Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
California urban superintendents and their selection criteria for secondary school principals
(USC Thesis Other)
California urban superintendents and their selection criteria for secondary school principals
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
CALIFORNIA URBAN SUPERINTENDENTS AND THEIR SELECTION
CRITERIA FOR SECONDARY SCHOOL PRINCIPALS
by
Fal Asrani
_________________________________________________________________
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
May 2010
Copyright 2010 Fal Asrani
ii
DEDICATION
My heartfelt gratitude and love to my husband and my two wonderful
children, who made all kinds of adjustments for me so that I would complete this
journey.
There were four special ladies at play behind the scenes whose support and
belief kept me moving without a stumble;
My mother, Maya, a generous and soft soul who always hoped that I would
earn a doctorate; ma, your fighting spirit kept me focused.
My mother-in-law, Pushpa, the kindest and most beautiful lady, who held the
“fort” so that I could fulfill my dream within the set timeline; Mom, I couldn’t have
done this without you.
My sisters, Didi and Molly, who gave me the mental strength to persevere,
even in the face of immense adversity.
To all of you in my family, I dedicate this to you.
iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
My heartfelt gratitude to Dr. Rudy Castruita, for his guidance and support in
this process and for keeping me on track; I also thank him for being a true mentor to
me during a time when I needed a friend and a guide. Dr. Castruita, your kindness
and support will stay with me forever.
My sincere thanks to Superintendent Donald Gill, who shared his Trojan
spirit with me and cheered me on; Dr. Gill, your reaffirmation and belief in who I am
will never be forgotten.
I acknowledge several superintendents; Mr. Garcia, Dr. Cash, Dr. Kessler,
Dr. Werner, and Mr. Negri, for sharing your knowledge. Each of you gave of your
time so generously and being in your presence was truly an inspiring experience.
I acknowledge several faculty members from USC for their teachings in this
program with special thanks to Dr. Maggie Chidester for all her advice and support. I
also thank my dissertation committee, Dr. Pedro Garcia and Dr. Jeffrey Hubbard, for
their time and involvement.
And finally, my congratulations to members of my cohort for completing this
journey;
Fight On!!!
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Dedication……………………………………………………………………….. ...ii
Acknowledgments………………………………………………………………. ...iii
List of Tables…………………………………………………………………….. ...v
List of Figures………………………………………………………………….. ...vii
Abstract………………………………………………………………………... ...viii
Chapter One: Overview of the Study…………………………………………. ...1
Chapter Two: Review of Related Literature…………………………………....23
Chapter Three: Methodology………………………………………………….....70
Chapter Four: Analysis of Data……………………………………………… ...82
Chapter Five: Conclusions, and Implications of the Findings For…………. ...158
Future Research
Glossary……………………………………………………………………….. ...182
References……………………………………………………………………......183
Appendices
Appendix A: Superintendent Anonymous Survey Protocol………….. ...191
Appendix A.1: Questions Based On Research…………………………. ...195
Appendix B: Survey Participants……………………………………......198
Appendix B.1: Interview Participants………………………………….. ...199
Appendix C: Superintendent Interview Protocol……………………......200
Appendix D: Invitation To Participate Letter………………………… ...202
Appendix E: California Professional Standards For Education……… ...203
Leaders (CPSEL)
Appendix F: Total Statistics………………………………………….. ...204
v
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Demographic Data………………………………………………… ...85
Table 2: Student Enrollment Total and Percent of the Participating……….. ...85
Superintendents
Table 3: District API Total and Percent of the Participating……………….. ...86
Superintendents
Table 4: Total Years and Percent as Urban Superintendents……………….. ...86
Table 5: Total Years and Percent as Superintendent in their Current………. ...87
District
Table 6: Total Years and Percent of Working as Educator in their………… ...87
Current District
Table 7: Total Years Total and Percent in Public Education Including…….. ...88
Teaching
Table 8: Descriptive Statistics of the Measured Variables…………………. ...88
Table 9: Ranking of Background Responses……………………………….. ...89
Table 10: Ranking of Instruction Responses………………………………… ...90
Table 11: Ranking of Human Resources Responses…………………………....91
Table 12: Ranking of Management Responses………………………………. ...92
Table 13: Means for Subgroups with Male and Female Superintendents……....97
in Standard 1
Table 14: Means for Subgroups with Male and Female Superintendents……....98
in Standard 2
Table 15: Means for Subgroups with Male and Female Superintendents……....99
in Standard 3
vi
Table 16: Means for Subgroups with Male and Female Superintendents….. ...101
in Standard 4
Table 17: Means for Subgroups with Male and Female Superintendents….. ...102
in Standard 5
Table 18: Means for Subgroups with Male and Female Superintendents….. ...103
in Standard 6
Table B-1: Survey Participants………………………………………………. ...197
Table B-2: Interview Participants……………………………………………. ...199
Table F-1: Case Processing Summary……………………………………….. ...204
Table F-2: Item-Total Statistics……………………………………………… ...205
vii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: The Breaking Ranks Model, 2001…………………………………... ...25
Figure 2: Effect Size of Leadership on Student Achievement (McREL Study).....37
Figure 3: Bolman and Deal; Reframing Organizations; 1997…………………. ...39
Figure 4: Characteristics of First and Second Order Changes. (MCREL study) ...44
Figure 5: Fullan’s Framework for Leadership, 2001…………………………... ...45
Figure 6: Victoria, Human Resources, Principal Selection……………………. ...61
Figure 7: Comparison of University Principal Preparation Program Course….. ...63
of Study
viii
ABSTRACT
With the increased accountability measures of the past decade, the similarity
between the tasks taken on by principals and superintendents continues to be
reinforced. The study by McPherson and Crowson (1993) of principals in the
Chicago schools found that Principals were “mini-superintendents” as their
responsibilities at the sites involved contending with budgets, board relations,
entrepreneurship, leadership expectations, school community politics, and staff
development, all of which are similar to tasks completed within the role of the
superintendent. In an effort to identify how California superintendents select their
secondary school principals and gain a deeper understanding of the skills and
trainings that superintendents’ view as critical when selecting their secondary
principals, this mixed method study was conducted across twenty-three urban public
school districts in California.
Effective secondary principal leadership is closely entwined with increasing
student achievement and attaining the goals set forth by the superintendent. Research
on secondary school reform supports that schools with high achievement and a
strong sense of community is one where the principal has made a difference.
However, due to a decline in suitable candidates for secondary principalship and a
corresponding increase in candidates who do not wish to take on this challenging
position, there is a shortage in qualified candidates for this position (Education
Research Service, 2000).
ix
Findings in this research study examines those qualities and skills that are
necessary for the 21
st
century secondary school principalship, as identified by
superintendents in California, and serve as recommendations to Principal Preparation
programs for future graduates who may successfully take on the challenges of the
21
st
century schools.
1
CHAPTER ONE
OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
President Obama, in his speech to the Latina Foundation in March 2009,
referred to the need for American high schools to match the preparation of their
counterparts in Japan and India. This comment by the President, closely reflected the
findings in The World is Flat (Friedman, 2005), wherein the author alludes to the
lack of preparation of American public school students to operate in the current
global economy. Our secondary school preparation standards, as measured by
graduation rates and college admissions rates, continue to be debated and measured
and federal and state legislations have been making ongoing efforts for
improvements to public education for decades. The growing urgency to find
successful strategies that enable low-performing secondary schools to create positive
learning environments, has been supported by a growing body of research that places
student learning and the quality of instruction at the heart of secondary school reform
(Lachat, 2001).
The reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA,
1995), added the further responsibility of standards-based accountability to the job of
the superintendent and the principals. The latest comprehensive Federal Legislation,
No Child Left Behind (NCLB) of 2001, serves as a checkpoint for student
achievement within our public schools, with an accountability system that holds
Superintendents and Principals responsible for annual, measurable, student
2
improvement (Farkas et al., 2001). The past decade has seen significant activity in all
areas of public education, and “the concept of standards-based reform represents a
fundamental shift between policy and institutional practice” Elmore (2000, p. 5).
The current emphasis on accountability has added to the ongoing research in
the field, specifically addressing factors around effective Schools. In the past,
numerous studies of high-performing high-poverty schools have pointed to important
building-level factors that must be in place in order for all children to achieve at high
levels. Summary of research on effective schools from the 1970s and early 1980s
discusses the eight recurring attributes: a clear school mission; effective instructional
leadership and practices; high expectations; a safe, orderly, and positive
environment; ongoing curriculum improvement; maximum use of instructional time;
frequent monitoring of student progress; and positive home-school relationships
(Hoffman, 1991).
So how public is public education? The results of the state test scores have
become a source of data that determines the quality of the neighborhood and have
even been used by real estate agents as an advertising tool for high-end communities.
Parents too exercise their rights to question the spending of their tax dollars by
demanding school vouchers and supporting the charter school movement as a
response to poor quality schools in their neighborhoods. Chubb and Moe (1989)
concurred that parental choice is a positive move towards school improvement as it
holds schools and districts accountable for student learning. In this standards-based
system, identifying the leadership needed to guide and improve instruction becomes
3
a challenge at all levels. Principals and superintendents are now expected to fix all
the problems faced in the urban school districts responsible for providing PreK-16
education. These leaders are required to possess the skills and training that allows
them to balance community pressures, staff support, and instructional improvement,
with various levels of accountability (Elmore 2000).
In recent years, we have seen a revival of school reform research, targeting
teacher leadership and principal leadership, most likely due to widespread national
concerns about student achievement gaps, thereby creating a need for both secondary
principals and superintendents to evolve as instructional leaders (Reeves, 2008).
Effective Schools research ideas for focused improvements in classroom pedagogy,
teacher training, assessment tools, and principal leadership within the school house is
now measured by the Accountability Report card under NCLB. All public schools in
California conduct standardized tests annually, results of which determine the
individual school and district’s Academic Performance Index (API) score, which
then basically functions as the report card for the community and for schools.
Schools and districts that receive Title I funding, yet fail to reach their API/AYP
target growth, are identified as being under Program Improvement (PI) status, which
targets these schools for reform initiatives and reconstruction (NCLB, 2001). PI
status might ultimately lead to replacement of site principals and district
superintendents.
This heightened public accountability for student learning in the schools
requires school and district leaders to involve their stakeholders, visualize a
4
destination, engage in discussions related to a process for change, and get there in a
succinct and planned manner (McPherson & Crowson, 1993). This level of priority
is also based on the leader’s ability to serve as an instructional leader, creating strong
learning organizations with an emphasis on instructional leadership, a better balance
between accountability and authority and strong positive relationship between
themselves and their school Boards (Lashway, 2002). To strengthen the relationship
and accountability between superintendent and principal, discussions are underway
in Principal Leadership Academies that evolve around qualities and skills of
principals that effectively allow them to carry forward the vision of the
superintendent and the school board in creating schools that continue to contribute to
the culture of ongoing improvement.
Superintendents of public school districts face the pressures and demands of
the existing bureaucratic structure within the district and the School Board and the
political pressures from the community and the federal accountability mandates
associated with raising student scores. Due to high turnover of superintendents,
averaging about every three years (Hodgkinson & Montenegro, 1999), successful
reform efforts are dependent on specific and consistent commitment of time and
people (Desimoine, 2002). As the leader of school districts, Superintendents get
blamed for low performing schools and the problems that embrace a minority
neighborhood. Public Interest in the role of the superintendent in raising student
achievement has drawn attention to the districts that have successfully changed their
existing structures to create programs and supports that address the diverse learning
5
needs of all students. CRPE research titled An Impossible Job (Fuller et al., 2003)
comprised survey data from 100 superintendents from the nation’s largest urban and
semi-urban districts. One key finding on the role of the superintendent, defines this
individual as one who, due to crisis and external pressure from the stakeholders,
initiates changes that otherwise might have been impossible. In order to make these
improvements at school sites, the superintendent is dependent on well trained site
principals.
The current responsibility of the superintendent as an instructional leader has
evolved over time. The 21
st
century superintendent is a well educated and political
individual, responsible for quality decisions that effect school and district
performance, one of which involves successful assignment of principals who are
skilled in raising student performance (Byrd et al., 2006). In 1880, Charles Francis
Adams Jr., a Harvard- educated executive and grandson of President Adams, at a
meeting of the National Education Association, offered his perspectives on the future
of the Superintendency by describing three evolutionary stages of this position: first
as a building manager, second as an educational leader engaged in making changes
to education through the system of schooling and the process of learning; and lastly
he predicted what would be “the superintendent of the future”—an individual who
would use scientific methods to improve schooling and would be as specifically
qualified as doctor or an engineer. Adam’s prediction holds true for 21
st
century
superintendents, who are CEO’s of highly complex structures that include teachers,
unions, and parents, community organizations that include local businesses and
6
religious groups, local city politicians, and the school board. These individuals are
professionals prepared for “distinctly higher walks” (Blount, 1998).
Research on superintendent performance discuss the restrictions that impact
the office. Even though superintendents remain the ultimate person in charge, what
they can really achieve continues to remain vague in light of the restrictions placed
by federal and state mandates, parent and teacher groups, large number of charter
school organizations, and the standards-based accountability reforms that require that
one address how the job is done (Byrd et al., 2006). When schools fail to show
progress in meeting the achievement gap, the blame for this falls squarely on the
shoulders of the superintendent. Others may be faced with dire consequences such as
denial of school accreditation, state takeover, school closure, and political fallout
within the community (Duke, 2004). The education policies of a district are
developed by school boards, elected and appointed officials with limited knowledge
about the education system. They assign the superintendent the responsibility of
designing an evaluation system that fulfils the policy implementation. Chubb and
Moe (1990) have clarified that accountability is a key factor when creating an
evaluation design. Federal and state mandates too add an extra level of tension in
terms of the responsibilities of this office. Limiting the role of the school board and
increasing the authority of the superintendent and the schools, reorganizing the
secondary schools and the school district relationship, (Fuller et al., 2003) are some
suggested plans for increasing district wide changes leading to higher achievement.
Therefore, it is the superintendent who on behalf of the school board creates a
7
structure of accountability and is ultimately held responsible if the results are not
achieved (Fuller et al., 2003).
Thus the question remains as to how do superintendents engage in district
wide reform initiatives? To answer this question, Public Agenda Research group
(2007) identified that superintendents, as the district CEO, must engage in the careful
selection and placement of site leaders, matching the strengths of the candidate to the
needs of the position and then empowering them to make the changes at sites that
creates a professional learning community addressing student achievement (DuFour
et al., 2002) . When determining the factors that successfully usher in change
initiatives, it is critical to note that the hiring and placement of knowledgeable and
skilled leaders at school sites and a district-wide positive shift to curriculum are two
areas of focus for Superintendents (Glass & Bearman, 2003). Congress has also
made suggestions for school wide strategies related to curriculum, instruction,
organization, professional development, and parent involvement (Comprehensive
School Reform, 1997), requiring principals to focus on the quality of teachers and
outcomes of student learning.
In the 21
st
Century Schools of today, “Information and Communications
technologies are raising the bar on the competencies needed to succeed” (Literacy
Summit, 2002 p.4). Superintendents recognize that 21
st
century secondary principals
understand technological innovation and the nuances around globalization and are
capable of reassessing existing programs and introducing new initiatives that involve
digital age literacy, inventive thinking, effective communication, and high
8
productivity (NCREL, 2003). Successful secondary principals will be able to create a
school culture that prioritizes student learning and have deep knowledge and
experience of the change process. Superintendents identify candidates that confirm
that they can create a focused vision around the need for change, the understanding
of the organization, the process of change itself, and a clear definition of the
direction of the organization (Oakley & Drug, 1991). This school leader is an
individual who as a “Cultural Change Principal has learned the difference between
being an expert in a given content innovation and being an expert in managing the
process of change” Fullan (2002, p. 7).
21
ST
century secondary principal leaders operate as change agents to support
change within a school culture, and research in San Diego schools acknowledged
that systemic changes are dependent on faculty quality and accountability towards
improving student achievement (Darling-Hammond et al. 2005). Principals are
responsible for ensuring the proper hiring and placement of credentialed staff and
holding them responsible for student learning through effective evaluation of the
teaching and learning practices at the site. However, the “McAdams Report” (2003),
which surveyed the nations’ 120 largest school districts, concluded that
accountability practices across school districts required a closer look.
So what are the qualities of an effective change agent? Research continues to
maintain that quality of educational change is dependent on six common traits of
Leadership: Mendez-Morse (1992) identified these as: having a vision, believing that
schools are for learning, valuing human resources, being a skilled communicator and
9
listener, acting proactively, and taking risks; and Fullan (2001) identified five core
components of leaders as someone who has a moral purpose, and is capable of
understanding change, relationship building, knowledge creation and sharing and
coherence.
Over the past several decades the role of the secondary school principal has
gradually evolved and the 21
st
century principal is defined as: an Instructional
leader whose priority is to strengthen teaching and learning, professional
development, data-driven decision making and accountability at his site; a
Community leader who possesses a big-picture awareness of the school’s role in
society, the shared leadership practices among his staff, partnerships with the
community and parents that can draw resources to the schools programs, and the
relationship with their stakeholders that advocates for students and programs; and a
Visionary leader who demonstrates energy, commitment, entrepreneurial spirit,
values the conviction that all children will learn at high levels, and inspires others
with this vision both inside and outside the school building (Usdan et al., 2000) . The
responsibility of the superintendent requires that their selection and assignment of
secondary principals result in a culture that addresses the achievement gap within
student subgroups by focusing on instructional programs and quality teaching
(Lashway, 2002). Furthermore, the task of balancing the alternative tugs of external
political pressure from the community, the city mayor, the parent organizations, and
internal needs of students, staff and district office, demands that the secondary
candidate have the skills to be responsive to the various needs of his stakeholders,
10
which are, the skills of communication, political understanding, creating trust, and
providing educational leadership (Goodney, 2007).
Successful site leadership, is determined by successful practices which have
been researched several times. Research by the Southern Region Education Board
(SREB, 2001) identified three key practices of successful site leadership: (1)
Comprehensive understanding of classroom practices that contribute to student
achievement; (2) work with faculty and others to fashion and implement continuous
student improvement; (3) provide the necessary support for staff to carry out sound
school curriculum and instructional practices (Bottoms & O'Neill, 2001, p. 4). When
creating the criteria for hire, for a successful site leader, superintendents have
confirmed that there are five key areas: (1)Technical Leadership, which demonstrates
capacity to effectively optimize the school’s financial, physical and human resources
through sound management practices and organizational systems and processes that
contribute to the implementation of the school’s vision and goals. (2) Human
Leadership, which is the demonstrated ability to foster a safe, purposeful and
inclusive learning environment, and the capacity to develop constructive and
respectful relationships with staff, students, parents and other stakeholders. (3)
Educational Leadership which is demonstrated capacity to lead, manage and monitor
the school improvement process through a current and critical understanding of the
learning process and its implications for enhancing high quality teaching and
learning in every classroom in the school. (4) Symbolic Leadership which is
demonstrated capacity to model important values and behaviors to the school and
11
community, including a commitment to creating and sustaining effective
professional learning communities within the school, and across all levels of the
system. (5) Cultural Leadership which is an understanding of the characteristics of
Effective Schools and a demonstrated capacity to lead the school community in
promoting a vision of the future, underpinned by common purposes and values that
will secure the commitment and alignment of stakeholders to realize the potential of
all students (Victoria Human Resources, 2009).
Successful secondary principal selection requires a match between the
candidate and the school and this is usually demonstrated through knowledge and
skills related to areas associated with programs and the culture of the school.
Secondary principal selection criteria have gradually morphed to include key
practices associated with reform initiatives that drive changes in secondary schools.
These reform initiatives in California public schools include: initiatives to adopt and
implement policies and alternative pathways from high school to college, promoting
high achievement and high graduation rates by aligning high school graduation
standards with college entrance standards (JFF, 2007). Furthermore, introducing
Small Learning Communities (SLCs) and Pathway Programs, and understanding the
funding sources that support these initiatives, aimed at raising college admissions
rates and the college going culture (Adelman, 2006).
When reviewing the role of the superintendent and the secondary school
principal, it is evident that the similarities in both these positions revolve around the
preparation for the positions, the strengths as a visionary and political leader and the
12
ability to handle the human factors that involve parents, staff, and teacher unions.
This level of heightened political preparation demands that superintendents and
secondary principals communicate and collaborate on a plan for student achievement
that supports the structures that are reflective of the community (Duckworth, 2008).
Superintendents and secondary principals are expected to create a shift in the status-
quo, but manage the tension that inevitably follows. In order to support the
superintendent and create quick, small changes towards student progress, secondary
principals can become a source of strength or the weak link as they maneuver around
the “educational regime” that exists in all districts and tries to maintain the status
quo. These are educators who resist reforms that “jeopardize existing structure”.
However, superintendents and principals working within this status quo, use their
skills and training to ensure that changes do occur (Shipps, 2003).
The office of the principal, with its similarities to the office of the
superintendent in terms of the political, economic, and educational stresses, also
relies on communication as its strength. Standards for communication apply to both
these offices and reference can be drawn to two documents. The first, The
Professional Standards for the Superintendency identified by the American
Association of Secondary Administrator (AASA, 1993) states the following in
standard 3: “The superintendent will articulate district purpose and priorities to the
community and mass media; request and respond to community feedback;
demonstrate consensus building and conflict mediation; identify, track and deal with
issues; formulate and carry out plans for internal/external communication; …
13
formulate democratic strategies for referenda; and relate political initiates to the
welfare of the children”. The second document contains the standards developed by
the Interstate School leaders Licensure Consortium (ISLLC, 1996), which is used in
almost 80% of all state licensing requirements, identifies the standard of
communication for a site principal and states: “A school administrator is an
educational leader who promotes the success of all students in facilitating the
development, articulation, implementation, and stewardship of a vision of learning
that is shared and supported by the school community” (Hoyle, Bjork, Collier, &
Glass, 2005). The similarity of both these positions and the roles therein, require that
the selection of a site leader be closely matched to the needs of the superintendent.
Superintendents and secondary principals are ultimately responsible for
student achievement. Superintendents depend on their site principals, and therefore,
craft a team of highly trained leaders who have the skills and can work with the
resources to support their roles as extensions of the superintendent. However, the
current data indicates that increased responsibilities, long work hours, lack of district
support, and political pressure from unions are some of the reasons that have
contributed to principal shortage (Ediger, 2002). Additionally, due to retirement of
teachers who are baby boomers, there is a consequent shortage of candidates for
school administration. Recruiting and training of future administrators is a constant
priority and training programs should be required to graduate candidates who have
the skills and knowledge necessary to successfully reform a school or lead it through
a process that initiates changes. The current credentialing programs differ in the
14
format of training, which range between University programs, to online certification
courses, and ACSA implemented Principal Training Programs AB75, 2001 and AB
430, 2008, which created a public/private partnership between the county office and
school districts to train the leaders. However, the selection of these trained
candidates as secondary principals is dependent on the selection criteria established
by superintendents and school districts and this research aims to identify the
common skills, knowledge and training that are necessary for secondary principal to
be successful.
Statement of the Problem
The system of accountability in secondary schools has created the need for
superintendents to select qualified principals who can initiate reform efforts to
address the needs of diverse student learning. As urban school districts in the United
States come under increased scrutiny for their role in preparing students to be
competitive in the global economy, the role of the superintendent in creating a
district where students receive the preparation to be globally successful would
require that they hire secondary principals who understand the change process in
relation to program review and implementation. Current research and superintendent
concerns confirm a shortage of qualified candidates and that the Principal Training
Programs are doing an inadequate job of preparing their graduates for the challenges
of the secondary principalship. The 21
st
century skills initiatives for high schools
require the introduction of non traditional ideas supported by strong leaders with
“out of the box” thinking and calls for change in curriculum content, pedagogy and
15
teacher training, and leadership strategies. It calls for a systemic change that would
require the superintendent to hire the right principals for their secondary schools,
individuals with the training and skills to introduce new pathways and encourage the
development of a plan that negates the “one size fits all” concept for attaining a high
school diploma (Bragg and Kim, 2008).
Therefore superintendents needs to hire principals who have the skills to
navigate through the political, economic, and social roadblocks that will inevitably
appear both from within the school district and the community at large.
Purpose of the Study
The primary purpose of the study was to examine the role of the California
superintendent in selecting secondary principals under the recent demands of federal
and state accountability reporting practices. The study identified the existing models
and frameworks of leadership to contribute to the knowledge around key criteria for
secondary principal success which in return were the criteria for selection used by
superintendents in California.
Significance of the Study
This study identifies the skills, trainings and knowledge that superintendents
consider important when hiring secondary school principals and presents the key
competence criteria needed to be successful as a school leader in this time of high
accountability. Upon review of the hiring practices of twenty three urban
superintendents in districts ranging between ten to over fifty thousand students, this
study provides an insight and understanding of criteria that superintendents consider
16
important for secondary principals in the current accountability-driven global
environment. Furthermore, this study focuses on the consequent factors within the
selection process, based on the practices of 23 superintendents when matching the
right person to the right job.
This study would benefit superintendents who are considering their
recruitment criteria based on their understanding of the individual school site needs
in their district and their understanding of the existing district culture. The
perspectives provided by superintendents in this study would help identify the
common leadership practices which are being recognized as important by urban
superintendents for systemic change. This study also researches the impact of
personnel choices, the extent to which the superintendent considers personnel to be
important in the change process, key leadership factors that superintendents look for
in their principals, and finally, what is being done about recruiting and retaining the
people who match district vision, and what adjustments are being made within
leadership teams to find the right candidate for the secondary principalship. This
study will provide data to prospective and existing site principals, district leaders,
policymakers, educational institutions and researchers of principal leadership.
Finally this study contributes to the development of survey templates that
superintendents and human resources departments can use when considering the
placement, recruitment, retention, and reassignment of site leaders. This study has
been designed to provide additional literature on the common hiring styles of
successful practicing superintendents who have been recognized for making strong
17
progress within their districts in relation to student achievement and a culture of
ongoing improvement. Hiring secondary principals requires an in depth
understanding of the school sites and this document adds to the extant research on
how superintendents hire the principals for their school sites. The study provides
important insight into the attributes that are needed by 21
st
century secondary
principals and aims to answer one overarching question:
What implications, if any, would the current selection criteria of California
urban superintendents have on the preparation of future secondary school
principals?
Two other research questions also guided the study:
1. What skills, training and knowledge do superintendents look for when
hiring secondary principals?
2. How do superintendents ensure that the right candidate is selected for the
position and is successful in the position of secondary principal?
These research questions form the basis for the conceptual framework of the study,
collecting and analyzing data and providing findings for future considerations.
Conceptual Framework
Bolman and Deal’s (2005) research on the Four Frames of Leadership
provide the necessary background for research related to strong leadership skills in
each of the key positions, both at the superintendent and at the site level.
18
Summary of the Methodology
In order to answer the questions above, a mixed-methodology approach to
research was used that consisted of both a quantitative and a qualitative component
to provide findings based on comprehensive analysis of the research problem. The
quantitative part of this study included a 35-question anonymous survey completed
by 17 superintendents in California enabled the analysis of data at multiple levels.
The qualitative part of this research was completed through one to one interview
sessions with five superintendents where each participant had to answer two broad
questions and 11 subquestions around hiring standards, skills and levels of
knowledge and placement criteria. The responses provided the data which were
analyzed to identify the selection criteria for secondary principals as well the
qualities required for successful fulfillment of the job of secondary principals.
It is not known whether superintendents identify similar criteria when hiring
secondary principals for their schools, nor is it known whether the administrative
standards established by CPSEL are being utilized to guide the selection process.
This study addressed the issue of identifying common criteria as regards training,
skills and qualifications, and common expectations of superintendents from the
secondary principals in their district that that guide their selection decision.
Assumptions
This study assumed the following:
1. The hiring practices of the superintendents have a direct link with how
quickly and effectively change occurs in a district.
19
2. If secondary principals are hired under clearly identified criteria
developed by the superintendent, change and progress at school sites will
occur.
3. The study also assumes that the participants in this case voluntarily
provided true and accurate responses in the surveys and interviews.
4. The tools and procedures used to collect the data for this research have
been based on existing and proven research survey procedures and
protocols and therefore are valid.
Limitations
The limitations of the study were as follows:
1. With restrictions of time and resources, the study was limited to twenty
three school districts in California.
2. The study was limited to voluntary participants.
3. Because of the nature of the qualitative data, the interpretation of the
findings is subject to the analysis of the data by the researcher.
4. The interview participants were all male superintendents.
Delimitations
The Delimitations relevant to this study were as follows:
1. This is a mixed method case study based on input from 23 urban school
district superintendents in northern and southern California.
20
2. Records indicate that the secondary schools under the superintendents
interviewed have shown documented gains in student achievement within
the past three years (2005-2008).
3. Superintendents interviewed had more than 7 years of experience as a
superintendent.
Definition of Terms
The following definitions provide context for the study:
Accountability: Leaders are held responsible for student achievement under
various district, state, and federal mandates targeting student performance in
formative and summative assessments.
Achievement: Student performance in the state standards test and meeting the
proficiency goals which is interpreted as achieving the standards. Schools continue
to address ways to increase student achievement.
Achievement Gap: The gap in test scores as indicted by results in the
California Standards Tests between subgroups of students.
Assessments: use of tests, quizzes, projects, state tests etc., to gauge student
achievement; a process of documenting, in measurable terms, knowledge, skills,
attitudes and beliefs.
Content Standards: Standards identified in each curriculum area tested. The
standards define the highest achievement of proficiency that every student can
achieve by gaining the knowledge and concepts presented through standards-based
curriculum.
21
Globalization: The process of transformation of local phenomena into global
ones and described as a process by which people of the world unite despite barriers
in language, distance, economy, and politics.
Pedagogy: the art or profession of teaching and refers to the strategies of
instruction or the style of teaching.
School Boards: Elected community representatives who are responsible for
hiring the superintendent and approving all policies within the district. They are
elected every two years and usually range between 5-7 members, depending on the
district size.
Secondary Principals: Principals of middle and high schools.
Stakeholders: parents, students, teachers, community members are the groups
of people who have a stake or interest in the success of educational.
Systemic Changes: Changes that occur in education at all levels and in all
areas of the system.
Organization of the Study
This study is organized by five chapters:
Chapter One provides an introduction to the study, including: Statement of
the problem, Purpose of the study, Research questions, Significance of the study, and
Organization of the Study.
Chapter Two presents a literature review pertaining to relevant information
addressed in this study along with the guidelines suggested my Bolman and Deal’s
four frames of leadership and the CPSEL standards.
22
Chapter Three contains the methodology, instruments used, sample used for
the research, and data reporting.
Chapter Four reports the findings of the data as they relate to the research
questions guiding the study.
Chapter Five contains the final summary along with the conclusions, future
implications, and recommendations as it relates to current practice and future
research.
23
CHAPTER TWO
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
Introduction
The current profile of public schools reflects significant changes in student
demographics, increased pressures of high stakes testing, and high turn over rates of
educational leaders (Dipaola & Tschannen-Moran, 2003). Superintendents delegate
the responsibility of achieving student success to individual school site principals.
Correspondingly, the trust and responsibility placed on the secondary principal
requires both the principal and the superintendent to work closely for the effective
utilization of personnel, curriculum, finance, and management strategies which will
create a level of measurable success in the individual schools (Lashway, 2002). “To
effectively execute the mission of the public schools, superintendents muster
resources that require trust between the leaders and the public” (Allen, 2008).
The superintendent’s selection and placement of principals have an impact on
how quickly and systemically changes will occur at school sites addressing student
achievement, and Douglas Reeves in his book, Leading Change in Our schools
(2009) clarifies the role of the principal as that of a change agent who is “not only in
the work of education but also in a complex enterprise of people, with all the drama
that accompanies personal pride and identity” (pg. 87). In 2000, Education Research
Service published an article that focused on the task of assigning a site principal who
24
can achieve these responsibilities and how retaining these individuals are an
important priority for the superintendent and the Board of Education.
For purposes of this study, the Secondary Principals are defined as site
principals in both middle and high schools in the California Public School system.
Under this shifting environment of high accountability, the success of the
superintendent and the Board of Education is closely intertwined with that of
secondary principals and their focus on API/AYP scores and graduation and college
admissions rates. Current research on graduation and drop-out rates indicate that our
secondary schools are failing to graduate their students on time (Greene & Winters,
2006) and therefore brings to the forefront of national discussion, the state of our
public school system. To address these needs and work towards increased student
achievement is no easy task; selecting an accomplished secondary leader is a
significant responsibility.
This secondary school reform template indicates the level of expertise
required by secondary principals in organizing the school structures and personnel
around reform initiatives aimed at improving student learning and achievement.
The 21
st
century principal under the current system of accountability is an
education leader (Fullan, 2002), and such leadership ability, according to Fullan, is
the single most important determinant of an effective learning environment.
Principals are entrusted with change measures and they are required to recognize and
understand the procedures and processes that allow changes that impact
organizational improvement. It is the school climate along with strong focused
25
leadership that impacts instructional quality (Kelley, Thornton, & Daugherty, 2005).
School leaders are faced with daily decisions that balance site needs and district
initiatives and success is determined by the powerful link between the school and the
district, one that creates the conditions that support these school leaders’ efficacy
(Leithwood & Jantzi, 2008). District leaders can have a strong impact on a site
leader’s confidence and efficacy by emphasizing their commitment to instruction and
student achievement and recognizing the role of the principal as an extension of the
superintendent (McPherson & Crowson, 1993).
Figure 1: The Breaking Ranks Model, 2001
26
The literature review in this chapter is organized into four sections and
primarily focuses on the research regarding the contemporary principal and
addresses a) Hiring of school principals: A historical perspective; b) secondary
Principals - an extension of the Superintendent: c) secondary Principals- a change
agent for the Superintendent; d) preparation and Evaluation standards for secondary
principals.
The consequential report, A Nation at Risk (1983) focused public attention on
the decline of the American school system and the rising focus on the role of the
principal and its impact on raising student achievement. However, suitable
candidates for secondary principalship is showing a decline and Education Research
Service in 2000 published the finding that there was an increase among those who do
not desire to become a principal, consequently leading to a shortage of qualified
candidates. As the accountability system continues to impact the role of the
superintendents and secondary principals, both these positions continue to be closely
reflective of each other as they garner support in their efforts to increase student
achievement within their schools. Both these positions now respond directly to their
communities and are engaged in issues of social equity and innovation as they
address the needs of every student. Selecting suitable candidates for secondary
schools is the most important priority of the superintendent.
Secondary Principals: A Historical Perspective
A quick recap of the historical background of hiring principals starts in the
19
th
century when the concept of headmasters and principals became more
27
widespread with the advent of mass education. In the pre-industrial era (1650-1812),
teaching was done in a one-room school house taught by a single teacher and it was
during the decades between 1920 and 1960 that the need to hire principals slowly
evolved. Before 1955 few states had clearly identified standards for certifying
principals and simply required the candidates to posses a teaching certificate, three
years of classroom teaching experience, and approximately three to six courses in
educational administration (Goodwin et al., 2005). Today, principals are being asked
to wear many different hats and serve as curriculum and instructional leaders, human
resource managers, school budget experts, and building maintenance operators with
increased expectations for school improvement, and the responsibility of maintaining
positive school community relations with key stakeholders (Goodwin, 2005).
In the 1960’s a few factors led to candidates dropping out of the principal
application pool, which were as follows: 1) Teacher union activism resulted in pay
increases for the fifteen year veteran teacher to the level where the principal
positions had merely a thousand dollars more in pay from these veterans; 2) the
practice of lack of tenure in this position meant that cutbacks in principal positions
did not assure that person of a similar job; and 3) The responsibilities of this position
were immense compared to the pay. In the current decades, increased
responsibilities, lack of support and the accountability measures associated with
school test scores, that can remove principals from their positions (Taylor &
Williams, 2001), have led to a principal shortage (Ediger, 2002). In the 1960’s the
principal position was equivalent to the corporate industrial middle manager and
28
these candidates enrolled in graduate study, shadowed mentors in the position and
were required to pass the locally controlled principal examination. With tutors and
available prep books, these tests were easy to pass and those with inside contacts got
even further added benefits as they had access to details of the interview, which at
that time did not include much more than relying on the word of good references
(Baltzell & Dentler 1983).
Review of the literature on principal selection process in the mid 1970’s and
1980’s neither provides nor describes any consistent process and there are no reports
that provide a well developed practice for hiring during that time. However, given
that the role of the principal closely resembled the corporate middle manager, there
were some similarities in the steps of hiring for both these positions. Campbell
(1970) described this process as follows: The first step in the process was to identify
the criteria for hire which usually revolved around personal qualities such as high
levels of intelligence, verbal skills, effective judgment, organizational skills, and
interpersonal qualities. The next step involved a preliminary interview to eliminate
those who were unsuitable for the position. Then the applications of the remaining
candidates were given a thorough review for background and reference checks and
attention was given to letters of recommendation and biographical information.
During the final stage the candidates were subject to employment examinations, such
as selection tests, interviews and assessment centers (Anderson, 1991). The
importance of selecting an effective principal was a question raised as early as 1960
and the issue became aligned with the Civil Rights movement, and included the
29
validity of the test-based procedures for selecting administrators and the need to
affirm that the principal placements were free from influence, nepotism, as well as
sexual and racial discrimination. The union and parent groups also joined in
questioning the practices of hiring principals. The hiring of secondary principals in
general, after World War II, was based mostly by central office administrators and
school board member preferences. School districts lacked consistency in criteria or
preparation requirements for these positions. Schools and colleges also started
actively addressing the challenges of preparing candidates and thereby started
graduating mobile and highly competitive candidates who further constricted the
opportunities of women and blacks to be promoted from within (Baltzell & Dentler,
1983).
There was little support in the practices to show that the superintendent
viewed the secondary school principals as a key figure responsible for achieving
school goals and therefore district goals. The question remained as to how were these
principals selected for their schools? There were few written policies or procedures
on the hiring criteria of principals. DeFrahn (1973) conducted a survey of New
Jersey districts and concurred that superintendents were the main selectors and most
principals were selected from within the district and that interviews were the primary
vehicle for the selection. The selection was based on traits such as judgment,
personality, character and ability to communicate and little attention was paid to
skills and experience. A survey conducted by the California State legislature in 1977
also concurred with the findings and a study of Texas districts found that elementary
30
principals were hired by superintendents based on their traits such as honesty,
loyalty, and cooperativeness. As salaries increased, more men entered into teaching
and filled the positions of principals; as desegregation was enforced, closing down of
black-only schools led to a reduction in black principals.
Through the decades, legislations have been passed that have addressed the
inconsistencies and perceived and real discriminatory practices in the hiring process
for principals: 1) Title VII of the Civil right Act (1964) bans discrimination based on
race, religion, and gender; 2) the Americans with Disabilities Act (amended in 1990,
ADA) bans discrimination due to disability; 3) the Immigration Reform and Control
Act (1986) bans against national origin and citizenship; 4) the Equal Pay Act (1963)
bans discriminatory pay practices based on gender; and 5) the Age Discrimination in
Employment Act (1975) bans discrimination for persons over 40 years. These
Federal and State legislations exist to provide protection to applicants from bias
during the hiring process, but research has indicated that in the selection process of
school administrators, age Young & Fox, 2002) and gender (Reis, Young, & Jury,
1999) do affect hiring.
Research by Baltzell in 1983, funded by the National Institute of Education
(NIE), was an investigative study of how school principals were selected and focused
on two aspects: 1) describing and analyzing the characteristics of the common
practices in the selection process and 2) describing the process itself. As research
continued to address improvements in hiring practices, it also focused on behavioral
evaluation of candidates with regards to specific skills. Finkle (1976) and the
31
National Association of Secondary School Principals (NASSP) Assessment center in
1981 were part of reviewing this hiring process.
So what are the current practices in hiring a secondary principal and to what
extent do superintendents develop the criteria for selection? Research from Anderson
(1991) argues that districts that establish a set of criteria for selection before
beginning the selection process would identify candidates who had the skills and
experience to fit into the district and the needs of the school. Whaley (2002)
referenced school district hiring practices to indicate that districts engage in a two
step screening process; first the personnel office screens the resumes and
applications who meet the certification and experience standards and then the paper
screening for more formalized selection around skills, qualifications and experiences
and should include senior administration, teachers, parents and students. The next
step involves interviews and once again research indicates that the panel decides to
hire or reject a candidate within the first five minutes of the interview and that the
decisions are highly subjective in nature (Anderson, 1991).
So what are the gaps in Principal selection? The National Institute of
Education (NIE) funded a study in 1983 to gain deeper knowledge of the gaps by
reviewing the practices in several districts. “This study was designed and executed in
two phases: Phase 1 focuses on describing and characterizing common practices in
principal selection… and Phase 2 led directly from the findings of Phase 1 and
focused on describing and characterizing promising alternatives to common
practices” (Baltzell & Dentler, 1983, p. 1). Reviewing research on the practices of
32
principal selection confirms that historically, an individual who had a similar
perspective as that of the organization conducting the search, was selected through
the interview, which was the sole process. The effectiveness of this selection was
based on the applicants KSAO (knowledge, skills, abilities, and other competencies)
that could predict job performance (Young, 2008, p. 16). As the job of the principal
has continued to become more multifaceted, demanding and complicated (Walker,
1995), the challenge to find qualified individuals for this position continued to grow
and “growing anecdotal evidence suggests that it is increasingly difficult to find
school principals at a time when the demand for them is on the rise” (Copland, 2001,
p.528).
The New Teacher Project (TNTP) with support from The Broad Foundation
reported the results of its 2006 study of how urban districts recruit, select and hire
principals. Based on extensive literature, this study presented three major findings:
(1) There is a shortage of high quality principal candidates; (2) urban districts suffer
from low applicant to hire ratios, (3) relatively low quality candidates and a strong
practice of filling principal positions from internal candidates. Research by Young
(2008) identified four steps in the principal hiring process: 1) employee recruitment,
2) employee selection; 3) employee appraisal, and 4) employee promotion. Young
also identified that the selection of principals includes three steps: 1) pre-selection
which is the development of the policies and procedures for selection; 2) selection
which is the screening and the interview; and 3) post-selection which encompasses
the hiring decisions made by the selection committee.
33
In order to determine the role of the superintendent in the selection of the
secondary principal, there is no clear research on the extent to which superintendents
get to make the final decision. However, there is an increased interest in district-run
internship programs which were regarded as training programs and therefore
structured around the criteria for selection. Research from several sources such as
Adkinson and Warren (1980) and Bailey and Warren (1980) showed good results
when districts implemented the training programs to create candidate pools. There
are differing opinions among principal preparation programs and among district
superintendents on what an effective principal preparation program should look like.
Superintendent responses in the extant research have identified a common theme that
the secondary principalship is a job for a skilled and committed individual.
However, based on evidence of current candidates being interviewed, it is evident
that preparation has not kept pace with the changes in the education world (Hess and
Kelley, 2005).
Secondary Principals: An Extension of the Superintendent
Portis and Garcia (2007) completed a study of the Gilroy district in Northern
California and Superintendent Edwin Diaz and focused on strategies that allow for
change in a district. They cited several factors and identified the need for principals
to hear and see the effects of the change in the vision of the superintendent, and if
they do, then it was hoped that the principals would embrace the vision and change
strategies more readily. This study also talked about the relationship between the
superintendents and their community at large and how the principals become an
34
extension of the superintendent when they represent their schools in the community.
The school district community looks upon the superintendent as the one responsible
for the placement of these principals, and correspondingly, the success or failure of
the principals is a reflection of the superintendent’s commitment to that community.
In this new era of accountability, the effect of the superintendent on secondary
school improvement is strong only when the superintendent is willing to “attack the
school systems inertia” (Hill et al. 1989) through focused directives to the secondary
principals. In his book Keepers of the Flame Kowalski (1995) researched big-city
school systems and the politics of the superintendency, which has mainly focused on
issues of authority and power of control. Susan Moore Johnson in her book Leading
to Change: Challenge of the New Superintendency (1996) identified three
educational leadership attributes of superintendents: “Crafting a Vision”, “Leading
Reform” and “Engaging school leaders in Change.” As the age of accountability
emerged, Lashway (2002) has talked about the unclear role of the superintendent
even though most people are aware that they are the primary person in charge of
facilitating education in American schools.
All this research simply clarifies the need for superintendents to present a
coherent plan by balancing the numerous and sometimes incompatible goals that the
public sets for schools (Cuban & Shipps, 2000). The success of the superintendent is
dependent on the individual’s ability to balance the conflict that arises from being an
instructional, managerial, and political leader. As the instructional leader,
superintendents are responsible for improving student learning; as a managerial
35
leader they are entrusted with keeping the district operating smoothly; and as a
political leader they have to balance the requests of the various stakeholders. The
secondary principal is viewed for their responsibility with the same lens (Waters &
Grubb, 2004).
The increased focus on school site accountability and shared decision making
models (Duke, 2004) have required superintendents and school boards to shift many
of the decisions regarding educating students to the school sites. As we have
observed, the evolution of the secondary principalship has gone from that of a
building manager to an educational leader; now we are also aware of the ways in
which this leader is also a site politician, a community liaison specialist, and a
gatekeeper of program changes (Kowalski, 2005). The study by McPherson and
Crowson (1993) of principals in the Chicago schools found that principals referred to
themselves as mini-superintendents since the current responsibilities of this office
has to contend with decisions around budgets, board relations, entrepreneurship,
leadership expectations, school community politics, and staff development. With
increased accountability measures, this image only continues to be magnified.
In order to understand how secondary principals are effective in attaining the
goals set forth by the Superintendent, one needs to review the research on secondary
school reform which indicates that schools with high achievement and a strong sense
of community is one where the principal has made a difference (Boyer, 1985), and
that “recognition of the principal at the epicenter of a learning community is
paramount for successful education reform” and “nothing has a greater effect on the
36
quality of education than the principal” (Barth 1990, p. 19). The key requirement for
creating a culture of reform leading to increased student achievement in secondary
schools is attributed to the leadership skills of the site principal and effective
leadership has been identified as the most essential element that allows an
organization to bring progress and sustain itself through the change process (Bolman
and Deal, 2003). The partnership between superintendents and secondary principals
were aptly summarized by Fullan (2003), when he said that, “everyone, ultimately,
has a stake in the caliber of schools, and education is everyone’s business” (p. 3).
These leaders, he confirmed, viewed schools through four levels of hierarchy: 1).
Level 1: Making a difference in individuals; Level 2: Making a difference in the
school; Level 3: Making a difference regionally; and Level 4: School leadership and
society. Fullan’s (2003) framework of moral purpose provides secondary principals
and superintendents with a mirror, as it were, on which they may reflect on the
similarities in their roles and responsibilities in education today.
To study the effect of the site principal in increasing student learning, the role
of the principal as an Instructional leader has become a primary focus of study.
McREL conducted a meta-analysis of more than 150 research studies and published
A New Era of School Reform (cited in Marzano, 2000) which reported the variances
in student achievement based on effective and ineffective schools and classroom
practices. Supported by the findings from another meta-analysis of 5000 studies
which examined the effects of principal leadership on student achievement, McREL
identified 21 leadership responsibilities for principals were identified, each
37
impacting student achievement, and concluded that the average effect size between
leadership and student achievement is .25, which was explained as one standard
deviation increase on principal leadership is associated with a ten percentile point
gain in school achievement. The chart below is provided to show the correlation.
Figure 2: Effect Size of Leadership on Student Achievement (McREL Study)
Research by Kathleen Cotton (2003) maintains that principal leadership has
an impact on student achievement though it is an indirect impact through the work of
the teachers and other support staff, parents and an overall campus attitude. A meta-
analysis of 69 studies involving over one million students concluded that there is a
quantitative relationship between the leadership behaviors of the principals and the
average academic achievement of students. The McREL study (2004) documented
38
that the changing environment in education today has resulted in a lack of clarity,
increased stress, ambiguity, and heightened need for trust.
In order to successfully hire a secondary principal who appears to be a good
fit for the district (Anderson 1991), and who has the skills and knowledge to
successfully lead the 21
st
century schools and meet the requirements of NCLB
(Taylor & Williams , 2001), superintendents have to be involved in identifying
leaders whose style of management reflects the needs of the school, and who can
work collaboratively to achieve collective goals identified by the Board of Education
and create structures around distributive leadership that maximizes the strengths of
all individuals in the organization and focuses responsibility for the total good
(Waters, Marzano & McNulty, 2005). In understanding the qualities needed by
secondary principals and superintendents to be effective, Bolman and Deal (1991)
have suggested four frameworks of leadership for determining how to approach
different, site-specific circumstances, and identified effective management styles
under these four frames of reference: (1) The Structural Manager tries to design and
implement a process or structure appropriate to the problem and the circumstances;
(2) the Human Resource Manager views people as the heart of any organization and
attempts to be responsive to their needs and goals to gain commitment and loyalty
and emphasizes support and empowerment; (3) the Political Manager understands
the political reality of organizations and can deal with those circumstances, and
understands how important interest groups are, each with an agenda and can manage
conflict and limited resources; (4) the Symbolic manager views vision and
39
inspiration as critical and correspondingly understands that people need something to
believe in. These leaders tend to be very visible and energetic and “walk the Walk”.
Understanding the effective and ineffective leadership styles under each frame is
often important when developing the hiring criteria for secondary principals.
Figure 3: Bolman and Deal; Reframing Organizations; 1997, Table 17.1, page 303.
Effective Leadership Ineffective Leadership
Frame Leader Leadership Process Leader Leadership Process
Structural
Analyst,
architect
Analysis, design Petty Tyrant
Management by
detail and fiat
Human
Resources
Catalyst,
servant
Support,
empowerment
Weakling,
pushover
Abdication
Political
Advocate,
Negotiator
Advocacy, coalition
building
Con artist,
thug
Manipulation,
fraud
Symbolic Prophet, poet
Inspiration, framing
experience
Fanatic, fool
Mirage, smoke, and
mirrors
Since the reauthorization of ESEA, most recently named as NCLB,
superintendent accountability has increased given the mandates that the district and
the schools have to define “Adequate Yearly Progress” based on their student
achievement data and confirm the reform initiatives that are implemented to support
low-performing schools. Use of data from assessments has allowed superintendents
to actively engage their site and district leaders, as they make decisions with regard
to instructional strategies, coaching techniques, and data-driven decision making
40
(Kathy Anthes, 2002). In order to hold principals and teachers responsible for
effective practices at the school sites, superintendents focus on professional
development, and base principal evaluations on instructional improvement without
having to directly micromanage classrooms and teachers (Bottoms & O'Neill, 2001).
By putting instruction on top of the district’s agenda, superintendents have also
aligned their roles as managers and political leaders with that of being the instruction
leader. It is through their principals that superintendents maintain control over
student progress at the school site and therefore placing principals who can provide
the desired results is critical (Youngs, 2008 unpublished).
Findings from Rolling Up Their Sleeves, a research study by the Wallace
Foundation (2003), concluded that principals and superintendents agree that the
ability to manage politics is the key to survival and that “politics and bureaucracy”
are the main reasons why their peers leave their careers in education. Principals also
indicate that their frustration with the levels of difficulty in the job is amplified
because they cannot communicate directly with the superintendents due to the layers
of deputy superintendents in the organizational process, and consequently asking for
direct feedback or help from the superintendent becomes difficult (Fink & Resnick,
2001).
Numerous studies have identified that uncoordinated and misdirected
services by district office staff can hamper the channeling of resources to support the
sites in their attainment of the superintendent’s vision. Research by Richard Muller
(2004) clarifies the role of the central office and includes responsibilities such as
41
clear and transparent focus on student achievement, strong emphasis on instructional
support and coherence, better use of data for schools needing improvement, and
optimizing human and financial resources to create the necessary balance between
centralization and decentralization and its support of the site principal.
In order to understand the gravity of the role of secondary principals and the
establishment of central office structures to support site functions, the McREL study
(October 4, 2006) combined data from various findings to identify the urgency of
this relationship, and they found that: 1) There is a statistical significance in the
relationship between district leadership and student achievement; 2) superintendent
tenure is positively correlated to student achievement; 3) effective superintendents
focus their efforts on creating a goal oriented district, and 4) effective
superintendents appear to provide school leaders with defined autonomy. This study
further recognized the need to identify the qualities of successful secondary school
principals and to fill in the gap that currently exists in successful hiring research.
Research by Hall (1979), Edmonds (1979), and others have shown that
principals can exert leadership which makes schools more effective in areas such as
climate, discipline, instruction and student achievement. Purkey and Smith (1982)
researched effective schools and stated that student academic achievement is
improved in schools where school leaders have well defined goals, trained staff,
cohesive learning environment that focuses on safety, and a system that monitors and
communicates student progress. Effective changes in secondary school sites involve
decisions that bring about long range improvements referred to as “systemic
42
changes,” which Floden et al. (1995) defined as coordinated and coherent education
reforms at the level of the individual schools, which result from principals
implementing district wide goals through site wide initiatives, while carefully
balancing the school community with the bigger federal, state and district
measurements.
The McREL(2004) study based its findings on 70 studies that included 2894
schools, 1.1 million students, and 14,000 teachers and staff, thereby supporting the
need for further research to determine the factors that superintendents view as
absolutely necessary for raising student achievement in 21
st
century schools.
Secondary Principals - A Change Agent for the Superintendent
Numerous studies have touched on the differences that have evolved through
the decades in the responsibilities of the secondary principals. Superintendents
recognize that today’s schools require principals who can create sustainable changes
by introducing and implementing initiatives that address student achievement in this
era of high accountability. In earlier decades, secondary principals had the following
main tasks, “supervising teachers, managing the building, and dealing with parents;
if the school was tidy and orderly, the staff content, the parents quiescent, and the
downtown bureaucracy untroubled, the principal was assumed to be doing his or her
job” (Meyer et al., 2003, p. 17). In the 21
st
century schools, however, while all of
those old responsibilities still continue, the principal’s main task now involves
developing a vision of learning, building a school culture and instructional programs
that are supportive of all students, managing staff, students and parents with their
43
needs and problems, understanding the new political connotations inherent to their
roles, and to produce excellent academic results as gauged by external measures such
as state proficiency tests keyed to statewide academic standards (p. 17).
This new 21
st
century principal is a key figure in creating the structural
changes that will support school wide progress. In order to be successful at creating
these changes, McREL’s Balanced Leadership Framework (Waters et.al, 2005)
determined that principals need to understand how the reform initiatives will impact
the individuals and institutions where the change occurs. The process of change
occurs at two levels: the first order change are those whose impacts (1) are consistent
with existing values and norms; (2) create advantages for individuals or stakeholder
groups with similar interests; (3) can be implemented with existing knowledge and
resources; and (4) agreement exists on what changes are needed and on how the
changes should be implemented (p.7). In an educational context, these translate into
introduction of teaching strategies, new assessment tools, support programs, and
supplemental or newly adopted materials. In areas of instructional leadership, these
bring about results and a focus on design preparation and professional development
programs. The second order change occurs when: (1) it is not obvious how the
change will improve things for people with similar interests, (2) it requires
individuals and groups to learn new approaches, (3) it conflicts with prevailing
norms and values and these changes are looked upon as a problem and not a solution
(p. 8). In the education context these are policies and initiatives that educators view
as dramatic and those that conflict sharply with prevailing norms and values.
44
Twenty-first century schools have access to research supporting extensive school
reform initiatives, and understanding which changes are first and second order for
which specific individuals, allow leaders to select the leadership practices and
strategies appropriate for their reform initiatives, and failure to do so could have a
marginal or negative impact on achievement (Waters et al. 2005). As an agent of
change, the secondary principal must possess deep understanding of the change
process.
Figure 4: Characteristics of First and Second Order Changes. (MCREL study)
First Order Change Second Order Change
An extension of the past A break with the past
Within existing paradigms Outside of existing paradigms
Consistent with prevailing values and
norms
Conflicting with prevailing values and
norms
Incremental Complex
Implemented with existing knowledge &
skills
Requires new knowledge & skills to
implement
Implemented by experts Implemented by stakeholders
Secondary principals who are involved in creating sustainable changes create
fundamental transformation in the culture of the school which involves a more
comprehensive style of leadership. “Principal of the future has to be much more
attuned to the big picture, and much more sophisticated at conceptual thinking, and
transforming the organization through peoples and teams” Fullan (2002, p. 4).
45
Several national educational reforms during this past century, such as the Elementary
and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965, the Individuals with Disabilities Act
(IDEA) of 1974, and the Public School Accountability Act (PSAA) of 1997, and the
recent NCLB (2001) to name a few, have created school conditions which have
resulted in shifts in the responsibilities of the principal. These changes are aimed at
impacting student achievement and require a leader with specific leadership skills to
create the culture that supports the changes.
Fullan’s framework for leadership identifies the key personality traits of
change leaders. He highlights “the personal characteristics of energy/enthusiasm and
hope, and five core components of leadership: moral purpose, understanding change,
relationship building, knowledge creation and sharing and coherence making” (p. 3).
Figure 5: Fullan’s Framework for Leadership, 2001
46
‘Moral purpose’ is defined as being “the intention of making a positive
difference in the (social) environment… the goal is system improvement… the school
principal has to be almost as concerned about the success of other schools in the
district as he or she is about his/her own school” (p.4). As an agent of change, the
principal has to have a deep understanding of the change process, which Fullan
defined through six guidelines: (1) Innovate selectively with coherence; (2) must
work through a process where others assess and come to find collective meaning and
commitment to new ways; (3) appreciate early difficulties of trying something new
(4) redefine resistance as a potential positive force… Naysayers sometimes have
good points; (5) reculturing is the name of the game: culture of what people value
and how they work together to accomplish it; (6) there is no step-by-step shortcut to
transformation; it involves the hard day-to-day work of reculturing (p. 5).
Understanding these processes, allows secondary principals to chart through the
various stakeholder demands, and learn how to balance that with school Board goals
and superintendent expectations.
Research continues to show the similarities between the roles of the
secondary principal and the superintendent around responsibilities that range from
curriculum, staff development, personnel, budgetary alignment, public relations,
school safety plan, campus discipline, and new programs, which are no different than
that of the superintendent, only on a much smaller scale. In 1974, the Select
Committee on Equal Educational Opportunity of the U.S. Senate issued this
statement about the role of the school principal:
47
In many ways the school principal is the most important and influential
individual in any school. He or she is the person responsible for all activities
that occur in and around the school building. It is the principal’s leadership
that sets the tone of the school, the climate for learning, the level of
professionalism and morale of teachers and the degree of concern for what
students may or may not become (EEO, 1974).
In the mid 1990’s the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO)
developed the model standards reflecting what school leaders should know and
understand, what they should be able to do, and what they should value, believe, and
commit to (CCSSO, 1996). By 2004, 40 states had adopted these standards and today
these form the foundation for the national standards for principal preparations, the
Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium (ISLLC) standards and the
California Professional Standards for Education Leaders (CPSEL).
Within the last two decades California has continued to create a system
which has held principals more accountable for their school achievement. So what
does this accountability look like? A historical background of the development of an
accountability system in public education in California can be traced to 1991 when a
new legislation signed by the then Governor, Pete Wilson, created the California
Learning Assessment System (CLAS), the goal of which was to help develop a test
over the period of five years aimed at assessing student achievement which has now
evolved into the Standardized Testing and Reporting Program (STAR). The end
result is that this assessment process has continued to publicize the performance of
schools and districts which have required principals and superintendents to focus
more sharply on how their schools do business (Ediger, 2002).
48
Questions related to the key skills and trainings that influence principal hire
also help us find the answers to what leadership factors influence systemic school
reforms. What could the principal be held accountable for and how could they create
the reforms that support student achievement? How would these principals be
prepared for these high profile jobs? Fullan identifies these as “moral purpose,
understanding change, relationship building, knowledge creation and sharing and
coherence making” (2001, p 4). The Critical Issues Committee of the Connecticut
Principals’ Center published The 21
st
Century Principal: A Call to Action (2004) to
address the lack of highly qualified candidates required to fulfill the complex
changes related to secondary school reform. The study addressed the concerns cited
in the Hartley report on the Future of School Leadership (2000) which noted the
following: (1) Insufficient authority given to the principal compared to the
responsibility of the position; (2) lack of public understanding of the role of and
escalating demands on educational administrators. The Institute for Educational
Leadership (IEL) report, Reinventing the Principalship (2000) stated that the
demands that are placed on principals have changed, but there has been little change
in the profession itself. This finding was supported by the Educational Research
Service Report in 2000 that confirmed that there has been a dramatic change in the
job over the last two decades as a paradigm shift has been made from managerial
functions to that of balanced leadership across a wide range of responsibilities. As a
change agent for the 21
st
century, principals have to develop their vision to include
the following: (IEL, 2004):
49
1. Instructional leadership which highlights the goals related to improved
teaching and learning that is supported by data-driven decision making,
professional development plan and accountability.
2. Community leadership which encourages and practices shared decision
making among the stakeholders and creates a close bond between the
school and the parents and creates sustainable and systemic changes.
3. Visionary leadership that includes the commitment to all children and
providing the focus to all stakeholders to channel all resources to this end.
The McREL study confirms that superintendents have already begun to use
their Balanced Leadership research findings in their recruitment and selection
process. Furthermore, these research findings form the basis for designing
supervision and professional development programs for current principals. Some are
eager to begin using these responsibilities and practices in the performance
appraisal/evaluation process as well. Finding, recruiting and retaining qualified and
skilled change principals is the priority for superintendents in 21
st
century schools.
Secondary Principals: Standards for Preparation and Evaluation
“Our public-education system confronts a leadership famine amidst a feast of
“certified” leaders” Meyer et al. (2003, p. 16). Since 81% of the responses to a
survey favor holding public schools accountable for teaching students to meet the
standards (Rose & Gallup, 2002), this makes the candidate pool even smaller as
confirmed by a survey of Chicago principals where the majority responded that their
decision to leave the job had to do with the stress and the increased burdens
50
(Kennedy, 2000). The current Principal Preparation programs graduate hundreds of
candidates who receive administrator licenses through diverse pathways and yet
either show scant interest in actually serving as school administrators or fail to
possess the trainings and knowledge that is needed to lead today’s secondary schools
(Hess & Kelly, 2005).
Even though reports, such as the 2006 The New Teacher Project, indicate that
there is a shortage of school administrators who are willing and able to lead schools,
the problem of the preparation programs focus around the need for more skills
training. Supporters of this view ask for preparation similar to those asked for by
Kowalski (2004), who accepts that “substantial reforms in administrator preparation,
program accreditation, and state licensing standards” (p. 93) are necessary. Despite
the recent focus on reform for school leader preparation programs there still remains
a reluctance to change (McCarthy et al.1988 and Murphy, 1991). It is evident that
real reform will not occur until a crisis occurs within the field, compelling the system
to undergo a paradigm shift. As the need for qualified candidates for the secondary
principalship continues to increase, those who are already in those positions continue
to be the focus of study. The creation of a statewide assessment system attracted
scrutiny on the accomplishments of principals and superintendents. California
Education Code 52050.5(c) states: “Recent assessments indicate that many pupils in
California are not now, generally, progressing at a satisfactory rate to achieve a high
quality education.” The code implied that student achievement would be measured
and that schools would be held accountable for this achievement or lack thereof.
51
The 2003 report by Public Agenda stated that “today’s school
superintendents want their principals to display prowess in everything from
accountability to instructional leadership and teacher quality, but principals
themselves don’t think they are equipped for these duties” (Hess & Kelley, 2005a, p.
1). In another official report to the Program on Education Policy and Governance
(Harvard University), an analysis of principal preparation programs and whether they
are effective in graduating principals who have the knowledge and skills necessary to
be successful leaders in today’s era of high accountability for student achievement is
quite disheartening. It categorically states that the preparation programs are
inadequate in their provision of knowledge and skills which would assist secondary
principals in making the kind of changes necessary in today’s era of accountability.
The Broad study entitled Better Leaders for America’s Schools: A Manifesto
(2003) concludes that the shortage of qualified candidates requires two courses of
action:
First, we should strive to locate and develop strong leaders within the
education field by recruiting proven educators with leadership qualities who
may not now be seeking such roles because of insufficient salary or because
of constraints that make the job of running a school or school system
unappealing. Second, we should cast a wider net, seeking prospective school
leaders wherever they can be found… particularly when it comes to creating
workable terms of employment for tomorrow’s school leaders. (p. 14)
The current research around the quality of secondary principal preparation
has been organized around these following questions: A) What do successful
principals need to know and be able to do? B) What changes should be incorporated
52
to create effective leadership training programs? And C) How do superintendents
attract, hire and retain these effective principals?
A) What do successful principals need to know and be able to do?
Secondary principals need skills and knowledge around state and federal
mandates related to curriculum rigor, assessment data, and teaching pedagogy;
current practices around principal evaluations require demonstration of
understanding and training in the use of data, research, technology, hiring or
termination of personnel, as well as exposure to management scholarship or inquiry
into educational productivity or governance (Goodney, 2007). In their report entitled
Preparing a New Breed of School Principals: It’s Time for Action, Bottoms and
O’Neill (2001) identified the knowledge that today’s principals are required to
possess: 1) comprehensive understanding of school and classroom practices that
contribute to student achievement; 2) know how to work with faculty and others to
fashion and implement continuous student improvement; and 3) know how to
provide the necessary support for staff to carry out sound school, curriculum, and
instructional practices.
In order to identify the candidates with skills and knowledge of secondary
schools, Richard Elmore summarized the new principalship in his report Building a
New Structure for School Leadership (2000) and focused on a leader who has the
ability to enhance the skills and knowledge of the people to support a common
culture of expectations and accountability. This finding echoed Fullan’s report
Leading in a Culture of Change (2001) in which he identifies the four critical roles
53
of school leaders as developing teachers’ knowledge, skills and dispositions,
developing a culture that celebrates itself as a professional learning community,
introducing and sustaining a coherent program and creating a resource pool that
includes technical support. Even as these researchers provide the big picture of what
a contemporary principal must do in their jobs to be effective, there is little data that
supports that the principal candidates are receiving training and knowledge on these
skills or are being interviewed for these skills as a prerequisite to being hired.
Unfortunately, most training programs provide little or no support in
preparing for these standards of evaluation. Findings by Hess & Kelly (2005b)
confirmed that principal preparation programs needed “significant attention to
accountability, managing with data, and utilizing research; to hiring, recruiting,
evaluating, and terminating personnel; to overseeing an effective instructional
program; and to exposing candidates to diverse views regarding educational and
organizational management” (2005a, p. 4). Art Levine’s (2005) Educating School
Leaders added to these trainings with a need for budgetary training. The Broad study
(2003) concluded that the core issues are not around quantity of suitable candidates,
but quality. The conventional training and certification programs are failing to
produce leaders with the vision, knowledge, and enthusiasm required to address the
issues of the achievement gap in our schools (p.16). Superintendents are aware that
these are the key job responsibilities of a secondary principal; how consistently
superintendents focus on ensuring that these are predetermining factors when
selecting and hiring a secondary principal needs further research.
54
B) What changes should be incorporated to create effective leadership
training programs?
A report from the Southern Regional Educational Board (SREB), around the
preparation and practices of effective school leaders, concluded that the certificate
for professional leadership should only be granted to those who demonstrate the
ability to improve curriculum, instruction and student learning. Following the Hess
and Kelley reports and Art Levine’s (2005) Educating School Leaders Journals, a
joint response was submitted by a group of leaders representing the University
Council for Educational Administration, the American Educational Research
Association, and the National Council for Professors of Educational Administration
entitled An Educative Look at Educating School Leaders (Young et al., 2005). This
report also supported the conclusions offered in the Hess and Kelly and Levine
reports, in stating that high standards for schools of education and leadership
preparation are required along with a review of the financial practices that strengthen
them. Additionally, they agreed that all Principal Preparation programs should be
rigorously evaluated and that weak programs should be strengthened or closed.
An analysis of the current California Principal certification options indicates
that California Department of Education (CDE) provides five options for seeking an
administrative services credential: 1) completion of a college or university based
program currently accredited by the Commission on Teacher Credentialing (CTE);
or 2) completion of a State Board of Education approved AB 430 Principal Training
program; or 3) mastery of fieldwork performance standards through a Commission
55
Accredited program which pursuant to SB 1655 allow colleges and universities with
accredited programs leading to a professional Clear Administrative Services
Credential to offer a streamlines assessment option. The candidates may forego the
coursework component of the program and be allowed to demonstrate their
knowledge, skills and abilities through the assessment component of the program; or
4) passage of a National administrator performance assessment adopted by the
Commission; or 5) completion of a Commission approved program sponsored by a
local education agency or university based on new program standards.
These multiple certification options provide little consistency in the basic
training criteria. Five distinct research studies have been evaluated here for their
efforts at identifying the non-negotiable criteria for secondary principal preparation
programs.
1. The Southern Regional Education Board (SREB) 2001, proposed four
actions to improve school leadership training programs including: (1) a
leadership preparation prototype outside of the traditional university
based program, demonstrate it and market it; (2) create a network of
higher education institutions that have an interest in working together to
reshape the traditional leadership preparation program by giving greater
emphasis to the knowledge and skills needed by school leaders to
improve curriculum, instruction and student achievement; (3) work with
one or more state leadership academies to design, refine and implement a
leadership program that prepares existing and emerging leaders to plan
56
and carry out comprehensive middle grades and high school reform; (4)
etablish a regional goal for improving leadership around a single priority:
raising student achievement in middle grades and high schools, and
develop indicators for tracking progress in achieving the goal over the
next decade.
2. A report entitled Seven Habits of Effective Principal Preparation
programs (2005) framework includes: (1) curriculum and instruction, (2)
clinical learning internships, (3) mentors, (4) collaborative experiences,
(5) authentic assessments, (6) research-based decision-making, and (7)
turnkey transitions. All seven components are suggested as behaviors that
when applied by principals into their leadership and management
routines, will lead to principals success (David & Jazzar, 2005).
3. The Stanford Educational Leadership Institute’s School Leadership
Study: Developing Successful Principals (2005) similarly examined
exemplary programs in an effort to identify common practices among
them. This study confirms the conclusions offered by Valentine (2001),
who suggested that graduates of programs that have a clear conceptual
foundation, are cohort based, and contain robust internship and mentor
components scored higher on the ISLLC performance assessment test,
received higher performance evaluations by supervisors, and were
perceived by teachers as being effective managers of their schools.
57
4. The review of preparation programs in universities report Schools Can’t
Wait: Accelerating the Redesign of University Principal Preparation
Programs (2005), provided four general conclusions. The first conclusion
centered on state policies and associated strategies that have produced
some change but have generally failed to produce programming that
ensures content mastery around the knowledge and skills necessary to
effectively lead schools today. Citing a lack of urgency in redesigning
principal program content, process, and outcomes based upon the current
needs of schools, the report suggested that a renewed commitment toward
immediate change emerge from state, university, and local school district
leadership. The problem is therefore to be viewed in a larger context; it is
simply not an issue of changing principal preparation programs; it is the
application of this change to overall redesign efforts within the context of
larger education reform initiatives at a state level.
5. Issued as a call to action, the Schools Can’t Wait report (2006) was aimed
at redesigning the University Principal preparation Programs to achieve
the following: (a) encourage policy makers to take bold steps at
motivating universities to collaborate with local school districts, (b) have
state agencies align their practice in support of universities and school
districts in the redesign process, (c) have university presidents recognize
that quality principals contribute to quality local schools that enhance the
economic and social conditions of their regions, and (d) have departments
58
of educational leadership reject the status quo and devise programming
based on requisite knowledge and skills for effective principals.
C) How do superintendents attract, hire and retain these effective principals?
Discussion around principal evaluation and standards of performance has
seen the following evolution:
1. In 1982 the National Association of Secondary School Principals
(NASSP), the National Association of Elementary School Principals
(NAESP), and the National Association of School Boards (NASB), as
well as other experts in the education field and policy makers reviewed
standards for leadership and the new guidelines served as the standard for
administrator preparation programs from 1983-1995. These new
guidelines were designed to be all-inclusive and applicable to all school
administrators (superintendents, central office administrators, principals,
and assistant principals) and further included the following suggestions:
(1) Designing, implementing, and evaluating a school climate
improvement program that utilizes mutual staff and student efforts to
formulate and attain goals. (2) Understanding political theory and
applying political skills in building local, state, and national support for
education. (3) Developing a systematic school curriculum that assures
both the extensive enrichment activities and the mastery of fundamentals
as well as progressively more complex skills required in advanced
problem solving, and creative and technological skills. (4) Planning and
59
implementing an instructional management system that includes learning
objectives, curriculum design, and instructional strategies and techniques
that facilitate high levels of achievement. (5) Developing staff
development and evaluation systems to enhance effectiveness of
educational personnel. 6) Allocating human, material and financial
resources to efficiently and accountably assure successful student
learning. (7) Conducting research and utilizing research findings in
decisions to improve long-range planning, school operations, and student
learning (Hoyle, 2005).
2. In 1995, the NPBEA developed Guidelines for Advanced Programs in
Educational Leadership for Principals, Superintendents, Curriculum
Directors, and Supervisors. Approved standard language in 2002 read,
“Candidates who complete the program are educational leaders who have
the knowledge and ability to promote the success for all students by” (p.
2). The seven standards of performance ranged from facilitating school
vision to responding to larger political constituencies (NPBEA, 2002).
3. The Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium (ISLLC) developed
new standards in 1996 which closely reflected the standards from AASA,
NASSP, and NAESP, and the NPBEA guidelines. These ISLLC
Standards were published by the Council of Chief State School Officers
(CCSSO) in response to the growing need for a clear structure of
leadership criteria in the face of increasing challenges and complexities
60
for school administrators. The ISLLC standards addressed the absence of
one set of common standards in the field of educational administration
associated with knowledge, dispositions, and performances with the
intent to impact the efforts on three fronts: licensure, program approval,
and candidate assessment (Murphy & Shipman, 2002). As adopted by the
full consortium on November 2, 1996, the standards were very similar to
those proposed by the NPBEA.
4. In 1998 Mid-Continent Research for Education and Learning (McREL)
meta-analysis involved the finding of 21 leadership responsibilities which
are significantly associated with student achievement (Waters, Marzano,
and McNulty, 2005). Termed The Balanced Leadership Framework,
these standards for leaders are uniquely specific as they were developed
from a far more comprehensive analysis of research on school leadership
and student achievement (Waters, Marzano, & McNulty, 2005, p. 2). The
authors also contend that because the balanced leadership framework is
grounded in evidence, it limits subjective suppositions and provides more
emphasis on “concrete responsibilities, practices, knowledge, strategies,
tools, and resources that principal and others need to be effective leaders”
(Waters, et al., 2003, p. 2). Upon comparison of the ISLLC Standards and
the Balanced Leadership Framework it was determined that the McREL
standards add value to the ISLLC Standards in three key ways: (a)
increased utility, (b) guidance based upon quantitative research, and (c)
61
the identification of leadership practices that should take primacy (Waters
and Grubb, 2004, p. 3).
5. The California Professional Standards for Educational Leaders (CPSEL)
identify six areas for training and development of a school administrator.
These are also used to guide formal evaluations and form the criteria for
hire. To maintain their accreditation, administrative preparation programs
must align their curriculum to the six thematic areas defined in the
CPSEL. These standards were adapted from the ISLLC standards
(Appendix 3).
Figure 6: Victoria, Human Resources, Principal Selection, Updated September 14,
2009 p.2
62
Research from the Australia Public School Principal Selection Criteria
(Figure 6 above) refers to the various performance criteria needed for effective
schools. In the United States, research to gauge the preparation and the performance
of effective school leaders have resulted in two distinct points of view: One group
argues that historically, leadership criteria or standards were, at best, ambiguous and,
at worst, contradictory, impossible, or variant to common values and remains
concerned with the standards themselves and also the lack of concrete performance
criteria(Reeves, 2004). The second view of contention is against the contemporary
leadership standards and their perceived lack of use in practical situations—since the
argument has been made that there are no specific skills or knowledge being
identified for effective leaders, creating standards without outlining the specific skills
to meet the standards seems to be disjointed.
Despite differing opinions on the quality or lack thereof of suitable
preparation programs for future leaders, the consensus remains that there is no
universally agreed upon research and literature that identifies one set of universally
accepted standards for preparation and evaluation of the secondary school principal.
Review of five Administrative Credentialing programs in Southern California was
evaluated for their preparation standards, and some common themes were identified.
This credential is required for placement in an administrative position including
secondary principalship.
63
Figure 7: Comparison of University Principal Preparation Program Course of Study
Chapman
University
CSU, Fullerton UCLA National
University
Pepperdine
University
Supervision and
Evaluation of
Instruction
Management of
personnel,
resources and
operations
Human Resource
Administration
Management and
HR, budgets,
Conflict Mngt,
personnel, IT
HR in Diverse
communities
Evaluating,
Envisioning and
Planning
Supervision of
Instruction and
Assessment
Leadership in
Public Schools
Curriculum,
Instruction and
Assessment
Curriculum
Alignment,
Assessment and
Accountability
Understanding
teaching and
learning
School Law and
Regulatory
Process.
Legal and Ethical
Foundations
Legal and
Financial aspects
of education
School Finance
Political, legal
and cultural
context
Financial
leadership and
management
Understanding
Self and People
Leadership and
organizational
development
Organizational
leadership
Leadership Educational
Leadership in
schools today
Understanding
and
Transforming
Organizations
Leadership for
diversity, equity
and community
Policy,
Governance,
Community
Relations
Governance-
Public values
and policy, local
school districts
Technology and
Data Analysis
Understanding
Environments
There is insufficient research to determine whether urban superintendents are
hiring and placing secondary principals in California public schools based on the
identified standards of performance and job requirements as listed above. Despite the
ISLLC standards and the CPSEL standards as part of the evaluation criteria, it
remains unclear as to whether all superintendents use these standards for hiring and
for principal evaluation. Discussions on effective leadership skills, often document
common qualities for effective principals. An educational dissertation by David Cash
64
(2008-unpublished) and a research study by the Wallace Foundation entitled Rolling
Up Their Sleeves (2003) have examined the role of the superintendent in public
education and support findings from Duckworth (2008) and Kowlaski (1995) which
identifies the superintendent as a CEO who selects and places the managers, vis-à-
vis, the secondary school principals to achieve the school level goals.
A study by Glass and Bearman (2003) concluded that there is a discrepancy
between what the standards state the principals should possess and what the
superintendents actually look for when hiring, even though by 2006, 44 states were
using the ISLLC standards as the basis for principal licensing (AASA Bulletin,
March 20, 2006). Thomas Goodney (2007-unpublished) in his dissertation concluded
that the research on superintendent selection criteria for secondary principals is
limited. Hess (2003) has criticized the recruitment process itself and has referred to
the national survey of superintendents where “fewer than 40 percent were happy
with their principals’ ability to make tough decisions, delegate responsibility to staff,
involve teachers in developing policies and priorities, or spend money efficiently”
(p.1). Further studies by Farkas et al. (2001) surveyed superintendents who reported
their disappointed with the level of principal preparation to face leadership
challenges related to staff evaluations, student achievement and supervision of their
teachers and requested additional training in areas of school law and supervision of
curriculum and personnel. What then would superintendents consider to be important
as part of the preparation for secondary principals? Further research is necessary to
answer this question.
65
In order to successfully select an effective principal, hiring should be linked
to the practice of strategic human resource management where the performance of
the employee is measured against the attainment of the strategic objectives of the
organization. In public schools the selection process includes two distinct steps: a)
screening decisions which include paper credentials such as the application, resume,
and letters of recommendation, and b) interviewing decisions which include face-to-
face interviews with panels and possibly one-to-one conversations with the
superintendent to determine the “best fit” for the school. Research supports the active
role superintendents play in selecting the secondary principals and in districts with
less than 3000 students, the superintendent is the primary interviewer (Reichhart,
2008). Most superintendents are involved in developing the criteria to match the
school they are hiring for, get involved in the screening process as they try to
determine the skills, training, and knowledge of the applicants as being a “good fit”
for the position and participate in the final selection. Specific attention is given to
identify a candidates’ training and background that reflects the school’s need and the
community culture (Glass & Bearman, 2003). Special attention is paid to experiences
related to collective bargaining, community organizations, athletic programs,
supervision of administrative staff, and finance and budget decisions (Reichhart,
2008, p. 4). Baker (2001) identified several factors that are used by the
superintendent in the selection of principals. These were cited as experience,
communication skills, ability to deal with diverse populations, possess a strong sense
of justice and integrity, and evidence of the ability to solve problems effectively.
66
Only 25% of the superintendents interviewed by Baker (48 out of 182) stated that
they used the ISLLC standards of knowledge, understanding, and dispositions as part
of the selection criteria.
Gordon Karim, program associate with the Center for School and Community
Development at NCREL (1997) emphasized the changes in stakeholder roles in order
to make the school level services more effective. District and school administrators,
the school board along with teachers, support staff and parents are all responsible for
participating in the restructuring which reexamines staff assignments, roles and
relationships within schools. Superintendents today are not just hiring a principal to
run the day to day business of a secondary school; they are hiring an individual who
is able to understand the culture of the community that surrounds the school.
The selection of secondary school principals in this time of high
accountability and federal and state mandates is a challenge. The United States
department of Labor estimated that due to attrition and retirement of nearly 40% of
the 93,2000 principals in 1999, there would be a 10%-20% shortfall in qualified
principal candidates by 2009 (NCES, 2001). Further studies by the department
indicate that half of the 400 superintendents polled reported a shortfall of qualified
principals. Currently in California AB 430, the Administrator Training Program, is
the reauthorization of AB 75 and provides funding to school districts and the Local
Educational Agencies (LEA) to provide the necessary skills and knowledge training
for principals and assistant principals as instructional leaders. It also includes
leadership, infrastructure and support for instructional programs to improve student
67
achievement. The number of qualified applicants for the principal position continues
to remain a challenge, Morford reports that “within the next five years, 40% of the
principals are expected to retire creating a shortage of experienced leadership that is
needed in this era of increasing standards and accountability” (2002, p.62).
The advent of the standard-based reforms in instruction has required that
school districts focus on student achievement as a priority. Superintendents have
started to work directly with secondary principals to implement change. Even though
positive student academic growth is attained through school-based leadership which
allows for the school stakeholders to take ownership of their school, the involvement
of superintendents in the academic achievement process has been determined to be
critical for student growth (Waters& Marzano, 2006). Research indicates that it is the
direct leadership and relationship of the principal with teachers, support staff and the
community that impacts student achievement (Cotton, 2003).
In his research Whalen (2002) identified the common characteristics of
successful principals who are hired to improve problematic schools. These were: (1)
They do not need everyone to like them since turning around failing schools requires
principals who are willing to be very unpopular with many, sometimes, with most
faculty for extended periods of time. (2) They involve faculties in long range
planning; few schools turn around in one year; three is a minimum and four to six is
what is required and teachers need to be part of that plan. (3) They get rid of teachers
who do not or cannot be part of the change process. (4) They benchmark progress
and keep people trying. (5) They celebrate success and they recognize and appreciate
68
accomplishments. (6) They coach not command and are not afraid to give directions.
(7) They have courage to fail and acknowledge the failure calmly and encouragingly.
These attributes could be made part of a self-evaluation tool that is part of the
evaluation process.
A review of evaluation tools used for principals concluded that there were
very few well identified tools, and that the development of a policy document for this
purpose has been ignored (Anne Weaver Hart, 1993). Douglas Reeves (2008) has
underlined the importance of using principals in the evaluation process. Since there
is scant research on common factors that drive the superintendent’s selection of
principals, Glass and Bearman (2003) made an effort to look at the selection criteria
based on the ISLLC preparation and licensure standards and concluded that there
was no ownership of those standards in the hiring practice of superintendents. One
example of this was that ISLLC standards identify instructional leadership and
student assessment data for academic improvement and teacher observations, but the
interviewed superintendents responded that they gave as much importance to the
principal’s ability to maintain discipline and communicate effectively.
The National Association of Secondary School Principals (NASSP)
conducted a survey to receive feedback on the quality of principal candidates. Rating
the quality on a scale of 1 (poor) to 5 (excellent), the mean score was 2.89, which is
of concern since the existing pool is limited. Continuing to attract strong candidates
would require districts and superintendents to revise the job description as suggested
by the Fordham Institute in their 2003 report, which states that principals should be
69
“better compensated; [held] accountable for results firmly in control of budgets,
personnel, and operations; and [be] hired more for their leadership expertise than
their experience in the field” (p. 10).
Conclusion
There are inconsistencies on the focus of various administrative programs
and the level of preparation of the secondary principals. Despite ISSLC standards
being imbedded in the CPSEL standards in California and being part of some district
principal evaluation criteria, there is a need for further research to determine whether
superintendents are aware of these standards and whether they are actively
evaluating their secondary principals on these standards. The California credential
program requires that administrators earn their certification through accredited
programs, but in reality other options have been provided that bypasses these training
opportunities because of the urgency of filling secondary principal positions. Given
the shortage of qualified candidates and the abundance of credentialed administrators
who do not have the requisites preparation or knowledge related to secondary school
reform initiatives, there is a need for further research on what superintendents
consider important with regards to skills, knowledge and experiences when selecting
secondary principals and the Principal Preparation Programs addressing these in their
curriculum.
70
CHAPTER THREE
METHODOLOGY
This chapter describes the purpose and design of the study, identifies the
sample used to conduct the research, explains the instrument used to conduct the
research, and clarifies the procedure to collect and analyze the data.
Purpose of the Study
Findings on Leadership Development in California (Darling-Hammond &
Orphanos, 2007) addressed the following questions: (1) What do we know about
how to develop principals who can successfully transform schools? (2) What is the
current status of leadership development on California? and (3) What might the state
do to systematically support the development of leaders who manage a new
generation of schools that are successful in teaching all students well?
This mixed-method study was conducted to identify the skills, trainings and
experiences that form the basis of the selection criteria of secondary school
principals. This study was designed to use the data to answer the following
overarching research question: What implications, if any, would the current selection
criteria of California urban superintendents have on the preparation of future
secondary school principals? Therefore, the purpose of this study is two-fold: first
to identify the criteria for hire and second, to use this information for better
preparation of future candidates.
71
The first purpose of this mixed-method study has been to identify the criteria
around skills and training that superintendents select as integral to the success of a
secondary principal. When identifying the skills, training and experiences of the
candidates, reference is made to the current impact of NCLB which has resulted in
immense pressure for both the superintendent and the secondary principals to
demonstrate student achievement as indicated through proficiency in state tests and
increased graduation and college admissions rates. Twenty first century schools
demand that students be prepared to succeed in the global economy. The result has
seen a shift in the role of the secondary principal who is now focused on being an
Instructional leader with priority around reform initiatives to improve curriculum
content development, pedagogy, teacher training, and leadership strategies. Research
by Dufour et al. (2002), Fullan (2002) and Marzano et al. (2005), to name a few, has
focused on the leadership qualities of site principals to drive reform and student
achievement. This study aims to identify these very skills that form the criteria for
hire, as established by California superintendents in their districts when selecting
secondary principals. CIREPP completed case studies of eight principal-preparation
programs and confirmed the following standards were being covered: 1) Learning
and Instruction; 2) development of quality teaching and professional development; 3)
organizational development; 4) analyses and use of data to inform school
improvement; 5) change management; and 6) leadership skills, in addition to
knowledge around resource allocation to improve instruction and student
achievement. The New Teacher Project (2006) has further elaborated the areas of
72
shortcoming of principals and requested additional training in: a) preparation to face
leadership challenges related to staff evaluations, b) using data to analyze student
achievement, c) supervision of the school programs related to curriculum and
personnel, and d) school law. The second purpose of this study was to use the
findings around the selection criteria to better prepare future candidates since most
superintendents do not have a common criteria for hire. Even though ISLLC
standards have been adopted by 44 states to measure and evaluate principal
effectiveness and are ingrained in the Leadership training programs of most
universities, a survey conducted by Farkas et al. (2003) as part of The Wallace
Foundation Report Rolling Up Their Sleeves finds that superintendents in urban and
rural districts were not consistent in their response to what constitutes principal
effectiveness and many of these standards were not used for hiring or for evaluative
purposes.
Therefore this study provides superintendents with the opportunity to identify
the criteria that could better prepare future candidates in the Principal Preparation
Programs. Even though research indicates that Principals are the cornerstone of a
successful school (Dufour et al., 2002), superintendents’ surveyed in the 2005 study
stated that they think most principals provide mediocre performance and that
administrator training programs and principal certification programs are not proof of
high-quality skills (TNTP, 2006). Hess (2003) has criticized the recruitment process
itself and has referred to the national survey of superintendents where “fewer than 40
percent were happy with their principals’ ability to make tough decisions, delegate
73
responsibility to staff, involve teachers in developing policies and priorities, or spend
money efficiently” (p.1). Research by Glass and Bearman (2003) reported the
discrepancy between the ISLLC standards that identify key components of
principalship and what superintendents identify as important when hiring. This
finding was further supported by Kowalski (2004) who stated that “substantial
reforms in administrator preparation, program accreditation, and state licensing
standards” (p. 93) are necessary.
Two questions formed the basis of this study:
1. What are the skills, training and knowledge superintendents look for
when hiring secondary principals?
2. How do superintendents ensure that the right candidate is selected for and
is successful in the position of secondary principal?
Research Design
This project is designed as a mixed-method research study and was
conducted with superintendents who are responsible for the selection of secondary
principals. As a process, this study involved the collection of data from both
“inductive, open-ended encounters” and more “hypothetical-deductive attempts to
verify hypotheses”. (Patton, 2002, p. 253).
The quantitative portion of the study was completed through a 35-question
survey (Appendix A) where each of the questions is referenced to a research
addressing those specific skills. The participants were superintendents in either
Unified School Districts or in Union High School Districts. According to Mertens
74
(1998) “Surveys are good because they allow collection of data from a larger number
of people than is generally possible” (p.105). The McREL Balanced Leadership
Framework provides the background to the survey questions with research on
leadership skills in the principal position. Bolman and Deal (2005) provide the
background for Four Frames of Leadership. The data from these surveys were further
analyzed for a trend related to the gender of the superintendent, the years of
experience, and years in the current district.
The qualitative part of this research was completed through face-to-face
interviews (Appendix B), each of approximately 90 minutes in duration to allow
superintendents the opportunity to share current practices and trends in the selection
of secondary principals in their districts. Interview responses provided important data
for this case study and its purpose “is to allow us to enter into the other person’s
perspective . . . to find out what is in and on someone else’s mind, to gather their
stories” (Patton, 2002, p. 341). The data from these sources were used to answer the
two research questions presented above and allowed the researcher to create a layout
for the case analysis and provide “a specific way of collecting, organizing and
analyzing data… to gather comprehensive, systematic, and in-depth information”
Patton (2002, p. 298). The one-on-one interviews consisted of two broad questions
with eleven sub-questions which were open-ended but structured under the general
rubrics of “identified areas of job responsibility”.
The research also included data to reflect background information on the
demographics of the school and the superintendents’ years on the job in order to
75
allow the researcher to find if there are any consistencies in the selection criteria
based on superintendent experience (Appendix C).
Population and Sample
The population of this study was California urban superintendents.
Purposeful sampling of participants was used for the quantitative research which was
based on an anonymous survey which was mailed to 40 superintendents in Northern
and Southern California; 17 were returned in preaddressed stamped envelopes and
used for this study. The participants were a preselected group (all superintendents)
since random sampling would not be able to provide the details as needed to support
the study. Patton (2002) has confirmed “random probability samples cannot
accomplish what in-depth, purposeful samples accomplish, and vice versa” (p. 236).
The 35-question survey was divided into 2 parts: the first part requested
superintendents to provide information on their background and their district. Of the
17 respondents (N=17), 5 were female superintendents (n=5) and 12 were male
superintendents (n=12); more than 70% were males were as the rest were females,
30%. 16 superintendents were from Unified School District (94.1%) while only 1
(5.9%) was from a Union High School District. Ninety five percent of the
participating superintendents represented districts with over 15,000 students. The
range of responses were from districts with APIs between 600 and 850, with almost
50% of these urban districts having met the State target API of 800 which is a score
indicating that the school had reached a high level of proficiency in student
performance. All participants, 100%, indicated their years in public education was
76
over 20 years and over 80% of the respondents were serving as superintendents in
their current districts between 5 and 10 years and 94% of the respondents indicated
that they had been with their current districts for more than 5 years.
The male and female superintendent responses were analyzed to determine if
the female and male superintendents differed in their selection choices.
The qualitative research included five superintendents(n=5) all of whom were
male superintendents (100%) who met two preset criteria around district size and
principal performance. Sixty percent of the participants had 10 or more years of
experience as a superintendent, and 80% represented districts with more than 25,000
students. The interview protocol included three questions with corresponding four
sub-questions which were open-ended questions and allowed time for a more
detailed discussion and feedback on the hiring process and selection criteria.
Demographical data
Demographic data, including gender, ethnicity, years of experience, District
API were collected. Demographic information was self reported by superintendents
in the survey protocol.
Instruments
A mixed-method research included (a) 35-question survey for
Superintendents and (b) An interview questionnaire with 3 open-ended questions.
The data from the 35-questions was analyzed and scored under a 5 point Likert Scale
(1= not at all important to 5= very important). The 35 survey questions relate to four
categories under principal leadership and identified as B for background, M for
77
Management, HR for Human relations and I for instruction. Each of the survey
questions is based on research which identified the significance of the question in
relation to the Principal leadership in school.
The second instrument used for this research is the interview questionnaire
(Appendix C) which was part of the personal interview process. The data was
analyzed for trends around superintendent expectations related to skills, training, and
experience required by their secondary principals to be successful in California
public schools.
Procedures
The investigator mailed the survey to 40 superintendents along with the
participants Request to Participate letter (Appendix D) in northern and southern
California and a follow up request was sent in September. The survey was field
tested for reliability using the Cronbach’s alpha and for clarity and content.
Cronbach’s alpha is a statistical calibration commonly used to measure internal
consistency and reliability of a psychometric instrument. It is a classical test theory
that states that the reliability of the test scores can be expressed as the ratio of the
true score and total score. Cronbach’s alpha will generally increase when the ratio
between the items increase. For this reason it is called the internal consistency
reliability test.
The one-to-one interviews were conducted with urban superintendents who
met both the preset criteria around student performance and principal reform
initiatives. These five superintendents were selected based on the size of the district
78
which set the limit at over ten thousand students and districts in which the secondary
schools were involved in research based reform initiatives. An appointment was
made with each superintendent and an email was sent to them in advance that
contained the questions for the interview. All, except one, were conducted with the
superintendent at their place of work; one was completed over the phone because of
the distance and time limitations. Each of the participants was open and direct in
their responses which were audio-taped with prior approval. The interview was
transcribed and excerpts used in the qualitative study to validate their statements.
Data Collection
By August 2009 a packet was mailed to all identified superintendents and
principals in California with the following documents:
1. The Request to Participate letter
2. Survey for superintendents
3. A self-addressed stamped envelope to return the completed surveys.
Data Analysis
Descriptive statistics and analysis of variance was used in the quantitative
part of the study. The format to analyze the data remains consistent as that used by
William C Reichhart (2008) in the Indiana study. The data was collected using the
Statistical Package for the Social Sciences [SPSS] version (17.0) and was coded,
scored and analyzed. The Cronbach’s alphas for overall secondary principal selection
criteria were .883. (Appendix E) and according to reliability test, only 34 items were
used instead of 36. The selection total scale’s reliability is .883 which is very high.
79
However, because of the small sample size, statistically this data has its limitations.
The survey questions were grouped around four subscales, each of the questions in
the subscale being analyzed for reliability. The preliminary analysis of the alpha of
the total Background scale presented low reliability; as a result, the item which
impacted and lowered the Cronbach’s alpha was deleted: “Possess a degree beyond
the Master’s level.” The total adjusted reliability for the adjusted Background
subscale was .635 and a total of 8 Background items was used which presented
acceptable reliability. In the Instruction subscale, the item, “Ability to analyze test
data to improve teacher and student performance,” was also deleted to increase its
reliability to .710. In the Human Resource subscale all items were used and the
showed a high reliability at .814. Similarly, the reliability for Management was
reported as .815 which indicates high reliability. The four subscales were rated on a
Likert Scale of 1-5, and the results indicated that Human Relations subscale had the
highest mean of 4.62 compared with its counterparts. The mean of Instruction
criteria was 4.38 followed closely by the management criteria with a mean of 4.30.
The Background subscale had the lowest mean of 3.12, The total mean of the
Selection Criteria (4.11) indicates that these four subscales were significantly
Important.
The qualitative analysis consisted of the one-to-one interviews, results of
which were used to answer three open ended questions. The results of the survey
provided valuable information on the selection criteria and to the questions related to
the selection of and the success in the office of secondary principal.
80
The analysis included:
(a) Descriptive statistics were provided in means and standard deviation
around the superintendent responses for all subscales based on gender, ethnicity,
tenure, district size, district API, and years in education.
(b) Detailed description of the ranking of the responses and frequency
distribution, means, and standard deviations as computed for all items on the survey.
(c) Testing for significance was completed by conducting repeated-measures
t-tests or analysis of variance on the item subgroups identified as Background (B)
Instruction (I), Management (M)and Human Resource (HR).
(d) Each question was examined for their internal consistency reliability
using the Cronbach’s alpha.
(e) The interview questionnaire addressed similar questions as the survey,
and analyzed for trend in the common responses.
Ethical Considerations
Several ethical considerations were made during the design, and throughout
the course of this study. Primarily, all University of Southern California Institutional
Review Board (IRB) guidelines and procedures were strictly followed.
Confidentiality of all of the participants in the study was strictly adhered to and
informed consent was acquired from all participants prior to the individual
interviews being conducted. All parties consented to participate in the study and all
participants were informed of the nature and purpose of the study. Additionally, all
81
steps were taken to protect the anonymity of all participants who were informed of
the confidential nature of their responses.
Summary
This chapter presents the quantitative outcomes including the ranking of the
responses, descriptive statistics, and analysis of variance (ANOVA) and qualitative
analysis of personal interviews of urban superintendents in order to answer the
overarching research question: What implications, if any, would the current selection
criteria of California urban superintendents have on the preparation of future
secondary school principals? The purpose of this mixed-method study is to reveal
the criteria identified as important by urban superintendents when selecting
secondary principals for the 21
st
century schools. Research continues to question
whether there are common criteria for hire and whether principal Training programs
should provide focused opportunities for future candidates to master these
requirements, it is hoped that the findings of this study will provide viable responses
to some of those questions.
82
CHAPTER FOUR
ANALYSIS OF DATA
In an effort to answer the overarching research question What implications, if
any, would the current selection criteria of California urban superintendents have on
the preparation of future secondary school principals, this chapter presents multiple
types of data including: quantitative outcomes with the ranking of the responses,
descriptive statistics, and analysis of variance (ANOVA), as well as qualitative
analysis of personal interviews of urban superintendents.
This chapter presents the findings from a mixed-method study that included
both qualitative and quantitative responses from 23 urban superintendents in
California. The Quantitative data was compiled from the responses from surveys
with 17 superintendents and the Qualitative data was compiled from the responses
from five one-on-one interviews.
Secondary principal skills, knowledge and training were identified from
current research (Appendix A.1) and the survey required these skills be rated on a
Likert Scale (1-5 with 5 being the highest). The survey questions were also identified
to the ISLLC/CPSEL standards and analyzed through the Four Frames of Leadership
as formulated by Bolman and Deal.
Research findings from Glass and Bearman (2003) would suggest that there
is a discrepancy between the skills principals should possess in the areas such as
leadership, school management, staff training, and what superintendents actually
83
look for when hiring. Given some of these discrepancies, Goodney (2007-
unpublished), for example, in his dissertation study, concluded that the research on
superintendent selection criteria for secondary principals is limited. This mixed-
method research study was conducted to answer these two research questions:
a)What skills, training and knowledge do superintendents look for when hiring
secondary principals and b) How do superintendents ensure that the right candidate
is selected for the position and is successful in the position of secondary principal?
Analysis of Quantitative Data: Survey Results
The survey questions were organized around the ISSLC/CPSEL standards
and were divided into four subscales related to the Background of the principal
candidate, Management style of the principal, Human Relations skills necessary to
work with all stakeholders, and the Instruction knowledge for student achievement.
Each question was examined for their reliability using the Cronbach’s alpha. The
preliminary analysis of the alpha of the Background scale presented low reliability;
as a result, the item which impacted and lowered the Cronbach’s alpha was deleted:
“Possess a degree beyond the Master’s level.” A total of 8 Background items was
used with alpha, .67 which presented acceptable reliability. In the Instruction
subscale, the item, “Ability to analyze test data to improve teacher and student
performance,” was also deleted to increase its reliability to .71. As a result, a total
of 34 items were used to answer the previously proposed research questions.
84
The following pages include the analysis of the survey data divided into 3
parts:
Part I includes Tables 1-7 and addresses information on Superintendent
Background which includes demographic data, size of the district, API of the district,
total years of experience as urban superintendent, years as superintendent in current
district, years as educator in current district, and total years as a public educator. This
information provided was used with the data from Part II to determine the level of
consistency, if any, in the selection criteria of principals based on the demographic
background of superintendents.
Part II includes Tables 8-12 and addresses the Analysis of Ranking of Four
Subscales and descriptive Statistics of the Measured Variables (n =17) to indicate
how superintendent responses identified each of the skills related to the Background
qualities of the principal, Instructional Leadership skills, Human Relations Skills,
and Management skills, as a requirement for selection.
Part III includes Tables 13-18 and addresses 5 additional questions to
determine whether there was any correlation between the data from Part I and Part II.
For example, whether tenure of the superintendent or gender of the superintendent
impacted the selection criteria and the ISLLC/CPSEL standards.
85
PART I: Superintendent Background Data
Table 1: Demographic Data (n=17)
Total Percent
Gender Female 5 29.4
Male 12 70.6
District Unified School District 16 94.1
Union High School District 1
The demographic data of 17 anonymous superintendent surveys indicate that
the majority of the responses (70.6%) were from male superintendents and that
almost all superintendents (94%) represented k-12 districts.
Table 2: Student Enrollment Total and Percent of the Participating Superintendents
Total Percent
Student Over 50,000 5 29.4
Enrollment Over 20,000 9 52.9
Over 15,000 2 11.8
Over 10,000 1 5.9
Based on the above data, 95% of the participating superintendents
represented districts with over 15,000 students. These were all very large urban
school districts in California.
86
Table 3: District API Total and Percent of the Participating Superintendents
Total Percent
District API Over 900 0 0
Over 850 4 25.0
Over 800 4 25.0
Over 750 3 18.8
Over 700 3 18.8
Over 650 1 6.3
Over 600 1 6.3
Less than 600 0 0
The responses ranged from districts with APIs between 600 and 850 with
50% of these urban districts having met the State target API of 800, a score
indicating a high level of proficiency.
Table 4: Total Years and Percent as Urban Superintendents
Total Percent
Over 15 years 2 12.5
Over 10 years 4 25.0
Over 5 years 6 37.5
Less than 3 years 4 25.0
The majority of the respondents had 5 years or more of experience. This data
was analyzed in Part III to detect if experience of superintendents impacted the
selection criteria.
87
Table 5: Total Years and Percent as Superintendent in their Current District
Total Percent
Over 15 years 0 0
Over 10 years 6 40.0
Over 5 years 8 47.0
Less than 3 years 3 20.0
Over 80% of the respondents were serving as superintendents in their current
districts between 5 and 10 years and this information was analyzed further to
determine if the selection patterns of new superintendents in the district (less than 3
years) differed from those who had been in their current district a longer time.
Table 6: Total Years and Percent of Working as Educator in their Current District
Total Percent
Over 15 years 3 20.0
Over 10 years 2 13.3
Over 5 years 9 60.0
Less than 3 years 4 6.7
94% of the respondents indicated that they had been with their current
districts for more than 5 years. This data was analyzed to confirm if longevity in a
district impacts selection.
88
Table 7: Total Years Total and Percent in Public Education Including Teaching
Total Percent
Over 20 years 17 100
Over 15 years 0 0
Over 10 years 0 0
Over 5 years 0 0
Less than 3 years 0 0
All participants, 100%, indicated their years in public education was over 20 years.
PART II: Analysis of Ranking of Four Subscale Responses
The 34 item questionnaire addressed the Background of the principal
candidate, along with skills related to Management, Human Relations, and
Instruction Leadership.
Table 8: Descriptive Statistics of the Measured Variables (n=17)
Minimum Maximum Mean SD
Selection Criteria(total) 3.68 4.76 4.11 .30
Background 2.50 4.00 3.12 .43
Instruction 3.71 5.00 4.38 .41
Human Relations 3.88 5.00 4.62 .37
Management 3.55 5.00 4.30 .39
89
The responses in each of the subscales were rated on a Likert scale with 5
being the highest. The Human Relations subscale had the highest mean of 4.62,
followed by the Instruction criteria which had a mean of 4.38, and the Management
criteria with a mean of 4.30. The Background subscale had the lowest mean of 3.12,
indicating that the criteria related to biographical variables of candidates were
significantly less important to the superintendents. The mean of the total Selection
Criteria (4.11) indicates the significant importance of all subscales.
Table 9: Ranking of Background Responses
Ranks Items Mean SD
B1 Positive professional references from previous employers 4.76 .437
B2 Have teaching experience at the secondary level 4.47 .624
B3 Educational philosophy consistent with Superintendent 4.29 .772
B4 Prior experience as principal 3.53 .800
B5 Previous administrative experience in this district 2.53 .874
B6 Employee from within district 2.35 .862
B7 Race 1.56 .964
B8 Gender 1.35 .702
Superintendents rated both “Positive professional references from previous
employers” (4.76) and “Having teaching experience at the secondary level”(4.47) as
the two most important experiences when considering a candidate for the
principalship. Superintendents also indicated that selecting candidates who had a
90
similar vision to the superintendents was highly important (4.29). However, gender
and race of the candidate had little impact in the selection.
Table 10: Ranking of Instruction Responses
Ranks Items Mean SD
IN1 Knowledge: API/ AYP STAR/ CST 4.71 .470
IN2 Commitment to diverse student need 4.59 .507
IN3 Knowledge: II ry school restructuring 4.53 .717
IN4 Knowledge: CTE, SLC, PLC etc. 4.47 .624
IN5 Proven performance of raising test scores 4.41 .712
IN6 Knowledge: master schedule/ new courses 4.00 .866
IN8 Knowledge: counseling & post-graduation 3.94 .827
The skills identified in this subscale have all been rated high as they relate
directly to Principals as the Instructional Leader of the school with the responsibility
of ensuring equity and access for all students to the programs and services that
address student achievement. Despite some criticism of the standardized tests as
being too prescribed and inadequately assessing student learning, schools and
districts continue to focus on the scores as an indication of student achievement and
the rigor of the school programs. Superintendents identified that principals are
required to understand the details of the API/ AYP scores for their school (4.71), use
the achievement data to work with teachers to raise instructional quality and also
address the diversity of student learning needs (4.59), leading to programs and
initiatives that help restructure the school through reform efforts aimed at raising
91
student and staff performance (4.53). The knowledge and skills of principals
associated with this subscale have been instrumental in secondary school reform.
Table 11: Ranking of Human Resources Responses
Ranks Items Mean SD
H1 Ability to communicate effectively 4.88 .332
H2 To be a good ‘fit’ for the job 4.82 .393
H3 Ability to work collaboratively 4.82 .393
H4 Ability to listen to others 4.76 .562
H5 Ability to tolerate high levels of stress 4.71 .470
H6 Ability to motivate others/ Vision & Planning 4.65 .493
H7 Ability to manage employee discipline 4.24 .752
H8 Knowledge and experience of Unions/contracts 4.06 .899
Superintendents confirmed that Principals, as Symbolic Leaders and
Visionary leaders (Bolman and Deal, 1997), must possess strong Human Relations
skills and identified that being a good communicator (4.88), being a good fit (4.82),
being able to work well with all(4.82) and be able to listen to others (4.76), were
some of the most critical skills for success.
92
Table 12: Ranking of Management Responses
Ranks Items Mean SD
M1 Strong computer skills in student database etc. 3.24 1.033
M2 Ability to supervise curriculum/evaluate instruction 4.65 0.606
M3 Ability to manage financial resources 3.94 0.827
M4 Flexibility to change 4.71 0.470
M5 Ability to plan effective professional development 4.12 0.78
M6 Demonstrated managerial abilities: facilities, budgets 3.75 0.775
M7 Ability to be a self-starter 4.65 0.493
M8 Ability to be a risk taker 4.41 0.618
M9 Ability to engage community stakeholders 4.41 0.618
M10 Ability to engage in data driven decision making 4.88 0.332
M11 Understanding of accountability system in education 4.47 0.717
In the public school system, NCLB mandates have created structures of
accountability at all levels, starting from school boards to the classroom teacher.
Using the results of student performance to initiate reforms and programs was rated
as a very important skill in principals (4.88) along with the requirement that
principals are good instructional leaders and understand that instruction and
curriculum drives student achievement (4.65). The data also affirms that the
‘principalship’ requires the candidate to take risks (4.41) and be a self-starter (4.41)
and be flexible to change (4.71). As is indicated by the overall mean scores, every
skill in this subscale has been identified as very important for the principal’s success
on the job.
93
PART III: Co-relation of Data from Part I and Part II
This section addressed four additional questions to determine whether the
data from Part I and Part II had any correlation based on superintendent responses.
The superintendent survey responses were further analyzed to answer the
following questions and ascertain noticeable trends, if any, in the selection criteria.
1. Do Superintendents of Unified School Districts and Union High School
Districts differ in their selection criteria of secondary principals, and if
so how? (Table 1)
This question was asked to determine whether superintendents had different
priorities with regards to skills, traits and knowledge when selecting their secondary
principals based on whether it was a K-12 district or a 7-12 district. One way
analysis of variance was conducted to examine the difference between the selection
criteria of Superintendents of Unified School Districts and those of Union High
School Districts. The outcomes of the analysis indicated that there was no difference
in the selection criteria among the two groups, F (1,15) = .327, p > .05.
The Superintendents also did not present any difference in their responses to
the questions addressing the three subscales: Instruction, F (1,15) = 1.741, p > .05,
Human Relations, F (1,15) = 1.031, p > .05, and Management, F (1,15) = 1.671, p >
.05. However, the Background showed some difference with F (1,15) = 3.853, p=
.068 although it was not statistically significant.
This analysis indicated that selection criteria for superintendents were
consistent across unified and union high school districts.
94
2. Do urban superintendents with less than 3 years of superintendent
experience differ in their selection criteria from those who have been in
that position for over 5 years, or over 10 years? Therefore does longevity
in the superintendent’s office impact the selection criteria? (Table 4)
According to the results of one-way analysis of variance, there was no
statistically significant mean difference between the selection criteria of
Superintendents with less than 3 years of serving in urban setting and their
counterparts with over 5 years, or over 10 years; F (1,12) = .149, p > .05.
The four subscales also did not show any mean differences between the
selection criteria of Superintendents in with less than 3 years of serving in urban
setting and their counterparts with over 5 years, or over 10 years: Background, F
(1,12) = .652, p > .05, Instruction, F (1,12) = .065, p > .05, Human Relations, F
(1,12) = .001, p > .05 and Management, F (1,12) = .230, p > .05.
In terms of the analysis of the Total years as Superintendent of their districts
(Table 5), there was no statistically significant mean difference between the selection
criteria of Superintendents with less than 3 years of serving and their counterparts
with over 5 years, or over 10 years, F (1,13) = .981, p > .05.
The four subscales did not present any mean differences either: Background,
F (1,13) = .217, p > .05, Instruction, F (1,13) = .379, p > .05, Human Relations, F
(1,13) = .918, p > .05 and Management, F (1,13) = .880, p > .05.
95
3. Do superintendents, who have risen from within the district to their
current position, differ in what they are looking for in their secondary
principals from those who are hired as superintendents from other
districts?
This question was specifically asked in order to ascertain whether
superintendents who had been in the district as a teacher, or an administrator, and
had a deep understanding of the existing culture and the politics of the schools,
would differ in their criteria when compared to superintendents who had come from
other district and had less longevity within that district.
In order to answer the question, one-way analysis of variance was conducted.
There was no statistically significant mean difference between those two groups, F
(1,13) = .562, p > .05.
The two groups also did not have any statistically significant mean
differences in their rating of the subscale questions; Background, F (1,12) = .615, p
> .05, Instruction, F (1,12) = 2.313, p > .05, Human Relations, F (1,12) = .125, p >
.05, and Management, F (1,12) = .001, p > .05.
4. Do male and female superintendents’ differ in their selection of
secondary principals?
This question was asked to support whether there was any difference in how
female and male superintendents viewed the skills required by their secondary
principals. The results of the one-way analysis of variance indicated that there was
no statistically significant mean difference in the selection of secondary principals
96
according to the gender of superintendents, F (1,15) = .173, p > .05. In terms of the
four subscales, no mean difference was found: Background, F (1,15) = .017, p > .05,
Instruction, F (1,15) = .158, p > .05, Human Relations, F (1,15) = .221, p > .05,
and Management, F (1,15) = .071, p > .05.
5. How did female and male superintendent responses reflect the adherence
to the ISLLC/ CPSEL standards in their selection criteria? (Appendix E))
The ISLLC standards have six identified areas that address skills and
knowledge required for a principal. Research indicates a lack of fidelity to these
standards for principal evaluation. The following section analyzes superintendent
responses to determine to these standards. Pre-identified questions from the survey,
aligned to each of the four subscales, were used to determine male and female
superintendent adherence to each of the six CPSEL Standards.
97
Standard 1: Facilitating the development, articulation, implementation, and
stewardship of a vision of learning that is shared and supported by the school
community.
Table 13: Means for Subgroups with Male and Female Superintendents in
Standard 1
Survey questions Male Female
Background 3.59 3.30
Previous administrative experience in the district 2.67 2.20
Teaching experiences as the secondary level 4.50 4.40
Instruction 4.00 3.80
Knowledge of counseling and post graduate options 4.00 3.80
Human Relations 4.67 4.60
Ability to motivate others: Vision and Leadership 4.67 4.60
Management 4.19 4.31
Skills in computer and student data base 3.33 3.33
Ability to engage in data driven decisions 4.92 4.80
Understanding of today’s education accountability 4.33 4.80
Total 4.06 3.94
The overall total mean above indicates that the male superintendents
considered skills related to the Standard 1 a little more “Important” (4.06) than
female superintendents (3.94).
Closer analysis of the subscale mean scores indicate that having prior
experience as a principal was not important to the hiring criteria. However,
secondary principal candidates must have secondary teaching experience, be able to
98
motivate their staff and stakeholders, and engage in discussions around student
achievement data around the importance of the API/AYP accountability measures. In
each of these categories the difference between the male and female superintendents
was not statistically significant enough and indicated that both male and female
superintendent rated the skills related to Standard 1 as significantly ‘Important’.
Standard 2: Advocating, nurturing, and sustaining a school culture and
instructional program conducive to student learning and staff professional growth.
Table 14: Means for Subgroups with Male and Female Superintendents in
Standard 2
Subgroups Male Female
Background 3.50 3.60
Prior experience as a principal 3.50 3.60
Instruction
Ability to analyze test data to improve teacher/student
performance
- -
Human Relations 4.83 4.80
To be a good fit for the job 4.83 4.80
Management 4.33 4.50
Ability to plan effective staff development 4.58 4.80
Ability to supervise curriculum/evaluate Instruction 4.08 4.20
Total 4.22 4.30
99
The overall total mean of the responses to these questions indicate that the
female superintendents adhered to this standard a little more closely (4.30) than male
superintendent (4.22). However, all subscale responses indicated that superintendents
rated the skills required to meet Standard 2 as Highly Important. The item “Ability to
analyze test data to improve teacher and student performance” in the Instruction
subscale was removed from the analysis for low reliability and no mean on this item
was presented in Table 2. All superintendents indicated that selected candidates must
be a ‘good fit’ for the job in terms of similarity in beliefs, personality and vision of
the individual candidate to that of the superintendent.
Standard 3: Ensuring management of the organization, operations, and
resources for a safe, efficient, and effective learning environment.
Table 15: Means for Subgroups with Male and Female Superintendents in
Standard 3
Subscales Male Female
Instructions 4.17 3.60
Knowledge of master schedule/ new courses 4.17 3.60
Human Relations 4.08 4.00
Knowledge/experience of working with unions 4.08 4.00
Management 3.92 4.00
Demonstrate managerial abilities: plants, budgets 3.92 4.00
Ability to manage financial resources 3.92 3.60
Total 4.06 3.80
100
Both male and female superintendent ratings for the skills related to this
standard was important but differed significantly within each subscale. Female
superintendents viewed the secondary principals’ knowledge of the master schedule,
understanding the process of introducing new courses, and the ability to manage
financial resources as less Important when compared to the principals’ ability to
work with unions, monitor and regulate the overall physical plant, and work with the
school budget to ensure organizational management. Alternatively, male
superintendents rated the Instructional skills higher than the management skills of
plant and the budget and laid special significance on the principals’ ability to manage
financial resources.
Standard 3: Promote success of all students by ensuring management of the
organization, operations, and resources for a safe, efficient and effective learning
environment.
Questions were not aligned specifically to address this standard.
Standard 4: Collaborating with families and community members,
responding to diverse community interests and needs, and mobilizing community
resources.
101
Table 16: Means for Subgroups with Male and Female Superintendents in
Standard 4
Subscale Male Female
Background 1.49 1.40
Gender 1.42 1.20
Race 1.55 1.60
Instruction 4.67 4.40
Commitment to diverse student need/programs 4.67 4.40
Human relations 4.75 5.00
Ability to work collaboratively with stakeholders 4.72 5.00
Management 4.58 4.00
Ability to engage stakeholders in decision making 4.58 4.00
Total 3.87 3.70
The mean scores indicated that superintendents identified the skills related to
this standard as Somewhat Important. Background criteria on the gender and race of
the principal candidates was identified as Not at All Important in the selection
process. Analysis of other responses reveal that once again male superintendents
focused on the Instructional skills of understanding and committing to diverse
student needs and programs as a critical skill when compared to female
superintendents, who on the other hand rated the ‘collaborative skills’ of the
candidate to be a Very Important skill with a Likert score of 5. It was however,
interesting to note that the difference in responses to the principals ability to engage
stakeholders in the decision making process. Also noteworthy, that during the
102
personal interviews, Gender and Race of the candidate received very different
responses.
Standard 5: Modeling a personal code of ethics and developing professional
leadership capacity.
Table 17: Means for Subgroups with Male and Female Superintendents in
Standard 5
Subscales Male Female
Background 3.54 3.60
Employee from within the district 2.25 2.60
Possess a degree beyond the Masters level - -
Positive professional references 4.83 4.60
Instructions 4.50 4.20
Proven performance of raising test scores 4.50 4.20
Human Relations 4.80 4.60
Ability to listen to others 4.92 4.40
Ability to tolerate high levels of stress 4.67 4.80
Management 4.08 4.20
Ability to plan effective professional development 4.08 4.20
Total 4.23 4.15
All superintendents rated this Standard as Important for secondary
principals.. Thus confirmation was provided that superintendents were very willing
to hire qualified candidates from outside the district and emphasized positive
professional reference as important. Further analysis indicated that male
superintendents required their principals to be good listeners and work at raising test
103
scores, while female superintendents emphasized that their principals be able to
tolerate high level of stress and provide effective staff development. Standard 5
emphasizes the principal as a leader who is able to demonstrate ethical behavior
while guiding his stakeholders towards developing a culture of success. The skills
‘Possess a degree beyond the Masters level’ was deleted because it had insufficient
responses to support a finding.
Standard 6: Understanding, responding to, and influencing the larger
political, social, economic, legal, and cultural context.
Table 18: Means for Subgroups with Male and Female Superintendents in
Standard 6
Subgroups Male Female
Background 4.17 4.60
Educational philosophy consistent with superintendent 4.17 4.60
Instruction 4.50 4.73
Knowledge of API/AYP/STAR/CST 4.67 4.80
Knowledge of CTE, SLC, PLC and research 4.42 4.60
Knowledge of secondary school reform 4.42 4.80
Human Relations 4.63 4.40
Ability to communicate effectively 4.92 4.80
Ability to manage employee discipline 4.33 4.00
Management 4.61 4.47
Ability: self- starter 4.75 4.60
Ability: Risk 4.67 4.40
Flexibility to change 4.42 4.40
Total 4.61 4.55
104
The secondary principal is required to balance multiple stakeholder groups,
each with its own agenda and priority, and create a cohesive culture that supports the
larger more comprehensive and consequential need of student learning. Both male
and female superintendent responses indicated that Highly important that Principals
and superintendents share a common vision. Both female and male superintendents
indicated that the ability to take risk, be flexible, and make independent decisions
were very important skills.
Findings for Research Questions 1 & 2: Quantitative data
The data from the various tables indicate that there are little or no statistical
differences between how male and female superintendents rated the selection criteria
for secondary principals. Similarly, none of the factors such as tenure and longevity
in the district for a superintendent had any impact on how the secondary principal
selection was completed.
In the following section discusses the survey data analysis for each of the two
main research questions.
1. What skills, training and knowledge do superintendents look for when
hiring secondary principals?
The survey data indicates that when considering the skills required for
selection of secondary principals, superintendents required that the candidates
demonstrate a deep commitment to diverse student learning needs and be able to
work collaboratively with all stakeholders and engage them in the decision making
105
opportunities. It was important, therefore that the candidates displayed strong
communication skills that would enable them to explain their vision and motivate the
faculty and the community to move towards achievement of shared goals and
objectives, be willing to listen to diverse opinions and suggestions and be willing to
take risks and be flexible to recognize situations and demonstrate the ability to be a
self-starter and lead by example. These skills are more innate to the candidates and
superintendents rate them very highly in the Likert Scale.
Candidates are required to be trained to tolerate high levels of stress and
understand the steps necessary to create structures and support practices that
motivate others through vision and planning. It was also indicated that principals be
well versed in steps to manage employee discipline, and have training related to
classroom supervision and teacher evaluation. And finally, training in the use of
assessment data to drive instruction and create accountability across the school
community was also significant in the selection criteria.
In regards to the knowledge required to successfully implement the
responsibilities of the office, superintendents rated that principals must have
knowledge of secondary instruction and have had teaching experience at the
secondary level. There is high expectation that the candidate is well versed in the
accountability measures such as API and AYP as demonstrated through student
performance in California Standards Tests (CST) and be able to prove past
performance of raising test scores. In addition, significant importance is given to the
principals’ ability to create reform initiatives such as Professional Learning
106
Communities and Small Learning Communities and offering options for student
success through Career Technical Education and options in the master schedule.
2. How do superintendents ensure that the right candidate is selected for and
is successful in the position of secondary principal?
The four subscale questions were aligned to the six ISLLC/CPSEL standards.
The data indicated how superintendents selected the candidates adhering to these
standards of performance.
Standard 1: In this standard superintendents identified the skills required to
motivate others through creating a common vision that require these leaders to
engage their staff in decisions around student achievement data. Superintendents also
indicated that principals should have a deep knowledge of secondary instruction and
personal experience of having taught at the secondary level. Superintendent rating of
the skills that were necessary to meet this standard was identified as being Important.
Standard 2: In this standard superintendents rated the skills to be Important
and identified that principals selected had to be a ‘good fit’ for the job and would
require to have the knowledge to create a culture that focused on ongoing staff
development based on their observations and evaluations of the instructional
programs.
Standard 3: Even though specific questions were not aligned to this
standard, Superintendent responses related to skills that involve deep understanding
of master schedule and teacher assignments , along with the ability to communicate
107
with unions related to contracts and employee discipline. Working knowledge of
school facilities and school budgets also relate to this standard.
Standard 4: Secondary principals are responsible for creating a culture that
engages the diverse interests and needs of the stakeholders in a collaborative and
welcoming environment that attracts resources to meet the diverse student needs.
The mean response of the superintendents rated the skills needed to meet this
standard as Important.
Standard 5: The superintendents indicated that personal ethics and moral
leadership skills are Important to the selection process. Superintendents also
confirmed that receiving positive professional references was very important in the
selection process. Principal leadership capacity was recognized as that which was
reflected in their ability to tolerate high levels of stress, demonstrate strong listening
skills and engage in discussions related to raising test scores.
Standard 6: The skills in this standard relate to the larger political, social
and cultural context. With the system of accountability in public education,
superintendents rated the knowledge of the accountability factors (API and AYP
Scores) to be critical for the hiring process, along with the knowledge of secondary
restructuring as related to research based strategies such as PLC, SLC and CTE
initiatives. It was also recognized that in order to create a vision and communicate
that vision, principals had to possess strong listening and communication skills and
were willing to be self-starters and take risks while being willing to adjust to change.
108
The skills needed to meet this standard received the highest ratings and were
considered significantly important.
Analysis of Qualitative Data: Interview Results
The qualitative data was gathered from one-on-one interviews conducted
with superintendents from five urban/ suburban districts in California and analyzed
in order to compare the similarities or differences in responses around the identified
key issues of principal leadership. The superintendents were carefully selected under
these two criteria: 1) Experienced superintendent in either Union High School
District or Unified School District in California for more than five years; and (2)
Reform initiatives and test scores indicate high level of reform efforts, and the
secondary schools in this district or in the previous district have shown documented
gains in student achievement as identified through API scores within the past three
years (2005-2008). The details on the respondents is in Appendix B-1.
The questions for the interviews were detailed, with an emphasis on the
position of secondary principal leadership and superintendent hiring criteria. Each of
the two research questions were further analyzed through four sub-questions. The
qualitative responses provided detailed input from the superintendents and showed
the relationship between what superintendents believed were important, how they
currently selected their candidates, what kind of training and support they provided
to the principals in the jobs, what areas of weaknesses were evident and what they
wanted the future principal training programs to focus on.
109
Both research questions were sub-divided into four follow-up questions,
allowing superintendents to expound not only on the hiring criteria, but also to
illustrate the importance of certain skills, trainings, and knowledge when an
individual is already in office. These questions allowed superintendents the
opportunity to reflect on their personal expectations and experiences with principal
success and to provide data for ongoing principal preparation opportunities.
Additional questions were also asked to gain deeper understanding of superintendent
selection criteria.
1.1. What skills, training, and knowledge are important for successful
secondary principalship?
Bolman & Deal (2003) have identified that individual satisfaction and
organizational efficacy depends heavily on the quality of interpersonal relationships
and have identified the Human Resource Frame as the set of skills that are required
to build a culture of support and relationships. Validating this research, all of the
superintendents in this study emphasized the importance of these skills. One of the
responding superintendents pointed out that principals should aspire to be effective
communicators to build successful relationships with all stakeholders:
Well for any one to be successful as a school principal at any level they need
to understand the primacy of building relationships and have the desire and
communication style to be able to do that successfully.
Otherwise, he said that the principals would see a negative impact and
consequence on their principalship and face corresponding obstacles to enacting
successful reform at the school:
110
A number of people I hired had spectacular background in curriculum and
instruction and all the knowledge bases and experience bases you would
want… where I felt we went wrong was not adequately assessing the
relationship building and communication skills, or underestimating the
primacy of that in order to be able to accomplish any kind of change or
reform in a school.
Superintendents also stated that when leaders demonstrate strong people
skills which are highlighted by strong listening skills and deep empathy for the staff,
these are skills that are usually innate and not something that could be taught in a
credentialing program:
I am looking for a principal who has the skills that I can’t teach [italics mine].
Those are people who others gravitate to, who know how to read people in
the positive sense, know how to anticipate situations.
In the responses from the superintendent interviews, it was clearly identified
was that all the superintendents searched out principal candidates who had
knowledge and experience as a secondary teacher, leadership experience in learning
and teaching, ability to have the conversations that address teacher pedagogy and
instructional relevancy, and a clear vision for improving teaching and learning. One
superintendent emphasized that principals must have the understanding of the needs
of students, teachers and parents and had the ability to create the structures to support
these needs. This superintendent pointed out that these types of expertise and
leadership could come from their previous experience as an assistant principal,
teacher leader or from some other type of leadership experience.
… wanting someone who understands the culture of and behaviors of
students, teachers and parents for that level because it is so different dealing
with early adolescence and high school age.
111
The focus on Leadership skills with emphasis on instructional leadership as
demonstrated through knowledge and understanding of content area and program
implementation was expressed as a requirement for the principal candidate of a
secondary school, and one superintendent confirmed:
I wanted someone who already was at a certain level….however they had
learned it, whether it was natural or it was something they really had to learn
the hard way,.. where I would have the confidence that they could lead a
school.
It was clearly articulated by a superintendent that in order to create a structure
of accountability in the classrooms which focused on pedagogy and content, the
secondary principal must have experience and knowledge of good teaching to be
able to “walk the walk” and guide instruction on his site through conversations
related to student achievement and teaching efficacy:
My background is in social science and English but I can go onto a science
class and go onto most subject areas and analyze very good teaching. Now
the key that I would see is not just go into the classroom but the follow up
discussion that occurs that force the teacher to be reflective.
Even though it was confirmed by all interviewees that Instructional leadership was
the priority for school reform, addressing issues of student achievement and the
existing issues of the achievement gap between subgroups was dependent on the
culture and the commitment of the organization as a whole. A superintendent
confirmed this belief by stating:
Content is critical. I am a firm believer that someone has to have a real
specialty, content area, maybe several that they have expertise in and
generally they do, because they were a math teacher or a science teacher so
content is really critical.
112
Conclusion for 1.1: Based on the interviews from five superintendents, the
following skills emerged as common themes based on open and selective coding: (1)
Interpersonal skills leading to building positive and strong relationships with all
stakeholders through effective and clear communication and this was an innate skill
that cannot be taught in credential programs; and (2) Leadership skills with emphasis
on instructional leadership as demonstrated through knowledge and understanding of
content area and program which is attained through previous experience. Stanford
University researchers and The Wallace Foundation released a new report that
identifies the key features of effective programs. The report, Preparing School
Leaders for a Changing World: Lessons from Exemplary Leadership Development
Programs (2007), recognizes the close link between the quality of school leadership
and school performance. It examines the essential skills of good leadership and the
importance of focusing on instruction.
1.2. How would you rate these areas of responsibility for preparation for the
secondary principal position? This next section includes 11 key areas of principal
responsibility and the superintendent rating of these areas as Very Important,
Important or Not Needed. After analysis of data based on superintendent responses, a
brief conclusion is provided for each of these 11 areas.
1.2.1. Data Assessment: All superintendents rated this as Very Important.
All superintendents rated this knowledge and skill as ‘Very Important’ for
secondary principals. It was confirmed that rather than focusing on collecting and
creating the database principals should focus on analyzing the data through critical
113
questions and using the data to drive the instruction and programmatic changes. As
one stated:
I think of data I think of the ability to ask the right questions first and
foremost and then get the data and then analyze the data. Once the data is
analyzed…have the skills to be able to work with the staff to develop
strategies necessary to meet whatever the areas of need the data indicates.
Superintendents were adamant in their belief that data is what drives
programs and addresses the needs of the campus, while Principal initiated data
conversations allow decisions to be more objective and focused around the
importance of basing instructional improvements on what is reflected in the data. It
was further confirmed that using data to understand the needs of the student
subgroups allows the principal and the school community to monitor the programs
and instructional support services that address the learning styles of diverse student
learners and channel funding resources to target the specific needs:
… you have to know data so that you can focus instruction and data should
be driving what instruction is … you should be able to say I looked at the
data and it doesn’t matter what you think or what I think, the data speaks for
itself.
Another superintendent’s feedback reiterated the above comment:
… what was important to me is that someone valued making evidence based
decisions.. as opposed to jumping to conclusions which we all have a
tendency to do…it is real important for schools and staff that they have a
principal who is knowledgeable about what kind of learners you have; do you
have ELL learners, do you have African-American, Latino learners? A lot of
them are kinesthetic learners.
Conclusion for 1.2.1: Superintendent responses reflect the current research
that prioritizes the understanding and use of data to make systemic changes that
114
address issues of student achievement in the current era of accountability. Richard
Wallace (1996) has reported that school districts gather data that is often not
effectively utilized and the challenge remains on how to best use and analyze the
data to drive choices around support services for students to address the issues of the
achievement gap. Principals are held responsible for closing the achievement gap
and raising the test scores in their schools and principal selection criteria lays strong
emphasis on this skill. However, this is a very difficult skill and often principals are
not sufficiently train to be effective users of data to monitor and introduce programs
and services. It is recommended that principal training programs lay strong emphasis
on this training.
1.2.2. Campus Culture and leadership: All superintendents rated this as Very
Important
Understanding the inherent culture of the campus is critical to principal
success. The ability to understand and work within the established campus culture
determines the success of the principal and reduces the possibilities of upheavals
when new ideas are introduced. All Superintendents responded that principals must
recognize the leadership capacity inherent in the staff, identify those key individuals
by calling on them to participate in the school-wide decision making process, and
therefore create a system of ownership that shapes the culture.
With the diversity of all levels, you have to be very comfortable
understanding people’s points of view and their perspectives and thinking
about how each of them is going to respond to any action you take and be
aware that every single thing you do is going to cause a reaction whether you
want to or not.
115
Another superintendent stated that the ability to recognize and respect
diversity is an important skill. Principals are successful when they are able to create a
culture of respect for all students and staff irrespective of race, gender and sexual
orientation.
What I am looking for are characteristics and attribute that I would believe
make them a respected, responsible leader amongst all their constituents.
Principals often enter a campus where the culture is established with certain
practices that are not supportive of student needs, yet have been sanctioned over the
years. Superintendents confirmed that even though it is imperative that Principals
tread with respect for the existing culture, principals who support the status quo
practices without questioning the validity are not assured of their principalship.
However, in order to make those changes the principal has to tread boldly and yet
respectfully and create a common vision that allows opportunities for questioning of
ongoing practices that are actually deterring student progress.
A new principal coming in must read the culture quickly and that’s a
balancing act. We always do it this way or that is the way it was since I got
here [that is not okay] I need principals to say, No, and I will back those
principals.
Conclusion for 1.2.2: In the hiring criteria for secondary principals,
superintendent responses identified the leadership skills to create a positive campus
culture as a Very Important skill. Marzano, Waters, & McNulty (2005) findings were
affirmed by the superintendent responses that principal candidates must understand
and recognize the delicate balance between the existing culture and the areas of
improvement. It is also instrumental that the principal is able to determine how to
116
best use the human resources on campus, to monitor and create program efficacy, be
a good listener, and most importantly recognize the key leaders on campus and
engage them in the decision making process in order to build capacity and to reduce
conflict.
1.2.3. Instructional Leadership: All Superintendents rated this as Very
Important
Superintendents expressed that the quality of instruction of a school is
dependent on the quality of teacher training and the level of accountability that the
principal places on all stakeholders to create the culture of learning. Principals of
high achieving schools are successful because they create high expectations of all
students, remain visible and accessible to students and parents, create a positive and
supportive school climate supported by shared leadership and promote and
instructional leadership through classroom observations and feedback to teachers
leading to professional development opportunities. Reiterating these ideas, one of the
respondents stated:
… key area, focusing on the how you work with teachers. If you have a high
quality instruction in classroom the discipline problems by and large go
away. It’s the kids who are bored, aren’t engaged, tune out that create the
dilemma. The other thing with shared instructional leadership is training your
staff to be aware of what is happening.
Conversations around instruction that engages staff and school leaders in
discussions must continue to address student achievement yet not allow teachers to
feel like they are being singled out. One superintendent stated:
117
I was telling a principal who was having trouble with his staff focusing on
things…every time you walk in, have these 3 questions: What are you
teaching- not just chapter 32, but what is the concept that you are teaching?
How will you know that the students are learning? And what will you do if
they are not learning?
Conclusion for 1.2.3: Principal candidates must have knowledge of classroom
observations and strategies for evaluating good teaching. Kathleen Cotton (2003) has
researched and identified 26 essential traits and behaviors of effective principals who
demonstrate success as instructional leaders. It is the understanding that principals
have to be visible in classrooms and focus on deep discussions with teachers based
on the observations that superintendents identified as critical skills. Principal
preparation programs must focus on training principals in effective evaluation and
observation strategies along with the skills around asking critical questions related to
pedagogy, student engagement and rigor and relevance.
1.2.4. Shared vision with the superintendent: Superintendents rated this as
Very Important.
Most of the Superintendents clearly stated that principal candidates have to
express how they would create a clear vision which had to embrace the vision of the
school district, though not necessarily equated with replicating the superintendent’s
ideas or beliefs. It was the candidates’ innate definition of how they interpret the
values and norms of the district that makes them a good fit for the district. One
superintendent stated that he did consider site leaders who shared his vision, but
were able to think differently and strategically:
118
It is Very important that they share my vision, but what I want are divergent
thinkers; I can’t have someone who says ‘yes Dr C whatever you say Dr C’.
If the shared vision is about improving student achievement…then that’s
good enough for me; how we get there, I will leave that to them.
One superintendent stated that a strong leader is one who is able to synchronize the
site goals with the district vision and therefore do not need to think like the
superintendent, but is successful in engaging the community around the vision that is
developed for the school:
Doesn’t necessarily have to be similar; it just has to be a vision that is doable
and has to be a vision that is not top down.
This skill is not something that can be easily gauged during an interview
process since candidates can read up the district vision and tailor their responses to
that theme. So one superintendent stated that he asks various questions to determine
the candidates suitability to the position based on his innate beliefs:
Trying to probe for example, what someone really means when they say all
students can learn and you find out a lot about them….various kinds of
situations just hypothetically or just asking them to describe a time when you
failed and what you learned from them. Those kinds of assessments allowed
me to find out what their beliefs were and whether they would be consistent.
Conclusion for 1.2.4: Understanding the goals and missions of the district and
being able to reflect that in the responses allows a candidate to demonstrate his
ability to be a good fit for the district. Deal and Peterson (1990) suggested that
principals should work to develop shared visions- rooted in history, values, beliefs--
of what the school should be, hire compatible staff, face conflict rather than avoid it,
and use story-telling to illustrate shared values. From the interviews it is evident that
superintendents are respectful of individual styles in implementing the vision, but
119
expect that the candidate understands and respects the mission and vision of the
district as a whole which in essence is the vision of the superintendent.
1.2.5. Political preparation: Most superintendents rated this as Important
Having the principal and the superintendent communicate the needs of the
school and having the Superintendent attuned to the needs of the school and the
district allowed both to be politically aware of the various agendas at play. The
ability to recognize a problem, analyze the facts and make sound decisions and then
communicate that with clarity and sensitivity is what makes this skill so essential.
When asked Superintendents responses varied and one stated:
To be successful, [you need] to be comfortable understanding the agendas,
the rules, and the alliance and coalitions that are needed in order to be
successful in any kind of political situation.
However, superintendents agreed that this was not a skill that could be taught
because of the number of stakeholder groups a principal interacts with:
This [education] is a relational business and its difficult…the rest of the
world that aren’t in education don’t really understand our culture and how we
function because we are a very open system and we have many, many
committees and we spend a lot of time working through groups and
committees and public board meetings on issues and events that we are going
to move forward with.
One of the respondents expressed the notion, that this is a difficult skill to assess
when hiring.
How politically prepared should somebody be? How can I assess that as a
superintendent? Until the person works in my district it is going to be very
difficult for me to assess that preparation because my take in political
preparedness is how do you respond to political situations and you can only
do that by being on the job.
120
It was confirmed by yet another superintendent who stated:
The political preparation is the one I see that principals have as a weaker area
because they don’t usually get put in positions quite often unless they have
done something.
But it was also affirmed that the principalship itself is a political position and it is the
lack of awareness that leads to problems:
Everything is political. I am always amazed at how politically naïve so many
people are. They just don’t understand cause and effect. They don’t see the
big picture that if I do this some of these other things will happen.
Conclusion for 1.2.5: Research by Howe and Townsend (2000) provided a
political-awareness inventory based on the fact that the principal is responsible for
dealing with diverse issues related to people and forces that are comprised of
interest-groups, political entities and such. Principals, as suggested by the
superintendent survey, are required to be risk-takers, but must be politically aware.
This is a skill that cannot be taught in Principal preparation programs but principals
can gain knowledge on how to assess situations through discussions related to
process.
1.2.6. Past experience in this position: All Superintendents rated this as Not
Important
The Wallace Foundation (2007) addressed the issue of candidate shortage
and superintendents acknowledged this factor in their response. However, they were
adamant that the candidate have secondary experience, not necessarily as a principal,
but one that qualifies the candidate to recognize the culture and the demands related
to those years of education. One superintendent addressed that issue in his response,
121
“If previous principalship was a criteria we would have no principals.” Another
stated:
… wanting someone who understands the culture of and behaviors of
students, teachers and parents for that level because it is so different dealing
with early adolescence and high school age.
Another stated that it is the quality of experience that qualifies a candidate:
Sometimes experience is overrated. You could have 30 years of experience,
but if you have never closed the achievement gap or done anything, then
what good is that? I would rather risk sometimes and hire someone who was
new with less experience, but is at least committed to trying to make it
happen.
Conclusion for 1.2.6: The superintendent responses indicated that secondary
principal candidates needed experience and knowledge of the secondary system, but
there was a lack of experienced principals. The Report of the Institute for
Educational Leadership’s Task Force on the Principalship (2000) recognized the
rapidly growing shortage of qualified, high-quality principals as a crisis. Furthermore
with the level of stress associated with the position as relates to the mandates and
accountability factors and long-hours of work, this position does not attract an
abundance of candidates.
1.2.7. Staff training experience: Majority of superintendents rated this as
Very Important
Staff training is critical to the development of teacher efficacy and principal
experience in implementing a plan that involves effective use of resources and time
to providing staff training is an important skill. It was indicated that principals were
not required to be trainers; rather it was their willingness and ability to recognize the
122
need that made them effective leaders. Furthermore, identifying the skilled teachers
in the building and allowing them to take the leadership in providing the training
created more support for the initiatives and program implementation, as was stated
by one respondent:
Staff is so much more accepting and I find that principals that get into trouble
try to lead and drive everything themselves and don’t build leadership
capacity.
Another superintendent supported the above observation and included that principal
participation in the process was very important:
At times you need to be seen doing some of the staff development so it’s not
that she(principal) is asking for it, but not participating.
The content of the training helped determine the success of the training:
I would rather hear about culturally relevant pedagogy, making the classroom
exciting so that learning is fun and joyful for students and about equity
centered things.
Conclusion for 1.2.7: In the study by Youngs and King (2002) the findings
indicated that effective principals can sustain high levels of capacity by establishing
trust and creating structures that promote teacher learning. Brad Kose (2009) in his
research at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, provided an empirically-
based framework on the principals’ role in professional development for social
justice. In each of these articles it was the principals who created the culture for
ongoing professional growth by engaging their staff in activities that addressed
teacher efficacy in meeting student needs. Candidates are required to have
knowledge of effective staff development strategies.
123
1.2.8. Budget allocation experience: Majority of the superintendents rated
this as Important
Superintendents had a range of responses to how important knowledge of
budget allocation was for the candidate selected as a principal. Given this era of
financial cutbacks and having to work with reduced funding, school districts have
had to make cuts leading to decreases in school site budget allocations. When asked
to rate this skill and training, one superintendent referred to the existing budget crisis
in California to make his point:
A few years ago I would have said is Important but today I would say is Very
Important because of the serious financial crisis we are in…we cut 20 million
in this district last year and you can imagine how all the managers had to
really do a good job so that we protected the most critical programs and
services.
The common response was that this skill could be taught. Superintendents expressed
that principals could assign this task to an assistant principal but keep track of the
bottom line.
Lot of people may not have a lot of experience with budget, I would ask them
and I would want them to be honest about what they don’t know and I would
not necessarily hold that against them.
Conclusion for 1.2.8: Budget knowledge for principals is important in today’s
era of financial cutbacks but this is a skill that can be taught. However, candidates
should have a working knowledge of the various funding sources, restricted and
unrestricted funding, etc.
124
1.2.9. Understanding PLC: Majority of the superintendents rated this as
Important:
With the need for continuous school improvement, principals are leaders in
schools that engage in ongoing practices that create Professional Learning
Communities that support the foundation for systemic changes. When asked about
the importance of principal’s possessing this knowledge the responses were quite
varied; one superintendent stated that this was a knowledge that could be learned
while another said:
That is what we are really about; that modeling, staff development… I think
it’s critical because we are one of the few professions that do not spend a lot
of time learning- we are educators and we don’t spend time learning which
frustrates me.
Another superintendent supported the above statement, “Huge for me but I think we
are really missing that; faculties are not there at this point, they pretend they want to
be there, but not there.”
Conclusion for 1.2.9: Professional Learning Communities is a reform effort
that aims to focus the culture of the school around learning and student
improvement. The role of the principal in engaging all stakeholders in discussions
around the four building blocks: mission, vision, values and goals, allow for the
school to discuss improved initiatives that help change the culture of the school
(DuFour & Eaker, 1998). The current practices at schools indicate that there are
certain parts of the PLC concept in practice, and there is increasing staff
development in introducing this concept. The aim of creating a PLC is to engage the
125
whole learning community to focus on student achievement. It is important that
principal candidates have some knowledge of the key concepts as it relates to
research related to school reform. Superintendents indicated that this was an
Important knowledge criteria for the secondary principals.
1.2.10. Experience with union activities: All superintendents rated this as
Important
Over the past two decades, the role of the Teachers’ unions in school districts
has gained significant importance and principal knowledge in terms of negotiations
and contract grievances have become a necessary part of the job; consequently, the
ability to work with and respond to the union leadership is a growing need
(Hannaway & Rotherham, 2006). With the strong presence of unions at school sites
it is inevitable that major reform efforts require principals to work with site unions in
a cohesive and collaborative manner. During the interview, the superintendents
elaborated and stated that it is important to work with the union leadership and listen
and honor the teachers’ views:
Important… what you do is you respect, listen to and honor all of your
teachers, even teachers that may not truly understand the mission, who are
recalcitrant, passive aggressive, but you are working with them, you respect
them, listen to them, and you work with your faculty.
A strategy suggested is to have teacher leaders given opportunities to participate in
positions of leadership and utilize their affinity with staff to drive change. It was
suggested that:
Allow some of your faculty members to become leaders within the school
with you and so you have a huge body of shared leadership and you want the
126
‘Nay Sayers’ on almost anything and everything look up and they are not just
looking at the principal driving something or leading something.
Conclusion for 1.2.10: The teacher unions are very active in public schools.
The ability of the principal to recognize that their role is to support their stakeholders
would necessitate that principals respect their focus. In case of aggressive situations,
it is recommended that principals learn to separate the people from the issues in
order to depersonalize the situation. It is recommended that principals should create
teacher leaders who can initiate and implement changes so as to allow the process to
happen smoothly. Superintendent surveys rated this as an Important skill. Principals
need significant training on issues related to contracts and grievances.
1.2.11. Parent/community exposure: All superintendents rated this as Very
Important
To be successful in building a positive school community, principals have to
build relations with their community by clearly listening and understanding the
concerns. Superintendents rated this skill as Very important and responded around
the common theme of understanding the culture which allows the principal to engage
his stakeholders in a collaborative and engaging process. One superintendent
expressed that this was a style of leadership:
Understanding of cultures and it also goes to show your core values about
how to make change,… the most successful leaders now are collaborative
leader and there are reasons for that which you have read that and so I was
very much looking for people who have collaborative leadership styles. …
127
Another superintendent elaborated that by engaging with the community, the
principal is given the opportunity to express his vision and garner stakeholder
support and that this was especially critical at the secondary level.
Very Important… At a high school and middle school you have to be
engaged with your parents in all kinds of ways.
One superintendent identified that principals are not taught community related skills
in their training programs and therefore often fail to utilize the resources within the
community by attracting and crating partnerships with the parents.
I think community is way under utilized, parents and everything. Because it’s
inconvenient, well just think, as a teacher and as a principal, who has taught
you what to do with parents? There are no courses that say how you use
parents in your classrooms, no, no teacher gets that course. And then when
you get to be a principal, no one has offered you a course of what do you do
with a parent who comes to your office? How do you maximize their
leverage? So there are a lot of things that people need to learn.
Conclusion for 1.2.11: The superintendents have confirmed that the
secondary principal is a political position, constantly juggling various stakeholder
group interests. It is the leadership style of being collaborative and welcoming to
differing ideas that allow the principal to carry out his vision. “Principal of the future
has to be much more attuned to the big picture, and much more sophisticated at
conceptual thinking, and transforming the organization through peoples and teams”
Fullan (2002, p. 4). By working with the community and by welcoming the
community into the building, the principal is able to attract human and financial
resources that support and augment the instructional programs and services at the
site.
128
1.3. If you were to assess the principal preparation programs, are they doing
a good enough job preparing the principals- why or why not? What would you
recommend these programs focus on as a priority?
Current evidence based on superintendent responses to the interviews support
the findings in the report from Hess and Kelley (2005) which indicate that the
preparation programs for principals have not kept pace with the changes in the
education world. With the advent of federal and state mandates which focus on
student achievement and implantation of standards-based school reform, the need for
strong principal leadership is even more critical (Larry Lashway, 2003).
Superintendents responded to this question in two distinct groups; one group used
current examples to elucidate the lack of real-world preparation, whereas another
group stated that the current university practices were partnering with districts and
supporting job-based trainings.In support of the first view, one superintendent stated:
I don’t think that they [university preparation programs] do a very good job at
all and the reason why is because I think the best way to prepare a principal
to be effective is to have that person to do the position. If the programs would
be more a combination of preparing for and engaging in principal-like
behaviors and activities, then I think it would be more affective. It would do
better preparing non-administrators for principal positions.
Another superintendent concurred and added:
I tell assistant principals that it is a million mile walk to the office next
door…because as the assistant principal you always have the principal who is
responsible… so I don’t know how much preparation you can do for the
million mile walk other than actually doing the job.
129
A third superintendent acknowledged the lack of quality training by the non-
traditional college programs, such as satellite campuses, and clarified that the
Association of California School Administrators was picking up the slack:
I don’t know if there is any program that covers the basics. ACSA does a
very good job with their academies. We were watching people get their
administrative credential out of the satellite programs and they just don’t give
them the experiences.
Public Agenda survey findings supported that 69 percent of principals and 80 percent
of superintendents believed that typical leadership programs "are out of touch with
the realities of what it takes to run today's school district" (Farkas et al, 2001). A
superintendent was candid in the challenges faced by principals who often have to
make strong decisions that might not be politically correct but is needed to be made
and that training programs do not and cannot provide that kind of knowledge. He
stated:
No they are doing a lousy job because they aren’t real. The problem with
being a principal or being a teacher, the only way you learn to do it is getting
there and doing it. I don’t think you can learn these jobs in a classroom.
…people aren’t yelling at you, people aren’t telling you what to do, …
everyone is so damn politically correct and people are gutless and they don’t
stand up for something and at the end of the day you have to.
There were some respondents who provided the other view that stated that university
programs are adjusting to the changes of the job:
… it’s hard to generalize on this one. I have seen as a fairly recent change
that has made a huge difference is the coaching, the way the people get their
Tier II credentials, What that has spawned is a lot of coaching programs for
beginning administrators and that has really helped increase peoples’
leadership competencies and operational competencies a lot so that extent to
which preparation programs are doing a better job of helping beginning
administrators to being open to learning form experienced colleagues.
130
It was confirmed that additional training and ongoing support to new
principals is a real need. In most districts, superintendents recognized the need, but
were also candid in stating that the support is usually more for new principals in
areas of human resources policies or budget policies; the leadership trainings are
few. Moreover, experienced principals are often left to find their own solutions to
issues. To address the issue of inadequate preparation, many districts provide their
intern administrators the credential program in partnership with local universities.
One superintendent stated:
We have a principal preparation program in partnership with Cal State East
Bay. It’s excellent. We have hired some new administrators out of it…they
are or in-house teachers who are going through it and the first group of
administrators that came out of it are doing really well…
Another superintendent confirmed the exact same plan in place in his district:
UC Berkeley is running the principal program there and has agreed to start a
partnership in which we will team up with them and start pulling
administrators into UCB at their training.
Conclusion for 1.3: The current emphasis on principal behaviors is to ensure
that it impacts student achievement but presents a clear challenge because of the
content and the practices of existing leadership preparation programs. This has led to
the need for new areas of principal training, and university preparation programs are
being held to higher standards. As the job continues to become more multifaceted,
demanding and complicated “growing anecdotal evidence suggests that it is
increasingly difficult to find school principals at a time when the demand for them is
on the rise” (Copland, 2001, p. 528).
131
Superintendents who were interviewed expressed their views based on the
quality of candidates that they interview as well as the principal performances in
their district. They focused on the leadership training of the candidates, the ability to
make decisions, the ability to handle the challenges of the position, and found that
the preparation trainings came up short. Leadership capacity of principals to initiate
change through quality teaching and effective culture, are skills not taught in any
program. However, they did express that many of the challenges of the job could not
be taught and were based on experiences themselves.
The superintendents indicated that the principal position is multifaceted and
that the Principal Training Programs do no address real-world situations at all. This
has been an underlying reason why superintendents and districts have engaged in
partnerships with respected programs in this area to provide in-house administrative
training and credential opportunities to their employees.
Despite the fact that Tier II credential program requirements have made
adjustments for on-the-job experience, CTC still acknowledges programs where the
candidate can “test-out” for the credential, or can complete it through an Online
program. Both these options seem to be in direct contrast to what is being requested
for by superintendents. The McREL report has stated that the leadership training in
professional universities has failed to provide candidates with the necessary ability to
lead systemic changes and have failed to sufficiently build the capacity of
practitioners to influence teacher practice and student learning outcomes in an urban
school context (Darling-Hammond et. al., 2005; Elmore, 2003, Marzano, 2002).
132
From these interviews there is much need to revisit the Principal credentialing
criteria and review the training programs.
1.4. Does your district provide support for individuals related to skills and
knowledge identified as areas of need through the evaluation process?
The superintendents interviewed stated that there are processes in place to
address the professional needs of principals, through systematic approaches that
involve district wide commitment to professional principal development, the level
and content of which differ within the individual districts. All of the superintendents
interviewed stated that they had dedicated time for principal development activities
to fill the gaps between the subject’s self-reported current skill and the desired skill
levels in the various areas which were important to job.
We absolutely made a plan for individual support for every administrator we
hired at the principal or higher level. If they were an assistant principal level,
if they were in the Tier II program they would get that kind of coaching
support, but beyond that probably from the superintendent and the district
office we really did not deal with them.
Another superintendent stated that the support came from the supervisors assigned to
the principals and responsible for evaluating and training the principals.
For principals we absolutely put a plan together for individual support
whether they were experienced or not. Lot of thought was put into who their
supervisor would be, what their goals of supervision were going to be, who
their coach was going to be… how they worked in triad…
Another superintendent responded by describing the process that is in place
in his district that allows for this support but confirms that the veteran principals are
often not targeted for ongoing support:
133
We have two meetings a month on which we do a variety of staff
development activities and we do that at the district office. Then each new
principal or first or second year principal, teams with another principal and
then every principal has a district office staff member who is their supervisor
that will work with them to the degree they need to and obviously if someone
is every experienced and very talented and doing a great job, they spend less
time with the district office administrator than someone new or needs help or
even struggling.
In order to link principal support activities with the evaluation of the
principals in their affectivity on the job, superintendents were candid about the fact
that principals were often not evaluated annually and if they were keeping their
schools running smoothly, or there were limited complaints, they often did not get
any personal professional suggestions related to continuous improvements.
We have a lot of things in place to support site administrators and then they
go through a formal evaluation every other year, not every year, but they turn
it their goals every year. If they are having difficulties and it warrants they
are placed on a program improvement plan for one year and then we will
allot a lot of resources to that and if they need it then send them to
conferences, workshops, graduate school courses they want to do as part of
their own improvement plan.
Conclusion for 1.4: The systematic study of principal assessment has been
slow to develop. Despite the CPSEL standards adopted by ACSA and CTC, there are
inconsistencies on how districts evaluate principals and provide support for
improvement. Superintendents recognized that there is a need to clearly identify the
level of knowledge and skills of their secondary principals that allow them to
successfully meet the intense and unprecedented pressures under the current
measures of federal and state mandates to account for their schools’ performance
(Tucker & Codding, 2002), but did not indicate that ongoing structures were in place
134
for novice and experienced administrators. The assignment of district level
administrators to partner and guide, or place principals in a study group to work and
collaborate together appear to be a practice, but individual annual assessment and
review systems are in not common practice.
Research Question 2: How do superintendents ensure that the right
candidate is selected for the position and is successful in the position of secondary
principal?
The above research question was sub-divided into seven follow-up questions,
allowing superintendents to explain questions related to the interview process, the
criteria for success, skills needed to serve as leaders, superintendent role in the hiring
process, etc. These questions allowed superintendents the opportunity to reflect on
their personal expectations and experiences with principal success and to provide
data for ongoing principal preparation opportunities.
2.1. Identify the major leadership skills for secondary principals that result in
student achievement (Cotton, 2003).
Contemporary research on effective leadership skills identify that in order to
bring about systemic changes in schools, principals must have the knowledge and
skills and practices that address the school environment( Hallinger, 2003; Marzano
2003). Superintendent interviews provided support for these extant research findings
and validated the need to create 21
st
leaders with skills that will help reform their
schools. Research has emphasized the importance of the principal as an instructional
leader (Leithwood, 1999; Marzano, 2005; Murphy et al., 2006). In this capacity the
135
principal influences the quality of curriculum and classroom pedagogy by being
actively involved in the curriculum conversations and by supporting the
improvement of teacher practice. This was emphasized by a superintendent when he
said:
To me the instructional leadership is the most important... someone who
really knows their stuff… there are certain types of characteristics that
motivate people. Everywhere I go I ask, ‘Do I want my own child that class?’
And if it is not good enough for your own child, why is it good enough for
anybody? If you don’t want your child there then courageous conversations
need to take place and about what equity means.
Research supports that by focusing on developing teacher capacity, the principal will
directly impact the campus culture through improved student learning. One
superintendent stated, “Major leadership skills that I talked about earlier and that is
developing teacher capacity because the principal cant go out there and teach every
class and every kid.”
Superintendents detailed the changing role of the principal as an Innovator.
With the increased demands of the No Child Left Behind Act (2001) and state
mandates monitored by the AYP and API benchmarks, schools are required to
provide opportunities for equity and access for all children which is dependent on the
quality of principal leadership (Elmore, 2003) and which implies alternative options
that support student achievement. Often these are nontraditional options for students
to gain their diploma and the principal as a school leader and an instructional leader,
needs to come up with innovative ideas. Referring to this, one superintendent further
confirmed:
136
And now it is all about student achievement, all about how well kids are
performing and those are different roles…..I think we will have more and
more kids involved in non traditional campus settings and so I am going to
need site administrators who are as I said earlier, divergent thinkers, going to
be able to think strategically, and be ok with that.
Several leadership theories and models have served as the basis for identifying
components of effective leadership development programs (Darling-Hammond et. al,
Murphy et al., 2003) and address ways to build the urban leadership capacity that
creates sustainable changes in schools. One superintendent stated:
I want someone who is going to transform the school- I don’t want a
caretaker. The school should be able to sustain itself even after the principal
is gone- so I am not looking for a series of starts and stops. I am looking for
somebody who is going to put something in motion that is going to sustain
after that individual has left the school.
A principal as a leader must be a strong communicator, good listener, a collaborative
decision maker, and thereby an effective leader who can articulate clear goals and
ground their leadership practice in instructional improvement based on listening and
staff engagement (Murphy, 2005). One superintendent stated:
To be successful as a school principal at any level, they need to understand
the primacy of building relationships and have the desire and communication
style to be able to do that successfully.
This theme continued with another superintendent when he identified the
success of a secondary school leader who has a large faculty, several interest groups
and a large community.
The most important leadership skill is the ability to listen carefully- to be an
active leader. The secondary principal has a very large and diverse faculty
and have to be excellent listeners; they have to actively engage their faculty
in a conversations and listen very carefully to lead that faculty through a
137
process of self discovery, individually and collectively, as an organization as
to how best improve student achievement.
Conclusion for 2.1: Superintendents identified the leadership skills that
closely reflected those identified in the survey results: Effective communicators,
good listeners, risk-takers, able to engage their community and staff in collaborative
decision making process, and most importantly, willing to make sustainable changes.
Using these skills, the superintendents identified secondary leadership focus to be on
instructional leadership aimed at raising student achievement and teacher efficacy;
symbolic leader, who can gather the stakeholders around a clear message by
communicating their vision; and finally as a transformational leader who is willing to
make decisions and take risks that allow the community to engage in systemic
changes.
2.2. Which of the four styles of leadership do you focus on during the
selection process, given today’s high era of accountability? (Bolman and Deal,
2005)
The Leadership Framework by Boleman and Deal (2005) explains that there
is no correct answer to a situational reaction, which in turn supports that there are
always at least four approaches to take for each situation. This is when the leader has
to decide which approach or combination of approach would work best. Leaders
operate under four frames or styles of leadership: Structural, Political, Human
Resources, and Symbolic.
138
One Superintendent in his example of having divergent thinkers identified the
Structural framework which is representative of a style that is analytical and design-
focused on structure, environment, and experimentation and adaptation. He stated:
And now it is all about student achievement, all about how well kids are
performing and those are different roles…..I think we will have more and
more kids involved in non traditional campus settings and so I am going to
need site administrators who are as I said earlier, divergent thinkers, going to
be able to think strategically, and be ok with that.
The Political Framework describes a leader whose style is focused on
coalition and building relationships; they clarify what they want and what they can
get; they assess the distribution of power and interests and build linkages to other
stakeholders. This was a common theme amongst superintendents who had
throughout the interview focused on a collaborative leader, who was willing to listen
and engage in discussions. One superintendent confirmed this leader as:
The most important leadership skill is the ability to listen carefully- to be an
active leader. The secondary principal has a very large and diverse faculty
and has to be excellent listeners; they have to actively engage their faculty.
This was confirmed by yet another superintendent who stated:
The most successful leaders now are collaborative leader and there are
reasons for that which you have read that and so I was very much looking for
people who have collaborative leadership styles. …
A third superintendent also referred to a collaborative style of leadership:
If you are a directive leader that wasn’t right for me as a superintendent, that
your natural inclination needed too be more of a collaborative leadership
style. I was also very much looking for someone who was flexible, could
adjust their leadership style based on what they were trying to accomplish
and what the situation was.
139
The Human Resource Framework is leadership that provides support, advocacy, and
empowerment through a principal who is visible and accessible automatically
engages in relation hip building that empowers and increases participation, sharing
of information and move decision making down into the organization. One
superintendent expressed his interest in this kind of leader since they focus on
capacity building and creating distributive leadership and stated:
Allow some of your faculty members to become leaders within the school
with you and so you have a huge body of shared leadership.
The Symbolic Framework is of a leader whose style is more prophetic and inspiration
by nature, one who views organization as a stage or theatrical space wherein to play
certain roles and use specific symbols to capture attention and discover and
communicate a vision. None of the responses focused on this frame of leadership;
rather the reference to vision and communicating that vision was expressed as
strength of a collaborative leader. This was how one superintendent framed his
response:
Visionary is important but if you really know your stuff and then you develop
your vision you are more apt to have people follow and be a part of it. But I
think being inclusive is important.
Conclusion for 2.2: Superintendent responses indicated that they did not view
their principals within the four frames of leadership; rather they focused on the
qualities of leadership that principals needed to be successful in leading schools. The
skills related to being strong communicators, good listeners, effective collaborators,
risk-takers were some of the examples used when discussing leadership style.
140
Assessment of the responses indicates, however, that superintendents prioritized the
Political Framework, closely followed by the Human Resources Framework and then
the Structural Framework. No responses related to the Symbolic Framework.
2.3. What are the weaknesses that result in unsuccessful tenure for secondary
principals?
This response was based on superintendents identifying three main factors as
that contributing to unsuccessful tenure of a principal. First, all of the
superintendents expressed the opinion that principals (generally) were not willing to
take responsibility for their decisions and were more concerned about politically
pleasing all constituents, thereby not gaining support for their leadership.
The reality is unfortunate, we don’t have very many and in our society people
are starving for people who are wanting to take the responsibility to lead, but
the problem is we have a bunch of wusses[superintendents] who are so
politically correct that they want to please anybody and everybody and then
they please nobody. Our [superintendents] job is not to be popular, I think we
can be popular, once people respect you they will allow you to do more
things and push the envelope.
A superintendent stated that principals must be willing to take risks to make
this happen on their campus; the risk taking is required to create change and progress
and address issues around staff and student performance;
All the effective schools research, all of it has one thing in common- you
have to have a great leader. Because schools might have great teachers, but if
you want a great school you must have a great leader…leadership makes or
breaks the school. Risk taking for the sake of taking risk is not a smart thing,
but risk taking for something that is going to bring something better I don’t
see that as a risk. Because even if it doesn’t work it is better than what status
quo is.
141
Second, superintendents identified the political situations that can lead to
unsuccessful tenure. One superintendent was very factual in his opinion that lack of
student performance was not a reason for principals to be removed; in fact, principals
can hold status quo and demonstrate no actions to address lack of student
performance, and still maintain their position.
Here is the ultimate irony and it is typically not in the area of student
achievement….A person stays in a secondary school for 10 years and the
student achievement never improves; if the budget is balanced, the athletic
teams perform well, and there are not too many student discipline issues on
that campus; that is the tragedy.
The third area identified was the principals inability to create teams which led
to lack of teacher capacity and staff disengagement and ultimately to culture failure.
The responses ranged from leaders who were not willing to make tough decisions, to
holding status quo of their schools performance, and attitude and focus on the job.
One superintendent elaborated this by highlighting the ‘attitude’ of the principal that
contributes to the lack of team spirit, which could be either the attitude of leaving
things as they are so as not to create discord and therefore creating a culture that
lacks innovation and collaboration, or a principal whose attitude is that of fixing
everything quickly and therefore is perceived as pushing too hard.
In the last 48 months I have released 5 principals. One of them had a laissez
faire type of approach to leading and they did not lead, they did very little…
another is they [principals]become impatient with their staff and start to push
things and the staff starts to react to it and it becomes a snowball and they
can’t recover from it.
Conclusion for 2.3: Research on reasons for principal failure identifies poor
interpersonal skills and demonstrates poor decision-making abilities (Davis 1997).
142
Superintendents in this study identified that leaders for secondary schools must
possess the courage and the willingness to make tough decisions, the ability to
engage others in the decision making process, and creating a culture that holds
people accountable for student achievement. It was interesting to note that
superintendents were aware that secondary principals were generally left alone if
their parent constituents, sports boosters, PTA etc., and their school discipline were
under control. Academic achievement was not a criterion for remaining on the job.
Superintendents who were interviewed stated that they had removed their principals
for lack of performance, but were aware that this was a rare decision.
The crisis around shortage of qualified secondary principals has created a
need to provide support and training while these individuals are in their positions.
The Education Research Service (ERS) study has declared findings that principals
appreciate training sessions that allow principals time to network with their peers.
The areas of focus are usually job demands and exchanging of ideas regarding
implementing change (2000). Chicago Public Schools implemented a training
program geared to aspiring and experienced administrators and included case study,
simulation, reflective analysis and coaching (Peterson and Kelley 2001). There are
several districts who have implemented such support initiatives to ensure principal
success.
2.4. What skills do principals possess to serve as “change agents”?
Superintendents considered this question to be a key factor of leadership. The
responses were associated with principals’ styles of leadership, and the Collaborative
143
leader is what was identified as required for a ‘change Agent’. One superintendent
elaborated on this theme:
And I think you have to be a very active listener, you have to listen carefully,
engage your staff in a process of self discovery, you have to ask critical
questions and through that you will be a true change agent because its not
going to be flipping and flopping; you are going to lead the school or
organization through a process in which they are going to continue to get
better.
Another superintendent identified a change agent as one who builds capacity and
creates a culture in the organization where people are willing to engage in the change
process.
Change agents are people who know and have a really good sense of what
needs to be changed and then also has the skills to affect that change. They
know how to work with people. What they need to do is enlist their staff in
the work.
Part of the superintendent responses were about the change process and how
change is created. One superintendent was adamant that creating a change without
basis and data was ineffective. But he also stated that sometimes a leader might
initiate a change to simply shake up the status quo:
You will have people who will say I am a change agent and come in and
make change for change sake. Sometimes it makes sense to make a top down
decision, knowing that people are going to be ticked off, unclear, resentful
and having THE class go through “the third the third the third” in terms of the
change process.
Another superintendent provided an example of how a principal can initiate
change in his school without disrupting the culture, but making his mark as a leader:
First you start off by picking the low hanging fruits, do the certain things that
are easily fixed fix that will set the tone for your school. Sometimes people
think it is complicated, it is not. There are things that are broken, get it fixed;
144
if the place is dirty, you help from the kids… this is creating a culture where
people see you as a leader willing to do the work.
All superintendents confirmed that systemic changes take time and require
collaboration and needs to provide the naysayers the opportunity to comment and
express their frustration:
I believe change with urgency and change with collaboration are not mutually
exclusive. In fact I believe that really in education the only way you that you
can make true change with urgency is with collaboration…collaboration does
not necessarily mean that things have to take a long time. Sometimes it does.
Conclusion for 2.4: Schools that undertake change process are successful due
to strong leadership. Michael Fullan(2002) has argued that the role of the principal is
more than just an instructional leader and has identified a set of characteristics and
skills that he calls ‘principal as a leader in a culture of change’. In his book Good to
Great, Jim Collins (2001) studied 11 businesses and identified the ultimate skill of
leadership as one “who builds enduring greatness”. Superintendent responses
around the definition of a ‘change agent’ were strongly reflective of this research and
identified a successful change agent as one who in order to lead systemic changes in
their schools engage the staff and the community; this leader is willing to listen to
the diverse opinions and willing to engage other decision makers in a culture that
celebrates collaboration and positive relationships; and this leader supports
discussions around the issues of change and builds his staff to initiate the process of
change.
145
2.5. How have interview and selection process changed based on the
changing role of the secondary principal?
Principals today are faced with accountability measures that has greatly
changed their roles as school leaders and raised questions around their preparation
for this challenging job. The research from Southern Regional Educational Board
(SREB) has presented findings on what successful leaders need to be able to do and
what training they need to be successful. This era of high standards and
accountability requires a new breed of school leaders (Bottoms and Kelly, 2001).
The superintendents interviewed were very strategic in their responses in that they
linked the changing role of the secondary principal to the selection process and the
criteria for selection. With regards to the process of interview there was little
difference in how principal candidates completed the application, the interview and
then made the finalist list. This has been the process since 1960’s when principal
hiring involved a written response and a panel interview.One superintendent
confirmed that:
The process [of selection] has not changed, some of the content has; our
practicum, the writing samples we get from them plus the interview questions
have a lot more to do with NCLB, API, AYP, low performing subgroups,
achievement gap, all of these things; that is the big difference. It’s narrowing
down all those critical things.
Another superintendent stated that in his district, it was the process itself that had
changed in order to confirm the level of skills and knowledge they were looking for
in their principal.
146
Process got much, much more sophisticated as I learnt about knowledge base
and skills and saw what is working, and we became more reflective. Rigorous
evidence based process. Traditional interviews were questions then moved to
the candidate to data presentation, role play. The final interview became more
situational. We started doing more interview research.
Yet, another superintendent stated that on occasion he skipped the hiring process and
placed a secondary principal in a school unilaterally in order to meet the specific
needs and some times it was a good decision and other times he received some
political pressure.
There were a couple of times I appointed a high school principal without
going through a process. One time it was really successful and one time it
wasn’t. But the board was very uncomfortable with the process of appointing
without going through the process that did not involve staff and community.
In order to find a suitable candidate, one superintendent stated that he was
looking for a leader and despite the process in place, it came down to him in making
the final selection and at that time the criteria was more than knowledge and skills; it
was the “good fit”:
It is more that I changed in what I was looking for. Wanting somebody who
is comfortable being a leader and it took me a number of years to know that
is what I was looking for. The conversations at the final interview were more
like they were already principals.
Conclusion for 2.5: In the responses on how superintendents have changed
their selection process for secondary principals, there have evolved a pattern that
draws attention to the change of content as part of the process. In light of current
federal legislation and the accompanying implications for effective school leaders,
superintendents are now even more accountable for increasing overall student
achievement in accordance with Adequate Yearly Progress requirements set forth in
147
the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). The school superintendent has been viewed
as the educational leader of the community since the inception of the position
(Cuban, 1988), now the selection and placement of the right candidate is a more of
reflection of the superintendent’s focus on instructional quality. The responses
confirmed that the content now validates the principals’ knowledge of the
accountability measures and the of data to make programmatic improvements.
Selecting a leader who can “walk the walk” is critical as the secondary principal has
multiple stakeholder groups to work with in order to achieve the goals that are set
forth. Superintendents take a personal responsibility in placing the right candidate in
the school.
2.6. What part do you play as superintendent in preparing the criteria for
hire?
Principals have a significant impact on the effectiveness of their schools and
the achievement of their staff and students. Rigorous, transparent and well designed
selection process is imperative for building and sustaining the district goals of
assigning candidates that are the best fit for the school. The superintendents
described their practices in the selection of secondary principals and creating the
criteria for their schools and it is important to note that the process differed between
districts; in some the superintendent was actively involved in the criteria for hire, in
others he came in at the end for the final selection of the candidate. One
superintendent clarified that the process of creating the criteria was the responsibility
of the assistant superintendents in charge of the school and the Human Resources
148
department, and indicated that it was set up this way to allow the supervisors who
worked closely with the principals and the community to determine the best fit; “I
don’t prepare the criteria for hiring and that is done as a collaborative effort with area
superintendents who are responsible for 8-10 schools in the district.”, while another
superintendent was more active in the process and was involved in developing the
criteria as well as in the final selection. He elaborated that to him this position was
the key administrative position in his district and he wanted to be responsible for the
selection:
Every Monday afternoon right on these couches and chairs sits the assistant
superintendent for business, curriculum and HR and we set every thing at this
level and review the criteria together as a team… I will as a superintendent
will interview every single teacher and administrator that is hired…a 1:1
interview with the superintendent.
The superintendents were asked to comment on how the criteria was developed for
the selection and whether there were changes for each school based on the needs of
the school. Superintendents clarified that elementary schools selection criteria
usually remained the same, one superintendent stated, “ Our questions for site
principals, say for the elementary level, we have 28 elementary schools, which has
98% of the questions for all 28 elementary schools.” However, all superintendents
did confirm that secondary schools would have questions more specific to each
school and gave examples to elucidate that questions for high performing schools
would be significantly different in content than a Program Improvement (PI) school.
One respondent confirmed this finding when he stated:
149
For Secondary schools we would add questions depending on the school; like
A is a very high performing school and B is a low performing school… or for
A we have a SOS program run by Stanford and that is Students On Stress
because our kids at A have tremendous stress problems and we don’t have
that at B.
Superintendents confirmed that the process of hiring principals and
preparation of selection criteria involves all stakeholder representative input at the
school site and that substantial amount of time is spent in its preparation. It is an
expected practice that the principal selection panel consists of parent and teacher
representatives. One superintendent confirmed this practice in his district:
Certificated personnel director had two meetings- one with faculty about
issues they were looking for and what the process would be; and the other
with parents sponsored by PTA. We could predict about what would come
out but it was a process and included everyone who had a say.
Receiving input from the community and the site stakeholders also provide
good public relations for the principal since they had been selected by the
community itself. One superintendent confirmed that very belief when he stated:
I involve community in hiring the principal and so they were involved as
consultants... Parents are always on the panel and parents like that and get the
word out and good PR for the person.
Conclusion for 2.6: Superintendents all confirmed that they played an active
part in selecting the candidate, however differed in regards to the extent to which
they were involved in preparing the criteria. The confirmation was received that the
final criteria was prepared by the cabinet level but the process involved feedback
from teachers and parents at the site. With regards to process of hiring, the
superintendents stated that they were involved in some way in the final selection. It
150
was evident in my interviews that the superintendents were very aware of the
importance of having the final choice in selecting the candidate, but at the same time,
they believed that the best candidates would reach the finals if they were able to fit
the needs of the parents, staff and the community as well. It was evident that hiring
the secondary principal is an important responsibility for the superintendent.
2.7. Would superintendents shift other site/district leaders to open position
secondary positions?
This question was asked specifically to determine if the superintendents
would place district level experienced principals at sites that had a critical need and
given that national statistics state that there is a need for more trained principals. The
question also aimed to determine what level of importance was given to the
secondary principals by the superintendents who were interviewed. The responses
did not all touch on this answer but one superintendent stated that the importance
was based on the district organization chart and where this position was placed. He
stated:
Because we are organized by areas the principal in each area is like they are
at the top of the food chain. They are, organizationally, considered to be the
most important site administrator in those individual areas. So I would have
to say that in our organization chart they are very, very important.
In the discussions related to the reorganization of the district office staff, if
necessary, to place the right candidate in the secondary school, differing responses
were processed. This answer by itself helped determine the level of importance
superintendents placed on the secondary principal position because while some were
151
ready to make the switch if necessary, others stated clearly that the district
administrators had earned their way ‘up’ and it was not going to be easy to ask them
to return to the site. One superintendent confirmed his willingness to make this
adjustment but confirmed that it was a difficult decision and it was easier to move
the leaders at the site level to fill the vacancy:
This is how you get the right people in the right place and it is tough given
the differentiation of salaries and status between positions and it is also tough
given how much loyalty is important in a high school culture…it is very
competitive. So we moved around assistant principals to get the right people
in the right places.
This practice was seconded by another superintendent who stated that the decision
was not easy and once the directors had been placed at the district level it was easier
to open the position for hire. He confirmed his experience:
I sat here with my three assistant superintendents and we talked about
[that]…we could put any of them in there and they would be great, but we
decided to see if we could get a pool of applicants.
But there were two superintendents who adamantly stated that they had
indeed made this kind of adjustment and would continue to do so to get the right
people in the right position. One superintendent stated that due to teacher contracts
moving teachers was a difficult task; but administration did not have such
restrictions and the movements were possible to make the right adjustments when
needed. He stated:
Absolutely (I would move district people to site) did do that and would do
that. It is interesting for me that I am a firm believer to this day that I have to
have the right person doing the right job and the only areas that a
superintendent has control over is administration.
152
Conclusion for 2.7: The superintendents were very aware that placing the
right candidate in the principal position was a critical decision and that often strong
candidates were already in the district. It was evident that all superintendents
considered the option of placing district administrators at sites when indeed it was a
good match, but not all were willing to make the disruption at the district. Some even
felt that the salary issue or the district status was “earned” and it was not an easy
shift. Others felt just the opposite and were willing to make the adjustment for the
best fit.
Additional Question
In this section a follow up question was asked at the superintendent interview
because the data from the anonymous survey required a follow up discussion. On the
question in the Background subscale, the data indicated that superintendents rated
the criteria related to the Race and Gender of the candidate as ‘Not at All Important’
as a selection criteria. During the personal interviews with the five superintendents, I
once again asked this question, and this time there was a very different response. The
honesty with which the responses were given indicated that majority of the
superintendents and their teams made the final selection of principals around
conversations of Race and Gender, but only in as much as the candidate was already
assessed to be a good fit for the school community. The question asked was: Do you
believe that the race and the sex of the candidate had any effect on your selection
and placement of a Secondary Principal? And the various responses indicated that
even though these were not initial selection criteria, it did impact the final decision in
153
as much as it impacted the unique needs for the school and the community. One
superintendent stated this on the issue of Gender of the candidate, “No shouldn’t but
could [impact the final decision]. It might sound weird but sometimes some schools
would work better with women,” while another was very honest with his personal
preference on the gender of the candidate based on his personal experience with
secondary principals and his response was related to the skills of the candidates as an
instructional leader:
I have said it out loud and I will say it, I have a huge bias for women- I think
women make better instructional leaders than men… but my experience has
born out that generally speaking women are much more collaborative, much
more willing to be wrong, much more willing to admit mistakes and do a
better job next time than men.
When asked to discuss the race of the candidate, the responses were more
specific to a situation as relates to the school and the community needs. It is evident
from these responses that the responsibility of placing a principal who will be
successful in the community and will be an asset to the school and the community
overrides the political perception of their selection.
I really believe in an ideal world we should hire people who reflect the
community in which we serve. If we live in a predominantly Chinese
community and you have an opportunity to hire a Chinese principal, all
things being equal, I would rather give the job to the Chinese candidate who
knows the culture and makes people feel comfortable, but you cannot say
that. In a political charged world we live in we cannot do that but in a
realistic world that would be. Absolutely why wouldn’t you and these are
assets above and beyond… I would not hire somebody who would not be
successful. I take responsibility for this.
Another superintendent was similar in his belief that the needs of the school and the
community had a tremendous impact on finding the right match for the school.
154
The answer is yes, I have done it and did it last year and this year.
Absolutely. If I have a school that has predominantly Spanish speaking
parents and I need a Spanish speaking principal.
A third superintendent made a similar commitment to his school community,
overriding political perceptions to candidly state that the needs of the community
would support this decision.
As far as ethnicity goes, you bet and as far as language goes- you bet, I will
definitely take that into strong consideration and often times make a decision
not based solely on that but a decision based primarily on that.
However one superintendent response was clearly different and he was very
confident that race and gender would not impact the hiring process in his district
because the employees in his district were representatives of his community. He was
also unwavering in his belief that the selection was based on the qualification alone:
We work very hard to recruit leaders principals, and so forth, from a cross
sections of ethnic backgrounds because we have such a diverse population
and we would like that to be reflected in our teachers, administrators…Last
one we had Caucasian female, African-American male, Hispanic male and
we hired the Hispanic males because he seemed to have the best skills,
attributes, characteristics and everything else.
Conclusion for additional question: From the superintendent interviews it was
interesting to note the deeper reflection on the selection criteria that drove their final
decisions. Due to political perceptions in today’s world and to avoid accusations of
‘profiling’, candidates are placed in communities where they fail to build affinity or
are not accepted for their skills and knowledge because the community itself is
unable to overlook their assumptions. Selection of candidates for secondary
principalships is a significant responsibility and from the majority responses as
155
indicated above, it can be assumed that final decisions will always take into account
all the criteria that result in the ‘good fit’ of the candidate.
Major Findings of this Study
In order to answer the overarching question what implications, if any, would
the current selection criteria of California urban superintendents have on the
preparation of future secondary school principals, the findings provide information
that could ensure a candidate’s success in the selection process and, more
importantly, in the job itself. The data in this chapter illustrated the relationship
between what superintendents believed were important, how they currently selected
their candidates, what kind of training and support they provided to the principals in
the jobs, and which areas require further emphasis in the principal preparation
prorgams.
The major findings of the study are summarized as follows:
1. Superintendents were very consistent in their responses around the
selection criteria, as evidenced by high mean averages of the quantitative data
responses and the consistency of the qualitative data responses. Furthermore,
differences in the superintendent’s tenure in the district, experience as a
superintendent, size of the district, gender of the superintendent, and the academic
performance as indicated by the API score of the district, had no statistical
significance on the responses.
156
2. Communication skills, including collaboration skills and decision making
skills would ensure the candidate’s success. The irony of these findings is that these
are innate traits of a candidate and cannot be taught in a Principal Training program.
3. Both the quantitative and the qualitative data indicated that the selection
of secondary principal was an important decision for the superintendents.
Superintendents were aware of the ISLLC standards but responses did not reflect
superintendent adherence to the standards with fidelity.
4. The interview process has undergone substantial change, both in content
and process due to the accountability measures in education and the need to engage
stakeholders in the selection process.
5. Superintendents denounced secondary principals who maintained status
quo and failed to question the practices and programs that failed to show results. It
was evident that superintendents focused on Principal candidates who recognized the
deeper issues reflected in the school performance data and strategies around that.
Based on the findings, listed below are common themes as indicated by
superintendents in this study:
1. Deep knowledge of federal and state mandates as regards API, AYP, CST
to support the high accountability guidelines.
2. Secondary teaching experience along with understanding of strategies for
diverse learners so as to effectively communicate with teachers about
pedagogy, student learning and classroom management and raise student
achievement through effective use of data to drive programs.
157
3. The quality of secondary principal candidates was not at par and that the
number of qualified candidates was a small minority.
4. There exists an increased need to continue to support the secondary
principals to be successful in their jobs and that district’s should structure
weekly or bi-monthly meetings to address this. Partnerships with the local
universities and superintendents allow in-house training and hiring
advantage.
5. The interview process involves more details around the current research
based practices for school reform and includes situational questions
related to data and accountability measures and how these are used to
initiate reform strategies.
6. Candidates’ gender and ethnicity play a significant role in the final
selection of a candidate.
There is a need to correlate the significant areas in the study findings with the
Principal Preparation Programs. There is a need for further inquiry to substantiate
the results of this research. These issues will be addressed in detail in Chapter Five.
158
CHAPTER FIVE
CONCLUSIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS
FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
Introduction
Chapter Five presents a summary discussion of the findings and data
presented in Chapter Four. This chapter includes the problem and purpose of the
study, research questions, a summary of the research methodology, and an outline of
the implications of the findings for future education policies and practice with
specific focus on the Principal Preparation Programs.
The Problem
The system of accountability in secondary schools has created the need for
superintendents to select qualified principals who can initiate reform efforts to
address the needs of diverse student learning. Current research and superintendent
concerns confirm a shortage of qualified candidates and that the Principal Training
Programs are doing an inadequate job of preparing their graduates for the challenges
of the secondary principalship.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of the study was to examine the superintendent selection criteria
for secondary principals in California under the recent demands of federal and state
accountability reporting practices. The study was conducted to answer one
overarching question: What implications, if any, would the current selection criteria
of California urban superintendents have on the preparation of future secondary
159
school principals? Two research questions were developed to guide the study: (1)
What skills, training and knowledge do superintendents look for when hiring
secondary principals? (2) To what extent did superintendents adhere to the
ISLLC/CPSEL standards as part of the selection criteria for secondary principals in
their districts?
These research questions formed the basis for the conceptual framework of
the study, collecting and analyzing data and providing findings for future
considerations.
Methodology
In order to answer the questions above a mixed-method study was conducted
with California Urban Superintendents. The quantitative part of this study was
conducted through a 35-question anonymous survey completed by 17
superintendents in California and the qualitative part of this research was completed
through one to one interview sessions for approximately 120 minutes with five
superintendents. The responses provided the data which were analyzed to identify
the selection criteria for secondary principals as well the qualities required for
successful fulfillment of the job of secondary principals.
Sample and Population
Superintendents who participated in the anonymous survey were required to
identify their background and district information. This information was further
analyzed for consistency in responses and to identify trends if any. The interviews
were conducted with experienced superintendents from either Union High School
160
District or Unified School District in California and who had (1) served as a
superintendent for more than 5 years and (2) Reform initiatives and test scores
indicate high level of reform efforts, and the secondary schools in this district or in
the previous district have shown documented gains in student achievement as
identified through API scores within the past three years (2005-2008).
Data Collection
The data was collected in two formats. The first was through an anonymous
survey that was mailed to 40 superintendents in California. 17 superintendents or
56.6% of the responses were analyzed for the study. The survey protocol addressed
questions on superintendent background and the district in general. Background
questions were around superintendents’ gender, total years as an educator in the
current district, total years as a superintendent in the current district, total years as a
superintendent, and total years as an educator, and district information was to
identify a union high school or a unified school district, the size, and the API. Each
of these categories was used to further desegregate superintendent response data for
a trend based on these criteria. The body of the survey consisted of 35 questions
based on the format used by William Reichert as part of his dissertation on The
Selection of Public School Principals in the 21
st
century By Indiana Public School
Superintendents (2008). These questions were divided into four subscales addressing
Background, Management, Human relations and Instruction skills of the secondary
principals and based on current research. The responses were rated on a five-point
Likert scale, with 1 being “Not at all Important” and 5 being “Very Important”.
161
Data was collected through a second method. Personal interviews were
conducted with 5 superintendents. The interviews were conducted personally and
then transcribed for recording purposes. Each interview lasted almost ninety minutes.
Summary of Findings
The following section is organized into two parts:
Part I. This section uses the quantitative and qualitative data to answer the
first research question and provide conclusions: What skills, training and knowledge
do superintendents look for when hiring secondary principals?
Part II. This section uses the quantitative and qualitative data to answer the
second research question and provide conclusions: How do superintendents ensure
that the right candidate is selected for the position and Sis successful in the position
of secondary principal?
Part I. Analysis of Quantitative and Qualitative data for Research
Question 1.
What skills, training and knowledge do superintendents look for when hiring
secondary principals?
The Quantitative data collected from the superintendent surveys were further
researched to determine whether there were consistency based on superintendent
background and experience. Five follow-up questions were asked to further analyze
the responses to the four subscale categories related to Background, Instruction,
Human Resources and Management criteria identified in the survey.
162
Findings for Quantitative Research question 1.1
Do Superintendents of Unified School Districts and Union High School
Districts differ in their selection criteria of secondary principals, and if so how?
One way analysis of variance was conducted to examine the difference
between the selection criteria of Superintendents of Unified School Districts and
those of Union High School Districts. The outcomes of the analysis indicated that
there was no difference in the selection criteria among the two groups, F (1,15) =
.327, p > .05
Findings for Quantitative Research Question 1.2
Do urban superintendents with less than 3 years of superintendent experience
differ in their selection criteria from those who have been in that position for over 5
years, or over 10 years? Therefore does longevity in the superintendent’s office
impact the selection criteria? According to the results of one-way analysis of
variance, there was no statistically significant mean difference between the selection
criteria of Superintendents with less than 3 years of serving in urban setting and their
counterparts with over 5 years, or over 10 years; F (1,12) = .149, p > .05.
Findings for Quantitative Research Question 1.3
Do superintendents, who have risen from within the district to their current
position, differ in what they are looking for in their secondary principals from those
who are hired as superintendents from other districts?
163
In order to answer the question, one-way analysis of variance was conducted.
There was no statistically significant mean difference between those two groups, F
(1,13) = .562, p > .05.
Findings for Quantitative Research Question 1.4
Do male and female superintendents’ differ in their selection of secondary
principals?
The results of the one-way analysis of variance indicated that there was no
statistically significant mean difference in the selection of secondary principals
according to the gender of superintendents, F (1,15) = .173, p > .05.
Findings for Quantitative Research Question 1.5
How did female and male superintendent responses reflect the adherence to
the ISLLC standards in their selection criteria?
There was no significant difference in overall responses; males rated
Standard 3 higher.
Findings of Quantitative Subscale data: Background, Instruction,
Human Resources and Management
The responses in each of the four subscales were rated on a Likert scale with
5 being the highest. The results indicate that Human Relations subscale had the
highest mean of 4.62 compared with its counterparts. The mean of Instruction
criteria was 4.38 followed closely by the Management criteria with a mean of 4.30.
The Background subscale had the lowest mean of 3.12, indicating that the criteria
related to biographical variables of secondary principal candidates were significantly
164
less important to the superintendents. The total mean of the Selection Criteria (4.11)
indicates that these four subscales were significantly Important.
Summary of Quantitative data findings for Research Question 1
Skills: Superintendents required that the candidates demonstrate the ability to
work collaboratively with all stakeholders and engage them in the decision making
opportunities. Candidates need strong communication skills.
Trainings: To tolerate high levels of stress and understand how to create
structures that motivates others through vision and planning. Principals must be
confident in managing employee discipline, and have training related to classroom
supervision and teacher evaluation and in the use of assessment data to drive
instruction.
Knowledge: Superintendents identified that principals should have
knowledge of secondary instruction and teaching experience at the secondary level.
There is high expectation that the candidate is well versed in the accountability
measures such as API and AYP and proves past performance of raising test scores.
In addition, principals must demonstrate knowledge of reform initiatives such as
Professional Learning Communities and Small Learning Communities and Career
Technical Education.
The Qualitative data around Research Question 1 was collected from the
superintendent personal interviews. Four follow-up questions were asked to further
analyze the responses. These questions allowed superintendents the opportunity to
165
reflect on their personal expectations and experiences with principal success and to
provide data for ongoing principal preparation opportunities.
Findings for Qualitative Research Question 1.1
What skills, training, and knowledge are important for a successful
secondary principalship?
The following skills emerged as common themes based on open and selective
coding: (1) Interpersonal skills leading to building positive and strong relationships
with all stakeholders through effective and clear communication and this was an
innate skill that cannot be taught in credential programs; and (2) Leadership skills
with emphasis on instructional leadership as demonstrated through knowledge and
understanding of content area and program which is attained through previous
experience.
Findings for Qualitative Research Question 1.2
How would you rate these areas of responsibility for preparation for the
secondary principal position? (11 areas of skills, knowledge, training were
identified)
Each of the areas were identified as Very important or Important for the
selection process, except all superintendents rated that it was Not Important that the
candidate possess prior experience as a Secondary Principal, though they must have
experience of secondary schools in some level of leadership capacity.
166
Findings for Qualitative Research Question 1.3
If you were to assess the principal preparation programs, are they doing a
good enough job preparing the principals- why or why not? What would you
recommend these programs focus on as a priority?
Superintendents responded to this question in two distinct groups; one group
used current examples to elucidate the lack of real-world preparation, whereas
another group stated that the current university practices were partnering with
districts and supporting job-based trainings.
Findings for Qualitative Research Question 1.4
Does your district provide support for individuals related to skills and
knowledge identified as areas of need through the evaluation process?
The superintendents confirmed that professional needs of principals were
addressed through systematic district wide commitment to professional development.
Summary of Qualitative data findings for Research Question 1
Skills: Secondary principals as instructional leadership must possess the skills
that allow them to use their knowledge and understanding of all aspects of secondary
instruction to drive student learning. When that is coupled with strong interpersonal
skills, highlighted by strong listening skills and deep empathy for the staff, it results
in building a positive school community. By prioritizing relations with their
community through active listening, recognizing and acknowledging the diverse
interests of his stakeholders, secondary principals engage their stakeholders in a
collaborative process. It is imperative that secondary principals understand and work
167
within the established campus culture to reduce the possibilities of upheavals when
new ideas are introduced, by inviting teacher leaders as decision makers. Successful
leaders are quick to recognize and respect diversity and are successful when they are
able to create a culture of respect for all students and staff irrespective of race,
gender and sexual orientation. Principal candidates must possess the skills to clearly
articulate their vision which is closely reflective of the school district, though not
necessarily equated with replicating the superintendent’s ideas or beliefs. This vision
should include a clear recognition of existing issues, analysis of the facts and data to
support sound decisions, and communication of a plan with clarity and sensitivity
that addresses the needs of the diverse factions that dominate the community. This is
political preparedness and the lack of this skill leads to discord and unsuccessful
tenure.
Trainings: Successful experience with creating collaborative processes and
decisions ensures success as a secondary principal. In order to create a common
vision, secondary principals must possess the trainings related to developing shared
visions, which include, story telling, creating a cooperative process to identify values
and beliefs, and how to engage staff. Successful schools have leaders who face and
deflect conflict rather than avoid it; having the trainings related to hiring of
compatible staff, working with union leadership and understanding and interpreting
contract language is an essential. Superintendents also identified that unlike prior
decades, the current fiscal crisis necessitates that secondary principals have a deep
knowledge of school budgets. Candidates should have a working knowledge of the
168
various funding sources, restricted and unrestricted funding, and be trained to work
with the parents and support groups to attract community resources to augment
programs and services. In order to create a campus that focuses the culture around
student learning, experience with implementing reform initiatives, such as
Professional Learning Communities or Small Learning Communities to address
student learning is important.
Knowledge: Secondary principals must possess deep knowledge and
understanding of content area and program implementation which would be focused
on improving student learning. By understanding how to analyze student
performance data to ask critical questions, secondary principals must improve the
quality of instruction and the quality of programs of a school. The knowledge is
further enhanced when secondary principals use classroom observations and
evaluations to address good teaching. The deep understanding of the role of a
secondary principal is not necessarily taught in Training programs; rather successful
candidates understand the important of creating high expectations of all students and
staff, creating a structure of accountability and remaining visible and accessible to
students and parents. These leaders implement practices that create a positive and
supportive school climate that is further supported by shared leadership and
implement a plan that involves effective use of resources and time to providing staff
training. In order to create systemic and sustainable improvements, these candidates
must possess a working knowledge of research based school reform initiatives.
169
Part II. This section uses the quantitative and qualitative data to answer the
second research question and provide conclusions:
How do superintendents ensure that the right candidate is selected for the
position and is successful in the position of secondary principal?
The Quantitative data collected from the superintendent surveys were
analyzed to determine the adherence to the ISLLC/CPSEL standards. Each of the
criteria identified under the four categories (Background, Instruction, Human
Resources and Management) were matched to the applicable CPSEL standard.
In order to “Facilitating the development, articulation, implementation, and
stewardship of a vision of learning…,” (Standard 1) successful candidates could
engage stakeholders in discussions around student achievement and secondary
learning thereby crafting a common vision that solicits stakeholder input for
development and implementation.
Selected candidates who display qualities of “Advocating, nurturing, and
sustaining a school culture….” (Standard 2) would demonstrate knowledge of the
master schedule, understanding the process of introducing new courses, and the
ability to manage financial resources, work with unions, monitor and regulate the
overall physical plant, and work with the school budget.
Candidates who are capable of “Ensuring management of the organization,
operations, and resources for a safe, efficient, and effective learning environment”
(Standard 3) would demonstrate skills related to monitoring and regulating the
170
overall physical plant and channeling resources to support and create a safe learning
environment.
Successful candidates would provide examples of “Collaborating with
families and community members, responding to diverse community interests and
needs” (Standard 4) and would relate that to strategies that allow stakeholder
representation in school decisions and recognize and address ways to attract
community resources to support and augment school programs.
Selected candidate would confirm their strength in “Modeling a personal
code of ethics and developing professional leadership capacity” (Standard 5) by
gaining good references from previous employers and be able to provide examples of
being a good listener, tolerate high levels of stress and how to plan effective
professional development activities.
Finally, to demonstrate “Understanding, responding to, and influencing the
larger political, social, economic, legal, and cultural context” (Standard 6)
candidates would refer to situations related to balancing multiple agendas,
prioritizing requests and closely align the goals to the district vision and articulate
that to the community.
Part II: Analysis of Quantitative and Qualitative data findings for Research
Question 2.
Findings from the Quantitative Data
This stated that in order to get selected as secondary principal a successful
candidate must successfully describe how to create a common vision that engages
171
stakeholders in discussions around student achievement. This candidate will also be
required to demonstrate knowledge of secondary schools in relation to introducing
courses and programs of studies, working with unions and managing the school
plant. Examples of how to use funding sources to support student learning and how
to attract resources from the community to augment school programs will closely
reflect the skills possessed to engage the community in school decisions and the
ability to create a culture that prioritizes safety and efficiency. Finally, it is
imperative that the candidate possesses good references and is able to explain their
philosophy around education leadership that relates to balancing multiple agendas,
prioritizing requests and close alignment of his goals to that of the district and the
superintendent.
The Qualitative data around Research Question 2 was collected from the
superintendent personal interviews. Seven follow-up questions were asked to further
analyze the responses. These questions allowed superintendents the opportunity to
reflect on their personal expectations and experiences with principal success and to
provide data for ongoing principal preparation opportunities.
Summary of Qualitative data findings for Research Question 2.1
Identify the major leadership skills for secondary principals that result in
student achievement.
Effective communicators, good listeners, risk-takers, able to engage their
community and staff in collaborative decision making process, and most importantly,
willing to make sustainable changes. Superintendents identified secondary leadership
172
focus to be on instructional leadership aimed at raising student achievement and
teacher efficacy.
Summary of Qualitative data findings for Research Question 2.2
Which of the four frameworks of leadership (Bolman and Deal, 2005) do you
focus on during the selection process, given today’s high era of accountability?
Superintendent responses focused on the qualities of leadership needed to
successfully lead schools, which were skills related to being strong communicators,
good listeners, effective collaborators, and risk-takers. Assessment of the responses
indicated that superintendents prioritized the Political Framework, closely followed
by the Human Resources Framework and then the Structural Framework. No
responses related to the Symbolic Framework.
Summary of Qualitative data findings for Research Question 2.3
What are the weaknesses that result in unsuccessful tenure for secondary
principals?
Secondary school leaders fail due to lack of courage and the willingness to
make tough decisions, inability to engage others in the decision making process,
poor interpersonal skills, and being unsuccessful in creating a culture that promotes
accountability for student achievement. In practice, however, one superintendent
confirmed, principals maintain their tenure despite low test scores or lack of school
wide progress, as long as, the parent constituents, sports boosters, PTA etc., remain
satisfied and the school discipline is under control. Academic growth or successful
programs are often sacrificed in face of parental pressures.
173
Summary of Qualitative data findings for Research Question 2.4
What skills do principals possess to serve as “change agents”?
In order to lead systemic changes in their schools, these principals must be
able to engage the staff and the community by listening and inviting diverse opinions
and engaging other decision makers. Collaborative and positive relationships would
support the issues of change.
Summary of Qualitative data findings for Research Question 2.5
How have interview and selection process changed based on the changing
role of the secondary principal?
The content of the interviews have changed to reflect current federal
legislation and the accompanying implications for effective school leaders to
increase overall student achievement. The content now tests the principals’
knowledge of the accountability measures, how to use data to make programmatic
improvements, personal leadership philosophies and the skills to work with multiple
stakeholder groups to achieve the goals that are set forth.
Summary of Qualitative data findings for Research Question 2.6
What part do you play as superintendent in preparing the criteria for hire?
The final criteria for hire are commonly decided at the cabinet level but the
process involved feedback from teachers and parents at the site. Superintendents
stated that they were involved in some way in the final selection.
174
Summary of Qualitative data findings for Research Question 2.7
Would superintendents shift other site/district leaders to open position
secondary positions?
Recognizing the need to place suitable candidates in the secondary principal
position, superintendents were willing to reassign site level administrators but
reassigning a district director or coordinator to the principalship was not a common
practice.
Final Summary of Qualitative data findings for Research Question 2
In order to raise student achievement and engage in the change process, the
candidate must demonstrate the ability to engage the community and staff through
collaboration and strong communication skills. In addition, secondary principals
must be risk-takers who are functioning strongly at all times within the Political
Framework. Unwillingness to make tough decisions and inability to create a system
of accountability for student achievement results in principal failure. Keeping the
parent constituents, sports boosters, PTA etc., happy would ensure tenure; failure to
raise academic growth is not used to measure principal success.
The current content of the interview now includes reference to federal
legislation and the accompanying implications. Use of data in decisions and
leadership philosophies are key areas of focus. The panel usually consists of
stakeholder representatives and includes questions that have input from these
representative groups. Superintendents are involved in selecting the final candidate.
Hiring the right candidate is a priority and superintendents were willing to reassign
175
site level administrators but necessarily district directors or coordinators to the
position.
Conclusions
The conclusions below are based upon the data gathered from the analysis of
surveys and interviews conducted with the superintendents in California and relates
to research question 1 and 2.
Research Question 1
Based on the analysis of the quantitative and qualitative summary of findings
in the previous section, the conclusions below reflect the skills, training and
knowledge that California superintendents use as criteria during selection of
secondary principals. Candidates must:
1. Demonstrate strong communication skills coupled with strong
interpersonal skills, which highlight strong listening skills and deep
empathy for staff resulting in a collaborative approach to engaging all
stakeholders in the decision making process.
2. Identify with the superintendent’s and the district goals to clearly
articulate a vision that recognizes existing issues and addresses the
diverse needs of the school community. This level of political
preparedness is required.
3. Demonstrate knowledge of instructional leadership based on all aspects of
secondary instruction. Candidates must possess secondary teaching
experience and prior knowledge of secondary leadership in some
176
capacity. Candidates must be well versed in the accountability measures
such as API and AYP and prove past performance of raising test scores.
4. Illustrate the usage of student performance data to ask critical questions
that address issues around quality of instruction and the quality of
programs of a school.
5. Exhibit Knowledge of classroom observations and evaluations to address
good teaching and to engage staff in discussion and staff trainings and
workshops to address student-centered instructional practices.
6. Express strategies that prioritize building relations with the community
through a collaborative process and attract community resources to
augment programs and services.
7. Understand and acknowledge the established campus culture to reduce
the possibilities of upheavals, to tolerate high levels of stress and face and
deflect conflict by inviting teacher leaders as decision makers.
8. Ability to create practices and structures that create a culture of respect
for all students and staff irrespective of race, gender and sexual
orientation. Ability to create a culture of high expectations of all students
and staff, a structure of measurable accountability through shared
leadership.
9. Effectively manage employee discipline, hiring of compatible staff,
working with union leadership, and interpreting employee contracts.
177
10. Strong understanding of school budgets with working knowledge of
various funding sources, restricted and unrestricted funding.
11. Experience with implementing reform initiatives, such as Professional
Learning Communities or Small Learning Communities to address
student learning.
Research Question 2
Based on the analysis of the quantitative and qualitative summary of findings
in the previous sections, the conclusions below summarize how candidates are
selected for the secondary principalship. Superintendents and panels identify
candidates who:
1. Possess the knowledge, skills and trainings reflected in the six
ISLLC/CPSEL standards which are ingrained in the daily responsibilities
of a secondary principal and focus on secondary instructional leadership
to raise student achievement and teacher efficacy and understand how to
use data to make programmatic improvements...
2. Understand change through collaborative leadership and communication
and respect and .prioritize the ‘Political Framework’ for leadership to
work with diverse interest groups.
3. Demonstrate personal courage and practices for “out of the box” decision
making with superintendent support.
4. Possess strong knowledge and understanding of the accountability
measures.
178
5. Districts need to create a process for training and mentorship of
principals, in addition to creating opportunities for peer reflection time.
Application of the Study to the Preparation of
Future Secondary Principal Candidates
This study has analyzed and summarized the data collected from California
superintendents in order to address the overarching question: What implications, if
any, would the current selection criteria of California urban superintendents have on
the preparation of future secondary school principals? The data indicates that the
principal training should focus on the following areas:
1. Understand and relate to the content of the interviews which now reflect
current federal legislation and accountability measures and accompanying
implications around increasing student achievement.
2. Demonstrate awareness that the competition for the job would most
probably be from candidates outside the district since there is a hesitancy
to reassign district personnel to the site.
3. Training in use of data: principals are not sufficiently trained as effective
users of data to monitor and introduce programs and services. It is
recommended that principal training programs lay strong emphasis on
this training.
4. Effective evaluation and observation strategies: emphasis to be given on
observations and evaluations that address student learning and ask critical
179
questions to raise teacher efficacy around pedagogy, student engagement
and rigor and relevance.
5. Political preparedness: Interaction with diverse groups require political
preparedness and principals can gain knowledge on how to assess
situations through multiple situational discussions related to this process.
6. Understanding how to analyze and apportion Budgets: Candidates should
have a working knowledge of the various funding sources, restricted and
unrestricted funding, etc.
7. Use data to address accountability measures under federal mandates:
Principals should understand how to read the data as relates to PI, API,
AYP, Safe Harbor etc.
8. Planning effective professional growth and staff development activities
that engage staff in activities that addressed teacher efficacy in meeting
student needs.
9. Knowledge of research based reform initiatives and strategies to address
change process.
10. Knowledge of staff discipline FRISK manual and progressive discipline
and understanding of teacher and classified union role, contract language
and grievance process.
11. Understanding the role and importance of community and the utilization
of resources within the community by attracting and creating partnerships
with the parents.
180
Recommendations for future research
1. There is a need to organize this research in a way where the qualitative and
quantitative data ask the same questions. This would provide a statistical
measure for consistency between the anonymous responses and the personal
interviews.
2. Larger sample size to include superintendents across California and then
across the United States to identify whether the selection criteria differed by
districts or locations. Additionally, grouping districts by similar size, similar
socio-economic and demographic criteria could result in data that could
identify differences in selections.
3. A study to analyze training programs and their preparation of the secondary
principal candidates is recommended.
4. A comparative study focusing on the quality of secondary principal
preparation should be conducted using data between graduates from Principal
Preparation Programs and those who are trained in-house within the district-
university partnership programs.
5. A study on online certification courses and how they differ from traditional
Principal Preparation programs provided by colleges and universities is
recommended.
6. It is recommended that a study be conducted to analyze the political
framework focusing on the four frames of Leadership by Boleman and Deal’s
(2005) and its direct impact on secondary principal success in that position.
181
Conclusion
This study aims to add to the existing research on this topic associated with
secondary principal selection and other related topics about principal leadership.
Based on the research findings and the data in this chapter, the criteria for selection
of secondary principals closely match the existing research on principal leadership.
The outcome of this study could be used to guide aspiring secondary principals and
those who are relatively new in their positions to understand the expectations of
California Superintendents and be successful in implementing the responsibilities of
the office.
182
GLOSSARY
Academic Performance Index (API)
Academic Yearly Progress (AYP)
Association for California School Administrators (ACSA)
California Professional Standards for Educational Leaders (CPSEL)
California Standards Test (CST)
Comprehensive School Reform (CSR)
Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA)
Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA)
Institute for Educational Leadership (IEL)
Interstate School leaders Licensure Consortium (ISLLC)
Local Education Agencies (LEA)
Mid-Continental research for Education and Learning (McREL)
National Association of Secondary School Principals (NASSP)
No Child Left Behind (NCLB)
North Central Regional Educational Laboratory (NCREL)
Processional Learning communities (PLC)
Small Learning Communities (SLC)
Southern Region Education Board (SREB)
Standardized Testing and Reporting Program (STAR)
The New Teacher Project (TNTP)
183
REFERENCES
Adelman, C. (2006). The Toolbox Revisited: Paths to Degree Completion From High
School Through College. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Education.
Allen, Christopher S. (2008). Actions and behaviors public school superintendents
perceive to build trust with diverse and competing constituencies.
Dissertation Abstracts International.
Anderson, M. E. (1991). Principals: How to Train, Recruit, Select, Induct, and
Evaluate Leaders for America's Schools. Eugene, Oregon: ERIC
Clearinghouse on Educational Management, University of Oregon.
Baltzell, Catherine, & Dentler, Robert (1983). Selecting American School Principals:
Research Report.Washington D.C.: National Institute of Education.
Barth, R. S. (1990). Improving Schools from within; Teachers, parents and principals
can make the difference. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Blank, R. K. (1987). The Role of the principal as Leader; Analysis of Variation in
Leadership of Urban High Schools. The Journal of Educational Research, 81.
Blount, J. M. (1998). Destined to Rule the Schools: Women and the Superintendency.
Albany: State University of New York Press.
Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2003). Reframing Organizations; Artistry, Choice, and
Leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Bottoms, Gene, & O'Neill, Kathy (2001). Preparing a New Breed of School
Principals: It's Time for Action . Atlanta, GA: Southern Regional Education
Board.
Boyd, Victoria (1992). School Context: bridge or Barrier to Change. Southwest
Educational.
Boyer, E. L. (1985). The Image and the reality; Review of High School. Curriculum
Inquiry.
Bragg, D., & Kim, E. (). Middle College and Early College High Schools. Academic
Pathways to Access and Student Success (APASS),
doi:http://occrl.ed.uiuc.edu
184
Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.
Byrd, J., Drewa, C., & Johnson, J. (2006). Factors Impacting Superintendent
Turnover: Lessons from the field. NCPEA Education Leadership Review,
7(2).
Campbell, John P. (1970, June). Personnel Training and Development (NR no. 152-
293).
Cash, D. (2008). Defined Autonomy: How Superintendents work with principals to
create the defined autonomy at schools necessary for improved student
achievement. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California,
2008).
Christopher, Carl, et al. (2005-06). Instructional Leadership for Systemic Change;
the
Chubb, John E., & Moe, Terry (1990). Building in Accountability Mechanisms for
Democracies & Bureaucracies: From Governmental & Educational Special
Interest Operations. ERIC, 1991(RIEJUN1991).
Chubb, John E., & Moe, Terry M. (1989). Give Choice a Chance: Answers to the
Most Frequently Asked Questions about Mediocrity in American Education.
Brookings Institution, Washington D.C.
Copland, M. A. (2001). The Myth of the Super Principal. Phi delta Kappan, 82, 528-
533
Cotton, K. (2003). Principals and Student Achievement: What the research says.
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Cuban, L., Shipps, D. (2000). Reconstructing the Common Good in Education.
Stanford, California: Stanford University Press.
Darling-Hammond, Linda (Fall 2002). American Educational Research Journal. In
comparison of superintendent' and principals' beliefs and implementation
perceptions
Darling-Hammond, Linda, Hightower, Amy, Husbands, Jennifer, Lafors, Jeanette,
Young, Viki, et.al. (2005) Instructional Leadership for Systemic Change: a
Story of San Diego’s Reform. http://www.
Romaneducation.com/ISBN/1578861675 (3 ed., Vol. 39, pp. 639-673).
185
David, James, & Jazzar, Michael (2005). The Seven Habits of Effective Principal
Preparation Programs. National Association of Elementary School Principals,
84(5).
Deal, T., & Peterson, K. (1998). Shaping School Culture: the Heart of Leadership.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Deal, Terrence E., and Kent D. Peterson. (1990). The Principal's Role in Shaping
School Culture. Washington, D.C.: Office of Educational Research and
Improvement, 1990.
Desimone, Laura (2002). How Can Comprehensive School Reform Models Be
Successfully Implemented. 72(3), 433-479.
Dipaola, & Tscannen-Moran (2003). The Principalship at a Crossroads: A study of
the conditions and concerns of principals. NASSP Bulletin, 87(634).
Duckworth, Mark Thomas (2008). Non-traditional Public School Superintendents:
An exploratory case study. Ed.D. dissertation, North Carolina State
University, United States. Retrieved February 20, 2009, from Dissertations &
Theses: Full Text database.
DuFour, R, Eaker, R. Professional Learning Communities at Work: Best Practices
for Enhancing Student Achievement, NES
Dufour, R., Eaker, R., & Burnette, R. (2002). Getting Started: Re-Culturing Schools
to Become Professional Learning Communities. Bloomington, IN: Solution
Tree.
Duke, D. (2004). The Turnaround Principal: High-Stakes Leadership. Principal
Magazine, 84.
Ediger, M. (2002). Assessing the School Principal. Education, 123(1), 90-95.
Elmore, R. (2000). Building a New Structure for School Leadership. : Albert
Shanker Institute.
Farkas, S., Johnson, J., Duffett, A., & Foleno, T. (2001). Trying to Stay Ahead of the
Game. New York Public Agenda .
Fink, E., & Resnick, L. (2001). The Principal Shortage: Crisis or )pportunity.
Principal, 25-32.
186
Floden, R., Goertz, M., & O'Day, J. (1995). Capacity Building in Systemic Reform.
Phi Delta Kappan, 77.
Friedman, Thomas (2005). The World Is Flat. New York, NY: Farrar, Straus and
Giroux.
Fullan, Michael (2001). Leading in a Culture of Change. Education Leadership.
Fullan, Michael (2002). Principals as Leaders in a Culture of Change. Educational
Leadership, (May 2002), 7.
Fuller, H., Campbell, C., Celio, M., Harvey, J., Immerwahr, J., Winger, A., et al.
(2003). An Impossible Job? the View from the Urban Superintendent's Chair
(The Wallace Foundation). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing
Office.
Glass, T. E., & Bearman, A. (2003). Superintendent Selection of Secondary School
Principals. Paper presented at the meeting of the Education Commission of
the States. Denver, Co.
Glass, Thomas E. (1992). The Study of American School Superintendency:
American Education Leaders in a Time of Reform. American Association of
School Administrators.
Goodney, Thomas L. (2007). Assessing Knowledge, Understandings, Skills, And
Traits: A Discrepancy Analysis of Those who Prepare and Hire Secondary
Principals in Ohio. (Doctoral dissertation, Miami University, 2007).
Retrieved from ProQuest Information
Goodwin, R., Cunningham, M. L., & Eagle, T. (2005). The Changing Role of the
Secondary Principal in the United States: An Historical Perspective. Journal
of Educational Administration and History, 37(1), 1-17.
Greene, J. P., & Winters, M. A. (2006). Leaving Boys Behind: Public High School
Graduation Rates. Manhattan Institute of Policy Research, 48.
Hannaway, J., & Rotherham, A. J. (2006). Collective Bargaining in Education.
Boston, MA: Harvard Graduate School.
187
Hess, F. M., & Kelly, A. P. (2005a). Learning to Lead? What gets taught in
principal preparation programs (PEPG 05-02 Cambridge MA; Program on
Educational Policy and Governance at Harvard University). Washington, DC:
U.S. Government Printing Office. Retrieved from
http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/pepg/research.hlm
Hodgkinson, Harold L., & Montenegro, Xenia (1999). The U.S. School
Superintendent: the Invisible CEO. Institute of Educational Leadership,
(1999).
Hoffman, J. V. (1991). Teacher and School effects in Learning to Read. (Eds)
Handbook of reading research, Voll II. New York: Longman.
Howe, Mary Lee, and Townsend, Rene. The Principal as Political Leader. High
School Magazine, V7 n6 p11-16 Feb 2000
Hoyle, J., Bjork, L., Collier, V., & Glass , T. (2005). The Superintendent as CEO:
Standards-based performance. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Institute of Educational Leadership (2000). Reinventing the Principalship (School
Leadership for the 21st Century Initiative).
Jones, R. (1995). Picturing your Perfect Principal. The Executive Educator, 17(5),
16-21.
Kelley, R., Thornton, B., & Daugherty, R. (Fall 2005). Relationships between
Measures of Leadership and School Climate. Education, 126(1), 17.
Kose, B.W. The Principal’s Role in Professional Development for Social Justice. An
empirically-Based Transformative Framework. Urban education November
2009 44(6); 622-663
Kowalski, T. J. (1995). Keepers of the Flame: Contemporary Urban
Superintendents. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Kowalski, T. J. (2001). The Future of the Local School Governance: Implications for
Board Members and Superintendents. Oxford, U.K: JAI, Elsevier Science.
Kowalski, Theodore J. (2005). Evolution of the School Superintendent as
Communicator.
Lachat, M. (2001). The Breaking Ranks Model. LAB at Brown University.
188
Lashway, Larry (2002). The Superintendent in An Age of Accountability. ERIC
digest.
Leithwood, Kenneth, & Jantzi, Doris (2008). Linking Leadership to student learning:
the contributions of Leader Efficacy. Educational Administration Quarterly,
44(4), 496-528.
Marzano, R., Waters, T., & McNulty, B. (2005). School Leadership That works.
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
McAdams, Donald, Wisdon, Sarah, & McClellan, Anne (2003). Urban School
District Accountability Systems (Center for Reform of School Systems).
Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
McPherson, Bruce R., & Crowson, Robert L. (1993, August). The Principal as Mini
Superintendent under Chicago School Reform: Chicago Public Schools.
Mendez-Morse, S. (1992). Leadership Characteristics that Facilitate School Change.
SEDL
Merriman, William, & Nicoletti, Augustine (2008). Globalization and American
Education. The Education forum, 72,
Meyer, L., & Feistritzer, E., et al. (2003). Better Leaders for America's Schools: A
Manifesto (Thomas B. Fordham Institute; The Broad Foundation).
Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Moore, S. Assessing the professional development needs of principals and leaders in
preK--12 educational settings. Ph.D. dissertation, Syracuse University,
United States -- New York. Retrieved January 9, 2010, from Dissertations &
Theses: Full Text.(Publication No. AAT)
Morford, L. (2002). The School leader Search: Finding, Hiring, and Keeping Good
Principals are More Important Than Ever. American School Board Journal.
189(11), 62-66
Muller, Robert D (2004, November). The Role of the District in During School
Reform. Maryland: A Review for the Denver Commission on Secondary
School Reform.
NCREL (2003). EnGauge 21ST CENTURY SKILLS; Literacy in the Digital Age.
NCREL http://www.ncrel.org/catalog/
189
Oakley, E., & Drug, D. (1991). Enlightened Leadership: Getting to the Heart of
Change. New York: Fireside.
Patton, Michael (2002). Qualitative Research and Evolution Methods (3 ed.).
Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.
Peterson, Paul E., & West, Martin R. (2003). No child left Behind: The Politics and
Practice of School Accountability. Brookings Institution Press.
Portis, Carrie, & Garcia, Mary W. (2007). The Superintendent as a Change Leader.
School
Public Agenda . Rolling Up Their Sleeves. The Wallace Foundation, 2005.
Reeves, Douglas (2008). Assessing Educational Leaders: Evaluating Performance
for Improved Individual and Organizational Results. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Corwin Press.
Reichhart, W. (2008). The Selection of Public School Principals in the 21st Century
by Indiana Public School Superintendents (Doctoral dissertation, School of
Graduate Studies) Indiana State University, 2008).
Reis, S. C., Young, I. P., & Jury, J. C. (1999). Female Administrators; A Crack in the
Glass Ceiling. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 13(4), 71-82.
Rose, L., & Gallup, A. (2002). The 34th annual Phi Delta Kappan/Gallup poll of the
public's
Shipps, Dorothy (2003). Pulling Together: Civic Capacity and Urban School
Reform.
Taylor , R., & Williams , R. (2001). Accountability: Threat or Target? School
Administrator, 58, 30-33.
Taylor, W.L. and Rosario, C. National Teachers’ Unions and the Struggle over
School Reform. University of Minnesota, Dept. of Psychology.
Usdan, M., McCloud, B., & Podmostko, M. (2000). Leadership for Student
Learning: Reinventing the Principalship (Institute for Educational
Leadership(IEL). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Victoria Human Resources. (2009). Developmental Learning Framework for School
Leaders Principal Selection.
190
Walker, L. (1995). The Principal Selection Process in Washington State Public
Schools;
Walters, T. J., & Marzano, R. (2006). School District Leadership that Works; The
Effect of Superintendent Leadership on Student Achievement. Alexandria,
VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development/
Communication Education, 54(2), 101-117
Waters, T., & Grubb, S. (2004). The Leadership We Need: Using Research to
Strengthen the Use of Standards for Administrator Preparation and Licensure
Program. McREL.
Whaley, J. (2002). Developing the Effective Principal: Hiring, Evaluation and
Retention Practices for the Superintendent. Gaithersburg, MD: Aspen
Publishers Inc.
Williams, Darnise (2009). A Case for Change: Building Leadership Capacity in
Urban High Schools. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Southern
California, 2009).
Winger, Abigail (2003). An Impossible Job? The View from the Urban
Superintendent's Chair (Center on Reinventing Public Education).
Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Young, I. P., & Fox, J. A. (2002). Asian, Hispanic, and Native American Job
Candidates: prescreened or screened within the selection process. Education
Administration Quarterly, 38(4), 530-554.
Young, K. (2008). Effects of Gender and National Origin of Middle School Principal
Applicants on the Screening process. Comparison of superintendent and
principal beliefs and implementation perceptions (Doctoral Dissertation
Gonzaga University) Dissertation Abstract International, 56, 2521
Youngs, Peter and King, Bruce.M.,(2002) Principal Leadership for Professional
Development to Build School Capacity, Educational Administration
quarterly, Vol 38, No.5 Pp643-670
191
APPENDIX A
SUPERINTENDENT ANONYMOUS SURVEY PROTOCOL
INTRODUCTION:
Thank you for participating in this survey. This is an anonymous process and has
been field tested and timed for completion within 15 minutes.
The survey questions have been developed to answer the following three research
questions. The last column on the survey shows this link as well.
• What skills, training and knowledge do superintendents look for when hiring
secondary principals?
• How do superintendents ensure that the right candidate is selected for and is
successful in the position of secondary principal?
Selection for participation has utilized the following criteria:
• Currently a superintendent in either Union High School District or Unified
School District in California with over ten thousand students
• Previous or current experience with hiring secondary principals as a
superintendent.
• Secondary schools in this district or in the previous district have shown
documented gains in student achievement as identified through API scores
within the past three years (2005-2008) or introduced new programs such as
PLC, SLC, I.B etc.
Secondary principals include both middle and high school principals.
The compiled results will be made available to you if you indicate your request in the
box below. The results may be useful for University Principal Training Programs and
for HR departments when recruiting and retaining principals.
Yes, please send me the compiled results at ______________________________
(email address which does not identify you)
No, I do not need the compiled results
192
PART I: SUPERINTENDENT BACKGROUND
Please identify how many of the current secondary principals, middle and high
school, in your district have been hired during your superintendency?
High School _____ Middle School _____
Prior to being the superintendent, were you the assistant or deputy superintendent in
this district?
Yes No
Please check only 1 circle for each column below to help provide relevant
information that will help determine discrepancies of any in the hiring practices of
superintendents based on the various categories below.
The questions below refer to you and your district.
193
PART II: SURVEY
Superintendents please refer to the questions in light of Secondary Principal
Selection criteria:
1: Not at all important 2: Little Important 3: Somewhat Important
4: Important 5: Very Important
Questions on Background Statement 1 2 3 4 5
Answers linked to
research citation
chart, Appendix A
Answers linked to
the 3 identified
Research Qs
1. Employee from within the district (1) (3)
2.
Possess a degree beyond the Master’s
level
(2) (1)
3.
Previous administrative experience
within the district
(3) (3)
4. Have prior experience as principal (4) (1) (3)
5.
Have teaching experience at the
secondary level
(5) (1) (3)
6. Gender of the candidate (6) (3)
7. Race of the candidate (7) (3)
8.
Positive Professional references from
previous employers
(8) (3)
9.
Educational philosophy consistent
with the Superintendent
(9) (2) (3)
Questions on Instruction Statement 1 2 3 4 5
Answers linked to
research citation
chart, Appendix A
Answers linked to
the 3 identified
Research Qs
1.
Knowledge of the STAR/CST and
API/AYP criteria and its effects on
the school district
(10) (1)
2.
Knowledge of CTE, SLC, PLC and
other research based strategies.
(11) (1)
3.
Knowledge of secondary school
restructuring
(12) (1)
4.
Knowledge of secondary counseling
and post-graduating options
(13) (1)
5.
Proven performance of raising test
scores in previous administrative
positions
(14) (2) (3)
6.
Commitment to identify diverse
student needs and program
implementation
(15) (1)
7.
Ability to analyze test data to improve
teacher and student performance
(16) (2)
8.
Knowledge of the master schedule
and introduction of new courses
(17) (1)
194
Questions on Human Relations
Statement 1 2 3 4 5
Answers linked to
research citation
chart, Appendix A
Answers linked to
the 3 identified
Research Qs
1. Ability to listen to others (18) (1)
2. Ability to communicate effectively (19) (1)
3.
Ability to tolerate high levels of stress
without losing administrative
effectiveness
(20) (2)
4.
Ability to work collaboratively with
all stakeholders- parents, students,
staff, community
(21) (2)
5.
Ability to motivate others toward
meeting goals: Vision and Planning
(22) (2)
6. To be a good ‘fit’ for the job (23) (3)
7.
Knowledge and experience of
working with employee unions and
understanding and interpreting
contract language
(24) (1)
8.
Ability to manage employee
discipline
(25) (2)
Questions on Management Statement 1 2 3 4 5
Answers linked to
research citation
chart, Appendix A
Answers linked to
the 3 identified
Research Qs
1.
Strong computer skills and student
database: word processing, excel,
Power Point, student database
programs
(26) (1)
2.
Ability to supervise curriculum and
evaluate classroom instruction in
terms of student performance
(27) (1)
3. Ability to manage financial resources (28) (1)
4. Flexibility to change (29) (2)
5.
Ability to plan effective professional
development
(30) (2)
6.
Demonstrated managerial abilities in
plant supervision, budgets,
evaluations
(31) (1)
7. Ability to be a self-starter (32) (1)
8. Ability to be a risk taker (33) (2)
9.
Ability to engage community
stakeholders in decision making.
(34) (2) (3)
10.
Ability to engage in data driven
decision making
(35) (2)
11.
Understanding of the accountability
system in today’s education system
(36) (2)
195
APPENDIX A.1
QUESTIONS BASED ON RESEARCH
B for background: Provides information on training, experience and sex of the
candidate.
I for Instruction: Instructional Leadership related to curriculum, pedagogy, data
analysis.
HR for Human relations: Supervisory and accountability capacity when dealing with
stakeholders
M for Management: Leadership Style
The chart below shows how each of the questions is based on research that identifies
that area as critical to the Principalship.
Item Statement Categ. Source
1. Employee from within the district B Hooker (2002), Simon (2003)
2. Possess a degree beyond Master’s level B
3.
Previous administrative experience within the
district
B Baron (1990), Simon (2003)
4. Having prior experience as a principal B Brown & DeZwaan (2002)
5. Having teaching experience at the secondary level B Baron (1990)
6. Gender of the candidate B Glass & Bearman (2003)
7. Race of the candidate B Glass & Bearman (2003)
8.
Positive Professional references from previous
employers
B
Blaise & Kirby (2000), Simon
(2003)
9.
Educational philosophy consistent with the
superintendent
B
Baltzell & Dentler (1983),
Anderson (1991), Morford
(2002).
10.
Knowledge of STAR/CST and API/AYP criteria
and its effect on the school district
I
NCLB, 2001, Glass &
Bearman (2003), Fordhan
Institute (2003)
11.
Knowledge of CTE, SLC, PLC and other research
strategies
I NCREL (2003)
12. Knowledge of Secondary School Restructuring I Desimone (2002)
13.
Knowledge of secondary counseling and post-
graduation options
I Reeves (2009)
196
14.
Proven performance of raising test scores in
previous administrative positions
I
Ediger (2001), Rose and
Gallup (2002)
15.
Commitment to identify diverse student needs and
program implementation
I Kelley & Peterson (2001)
16.
Ability to analyze test data to improve teacher and
student performance
I Morford (2002), Simon (2003)
17.
Knowledge of the Master Schedule and
introduction of new courses
I Desimone (2002)
18. Ability to listen to others HR
Bolman & Deal (1995), Dillon
(1995)
19. Ability to communicate effectively HR Glass & Bearman (2003)
20.
Ability to tolerate high levels of stress without
losing administrative effectiveness
HR Guaglianone & Yerkes (1998)
21.
Ability to work collaboratively with all
stakeholders- parents, students, staff, community
HR Kelley & Peterson (2001)
22.
Ability to motivate others toward meeting goals:
Vision and Planning
HR
Simon (2003), Kelley &
Peterson (2001), Blank, R. K.
(1987)
23. To be a good ‘fit’ for the job HR
McNeeley & Mertz (1998),
Baker (2001)
24.
Knowledge and experience of working with
employee unions and understanding and
interpreting contract language
HR Shipps (2003)
25. Ability to manage employee discipline HR Shipps (2003)
26.
Strong computer skills and student database: word
processing, excel, Power Point, student database
programs
M Hallinger & Leithwood (1998)
27.
Ability to supervise curriculum and evaluate
classroom instruction in terms of student
performance
M
Ediger (2001), Johnson
(2003), Simon (2003)
28. Ability to manage financial resources M
Cuban (1988), Van de Walter
(1988)
29. Flexibility to change M Hall & Rutherford (1983)
30. Ability to plan effective professional development M Hall & Rutherford (1983)
31.
Demonstrated managerial abilities in plant
supervision, budgets, evaluations
M
Cuban (1988), Austin et al.
(2001)
32. Ability to be a self-starter M Bolman & Deal (1995)
33. Ability to be a risk-taker M Hill & Lynch (1994)
197
34.
Ability to engage community stakeholders in
decision making
M Kennedy (2000)
35.
Ability to engage staff in data-driven decision
making
M
Darling-Hammond et al.
(2005)
36.
Understanding of the accountability system in
today’s education system
M
McAdams, Wisdon &
McClellan (2003)
198
APPENDIX B
SURVEY PARTICIPANTS
Table B-1: Survey Participants
Total
district
size
Unified
or UHSD
District
API
Total
years as
Urban
Supt
Total years
as Supt in
this district
Total years in
education in
this district
Total
years in
public
educ.
Female Superintendents
>20000 Unified >650 NA NA NA NA
>20000 Unified >750 < 3 < 3 >5 >20
>20000 Unified >800 >10 < 3 < 3 >20
>15000 Unified >850 >3 >3 >3 >20
>20000 USD 700 >4 >4 >4 >20
Male Superintendents
>50000 Unified >750 < 3 < 3 > 5 >20
>20000 UHSD NA >10 >10 >15 >20
>20000 Unified >800 >5 >10 >5 >20
>10000 Unified >750 >5 >5 >5 >20
>20000 Unified >800 >5 >5 >15 >20
>50000 Unified >850 >15 >5 >5 >20
>50000 Unified >850 >3 >3 >15 >20
>20000 Unified >850 >5 >3 >3 >20
>15000 Unified >800 >5 >5 >15 >20
>20000 USD >650 >10 NA NA >20
>50000 USD >750 >15 >4 .>4 >20
199
APPENDIX B.1
INTERVIEW PARTICIPANTS
Table B-2: Interview Participants
A B C D E
District size 27000 32000 55000 8900 37500
# Secondary schools 12 10 25 5 10
Experience as Superintendent 11+ 3+ 15+ 10+ 7+
200
APPENDIX C
SUPERINTENDENT INTERVIEW PROTOCOL
RQ#1:
What are the skills, training and
knowledge that superintendents
look for when hiring secondary
principals in today’s era of
accountability?
1. What skills and training do you consider
important for a secondary principal in order for
them to be successful in their positions? (Baker,
2001)Thomas pg. 21
2. Below are a few significant areas of
responsibility for the secondary principal. How
would you rate them when considering the
candidate’s preparation as a secondary school
principal?
Very important: Important: Not needed:
o Data assessment
o Campus culture and leadership
o Instructional leadership
o Shared vision
o Political preparation
o Past experience in this position
o Staff training
o Budget allocation
o PLC
o Union activities
o Parent/community exposure
3. If you were to assess the principal preparation
programs, are they doing a good enough job
preparing- why and why not? What would you
recommend these programs focus on as a
priority? (Pub Agenda, 2003.
4. Does the principal evaluation process in your
district identify the skills and knowledge the
principals need help with and do you have a plan
for individual support?
201
RQ #2:
What Principal leadership skills
do superintendents identify as
important in order to create
systemic changes in the
secondary schools in an era of
accountability?
1. What are some major leadership skills that you
think secondary principals must have to be
successful in bringing about student
achievement (Cotton, 2003) (Marzano, 2005)
Cash dissertation
2. Which of the four styles of leadership do you
focus on during the selection process, given
today’s high era of accountability? (Bolman and
Deal, 2005)
3. What are the weaknesses in leadership skills that
result in unsuccessful tenure for secondary
principals? Are there areas that you focus on
during your leadership training and workshops?
4. When principals are referred to as “change
Agents” what do you interpret that to mean?
(Reeves, 2008)
5. Please identify how your selection has changed
based on the changing role of the secondary
principal over this past decade and into the next
decade.
6. How do you identify a principal for a secondary
school in your district? What part do you play in
preparing the criteria for hire?
7. In your organizational chart how important is the
role of the secondary principal? Do you shift
other site/district leaders to best suit open
positions? Why or why not?
202
APPENDIX D
INVITATION TO PARTICIPATE LETTER
August 8, 2009
Dear Dr. RE: INVITATION TO PARTICIPATE LETTER
This is an invitation to participate in a research study being conducted by me, Fal
Asrani, as part of my dissertation study at University of Southern California. The
study is titled “California Urban Superintendents and their Selection of Secondary
School Principals” and aims to identify the skills and trainings required by secondary
principals in today’s era of high accountability.
I understand that this is a busy time of the year for you and I extend my heartfelt
gratitude to you for taking this time to participate in this study. This survey has been
time-tested to take less than 15 minutes, is entirely voluntary, anonymous, and
involves no known risks to you nor has any associated costs for your participation.
This topic is being researched for the first time in California, although similar studies
have been conducted in other states. Your response is invaluable to this study. This
research will be available to university credential programs and to school districts to
attract, train, and retain their best candidates.
Enclosed in this packet is the copy of the survey and a self-stamped envelope for
your convenience. This survey is anonymous and does not require your name or
address. Please mark the box applicable if you are interested in receiving the results
of the survey. All questions related to this survey can be directed to me at
fasrani@usc.edu or on my cell at (949) 331-5404 or to my dissertation chair, Dr.
Rudy Castruita at rcastrui@usc.edu. For all questions regarding your rights as a
research subject, please contact USC Institutional Review Board (IRB) by e-mail at
upirb@usc.edu or by phone at (213) 821-5272.
I thank you for your time and support and wish you a successful 2009-10 school
year.
Sincerely,
Fal Asrani
203
APPENDIX E
CALIFORNIA PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS FOR
EDUCATION LEADERS (CPSEL)
Standard 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.
Standard 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.
Standard 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.
Standard 4: A school administrator is an educational leader who promotes the
success of all students by collaborating with families and community members,
responding to diverse community interests and needs, and mobilizing community
resources.
Standard 5: A school administrator is an educational leader who promotes the
success of all students by modeling a personal code of ethics and developing
professional leadership capacity.
Standard 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.
204
APPENDIX F
TOTAL STATISTICS
Table F-1: Case Processing Summary
N %
Valid 16 94.1
Excluded
a
1 5.9
Cases
Total 17 100.0
a. Listwise deletion based on all variables in the procedure.
205
Table F-2: Item-Total Statistics
Scale Mean if Item
Deleted
Scale Variance if Item
Deleted
Corrected Item-Total
Correlation
Cronbach's Alpha if Item
Deleted
B1 145.19 112.429 -.051 .880
B2 144.50 111.600 -.021 .883
B3 145.06 111.129 .018 .879
B4 144.13 111.050 .045 .876
B5 143.13 107.983 .297 .871
B6 146.19 108.029 .249 .872
B7 146.00 104.533 .345 .871
B8 142.81 110.963 .117 .873
B9 143.25 101.533 .632 .863
IN1 142.88 111.983 .005 .875
IN2 143.13 108.383 .266 .871
IN3 143.06 104.196 .505 .866
IN4 143.56 105.063 .390 .869
IN5 143.13 105.450 .421 .868
IN6 143.00 107.867 .388 .869
IN7 142.56 112.263 .000 .873
IN8 143.50 99.867 .684 .861
H1 142.81 107.096 .404 .869
H2 142.69 110.363 .248 .871
H3 142.88 108.117 .393 .869
H4 142.75 109.533 .304 .871
H5 142.94 104.729 .712 .864
H6 142.75 109.533 .304 .871
H7 143.56 98.663 .720 .860
H8 143.38 99.583 .809 .859
M1 144.31 100.096 .518 .866
M2 142.94 109.529 .181 .873
M3 143.63 99.983 .676 .861
M4 142.88 108.517 .353 .870
M5 143.38 101.583 .669 .862
M6 143.81 98.429 .861 .857
M7 142.94 104.729 .712 .864
M8 143.13 104.383 .582 .865
M9 143.19 107.096 .373 .869
M10 142.69 110.229 .267 .871
M11 143.00 107.467 .337 .870
With all items, the selection scale is very reliable with a = .876. However, I deleted
a few more items to increase reliability of subscales.
Abstract (if available)
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
How successful urban superintendents in California improve student achievement
PDF
The secondary school principal's role as instructional leader in teacher professional development
PDF
Defined autonomy: how superintendents work with principals to create the defined autonomy at schools necessary for improved student achievement
PDF
An urban superintendent's strategies for systemic reform: a case study
PDF
Effective strategies that urban superintendents use that improve the academic achievement for African-American males
PDF
The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on K-12 public school districts in southern California: responses of superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals
PDF
21st century superintendents: the dynamics related to the decision-making process for the selection of high school principals
PDF
Superintendents increase student achievement by selecting effective principals
PDF
21st century superintendents: the dynamics related to the decision-making process for the selection of high school principals
PDF
School board and superintendent relationships and how they promote student achievement in California’s urban districts
PDF
Principal leadership -- skill demands in a global context
PDF
Leadership traits and practices supporting position longevity for urban school superintendents: a case study
PDF
The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on K–12 public school districts in southern California: responses of superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals
PDF
Secondary school counselor-principal relationships: impact on counselor accountability
PDF
Systemic change and the system leader: a case study of superintendent action to improve student achievement in a large urban school district
PDF
Strategies used by superintendents in developing leadership teams
PDF
Latinas in the superintendency: the challenges experienced before and after obtaining the superintendency and strategies used for success
PDF
A case study in reform: implementation strategies of one urban superintendent
PDF
Understanding the decision making process of California urban schools superintendents through Bolman and Deal's four leadership frames
PDF
How urban school superintendents effectively use data-driven decision making to improve student achievement
Asset Metadata
Creator
Asrani, Fal
(author)
Core Title
California urban superintendents and their selection criteria for secondary school principals
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Education (Leadership)
Publication Date
04/13/2010
Defense Date
03/23/2010
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
California superintendents,OAI-PMH Harvest,principal leadership,secondary principals,selection criteria
Place Name
California
(states),
USA
(countries)
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Castruita, Rudy M. (
committee chair
), Garcia, Pedro E. (
committee member
), Hubbard, Jeffrey (
committee member
)
Creator Email
asranifal@gmail.com,fasrani@usc.edu
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m2911
Unique identifier
UC1445022
Identifier
etd-Asrani-3633 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-320165 (legacy record id),usctheses-m2911 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-Asrani-3633.pdf
Dmrecord
320165
Document Type
Dissertation
Rights
Asrani, Fal
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
Tags
California superintendents
principal leadership
secondary principals
selection criteria