finally, the
chapter presents recommendations for future research.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of the study was to determine the importance of the first 90 days for
the new principal. The study examined the types of support that new principals received
in a turnaround school during the first 90 days. The finding examined which theories and
strategies were used by the turnaround principals during their first 90 days of the princi-
palship. The current researcher studied a new middle school principal (Case H) and com-
pared the findings from his study with those of the nine other studies conducted by cohort
members. This period was examined from collected data from district assistant superin-
tendent, the new middle school principal, teachers and the department leaders. The find-
ings were triangulated and qualitative and quantitative data were reported. The following
research questions were used to organize the data:
1. Do middle school principals in a turnaround school situation find the transition
period (first 90 days) to be important?
2. What strategies and conceptual frameworks (leadership theories) were useful to
new principals during the transition period (first 90 days) in a turnaround school?

186
3. Did any programs, formal or informal, prepare new principals for the success
during the transition period (first 90 days) in a turnaround school?
Summary of Findings
Research Question 1
Research question 1 asked, Did principals in a turnaround school find the transi-
tion period (first 90 days) to be important? The data collected from all 10 principals in
the cohort study indicated that the transition period (the first 90 days) was very important.
Data collected from the new principals’ immediate supervisors also indicated that the
transition period (the first 90 days) was important. The responses from the principals
supported those reported by Watkins (2003), Fullan (2006), Kotter (1998), Bradt et al.
(2006), and J. Murphy and Meyers (2008). They agreed that this time period was an
opportunity for new principals to gain early wins, build trust and relationships, and
establish themselves as credible leaders. The data collected from 70% of the teachers
indicated that transition period (the first 90 days) was key to principals establishing
themselves as credible leaders.
Research Question 2
Research question 2 asked, What strategies and conceptual frameworks (leader-
ship theories) were useful to the principals during the transition period (first 90 days) in
a turnaround school? The data collected from the 10 principals in the cohort study
indicated that they ascribed to several leadership theories and strategies. The principals
indicated that, during the transition period, the following theories and strategies were
most used: building of relationships, flexibility, visibility, transformational leadership,
political frame leadership theories, and structural frame leadership theories. Flexibility

187
and visibility align to research by Marzano et al. (2005) on leadership practices that work.
Political frame and structural frame theories align to research by Bolman and Deal
(2003).
Data collected from direct supervisors identified very specific practices and
strategies that the new principals had employed to help them to gain success as the new
middle school principal: (a) hiring and changing staff members; (b) developing a vision
for the organization; (c) assuming the role as the instructional leader; (d) reculturating the
organization through collaboration; (e) establishing a safe and orderly environment;
(f) modeling patience with staff, building strong lines of communication, and maintaining
honesty and high moral values; and (g) maintaining high expectations for students and
teachers.
Whereas principals reported that they had made leadership gains through actions
with individuals, data collected from teachers indicated that teachers used events or
school-level actions to determine the principal’s credibility as a leader.
Marzano (2003) identified 21 leadership characteristics and behaviors correlated
to effective leadership and student achievement. The data collected in the present study
indicated that some of the most common characteristics and behaviors utilized by new
principals during the transition period were as follows: visibility, instruction, assessment,
focus, curriculum, and ideals and beliefs. Based on the data and the fact that the turn-
around principal’s responsibility is to get the school on track, it is important that the new
principal spend time on focus and beliefs and remain visible.

188
Research Question 3
Research question 3 asked, Did any programs, formal or informal, prepare new
principal for success during the transition period (first 90 days) in a turnaround school?
The results of the data collected from both supervisors and principals in the cohort study
indicated that university programs are most focused on research, theory, and curriculum.
All of the principals indicated that their formal training and university programs had pro-
vided general knowledge but had failed to provide practical skills and knowledge. They
also agreed that the programs did not show how to put theory back into practice and had
not prepared them for the transition period (the first 90 days) of the principalship. Half of
the principals stated that their university programs had provided general knowledge in
theory and curriculum but none identified any gained effective training skills necessary
for the principalship. Thus, 50% of the principals and 50% their immediate supervisors
stated that university programs were theory based and had failed to provide practical
knowledge and skills necessary for the job of the principal. The research indicates that
school principals need a broader knowledge of understanding of how to apply theory in a
practical format to resolve problems encountered on the school site (Bottoms & O’Neil,
2001).
Conclusions
The data collected in this study provided opportunity for the researcher to make
conclusions regarding leadership strategies that helped principals to gain success during
their transition period (the first 90 days). The data and results correlated with current
research and literature on leadership and successful transition periods of new leaders.
This researcher gathered important information regarding the first 90 days of the

189
principalship. The next section identifies the data that indicate the accomplishments of
new middle school principals and the ongoing needs of new middle school principals.
Areas of Accomplishment
This section highlights the accomplishments of new principals and reviews areas
of ongoing need for new principals. Based on the data, the vital accomplishments during
the transition period of the new principals were as follows: (a) secured early wins during
the first 90 days; (b) maintained a high level of visibility; (c) gained credibility as the
principal; (d) created a culture of change; (e) built relationships and coalitions with mem-
bers of the organization; (f) assumed the role of the instructional leader and became
directly involved in curriculum, instruction, and assessment; (g) made strategic deci-
sions; and (h) practiced leadership strategies based on the various situations and/or
environments.
The researcher’s case study, Case H, indicated that the principal had made notable
gains by utilizing leadership strategies and behaviors. The data indicated that the most
notable of these strategies and behaviors were as follows: (a) established relationships
and gained the trust of the stakeholders; (b) gained credibility as the principal and leader
during the first 90 days; (c) established a vision for the school; (d) and implemented a
collaborative problem-solving approach to achieve short- and long-term goals.
The new principals in all 10 case studies made successful decisions as related to
the research of turnaround situations. Several established early wins during the first 90
days of their principalship. They were able to gain the trust of the stakeholders, build
relationship, maintain visibility, and communicate the needs of turning the school around.
Several indicated that they had immediately begun to build relationships with the

190
stakeholders of the organization. New middle school principals built relationships with
team leaders, key parents, key teachers and staff members, and students. Several stated
that they had assumed the instructional leadership position by becoming directly involved
in curriculum and assessment. Several also stated that they had gained credibility during
the first 90 days. Several had utilized and subscribed to various leadership strategies
during their first 90 days. In Case H, the principal had built relationships, gained credi-
bility as the new leader, created a vision for the school, and gained the trust of the stake-
holders of the organization during the 90 days.
Areas for Further Research
The researcher concluded that several issues need further research. First, districts
should look for opportunities to develop their own future principals. They should provide
staff develop opportunities that help principals to put research and theory into practice at
the school site. Second, districts should provide background information of the school
prior to the new principal assuming their new position. As Watkins’s (2003) seminal
work indicates, the transition process begins prior to the first day at the school site. The
transition process begins as soon as the new middle school principal knows that he/she
has the job. Therefore, principal must be aware of the situation, including potential
obstacles. Most important, the principal must be able to develop a plan to utilize appro-
priate strategies and recognize the opportunities that the situation provides. Third, the
new principal should identify a plan to assist in the transition process in a turnaround
school. The plan should consider how the principal plans to put the school back on track.
Finally, both formal and informal preparation programs should reconsider how to prepare
new principals to assume the position. They should also consider the practical skills

191
needed to assume leadership of schools that are in the various situations (turnaround,
sustaining success, realignment, and start-up).
Implications
The analysis of the data confirmed that the transition period is critical to the
success of the middle-school principal in a turnaround situation. Since transitions are an
inevitable part of all organizations, the new principal should recognize the transition
period as an opportunity to establish as a credible leader (Watkins, 2003). In addition,
new principals should study the situation of the school prior to the first day of service.
They should develop a transition plan. During the transition period (the first 90 days)
they should secure early wins, build trust, establish a leadership team, and make decisive
decisions. Based on the importance of the transition period (the first 90 days), university
programs and professional development programs should prepare principals for the
transition period. Both university programs and districts should continue to provide
opportunities to build principals’ skill sets to put theory into practice. School districts
should address the period and support principals by developing transition plans and
educate new principals regarding the school situation. They should prepare new
principals for the obstacles and opportunities that exist in turnaround situations.

192
REFERENCES
Aiken, J. A. (2002). The socialization of new principals: Another perspective on principal
retention. Educational Leadership Review, 3(1), 32-40.
Ashmos, D. P., & Duchon, D. (1998). Participation in the midst of a turnaround: Using
connections to make successful adaptations. In L. W. Foster & D. Ketchen (Eds.),
Turnaround research: Past accomplishments and future challenges (pp. 223-236).
Stamford, CT: JAI Press.
Association of California School Administrators. (2000). Study confirms principal short-
age in California. EdCal 29(39). Retrieved from http://www.acsa.org/
publications/EDCAL/EDL_06_26_2000/principals.html
Austin, J. E. (1998). Business leadership lessons from Cleveland turnaround. California
Management Review, 41(1), 86-106.
Barth, R. S. (2001). Learning by heart. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Beckhard, R. F., & Pritchard, W. (1992). Changing the essence: The art of creating and
leading environmental change in organizations. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Bennis, W., Burke, W. W., Gery, G., Juechter, W. M., Rummler, G., & Tichy, N. (2003).
What lies ahead. Retrieved from http://209.85.141.104/search?q=cache
:t08DzW2NXyQJ:www.astd.org/NR/rdonlyres/4BB199CF-2C4D-417E-991E-
1649EB09B79A/0/Jan2003_feat_whatlies_astdmember.pdf+bennis+burke+gery+
juechter+rummler+tichy&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us
Bennis, W., & Nanus, B. (1985). Leaders: Strategies for taking charge. New York, NY:
HarperCollins.
Blanchard, K., Zigarmi, P., & Zigarmi, D. (2007). Leadership and the one minute
manager. New York, NY: Conequity Resources.
Blasé, J., & Blasé, J. (2004). Handbook of instructional leadership: How principals
promote teaching and learning. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2003). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and
leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Bostingl, J. J. (1995). Crediting quality communities of learners through total quality
management. In G. Kanji (Ed.), Total quality management (pp. 458-461).
London, UK: Chapman & Hall.
Bostingl, J. J. (2001, January). Are the stakes too high? Principal Leadership, 8-14.
Bottoms, G., & O’Neill, K. (2001). Preparing a new breed of school principals: It’s time
for action. Atlanta, GA: Southern Regional Education Board.

193
Bradt, G., Check, J., & Pedraza, J. (2006). How to take charge, build your team, and get
immediate results: The new leader’s 100-day action plan. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Brewer, H. (2001). Ten steps to success. Journal of Staff Development, 22(1), 30-31.
Brock, B. L., & Grady, M. L. (2004). Launching your first principalship: A guide for be-
ginning principals. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Bulach, C., Boothe, D., & Picket, W. (1998). ―Should nots‖ for school principals: Teach-
ers share their views. ERS Spectrum, 16(1), 16-20.
Bulach, C., Pickett, W., & Boothe, D. (1998). Mistakes educational leaders make. ERIC
Digest, 122. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED422604)
California Department of Education. (2009). Academic Performance Index (API): The
cornerstone of California’s Public School Accountability Act of 1999. Retrieved
from http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/ap/
California School Leadership Academy at WestEd. (2001). California professional
standards for educational leaders. Oakland, CA: Author.
Clausen, A. W. (1990, Winter). Strategic issues in managing change: The turnaround in
Bank America Corporation. California Management Review, 98-105.
Clifford, D. K., & Cavanagh, R. E. (1985). The winning performance. New York, NY:
Bantam Books.
Cline, A., & Necochea, J. (2000). Socialization paradox: A challenge for educational
leaders. Leadership in Education: Theory and Practice, 3(2), 151-158.
Collins, J. (2001). Why some companies make the leap . . . and others don’t: Good to
great. New York, NY: Carnegie Corporation of New York.
Collins, J. C., & Porras, J. I. (1996). Building your company’s vision. Harvard Business
Review, 65(1), 65-77.
Copeland, T. E. (2001). Real options: A practitioners guide. New York, NY: Texere.
Council of Chief State School Officers. (1996). Interstate school leaders license con-
sortium: Standards for school leaders. Washington, DC: Author.
Covey, S. R. (1989). The seven habits of highly effective people. New York, NY: Simon
& Schuster.
Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed approaches
(2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Crow, G. M., Hausman, C. S., & Paredes-Scribner, J. (2002). Reshaping the role of the
school principal. Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education,
101(1), 189-210.

194
Crow, G. M., & Mathews, L. J. (1998). Finding one’s way: How mentoring can lead to
dynamic leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Davis, S. (1998). Why do principals get fired? Principal, 78(2), 34-39.
Davis. S. (2004). The leadership journey. Leadership, 34(1), 8-12.
Deal, T., & Peterson, K. (1999). Shaping school culture: The heart of leadership. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Denzin, N. (1978). Sociological methods: A sourcebook (2nd ed.). New York, NY:
McGraw-Hill.
Dewey, J. (1933). How we think. Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath.
Donaldson, G. (2001). The lose-lose leadership hunt. Education Week, 21(5), 42.
Drake, T. L., & Roe, W. H. (1994). School business management: Supporting instruc-
tional effectiveness. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Doud, J. L., & Keller, E. P. (1998). A ten-year study: The K-8 principal in 1998. Alex-
andria, VA: National Association of Elementary School Principals.
Duffrin, E. (2001). Intern to work: Chicago program helps leaders test-drive principal’s
job. Journal of Staff Development, 22(1), 1-7.
Dufour, R., & Eaker, R. (1998). Professional learning communities at work: Best prac-
tices for enhancing student achievement. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree
(formerly National Education Services).
Dukes, L. (2001). Meeting the leadership challenge: Designing the effective principal
mentor programs. New York, NY: New Visions for Public Schools.
Dwyer, D. C. (1985). The principal as instructional leader. Peabody Journal of Educa-
tion, 63(1), 3-18.
Edmonds, R. R. (1981). A report on the research project, Search for Effective Schools
and certain of the designs for school improvement that are associated with the
project. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University, College of Education, In-
stitute for Research on Teaching.
EdSource. (2001). Help wanted: Top administrators to lead California’s schools (Issue
Brief No. 1). Palo Alto, CA: J. Teague.
Educational Research Service. (1998). Is there a shortage of qualified candidates for the
opening of the principalship? An exploratory study. Alexandria, VA: NAESP and
NASSP.
Educational Research Service. (2002). Salaries and wages paid professional and support
personnel in public schools, 2001-2002. Alexandria, VA: Author.

195
Elmore, R. F. (2000). Building a new structure for school leadership. New York, NY:
Albert Shanker Institute.
Elmore, R. F. (2005). Accountable leadership. Educational Forum, 69, 134-142.
Elmore, R. F., & Burney, D. (2000). Leadership and learning: Principal recruitment,
induction and instructional leadership in Community School District #2, New
York City. New York, NY: High Performance Learning Communities.
Farkas, S., Johnson, J., Duffett, A., & Foleno, A. (2001). Trying to stay ahead of the
game: Superintendents and principals talk about leadership. New York, NY:
Public Agenda.
Finkin, E. F. (1987). Successful corporate turnaround: An agenda for board members,
financial managers, financial institutions, and other creditors. New York, NY:
Quorum.
Fullan, M. (1993). Change forces: Probing the depths of educational reform. London,
UK: Routledge.
Fullan, M. (1999). Change forces: The sequel. London, UK: Falmer.
Fullan, M. (2001). Leading in a culture of change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Fullan, M. (2006). Turnaround leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Gerstner, S. B. (2002). Who says elephants can’t dance? Inside IBM’s historic turn-
around. New York, NY: Harper Business.
Glickman, C. D. (1991). Pretending not to know what we know. Educational Leadership,
48(8), 4-10.
Glickman, C. D. (1998). Revolutionizing America’s schools. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-
Bass.
Goertz, M., & Duffy, M. (2003). Mapping the landscape of high-stakes testing and ac-
countability programs. Theory Into Practice, 42, 59-65.
Goldberg, M. F. (2006). Insider’s guide to school leadership: Getting things done without
losing your mind. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Goldstein, A. S. (1988). Corporate comeback: Managing turnaround and troubled com-
panies. New York, NY: Wiley.
Goldstein, J., Keleman, M., & Koski, W. (1998, April). Reconstitution in theory and
practice: The experiences of San Francisco. Paper presented at annual meeting of
the American Educational Research Association, San Diego.
Goleman, D., Boyatzis, R., & McKee, A. (2002). Primal Leadership. Boston, MA:
Harvard Business School Press.

196
Goodman, S. J. (1982). How to manage a turnaround: A senior manager’s blueprint for
turning an ailing business into a winner. New York, NY: Free Press.
Goodwin, R. (2002). On the edge of chaos: A Delphi study of the changing role of the
secondary principal. Unpublished dissertation, West Virginia University, Mor-
gantown.
Goodwin, R., Cunningham, M. L., & Eagle, T. (2005). The changing role of the sec-
ondary principal in the United States: An historical perspective. Journal of Edu-
cational Administration and History, 37(1), 1-17.
Gordon, R. (2002). Fuel for reform: The importance of trust in changing schools.
Harvard Education Letter, 18, 4.
Grady, M. (1990). The teacher principal. Research in Rural Education, 6(3), 49-52.
Grady, M. (2004). 20 biggest mistakes principals make and how to avoid them. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Greenfield, W. (1985, April). Being and becoming a principal: Responses to work
contexts and socialization processes. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
American Educational Research Association, Chicago.
Greenleaf, R. K. (1973). The servant as a leader. Newton Center, Ma: Robert K. Green-
leaf Center.
Hale, E. L., & Moorman, H. N. (2003). Preparing school principals: A national perspec-
tive on policy and program innovations. Washington, DC: Institute for Educa-
tional Leadership and Illinois Educational Research Council.
Haller, E. J., Brent, B. O., & McNamara, H. J. (1997). Does graduate training in educa-
tional administration improve America’s schools? Phi Delta Kappan, 79, 222-
227.
Hallinger, P. (2003). Two decades of ferment in school leadership development in retro-
spect: 1980-2000. In P. Hallinger (Ed.), Reshaping the landscape of school
leadership development: A global perspective. Lisse, The Netherlands: Swets &
Zeitlinger.
Hallinger, P., & Wimpelberg, R. (1992). New settings and changing norms for principal
development. The Urban Review, 67(4), 1-22.
Hargreave, A., & Fullan, M. (1998). What’s worth fighting for out there? New York, NY:
Teachers College Press.
Harris, S. (2005). Best practices of award-winning elementary school principals. Thou-
sand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Hart, B., & Risley, T. R. (1995). Meaningful differences in the everyday experiences of
young American children. Baltimore: Brookes.

197
Hartzell, G., Williams, R., & Nelson, K. (1995). New voices in the field. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Corwin.
Hough, M. (2000, April). Technology and change: Sustaining or disrupting leadership in
education. Australian Council for Educational Administration Monographs, 26.
Howley, C. (2002). Understanding the circumstance of rural schooling: The parameters
of respectful research. In S. Hendersen (Ed.), Understanding achievement in
science and mathematics in rural schools (pp. 11-16). Lexington, KY: Ap-
palachian Rural Systematic Initiative.
Hoy, W. K., & Hoy, A. (2003). Instructional leadership: A learning-centered guide.
Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Indiana Association of School Principals and Ball State University. (1999). The state of
the principalship in Indiana as perceived by principals, aspiring principals, and
superintendents. Terre Haute: Author.
Institute for Educational Leadership. (2000). Leadership for student learning: Reinvent-
ing the principalship. Washington, DC: Author.
Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium (ISLLC). (1996). Standards for school
leaders. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers. Retrieved from
http://wps.ablongman.com/ab_bacon_edadmin_1/0,6183,462533-,00html
Kanter, R. M. (2004). Confidence: How winning and losing streaks begin and end. New
York, NY: Crown Business.
King, D. (2002). The changing shape of leadership. Educational Leadership 59(8), 138.
Knapp, M. S. (2003). Professional development as a policy pathway. Review of Research
in Education, 27, 109-156.
Knapp, M. S., Copeland, M. A., & Talbert, J. E. (2003). Leading for learning: Reflective
tools for school and district leaders. Seattle, WA: Center for Study of Teaching
and Policy.
Kotter, J. P. (1985). Power and influence: Beyond formal authority. New York, NY: Free
Press.
Kotter, J. P. (1988). The leadership factor. New York, NY: Free Press.
Kotter, J. P. (1996). Leading change. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Kotter, J. P. (1998). Winning at change. Leader to Leader, 10, 27-33.
Kotter, J. P. (2003). The power of feelings. Leader at Leader, 27, 25-31.
Kouzes, J., M., & Posner, B. Z. (1987). The leadership challenge: How to get extraordi-
nary things done in organizations. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

198
Kronley, R. (2000, September). From the frontier to field. Paper presented at the National
Conference on Educational Leadership, New York.
Lambert, L. (1998). Building leadership capacity in schools. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Larson, C. E., & LaFasto, F. M. J. (2003). Teamwork: What must go right/what can go
wrong. Newberry Park, CA: Sage.
Lauder, A. (2000). The new look in principal preparation programs. NASSP Bulletin, 84,
23-28.
Leithwood, K. (1994). Leadership for school restructuring. Educational Administration
Quarterly, 30, 498-518.
Leithwood, K., Begley, P. T., & Cousins, J. B. (1990). The nature, causes and conse-
quences of principal’s practices: An agenda for future research. Journal of Edu-
cational Administration, 28(4), 5-31.
Leithwood, K., & Duke, D. (1999). A century’s quest to understand school leadership. In
J. Murphy & K. Seashore (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational adminis-
tration (2nd ed., pp. 45-72). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (2005). A review of transformational school leadership 1996-
2005. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 4(3), 17-19.
Leithwood, K., Jantzi, D., & Steinbach, R. (1999). Changing leadership for changing
times. Philadelphia: Open University Press.
Levine. A. (2005). Educating school leaders. Washington, DC: The Education Project.
Levine, D. U., & Lezotte, L. W. (1990). Unusually effective schools: A review and analy-
sis of research and practice. Madison, WI: National Center for Effective Schools
Research and Development.
Lindle, J. C. (2004). Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium standards for
school leaders: To what extent do ISLLC skill indicators describe school leaders’
instructional leadership work? Kansas City, MO: University Council for Educa-
tional Administration.
Lindley, F. A. (2003). The portable mentor: A resource guide for entry-level principal
and mentors. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Maccoby, M. (1981). The leader. New York, NY: Baltimore Press.
Manske, F. A. (1987). Secrets of effective leadership. Columbia, TN: Leadership Educa-
tion and Development, Inc.
Manske, F. A. (1999). Secrets of effective leadership. Columbia, TN: Leadership Educa-
tion Development.

199
Marnik, G. (1998). Reflections on the high school principalship. The High School Maga-
zine, 6(2), 4-9.
Marzano, R. J. (2003). What works in schools: Translating research into action. Alexan-
dria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Marzano, R. J., Pickering, D., & Pollock, J. E. (2001). Classroom instruction that works:
Research-based strategies for increasing student achievement. Alexandria, VA:
McREL.
Marzano, R. J., Waters, T., & McNulty, B. A. (2005). School leadership that works:
From research to results. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Cur-
riculum Development.
Maxwell, J. C. (2005). The 360 degree leader: Developing your influence from anywhere
in the organization. Nashville: Nelson Business.
McEwan, E. K. (2003). 10 traits of highly effective principals: From good to great per-
formance. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
McMillan, J. H., & Schumacher, S. (2001). Research in education: A conceptual intro-
duction. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Mertz, N. T., & McNeely, S. R. (1998). Women on the job: A study of female high
school principals. Educational Administration Quarterly, 2, 364-366.
Mid-Continent Research for Education and Learning (McREL). (2001) Leadership for
school improvement. Aurora, CO: Author.
Morrissey, M., & Cowan, D. (2004). Creating and sustaining a professional learning
community: Actions and perceptions of principal leadership. In S. M. Hord (Ed.),
Learning together leading together: Changing schools through professional
learning communities (pp. 45-57). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Murphy, J., & Meyers, C. V. (2008). Turning around failing schools: Leadership lessons
from organizational sciences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Murphy, S. L. (1998). National vital statistics reports from the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention, Division of Vital Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. De-
partment of Health and Human Services.
Nadler, D. A., & Tushman, M. L. (1995a). Discontinuous change. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Nadler, D. A., & Tushman, M. L. (1995b). Types of organizational change: From incre-
mental improvement to discontinuous transformation. In D. A. Nadler, R. B.
Shaw, & A. E. Walton & Associates (Eds.), Discontinuous change: Leading or-
ganizational transformation (pp. 15-34). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The impera-
tive for educational reform. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

200
National Commission on Excellence in Educational Administration. (1987). Leaders for
America’s schools. Tempe, AZ: University Council for Educational Administra-
tion (UCEA).
National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education. (2003). Assessing education
candidate performance: A look at changing practices. Washington, DC: Author.
National Council on Education Standards and Testing. (1992). Raising standards for
American education: A report to Congress, the Secretary of Education, the Na-
tional Goals Panel, and the American people. Washington, DC: Author.
National Policy Board for Educational Administration for the Educational Leadership
Council. (1995). NCATE program standards: Advanced programs in educational
leadership for principals, superintendents, curriculum directors, and supervisors.
Alexandria, VA: Educational Leadership Constituent Council.
No Child Left Behind Act, 20 U.S.C. Sections 6301 et seq. U.S.C (2002).
Normore, A. H. (2004, January). Professional and organization socialization processes
of school administrators: A literature review. Paper presented at the Hawaii Inter-
national Conference on Education, Honolulu, HI.
Northouse, P. (2004). Leadership: Theory and practice (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
O’Reilly, C. A., & Chatman, J. A. (1994). Working smarter and harder: A longitudinal
study of managerial success. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39, 603-627.
Ovando, M. M. (1991). Delivering clinical supervision based on the formative dimension
of Texas teacher appraisal system. Wingspan: Pedamorphosis Communique, 7(1),
21-29.
Parkay, F. W., Gmelch, W. H., & Rhodes, J. W. (1992, October). Learning the ropes:
The professional socialization of principals. Paper presented at the annual
meeting of the University Council for Educational Administration, Minneapolis.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Peters, B. G. (1999). American public policy: Promise and performance. New York, NY:
Chatham House.
Peters, T. J., & Austin, N. A. (1985). A passion for excellence. New York, NY: Random
House.
Peterson, K. (2000). The professional development of principals: Innovations and op-
portunities. Educational Administration Quarterly, 38, 213-232.
Peterson, K. D., & Deal, T. E. (2002). Shaping school culture fieldbook. San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.

201
Pierce, P. R. (1935). The origin and development of the public school principalship. Chi-
cago: University of Chicago Libraries.
Popham, W. J. (2001). The truth about testing: An educator’s call to action. Alexandria,
VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Portin, B., Scheider, P., DeArmand, M., & Gundlach, L. (2003). Making sense of leading
schools: A study of the school principalship. Seattle: University of Washington,
Daniel J. Evans School of Public Affairs, Center on Reinventing Public Educa-
tion.
Portin, B., Shen, J., & Williams, R. C. (1998). The changing principalship and its impact:
Voices from principals. NASSP Bulletin, 82, 1-8.
Pounder, D. G., & Merrill, R. J. (2001). Job desirability of high school principalship: A
job choice theory perspective. Educational Administration Quarterly, 37(1), 27-
57.
Quinn. R. E. (1996). Deep change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Ralls, S. F., & Highsmith, M. C. (1986). The myth of the ―great principal‖: Questions of
school management and instructional leadership. Phi Delta Kappan, 68, 300-304.
Rentner, D. S., Chudowsky, N., Fagen, T., Gayler, K., Hamilton, M., & Kober, N.
(2003). From the capitol to the classroom: State and federal efforts to implement
the No Child Left Behind Act. Washington, DC: Center on Education Policy.
Ricciardi, D. (2000, April). Experiences of Kentucky Principal Intern Program partici-
pants: Job assistance provided in the entry year. Paper presented at the Annual
Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans.
Robbins, P., & Alvy, H. (2003). The principal’s companion: Strategies and hints to the
make the job easier. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Robbins, P., & Alvy, H. (2004). The new principal’s fieldbook: Strategies for success.
Alexandria, VA: Association of Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Rosenholtz, S. (1989). Workplace conditions that affect teacher quality and commitment:
Implications for teacher induction programs. Elementary Journal 89, 421-439.
Schlechty, P. (2001). Shaking up the schoolhouse: How to support and sustain educa-
tional innovation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Senge, P. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of learning organization. New
York, NY: Doubleday.
Sergiovanni, T. J., & Starratt, R. S. (2002). Supervision: A redefinition (6th ed.) New
York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

202
Shelley, C. L., & Jones, L. (1983). The turnaround process: Management, board, and
cultural changes. In R. A. Baehr (Ed.)., Engineering a hospital turnaround
(pp. 69-81). Washington, DC: American Hospital Publishing.
Sheppard, B. (1996). Exploring the transformational nature of instructional leadership.
The Albert Journal of Educational Research, 42, 325-344.
Silver, A. D. (1992). The turnaround survival guide: Strategies for the company in crises.
Chicago: Dearborn Financial.
Smith, E. (2005). Raising standards in American schools: The case of No Child Left
Behind. Journal of Education Policy, 20, 507-524.
Smith, W., & Andrews, R. (1989). Instructional leadership: How principals make a dif-
ference. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Develop-
ment.
Stewart, J. (1984). Managing a successful business turnaround. New York, NY: Ameri-
can Management Associates.
Sykes, G. (2000). Model of preparation for the professions: Implications for educational
leadership. Washington, DC: National Center on Education and the Economy.
Taylor, B. (1982-1983). Turnaround, recovery and growth: The way through crisis. Jour-
nal of General Management, 8(2), 5-13.
Taylor, R., & Williams, R. (2001). Accountability: Threat or target? School Administra-
tor, 56(6), 30-33.
Tirozzi, G. N. (2001). The artistry of leadership: The evoking role of the secondary
school principal. Phi Delta Kappan, 82, 434-439.
Tucker, M., & Codding, J. B. (2002). The principal challenge. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
U.S. Department of Education. (2004). A guide to education and No Child Left Behind.
Washington, DC: Educational Publications Center.
U.S. Department of Labor. (2000). Occupational outlook handbook, 2000-01. Washing-
ton, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Waters, T. W., & Grubb, S. (2004). Leading schools: Distinguishing the essential from
the important. Denver, CO: Mid-Continent Research for Education and Learning.
Watkins, M. (2003). Critical success strategies for new leaders at all levels: The first 90
days. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
WestEd. (2003). Moving leadership standards into everyday work: Descriptions of prac-
tice. Minneapolis, MN: Author.

203
Whitaker, T. (2003). What great principals do differently: Fifteen things that matter
most. Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education.
Whittle, C. (2005). Crash course. New York, NY: Riverhead Books.
Yerkes, D. L., & Guaglianone, C. L. (1998). Where have all the high school administra-
tors gone? Thrust for Educational Leadership, 28(2), 10-15.
Zmuda, A., Kuklis, R., & Kline, E. (2004). Transforming schools: Creating a culture of
continuous improvement. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Cur-
riculum Development.

204
APPENDIX A
IMMEDIATE SUPERVISOR INTERVIEW
1. What makes you define this principal as successful?
2. STRS Chart - In which category would you place the school when the principal
attained the position?
3. What evidence did you have to support this categorization?
4. What three important actions helped the principal make the biggest positive gains?
5. Characteristics and Behaviors Chart
A. Which of these behaviors did the principal engage in during the first 90 days?
(Choose 7)
B. In which of these behaviors do you think are most important for a successful
principal? (Choose 7)

6. How significant were the first 90 days for this principal?
7. What types of support did the district provide to the principal for the first 90 days?
8. How do you think university programs prepare administrators for the principalship?

STRS Chart
Start – up
A new school to get off the
ground
Realignment
The school was unaware it was
drifting into trouble and needed to
be revitalized.
Turnaround
The school was identified as
being in trouble and needed to
get back on track
Sustaining success
Preserving the vitality of an
organization and taking it to the
next level

205
Characteristics and Behaviors Chart
A. Which of these behaviors did the principal engage in during the first 90 days?
(Choose 7)
B. In which of these behaviors do you think are most important for a successful
principal? (Choose 7)

Characteristic/
Behavior
The extent to which the principal… A B
Culture Fosters shared beliefs & a sense of community &
cooperation

Order Establishes a set of standard operating procedures and
routines

Discipline Protects teachers from issues & influences that would
detract from their teaching time or focus

Resources Provides teachers with the material & professional
development necessary for the successful execution of
their jobs

Curriculum,
Instruction, &
Assessment
Is directly involved in the design & implementation of
curriculum, instruction

Focus Establishes clear goals & keeps those goals in the
forefront of the school’s attention

Knowledge of
Curriculum,
Instruction &
Assessment
Is knowledgeable about current curriculum, instruction,
& assessment practices

Visibility Has quality contact & interactions & with teachers &
students

Contingent
Rewards
Recognizes & rewards individual accomplishments
Communication Establishes strong lines of communication with
teachers & among students

Outreach Is an advocate & spokesperson for the school to all
stakeholders

Input Involves teachers in the design & implementation of
important decisions and policies

Affirmation Recognizes & celebrates school accomplishments &
acknowledges failures

Relationship Demonstrates an awareness of the personal aspects of
teachers & staff

Change Agent Is willing to & actively challenges the status quo
Optimizer Inspires & leads new & challenging innovations
Ideals / Beliefs Communicates & operates from strong ideals & beliefs
about schooling

206
Monitors /
Evaluates
Monitors the effectiveness of school practices & their
impact on student learning

Flexibility Adapts his or her leadership behavior to the needs of
the current situation & is comfortable with dissent

Situational
Awareness
Is aware of the details & undercurrents in the running
of the school & uses the information to address current
& political problems

Intellectual
Stimulation
Ensures that faculty & staff are aware of the most
current theories & practices & makes the discussion of
these a regular aspect of the school’s culture

207
APPENDIX B
PRINCIPAL INTERVIEW
1. What was your pathway to the principalship?
 What is your major?
 How many years have you been in the field of education?
 How long did you teach?
 At what levels?
 What subjects?
 What leadership roles or positions have you held previously in schools?
 How many years have you been in your current district?
2. STRS Chart - In which category would you place your school when you attained your
principalship?
 What evidence did you have to support this categorization?
 Who provided you with information about your school?
3. Principal’s Four Frames Chart
 Indicate what percentage of your time during the first 90 days of your principalship was spent
in the following areas.
 Rank the areas from 1-4 (1 = most important, 4 = least important) as to how you should have
spent your time.
4. Characteristics and Behaviors Chart
 Which of these activities did you engage in during your first 90 days? (Choose 7)
5. How significant were the first 90 days to your principalship?
6. At what point in the first 90 days did you feel you established credibility?
 Describe a specific event or incident.
7. How did your University program prepare you for your job as principal?
 What was useful?
 What was not useful?
 Did any of your formal training focus on the transition period or strategies for success during
your first 90 days as principal?
8. What types of support did your district provide for your first 90 days?
 Was the assistance helpful?
 What kind of assistance would have been helpful?
 What was not helpful?
 Did you have a mentor?
 Did your school district provide staff development as a new principal?
 Were district office personnel available for support during the transitional period?
 Where did you get your most useful insights into the school culture within the first few
weeks?
9. What leadership theories are vital for the first 90 days of a principalship?

208

STRS Chart
Start – up
A new school to get off the
ground
Realignment
The school was unaware it was
drifting into trouble and needed to
be revitalized.
Turnaround
The school was identified as
being in trouble and needed to
get back on track
Sustaining success
Preserving the vitality of an
organization and taking it to the
next level

209
Principal’s Four Frames Chart
A. Indicate what percentage of your time during the first 90 days of your principalship was spent in the
following areas.
B. Rank the areas from 1-4 (1 = most important, 4 = least important) as to how you should have spent
your time.

STRUCTURAL ACTIVITIES
 Clear focus on goals, strategy and
objectives
 Focus on hierarchy, authority, rules
and policies
 Specific employee division of labor
based on knowledge/skills
 Standardized systems to ensure
predictability and uniformity
 Regular staff meetings
 Incorporating information
technology as a means of
communication

HUMAN RESOURCE ACTIVITIES
 Integral part of employee selection
process
 Promote from within
 Invest in relevant professional
development
 Empowerment
 Encourage autonomy and participation
 Sharing the wealth
 Genuine understanding of employee
needs

% Rank: % Rank:
POLITICAL ACTIVITIES
 Agenda Setting – Working on plans to
achieve your goals for the school
 Mapping the Political Terrain –
Identifying agents of influence,
identifying informal lines of
communication
 Networking & Building Coalitions –
Identifying important existing
relationships and creating new ones
 Bargaining & Negotiating – Settling
disputes and making agreements

SYMBOLIC ACTIVITIES
 Learning the history and values of the
school
 Understanding the group identity of the
staff
 Preserving school rituals and ceremonies or
creating new ones
 Incorporating humor or play into work
 Communicating the school vision
 Telling stories to promote the school vision
 Identifying and understanding important
school symbols
% Rank: % Rank:

210
Characteristics and Behaviors Chart

Which of these behaviors did you engage in during the first 90 days of your
principalship? (Choose 7 in column A.)

Characteristic/Behavior The extent to which the principal…
A

Culture
Fosters shared beliefs & a sense of community & cooperation
Order Establishes a set of standard operating procedures and
routines

Discipline Protects teachers from issues & influences that would detract
from their teaching time or focus

Resources Provides teachers with the material & professional
development necessary for the successful execution of their
jobs

Curriculum, Instruction,
& Assessment
Is directly involved in the design & implementation of
curriculum, instruction

Focus Establishes clear goals & keeps those goals in the forefront
of the school’s attention

Knowledge of
Curriculum, Instruction
& Assessment
Is knowledgeable about current curriculum, instruction, &
assessment practices

Visibility Has quality contact & interactions with teachers & students
Contingent Rewards Recognizes & rewards individual accomplishments
Communication Establishes strong lines of communication with teachers &
among students

Outreach Is an advocate & spokesperson for the school to all
stakeholders

Input Involves teachers in the design & implementation of
important decisions and policies

Affirmation Recognizes & celebrates school accomplishments &
acknowledges failures

Relationship Demonstrates an awareness of the personal aspects of
teachers & staff

Change Agent Is willing to & actively challenges the status quo
Optimizer Inspires & leads new & challenging innovations
Ideals / Beliefs Communicates & operates from strong ideals & beliefs about
schooling

Monitors / Evaluates Monitors the effectiveness of school practices & their impact
on student learning

Flexibility Adapts his or her leadership behavior to the needs of the
current situation & is comfortable with dissent

Situational Awareness Is aware of the details & undercurrents in the running of the
school & uses the information to address current & political
problems

Intellectual Stimulation Ensures that faculty & staff are aware of the most current
theories & practices & makes the discussion of these a
regular aspect of the school’s culture

211
APPENDIX C
TEACHER SURVEY
1. Circle the category in which you would place the school when the principal attained the
position?

Start – up
A new school to get off the ground
Realignment
The school was unaware it was
drifting into trouble and needed to be
revitalized.
Turnaround
The school was identified as being
in trouble and needed to get back
on track
Sustaining Success
The school was successful and needed
to be taken to the next level.

2. Why did you choose this category?

3. How significant were the first 90 days (or first semester) for this principal? Explain
your answer.

4. What three important actions helped the principal make the biggest positive gains in
the first 90 days (or first semester)?

4. At what point did the principal established credibility with you?

212
Using the following chart:
A. Rank from 1-4 how the principal actually spent his/her time in the first 90 days (or first semester).
B. Rank from 1-4 how the principal should have spent his/her time in the first 90 days (or first
semester).
(1 = Most time, 4 = Least time)

STRUCTURAL ACTIVITIES
 Clear focus on goals, strategy
and objectives
 Focus on hierarchy, authority,
rules and policies
 Specific employee division of
labor based on knowledge/skills
 Standardized systems to ensure
predictability and uniformity
 Regular staff meetings
 Incorporating information
technology as a means of
communication
HUMAN RESOURCE ACTIVITIES
 Integral part of employee selection
process
 Promote from within
 Invest in relevant professional
development
 Empowerment
 Encourage autonomy and
participation
 Sharing the wealth
 Genuine understanding of employee
needs

Actual: Should: Actual: Should:
POLITICAL ACTIVITIES
 Agenda Setting – Working on plans
to achieve your goals for the school
 Mapping the Political Terrain –
Identifying agents of influence,
identifying informal lines of
communication
 Networking & Building Coalitions
– Identifying important existing
relationships and creating new ones
 Bargaining & Negotiating – Settling
disputes and making agreements

SYMBOLIC ACTIVITIES
 Learning the history and values of the
school
 Understanding the group identity of the
staff
 Preserving school rituals and
ceremonies or creating new ones
 Incorporating humor or play into work
 Communicating the school vision
 Telling stories to promote the school
vision
 Identifying and understanding important
school symbols
Actual: Should: Actual: Should:

213
Using the following chart:

C. Which of these behaviors did the principal engage in during the first 90 days
(or first semester)? (Choose 7 in column A)
D. In which of these behaviors do you think are most important for a successful
principal? (Choose 7 in column B)

Characteristic/Behavior The extent to which the principal…
A B
Culture Fosters shared beliefs & a sense of community &
cooperation

Order Establishes a set of standard operating procedures and
routines

Discipline Protects teachers from issues & influences that would
detract from their teaching time or focus

Resources Provides teachers with the material & professional
development necessary for the successful execution of
their jobs

Curriculum, Instruction,
& Assessment
Is directly involved in the design & implementation of
curriculum, instruction

Focus Establishes clear goals & keeps those goals in the
forefront of the school’s attention

Knowledge of
Curriculum, Instruction
& Assessment
Is knowledgeable about current curriculum, instruction,
& assessment practices

Visibility Has quality contact & interactions & with teachers &
students

Contingent Rewards Recognizes & rewards individual accomplishments
Communication Establishes strong lines of communication with teachers
& among students

Outreach Is an advocate & spokesperson for the school to all
stakeholders

Input Involves teachers in the design & implementation of
important decisions and policies

Affirmation Recognizes & celebrates school accomplishments &
acknowledges failures

Relationship Demonstrates an awareness of the personal aspects of
teachers & staff

Change Agent Is willing to & actively challenges the status quo
Optimizer Inspires & leads new & challenging innovations
Ideals / Beliefs Communicates & operates from strong ideals & beliefs
about schooling

Monitors / Evaluates Monitors the effectiveness of school practices & their
impact on student learning

Flexibility Adapts his or her leadership behavior to the needs of the
current situation & is comfortable with dissent

Situational Awareness Is aware of details & undercurrents in running of school
& uses information to address current political problems

Intellectual Stimulation Ensures that faculty & staff are aware of the most
current theories & practices & makes the discussion of
these a regular aspect of the school’s culture

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This study analyzed skills, strategies, and theories that new middle school principals used to be successful during their transition period (the first 90 days) in turnaround schools. Based on research on transitions, three research questions guided the study:1. Do middle school principals in a turnaround school situation find the transition period (first 90 days) to be important?2. What strategies and conceptual frameworks (leadership theories) were useful to new principals during the transition period (first 90 days) in a turnaround school?3. Did any programs, formal or informal, prepare new principals for success during the transition period (first 90 days) in a turnaround school?

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

The first 90 days of the new middle school principal

PDF

The first 90 days of the principalship in a turnaround school

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

The first 90 days: securing early success in the superintendency

PDF

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

PDF

A new era of leadership: preparing leaders for urban schools & the 21st century

PDF

Resource allocation strategies and educational adequacy: Case studies of school level resource use in California middle schools

PDF

Closing the achievement gap: successful practices at a middle school -- a case study

PDF

Principal leadership succession: developing the next generation of leaders

PDF

Promising practices: building the next generation of effective school principals

PDF

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

PDF

The impact of programs, practices, and strategies on student academic performance: a case study

PDF

Future Ready Schools: how middle school principals support personalized and digital learning for teachers and students at mid-sized urban middle schools

PDF

Hawaii Board of Education's middle grade promotion policy: a policy implementation study

PDF

Managing leadership transitions in an international school context

PDF

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

Asset Metadata

Creator Baeza, Marco Antonio (author)

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

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 09/17/2010

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

Tag first 90 days,new middle school principal,OAI-PMH Harvest,transition period,turnaround school

Place Name California (states)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Price, Scott (committee chair), Hentschke, Guilbert C. (committee member), Stowe, Kathy Huisong (committee member)

Creator Email marcobae@usc.edu,pbaeza@rwglaw.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m3454

Unique identifier UC1362306

Identifier etd-Baeza-4140 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-393136 (legacy record id),usctheses-m3454 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-Baeza-4140.pdf

Dmrecord 393136

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Baeza, Marco Antonio

Type texts

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

Repository Name Libraries, University of Southern California

Repository Location Los Angeles, California

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu