University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

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

(USC Thesis Other)

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

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content THE TRANSITION PERIOD OF PRINCIPALS:
THE FIRST 90 DAYS
by
Matthew D. Horvath
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
August 2007
Copyright 2007Matthew D. Horvath
ii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
First and foremost, I want to thank my family and friends for supporting me
throughout this process. The educational journey to receive a doctorate is both physi-
cally and mentally demanding. I thank them all for listening, offering advice, and
encouraging me throughout the past 3 years. Special thanks go to my mom and dad, my
grandmas Horn and Horvath, my brother Brian, Bob, Bonnie, Al, Scott, Robin, Jim,
Dennis, Jeff, Mike, Bob, and Mark. I value their friendships more than they will ever
know.
For making this dissertation what it is, I owe my greatest debt of gratitude to my
chair, Dr. Scott Price. His ability to identify the discontinuities in my writing continu-
ously challenged my thinking. If it were not for his insightful comments, much of this
dissertation would have been quite unreadable. Very sincere thanks go to the other
members of my committee Dr. Guilbert Hentschke and Dr. Kathy Stowe, for reading
drafts, offering suggestions, and pressing me to think deeply during and after my quali-
fying defense. I am also grateful to several other members of the USC faculty, espe-
cially Carol Wilson and Sylvia Rousseau, who have inspired me tremendously. Both
taught me to always have the best interest of my students in mind when I make every
educational decision. Thanks to my editor Phyllis Parmet for reading and formatting
various drafts and helping me understand what a dissertation should look like.
iii
I want to thank the principal, superintendent, and staff members who partici-
pated in this case study. I am especially grateful for the time they took to share stories,
answer questions, and complete surveys in order to give shape to this dissertation.
Special thanks to Mark Kelly and Suzanne Webb, my first “administrative
team,” for being flexible and supportive during the past 3 years. Both of them have
been instrumental in guiding me as an administrator. They are my true mentors and
friends.
I thank the entire cohort for all of the time, effort, and advice that each of them
contributed. This process was much more manageable with nine others to lean on
throughout the past 16 months.
Finally, I thank my late grandfather, Tobe Alwyn Horn, for instilling in me the
importance of hard-work, dedication, and loyalty. He has been and always will be an
inspiration to me.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS. ............................................ ii
LIST OF TABLES. .................................................. vii
AB S TR AC T ......................................................viii
Chapter 1: INTRODUCTION. ........................................ 1
Statement of the Problem.......................................... 5
Purpose of Study. ............................................... 6
Importance of Study.............................................. 7
Limitations..................................................... 7
Delimitations................................................... 8
Assumptions.................................................... 9
Summary of Methodology. ........................................ 9
Definition of Terms. ............................................. 10
Accountability. .............................................. 10
Content Standards. ........................................... 10
Induction Period.............................................. 11
Principal Preparation Program................................... 11
Principalship. ............................................... 11
Traits. ..................................................... 11
Transition Period. ............................................ 11
Turnaround.................................................. 11
Organization of Study. ........................................... 11

Chapter 2: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE. ........................... 13
Accountability and Responsibility. .................................. 14
John Maxwell: The 360-Degree Leader. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Michael Fullan: The Moral Imperative of School Leadership. . . . . . . . . . 20
Jim Collins: Good to Great. .................................... 22
Analysis of Frameworks. ...................................... 25
School Culture and Climate........................................ 26
Richard DuFour: PLCs. ....................................... 29
John Kotter: Leading Change. .................................. 31
Analysis of Frameworks. ...................................... 32
Leadership Principles............................................. 33
Lee Bolman and Terrence Deal: Reframing Organizations. . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Robert Marzano: School Leadership That Works.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Analysis of Frameworks. ...................................... 37
v
Induction and Transition. ......................................... 38
Michael Watkins: The First 90 Days.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Training and Mentoring. .......................................... 42
Conclusion. .................................................... 47
Chapter 3: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY. ............................ 50
Methodology. .................................................. 51
Research Questions. ............................................. 52
Population/Sample. .............................................. 53
Instrumentation. ................................................ 54
Superintendent Interview Guide. ................................ 54
Principal Interview Guide. ..................................... 55
Direct Supervisor Interview Guide. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
Teacher Survey/Interview Guide. ................................ 58
Theoretical Base................................................. 58
Data Collection. ................................................ 59
Data Analysis. .................................................. 60
Conclusion. .................................................... 60
Figure 1: Relation of data collection instruments to research questions
(RQs). ..................................................... 61
Chapter 4: RESULTS. .............................................. 62
Introduction to Case Study I........................................ 63
Student Population............................................ 64
Teaching Population/Achievement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
Cross-Case Analysis. ............................................ 66
Student Populations. .......................................... 67
Teaching Population/Achievement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
Findings. ...................................................... 68
Research Question 1. ......................................... 68
Research Question 2. ......................................... 79
Research Question 3. ......................................... 98
Summary. .....................................................107
Chapter 5: SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS.. . . .108
Summary. .....................................................108
Purpose of the Study. .........................................108
Research Questions. ..........................................109
Summary of Findings..........................................109
I m pl i c a t i ons ....................................................115
Recommendations. ..............................................116
Conclusion.....................................................117
vi
REFERENCES. ....................................................119
Appendix A:SUPERINTENDENT INITIAL INTERVIEW GUIDE.. . . . . . . . . .125
Appendix B: PRINCIPAL INTERVIEW GUIDE..........................126
Appendix C: STRS CHART. .........................................128
Appendix D:PRINCIPAL’S FOUR FRAMES CHART. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .129
Appendix E:CHARACTERISTICS AND BEHAVIORS CHART. . . . . . . . . . . .130
Appendix F:IMMEDIATE SUPERVISOR INTERVIEW GUIDE. . . . . . . . . . . .132
Appendix G:TEACHER SURVEY/INTERVIEW GUIDE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .133
vii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1:2005-2006 School Accountability Report Card Analysis of Case
Study Schools: Part 1. ...................................... 65
Table 2:2005-2006 School Accountability Report Card Analysis of Case
Study Schools: Part 2. ...................................... 66
Table 3:Principals’ Responses to What Evidence They Had to Support
Their Categorization of School as Turnaround. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
Table 4:Who Provided New Principals With Information About Their
Schools. ................................................. 69
Table 5:How Principals Viewed the Significance of the First 90 Days of
the Principalship. .......................................... 74
Table 6:Leadership Theories That Are Vital for the First 90 Days of a
Principalship: Principals’ Responses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
Table 7:Three Important Actions That Helped the Principal Make the
Greatest Gains: Immediate Supervisors’ Responses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
Table 8:Fifty Important Actions Cited by Teachers That Helped Principal
Make the Largest Positive Gains in the First 90 Days or First
Semester, Categorized by Bolman and Deal’s Four Frames. . . . . . . . . . 88
Table 9:Principals’ Pathway to the Principalship. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
Table 10:Principals’s Responses Regarding Effectiveness of University
Preparation Programs. ......................................100
Table 11:Ways That University Programs Help Prepare Principals With
Training and on-the-Job Knowledge: Principals’ Responses.. . . . . . . .102
Table 12:Types of District Support Provided to Principals During First 90
Days: Immediate Supervisors’ Responses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .105
viii

ABSTRACT
Principals today face far greater challenges than at any other period in the highly
political environment of No Child Left Behind. The role of the principalship continues
to expand and to become increasingly more challenging over time. The expanding role
of the principalship necessitates that school leaders be equipped with the skills and
training needed to manage the complexities of leading a school.
The focus of this study is the transition period, specifically the first 90 days, of a
principal in a “turnaround” school. This dissertation examines the leadership practices
of principals during the transitional period to determine whether this period contributes
to the success of principals. The study identifies existing frameworks and models of
entry strategies in the educational and business sectors and recognizes skills, traits,
support, and types of training necessary for success as a beginning principal in a turn-
around school.
The study consisted of a qualitative and quantitative analysis of the data gath-
ered from 10 southern Californian middle school principals, their staff, and their super-
visors. Among the major findings, it was discovered that the first 90 days are, in fact,
significant and “make or break” the success of a new principal. It was also found that
there are specific strategies, behaviors, and characteristics that principals can and
should engage in to make their transitions successful. Credibility must be established
by establishing and monitoring a vision, building relationships and a collaborative
schoolwide culture, establishing early wins, leading from the middle, and remaining
ix
visible. Finally, based on the lack of practical knowledge that school administrators felt
that they received from university preparation programs, districts should (a) create
programs that assist new leaders to learn the necessary strategies associated with the
transition period and (b) provide both informal and formal mentors to help guide them
through this time.
1
CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION
Educating children in today’s world is a daunting task. Schools are a micro-
cosm of society, thus reflecting the challenges that people face in all aspects of life.
Challenges such as drugs and alcohol, lack of funding, students with disabilities, over-
crowding, racial tensions, high-stakes accountability, and worker shortages, to name a
few, are all prevalent in schools today. It is necessary that school leaders not only
address these widespread societal/school issues but also find solutions to these prob-
lems.
Demands from political leaders have called on school leaders to solve problems
facing schools. Reports such as A Nation at Risk (National Commission on Excellence
in Education, 1983) have highlighted problems faced in American education and have
led to reforms. This call for reforms led to a heightened awareness of the state of Amer-
ica’s public schools and paved the way for future legislation to change the way that
schools were conducting business.
Through the federal No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001 (2002), law-
makers have instituted an entirely new system of accountability and policy issues that
shape the way schools are run. NCLB has led to an increase in accountability on the
part of schools in regard to the achievement of all students.
Accountability has been a basic concept in the field of public education for
some time. Historically, principal accountability consisted of maintaining strong
2
teacher relationships, assuming the role of instructional leader, and exhibiting sound
budgeting practices (Lashway, 2000). NCLB and other reforms in public education
have shifted the focus of accountability measures to include outcomes on student
achievement (Elmore, Abelmann, & Fuhrman, 1996). All students are expected to
achieve at the proficient level on the state’s standards-based assessments by 2014, thus
triggering the collecting and publishing of data, which are key components of NCLB.
A school’s information is represented yearly in the form of a School Accountability
Report Card (SARC). Yearly updates of key data pieces in regard to student progress
are used to hold schools accountable for increased student achievement for all students.
Principals have had to shift their roles and implement new strategies in their schools
due to the new accountability structures.
In response to high-stakes accountability, principals have been asked to take on
new roles. Previously, principals were expected to perform primarily managerial roles.
Today’s principal is expected not only to perform these same managerial tasks but also
to be a change agent, to have the good of the community in mind, to be the instructional
leader of the school, and to be committed to school improvement in the face of
high-stakes accountability. The work of principals is demanding and oftentimes over-
whelming. Due to increased accountability, the changing roles of principals have led to
increased challenges for school leaders.
Principals today face far greater challenges than ever before. The various chal-
lenges increase the pressures and stresses felt by school principals. The greater de-
mands from increasing accountability alone have added challenges never seen before by
3
principals. A challenge that all principals must face at least once in their career is the
transition into a new position. The transition period is defined as the first 90 days based
on the framework outlined by Watkins (2003). Leaders face many different types of
transition periods depending on the state of the organization. One type of transition
period that school leaders enter is taking over the helm of a turnaround school. Wat-
kins defined a turnaround situation as taking a group or unit that is recognized to be in
trouble and working to get it back on track. Turnaround situations vary from one case
to another. Some turnaround principals face the extremely difficult challenges of ef-
fectively closing achievement gaps, raising test scores, and reducing the number of
dropouts. Others may be faced with dire consequences such as denial of school accredi-
tation, state takeover, school closure, and diminished hopes and dreams for struggling
communities (Duke, 2004). Sometimes a school can be recognized as a turnaround
school merely because it has been determined to need help getting back on track.
Needless to say, all transition situations add to the challenges faced by principals. With
all of the additional challenges, many principals are becoming burnt out and are begin-
ning to leave their positions.
Increased responsibilities, greater challenges, lack of support, and the awareness
of the demands of the position of principal have, in turn, contributed to a principal
shortage (Ediger, 2002). As seen in other areas of the workforce, the working popula-
tion is aging due to the baby boomer generation reaching retirement. In addition to the
number of administrators leaving the field due to retirement, so, too, are teachers
reaching the end of their careers, thus creating additional challenges for administrators
4
to replace veteran teachers. Also cited as reasons why people do not enter the field of
school administration are lack of pay or other incentives. With a reduction of work-
force, recruiting and training new principals becomes an important task.
As a result of the changing nature of the principalship, it is necessary to change
and adapt the ways that future school leaders are being recruited and trained. Various
training programs have attempted to address the new and changing role of principals.
The types of training for current and aspiring principals include university degree or
credentialing programs, state- and county-sponsored professional development or spe-
cialized programs, district-sponsored professional development or specialized pro-
grams, as well as programs aimed at coaching and mentoring. One such program found
in the state of California is AB 75. The Principal Training Program was established in
2001 with the intent of creating a public/private partnership with training focused on
instructional leadership. Another purpose of the program is to assist in the areas of
standards-based curriculum, assessment, technology, and use of fiscal and human
resources (King & Smoot, 2004).
In terms of principal recruitment, many have called for the establishment of
effective recruiting programs in order to reduce shortages of high-quality principal
candidates. Self-selection has been the traditional method of entry into the field of ap-
plicants for the principalship (Goodwin, Cunningham, & Eagle, 2005). Hargreaves
(2005) called for the need to improve leadership succession in education. In the busi-
ness world, companies have programs in place that prepare employees to move up the
corporate ladder. In the military field, systems are in place to prepare its personnel to
5
ascend in the chain of command. Schools, for the most part, do not have these types of
systems in place, thus making sustainable leadership a problem (Hargreaves). One pro-
active response to leadership succession is the development of “grow-your-own” pro-
grams (Lovely, 1999, p. 1). This type of program is designed to develop leaders from
within the school district. Another response is the call for developing increased collab-
oration between school districts and higher education. When recruiting issues begin to
be resolved, the next step in the process is training the candidates for leadership posi-
tions.
Once in a leadership position, getting off to a good start has been shown to aid
in the success of that leader. New leaders come to positions with both informal and
formal preparation. Lashway (2003a) described a process called organizational social-
ization that new leaders must face in spite of both types of preparation they receive.
Organizational socialization is seen as an important piece of induction programs.
Much of the research in education supports the position of the importance of
induction programs. In the business field, companies and different training programs
have begun to recognize the importance of new leaders engaging in early success
(Watkins, 2003). It is unclear whether school districts have strong induction programs
in place for new principals.
Statement of the Problem
The literature base in the field of educational leadership, and specifically begin-
ning principals, is limited. Much of the literature consists of guides and aids with
6
practical information written by current or former school administrators. The informa-
tion that is written covers the entire tenure of the principalship with no sole focus on the
transition period. In most instances, the literature base in business leadership far ex-
ceeds that in the area of educational leadership. This is clearly the case in the area of
examining the importance of the transitional period as part of a new leader’s success.
Much of the research on leadership, specifically the transition period, in the business
field appears to include conceptual frameworks for people to follow. Therefore, it is
important to examine the leadership practices of principals during the transitional
period to determine if this period contributes to the success of principals. To effectively
examine these issues, the following research questions were developed to guide the
study:
1.Did principals in a turnaround situation find the transition period (first 90
days) to be important?
2.What strategies and conceptual frameworks (leadership theories) were useful
to new principals during the transition period (first 90 days) in a turnaround school?
3.Did any programs, formal or informal, prepare new principals for success
during the transition period (first 90 days) in a turnaround school?
Purpose of Study
The purpose of the study was to determine whether the transition period is im-
portant to the success of the principal. The focus of the study was the transition period
of a principal, specifically the first 90 days. The study identified the skills and traits
7
necessary as well as supports needed for success as a beginning principal. The study
identified existing frameworks and models of entry plans in the educational and busi-
ness sectors and attempted to contribute to this knowledge.
Importance of Study
Limited research exists on the transition period in the educational sector as
it relates to school leadership and beginning school principals. This study exam-
ined the current literature and frameworks on transitions found in business and
determined whether they apply to the role of school principal. This is an impor-
tant contribution to the literature base in education, as much of the literature on
transitions comes from the business field and much of the literature in the educa-
tional field focuses on the total experience of beginning principals.
This study provides further insights into the importance of a principal’s transi-
tion and identifies strategies, conceptual frameworks, and support systems that have
been determined to help beginning principals. This study should provide organizations
with a framework of the key elements that principals experience during the transition
period.
Limitations
The limitations of the study were as follows:
1.The study was limited to individuals who participates voluntarily.
8
2.The study was limited to the number of individuals surveyed and inter-
viewed and the amount of time available to conduct the study.
3.The validity of this study was limited to the reliability of the instruments
used.
4.The study was limited to the validity and manner in which the personal
interviews were conducted by the other members of the cohort.
5.Accuracy of information, as disclosed by individuals, may have varied.
Delimitations
Delimitations of the study were the following:
1.Participation in the survey was limited to teachers present on the day that the
survey was given.
2.Participation was limited to 2 -year middle school principals from Califor-
nd
nia in schools considered successful and in a turnaround situation.
3.Principals participating in personal interviews were selected by information
given in interviews of selected California superintendents.
4.The personal principal interview was limited to 2 -year middle school prin-
nd
cipals from California in schools considered successful and in a turnaround situation.
5.The personal supervisor interview was limited to the direct supervisor of the
chosen principal.
6.The personal teacher interviews were limited to teachers chosen at the
chosen principal’s school.
9
Assumptions
The following assumptions were made regarding the study:
1.Participants were truthful in their responses.
2.The instruments were valid and reliable.
3.Participants were able to recall elements and factors of their experiences
with the transition period of the principalship with reasonable accuracy.
Summary of Methodology
The study consisted of a mixed-methodology approach to research using both
qualitative and quantitative components. The study incorporated a mixed-methods
concurrent procedures strategy, integrating quantitative and qualitative data concur-
rently to provide a comprehensive analysis of the research problem (Creswell, 2003).
This approach enabled the data to be analyzed on various levels. The quantitative
component consisted of charts completed during the interview process by each of the 10
California middle school principals in the study, each of the participant principal’s im-
mediate supervisors, as well as four department chair teachers within the participant
principal’s school. The quantitative data also included a survey given to each of the
teachers at the participating principal’s school during a staff meeting. The qualitative
component was important due to the overall limited literature base in this area of
research. An important piece of conducting qualitative studies is that the study is
exploratory in nature (Creswell). The qualitative component consisted of personal
interviews with 10 principals, each principal’s direct supervisor, and four department
10
chair teachers chosen from the principals’ schools to analyze the practices, conceptual
frameworks, and leadership theories that the principals incorporated during the transi-
tion period. The interviews consisted of both fixed and open-ended questions and were
conducted by a cohort of researchers from the Rossier Graduate School of Education of
the University of Southern California (USC). The qualitative interviews were used to
provide depth and context to the data collected from the survey. The concurrent trian-
gulation approach was used in this mixed-methodology study in an attempt to confirm,
cross-validate, and corroborate findings (Creswell).
The data were analyzed to examine the importance of the transition period for
new principals; to identify key elements and factors; and to identify strategies,
conceptual frameworks, and leadership theories that principals incorporated during the
transition period.
Definition of Terms
Accountability
The aspect of responsibility involving giving a statistical or judicial explanation
for events.
Content Standards
Designed to encourage the highest achievement of every student by defining the
knowledge, concepts, and skills that students should acquire at each grade level.
11
Induction Period
The beginning of service in any profession—defined as the first 90 days, based
on the framework outlined by Watkins (2003).
Principal Preparation Program
Program that provides theoretical or practical knowledge in the preparation of
school site administrator.
Principalship
The position of a principal at the elementary, middle or high school level.
Traits
Evidence of leadership in terms of personality and character.
Transition Period
Defined as the first 90 days, based on the framework outlined by Watkins
(2003).
Turnaround
To take a unit or group that is recognized to be in trouble and work to get it back
on track.
Organization of Study
The dissertation is divided into five chapters. Chapter 1 has provided an over-
view of the study. Included were the introduction of the study; the statement of the
12
problem; research questions used to guide the study; the purpose and importance of the
study; the limitations, delimitations, and assumptions of the study; and finally the defi-
nitions of key terms used in the study.
Chapter 2 is a literature review that analyzes issues surrounding principals,
along with conceptual frameworks on transitional leadership in the education and
business fields. The main focus of the examination was the principles related to the
importance of the transition period for new school principals.
Chapter 3 is comprised of the methodology of the study. The methodology
consists of an introduction, sample and population of the study, instrumentation used in
the study, as well as data collection and analysis.
Chapter 4 consists of the findings of the study. The findings of the current study
were guided by the research questions that were developed.
Chapter 5 consists of the summary, conclusions, and future implications of the
study.
13
CHAPTER 2

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
The literature base in the field of educational leadership and specifically begin-
ning principals is limited. Much of the literature consists of guides and aides with prac-
tical information written by current or former school administrators. The information
that is written covers the entire tenure of the principalship with no sole focus on the
transition period. In most instances, the literature base in business leadership far ex-
ceeds that in the area of educational leadership. This is clearly the case in the area of
examining the importance of the transitional period as key to a new leader’s success.
Much of the research on leadership, specifically the transition period, in the
business field appears to include conceptual frameworks for people to follow. An ex-
amination of the literature base in education and business will be reviewed with the
main focus being the principles related to the importance of the transition period for
new school principals.
This chapter will provide a literature review on the issues surrounding princi-
pals, along with conceptual frameworks on transitional leadership in the education and
business fields. The chapter is divided into five main topics that are prevalent through-
out the literature base of leadership in both the education and business fields: (a) ac-
countability and responsibility, (b) school culture and climate, (c) leadership principles,
(d) induction and transition, and (e) training and mentoring.
14
Within each of the five main topics, conceptual frameworks on effective and
transitional leadership from both the education and business sectors will be analyzed
and synthesized. Each topic’s literature will address each of the successive themes. It
is important to know that much of the information in each topic area is quite relevant to
topics in all sections. This chapter ends with conclusions of findings, along with rele-
vance of study of topic.
Accountability and Responsibility
The role of principal has dramatically changed in the past 25 years. This change
has occurred due to a belief that there were many deficits in the American system of
education and that the system was in need of serious reform. On August 26, 1981, U.S.
Secretary of Education T. H. Bell created the National Commission on Excellence in
Education and directed it to examine the quality of education in the United States. The
report was entitled A Nation at Risk: The Imperative for Educational Reform (1983).
A Nation at Risk (National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983)
highlighted the inequities of American education and called for leaders to be responsi-
ble for achieving major reform. The report called for reforms such as more rigorous
and measurable standards, higher student expectations, high school graduation require-
ments to be strengthened, improved academic performance and student conduct, im-
proved teacher preparation, and more effective use of the existing school day. This call
for reform led to a heightened awareness of the state of America’s public schools and
15
paved the way for future legislation focusing on improving schools and student
achievement.
Following A Nation at Risk (National Commission on Excellence in Education,
1983), the responding reform movement came in the period from 1983-1990. The
report of this period was entitled A Nation Responds: Recent Efforts to Improve Educa-
tion (U.S. Department of Education, 1984). The report called for longer school days
and years, as well as increased student and teacher expectations. Both reports discussed
what schools were lacking and what needed to be done to improve school, but failed to
mention ways to measure a school’s progress and to hold schools accountable for in-
creased achievement.
The next reform movement brought with it ways to measure student achieve-
ment. This reform movement from 1999-2000 sought to align the educational system
with subject frameworks that included standards and statewide standardized student
achievement. A result of this reform movement was the SARC. Included in the SARC
are testing data, demographic information, curriculum and instruction descriptions, and
other key academic data. A school’s SARC is an effective way for a school to report on
its progress in achieving goals. This standardized reporting of key data paved the way
for the final evolution of reform: increased accountability that reaches to the site level.
The federal NCLB Act of 2001 (2002) has allowed lawmakers to institute an
entirely new system of accountability and policy issues to shape the way that schools
are run. NCLB requires that all schools have highly qualified teachers, are equitable for
all students, and set mandatory minimum standards that all students must achieve on a
16
yearly basis (Linn et al., 2002). At the heart of NCLB is the requirement that each sub-
group of students in each school improve test scores in equal yearly increments or make
AYP (Mathis, 2003). In order to achieve this goal and meet annual performance objec-
tives, districts and schools must improve each year according to set requirements. Data
reported show whether all groups of students in the school made AYP. AYP is com-
piled by a combination of factors that allow schools to compare themselves in regard to
student achievement in all subgroups with other schools in the state as well as the
nation. These yearly updates of key data pieces in regard to student progress are used to
hold schools accountable for increased student achievement for all students.
NCLB and other reforms in public education have shifted the focus of account-
ability measures to include outcomes on student achievement (Elmore et al., 1996).
Historically, principals were held accountable by maintaining strong teacher relation-
ships, assuming the role of instructional leader, and exhibiting sound budgeting prac-
tices (Lashway, 2000). Today, principals are being asked to wear many different hats.
Principals must assume the roles of curriculum and instructional leaders, human re-
source managers, financial leaders, and building maintenance operators; have increased
expectations for school improvement; and be key players in developing positive school
community relations (Goodwin et al., 2005). In response to high-stakes accountability,
principals have been asked to take on new roles and responsibilities. Previously, prin-
cipals were expected to perform mostly task-oriented roles, such as making sure teach-
ers had their needed supplies, managing school budgets, keeping buildings clean, and
ensuring a safe campus (Lashway, 2002). Today’s principal is expected not only to
17
perform these same managerial tasks but also to be portrayed as a democratic,
community-minded instructional leader and facilitator of change in the area of school
improvement, with a commitment and accountability to standards for student learning
(Lashway, 2002; NASBE, 1999). Principals today face far greater challenges than ever
before. The daunting challenges increase the pressures and stresses felt by school prin-
cipals. The greater demands from increasing accountability alone have added chal-
lenges never seen before by principals. Principals are witnessing greater expectations
from the public and central administration for higher student standards (Whitaker,
1996). One such struggle that principals have witnessed is increased expectations with
limited availability of time. An average workweek for principals is 62 hours with less
than a third of the time being spent on curriculum and instructional activities (Schiff,
2002). There is limited available time to be spent on curriculum and instruction due to
the additional challenges faced by today’s principals. The additional challenges include
site-based management, shared decision making, declining resources, and increased
paperwork (Whitaker). Oftentimes these challenges must be faced alone by the princi-
pals with very little support from the school districts in which they work. Principals
have been removed in some districts if their schools’ test scores were not deemed sat-
isfactory (Taylor & Williams, 2001). With all of the additional challenges principals
face, many are becoming burned out and are beginning to leave the position (Whitaker).
Increased responsibilities, greater challenges, lack of support, and the awareness
of the demands of the position of principal have, in turn, contributed to a principal
shortage (Ediger, 2002). Furthermore, more people are retiring. In a 2001 report, the
18
Association of California School Administration stated that within the next 7 years,
approximately 45% of current administrators in the state of California are anticipated to
retire (as cited in Lovell, 2004). In addition to the number of administrators leaving the
field due to retirement, so, too, are teachers reaching the end of their careers, thus creat-
ing additional challenges for administrators to replace veteran teachers. Also cited as
reasons why people do not enter the field of school administration are lack of pay or
other incentives. Veteran teachers often make more money and work less than begin-
ning administrators (Ferrandino, Vincent, & Tirozzi, 2000). With a reduction of work-
force, recruiting and training new principals becomes an important task.
The principalship has changed in the past 25 years. Legislation has led to in-
creased principal responsibilities, a push for strict academic standards, and has called
for increased accountability whereby principals must prove themselves continuously to
each of their key stakeholders. This paradigm shift makes it drastically important to
analyze leadership literature that focuses on best practices of change leadership.
In the next section the researcher will review a few of the more widely ac-
cepted leadership theories as they pertain to leaders who must respond to calls for in-
creased accountability and responsibilities. The researcher will begin by outlining the
leadership theories and their tenets, then analyze and compare them.
John Maxwell: The 360-Degree Leader
Maxwell (2005) examined the concept of leading from the middle of an organi-
zation. Maxwell’s theory is that the 360-degree leader has the ability to lead in all
19
directions without using a traditional top-down leadership style. He argued that a leader
in the middle can influence people at every level of an organization. Maxwell defined
seven principles for the 360-degree leader:
1.Walk slowly through the halls.
2.See everyone as a “10.”
3.Develop each team member as a person.
4.Place people in their strength zone.
5.Model the behavior you desire.
6.Transfer the vision.
7.Reward the results. (p. 161)
Maxwell expanded on his seven principles by providing important qualities of a 360-
degree leader. Some of the main qualities of the 360-degree leader include the follow-
ing:
•Adds value to the vision
•Connects the top to the bottom of the organization
•Has a quality character that attracts the trust of others
•Shows what they can do rather than tells what they can do
•Possesses a “whatever-it-takes attitude”
•Earns credibility
•Follows through and gets tasks done on time
•Is growth oriented rather than goal oriented
•Affirms the importance of other workers
•Develops and promotes others—prepares them for leadership
20
One of the final characteristics that Maxwell discussed is the 360-degree leader work-
ing through the leadership loop. He listed seven qualities of a leadership loop: caring,
learning, appreciating, contributing, verbalizing, leading, and succeeding.
As witnessed by the work of Maxwell (2005), leaders must begin addressing
areas of accountability and responsibility by placing themselves at the center of the
organization. In this way, leaders are able to influence and model best practices to all
members of the organization. This is done in an effort to gain credibility, trust, and a
sense of empowerment within the organization and leads to increased accountability
and responsibility being accepted by the individual members within the organization.
Hentschke and Wohlstetter (2004) discussed this type of accountability as a “contrac-
tual” relationship between two parties where there is a “provider” of a good or service
and a “director” with the power to reward, punish, or replace the provider. Additionally
important to note is that central to the accountability relationship is the decentralization
of authority, whereby the director delegates responsibility for achieving certain objec-
tives to a provider (Hentschke & Wohlstetter). Thus, leaders, being at the center, often-
times effectively work to decentralize themselves, thereby creating shared responsibility
and accountability.
Michael Fullan: The Moral Imperative of School
of School Leadership
Fullan (2003) detailed the shift in roles and responsibilities of the principalship
and provided a framework for being able to accept these new roles and responsibilities.
He stated that today’s principals must work to “change the context” (p. 1). He argued
21
that the role of principals should figure more prominently within school systems.
Fullan (2003) stressed that principals should be seen as the chief operating officer
(COO) of a school. He discussed the notion of having a moral purpose as a leader,
stating that this moral purpose is social responsibility to others and the environment.
Fullan (2003) stressed that the driver of all ideas should be in the service of moral
purpose. Principals and school leaders with moral purpose hope to make a difference
and improve the lives of their students. Fullan (2003) pointed out that these leaders not
only are concerned about their own schools but also wish to improve the environments
in other school districts. Examples that Fullan (2003) provided center around raising
achievement and closing the achievement gap between not only high-performing
students and lower-performing students but also between high-performing and lower-
performing schools.
Fullan (2003), speaking on the role of public schools in a democracy, said that
“everyone, ultimately, has a stake in the caliber of schools, and education is everyone’s
business” (p. 3). Fullan (2003) provided a hierarchy of ways for principals to view
schools. The four-level hierarchy structure is as follows:
1.Level 1: Making a difference in individuals
2.Level 2: Making a difference in the school
3.Level 3: Making a difference regionally
4.Level 4: School leadership and society
Fullan’s (2003) framework of moral purpose provides new principals with a
lens to analyze changes in their roles and responsibilities in today’s society. His
22
framework places the burden of accountability and responsibility in individual leaders
with the impetus of moral purpose. He suggested that this can be done by principals not
only by believing that all students can learn and achieve but also by being accountable
and responsible for making sure that it happens, as demonstrated by effectively closing
achievement gaps.
Jim Collins: Good to Great
In Good to Great, Collins (2001) conducted a study of 28 companies to examine
leadership qualities of leaders whose companies made the transition from good to great.
The study found a three-tiered framework for principles of successful leadership. The
three tiers were disciplined people, disciplined thought, and disciplined action. Collins
recognized a hierarchy of leadership, with Level 5 leaders being the leaders of all the
companies studied in his research who went from good to great. He described Level 5
leaders as follows:
•Leaders that possess a blend of personal humility and professional will
•Leaders display compelling modesty, are self-effacing, quiet, and reserved
•Leaders that put the good of the company or community over self
•Leaders that set up their successors for greater success
•Leaders that attribute success to factors other than themselves
•Leaders with unwavering resolve and will do whatever it takes to get things
accomplished
•Leaders who rely principally on inspired standards and are rigorous, not
ruthless. (p. 39)
Collins (2001) found that the good-to-great companies did not pay much atten-
tion to managing change, motivating people, or creating alignment. He argued that
under the right conditions, many of those problems went away automatically. An
23
interesting finding of the good-to-great companies was the lack of recognition by
company leaders that the company had gone from good to great; there was no name
bestowed, no launch event or program to signify the transformation. Many of the
companies did not realize the transformation from good to great until much later in the
process. Collins stated that “greatness is not a function of circumstance but largely a
matter of consequence” (p. 11).
Collins (2001) recognized concepts for achieving Level 5 leadership. Collins’s
concept of Level 5 leadership begins first with a “who,” then “what” approach. He said
that leaders must get the right people on the bus and in the right seats and the wrong
people off the bus. It is important to note that getting people in the proper positions is
not enough; they must be doing the right jobs to be truly effective.
Collins’s (2001) second concept of Level 5 leadership recognizes the impor-
tance of confronting the brutal facts of one’s situation, yet never losing faith. Collins
argued that determining the truth of one’s situation will allow the right decisions to
become self-evident. He noted that a primary task in taking a company from good to
great is creating a culture where members of the organization have a voice and a chance
to be heard. He went further by saying good-to-great companies often operated with a
Socratic style of questioning to engage in understanding and dialogue.
The third concept of Level 5 leadership focuses on three principal areas of un-
derstanding: the organization’s passion, core business, and economic engine. These
areas are known as the Hedgehog Concept. Collins (2001) argued that one must be able
24
to be the best in the world at one’s core business, and this forms the basis of one’s
company.
A culture of discipline refers to building a culture of self-disciplined people who
take disciplined action. Collins’s (2001) concept of a culture of discipline involves a
dual belief that requires people to adhere to a consistent system, yet gives people free-
dom and responsibility within the framework of that system.
Collins’s (2001) final concept recognizes the importance of continuous im-
provement and delivery of results. He called this the “flywheel effect” (p. 175). Col-
lins described the process as resembling relentlessly pushing a giant heavy flywheel in
one direction, turn upon turn, building momentum until a point of breakthrough and
then beyond.
Collins’s (2001) framework offers much to principals in terms of accountability
and responsibility. The three tiers of disciplined people, disciplined thought, and dis-
ciplined action show that the burden of being accountable involves all members of an
organization. Collins discussed the concept of team building. Under his analogy, the
principal must be the driver of the bus and make sure that it is loaded with the correct
passengers doing the proper jobs. When the wrong people are on the bus, the principal
must work to get them off. However, in the educational field, it is much more difficult
to get rid of undesired staff members; therefore, much of the educational literature
centers on changing systems and practices rather than people, as in the business litera-
ture of Collins.
25
Collins (2001) discussed leaders as being accountable for confronting the brutal
facts of their situation, yet never losing faith. His Hedgehog Concept requires leaders
to be responsible for determining the organization’s passion, core business, and
economic engine. Likewise, principals are responsible for working toward a shared
vision or mission and core outcomes for their schools. In contrast, a school’s drivers
are not solely economically based, as Collins suggested, but rather student achievement
based. Principals must recognize that accountability and responsibility in schools are
continuous and ever present. Similar to Collins’s flywheel effect, principals must begin
pushing for increased accountability and responsibility on behalf of all of the school’s
key stakeholders to help build and continue that momentum into the future.
Analysis of Frameworks
Both Collins (2001) and Maxwell (2005) took business approaches to improv-
ing organizations. Fullan (2003) came from an educational perspective. There are
some similarities in the different approaches, but also clear differences. Fullan’s (2003)
arguments appeared to be much more context specific than those of the other business
leaders discussed in this section. Both Maxwell and Collins discussed taking a
“whatever-it-takes approach” to ensuring success of organizations. Both recognized
that leaders must do anything they can to make sure that the organization succeeds.
This attitude differs from that of Fullan (2003), who centered his belief on the concept
that leaders must make all of their decisions with moral purpose. He stressed that the
driver of all ideas should be in the service of moral purpose. Maxwell (2005)
26
recognized the significance of viewing members of one’s organization as important.
Collins (2001) stated a similar concept by characterizing leaders as rigorous, not ruth-
less; leaders put the good of the company over themselves. Fullan (2003) had a similar
belief, yet went further by saying that everyone has a stake in schools and leaders
should work to improve not only their school but also entire school systems. From the
business perspective, Maxwell and Collins discussed improving companies or organiza-
tions, whereas Fullan (2003), if using a business perspective, discussed improving
entire industries.
Relevant to this study is the importance that Collins (2001) and Maxwell (2005)
put on preparing others for leadership and setting up successors for greater success.
This concept of leadership succession is quite limited in educational leadership settings.
School Culture and Climate
A key focus of the case study was the first 90 days of principals in turnaround
situations. Watkins (2003) defined a turnaround situation as taking a group or unit that
is recognized to be in trouble and working to get it back on track. The literature in this
section focuses on the difficult climate that principals enter in a turnaround situation in
their first 90 days. The first 90 days is important because climate and culture change
over long periods of time. It is difficult to bring the notion of sustainability into the
analysis of culture and climate because the focus is the first 90 days. Therefore, the
emphasis will be on what principals can do now to create a positive school culture and
climate, yet the analysis will provide a foundation for the future of their principalship.
27
As witnessed in the analysis of increased accountability and responsibility,
principals are faced with challenges far greater than any other time in the history of the
principalship. Turnaround principals not only face the extremely difficult challenges of
effectively closing achievement gaps, raising test scores, and reducing the number of
dropouts, but they are also faced with dire consequences such as denial of school
accreditation state takeover, school closure, and diminished hopes and dreams for
struggling communities (Duke, 2004). It would be an understatement to say this is a
difficult climate to enter; however, this is the culture that turnaround principals are
mandated to change.
Duke (2004) discussed the environment that turnaround principals enter and
described situations where the culture of a turnaround school staff witnesses a variety of
emotions. These emotions range from frustration and disappointment to anger and
anxiety. Duke provided a roadmap for principals to be successful in entering this
climate. He stated that principals must enable their staff members to do the following:
•Confront their beliefs about teaching and learning,
•Assess and refine their instructional skills,
•Increase instructional time for struggling students,
•Establish and sustain orderly learning environments; and
•Use various sources of data to monitor student progress on a continuing
basis.
Webb and Norton (2003) described five primary responsibilities in developing
successful programs and practices in the area of organizational climate: (a)
28
development of a set of shared goals, (b) self-image and high expectations, (c) opportu-
nities for personal growth and development, (d) development of a viable set of person-
nel policies and regulations, and (e) putting learning at the center.
Hord (1997) found that it was necessary for administrators to be at the center of
a professional learning community (PLC). His belief was that principals should shift
from instructional leaders to learning leaders to create a culture of learning in schools.
A principal as the learning leader sets the precedence in schools that learning is impor-
tant.
Lashway (2002) recognized differences that school leaders face in today’s envi-
ronment. His major common theme is that principals play a critical role in school
success yet cannot complete the role alone. Much of the literature today stresses the
shift in the role of principal to create a culture where all key stakeholders play a part in
the success of schools. Sorenson (2005) stressed the importance of working with
students, teachers, and parents in order to maintain a school culture that is conducive to
student learning. Marzano, Waters, & McNulty (2005) recognized the importance of
parent and community involvement and defined three features of effective parental and
community involvement: communication, participation, and governance. Schools that
take such a collaborative approach have been called communities of practice, collabora-
tive learning communities, PLCs, and so forth.
Extensive research has been completed recognizing the importance of schools as
professional learning communities (Jo Blasé and Joe Blasé, 2004; Darling-Hammond,
2002; DuFour, Eaker, & Burnette, 2004; Hord, 1997; Marzano, 2004). The research
29
recognizes various successful instructional leaders’ behaviors in regard to PLCs. These
behaviors include but are not limited to the following:
•Building trust
•Fostering collaboration and collegiality
•Conferring with teachers about teaching and learning
•Empowering teachers
•Maintaining visibility
•Studying literature and proven programs
•Supporting practice of new skills, risk taking, innovation, and creativity
•Providing effective staff development programs
•Providing resources and time
•Modeling and developing teachers’ critical study skills
•Developing a shared vision
In the next section the researcher will review some of the more widely accepted
leadership theories as they pertain to an organization’s culture and climate.
Richard DuFour: PLCs
DuFour, Eaker, and Burnette (2002) provided a blueprint to the process of trans-
forming school cultures to a PLC. Dufour et al. focused on the cultural shifts that must
take place as schools move away from traditional school cultures to functioning as
PLCs. The three foundation pieces of a PLC school are as follows:
30
1.A solid foundation consisting of collaboratively developed and widely
shared mission, vision, values, and goals;
2.Collaborative teams that work interdependently to achieve a common goal;
and
3.Focusing on results, as evidenced by a commitment to continuous improve-
ment.
DuFour et al. (2002) emphasized that PLCs must have deep collaborative dis-
cussions about the key questions that are associated with learning, including the follow-
ing:
1.What exactly do educators expect students to learn?
2.How will educators know what students are learning?
3.How can educators assist and support students in their learning?
4.Based on collaborative analysis of the results of their efforts, what can
educators do to improve student learning?
5.How can educators recognize and celebrate improvements in student learn-
ing?
Results of DuFour’s (2004; DuFour et al., 2002) work show the importance of
principals in developing communities where all key stakeholders play a role in educat-
ing children. New principals need to foster a sense of collaboration among staff, stu-
dents, parents, and members of the community centered on a shared vision and mission.
Focusing on results will help members of the school to commit to continuous improve-
ment. New principals need to engage the school community in asking important
31
questions in regard to student expectations, learning outcomes, and ways to support and

assist students.
John Kotter: Leading Change
In business leadership theory, Kotter (1996) provided a model for businesses to
follow in order to create effective change within their organizations. He produced an
eight-step conceptual framework for effectively changing organizations:
1.Establishing a Sense of Urgency
2.Creating the Guiding Coalition
3.Developing a Vision and Strategy
4.Communicating the Change Vision
5.Empowering Employees for Broad-Based Action
6.Generating Short-Term Wins
7.Consolidating Gains and Producing More Change
8.Anchoring New Approaches in the Culture (p. 21)
Kotter’s (1996) eighth step deals with creating positive work cultures. Kotter
emphasized that culture can powerfully influence human behavior. He recognized the
difficulty of changing cultures. He stated that culture is powerful for three primary
reasons:
1.Because individuals are selected and indoctrinated so well.
2.Because the culture exerts itself through the actions of hundreds of thou-
sands of people.
3.Because all of this happens without much conscious intent and thus is diffi-
cult to challenge or even discuss. (p. 151)
Kotter stated that culture changes only after one has successfully altered people’s
actions; thus cultural change happens near the end of his framework
Kotter’s (1996) framework for leading change in an organization lays out a plan
for new principals. Similar to the work of Watkins (2003), Kotter stressed the need to
32
create “early wins.” These early successes, while minor, can help to build a base of
supporters for new principals. Kotter referred to building on early wins as consolidat-
ing gains and producing more change.
Analysis of Frameworks
The frameworks analyzed under the topic of culture and climate came from both
the education and business fields. Most recognize the importance of setting a vision or
mission for the organization. Collins (2001) and Duke (2004) said that it is important
to first analyze the current culture and confront the facts of the situation before setting
the vision. In addition to personal vision, DuFour et al. (2002) stressed that the vision
must be a shared vision from all key stakeholders in the organization. Kotter (1996)
viewed the buy-in of that vision by the organization’s members as equally important to
the vision itself.
The second key aspect found in the cultural change leadership educational
frameworks is, as part of an organization’s vision, the importance of raising expecta-
tions and putting learning at the center. Similar to the approach of Maxwell’s (2005)
theory of the 360-degree leader, the literature suggests that leaders must be at the center
of learning and leading in an organization. This theory suggests that principals should
view themselves as the learning leader of their schools. As the learning leaders, prin-
cipals can demonstrate and emphasize the importance of education and learning in their
schools.
33
The next aspect found in the cultural and environment literature is the concept
of improving the overall skills of the organization’s staff. As Duke (2004) pointed out,
it is important to establish an orderly working environment as well as to assess and
refine instructional skills. PLC literature in schools stresses modeling and developing
teachers’ skills, providing resources and time, as well as providing staff development
(DuFour et al., 2002).
As principals enter difficult cultures and climates faced with the mandate of
changing or turning around schools, it is important to analyze leadership literature to
ground the leader’s beliefs and actions.
Leadership Principles
The literature base for effective leadership in business appears to include con-
ceptual frameworks for people to follow. Literature in education generally is much
more context specific and oftentimes consists of guides and aids with practical informa-
tion written by current or former school administrators. The researchers from both of
the previous sections consisted of theories specific to addressing accountability and
culture, respectively. The authors reviewed in this section provide much more general
conceptual frameworks. These researchers provide leaders with frameworks consisting
of successful strategies to fit most situations, including new principals. A synthesis of
the leadership principles will follow the conceptual frameworks.
34
Lee Bolman and Terrence Deal: Reframing
Organizations
Bolman and Deal (1997), commenting on effective leadership, provided a con-
ceptual framework based on four frames for analyzing organizations. The four frames
are based on a set of ideas or assumptions used to navigate through a particular leader-
ship situation. Each of the four frames will be defined and discussed in terms of rele-
vance to the transition period of principals in turnaround situations.
The structural frame is hierarchical and rules oriented. When working from the
structural frame, leaders focus on organizing for maximum efficiency (Bolman & Deal,
1997). In terms of structure, research of turnaround situations has shown that leaders
must have solid foundations of vision, values, and beliefs as they enter their leadership
role (Watkins, 2003).
The human resource frame recognizes the importance of people and relation-
ships. Human resource leaders believe in people, not programs; they empower others
and are visible and accessible. The importance of having the right people doing the
right jobs makes the human resource frame significant (Bolman & Deal, 1997).
The political frame recognizes organizations as coalitions of various groups and
factions, each with their own agendas. Political leaders work to build coalitions and
build relationships with key stakeholders. The importance of building PLCs as being
key to the success of schools demonstrates the importance of principals navigating the
political frame (Bolman & Deal, 1997).
35
The final frame, the symbolic frame, embodies and expresses the organization’s
culture with symbols. Symbolic leaders use symbols to capture attention and discover
and communicate a vision. The symbolic frame for a turnaround principal is important
in creating a vision for the school. Key stakeholders will look toward symbolic acts of
the leader to determine whether the leader is focused on school improvement (Bolman
& Deal, 1997).
Robert Marzano: School Leadership That Works
Marzano et al. (2005) provided details from a meta-analysis of 69 different
leadership studies conducted since 1970 and quantitatively synthesized the information
from those studies. Marzano et al. began by discussing theories and theorists found to
be active in educational environments. They recognized the major elements of the
theories and theorists because much of the findings from the meta-analysis strongly
supported their ideas.
The meta-analysis identified 21 leadership responsibilities or characteristics that
are positively correlated with student achievement above the .25 level. The basic
premise of Marzano et al. (2005, p. 38) is that principals can have a profound effect on
the achievement of students in their schools. The 21 leadership or characteristics
identified are the following:
1.Affirmation
2.Change Agent
3.Contingent Rewards
4.Communication
5.Culture
6.Discipline
36
7.Flexibility
8.Focus
9.Ideals/Beliefs
10.Input
11.Intellectual Stimulation
12.Involvement in Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment
13.Knowledge of Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment
14.Monitoring/Evaluating
15.Optimizer
16.Order
17.Outreach
18.Relationships
19.Resources
20.Situational Awareness
21.Visibility (pp. 42-43)
In addition to identifying the 21 responsibilities, Marzano et al. (2005) recog-
nized two factors underlying or connecting them: first-order change and second-order
change. They described first-order change as incremental, or the next logical step that
the organization would take. They claimed that first-order change is the natural way
that people approach problems. Marzano et al. recognized that all 21 responsibilities
must be attended to exert first-order change. They identified second-order change as
deep change that departs from the expected. Second-order change requires innovation
and is characterized as a dramatic departure from the past. Second-order change re-
quires leaders to address 7 out of the 21 responsibilities: (a) “Knowledge of
Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment”; (b) “Optimizer”; (c) Intellectual Stimula-
tion”; (d) “Change Agent”; (e) “Monitoring/Evaluating”; (f) “Flexibility”; and (g)
“Ideals/Beliefs” (p. 70).
In the remainder of the book, Marzano et al. (2005) offered a five-step plan for
implementing the leadership responsibilities or characteristics:
37
Step 1: Develop a Strong School Leadership Team
Step 2: Distribute Some Responsibilities Throughout the Leadership Team
Step 3: Select the Right Work
Step 4: Identify the Order of Magnitude Implied by the Selected Work
Step 5: Match the Management Style to the Order of Magnitude of the Change
Initiative (p. 98)
Analysis of Frameworks
Literature found in the leadership principles section, provides frameworks for
leaders consisting of successful strategies to fit most situations. The situations dis-
cussed in the previous two sections of this review consisted of the changing roles and
increased responsibilities of the principal, all while entering difficult school cultures
and climates. What is clear is that vision and being agents of change are key ideas in
most leadership theories; both in education and business.
Bolman and Deal (1997) based their framework on the theory that leaders work
from the context of four frames in various situations. An important piece of Bolman
and Deal’s theory is that leaders know the situation they are in and work from that par-
ticular frame. When analyzing Marzano’s 21 characteristics and Collins’s (2001) Level
5 leadership qualities, there are definite connections between the characteristics and
qualities with Bolman and Deal’s four frames. While exhibiting each of the 21 charac-
teristics and Level 5 leadership qualities, one must navigate through one of the four
frames of Bolman and Deal.
In the human resource frame, Bolman and Deal (1997) recognized the impor-
tance of having the right people do the right jobs. As discussed previously, Collins
(2001) also discussed the notion of having the right people doing the right jobs. Also,
38
as noted earlier, this is much more difficult in the educational field as principals do not
always get to choose their staff and it is much more difficult to get rid of people not
right for the job. However, when principals do get a chance to hire new staff, it is im-
portant to ensure that they hire the right people for the job. This includes hiring
individuals who not only possess the skills needed but also have a similar vision and
can fit the culture of the school.
In terms of making a transition to a leadership position, each of the anchor the-
ories in the “Leadership Principles” section is relevant to the present study. Leaders in
their first 90 days could work from the four frames, apply the 21 characteristics, as well
as work to demonstrate level 5 leadership qualities.
Induction and Transition
Lashway (2003a) described the induction period of traditional principals as
being a situation of “sink or swim” (p. 1). To assist new leaders in making the transi-
tion, he recognized that there is growing literature that articulates a rationale for induc-
tion programs. Daresh (1994) found that beginning principals have concerns in three
distinct areas: (a) problems with role clarification, (b) limitations on technical exper-
tise, and (c) difficulty with socialization to the profession of the system and to individ-
ual school systems. Furthermore, Daresh (2000) described role clarification as begin-
ning administrators experiencing persistent problems with clearly understanding the
nature of their position. Lashway (2003a) stated that new administrators often experi-
ence role conflict between the immediate demands of their job and the district’s reform
39
agenda. That role conflict is oftentimes added to the pressure of dealing with teachers
as supervisors rather than peers. These types of role conflict can lead to isolation for
principals and make it important for leaders to become a part of school cultures.
Once in a leadership position, getting off to a good start has been shown to aid
in the success of that leader. New leaders come to positions with both informal and
formal preparation. Lashway (2003a) described a process called organizational social-
ization that new leaders must face, in spite of both types of preparation they receive.
Organizational socialization is the process of becoming an “insider,” discerning the
unwritten rules and key players of the school community (Aiken, 2002). Hargreaves
(2005) described insider knowledge as becoming known, trusted, and accepted within
the community. In addition, Lashway (2003a) explained organizational socialization as
somewhat of a theory versus practical experience, in which leaders must use the simple
abstractions they learn from their training and adopt them to the realities of schools.
Sociologists have recognized the 1 year in an administrator’s socialization as a crucial
st
period in which they internalize the skills, values, and dispositions of the profession
(Aiken; Crow & Mathews, 1998; Normore, 2003).
Michael Watkins: The First 90 Days
Watkins (2003), a noted leadership transition expert, provided a 90-day road-
map for new leaders to navigate a successful transition. Watkins stated that the goal to
successful transitions of leaders is to quickly reach a point where leaders become con-
tributors to the organization. He referred to this as the “breakeven point” (p. 3).
40
Watkins made an important distinction between the transition period as being a period
of opportunity or a chance to start fresh and a period of vulnerability, where one lacks
established relationships and understanding of the new role. Watkins summarized his
beliefs in five propositions that formed the basis of his approach to transition acceler-
ation:
1.The root causes of transition failure always lie in a pernicious interaction
between the situation, with its opportunities and pitfalls, and the individual,
with his or her strengths and vulnerabilities. . . .
2.There are systematic methods that leaders can employ to both lessen the
likelihood of failure and reach the breakeven point faster. . . .
3.The overriding goal in a transition is to build momentum by creating virtu-
ous cycles that build credibility and by avoiding getting caught in vicious
cycles that damage credibility
4.Transitions are a crucible for leadership development and should be man-
aged accordingly. . . .
5.Successful adoption of a standard framework for accelerating transitions can
yield big returns for organizations. (pp. 4-6)
Watkins (2003, pp. 12-14) also identified 10 key concepts and key transition
challenges that provide his roadmap to successful transitions: (a) “Promote Yourself,”
(b) “Accelerate Your Learning,” (c) “Match Strategy to Situation,” (d) “Secure Early
Wins,” (e) “Negotiate Success,” (f) “Achieve Alignment,” (g) “Build Your Team,” (h)
“Create Coalitions,” (I) “Keep Your Balance,” and (j) “Expedite Everyone.” As
Watkins discussed the key transition areas of promoting oneself and accelerating one’s
learning, he acknowledged the fact that leaders should assess their vulnerabilities and
strengths. He noted that qualities that have made a leader strong in one situation will
not necessarily be strengths in another situation. Watkins discusses the importance of
41
defining a learning plan as well as analyzing the organization’s symbols, norms, and
assumptions of its work culture.
One of the key transition challenges is to match strategy to situation. Watkins
(2003) provided a model that includes the four types of business situations that new
leaders must enter. He referred to this as the “STaRS model.” The situations in the
STaRS model are identified as start-up, turnaround, realignment, and sustaining suc-
cess. A start-up is when stakeholders have the opportunity to establish a brand new
school. Turnaround is a situation where most stakeholders are aware that the school
needs improvement or change. A realignment situation is when most stakeholders are
unaware that the school is drifting into trouble and should be changed. Finally, a sus-
taining success situation is when the stakeholders of the school take responsibility for
preserving vitality and taking the school to the next level.
Watkins (2003) advised on the importance of leaders in transition to secure
early wins. In addition, Watkins noted that by securing early wins, leaders establish and
build personal credibility. Also recognizing the importance of early wins and long-term
change, Kotter (1996) discussed consolidating the early wins as a way of producing
more long-lasting change. By establishing and building personal credibility, leaders are
laying a foundation for establishing long-term goals.
Watkins (2003) discussed the transition challenge of team building. He advised
not to keep the existing team too long. He said that by the end of the first 90-days, the
leader should decide who would stay with him or her and who would not. He stated
that the leader must do his/her vision planning first and team building next. In fact,
42
Watkins said leaders cannot build a team unless they have a vision and plan for where
they are going, or people could be in the wrong place.
Watkins’s (2003) ultimate goal was the developing of a 90-day plan. He rec-
ommended that the plan should contain specific priorities and goals. Among these
priorities and goals, a leader’s learning plan and plan for gaining early wins should be
included.
Training and Mentoring
As principals face greater challenges, such as turnaround schools, taking on new
and increasingly challenging roles, being held accountable by strict standards, and
making an impact in 90 days, the need for principal training programs is clear. There
are many training and mentoring programs throughout the country whose goal is to
prepare future school administrators. Training for principals comes in various forms.
The main types of principal training is found in university programs around the country;
national-, state-, and county-sponsored programs; district-sponsored programs;
organization-sponsored programs; and coaching and mentoring programs.
Lashway (2003b) emphasized the need for programs to respect the immediate
needs of new administrators but also pointed out the need to strike the right balance
between practical or hands-on information and reflective portfolio activities centered on
standards.
Hale and Moorman (2003) provided a report that focuses on two areas in which
state policies and programs influence school leadership: (a) licensure, certification, and
43
accreditation requirements; and (b) administrator training and professional
development. The Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) developed the
Interstate Leaders Licensure Consortium (ISLLC) in 1996. These standards were de-
signed to serve and guide policy and practice related to principal preparation. Currently
35 states have adopted the ISLLC standards. Many nationwide training programs are
aligning their accreditation standards with the ISLLC standards, resulting in a unified
set of standards for the review and accreditation of administrator preparation programs.
A difficult task is deciding whether preparation programs are doing a good job of pre-
paring principals for the demanding responsibilities they will face. Lashway (2003b)
examined principal preparation programs in order to determine effectiveness. He ana-
lyzed the need for changes in principal preparation programs due to pressures from
standards-based reform as well as offered suggestions as to how principal preparation
programs can be improved. Although much has been written on this topic, Lashway’s
(2003b) conclusions indicated that much of the research over the debate of principal
preparation programs found no correlation between leadership programs and principal
effectiveness. Important to his study in regard to the changing role of today’s princi-
pals, Lashway states that principals must have a positive impact on student achieve-
ment. Lashway (2003b) stresses that this belief challenges traditional assumptions,
practices, and structures in leadership preparation programs. Lashway (2003b) pro-
vided suggestions for improvement of principal preparation programs that include the
following:
•Recruiting potential strong leadership candidates
44
•Focusing on the critical induction period
•Formal mentoring
•Reflection
•Portfolio development
•On-the-job demonstration of skills
•Collaboration between local districts with university programs
Hess and Kelly (2003) studied principal training programs and identified a list
of areas they found to be lacking in principal preparation programs: (a) accountability;
(b) managing school improvement through data, technology, or empirical research;
and (c) that fact that only 11% of the programs addressed recruitment, selection, or
hiring of new teachers. Hess and Kelly concluded that effective training should include
attention to accountability; managing data; and utilizing research to hire, recruit, eval-
uate and terminate personnel. They identified essential areas for effective training: (a)
managing for results, (b) managing personnel, (c) technical knowledge, (d) external
leadership, (e) norms and values, (f) managing classroom instruction, and (g) leadership
and school culture.
In terms of principal recruitment, many have called for the establishment of ef-
fective recruiting programs in order to reduce shortages of high-quality principal candi-
dates. Self-selection has been the traditional method of entry into the field of applicants
for the principalship (Goodwin et al., 2005). In addition, Hargreaves (2005) called for
the need to improve leadership succession in education. One proactive response to
leadership succession is the development of “grow-your-own” programs (Lovely, 1999,
45
p. 1). This type of program is designed to develop leaders from within the school dis-
trict. Another response is the call for developing increased collaboration between
school districts and higher education. School district partnerships with local colleges
and universities should not only provide training for perspective principals but also be
able to recommend possible candidates (Goodwin et al.). Districts with formal men-
toring programs have an advantage in attracting, inducting, nurturing, and retaining
good leaders (Lovell, 2004).
The next part of the analysis of training and mentoring will be to analyze spe-
cific programs from the main types of training programs for principals. The analysis
will include the programs’ major components in order to identify the important charac-
teristics and principles of each program. A listing of key elements from each of the
programs will follow the analysis of the programs.
The following programs are a sample of university programs and their major
curriculum components for training principals. The first program is the Principal
Leadership Institute (PLI) at the University of California-Los Angeles (2006). The
curriculum content focuses on five areas:
•Curriculum, instruction, and assessment
•Leadership
•Management and governance
•Political, legal, and cultural context of schooling in America
•Fieldwork
46
The second example comes from The New Teacher Center’s (NTC; 2006)
principal preparation program at the University of California-Santa Cruz. Included in
the NTC is the School Leadership Development Division (SLDD). The SLDD focuses
upon the development of effective instructional leadership for America’s schools. The
focus of the NTC is to work collaboratively with local districts in order to meet local
needs, build local capacity, and be ongoing and job embedded. The division provides
training in the areas of principal induction, principal professional development, leader-
ship coaching, and systematic approaches to school improvement.
The next example highlights the major components of a national program for
principal preparation called the National Institute for School Leadership (NISL; 2006).
The NISL program has two components:
1.NISL faculty teach the curriculum of the principals program to leadership
teams selected from among senior local educators.
2.The NISL-trained leadership teams, in turn, teach the NISL curriculum to
local principals.
Research and planning for the NISL curriculum include corporate and business school
executive training techniques, U.S. military leadership training, and school administra-
tor training.
The next principal preparation program is an example of a state program. Ef-
fective July 1, 2006, the Principal Training Program (AB 75) was reauthorized as the
Administrator Training Program AB 430 in the state of California (California Technol-
ogy Assistance Project, 2006). The program provides professional development funds
47
for school administrators using California State Board of Education-approved training
providers. The program is often offered to principals of low-performing schools or
schools with high numbers of minority students. The program consists of three mod-
ules that provide training in the areas of standards-based instructional programs:
assessment data, alignment of monetary and human resources, and a focus on technol-
ogy applications.
When comparing the different types of training available to today’s aspiring
principals, most programs focus on similar areas. General areas of focus in principal
preparation programs include the following:
•Leadership theory
•Curriculum and instruction
•Accountability
•Human resource issues
•School finance
•Legal issues in education
•Field work
Conclusion
As discussed often throughout this chapter, the principalship has changed over
the past 25 years. Principals are faced with changing roles, increased responsibilities,
added pressures from the public, and an accountability system put forth by the national
and state governments that demands overall student achievement. Principals are being
48
asked to enter situations where schools have been labeled “unsuccessful” or “under-
achieving” and are charged with turning these schools around. Entering a turnaround
climate presents challenges including closing achievement gaps, raising test scores,
reducing the number of dropouts, denial of school accreditation, state takeover, school
closure, all the way to simply needing a shot in the arm.
These added pressures have challenged principals and trainers of principals to
assess the training principals are receiving. Training comes in a few forms: theory
based, practical information, and mentoring. Various theorists have made the argument
that the university and training programs do not always provide what it takes to prepare
principals for the first principalship.
What is clear in the literature is a set of common ideas and strategies proposed
by theorists to help new principals get off to a good start. Some of the common ideas
and strategies present throughout the literature include the following:
•Securing early wins
•Confronting the facts of one’s school’s situation
•Employing the proper personnel for the proper job
•Put learning at the center
•Creating a vision and positive culture
•Establishing a learning community
•Empowering others
•Taking a “whatever-it-takes” approach
•Finding a mentor
49
As leaders, it is important to continuously work to improve skills, grow as a
professional, and to anticipate and prepare for change. There is a great deal of evidence
that supports the fact that much learning for a principal is on the job. There is also little
evidence showing that training programs focus on the first 90 days or support new prin-
cipals during this transition period. Therefore, it is important to study the transition
period of new principals to identify effective leadership practices incorporated during
the first 90 days.
50
CHAPTER 3

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
This study was conducted by a cohort of graduate students from the Rossier
Graduate School of Education at the University of Southern California (USC) as part of
a thematic doctoral dissertation. The thematic dissertation process used when a group
of students working together to research a similar topic. The thematic dissertation
group was comprised of 10 doctoral candidates interested in studying the transition
period of a new principal. The cohort used the collaborative model of thematic disser-
tation to conduct research and complete a literature review, methodology, and data
collection. Each researcher completed one case study, and all researchers relied on
other members of the cohort’s data for a cross-case analysis.
The literature base in the field of educational leadership—specifically, begin-
ning principals—is limited. Much of the literature consists of guides and aids with
practical information written by current or former school administrators. The informa-
tion that is written covers an entire principalship, with no sole focus on the transition
period. In most instances, the literature base in business leadership far exceeds that in
the area of educational leadership. This is clearly the case in the area of examining the
importance of the transitional period as part of a new leader’s success. Much of the re-
search on leadership, specifically on the transition period, in the business field appears
to include conceptual frameworks for people to follow. Therefore, it is important to
51
examine the leadership practices of principals during the transitional period to deter-
mine whether this period contributes to the success of principals.
Methodology
The study consisted of a mixed-methodology approach to research using both
qualitative and quantitative components. The study incorporated a mixed-methods
concurrent-procedures strategy, integrating quantitative and qualitative data concur-
rently to provide a comprehensive analysis of the research problem (Creswell, 2003).
This approach enabled the data to be analyzed on various levels. The quantitative com-
ponent consisted of three charts given, as part of the interview, to each of the 10 Cali-
fornia middle school principals in the study, each of the principal’s immediate supervi-
sors, as well as four department chair teachers within the participating principal’s
school. The quantitative data also included a survey given to each of the teachers at the
participating principal’s school during a staff meeting. The qualitative component was
important due to the overall limited literature base in this area of research. An impor-
tant piece of conducting qualitative studies is that the study is exploratory in nature,
giving the researcher deeper, more complete information (Creswell). The qualitative
component consisted of personal interviews with 10 California middle school princi-
pals, each principal’s direct supervisor, and four department chair teachers selected
from the participating principal’s schools to analyze the practices, conceptual frame-
works, and leadership theories principals incorporated during the transition period.
52
Purposeful sampling was used to select the department chairs. The cohort
understood that there could be a positive bias, as the department chairs could be close to
the principals. Despite this possible bias, the cohort wanted to interview department
chairs because of the possibility that they possessed better knowledge and access to
what the principals had done during their first 90 days.
The interviews were conducted by the members and consisted of both fixed and
open-ended questions. The data gathered through the qualitative portion of the inter-
views were used to provide depth and context to the data collected from the survey.
The concurrent triangulation approach was used in this mixed-methodology study in an
attempt to confirm, cross-validate, and corroborate findings (Creswell, 2003).
The data were analyzed to examine the importance of the transition period for
new principals and to identify key elements, factors, strategies, conceptual frameworks,
and leadership theories that principals incorporated during the transition period.
This chapter reviews the methodology of the research, the purpose and focus of
this study, as well as the research questions. Also described in this chapter are the pop-
ulation used in the study, the procedures used, the method of data collection, and
method of data analysis.
Research Questions
The research questions were designed to examine the issues that principals en-
countered in their first 90 days (transition period). The questions were intended to
discover conceptual frameworks or leadership strategies that principals engaged in
53
during their entry period as new principals. The questions also sought to discover
whether principals were properly prepared by university or other programs to have a
successful transition into the principalship. To effectively examine these issues, the
following research questions were developed to guide the study:
1.Do principals in a turnaround situation find the transition period (first 90
days) to be important?
2.What strategies and conceptual frameworks (leadership theories) were useful
to new principals during the transition period (first 90 days) in a turnaround school?
3.Did university programs prepare new principals for success during the
transition period (first 90 days) in a turnaround school?
Population/Sample
The population and selection of the sample were determined collaboratively and
agreed upon by the 10 members of the thematic dissertation cohort. A purposeful sam-
pling was used in selecting the principal and school site. The parameters for the selec-
tion of the sample consisted of the following:
1.Current California public school middle school principals considered suc-
cessful based on superintendent’s/supervisor’s assessment,
2.Principals entering the 2 year of their principalship (1 year was the 2005-
nd st
2006 school year),
3.Principals who had never been at their current site until their principalship,
4.Principals in schools that were in turnaround situations, and
54
5.The researcher not being an employee of the turnaround school/district.
Instrumentation
The instruments used in this study included personal interviews with district
superintendents or assistant superintendents, personal interviews with 10 principals, an
interview with each principal’s direct supervisor, and four department chair teachers
selected from the participating principal’s schools, as well as a survey and interview
guides. Each of the interviews was tape recorded and transcribed for accuracy. The
principal, direct supervisor, and teacher interview guides were constructed to elicit both
qualitative and quantitative data using open-ended questions for the qualitative data,
along with two charts for quantitative data. The teacher survey was constructed to elicit
quantitative data.
Superintendent Interview Guide
The cohort began by seeking superintendents in the Los Angeles area who could
identify principals to fit the description of the study. In order to find the candidates, an
interview guide (appendix A) was prepared to guide the interview with the superinten-
dents. For this sample, superintendents were selected based on variables of interest and
access. The design called for each member of the cohort to seek out superintendents to
interview in order to find candidates to fit the parameters of the sample.
55
Principal Interview Guide
The principal interview guide (appendix B) was designed by the cohort using
the conceptual frameworks from research completed during the literature review,
guided by the three research questions. The principal interview guide was constructed
to elicit both qualitative and quantitative data, using open-ended questions for the qual-
itative data along with three charts for quantitative data. The interview guide focused
on four major themes: (a) preparation for entry into the principalship; (b) the impor-
tance of the transition period; (c) key strategies, behaviors, and activities used during
the first 90 days; and (d) support provided during the first 90 days. For each of the four
themes, a set of questions and subquestions was produced to provide more in-depth
coverage of each area. The principal interview guides were piloted by each of the 10
cohort members using four current principals, each selected on the basis of accessibil-
ity. Following each of the pilot interviews, members of the cohort shared information
that they received and shared recommendations for revisions by way of open discus-
sion. Following the discussions, the cohort made modifications to the instrument and
retested it to ensure that the information that was received aligned to the three research
questions. Upon completion of the fourth pilot interview, the cohort agreed upon the
instrument.
Included with the questions on the principal interview guide were three charts
that each principal was asked to complete. The construction of these instruments was
intended to elicit quantitative data across the 10 principals that were interviewed. The
first chart was known as the STRS chart (appendix C). The STRS chart was based on
56
the work of Watkins (2003). Watkins set a roadmap for leaders in the transition pro-
cess. In his work, Watkins recognized four types of business situations through which
leaders transition when they take new positions. These situations were adapted to the
education setting for purposes of this study, as follows:
1. Start-up. Stakeholders had the opportunity to establish a brand new school.
2. Turnaround. Most stakeholders were aware the school needed improvement
or change.
3. Realignment. Most stakeholders were unaware that the school was drifting
into trouble and needed to be changed.
4. Sustaining success. Stakeholders took responsibility for preserving vitality
and taking the school to the next level.
Principals were given the STRS chart that described each of the school settings
that they might have entered. The principals were then asked to indicate the category in
which they would place their school when they attained the principalship. Follow-up
questions included evidence to support the classification and who provided them with
information about the school they were entering.
The second chart was known as the Principal’s Four Frames Chart (appendix
D). The first task that the chart asked of the principals was to indicate the percentage of
their time during the first 90 days that was spent on each of the four areas or “frames”
of leadership recognized by Bolman and Deal’s (2003) work from Reframing Organiza-
tions: (a) structural activities, (b) human resource activities, (c) political activities, and
(d) symbolic activities. The second part of the chart asked principals to rank the areas
57
from 1 to 4 (1 = most important, 4 = least important) as to how they should have spent
their time. The third chart was constructed using the work of Marzano et al. (2005) and
was known as the Characteristics and Behaviors Chart (appendix E). This chart listed
21 behaviors and characteristics that Marzano et al. had identified as standard operating
procedures for effective principals. Principals were asked to identify the top 7 of the 21
behaviors in which they engaged most during the first 90 days of their principalship.
Direct Supervisor Interview Guide
The direct supervisor’s interview guide (appendix F) was designed in a similar
manner to the principal interview guide. The cohort examined each of the questions
from the principal interview guide to determine what questions would be relevant to the
principal’s direct supervisor. Relevant questions were selected from the principal’s
survey and included on the direct supervisor’s interview guide. The questions were
rounded out by adding questions relevant to each of the direct supervisors that aligned
to the research questions. The cohort tested the questions using pilot interviews with
current superintendents and assistant superintendents on the basis of accessibility. Fol-
lowing the pilot interviews, members of the cohort shared information that they re-
ceived and shared recommendations for revisions by way of open discussion. Upon
completion of the discussion, the instrument was revised and the cohort agreed upon the
instrument. Similar charts to the ones used with principals were a part of the direct
supervisor’s interview guide.
58
Teacher Survey/Interview Guide
The teacher survey/interview guide (appendix G) was designed in the same
manner as the principal and direct supervisor interview guides. The cohort examined
the questions from each of the interview guides to determine what questions would be
relevant to ask the group of teachers. The cohort determined that the survey would be
given to all teaching staff members and that the instrument would be used as an inter-
view guide for teachers and to elicit expanded information from department chair
teachers.
Relevant questions were selected from each of the interview guides and in-
cluded on the teacher interview guide. A list of questions, including subquestions, was
agreed upon by the cohort and comprised the teacher interview guide. The cohort con-
ducted pilot interviews with current teachers in order to test each of the questions in the
teacher interview guide. Following the pilot interviews, the cohort made modifications
to the instrument to align with the three research questions. Similar charts to the ones
used with principals were a part of the teacher’s interview guide.
Theoretical Base
This study was primarily qualitative in nature and was designed to explore and
gain further understanding of the transitional period of the new middle school principal.
The literature base has proven to be limited in this area, specifically in regard to the
transition period of middle school principals. The literature base was necessary for the
development of the interviews, charts, and survey.
59
Although the study was qualitative in nature, a mixed-methods concurrent-
procedures strategy was used with the assumption that collecting multiple types of data
provides the best understanding of the research problem (Creswell, 2003). Patton
(2002) found that studies only using only one method were vulnerable to errors linked
to the method employed and that studies using multiple methods and multiple data sets
provided cross-data validity checks. This concept is called triangulation and is based
on the premise that all methods have limitations; the use of multiple methods allows a
researcher to eliminate bias intrinsic in a single-method approach (Creswell).
Data Collection
Prior to collecting data, the researcher contacted immediate supervisors of
middle school principals to identify a candidate to fit the parameters of the study. The
researcher met with the immediate supervisor to discuss the details of the study. The
immediate supervisor recommended a middle school principal who would be beginning
his/her 2 year in a turnaround school. The researcher scheduled an additional appoint-
nd
ment with the immediate supervisor to complete the immediate supervisor interview,
including charts.
With the principal identified, the researcher contacted the principal to ensure
that he/she would agree to participate in the research study. Once the principal agreed,
the researcher discussed the logistics of the study with the principal. The researcher
explained that the data would be collected in as little as 2-3 days on the participating
principal’s site. The researcher asked the participating principal to identify four
60
department chair teachers to participate in an interview and to dedicate approximately
20 minutes of a faculty meeting in October to have teachers complete the survey. Once
the department chair teachers were identified, the researcher scheduled a date and times
to complete the interviews.
The researcher met with the principal for approximately 90 minutes to complete
the principal charts and the principal interview. The researcher met with each of the
four department chair teachers for approximately 20 minutes each to complete the
charts and interviews. The researcher used approximately 20 minutes of a faculty
meeting to discuss the research study and have teachers complete the survey.
Data Analysis
In order to analyze the data, the cohort decided to meet on two separate occa-
sions to calibrate findings. The first task of the cohort was to align each of the data
collection instruments with each of the three research questions. The results are sum-
marized in Figure 1. Following the alignment of data collection instruments and re-
search questions, the cohort discussed calibration of each of the instruments and find-
ings. The cohort then agreed upon calibration for each of the instruments, and each of
the data sets was desegregated.
Conclusion
As the role of the principal continues to evolve, it is important to remain current
on the complex challenges and concerns of the profession. Although the literature and
practice have demonstrated a response to the challenges and concerns, it is necessary to
61
Data Collection
Instruments
RQ1: Do new middle
school principals in a
turnaround situation
find the transition pe-
riod (first 90 days to
be important?
RQ2: What strategies
and conceptual
frameworks (leadership
theories) were useful to
new principals during the
transition period in a turn-

around school?
RQ3: Did university
or other programs pre-
pare new principals for
success during the
transition period?
Case Study Guide
•Interviews: Dis-
trict Administra-
tors, Principals,
Teachers
X X X
Survey:
•Randomly se-
lected teachers
X X
Characteristics/
Behavior Chart:
•District Adminis-
trator
•Teachers
X
STRS Chart:
•Principal
•Teachers
X X X
Four Frames:
•Principal
•Teachers
•District Adminis-
trator
X X X
Figure 1. Relation of data collection instruments to research questions (RQs).
continue to expand the knowledge base of the profession. Based on the literature
review and data collected, this study examined these challenges and concerns in order
to contribute to the success of new principals.
62
CHAPTER 4

FINDINGS
Chapter 4 presents and analyzes the quantitative and qualitative data and pro-
vides interpretation of findings for the current study. The chapter also includes a cross-
case analysis and interpretation as part of the data findings. In order to elicit the most
possible information regarding the principal’s experience in the first 90 days of her
tenure, different groups of the school’s stakeholders were questioned through inter-
views and surveys. The groups of stakeholders included the principal herself, the
principal’s immediate supervisor, department chair teachers, as well as the teaching
staff of the principal’s school. The data for this study was collected using the following
instruments: (a) immediate supervisor’s interview, (b) Immediate Supervisor’s STRS
Chart, (c) principal’s interview, (d) Principal’s STRS Chart, (e) Principal’s Time Chart,
(f) Principal’s 21 Characteristics and Behaviors Chart, (g) department chair teachers’
interviews, (h) Teachers’ STRS Chart, (I) Teachers’ Time Chart, and (j) Teachers’ 21
Characteristics and Behaviors Chart. Each of the interviews and surveys were con-
structed in order to answer the research questions generated for this study:
1.Did principals in a turnaround situation find the transition period (first 90
days) to be important?
2.What strategies and conceptual frameworks (leadership theories) were useful
to new principals during the transition period (first 90 days) in a turnaround school?
63
3.Did any programs, formal or informal, prepare new principals for success
during the transition period (first 90 days) in a turnaround school?
Introduction to Case Study I
Ten researchers each organized one case study at a turnaround middle school
that had a principal considered successful by the direct supervisor or superintendent.
The school used for the case study of this researcher was an urban turnaround middle
school in the greater Los Angeles area. A turnaround school is defined as taking a
group or unit that is recognized to be in trouble and working to get it back on track
(Watkins, 2003). The key to being turnaround is that the faculty of the school under-
stands that the school is in trouble and needs change. This researcher met with the
superintendent to provide an overview of the study, identify the participants in the
study, illustrate the data collection instruments, and obtain approval to conduct the
study. Upon acquiring approval for the study, the researcher conducted an interview
and survey with the superintendent.
Principal I had been in education for about 15 years. She taught middle and
high school social studies for approximately 7 years and had served as an administrator
for about 8 years. The principal majored in political science and held master’s degrees
in educational administration and behavioral science for mediation and conflict resolu-
tion. Some of her school administrative positions included serving as a high school
assistant principal and working on special state and federal projects in a district office
64
role before becoming a middle school principal. Additionally, the principal had previ-
ously worked as a legal assistant and was a trial expert for a consulting firm.
Reports from the 2005-2006 SARC (Ed-Data Partnership, 2006) were used to
analyze the case study school as well as the other schools in the study (see Tables 1 and
2). Although the principals were interviewed in the 2006-07 school year, the 2005-
2006 school year was the term of study that included each principal’s first 90 days.
Student Population
The 2005-2006 SARC report (Ed-Data Partnership, 2006) showed that School I
consisted of approximately 1,300 students in Grades 7 and 8. The school had approxi-
mately 33% English language learner (ELL) students, and 76% of the students qualified
for free or reduced-price lunch. The ethnic breakdown of the school was 66% Hispanic,
17% African American, 7% Asian, and 7% Anglo European. The school added Grade
6 for the 2006-2007 school year (Table 1).
Teaching Population/Achievement
The SARC (Ed-Data Partnership, 2006) showed that 95% of teachers in School
I held valid teaching credentials. The teacher-per-pupil ratio was 22:1. The ratio of
administrators per pupil was 443:1. The school had a 2005-2006 API base of 643. The
school’s API growth target for that year was 655, and the school’s actual API was 660
(Table 2).
65
Table 1
2005-2006 School Accountability Report Card Analysis of Case Study Schools: Part 1
Pe r c e ntage

Free/reduced- African Anglo/
SchoolGradesEnrollmentELLs price lunchHispanicAmericanAsianEuropean
A 7-81,139 5 30 37 4 4 54
B6-81,22423864911134
C5-81,0451335531438
D6-82,010287395004
E6-81,5475898782000
F6-8 7417 4767 51014
G6-884513 7645 6144
H6-81,1092771777114
I7-81,3283376661777
J6-81,0144296731842
Note. ELLs = English language learners. From School Reports, by Ed-Data Partnership, 2006,
Sacramento, CA: California Department of Education, retrieved November 12, 2006, from
http://www.ed-data .k12.ca.us/welcome.asp
66
Table 2
2005-2006 School Accountability Report Card Analysis of Case Study Schools: Part 2
API API
Administrator/pupilTeacher/pupilTeacher cre-basegrowth

School ratioratio dentials(5/06) targetAPI
A570:125:194%720724709
B360:128:195%676682668
C348:122:192%731739753
D500:130:191%661663648
E515:130:167%588594546
F382:128:196%738748765
G281:122:187%667675716
H1,109:123:198%654657646
I443:122:195%643655660
J422:125:188%588594619
Note. From School Reports, by Ed-Data Partnership, 2006, Sacramento, CA: Califor-
nia Department of Education, retrieved November 12, 2006, from http://www.ed-data
.k12.ca.us/welcome.asp
Cross-Case Analysis
The cross-case analysis called for all members of the cohort to find principals
and schools to fit the parameters of the study. In total, 10 principals, 10 immediate
supervisors, and 40 department chair teachers were interviewed. There were a total of
228 teacher surveys completed across the 10 case studies. To maintain anonymity, each
case study school was assigned a letter (A-J) and will be referred to by those letters
throughout this chapter. The school and principal used in the case study for this re-
searcher were assigned the letter “I.”
67
Most principals in the study followed similar pathways to the principalship.
Prior to their principal position, 9 out of 10 of the principals taught at various levels.
All 10 principals had a leadership experience prior to receiving their position as princi-
pal, with 9 having served as assistant principal. Other leadership positions held prior to
their principalship included faculty chairperson, department head, district coordinator,
bilingual coordinator, activities director, as well as academic and athletic coaches.
Student Populations
The populations of the middle schools studied ranged approximately from 740
to 2,000 students. Student populations ranged from 5% to 58% ELLS, with 30%-98%
qualified for free or reduced-price lunch. Ethnic breakdown for the 10 schools was as
follows: Asian, 0-10%; Hispanic, 37-95%; African American, 0-20%; and Anglo, 2-
54%. The API scores ranged from a low of 546 to a high of 765 (see Tables 1 and 2).
Teaching Population/Achievement
The SARC (Ed-Data Partnership, 2006) showed that teachers in the study
schools who held valid teaching credentials ranged from 67% to 98%. The teacher-per-
pupil ratio ranged from 22:1 to 30:1. The ratio of administrators per pupil ranged from
281:1 to 1,109:1. The 2005-2006 API base for schools in the study ranged from a low
of 588 (Schools E and J) to a high of 738 (School F), representing an average API base
of 667.
68
Findings
This section presents the findings of the study. It includes an analysis and dis-
cussion of the data collected from the selected schools and districts using the instru-
ments outlined in Figure 1 to answer the research questions.
Research Question 1
Did principals in a turnaround situation find the transition period (first 90
days) to be important? The focus of the problem was based upon the belief that the
transition period of the principalship is important and that it is one area that required
additional study. This question was designed to determine the importance of the transi-
tion period for new principals in turnaround schools.
The focus of the study was on “turnaround” principals. This researcher found it
important to determine how each of the stakeholders in the study perceived the situation
of School I. It was the belief of the cohort that different classifications of the school
would change the importance of the first 90 days, along with the strategies implemented
during the transition period by the principal. The principals in all 10 case studies per-
ceived their schools to be in the turnaround category. Tables 3 and 4, respectively,
summarize principals’ responses regarding evidence to support their classification and
the ways that they received information about their school when they assumed the role
of principal.
Upon placing the school in one of the four categories of the STaRS model, each
principal was then asked a follow-up, open-ended question regarding their reasoning for
69
Table 3
Principals’ Responses to What Evidence They Had to Support Their
Categorization of School as Turnaround
Reason A B C D E F G H I J
AchievementXXXXXXX
Staff X
MoraleXXXX
AdministrationXX
InertiaXXXXX
Table 4
Who Provided New Principals With Information About Their Schools
Source A B C D E F G H I J
Supervisor(s)XXXXXX
TeachersXX
Support staffXX
Parents and community membersX
Others X X X X X X X X
Note. Principal A is not included due to incomplete data.
70
the categorization (Table 3). The cohort created five main categories that principals
recognized as reasons cited for viewing their schools as turnaround when they attained
their positions: achievement, staff, morale, administration, and inertia. Choosing the
achievement category meant that a principal believed the school’s low API score,
below-average test data, or poor overall scholastic achievement was the reason for
identifying their school as a turnaround school. Choosing the staff category implied
that the principal felt the teachers and staff members at the school were not doing their
jobs to the best of their ability. Choosing the morale category could signify that the
staff harbored negative feelings toward the school or toward one another, and these
feelings had created a negative culture at the school. Choosing the administration cate-
gory might mean that the principal indicated that there was poor leadership, poor ac-
countability, or other problems under the previous administration. Choosing the inertia
category meant that there was negative momentum involved at the school and stake-
holders believed change must take place.
School I
When asked what type of school they led, Principal I quickly responded that the
school was turnaround. Principal I discussed the reason for the classification by stating:
I guess I would say because in coming in and talking with the stakeholders,
which to me is both the staff, students, and the parents, the community at large.
There was definitely a feeling the school was not successful. We looked at data.
The data told them that they were not successful, that they had a disproportion-
ate number of kids in subgroups that were not making their API or AYP goals.
The school had a disproportionate amount of suspensions, retentions, and expul-
sions for the number of students that it serviced in relationship to countrywide
data. So also there was just sort of the affective piece in talking to teachers
71
about teachers telling me the kids just don’t want to learn and these kids are
dumb. There was a lot of talk, feedback, and resistance. Also, the kids them-
selves think that it’s not a very good school, and they know there are problems.
Kids talk about being afraid to walk home and afraid to do things when they got
here. The teachers were extremely defensive, almost hostile in the situation,
trying to defend their old practices and what they were doing and why they were
doing it.
In discussions with the principal regarding their schools, principals were asked,
“Who provided you with information about your school?” Principals responded by pro-
viding specific examples that included their supervisor, teachers, support staff, parents,
and community members, as well as other sources (Table 4). Principal I noted:
Except for oral conversations with the superintendent, a few teachers, those
kinds of things, most of the information I actually got about the school I got
myself either online, by looking at data, creating a lot of focus groups initially
because I wanted to hear what people had to say in a way where I could track it
to listen to themes—what seemed to be the biggest issues for people and why.
Superintendent I appeared to place more emphasis on his early meetings with
the principal:
First of all, I kind of took on myself as my responsibility to work with the prin-
cipal and coach them, though I spent hours with her and met with her for a
number of hours before I even employed her. I had since I’ve been here, she
was the fourth principal. There was one when I arrived, and then we went out
for a principal, and you take from a pool, and this time around I couldn’t take
that risk, so I went out and recruited a principal. This principal didn’t really
know that they wanted to change jobs until somebody from the district had
tapped her on the shoulder and asked her if she wanted to do something new,
then call this guy. So then I sat with her for a number of hours and talked be-
cause I wanted to find out about her experience, talk about the school and what I
was looking for, and to try and get a feeling of a match between the principal
and the school. And then in those conversations we began to discuss the need
for a shift in culture, and up the road the cost of bringing in her new staff for
about 3 days, so the district compensated the teachers who committed to meet
with her and the staff. I think that part was critical.
72
Teachers from School I were also asked to use the STaRS chart to classify the
school during the principal’s first 90 days. Teachers strongly agreed with the principal
and superintendent’s classification of turnaround. Thirteen out of 14 respondents chose
turnaround; only 1 teacher recognized the school as sustaining success. All four depart-
ment chair teachers also viewed the school as turnaround. Teachers’ responses to the
question varied greatly, with only a few examples mentioned multiple times. Some
examples of teachers’ responses are the following:
The school is in program improvement and the former principal alienated them-
selves and staff morale was low.
The previous administration seemed to have worked the school into a hole on
various levels and the staff was upset and aware of the situation.
Our last principal never addressed discipline and also dropped a lot of our extra
programs. The school was out of control and morale was low. We all knew we
needed a new look and someone to make changes.
Cross-Case Analysis: Classification of School
As a parameter of this study, it was necessary that each of the 10 immediate
supervisors classified the school as being in a turnaround situation. As expected, each
of the 10 principals also recognized their school as being in a turnaround situation.
In 7 out of 10 cases, the principal recognized achievement as being the reason
for classifying the school as turnaround. The second largest category that principals
listed was inertia, with half of the principals in the study citing it. The next category
was morale with 4 principals, followed by 2 who recognized poor administration and 1
principal citing staff as evidence to support the turnaround categorization (Table 3).
73
More than half of the principals recognized that their supervisor provided them
information about the school. With the exception of two schools, all principals stated
that they received information about the school from other sources. Several other
principals created focus groups or met with staff members on a one-on-one basis in
order to gain more insight regarding the school. Principals D and F specifically also
met with teachers during the summer prior to the school year (Table 4).
From the STaRS teacher data (N = 228), 162 (71%) of teachers recognized the
school as being a turnaround school; only 21% viewed their schools as being in the
sustaining success category, 7%, in realignment, and 1%, as startup. Numbers from the
department chair teacher interviews were similar to that from the teacher surveys. Out
of 40 department chair teachers, 78% classified their school as turnaround; 20%, as
sustaining success; and 2%, as realignment.
Eight out of 10 of the case studies (Schools B, C, E, F, G, H, I, and J ) indicated
a significantly higher number of classifications of turnaround from the teacher surveys.
Interestingly, Schools A and D had double the number of teachers recognizing their
school as sustaining success compared to turnaround. Important to note is the fact that
both Principals A and D recognized their schools as turnaround schools; the teaching
staff responses from Schools A and D would suggest that there was a disconnect be-
tween principal’s and teachers’ perceptions of the school. Watkins’s (2003) definition
of turnaround was that most stakeholders are aware that the school needs improvement
or change; therefore, this difference in perception of the principal and teachers could
74
have major implications in the role that the teaching staff at Schools A and D expected
the principals to play in their first 90 days.
Cross-Case Analysis: Significance of First
90 Days
In question 5 of the interview, principals were asked the question how signifi-
cant the first 90 days were to their principalship? Principals responded by providing an
answer as to whether they thought the first 90 days were significant or not and followed
with various reasons as to why they answered the way they did. The principals’ re-
sponses in the cross-case analysis were read and calibrated by the cohort. All principals
in the study viewed their first 90 days as being very significant or significant (Table 5).
Table 5
How Principals Viewed the Significance of the First 90 Days of the
Principalship
SignificanceABCDEFGHIJ
Very significantXXXXXXXX SignificantXX
In this researcher’s case study, Principal I answered by stating,
I think the first 90 days were crucial%they were make or break days. It means
you have to be able to lead people, which means you now have to somehow
garner their respect and get them to come onboard and join you in this adventure
of changing what they do, when they’re resistant to change. So I think that if I
had not been successful in those first 90 days, I would have spent the rest of my
administrative life on this campus fighting them. This was not going to be a
75
top-down thing, this was going to be a “we” thing%we are going to do this to-
gether.
Superintendent I noted:
Very significant, because the person that left, left behind a real split staff. You
had those that couldn’t wait for them to leave and those that thought the princi-
pal was really good. This principal had to enter that breach and had to bring it
together pretty darn quickly because they were in a place that I determine as
pretty darn pivotal. The thing that stands out the most for me is she set aside
about 3 days—it could have been 2—but I think that it was 3 days. They were
staff meetings, but I will call them professional development, and it was really a
guise to begin working on school culture. And she and the assistant principal
planned that and it was voluntary, but teachers were paid to attend and it gave
her an opportunity to talk to the teachers well in advance of the school year. It
gave them a chance to get to know her and her to know them, and to get to talk
about her values and the culture of the school, and I think that got her off on the
right track.
Teachers at School I overwhelmingly viewed the principal’s first 90 days as
extremely significant. Out of eight teachers who responded to the question about how
significant the first 90 days were for this principal, six responded extremely significant,
one responded significant, and one did not take a position. All four department chair
teachers viewed the time period as extremely significant. Responses from teachers
included the following:
Principal made and kept promises, and the promises she made and the state-
ments she stood behind set the tone for the rest of the school year.
Crucial time in establishing relationships.
Staff members tested the principal, and the principal passed.
Several students schedule changes were necessary to keep the school running
smoothly.
It gave us an idea of style and how staff and community were valued.
76
It is important to see how this vision plays out in the actual school setting.
I felt she boosted morale—she was positive, interested, take-charge.
Eight out of 10 of the principals in the cross-case analysis responded that the
first 90 days were very significant; 2 principals found the first 90 days to be significant.
Principals D, E, F, G, and I each described their first 90 days as very significant, for
similar reasons:
In the first 90 days, I recognized if I was going to make it or not. If I had not
established those relationships, built that team, I don’t think we would have
pulled together like a staff. (Principal D)
They were very significant in terms of establishing credibility. (Principal E)
I think it was incredibly important to try to establish credibility and rapport right
away. It’s incredibly crucial to try to develop relationships, establish rapport,
set up communication lines, and get staff buy-in. (Principal G)
It is clear that each of the principals in the study felt that the first 90 days were a signifi-
cant time period in which they needed to ensure a successful transition in the new posi-
tion.
Each immediate supervisor in the study was also asked how significant the first
90 days were from the principal. Out of the 10 supervisors in the study who answered
this question, 9 responses fell under the category of very significant. Only 1 superinten-
dent (Case Study A) did not provide a specific answer to the question. It is clear from
the data that the overall view of immediate supervisors was that the first 90 days for the
principal were very significant.
Teachers in the study also responded to the question how significant the first 90
days were for the principal. In the overall study, there were a total of 214 responses to
77
the question (N = 214). Out of a total of 214 responses, 160 of the respondents believed
that their principals first 90 days were significant to their success. This number repre-
sented 77% of the total respondents viewing their principal’s first 90 days as signifi-
cant. Twenty-five respondents, representing only 12%, viewed the first 90 days for
their principal as not being significant for their principal’s success. Twenty-two teach-
ers’ responses were placed in the category of “other” because they did not specify
whether or not the principal’s first 90 days were significant, and 7 respondents did not
answer the question.
Case study H appeared to be an outlier in the study for this question, as it had a
relatively higher amount of teachers participating in the survey than the other case
studies, but the overall percentage of teachers who affirmed the first 90 days as signifi-
cant was smaller than the other case studies. By removing case study H, the total
number of responses is 164; the percentage of respondents who viewed their principal’s
first 90 days as significant then becomes 85%, and those who did not view it as a sig-
nificant period were only 10%. Case study H had a total of 47 responses that comprised
nearly a quarter of the total responses. Case study H indicated that 45% of respondents
felt that the first 90 days were significant for their principals, while 23% said this period
was not significant. Additionally, 23% of the responses were labeled “other” because
they provided answers that did not really take a stance with respect to the significance
of the first 90 days. It appeared that teachers may have felt that a negative response
would not bode well for them with the principal.
78
Overall, across case studies, the question showed a high percentage of teachers
viewing the first 90 days for principals as significant. The high percentage of teachers
viewing the transition period as significant strongly aligned with the position of princi-
pals and supervisors in the study.
Summary of Findings Compared to Literature
Review
The data for School I and the cross-case analysis verified that the first 90 days
were viewed are significant by principals, teachers, and supervisors alike. Principal I
summed it up by saying, “I think the first 90 days were crucial—they were make or
break days.” Other principals in the study echoed these same sentiments.
First and foremost, the findings from research question 1 showed the importance
of assessing the environment of the school as one enters the principalship. This was
shown using the STaRS chart from Watkins (2003) as a way of determining the type of
situation. In this study, each school was a turnaround school. The findings showed that
it is important that all stakeholders are aware of the type of situation the school is in
because it determines the types of strategies a principal should implement. as well as
what the school’s stakeholders expect during the transition period. Researchers of
turnaround situations have also indicated that leaders must have solid foundations of
vision, values, and beliefs as they enter their leadership role (e.g., Watkins, 2003).
Watkins stated that the first tasks to complete to ensure a successful transition are
vision planning, followed by team building. The actions of principals in the study
supported Watkins’s theory of transition planning.
79
Principals recognized the first 90 days as a time to gain or lose credibility. They
believed that gaining credibility quickly put them in a position to have a successful
future within the school. Furthermore, a loss of credibility during the transition period
would leave them battling for their future at the school.
The findings paralleled Watkins’s (2003) theory of the “breakeven point.”
Principals in the study felt that it was necessary or even vital to reach their breakeven
point within the first 90 days, thus establishing a need for a framework to accelerate
transitions for the principalship.
Research Question 2
What strategies and conceptual frameworks (leadership theories) were useful to
new principals during the transition period (first 90 days) in a turnaround school?
Watkins (2003) discussed the need for adopting a standard framework for accelerating
transitions and the big returns that these frameworks could yield for organizations.
With that model in mind, the cohort constructed the second research question to dis-
cover successful strategies, conceptual frameworks, or leadership theories that new
turnaround middle school principals found to be effective in their first 90 days.
In question 9 of the interview, principals were asked to identify leadership
theories they felt were vital for the first 90 days of their principalship (see Table 6).
Principal I identified specific educational researchers such as Robert Dufour, Katie
Haycock, Robert Marzano, Patrick Finn, and Peter Senge. Principal I also discussed
80
specific topics including PLCs, organizational structures, student discipline and engage-
ment, creating environments, and learning theories:
When I’m thinking about having to deconstruct a school entirely, that’s com-
pletely dysfunctional and yet maintain the human element—the kids, the teach-
ers, the community—you know, I had to do it in such a way that it had to be user
friendly or I just knew they wouldn’t make it. So I think the Dufour work
helped me with professional learning communities a lot. I think some of Katie
Haycock’s work I really look at a lot to think about what’s the academic side to
this. I mean, you know, we can fix the bathrooms and buy some books but
where am I going to go with kids, you know. I would say I looked at some of
Steiger’s work in terms of discipline and engagement for kids. Why does Billy
Bad Boy always wear a label before he ever hits the room? You know, are we
creating the kid or is the kid really coming to us like that? So I think some of
his work. And interestingly enough, a guy named Peter Senge who talks a lot
about organizational structures. How do you change organizations, and how do
you go about doing that? So that, and then I guess one of my kind of personal
things and I guess it comes off of some of Patrick Finn’s work—what do you
really want for kids? What do you create for them? Do you create those envi-
ronments, those learning opportunities, that replicate what suited you best or
what suited them? And I tell the staff, there are three questions we always ask
ourselves about kids: What do we really expect them to learn, how do I know
who got it, and what am I willing to do about that to make it better?
Table 6
Leadership Theories That Are Vital for the First 90 Days of a
Principalship: Principals’ Responses

Theory A B C D E F G H I J
VisibilityXX
Building relationshipsXXXXXX
TransformationalXXX
StructuralXXXX
PoliticalX
FlexibilityXX
81
Cross-Case Analysis: Leadership Theories
When comparing case studies, over half of the principals recognized leadership
theories that supported the importance of building relationships, while four discussed
theories that fell into the category of structural; three, transformational; two, visibility
and flexibility; and one principal mentioned a theory that supported a political theory.
Interestingly, most of the principals in the case study did not provide specific leadership
theories. nor did they mention specific educational theorists.
Clearly in this researcher’s case study, Principal I exhibited knowledge of lead-
ership by discussing specific various authors along with their theories. These theories
matched with the categories of relationship building, transformational theories, and
structural theories. Similar to Principal I, Principal G discussed specific theories and
theorists by referencing works of Robert Marzano, Jim Collins, John Warden, and Mike
Schmoker. The only other principals to mention specific theories were those from
Schools B and E; both referenced Bolman and Deal’s Four Frames.
Cross-Case Analysis: Actions of Successful
Principals
All supervisors in the study were asked what made them define the principal as
successful to help the researchers understand what theories the principals may have put
into action to bring them success. Superintendent I responded:
I think that the principal went into a very difficult situation and made a positive
change relatively quickly. With all of the change over in principals at that site,
the principal stepped in and made teachers believe in her. The whole culture in
the school changed in a positive direction.
82
Additionally, each supervisor in the study was asked what three actions helped the prin-
cipal make the greatest positive gains during the first 90 days at the turnaround school
(see Table 7). Supervisor I discussed the plan that the principal incorporated to help
change the negative culture of the school—3 days set aside to meet with the teachers
ahead of the school year:
It gave them a chance to get to know her and her to know them and to get to talk
about her values and the culture of the school, and I think that got her off on the
right track. The second part of that is that she shared her values on education
with the staff as they came in to visit, and the third thing is she talked about
changing the culture at the school.
Table 7
Three Important Actions That Helped the Principal Make the Greatest Gains: Imme-
diate Supervisors’ Responses
Action A B C D E F G H I J
Altered instructional programXX
Established collaborative cultureXXXXXXXXX
Changed/hired staffXX
Set/monitored a visionXXXXX
Raised expectationsXX
Used data to inform programsXX
Modeled instructional leadershipXX
Was proactiveX
Was patient with staffX
Ninety percent of supervisors in the study recognized that the principal estab-
lished a collaborative culture in the turnaround school as one of three important actions
83
that helped the principal make the largest gains. Half of the supervisors cited set or
monitored a vision for the school:
She got the right people on the bus. She is building trust by understanding the
culture that she went into, but that she did not have a lot of time and the culture
itself had to turn around. (Supervisor C)
I think his ongoing vision and painting a vision of where the school could be.
He established right off that we’re heading for 700 and showed them they could
get there. (Supervisor G)
Establishing Credibility
Establishing credibility is a sign of success. Principal I felt that she had estab-
lished credibility within the first 90 days. She went on to explain that she “established
credibility when staff knew or believed that I had their best interest in mind and that I
would represent them and that we were now a team.” She described a situation where
the teachers at the school wanted to administer testing differently from the previous
year. The principal explained that she discussed the situation with the superintendent
and advocated for the change on the teachers’ behalf. The principal mentioned that the
superintendent agreed to the changes that she had suggested, and this had a huge impact
on the principal’s staff.
Principal I discussed establishing credibility, building relationships, and becom-
ing more “team like” with vital leadership strategies she employed during the first 90
days. This correlated with what Supervisor I stated.
You have to be able to lead people, which means you now have to somehow
garner their respect and get them to come onboard and join you in this adventure
of changing what they do when they are resistant to change. (Principal I)
84
In question 5 of the teachers’ survey and interview, teachers were asked an
open-ended question to indicate the point at which the principal established credibility
with them. This question was asked to establish not only a time frame of when the
principal established credibility, but also to attempt to elicit information as to how the
principal established credibility with teachers.
Of a total of 13 responses from School I, 12 respondents felt that the principal
established credibility at some time. In determining whether the principal established
credibility within the first 90 days, 7 of the 13 respondents stated that the principal
established credibility within a 90-day time frame, 5 respondents stated that the princi-
pal had established credibility but did not specify a time frame, and 1 respondent stated
that the principal never established credibility and no reason was given as to why.
Also addressed was the way in which the principal established credibility, either
for personal or for schoolwide efforts/reasons. Of the 12 teachers who responded to
this question,10 provided schoolwide reasons and 2 stated personal reasons for the
establishment of credibility. An example of one of the schoolwide reasons cited by a
teacher was that the principal met with a majority of the teachers. The teacher stated
that this strategy made him/her feel like an active staff member. A personal reason
cited by a teacher from School I was that the principal allowed the teacher to run with
an experiment that benefited the children.
Cross-case analysis: Establishing credibility. In the entire study there were a
total of 217 teacher responses. Of these, 197 respondents felt that the principal
85
established credibility at some time, 19 indicated that the principal never established
credibility, and 11 did not answer the question. Of respondents who provided a time
frame (n = 141), 72% claimed that the principal established credibility within the first
90 days, while only 14% believed the principal established credibility later than 90 days
and 13% responded the principal never established credibility.
Of the 197 teachers who provided a reason as to how the principal established
credibility, 74% cited schoolwide reasons, and 26% cited personal reasons. Therefore,
regardless of the time frame, at a ratio of 3:1, teachers cited schoolwide reasons as
opposed to personal reasons in determining how the principal established credibility. A
list of 39 ways that the principal established personal and schoolwide credibility pro-
vided by respondents was generated:
1.Cared,
2.Listened,
3.Did not “bad mouth” people,
4.Was competent,
5.Had a good track record,
6.Gained trust,
7.Praised efforts,
8.Was warm,
9.Made no abrupt changes,
10.Encouraged a team mentality,
11.Allowed staff to take ownership and be professionals,
86
12.Followed through,
13.Provided a new and improved bell schedule,
14.Met individually with staff members,
15.Displayed a positive attitude,
16.Was trustworthy,
17.Supported new teachers,
18.Shortened staff meetings and fillers,
19.Visited classrooms,
20.Was visible,
21.Had a clear action plan,
22.Had an open-door policy,
23.Was data driven,
24.Was direct and forward with teachers,
25.Provided student incentives program,
26.Had a good reputation,
27.Established rules,
28.Cared for safety of staff and students,
29.Was prepared,
30.Was an advocate of students,
31.Learned names,
32.Sent a teacher home for a personal problem and covered the class for that
teacher,
87
33.Supported professional growth,
34.Was well spoken,
35.Had high expectations for school,
36.Provided positive feedback to teachers,
37.Allowed professional development,
38.Was availability, and
39.Cared about special education students.
Cited as the top reasons as to why the principal had not established credibility were the
following:
1.Principal was a bully.
2.Principal did not listen.
3.Principal had no “people” skills.
4.Principal was unaware of the existence of some departments.
5.Principal lacked leadership qualities and skills.
6.Principal needed better communication.
Teachers were also asked what three important actions helped the principal
make the biggest positive gains in the first 90 days (or 1 semester). A list of 50 of the
st
top actions was compiled from the actions cited by all teachers as helping the principal
make the biggest positive gains in their first 90 days. The research group categorized
these actions using Bolman and Deal’s (2001) Four Frames (see Table 8). It was clear
to see that teachers’ responses regarding the top actions that helped turnaround
88
Table 8
Fifty Important Actions Cited by Teachers That Helped Principal Make the Largest
Positive Gains in the First 90 Days or First Semester, Categorized by Bolman and
Deal’s Four Frames

F o u r f rames

Human
ActionStructuralresourcePoliticalSymbolic
Acquired funding and materialsX
Addressed the needs of low-performing studentsX
Adjusted schedule to allow collaboration time for teachersX
Allowed union members to choose department leadersX
Was approachableX
Changed the school mottoX
Had clear expectationsX
Was collaborativeX
Communicated wellX
Was confidentX
Was data drivenX
Did not micro-manageX
Was efficientX
Encouraged and supportedX
Encouraged realignment of curriculum and standardsX
Was energeticX
Established dialogue with parents and studentsX
Established discipline for students and staffX
Was fairX
Was friendlyX
Had a good work ethicX
Got to know the staffX
Was highly involved in various school meetingsX
Was honestX
Implemented new educational programsX
Was knowledgeable about curriculumX
Got lights for the parking lotX
ListenedX
Made good use of dataX
Got a new copy machineX
Did not make changes too fastXXX
Had an open-door policyX
Was open-mindedX
Was organizedX
Had a positive attitudeX
Was proactiveX
Provided new perspectivesX
89
Table 8 (continued)

F o u r f rames

Human
ActionStructuralresourcePoliticalSymbolic
Provided trainingX
Was concerned about safetyX
Scheduled students properlyX
Was self-reflectiveX
Set high standardsX
Showed commitment to raising test scoresX
Started meetings on timeX
Took a different office than previous principalXX
Treated everyone with respectX
Had visionXX
Left water and M&Ms™ on teachers’ desks before
1 day of schoolX
st
Worked well with new teachersX
Wrote personal notes to all facultyXX
Note. Based on Reframing Organizations by L. Bolman and T. Deal, 2001, New York: University Press.
principals make the biggest gains came from the structural and human resource catego-
ries. Twenty-three of the responses fit into the structural category, and 20 fell under
human resource activities; only 7 were classified as political and 6 as symbolic.
Characteristics and Behaviors Survey
Using the 21 Characteristics and Behaviors Chart (Marzano et al., 2005), princi-
pals were asked to identify the top 7 behaviors or characteristics in which they engaged
most frequently during their first 90 days. Using the same chart, teachers and supervi-
sors, either through a survey or interview, were asked to identify the top 7 behaviors in
which their principal engaged most frequently during the first 90 days in column A and
also to identify the behaviors they thought were most important to be a successful
90
principal in the first 90 days in column B. The cohort believed that it would be helpful
to compare the differences in values, if any, among the three groups.
Principal I selected culture, focus, visibility, communication, relationship,
change agent, and ideals/beliefs. Supervisor I identified culture, focus, visibility, affir-
mation, relationship, optimizer, and ideals/beliefs as the top seven characteristics he
believed the principal to have demonstrated during the transition period. The top seven
behaviors and characteristics in which the principal engaged, as identified by teachers,
were outreach, ideals/beliefs, culture, change agent, flexibility, intellectual stimulation,
and order.
Two common behaviors and characteristics that all three groups identified were
culture and ideals/beliefs. It was clear that the school stakeholders recognized that there
was a negative culture at the school when the principal began the position. As evi-
denced previously, all three groups also recognized the school as turnaround and were
aware that change was needed. The principal appeared to have a clear impact when she
scheduled time to meet with all staff members. Again, at the staff meetings she devoted
much of her time to discuss her goals and values. This procedure appeared to have
made a dramatic impact with all three groups and most likely led to each identifying the

ideals/beliefs category.
Cross-case analysis. Principals, supervisors, and teachers in the study recog-
nized culture as one of their top three behaviors/characteristics in which the principal
engaged during the first 90 days. It was clear that culture was a major focal area in the
91
turnaround schools and, as such, was recognized as one of five main topics included in
the literature review.
Principals, department chair teachers, and teachers all recognized focus as one
of their top three categories. Marzano et al. (2005) described focus as being able to
establish clear goals and to keep those goals in the forefront of the school’s attention.
Visibility was one of the top three choices for supervisors, department chair teachers,
and teachers in the study. It was clear in the study that principals exhibited their influ-
ence by remaining visible to the stakeholders of the school; thus, the groups ranked
visibility as a behavior or characteristic that was important to be a successful principal
in the first 90 days.
Bolman and Deal Time Survey
In question 4 of the interview, principals were provided with the Bolman and
Deal Four Frames Chart (Bolman & Deal, 2001). Principals were asked to indicate the
percentage of time during their first 90 days that they spent performing activities in the
four frames of human resource, structural, political, or symbolic. Next, principals were
asked to indicate the percentage of their time during their first 90 days that they should
have spent in each of the four frames. Teachers were asked in the interviews and
surveys to use the chart to first rank from 1-4, with 1 being the most time and 4 being
the least time, how the principal actually spent his/her time in the first 90 days or 1
st
semester. Next, teachers were asked to rank from 1-4 how the principal should have
spent his/her time in the first 90 days or 1 semester.
st
92
The findings from the survey indicated that Principal I spent 25% of her time
engaged in structural activities, 40% in human resource activities, 10% in political
activities, and 25% in symbolic activities. The principal indicated that in hindsight she
should have spent 30% doing structural activities; 35%, human resource; 15%, politi-
cal; and 20%, symbolic. There was not much change in this response—only a slightly
higher percentages for structural and political activities and slightly less percentages in
the human resource and symbolic frames. When asked why she felt she should have
spent a little more time engaged in structural and political activities, the principal re-
sponded, “I had a lot of positive feedback when I engaged staff in structured activities,
and that helped me with gaining credibility with staff.”
Teachers’ responses were different from principals’ when they were asked to
provide a ranking of how the principals spent their time. For purposes of this study, the
researcher will focus on the top two choices of teachers in order to determine two
frames recognized as where the principal spent the most time. Department chair teach-
ers at School I recognized the principal as spend their time in the following frames:
(a) department chair #1, political and human resource frames; (b) department chair #2,
political and structural frames; (c) department chair #3, structural and political frames;
and department chair #4, symbolic and human resource frames. Only department chair
teacher #2 changed categories when answering Part B of the question: how the princi-
pal should have spent her time. The change was from political and structural to human
resource and symbolic. Three out of the four department chairs chose the category
93
political, while two of four recognized the categories human resource and structural.

Only one department chair recognized the symbolic category.
Cross-case analysis. When comparing principals and teachers across the case
studies, some noticeable trends appeared. The mean times spent in the four areas were
much higher in the structural and human resource categories than in the political and
symbolic. The means derived from the principals for the human resource and structural
categories were 36% and 28.5%, respectively, compared to only 20.5% in the symbolic
category and 16.5% in the political category. Numbers for what principals believed
they should have spent their time doing were slightly lower than the percentages of
what they actually did. The top two categories were, again, human resource and struc-
tural with means of 24.17% and 22.5%. respectively.
Teachers throughout the study overwhelmingly recognized the categories of
structural and human resources as the frames in which they observed their principal
spending the most time during the first 90 days. Teachers also recognized the same two
categories as the areas in which the principal should have spent the time.
The findings from the Bolman and Deal Charts aligned with the findings from
the 50 top actions for positive gains recognized by teachers. Both principals and teach-
ers recognized that turnaround principals were successful for spending their time in the
human resource and structural frames.
94
Summary of Findings Compared to
Literature Review
The findings for research question 2 demonstrated evidence of specific strate-
gies for new principals in turnaround situations. Some clear themes arose from the
findings for research question 2. These themes aligned significantly with various

theories found in chapter 2. Each theme will be discussed in a separate section.
Establish and monitor a vision. Various authors discussed the importance of
establishing and monitoring one’s vision as a leader. Collins (2003) referred to this as
confronting the brutal facts and never losing faith. Marzano et al. (2005) described
focus as being able to establish clear goals and to keep those goals in the forefront of
the school’s attention. Findings from the Marzano Characteristics and Behaviors Chart
showed that principals, department chair teachers, and teachers all recognized focus as
one of the top three categories with regard to what activities the principals engaged in
during the first 90 days.
In the study Principal I asked her staff three questions to help members of the
school community establish their vision for kids:
1.What do we really expect them to learn?
2.How do I know who got it?
3.What am I willing to do about that to make it better?
The principal believed that the students should be the focus of the school community.
She felt that these three questions were a way of grounding the members in their core
mission. In further addressing the STaRS charts, what stood out was the importance of
95
having all members of a school community on the same page. By nature of the defini-
tion of turnaround, stakeholders of the school must be aware that change needs to be
made. With few exceptions, members of the study recognized their schools as turn-
around. Furthermore, the majority of principals, supervisors, and teachers in the study
cited achievement as the number one reason in defining their school as turnaround;
therefore, it was important for principals to establish a vision with the heavy emphasis

on improving student achievement.
Build relationships and a collaborative schoolwide culture. Collins (2003)
argued that prior to building relationships and culture, one must first put the right
people in the right seats on the bus. The findings consistently demonstrated the impor-
tant role that people play in schools. When supervisors in the study were asked what
they defined as reasons that the principal was successful, 8 of 10 supervisors recognized
establishing and supporting learning communities or creating a positive culture. More-
over, 9 of 10 supervisors recognized “established a collaborative culture” as one of the
top three important actions of principals that made the biggest gains.
The principal, supervisor, and teachers in Case Study I all viewed the transition
period as a time for principals to build relationships and a collaborative schoolwide
culture. When the principal was asked when she established credibility, she said she
believed that she established credibility when she advocated for a change on behalf of
the school’s teachers and they began to act like a team. The principal, along with the
96
supervisor and teachers, all viewed the culture as negative when the former principal
left and the new principal was challenged with the task of creating a positive culture.
When principals in the study were asked what leadership theories were vital for
the first 90 days of a principalship, a majority of principals provided answers that in-
cluded building relationships. Principals in the study recognized prominent theorists
such as Marzano, DuFour, and Schmoker, who advocated PLCs as part of a school
community. PLCs are seen as models of building relationships and a collaborative
school culture.
Among the top 50 actions recognized by teachers as ways that the principal
made positive gains, 20 fell in Bolman and Deal’s (2001) human resource frame, thus
further solidifying the importance of building relationships and ensuring a positive
culture. Findings from the Marzano charts showed that principals, supervisors, and
teachers in the study recognized culture as one of their top three behaviors/character-
istics in which the principal engaged during the first 90 days.
The findings demonstrated a preponderance of evidence in the area of building
relationships and a collaborative school culture, thus necessitating a transition plan that

focuses on the people in the organization or school.
Establish “early wins.” Watkins (2003) discussed early wins as a way for
leaders to establish and build personal credibility. Throughout the findings, the need
for principals to establish credibility has been evidenced from responses by the princi-
pals, supervisors, and teachers across the studies conducted. The findings showed
97
various examples of the ways in which principals established credibility to create “early
wins” with their staff. Specific examples of creating early wins included principals
from Schools D and I. Both of these principals met with each of their staff members
prior to the school year to help teachers get to know the principal, and vice versa An-
other unique example came from School C, where the principal sent a teacher home to
take care of personal matters and the principal covered the teacher’s classroom while
the teacher was out.
Across the study, the cohort compiled a list of 39 ways in which principals
established schoolwide credibility, as recognized by teachers. In addition to the list of
39, the cohort compiled a list of the top 50 actions cited by teachers that principals in-
corporated to make the most positive gains in their first 90 days. These lists included
concrete examples of ways that principals created early wins to build personal credibil-

ity.
Lead from the middle and remain visible. Maxwell (2005) argued that a 360-
degree leader can influence people at every level of an organization. Leading from the
middle was a continuous theme witnessed in the findings. A comment by Principal I
affirmed this point: “This was not going to be a top-down thing—this was going to be a
‘we’ thing. ‘We’re’ going to do this together.”
Another clear example of principals leading from the middle was the impor-
tance that principals placed on the idea of schools as PLCs. Eight out of 10 supervisors
in the study recognized the importance of creating learning communities. DuFour
98
(2004) recognized three foundation pieces of PLCs: focusing on making sure that
students learn, establishing a collaboration culture (i.e., mission, vision, goals), and
focusing on results. Some prime examples from the findings of the present study that
included the three foundations of PLCs were the list of 39 ways that the principals es-
tablished schoolwide credibility and 50 actions that helped principals make positive
gains.
As a part of leading from the middle, the findings demonstrated the importance
of the principal being a visible leader. The Marzano Characteristics and Behaviors
Chart confirmed that visibility was one of the activities in which principals engaged
during their first 90 days, as cited by supervisors, department chair teachers, and teach-
ers in the study. The principals in Schools D and I were immediately visible by holding
individual meetings for staff members in order to discuss expectations.
Important to note from this section is that most of the findings came from the
supervisors and teachers from the study. These groups revealed their strong desire to
have principals lead from the middle and to remain visible.
Research Question 3
Did any programs, formal or informal, prepare new principals for success
during the transition period (first 90 days) in a turnaround school? It was postulated
that proper preparation is necessary for a successful transition to the principalship. The
final question was constructed to determine whether any programs prepared new princi-
pals for success during the transition period in a turnaround school.
99
As noted earlier in the chapter, most of the principals in the study followed a
similar pathway to the principalship. The graph below depicts the background informa-
tion provided by principals in the study. Like Principal I, each of the principals in the
10 case studies taught at various levels before becoming school administrators. Ninety
percent of the principals had some form of previous leadership role prior to receiving
the principal position; 90% of the principals had held the position of assistant principal
prior to receiving a principal position (Table 9).
Table 9
Principals’ Pathway to the Principalship
Experience A B C D E F G H I J
Taught at various levelsXXXXXXXXX
Leadership experienceXXXXXXXXXX
Leadership encouraged by administrationXXXXXX
Served as assistant principalXXXXXXXX
Average years in field1225+232212+211125157+
University Preparation
In question 7 of the interview, principals were asked to assess how their univer-
sity programs prepared them for their jobs. Principals responded by stating their feel-
ings regarding to their university preparation and also provided reasons and specific
examples at to why the felt the way they did (Table 10). Principal I responded with a
generally negative comment regarding university program preparation for principals:
100
Table 10
Principals’s Responses Regarding Effectiveness of University Preparation Programs
Opinion A B C D E F G H I J
Extremely positiveX
Generally positiveXXX
Generally negativeXXXXX
Not at all confidentX I went through the administrative training piece, and I always felt like they never
taught me anything about organizational structure or how to manage people.
You know, yeah, okay, here our product is an educated child, you know. But
it’s still a process, you know. And it’s still an organization. I learned a lot
about curriculum. I learned about all the state rules and laws. I got all that stuff.
I felt that I did not get enough help in learning how to run organizations and
how to deal with people and how to take dissenting voices and turn them into
consenting voices and into getting people to participate, how to deal with a lot
of different kinds of personalities. And I didn’t feel that my administrative
training really gave me much of anything in it. The other thing is I was not well
prepared to deal with budgets. In essence, you’re dealing with kind of a small-
ish to medium-sized organization that runs well over a million dollars, and if
you count categorical funding and grants and so forth, you could be up to sev-
eral million dollars. That’s not an easy thing to manage.
Immediate Supervisor I shared his experience as a teacher in a principal prepara-
tion program and the way in which he structured his class:
Well, you know, I teach those classes for a couple of different universities.
There is textbook learning, and then there is learning on the job. One of the
things I try to do is pepper my classes with different types of reality so, for
instance, at the beginning of every class, I try to transition students from work to
school. I will start class with a real situation that happened to some principal
somewhere, and then I will have them break up into teams and have them dis-
cuss the circumstances and have them report out what they would do had they
been the principal. And none of them are made up—they are all things that
people have experienced, because no matter what you teach in class, it is the on-
101
the-job training that you need. and we can’t prepare you. Well, we can teach
you how to think, but we cannot tell how you will react under pressure as the
principal. I try to—for instance, many people are trained under principals who
are not good models, so I talk about what is good modeling, how do you model
for people and how do lead people. My belief is that leadership starts with rela-
tionships, so I spend a lot of time talking about that. Most programs talk about
the technical stuff: Do you know the law? Do you know finance? Do you
know curriculum? And those are all important, but if you cannot put them into
practice in a practical manner because of your relationship with people, you are
not going to be successful. I talk about sources of power, how you use power,
and is power positive or negative depending on how you use it. Situational
leadership—do you supervise everybody the same way, or are you able to see
what type of people need what kind of supervision? I don’t think that necessar-
ily most programs do that. It is the practical side of leadership that I don’t know
that we expose you to very much.
Principal I was also asked if there was any specific training that focused on the
first 90 days. She responded:
You know, I cannot remember anything, even as simple as what might you want
to put in your first staff meeting. How do you say hello to people? There was
absolutely nothing. It was just like, I don’t know, they gave you the keys and
guess what. You know, you won the lottery and I guess you’re supposed to
figure it out. I also felt like I didn’t have much opportunity to talk to people in a
dialogue situation that we’re principals, new principals, experienced principals,
or principals going into dysfunctional schools. Principals that won the prize and
got the wonderful school that got everything. How did that happen? And I also
think a lot of my training was designed for people that were going to inherit or
be hired from within, as opposed to coming into an institution or an organiza-
tion that you don’t know a lot about. I didn’t have a lot of training for that.
Cross-Case Analysis
Principals in the study primarily recognized their university preparation pro-
grams as being in the generally positive or generally negative categories. Only 1 princi-
pal recognized the principal preparation program experience as extremely positive, and
one principal was in the “not confident” category. Overall, 6 out of 10 principals felt
102
that their university preparation programs were not helpful; 4 out of 10 found merit in
their programs.
Principals in the study recognized six main training and on-the-job knowledge
preparation techniques provided in their university programs that they found to be
helpful (Table 11). Four principals recognized leadership training; three mentioned
helping with theory and curriculum; and two each mentioned the categories of person-
nel, California Education Code, and administrative functions/responsibilities. One
principal mentioned school finance.
Table 11
Ways That University Programs Help Prepare Principals With Training and on-the-
Job Knowledge: Principals’ Responses
Area of help A B C D E F G H I J
Leadership trainingXXXX
Personnel issuesXX
California Education CodeXX
Theory and curriculumXXX
Administrative functions/responsibilitiesXX
School financeX
Note. Principals G, H, and J are not included due to incomplete data.
Across case studies, only Principal C discussed a program that informally ad-
dressed the transition period of principals. The principal at School C mentioned that
the program addressed the period through small-group discussions and interactions with
103
colleagues in the program who served as mentors and support systems through the
transition period. None of the other case studies recognized a program that formally
addressed the transition period, but principals did state that they would be helpful.
Each of the supervisors in the study was asked his/her opinions as to how uni-
versity programs could prepare administrators for the principalship. The responses
included a general feeling of how supervisors felt about university programs, either
positive or negative. Supervisors also mentioned ways that university programs could
help new leaders, including specific types of training or strategies used by universities.
Supervisors felt that the university programs generally fell short on training new princi-
pals.
Supervisor responses in this research study were split as to their general feeling
of how university programs prepared administrators for the principalship. Five out of
10 supervisors in the study responded with a generally or extremely positive feeling
about university programs. The remaining 5 supervisors responded with a generally
negative or not confident feeling in regard to preparation of administrators by university
programs.
Supervisor B stated:
The preparation programs haven’t kept up. I would be nice to have internships,
where new principals could actually get on the job training. University pro-
grams don’t adequately prepare the new principal for all the changes that take
place as one enters that role. Otherwise, it is theoretical and conceptual until
you have that experience that goes along with the learning.
104
Supervisor C responded:
I’m not confident in programs that prepare individuals to become school ad-
ministrators. They give them certification requirements, but not what it takes to
be an administrator. I don’t think you can get that without being at the site.
Supervisor D said:
I think we’re all new, and I think there’s the process for induction for teachers is
a model that might be something that will evolve for administrators.
School District Support
In question 8 of the survey, principals were asked what support their district
provided for them during their first 90 days. Principal I stated, “Not a lot of support
provided by the district. Much of the help came from teachers and classified staff.”
This principal had a colleague in the district who was a principal, with whom she
formed an informal mentorship. The principal used this mentor for items such as
contract information and evaluation instruments. Principal I mentioned that the district
provided regular structured meetings, along with educational services with assistance in
curriculum and instruction, political pieces, board of education information, some data
and assessment, but nothing unique to a brand new principal.
Principals in the study stated that their districts were supportive in providing
mentors. Many of these mentors were informal mentors who included district-level or
other current administrators within the district. A common trend across the principal
interviews revealed that districts provided new principal meetings but lacked formal
staff development training. Principals saw these meetings as not being too useful for
the types of support they desired.
105
In question 6 of the interview, supervisors responded by providing ways that
their district supported each of the principals. Supervisors’ responses ranged from
informal strategies and support systems to much more highly formalized plans to
support new principals. Each of the 10 supervisor responses were analyzed and placed
into seven common thread categories, as summarized in Table 12.
Table 12
Types of District Support Provided to Principals During First 90 Days: Immediate
Supervisors’ Responses
Type of supportABCDEFGHIJ
Open-door policyXX
Informal mentorXXXXXXXX
Improved infrastructure of schoolX
Formalized monthly meetingsXXXXX
Provided a formal mentorXXXXX
AB 75 trainingXX
Summer AcademyX
The response of Immediate Supervisor I focused on different informal support
systems provided by the district. The discussion involved a recruiting strategy imple-
mented by the superintendent, along with an informal mentorship prior to the hiring of
the principal, to ensure a proper fit for the school and district.
Eight out of 10 supervisors in the cross-case study stated that the district pro-
vided the new principal with an informal mentor to assist the principal in their first 90
days. Five of the supervisors stated that they held formalized monthly meetings and
106
provided a formal mentor. Two supervisors said the district provided AB 75 training
and had an open door policy, while 1 supervisor mentioned the district provided facili-
ties support. One district held a summer academy that supported new principals.
Summary of Findings Compared to
Literature Review
All of the principals in the study followed a similar pathway to the principalship
and experienced similar types of leadership preparation. The typical pathway to the
principalship consisted of teaching, quasi-administrative experiences, and serving as
assistant principal. Typical preparation for principals in the study included participat-
ing in a school leadership preparation program either at a university or through another
credentialing program. Most, if any, support for principals during the transition period
happened at the district level.
Findings from the final research question indicated that preparation programs do
not prepare future school leaders completely. Principals and their supervisors from the
study believed that preparation programs prepare school leaders in theory but tend to
lack practical information. Preparation programs, on the whole, clearly did not focus on
the transition period of the principal. Lashway (2003a) emphasized the need for prepa-
ration programs to balance practical or hands-on information along with activities
centered on standards and theory.
In terms of district support systems, there appeared to be a disconnect between
principals and their supervisors as to the amount and type of support that districts pro-
vided to principals during the transition period. An illuminating statistic was that 80%
107
of principals in the study declared that their district office provided them little or no
support during their transition period; however, supervisors discussed various ways that
their districts supported their principals during the transition period. Although both
principals and supervisors recognized that their districts held formalized monthly meet-
ings, principals stated that the meetings did nothing to specifically help them during
their transition period. One area of support that both principals and supervisors recog-
nized as positive was the providing of formal or informal mentors.
Summary
This chapter reviewed the findings and presented and analyzed the quantitative
and qualitative data for this study. Included in the chapter were a background to the
case study, data findings and interpretation for the case study, and cross-case analyses
of the 10 case studies of the cohort. The chapter also addressed each of the three re-
search questions and provided the researcher’s interpretations as to how the findings
related to the literature and what the findings meant. The data were presented based on
which one of the three research questions the findings addressed. A summary, conclu-
sions, implications, and recommendations of findings are presented in the next chapter.
108
CHAPTER 5
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS, AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
Summary
The first chapter provided an overview of the study by presenting the challenges
and changes that new principals face, as well as the purpose of the study. Included in
chapter 2 was an extensive literature review that analyzed issues surrounding principals,
along with conceptual frameworks on transitional leadership in the education and busi-
ness fields. The foundational literature that served as a basis of the study was Watkins
(2003) and his framework for the first 90 days.
Chapter 3 was comprised of the methodology of the study and included the
sample and population of the study, instrumentation used in the study, as well as data
collection and analysis. Chapter 4 consisted of the findings of the researcher’s individ-
ual case study, including the cross-case analyses for each of the members of the cohort.
This chapter includes a summary of the purpose of study and the three research ques-
tions, along with a review, conclusions, implications, and recommendations for future
research.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of the study was to determine if the transition period is important to
the success of the principal. The study identified the skills and traits necessary as well
as supports needed for success as a beginning principal. The researcher identified
109
existing frameworks and models of entry strategies in the educational and business
sectors and attempted to contribute to this knowledge.
Research Questions
The study was guided by the following three research questions:
1.Did principals in a turnaround situation find the transition period (first 90
days) to be important?
2.What strategies and conceptual frameworks (leadership theories) were useful
to new principals during the transition period (first 90 days) in a turnaround school?
3.Did any programs, formal or informal, prepare new principals for success
during the transition period (first 90 days) in a turnaround school?
Summary of Findings
Data were collected and analyzed in this study that led to the findings presented
in chapter 4.
Research Question 1
Did principals in a turnaround situation find the transition period (first 90
days) to be important? The data from new principals, their supervisors, and teachers in
the study illustrated that the transition period (first 90 days) was indeed important.
Principal I saw the time as “make-or-break days.” Supervisor I referred to the princi-
pal’s transition period as very significant in terms of bringing the staff together and
working to improve the school’s culture. All but one teacher in School I found the
110
transition period of the principal to be important. Responses from teachers regarding
the principal’s first 90 days included the following:
Principal made and kept promises, and the promises she made and the state-
ments she stood behind set the tone for the rest of the school year
Crucial time in establishing relationships.
Staff members tested the principal and the principal passed.
Several students schedule changes were necessary to keep the school running
smoothly.
It gave us an idea of style and how staff and community were valued.
It is important to see how this vision plays out in the actual school setting.
I felt she boosted morale—she was positive, interested, take-charge.
Half (5 of 10) of the principals in the study described their first 90 days as ex-
tremely significant. Out of those principals, each recognized the transition period as a
time to build relationships and credibility. These findings aligned with what Kotter
(1998) and Watkins (2003) discussed extensively as the need to generate early or short-
term wins to forge relationships and gain credibility as a leader.
Nine out of 10 supervisors viewed the transition period as very significant. The
majority of teachers in all 10 case studies viewed their principal’s transition period as
important.
The findings also showed the importance for principals of determining the type
of school they were entering prior to or immediately after starting the position. By
understanding the culture of the school upon entry, principals were better able to focus
on the issues they needed to tend to first, as well as where they could gain early wins.
111
Schools A and D showed a disconnect between what the principal and teachers per-
ceived as the type of school. The principals believed the school to be turnaround, while
a majority of the teachers believed the school to be sustaining success. It was not clear
to the researcher if this difference in classification had a profound affect on the princi-
pal’s first 90 days. One of Watkins’s (2003) key concepts in his roadmap to successful
transition is to match strategy to the situation. It appears that a difference in classifica-
tion of the school could have an effect, if not in the short-term, on possible long-term
implications for the school.
Data showed that principals received knowledge about their school from various
sources including supervisors, teachers/staff members, school/district Web sites, focus
groups, local newspapers, and colleagues in the field. The findings showed the transi-
tion for new principals in a turnaround situation aligned with what Kotter (1998),
Maxwell (2005), and Watkins (2003) believed as a critical time for a new leader, thus
necessitating a framework to accelerate transitions.
Research Question 2
What strategies and conceptual frameworks (leadership theories) were useful to
new principals during the transition period (first 90 days) in a turnaround school? The
data collected for research question 2 demonstrated evidence of specific successful
strategies incorporated by new turnaround principals during their first 90 days. Themes
that were common throughout findings from principal, supervisor, and teacher inter-
views and surveys included the following:
112
•Establishing and monitoring a vision
•Building relationships and a collaborative schoolwide culture
•Establishing early wins
•Leading from the middle and remaining visible
Principals identified leadership theories that they believed were vital during
their transition:
•Visibility
•Building relationships
•Transformational activities
•Structural activities
•Political activities
•Flexibility
Data collected from the supervisors indicated the following leadership strategies
employed by the principals during the transition period that helped with the success of
the principal:
•Altering the instructional program
•Establishing a collaborative culture
•Making decisions to change or hire new staff members
•Raising expectations for school community
•Setting and monitoring a vision
•Modeling instructional leadership
•Providing a safe and orderly environment for school community
113
•Being honest, patient, and proactive with staff members
Findings from teacher surveys and interviews showed that, at a ratio of three to
one, the principal established credibility by schoolwide actions. Teacher data allowed
the cohort to create a list of 39 ways in which the principal established personal and
schoolwide credibility. In addition, a list of 50 of the top actions in which principals
engaged during the transition period to make the greatest gains, as evidenced by teach-
ers in the study, was also created.
Findings from the 21 Characteristics and Behaviors Chart showed that princi-
pals, supervisors, and teachers in the study recognized culture as one of the most fre-
quently used behaviors/characteristics in which the principals engaged during the
transition period. Both principals and teachers recognized focus as a top activity en-
gaged in by principals during the transition period. Marzano et al. (2005) described
focus as being able to establish clear goals and to keep those goals in the forefront of
the school’s attention.
The findings from the Bolman and Deal Time Chart Survey were the same for
both principals and teachers in the study. Both felt that the principals actually spent and
should have spent their time during the transition period in the human resource and
structural frames. These findings aligned with the findings from the 50 top actions for

positive gains by principals, as cited by teachers.
114
Research Question 3
Did any programs, formal or informal, prepare new principals for success during
the transition period (first 90 days) in a turnaround school? The findings from research
question 3 showed that principals in the study followed similar pathways to the
principalship and that most experienced similar types of leadership preparation, includ-
ing participating in a principal preparation program at either a university or through a
university-approved credentialing program.
The findings from supervisors and principals in the study showed that principal
preparation programs provided information on curriculum and theory but tended to lack
practical information. Principals and supervisors agreed that preparation programs
should focus more on practical experiences for aspiring school leaders. Principal I felt
that preparation programs should spend more time focusing on managing people rather
than teaching education-specific material. Findings from supervisors and principals
illustrated that preparation programs did little or nothing at all in terms of focusing spe-
cifically on the transition period. Principals stated that a program that formally ad-
dressed the transition period would be very helpful. The findings from supervisors and
principals aligned with Lashway (2003b), who provided suggestions for improvement
of principal preparation programs that included focusing on the critical transition
period, along with on-the-job demonstration of skills.
The findings from supervisor interviews indicated that districts provided the
types of district support outlined in Table 11. Although supervisors mentioned various
ways that their district helped new principals, most principals in the study felt that the
115
only helpful district support was providing them with a mentor. Principals mentioned
that their district held new principal meetings but lacked formal staff development
training. Lovely (1999) asserted that districts with formal mentoring programs have an
advantage in attracting, inducting, nurturing, and retaining good leaders.
Implications
There continues to be a need to explore the specifics of time lines within the
first 90 days. Specific questions that arose from establishing the importance of time
lines include the following:
1.Is there a specific time within the transition period when leaders must gain
credibility?
2.When is gaining “early wins” within the transition period most effective?
3.Is there a way to create a time line of when specific strategies should be
utilized within the transition period?
4.Are the time line or the strategies utilized different for principals in each of
the STaRS situations (e.g., sustaining success vs. turnaround).
An additional study that should be considered is one that compares the differ-
ences for new principals in schools and experienced principals in different schools.
Would strategies differ for new principals who enter their principalship compared to
leaders who have been in one school as principal and now enter a new one? Which
would be more difficult? Which has the better opportunity to succeed, or do they have
116
an equal chance at success or failure for that matter? These intriguing questions require
additional study, as they are an important piece in expanding this research.
Further research that explores incentive programs for retaining principals should
be conducted. It is relatively easy for principals to pick up and move into a new situa-
tion, as there is not much incentive for principals to remain in undesirable situations.
Due to the lack of incentive programs, it is necessary to complete studies that address
leadership succession programs. In the business world, leadership succession programs
are also referred to as talent management programs. These types of programs are
widely used throughout the business community but are nonexistent in schools.
Hargreaves (2005) called for the need to improve leadership succession in edu-
cation. As principals continue to face the ever-expanding roles and responsibilities of
the principalship without incentive programs that offer assistance and compensation,
the need for successful leadership succession programs remains necessary.
Recommendations
Watkins (2003) recommended that business leaders create a 90-day plan to help
them to be successful during the transition period of a new position. Findings from this
study validated the relevance of creating and utilizing 90-day plans by school leaders.
Entering a new school leadership position offers numerous challenges that
require proper preparation. New principals need to follow the guides that are available,
including those discovered in this research study. The findings from this study sug-
117
gested that a new leader should establish and monitor a vision, build relationships and a
collaborative culture, establish early wins, lead from the middle, and remain visible.
Distributive leadership on behalf of principals is necessary. One must have the skills of
delegating, overseeing, mentoring, coaching, mediating, along with various other skills
to be an effective school leader. Principals must create PLCs in order to tap into the
expertise of their staff.
In terms of principal preparation, it is recommended that preparation programs
be less theory based, with more room for practical and job-like experiences. It is also
recommended that preparation programs include training that helps principals to think
more globally with an overall emphasis on managing people within whole organiza-
tions. The type of management training students receive in Master of Business Admin-
istration (MBA) programs may better serve future school leaders.
Conclusion
Principals have been challenged to do more to fix the problems of today’s
schools. This study has shown that in order to be prepared to face these challenges,
there must be continued support for principals, beginning with preparation programs
that focus specifically on the transition period, provide real-life experiences, and assist
school leaders with management skills. Next, arm principals with transition plans and
ongoing district support in order to support new school leaders during this extremely
difficult period. Finally, it is necessary for schools and school districts to create leader-
118
ship succession plans so that schools will maintain coherence of their educational
program and sustained growth over longer periods of time.
Watkins (2003) stated that “transitions are a crucible for leadership develop-
ment and should be managed accordingly” (p. 5). This study clearly demonstrated that
new principals must utilize successful leadership strategies during the first 90 days.
Business and educational literature illustrates successful strategies for principals to use
at their schools; therefore, it is essential that new leaders learn and integrate these
strategies as part of their skills sets.
This study clearly shows a significant need for future research that focuses on
the principalship. There remains a need for a broader research on the transition period
of principals from different grade levels and for principals entering other situations
(start-up, realignment, and sustaining success) to be studied and compared. Addition-
ally, a study should be conducted to address leadership succession of principals in
schools. The focus would be on how to effectively recruit and train talent from within a
school organization to become future leaders in that school. Furthermore, a study to
identify ways to attract, recruit, and retain future leaders is necessary to have qualified
participants for possible leadership succession programs.
119
REFERENCES
Abelmann, Charles, & Elmore, R. (1999). When accountability knocks, will anyone
answer? Philadelphia: Consortium for Policy Research in Education. (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED428463)
Aiken, J. (2002). The socialization of new principals: Another perspective on princi-
pal retention. Education Leadership Review, 3(1), 32-40.
Blasé, J., & Blasé, J. (2004). Handbook of instructional leadership: How successful
principals promote teaching and learning. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Bolman, L., & Deal, T. (2001). Reframing organizations. New York: University
Press.
California Technology Assistance Project. (2006). AB 75 principal training. Los
Angeles: Author. Retrieved July 1, 2006, from http://72.14.253.104/
search?q=cache:O1w3iRkn_QAJ:ctap.lacoe.edu/content/AB_75_Principal_Trainin
g+AB+75+principal+training+ctap&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1
Collins, J. (2001). Good to great: Why some companies make the leap . . . and others
don’t. New York: HarperCollins.
Cottrell, D., & Harvey, E. (2004). Leadership courage: Leadership strategies for
individual and organizational success. Alexandria, VA. Association for Super-
vision and Curriculum Development.
Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed ap-
proaches (2 ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
nd
Crow, G., & Mathews, J. (1998). Finding one’s way: How mentoring can lead to dy-
namic leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Daresh, J. (2000). Support for beginning principals: First hurdles are highest. Theory
Into Practice, 25, 168-173.
Darling-Hammond , L. (2002). The right to learn. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Davis, S., Darling-Hammond, L., LaPointe, M., & Meyerson, D. (2005). School lead-
ership study: Developing successful principals. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford Univer-
sity, Stanford Educational Leadership Institute.
120
Deal, T., & Peterson, K. (2003). Shaping school culture: The heart of leadership. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass Education.
DuFour, R. (2004). Schools as learning communities. Educational Leadership, 61(8),
6-11.
DuFour, R., Eaker, R., & Burnette, R. (2002). Getting started: Re-culturing schools to
become professional learning communities. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree.
Duke, D. (2004, September). The turnaround principal: High-stakes leadership.
Principal Magazine, 84, 12-23.
Ed-Data Partnership. (2006). School reports. Sacramento, CA: California Depart-
ment of Education. Retrieved November 12, 2006, from http://www.ed-data.k12
.ca.us/welcome.asp
Ediger, M. (2002). Assessing the school principal. Education, 123(1), 90-95.
Elmore, R., Abelmann, C., & Fuhrman, S. (1996). The new accountability in state ed-
ucation policy. In H. Ladd (Ed.), Performance-based strategies for improving
schools (pp. 65-98). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
Ferrandino, V. L., Vincent, L., & Tirozzi, G. N. (2000, October 18). The shortage of
principals continues. Education Week, n.v. Retrieved July 1, 2006, from http://
www.naesp.org/ContentLoad.do?contentId=904
Ferrigno, T. B. (2003). Becoming a principal: Role conception, initial socialization,
role-identity transformation, purposeful engagement. Austin: University of
Texas, Department of Educational Administration, University Council for Educa-
tional Administration.
Fullan, M. (2002). Leading and learning for the 21 century. Quality Learning, 1(3),
st
1-10.
Fullan, M. (2003). The moral imperative of school leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Corwin Press.
Fullan, M. (2005). Turnaround leadership. The Educational Forum, 69, 174-181.
Fuhrman, S. H. (1999, January). The new accountability. CPRE Policy Briefs, n.v., 1-
11.
121
Goodwin, R., Cunningham, M. L., & Eagle, T. (2005). The changing role of the sec-
ondary principal in the United States: An historical perspective. Journal of Educa-
tional Administration and History, 37(1), 1-17.
Hale, E., & Moorman, H. (2003). Preparing school principals: A national perspective
on policy and program innovations. Washington, DC: Institute for Educational
Leadership.
Hargreaves, A. (2005). Leadership succession. The Educational Forum, 69, 163-173.
Hentschke, G. C., & Wohlstetter, P. (2004). (2004, Summer). Cracking the code of
accountability. UrbanEd, n.v., 17-19.
Hess, F. M., & Kelly, A. P. (2003). Learning to lead? What gets taught in principal
programs. New York: Olin Foundation and Program on Education Policy and
Governance.
Hord, S. M. (1997). Professional learning communities: Communities of continuous
inquiry and improvement. Austin, TX: Southwest Educational Development
Laboratory.
King, C., & Smoot, G. (2004). Principal empowerment through AB 75. Leadership,
34(1), 26-29.
Knapp, M. S., Copland, M. A., & Talbert, J. E. (2003). Leading for learning: Reflec-
tive tools for school and district leaders [Research report]. Seattle, WA: Center
for the Study of Teaching and Policy.
Kotter, J. P. (1996). Leading change. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Lashway, L. (2000). Holding schools accountable for achievement. Eugene: Univer-
sity of Oregon, College of Education, Clearinghouse on Educational Policy and
Management. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED434381)
Lashway, L. (2002). Rethinking the principalship. Alexandria, VA: Association of
Elementary School Principals. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.
ED462732)
Lashway, L. (2003a). Inducting school leaders. Eugene: University of Oregon, Col-
lege of Education, Clearinghouse on Educational Policy and Management. (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED479074)
122
Lashway, L. (2003b). Transforming principal preparation (ERIC Digest 165). Eu-
gene: University of Oregon, College of Education, Clearinghouse on Educational
Policy and Management.
Levine, A. (2005). Educating school leaders. New York: Education School Project.
Linn, R., Baker, E., & Betebenner, D. (2002). Accountability systems: Implications of
requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Educational Researcher,
31(6), 3-16.
Littky, D., & Schen, M. (2003). Developing school leaders: One principal at a time.
Providence, RI: Big Picture.
Lovell, L. J. (2004). Mentoring for new district office leaders. Leadership, 34(1), 14-
16.
Lovely, S. (1999). Developing leaders from within. Educational Leadership, 29(1),
12-13.
Malone, R. (2001). Principal mentoring (ERIC Digest 149). Eugene: University of
Oregon, College of Education, Clearinghouse on Educational Policy and Manage-
ment. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED457535)
Marzano, R. (2004). Building background knowledge for academic achievement:
Research on what works in schools. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Marzano, R., Waters, T., & McNulty, B. (2005). School leadership that works: From
research to results. Alexandria, VA: McREL.
Mathis, W. J. (2003). Costs and benefits. Phi Delta Kappan, 84, 679-686.
Maxwell, J. C. (2005). The 360-degree leader: Developing your influence from
anywhere in the organization. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson.
Merriam, S. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
National Association of State Boards of Education. (1999). Principals of change:
What principals need to lead schools to excellence. Washington, DC: Author.
(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED467060)
National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The im-
perative for educational reform. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
123
National Institute for School Leadership. (2006). National Institute for School Leader-
ship (NISL)/National Center on Education and the Economy (NCEE). Washing-
ton, DC: Author. Retrieved July 1, 2006, from http://www.e-lead.org/programs/
nisl/summary.asp
New Teacher Center at the University of California at Santa Cruz. (2006). Profes-
sional development for school leaders. Santa Cruz, CA: Author. Retrieved July 1,
2006, from http://www.newteachercenter.org/sld_professional_development
.php#nap
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 20 U.S.C. Sections 6301 et seq. U.S.C. (2002).
Normore, A. (2003, January). Professional and organizational socialization processes
of school administrators: A literature review. Paper presented at the Hawaii In-
ternational Conference on Education, Honolulu, HI.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Peterson, K. (2001). The professional development of principals: Innovations and op-
portunities. Educational Administration Quarterly, 38, 213-232.
Schiff, T. (2002). Principals readiness for reform: A comprehensive approach. Prin-
cipal Leadership, 2(5), 21-26.
Sorenson, R. (2005). Helping new principals succeed. American School Board Jour-
nal, 192(4), 61-63.
Southern Regional Education Board Leadership. (2002). The principal internship:
How can we get it right? Atlanta, GA: Author. Retrieved July 15, 2006, from
http://www.sreb.org/main/Leadership/pubs/02V50_Leadership.pdf
Taylor, R., & Williams, R. (2001) Accountability: Threat or target? School Adminis-
trator, 58, 30-33.
U.S. Department of Education. (1984). A nation responds: Recent efforts to improve
education. Washington, DC: Author.
University of California-Los Angeles. (2006). Principal Leadership Institute. Los
Angeles: Author. Retrieved July 1, 2006, from http://www.gseis.ucla.edu/oss/
pli.html
124
Waters, T., Marzano, R. J., & McNulty, B. (2003). Balanced leadership: What 30
years of research tells us about the effect of leadership on student achievement.
Aurora, CO: Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning.
Watkins, M. (2003). The first 90 days. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Webb, L. D., & Norton, M. S. (2003). Human resources administration: Personnel
issues and needs in education (4 ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice
th
Hall.
Whitaker, K. (1996). Exploring the causes of principal burnout. Journal of Educa-
tional Administration, 34(1), 60-71.
Young, M. D. (2002, February). Ensuring the university’s capacity to prepare learn-
ing focused leadership. Paper presented at the meeting of the National Commis-
sion for the Advancement of Educational Leadership, Racine, WI.
Prepared by USC Rossier School of Education dissertation study cohort, 2006.
1
125
APPENDIX A
SUPERINTENDENT INITIAL INTERVIEW GUIDE
1
Do you have any successful middle school principals in your district?
Are any of those successful middle school principals—principals who are beginning
their 2 year in a turnaround situation?
nd
What factors do you consider to be turnaround?
If you were involved in the selection, what qualities were you looking for?
I would like to work with them. Would this be a possibility?
Do you know of any in any of the surrounding districts?
Prepared by USC Rossier School of Education dissertation study cohort, 2006.
1
126
APPENDIX B
PRINCIPAL INTERVIEW GUIDE
1
What was your pathway to the principalship?
What is your major?
How many years have you been in the field of education?
How long did you teach?
At what levels?
What subjects?
What leadership roles or positions have you held previously in schools?
How many years have you been in your current district?
STRS Chart—In which category would you place your school when you attained
your principalship?
What evidence did you have to support this categorization?
Who provided you with information about your school?
Principal’s Four Frames Chart
Indicate what percentage of your time during the first 90 days of your principalship was
spent in the following areas.
Indicate what percentage of your time during the first 90 days should have been spent in
each area.
Characteristics and Behaviors Chart
Which of these activities did you engage in most frequently during your first 90 days?
(Choose 7)
How significant were the first 90 days to your principalship?
At what point in the first 90 days did you feel you established credibility?
Describe a specific event or incident.
How did your university program prepare you for your job as principal?
What was useful?
What was not useful?
Did any of your formal training focus on the transition period or strategies for success
during your first 90 days as principal?
127
What types of support did your district provide for your first 90 days?
Was the assistance helpful?
What kind of assistance would have been helpful?
What was not helpful?
Did you have a mentor?
Did your school district provide staff development as a new principal?
Were district office personnel available for support during the transitional period?
Where did you get your most useful insights into the school culture within the first few
weeks?
What leadership theories are vital for the first 90 days of a principalship?
Prepared by USC Rossier School of Education dissertation study cohort, 2006.
1
128
APPENDIX C
STRS CHART
1
Start-up
Stakeholders had the opportunity to es-
tablish a brand new school.
Realignment
Most stakeholders were unaware that the
school was drifting into trouble and
needed to be changed.
Turnaround
Most stakeholders were aware the school
needed improvement or change.
Sustaining success
Stakeholders take responsibility for pre-
serving vitality and taking the school to
the next level.
Prepared by USC Rossier School of Education dissertation study cohort, 2006.
1
129
APPENDIX D
PRINCIPAL’S FOUR FRAMES CHART
1
STRUCTURAL ACTIVITIES
•Clear focus on focus on goals, strategy
and objectives
•Focus on hierarchy, authority, rules and
policies
•Specific employee division of labor
based on knowledge/skills
•Standardizing systems to ensure predict-
ability and uniformity
•Holding regular staff meetings
•Incorporating information technology as
a means of communication
HUMAN RESOURCE ACTIVITIES
•Integral part of employee selection pro-
cess
•Hiring/keeping the right people
•Promoting from within
•Investing in relevant professional devel-
opment
•Empowering through information and
support
•Encouraging autonomy and participation
•Sharing the wealth
•Genuinely understanding employee needs
Actual:Should:Actual:Should:
POLITICAL ACTIVITIES
•Agenda Setting—Working on plans to
achieve your goals for the school
•Mapping the Political
Terrain—Identifying agents of influence,
identifying informal lines of communica-
tion
•Networking & Building Coalitions—
Identifying important existing relation-
ships and creating new ones
•Bargaining & Negotiating—Settling
disputes and making agreements
SYMBOLIC ACTIVITIES
•Learning the history and values of the
school
•Understanding the group identity of the
staff
•Preserving school rituals and ceremonies
or creating new ones
•Incorporating humor or play into work
•Communicating the school vision
•Telling stories to promote the school vi-
sion
•Identifying and understanding important
school symbols
Actual:Should:Actual:Should:
Prepared by USC Rossier School of Education dissertation study cohort, 2006.
1
130
APPENDIX E
CHARACTERISTICS AND BEHAVIORS CHART
1
Which of these behaviors did the principal engage in most frequently during the first 90
days? (Choose 7 for column A.)
Which of these behaviors do you think are most important for a successful principal in a
turnaround school? (Choose 7 for column B.)
Characteristic/
Behavior The extent to which the principal . . . A B
CultureFosters shared beliefs and a sense of community and
cooperation
OrderEstablishes a set of standard operating procedures and
routines
DisciplineProtects teachers from issues and influences that would
detract from their teaching time or focus
ResourcesProvides teaches with the material and professional de-
velopment necessary for the successful execution of their
jobs
Curriculum, Instruction, &
Assessment
Is directly involved in the design and implementation of
curriculum, instruction
FocusEstablishes clear goals and keeps those goals in the fore-
front of the school’s attention
Knowledge of Curriculum,
Instruction, & Assessment
Is knowledgeable about current curriculum, instruction,
and assessment practices
VisibilityHas quality contact and interactions with teachers and
students
Contingent RewardsRecognizes and rewards individual accomplishments
CommunicationEstablishes strong lines of communication with teachers
and among students
OutreachIs an advocate and spokesperson for the school to all
stakeholders
131
InputInvolves teachers in the design and implementation of
important decisions and policies
AffirmationRecognizes and celebrates school accomplishments and
acknowledges failures
RelationshipDemonstrates an awareness of the personal aspects of
teachers and staff
Change AgentIs willing to and actively challenges the status quo
OptimizerInspires and leaders new and challenging innovations
Ideals/BeliefsCommunicates and operates from strong ideals and be-
liefs about schooling
Monitors/EvaluatesMonitors the effectiveness of school practices and their
impact on student learning
FlexibilityAdapts his or her leadership behavior to the needs of the
current situation and is comfortable with dissent
Situational AwarenessIs aware of the details and undercurrents in the running
of the school and uses the information to address current
and political problems
Intellectual StimulationEnsures that faculty and staff are aware of the most cur-
rent theories and practices and makes the discussion of
these a regular aspect of the school’s culture
Prepared by USC Rossier School of Education dissertation study cohort, 2006.
1
132
APPENDIX F
IMMEDIATE SUPERVISOR INTERVIEW GUIDE
1
What makes you define this principal as successful?
STRS Chart—In which category would you place the school when the principal
attained the position?
What evidence did you have to support this categorization?
What three important actions helped the principal make the biggest positive
gains?
Characteristics and Behaviors Chart
Which of these behaviors did the principal engage in most frequently during the
first 90 days? (Choose 7)
Which of these behaviors do you think are most important for a successful principal
in a turnaround school? (Choose 7)
How significant were the first 90 days for this principal?
What types of support did the district provide to the principal for the first 90
days?
How do you think university programs prepare administrators for the principal-
ship?
Prepared by USC Rossier School of Education dissertation study cohort, 2006.
1
133
APPENDIX G
TEACHER SURVEY/INTERVIEW GUIDE
1
1.Circle the category in which you would place the school when the principal
attained the position.
Start-up
Stakeholders had the opportunity to es-
tablish a brand new school.
Realignment
Most stakeholders were unaware that the
school was drifting into trouble and
needed to be changed.
Turnaround
Most stakeholders were aware the school
needed improvement or change.
Sustaining success
Stakeholders take responsibility for pre-
serving vitality and taking the school to
the next level.
2.Why did you choose this category?
3.How significant were the first 90 days (or first semester) for this principal?
Explain your answer.
134
4.What three important actions helped the principal make the biggest positive
gains in the first 90 days (or first semester)?
5.At what point did the principal establish credibility with you?
6.Using the following chart:
A.Rank from 1-4 how the principal actually spent his/her time in the first 90
days (or first semester).
B.Rank from 1-4 how the principal should have spent his/her time in the
first 90 days (or first semester).
(1 = Most time, 4 = Least time)
STRUCTURAL ACTIVITIES
•Clear focus on focus on goals, strategy
and objectives
•Focus on hierarchy, authority, rules, and
policies
•Specific employee division of labor
based on knowledge/skills
•Standardizing systems to ensure predict-
ability and uniformity
•Holding regular staff meetings
•Incorporating information technology as
a means of communication
HUMAN RESOURCE ACTIVITIES
•Integral part of employee selection pro-
cess
•Hiring/keeping the right people
•Promoting from within
•Investing in relevant professional devel-
opment
•Empowering through information and
support
•Encouraging autonomy and participation
•Sharing the wealth
•Genuinely understanding employee needs
Actual:Should:Actual:Should:
135
POLITICAL ACTIVITIES
•Agenda Setting—working on plans to
achieve your goals for the school
•Mapping the Political Terrain—identi-
fying agents of influence, identifying
informal lines of communication
•Networking & Building Coalitions—
identifying important existing relation-
ships and creating new ones
•Bargaining & Negotiating—settling
disputes and making agreements
SYMBOLIC ACTIVITIES
•Learning the history and values of the
school
•Understanding the group identity of the
staff
•Preserving school rituals and ceremonies
or creating new ones
•Incorporating humor or play into work
•Communicating the school vision
•Telling stories to promote the school vi-
sion
•Identifying and understanding important
school symbols
Actual:Should:Actual:Should:

Abstract (if available)

Abstract Principals today face far greater challenges than at any other period in the highly political environment of No Child Left Behind. The role of the principalship continues to expand and to become increasingly more challenging over time. The expanding role of the principalship necessitates that school leaders be equipped with the skills and training needed to manage the complexities of leading a school.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

The first 90 days of the principalship in a turnaround school

PDF

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

PDF

The first 90 days of the new middle school principal

PDF

Building and sustaining effective school leadership through principal mentoring in an urban school context

PDF

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

PDF

Building capacity for leadership in urban schools

PDF

Building leadership capacity to support principal succession

PDF

Distributed leadership practices in schools: effect on the development of teacher leadership - a case study

PDF

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

PDF

The effects of mentoring on building and sustaning effective leadership practice of an urban school administrator

PDF

Do we really understand what we are talking about? A study examining the data literacy capacities and needs of school leaders

PDF

A case study of an outperforming elementary school closing the achievement gap

PDF

Building leadership capacity: Practices for preparing the next generation of Catholic school principals

PDF

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

PDF

Sustaining success toward closing the achievement gap: a case study of one urban high school

PDF

Principal leadership succession: developing the next generation of leaders

Asset Metadata

Creator Horvath, Matthew D. (author)

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

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 07/09/2007

Defense Date 04/26/2007

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

Tag middle school Pprincipals,new principals,OAI-PMH Harvest,successful strategies of principals,turnaround schools

Place Name California (states), USA (countries)

Language English

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

Creator Email mhorvath@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m594

Unique identifier UC1214976

Identifier etd-Horvath-20070709 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-528194 (legacy record id),usctheses-m594 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-Horvath-20070709-0.pdf

Dmrecord 528194

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Horvath, Matthew D.

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