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.