View
1
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
A COMPARISON OF PRINCIPALS’ PERCEPTIONS OF PREPAREDNESS BASED ON
LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES
Karin V. Holacka, M.Ed.
Dissertation Prepared for the Degree of
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF NORTH TEXAS
August 2011
APPROVAL: Johnetta Hudson, Major Professor Mary Harris, Minor Professor John Brooks, Committee Member and
Senior Lecturer James Veitenheimer, Committee Member
and Practitioner Nancy Nelson, Chair of the Department of Teacher Education and Administration Jerry Thomas, Dean of the College of
Education James D. Meernik, Acting Dean of the Toulouse Graduate School
Holacka, Karin V. A comparison of principals’ perceptions of preparedness based
on leadership development opportunities. Doctor of Education (Educational
Administration), August 2011, 114 pp., 10 tables, 5 figures, references, 78 titles.
This research study identified the frequency in which six public school districts in
Texas provided principals with effective development opportunities prior to the
principalship excluding university or certification programs. A purposive sample of over
200 principals from six school districts in the Dallas/Fort Worth area were asked to
participate in the study yielding a response rate of 41%. Respondents identified through
a questionnaire their leadership development opportunities and perceptions of
preparedness on nine standards common to the profession. Principals were nominally
grouped for comparison. The perceptions of preparedness for principals who received
effective leadership development opportunities were compared to those who did not
receive these same opportunities using an independent samples t-test to determine
statistical significance (p < .05). Peer coaching yielded the most statistically significant
results in three standards. This finding indicates principals who receive peer coaching
prior to the principalship compared to those who did not perceive themselves as more
prepared in the areas of community collaboration, political, social, economic, legal, and
cultural context, and curriculum, instruction and assessment. Effect size was measured
for the statistically significance standards to determine practical significance. Each of
the five statistically significant standards yielded a medium effect size indicating that the
leadership development methods received by participants explained approximately 30%
of the difference.
ii
Copyright 2011
By
Karin V. Holacka
iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
It is with my deepest gratitude and appreciation that I acknowledge those who
have encouraged, supported, and believed in me throughout this journey.
First, I acknowledge my major professor, Dr. Johnetta Hudson, for her
unwavering support, patience and guidance. You provided the perfect balance of praise
and pressure that kept me focused on my goal. I would also like to extend my thanks to
my doctoral committee for their advice and partnership in this process. To Dr. Mary
Harris, Dr. John Brooks and Dr. James Veitenheimer, your wisdom and direction were
invaluable and inspiring.
Next, this dissertation would not have been possible without the encouragement
and support of my friends and colleagues. You have provided resources, advice,
participation and proofreading every time I needed help and did so with affirmation and
encouragement; A special thank you to Patti Dale and Dr. Mwarumba Mwavita for
guiding me through the final phase of this journey. Finally, I would like to acknowledge
the most important people in my life, my family. You have all loved and believed in me
even when I was uncertain of my own abilities. I am blessed beyond measure to have
each of you in my life. To my mother, I feel your presence in my life every day. To Jim
and Jarin, I love you both more than words could ever express. You have each
sacrificed and endured so much so I could achieve this dream. You make every day
better and fill my life with such joy.
Above all, I acknowledge my Savior, Christ Jesus. You have been my strength
throughout this journey and I give you the glory.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .................................................................................................. iii
LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................... vii
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS ............................................................................................ viii
Chapters
1. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM ....................................................................... 1 Introduction ................................................................................................ 1 Background of the Study............................................................................ 2
Leadership Shortage ....................................................................... 2 Leadership Turnover ....................................................................... 3 Leadership Succession ................................................................... 4 Leadership Development ................................................................ 6
Problem Statement .................................................................................... 7 Research Questions .................................................................................. 8 Significance ............................................................................................... 9 Methodology ............................................................................................ 10 Limitations and Delimitations ................................................................... 11 Assumptions ............................................................................................ 12 Definitions of Terms ................................................................................. 13 Chapter Summary .................................................................................... 15
2. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ........................................................................ 17
Introduction .............................................................................................. 17 Theoretical Framework ............................................................................ 18 Condition of the Principalship .................................................................. 20
Historical Condition ....................................................................... 21 Current Condition .......................................................................... 22
Policies and Politics Influencing the Principalship .................................... 24 University Programs ...................................................................... 25 Licensing Requirements ................................................................ 27
v
Leadership ............................................................................................... 30 Leadership Qualities ..................................................................... 30 Leadership and Student Achievement .......................................... 31 Leadership Succession and Identification ..................................... 34
Leadership Development ......................................................................... 35 Leadership Development Opportunities ........................................ 37 Challenges of Development .......................................................... 38 Effective Methods of Leadership Development ............................. 41
Chapter Summary .................................................................................... 45
3. RESEARCH METHODS ..................................................................................... 47 Introduction .............................................................................................. 47 Research Context .................................................................................... 48 Research Participants .............................................................................. 49 Instruments Used in Data Collection ........................................................ 50 Procedures Used in Collecting Data ........................................................ 52 Data Analysis ........................................................................................... 53 Chapter Summary .................................................................................... 54
4. RESULTS ........................................................................................................... 56
Introduction .............................................................................................. 56 Questionnaire Demographics .................................................................. 57 Research Question 1 ............................................................................... 58 Research Question 2 ............................................................................... 59 Peer Coaching ............................................................................... 60 Mentoring ....................................................................................... 63 Experiential/Problem-based Learning ............................................ 65 Internship ....................................................................................... 67 Research Question 3 ............................................................................... 69 Conclusion ............................................................................................... 70
5. DISCUSSION ..................................................................................................... 71
Introduction .............................................................................................. 71 Statement of Problem .............................................................................. 71
vi
Review of Methodology............................................................................ 72 Summary of Results................................................................................. 73 Research Question 1 ..................................................................... 73 Research Question 2 ..................................................................... 73 Research Question 3 ..................................................................... 74 Discussion of the Results ......................................................................... 75 Interpretation of the Findings ......................................................... 75 Relationship to Research ............................................................... 77 Recommendations for School Districts .......................................... 79 Suggestions for Further Study ....................................................... 80 Conclusion ............................................................................................... 82
APPENDICES ............................................................................................................... 84 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................ 108
vii
LIST OF TABLES
Page
1. Opportunities for Assistant Principals ................................................................. 33 2. Leadership Development Method Frequency ..................................................... 58 3. Peer Coaching Independent Samples t-test ....................................................... 62 4. Mentoring Independent Samples t-test ............................................................... 64 5. Experiential/Problem-based Learning Independent Samples t-test .................... 66 6. Internship Independent Samples t-test ............................................................... 68 B1. Peer Coaching Descriptive Statistics ................................................................. 99 B2. Mentoring Descriptive Statistics ........................................................................ 100 B3. Experiential/Problem-based Learning Descriptive Statistics ............................. 101 B4. Internship Descriptive Statistics ........................................................................ 102
viii
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
Page
B1. Mean plot for peer coaching: Community collaboration .................................... 103 B2. Mean plot for peer coaching: Political, social, economic, legal and cultural context ........................................................................................................... 104 B3. Mean plot for peer coaching: Curriculum, instruction and assessment ............. 105 B4. Mean plot for mentoring: Curriculum, instruction and assessment ................... 106 B5. Mean plot for experiential problem-based: Community collaboration ............... 107
1
CHAPTER 1
STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
Introduction
Research has provided two key understandings about school leadership; it
influences student achievement and requires a complex array of skills (Grogan &
Andrews, 2002; Leithwood & Jantzi, 2005; Leithwood & Wahlstrom, 2008; Louis, 2003;
Nettles & Herrington, 2007). Based on the proposition that school leadership is an
important and challenging role, the purpose of this study was to determine the
frequency with which principals receive effective models of professional development
prior to service in the position, and the principals’ perceptions of their preparedness.
Prior to the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, university programs were the
primary source for pre-service principal training and development (Lashway, 2002).
Focus on state accountability systems has caused a shifting of the tides bringing
criticism of university programs and placing more responsibility on alternative pathways
for development of principals (Darling-Hammond, LaPointe, Meyerson, Orr, & Cohen,
2007; Fossey & Shoho, 2006). However, analysis of the literature shows the depth of
research regarding the professional development of principals is shallow at best and in
need of further study (Darling-Hammond et al., 2007). The RAND Corporation report,
Who is Leading Our Schools? supports the need for research in the area of professional
development for principals concluding, “very little is known about the move school
administrators make within their field” (Gates, Ringel, Santibanez, Ross & Chung, 2003,
p. 42). Therefore, this study looked specifically at the transition to the principalship with
a more narrow focus on district pre-service preparation for the role. This chapter
presents a rationale for studying principal preparation and development by discussing
2
four influences impacting the principalship today. The problem and purpose sections,
followed by research questions, establishes the foundation that guides the study. The
study is further defined through the establishment of significance, methodology,
limitations/delimitations, assumptions and key terminology.
Background of the Study
This section builds a background for the study by looking at four influences on
the principalship: leadership shortage, turnover, succession, and development. Each
influence is introduced and discussed. In combination, the influences establish a
rationale and purpose for further study of principal preparation and development.
Leadership Shortage
Research is conflicting regarding whether there is an actual shortage of
principals. What can be concluded is that the average age of principals is increasing
with more administrators nearing retirement age (Gates et al., 2003; NCES, 2007). A
comprehensive study by the Wallace Foundation (2003) found that the quantity of
principal applicants ranges significantly based on the school and school district with
fewer applicants willing to face the challenges in districts and schools with more
challenging demographics (Roza, Celio, Harvey, & Wishon, 2003). This study found an
average of 17 applicants for every position in 2001 declining from an average of 19 in
1994. However, overall, it was concluded that principal shortage is not solely about
quantity but also about quality, with 82% of superintendents surveyed indicating a
moderate to major problem with finding qualified principal applicants (Roza et al., 2003).
3
In another similar study, 90% of superintendents indicated a shortage of qualified
applicants (Whitaker, 2001). Roza et al. (2003) and Whitaker (2001) studies beg the
question of why is there not a more qualified pipeline of principal applicants.
Some researchers attribute this “crisis in quality and quantity of educational
leaders” to failure by districts to invest in the identification, recruitment, and preparation
of leaders (Fink, 2005, p. 146). This lack of investment may influence turnover in school
leadership positions. Leadership turnover is discussed in the subsequent section.
Leadership Turnover
The challenge of finding qualified principal candidates, as outlined above, implies
the selection of principals may sometimes result in settling for less qualified or
underprepared candidates. With the demands placed upon principals today, practical
knowledge tells us that selection of less qualified or underprepared candidates
increases the likelihood of turnover in the position. Superintendents indicate high school
principal positions are the most difficult positions for which to find qualified candidates
(Whitaker, 2001). Yet in Texas alone, it was determined that 50% of newly hired high
school principals remained in the position only three years with another 30% staying
only five years (Fuller & Young, 2009). Combine an unqualified or underprepared
applicant pool with high turnover, and school districts are facing a real challenge.
Study of leadership tenure has shown that leadership change is disruptive to an
organization (Barker, 2006). A study by Fink and Brayman (2006) supports the negative
input of leadership change finding, “rapid turnover of school leaders and principals
especially creates significant barriers to educational change” (p. 86). Both studies give a
4
clear picture that changing leadership or turnover creates disruption within an
organization. Transformational leadership theory suggests that leadership development
could be a valuable method for limiting turnover and maintaining a pipeline of
candidates when turnover occurs (Leithwood & Jantzi, 2005).
This ideal challenges leaders to take a closer look at leadership development
from the approach of what has been termed “forecasting” or “succession planning”
(Lovely, 2004; Rothwell, 2008). Fink (2005) claims that due to high turnover, succession
planning should be a focus for school districts and not just a “passing interest” (p. 137).
When high turnover is evident, failure by school districts to plan for the succession of
leadership changes brings organizational consequences (Fullan, 2005, p. 32). The next
section defines leadership succession and shares a scenario which practitioners would
find most familiar.
Leadership Succession
The review of literature regarding leadership development used an uncommon
educational term, “leadership succession.” Barker (2006) stated, “leadership succession
at all levels is…an underestimated dimension in school improvement” (p. 290). Rhodes
and Brundrett (2005) expanded this same ideal in their case study of 24 school leaders
stating, “leadership succession has potentially profound implications for individuals and,
in turn, for the schools in which they work” (p. 15). Both statements indicate the
importance of discussing succession planning as a foundational component for this
study.
5
Although succession planning is a broad topic in its own right, this research
focused conceptually on the ideal that succession planning is about cultivating and
sustaining leaders. Succession planning and management is defined as a “proactive
attempt to ensure the continuity of leadership by cultivating talent from within the
organization through planned development activities” (Rothwell, 2005, p.16). Principal
shortage and turnover have already been established as problems for organizations in
the context of finding qualified candidates. Therefore, the ideal of developing leaders
internally through succession planning brings opportunity and promise.
However, as previously stated, failure to succession plan has organizational
consequences. Hargreaves and Goodson (2006) identified leadership succession as
one of five negative influences on sustainable change. As leaders come and go, the
lack of continuity in direction hinders sustainability or continuity of initiatives, creating
waves of reform (Fullan, 2005; Hargreaves & Goodson, 2006). Leadership
inconsistency due to turnover in organizations causes more than a lack of sustainability,
but creates an organization without a clear or committed focus on student learning (Fink
& Brayman, 2006). Therefore, understanding the consequences of failing to plan for
changes in leadership gives school districts a purpose for focusing on leadership
succession. This purpose is to ensure a pipeline of qualified leaders in order to sustain
initiatives and efforts that impact student learning.
Upon embracing the opportunity to plan for continuity, Hargreaves & Fink (2006)
state that districts should seek internal candidates to groom in the following ways:
• Early selection, based on demonstrated talent and potential
• Explicit signaling, so potential successors know what is planned for them and don’t leave unexpectedly
6
• Exposure to all aspects of the position
• Shadowing, mentoring, and coaching
• Training
• Assignments of tasks and goals that stretch them
• Regular feedback (pp. 64-65)
This study focused more generally on the five development methods at the bottom of
the list. The literature provides some evidence that school districts have utilized similar
methods through grow-your-own programs, mentoring programs, and leadership
academies (Joseph, 2009; Darling-Hammond et al., 2007). Therefore, one could
presume that if leadership development were designed for the overarching purpose of
succession planning, the challenges of available quality principal candidates and
sustainability could decrease in school districts.
Leadership Development
Leithwood and Jantzi (2005) identify formal training experiences as one of the
most meaningful influences on the transformational practices of leaders. Unfortunately,
formal experiences are rare with most leadership development, post-certification
programs, being “front loaded” with “sporadic updating on an eclectic series of topics
with no systemic plan” (Lashway, 2002, p. 3). The limited and unstructured design of
leadership development by many school districts leaves aspiring and practicing
principals with limited preparation for the demands of their role and produces a pipeline
of unqualified or underprepared leaders as previously discussed.
7
A formal leadership development program is defined as “planned interventions
designed by districts to ensure that they have a pool of administrative applicants
continuously ready to enter leadership positions” (Sherman, 2005, p. 708). Fullan
(2005) uses the term “capacity building” to describe leadership development, stating the
meaning to be “constantly developing leadership for the future” utilizing a means of “job-
embedded learning” (p. 69). Either definition indicates the importance of intentionally
designing district-level leadership development for the purpose of succession planning.
Some methods have been individually studied and identified as most effective in
developing leaders; these include peer coaching, mentoring, experiential/problem-
based learning, and internships (Bridges & Hallinger, 1997; Browne-Ferrigno, & Muth,
2004; Brundrett, Rhodes, & Gkolia, 2006; Cunningham & Sherman, 2008; Daresh,
2004; Davis, Darling-Hammond, LaPointe & Meyerson, 2005; Fullan, 2005; Gray, Fry,
Bottoms, & O’Neill, 2007; Kaagan, 1998; Rhodes & Brundrett, 2006; Weingartner,
2009). The question remains, however, as to which methods are thought to most
effectively influence the perceived preparedness of principals.
Problem Statement
With the demands principals face today, the aforementioned outcome factors of
shortage and turnover indicate the principalship is becoming a less desirable occupation
and produces continuous change in the organization. This change is disruptive to the
sustainability of improvement initiatives and the overall directional focus of the campus.
In the literature, suggested solutions to the problem of disruptive change due to
leadership shifts are succession planning and leadership development with many
8
implicating inadequate training as being the root cause for these undesirable outcomes
(Darling-Hammond et al., 2007; Fink, 2005; Fordham Foundation, 2003; Wallace
Foundation, 2008). This study focused specifically on leadership development since
“improving the training of school principals isn’t the entire answer to the nation’s
education leadership challenge, but it is certainly a crucial part of it” (Wallace
Foundation, 2008, p. 11).
Unfortunately, it is undetermined if school districts are taking advantage of these
suggested solutions and succession planning through effective leadership development
to ensure a continuous pipeline of qualified applicants. Without well-prepared and
qualified leadership in our schools, sustainable reform will continue to be a challenge
and student achievement impacted (Fullan, 2005; Leithwood, 2006). Therefore, this
study determined whether districts are taking advantage of the solution of leadership
development and if leaders are more prepared as a result.
Research Questions
This quantitative study answered the following research questions:
1. With what frequency did sample Texas school districts provide leadership
development methods to principals prior to the principalship?
2. Are there statistically significant differences in perceptions of preparedness,
using identified leadership standards, between principals who received
leadership development methods in sample Texas school districts and
principals who did not receive the same leadership development methods?
9
3. Are there practically significant differences in perceptions of preparedness as
measured by effect sizes between principals who received leadership
development methods in sample Texas school districts and principals who did
not receive the same leadership development methods?
Significance
In addition to contributing to the limited research on school leadership
development, the key purpose of this study was to create awareness among school
districts about the extent in which effective methods of leadership development have
been utilized throughout Texas in preparing school principals. This study provides
valuable information to school district leaders regarding how to invest in the preparation
of current and future school leaders for succession planning. This investment in
leadership development could ensure school districts’ sustainability of reform efforts and
district initiatives aimed at improving student achievement (Fullan, 2005).
This study is also significant in looking at the findings regarding the relationship
between leadership development methods and principal perceptions of preparedness.
This study will better equip school districts with knowledge of effective practice, allowing
them to ensure effective and efficient allocation of resources. Knowing the professional
development methods principals perceive as best preparation gives districts a targeted
focus versus an unintentional approach to principal development.
Overall, the study may encourage districts to take ownership for ensuring
leadership development that is not limited to certification or university-based programs.
Districts will be equipped with the information needed to move towards on-going,
continuous leadership development.
10
Methodology
This study compared the perceptions of preparedness between principals in
Texas who received identified leadership development methods and those who did not.
The identified methods are peer coaching, mentoring, experiential/problem-based
learning, and internship. These methods were selected based on research determining
these as effective practices in developing leaders. A quantitative research design was
selected based on the research questions provided descriptive and causal-comparative
statistics.
A purposive sample of principals currently serving in six Texas suburban public
school districts was provided an anonymous questionnaire. The sample districts were
selected based on their location near the Dallas/Fort Worth area and size of over
10,000 students; three were from Region 10 and three were from Region 11. One
district selected in each region had a more economically disadvantaged student
population. The other two districts had fewer economically disadvantaged students
based on the Academic Excellence Indicator System (AEIS) report.
The questionnaire was prepared and revised following a field test of items to
ensure clarity and ease of use. The questionnaire included questions relating to
participant descriptors like age and experience. In addition, data were collected
regarding school type and district size. These descriptors allowed for a deeper analysis
of the data and comparison between participant groups. The collection of general
information was followed with participants selecting the district who provided leadership
development opportunities received prior to the principalship. A collection of the
responses provided frequency for addressing Research Question 1.
11
Principals were grouped nominally as participants and nonparticipants for each
development method. The group of principals who received effective leadership
development methods prior to the principalship were considered the treatment group.
The principals who indicated they had not received the same effective leadership
development methods were the control group. Both principal groups, treatment and
control, indicated their perception of preparedness based on defined leadership
standards. Principals’ perceptions were measured utilizing a Likert scale rating of 1 to 5
based on the six interstate school leaders licensure consortium (ISLLC) standards plus
additional responsibilities identified by Marzano, Waters, and McNulty (2006).
The differences between groups were compared for the purpose of determining if
there were statistically and practically significant differences between the two groups.
Statistical and practical significance were determined utilizing t-tests to compare group
means (M) and measuring effect sizes. These differences determined if the leadership
development methods warrant consideration by districts in planning for future shifts in
leadership.
Limitations and Delimitations
This study was designed to look at whether the leadership development methods
were provided to participants and how they perceived the value of the methods to their
preparedness for the principalship. Although participants could have received the same
model of leadership development, their perceptions of the model’s value on their
individual preparedness could vary based on factors like content, format, or lapse of
time since the training was received. These factors were not examined in this study.
12
The utilization of a survey introduced limitations with regard to authenticity. In an
effort to gain honest responses from the sample participants, the survey was
anonymous creating a limitation regarding respondent identity. A limitation was also
present with the value placed on descriptive studies. Glatthorn and Joyner (2005) state,
“Descriptive studies are not always given credibility by scholars; therefore, enacting a
possible limitation to the impact of the findings on future research” (p. 43). Expanding
the statistical analysis to include causal comparative statistics and practical significance
was determined based on these limitations of authenticity and descriptive statistics.
The delimitation for the study was the sample. The sample group was confined to
principals in six Texas suburban districts with over 10,000 students surrounding the
Dallas/Fort Worth area who responded to the survey, therefore limiting the opportunity
to generalize findings. Secondly, the evaluation of solely practicing principals was
delimiting due to the time lapse or history of when respondents participated in the
leadership development method.
Assumptions
The utilization of a questionnaire for this study highlights several assumptions
regarding instrumentation. Due to the sample size, there was an inability to interview
each participant to minimize generalizations or exaggerations from their responses.
Primarily, the overall assumption is in the accuracy of participant responses. One would
assume all respondents would provide accurate and forthright information regarding
their development and preparedness. Secondly, based on the field test of the
questionnaire, respondents were able to differentiate between their university or
13
certification development experiences and district provided experiences. However, it
should be assumed that some participants might not have been able to differentiate
between the two experiences.
Secondly, based on the use of common language and terminology used in the
field of education, it would be assumed respondents clearly understood the survey
questions. The assumption of understanding indicated the data collection was clean of
“guesses” from respondents. Finally, there was an assumption that the treatment and
control groups were relatively equal based on the number of participants who received
leadership development opportunities listed in the survey.
Definitions of Terms
• Professional or principal development - training opportunities provided to
professionals to improve practices and knowledge of work related issues. The
inclusion of the position indicates the training is specifically designed for
participants pre-service or in-service of the role.
• Leadership development models or methods - formal opportunities of
professional development that target the improvement of leadership skills.
Identified effective models in this study included peer coaching, mentoring,
experiential/problem-based learning, and internship programs designed to
develop leadership skills.
• Pipeline - pre-service candidates developed, certified, and available for
leadership positions in the event of promotion or turnover.
14
• Practical significance – a statistical measure that informs value judgments
about results focusing on “how much difference an intervention makes or how
related various variable are” (Thompson, 2006, p. 134). Practical significance
is determined using effect sizes and confidence intervals.
• Succession planning - strategically developed plan for recruiting, retaining,
and developing candidates for leadership positions. Strategic planning
ensures sustainability of organizational improvement efforts through
leadership shifts or transitions.
• Interstate school leaders licensure consortium (ISLLC) standards - policy
standards for educational leadership originally published in 1996 with revision
in 2008. These standards were written by a non-profit organization, the
Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) and adopted by the National
Policy Board for Educational Administration (NPBEA). The six ISLLC
standards are as follows:
1. An education leader promotes the success of every student by facilitating the development, articulation, implementation, and stewardship of a vision of learning that is shared and supported by all stakeholders.
2. An education leader promotes the success of every student by advocating,
nurturing, and sustaining a school culture and instructional program conducive to student learning and staff professional growth.
3. An education leader promotes the success of every student by ensuring
management of the organization, operation, and resources for a safe, efficient, and effective learning environment.
4. An education leader promotes the success of every student by collaborating
with faculty and community members, responding to diverse community interests and needs, and mobilizing community resources.
5. An education leader promotes the success of every student by acting with
integrity, fairness, and in an ethical manner.
15
6. An education leader promotes the success of every student by understanding, responding to, and influencing the political, social, economic, legal, and cultural context.
Chapter Summary
This study was organized to research, measure and evaluate the problem of
leadership development in school districts throughout Texas. The chapter provides a
background for the study through a discussion of four influences impacting the
principalship today. The first influence was identified as a shortage in finding qualified
leadership applicants, and the second influence of leadership turnover is an increasing
challenge. A study out of the University of Texas found turnover in Texas to be a
significant problem, especially with high school principals and with schools that have
more challenging demographics (Fuller & Young, 2009). The third and fourth influences
focused on what districts could be doing to address leadership shortage and turnover,
including leadership succession and development. Leadership succession is defined as
a proactive approach by districts to prepare future administrators for potential changes
in leadership. Leadership development is the training experiences districts are providing
to prepare future leaders for a principal’s position.
This chapter concluded by defining the research purpose, questions,
significance, methods, limitations/delimitations, assumptions and relevant terms. Using
descriptive and causal comparative statistics, this quantitative study provides a
comprehensive understanding of the frequency with which effective leadership
development methods are being used in the Dallas/Fort Worth area in districts with
16
more than 10,000 students and principals’ perceptions regarding whether these models
have effectively prepared them to be 21st century school leaders.
17
CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Introduction
In 1938, John Dewey introduced a philosophy of experience in his book,
Experience and Education. This philosophy challenges a move from traditional to
progressive education. In his writings, he discusses the value of quality experiences and
their effect on learning. Growth comes from a continuity of experiences meaning “every
experience both takes up something from those which have gone before and modifies in
some way the quality of those which come after” (Dewey, 1938, p. 35). This philosophy
of experience underpins the perspective of this review of literature, looking at past and
current evidence as a means for modifying the quality of experiences for future
educational leaders. By looking at the continuity of experiences principals have been
provided, one can better understand the experiences that most likely develop and
prepare leaders and result in successful future leadership in schools.
This study identified the relationship between a principal’s perception of
preparedness and the pre-service leadership development opportunities provided by
school districts. The review of literature gives a comprehensive framework of the
theoretical and empirical studies related to this topic by evaluating four categories of
research. These categories included the condition of the principalship, policies and
politics influencing the role, leadership, and leadership development. The initial two
categories provided a historical and evidential basis for the study with the latter two
focusing on further definition and context. This chapter concludes with an overview of
the literature as it relates to the role of school districts in the development of leaders.
18
It was difficult to find research directly associated with the study proposed by
searching ERIC™ and SAGE. Search terms including leadership development,
professional development, principals, principal development, history, succession
planning, ISLLC standards, educational leadership, pre-service training, aspiring
administrators, grow your own models and adult learning were used individually and in
partnership with other identifiers for the purpose of completing a comprehensive review
of the literature. The search was narrowed to include only peer reviewed and full text
articles. In addition to the database search, a web search was done for studies and
findings associated with known educational research groups; US Department of
Education, Texas Education Agency, and National Center for Education Statistics.
Reading the articles and research reports allowed a more in-depth recognition of
scholars in the field of educational leadership leading to further searches of primary
sources and original texts.
Theoretical Framework
Two theoretical ideals framed this study about the pathway to the principalship.
The progressive learning theory of John Dewey (1938) previously mentioned provides a
contextual framework for the study while organizational theory provides the construct.
This section established the theoretical foundation for this study by looking at each
theory and developing assumptions.
Dewey’s (1938) theory of experiences focuses on the proposition that student
learning takes place through real experiences stating “it is a sound educational principle
that students should be introduced to scientific subject matter and be initiated into its
19
facts and laws through acquaintance with everyday social applications” (p. 80). The
traditional pathway to the principalship encompasses scientific subject matter being
taught through university or certification programs with some opportunities for social
application through real experiences (Gates, Ringel, Santibanez, Ross, & Chung, 2003).
However, once scientific subject matter is taught, opportunities for social applications
and experiences should not discontinue. Each school district has unique social
application opportunities that can further develop leaders and ensure a pipeline of future
leaders. The continuous development by districts, for the purpose of succession
planning, is grounded in the organizational theory of contingency.
Organizational theory is developed based on researched and measured
assumptions about the behaviors, structures and processes of organizations (Hanson,
2003). Contingency theory is an organizational leadership theory that was first identified
in 1967 by Fred Fiedler and became well known in the 1970s (Hanson, 2003; Vroom &
Jago, 2007). Contingency theory indicates “the kinds of persons and behaviors who are
effective in different situations” (Vroom & Jago, 2007, p. 20). Vroom and Jago (2007)
have built on the early work of contingency theorists like Fiedler and have studied the
role situational variables play on leadership behavior. The role situational variables play
include three propositions:
• Organization effectiveness is affected by situational factors not under leader control
• Situations shape how leaders behave
• Situations influence the consequences of leader behavior (Vroom & Jago, 2007)
20
These propositions indicate that leadership behaviors are based not only on internal
and individual factors, but also on environmental and situational events. Therefore, it
can be assumed that organizational performance is contingent upon a leader’s
preparedness to address various situations. This assumption leads to the study’s
purpose of ensuring principals are effectively prepared for addressing various
organizational situations. Each organization has its own unique culture and influences,
therefore real experience in these environments would extend the learning of future
leaders beyond the experiences provided through university and certification programs.
The purpose of this study was to determine if identified leadership development
methods were perceived to have prepared principals for the role compared to principals
who did not receive the same development methods. This purpose was based on the
assumptions that the educational environment is changing and leaders need to be
prepared to address situations they face in this changing environment. It is also
assumed that a principal’s ability to address environmental changes is contingent upon
the training and development they received prior to the principalship.
Vroom and Jago (2007) state, “viewing leadership in purely dispositional or
purely situational terms is to miss a major portion of the phenomenon” (p. 23). This
statement supports the dual theoretical construct of experiences and contingency that
framed this study since leadership development is a multi-faceted phenomenon.
Condition of the Principalship
With 90,470 public school principals most recently documented in the United
States, it is understandable why scholars and policymakers have increased focus on
21
ensuring quality leadership in schools (Darling-Hammond, LaPointe, Meyerson, & Orr,
2007; Davis, Darling-Hammond, LaPointe, & Meyerson, 2005; Fordham Foundation,
2003; NCES, 2010). However, the principalship has not always been a focus for
politicians and scholars.
Historical Condition
Kafka’s (2009) history of the principalship states that the role was generally
absent from historical literature most likely because of its limited existence before the
1800s. Even then, the principal was more of a head teacher or principal teacher than a
supervisor or manager. However, in the early 1900s, the role of principal evolved to
include responsibilities of management, administration, supervision, instructional
leadership and politics, “raising the prestige of the principalship” (Kafka, 2009, p. 323).
The principal’s responsibilities have remained rather constant since the 1900s but the
political influences placed on the position have continued to change. Kirst and Wirt
(2009) identify the period between 1920 and 1950 as the “golden era” for
superintendents since state and federal governments allowed local districts to have
autonomy in decisions (p.11). This freedom of decision-making held true for the
principalship as well. However, as schools continued to grow and become more
integrated after Brown v. Board of Education in 1954, the principal’s role broadened with
responsibilities related to federal and state mandates (Kafka, 2009). In 1965, President
Lyndon B. Johnson enacted the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA),
which was reauthorized and retitled as Improving America’s School Act (1994) and later
became the No Child Left Behind of 2001. These legislative actions along with other
22
acts, programs, policies, and laws, have continuously replaced the authority and
autonomy of the principal’s role with accountability. Goodwin, Cunningham and Eagle
(2005) summarize the historical journey of the principalship by stating:
When one reflects on the duties of the principal teacher in 1839 and reviews the
social, legal, managerial, and political expectations that have been added
through the 19th and 20th centuries, one begins to understand the complicated
and complex role of the contemporary principal (p. 7).
Current Condition
This historical perspective helps explain why the principalship has become a
less-desirable position for educators. One study indicates that fewer than half of
university program participants intend to pursue administrative positions (Browne-
Ferrigno & Muth, 2004). With issues like stress, related to accountability pressures and
intensification of the job, compensation, bureaucracy, and lack of support, the talent
pool of leaders diminishes (Fuller & Young, 2009; McBeath, 2006, Whitaker, 2001). This
challenge of recruiting and retaining principals becomes even greater in low achieving
schools. In one study of assistant principals aspiring for the principalship, it was
determined that 64% would not be willing to accept a position at a low-achieving school,
making “principal recruitment one of the most critical issues facing public schools today”
(Winter & Morgenthal, 2002, p. 333). This lack of interest in low achieving schools is
further evident in a study showing less than six applicants on average for each principal
opening in troubled districts, with fast growth and rural districts facing similar challenges
(Roza, Celio, Harvey & Wishon, 2003).
23
Although the quantity of applicants in low-achieving districts is clearly a cause for
concern, the quality of applicants is the challenge for most school district discussed in
the literature making this topic worthy of further study (Roza et al., 2003; Whitaker,
2001). The quality of principal applicants is lacking due to inexperience or
unpreparedness for the role. The expectations and responsibilities placed on principals
today require exceptional, experienced administrators capable of being both
transformational and transactional leaders (Leithwood & Jantzi, 2005; Louis, 2003).
However, when looking at preparedness of principals, an analysis of national data
shows areas of increasing concern.
First, data trends indicate that more principals are younger and less experienced
while at the same time, more principals are nearing retirement age (NCES, 2010). A
quantitative study of first, second, and third year principals and assistant principals
identified 18 knowledge and skill areas as important for initial success in school
leadership. This study then evaluated how participants perceived themselves as being
prepared in these 18 areas. Researchers found the highest mean average on a 4.0
scale was in the area of school law with a participant rating of 3.0 mean average, while
educational management was the second highest with a 2.96 mean average. The other
16 areas were below 2.96 indicating the principals and assistant principals perceived
themselves as under-qualified or unprepared in the knowledge and skill areas they
deemed as important for initial success (Petzko, 2008). This data supports other
researchers previously discussed regarding the difficulty in finding candidates who are
qualified for the demands of school leadership (Roza, Celio, Harvey & Wishon, 2003;
Whitaker, 2001).
24
Another troubling finding in the research is based on a 2007-2008 Schools and
Staffing Survey which found only 23.8% of public school districts have a training
program for aspiring administrators (NCES, 2009). This same survey provides earlier
data, 2003-2004, regarding professional development opportunities and training for
administrators. In the seven areas measured, Texas fell below the national average in
five of the areas studied showing only 9.7% of Texas districts provided funding for
university or college coursework compared to the national average of 45% (NCES,
2009). Therefore, in addition to the challenges of recruiting and retaining principals
previously discussed, these statistics indicate factors of inexperience and
unpreparedness as contributing to the condition of the principalship. History tells us the
condition of the principalship in the U.S. has continually adapted with each societal and
political reform. However, an analysis of the current condition of the role indicates this
ability to adapt continues even today.
Policies and Politics Influencing the Principalship
The literature offers conflicting views regarding causes and solutions for the
challenges of recruiting, retaining, and readying principals. Every writer believes that
leadership is important and impacts student achievement (Grogan & Andrews, 2002;
Leithwood & Jantzi, 2005; Leithwood & Wahlstrom, 2008; Louis, 2003; Marzano, Waters
& McNulty, 2005; Nettles & Herrington, 2007). Some education stakeholders claim
emphasis should be placed on university programs while others challenge state
licensing policies (Fordham Foundation, 2003; Grogan & Andrews, 2002; Hale &
Moorman, 2003; Hess, 2003; Hess & Kelly, 2005). In an effort to understand these
25
contradictory and shared views, a review of the literature on university programs and
licensing requirements are further discussed.
University Programs
Although studies are limited regarding the pathway to the principalship, the
traditional route involves participation in a university-based graduate program before
taking a state licensure exam and then entering the administrative ranks (Gates et al.,
2003). This traditional path has placed importance on the role universities play in
creating a qualified pool of principal candidates. However, in a 10-year study by the
National Association of Elementary School Principals (2009), only 55.6% of the
participants surveyed identified their graduate program as having high value in their
success as a principal. This perspective with university programs has been echoed
throughout the literature with a common theme of disconnection between program
content and reality that denies participants an authentic preparation experience (Bridges
& Hallinger, 1997; Grogan & Andrews, 2002; Portin, Schneider, DeArmond, &
Gundlach, 2003; Whitaker, 2001). Efforts have been made to bridge this disconnection
between program content and reality through university and district partnerships as well
as policy development.
A policy step towards bridging the gap between programs and practice was with
the formation of the National Commission on Excellence in Educational Administration
(NCEEA) and the development of the interstate school leaders licensure consortium
(ISLLC) standards (Murphy, 2003). The National Policy Board for Educational
Administration (NPEA) adopted and enacted these standards in 1996 (Council of Chief
26
State School Officers, 2008). In 2008, the standards were revised to better align with
current research but due to their youth, the influence on university programs has yet to
be fully determined.
Although the ISLLC standards have served as the primary framework for
university principal preparation programs throughout the country, they have not done so
without harsh criticism (Hale & Moorman, 2003; Hess & Kelly, 2005). Research
indicates that the ISLLC standards ability to transform university programs has fallen
short with universities continuing to struggle in bridging the gap between content and
reality (Cunningham & Sherman, 2008; Fossey & Shoho, 2006; Grogan & Andrews,
2002). One cause for this problem is the inability of universities to provide authentic
experiences that translate theory into practice (Barnet, 2004; Cunningham & Sherman,
2008; Grogan & Andrews, 2002; Hale & Moorman, 2003). The traditional program
model is limited primarily to the classroom not allowing students the opportunity to
practice, apply or discover their learning through realistic scenarios (Clark & Clark,
1996; Morrison, Rha & Helfman, 2003). As Dewey (1938) theorized, learning is acquired
through the experiences and opportunities in which students are engaged. This theory
does not cease with adult learners (Kaagan, 1998).
Consistently in the literature, the second recommended solution to bridging the
gap between content and reality is in building collaborative relationships between
universities and school districts (Barnett, 2004; Browne-Ferrigno & Muth, 2004; Clark &
Clark, 1996; Cunningham & Sherman, 2008; Davis et al., 2005; Petzko, 2008). The
importance of this collaboration was recognized in a study through Stanford University,
which provided features for effective university preparation programs in the areas of
27
content, methods, and structure (Davis et al., 2005). The content of an effective
preparation program must have curriculum coherence and include research-based
material. The method of instruction should be through field-based internships, problem-
based learning, cohort groups and mentorships. The structure for providing these
features should be through university and district partnerships. Critics have deemed
these components rare or limited in universities, placing programs on the front line of
criticism claiming professors have been resistant to change (Hess & Kelly, 2005).
However, recognition of the need for universities to redesign the content, method and
structure of their programs is not limited to program critics. Those within the university
system also recognize the need for considerable change and express concerns
regarding the value placed on university programs in the area of leadership
development (Fossey & Shoho, 2006).
The identified gap between content and reality in preparing school leaders for the
challenges of the position has contributed to limited quality and preparedness of
principal candidates. Although the university preparation programs have received
considerable criticism or blame, they are not the only step on the pathway to the
principalship to be scrutinized.
Licensing Requirements
In many professions, a certain level of knowledge and skills is required to
perform the duties of the position. This expectation is no different in education with forty-
eight states requiring a license or certification to become a principal (Hale & Moorman,
2003). However, principal licensing requirements have been termed “barriers,” hindering
28
those from outside the teacher ranks from entering the profession (Gates et al., 2003;
Hale & Moorman, 2003; Hess, 2003; Hess & Kelly, 2005). To become a principal in
Texas, Administrative Code §241.20 requires the following:
1. Successfully complete the appropriate examinations.
2. Hold, at a minimum, a master's degree from an accredited institution of higher education.
3. Hold a valid classroom teaching certificate.
4. Have two creditable years of teaching experience as a classroom teacher.
5. Successfully complete a principal preparation program that meets the requirements of §241.10 of this title (TEA, 2010).
As evident in these requirements, which are equivalent to those of other states,
the pathway to the principalship requires certifications in both teaching and
principalship in addition to classroom teaching experience. Critics argue that
these types of requirements restrict the principal pipeline and increase the
shortage of quality candidates (Hale & Moorman, 2003; Hess, 2003; Hess &
Kelly, 2005; Roza et al., 2003).
In 2003, the Fordham Foundation published a document, Better Leaders for
America’s Schools: A Manifesto. This document gained the attention of many inside and
outside the field of education with its challenge to change certification programs and
allow for nontraditional pathways to the principalship (Fordham Foundation, 2003;
Fossey & Shoho, 2006). This document identified nine attributes today’s principal
needed for school improvement including: leadership, focus, political savvy, sense of
urgency, managerial competence, resourcefulness, energy and resilience, dedication,
and effective use of data. The claim of the writers was these skills are evident in
29
candidates both inside and outside the field of education but certification requirements
impede the candidacy of external applicants.
Others share this opinion regarding state licensing requirements with
harsher critics stating “the officials who control certification and licensure in state
departments of education define their professional role as the gatekeepers of the
profession; they are wedded to the current system and have no incentive to
change it” (Hess & Kelly, 2005, p. 159).
Although Better Leaders for America’s Schools: A Manifesto (2003)
gained attention from educational organizations, policy makers, and university
professors, there were no empirical studies found on the influence of licensing
requirements or evidence of future changes. Therefore, until changes are made
or the barrier of licensing requirements lifted, the pipeline of future administrators
will follow the traditional pathway through university or certification programs.
The traditional pathway to the principalship is paved with strengths and
challenges. Although university programs have held much of the responsibility
for preparing school leaders and much of the criticism, the gap between content
and practice remains (Cunningham & Sherman, 2008; Grogan & Andrews, 2002;
Hale & Moorman, 2003). School districts have a responsibility to aid in closing
this gap by continuing to provide experiences for leaders beyond their university
or certification program. This continuation of learning allows for districts to
succession plan or create a pipeline of quality leaders for when leadership
changes occur in the organization.
30
Leadership
As districts embrace the role of leadership development, they must consider that
education has undergone rapid change in the last decade and so have the
responsibilities and roles of the principals leading schools. When evaluating the general
topic of leadership, the research is both deep and wide. This section looked more
specifically at three areas most relevant to this study including leadership qualities,
leadership and student achievement, and leadership succession and identification.
Leadership Qualities
The 21st century principals are required to be more than managers; they must be
leaders (Grogan & Andrews, 2002). Managers maintain stability in the organization
while leaders focus on organizational improvement through direction and influence
(Leithwood, 2006). Research clearly supports this ideal that schools require principals
who are strong leaders and possess qualities well beyond management skills.
Schools today require instructional, community, and visionary leaders who are
able to transform them into learning organizations focused on student success (Hale &
Moorman, 2003; Leithwood & Jantzi, 2005; Schlechty, 2009). However, transforming
educational environments calls for a specific leadership style beyond that of a manager.
In order for leaders to transform or initiate change, they must use a democratic
approach to motivate teachers. Poulin, Hackman & Barbarasa-Mihai (2007) identify this
as socialized leadership that focuses on the needs of the people (Louis, 2003).
However, do practitioners identify this combination of transformational and socialized
leadership as imperative qualities in leaders today?
31
In a study of superintendents, 67% identified a principal’s ability to motivate a
staff and hold them accountable for results as the most important quality necessary
(Roza et al., 2003). The execution of a school improvement plan was the second most
important quality (Roza et al., 2003). High school principals also supported the need for
development in the area of building commitment and creating a learning organization,
aligning with what superintendents indicated as important qualities needed (Salazar,
2007). Each of the recognized leadership qualities and needs identified support the
complexity of the 21st century principal’s role.
The complexity of the principalship however, should not be allowed to
overshadow the importance and relevance of the position. Research indicates that
effective leadership does make a difference in student achievement and is an important
area for further study (Marzano et al.; Leithwood & Wahlstom, 2008; Nettles &
Herrington, 2007).
Leadership and Student Achievement
A meta-analysis by Marzano et al. (2005) claimed ISSLC standards failed to fully
encapsulate all the responsibilities of school leaders. In their study, they measured
leadership effectiveness based on an identified twenty-one responsibilities of today’s
school leaders including:
• Affirmation
• Change agent
• Contingent rewards
• Communication
32
• Culture
• Discipline
• Flexibility
• Focus
• Ideals/Beliefs
• Input
• Intellectual Stimulation
• Involvement in curriculum, instruction and assessment
• Knowledge of curriculum, instruction and assessment
• Monitoring/evaluation
• Optimizer
• Order
• Outreach
• Relationships
• Resources
• Situational awareness
• Visibility
Their study showed that in schools where principals rated higher in effectiveness in
these areas students performed better on achievement measures (Marzano et al.,
2005). Leithwood and Jantzi (2005) presented a similar study focusing specifically on
transformation leadership and found significant effects on student achievement. A
counter study by Witziers, Bosker, & Kruger (2003) provided findings that were
inconclusive as to whether principals directly affect student achievement, but still
33
recognizes the influence a leader has on creating a culture of student achievement. If a
principal must be effective in each of the 21 responsibilities identified to influence
student achievement, one could infer a substantial need for pre-service experiences
that prepare principals for these responsibilities (Marzano et al., 2005).
Although there is a need for more research on the current and past experiences
of administrators, one study by the Center for Analysis of Longitudinal Data in Education
Reasearch (CALDER) found increased achievement scores and lower suspension rates
were associated with schools where principals had experience as assistant principals
prior to the principalship (Clark, Martorell, & Rockoff, 2009). This finding, along with
those of other similar studies, supports the need to look specifically at pre-service
experiences (Rice, 2010; Rhodes & Brundrett, 2006; Winter & Morgental, 2002). Not
every principal has had the experience of being an assistant principal prior to the
principalship. A ten-year study by the National Association of Elementary School
Principals (2009) shows that opportunities to serve as an assistant principal have
increased in percentage at all levels but still remain below 50% (Table 1).
Table 1
Opportunities for Assistant Principals
Level 1998 2008 Difference
Elementary School 28.4% 37.5% +9.1%
Middle School/Junior High 10.8% 21.8% +11.0%
High School 5.7% 10.9% +5.2%
Note: This table shows the percentage of administrators who had an opportunity to serve as an assistant principal at each level in 1998 compared to 10 years later in 2008.The difference shows the increase in opportunities to serve as an assistant principal at each level.
34
Although research supports the value of the principal’s role for student
achievement and the importance of pre-service experiences, data indicates that
valuable preparation opportunities are still not available for aspiring administrators
(NAESP, 2009). Leadership development and preparation continue to be under-
researched areas making it difficult for districts to know which pre-service experiences
are most effective in preparing leaders. However, districts also continue to implement
“quick fixes” for student achievement gains instead of focusing on sustainability efforts
like leadership succession (Fullan, 2005). “Unplanned principal succession is one of the
most common sources of schools failing to progress, in spite of what teachers might do”
(Leithwood, 2006, p. 181). Therefore, in order for schools to improve and reach 21st
century standards, leadership development needs to extend beyond university and
certification programs with districts placing an emphasis on succession planning for
leadership changes. The purpose of this study was to determine the frequency with
which districts are succession planning through leadership development and the
perceived effectiveness of their efforts.
Leadership Succession and Identification
Leadership succession is not a common educational term. Therefore, we look to
business research to gain insight on this practice (Barker, 2006). Business research on
succession planning recommends four steps in developing future leaders: (1) define
success at key leadership positions, 2) use an objective process for identifying a pool
with high potential for leadership, (3) comprehensively diagnose the individual
development needs, (4) create development actions that include on-the-job
assignments, coaching and training (Busine & Watt, 2005). In education, the
35
principalship is clearly a key leadership position with success determined through
student achievement measures. Therefore, this section focused on the second step of
succession planning, the identification of future leaders. Steps three and four are further
analyzed in the section dedicated to leadership development.
Throughout the literature, a professional transformation was identified as taking
place along the path between teacher and principal. Rhodes & Brundrett (2006) termed
this as creating a new self-conception or new professional identity. Other researchers
termed this change as role socialization or acculturation (Browne-Ferrigno & Muth,
2004; Daresh, 2004). In order to identify potential leaders, districts should look for
evidence in teachers that indicates ability to transition from a teacher role to a principal
role. In a study by McGough (2003), principals identified themselves as different from
the typical teacher in that they were able to see the big picture. Others identified
confidence and initiative as identifiers of talent (Rhodes & Brundrett, 2006). Research
evidence supports identifying individuals who are able to widen their perspective
beyond the classroom, display a sense of confidence, and seek opportunities to develop
as a leader. When these potential leaders are identified, a district must then move to
steps three and four previously mentioned and provide learning experiences that enable
them to gradually develop into the role and responsibilities required of the principalship
(Busine & Watt, 2005).
Leadership Development
Although simply defined by Kaagan (1998) as “teaching leadership,” leadership
development is more complex in its application (p. 74). In order for leadership
development to be effective, various factors must be considered starting with
36
diagnosing the individual needs of the learner and then creating development actions to
improve their skills (Busine & Watt, 2005). Unfortunately, there are two challenges
hindering advancement in the area of educational leadership development. The first
challenge is that research regarding leadership development for the principal’s role is
limited, with the need for further study on the past and current experiences of
administrators (Rhodes & Brundrett, 2006; Winter & Morgental, 2002). The second
challenge is in determining responsibility for leadership development efforts. Historically,
responsibility has been placed on universities to develop educational leaders but more
are recognizing the need for districts to make an effort towards implementing on-going
leadership development opportunities beyond preparation programs (Browne-Ferrigno
& Muth, 2004). One scholar recognizes this need stating, “professional development is
a key strategy in preparing for the principalship but one that is often either missing or
simply ineffective” (McBeath, 2006, p. 196).
Research literature encourages districts to address the development needs of
aspiring administrators through grow-your-own programs to overcome challenges like
principal shortage, financial crisis districts are facing, and unsuccessful graduate school
programs (Joseph, 2009; Whitaker, 2001). When considering development programs, a
comprehensive study by the Wallace Foundation (2008) identified four areas districts
should consider and prepare for:
• Programs should be selective, focused on improvement of instruction, tied to the needs of the district, and provide relevant internships
• Development programs should be on-going
• Development programs are costly
• Districts should also improve the working conditions of the principal
37
Although these four considerations are further supported in the literature, a fifth
consideration could be added to the list, is a deeper understanding of effective
leadership development methods (Davis et al., 2005). In a study by the National
Association of Elementary School Principals (2009), local level professional
development was found to be the most common way principals acquired professional
training (over 60%) but only 35.2% identified these experiences as highly valuable.
Therefore, before districts initiate efforts to grow their own leaders, there may be need
for districts to consider not only the aforementioned factors but also to better understand
effective leadership development. This next section looked specifically at what the
literature says about development opportunities, development challenges, and qualities
of effective development.
Leadership Development Opportunities
As previously mentioned, the most common development opportunity for
principals is local level professional development (NAESP, 2009). Opportunities for
development were less common when narrowed more specifically to leadership
development pre-service to the principalship (Barrett-Baxendale & Burton, 2009). It was
evident through an evaluation of the research that the driving force in local level
leadership development was the motivation by the aspiring leader to seek personal and
professional development opportunities (Barrett-Baxendale & Burton, 2009). This
understanding indicates a recognizable gap in districts’ efforts to identify potential
leaders and strategically plan their development.
38
In the NAESP (2009) study, principals identified the most valuable experiences
for developing them as being on the job as a principal, teaching, and serving as an
assistant principal. This on the job learning supports the finding of Barrett-Baxendale
and Burton (2009) that concluded leadership development is commonly acquired
through the efforts and motivation of the leader to seek and obtain leadership positions
versus efforts by the district to create development opportunities. McGough (2003)
supports this evaluation in his identification of three influences that move teachers into
administration including training, immersion, and achievement. The training influence
was defined as being developed under the guidance of a role model. The immersion
influence occurred when they were thrust into the job with little to no support. The third,
achievement influence, was an effort by the aspiring leader to achieve an end. There
are recognizable problems with leaders who are immersed into a position or acquire the
position for personal achievement. These problems should each be further evaluated
but this study focused on the influence training can have on preparing aspiring leaders
for the principalship.
The literature supports that on-going efforts and a compilation of experiences are
what create effective leadership development (Browne-Ferrigno & Muth, 2004; Portin et
al., 2003). Unfortunately, districts that do strive to develop leaders face a number of
challenges that create barriers in providing a comprehensive and effective leadership
development program.
Challenges of Development
Throughout the literature, there were two challenges that influence district efforts
to effectively develop leaders (Darling-Hammond et al., 2007; Joseph, 2009; Rhodes &
39
Brundrett, 2006). The first challenge was cost, and the second was the application of
new learning. This section looked at each challenge and its relationship to this study.
School districts are facing a number of financial challenges with the increase of
accountability requirements, unfunded mandates, decline in enrollment, and increased
student needs. As a result, programs related to leadership development are often
considered frivolous (Rhodes & Brundrett, 2006). Locally developed programs are
typically less expensive compared to programs through non-profit or private
organizations. A study out of Stanford University did a cost analysis of eight different
principal preparation programs including non-profits, for profits, and partnerships with
universities and state agencies (Darling-Hammond, et al., 2007). This study found that
total resource cost ranged from $922,000 to $4,340,000 including cost of personnel and
staff, compensation for participants’ time, and program resource costs. The most
expensive program served 188 participants with the least expensive program serving 21
participants. As evident by these findings, principal preparation, or leadership
development programs are a tremendous financial commitment which may explain why
many districts have worked to provide locally developed or grow-your-own programs as
opposed to engaging in collaborative programs with third party entities. These locally
developed programs still come with expenses, with the most costly component being
the internship; however, these programs are still far less costly than non-profit and
privately developed programs (Joseph, 2009). Some researchers claim the benefits of
grow-your-own programs outweigh the cost (Joseph, 2009). This study evaluated the
cost of district provided opportunities, but the perceived effectiveness was measured.
40
No matter the cost of the program, another challenge plaguing leadership
development is the application of learning. Principals can be provided an array of
training and development; however, if their learning does not change their practice, little
has been gained from the development opportunity. One Texas study determined how
often mentor principals actually modeled in practice four of the state’s instructional
leadership competencies (Harris, Ballenger, & Leonar, 2004). The competencies
included skills in the areas of curriculum facilitation, managing the instructional program,
staff evaluation and development, and instructional leadership (Texas Education
Agency, 2010). The study found that only 51% of principals demonstrated the
competencies at a frequency of always or usually (Harris et al., 2004). This study further
identified that principals who were in rural districts, smaller schools, male, younger in
age, or less experienced were less likely to model the competencies than those in large
suburban districts, female, older than 46, or experienced (Harris et al., 2004). Although
principals learned the competencies to obtain their state certification, this study shows
they did not consistently apply to practice what they had learned. This finding fosters the
question that if principals are not applying skills they developed, is their development
program effective?
Principals have identified the least effective method for development as a
workshop although it is the most common (Darling-Hammond et al., 2007). This practice
conflicts with the most effective method - mentoring or coaching, which also is the least
common method provided (Darling-Hammond et al., 2007). One can infer that
workshops are the most common method because they are typically more efficient per
participant than the one to one method of mentoring or coaching. However, the
41
application of learning is related to the method utilized. This emphasizes the importance
of knowing which method will most likely result in application of learning or
preparedness. This next section looked further at what research says regarding
effective methods of leadership development.
Effective Methods of Leadership Development
Research tells us that district-based leadership development is more cost
efficient and increases the likelihood of candidates seeking certification, increasing the
talent pool of educational leaders (Busch, O’Brien, & Spangler, 2005; Joseph, 2009).
However, in contrast to these findings, it is also determined that district-based
development may not be as effective in preparing school leaders as programs offered
by non-profit or private organizations and appears to lack work application (Darling-
Hammond et al., 2007; Harris et al., 2004). Although these findings suggest that district-
based programs are cheap but ineffective, research supports the value of providing an
ongoing array of leadership experiences at the local level (Browne-Ferrigno & Muth,
2004; Portin et al., 2003).
Studies regarding leadership development provide a plethora of research related
to effective programs. Davis et al. (2005) categorized development programs into three
groups based on content, methods, and structure. When districts are establishing
leadership development programs, these three components each should be considered.
This study however focused solely on development methods, leaving content and
structure for future research. This section identified what leadership development
methods are considered effective based on research. This portion of the review aided in
42
creating the instrument for the study.
Researchers have described professional development experiences of principals
in terms such as “crazy quilt”, sporadic, eclectic, self-directed and fragmented (Barrett-
Baxendale & Burton, 2009; Lashway, 2002; Peterson, 2002, pp. 217-218). Sparks
(2002) claims that principal development has been a lower priority than the
development of teachers, which is why descriptors such as these emphasize the need
for further study on development methods. Increased knowledge in this area would
allow districts to effectively facilitate the learning of aspiring principals to ensure a
succession of effective leadership in schools.
An analysis of the research provided a list of what is considered to be effective
methods for leadership development including:
• Peer coaching (Browne-Ferrigno & Muth, 2004; Brundrett et al., 2006; Davis, et al., 2005; Fullan, 2005; Kaagan, 1998)
• Mentoring (Browne-Ferrigno & Muth, 2004; Brundrett et al., 2006;
Cunningham & Sherman, 2008; Daresh, 2004; Davis et al., 2005; Fullan, 2005; Gray, Fry, Bottoms & O’Neill, 2007; Rhodes & Brundrett, 2006; Weingartner, 2009)
• Experiential or problem-based learning (Bridges & Hallinger, 1997; Davis et
al., 2005; Kaagan, 1998)
• Internships (Cunningham & Sherman, 2008; Davis et al., 2005)
The first method, peer coaching, was defined in the research as paired work with
critical friends as well as cohorts (Brundrett et al., 2006; Davis et al., 2005). Peer
coaching is an effective method in that it allows for aspiring administrators to work
collaboratively with a team, building not only their own knowledge but gaining multiple
perspectives through problem-solving with a group (Davis et al., 2005). Peer coaching is
often done in school districts in the form of academies in which selected groups
43
participate in case studies or projects collaboratively (Peterson, 2002). This could also
appear in the form of a professional learning community.
Mentoring, or work shadowing, is the subject of the most research claiming it to
be beneficial to both interns and practitioners (Cunningham & Sherman, 2008; Daresh,
2004). Daresh (2004) identifies the benefits to protégés or interns as being: confidence,
translation of theory into practice, increased communication skills, learning “tricks of the
trade”, and feeling a sense of belonging. The benefits of mentoring to mentors or
practitioners included: satisfaction, recognition, and career advancement. Whether
formally assigned or an informal role model, mentors can have a substantial influence
on an aspiring administrators decision to enter the principalship (McGough, 2003).
According to Davis et al. (2005) Mentors are defined as practicing administrators who
“guide the learning” of their intern “in his or her search for strategies to resolve
dilemmas, to boost self-confidence, and to construct a broad repertoire of leadership
skills” (p. 10).
Kaagan (1998) recommends a pathway to leadership grounded in Dewey’s
(1938) theory of experiences that includes experiential learning. Experiential learning is
the creation of experiences that give participants the opportunity to engage in situational
practice in a risk-free environment (Kaagan, 1998). This type of development method is
closely aligned to problem-based learning in which simulations of real-world practice
take place including both problem solving and reflection (Bridges & Hallinger, 1997;
Davis et al., 2005). This development method creates a cross over from teacher to
administrator allowing for role socialization making it an effective method for developing
leaders (Browne-Ferrigno & Muth, 2004; Kaagan, 1998).
44
The final development method is internships. Internships provide an authentic
experience in which aspiring administrators can engage in the day-to-day practice of the
position (Cunningham & Sherman, 2008; Davis et al., 2005). University programs have
been challenged by scholars to place more emphasis on the value and importance of
field-based internships (Browne-Ferrigno & Muth, 2004; Daresh, 2004). However,
school districts should also consider internships through roles such as assistant
principals or deans as methods for leadership development under the guidance of
experienced principals. As previously discussed, those who have served as an assistant
principal are more likely to positively affect student achievement when they become
principals (Clark et al., 2009). The job-embedded practice received through internship
opportunities is an important capacity building approach that creates a pipeline of future
administrators and a method districts must strongly consider (Cunningham & Sherman,
2008; Fullan, 2005).
Each of the leadership development methods discussed emphasizes the
importance of district-based development opportunities for aspiring administrators.
“School districts that chose not to develop the capacity of their leadership have missed
an opportunity at ensuring a high level of quantity and quality control within their
districts” (Joseph, 2009, p. 40). As supported through research, the more experiences
provided under the guidance and direction of practitioners, the more likely a candidate is
to acculturate successfully into the principal role (Daresh, 2004). Additionally, the
internal development of leaders establishes a pipeline of administrators who are
qualified to meet the demands of the position.
45
Chapter Summary
Through looking at the past and current condition of the principal’s role, this
review of literature has established the need for further study in the area of leadership
development as it relates to aspiring administrators. This analysis has discovered that
there is little known about the journey to the principalship but we do know the path is
treacherous (Darling-Hammond et al., 2007; Gates et al., 2003). The need for effective
principals is greater than ever with the challenges public schools today are facing, like
accountability and increased diversity. However, the desire to obtain and retain the
position is diminishing (Browne-Ferrigno & Muth, 2004; Fuller & Young, 2009; McBeath,
2006, Roza et al., 2003; Whitaker, 2001).
To better understand the shortage and turnover of administrators, a review of
literature identified two primary factors contributing to the turnover of principals. These
factors include demands of the position and lack of preparation for the role. Regarding
the shortage of principals, the literature highlighted two barriers including university
programs and licensing requirements. Through this look at shortage and turnover of
administrators, a gap in the research was identified regarding the role school districts
play in addressing these challenges facing the principalship.
It is evident school districts have a responsibility to identify, recruit and develop
school leaders (Barker, 2006; Fink, 2005; Rhodes & Brundrett, 2005). However, based
on research, there are limited opportunities and value found in the current leadership
development efforts by school districts (Darling-Hammond et al., 2007; NCES, 2009).
Following a look at the qualities and importance of the 21st century school leader, the
review of literature focused on the district’s role in succession planning. Succession
46
planning is done through the identification and development of future school leaders
(Busine & Watt, 2005; Rothwell, 2005). A look at effective development methods
identified four approaches including peer coaching, mentoring, experiential learning,
and internships.
With an understanding of effective methods, this study identified the frequency in
which these opportunities and methods were received by practitioners in school districts
throughout Texas pre-service to the principalship. In addition, this study determined
whether principals who received these opportunities prior to becoming a principal
perceived themselves as better prepared for the position compared to principals who
did not receive the same development opportunity.
47
CHAPTER 3
RESEARCH METHODS
Introduction
The focus of this study was the frequency with which proven leadership
development methods were provided by districts to a sample group of principals in
Texas prior to their service in this role. Perceptions of preparedness were compared
between two groups, principals who received the leadership development opportunities
and those who did not. This quantitative study answered the following research
questions:
1. With what frequency did sample Texas school districts provide leadership
development methods to principals prior to the principalship?
2. Are there statistically significant differences in perceptions of preparedness,
using identified leadership standards, between principals who received
leadership development methods in sample Texas school districts and
principals who did not receive the same leadership development methods?
3. Are there practically significant differences in perceptions of preparedness as
measured by effect sizes between principals who received leadership
development methods in sample Texas school districts and principals who did
not receive the same leadership development methods?
Based on the nature of the research questions, a quantitative research method
was selected. The research design provided descriptive and causal-comparative
statistics. Descriptive statistics measured the characteristics of a sample in quantitative
research (Gall, Gall, & Borg, 2007). Study of the Research Question 1 yielded
48
frequencies about the leadership development methods principals received prior to the
role for the purpose of creating and describing nominal groups. Causal-comparative
research “seeks to discover possible causes and effect of a personal characteristic by
comparing individuals in whom it is present with individuals in whom it is absent” (Gall et
al., 2007, p. 634). This study provides findings regarding the characteristic differences
between the perceptions of those who received identified leadership development
methods and those who did not receive the same opportunity. Utilizing a t-test to
compare means, these findings generated a response to Research Question 2.
Research Question 3 was answered and provided practice significance through the
measurement of effect sizes.
The following section provides in detail the approach that was utilized for this
study. A description of the research context, participants, instruments, procedures and
data analysis associated with the study is presented. In turn, the research context
section provides the general setting of the study and is followed by a section that
identifies the population and sample of research participants. The instruments,
procedures, and analysis section gives a synopsis of how the quantitative data were
collected and analyzed.
Research Context
The location and time period of the study are discussed in the following section.
This study took place in the state of Texas due to the location of the researcher and
convenience of corresponding with study participants. Texas is a large southern state in
the U.S. with 1,030 public school districts and 7,972 campuses. Texas public schools,
49
including charter schools, serve 4,824,778 students based on the most recent
enrollment data, with “Hispanic” and “other” being the fastest growing demographic
groups. The school campuses in Texas include 18,543 campus administrators with
7,586 being principals (Texas Education Agency, TEA, 2010). A majority of the
principals in Texas are white (67%) with 21% being Hispanic, 11% African American,
and 1% other. Due to the size of the population, a sample group was selected from 6
large school districts, each serving above 10,000 students, in the Dallas/Fort Worth
metropolitan area.
Although the data collection was relatively short in length, approximately two
weeks, the time period of the study was not as relevant as the tenure of the participants.
This study measured leadership development prior to the principalship. This variable
created a varied time frame for the study since the experiences of each participant
depended on when individual leadership development occurred. The next section
further describes the participants of the study clarifying how tenure was utilized to help
further define study findings.
Research Participants
This section describes the participants in the study and the sampling technique
utilized. The sample group of principals in 6 school districts was selected for the
following reasons: 1) location near the Dallas/Fort Worth metroplex; 2) available
participant data; 3) three from Region X and three from Region XI; 4) student enrollment
exceeding 10,000, and 5) two with large population of economically disadvantaged
students and four with smaller populations of economically disadvantaged students. A
50
list of principals for the 6 sample districts was acquired through available data on the
TEA website (www.tea.state.tx.us). A report was generated using TEA’s AskTED
database (www.askted.tea.state.tx.us) giving a current count of principals in the sample
group. Ethnicities for the target population were unavailable. From the population list
generated, a non-random sampling technique was utilized to select the sample group of
principals. The sample groups, treatment and control, included principals who
voluntarily choose to participate in the study. Participants were required to provide
campus level, years of experience, age, gender, ethnicity and district size. The goal of
the demographic information was not to stratify participants but to gain further insight
into the experiences of the respondents. These demographics of the sample groups
were collected through the questionnaire prior to the data used to study the frequency
and perception. The collection method is further discussed in the following section
related to instrumentation.
Instruments Used in Data Collection
A questionnaire was developed and distributed utilizing an on-line survey tool for
ease and convenience to participants (Appendix A). Following IRB approval, the
questionnaire was field-tested for clarity with a select group of principals in an area
school district. The field-test participants gave an overall positive assessment of the
questionnaire. All participants responded that the questionnaire was easy to access and
directions were clear. One participant stated, “The survey was easy to complete and
you were repeatedly clear about the purpose.” The only recommended revision was
noted by 20% of the participants who requested further clarification regarding which
51
method included experience as an Assistant Principal. This clarification was made to
the questionnaire. The questionnaire was designed utilizing a closed-form format. A
closed-form format allows for respondents to only select from pre-specified response
options (Gall et al., 2007). Although participants remained anonymous, the
questionnaire included questions relating to participant demographic information.
Having demographic information on the participants allowed for participant groups to be
further analyzed for factors influencing the findings, like experience of the participant or
size of the district. Based on the study by Harris, Ballenger, & Leonar (2004),
demographic and location information were indicators influencing leadership
competency.
On the survey instrument (Appendix A), the collection of demographic
information was followed by directions for completing the questionnaire and relevant
terminology, including valid and reliable standards obtained by combining the interstate
school leaders licensure consortium (ISLLC) (Council of Chief State School Officers,
CCSSO, 2008) and responsibilities of school leaders (Marzano, Waters, & McNulty,
2005). The fourth section of the questionnaire included five sets of questions. This
section focused on the leadership development methods of peer coaching, mentoring,
experiential/problem-based learning, and internship. Each method had a definition
followed by a question regarding participation in the method in which participants
selected whether they had participated in the specified leadership development method.
Their selection determined if they were in the control group or the treatment group. The
control group was those who had not received the particular development method, and
the treatment group was those who had received the development methods.
52
Participants used a Likert scale to measure perceptions of preparedness on the
combined ISSLC standards and Marzano et al.’s (2005) responsibilities of school
leaders. The Likert scale had a rating of 1 to 5, with 1 indicating unprepared, 3
indicating partially prepared, and 5 indicating prepared. Research Question 3 did not
have a specific development method but was for participants who had not participated
in any of the specified four leadership development models. Only participants who
indicated that they did not receive any of the development methods were provided this
perception scale. These participants identified their perception of preparedness using
the same Likert scale and standards as the treatment group participants. This allowed
for a comparison of participants who had participated in one or more of the methods
and those who had not participated in any of the identified leadership development
methods.
Procedures Used in Collecting Data
The sample group of Texas principals was provided a request for participation in
the survey and a link to the on-line instrument (Appendix A). A window of two weeks
was provided for a response with a reminder sent at the end of week one of the window.
Upon collection of survey responses, data were transferred to a statistical program,
SPSS™ (www.spss.com) for analysis.
Based on the responses, participants were nominally grouped into treatment and
control groups. Participants that received or participated in the identified leadership
development opportunity were placed in the treatment group. Participants that did not
receive or participate in any of the leadership development opportunities were placed in
53
the control group. The leadership development methods included peer coaching,
mentoring, experiential/problem-based learning, and internships.
Perceptions of preparedness were then measured for each of the participants
based on defined leadership standards. The statistical measures and analysis of the
findings are further defined in the following section.
Data Analysis
Research Question 1, asking what models of leadership development were
provided prior to the principalship, was answered using a nominal scale of treatment (1)
and control (0) based on responses. The mean (M) and standard deviation (SD) for
each group were determined for perceptions of preparedness on each standard. This
measure was repeated for each of the four leadership development methods. In
addition, the measure was performed overall for the control group and treatment group
participants; this provided the frequency statistics for determining statistical and
practical significance.
Statistical significance was determined for Research Question 2 utilizing t-tests
for correlated means. For each leadership development method, the control group
mean was compared to the treatment group mean on each of the leadership standards
previously mentioned. A p-value was determined identifying whether or not there was a
statistically significant difference between the control group and the treatment group on
each of the preparedness standards. Standardized effect sizes (M1-M2/SD) were also
determined to give practical significance. Practical significance told how much
difference the development method made and not solely that it was significant
54
(Thompson, 2006, p. 134). The determination of using Cohen’s d for determining effect
size was decided based on the total number of responses for the sample size
(Thompson, 2006, p. 191). Confidence intervals were also determined based on the
effect size to support practical significance and generalizability to the total population
(American Psychological Association (APA), 2010; Gall et al., 2007, p. 150). Thompson
(2006) states, “confidence intervals have great power to support the explication of the
story that data have to tell” (p. 211).
Chapter Summary
This quantitative study was designed to provide practical and applicable
knowledge to school districts regarding leadership development. The determination of
which leadership method caused administrators to be better prepared for the principal’s
role is valuable information in a time of rapid turnover (Whitaker, 2001; Fuller & Young,
2009). Based on the findings, this study will not only inform districts of the various
methods of leadership development that have been utilized throughout Texas, it will
also indicate if principals who received effective leadership development opportunities
perceived themselves to be better prepared than those who did not receive the same
opportunities. The practical significance of the findings between the control group and
the treatment group on any of the identified development models can support school
districts in targeting preparation and recruitment efforts.
This study will better equip school districts with applicable information about
leadership development, allowing them to allocate resources towards development
efforts more effectively and efficiently. Districts can then initiate or broaden development
55
opportunities in preparation for future shifts in leadership. Also, if demographic factors in
this study, such as gender or district size, influence preparedness, districts should also
consider these factors when selecting principal candidates or to ensure equitability of
opportunity.
The subsequent chapters convey the results of the study associated with each
research question. In addition, results are interpreted and applied to practice.
Recommendations are provided supporting educators with opportunities for further
study and for supporting districts with future leadership development.
56
CHAPTER 4
RESULTS
Introduction
The purpose of this study was to determine the frequency in which leadership
development methods were provided to principals prior to their becoming campus
leaders. The leadership development methods included peer coaching, mentoring,
experiential/problem-based learning, and internship. This study also compared the
perceptions of preparedness between principals who received these identified
leadership development methods and those who did not, determining both statistical
and practical significance.
This chapter presents the quantitative results of this study in alignment with each
of the following research questions:
1. With what frequency did sample Texas school districts provide leadership
development methods to principals prior to the principalship?
2. Are there statistically significant differences in perceptions of preparedness,
using identified leadership standards, between principals who received
leadership development methods in sample Texas school districts and
principals who did not receive the same leadership development methods?
3. Are there practically significant differences in perceptions of preparedness as
measured by effect sizes between principals who received leadership
development methods in sample Texas school districts and principals who did
not receive the same leadership development methods?
57
An overview of the questionnaire demographics are discussed in the following section
followed by the frequency findings for the first research question. The findings for the
second question are discussed under individual headings for each of the four identified
leadership development methods. The third question provides the practical significance
findings giving a more applicable use of the data.
Questionnaire Demographics
The study questionnaire (Appendix A) was provided to 217 acting principals in 6
school districts in the Dallas/Fort Worth area in Texas. Of the 217 principals, 88 chose
to participate in the study resulting in an overall response rate of 41%. The years of
service as a principal ranged among participants from 1 to 31 years and ages ranged
from 33 to 67 years old. The sample group participants included 65% female and 35%
male, which closely represented the population group (68% female and 32% male). The
ethnicities of the sample group included 88% White, 7% African American, 2%
Hispanic/Latino, and 3% other. A majority of the participants considered themselves
primarily principals at the elementary level (67%) with 18% at middle/junior high and
15% at high school level. This sample group distribution by level was an exact
representation of the population group. Each of the school districts selected for the
study had a student enrollment above 10,000 students based on data from the Texas
Education Agency (TEA) (http://www.tea.state.tx.us). However, two respondents
indicated they were in a district below 10,000 students. A majority (57%) of participants
indicated the size of their district was in the range of 25,000 to 50,000 students. The
sample participants represented a varied sample group supporting the ability to
58
generalize findings to a larger population of administrators from similar districts.
Research Question 1
Research Question 1 asked with what frequency did sample Texas school
districts provide leadership development methods to principals. Table 2 below indicates
the frequency findings for this questionnaire.
Table 2
Leadership Development Method Frequency
Method Provided Not Provided
Peer Coaching 36.5% 63.5%
Mentoring 37.3% 62.7%
Experiential /Problem-Based 19.8% 80.2%
Internship 23.5% 76.5%
Note: Table 2 shows the percentage of questionnaire participants that indicated they were provided each of the identified leadership development methods and the percentage of principals who indicated they were not provided each of the identified leadership development methods.
The development methods that were provided most frequently by school districts
included peer coaching and mentoring at 37%. The method that was offered the least
frequently at 20% was experiential/problem-based learning. Overall, 50% of the
participants indicated a frequency of at least one of the four identified leadership
development methods while the remaining 50% indicated not receiving any prior to the
principalship.
59
Based on the frequency in which principals were provided development
opportunities, treatment and control groups could be created. The next section
discusses the findings in the comparison of the perceptions between those who
received an identified leadership development method and those who were not provided
the same opportunity of development.
Research Question 2
Are there statistically significant differences in perceptions of preparedness,
using identified leadership standards, between principals who received leadership
development methods in sample Texas school districts and principals who did not
receive the same leadership development methods? This research question was
answered by having each of the research participants to indicate their perception of
preparedness for the principal’s role. Their perceptions of preparedness were
determined using a Likert scale of 1 to 5 on nine different standards in which principals
were expected to be proficient. The nine different standards were derived from the six
interstate school leaders licensure consortium (ISLLC) standards plus additional
responsibilities identified by Marzano, Waters, and McNulty (2006). The standards have
been abbreviated for the tables in the following sections as follows: school culture,
vision, management, community, ethical behavior, political context, curriculum, change,
and communication. Each principal in the treatment group then indicated their
perception of preparedness on the nine standards. Principals who said they were not
provided any of the four leadership development methods completed a perceptions
matrix at the end of the questionnaire on the same nine standards and became a part of
60
the control group for the study.
The perceptions of principals who were provided one of the leadership
development methods prior to becoming a principal were compared to those of the
principals who were not provided any of the leadership development methods. This
comparison was measured utilizing a t-test method for statistical significance. The
following sections looked at the comparisons for each of the methods including peer
coaching, mentoring, experiential/problem-based learning, and internship. The statistical
significance of each comparison is discussed providing outcomes to the second
question.
Peer Coaching
The leadership development method of peer coaching was provided to 37% of
the questionnaire respondents. Peer coaching was defined on the questionnaire as
paired work with critical friends as in cohorts or academies. This section compared the
perceptions of preparedness of these respondents to the 50% of respondents who
indicated they did not receive any of the identified leadership development methods.
Based on the sample groups (N = 26 and N = 39), the descriptive statistics
indicated an average (M) range on each of the nine standards from 3.73 (1.04) to 4.27
(.78) for those who received a peer coaching method of leadership development. The
average (M) range for those who did not receive peer coaching is from 3.23 (.93) to
4.18 (.97). Using an independent samples t-test, as shown in table 3, a comparison was
done of the mean (M) difference between participants who received peer coaching and
those who did not receive peer coaching in each standard. Variances were considered
61
using Levene’s test for equality of variances, which did not indicate a statistically
significant difference (p>.05) yielding an output use of equal variances assumed. Using
a 2-tailed test, statistical significance was determined when comparing sample groups
in the standards of community collaboration (t = 2.49, df = 63, and p < .05); political,
social, economic, legal and cultural context (t = 2.10, df = 63, p < .05); and curriculum,
instruction and assessment (t = 2.3, df = 63, p < .05).
In analysis of the statistical significance between the sample groups in the
community collaboration standard, the 95% confidence interval range is .113-1.04 with
a true mean difference of .577.
The standard of political, social, economic, legal and cultural context indicates a
statistically significant difference (t = 2.10, df = 63, p< .05) between principals who
received peer coaching and those who did not. The 95% confidence interval range is
.025-1.03 with a true mean difference of .526.
The third statistically significant standard (t = 2.3, df = 63, p < .05), curriculum,
instruction and assessment, yielded a 95% confidence interval range of .071-1.03. The
true mean difference was .551. Based on the statistical significance found in the
leadership development method of peer coaching, an analysis of variance (ANOVA)
provided mean plots to give a graphical representation of the group differences. These
charts have been provided in appendix B of this dissertation.
62
Table 3
Peer Coaching Independent Samples t-test
t-test for Equality of Means
t df Sig. (2-
tailed) Mean
Difference Std. Error Difference
95% Confidence Interval of the Difference
Standards Levene’s Test Lower Upper
Vision Equal variances assumed
.907 63 .061 .462 .242 -.022 .945
School Culture Equal variances assumed
1.153 63 .253 .282 .245 -.207 .771
Management Equal variances assumed
.792 63 .431 .192 .243 -.293 .677
Community Equal variances assumed
2.485 63 *.016 .577 .232 .113 1.041
Ethical behavior Equal variances assumed
.395 63 .695 .090 .227 -.365 .544
Political context Equal variances assumed
2.099 63 *.040 .526 .250 .025 1.026
Curriculum Equal variances assumed
2.295 63 *.025 .551 .240 .071 1.031
Change Equal variances assumed
.948 63 .347 .244 .257 -.270 .757
Communication Equal variances assumed
.634 63 .528 .141 .222 -.303 .585
63
Mentoring
Mentoring was the second leadership development method compared among the
principal participants. Mentoring was defined as work shadowing with a formally or
informally assigned model of a practicing administrator. Among the questionnaire
respondents, 37% indicated they were provided mentoring prior to becoming a principal.
This group was compared to the participants who did not receive any of the four
identified leadership development methods prior to the principalship.
The descriptive statistics indicate the sample group (N = 31) of principals who
were provided mentoring had a mean range of 3.65 (.95) to 4.26 (.86). The comparison
sample of principals (N = 39) who were not provided a leadership development method
indicated a mean range from 3.23 (.93) to 4.18 (.97). Table 4 shows an independent
samples t-test comparing the difference of means between participants who received
mentoring and those who did not receive mentoring. Equal variances are assumed
since the output did not yield any statistically significant differences (p > .05). The 2-
tailed test shows a statistically significant difference between the sample group means
(M) in only one standard area, curriculum, instruction and assessment (t = 2.6, df = 68,
p < .05). When comparing the remaining eight standards, there was not a significant
difference between the perceptions of preparedness by those who received the
leadership development method of mentoring and those who did not.
64
Table 4
Mentoring Independent Samples t-test
t-test for Equality of Means
t df Sig. (2-tailed)
Mean Difference
Std. Error Difference
95% Confidence Interval of the Difference
Standards Levene’s Test Lower Upper
Vision Equal variances assumed
.669 68 .506 .16543 .24728 -.32801 .65886
School culture Equal variances assumed
1.765 68 .082 .40943 .23193 -.05338 .87224
Management Equal variances assumed
.456 68 .650 .10174 .22300 -.34326 .54674
Community Equal variances assumed
1.833 68 .071 .41439 .22606 -.03671 .86549
Ethical behavior Equal variances assumed
.355 68 .724 .07858 .22161 -.36364 .52079
Political context Equal variances assumed
1.140 68 .258 .28619 .25113 -.21494 .78732
Curriculum Equal variances assumed
2.563 68 *.013 .57734 .22530 .12776 1.02691
Change Equal variances assumed
.874 68 .385 .22250 .25460 -.28555 .73055
Communication Equal variances assumed
.650 68 .518 .13482 .20748 -.27920 .54884
65
The statistical significance (p < .05) between the sample groups in the
curriculum, instruction, and assessment standard had a true mean difference of .577
falling within the 95% confidence interval range of .127-1.03. Using an analysis of
variance (ANOVA), the mean plot in appendix B shows the difference between the two
sample groups on the curriculum, instruction and assessment standard.
Experiential/Problem-based Learning
Experiential/Problem-based learning was the third leadership development
method measured for statistical significance and was defined as hypothetical
experiences designed for situational practice in a risk-free environment. This method
yielded the fewest number of principals (N = 16) indicating they were provided this
method of development (20%). This sample group was compared to the principals who
indicated they did not receive any of the four identified leadership development methods
(N = 39). The means for the sample group receiving the development method (N = 16)
ranged from 3.75 (.93) to 4.25 (.68) and was compared to the mean range of 3.23 (.93)
to 4.18 (.97) for the sample group who did not receive experiential/problem-based
learning (N = 39).
As with the mentoring leadership development method, experiential/problem-
based learning yielded only one standard that was statistically significant. Statistical
significance was determined using the independent samples t-test with equal variances
assumed. As shown in table 5, the 2-tailed test compared the sample group means (M)
resulting in a statistically significant difference in the standard area of community
collaboration (t = 2.3, df = 53, p < .05). The mean plot from the analysis of variance
(ANOVA) is provided in appendix B.
66
Table 5
Experiential/Problem-based Learning Independent Samples t-test
t-test for Equality of Means
t df Sig. (2-tailed)
Mean Difference
Std. Error Difference
95% Confidence Interval of the Difference
Standard Levene’s Test Lower Upper
School culture Equal variances assumed
.371 53 .712 .10897 .29400 -.48071 .69866
Vision Equal variances assumed
1.414 53 .163 .41346 .29249 -.17320 1.00012
Management Equal variances assumed
.596 53 .553 .16827 .28212 -.39760 .73414
Community Equal variances assumed
2.264 53 *.028 .64423 .28451 .07358 1.21488
Ethical behavior Equal variances assumed
.264 53 .792 .07051 .26662 -.46425 .60528
Political context Equal variances assumed
1.522 53 .134 .45353 .29804 -.14426 1.05131
Curriculum Equal variances assumed
.856 53 .396 .26282 .30719 -.35333 .87897
Change Equal variances assumed
1.600 53 .115 .51282 .32044 -.12990 1.15554
Communication Equal variances assumed
.410 53 .683 .10256 .25003 -.39893 .60405
67
Internship
Internship was the final leadership development method studied and was defined
as authentic experiences in which one engages in the day-to-day practice of the
position as in that of an assistant principal or dean of instruction. From the total number
of respondents 24% indicated they engaged in an internship prior to becoming a
campus principal. The internship sample group (N = 19) yielded a mean range of 3.32
(.95) to 4.16 (.83). The comparison sample of those who did not participate in any of the
development methods (N = 39) had a mean range of 3.23 (.93) to 4.18 (.97).
In alignment with the other leadership development methods, the internship
method was measured using an independent samples t-test for statistical significance
as shown in table 6. Equal variances were assumed except in the standard of
curriculum, instruction, and assessment, which yielded a statistical significance. The
internship method however was the only leadership development method to not
generate a statistically significant difference between the sample groups (N = 19 and N
= 39) in any of the nine standards measured.
68
Table 6 Internship Independent Samples t-test
t-test for Equality of Means
t df Sig. (2-tailed)
Mean Difference
Std. Error Difference
95% Confidence Interval of the Difference
Standards Levene’s Test Lower Upper
School culture Equal variances assumed
.353 56 .725 .096 .271 -.448 .639
Vision Equal variances assumed
.249 56 .804 .065 .260 -.456 .586
Management Equal variances assumed
.283 56 .778 .073 .258 -.443 .589
Community Equal variances assumed
1.983 56 .052 .506 .255 -.005 1.017
Ethical behavior Equal variances assumed
-.083 56 .934 -.022 .260 -.542 .499
Political context Equal variances assumed
.980 56 .331 .273 .278 -.285 .830
Curriculum Equal variances not assumed
.991 56 .326 .250 .252 -.255 .754
Change Equal variances assumed
-.625 56 .535 -.171 .274 -.721 .378
Communication Equal variances assumed
-.011 56 .991 -.003 .240 -.484 .479
69
Research Question 3
This section looked at the final research question which stated, are there
practically significant differences in perceptions of preparedness as measured by effect
sizes between principals who received leadership development methods in sample
Texas school districts and principals who did not receive the same leadership
development methods? Practical significance was determined through the
measurement of effect sizes (M1-M2/SDpooled) for each of the statistically significant
differences yielded in Research Question 2. Statistically significant differences were
identified in the leadership development methods of peer coaching, mentoring, and
experiential/problem-based learning. The method of internship did not yield any
statistically significant differences, therefore effect size was not measured.
In the leadership development method of peer coaching, three standards yielded
a statistically significant difference. The effect size (.30) for the standard of community
collaboration signified that participation in peer coaching explains only approximately
30% of the difference between groups leaving approximately 70% unexplained. The
standard of political, social, economic, legal and cultural context calculated a medium
effect size or practical significance of .26, or 26% leaving 74% unexplained. Practical
significance was again determined through the calculation of effect size (M1-M2/SDpooled)
for the statistically significant standard of curriculum, instruction and assessment
resulting in a medium effect size of .28.
The next leadership development method, mentoring, provided only one
standard that yielded statistically significant findings. The standard of curriculum,
instruction, and assessment was measured for practical significance. The medium effect
70
size (.29) indicated that the leadership development method of mentoring explained
29% of the difference between groups leaving approximately 71% unexplained.
Experiential/Problem-based learning was the next leadership development
method to yield a statistically significant finding. The statistically significant finding was
in the standard of community collaboration. Practical significance was measured
identifying a medium effect size of .31. This finding indicated the method of
experiential/problem-based learning and explaind 31% of the difference in means
leaving 69% unexplained.
Conclusion
This chapter provided an overview of the study findings as they related to
participant demographics and data supporting each of the 3 research questions. Tables
were provided to show the output of the independent samples t-tests for each of the four
leadership development methods. An analysis of variance (ANOVA) provided the
output of mean plots for each of the standards showing statistical significance
(Appendix B). The next chapter provides an overall review of the studies purpose,
methods and results. The findings are interpreted and discussed to link results with
research and provide recommendations for further study.
71
CHAPTER 5
DISCUSSION
Introduction
This dissertation concludes with a summarization of the initial chapters to provide
a comprehensive overview of the study. In this chapter, the research problem is
restated followed by a review of the methodology and summary of results. The results
are discussed regarding the preparedness of school leaders based on the leadership
development methods they were provided prior to becoming a principal. This discussion
includes an interpretation of the findings, the relationship to research, recommendations
for school districts and suggestions for further study.
Statement of Problem
The purpose of this study, as stated in Chapter 1, was to determine if school
districts were addressing the negative influences of leadership shifts by developing a
pipeline of future leaders. Leadership shortage and turnover were identified in the initial
chapters as challenges facing America’s schools. However, there is little evidence to
indicate whether school districts are preparing future leaders and ensuring a pipeline of
qualified candidates. A failure by school districts to develop leaders for the purpose of
succession planning and sustainability is deemed as one of the root causes for
disruptive change in schools (Darling-Hammond, LaPointe, Meyerson, Orr, & Cohen,
2007; Fink, 2005; Fordham Foundation, 2003; Wallace Foundation, 2008). Therefore,
this study measured the frequency in which districts provided identified leadership
development methods and determined if leaders are more prepared as a result.
72
Review of Methodology
The methodology of this study, as outlined in Chapter 3, was developed using a
quantitative research design. This study answered research questions regarding the
frequency in which principals received identified leadership development methods prior
to becoming a principal. In addition it compared the perceptions of preparedness
between principals from six districts in Texas, who did and did not receive the identified
leadership development methods of peer coaching, mentoring, experiential/problem-
based learning, and internship.
A questionnaire was designed and field-tested for the purpose of measuring
frequency and for perception comparison of the treatment and control groups. The
purposive sample group included 217 principals from six Texas suburban public school
districts selected based on their location, size, and economically disadvantaged student
population. The respondents indicating they received a leadership development method
prior to the principalship were considered the treatment group. The respondents
indicating they did not receive any of the four leadership development methods were the
control group. Both sample groups rated their perceptions of preparedness on a scale of
1 to 5 using a matrix of nine leadership standards. The nine leadership standards were
discussed in each of the previous chapters.
The treatment group means (M) was compared to the control group means (M)
on each of the nine standards for each of the four identified leadership development
methods. Utilizing t-tests and measuring effect sizes, this comparison provided
statistical and practical significance. These differences determined if principals who
were provided the leadership development methods perceived themselves as being
73
better prepared for the position.
Summary of Results
Study findings were outlined in Chapter 4 in alignment with the 3 research
questions guiding the study. This section restates each of the research questions and
summarizes the results.
Research Question 1
The initial research question stated the following: With what frequency did
sample Texas school districts provide leadership development methods to principals
prior to the principalship? The data supporting the first research question regarding
frequency of leadership development opportunities indicated less than 50% of the
respondents participated in each of the four methods. Mentoring was the method most
frequently provided with a respondent percentage of 37.3%. Experiential/Problem-
based learning was the leadership development method with the lowest frequency of
19.8%.
Research Question 2
Research Question 2 stated: Are there statistically significant
differences in perceptions of preparedness, using identified leadership standards,
between principals who received leadership development methods in sample Texas
school districts and principals who did not receive the same leadership development
methods? The data supporting Research Question 2 was analyzed using independent
74
sample t-tests. These tests indicated peer coaching as the method that made the most
statistically significant difference. Three of the nine standards under the peer coaching
method yielded statistically significant outcomes. These standards included community
collaboration (t = 2.49, df = 63, and p<.05), political, social, economic, legal and cultural
context (t = 2.10, df = 63, p < .05), and curriculum, instruction and assessment (t = 2.3,
df = 63, p < .05). Mentoring and experiential/problem-based learning each generated
statistical significance in one standard with the internship method yielding no statistical
significance. Mentoring identified statistical significance in the standard of curriculum,
instruction and assessment (t = 2.6, df = 68, p < .05). Experiential/problem-based
learning identified statistical significance in the standard of community collaboration (t =
2.3, df = 53, p < .05). The lack of statistical significance in the internship method
indicates that principals who received an internship leadership development opportunity
did not perceive themselves as being more or less prepared than their counterparts who
did not engage in any of the four leadership development methods.
Research Question 3
Rresearch Question 3 extended the previous research findings of statistical
significance. This question stated: Are there practically significant differences in
perceptions of preparedness as measured by effect sizes between principals who
received leadership development methods in sample Texas school districts and
principals who did not receive the same leadership development methods? As stated,
practical significance or effect size was determined for each standard that yielded a
statistically significant p-value – since the calculation of confidence intervals and effect
75
size are the favored approaches for determining practical significance (Gall, Gall, &
Borg, 2007). Each of the comparisons that yielded a statistically significant difference
produced medium effect sizes ranging from .26 to .31. This finding of practical
significance indicates approximately 30% of the difference between groups can be
explained by the leadership development method, however 70% remains unexplained.
Discussion of the Results
This study provided results that have been somewhat limited in the overall
identification of statistical significance however potentially useful in practice. This
section provided an interpretation of these findings, the relationship to the research
discussed in Chapter 2 and further recommendations for practitioners and researchers.
Interpretation of the Findings
This study was designed to identify the frequency with which principals were
provided the four leadership development methods prior to the principalship. The
outcome of the measure of frequency shows that a majority of the principals were not
provided development beyond their university or certification program. The low
frequency of participants created a small treatment sample group influencing population
validity since a small sample size is less likely to be representative of the larger
population (Gall et al., 2007).
Although the treatment sample group was small, the findings provide information
for school districts to consider. First, both the treatment and control groups perceived
themselves, based on the mean average, in the range of somewhat prepared (3.0) or
76
prepared (4.0) in a majority of the standards. Although some significance was found in
three of the four leadership development methods, it was limited to only five individual
standards. This narrow finding of statistical significance places most of the applicable
findings in the development method of peer coaching for which statistical significance
was found in three of the standards. Based on this outcome, school districts should
consider the impact peer coaching has on the perceptions of principals regarding their
development prior to the principalship.
Secondly, in analysis of the standards, two standards were statistically significant
in more than one leadership development method. This finding indicated that
development opportunities influenced the perceived preparedness of principals
specifically in the standards of community collaboration and curriculum, instruction and
assessment. When principals are provided leadership development opportunities prior
to serving as a principal it appears that they consider themselves as being better
prepared to address situations related to community collaboration and curriculum,
instruction and assessment.
The low frequency numbers and the limited statistical significance between
comparison groups makes it difficult to determine what the perceptions would have
been if more principals had been provided the leadership development methods. On
almost every standard, the principals who were provided leadership development had
mean scores higher than the group who were not provided development beyond their
university or certification program. Although the differences between groups were not
large enough to be considered statistically significant, a larger sample size may have
yielded different results.
77
Relationship to Research
As stated in Chapter 2, research regarding the moves administrators make in
their field and leadership development is limited (Darling-Hammond et al., 2007; Gates,
Ringel, Santibanez, Ross & Chung, 2003). This study adds to the research and the
findings supporting previous studies. This section looked at the relationship between the
outcome of this study and the findings of previous research.
In response to Research Question 1, the frequency in which principals were
provided the four identified leadership development methods prior to the principalship
was less than 50%. This evidence of limited opportunity directly aligns with the
qualitative case study by Barrett-Baxendale & Burton (2009) in which responses noted a
“clear absence of training and development opportunities” (p. 98). The findings of this
dissertation also align with the U.S. Department of Education’s Schools and Staffing
Survey (2007) and the study from the National Association of Elementary School
Principals (NAESP) study (2009) which both found limited opportunities for aspiring
administrators (below 50%) with Texas falling below the national average. Comparing
these studies to this dissertation research, there is clear evidence of alignment
regarding the limited opportunities school districts are providing for leadership
development prior to the principalship.
The value of the leadership development methods was also comparable to the
research. Although this study did not find extensive levels of statistical significance, it
was evident that perceptions of preparedness of principals who received the identified
leadership development methods were, on average, higher than those who were not
provided the development opportunities. The methods measured included peer
78
coaching, mentoring, experiential/problem-based and internships. The value of these
methods aligns with the research regarding the importance of providing quality forms of
leadership development. A similar study discussed in the literature review measured
skills for initial success among first, second, and third year principals (Petzko, 2008).
The mean average for the Petzko study was lower than the mean average for this
study, with some principals considering themselves to be unprepared. However,
similarities can be found in that the mean average of this study showed principals who
did not receive any of the leadership development methods primarily in the “somewhat
prepared” range. Although they did not indicate they were unprepared, they did
consider themselves less prepared than those in the comparison group.
A third comparison between prior research and this study was the relationship
between the effectiveness of certain development methods. Based on the research
from chapter 2, it was evident that leadership development takes place best in an
environment that allows for on-the-job training or imbedded practice (Barrett-Baxendale
and Burton, 2009; Darling-Hammond et al., 2007; NAESP, 2009). The four methods
determined as the most effective included:
• Peer coaching (Browne-Ferrigno & Muth, 2004; Brundrett, Rhodes, & Gkolia, 2006; Davis, Darling-Hammond, LaPointe, & Meyerson, 2005; Fullan, 2005; Kaagan, 1998)
• Mentoring (Browne-Ferrigno & Muth, 2004; Brundrett et al., 2006;
Cunningham & Sherman, 2008; Daresh, 2004; Davis et al., 2005; Fullan, 2005; Gray, Fry, Bottoms & O’Neill, 2007; Rhodes & Brundrett, 2006; Weingartner, 2009)
• Experiential or problem-based learning (Bridges & Hallinger, 1997; Davis et
al., 2005; Kaagan, 1998)
• Internships (Cunningham & Sherman, 2008; Davis et al., 2005)
79
This study measured each of these four methods and the outcome aligned with the
study by Darling-Hammond, LaPointe et al., (2007) determining mentoring or coaching
as the most effective method of leadership development. In this study, peer coaching
provided the most statistically significant difference between the comparison groups
with mentoring providing one area of significance. This finding is also supported by
other research that discusses the value of working and learning collaboratively with
peers (Davis, et al., 2005; Peterson, 2002).
In comparison, this study aligns with the research regarding frequency of
opportunities and the value of effective methodology as it relates to leadership
development. The addition of this study to the research further emphasizes the
importance of providing effective methods of leadership development to future
administrators aspiring to lead. The following section provides recommendations for
school districts that will challenge them to provide these meaningful opportunities.
Recommendations for School Districts
As stated in chapter 1, the desired outcome of this study was to encourage
school districts to take ownership for ensuring leadership development is not limited to
certification or university-based programs. This study was also intended to equip school
districts with the information needed to move towards on-going, continuous leadership
development. The combination of the research and the study findings provides school
districts with further proof that when future leaders are effectively developed prior to
becoming principals, they perceive themselves to be better prepared for the positional
responsibilities.
80
Unfortunately, in alignment with other studies, this study indicates that school
districts are not frequently providing effective development opportunities. Therefore, it
is recommended that school districts place more emphasis on developing future leaders
to counteract the negative influences leadership shifts have on organizational
effectiveness. It is recommended that school districts engage in the following activities:
• Succession plan for leadership shifts by developing a pipeline of qualified candidates
• Utilize research-based leadership development methods with an emphasis on peer coaching
• Create a comprehensive development program to ensure training is provided
in each of the nine leadership standards
Fink (2005) states “changing times and false economies have resulted in a
serendipitous ‘fill-the-job’ philosophy instead of a ‘grow-your-own’ approach” (p. 149).
The challenge to school districts is to adopt a philosophy of growing and developing
leaders to prevent the disruption shifts in leadership have on schools. Many districts,
understandably, do not have the funding for a grow-your-own approach. Therefore, it is
recommended that school districts narrow their approach to a peer coaching method
that can be locally facilitated. Providing opportunities for aspiring administrators to learn
together through organized activities is a valuable opportunity that can provide profitable
dividends to the organization’s sustained success.
Suggestions for Further Study
Although this study added to the research on leadership development, the depth
of research remains shallow, providing a widespread opportunity for further study in this
area (Darling-Hammond et al., 2007; Gates et al., 2003). The responses to this study
81
did not provide adequate sampling for exploring the development opportunities based
on demographic differences. Therefore, it would be valuable to extend the study of
leadership development methods to compare the training received by age, gender and
ethnicity.
Fullan (2005) discusses the ‘long lever of leadership’, which focuses on the
tenure and legacy of school leaders. Although tenure was a component in the
participant demographics of this study, it was not considered as a part of the analysis.
Fullan’s concept of the ‘long lever of leadership’ creates the opportunity to look at the
relationship between development and tenure. In times of leadership shortage and
more principals nearing retirement age, the investment in leadership development might
be more palatable to school districts if it were determined that development increased
the likelihood of principal’s remaining in campus leadership positions.
A final suggestion for further research returns to the theoretical framework for this
study. Based on Dewey’s (1938) theory of experiences, it is known that application of
learning is critical for fully acquiring content knowledge. This study did not fully evaluate
the development history or pathway of the participants, which could have contributed to
the overall findings. Therefore, it would be valuable to study the development journey of
administrators from certification to when they acquire a leadership position. Obviously,
this would be a more extensive study, but it could also potentially change how
universities and school districts address leadership development in the future.
Any further research in the area of leadership development provides additional
information that benefits future educational leaders. Fink (2005) identifies “five
approaches to leadership development with ‘sink or swim’ or ‘spray and pray’ being
82
what is most commonly provided” (pp. 148-151). Leadership development research
provides the knowledge and skills necessary to move beyond these limited approaches
towards a more learner (or leader) centered method of development.
Conclusion
This chapter provided a comprehensive overview of this study on principals’
perceptions of preparedness based on leadership development opportunities. This
study was based on the understanding that principals today have different development
needs due to the growing complexity of the role. Therefore, it is imperative that
leadership development moves beyond university or certification programs. School
districts must ensure they are providing ongoing, continuous leadership development for
aspiring, novice, and veteran administrators. Although this study targeted the pre-
service development of administrators, the findings extend beyond.
This quantitative study supported prior research in finding the frequency of
development opportunities was limited to less than half of the respondents. This finding
emphasizes the need for a more intentional focus on developing current and future
educational leaders. What can also be derived from the study is that administrators
perceive themselves as being more prepared when they are provided effective
development methods. This provides an understanding that the method for developing
leaders must move beyond the traditional workshop model in order to meet the current
needs of 21st century leaders.
School districts that take advantage of the opportunity to succession plan and
develop a pipeline of qualified candidates will create an organization that sustains
83
through changes in leadership. Implementation of meaningful leadership development is
a critical first step in ensuring a future of effective leadership in schools.
84
APPENDIX A
PERCEPTIONS OF PREPAREDNESS QUESTIONNAIRE
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
APPENDIX B
STATISTICAL TABLES
99
Table B1
Peer Coaching Descriptive Statistics
Standards Peer Coaching N Mean Std.
Deviation Std. Error
Mean Vision Yes 26 3.92 .935 .183
No 39 3.46 .969 .155 School culture Yes 26 3.92 .891 .175
No 39 3.64 1.013 .162 Management Yes 26 3.96 .916 .180
No 39 3.77 .986 .158 Community Yes 26 3.81 .895 .176
No 39 3.23 .931 .149 Ethical behavior Yes 26 4.27 .778 .152
No 39 4.18 .970 .155 Political context Yes 26 3.88 .909 .178
No 39 3.36 1.038 .166 Curriculum Yes 26 4.04 .871 .171
No 39 3.49 .997 .160 Educational change Yes 26 3.73 1.041 .204
No 39 3.49 .997 .160 Communication Yes 26 4.04 .871 .171
No 39 3.90 .882 .141
100
Table B2
Mentoring Descriptive Statistics
Standards Mentoring N Mean Std.
Deviation Std. Error
Mean Vision Yes 31 3.8065 1.04624 .18791
No 39 3.6410 1.01274 .16217 School Culture Yes 31 3.8710 .95715 .17191
No 39 3.4615 .96916 .15519 Management Yes 31 3.8710 .84624 .15199
No 39 3.7692 .98573 .15784 Community Yes 31 3.6452 .95038 .17069
No 39 3.2308 .93080 .14905 Ethical behavior Yes 31 4.2581 .85509 .15358
No 39 4.1795 .96986 .15530 Political Context Yes 31 3.6452 1.05035 .18865
No 39 3.3590 1.03840 .16628 Curriculum Yes 31 4.0645 .85383 .15335
No 39 3.4872 .99662 .15959 Change Yes 31 3.7097 1.13118 .20317
No 39 3.4872 .99662 .15959 Communication Yes 31 4.0323 .83602 .15015
No 39 3.8974 .88243 .14130
101
Table B3
Experiential/Problem-based Learning Descriptive Statistics
Standards Experiential/Problem-based Learning
N Mean Std.
Deviation Std. Error
Mean School Culture Yes 16 3.7500 .93095 .23274
No 39 3.6410 1.01274 .16217 Vision Yes 16 3.8750 1.02470 .25617
No 39 3.4615 .96916 .15519 Management and safe environment
Yes 16 3.9375 .85391 .21348 No 39 3.7692 .98573 .15784
Community collaboration
Yes 16 3.8750 1.02470 .25617 No 39 3.2308 .93080 .14905
Professional and ethical behavior
Yes 16 4.2500 .68313 .17078 No 39 4.1795 .96986 .15530
Political, social, economic, legal, and cultural context
Yes 16 3.8125 .91059 .22765 No 39 3.3590 1.03840 .16628
Curriculum, instruction and assessment
Yes 16 3.7500 1.12546 .28137 No 39 3.4872 .99662 .15959
Educational change
Yes 16 4.0000 1.26491 .31623 No 39 3.4872 .99662 .15959
Communication with teachers and students
Yes 16 4.0000 .73030 .18257 No 39 3.8974 .88243 .14130
102
Table B4
Internship Descriptive Statistics
Standards Internship N Mean Std.
Deviation Std. Error
Mean School culture Yes 19 3.74 .872 .200
No 39 3.64 1.013 .162 Vision Yes 19 3.53 .841 .193
No 39 3.46 .969 .155 Management Yes 19 3.84 .765 .175
No 39 3.77 .986 .158 Community Yes 19 3.74 .872 .200
No 39 3.23 .931 .149 Ethics Yes 19 4.16 .834 .191
No 39 4.18 .970 .155 Political context Yes 19 3.63 .895 .205
No 39 3.36 1.038 .166 Curriculum Yes 19 3.74 .653 .150
No 39 3.49 .997 .160 Change Yes 19 3.32 .946 .217
No 39 3.49 .997 .160 Communication Yes 19 3.89 .809 .186
No 39 3.90 .882 .141
103
Figure B1. Mean plot for peer coaching: Community collaboration.
104
Figure B2. Mean plot for peer coaching: Political, social, economic, legal and cultural context.
105
Figure B3. Mean plot for peer coaching: Curriculum, instruction and assessment.
106
Figure B4. Mean plot for mentoring: Curriculum, instruction and assessment.
107
Figure B5. Mean plot for experiential/problem-based: Community collaboration.
108
REFERENCES
American Psychological Association. (2010). Publication manual of the American psychological association (6th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.
Barker, B. (2006). Rethinking leadership and change: A case study in leadership
succession and its impact on school transformation. Cambridge Journal of Education, 36(2), 277-293. doi: 10.1080/03057640600718703
Barnet, D. (2004). School leadership preparation programs: Are they preparing
tomorrow’s leaders? Education, 125(1), 121. (EJ698689). Retreived February 12, 2010, from EBSCO host database.
Barrett-Baxendale, D., & Burton, D. (2009). Twenty-first century headteacher:
Pedagogue, visionary leader or both? School Leadership & Management, 29(2), 91-107. doi: 10.1080/13632430902775368
Bridges, E., & Hallinger, P. (1997). Using problem-based learning to prepare
educational leaders. Peabody Journal of Education, 72(2), 131-146. doi: 10.1207/s15327930pje7202_8
Browne-Ferrigno, T., & Muth, R. (October, 2004). Leadership mentoring in clinical
practice: Role socialization, professional development, and capacity building. Educational Administration Quarterly, 40, 468-494. doi: 10.1177/0013161X04267113
Brundrett, M., Rhodes, C., & Gkolia, C. (2006). Planning for leadership succession:
Creating a talent pool in primary schools. Education 3-13, 34(3), 259-268. doi: 10.1080/03004270600898919
Busch, J., O’Brien, T., & Spangler, W. (2005). Increasing the quantity and quality of
school leadership candidates through formation experiences. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 11(3), 95-108. Retrieved from http://jlo.sagepub.com.
Busine, M., & Watt, B. (2005). Succession management: Trends and current practice.
Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 43, 225-237. doi: 10.1177/1038411105055060
Clark, D., & Clark, S. (1996). Better preparation of educational leaders. Educational
Researcher, 25(9), 18-20. doi: 10.3102/0013189X025009018 Clark, D., Martorell, P., & Rockoff, J. (2009). School principals and school performance.
Working Paper 38.
109
Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO, 2008). Educational leadership policy standards: ISLLC 2008. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://www.wallacefoundation.org/KnowledgeCenter/KnowledgeTopics/CurrentAreasofFocus/EducationLeadership/Pages/educational-leadership-policy-standards.aspx
Cunningham, W., & Sherman, W. (2008). Effective internships: Building bridges
between theory and practice. Educational Forum, 72(4), 308-318. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/
Daresh, J. (2004). Mentoring school leaders: Professional promise or predictable
problems? Educational Administration Quarterly, 40(4), 495-517. doi: 10.1177/0013161X04267114
Darling-Hammond, L., LaPointe, M., Meyerson, D., Orr, M. T. & Cohen, C. (2007).
Preparing school leaders for a changing world: Lessons from exemplary leadership development programs. Stanford, CA: Stanford Educational Leadership Institute. Retrieved from http://seli.stanford.edu
Davis, S., Darling-Hammond, L., LaPointe, M., & Meyerson, D. (2005) School
leadership study: Development successful principals (Review of Research). Stanford, CA: Stanford University, Stanford Educational Leadership Institute. Retrieved from http://www.wallacefoundation.org/SiteCollectionDocuments/WF/Knowledge%20Center/Attachments/PDF/DevelopingSuccessfulPrincipals.pdf
Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York, NY: Touchstone. Fink, D. (2005). Leadership for mortals. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Fink, D., & Brayman, C. (2006, February). School leadership succession and the
challenges of change. Educational Administration Quarterly, 42, 62-89. doi: 10.1177/0013161X05278186
Fordham Foundation. (2003). Better leaders for America’s schools: A manifesto.
Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from www.edexcellence.net/Manifesto Fossey, R., & Shoho, A. (2006). Educational leadership preparation programs: In
transition or in crisis? Journal of Cases in Educational Leadership, 9(3), 3-11. doi: 10.1177/1555458906289774
Fullan, M. (2005). Leadership and sustainability: System thinkers in action. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
110
Fuller, E., & Young, M. (2009). Tenure and retention of newly hired principals in Texas. University Council for Educational Administration. Retrieved from http://www.ucea.org/storage/principal/IB%201_Principal%20Tenure%20and%20Retention%20in%20Texas%20of%20Newly%20Hired%20Principals_10_8_09.pdf
Gall, M. D., Gall, J. P., & Borg, W. R. (2007). Educational research (8th ed). Boston, MA:
Allyn and Bacon. Gates, S. M., Ringel, J. S., Santibanez, L., Ross, K. E., & Chung, C. H. (2003). Who is
leading our schools? An overview of school administrators and their careers. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, MR-1679. Retrieved from http://www.wallacefoundation.org/SiteCollectionDocuments/WF/Knowledge%20Center/Attachments/PDF/Who%20is%20Leading%20Our%20Schools.pdf
Glatthorn, A. & Joyner, R. (2005). Writing the winning thesis or dissertation (2nd ed).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Goodwin, R. H., Cunningham, M. L., & Eagle, T. (April, 2005). The changing role of the
secondary principal in the United States: A historical perspective. Journal of Educational Administration and History, 37(1), 1-17. doi: 10.1080/0022062042000336046
Gray, C., Fry, B., Bottoms, G., & O’Neill, K. (June, 2007). Good principals aren’t born-
They’re mentored: Are we investing enough to get the school leaders we need? Southern Regional Education Board. Atlanta, GA. Retrieved from http://www.wallacefoundation.org/SiteCollectionDocuments/WF/Knowledge%20Center/Attachments/PDF/GoodPrincipalsArentBornTheyreMentored.pdf
Grogan, M., & Andrews, R. (2002). Defining preparation and professional development
for the future. Educational Administration Quarterly, 38(2), 233-256. doi: 10.1177/0013161X02382007
Hale, E., & Moorman, H. (September, 2003). School principals: A national perspective
on policy and program innovations. Institute for Educational Research, Washington, D.C. and Illinois Education Research Council, Edwardsville, IL. Retrieved from http://ierc.siue.edu/documents/Preparing%20Principals-All%20Parts.pdf
Hanson, E. M. (2003). Educational administration and organizational behavior (5th ed).
Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Hargreaves, A., & Fink, D. (2006). Sustainable leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-
Bass.
111
Hargreaves, A., & Goodson, I. (2006) Educational change over time? The sustainability and nonsustainability of three decades of secondary school change and continuity. Educational Administration Quarterly, 42(1), 3-41. doi: 10.1177/0013161X05277975
Harris, S., Ballenger, J., & Leonar, J. (2004). Aspiring principal perceptions: Are mentor
principals modeling standards-based leadership? Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnerships in Learning, 12(2), 155-172. doi: 10.1080/1361126042000239910
Hess, F. (January, 2003). A license to lead? A new leadership agenda for America’s
schools. Progressive Policy Institute. Washington, DC (ED477346). Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/
Hess, F., & Kelly, A. (2005). An innovative look, a recalcitrant reality: The politics of
principal preparation reform. Educational Policy, 19(1), 155-180. doi: 10.1177/0895904804270776
Joseph, S. (2009). Planning to grow your own principal preparation programs: Cultivating excellence in tough economic times. Educational Planning, 18(2), 35-41. Retrieved from Education Research Complete database.
Kaagan, S. (1998). Leadership development: The heart of the matter. International
Journal of Educational Management, 12(2), 74. doi: 10.1108/09513549810204450
Kafka, J. (2009). The principalship in historical perspective. Peabody Journal of
Education, 84(3), 318-330. doi: 10.1080/01619560902973506 Kirst, M. W., & Wirt, F. M. (2009). The political dynamics of American education (4th
ed). Richmond, California: McCutchan Publishing Corporation. Lashway, L. (November, 2002). Trends in school leadership. ERIC Digest (ED470967).
Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/ Leithwood, K. (2006). The 2005 Willower family lecture: Leadership according to the
evidence. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 5(3), 177-202. doi: 10.1080/60600646053
Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (2005). A review of transformational school leadership
research 1996-2005. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 4(3), 177-199. doi: 10.1080/15700760500244769
Leithwood, K., & Wahlstrom, K. (2008, October). Linking leadership to student learning:
The contributions of leader efficacy. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44, 455-457. doi: 10.1177/0013161X08321501
112
Lovely, S. (2004). Leadership forecasting. Leadership Magazine, 34(1), 17-19. (EJ707188). Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/
Louis, K. (2003, November 1). School leaders facing real change: Shifting geography,
uncertain paths. Cambridge Journal of Education, 33(3), 371-382. doi: 10.1080/0305764032000122087
Marzano, R., Waters, T., & McNulty, B. (2005). School leadership that works: From
research to results. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD).
McBeath, J. (2006). The talent enigma. International Journal of Leadership in
Education, 9(3), 183-204. doi: 10.1080/13603120600741474 McGough, D. (2003). Leaders as learners: An inquiry into the formation and
transformation of principals’ professional perspectives. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25(4), 449-471. doi:10.3102/01623737025004449
Morrison, J., Rha, J., & Helfman, A. (2003, January 1). Learning awareness, student
engagement, and change: A transformation in leadership development. Journal of Education for Business, 79(1), 11-17. doi: 10.1080/08832320309599081
Murphy, J. (September, 2003). Reculturing educational leadership: The ISLLC
standards ten years out. National Policy Board for Educational Administration. Fairfax, VA. Retrieved from http://www.npbea.org/Resources/ISLLC_10_years_9-03.pdf.
National Association of Elementary School Principals. (2009). The K-8 principal in 2008:
A 10-year study. Alexandria, VA: NAESP. Retrieved from http://www.naesp.org/10-year-study
Nettles, S., & Herrington, C. (2007). Revisiting the importance of the direct effects of
school leadership on student achievement: The implications for school improvement policy. Peabody Journal of Education, 82(4), 724-736. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110, 115 Stat. 1425 (2001).
Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/107-110.pdf Peterson, K. (April, 2002). The professional development of principals: Innovations and
opportunities. Educational Administration Quarterly, 38, 213-232. doi: 10.1177/0013161X02382006
Petzko, V. (September, 2008). The perceptions of new principals regarding the
knowledge and skills important to their initial success. NASSP Bulletin, 92, 224-250. doi: 10.1177/0192636508322824
113
Portin, B., Schneider, P., DeArmond, M., & Gundlach, L. (September, 2003). Making sense of leading schools. Center for Reinventing Public Education. New York: NY. Wallace Foundation. Retrieved from http://www.wallacefoundation.org/KnowledgeCenter/KnowledgeTopics/CurrentAreasofFocus/EducationLeadership/Pages/MakingSenseofLeadingSchools.aspx
Poulin, B. J., Hackman, M. Z., & Barbarasa-Mihai, C. (2007). Leadership and
succession: The challenge to succeed and the vortex to failure. Leadership, 3(3), 301-324. doi: 10.1177/1742715007079311
Rhodes, C., & Brundrett, M. (November, 2005). Leadership succession in schools: a
cause for concern. Management in Education, 19(5), 15-18. doi: 10.1177/089202060501900504.
Rhodes, C., & Brundrett, M. (2006). The identification, development, succession and
retention of leadership talent in contextually different primary schools: A case study located within the English West Midlands. School Leadership & Management, 26(3), 269-287. doi: 10.1080/13632430600737124.
Rice, J. K. (April, 2010). Principal effectiveness and leadership in an era of
accountability: What research says. National Center for Analysis of Longitudinal Data in Education Research (CALDER), Brief 9. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute. Retrieved from http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/1001370_principal_effectiveness.pdf
Rothwell, W. (2005). Effective succession planning (3rd ed.). New York, NY: AMACON. Roza, M., Celio, M., Harvey, J., & Wishon, S. (January, 2003). A matter of definition: Is
there truly a shortage of school principals? Center on Reinventing Public Education. New York, NY: Wallace Foundation. Retrieved from http://www.wallacefoundation.org/KnowledgeCenter/KnowledgeTopics/CurrentAreasofFocus/EducationLeadership/Pages/AMatterofDefinition.aspx
Salazar, P. (2007). The professional development needs of rural high school principals:
A seven-state study. Rural Educator, 28(3), 20-27. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/
Schlechty, P. (2009). Leading for learning: How to transform schools into learning
organizations. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Sherman, W. (December, 2005). Preserving the status quo or renegotiating leadership:
Women’s experiences with a district-based aspiring leaders program. Educational Administration Quarterly, 41(5), 707-740. doi: 10.1177/0013161X05279548
114
Sparks, D. (2002). Designing powerful professional development for teachers and principals. National Staff Development Council. Oxford, OH. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/
Texas Education Agency (TEA, 2010). http://www.tea.state.tx.us/ Thompson, B. (2006). Foundations of behavioral statistics: An insight-based approach.
New York, NY: The Guilford Press. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (NCES, 2007).
The condition of education 2007. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (NCES, 2010).
The condition of education 2010. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (NCES, 2009).
Schools and staffing survey. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Vroom, V., & Jago, A. (2007). The role of the situation in leadership. American
Psychologist, 62(1), 17-24. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.62.1.17 Wallace Foundation. (2008). Becoming a leader: Preparing school principals for today’s
schools. New York: NY. Retrieved from http://www.wallacefoundation.org/SiteCollectionDocuments/WF/Knowledge%20Center/Attachments/PDF/becoming-a-leader.pdf
Weingartner, C. J. (2009). Principal mentoring: A safe, simple and supportive approach.
Thousand Oaks, California: Corwin Press. Whitaker, K. (2001). Where are the principal candidates? Perceptions of
superintendents. NASSP Bulletin. 85(82), 82-92. doi: 10.1177/019263650108562509
Winter, P., & Morgenthal, J. (2002). Principal recruitment in a reform environment:
Effects of school achievement and school level on applicant attraction to the job. Educational Administration Quarterly, 38. 319-340. doi: 10.1177/0013161X02383002
Witziers, B., Bosker, R., & Kruger, M. (August, 2003). Educational leadership and
student achievement: The elusive search for an association. Educational Administration Quarterly, 39, 398-425. doi: 10.1177/0013161X03253411.
Recommended