University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

The first 90 days of the principalship in a turnaround school

(USC Thesis Other)

The first 90 days of the principalship in a turnaround school

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 PRINCIPALSHIP IN
A TURNAROUND SCHOOL
by
Vanessa Landesfeind
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
May 2007
Copyright 2007Vanessa Landesfeind
DEDICATION
To my husband, John Geldbach: Thank you for the patience.
To my daughter, Isabella: Thank you for making me play.
To my dad, Hans Landesfeind: Thank you for your constant “reminders.”
To my mom, Irma Landesfeind: Thank you for not “reminding” me.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Thank you to the following individuals, whose support and contributions made
this dissertation possible: faculty members Dr. Scott Price, Dr. Lawrence Picus, and Dr.
Michael Escalante; the members of my cohort—Jan, Cynthia, Grant, Brian, Matt, Jerry,
Hiram, Caroline, and Marco; Deborah Silber; and Principal J and the staff at Middle
School J.

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
DEDICATION. ..................................................... ii
LIST OF TABLES. .................................................. vi
ABSTRACT........................................................viii
Chapter 1: INTRODUCTION: THE PROBLEM AND ITS UNDERLYING
FRAMEWORK............................................... 1
Accountability Movement. ...................................... 1
The New Role of the Principal. ................................... 3
The Turnaround School......................................... 5
Perceived Shortage and Turnover. ................................ 6
University Preparation. ......................................... 7
The Socialization Period. ....................................... 8
Statement of the Problem. ....................................... 9
Purpose of the Study. .......................................... 10
Importance of the Study. ........................................ 11
Methodology. ................................................ 11
Limitations. .................................................. 12
Delimitations. ................................................ 13
Assumptions.................................................. 14
Definition of Terms. ........................................... 14
Transition Period........................................... 14
Turnaround School. ........................................ 14
Organization of the Study. ...................................... 14
Chapter 2: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE. ........................... 16
Preparing for the Principalship.................................... 17
A Shortage of Qualified Candidates. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
University Educational Leadership Programs.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
State and Local Educational Leadership Programs.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
The Role of the Principal. ....................................... 24
Historical Context.......................................... 24
A New Context. ........................................... 26
The Contemporary Principal.................................. 30
Best Practices in Leadership...................................... 37
Organizational Frames. ..................................... 38
Leadership That Works...................................... 40
Leading a PLC. ........................................... 44
Leading From the Middle.................................... 46
iii
Common Elements of Other Leadership Frameworks. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Implementation of Best Practices. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
School/Organizational Culture.................................... 55
Definition of Organizational Culture. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
Difficulty in Changing Organizational Culture.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
The Process of Changing Organizational Culture.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
The New Principal............................................. 65
Socialization of the New Principal. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
The New Principal’s Transition Period.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
Case Studies on New Principals. .............................. 74
Conclusions............................................... 82
Chapter 3: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY. ............................ 85
Research Questions. ........................................... 86
Research Design............................................... 86
Population and Sample.......................................... 87
Instrumentation. .............................................. 89
Survey. .................................................. 90
Charts. .................................................. 91
Data Collection. .............................................. 92
Data Analysis. ................................................ 92
Chapter 4: ANALYSIS OF DATA AND IMPLICATIONS OF THE
FINDINGS. .................................................. 94
The Principals’ Background and School Contexts.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
Background for Principal J. .................................. 95
Context of Middle School J. ................................. 96
Background for Principals A-I. ............................... 98
Context of Middle Schools A-I................................ 98
Research Question 1: The Importance of the Transition Period. . . . . . . . . .103
Middle School J: Importance of the Transition Period. . . . . . . . . . . . .104
Principal J: Time Frame for Establishing Credibility. . . . . . . . . . . . . .105
Middle Schools A-I: Significance of the Transition Period. . . . . . . . . .107
Principals A-I: Time Frame for Establishing Credibility. . . . . . . . . . . .108
Summary of Findings for Research Question 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .109
Research Question 2: Strategies Used During the Transition Period. . . . . .109
Principal J: Rationale for Characterization as Successful. . . . . . . . . . .109
Principals A-I: Rationale for Characterization as Successful.. . . . . . . .111
Leadership Frames. ........................................111
Principal J: Actions Related to Credibility.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .121
Principals A-I: Actions Related to Credibility. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .122
Principal J: 21 Characteristics and Responsibilities.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .123
Principals A-I: 21 Characteristics and Responsibilities. . . . . . . . . . . . .127
iv
Leadership Theories for the First 90 Days. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .130
Summary of Findings for Research Question 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .131
Research Question 3: Preparation for the Transition Period. . . . . . . . . . . . .133
How Principal J Prepared for the Principalship. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .133
How Principals A-I Prepared for the Principalship.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .134
Types of Support Provided to Principal J During the First 90 Days. . . .135
Types of Support Provided to Principals A-I During the First 90
Days. ................................................136
How University Programs Prepared Principal J. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .138
How University Programs Prepared Principals A-I. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .139
Summary of Research Question 3..............................141
Summary of Research Questions 1-3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .143
Research Question 1: Importance of the Transition Period. . . . . . . . . .143
Research Question 2: Strategies Used During the Transition
Period................................................143
Research Question 3: Preparation for the Transition Period. . . . . . . . .145
Conclusions. .................................................147
Chapter 5: SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS OF
THE FINDINGS. .............................................149
Overview of the Problem. .......................................149
Purpose of the Study. ..........................................151
Methodolog y . ................................................151
Population and Sample. .....................................152
I nstrumentation. ...........................................152
Data Collection. ...........................................153
Data Analysis. ............................................153
Research Question 1............................................153
F ramework. ..............................................153
Findings for Research Question 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .155
Research Question 2............................................155
F ramework. ..............................................155
Findings for Research Question 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .157
Research Question 3............................................158
F ramework. ..............................................158
Findings for Research Question 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .160
Recommendations. ............................................160
Suggestions for Further Research..................................162
REF ERENCES . ....................................................164
v
Appendix A: INSTRUMENTS. ......................................171
Appendix B:DISAGGREGATED DATA REGARDING PRINCIPALS
AND 21CHARACTERISTICS OF MARZANO ET AL.
(2005)—TABLES B1-B7. ...............................185
vi
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1:The 21 Responsibilities and Their Average Correlations (r)
With Student Achievement................................... 42
Table 2:Leadership Responsibilities Associated With First- and Second-
Order Change.............................................. 44
Table 3:Challenges and Opportunities of Watkins’s Business Situations. . . . . . 61
Table 4:Teacher Survey: School Situation When Principal Started (N =
228). ....................................................100
Table 5:Department Chair Interviews: School Situation When Principal
Started (N = 40). ...........................................100
Table 6:Teacher Survey and Department Chair Interview: Rationale for
Choosing Situation. ........................................101
Table 7:School Demographic Information, 2005-2006: Part I. . . . . . . . . . . . . .102
Table 8:School Demographic Information, 2005-2006: Part II. . . . . . . . . . . . . .103
Table 9:Teacher Survey Results Regarding Whether the First 90 Days
Were Significant. ..........................................105
Table 10:Teachers’ Survey and Interview Results Regarding at What
Point the Principal Established Credibility With Them.. . . . . . . . . . . . .106
Table 11:Survey and Interview Ranking of How Principal J Spent Her
Time. ...................................................113
Table 12:Principals A-I: Responses Regarding Percentage of Time Spent in
Each Frame. ..............................................115
Table 13:Principals A-I: Responses Regarding Percentage of Time Should
Have Been Spent in Each Frame. ..............................115
Table 14:Survey and Interview Ranking of How Principals A-I Spent Their
Time. ...................................................116
Table 15:Actions That Helped Principal J Gain Credibility. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .117
vii
Table 16:Teacher Surveys: Actions That Helped Principals A-I Gain
Credibility. ...............................................120
Table 17:Department Chair Interviews: Actions That Helped Principals A-I
Gain Credibility. ...........................................120
Table 18:Immediate Supervisors: Actions That Helped Principals A-I Gain
Credibility. ...............................................121
Table 19:Type of Action That Established Credibility. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .122
Table 20:School J: What Principal Did and Should Have Done During First
90 Days in Relation to 21 Characteristics and Responsibilities.. . . . . . .125
Table 21:Schools A-I: What Principal Did and Should Have Done During
First 90 Days in Relation to 21 Characteristics and Responsibilities. . .128
Table 22:Principals A-I’s Experiences Related to the Principalship. . . . . . . . . . .135
Table 23:Principals A-J: Types of Support Provided by District for New
Principals.................................................137
Table 24:Supervisors A-J: Types of Support Provided by District for New
Principals.................................................137
Table 25:Supervisors’ Opinions: Ways University Programs Are Useful.. . . . . .141
viii

ABSTRACT
The purpose of this study was to examine the transition period of the first 90
days for new principals in turnaround middle schools. The following research questions
were developed to guide the study:
1.Do principals in a turnaround situation find the transition period (first 90
days) to be important?
2.What strategies and conceptual frameworks (leadership theories) were useful
to new principals during the transition period (first 90 days) in a turnaround school?
3.Did any programs, formal or informal, prepare new principals for success
during the transition period (first 90 days) in a turnaround school?
A cohort of 10 doctoral students developed instruments to collect data on 10
new principals in turnaround middle schools. Each researcher developed a case study
for 1 school using qualitative and quantitative methods to examine data collected
through interviews and surveys with the principal, his or her supervisor, and the school
staff. The researchers also conducted a cross-case analysis to identify patterns and
differences among the principals.
The major findings of the study included that the transition period for new
principals in a turnaround middle school was important. In order to establish credibil-
ity, the actions of the principal should match the needs of the school, and schoolwide
actions and human resources-oriented actions had the most impact. Leadership theory
ix
was not significant for the principals in their daily work. Finally, no programs, formal
or informal, prepared the new principals for success during the transition period.
It was recommended that to improve the experiences of new principals during
the transition period, university preparation programs should address the concept of the
transition period. School districts should provide formal orientations, assistance in
developing a 90-day plan, and formal mentors for new principals. Finally, it was rec-
ommends that new principals should have the opportunity to reinforce learning in the
area of theory.
1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION: THE PROBLEM AND ITS UNDERLYING

FRAMEWORK
Accountability Movement
In the last 25 years the public education system in the United States has under-
gone a transformation that has altered its mission, its methods of operation, and its
public image. Accountability has become the watchword for all things related to K-12
schooling. It is an umbrella term for an era of standards-driven instruction, high-stakes
testing, rewards and sanctions for performance, and intense public scrutiny.
The accountability movement officially began with the 1983 release of A Nation
at Risk by the National Commission on Excellence in Education (NCEE). Published by
the U.S. Department of Education, the report detailed how the United States was falling
behind other countries academically. The findings in the report painted a bleak picture
of the public education system, including the lack of advanced content area studies in
high school, low expectations at all levels of the system, inefficient use of time, and
inadequately prepared teachers. The report offered many suggestions for solving these
problems; however, one recommendation in particular influenced the current account-
ability movement more than any of the others. It was the recommendation that
“schools, colleges, and universities adopt more rigorous and measurable standards, and
higher expectations, for academic performance” (p. 26).
2
The recommendations of A Nation at Risk led to “increased centralization of
educational policy making at the state level” (Lugg, Bulkey, Firestone, & Garner, 2002,
p. 22). States across the country began developing content area standards for instruc-
tion, which were soon followed by the implementation of new standardized tests to
measure student achievement in relation to the content area standards. Some states
even legislated statewide school accountability systems, such as California’s Public
Schools Accountability Act of 1999 (California Department of Education, 2006). Es-
sentially, A Nation at Risk caused a paradigm shift in the way the United States viewed
its educational system; prior to its publication, schools focused on input rather than
output (Lugg et al.). In other words, schools thought more about subject matter content
than student learning.
In 2002, school accountability became nationwide law with the reauthorization
of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965. The act was origi-
nally funneled federal assistance to poor schools as part of President Lyndon B. John-
son’s War on Poverty. It had been reauthorized before and each time moved closer to
its present incarnation. In 1994, it became the Improving America’s Schools Act
(IASA), which called for high standards in education. That same year that the Educate
America Act was passed, also known as Goals 2000. Goals 2000 reinforced the IASA,
indicating that by the year 2000 the American education system should achieve a
number of goals, including students demonstrating competency in core educational
subjects at certain grade levels. While both acts set ambitious targets, they were really
only suggestions. Today the ESEA no longer just suggests changes, for what is now
3
known as the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2002 includes sanctions for schools
who fail to make “adequate yearly progress” and takes away federal funds from schools
that might want to opt out of the accountability system.
The New Role of the Principal
As the school accountability system has evolved, so have the roles of the people
who staff the school. This is particularly true of the principal’s position. Before the
1980s, the school principal filled a largely managerial role. According to Crow, Haus-
man, and Scribner (2002), an effective principal possesses the skills to run the school
based on the same bureaucratic principles as any similar organization in an industrial
society. The main responsibilities of the job includes maintaining standardized operat-
ing procedures and implementing school and district policies. A principal would also
want to emphasize rationality over human agency by encouraging teachers to follow
classroom routines and to rely on scripts in teacher’s edition texts. It would also be
important to maintain the integrity of the different positions in the school; therefore, the
principal works to prevent various roles from overlapping. Lastly, the principal needs
to maintain an emphasis on efficiency and quantity of work by regularly evaluating
employees to ensure that they did their jobs correctly.
Essentially, through the 1950s and the 1960s, in some eyes a school principal
was someone who maintained the status quo (Goodwin, Cunningham, & Eagle, 2005).
Even with the seemingly landmark changes in education brought on by the Civil Rights
movement, the passage of Title IX, and Education for Handicapped Children Act, the
4
responsibilities of the principal continued to be mainly managerial. The only discern-
able difference was that now principals had to be knowledgeable regarding the legal
aspects of new student and employee rights to ensure proper implementation.
It was not until the advent of the accountability movement the principals role in
the schools really changed. New responsibilities for principals accumulated on top of
the old managerial responsibilities, and for any principal “working seriously” for school
improvement the position became increasingly difficult (Goodwin et al., 2005, p. 7).
NCLB in particular has had a significant impact on the principalship. At minimum,
NCLB forces the principal to become an instructional leader, one who must find ways
to help all subgroups of students to reach educational goals, conform to new rules for
hiring, use data to drive instruction, and find ways to involve parents in the educational
process (Goodwin et al.). These technical requirements of NCLB only begin to cover
what is expected of principals.
Many believe that although the principal as instructional leader is a good begin-
ning for school reform, principals should actually be transformational leaders, turning
schools into learning organizations that continues to evolve and improve (Crow, et al.,
2002; Fullan, 2002a). In 1996 the Council of Chief State School Officers developed a
set of standards for school leadership that not only subjected educational leaders to the
same type of standards-based system as students but also reinforced the notion of the
principal as more than an instructional leader (Interstate School Leaders Licensure
Consortium [ISLLC], 1996). The ISLLC standards call for a leader who, in addition to
being an instructional leader, is a steward of the school’s vision, an effective manager, a
5
community relations manager, an ethical role model, and a capable leader in all con-
texts—political, and economic. In 2002, the National Association of Elementary
School Principals published its own set of standards that focused on the principal as
instructional leader to a greater degree than the ISLLC standards, but echoed the call for
involvement in the community, effectively managing the school, and having a strong
vision for successfully educating all students. Individual states, such as California,
Iowa, and Connecticut, to name a few, have followed this trend by adopting their own
similar standards for leadership.
The Turnaround School
Even though accountability has changed the role of all principals, for a principal
working in a turnaround school, the mandates of NCLB made the school a true proving
ground for leadership skills. The concept of a turnaround school is adapted from Wat-
kins’s (2003) business situations described in his book, The First 90 Days. He identi-
fied four business situations that one can find in a company: (a) start-up—creating
business from the ground up; (b) realignment—a business unaware that it is drifting
into trouble; (c) sustaining success—a business that needs to be taken to the next level;
and (d) turnaround—a business in which the majority of stakeholders are aware that the
business is in trouble or in need of change. Each of these models can easily be trans-
lated into the world of education, with the turnaround school being one in which NCLB
goals are not met and all stakeholders are aware that the school needs improvement.
6
A principal in a turnaround situation must handle all of the normal responsibili-
ties of the position and more. Not only is a principal in this situation only required to
have a “quick and decisive impact,” but also he or she may need to reenergize a “de-
moralized” staff and make difficult decisions regarding staffing or organizational struc-
tures (Watkins, 2003, p. 66). Although all principalships have their challenges, in the
turnaround situation the principal’s actions come under greater scrutiny. The public
nature of outcomes under NCLB adds a public component to the principal’s perceived
success or failure. A principal who takes over a turnaround school must shoulder
greater stakeholder expectations for improvement than in other more successful
schools.
Perceived Shortage and Turnover
In addition to the complexity of the role and the demands placed on principals,
there is also a common perception in education that there is a principal shortage. The
shortage supposedly cuts across grade levels and affects both rural and urban districts.
Anecdotal evidence seems to support this notion; one sees one principal supervising
two schools or retirees being brought back as interim principals, but in reality there are
more people credentialed to be principals than there are jobs to fill. Many of these
qualified individuals are teachers who have not made the transition to administrative
positions (Roza, 2003).
It is possible that many potential principals are frightened off from the position
based on the many new responsibilities that it entails. Another possibility is that certain
7
principalships are less desirable than others—for example, schools in low-income
areas, secondary schools (Roza, 2003), or turnaround situations. However, common
district salary practices may also be creating a falsely inflated candidate pool. Most
school districts provide additional pay for university units earned. Completing an ad-
ministrative credential program is a simple way of getting those units. “This encour-
ages self selection by many applicants who may be of dubious quality and have little or
no intention of ever seeking an administrative post” (Hale & Moorman, 2003, p. 6).
In addition, research on the principalship indicates that many new principals
leave the profession within the first few years because the position is a poor fit (Gates,
Ringel, Santibañez, Ross, & Chung, 2003), which may also fuel the perception that
there is a shortage of principals as well as discourage teachers with administrative cre-
dentials from moving into the principalship, having witnessed the turnover first hand.
Yet research also shows that those principals who do stay in the profession stay for a
long time. In the 1999-2000 school year, 30% of school principals had 12 or more
years of experience (Gates et al.).
University Preparation
Ideally university administrator preparation programs equip new administrators
to be successful in the first few years in all types of school situations, thus maximizing
their desire to stay in the profession. However, there seems to be nationwide agreement
among school administrators that university programs do not effectively prepare people
to assume administrative roles.
8
The general consensus in most quarters is that principal preparation programs
(with a few notable exceptions) are too theoretical and totally unrelated to the
daily demands on contemporary principals. The coursework is poorly se-
quenced and organized, making it impossible to scaffold the learning. Because
clinical experiences are inadequate or non-existent, students do not have men-
tored opportunities to develop practical understanding or real-world job compe-
tence. (Hale & Moorman, 2003, pp. 5-6)
There is also no evidence in the literature that university programs give any
extra attention to the difficulties one faces when taking over a troubled school. Al-
though some leadership preparation programs have aligned themselves with either the
ISLLC standards or local state standards (Murphy, 2001), these efforts come too late for
those who already have credentials and those who just completed credential course-
work. The inadequacy of university programs has, in fact, led many districts to create
their own leadership development programs as a supplement to the credentialing pro-
cess.
The Socialization Period
In the context of an evolving job description and seemingly inadequate prepara-
tion, new principals enter the position. They then face the challenge of a transition
period during which they are inducted or socialized into their new position. Socializa-
tion is the process by which one moves from “outsider” to “insider” within an organiza-
tion. It involves learning the norms and values of the organization and developing
cognitive maps that allow one to successfully navigate the various contexts for the orga-
nization (Aiken, 2002). One of the many possible challenges for a new principal during
this socialization or enculturation period is resisting an existing culture that maintains
9
the status quo. School staff tends to know that they can outlast any principal and, as a
result, may work hard to resist change (Aiken; Cline & Neccochea, 2000). Even when
a staff knows that things need to change, as in a turnaround school, they may be hesitant
to act. This tendency interferes with the goals that many new principals are given and
the need to meet the mandates of NCLB. Although research regarding this period of
induction is limited, some evidence suggests that the success or failure of a new princi-
pal may depend on what happens during this early period in the job (Aiken; Watkins,
2003).
Statement of the Problem
The role of the principal has changed dramatically in the last 25 years. Changes
in the nation’s expectations for what schools should be able to do have led to a redefini-
tion of the principalship. Whereas principals were once able to act as plant managers,
they are now expected to be transformational leaders, taking schools from places where
students learn and turning them into learning institutions. These demands on the prin-
cipal are further amplified when he or she encounters a challenging situation such as the
turnaround school. Although enough people are credentialed to fill all of the available
principal positions, many opt not to move into the role, and those who do make the
transition may only stay a few years before leaving again.
There are many university programs and local induction systems in place to
train and support new administrators, but not all are equally successful. There is also
little evidence that these programs address the transition to the principalship or how to
10
handle a beginning principalship in a difficult school. This gap in administrator prepa-
ration could possibly relate to the limited research on the transition period for new
principals overall and, in particular, how it impacts their chances of success in a turn-
around school. In order to examine the transition period for new principals in a turn-
around school, the following research questions were developed to guide this study:
1.Do principals in a turnaround situation find the transition period (first 90
days) to be important?
2.What strategies and conceptual frameworks (leadership theories) were
useful to new principals during the transition period (first 90 days) in a turnaround
school?
3.Did 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
The purpose of this concurrent mixed-methods study was to explore the transi-
tion period for new principals by triangulating qualitative and quantitative data obtained
at turnaround middle school sites with new principals. The study examined the transi-
tion period from the perspective of both the new principal and the school staff through
the use of interviews and surveys to determine whether this period impacts overall
success of the new principal and identifies strategies that successful new principals used
during the transition period.
11
Importance of the Study
Candidates for the position of educational administrator have a variety of
sources to look to for support on becoming an educational leader. University programs
provide a theoretical base, books and articles provide personal life lessons, and district
and county programs provide practical information and assistance. However, none of
these directly addresses the transition period for new principals. The lack of prepara-
tion for the transition period may or may not stem from the lack of research, but that
information would be valuable particularly for a new principal in a turnaround school.
This study provides data on the transition period for new principals in a turn-
around situation. This information can then be used to critically examine principal
training and induction programs, as well as professional literature aimed at new princi-
pals. It will also add to the literature base on the principalship as a whole.
Methodology
This study used a strategy of concurrent triangulation to examine quantitative
and qualitative data collected through 10 case studies of new principals in turnaround
middle schools in the southern California area. The investigation was conducted at 10
different schools by 10 graduate students in fulfillment of the requirements for comple-
tion of each student’s doctoral degree in education. This strategy was chosen to provide
“a comprehensive analysis of the research problem” that could not be obtained through
the use of any one method (Creswell, 2003, p. 16).
12
The researchers each utilized the same instruments and methodology to investi-
gate their individual school sites. The process was designed to collect data aligned with
the frameworks and theories identified in the literature review and to enable the re-
searchers to answer the study questions. The instruments and methods were jointly
developed by the group and included interviews with the site principal, the principal’s
direct supervisor, and surveys of the teaching staff at the site with some follow-up inter-
views. This structure allowed the researchers to collect data on the same topic from
multiple perspectives and also allowed for triangulation of the findings.
Data from each case study were reported in narrative format and as simple de-
scriptive statistics. The findings for each case were then used to create a holistic por-
trait of each individual principal. The group also conducted a cross-case analysis of the
quantitative and qualitative data to examine overall trends in this sample group of prin-
cipals.
Limitations
This study was limited by the following factors:
1.All of the schools in the study were middle schools in southern California
2.Although the schools were all identified as turnaround schools, they were
not identical in terms of size, location, and overall demographics.
3.Criteria for identifying a successful principal were not defined in the study.
The supervisors who identified the middle school principals for the study utilized their
own criteria, which may have varied among the supervisors.
13
4.The quality of the qualitative data were dependent on the interpersonal skills
of each interviewer (McMillan & Shumacher, 2001).
5.The researchers were able to spend a only limited amount of time at each
school due to the time constraints of the dissertation process.
6.Only limited numbers of participants were given follow-up interviews, again
due to time constraints.
Delimitations
This study was delimited by the following factors:
1.The study investigated only new middle school principals. This was done to
(a) control for the size of the school, (b) offer a setting that had some characteristics of
both high school and elementary school, and (c) add to the research on middle schools
because it is also an area of limited study.
2.The study included only turnaround schools because this is the only one of
Watkins’s (2003) four situations in which educational success can be easily judged due
to the speed at which a leader can create change. The start-up rarely occurs in public
education, and in the other two cases the appearance of success on the part of the
principal could relate more to the past environment and/or the readiness of the school
site employees to change than the principal himself/herself.
3.The sampling procedures for choosing the schools were purposeful; there-
fore, the information in the study is not generalizable.
14
Assumptions
The following assumptions were made during the course of this study:
1.Participants in the study were honest.
2.The identified principals were successful.
Definition of Terms
Transition Period
The first 90 days in a position as a principal.
Turnaround School
A school that is identified as being in trouble and has to get back on track, with
the majority of stakeholders being aware of this need.
Organization of the Study
Chapter 1 of the study has presented the introduction, the statement of the
problem, the purpose of the study, the questions to be answered, the research hypothe-
ses, the significance of the study, and the definitions of terms.
Chapter 2 is a review of relevant literature. It addresses the following topics:
preparing for the principalship, the role of the principal, best practices in leadership,
school/organization culture, and the new principal.
Chapter 3 presents the methodology used in the study, including the research
design; population and sampling procedure; and the instruments and their selection or
development, together with information on validity and reliability. Each of these
15
sections concludes with a rationale including strengths and limitations of the design
elements. The chapter goes on to describe the procedures for data collection and the
plan for data analysis.
Chapter 4 presents the results of the study. Chapter 5 discusses and analyzes the
results, culminating in conclusions and recommendations.
16
CHAPTER 2

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
In the 21 century public schools in the United States face many new challenges,
st
changing demographics, new technology, charter school competition, and increasing
demands for results. Individual schools are open to scrutiny as test results are published
in the newspaper, with the person perceived by the public to be most directly responsi-
ble for the success or failure of the school being the principal. Answering to the public,
however, is only a small part of the job of today’s principal. For what is actually a
middle-management position in a multilevel bureaucracy, the work is very complicated
and demanding. While veteran administrators may be able to draw on years of experi-
ence to cope with the new realities of public education, new principals may have only
limited leadership experiences and their education upon which to fall back when they
take the position. Yet when a number of new principals do not make it past their first
year or two the position, one must wonder whether their education did provide them
with resources and whether there is a better way to transition new principal candidates.
This chapter reviews the literature from books and professional journals in the
field of education, Internet resources on administrator preparation programs, and some
applicable works from the business/private sector in the following five areas related to
the principalship:
17
1.Preparing for the Principalship: This section reviews pathways to the
principalship, including an overview of university and other programs for administrator
preparation.
2.The Role of the Principal: This section examines the work of principals in
the historical context through the present.
3.Best Practices in Leadership: This section reviews current leadership
theories and frameworks in education and business as they relate to the principalship.
4.School/Organizational Culture: This section discusses the different aspects
of organizational culture and their impact on leadership in the school improvement
process.
5.The New Principal: This section examines the challenges of new leaders in
general, challenges specific to the principalship, and strategies for managing the transi-
tion period. It also includes summaries of several case studies on the experiences of
new principals.
Preparing for the Principalship
Unlike much of private industry, the public education system has given only
limited attention to recruiting and cultivating leaders. In the private sector, it is as-
sumed successful employees work toward promotion to higher levels of responsibility
and they are given assistance to achieve that goal. The same is not true for schools; no
one assumes that successful teachers want to become administrators. In addition,
because teachers spend most of their time isolated from administrators, they have little
18
opportunity to determine whether that career path even interests them. Districts have
relied on teachers themselves to opt to enter administrative positions and on universities
operating outside of the context of the schools to prepare the candidates (Elmore &
Burney, 2000; Tirozzi, 2001). Unfortunately, this hands-off approach with respect to
cultivating new leaders, among other problems, has contributed to limiting the number
of qualified candidates from whom districts have to choose (Roza, 2003; Usdan,
McCloud, & Podmostko, 2000).
A Shortage of Qualified Candidates
Another factor that might contribute to the shortage of leadership candidates
may be the requirements for becoming a licensed school administrator. The process is
very similar across the nation and virtually eliminates nonteachers from the candidate
pool.
All but nine states require those seeking an administrative credential to have
experience in primary or secondary education—up to five years for principals
and seven years for superintendents. Other common certification requirements
include completion of specific course content, a teaching certificate, and a
passing grade on national or state examinations. (Gates et al., 2003, p. 31)
However, while nonteachers are turned away, common district pay-scale practices
actually encourage teachers to complete these types of programs. Teachers typically
earn increased salaries for additional university credits. Administrator preparation
programs are an easy way to earn these credits, whether or not one ever intends to
assume an administrative post (Hale & Moorman, 2003). This system has actually re-
sulted in more people credentialed to be administrators than there are jobs to fill. Thus,
19
when districts lament the lack of qualified candidates, they seem to be more concerned
about the quality of the candidates rather than the quantity (Roza, 2003).
University Educational Leadership Programs
University programs in educational leadership may also contribute to the per-
ceived shortage of qualified candidates. Across the literature, university administrator
preparation programs are commonly the first to be blamed for the lack of adequately
prepared candidates. The programs are criticized from every angle. The curriculum has
been described as irrelevant and disconnected from the reality of the profession, focus-
ing too much on the theoretical side of the profession and not enough on the practical
(Hale & Moorman, 2003; Murphy, 2001; Tirozzi, 2001; Usdan et al., 2000). The
limited opportunities for mentored preemployment leadership experiences are another
weakness of the programs. In a survey of K-8 principals, 97% considered on-the-job
experience to be the most valuable for their success. Graduate and staff development
programs were considered less useful (Usdan et al., 2000). Others felt that university
programs are not preparing educational leaders to deal with the issues of the 21 cen-
st
tury. Specifically, the programs do not address the moral and ethical components of the
job, nor do they consider the social justice agenda implied by the goal of educating all
students (Clark & Clark, 1996; Hale & Moorman, 2003; Pounder, Reitzug, & Young,
2002).
Considering all of the criticism aimed at university administrator preparation
programs, one might think that the programs had never changed since inception, but
20
this is not true. During the first half of the 20 century, programs for preparing admin-
th
istrators were influenced business models; therefore, the emphasis was placed on the
technical aspects of the position, such as running the school efficiently. In the latter
half of the century, programs began to include more conceptual and theoretical informa-
tion about the science of leadership. More recently, in response to the standards-based
accountability (SBA) movement, some university programs have begun to align them-
selves with national or local leadership standards (Murphy, 2001). Most programs
across the country, however, remain very similar. The curriculum is often tied to a
master’s degree in education with common types of course topics including leadership
theory, curriculum and instruction, human resources, school finance, and legal issues in
education. Many programs also include fieldwork and usually job shadowing. The
hour requirements vary among universities and states. A 2005 study of 31 different
school leadership preparation programs across the United States found 30% of program
time was still spent on management functions such as school law, budgets, and facilities
operation. Another 16% addressed issues related to school accountability; managing
personnel comprised 15%; and 12% was spent on philosophies in education (Hess &
Kelly, 2005). While these percentages may indicate that a variety of leadership topics
are now covered in education programs, they still do not align correctly with the role of
the contemporary principal, described later in this chapter. The same study also found
that programs tended to utilize works from the same group of education authors and
rarely included texts that currently guide the business world, indicating that newly
21
prepared principals may actually have only limited exposure to current management
practices.
To really improve the programs will require more than just aligning them with
standards or fixing the previously mentioned flaws. Suggestions include providing new
leaders with strategies for success during the period of transition into the position,
helping new leaders acquire skills to become transformational leaders, and providing
new leaders with mentors and professional networks (Aiken, 2002). Ideally, adminis-
trator preparation programs would also help potential leaders develop a strong personal
vision regarding the purpose of education, an understanding of brain research as it
relates to both student and adult learning, and an ability to facilitate the school renewal
process (Pounder et al., 2002). A 2003 study conducted on eight leadership preparation
and development programs considered to be effective found that the programs had the
following characteristics in common: a research-based curriculum, a coherent curricu-
lum, experiences in authentic contexts, use of cohort groupings and mentors, and col-
laboration between the program and area schools (Davis, Darling-Hammond, LaPointe,
& Meyerson, 2003). However, this same study also found that there is limited empiri-
cal evidence that any of these factors impact the principal’s performance; rather, effec-
tiveness seems to be based on the reports and perceptions of the participants. Because
universities do not appear to be working very quickly on repairing these problems, other
groups have stepped in to fill the gap.
22
State and Local Educational Leadership
Programs
In response to the lack of systems for recruiting potential administrators from
the corps of teachers and the inadequacies of the university programs, state and local
agencies as well as professional organizations have begun to develop their own leader-
ship training programs. These programs are used as introductory leadership programs
for teachers and as remediation for current administrators. The following examples are
just a few of those available but illustrate the variety of efforts being made in this area.
Assembly Bill 75 (AB 75) in the state of California provides funds to local
agencies to offer principal training. The purpose of the training is to improve instruc-
tional leadership among current full-time school administrators. The program focuses
on areas such as establishing goals, implementing standards-based education, analyzing
data, and utilizing resources (human, fiscal, and technological) to increase student
success. The program consists of 160 hours divided between training and an on-the-job
practicum component (California Department of Education, n.d.). However, to date no
formal study of the effectiveness of AB 75 training has been conducted.
The National Institute for School Leadership (NISL; 2005) is a private organiza-
tion funded through corporate and foundation grants that offers training to district lead-
ership teams who, in turn, train local principals. The program is designed for principals
who have experience but are at the beginning of their careers. Topics covered by the
training include standards-based instruction, strategic planning, and use of data to guide
instruction. The principal training runs for 2 years with approximately 4 weeks of
23
training sessions spread out over each year. Like AB 75 training, NISL training in-
cludes an on- the-job component in the form of “action projects.” While the NISL may
be conducting internal evaluations of the program’s effectiveness, there is no evidence
that the program has been evaluated through outside research.
The New Teacher Center (NTC; n.d.) at the University of California, Santa
Cruz, partners with local education agencies to provide leadership training. Like the
previously described programs, NTC offers training to current principals on improving
student achievement. Unlike the other programs, the NTC offers some ongoing support
to new administrators through an online formative assessment system. It also offers
leadership training for nonprincipals, although there is no indication that this training is
meant to encourage entry into the principalship. The NTC also contracts with outside
agencies to evaluate its programs in addition to conducting its own evaluations. A
study conducted in 2003 indicated that participants in NTC’s New Administrator Pro-
grams found the program to be a valuable experience and rated the support provided by
the program higher than district support. At the time of the study, it was unfortunately
too early to determine whether the program improved administrator retention (Strong,
Barrett, & Bloom, 2003).
The Leadership Academy and Urban Network for Chicago (LAUNCH; 2005) is
a joint effort among Chicago public schools, Northwestern University and the local
principal’s association. The goal of the program is to “identify train and support princi-
pals for Chicago’s public schools” (Mission and Goals section, ¶ 1). The training in-
cludes a 4-week session at Northwestern University and a full year’s paid internship
24
working with a principal. A unique aspect of the program is that it taps into the group
of teachers who may have administrative credentials but are not using them; the partici-
pants can be any teacher or administrator who has an administrative credential.
LAUNCH also provides ongoing support to new principals who were participants.
Participants who became principals have reported that the experience was valuable to
them in the early part of their careers (Duffrin, 2001).
Although state, local, and university programs all have positive aspects, it seems
that no one program model currently addresses all of the needs of the beginning admin-
istrator. The lack of a comprehensive preparation program may stem from the fact the
role of the principal today is so complex that all of the needs of principal candidates
cannot be met at one time.
The Role of the Principal
Historical Context
The role of the school principal can be examined through a number of different
frameworks. Each model, however, draws a distinct line between the school leadership
of the past and the present. Whether one considers a basic timeline of the changes in
the role or examines schooling as a function of an era, it is clear that the principalship

has become a demanding position, with each change adding new challenges.
Maintaining the status quo. In early American schools, the responsibilities of
the principal were simply handled by a teacher. However, as the United States became
an industrial nation, the need for a somewhat educated labor force grew. In response,
25
schools became larger and more bureaucratic, thus requiring the teacher/principal to
take on an expanded role. By the early 1900s, the principalship was an acknowledged
position with a professional organization, the National Association of Secondary
School Principals, and professional recognition from the National Education Associa-
tion (Goodwin et al., 2005).
In the context of the beginnings of industrialization and well into the 20 cen-
th
tury, education and the role of the principal were governed by modernist thought. Mod-
ernism emphasizes rationality.
Organizations should be logically structured around a strict division of labor,
well-defined but differentiated roles for leaders and workers, the application of
standard operating procedures and the use of organizational rules and policies to
guide and assess organizational activities. (Sackney & Mitchell, 2002, p. 882)
This philosophy worked well in the factory setting, greatly improving efficiency and
industrial development; however, when applied in the school setting, modernism
became a mechanism for maintaining the status quo. The modernist emphasis on
“order, accountability, structure, systematization, linear development and control” made
schools function in part as a societal stabilizer (Sackney & Mitchell, p. 883). The same
philosophy that allowed industrial progress socialized students to follow the rules of the
class structure and to know their place within the social strata.
In this setting, the principal was predominantly a school manager, a role that
would continue through the 1950s. He or she would be required to maintain the status
quo, seeing that the school ran efficiently and ensuring procedures were followed.
Human resource duties related mainly to enabling staff members to fulfill their
26
compartmentalized roles within the hierarchy of education. Teachers would be encour-
aged to follow teachers’ editions of the text, and the principal would evaluate them
based on efficiency and quantity of work; teacher input was more important than stu-
dent output (Crow et al., 2002; Goodwin et al., 2005).
Changes of the 1960s and 1970s. During the 1960s and 1970s, the role of the
principal began to change in response to labor and civil rights movements. The princi-
pal had to add new skills and additional knowledge to perform his or her job effectively.
The addition of teachers’ unions and collective bargaining to the school system required
principals to understand contract law and positioned them as representatives of the
school board. As civil rights legislation expanded beyond race to gender and disability,
the principal needed more legal knowledge to ensure the school was compliant as well
as to ensure that staff members understood new legislation, such as Title IX or the Edu-
cation for Handicapped Children Act (Goodwin et al., 2005). These changes were
minor, however, when compared with the changes to come.
A New Context
During the 1970s, industry began leaving the United States for more favorable
economic circumstances in other countries, and the postindustrial economy evolved.
The postindustrial economy is driven by information. Advances in science and technol-
ogy have grounded the economy in knowledge and communication. Postmodernist
theories can be used to effectively describe how society is evolving in the postindustrial
era. Society no longer places a high value on homogeneity; diversity in all forms has
27
become an asset because of the new ideas it can provide. The power structure within
many organizations and society as a whole has become less of a hierarchy and more
flexible, based on which group controls the information at the time. Value is placed on
effectiveness over the old factory model of efficiency. Instead of following directions,
people must be able to innovate and problem solve, which requires life-long learning
(Goodwin et al., 2005; Sackney & Mitchell, 2002).
The school demographic/social environment. The various aspects of the school
environment have also changed and continue to change. During the 21 century, one
st
can see a continuing increase in the diversity of students in terms of ethnicity, language,
ability/disability, and economic status. People move more frequently, and new commu-
nities continue to be built, thus requiring new schools and making the school population
less stable year to year (Lugg et al., 2002; Tirozzi, 2001).
There are certain social conditions that exist in schools that make the environ-
ment different from many other enterprises. Some have evolved, and some have never
changed. First, education has a moral aspect. Students are required to attend school
and cannot choose what is taught to them. Educators have a moral obligation to try to
do what is best for all children in schools. Second, public education must cultivate the
public’s trust and support to be truly effective and continue to operate. Third, teaching
and learning are complex activities. Advances in technology and brain research are
changing what happens in classrooms and, as previously mentioned, schools should
serve an increasingly diverse population. Lastly, most of the daily work that occurs in
28
schools is about “people working with and through people to influence people—stu-
dents parents, teachers, school principals, and superintendents, working with and
through others, ultimately and most importantly to enhance the cognitive, social, emo-
tional, and physical development of children” (Goldring & Greenfield, 2002, p. 6).
The school economic environment. In a general sense, public education is both
a consumer and a producer. On the consumption side, schools need resources, financial
and human, both of which will continue to be a big concern in the future. Issues of
funding adequacy versus equity will become more common, and schools will continue
to need to look for additional funding (Lugg et al. 2002). Schools will need to continue
to fill teaching positions (Tirozzi, 2001), particularly in areas where the population is
growing, which is difficult when competing with better paying positions from the
private sector. On the producer side, public schools offer the service of education to the
community. However, competition in the education market is growing; parents may
often be able to choose among public, private, and charter schools (Goodwin et al.,
2005). Therefore, schools must begin to think in terms of how to utilize resources most
effectively in order to stay competitive (Crow et al., 2002).
The school political environment. Whereas most educational decisions used to
be a local matter, power has now shifted to the state and, in some cases, to the federal
level. State educational systems have become increasingly centralized, dictating every-
thing from how funds should be spent to the types of curriculum to use. Since school
data are now readily available via the Internet, politically schools must answer to
29
taxpayers for outcomes on accountability measures. Taxpayers want to see that schools
are getting results for their money. Similarly, elected officials also want to see results
for the school funding that they help to appropriate (Crow et al., 2002; Lugg et al.,
2002).
The school accountability environment. All of the aforementioned factors
combined, however, have had less impact on education than the accountability move-
ment. The changes that occurred in the field of education from the time A Nation at
Risk was published in the early 1980s through the passage of the NCLB legislation in
2002 altered the concept of public education in terms of its purpose and guiding princi-
ples. This change has been so all encompassing that one can definitively say we have
entered a new era in public education—that of SBA. Accountability is best viewed as a
contractual relationship between the provider of a good or service and a director who
can “reward, punish or replace the provider” (Hentschke & Wohlstetter, 2004, p. 17).
In public education the accountability relationship has multiple layers of delegation and
responsibilities from the federal level down to the individual teachers in the classrooms.
At each level there are goals that must be met; states must comply with the federal regu-
lations; school districts must comply with state requirements, and so on (Hentschke &
Wohlstetter, 2004).
The accountability relationship is not really new to education. Schools have
always been held accountable for complying with federal and state laws, and they have
also been informally accountable to parents and the community that expected their
30
students to be taught. What distinguishes accountability under NCLB is that the ac-
countability system is now outcome based. Schools are no longer responsible for just
delivering instruction—they are now responsible for ensuring that all students learn and
achieve at a standard level (Lugg et al., 2002; O’Day, 2002). This change in focus
brings with it both positives and negatives for schools. On the positive side, it fuels
school improvement; it highlights inequities in the educational system that should be
fixed; and it provides a focus for curriculum and instruction (Schulte & Schulte, 2002).
On the negative side, NCLB provides no rewards for achievement, only punishment for
lack of success, thereby reducing motivation (Hentschke & Wohlstetter, 2004). Indi-
viduals also worry about the psychological impact of the state testing systems used to
comply with NCLB; they are concerned about the stress that the tests create for students
and staff (Schulte & Schulte). Success or failure, as measured by NCLB guidelines, can
have many repercussions for schools, and the person perceived as primarily responsible
for those outcomes is the school principal (Tirozzi, 2001).
The Contemporary Principal
Currently there is no one comprehensive job description for principals. The job
can actually vary from district to district. The literature does, however, reveal some
common expectations and descriptions, including principal as standards-driven leader,
member of the school leadership team, instructional leader, leader of a culture of learn-

ing, and transformational leader as well as facing additional challenges.
31
Standards-driven leader. Many states, following the accountability trend, have
adopted standards for educational leaders; some have developed their own, and some
use standards from various professional organizations. They all tend to be very similar,
however, and are most often modeled on the ISLLC’s Standards for School Leaders.
Developed in 1996, the ISLLC standards were intended to reflect the changes in the role
of the school leader, focus leadership on student learning, and provide a tool for evalua-
tions. The standards are the following:
1.A school administrator is an educational leader who 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.
2.A school administrator is an educational 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.
3.A school administrator is an educational leader who promotes the success of
all students by ensuring management of the organization; operations; and
resources for a safe, efficient, and effective learning environment.
4.A school administrator is an educational leader who promotes the success of
all students by collaborating with families and community members, re-
sponding to diverse community interests and needs and mobilizing commu-
nity resources.
5.A school administrator is an educational leader who promotes the success of
all students by acting with integrity, fairness, and in an ethical manner.
6.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. (pp. 10, 12, 14, 16,
18, 20)
Overall, the standards are a part of the larger accountability picture, but they
also address many of the previously mentioned issues that one now sees in schools,
such as the changing demographics, the moral component of education, and the impor-
tance of understanding the context in which one works. The standards also refer to the
32
managerial duties of leadership, illustrating how responsibilities have actually com-
pounded rather than changed completely. In addition, the standards make reference to
the idea of the principal as someone who promotes a culture of learning, who is an
instructional leader and keeper of the vision—roles which appear frequently in the lit-
erature regarding the contemporary principal.
In 2002 the National Association of Elementary School Principals (NAESP)
published its own set of standards for principals, the Six Standards for What Principals
Should Know and Be Able to Do:
1.Lead schools in a way that places student and adult learning at the center.
2.Set high expectations and standards for the academic and social develop-
ment of all students and the performance of adults.
3.Demand content and instruction that ensure student achievement of agreed-
upon academic standards.
4.Create a culture of continuous learning for adults tied to student learning and
other school goals.
5.Use multiple sources of data as diagnostic tools to assess, identify, and apply
instructional improvement.
6.Actively engage the community to create shared responsibility for student
and school success. (p. 2)
These standards targeted elementary and middle school principals guided by the philos-
ophy that it is pointless to set standardized goals for students unless the adults who
work with them also have standardized goals. Like the ISLLC (1996) standards, the
NAESP standards addressed the idea of creating a culture of learning and setting the
goal or vision for the school. According to the NAESP, all of the standards together
define instructional leadership as a key role for the principal. While the NAESP stan-
dards do not address the managerial duties of the principal and add the detail of using
data to guide improvement, overall they are very similar to the ISLLC standards in
33
terms of how they frame the job of the principal. The standards for educational leaders
are not comprehensive; moreover, the literature contains additional roles for the school

principal.
Member of the school leadership team. Allowing others to share in the
decision-making process in education is not entirely new, schools commonly have had
advisory committees of all types for the principal, but the principal would make all final
decisions. Today the trend is toward genuine sharing of power when making certain
school decisions, particularly in areas such as school vision, curriculum, teaching, and
learning. The principal now is encouraged to lead from the center, bringing together
people and ideas in a professional manner to foster school improvement (Crow et al.,
2002). According to the literature, shared leadership is beneficial because it taps into
the areas of expertise across the staff, thereby bringing out ideas that no one individual
could come up with (DuFour, 1998; Elmore, 2005). Even when sharing leadership, the
principal must still be the true head of the school.
Instructional leader. The literature frequently includes instructional leaders as
one of the roles of the principal today. One of the clearest definitions of instructional
leadership comes from Blasé and Blasé (2004) who, by surveying 800 teachers regard-
ing administrator characteristics and practices that influence teaching, identified the
following elements of instructional leadership: conducting instructional conferences,
providing staff development, and developing teacher reflection (p. 162). Conducting
conferences is a formative process that should be used to provide feedback and assis-
34
tance to improve teaching. Providing staff development includes the traditional training
sessions but can also include teachers being guided to do their own research. Develop-
ing teacher reflection is supporting and guiding teacher self-assessment. Blasé and
Blasé suggested that to accomplish these tasks, a principal must dedicate time to talking
about curriculum and instruction and give time to teachers to work together. Teachers
also need to feel empowered, characterized by taking control of improving their own
practice. Furthermore, Blasé and Blasé felt that developing the principal’s instructional

leadership capacity puts the school on the path to becoming a culture of learning.
Leader of a culture of learning. Viewing schools as learning organizations or
networks of professionals interacting for the purpose of organizational improvement
seems to be considered a current ideal (Crow et al., 2002). Although the ideas of the
principal as instructional leader and member of a leadership team are common roles,
creating a culture of learning seems to be an umbrella term for both. In trying to foster
a culture of learning, the principal tries to create an entire culture of accountability (El-
more, 2005). The principal acts as a facilitator for improving teaching and learning by
maintaining the focus, evaluating and mentoring teachers and providing staff develop-
ment (Tirozzi, 2001; Usdan et al., 2000). The principal must also work with those on
the staff who resist new ideas and confront issues that conflict with the ideals of the or-
ganization (DuFour and Eaker, 1998). In addition, the principal’s responsibilities asso-
ciated with developing a culture of learning align with the previously described
35
standards for educational leadership (DuFour & Eaker) and also share elements with
transformational leadership.
Transformational leader. Although transformational leader is sometimes dis-
cussed as a role of the principal (Fullan, 2001) it is actually a style of leadership. The
paradigm for transformational leadership is very recent and is change oriented, as the
name implies. The overall goal of this style of leadership is to change or influence
individuals who, in turn, change the organization. Transformational leadership is char-
acterized by four factors: idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual
stimulation, and individualized consideration. Idealized influence is charisma; this type
of leader has a strong set of internal values, high moral standards, and a clear vision.
He or she is a role model for followers. Inspirational motivation describes the
transformational leader’s ability to inspire followers by communicating high expecta-
tions and enhancing team spirit. Intellectual stimulation describes the leadership skill
of encouraging followers to be creative and innovate. A transformational leader sup-
ports efforts to try out new ideas. Individualized consideration is the leadership skill of
understanding and supporting the individual needs of the members of the organization.
This type of leadership challenges people to reach their full potential (Northouse,
2004).
Transformational leaders empower their followers; they include their voices in
the organizational vision. They work to change and improve the organization while
taking into account opposing viewpoints and are actively involved in shaping the
36
organizational culture. While one of the critiques of the transformational frameworks is
that it is too vague, elements of transformational leadership can be seen in many other
frameworks in both education and business, and it offers an appealing ideal of leader-
ship (Northouse, 2004).
Additional challenges of the contemporary principalship. Beyond trying to live
up to the standards of educational leaders and playing the roles described by various
authors, the contemporary principal faces other challenges. The principal as a middle
manager must lead the school and supervise staff, while interacting with parents and the
community, and still take direction from the district office. Maxwell (2005) referred to
this as the “multi-hat challenge.” Unlike people at the bottom or the top of an organiza-
tion, demands come to middle managers from all directions. Although Maxwell’s book
was written from a business perspective, he provided an accurate description of a princi-
pal’s job when he wrote that middle managers “must perform tasks and have knowledge
beyond their personal experience. They often are forced to deal with multiple shifting
priorities, often with limited time and resources” (p.45). Maxwell listed other possible
challenges of middle management, such as working under an ineffective leader, not
being recognized, or not knowing how much authority one has. While a principal may
or may not encounter these challenges, the “multi-hat challenge” can almost be guaran-
teed.
Authors in the field of education have echoed this idea of working with many
people and responsibilities all at once. They have cited problems of not enough time,
37
resources, and motivation to tackle all aspects of the job. Principals are being asked to
do more and more and are being held accountable for things that they may not know
how to accomplish, either because they did not learn it in their university programs or
because they never received additional training (Elmore, 2005). A principal’s time can
easily be taken up with daily managerial or administrative tasks stemming from school
or district office needs, thus leaving little time to learn about or implement new prac-
tices. Furthermore, a principal must be intrinsically motivated to work at school im-
provement because there are only sanctions for failure and no rewards for success
(Goodwin et al., 2005; Pierce, 2000). On a positive note for the principal who is moti-
vated to create reform and establish a culture of learning, there are numerous research-
based leadership practices that he or she can implement.
Best Practices in Leadership
The literature on best practices in educational leadership is extensive. The lit-
erature from the business sector is even larger, and both are beyond the scope of this
paper. Therefore, the best practices to be discussed in this section will include major
authors and philosophies that are in common use in educational leadership programs, in
addition to some popular authors and philosophies from the business world focusing on
theories and frameworks appropriate for leaders early in their careers. The frameworks
and theories include organizational frames, leadership that works, leading a profes-
sional learning community (PLC), leading from the middle, and a number of common
elements found in other leadership theories.
38
Organizational Frames
Bolman and Deal’s (2003) Reframing Organizations is one of the more com-
monly used texts in educational leadership programs (as cited in Hess & Kelly, 2005).
In the book, Bolman and Deal presented four “frames” or theoretical constructs that
allow one to examine a situation, analyze organizational situations, and find appropriate
solutions to problems. These four frames are the structural, the human resources, the
political, and the symbolic.
The structural frame requires one to examine a situation from an organizational
standpoint. The structural framework is grounded in the concept of scientific manage-
ment. Working from a structural perspective, a leader considers whether the organiza-
tion was running efficiently and ensures that work was not being duplicated and the
organizational structure is rational and fits the circumstances of the work. Although
this may sound like an outdated model for running a school today, the structural frame
is useful to principals because they still have managerial aspects to their roles and
because some school-related issues have to be solved structurally. In their book, Bol-
man and Deal identified a number of structural problems that can be seen in schools
everyday. Structural problems in schools include gaps in curriculum, duplicated cur-
riculum, lack of clear goals for the school, or lack of coordination of teacher activities.
Sometimes a leader will have to make a structural change in response to outside stimuli
instead of a problem—for example, the introduction of new technology that changes a
procedure or the need to organize a team for a project.
The human resources frame deals with the people who work in an organization.
39
Specifically, how do the organization and its employees benefit each other, is the job a
good fit for the employees, and do they find the work to be meaningful and satisfying?
The human resources frame is very important in the school setting not only for working
with teachers but also for working with people—the primary business of schools. The
human resources frame suggests that problems arise from a lack of investment in
people. From a leadership stance, this means hiring people who are a good match for
the position, yet understanding their needs, providing training and resources to improve
performance, and empowering them to move forward.
Considering an organization through the political frame allows one to examine
the power structure. The power structure includes the interest groups that exist in the
organization and how they differ, how resources are allocated, and how groups and
individuals compete. Political problems in schools include disagreements regarding
allocation of funds, competition for teaching assignments, and union issues in general.
A principal who works effectively in the political frame has an agenda or plan, is able to
negotiate with opposing interest groups, and builds networks and coalitions that bring
people together.
The symbolic frame requires one to consider the meaning of activities and
events. Symbolic thinking is particularly important with respect to an organization’s
culture, which will be discussed in a later section. Schools are filled with symbols: the
obvious, such as the school mascot symbolizing pride; and the less obvious, such as the
teacher who has spent his/her entire career at the school symbolizing dedication.
Despite this, the symbolic frame is underused because it is an uncommon way to exam-
40
ine an organization. An effective leader is able identify, understand, and develop sym-
bolic activities and to utilize them to guide the school culture. Leaders may find that
they are more comfortable utilizing one frame over another and that certain frames are
more effective depending on the circumstances. Reframing is a practice that allows one
to look at a problem or situation differently by using a different frame and thereby
possibly generating a more effective solution.
Leadership that Works
Another author popular in education programs is Robert Marzano, who is
known for being the lead author on a series of books on best educational practices.
What Works in Schools (Marzano, 2003) and Classroom Instruction That Works (Mar-
zano, Pickering, & Pollock, 2001) are just two examples. The topic of his most recent
book, School Leadership That Works (Marzano, Waters & McNulty, 2005), is a meta-
analysis of 69 different educational leadership studies. The studies included in the
meta-analysis took place between 1978 and 2001 in K-12 settings in the United States
or in similar cultures. The original studies all “directly or indirectly examined the rela-
tionship between the leadership of the building principal and student achievement” (p.
28). The information from these studies was quantitatively synthesized in order to
identify leadership activities that impacted student achievement. The meta-analysis
indicated that in general, principal leadership was positively correlated with student
achievement at an average of .25. The researchers also identified 21 separate leadership
responsibilities or characteristics that were positively correlated with student achieve-
41
ment. These 21 responsibilities can be seen in Table 1, ranked from highest correlation
to the lowest. It is interesting to note that situational awareness, which has the highest
correlation with student achievement, can easily be related to Bolman and Deal’s
(2003) ideas about reframing problems, in that situational awareness requires a leader to
understand how the school operates (structural), the relationships in the school (human
resources), and school politics. This ability to deeply understand the context in which
one works is also identified as one of the most important skills that an effective leader
can have in both education and business literature (Reeves, 2006; Watkins, 2003). It
has been given different names and descriptions—“situational mastery” (Goldberg,
2001, p. 758), examining the market and competition (Kotter, 1998), or “confronting
the brutal facts” (Collins, 2001, p. 70)—but they essentially have the same meaning.
The study went on to examine how these responsibilities related to one another.
Two factors were found to connect the 21 responsibilities: first-order change and
second-order change. First-order change is incremental; it is the next logical step that
an organization would take. This is the way that people naturally approach problems.
The researchers found that all 21 responsibilities related to first-order change at some
level (see Table 2). Second-order change is deep change; it departs from the expected
and requires innovation. Second-order change is only related to 7 of the responsibilities
(Table 2), reinforcing the importance of understanding the circumstances in which one
works. A school leader charged with creating a significant or radical change in a
school would want to take a very different approach than one who was continuing to
build on past successes (Marzano et al., 2005).
42
Table 1
The 21 Responsibilities and Their Average Correlations (r) With Student Achievement
ResponsibilityExtent to which principal . . . r
Situational awarenessIs aware of the details and undercurrents of the school.33
and uses the information to address problems
FlexibilityAdapts his or her leadership behavior to the needs of.28
the current situation and is comfortable with dissent
DisciplineProtects teachers from issues and influences that would.27
detract from teaching
OutreachIs an advocate and spokesperson for the school.27
Monitors/evaluatesMonitors school practices and their impact on student.27
learning
CultureFosters shared belief and a sense of community and.25
cooperation
OrderEstablishes standard operating procedures and routines.25
ResourcesProvides teachers with the material and training neces-.25
sary for the successful execution of their jobs
Knowledge of curriculumIs knowledgeable about current curriculum, instruction,.25
and assessment practices
InputInvolves teachers in the decision-making process.25
Change agentIs willing to and actively challenges the status quo.25
FocusEstablishes clear goals and keeps them in the forefront.24
of the school’s attention
Contingent rewardsRecognizes and rewards individual accomplishments.24
Intellectual stimulationEnsures that staff are aware of the most current theories.24
and practices
43
Table 1 (continued)
ResponsibilityExtent to which principal . . . r
CommunicationEstablishes strong lines of communication with teachers.24
and students
Ideals/beliefsOperates from strong ideals and beliefs about education.22
Involvement in curriculumIs directly involved in the design and implementation of.20
curriculum, instruction, and assessment practices
VisibilityHas quality interactions with teachers and students.20
OptimizerInspires and leads new and challenging innovations.20
AffirmationRecognizes and celebrates school accomplishments and.19
acknowledges failures
RelationshipDemonstrates an awareness of the personal aspects of.18
teachers and staff
Note. Based on data in School Leadership That Works: From Research to Results, by
R. J. Marzano, T. Waters, and B. A. McNulty, 2005, Alexandria, VA: Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development.
44
Table 2
Leadership Responsibilities Associated With First- and Second-Order Change
First-order changeSecond-order change
Monitoring/evaluatingKnowledge of curriculum, assessment,
and instruction
CultureOptimizer
Ideals/beliefsIntellectual stimulation
Knowledge of curriculum, assessment, andChange agent
instruction
FocusFlexibility
OrderIdeals/beliefs
Note. Taken from School Leadership That Works: From Research to Results, by R. J.
Marzano, T. Waters, and B. A. McNulty, 2005, Alexandria, VA: Association for Su-
pervision and Curriculum Development. Only the top 7 first-order change responsi-
bilities are shown.
Leading a PLC
The PLC has been a subject of growing interest in education over the past
several years to the point where, as previously discussed, one of the primary responsi-
bilities of the principal is creating a culture of learning. While this paper provides a
brief definition of the PLC, the primary focus is on the role of the principal in that
setting. Richard DuFour (2004), the author most closely associated with PLC literature,
describes PLCs as having three main guiding ideas:
45
1.“The professional learning community model flows from the assumption
that the core mission of formal education is not simply to ensure that students are taught
but to ensure that they learn” (p. 6).
2.“Educators who are building a professional learning community recognize
that they must work together to achieve their collective purpose of the learning for all.
Therefore, they create structures that promote a collaborative culture” (p. 8).
3.“Professional learning communities judge their effectiveness on the basis of
results” (p. 10).
The results orientation of the PLC makes it a natural match for SBA and the goals of
NCLB, which helps to explain why the education community promotes this type of
organization.
The role of the principal is critical in establishing and maintaining the PLC.
There are five characteristics of principals that support community success (DuFour &
Eaker, 1998):
1.“Principals of professional learning communities lead through shared vision
and values rather than through rules and procedures” (p.184).
2.“Principals of professional learning communities involve faculty members
in the school’s decision-making process and empower individuals to act” (p. 185).
3.“Principals of professional learning communities provide staff with informa-
tion, training, and parameters they need to make good decisions” (p. 186).
4.“Principals of learning communities establish credibility by modeling be-
havior that is congruent with the vision and values of their school” (p. 193).
46
5.“Principals of learning communities are results-oriented” (p. 194).
In comparison to the responsibilities delineated by Marzano et al. (2005), these
characteristics have much in common with the responsibilities for second-order change.
For example, part of being an optimizer is empowering people to act. Providing intel-
lectual stimulation, providing the staff with current information to support work, and
monitoring and evaluating are about being results oriented. This model of the princi-
palship also includes the previously mentioned idea of the principal sharing leadership
and elements of transformational leadership, such as empowering staff members and
acting as a role model.
Leading From the Middle
Although authors in the field of education have discussed the concept of a prin-
cipal leading from the center of the organization (e.g., Crow et al., 2002), Maxwell’s
(2005) concept of the 360-degree leader provides a more comprehensive description of
this model of leadership. According to Maxwell, a manager or leader in the middle of
an organization needs to lead up, lead across, and lead down, which is how he came to
the term 360-degree leadership. Leading up means establishing oneself as someone
whom the next level of leadership sees as a resource or source of advice. One can ac-
complish this by standing out among others at the same level through excellent work,
value to the organization, and support to upper-level leaders. Leading across is about
leading one’s peers. This is more difficult because of the potential for resentment, but a
leader can overcome this problem by establishing strong relationships with his or her
47
peers and earning their trust. Leading down involves more than just the tradition top-
down influence. According to Maxwell, true 360-degree leaders do not rely on posi-
tional authority or borrowing from transformational leadership—they work to cultivate
influence with their followers, just as they would with peers and higher-ups.
Common Elements of Other Leadership
Frameworks
In reviewing the literature further, one finds a number of leadership practices
repeatedly associated with successful leadership. They appear in both the education and
business literature and include having a vision, being change oriented, building rela-
tionships/networks, having emotional intelligence, having moral purpose, and being a
learner.
Having a vision. It seems that one cannot read an article or book on leadership
that does not mention having a vision as an important characteristic of an effective
leader, yet having a vision seems to mean somewhat different things to different au-
thors. By some definitions, vision is a strong personal belief system or set of goals that
focuses one’s work (Goldberg, 2001). It is what inspires leaders, motivates them, and
makes them passionate about their work (Bolman & Deal, 2003; Collins, 2001). In
Marzano et al.’s (2005) 21 responsibilities, this definition of vision falls into the cate-
gory of ideals or a principal’s philosophy of education. Vision is also used to mean
long-term goals for the organization or school. The goals may be ambitious, but they
are clear and can be reached. Effective leaders utilize the vision as a guide for decision
48
making and taking action. They also communicate the vision to the rest of the organi-
zation and encourage people to work with the vision in mind (Kotter, 1998; Maxwell,
2005; Reeves, 2006; Watkins, 2003). This is type of vision is what Marzano et al.
(2005) identified as focus or concrete goals for the school. While it has a slightly
higher correlation with student achievement than the principal’s beliefs about educa-
tion, it does not relate to second-order change, whereas beliefs and ideals do.
Being change oriented. Literature on effective leadership is almost all charac-
terized by a change perspective, the main idea being improving one’s leadership style or
improving one’s organization. In the area of education Michael Fullan is one of the
most prolific authors regarding change. Fullan (2002a) argued that the principal as
instructional leader does not go far enough to improve schools and that leaders need to
“create a fundamental transformation in the learning cultures of schools and of the
teaching profession itself” (p. 17). In order to transform schools, a principal needs the
following characteristics or abilities: understanding of the change process, knowledge
of creation and sharing, coherence making, ability to improve relationships, and moral
purpose. According to Fullan (2001), understanding change means accepting the fact
that innovation comes out of a process that is messy and complex. During change the
goal is not to “innovate the most” (p. 35), because innovation does not necessarily
create improvement. In a similar sense, just having ideas for change is not enough—
one needs to implement them. He also advised that there will be an “implementation
49
dip” (p. 40); performance will not be strong while people are growing accustomed to a
new way of doing things.
Change also requires knowledge building; an effective leader helps people take
information and give it shared meaning or use. An effective leader also helps people to
maintain focus during the change process, clarifying and bringing order (Fullan, 2001,
2002a, 2002b). In a 2005 article, Fullan identified a specialized type of change leader-
ship that he calls “turnaround leadership” (p. 174). Turnaround leadership is specific to
the school context and is what is required to turn around a low-performing school. The
district also has an important role to play in turnaround leadership. While the principal
may head the turnaround at the school level, this type of change cannot happen without
external support from the school district.
Authors from the business world provide further insight into change-oriented
leadership. Kotter (1998) developed eight steps for transforming an organization:
1.Establish a sense of urgency. Examine market and competitive realities.
Identify and discuss crises, potential crises, or major opportunities.
2.Form a guiding coalition. Assemble a group with enough power to lead the
change effort. Encourage the group to work as a team.
3.Create a vision to help direct the change effort. Develop strategies for
achieving that vision.
4.Communicate the new vision and strategies in every possible way. Teach
new behaviors by the example of the guiding coalition.
50
5.Empower others to act on the vision. Get rid of obstacles to change.
Change systems or structures that seriously undermine the vision. Encourage risk
taking and nontraditional ideas.
6.Plan for and create short-term wins. Plan for visible performance improve-
ments. Create planned improvements. Recognize and reward employees involved in
the improvements.
7.Consolidate improvements and produce more change. Use increased credi-
bility to change systems, structures, and policies that don’t fit the vision. Hire, pro-
mote, and develop people who can implement the vision. Reinvigorate the process with
new projects, themes, and change agents.
8.Institutionalize new approaches. Articulate the connections between the
new behaviors and success. Develop the means to ensure leadership development and
succession.
Kotter (1998) considered transforming an organization to be a true test of one’s
leadership ability. Although he sees the process of change more linear, he still has com-
monalities with Fullan (2001, 2002a, 2002b), such as keeping people focused on the
vision and having strategies for implementation, not just ideas. Unlike Fullan, Kotter
expected to see short-term visible improvements and was not writing for someone
working within the constraints of the public school bureaucracy.
Collins (2001) also offered a plan for change in his book Good to Great. He
developed his framework by studying successful companies that went from good to
great. He found that the leaders of those companies had common characteristics and
51
acted in similar ways. He referred to these as Level 5 leaders and noted that they were
basically very successful change agents. They held high standards for themselves and
others; they had a sense of personal humility and put the good of the company first.
Like Fullan (2001, 2005) and Kotter (1998), Collins identified focus as a key to suc-
cessful improvement; he described it as passion for the core business. Collins believed
that change is evolution. There is no one defining moment that takes a company to

great; rather, it is an accumulation of moments.
Building relationships/networks. Both authors from both education and busi-
ness emphasized that a leader cannot create change alone; he or she must first build
relationships or networks. Fullan (2001, 2002a, 2002b) noted that a successful leader
deliberately cultivates the skill of improving existing relationships, as well as develop-
ing new ones. The relationships, however, should always be focused on improving the
overall program and improving outcomes. Bolman and Deal (2003) addressed the im-
portance of relationships in the human resources frame, but they also had a more spiri-
tual view of relationships. They felt that there are certain “gifts” a leader can give his or
her employees that create successful relationships, including authorship—helping
individuals take pride in their accomplishments; love, compassion, or concern for
others; power, the opportunity to take action; and significance, meaning, and value.
They derived these ideas from the concept of servant leadership, in which the desire to
serve or help others evolves into leadership (Greenleaf Center for Servant Leadership,
2002). Another way to consider the importance of relationships or networks in
52
education is with respect to principal preparation. In many cases, a principal may have
expertise in one area but be underprepared in another. By establishing complementary
relationships and teams, he or she compensates for weaknesses (Reeves, 2006).
Kotter (1998) described establishing relationships as coalition building. Like
Fullan (2001, 2002a, 2002b), he emphasized the importance of developing the right
relationships with the right people to grow the organization. He also advised leaders to
genuinely work within the team, not just as a leader of a smaller group of employees.
Collins (2001) echoed the belief of getting the right people on the team, or as he puts it,
“the bus,” but he added that one must also get the wrong people off, which is again
something more easily accomplished in the private sector than in public education.
Among the 21 responsibilities delineated by Marzano et al. (2005), relationships ranked
the lowest in terms of correlation with student achievement. However, if one looks at
the definition of communication, establishing “strong lines of communication with and
among teachers and students” (p. 42), it is much more similar to what the other authors
suggested regarding relationships and has a higher correlation with student success
(Fullan, 2001).
Having emotional intelligence. The ability to build effective relationships is also
tied to emotional intelligence having the personal and social competence to work well
with others (Cherniss, 2005). Successful leaders with emotional intelligence share
certain characteristics. They are confident in and aware of their abilities (Cherniss).
They are able to control their emotions, not allowing personal feelings to negatively
53
impact their staff, as well as helping others cope with the anxiety that accompanies
change (Fullan, 2001; Schein, 1992). They are persuasive and able to motivate people.
Emotional intelligence allows them to avoid certain conflicts and makes building con-
sensus easier (Cherniss). Emotional intelligence is also a valuable tool because some-
times people will not listen to logic; they want “emotionally compelling” reasons to act
(Kotter, 2003). There is also evidence that emotional intelligence can be improved. A
leader can work to improve his or her own emotional intelligence and help others to
improve their own, supporting any change process (Fullan, 2001).
Having moral purpose. As previously stated, the work of education is different
from business enterprises in the sense that one is working with children and trying to
mold them, which is why moral purpose is an important leadership characteristic. For
Fullan (2001, 2002b), moral purpose is something that can come out of passion or
something approached on a cognitive level, but educators have an obligation to do what
is best for students. He believed that as society becomes more complex, moral purpose
becomes more important; as technology makes the world smaller, one’s actions can
have far-reaching impact. Bolman and Deal (2002) saw moral purpose as a part of
integrity, acting honestly and in a consistent manner, thereby inspiring trust and loyalty.
Moral purpose is also similar to having a social conscience. In education this comes
from a belief in equal opportunities for all children (Goldberg, 2001). Even for educa-
tional leaders who have not considered moral purpose before, NCLB almost mandates
54
it; schools are obligated to ensure that all children demonstrate a certain level of aca-
demic competency regardless of background.
Being a learner. DuFour and Eaker (1998) advised that principals need to “rec-
ognize that continuous improvement requires continuous learning” (p. 199). Ongoing
learning is formal or informal. Fullan (2001) suggested that leaders look on resistance
or obstacles as a learning opportunity. He believed that leaders must be able to listen to
their critics because some of them may have valid arguments. According to Bolman
and Deal (2003), learning from both successes and failures is an indicator of wisdom in
a leader. Learning can also take the form of reflection; an effective leader examines his
or her own long- and short-term actions and uses these reflections to improve his or her
practice (Reeves, 2006). In Marzano et al.’s (2005) list, learning falls under intellectual
stimulation, keeping up on current theories and research in education. As the world
continues to change rapidly and one cannot predict what skills principals will need in
the future (Schein, 1992), an effective educational leader must also be a life-long
student of leadership.
Implementation of Best Practices
All of these practices offer the possibilities of better leadership and organiza-
tional improvement, but before implementing any of these, one must understand what
one is trying to improve. Some might answer that one is trying to improve organiza-
tional procedures and practices. Changing procedures and practices does not create real
or lasting change. Authors from both business and education indicate that in order to
55
make true, lasting change, one must change the organizational culture (Collins, 2001;
Deal & Peterson, 1999; DuFour & Eaker, 1998; Fullan, 2001; Kotter, 1998; Schein,
1992).
School/Organizational Culture
Shaping organizational culture is a genuine leadership challenge. A leader
should not begin the process without being fully informed. As in the case of best
leadership practices, there is a large body of work on organizational culture that is
beyond the scope of this paper. This section will therefore focus on more basic theories
appropriate for a leader just beginning to investigate organizational culture. Topics
include the definition of organizational culture, the difficulty of changing organizational
culture, and the process for changing organizational culture.
Definition of Organizational Culture
There are many different definitions of organizational culture in use, but much
of the writing on culture relies on the work of Schein (1992) as a starting point. Schein
considered culture to be the norms, values, behavior patterns, rituals, and traditions of
an organization; it is the organization’s way of doing things that has come out of shared
history. Schein viewed culture as having three levels:
C Espoused values—If one were to ask a member of the organization, these
are the organizational goals and philosophies they would report, usually the
official mission or vision statement.
56
C Artifacts—These are the visible organizational processes and philosophies,
for example posted mission statements or written procedures for completing
tasks.
C Basic underlying assumptions—These are the unconscious beliefs of the
people in the organization and are what actually guides the organization’s
actions.
In theory, all of these levels of culture should be aligned with one another, but that is
not always the case, particularly in organizations that are less than successful.
In their book Shaping School Culture, Deal and Peterson (1999) focused di-
rectly on school culture but still tied their work to Bolman and Deal’s (2003) symbolic
frame. With their overall definition of culture being virtually the same as Schein’s
(1992), they defined the elements of culture as follows:
C Vision—This is the purpose of the school; it is how it defines itself as suc-
cessful, which may be in academics, athletics, or some other area.
C Values—These are the “conscious expression” of what the school considers
to be important.
C Rituals—These are meaningful procedures or daily routines.
C Ceremonies—These are complex rituals used to acknowledge success or
important individual contributions, reinforce school values, and build group
cohesion.
C History—This is how the culture of the school came to be; it can be positive
or negative.
57
C Stories—These are the individual incidents that make up a schools history;
they are retold to reinforce and convey culture.
C Architecture & Artifacts—These represent the school’s intangible values
and beliefs, for example murals on school walls or the trophies on display.
Again, as in Schein’s description, all of these elements would ideally align in a positive
fashion to promote student success.
Watkins (2003) identified three separate types of cultures operating within an
organization:
C Organizational culture. This culture dictates the way people interact with
one another, routines they follow in day to day business, and values they all
share.
C Professional culture. This is the culture of management; managers all share
cultural characteristics as a whole, but this culture varies from group to
group as well, based on specific functions, for example elementary school
principal culture versus high school principal culture.
C Geographic culture. This is how people and organizations operate in differ-
ent regions of the country.
These three cultures all overlap and reinforce one another for the good or to the detri-
ment of the organization. Watkins also saw culture, or what he calls organizational
architecture, divided into the following elements, which again should be aligned to
support success:
C Strategy—the organization’s core approach to its overall goal
58
C Structure—how people are situated in units and how their work is coordi-
nated
C Systems—processes used to add value or to achieve desired results
C Skills—capabilities of the people in the organization
Culture was used in a different manner by Marzano et al. (2005), who framed it
as a responsibility of the principal. Culture as a responsibility means “promoting cohe-
sion among staff, promoting a sense of well-being among staff, developing an under-
standing of purpose among the staff, and developing a shared vision of what the school
could be like” (p. 48).
Difficulty in Changing Organizational Culture
The authors who provided the definitions of culture are among the same ones
who considered cultural change to be the key to true organizational change, and all
warned that changing culture is difficult. In fact, the existing culture can be a barrier to
change, even when change is needed (O’Connor & Fiol, 2006). Culture is created
through past successes; it is a compilation of the practices, beliefs, and assumptions that
were effective at one point (Buch & Wetzel, 2001). Culture tells people how to act,
how to interact, and what to focus on (O’Connor & Fiol). When one tries to change
culture, one takes away the security of knowing what to do and indirectly suggests that
the knowledge gained from past successes is useless. This puts people on the defensive
and leads them to resist change efforts. In a truly strong culture, people may be so set
59
on thinking one way that they are unable to see alternatives (Schein, 1992; Smith,
2004).
The Process of Changing Organizational
Culture
While it is difficult to change culture, it is not impossible. The literature in both
education and business contain processes for changing or improving culture. Working
with culture is difficult and requires a planned approach. Deal and Peterson (1999) sug-
gested that a principal must assume eight different roles in order to work effectively
with culture. They referred to them as the roles of symbolic leaders, tying into the Bol-
man and Deal’s (2003) frames. The roles are as follows:
C Historian—principal must study and understand the past of the school.
C Anthropological sleuth—principal must study and understand the present
culture of the school.
C Visionary—principal must have a vision for the future of the school.
C Symbol—principal, through his or her actions, must affirm the values of the
school.
C Potter—principal must work to shape culture, as well as be shaped by it.
C Poet—principal must use language to reinforce school values.
C Actor—principal must participate in the culture of the school, taking part in
rituals, ceremonies, and so on.
C Healer—principal must support the staff through transitions.
60
In addition to showing the complexity of being a cultural leader, these roles add to the
responsibilities of a principal in general. They do not, however, provide guidelines for

how to change culture, which is a multipart process.
Understanding organizational culture. The first recommended step in changing
a culture is to understand it. Understanding organizational culture requires the skill of
situational awareness that Marzano et al. (2005) concluded had the strongest positive
correlation with effective leadership for student achievement. Schein (1992) believed
that culture can be observed in the interactions among coworkers, the rules (written or
unwritten) that guide everyday work, and the overall climate of the workplace, as well
as other aspects of the work environment. Others have suggested taking an inventory of
the components of a culture—observing the symbols, rituals, and even the language of
the staff—and then using these to construct a mental model of the culture and under-
stand the underlying assumptions in operation (Buch & Wetzel, 2001; Mallak, 2001).
Watkins (2003) suggested examining the elements of culture to understand the
source of power in the organization and what is valued. Watkins also believed that a
leader should match his or her strategy to the organizational situation. He identified
four business situations that a leader can enter, each with its own challenges and oppor-
tunities (see Table 3). The situations are as follows:
1.Start-up—a situation in which one is charged with assembling the capabili-
ties (people, funding, and technology) to get a new business, product, or project off the
ground;
61
Table 3
Challenges and Opportunities of Watkins’s Business Situations
Situation Challenges Opportunities
Start-upStarting from scratch
No existing team
Limited resources
Start out right.
Possibility is motivating.
No preexisting rigid thinking.
TurnaroundReenergizing a demoralized group
Making a quick impact
Making hard decisions about staff
and operations
Everyone sees change is needed.
May get significant external support.
Even little successes are positive.
RealignmentDealing with ingrained cultural
norms that no longer work
Restructuring the organization
Convincing staff that change is
needed
Organization has strengths.
The staff wants to continue to be seen
as successful.
Sustaining successLiving in the shadow of a success-
ful predecessor
Moving business to the next level
Avoiding causing problems
There is a foundation for success.
People are motivated to success.
May have a strong team.
Note. Taken from The First 90 Days, by M. Watkins, 2003, Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
2.Turnaround—a situation in which one takes on a group or unit that is recog-
nized to be in trouble and works to get it back on track;
3.Realignment—a situation in which one needs to revitalize a unit, product,
process, or project that is drifting into trouble; and
62
4.Sustaining success—a situation in which one takes responsibility for pre-
serving the vitality of a successful organization and taking it to the next level.
It is also important for a leader to be aware these situations are part of a cycle, realign-
ment can turn into sustaining success or decline to a turnaround situation, a start-up can
easily become realignment, and so on. One must always work to objectively evaluate
and reevaluate the situation.
Aligning organizational culture. Once one understands the organizational
culture, one can begin the change process. The easier type of cultural change is align-
ment. To begin this type of change, one must consider the core values of the organiza-
tion. If these actually reflect how the organization wants to be perceived, then they do
not need to change; however, every other aspect of the culture—procedures, norms,
rituals—should be considered open for change (Collins, 2000). One then must look for
gaps or misalignments between the core values and the various aspects of the culture.
These misalignments arise out of institutionalized practices and policies developed in
an ad hoc fashion and, while they may have been useful, are out of sync with core
values (Buch & Wetzel, 2001; Collins, 2000; Mallak, 2001). Dealing with misalign-
ments occurs in several ways, evolving from quick to time consuming, but they all are
aimed at reinforcing core values. One can quickly remove artifacts that do not reflect
the core values, or one can redesign a procedure or system that could take several
months if working for proper alignment. One can also do a complete reorganization,
63
which is a process that would require over 6 months and require a long-term plan (Buch
& Wetzel).
Reculturing an organization. The more difficult type of change does not rein-
force existing core values—it changes them. Fullan (2001) believed that schools spend
too much time on changing structures or working on alignment rather than truly chang-
ing what happens in schools, which he refers to as reculturing. Effective leaders try to
do a particular type of reculturing: “one that activates and deepens moral purpose
through collaborative work cultures that respect differences and constantly build and
test knowledge against measurable results—a culture within which one realizes that
sometimes being off balance is a learning moment” (p. 44). According to Collins
(2000), this type of change is extremely difficult, because one cannot simply change the
core values of an organization. People will not buy into new values; they must already
be inclined to hold them. Therefore, change at this level requires more than just top-
down decisions.
Mallak (2001, p. 24) suggested that one “capitalize on disruptive changes” as an
opportunity to reculture an organization. For example, the demands of NCLB could be
considered a disruptive change in education. The change of focus to student outcomes
offers an excellent opportunity for reculturing schools. This is also true if a school
wants to become a PLC. DuFour and Eaker (1998), like Fullan, believed that schools
spend too much time changing structures, which does nothing to change beliefs. How-
ever, because the learning community is a unique culture, it requires disruptive change
64
to the existing culture in order to be established. DuFour and Eaker suggested the most
effective way to influence a school’s culture is by leadership identifying, articulating,
modeling, promoting, and protecting the values of a learning community. For example,
a leader can tell stories about the school that reflect the values or initiate celebrations
that reinforce values and recognize the contributions of the staff. Teachers also need
time to regularly come together for reflective dialogue about practices, critiquing them
relative to the organizational values. The goal is to make people aware of how culture
influences them individually and as a group, thereby enabling them to help shape the
school culture.
Reculturing a school falls into the area of second-order change, because it is a
drastic overall change. Interestingly, under these circumstances it is the principal’s
cultural responsibilities that suffer most; they are the most negatively affected by
second-order change. Under second-order change circumstances, people may feel that
teamwork and group commonalities are deteriorating when they are actually just be-
coming acclimated to a new way of doing things. Reculturing creates a paradox; while
working to improve culture, a principal may actually earn low marks from staff in terms
of cultural responsibilities (Marzano et al., 2005), which again reinforces the difficulty
of reculturing. This paradox supports Watkins’s (2003) contention, because changing
culture is such a complex undertaking that a leader new to the position cannot hope to
go beyond the analysis stage when working in the area of culture during the first 90
days.
65
The New Principal
Research on the experiences of new principals is limited. While there are case
studies of individuals and groups, they often relate to a particular cohort from a gradu-
ate program or individuals enrolled in principal support programs; more comprehensive
or long-term studies on new principals do not seem to exist. One aspect of the experi-
ence has been studied because of its relationship to organizational culture, and that is
socialization. One must, however, rely on the business literature to provide additional
insights regarding new leaders. This section includes the following topics: socializa-
tion of the new principal, the new principal’s transition period, and case studies on new
principals.
Socialization of the New Principal
Socialization is an experience that every new member of an organization must
go through, but it is a particularly critical period for new leaders. It is where organiza-
tional culture and the individual collide. This section will provide a definition of
socialization and discuss the challenges of the socialization period.
Definition of socialization. Socialization is a process during which a person
new to a position or organization gains the knowledge, skills, and temperament to effec-
tively fulfill his or her role in the organization (Aiken, 2002; Normore, 2003). Social-
ization is not a formal induction process; one is socialized by the culture in which one
works. It is the process by which one changes status from stranger to insider within the
66
organization, and because every organization has its own unique culture, every social-
ization experience is unique (Aiken).
However, there are still enough commonalities in the overall socialization expe-
rience to allow researchers to define two types of socialization that a new leader will
experience: professional socialization and organizational socialization. For a new
principal, professional socialization begins before he or she is appointed to the position,
quite probably at the time he or she enters an administrator preparation program and
begins to understand the position in more depth. The process continues until early after
being appointed as a principal. During this time, the person acquires the values and
norms that guide the profession of educational administration as a whole (Normore,
2003, 2004). Normore (2003, 2004) identified three stages in the process of profes-
sional socialization:
1. Separation Stage. During this stage individuals compare themselves with
others in the profession and are concerned how their own performance is perceived.
2. Transition Stage. During this stage individuals compare their knowledge
and performance with what they have learned are the standards for the profession.
3. Incorporation Stage. During this stage individuals internalize the culture of
their new role and compare their current mindset with their former mindset.
Professional socialization into educational leadership, moving from the culture of
teachers to the culture of administrators, is difficult for some, but individuals who have
had a wide variety of school based experiences are more easily socialized (Aiken,
2002).
67
Organizational socialization begins when the person is appointed to a position.
The person tries to begin fitting in to the organization by learning about the job. This
requires him or her to use the skill of situational awareness (Marzano et al., 2005) and
to learn the values, norms, and priorities of the school. The organizational socialization
process can also override the professional socialization process. Because principals
spend the great majority of their time in the context of the school without other princi-
pals, the rules of professional culture are not reinforced while those of the school are
regularly promoted through social rewards and sanctions. Learning and internalizing
the culture of the school is the organizational socialization process (Normore, 2003,
2004).
Challenges of the socialization process. Although socialization is a process that
occurs naturally when one enters a new position, it is not without problems. Some
research indicates that how well a new principal understands organizational culture and
is able to work within its context plays a strong role in his or her eventual success or
failure (Aiken, 2002; Watkins, 2003). The first challenge that the new leader faces is
understanding the new culture, as described in the previous section on organizational
culture. This must actually be a deliberate process during which the leader develops the
mental maps to navigate the culture (Aiken). This step is critical because a leader who
does not understand the cultural context of his or her position will eventually be led by
that particular culture (Schein, 1992).
68
A leader who does not learn the organizational culture can fail to see that the
organizational socialization process has led him or her to maintain the status quo, even
if this was not his or her intent. This is particularly true in schools; because school staff
tends to be stable over time, they are able to transmit a very strong culture to each new
person who enters the school. It is simply much easier to conform in this type of setting
than it is to work for change. Maintaining the status quo is not, however, what most
new principals have been charged with; they are expected to be transformational leaders
who improve student outcomes (Cline & Necochea, 2000; Normore, 2003). Cline and
Neocochea identified three possible responses that a new principal shows to socializa-
tion under these circumstances:
1.Custodianship—new principal conforms to the culture and replicates the
status quo.
2.Content innovation—new principal maintains the same role but takes on
different responsibilities.
3.Role innovation—new principal changes his or her role in the school.
Custodianship in most cases is not the response that a principal would want to
have. Even if the school was successful, there is still a drive under NCLB for improve-
ment. Content innovation is like the cultural alignment process described in the previ-
ous section and is appropriate in some circumstances. Role innovation is the deeper
level of cultural change, which is more difficult but can be facilitated by certain con-
texts or events:
69
1.The new leader is well matched to the school context and enters the position
at a time when role innovation is what that staff needs.
2.A superintendent who mandates and supports change replaces retiring
leaders with new leaders.
3.Mandates from external powers require the changes to be made—for exam-
ple, legislation like NCLB or community pressure for improvement (Normore, 2003).
A leader who is aware of these possible outcomes of socialization is better equipped to
direct his or her experience during the transition period into the principalship.
The New Principal’s Transition Period
Much of what is written about leadership transitions comes from the business
world. This is a neglected area of study in education, and what little information there
is often comes in the form of anecdotal advice for new principals. This section pro-
vides definitions of the transition period from business and describes some of the chal-
lenges of that period.
Definition of the transition period. The transition period for someone entering a
new position begins when one is hired. Watkins (2003) referred this period as the first
90 days and defined it as the time period it takes for a new leader to go from being a
consumer in the company to being a contributor. This time frame came from a 2003
survey of participants at Harvard Business School seminars. Chief executive officers
(CEOs) were asked to estimate the time it took for a mid-level manager to break even
—in other words, create as much value as they had consumed. The average response
70
was 6.2 months. Therefore, if one assumes that it takes the same amount of time to
create equal value to what was consumed, the first 3 months are then the transition
period, or first 90 days.
Dotlich, Noel, and Walker (2004) referred to the period as a passage but did not
offer a clear time frame like Watkins (2003) in their descriptions, because they ad-
dressed multiple types of transitions. They considered a leadership passage to be a time
of change or movement from one point to another. While they examined many forms
of transition, they believed that transitions all share certain characteristics. Transition
periods are emotionally and cognitively demanding, requiring one to learn, grow, and
stretch beyond one’s comfort zone. On the positive side, the personal changes of transi-

tion can be inherently rewarding and motivating, generating new energy and ideas.
The challenges of the first 90 days. A new leader may experience two types of
transitions during the first 90 days. He or she may be entering a new organization, and
the position may be his or her first leadership role. These transitions have associated
difficulties, regardless of the type of organization. To begin with, people try to hold
onto the practices that served them well in the past, even though they may not work in
the new position. When one comes into a new organization, one no longer has the
support network of colleagues from one’s previous position and, as mentioned earlier,
one does not necessarily understand the culture of the organization. One is forced to
learn new ideas and practices and to unlearn some old ones (Dotlich et al., 2004).
71
When moving into a leadership position for the first time, one must change
one’s mindset from individual contributor to director, from follower to leader. This can
be challenging because many people are promoted because they do their jobs so well
and, as leaders, must work effectively through other people (Dotlich et al., 2004). First-
time leaders have other hurdles as well:
1.Losing an identity. New leaders want to hold onto to the identity that made
them successful, but to form a new identity, they must let go of the old one.
2.Seeing one’s star dim. New leaders who were stars because of individual
talents must adjust to being in the background as their employees become the stars.
3.Balancing people and tasks. New leaders may try to prioritize both people
and task but need to learn how to judge when one or the other needs to have priority
(Dotlich et al.).
Watkins (2003) identified additional challenges during the transition period that
can lead to failure. New leaders can misread the demands of the situation, thus indi-
cating limited situational awareness skills. They may understand the situation but lack
the skills or flexibility to handle it. The leader gets caught in a cycle that damages his
or her credibility. He or she alienates potential supporters, undermines his or her own
credibility, and stimulates defensive reactions, which, in turn, alienates more potential
supporters. Finally, the new leader may not have been given enough support; the sink-
or-swim method can cause even the best candidates to fail.
The school setting offers new principals some unique challenges. In private
industry, leadership succession is usually part of an overall plan to achieve continuity in
72
leadership and keeps the business on track. In fact, the successor is more than likely
being groomed in house. According to Hargreaves (2005), this is not often the case in
the world of public schools. New principals are often assigned to a school in order to
create a discontinuity by turning the school around or implementing a new district
agenda. This leaves the new principal with no real foundation to build on, which leads
to the use of quick fixes that are not sustainable. Poor planning or lack of planning on
the part of the school district also leads to bad matches between principal and school, or
between principal and goals, thereby accidentally creating discontinuity or continuity,
where the district wants just the opposite for the school.
A new principal needs three types of knowledge to quickly and effectively
transition into a school:
C Inbound knowledge—information that one needs to make one’s mark on a
particular school
C Insider knowledge—information that one needs for cultural understanding
to eventually improve the school
C Outbound knowledge—information gained from one’s predecessor that is
needed to preserve past successes and keep improvement going (Hargreaves,
2005)
School districts generally focus on providing new principals with inbound knowledge,
and it is usually provided by the new principal’s supervisor. New principals are not
73
often given time to work with the outgoing principal to gather the other two types of
information that would be beneficial during the course of the job (Hargreaves).
Best practices for the transition period. Because preparation programs for the
principalship are weak and the challenges are many, a new principal needs to plan and
prepare for the transition on his or her own. Watkins (2003) suggested a number of
steps that a new leader can take to increase his or her chances of success and reach the
“break-even point” faster:
1.Promote oneself. A new leader should immediately begin preparing men-
tally for the new position by envisioning himself/herself in it and assessing personal
strengths and weaknesses as related to the position.
2.Accelerate one’s learning. A new leader should learn what he or she needs
to know about the organization by identifying “actionable insights”—information that
can be used to make better decisions earlier.
3.Match strategy to situation. A new leader needs to use strategies appropriate
for the business situation based on the four business situations described earlier.
4.Secure early wins. Even small early successes help the new leader generate
excitement and establish credibility.
5.Negotiate success. A new leader should create a written 90-day plan speci-
fying goals and priorities. He or she should also seek support for the plan from supervi-
sors.
74
6.Achieve alignment. As described earlier, this is a simpler form of cultural
change based on existing values.
7.Build one’s team. A new leader should implement needed changes in the
current leadership team as well as recruiting his or her own members.
8.Create coalitions. A new leader needs to identify and maintain existing
support and to cultivate new support.
9.Keep one’s balance. During a transition it is important for a new leader to
balance the various aspects of his or her life, because they are all in transition, too.
Dotlich et al. (2004) offered the leader-in-transition additional strategies with
which to work. They first suggested that one should admit what one does not know;
finding answers is an opportunity to broaden one’s network. Secondly, a new leader
should take time to reflect and talk about his or her new position. Thirdly, new leaders
should make time to focus on people and not to abuse their power; they can quickly
undermine their own credibility by damaging relationships. Finally, they suggested that
a new leader should heed his or her instincts but not act on assumptions, because good
instincts are probably part of the reason that he or she earned the leadership position.
Case Studies on New Principals
Research on the experiences of new principals is limited and focuses on the
overall experiences of new principals, not their transition experiences. The studies are
qualitative with only limited participants, but they do seem to have some common
themes, such as the need to understand the culture of the school, the difficulties
75
associated in working with staff members, issues regarding the district office, and the

importance of community relations.
Elmore and Burney (2000). This study was conducted with six new principals
from New York. It examined issues of preparation for the principalship, instructional
leadership, and mentoring. The school district in which the participants worked was
somewhat unique because they had a support structure for new principals that targeted
instructional improvement. The new principals participated in a new principal support
group that gave them the opportunity to collaborate with other new principals and to
work with a mentor. The researchers found that the district and new principals had dif-
ferent perspectives on the purpose of the new principal support system. The district’s
purpose was to provide support to the new principal in working with the problems at a
particular school site. The new principals felt that they needed support in adjusting the
demands of a new position in a new setting. Thus, it would seem that despite have a
support program, the new principal’s success was not ensured.
The district’s plan for developing these new leaders focused on instructional
improvement. It addressed the district goals for all students and extra concern for
students with special needs. It basically followed the district’s overall strategic plan for
leadership, as it relates to school improvement. What Elmore and Burney (2000) found
was that the new principals’ concerns and development needs were particular to their
individual roles and schools; regardless, some themes did emerge. They expressed
concerns about their predecessors. They spoke of problems with specific teachers and
76
other staff members, as well as union issues. They also worried about being able to

conform to the district’s general plan in the context of their particular schools.
Williamson and Hudson (2001). This study examined the “pressures on women
to conform to traditional norms for school leaders as they enter school leadership” (p.
10). The participants were 10 female members of a cohort from a university school
leadership preparation program, who entered leadership positions in 1998. The re-
searchers found that the participants felt their first year was a time of learning about
school culture, while at the same time holding onto the values they brought from their
leadership program. They found that they were able to resist becoming completely
socialized into the school culture in several ways. Knowledge of the existing culture,
competence and confidence in their abilities, and the influence of the program helped
them to avoid being led by the existing school culture.
Although all of the women in the study were directly or indirectly challenged
regarding being too feminine, they reported that overall they felt their “feminine style”
was an asset. They all also realized that supposedly strong feminine abilities, such as
good listening skills or promoting an ethic of care, were not enough for success—al-
though on the negative side, maintaining an ethic of care can take a toll on a new princi-

pal’s time and emotional energy.
Aiken (2002). This study examined the induction experiences of 12 principals
who were in their 3 year as principals and were particularly successful. The research-
rd
ers investigated what types of professional development needs these principals had in
77
their early years, how districts supported new principals, and how preparation programs
could be improved to better match the needs of the new principal. Through this re-
search, a number of themes emerged regarding what these principals needed to learn
during their first few years and what practices served them well:
1.Vision. The participants’ experiences made them realize the importance of
a vision for a school and that a vision must include multiple voices to be effective.
2.Alliances/networks. These principals recognized that they needed allies or
relationships to be effective and that these networks had cultivated.
3.Identity/authenticity. The participants were intentional about their style of
leadership and tried to be megacognitive about their practice.
4.Custodial/innovative. The participants addressed the need to work through
the conflict between the expectations that they be innovative and change oriented, when
the school’s culture worked to maintain the status quo.
5.Small community/big community. The principals expressed the value of
being able to read the internal and external culture of the school and to use that knowl-
edge to enhance the sense of community. Many also considered their schools to be

important parts of the larger community.
Duncan and Seguin (2002). The participant in this case study was a 1 -year
st
female principal in a rural school district. The study described the participant’s percep-
tions of her 1 year as principal of a small elementary school. The study also included
st
the perceptions of staff members, community, and another district administrators
78
regarding the principal’s performance during that period. The principal reported that
when she arrived at the school, the environment was very closed, but she felt that by
December she had won over many staff members. During her 1 year, she felt that she
st
needed to prepare the environment before making any major changes. She worked on
developing a shared decision-making process and building relationships. She concen-
trated her energy on improving facilities, seeing to overdue maintenance and improving
technology resources. The only major change she made was to implement a new math
curriculum, as directed by the superintendent the summer before school started. Other
than that, she just provided resources and support to her teaching staff to improve in-
struction. At the end of that 1 year, the principal was very proud of the fact that she
st
had met all of the goals she set for herself at the beginning of the year in cooperation
with the superintendent. The superintendent rated her performance as excellent, and
some of the teaching staff related that they felt this was one of their best years at the
school.
The other stakeholders interviewed regarding the principal’s performance had a
different viewpoint on the events of the 1 year. Events or actions that the principal did
st
not see as important enough to discuss in her interview had taken on a life of their own
and were slowly undermining her. Teachers, in particular, perceived her attempts to
improve instruction negatively; they felt that she was telling them what to do. They
cited events such as her coming into classrooms and apparently taking over lessons.
They also felt that her constant presence in classrooms and curriculum meetings was an
indicator that she did not trust them. The teachers felt that the principal did not listen to
79
them and that she basically had “one-way conversations” (Duncan & Seguin, 2002).
The frustration that the teachers felt soon began to spread to the students as well. On the
other hand, the parent who was interviewed felt that the new principal was an improve-
ment and that she brought fresh life to the school.
Despite the support of the superintendent, the principal’s contract was not re-
newed for the next school year. The researchers felt that a number of factors contrib-
uted to the principal’s seeming lack of success. Limited leadership skills contributed to
the principal’s problems. Although the principal felt that she was implementing text-
book best practices, she skipped steps such as bringing the faculty together to develop a
vision; she simply operated on her own vision. Contextual factors also worked to the
principal’s disadvantage. She underestimated the impact of being an outsider in a small
rural community. She did not take enough time to understand the culture and, as a
result, did not realize that some of her personal values, such as all teachers having a
voices—not just the elite—and inclusive classrooms, clashed with existing norms
(Duncan & Seguin, 2002).
Morford (2002). This study examined how the organizational socialization
process influenced new principals’ decisions regarding whether to conform to or chal-
lenge school norms. The participants were 10 rural high school principals in their 1 or
st
2 year. The researchers found five factors that influenced new principals’ decision-
nd
making process:
80
1.Lack of a formal orientation program. None of the participants had partici-
pated in a formal orientation to their positions. Subsequently, they spent their first few
months trying to learn about their positions and the schools and therefore did not at-
tempt any changes.
2.Lack of clear expectations. Only 1 participant reported being given expecta-
tions by the school board and superintendent. The rest worked to figure things out
themselves.
3.Contextual variables. This area included several subcategories, including
small/rural school culture, insider/outsider status, and principal turnover. The small/
rural school culture seemed to have the impact of making the principals cautious about
what they were willing to challenge due to the close-knit nature of the community.
Insiders, those hired from within, reported that they felt it was important to maintain
consistency for their school, while outsiders felt that they could be more objective in
their decisions. The participants reported that principal turnover rates contributed to
both challenging and maintaining norms. In some cases it helped the decision making,
and in some cases it hindered.
4.Situations. The participants also identified school-specific situations that
influenced their decisions. The situations included school climate, discipline, and stress
related to a heavy workload.
81
5.Individuals and groups. All of the participants were able to identify specific
individuals or groups in the school community who influenced their decisions on

whether or not to conform.
Strong et al. (2003). This study investigated the challenges that new principals
faced and how effective coaching was for new principals. The participants were 31
principals in their 1 or 2 year, 27 of whom were enrolled in a support program. The
st nd
new principals described challenges that fell into six areas or themes:
1.Staff issues. Challenges in this area were related to evaluations, staff mo-
rale, and professional development among other concerns, with evaluation being the
biggest concern.
2.Time demands. The principals were working an average of 62 hours per
week and felt they needed help with time management strategies.
3.District issues. Participants complained about the many demands from the
district office: too much paperwork and tight deadlines. Some also felt that the district
office took the focus off instruction.
4.Student data analysis. The principals reported concerns on how to effec-
tively use data to guide instruction.
5.Acceptance by parents and the community. Participants reported difficulties
working with parents and the community, in particular when there was a cultural or
language barrier.
82
6.The legacy of previous administrators. Concerns in this area related to high
turnover, negative climate, effective systems, and no opportunity to meet with the pre-
vious administrator.
The impact of coaching for the new principals was examined in three areas: in-
structional leadership, principal satisfaction, and principal retention. The principals in
the program considered the conversations with their coaches valuable but reported that
they included other areas outside of instructional leadership, such as goal setting and
vision. The principals reported a higher level of satisfaction with the coaching than the
support they received from the district. Of the support program participants, 22% re-
ported that they would have left the principalship if they had not had the program
support, 36% reported the support influenced their decisions, and the remaining partici-
pants reported the program had no impact on their decision to stay (Strong et al., 2003).
Conclusions
When one considers the case studies of the new principals summarized in the
final section of this paper, one can see how the topics and themes covered in this litera-
ture review actually impact new principals in the field. To begin with, in most of the
case studies one can see that university programs were inadequate preparation for their
future roles. It seems most of the participants in these studies could have all used more
training on how to work with staff and the community, and each individual study re-
vealed additional gaps in knowledge. Only in the two studies on women did the partici-
pants seem to be confident that what they learned in graduate school was adequate, but
83
this finding could actually have stemmed from these women overcompensating so as
not to look weak in the face of male peers. Although only the participants in the
Morford (2002) study expressed some confusion about the expectations of their roles as
administrators, the results of all of the studies reflected the difficulties of handling all of
the responsibilities of the contemporary principal. It seemed the participants knew what
they had to do as principals but were having trouble doing it all. They indicated that
time management was an issue, and they felt pressured by district demands. They
struggled to work with staff and wanted to ensure that they were fulfilling their roles as
instructional leaders correctly.
The studies also showed that many new principals seem to understand the vari-
ous research-based best practices for leadership but can have trouble implementing
them. They reported wanting to work on school vision and build relationships, as well
as improve instruction. Moreover, they seemed to get bogged down by other issues,
such as dealing with individual staff members and district requests, which limited their
opportunities to work on other areas.
One of the biggest challenges that all of the participants seemed to face was
coping with the existing organizational culture within the school and the greater com-
munity. Even when these new principals were aware that existing culture could over-
ride their plans, they still allowed it to influence them, as was the case in the Morford
(2002) study on rural principals. An even worse mistake came to light in the Duncan
and Seguin (2002) study, in which the new principal was aware in theory of how to
work with organizational culture but she completely misread the culture she was in.
84
Lastly, it appeared that the transition period into the principalship was a trying time for
many of these new administrators. Some spent the time trying to simply learn what was
expected of them. Others, even in the first full year, did not report any significant
actions in the position. Twenty-two percent of the participants in the study by Strong et
al. (2003) had such difficulties that they reported they would not have stayed in the
principalship without the mentoring program in which they participated. The results of
the studies also did not indicate that any of the participants had any type of plan or strat-
egies to implement during the transition period. The only study in which the partici-
pants showed any understanding of the need to transition into a position was the one
conducted by Duncan and Seguin. In that case, the new principal had worked with the
superintendent to develop goals for the year and planned to be nondisruptive initially,
yet by Christmas she had lost most of her credibility and probably sealed the eventual
nonrenewal of her contract.
Overall, these case studies indicated that becoming a principal is challenging,
and not having a plan for the transition period can make things even worse. Unfortu-
nately due to a lack of research on the transition period for the new principal, there is no
educational leadership equivalent of the plan suggested by Collins (2001), Kotter
(1998), or Watkins (2003). In these circumstances, even a new principal who under-
stands educational theory and best practices in great detail may not be adequately
equipped to enter the position and may waste time and energy during that period, only
to get nothing in return.
85
CHAPTER 3

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
In the last 25 years, changes in the nation’s expectations regarding what should
be occurring in schools have led to a redefinition of the principalship. At one time
principals were able to act as plant managers, keeping the school running smoothly.
Now principals are now expected to be transformational leaders, taking schools and
turning them into learning institutions. This task becomes even more difficult when the
principal enters a challenging situation such as the turnaround school. Although
enough people are credentialed to fill all of the available principal positions, many opt
not to move into the role; those who do make the transition may stay only a few years.
Although there are many university programs and local induction systems in
place to train and support new administrators, not all are equally successful. There is
also little evidence that these programs address the transition to the principalship or
how to handle a beginning principalship in a “difficult” school. Unfortunately, there is
very limited research on the transition period to the principalship; trainers are offered
little to work with in administrator preparation programs. The present study examined
the transition period for new principals in the hope of expanding the literature base.
This chapter includes the research questions and a description of the research
methodology. The methodology includes the sampling procedure and population,
instrumentation, and procedures for data collection and analysis.
86
Research Questions
In order to examine the transition period for new principals in a turnaround -
school, the following research questions were developed to guide this study:
1.Do principals in a turnaround situation find the transition period (first 90
days) to be important?
2.What strategies and conceptual frameworks (leadership theories) were
useful to new principals during the transition period (first 90 days) in a turnaround
school?
3.Did university programs prepare new principals for success during the
transition period (first 90 days) in a turnaround school?
Research Design
This study was designed and conducted by a cohort of 10 graduate students from
the Rossier Graduate School of Education of the University of Southern California
(USC) as part of a thematic doctoral dissertation. The thematic dissertation process
allows a cohort of Rossier School students with similar interests to investigate a topic
collaboratively. In this study the group worked together to develop the research ques-
tions, determine the population for the study, and develop instrumentation, as well as
design the data collection and analysis procedures.
The study was a descriptive exploratory study aimed at expanding the literature
and giving direction for future research (McMillan & Schumacher, 2001). The purpose
of this study was to examine the importance of the first 90 days to the success of new
87
principals in a turnaround school, as well as the strategies, conceptual frameworks, or
theories on which the new principals relied during the transition period. In addition, the
study was designed to determine how university programs or other programs prepared
administrators for the transition to the principalship in a turnaround school.
The researchers used a mixed-methods design for the study; specifically, they
utilized a concurrent triangulation approach. The concurrent triangulation approach
includes both quantitative and qualitative methods to collect data on the same construct
simultaneously. Utilizing the triangulation method increased the validity of the find-
ings for each school site (Berg, 2004; Creswell, 2003). Members of the cohort col-
lected data at 10 turnaround school sites using interviews and surveys, with each re-
searcher creating a case study for one principal. The cohort analyzed the data for the
individual schools and also compared data across schools to further validate findings at
individual sites.
Population and Sample
The population for the study identified by the cohort consisted of new principals
who met all of the following criteria:
1.They completed their first year as principals during the 2005-2006 school
year.
2.They were beginning their second year in the fall of 2006.
3.They were not promoted from within the same school.
4.Their school site was a in a “turnaround” situation.
88
5.Their school site was a middle school.
6.They were identified as successful by their supervisors.
It was important that these principals had not been promoted within this same
school because it could bias the participant’s perception of the principal. Drawing on
the literature, the group chose the turnaround environment from Watkins’s (2003) four
“business situations” that a leader can enter, among which the turnaround is a setting in
which the organization is in need of change and all stakeholders are aware of it. The
turnaround school is a critical case allowing one to see more dramatically how the prin-
cipal’s actions affected his or her success (McMillan & Schumacher, 2001). In two of
the other types of situations, sustaining success and realignment, the environment of the
school would significantly influence the perceptions of the participants regarding the
success or failure of the principal. The fourth type, the startup situation, is too rare in
the public school system for the purposes of this study.
The researchers purposefully selected the sample for the study. Each researcher
identified one principal within the population for his or her particular case study by con-
ducting brief interviews with superintendents, assistant superintendents, and directors.
These supervisors were asked to identify principals who met the criteria and would be
willing to participate in the study. Through this process, 10 principals in 10 districts
were identified to participate in the study. These school and principals could therefore
be considered “reputational” cases because they were identified by knowledgeable
experts (McMillan & Schumacher, 2001, p. 402).
89
Instrumentation
To gain a complete picture of the first 90 days of each of the principals in the
study, information was collected not only from the principals but also from those indi-
viduals most familiar with the principals’ work: immediate supervisors and teachers at
each school site. This triangulation of sources was important because the principal’s
perceptions may differ from the other two groups, as was the case in the study by Dun-
can and Seguin (2002) described in the literature review. Without these different per-
spectives, the picture of the situation is incomplete. The instruments used to collect this
information included surveys and semi-structured interviews, each of which included
data collection charts designed specifically for this study.
Interviews
Interview guides (see appendix A) were used to conduct interviews with princi-
pals, their immediate supervisors, and four teachers at each school site. The four
teachers were identified by the principal and were either department chairs or lead
teachers. Although these teachers may have been biased in favor of the principal, they
were in positions that allowed them to provide more detail than the average teacher
could regarding the principal’s first 90 days.
The interview guides were developed by the cohort and designed to address
issues identified in the literature review. The questions were also aligned with the re-
search questions. Some questions addressed the research questions directly—for ex-
ample, asking if the first 90 days were significant to the principal; others elicited more
90
detail, such as how the principal spent his or her time in the first 90 days. In addition to
the open-ended interview questions, each interviewee was asked to complete two or
more charts (see section on “Charts” below).
To ensure reliability and validity, the members of the cohort field tested the
interview guides with principals, supervisors, and teachers several times. After each
field test, the interview guides were edited until the questions elicited responses consis-
tent with their intent, regardless of who in the cohort conducted the interview. All in-
terviews were also recorded and transcribed to ensure against errors in note taking by
the interviewer. It is, however, important to note that the quality of the data collected
during each interview was impacted by the interpersonal skills of the interviewer. The
ability of the interviewer to establish good relations with the interviewee improves the
quality of the data (McMillan & Schumacher, 2001).
Survey
A seven-item survey (see appendix A) was given to each of the teachers at the
various school sites. The survey consisted of four open-ended questions and three charts
(see section on “Charts” below). The questions on the survey were consistent with
questions in the interview guides and aligned with the research questions. The survey
was field tested with practitioners and edited to improve reliability and validity. The
questions were also used to guide the follow-up interviews conducted with randomly
selected teachers at each site.
91
Charts
During each of the interviews and as a part of the teacher survey, participants
were asked to complete two or more data collection charts (see appendix A). In the
context of the interview participants were asked to explain the choices they made on the
charts. The charts were all based on concepts taken directly from the literature. The
first chart was the STRS Chart; the acronym STRS stands for the four types of situa-
tions identified by Watkins (2003) in which a leader can find him or herself (i.e., start-
up, realignment, sustaining success, turnaround). Each participant was asked to identify
the type of environment he or she felt existed when the principal arrived at the school.
The second chart was the Principal’s Time Chart, which was based on Bolman and
Deal’s (2003) four frames: structural, human resources, political, and symbolic. This
chart was given to the principals and the teachers in slightly different formats. The
principals were asked to give percentages as to how they spent their time and how they
should have spent their time; the teachers were asked only to rank how the principal
spent his or her time and how he or she should have spent it, because they would not
have detailed knowledge of the principal’s time.
The final chart was the Characteristics & Behaviors Chart, which was based on
21 essential leadership skills identified by Marzano et al. (2005) in their meta-analysis
of 69 educational leadership studies. Principals were asked to complete this chart by
identifying the seven behaviors in which they engaged most frequently during the first
90 days. Supervisors and teachers were asked to identify the seven behaviors in which
the principal engaged most frequently and then identify the seven behaviors that they
92
considered most desirable for a principal. The participants were asked to select seven
behaviors because this process allowed enough answers for each participant that there
was a possibility of overlap, but not so many that the overlap would be based on
chance.
Data Collection
The data for this study were collected at selected school sites and at district of-
fices. Qualitative and quantitative data were collected concurrently—that is, on the
same day or within a few days. Data were collected on paper and recorded for later
transcription. Quantitative data were not used to guide the collection of qualitative
data. Quantitative data were collected during interviews and on surveys through closed-
ended charts that the participants completed. Qualitative data were collected using
open-ended questions in interviews and on surveys.
All instruments used in this study were cleared through the USC Institutional
Review Board. The appropriate protocols for research using human subjects were
utilized including informed consent procedures.
Data Analysis
After the data were collected from each school on each of the participants, the
researchers met to calibrate the results, thereby ensuring that each case would be in-
terpreted in a similar manner by the individual researchers. The collected data were
then analyzed and validated in a few ways. Qualitative data collected at each school
site were used to create a detailed description of the schools principal. Quantitative
93
data were converted to simple statistics to add to the overall description. Qualitative
data from each school site were also quantified. This procedure allowed the quantita-
tive as well as the qualitative data to be triangulated between types of participants at the
site. Cross-checking the data among the participants on campus allowed for validation
of information collected from any one individual at that site.
The quantitative data and the quantified qualitative data were also used to
conduct a cross-case analysis of all 10 principals in the study. Not only was the group
able to validate findings by comparing the overall results of each case study, but the
researchers also identified trends across the group as a whole.
94
CHAPTER 4

ANALYSIS OF DATA AND IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS
The role of the principal in the public school setting has grown increasingly
demanding. Principals face challenges that did not exist years ago. Standards-based
accountability changed the perception of what should happen in school, and while the
literature clearly delineates this paradigm shift and the principal’s new role within it, it
does not provide guidelines as to how one successfully adopts that role. Unlike the
business literature that offers numerous strategies for transitioning to a leadership role
in a variety of business circumstances, education literature provides only anecdotal
advice for the first-time principal. This type of advice may suffice for a new principal
taking on a successful school, but it is inadequate for a most other circumstances—in
particular for a new principal in a troubled school.
This chapter uses the data collected by the members of the research cohort at 10
middle schools identified as turnaround schools—schools in which most stakeholders
were aware the school needed improvement or change (Watkins, 2003)—to examine
the transition period (first 90 days) for new principals. Specifically the data were used
to answer the research questions for the study:
1.Do principals in a turnaround situation find the transition period (first 90
days) to be important?
95
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?
This chapter focuses on the transition period for Principal J at Middle School J,
using the other nine case studies conducted by the members of the cohort at Middle
Schools A-I for comparison. The chapter is divided into the following sections: the
principals’ background and school contexts, the importance of the first 90 days, strate-
gies used during the transition period, preparation for the transition period, and conclu-
sions.
The Principals’ Background and School Contexts
Background for Principal J
Principal J was a female in her 30s. She came to Middle School J with more
than 7 years’ experience teaching elementary school and middle school, a year of expe-
rience as a district science coach for eight middle schools, and 6 years’ experience as a
middle school assistant principal. Her assistant principal experience was at two very
different schools. At the first school she and the other assistant principal were left to
fend for themselves, because the principal of the school spent most of his time off
campus. At the second school, which had a strong principal, she felt she learned what a
school looks like when it is “running smoothly” and “everyone is doing their job the
96
way it was supposed to be done” (Principal J, personal communication, October 10,
2006). After 3 years in her second assistant principal position, Principal J felt that she
was ready to interview for a principalship.
Principal J started her position as principal late. Middle School J had hired a
principal for the 2005-2006 school year who quit after 2 weeks. Principal J interviewed
in September and started on October 24, well into the school year. Despite the late
start, she felt that the school was a good match for her experience and was confident she
could handle the position.
Context of Middle School J
Middle School J was one of 24 middle schools in a large urban school district.
Like the other middle schools in the district it was large, with over 1,000 students. The
school was situated in the city’s downtown area and was surrounded by decaying
apartment buildings. The area was high crime and controlled by a number of city gang
injunctions. Poverty was the norm for the students at Middle School J; 96% received
free or reduced-price lunch, making it one of the poorest schools of the 10 studied.
Middle School J also had a large English language learner (ELL) population: 42% of
all its students.
Failure to meet Academic Performance Index (API) growth targets had led to
the school’s designation as a Program Improvement school for the past 5 years. These
circumstances had combined to create what many would consider a difficult work en-
vironment, which was corroborated by poor teacher retention. Of the 51 teachers on
97
staff in 2005-2006, only 36 were returning for 2006-2007 and, according to one of the
department chairs interviewed, several teachers had already left during the current
school year although it was not even December.
It is also interesting to note that Middle School J was the personal project of the
current district superintendent before he was promoted. He worked with the former
principal to structure the school differently from the other middle schools in the district,
among other things requiring all students to have double periods of math and English,
doing all staff development outside of the district structure, and changing the name of
the school from “middle school” to “intensive learning center.” This is significant
because any changes a new principal made might be perceived as going directly against
the wishes of the superintendent.
Middle School J was identified by the Assistant Superintendent of Middle
Schools for the district as meeting the criteria for this study. She considered it to be a
turnaround school because of its status as a Program Improvement school. She felt that
although the school had made some progress, improvement was still needed. When
data were collected at the site, Principal J also identified the school as a turnaround
situation, as did 22 of the 24 staff members interviewed or surveyed. The most com-
monly cited reasons for this evaluation were that the school was in a state of decline, in
the 5 year of program improvement, and the test scores were poor (only 12% of the
th
students were proficient in math and English). Two of the teachers did report that the
school was in a “sustaining success” situation, one during an interview and one on a
survey. For the department chair who was interviewed, it seemed that the choice was
98
based on pride in the work that he and other staff members had done. The survey
response was similar in that it cited the fact that the staff was highly trained as the
rationale for choosing “sustaining success.” Based on all of the responses, regardless of
the two different responses, Middle School J was a turnaround school.
Background for Principals A-I
The principals who participated in this study were all identified by superinten-
dents or assistant superintendents as meeting the criteria for the study. They were
considered successful and had completed their 1 year in a turnaround middle school
st
during in 2005-2006. Interviews with the principals revealed additional commonalities.
They all had teaching experience, although the levels varied. They all had leadership
experiences (e.g., department head) before officially becoming administrators. Each had
spent time as an assistant principal before moving into the principalship and, collec-
tively, they had an average of 15 years of educational experience in education. As a
group, as was the case with Principal J, these principals had a variety of experiences
and opportunities to prepare themselves for the principalship and understood the public
education system from a number of perspectives.
Context of Middle Schools A-I
All of the principals and supervisors, when interviewed, stated that the middle
school sites in question were turnaround schools. The most frequently cited reasons for
this characterization among the supervisors were inconsistent progress and the need for
99
the school to be revitalized. Principals similarly cited low achievement and negative
inertia as the primary reasons for the characterization.
When teachers were surveyed, the results regarding the status of the schools
were not unanimous. In Middle Schools B, C, E, G, and I, as with Middle School J, the
great majority of teachers indicated that their school was a turnaround (Table 4). This
opinion was reinforced in the interviews with department chairs from those same
schools (Table 5). In these schools the rationale for choosing turnaround was most
often negative inertia, the feeling that the school was headed in the wrong direction, or
poor achievement (i.e., low test or API scores). Only Middle School C placed the
responsibility on administration or the leadership (Table 6). In Middle Schools F and
H, responses were mixed, but the majority still chose turnaround, with the most fre-
quent rationale being similar to that of the other schools. It should also be noted that
Middle School H had a particularly large number of surveys returned (n = 41), which
may have skewed some of the survey results.
In Middle Schools A and D, the majority of teachers surveyed chose sustaining
success to describe their schools, as did the department chairs when interviewed. In the
rationale for their choices, teachers at these schools cited positive past achievement and
the sense that they were going in the right direction. While results for the other schools
reinforced what the supervisors and principals said, the results from Middle Schools A
and D could indicate that these were actually realignment schools, because it seems that
the majority of stakeholders were unaware that the school was in need of improvement.
These schools and their principals were not excluded from the study because
100
Table 4
Teacher Survey: School Situation When Principal Started (N = 228)
M i d d l e schools
_________________________________________
Category A B C DE F G H I J Total %
Turnaround7 7 23 418 23 20 25 13 22 162 71
Sustaining success151185428124721
Realignment 0 0 0 2 0 9 0 6 0 0 17 7
Startup0 00 000020021
Table 5
Department Chair Interviews: School Situation When Principal Started (N = 40)
Mid d l e sc hools
_______________________________________
Category A B C D E F G H I J Total %
Turnaround 1 4 4 1 4 4 4 2 4 331 78
Sustaining success3002000201820
Realignment 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2
Startup 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00
101
Table 6
Teacher Survey and Department Chair Interview: Rationale for Choosing Situation
Mid d l e schools
______________________________________________
RationaleABCDEFGHIJTotal
Achievement 4 4 2 2 9 7 7 1 1 3 7 56
Staff 612 125 12 0 222
Morale 416 210 52 4 429
Administration1111309481341
Inertia 1105 610 11 4 11 4 971
they met the established criteria for participation. Responses from these schools may,
however, have skewed the overall results of the study.
Although all of the schools in this study were identified as turnaround schools
and each school had a successful new principal, they were different in terms of demo-
graphics and test scores. When the principals took over the schools, 3 schools had API
scores over 700, 4 had scores over 650, and 3 had scores below 649 (Table 7). By the
end of the school year, only 5 of the schools had met or exceeded their growth targets
and 5 schools’ scores actually dropped. The already high scores and the scores that
increased reinforce the responses seen in Table 3 in that schools were not defined as
turnaround based solely on achievement or test results.
Although on average, the middle schools had about 1,000 students enrolled,
there were varying degrees of homogeneity among the students in terms of ethnicity
102
Table 7
School Demographic Information, 2005-2006: Part I
AdministratorsTeachersCredentialedAPIAPI growth
School per pupilper pupil teachersbase targetAPI
A570:125:194%755765709
B360:128:195%676682668
C348:122:192%731739753
D500:130:191%661663648
E515:130:167%588594546
F382:128:196%738748765
G281:122:187%667675716
H1,109:123:198%654657646
I443:122:195%643655660
J422:125:188%588594619
Note. API = Academic Performance Index.
and varying levels of ELLs and students receiving free or reduced-price lunch, a mea-
sure of poverty (Table 8). Despite the diversity among the schools, some schools stood
out as extremes. School D was particularly large with 2,010 students. As previously
mentioned, School J had both a high ELL population and a high rate of poverty, yet
School E had an even higher number of ELL students at 58% and a higher rate of
poverty, with 98% of the students receiving free or reduced-price lunch. Predictably
Middle Schools E and J also had the lowest API scores of the schools: 546 and 619
respectively (Table 4).
103
Table 8
School Demographic Information, 2005-2006: Part II

Per c e n t a g e of students

NumberFree/reduced African
SchoolGradesenrolledELLs price lunchHispanicAmericanAsianWhite
A 7-8 1,139 5 30 37 4 454
B6-81,22423864911134
C6-81,0451335531438
D5-82,010287395004
E6-81,5475898782000
F6-8741 7 47 67 51014
G6-884513 7645 6144
H6-81,1092771777114
I7-81,3283376661777
J6-81,0144296731842
Note. ELL = English language learner.
Research Question 1: The Importance of the
Transition Period
The first research question regarding the importance of the transition period was
addressed in a number of ways during the data collection process. All participants were
asked directly whether they considered the period to be significant and were asked to
explain their answers. Participants were also asked to identify at what point the princi-
pal established credibility.
104
Middle School J: Significance of the
Transition Period
Principal and supervisor responses. Principal J felt that the first 90 days were
very important to her principalship. She said every day was “precious,” particularly
since she started after the beginning of the school year (personal communication, Oc-
tober 10, 2006). She felt that this was her opportunity to let the staff see that she had a
clear plan for improving the school, but she did not begin implementing any major
changes at that time. Principal J’s immediate supervisor also felt this was a critical
period. To support her statement, she cited the fact that Principal J had started later in
the school year. She did not feel that Principal J needed to provide direction during that
time as much as she had to learn about the nature of the staff and school.
Although Principal J and her supervisor agreed on the importance of the transi-
tion period, their rationales were different. This difference may have stemmed from the
fact Principal J felt she had done her homework before taking the position and under-
stood the nature of Middle School J. This is not to say that she did not continue to learn
about the school during the transition period, but she may have known more than her
supervisor thought.
Staff responses. Three of the four department chairs at Middle School J also
agreed that the first 90 days were significant for Principal J. All three basically felt that
she used the time to figure out what needed to be improved at the school and only
changed high-priority items. The fourth department chair stated that normally he would
consider the first 90 days significant but he did not consider them significant for
105
Principal J because she took over after school started and everything was already set up.
However, like the other department chairs, the fourth department chair went on to say
that Principal J successfully used the first 90 days to determine what had to be im-
proved at the school. The teacher survey results reinforced what was said by Principal
J, her supervisor, and the department chairs. Seventeen teachers at Middle School J felt
that the first 90 days were significant for Principal J; only 2 teachers felt they were not
significant (Table 9).
Table 9
Teacher Survey Results Regarding Whether the First 90 Days Were Significant for the
Principal
S c h ool
__________________________________________________
Response A B C D E F G H I J Total
Yes 13 8 26 8 13 31 21 21 1 0 17168
No4 00 3500110225
Blank0 00 12004007
Other1 01 2321111022
Principal J: Time Frame for Establishing
Credibility
While the majority of teachers surveyed or interviewed felt that Principal J
established credibility within the first 90 days, she herself did not feel that she had
gained credibility until a faculty retreat that occurred after the first 90 days. Principal J
106
felt that she gained credibility at that point because she was able to get feedback from
the staff members who attended indicating that they supported her plans. While Princi-
pal J may have considered the retreat the point at which she felt officially credible, it is
clear from the responses during interviews with department chairs and on teacher
surveys that she had established credibility with the staff by the end of 90 days (Table
10). One of the department chairs even stated that she established her credibility with
him during the interview before she even had the job.
Table 10
Teachers’ Survey and Interview Results Regarding at What Point the Principal Estab-
lished Credibility With Them
No timeFirst 90Later thanDid not
School frame days 90 daysNeveranswer
A 17 3 0 0 0
B 2 6 00 0
C519 000
D43052
E38714
F215610
G517000
H1818272
I57010

J911202

Totals70107171510
This difference in perception on the part of Principal J and her staff was not the
result of lack of confidence on Principal J’s part, but rather an aspect of humility in her
107
personality, which is one of Collins’s (2001) characteristics of a Level 5 leader. She
was not the type of person to take credit for accomplishments for which she lacked
quantifiable evidence. Regardless of Principal J’s perception of when she established
credibility, the transition period was significant for Principal J. This can be seen in the
responses of all participants with regard to the significance of the transition period, as
well as the responses regarding when Principal J established credibility.
Middle Schools A-I: Significance of
the Transition Period
The other nine supervisors considered the transition period to be very signifi-
cant. Their rationale for considering the time period significant varied based on the
school or district situation. All nine of the principals also considered the first 90 days to
be significant. Their most common reasons for considering the transition period impor-
tant included that it was a time to establish credibility and build relationships.
The majority of teachers surveyed, regardless of the school, felt that the first 90
days were significant for their principals. Of the respondents who answered the ques-
tion correctly, excluding those in Middle School J, 87% considered the first 90 days to
be significant (Table 9). Also if one considers Middle School H an outlier due to the
high number of off-topic responses, then 92% of respondents considered the first 90
days to be significant. These results reinforced the outcomes from Middle School J, in
which 89% of teachers considering the first 90 days to be significant.
108
Principals A-I: Time Frame for Establishing
Credibility
Most of the principals also felt they had established credibility during the first
90 days, except for Principal E. Principal E felt that it took 6 months to establish
credibility, yet this opinion contradicted Principal E’s response to the prior question
regarding the significance of the first 90 days, when he said those days were crucial for
establishing credibility. This did not, however, contradict the responses of the staff at
Middle School E; 8 respondents felt that Principal E established credibility in the first
90 days, and 7 said that credibility occurred after the first 90 days. While Principal E’s
response was similar to Principal J’s, the reason appeared to be different. It seems that
Principal E was able to read the staff somewhat better than was Principal J.
In response to the question, “At what point did the principal establish credibility
with you?” teacher survey results from Middle Schools A-I indicated that the majority
of teachers, 49%, felt the principal established credibility with them in the first 90 days.
Thirty-one percent felt that the principal had established credibility but placed no time
frame on their response. Only 8% said that the principal established credibility after the
first 90 days; 8% felt the principal never established credibility; and 4% did not re-
spond. These results again reinforced the totals for Middle School J, where 46% said
that the principal established credibility in the first 90 days, 38% offered no time frame,
8% said she established credibility after the first 90 days, and 8% did not respond.
The results from Middle Schools A-I indicated that the first 90 days were a
significant period for the principals at each of the schools both from the perspective of
109
the principals themselves as well as their supervisors and the staff members at the
respective schools. These findings supported the results from Middle School J.
Summary of Findings for Research
Question 1
In response to research question 1, the findings of the study indicated that for
the new principals at Middle Schools A-J, the transition period was significant. Each
principal, staff members, and supervisors may have had somewhat different reasons for
considering the period important, but they were certain that the transition period mat-
tered for a new principal.
Research Question 2: Strategies Used During the
Transition Period
Research question 2 focused on the types of strategies that successful new
principals employed during the transition period. Data for this question were collected
by examining why the new principals were considered successful, determining how
new principals spent their time, and cataloging significant actions taken by the new
principals.
Principal J: Rationale for Characterization
as Successful
The first question that each principal’s supervisor was asked during the inter-
view related to whether he or she characterized the principal as successful. Principal J’s
110
supervisor offered a number different reasons why she considered Principal J to be
successful (personal communication, October 24, 2006):
She determined what needed to be done and immediately started to refine things
that needed to be refined, and actually to focus on the things that were going
well.
She also was able to develop a good relationship with the teachers and the entire
staff, I believe, so they are willing to work with her.
She also instituted many changes in the area of safety and discipline for those
students, because that was something that needed to be done at that time.
She is not afraid to take risks, to do whatever she needs to do for kids.
She is an instructional leader. She understands instruction; she knows how to
involve teachers so they can analyze their own data and make suggestions or
recommendations on how to help their students.
She works well with the community. They seem to have embraced her, and they
support her in her efforts.
She held teachers’ accountable, and she monitors the teachers and what they are
doing.
The reasons that Supervisor J gave for considering Principal J successful often
paralleled the ISLLC (1996) Standards for School Leaders, as well as the NAESP
(2002) standards. This may indicate that the standards have in some way influenced
what are considered strong practices in the principalship or that the standards are
derived from good practices.
111
Principals A-I: Rationale for Characterization
as Successful
The supervisors for Principals A-I gave a variety of different reasons for charac-
terizing their particular principals as successful. Some responses were very particular
to the school site or district goals and therefore were only mentioned by 1 individual.
The most commonly cited reasons for considering the principals successful, however,
were having a vision or clear goals, the ability to establish a learning community or
foster collaboration among staff, and a focus on instruction—all of which were among
the reasons Principal J was considered successful and can also be found in the leader-
ship standards. Three of the 10 supervisors also cited an ethic of caring, and 3 cited

strong student discipline as signs of success.
Summary. The 10 supervisors provided a variety of reasons for considering the
principals successful, but not one mentioned test or API scores as part of that definition,
even though, as previously mentioned, scores increased in 5 of the middle schools.
Although one might think that scores would figure largely in the definition of success
for an administrator in the current educational system, this was not true for these princi-
pals. The 10 principals in the study were all considered successful regardless of API
scores.
Leadership Frames
During the data collection process, participants were asked direct questions
regarding how the principals divided their time among Bolman and Deal’s (2003) four
112
leadership frames. In addition, the research cohort members used the four leadership
frames to classify data collected regarding important actions the principals took during

the first 90 days.
Principal J: Division of time among the frames. When Principal J was asked to
assign percentages as to how she split her time among the four leadership frames, her
responses was 40% structural, 30% human resources, 30% political, and 15% symbolic.
When asked how she felt that she should have spent her time in retrospect, she said she
would not have changed how she divided up her time. She felt that the priority for the
school at the time she started was student discipline and safety, which is a structural
issue and took of most of her time. She also mentioned that she carried out what she
felt were important symbolic activities; however, these did not take up as much time.
She changed the name of the school from “Intensive Learning Center” back to “Middle
School”; she also made it clear to the staff that she considered the school to be part of
the district and that they would follow district procedures.
On surveys and during interviews, teachers were asked to rank how Principal J
spent her time among the frames during the first 90 days. Responses on the question
were limited because many participants seemed to have trouble filling out the chart
correctly. What was most interesting about the responses that did come in was that
structural and symbolic activities tied for where Principal J spent most of her time
(Table 11). It would seem that although Principal J felt she spent the least amount of
time on symbolic activities, the activities she undertook had a big impact. This may
113
Table 11
Survey and Interview Ranking of How Principal J Spent Her Time
FrameFirstSecondThirdFourth
Structural
Actually spent6421

Should have spent5341
Human resources
Actually spent0256

Should have spent1435
Political
Actually spent0652

Should have spent0562
Symbolic
Actually spent7114
Should have spent7105
Note. Based on Reframing Organizations, by L. G. Bolman and T. E. Deal,
2003, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
relate to the fact that as previously mentioned, the school had a special status and taking
that away was controversial, or that symbolic activities are by nature much more visible
than structural activities. Rankings of the human resources and political frames were
similar to Principal J’s own rankings. Also, the staff rankings for how Principal J
should have spent her time did not really differ; for the participants who were able to
complete the chart correctly, it would it seems Principal J allotted her time appropri-

ately.
114
Principals A-I: Division of time among the frames. Principals A-I felt they
spent most of their time in the first 90 days on human resources and structural issues
(Table 12). When asked how they should have spent their time, the group average was
similar, even though some of the principals completely changed their responses, partic-
ularly Principals E and H (Table 13). These two principals may have been more critical
of their first 90 days than the others. The fact that Principal E, as previously mentioned,
did not feel that he had established credibility during that time may have caused the
second guessing. Principal H had four different assistant principals in her first 90 days;
thus, perhaps the way she actually spent her time was not what she would have done
under different circumstances.
In the teacher rankings, the frames followed a similar pattern to the principal
ranking. The structural and human resources actions were ranked first and second in
terms of how principals actually spent their time, as well as how they should have spent
their time (Table 14). The responses from the staff at Middle School J were very dif-
ferent in the high importance they placed on symbolic activities. This difference may
go back to what was said during the department chair interviews regarding the fact that
Principal J spent time learning about the school before making any changes that were
not urgent, such as student discipline and safety. The department chairs seemed to
really appreciate this, which may have been true of other staff members as well. Princi-
pal J’s supervisor also touched on this when she indicated that the staff needed a princi-
pal to understand them before taking any action.
115
Table 12
Principals A-I: Responses Regarding Percentage of Time Spent in Each Frame
Frame A B C D E F G H I Mean
Structural15.015.025.00.060.025.060.020.025.027.22
Human resources65.040.030.060.040.015.020.020.040.036.67
Political15.05.030.020.00.035.010.010.010.015.00
Symbolic10.040.015.020.00.025.010.050.025.021.67
Note. Based on Reframing Organizations, by L. G. Bolman and T. E. Deal, 2003, San Fran-
cisco: Jossey-Bass.
Table 13
Principals A-I: Responses Regarding Percentage of Time Should Have Been Spent in
Each Frame
Frame A B C D E H I Mean
Structural30.025.030.00.050.020.030.026.43
Human resources45.025.020.060.016.710.035.030.24
Political20.025.040.020.016.760.015.028.10
Symbolic5.025.010.020.016.710.020.015.24
Note. Based on Reframing Organizations, by L. G. Bolman and T. E. Deal, 2003, San Fran-
cisco: Jossey-Bass. Responses for Principals F and G are not included because these princi-
pals did not complete the second part of the chart correctly.
116
Table 14
Survey and Interview Ranking of How Principals A-I Spent Their Time
FrameFirstSecondThirdFourth
Structural
Actual60593910

Should have60693911
Human resources
Actual50484138

Should have63483530
Political
Actual29416145

Should have25325664
Symbolic
Actual30293683
Should have29274774
Note. Based on Reframing Organizations, by L. G. Bolman and T. E. Deal,
2003, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Summary. Overall the participants in the study favored the structural and human
resources frames over the political and symbolic frames. This pattern held in reporting
actual time spent or how time should have been spent. These results were not surpris-
ing because people tend to favor either the structural or human resources frames
(Bolman & Deal, 2003). In the context of this study, it may also be that these frames
were easier to understand and to identify than political and symbolic activities, or that
structural and human resources activities were more applicable in the context of Middle
Schools A-J.
117
Principal J: Three important actions during the first 90 days. Participants in
the study other than the principals were asked to identify three important actions that
created the biggest positive gains for the principal. The open-ended responses were
then categorized based on the leadership frames. The majority of the actions identified
at Middle School J were structural, followed by human resources activities and by sym-
bolic activities (Table 15). Structural activities included establishing and improving
school procedures, establishing and enforcing a student discipline plan, and providing
teachers with resources (e.g., access to copiers). Human resources activities included
having an open door policy, facilitating teamwork, and listening to staff. Symbolic
activities included learning about the school, learning about the staff, and participating
in staff activities.
Table 15
Actions That Helped Principal J Gain Credibility
F r a m es

____________________________________
Human No
StaffStructuralresourcesPoliticalSymbolicNothinganswer
a
Teachers27140321
Department chairs630300
Supervisor300000
Note. Based on Reframing Organizations, by L. G. Bolman and T. E. Deal, 2003, San Fran-
cisco: Jossey-Bass. Not every participant listed three actions.
Respondents who answered “nothing” or gave no answer were counted as only one response.
a
118
Interestingly, these responses differed from the rankings given to frames by the
respondents in the previous section. There are a couple of possible explanations for this
outcome. Participants did have problems correctly completing the leadership frames
chart; quite a few responses were unusable, whereas all but one participant responded
correctly to the question regarding what actions the principal took. As such, the ranking
for the frames may be skewed. Another possibility is that structural actions are easier to
list than symbolic because they are more tangible. For example, some people may not
even have considered learning about the school culture an action. However, because
the structural activities repeatedly referred to issues related to student safety (which was
an area of high concern at the Middle School J) regardless of respondent, it is more
likely the former explanation is correct.
The respondents also listed no political activities, yet Principal J said that she
spent about 30% of her time on political activities during her first 90 days. She worked
on understanding the power structure of the school by interviewing staff members. She
was also able to identify key personnel to form a network. The department chairs, who
all thought highly of Principal J, all wanted to be administrators, and she supported
them in their goals. Principal J also had to spent time in her 1 year in somewhat of a
st
power struggle with one of her assistant principals, who had been in the school for
several years. He did not want things to change at the school, which caused conflict.
While these types of activities took up a great deal of time for Principal J, they may not
119
have been obvious to the staff as a whole and would not be considered activities that

helped her make positive gains.
Principals A-I: Three important actions during the first 90 days. Staff mem-
bers at Middle Schools A-I predominantly identified human resources as actions that
helped the principals gain credibility (see Tables 16-18). This was followed by struc-
tural activities, symbolic activities, and political activities. These responses remained
consistent regardless of whether the participant was a teacher, department chair, or
supervisor. Structural activities included setting goals, organizing instruction, estab-
lishing new procedures, and instituting new programs. Human resources activities
included opening lines of communication, supporting teachers, promoting a sense of
collaboration, and being approachable. Symbolic activities included being visible,
learning about school culture, communicating the school vision, and participating in
school activities. Political activities included involving parents in the school, reaching

out to the community, and building alliances with staff members.
Summary. Overall, human resources actions appeared to make the biggest
impact across the 10 middle schools, followed by structural, symbolic, and political
actions in order. Middle Schools G and J differed from this pattern, placing structural
activities first and human resources second. In both of these schools it seemed as
though the principal was fulfilling a specific need. Participants at Middle School G
emphasized organization and goal setting, and the participants at Middle School J em-
phasized student safety and discipline. This need-based pattern also held at schools
120
Table 16
Teacher Surveys: Actions That Helped Principals A-I Gain Credibility
Action A B C D E F G H I Totals
Structural10616832829107117
Human resources31143391025214414201
Political 0 0 2 0 2 1 1 1 1 8
Symbolic52 11 3474 173 56
Nothing400 53005017
a
No answer 0 0 1 1 5 0 0 5 0 12
Note. Based on Reframing Organizations, by L. G. Bolman and T. E. Deal, 2003, San Fran-
cisco: Jossey-Bass. Not every participant listed three actions.
Respondents who answered “nothing” or gave no answer were counted as only one response.
a
Table 17
Department Chair Interviews: Actions That Helped Principals A-I Gain Credibility
Action A B C D E F G H I Totals
Structural105235003432
Human resources55644677450
Political 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 3
Symbolic222 221221 16
Nothing100 000000 1
a
No answer 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Note. Based on Reframing Organizations, by L. G. Bolman and T. E. Deal, 2003, San Fran-
cisco: Jossey-Bass. Not every participant listed three actions.
Respondents who answered “nothing” were counted as only one response.
a
121
Table 18
Immediate Supervisors: Actions That Helped Principals A-I Gain Credibility
Action A B C D E F G H I Totals
Structural 0 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 09
Human resources0110121219
Political 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Symbolic 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 25
Nothing 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00
No answer 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Note. Based on Reframing Organizations, by L. G. Bolman and T. E. Deal, 2003, San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Not every participant listed three actions.
Respondents who gave no answer were counted as only one response.
a
that focused on human resources actions. For instance, at Middle School C the partici-
pants focused on actions that showed support and respect for teachers, and at Middle
School H participants listed actions that involved staff in decision making and indicated
that Principal H was listening. This may offer another reason that Principals A-J were
considered effective; they responded to the needs of the site.
Principal J: Actions Related to Credibility
In examining the time frame during which the new principals established credi-
bility, the researchers also examined events that established a principal’s credibility.
The actions were then categorized as personal or schoolwide. For Principal J, 18 of the
actions considered by the staff to have established credibility, regardless of time frame,
122
were schoolwide. Frequently cited schoolwide actions that established Principal J’s
credibility included being a team player, listening to teachers, and following through on
promises. Only four respondents gave personal reasons that they saw her as credible,
and those reasons related to personal assistance or contact from Principal J.
Principals A-I: Actions Related to Credibility
With respect to the actions of Principals A-I, schoolwide actions were also most
often cited as establishing credibility. Seventy-four percent of the participants, regard-
less of time frame, felt that the principals established credibility with a schoolwide
action (Table 19).
Table 19
Type of Action That Established Credibility
No timeFirst 90Later thanDid not
Type frame days 90 daysNeveranswer
Personal2723100
Schoolwide43841600
Totals70107171510
Summary. For the new principals at Middle School A-J, the schoolwide actions
had a great impact on establishing their credibility. It would seem that staff members’
personal feelings about a principal come second to how the principal’s action affected
the school when it comes to principal credibility. The idea that principals are more
123
likely to establish credibility through schoolwide actions also came out in the previous
section in which respondents listed actions that helped the principal make the biggest
gains. Very few participants listed personal instances.
Principal J: 21 Characteristics and
Responsibilities
Participants in the study were each asked to identify 7 of Marzano et al.’s (2005)
21 characteristics or responsibilities correlated with student achievement in which the
principal at their school engaged. They were also asked to identify which of the actions
they felt their principals should have engaged in. Principals themselves were only
asked to identify 7 things they had actually did. Responses for Principal J are summa-
rized in Table 20. Principal J felt that she worked on school culture, discipline, having
a focus, being visible, communicating with staff members, providing affirmation to
staff members, and having situational awareness. When compared with the responses
from the other participants, some distinct patterns emerged. The four patterns were
areas in which Principal J’s actions matched perceptions and expectations, areas in
which the principal made impressions that she did not see, areas in which desired
actions made only limited impressions, and areas that could be considered missed
opportunities:
1. Areas in which Principal J’s actions matched perceptions and expectations:
These were categories that Principal J checked as having done and other participants
indicated they were what should have been done. These actions included providing
124
discipline, having a focus, being visible, and having situational awareness, which es-
sentially indicated high scores across Table 20.
2. Areas in which Principal J made impressions that she did not see: These
are areas that Principal J did not identify, yet participants did and felt that she also
should have done them. These actions included providing resources; having knowledge
of curriculum, instruction, and assessment; providing contingent rewards; building
relationships; and monitoring/evaluating teaching.
3. Areas in which desired actions made only limited impression: These were
actions that Principal J felt she undertook but participants did not, for the most part,
indicate that they saw these actions and at the same time indicated that they should have
been done. Working with school culture, developing common beliefs and the sense of
community, and establishing strong lines of communication also fell into this category.
4. Areas that could be considered missed opportunities: These are actions that
Principal J did not identify. Also, the majority of respondents felt that she had not done
them, yet the majority felt that she should have acted in these missed areas. These
included order, establishing routines, and input; and involving staff in decision making.
Overall, however, Principal J met the expectations of the staff more times than
she did not, indicating that she read the needs of the staff well. It should, however, be
noted that the responses that Principal J’s supervisor gave regarding which characteris-
tics a principal at Middle School J “should have done” did not match the actions she
125
Table 20
School J: What Principal Did and Should Have Done During First 90 Days in
Relation to 21 Characteristics and Responsibilities
Principal Supervisor
Teacher
interviews
T eacher
su rv e ys
C har act er i s t i c/
re sp o n sib ili ty D id D id
Should have
doneDid
Should have
done Did
Should have
done

Culture x x 0 3 4 9

Order x 2 2 15 15

Discipline x x 3 3 17 11

Resources x 1 2 10 7
Design of curricu-
lum, instruction,

and assessment
0 0 0 0

Focus x 3 3 9 10
Knowledge of cur-
riculum, instruc-
tion, and assess-

ment
x 3 1 8 6

Visibility x x 1 2 9 9
Contingent re-

wards
2 2 8 6

Communication x x 2 1 6 16

Outreach x 1 0 5 3

Input x 2 3 5 8
Affirmation x x 2 1 5 7
126
Table 20 (continued)
Principal Supervisor
Teacher
interviews
T eacher
su rv e ys
C har act er i s t i c/
re sp o n sib ili ty D id D id
Should have
doneDid
Should have
done Did
Should have
done

Relationship x x 2 1 5 7

Change agent 0 1 6 6

Optimizer 1 1 2 4

Ideals/beliefs x 0 0 4 4

Monitor/evaluator x 1 2 8 5

Flexibility 0 0 7 4
Situational aware-

ness
x x 2 1 8 8
Intellectual stimu-
lation
x 0 0 0 4
Note. Based on School Leadership That Works: From Research to Results, by R. J. Marzano, T.
Waters, and B. A. McNulty, 2005, Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.
said Principal J “did” in any area. This is strange because she was so positive about
Principal J’s performance and really did consider her to be successful.
127
Principals A-I: 21 Characteristics and
Responsibilities
Combined responses from Middle Schools A-I also had patterns, though not
completely identical to those of Middle School J. The combined responses are summa-
rized in Table 21. When compared with the responses from the other participants, some
distinct patterns emerged. The patterns for Schools A-I were areas in which the princi-
pal’s actions matched perceptions and expectations, areas in which the principal’s
actions were unimportant to supervisors but matched staff perceptions and expectations,
areas that could be considered missed opportunities, and areas that had low interest and
low action:
1. Areas in which the principals’ actions matched perceptions and expecta-
tions: These areas included promoting school culture, establishing order, having a
focus, and being visible.
2. Areas in which the principals’ actions matched perceptions and expecta-
tions, except with supervisors: Supervisors neither indicated the principals did nor
should have done these things, yet department chairs and staff members felt the oppo-
site. This category included providing resources and establishing communication. It is
possible that the supervisors did not choose these because they were not at the site
where they could see these activities on a day-to-day basis, or perhaps these actions may
have seemed an obvious part of the principals’ jobs—not significant actions to be
acknowledged.
128
Table 21
Schools A-I: What Principal Did and Should Have Done During First 90 Days in
Relation to 21 Characteristics and Responsibilities

Principal Supervisor
Department chair
interviews
Teacher
surveys
C haracteristic/
re sp o n sib ility D id D id
Should have
done Did
Should have
done Did
Should have
done

Culture 5 7 8 13 19 95 94

Order 3 5 5 15 12 77 75

Discipline 2 3 3 11 18 38 98

Resources 6 1 3 15 11 75 96
Design of curricu-
lum, instruction,

and assessment
2 4 5 13 7 46 50

Focus 5 7 5 18 18 94 86
Knowledge of cur-
riculum, instruc-
tion, and assess-

ment
3 4 3 13 7 60 32

Visibility 6 5 2 25 26 93 106

Contingent rewards 0 1 0 6 7 38 31

Communication 6 2 3 19 25 72 117

Outreach 1 2 3 6 9 53 25

Input 2 2 3 14 12 50 69
Affirmation 2 2 1 10 5 71 47
129
Table 21 (continued)
Principal Supervisor
Department chair
interviews
Teacher
surveys
C haracteristic/
re sp o n sib ility D id D id
Should have
done Did
Should have
done Did
Should have
done

Relationship 3 3 3 8 12 63 69

Change agent 4 3 3 7 11 40 43

Optimizer 0 4 2 8 7 40 27

Ideals/beliefs 4 4 3 11 8 60 31

Monitor/evaluator 2 2 6 14 14 59 58

Flexibility 1 1 1 17 17 72 66
Situational aware-

ness
4 0 1 7 3 49 58
Intellectual stimu-
lation
1 1 0 5 5 44 31
Note. Based on School Leadership That Works: From Research to Results, by R. J. Marzano, T.
Waters, and B. A. McNulty, 2005, Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.
3. Areas that could be considered missed opportunities: For the combined
responses, only discipline could be considered a missed opportunity. Only 2 principals
said that they focused on discipline, but over 100 participants said it should have been
an area of focus—responses that were spread across schools, as seen in the disaggre-
gated data for this question in Tables B1-B7 in appendix B.
130
4. Areas that had low interest and low action: These actions were only under-
taken by a few principals and, overall, participants did not indicate that they were
needed. These actions included knowledge of curriculum, instruction, and assessment;
outreach to all stakeholders; and promoting personal ideals and beliefs about education.
These results were interesting because they suggested that there was more interest in
what a principal does than what he or she knows or promotes.
Although these results differed from those at Middle School J, Principals A-I
also were able to match the expectations of the participants more often than not.
Summary. Only a limited number of participants in the study reported principals
having situational awareness, and only a limited number viewed it as important, yet half
of the principals reported practicing it. It can be inferred that each of the principals had
a degree of situational awareness—that, according to Marzano et al. (2005), has the
highest correlation with student achievement—based on the fact that the instances
where principal actions matched staff expectations outnumbered other patterns. This
also reinforces the pattern that was seen when participants listed actions that created
positive gains for the principals.
Leadership Theories for the First 90 Days
During the interview each principal was asked what leadership theories he or
she considered important for the first 90 days. Only 2 of the principals interviewed
identified particular authors. Principal G mentioned Marzano, Collins, and Schmoker;
Principal I listed DuFour, Marzano, Haycock, and Stiegler. The remaining principals
131
all essentially said that they could no longer remember the names of specific theories
but that certain activities were critical for the first 90 days. Six of the principals men-
tioned the importance of building relationships, thus reinforcing the importance of the
human resources frame. Four principals felt that structural or organizational activities
were important in the first 90 days, and 3 mentioned ideas related to transformational
leadership. In general, it seemed that while the principals may have forgotten the
names of theories and theorists, some of the key ideas remained, but most of the re-
sponses they provided tended to be anecdotal—based on experience rather than theory.
Summary of Findings for Research
Question 2
There are a number of findings that stand out with regard to the types of frame-
works and strategies new principals in a turnaround middle school relied on during the
first 90 days:
1. Scores did not necessarily define success. None of the principals who par-
ticipated in the study were considered to be successful due to gains in API scores. In
fact, half of the participants worked in schools where the API score went down in the 1
st
year of their principalship. It is possible that supervisors did not consider API scores to
be that important or, more likely, they were willing to give new principals the opportu-
nity to grow and establish themselves before focusing on scores.
2. The human resources frame was important. Human resources actions
ranked high with regard to how principals spent their time. On average, Principals A- J
spent 36 % of their time working in the human resources frame and believed that was
132
where they should have spent their time. When staff members were interviewed or
surveyed regarding the principals’ actions, they, too, ranked human resources actions
high. They listed a majority of human resources actions when asked to identify actions
that helped the principals establish credibility, and the most desired action of Marzano
et al.’s (2005) 21 responsibilities was communication—a human resources activity.
These findings suggested that for the principals at Middle Schools A-J, time was best
spent working on human resources issues as a means for quickly establishing credibility
with the staff.
3. Schoolwide actions had the most impact. Whether asked to describe an
event during which Principals A-J established credibility or to list actions that helped
the principals make positive gains, participants focused on schoolwide actions. These
actions had the greatest impact on the perceived success of the new principals at Middle
Schools A-J.
4. Actions had to match needs. A pattern that appeared with all of the princi-
pals in the study was that their actions for the most part matched what the staff at the
school site and their supervisors felt was important. Because the actions the principals
took at each school differed somewhat and the majority of each staff found their princi-
pal to be credible, it would indicate that these principals took the time to learn the needs
of their individual schools before acting.
5. Specific leadership theories were not significant. Although some of the
principals who participated in the study were able to name specific theories or authors
who had influenced their thinking, most could not. This did not mean that these
133
principals did not understand or use theory; it seemed that although they had forgotten
the names, they had internalized many of the “big ideas,” such as the need to build
relationships and the importance of having a vision for the organization.
Research Question 3: Preparation for the Transition Period
The third research question examined whether any programs, formal or infor-
mal, prepared the new principals for the transition to the position. This issue was ad-
dressed only with the principals and their supervisors because it is unlikely that staff
members would have this type of information. Data were collected for this question by
interviewing the principals about their backgrounds, how they collected information
about their schools, and their experiences with district and university programs. Super-
visors were interviewed regarding the types of support that they provided for the new
principals, as well as their thoughts regarding university programs.
How Principal J Prepared for the Principalship
Much of what Principal J did to prepare for the principalship was previously
described in her background information. Key events included her experiences as an
intern and as an assistant principal, as well as the encouragement she received from her
supervisors. In order to assume the position as principal of Middle School J, Principal J
started preparing before she interviewed for the position. She learned as much about
the school as she could by examining available data and speaking with people who had
worked at the school in the past. This process allowed her to feel confident that she
understood the needs of the school when she went into the interview. When Principal J
134
actually took the position of principal, she continued this process by informally
interviewing as many staff members as possible to really understand the nature of the
school. Principal J’s supervisor corroborated this information by saying that Principal J
did a “needs assessment” with the staff early on (personal correspondence, October, 24,
2006).
How Principals A-I Prepared for the
Principalship
The process through which Principals A-I went to prepare for the principalship
was very similar to Principal J, as already described in their background information.
Table 22 provides this information in a different format than earlier in the chapter.
Six of the principals in the study learned about their prospective schools from their
supervisors; in addition, every principal gathered information from other sources, such
as teachers, support staff, community members, and other sources such as data pub-
lished online. None of the principals, including Principal J, learned information about
their schools through a formal orientation process. Even the principals who learned
information from their supervisors did it in an unstructured fashion, and they had to
learn much of the information on their own.
135
Table 22
Principals A-I’s Experiences Related to the Principalship
Experience A B C D E F G H I J
Taught at various levelsXXXXXXXXX
Had leadership experienceXXXXXXXXXX
Encouraged by administrationXXXXXX
Served as assistant principalXXXXXXXX
Years in education1225+232212+211125157+
Types of Support Provided to Principal
J During the First 90 Days
Principal J was very enthusiastic about the support she received from the school
district during her 1 year as principal. The district provided her and several other new
st
principals with a mentor. The mentor came and worked one-on-one with Principal J
and held structured meetings with new principals, addressing different practical aspects
of the position. The mentor was available by phone and email to provide additional
assistance. For example, if Principal J needed assistance on some aspect of budget, she
would contact her mentor, who would discuss the problem with her and then send in a
district expert to assist Principal J. This program allowed Principal J to feel confident
that she could succeed and also gave her the opportunity to develop a peer support
network in the district. Principal J’s only complaint about the program is that it was not
continued into her 2 year.
nd
136
Principal J’s supervisor was equally enthusiastic about the support the district
provided to Principal J and other new principals. In addition to the formal mentor and
meetings Principal J mentioned, Supervisor J added that Principal J had a an informal
mentor in the form of another middle school principal or “critical friend” and that the
district held a summer academy for new principals (Supervisor J, personal communica-
tion, October 24, 2006). Although Principal J herself did not see these two other
sources of support as overly significant, it is clear from both her and her supervisor’s
response that Principal J was well supported by the district in her position.
Types of Support Provided to Principals
A-I During the First 90 Days
Based on the responses of both principals and their supervisors, most of the
support provided to new principals at Middle Schools A-I was informal (Tables 23 and
Table 24). The most common type of support that principals reported was an informal
mentor whom, in some cases, they found for themselves. Interestingly, there was a
good match between the services that the principals and supervisors identified, and only
Principal B felt that she was not provided with any support. Like Principal J, the prin-
cipals were most positive about the mentoring relationships; whether they were formal
or informal, it seemed to be helpful to have an advisor. Only three of the principals
(Principals E, G, and J) had a variety of support services, including a structured pro-
gram.
137
Table 23
Principals A-J: Types of Support Provided by District for New Principals
Support A B C D E F G H I J
Open door policyX---X---XX------------
Informal mentorX---XX------XXX---
Improved school infrastructure------------------------------
Formal meetings---------XX---XX---X
Formal mentor---------X---------------X
Assembly Bill 75------------X---X---------
Summer academy------------------------------
None---X------------------------
Table 24
Supervisors A-J: Types of Support Provided by District for New Principals
Support A B C D E F G H I J
Open door policyX---------X---------------
Informal mentorXXXX------XXXX
Improved school infrastructure------X---------------------
Formal meetings---------XXXX------X
Formal mentor---X------X---XX---X
Assembly Bill 75------------X---X---------
Summer academy---------------------------X
None------------------------------
138
Summary. In considering the data regarding the support services that were
provided to the new principal, what stands out is the lack of formalized structures for
supporting these new principals, as was the case with the orientation process. It seems
as though a majority of districts were reactive rather than proactive with regard to prob-
lems that a new principal might encounter. All of the principals definitely benefited
from mentoring, even though this was, in most cases, an informal structure as well. If
these districts were to implement one formal type of support, mentoring would probably
have the most impact on principal success.
How University Programs Prepared
Principal J
When asked how her university program prepared her for the principalship,
Principal J felt that she had some positive experiences, but nothing specifically ad-
dressed the transition period. The factors she viewed as positive tended to relate to the
practical aspects of performing job. She considered case studies to be useful, as well as
the opportunities to hear the experiences of individuals who were actually working in
the field. Although she did not remember specific theories, she felt that aspects of
theory benefited her by allowing her to look at things from a different perspective. The
most useful aspect of the program for her was the internship; the opportunity to work as
an administrator is when she learned the most and really began to understand the real-
ities of the position. She did not consider any particular component of the program to
be useless; rather, she felt that some of the professors were just not “fit to teach” (per-
sonal communication, October 10, 2006). The value of any information that these
139
individuals had to share was essentially diminished by their inability to present it effec-
tively.
Principal J’s supervisor was very positive about university programs, particu-
larly because she herself taught in one; but she did qualify her response, saying that
some programs were better than others. She felt that when the professors were practi-
tioners and had the opportunity to share “not only research but lots of experiences”
(personal communication, October 24, 2006), programs could be beneficial. However,
she also felt that many aspects about being an administrator could not be taught in the
classroom. Administrators regularly encounter unique situations that may allow them
to draw on what they know, but they must also use “good judgment and common sense”
personal communication, October 24, 2006) to handle the problem.
How University Programs Prepared
Principals A-I
The responses from Principals A-I regarding university preparation programs
were all very similar to the response from Principal J. None of the principals indicated
that any of their formal training focused on transition period. While they did find some
aspects of the programs to be useful, they were not overly positive about them. Some
of the aspects of university preparation programs that Principals A-I found to be useful
were fieldwork or internships, practical information regarding administrative functions,
some aspects of theory, the opportunity to build a professional network with other ad-
ministrators, and information on education law and California Education Code. The
administrators also criticized programs for focusing too much on theory and not enough
140
on the practical aspects of the position, yet there was no one particular problem upon
which every principal agreed.
When asked about university preparation program, the supervisors were evenly
split when Supervisor J was included; 5 of the supervisors were positive about the
programs, and 5 were negative or not confident that they were effectively preparing
administrators. The most common benefit that the supervisors saw in the programs was
that they provided theory and information on curriculum and instruction that was
helpful to an administrator as background information (Table 25). In other areas, re-
sponses were mixed as to what was useful. It seems that many of the other supervisors,
like Supervisor J, felt that there were some aspects of administration that one could only
learn by doing. This opinion was reinforced by the fact that the most frequent criticism
that supervisors had of university programs was that they failed to provide practical
experience.
Summary. There was not a high degree of confidence among the participants in
this study that university programs effectively prepare new administrators. While some
aspects of programs may be positive, quality of teaching and information are not as-
sured. In addition, none of the principals recalled any aspect of their programs directly
addressing the transition period.
141
Table 25
Supervisors’ Opinions: Ways University Programs Are Useful
Usefulness A B C D E F G H I J
Leadership training---XX------X---X------
Personnel------XX------------X---
California Education CodeXX---------XX---------
Help with theory/curriculumXX------XXX---XX
Help with administrative
functionsX---------XX---X------
Help with school finance---X---------XX---X---
Summary of Research Question 3
The data provided several insights as to whether any programs, formal or in-
formal, helped the new principals prepare for the transition period.
Lack of formal orientation process. The principals who participated in this
study did not participate in a formal orientation process. Some were provided informa-
tion about the school they were expected to lead, but most had to rely on their own
ability to seek out information regarding the state of the school from a variety of
sources. In some cases, this process continued on into the first 90 days of their princi-
palships. This time spent simply collecting background or procedural information

could possibly have been used more effectively in other areas.
Lack of formal support programs. Most of the principals participating in the
study did not have a formal support program to help them through the first 90 days or
142
the 1 year, which was similar to the findings in the Morford (2002) study. Principals
st
sought support for themselves through personal and district sources. Some supervisors
were more supportive than others; while an open door policy was commonly men-
tioned, only some mentioned direct support to the new principals. Again, formal
support structures would have allowed these principals to spend their time more effec-

tively.
Value of mentors. Almost every participant mentioned having some sort of
mentor to help him or her get through the 1 school year. Whether the mentor was
st
formally assigned by the district or a previously established informal relationship, the
principals were positive about the experience. There seemed to be a great value in
having a mentor for these individuals, particularly when they did not know where to get

answers.
Mixed feelings mixed regarding university preparation programs. Participants’
thoughts regarding university programs were mixed. Every participant was able to
identify some positive area, but all were also able to identify negatives. It was, how-
ever, clear that none of the participants considered any one program the answer for
preparing an administrator and felt that one needed to draw on a variety of experiences.
Programs not specifically addressing the transition period. University pro-
grams did not specifically address the transition period to the principalship. In addition,
aside from the two principals who participated in formal district programs for new
143
principals, principals received only limited assistance addressing their specific needs as
new principals in turnaround schools.
Summary of Research Questions 1-3
Research Question 1: Importance of
the Transition Period
Research question 1 investigated the importance of the transition period for new
principals in a turnaround middle school. The data for this question showed that for the
principals at Middle Schools A-J, the transition period was very important, particularly
in terms of establishing credibility. While the transition period was not discussed in
education literature, these findings aligned with the business literature that urges leaders
to capitalize on the transition period in order to establish themselves (i.e., Collins,
2001; Dotlich et al., 2004; Kotter, 1998; Watkins, 2003).
Research Question 2: Strategies Used
During the Transition Period
Research question 2 examined the strategies and conceptual frameworks that
new principals found to be useful during the transition period in a turnaround middle
school. Data related to research question 2 provided a number of insights into the
actions and strategies that helped new principals to succeed in turnaround middle
schools. During the first 90 days, new principals in Middle Schools A-J:
1. Focused on concerns other than test scores. Because supervisors A-J were
not measuring the success of their principals based on test scores, they were able to
144
focus their energy on establishing credibility, assessing the needs of the school, and
dealing with some of the most pressing staff concerns.
2. Relied heavily on the human resources frame. Principals A-J spent a great
deal of time during the first 90 days working on human resources issues. They focused
on communication, building relationships, and supporting teachers. These types of
activities offered big gains in credibility because staff members at the various schools
felt they were needed. The importance of these types of actions can be seen through the
literature as well (e.g., Bolman & Deal, 2003; Collins, 2001; Fullan, 2001, 2002a,
2002b; Kotter, 1998).
3. Gained credibility through schoolwide actions. Staff members at the 10
middle schools were most impressed by actions that positively influenced the entire
school. This factor suggests that staff members may have put personal issues aside for
the benefit of the school and that the aforementioned human resources activities do not
be conducted one to one.
4. Matched their actions to the needs of the school. Principals A-J effectively
matched their actions to the needs of their particular schools. This skill identified in
both business and education literature is considered to be highly important in terms of
effectively leading any organization (e.g., Collins, 2001; Goldberg, 2001; Kotter, 1998;
Reeves, 2006; Watkins, 2003).
5. Utilized theory to a limited degree. While some of the principals in the
study were able to remember authors and theories, most were unable to recall such
specific details. In general, it seemed that big ideas stuck with these leaders and pro-
145
vided them a rationale for some of their actions, but theory did not guide day-to-day
activities.
Research Question 3: Preparation for the
Transition Period
Research question 3 attempted to determine whether any programs, formal or
informal, prepared new principals for success during the transition in a turnaround
school. The results for this question paralleled the existing research. The experiences
of Principals A-J provided the following common insights into their preparation for the
principalship:
1. Programs did not specifically address the transition period. Although two
principals participated in district new principal programs, none of the participants had
learned about transitioning to the principalship in any of the programs in which they
had participated. The outcome was not out of the ordinary because there is only limited
research in the area.
2. School districts did not offer a formal orientation to the position. Unlike the
business world, where a new leader is often trained by a predecessor (Hargreaves,
2005), Principals A-J were placed without the benefit of a formal process for passing on
information needed to effectively lead the school.
3. Formal support programs for new principals were limited to certain dis-
tricts. As mentioned, only two of the principals had formal support programs, whereas
the others pieced together informal support networks. Although these principals were
successful, other studies on the experiences of new principals have determined that
146
these types of support programs played an important role in whether new principals
succeeded (Aiken, 2002; Elmore & Burney, 2000; Morford, 2002; Strong, et al., 2003).
4. Mentors provided the most valuable support. Principals A-J were very
positive about their mentors, both formal and informal. As seen in other studies regard-
ing new principals, help from a mentor was very valuable (Aiken, 2002; Strong et al.,
2003)
5. University programs had mixed reviews. Not surprisingly, university prepa-
ration programs for educational administrators received both criticism and praise from
the participants in this study. These mixed responses were no different than the
thoughts on university programs already documented in the literature (D. C. Clark &
S. N. Clark, 1996; Hale & Moorman, 2003; Murphy, 2001; Pounder et al., 2002;
Tirozzi, 2001; Usdan et al., 2000). Also, the fact that none of the principals gave a
dramatically different account of his/her preparation experience aligned with the find-
ings of Hess and Kelly (2005), who found that educational leadership programs across
the United States tended to be very similar.
Conclusions
The data collected during the course of this study were utilized to examine the
transition period for the 10 new principals at Middle Schools A-J. The process pro-
vided new information in the field of education, as well as reinforced some existing
research in business and education. The socialization process for new principals has
been examined before in educational research. Studies by Aiken (2002), Cline and
147
Necochea (2000), Aiken (2002), and Normore (2003) have detailed some of the chal-
lenges that new principals face in the process of becoming socialized to the school
culture. None of these studies, however, considered the socialization process within the
first 90 days that this study indicated was very important for the principals involved.
The principals who participated in this study utilized many of the best practices
identified in the education and business literature, yet they had mostly forgotten the
theories and frameworks that provided rationale for these practices. In addition, it
seemed that participants had little opportunity to reinforce the lessons they had previ-
ously learned or the chance to tie their current practice back to theory. While this may
not have mattered to 10 successful new principals, it may be a need for a new principal
who was struggling. Although Principals A-I were currently successful, the literature
suggested that there is a need for ongoing learning to maintain that success (Bolman &
Deal, 200e; DuFour & Eaker, 1998; Fullan 2001; Reeves, 2006).
While all of the principals in this study seemed adequately prepared to take on
their positions, they seemed to rely heavily on personal experiences and initiative rather
than a formal preparation structure that provided them with the information and men-
toring they needed. They also lacked a plan for successfully dealing with the first 90
days in their position, as recommended in the business literature (Collins, 2001; Kotter,
1998; Watkins, 2003).
148
CHAPTER 5
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS OF

THE FINDINGS
Overview of the Problem
The standards-based accountability movement, conceptualized in 1983 with the
publication of A Nation at Risk (NCEE, 1983) and turned into law in 2002 through
NCLB, has changed the guiding philosophy of public education. Instead of ensuring
that all students are taught, public schools must now ensure that all students learn.
Within this context, the role of the school principal has also changed. In the past, prin-
cipals acted as facility managers, maintaining standard operating procedures and en-
forcing policies (Crow et al., 2002). As the educational system evolved, so did the role
of the principal; new responsibilities were added to the position without taking away the
old ones. Currently, the principal, among other responsibilities, is primarily the instruc-
tional leader of the school. His or her responsibilities are governed by standards that
have added a philosophical dimension to the position by mandating that principals have
a vision for education and understand constructs such as the political and economic
forces that drive public education (ISLLC, 1996; NAESP, 2004).
As the principal’s position has grown in complexity, so has the perception that
there is a shortage of qualified candidates for the position. Although there are actually
enough credentialed individuals to fill every school administrator position, many of the
teachers who hold these credentials choose not to move into administration (Roza,
149
2003). Research also indicates that many new principals leave the profession after only
a few years (Gates et al., 2003). Thus, while there may not be a shortage of credentialed
individuals, strong candidates who are willing to stay in the profession may be limited.
This problem is compounded when a district is looking to fill a position at a troubled or
turnaround school where the challenges of being a principal are compounded by the
problems of the school.
University programs for preparing administrators should help to relieve the
shortage of qualified candidates and high turnover among new principals, yet research
indicates this is not the case. Current practitioners generally consider university prepa-
ration programs to be inadequate, the main criticism being a lack of practical or real-
world learning (Hale & Moorman, 2003). There is also no indicator that university
programs address the period of transition to the principalship, although some studies in
education indicated that this period can be critical in terms of the new principal’s
eventual success (Aiken, 2002; Duncan & Seguin, 2002; Strong et al., 2003). This gap
in principal preparation programs likely stems from the lack of research on the transi-
tion period for new principals. To examine the transition period, or first 90 days, for
new principals, the following research questions were developed by a cohort of 10 doc-
toral candidates at the USC Rossier School of Education to guide this study:
1.Do principals in a turnaround situation find the transition period (first 90
days) to be important?
150
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
The purpose of this concurrent, mixed-methods study was to examine the
transition period for new principals by triangulating qualitative and quantitative data
obtained at turnaround middle school sites. Through interviews and surveys, the re-
searchers investigated the transition period or first 90 days from the perspective of the
new principal, his or her supervisor, and the school staff in order to expand the litera-
ture base and to provide direction for future research in this area of education.
Methodology
This study was developed through a thematic dissertation process in which a
group of graduate students jointly planned and conducted research to prepare a disserta-
tion in fulfillment of the requirement of the Doctor of Education program. The re-
searchers examined the experiences of successful new principals in turnaround middle
schools during the first 90 days of their principalship.
151
Population and Sample
To participate in the study the principals must have been identified as successful
by their supervisors, must have completed their 1 year as principal of a turnaround
st
middle school during the 2005-2006 school year, and must not have been promoted
from within the same school. The rationale for choosing a new principal who worked
in a turnaround school was that the turnaround school was a critical case; being that the
school was troubled, the effect of the principal’s actions could be seen more clearly
(McMillan & Schumacher, 2001).
Instrumentation
The instruments (appendix A) for this study were jointly developed by the re-
searchers in the cohort. The instruments included interview guides for the principal, the
principal’s supervisor, and four department chairs. The surveys were given to teaching
staff. The interview guides were developed to address the research questions from
multiple perspectives and through different questions. The majority of questions were
open-ended, but the participants were also asked to complete various charts during the
interview process. The surveys were structured similarly to the interview guides; they
included both open-ended questions requiring written answers and charts to complete.
The most significant difference between the interview and survey process was that
interview participants were able to provide rationale for their choices on the charts.
152
Data Collection
The researchers collected the data for the study at different middle schools in
southern California during the months of October and November of 2006. Interviews
were recorded and transcribed. Survey data were collected through the written re-
sponses of the participants. All data were collected anonymously; no identifying infor-
mation was required from the participants. The appropriate protocols for research using
human subjects were followed.
Data Analysis
The individual researchers analyzed the data for their schools to create case
studies for each school site. The data were then used to conduct a cross-case analysis.
The results from all 10 schools were examined to identify trends and differences.
During this process, quantitative data were analyzed to create simple statistical results
and entered into easy-to-understand formats. Qualitative data were examined holisti-
cally as a narrative and also coded to allow for comparisons between cases. This
process allowed findings for individual schools to be validated.
Research Question 1
Framework
The framework for research question 1 regarding, whether principals in a turn-
around school found the transition period to be important, was derived mainly from the
business literature, as the literature base in education only touches on the topic
indirectly, if at all. The concept of the transition period, or first 90 days, was taken
153
from the work of Watkins (2003). Watkins considered the first 90 days to be critical for
establishing oneself as a productive member of an organization. Other authors in the
business sector also addressed the importance of successfully transitioning into a new
leadership position, although they did not place as specific a time frame on the period as
Watkins (e.g., Collins, 2001; Dotlich et al., 2004; Kotter, 1998).
The education literature had only very limited information on the transition to
leadership positions and examined it mainly through the process of socialization. Cline
and Neocochea (2000) looked at possible outcomes of the socialization process for a
new principal. The goal of the study, however, was to document a sociological process
rather than to comment on its influence on the principal’s success. Normore (2003,
2004) addressed the transition period in terms of professional socialization. He identi-
fied stages in the process through which individuals pass to become a productive
member of an organization. In terms of the importance of the transition period, Nor-
more only suggested that a new leader who is a aware of the process will be better
prepared to negotiate it. Aiken’s (2002) study did more to address the importance of
the transition period by suggesting that how well a new principal navigates the social-
ization process may impact his or her overall success.
Research question 1 was posed to explore a gap in the education literature. The
purpose of the question was to determine whether the transition period for new princi-
pals was important enough from the perspective of principals, their supervisors, and
their teachers to merit further investigation. The question was addressed directly and
indirectly in all of the interviews and surveys conducted as part of this study.
154
Findings for Research Question 1
The data collected for research question 1 indicated that for the principals at
Middle Schools A-J, the transition period was important. This response came from the
principals themselves, as well as supervisors, department chairs, and teachers. This
outcome suggests areas for further research to be described later in this chapter.
Research Question 2
Framework
Research question 2 examined the strategies and conceptual frameworks that
were useful to new principals during the transition period. Unlike the previous ques-
tion, there was an abundance of information in the education literature on best practices
in educational leadership, although they are not exclusive to the transition period. This
study focused on authors and researchers who were well known and often referred to in
current educational thinking. The business literature provided an even larger base of
best practices in leadership and also specifically addressed the transition to a new
leadership role.
The work of Bolman and Deal (2003) and Marzano et al. (2005) from the edu-
cation literature provided the majority of the framework for investigating research
question 2. Bolman and Deal’s four leadership frames were utilized to determine how
new principals allotted their time and to classify actions principals took during their
first 90 days. The leadership frames were effective for this purpose because most of the
principals’ activities fell in to one of the four areas. It also allowed for easier com-
155
parisons among the 10 cases. Additionally, the researcher also relied on Marzano et
al.’s meta-analysis of various educational leadership studies as a guide for activities in
which the principals engaged during the first 90 days. Marzano et al. identified 21
actions or responsibilities that a principal could undertake to positively impact student
achievement. Participants in the study were asked to identify which of the 21 actions
the principal took during the first 90 days, as well as to identify the actions that they
should have taken based on the needs of the school. Although principals were also
asked directly about strategies and theories on which they relied during the transition
period, this did not prove to be an effective way to collect data for research question 2.
As previously mentioned, the researchers relied on Watkins’s (2003) ideas
about the first 90 days as a catalyst for this study. The researchers took another key idea
from Watkins: matching strategy to situation. Participants in the study were all asked
to identify the type of situation at the school when they took the position: turnaround,
start-up, realignment, or sustaining success. All of the schools in the study had to be
turnaround to allow for comparison of the strategies the principals used among the 10
different schools. Watkins also identified a number of other best practices for the
transition period, as did other business authors (Collins, 2001; Dotlich et al., 2004).
These concepts were not used to formulate questions used with the participants, but
they provided an additional lens through which to examine the data collected for re-
search question 2.
156
Findings for Research Question 2
The findings for research question 2 can be divided into two categories: ex-
pected and unexpected strategies. Among the expected outcomes were the idea that the
human resources frame was important and that the actions of the principal should match
the needs of the school. The importance of the human resources frame was already well
documented in the business and education literature. Authors repeatedly have ad-
dressed the need to build strong relationships and foster team environment (Bolman &
Deal, 2003; DuFour, 2004; Fullan, 2001, 2002a, 2002b; Kotter, 1998; Maxwell, 2005).
The participants in the study felt these human resources types of activities were impor-
tant and a way for new principals to establish credibility, thereby echoing existing
research. Authors have also documented the importance of matching one’s actions to
the circumstances (Collins, 2001; Goldberg, 2001; Kotter, 1998; Watkins, 2003). Not
surprisingly, this strategy worked well for the principals in this study; they successfully
met the expectations of staff and supervisors with most of their actions.
The unexpected results included that test or API scores were not used to define
success, schoolwide actions had the most impact, and theory was not significant for the
principals. The fact that none of the supervisors who participated in the study men-
tioned API scores as part of the reason they considered their principals successful was
unusual because of the importance of test scores in the standards-based accountability
movement. This suggests that the new principals’ work was considered in a wider
context. That schoolwide actions had the most impact in terms of establishing a new
principal’s credibility seems to contradict the outcome that the human resources frame
157
was important, yet when participants identified actions that were human resources
oriented, they were almost always framed in a schoolwide context. For example, they
felt that communications and team building were important. Lastly, it seemed strange
that the principals for the most part could not remember any specific theories that
guided them, considering that one of the criticisms of university preparation programs
is that they are too heavy in theory (Hale & Moorman, 2003; Murphy, 2001; Tirozzi,
2001; Usdan et al., 2000). This may, however, suggest that even with heavy exposure
to theory, principals are forgetting it by not using it as a framework for their actions.
Research Question 3
Framework
The framework for research question 3, regarding whether any programs pre-
pared the new principals for the transition period, came from the literature regarding
administrator preparation programs. The literature suggests that while some programs
may be effective or have positive aspects, the majority of the education community
finds university administrator preparation programs to be ineffective (Hale & Moor-
man, 2003; Murphy, 2001; Tirozzi, 2001; Usdan et al., 2000). Research indicates that
there is a need for effective principal preparation programs but that they need to go
beyond the more general aspects of educational administration and address site-specific
issues (Elmore & Burney, 2000; Morford, 2002; Strong et al., 2003). Hargreaves
(2005) found that new principals needed specific types of knowledge about their
158
schools to be successful. Other studies indicated that new principals with formal
mentors felt that it was an effective form of support (Duffrin, 2001; Strong et al., 2003).
The business literature did not address the question of preparation to the degree
it was addressed in the education literature. This gap is most likely due to private
industry only using university education as a springboard, with organizations providing
ongoing internal training. Successors are often groomed within the organization by the
person currently holding the position. This situation is very different from public edu-
cation, where new principals are often hired to redirect the school, particularly in a
turnaround situation (Hargreaves, 2005). What is applicable from the business litera-
ture, though, is the importance of a new leader having a plan for coping with the transi-
tion in order to be successful (Collins, 2001; Kotter, 1998; Watkins, 2003).
Data corresponding to this research question were collected only from the prin-
cipals and their supervisors, because it was unlikely that the staff had knowledge of the
principals’ preparation experiences. Principals were asked to provide information
regarding their backgrounds and to give their thoughts on programs that prepared them
for their current position. Supervisors were asked their thoughts on preparation pro-
grams as well.
Findings for Research Question 3
While the data for research question 3 did provide details regarding preparation
programs, none of the information was surprising. The short response for this research
question is that no programs, formal or informal, prepared the new principals at Middle
159
Schools A-J for success during the transition period. Overall, there was a genuine lack
of formal support of any kind for these new principals. None was given a formal ori-
entation to the position. Only a few had formal support programs in their district, and
only two had formally assigned mentors, despite this type of support being considered
most valuable, even by those who had sought out their own mentors. The principals in
the study relied on informal support systems and personal experience, rather than
looking back to university or other training. This reliance on informal networks oc-
curred even though many participants stated that there were some positive aspects to
university programs. This finding reinforced the outcome that university programs are
not addressing the needs of principals in the transition period.
Recommendations
Although the results of this study were not generalizable due to the small pop-
ulation of the study, the outcomes did provide indicators of how one could improve the
chances of success for a first-time principal in a turnaround school. Recommendations
are as follows:
1. University administrator preparation programs should address the concept
of the first 90 days, or the transition period. Despite the fact that there is only limited
research on the topic of the transition to the principalship, prospective administrators
would benefit from awareness of this career stage. Even introducing the small body of
research on the concept of socialization would provide new administrators with an
160
additional understanding of organizational culture to support their success (Aiken,
2002; Watkins, 2003).
2. School districts should provide formal orientations for new principals.
Providing formal orientations would free the new principals from some of the investi-
gating they are currently doing when they enter the position. It would allow them to use
the transition period to more efficiently establish themselves a contributing member of
the school (Watkins, 2003).
3. School districts should assist new principals in developing a 90-day plan.
Some of the new principals in this study had clear ideas of what they needed to do when
they took over their positions, yet they did not have a clear idea how to do it. Principal
J developed her own plan, but others did not. Although all of the principals were con-
sidered successful, if school districts supported them in the development of a transition
plan, as Watkins (2003) suggested, the principals could have become more productive
in less time.
4. School districts should provide formal mentors to new principals. The
value that the new principals in this study placed on mentors, formal and informal,
cannot be overemphasized. They attributed part of their success to having good men-
tors. Automatically assigning a formal mentor to new principals would provide them
the type of help that this study and other studies indicated was so important to new
principals (e.g., Strong et al., 2003).
5. New principals should have the opportunity to reinforce learning, particu-
larly in the area of theory, after they have taken the position. Education theory and
161
research-based practices are helpful to new principals, as could be seen with the 10
principals in this study. Although these principals were not able to name specific
theories or frameworks, they were engaged in a number of the best practices identified
by researchers. Ongoing opportunities to reinforce education theory would provide new
principals with another base of support to draw on and provide the continuous learning
needed for success in the current school environment (Deal & Peterson 1999; DuFour
& Eaker, 1998; Marzano et al., 2005; Reeves, 2006; Schein, 1992).
Suggestions for Further Research
Existing research indicates that there is a strong relationship between school
leadership and student achievement (Blasé & Blasé, 2004; Marzano et al., 2005). As
public and governmental demands for improved student outcomes increase, so will the
need for highly qualified new principals. Suggestions for further research are as fol-
lows:
1. Examine the first 90 days of the principalship in a wider context. To make
findings regarding the transition period for new principals more generalizable, the first
90 days should be studied in a wider context. The transition period for new principals
should be examined at all types of schools: sustaining success schools, realignment
schools, and new schools. This process would allow researchers to validate the impor-
tance of the transition period or determine whether it is more or less important, depend-
ing on the type of school.
162
2. Examine the relationship between the socialization process and the transi-
tion period. Stages of the socialization process occur simultaneously with the transition
period. Developing a stronger understanding of the socialization process for new ad-
ministrators and how it relates to the transition period, if at all, would help to better
prepare new principals to be effective.
3. Examine the impact of preparing new principals for the transition period.
The goal of this type of study would be to examine whether preparing new principals
for the transition period increases effectiveness. Preparation would include instruction
on the business literature, review of the limited education literature, and development of
a 90-day plan. While this would obviously benefit new leaders, the question would be
whether the impact was great enough to make a large-scale program worthwhile.
In conclusion, the most important suggestion that can be based on this study is
that there should be further research on the principalship. The time when one could rely
on anecdotal wisdom from veteran principals has passed. If teachers are expected to
use research-based instructional practices, the principals who lead them must follow
suit.
163
REFERENCES
Aiken, J. A. (2002). The socialization of new principals: Another perspective on
principal retention. Educational Leadership Review, 3(1), 32-40.
Berg, B. (2004). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences. Boston: Allyn
& Bacon.
Blasé, J., & Blasé, J. (2004). Handbook of instructional leadership: How successful
principals promote teaching and learning. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Bolman, L.G., & Deal, T. E. (2003). Reframing organizations. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Buch, K., & Wetzel, D. K. (2001). Analyzing and realigning organizational culture.
Leadership & Organization, 22(1), 40-43.
California Department of Education. (n.d.). Frequently asked questions: Principal
training program. Sacramento: Author. Retrieved June 6, 2006, from http://
www.cde.ca.gov/fg/fo/r12/ptp04faqs.asp
California Department of Education. (2006). Public Schools Accountability Act
(PSAA). Sacramento: Author. Retrieved June 7, 2006, from http://www.cde.ca
.gov/ta/ac/pa/
Cherniss, C. (2005, July). Social and emotional learning for leaders. Paper presented
at Association of California School Administrators (ACSA) Colloquium for New
and Aspiring Principals, Los Angeles, CA.
Clark, D. C., & Clark, S. N. (1996). Better preparation of educational leaders. Educa-
tional Researcher, 25(8), 18-20.
Cline, Z., & Necochea, J. (2000). Socialization paradox: a challenge for educational
leaders. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 3(2), 151-158.
Collins, J. (2000, June). Aligning actions and values (The Forum). Retrieved Au-
gust 1, 2006, from http://www.jimcollins.com/lib/articles.html#
Collins, J. (2001). Good to great: Why some companies make the leap . . . and others
don’t. New York: Harper Collins.
164
Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed meth-
ods approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Crow, G. M., Hausman, C. S., & Scribner-Paredes, J. (2002). Reshaping the role of the
school principal. In J. Murphy (Ed.), The educational leadership challenge:
Redefining leadership for the 21 century (pp. 189-210). Chicago: University of
st
Chicago Press.
Davis, S., Darling-Hammond, L., LaPointe, M., & Meyerson, D. (2003). School
leadership study: Developing successful principals. Stanford, CA: Stanford
Educational Leadership Institute.
Deal, T. E., & Peterson, K. D. (1999). Shaping school culture: The heart of leader-
ship. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Dotlich, D. L., Noel, J. L., & Walker, N. (2004). Leadership passages. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Duffrin, E. (2001). Intern at work: Chicago program helps leaders test-drive princi-
pal’s job. Journal of Staff Development, 22(1). Retrieved July 18, 2006, from
http://www.nsdc.org/library/publications/jsd/duffrin221.cfm
DuFour, R. (2004). Schools as learning communities. Educational Leadership, 61(8),
6-11.
DuFour, R., & Eaker, R. (1998). Professional learning communities at work: Best
practices for enhancing student achievement. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree.
Duncan, P. K., & Seguin, C. A. (2002). The perfect match: A case study of a first-year
woman principal. Journal of School Leadership, 12, 608-639.
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, 20 U.S.C. § 6301 et seq. Retrieved
June 7, 2006, from http://www.gpoaccess.gov/uscode/index.html
Elmore, R. F. (2005). Accountable leadership. The 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. Retrieved July 21, 2006, from http://www.lrdc.pitt.edu/hplc/
Publications/Leadership.pdf
Fullan, M. (2001). Leading in a culture of change. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
165
Fullan, M. (2002a, May). The change leader. Educational Leadership, 16- 20.
Fullan, M. (2002b, December). Leadership and sustainability. Principal Leadership,
3(40) 14-17.
Fullan, M. (2005). Turnaround leadership. The Educational Forum, 69, 174-181.
Gates, S. M., Ringel, J. S., Santibañez, L., Ross, K. E., & Chung, C.H. (2003). Who is
leading our schools?: An overview of school administrators and their careers.
Santa Monica, CA: Rand Education.
Goals 2000: Educate America Act of 1994, 20 USC 5811 and 5812. Retrieved June 7,
2006 from http://www.ed.gov/legislation/GOALS2000/TheAct/index.html
Goldberg, M. F. (2001). Leadership in education: five commonalities. Phi Delta
Kappan, 82, 757-761.
Goldring, E., & Greenfield, W. (2002). Understanding the evolving concept of leader-
ship in education: Roles, expectations, and dilemmas. In J. Murphy (Ed.), The ed-
ucational leadership challenge: Redefining leadership for the 21 century (pp. 1-
st
19). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
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 Educa-
tional Administration and History, 37(1), 1-17.
Greenleaf Center for Servant-Leadership. (2002). What is Servant Leadership? West-
field, IN: Robert K. Greenleaf Center for Servant-Leadership. Retrieved June 15,
2006, from http://www.greenleaf.org
Hale, E. L., & Moorman, H. N. (2003). Preparing school principals: A national per-
spective on policy and program innovations. Washington, DC: Institute for Edu-
cational Leadership.
Hargreaves, A. (2005). Leadership succession. The Educational Forum, 69, 163-173.
Hentschke, G. C., & Wohlstetter, P. (2004, Summer). Cracking the code of account-
ability. UrbanEd, n.v., 17-19.
Hess, F. M., & Kelly, A. P. (2005, Summer). The accidental principal: What doesn’t
get taught at ed schools. Education Next, 35-40.
166
Improving America’s Schools Act of 1994, 20 U.S.C. § 6301 et seq. Retrieved June 7,
2006, from http://www.gpoaccess.gov/uscode/index.html
Interstate School Leader Licensure Consortium. (1996). Standards for school leaders.
Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers.
Kotter, J. P. (1998). Winning at change. Leader to Leader, 10, 27-33. Retrieved
June 6, 2006, from http://www.pfdf.org/leaderbooks/L2L/fall98/kotter.html
Kotter, J. P. (2003). The power of feelings. Leader to Leader, 27, 25-31.
Leadership Academy and Urban Network for Chicago. (2005). LAUNCH—Leadership
Academy and Urban Network for Chicago. Chicago: Chicago Leadership Acade-
mies for Supporting Success. Retrieved June 7, 2006, from http://www
.classacademies.org/new_pages/programs/launch/launch_home.htm
Lugg, C.A., Buckley, K., Firestone, W.A., & Garner, C. W. (2002). The contextual
terrain facing educational leaders. In J. Murphy (Ed.), The educational leadership
challenge: Redefining leadership for the 21 century (pp. 20-41). Chicago:
st
University of Chicago Press.
Mallak, L. (2001). Understanding and changing your organization’s culture. Indus-
trial Management, 43(2), 18-24.
Marzano, R. J. (2003). What works in schools: Translating research into action. Al-
exandria, VA: Association for Supervision & Curriculum Development.
Marzano, R. J., Pickering, D. J., & Pollock, J. E. (2001). Classroom instruction that
works: Research-based strategies for increasing student achievement. Alexan-
dria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
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, TN: Thomas Nelson.
McMillan, J. H., & Schumacher, S. (2001). Research in education: A conceptual
framework. New York: Longman.
167
Morford, L. M. (2002, April). Learning the ropes or being hung: Organizational
socialization influences on new rural high school principals. Paper presented at
the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New
Orleans, LA.
Murphy, J. (2001, November). The changing face of leadership preparation. The
School Administrator Web Edition, n.v. Retrieved June 7, 2006, from http://
www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0JSD/is_10_58/ai_79628946
National Association of Elementary School Principals. (2002). Leading learning com-
munities: Standards for what principals should know and be able to do. Alexan-
dria, VA: Author.
National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The im-
perative for educational reform. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
National Institute for School Leadership. (2005). The NISL program. Washington,
DC: Author. Retrieved June 7, 2006, from http://www.ncee.org/nisl/program/
index.jsp?setProtocol=true
The New Teacher Center. (n.d.). Professional development for school leaders. Santa
Cruz: Author. Retrieved June 7, 2006, from http://www.newteachercenter.org/
sld_leaders.php#nap

No Child Left Behind Act, 20 U.S.C. Sections 6301 et seq. U.S.C. (2002). Retrieved
June 7, 2006, from http://www.gpoaccess.gov/uscode/index.html
Normore, A. H. (2003, January). Professional and organizational socialization pro-
cesses of school administrators: A literature review. Paper presented at the Ha-
waii International Conference on Education, Honolulu, HI.
Normore, A. H. (2004). Socializing school administrators to meet leadership chal-
lenges that doom all but the most heroic and talented leaders to failure. Interna-
tional Journal of Leadership in Education, 7(2) 107-125.
Northouse, P. G. (2004). Leadership: Theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
O’Connor, E. J., & Fiol, C. M. (2006). Creating organizational support for change.
Physician Executive, 32(3), 76-79.
O’Day, J. A. (2002). Complexity, accountability, and school improvement. Harvard
Educational Review, 72, 293-329.
168
Pierce, M. (2000, September/October). Portrait of the “super principal.” Harvard Ed-
ucation Letter, n.v. Retrieved June 7, 2006, from http://www.edletter.org/past/
issues/2000-so/principal.shtml
Pounder, D., Reitzug, U., & Young, M. Y. (2002). Preparing school leaders for school
improvement, social justice, and community. In J. Murphy (Ed.), The educational
leadership challenge: Redefining leadership for the 21 century (pp. 261-288).
st
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Reeves, D. B. (2006). The learning leader. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervi-
sion and Curriculum Development.
Roza, M. (2003). A matter of definition: Is there truly a shortage of school principals?
Seattle, WA: Center for Reinventing Public Education.
Sackney, L., & Mitchell, C. (2002). Postmodern expressions of educational leadership.
In K. Leithwood & P. Hallinger (Eds.), Second international handbook of educa-
tional leadership and administration (pp. 881-913). London: Kluwer Academic.
Schein, E. (1992). Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco: Jossey
Bass.
Schulte, D. P., & Schulte, L. (2002). A test-driven accountability system in Texas:
principals’ voices. International Electronic Journal for Leadership in Learning,
6(7). Retrieved June 7, 2006, from http://www.ucalgary.ca/~iejll
Smith, M. E. (2004). Today’s business environment. Supervision, 65(9), 12-13.
Strong, M., Barrett, A., & Bloom, G. (2003, April). Supporting the new principal:
Managerial and instructional leadership in a principal induction program. Paper
presented at the annual conference of the American Educational Research Associa-
tion, Chicago, IL.
Tirozzi, G. N. (2001). The artistry of leadership: The evolving role of the secondary
school principal. Phi Delta Kappan, 82, 434.
Usdan, M., McCloud, B., & Podmostko, M. (2000). Leadership for student learning:
Reinventing the principalship. Washington, DC: Institute of Educational Leader-
ship.
Watkins, M. (2003). The first 90 days. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
169
Williamson, R. D., & Hudson, M. B. (2001, April). New rules for the game: How
women leaders resist socialization to old norms. Paper presented at the annual
conference of the American Educational Research Association Seattle, WA.
Prepared by USC Rossier School of Education dissertation study cohort, 2006.
1
170
APPENDIX A
INSTRUMENTS
TEACHER INTERVIEW
1
1.Circle the category in which you would place the school when the principal
attained the position.
Start-up
Stakeholders had the opportunity to es-
tablish a brand new school.
Realignment
Most stakeholders were unaware that the
school was drifting into trouble and
needed to be changed.
Turnaround
Most stakeholders were aware the school
needed improvement or change.
Sustaining success
Stakeholders take responsibility for pre-
serving vitality and taking the school 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.
171
4.What three important actions helped the principal make the biggest positive
gains in the first 90 days (or first semester)?
5.At what point did the principal establish credibility with you?
6.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 focus on goals, strategy
and objectives
•Focus on hierarchy, authority, rules, and
policies
•Specific employee division of labor
based on knowledge/skills
•Standardizing systems to ensure predict-
ability and uniformity
•Holding regular staff meetings
•Incorporating information technology as
a means of communication
HUMAN RESOURCE ACTIVITIES
•Integral part of employee selection pro-
cess
•Hiring/keeping the right people
•Promoting from within
•Investing in relevant professional devel-
opment
•Empowering through information and
support
•Encouraging autonomy and participation
•Sharing the wealth
•Genuinely understanding employee needs
Actual:Should:Actual:Should:
172
POLITICAL ACTIVITIES
•Agenda Setting—Working on plans to
achieve your goals for the school
•Mapping the Political Terrain—Identi-
fying agents of influence, identifying
informal lines of communication
•Networking & Building Coalitions—
identifying important existing relation-
ships 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 vi-
sion
•Identifying and understanding important
school symbols
Actual:Should:Actual:Should:
7.Using the following the following chart:
A.Which of these behaviors did the principal engage in most frequently
during the first 90 days (or first semester)? (Choose 7 in column A)
B.Which of these behaviors do you think are most important for a successful
principal in your school? (Choose 7 in column B)
Characteristic/
Behavior The extent to which the principal . . . A B
CultureFosters shared beliefs and a sense of community and
cooperation
OrderEstablishes a set of standard operating procedures and
routines
DisciplineProtects teachers from issues and influences that
would detract from their teaching time or focus
ResourcesProvides teaches with the material and professional
development necessary for the successful execution of
their jobs
Curriculum, Instruction, &
Assessment
Is directly involved in the design and implementation
of curriculum, instruction
FocusEstablishes clear goals and keeps those goals in the
forefront of the school’s attention
Knowledge of Curriculum,
Instruction, & Assessment
Is knowledgeable about current curriculum, instruc-
tion, and assessment practices
173
VisibilityHas quality contact and interactions with teachers and
students
Contingent RewardsRecognizes and rewards individual accomplishments
CommunicationEstablishes strong lines of communication with teach-
ers and among students
OutreachIs an advocate and spokesperson for the school to all
stakeholders
InputInvolves teachers in the design and implementation of
important decisions and policies
AffirmationRecognizes and celebrates school accomplishments
and acknowledges failures
RelationshipDemonstrates an awareness of the personal aspects of
teachers and staff
Change AgentIs willing to and actively challenges the status quo
OptimizerInspires and leaders new and challenging innovations
Ideals/BeliefsCommunicates and operates from strong ideals and
beliefs about schooling
Monitors/EvaluatesMonitors the effectiveness of school practices and
their impact on student learning
FlexibilityAdapts his or her leadership behavior to the needs of
the current situation and is comfortable with dissent
Situational AwarenessIs aware of the details and undercurrents in the running
of the school and uses the information to address cur-
rent and political problems
Intellectual StimulationEnsures that faculty and staff are aware of the most
current theories and practices and makes the discus-
sion of these a regular aspect of the school’s culture
Prepared by the USC Rossier School of Education dissertation study cohort,
1
2006.
174
IMMEDIATE SUPERVISOR INTERVIEW
1
1.What makes you define this principal as successful?
2.STRS Chart—In which category would you place the school when the princi-
pal attained the position?
What evidence did you have to support this categorization?
3.What three important actions helped the principal make the biggest positive
gains?
4.Characteristics and Behaviors Chart
A.Which of these behaviors did the principal engage in most frequently during
the first 90 days? (Choose 7)
B.Which of these behaviors do you think are most important for a successful
principal in a turnaround school? (Choose 7)
5.How significant were the first 90 days for this principal?
6.What types of support did the district provide to the principal for the first 90
days?
7.How do you think university programs prepare administrators for the
principalship?
175
STRS Chart
Start-up
Stakeholders had the opportunity to es-
tablish a brand new school.
Realignment
Most stakeholders were unaware that the
school was drifting into trouble and
needed to be changed.
Turnaround
Most stakeholders were aware the school
needed improvement or change.
Sustaining success
Stakeholders take responsibility for pre-
serving vitality and taking the school to
the next level.
176
Supervisor’s Four Frames Chart
A.Which of these behaviors did the principal engage in most frequently during the
first 90 days? (Choose 7 in Column A)
B.Which of these behaviors do you think are most important for a principal in a
turnaround school? (Choose 7 in Column B)
Characteristic/
Behavior The extent to which the principal . . . A B
CultureFosters shared beliefs and a sense of community and
cooperation
OrderEstablishes a set of standard operating procedures and
routines
DisciplineProtects teachers from issues and influences that would
detract from their teaching time or focus
ResourcesProvides teaches with the material and professional de-
velopment necessary for the successful execution of their
jobs
Curriculum, Instruction, &
Assessment
Is directly involved in the design and implementation of
curriculum, instruction
FocusEstablishes clear goals and keeps those goals in the fore-
front of the school’s attention
Knowledge of Curriculum,
Instruction, & Assessment
Is knowledgeable about current curriculum, instruction,
and assessment practices
VisibilityHas quality contact and interactions with teachers and
students
Contingent RewardsRecognizes and rewards individual accomplishments
CommunicationEstablishes strong lines of communication with teachers
and among students
OutreachIs an advocate and spokesperson for the school to all
stakeholders
InputInvolves teachers in the design and implementation of
important decisions and policies
AffirmationRecognizes and celebrates school accomplishments and
acknowledges failures
RelationshipDemonstrates an awareness of the personal aspects of
teachers and staff
177
Change AgentIs willing to and actively challenges the status quo
OptimizerInspires and leaders new and challenging innovations
Ideals/BeliefsCommunicates and operates from strong ideals and be-
liefs about schooling
Monitors/EvaluatesMonitors the effectiveness of school practices and their
impact on student learning
FlexibilityAdapts his or her leadership behavior to the needs of the
current situation and is comfortable with dissent
Situational AwarenessIs aware of the details and undercurrents in the running
of the school and uses the information to address current
and political problems
Intellectual StimulationEnsures that faculty and staff are aware of the most cur-
rent theories and practices and makes the discussion of
these a regular aspect of the school’s culture
Prepared by the USC Rossier School of Education dissertation study cohort,
1
2006.
178
PRINCIPAL INTERVIEW
1
1.What was your pathway to the principalship?
•What is your major?
•How many years have you been in the field of education?
•How long did you teach?
•At what levels?
•What subjects?
•What leadership roles or positions have you held previously in schools?
•How many years have you been in your current district?
2.STRS Chart—In which category would you place your school when you attained
your principalship?
•What evidence did you have to support this categorization?
•Who provided you with information about your school?
3.Principal's Four Frames Chart
•Indicate what percentage of your time during the first 90 days of your principalship
was spent in the following areas.
•Indicate what percentage of your time during the first 90 days should have been spent
in each area.
4.Characteristics and Behaviors Chart
•Which of these activities did you engage in most frequently 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?
179
•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?
180
STRS Chart
Start-up
Stakeholders had the opportunity to es-
tablish a brand new school.
Realignment
Most stakeholders were unaware that the
school was drifting into trouble and
needed to be changed.
Turnaround
Most stakeholders were aware the school
needed improvement or change.
Sustaining success
Stakeholders take responsibility for pre-
serving vitality and taking the school to
the next level.
181
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.Indicate what percentage of your time during the first 90 days should have been spent
in each area.
STRUCTURAL ACTIVITIES
•Clear focus on focus on goals, strategy
and objectives
•Focus on hierarchy, authority, rules and
policies
•Specific employee division of labor
based on knowledge/skills
•Standardizing systems to ensure predict-
ability and uniformity
•Holding regular staff meetings
•Incorporating information technology as
a means of communication
HUMAN RESOURCE ACTIVITIES
•Integral part of employee selection pro-
cess
•Hiring/keeping the right people
•Promoting from within
•Investing in relevant professional devel-
opment
•Empowering through information and
support
•Encouraging autonomy and participation
•Sharing the wealth
•Genuinely understanding 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 relation-
ships 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 vi-
sion
•Identifying and understanding important
school symbols
Actual:Should:Actual:Should:
182
Principal’s Characteristics and Behaviors Chart
Characteristic/ The extent to which the principal . . . A
CultureFosters shared beliefs and a sense of community and coopera-
tion
OrderEstablishes a set of standard operating procedures and rou-
tines
DisciplineProtects teachers from issues and influences that would de-
tract from their teaching time or focus
ResourcesProvides teaches with the material and professional develop-
ment necessary for the successful execution of their jobs
Curriculum, Instruction, &
Assessment
Is directly involved in the design and implementation of cur-
riculum, instruction
FocusEstablishes clear goals and keeps those goals in the forefront
of the school’s attention
Knowledge of Curriculum,
Instruction, & Assessment
Is knowledgeable about current curriculum, instruction, and
assessment practices
VisibilityHas quality contact and interactions with teachers and stu-
dents
Contingent RewardsRecognizes and rewards individual accomplishments
CommunicationEstablishes strong lines of communication with teachers and
among students
OutreachIs an advocate and spokesperson for the school to all stake-
holders
InputInvolves teachers in the design and implementation of impor-
tant decisions and policies
AffirmationRecognizes and celebrates school accomplishments and ac-
knowledges failures
RelationshipDemonstrates an awareness of the personal aspects of teach-
ers and staff
Change AgentIs willing to and actively challenges the status quo
OptimizerInspires and leaders new and challenging innovations
Ideals/BeliefsCommunicates and operates from strong ideals and beliefs
about schooling
183
Monitors/EvaluatesMonitors the effectiveness of school practices and their im-
pact on student learning
FlexibilityAdapts his or her leadership behavior to the needs of the cur-
rent situation and is comfortable with dissent
Situational AwarenessIs aware of the details and undercurrents in the running of the
school and uses the information to address current and politi-
cal problems
Intellectual StimulationEnsures that faculty and staff are aware of the most current
theories and practices and makes the discussion of these a
regular aspect of the school’s culture
184
APPENDIX B
DISAGGREGATED DATA REGARDING PRINCIPALS AND 21
CHARACTERISTICS OF MARZANO ET AL. (2005)—
TABLES B1-B7
Table B1
School Principals A-I and What They Did in Relation to 21 Characteristics
CharacteristicABCDEFGHITotal
Culturexxxxx5
Orderxxx3
Disciplinexx2
Resourcesxxxxxx6
Design of curriculum, instruction, and
assessmentxx2
Focus x x x x x 5
Knowledge of curriculum, instruction, and
assessmentxxx3
Visibilityxxxxxx6
Contingent rewards0
Communicationxxxxxx6
Outreachx1
Inputxx2
Affirmationxx2
Relationshipxxx3
Change agentxxxx4
Optimizer0
Ideals/beliefsxxxx4
Monitor/evaluatorxx2
Flexibilityx1
Situational awarenessxxxx4
Intellectual stimulationx1
Note. Based on School Leadership That Works: From Research to Results, by R. J. Marzano,
T. Waters, and B. A. McNulty, 2005, Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Cur-
riculum Development.
185
Table B2
Immediate Supervisors of School Principals A-I and What Principals Did in Relation to
21 Characteristics
CharacteristicABCDEFGHITotal
Culture x x x x x x x 7
Order x x x x x5
Disciplinexxx3
Resourcesx1
Design of curriculum, instruction, and
assessmentxxxx4
Focus x x x x x x x 7
Knowledge of curriculum, instruction, and
assessment0
Visibilityxxxxx5
Contingent rewardsx1
Communicationxx2
Outreachxx2
Inputxx2
Affirmationxx2
Relationshipxxx3
Change agentxxx3
Optimizerxxxx4
Ideals/beliefsxxxx4
Monitor/evaluatorxx2
Flexibilityx1
Situational awareness0
Intellectual stimulationx1
Note. Based on School Leadership That Works: From Research to Results, by R. J.
Marzano, T. Waters, and B. A. McNulty, 2005, Alexandria, VA: Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development.
186
Table B3
Supervisors’ Schools A-I: What Principals Should Have Done in Relation to 21
Characteristics
CharacteristicABCDEFGHITotal
Culture x x x x x x x x 8
Order x x xx x5
Disciplinexxx3
Resourcesxxx3
Design of curriculum, instruction, and
assessmentxxxxx5
Focus x x x x x 5
Knowledge of curriculum, instruction, and
assessmentxxx3
Visibilityxx2
Contingent rewards0
Communicationxxx3
Outreachxxx3
Inputxxx3
Affirmationx1
Relationshipxxx3
Change agentxxx3
Optimizerxx2
Ideals/beliefsxxx3
Monitor/evaluatorxxxxxx6
Flexibilityx1
Situational awarenessx1
Intellectual stimulation0
Note. Based on School Leadership That Works: From Research to Results, by R. J.
Marzano, T. Waters, and B. A. McNulty, 2005, Alexandria, VA: Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development.
187
Table B4
Department Chairs’ Schools A-I: What Principals Did in Relation to 21 Characteris-
tics
CharacteristicABCDEFGHITotal
Culture 0 1 2 0 1 1 2 4 213
Order 2 1 1 3 2 2 3 0 115
Discipline20104011011
Resources 2 201 231 2 215
Design of curriculum, instruction, and
assessment 2 2 0 2 0 3 1 1 213
Focus 1 1 2 2 0 3 4 2 318
Knowledge of curriculum, instruction, and
assessment 4 2 0 1 3 0 1 1 113
Visibility44413233125
Contingent rewards0300100116
Communication11414124119
Outreach 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 2 6
Input 1 3 1 2 0 1 1 4 114
Affirmation11120121 110
Relationship0130110208
Change agent0211100027
Optimizer 1 1 2 1 1 0 0 1 1 8
Ideals/beliefs21130110211
Monitor/evaluator21320222 014
Flexibility11123322217
Situational awareness1012010027
Intellectual stimulation2215
Note. Based on School Leadership That Works: From Research to Results, by R. J.
Marzano, T. Waters, and B. A. McNulty, 2005, Alexandria, VA: Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development.
188
Table B5
Department Chairs’ Schools A-I: What Principals Should Have Done in Relation to 21
Characteristics
CharacteristicABCDEFGHITotal
Culture 3 3 1 2 2 2 1 3 219
Order 2 1 0 1 4 1 1 1 112
Discipline11034133218
Resources 1 201 202 2 111
Design of curriculum, instruction, and
assessment 0 1 0 0 0 2 2 2 0 7
Focus 2 3 2 1 1 3 3 0 318
Knowledge of curriculum, instruction, and
assessment 0 1 0 0 0 2 2 2 0 7
Visibility33443233126
Contingent rewards2201000117
Communication42443313125
Outreach 1 1 2 1 0 1 1 0 2 9
Input 2 2 1 1 0 1 2 1 212
Affirmation0012000025
Relationship21223101012
Change agent12111201211
Optimizer 0 0 3 0 0 1 1 1 1 7
Ideals/beliefs3111020008
Monitor/evaluator00320322214
Flexibility22123222117
Situational awareness0010001013
Intellectual stimulation0000012025
Note. Based on School Leadership That Works: From Research to Results, by R. J.
Marzano, T. Waters, and B. A. McNulty, 2005, Alexandria, VA: Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development.
189
Table B6
Teachers’ Survey, Schools A-I: What Principals Did in Relation to 21 Characteristics
CharacteristicAB CDEFGHITotal
Culture 122 1646 195 26595
Order411088101220477
Discipline22434488338
Resources104646131119275
Design of curriculum, instruction, and
assessment 3 1 5 7 3 8 5 1 3 146
Focus65 18 116 14 19 14194
Knowledge of curriculum, instruction,
and assessment414751571 3460
Visibility4524471592 2393
Contingent rewards531032825038
Communication53175411121 5072
Outreach 4 2 11 1 2 8 2 1 5 853
Input2365276 16350
Affirmation64148241416371
Relationship11391516313263
Change agent44742365540
Optimizer 4 3 4 2 3 16 2 3 340
Ideals/beliefs518681627760
Monitor/evaluator22672121313259
Flexibility10756415417472
Situational awareness501136541 2349
Intellectual stimulation30264691 0444
Note. Based on School Leadership That Works: From Research to Results, by R. J.
Marzano, T. Waters, and B. A. McNulty, 2005, Alexandria, VA: Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development.
190
Table B7
Teachers’ Survey, Schools A-I: What Principals Should Have Done in Relation to 21
Characteristics
CharacteristicAB CDEFGHITotal
Culture 154 1458 193 21594
Order71104511820975
Discipline3491211161325598
Resources1141456141224696
Design of curriculum, instruction, and
assessment 6 0 6 1 7 13 3 1 0 450
Focus93 1554 14 14 19386
Knowledge of curriculum, instruction,
and assessment423151040332
Visibility1552312612161 43106
Contingent rewards41223638231
Communication1062112820122 17117
Outreach 7 1 10 1 3 2 3 6 225
Input55 11739 10 18169
Affirmation666523106347
Relationship10399411412869
Change agent324301745543
Optimizer 4 1 7 1 0 6 3 4 127
Ideals/beliefs50342915231
Monitor/evaluator13923141211358
Flexibility94125311713266
Situational awareness518651271 2258
Intellectual stimulation30264691 0444
Note. Based on School Leadership That Works: From Research to Results, by R. J.
Marzano, T. Waters, and B. A. McNulty, 2005, Alexandria, VA: Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Abstract (if available)

Abstract The purpose of this study was to examine the transition period of the first 90 days for new principals in turnaround middle schools. The following research questions were developed to guide the study: 1. Do principals in a turnaround situation find the transition period (first 90 days) to be important? 2. What strategies and conceptual frameworks (leadership theories) were useful to new principals during the transition period (first 90 days) in a turnaround school? 3. Did 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 new middle school principal

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

The first 90 days: securing early success in the superintendency

PDF

Principal leadership practice: the achieving principal coaching initiative

PDF

Building leadership capacity to support principal succession

PDF

Preparing leaders for the challenges of the urban school

PDF

Building capacity for leadership in urban schools

PDF

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

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

Managing leadership transitions in an international school context

PDF

The leadership gap: preparing leaders for urban schools

PDF

Influences on principals' leadership practice

PDF

An exploration of principal self-efficacy beliefs about transformational leadership behaviors

PDF

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

PDF

Resource allocation and educational adequacy: case studies of school-level resource use in southern California with budget reductions

Asset Metadata

Creator Landesfeind, Vanessa (author)

Core Title The first 90 days of the principalship in a turnaround school

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 04/04/2007

Defense Date 03/16/2007

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

Tag education leadership,new principal,OAI-PMH Harvest,turnaround school

Language English

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

Creator Email vlandesfeind@verizon.net

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m347

Unique identifier UC1185014

Identifier etd-Landesfeind-20070404 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-324615 (legacy record id),usctheses-m347 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-Landesfeind-20070404.pdf

Dmrecord 324615

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Landesfeind, Vanessa

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