USF Libraries
USF Digital Collections

Teacher perceptions of the changing role of the secondary middle school principal

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
Teacher perceptions of the changing role of the secondary middle school principal
Physical Description:
Book
Language:
English
Creator:
Coffin, Dawn E
Publisher:
University of South Florida
Place of Publication:
Tampa, Fla
Publication Date:

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Diverse
Administrators
Complexity
Education
Instructional leadership
Dissertations, Academic -- Educational Leadership -- Masters -- USF   ( lcsh )
Genre:
non-fiction   ( marcgt )

Notes

Abstract:
ABSTRACT: The focus of this study was to examine perceptions of middle school teachers regarding the changing role of the secondary middle school principal and compare teachers' results with assistant principals' and principals' perceptions of their role, thus adding the voice of teachers, regarding the secondary principal's role, to existing literature. Data was collected electronically using the survey method in one urban Florida school district. Qualitative and quantitative data were captured using the Principal's Role Questionnaire (PRQ) (Goodwin, 2002). Thirty-six principal role descriptor statements on the PRQ survey requested a level of agreement from research participants regarding changes, current and future roles of the secondary principal. Four open ended comment requests allowed participants to comment on the principal's role in those areas. Role descriptor statements were categorized into four areas: strategic leadership, instructional leadership, organizational leadership and political and community leadership. Quantitative findings revealed that teacher perceptions regarding the secondary middle school principal's role were significantly significant for only 14 of the 36 role descriptors when compared to principals' scores. Teachers' mean score ratings were lower than principals' for all 36 PRQ items, however their scores were considered in agreement, as no score was lower than 2.52. Lower score ratings for all 36 PRQ items suggested somewhat of a disconnection between principals and teachers as to the principal's role. Qualitative findings from teachers varied from an understanding of the principal's role to suggestions for the principal. Further research is needed to determine secondary principal role expectations that are important and desired by secondary teachers.
Thesis:
Dissertation (Ed.D.)--University of South Florida, 2008.
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references.
System Details:
Mode of access: World Wide Web.
System Details:
System requirements: World Wide Web browser and PDF reader.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Dawn E. Coffin.
General Note:
Title from PDF of title page.
General Note:
Document formatted into pages; contains 196 pages.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of South Florida Library
Holding Location:
University of South Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
aleph - 002007343
oclc - 402526574
usfldc doi - E14-SFE0002316
usfldc handle - e14.2316
System ID:
SFS0026634:00001


This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
record xmlns http:www.loc.govMARC21slim xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.loc.govstandardsmarcxmlschemaMARC21slim.xsd
leader nam Ka
controlfield tag 001 002007343
003 fts
005 20090618123308.0
006 m||||e|||d||||||||
007 cr mnu|||uuuuu
008 090618s2008 flu s 000 0 eng d
datafield ind1 8 ind2 024
subfield code a E14-SFE0002316
035
(OCoLC)402526574
040
FHM
c FHM
049
FHMM
090
LB2805 (Online)
1 100
Coffin, Dawn E.
0 245
Teacher perceptions of the changing role of the secondary middle school principal
h [electronic resource] /
by Dawn E. Coffin.
260
[Tampa, Fla] :
b University of South Florida,
2008.
500
Title from PDF of title page.
Document formatted into pages; contains 196 pages.
502
Dissertation (Ed.D.)--University of South Florida, 2008.
504
Includes bibliographical references.
516
Text (Electronic thesis) in PDF format.
3 520
ABSTRACT: The focus of this study was to examine perceptions of middle school teachers regarding the changing role of the secondary middle school principal and compare teachers' results with assistant principals' and principals' perceptions of their role, thus adding the voice of teachers, regarding the secondary principal's role, to existing literature. Data was collected electronically using the survey method in one urban Florida school district. Qualitative and quantitative data were captured using the Principal's Role Questionnaire (PRQ) (Goodwin, 2002). Thirty-six principal role descriptor statements on the PRQ survey requested a level of agreement from research participants regarding changes, current and future roles of the secondary principal. Four open ended comment requests allowed participants to comment on the principal's role in those areas. Role descriptor statements were categorized into four areas: strategic leadership, instructional leadership, organizational leadership and political and community leadership. Quantitative findings revealed that teacher perceptions regarding the secondary middle school principal's role were significantly significant for only 14 of the 36 role descriptors when compared to principals' scores. Teachers' mean score ratings were lower than principals' for all 36 PRQ items, however their scores were considered in agreement, as no score was lower than 2.52. Lower score ratings for all 36 PRQ items suggested somewhat of a disconnection between principals and teachers as to the principal's role. Qualitative findings from teachers varied from an understanding of the principal's role to suggestions for the principal. Further research is needed to determine secondary principal role expectations that are important and desired by secondary teachers.
538
Mode of access: World Wide Web.
System requirements: World Wide Web browser and PDF reader.
590
Advisor: Darlene Bruner, Ed.D.
653
Diverse
Administrators
Complexity
Education
Instructional leadership
690
Dissertations, Academic
z USF
x Educational Leadership
Masters.
773
t USF Electronic Theses and Dissertations.
4 856
u http://digital.lib.usf.edu/?e14.2316



PAGE 1

Teacher Perceptions of the Changing Role of the Sec ondary Middle School Principal by Dawn E. Coffin A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Education Department of Educational Leadership and Policy Stu dies College of Education University of South Florida Major Professor: Darlene Bruner, Ed.D. Roger Brindley, Ed.D. Arthur Shapiro, Ph.D. William Benjamin, Ph.D. Date of Approval: February 19, 2008 Keywords: diverse, administrators, complexity, educ ation, instructional leadership Copyright 2008, Dawn E. Coffin

PAGE 2

Dedication This dissertation is dedicated to the greatest gif t of all, the loves of my life, my children, Kasey Thomas and Christopher Lee. Their u nconditional love has made this professional and educational goal possible. Their s upport and understanding meant more to me than they will ever realize. It is my hope th at they now see that anything is possible if you work for it. I love you both beyond words.

PAGE 3

Acknowledgements First and foremost I would like to thank all the t eachers and administrators who took time out of their hectic schedules to complete the Principal’s Role Questionnaire and share their thoughts about the principalship, makin g this study possible. Their work is often thankless and taken for granted, however they have the greatest job of all, educating our children. I just want to thank them for everyth ing they do and endure everyday. I would also like to thank the school district for allowing me to conduct the study and for offering guidance along the way. Steve Iach ini and Dr. Behrokh Ahmadi were very gracious and offered suggestions, support, and resources to help me reach my goal. Dr. Dallas Jackson, my friend and colleague, was i nstrumental in helping me on my journey and provided guidance and support throug hout the entire process. Dr. Jackson kept me focused and asked tough questions throughou t the process, instigating very intriguing dialogue. Dr. Jackson was committed to g etting me to the finish line and I am grateful for his help and support. Dr. Steve Permuth was an extraordinary influence o n me and encouraged me to pursue this endeavor. His words of support and enco uragement meant a great deal to me. I will never forget Dr. Permuth’s classes and what a truly brilliant man he is. Dr. Nancy Zambito, former Deputy Superintendent, p rovided support, guidance and encouragement. I am grateful to her for all her insight and expertise. Dr. Rebecca Goodwin was incredibly gracious by all owing me to use the Principal’s Role Questionnaire that she developed a nd she also provided suggestions and recommendations to help me with this study. Her su pport and encouragement will never be forgotten.

PAGE 4

Dr. Darlene Bruner, committee chair, an eternal th ank you from the bottom of my heart. Your time, support, encouragement, wisdom, a nd graciousness will never be forgotten. You made a commitment to see me through this journey and you kept your word. I would not be here if it weren’t for you. Yo ur belief in me means more to me than you will ever know and I will never forget everythi ng you have done for me. I am eternally in your debt. My committee, Dr. Arthur Shapiro, Dr. William Benj amin, and Dr. Roger Brindley, thank you. Your time and support is so va luable and I am grateful that all three of you agreed to serve on my committee and guide me Your insight, guidance, expertise, and experience were incredible and I am thankful fo r all the time and support you gave me. Without each of you, this journey would not hav e been possible. Dr. Bobbie Greenlee, thank you for graciously step ping in for Dr. Benjamin. I appreciate your time and thoughtfulness which allow ed me to stay on my timeline. To all my friends, acquaintances, and colleagues w ho encouraged me, thank you. Your words and actions will never be forgotten. Lastly, to my best friend, thank you. You were the re through all the tears and frustration, as well as the joy and relief. You kep t me on the right path, continuing on the journey, until the end was in sight. You believed i n me, inspired me, and wouldn’t allow me to quit. Your love brought me to this point and I thank you with all my heart. Although this journey is over, many more journeys a wait us. Thank you.

PAGE 5

i Table of Contents List of Tables iv List of Figures v Abstract vi Chapter One: Introduction 1 Introduction 1 Significance of the Study 4 Purpose 8 Research Questions 8 Method 8 Limitation of the Study 10 Definition of Terms 10 Summary 11 Overview of Dissertation 13 Chapter Two: Literature Review 14 Introduction 14 History 17 Principal’s Role 25 Current Conditions 34 Principal Preparation 40 Guidance from the Field 48 Summary 49 Chapter Three: Methods 52 Introduction 52 Research Questions 56 Design of the Study 56 Population and Sample 56 Survey 58 Principal’s Role Questionnaire 60

PAGE 6

ii Perception 63 Instrumentation 65 Data Analysis 65 Professional Use 68 Chapter Four: Results 70 Presentation and Analysis of Data 70 Population and Sample 70 Principal’s Role Questionnaire 71 Descriptive Statistics 71 Composite Scores 72 Research Questions 73 Additional Analyses 74 Summary 78 Principal’s Role Questionnaire Comment Re sponses 81 Changes in the Principal’s Role – Teachers 83 Current Role of the Principal – Teacher 84 Future Role of the Principal – Teachers 87 General Comments Concerning the Role of the Principal 88 The Principal Should Not 88 The Principal Should 89 Administrator Responses 94 Chapter Five: Conclusions 95 Summary of the Study’s Purpose and Proced ures 95 Purpose of the Study 95 Methodology 96 The Principal’s Role Questionnaire 97 Principal’s Roles 98 Instructional Leadership 100 Summary 102 Strategic Leadership 103 Summary 104 Operational Leadership/Managerial 105 Summary 106 Political and Community Leadership/Extern al Development Leadership 107 Summary 108 Summary of Responses 109 Conclusions 112 The Changing Role of the Secondary Princi pal 112 Limitations of the Study 118 Recommendations for Further Study 119 Research Implications 122

PAGE 7

iii Recommendations 123 Professional Use 124 References 126 Appendices 148 Appendix A: Principal’s Role Questionnair e (Goodwin, 2002) 148 Appendix B: Florida Principal Leadership Standards 156 Appendix C: Data Analysis PRQ Goodwin, 20 02 159 Appendix D: Principal’s Role Questionnair e on SurveyMonkey 172 Appendix E: Institutional Review Board Ap proval 182 Appendix F: School District Approval Lett er 184 Appendix G: Emails to Participants 186 Appendix H: Principal’s Role Questionnair e ANOVAs 190 About the Author End Page

PAGE 8

iv List of Tables Table 1. Frequency and Percent of Total Experi ence 72 Table 2. Means and Standard Deviations of Dem ographic Research Variables 72 Table 3. Means and Standard Deviations of Research Variables by Position 73 Table 4. ANOVA – PRQ Role Descriptor Statement 76

PAGE 9

v List of Figures Figure 1. Miles and Huberman’s Data Analysis M odel 8 1

PAGE 10

vi Teacher Perceptions of the Changing Role of the Sec ondary Middle School Principal Dawn E. Coffin ABSTRACT The focus of this study was to examine p erceptions of middle school teachers regarding the changing role of the secondary middle school principal and compare teachers’ results with assistant principals’ and pr incipals’ perceptions of their role, thus adding the voice of teachers, regarding the seconda ry principal’s role, to existing literature. Data was collected electronically using the survey method in one urban Florida school district. Qualitative and quantitative data were captured using the Principal’s Role Questionnaire (PRQ) (Goodwin, 2002). Thirty-six pri ncipal role descriptor statements on the PRQ survey requested a level of agreement from research participants regarding changes, current and future roles of the secondary principal. Four open ended comment requests allowed participants to comment on the pri ncipal’s role in those areas. Role descriptor statements were categorized into four ar eas: strategic leadership, instructional leadership, organizational leadership and political and community leadership. Quantitative findings revealed that teacher percep tions regarding the secondary middle school principal’s role were significantly s ignificant for only 14 of the 36 role descriptors when compared to principals’ scores. Te achers’ mean score ratings were lower than principals’ for all 36 PRQ items, howeve r their scores were considered in agreement, as no score was lower than 2.52. Lower s core ratings for all 36 PRQ items suggested somewhat of a disconnection between princ ipals and teachers as to the principal’s role. Qualitative findings from teacher s varied from an understanding of the principal’s role to suggestions for the principal. Further research is needed to determine secondary principal role expectations that are important and desired by secondary teachers.

PAGE 11

1 Chapter One “The future of American Education can be no brighter than the future of the…school principalship.” NAESP, (1990, p. 45) Introduction The National Association of Elementary School Princ ipals (NAESP) and the National Association of Secondary School Principals (NASSP) are concerned that there is, and will continue to be, a principal shortage. There are many articles about schools with principal positions they cannot fill, retired principals being called back to full-time service, and districts being forced to go to great lengths to recruit qualified candidates (Educational Research Service (ERS), 1998 &1999). M any of the state affiliates of the two national groups (NASSP, NAESP) consider the lac k of qualified principal candidates to be a serious problem in their respective states (ERS, 1999; Koerner & Sava, 2001; Whitaker, 2001).The principal’s position is as chal lenging as ever due to accountability requirements, serious safety and security issues, u nending demands for time, poverty, prejudice, disadvantage, and legislation, all of wh ich contributes to the shortage of candidates (National Policy Board Educational Admin istration (NPBEA), 2001; Shen, Rodriguez-Campos & Rincones-Gomez, 2000). The principal shortage is a complex issu e and the literature is abundant with astonishing facts and statistics about the shortage the most alarming was that an estimated one-half of all public school principals were eligible to retire during the 1990s (ERS, 1998, 1999). On the other hand, much research points to the existence of an

PAGE 12

2 adequate number of persons certified to fill curren t and future positions, however, the problem is a lack of quality applicants, not quanti ty of applicants (Bottoms & O’Neill, 2001; Dituri, 2004; Kolek, 2002; Portin, 2000). The National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES) is the primary federal entity for collecting, analyzing, and reporting data related to education in the United States and other nations. NCES (2007) indicates that there were 19,700 public secondary principals in 2003-2004 compared to 18,300 in 1993-1994. Of the 19,700 public secondary principal s, 74% were male and 26% were female. Fifty-seven percent were over age 50 and 29 % were between the ages of 40 and 49. Comparatively, the over 50 group increased by 1 1% over the ten year period and the 40-49 age group decreased by 23%. In 2003-2004, 70% of principals had 10 years or less experience as a principal compared to 65% in 1993-1 994. This data supports the current trends in the literature concerning the principal s hortage. The message in the literature is clear tha t school systems today are dynamic, complex organizations who cater to many constituent groups and who also serve a very diverse student population, making the work of toda y’s school leader more intricate and challenging (Fullan, 1997; Gupton, 2003; Lyons, 199 9; Shellard, 2003). Many potential candidates for the position feel there is a signifi cant disconnect between the rewards of the job and the wear and tear imposed on the lives of the persons who occupy the position. Another contributing reason is that teach ers are opting to stay in the classroom as a result of achieving National Board Certificati on status, which provides financial incentives for a period of ten years, bringing thei r salaries closer to that of an administrator (Dituri, 2004; NPBEA, 2001).

PAGE 13

3 Fullan (1997) suggested that discussi on of the complexity of the principalship should not be based on the assumption “that the pos ition is rational and the work is linear, for, in reality, it is inherently, ineluctably, hop elessly nonlinear” (p.x). The successive waves of school reform have put more demands on the principals, making the job more complex which has lessened the appeal of the positi on. Principals are accountable for all aspects of the school and many principals and princ ipal candidates feel that the job just isn’t realistic and that they lack the authority an d skills they need to make meaningful change (Harris, Arnold, Lowery & Crocker, 2000; Lyo ns 1999). To do the job well, the principal must be a skilled instructional leader, c hange initiator, manager, personnel director, problem solver, and visionary, and there is little doubt that trying to be proficient at all of these roles has contributed to the shortage of qualified candidates (Blas & Kirby, 2000; Fullan, 1997; Harris et. al, 2000). The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 has strongly influenced the role of principals by requiring them to make data-driven de cisions and implement programs that are research based in order to bring every child up to grade level by the year 2013 (United State Department of Education (USDE), NCLB: A Desktop Reference, 2002). The intent of NCLB was to improve student achieveme nt and to change the culture of America’s schools (Jackson, 2004). NCLB embodies fo ur key principles: stronger accountability for results, local control, expanded options for parents and an emphasis on teaching qualifications and methods (USDE, NCLB, 20 02). Americans believe that quality education is fundamental to the economic we ll being of the nation and the

PAGE 14

4 democratic foundation of society (Gullatt & Ritter, 2000). As a result of this belief, efforts to strengthen public education have been un folding throughout the United States. Accountability in education has been a focus of governments and educational authorities, and schools are held accountable for b oth the effective teaching of students and for implementation of polices (Forster, 1999). It is extremely evident in this era of standards and accountability that the principal’s r ole is critical in terms of the overall success of a school, leaving no doubt that the job is extremely complex and demanding, requiring new skills for today’s school leaders (Ha rris, et al, 2000; Lin, Sherman & Gill, 2007). Principal positions are generally fill ed from the assistant principal ranks and most assistant principals have classroom teaching experi ence. If principal vacancies continue to remain difficult to fill, it is important to kn ow how the teachers and assistant principals perceive the role of the principal. It i s also just as important to examine how principals perceive their roles, how they’ve change d and for them to have an understanding of the perceptions of the constituent groups that they lead. Significance of the Study Today’s schools serve an increasingly diverse stud ent population with many academic and non-academic needs which caused the pr incipalship to evolve into a very different job from the principalship most often ass ociated with the early and mid-1900s. The position is considered more important than ever as schools face a myriad of issues, many of which are different from anything principal s have had to deal with in the past or been trained for (ERS, 2000; Gupton, 2003). The fed eral government as well as states

PAGE 15

5 and school districts, have raised standards for stu dent learning as a result of many reform efforts, most recently being the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) also known as the No Child Lef t Behind Act of 2001. Tirozzi (2003) through his research identif ied six key events that were significant political pressure points for principals (1)The ena ctment of Title I, which is now a major component of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), (2)The 1975 enactment of the Individuals with Disabilities Educ ation Act (IDEA), (3)The 1983 publication of A Nation At Risk (4)The Goals 2000 initiative of the late 1980s, (5) The standards movement of the mid 1990s, (6)The account ability/high stakes testing initiatives of the past few years (p.55). Each reform effort increased expectations and resp onsibilities for the school principal. National and state public policy and pol itics continue to drive the educational agenda and Tirozzi (2003) asserts that principals n eed to step up and embrace reform, being leaders in the process; “administering a scho ol in an environment that is politically motivated is not a spectator sport – it needs activ e participants” (Tirozzi, 2003, p.59). Scholars and practitioners of educational administr ation believe that principals can affect virtually all aspects of school life, ma king today’s principal a key determinant of a school’s effectiveness and level of student ac hievement (Blas & Kirby, 2000; Ferrandino & Terozzi, 2000; Glatthorn, 2000; Gupton 2003; Lyons, 1999; Millette, 1994; NASSP, 1988). “Every educational reform repor t of the 1980s concludes that the United States cannot have excellent schools without excellent leaders” (National Commission for the Principalship, 1990, p.9). The C ommission further elaborates:

PAGE 16

6 Principals provide leadership to schools along two dimensions. Exercising broad leadership, they influence school cultures by building a vision, stimulating innovation, and encouraging performance Principals also exercise initiative in a more technical sense by th e daily practice of functional leadership. They “make things happen” an d ensure that the organization’s tasks are accomplished (Principals f or Our Changing Schools, The National Commission for the Principal ship, p. 21). The role of competent, innovative, and ethical lead ers remains a cornerstone of school effectiveness and improvement (Portin, 2000) Expectations for principals are as varied and conflicting as the groups that hold them (Portin, 2000). These views are formed by differing perceptions of leadership, mana gement, priorities, style, education, politics, economics, and other factors. Successful leaders need to have the skills to deal with these incompatible expectations from both inte rnal and external sources (Goens, 1998). The professional literature is abundant with resear ch regarding the principal’s changing role, from managerial to that of instructi onal leader (Blas & Blas, 2004; ERS, 1999; Gupton, 2003; Mackler, 1996; Stronge, 1993). Instructional leadership has been associated with supervision, staff development, and curriculum development to improve student achievement, however more recently Blas an d Blas (2004, p. 11) describe instructional leadership as defined by Sheppard’s ( 1996) interpretation of the literature as, “interactions between leaders and followers wherein the followers’ beliefs and perceptions are viewed as important.” Successful, effective schools have strong

PAGE 17

7 instructional leaders who monitor whether the best teaching methods are being used and student learning is taking place (Glatthorn, 2000). Perceptions of the secondary principal’s role have been extensively written about and this study may add to the literature by includi ng the teacher perceptions of the principals’ role and comparing the teacher percepti ons to the administrator groups (principal and assistant principal). Researchers an d scholars seem to agree that the principal is the most pivotal position in the schoo l, influencing the school’s success and the students’ achievement (Blas & Kirby, 2000; Fer randino & Terozzi, 2000; Glatthorn, 2000; Gupton, 2003; Lyons, 1999; Millette, 1994; NA SSP, 1988). Given the importance of the role of principal, this study may be of valu e to those persons who establish the expectations for the principalship and regulate sch ools. This study may also provide valuable information to principals as they work to create a climate of collegiality and teamwork in their schools. In addition it may also be beneficial to those who work with aspiring principals or mentor new principals so the y have a better understanding of the stakeholders they serve. The local school board may find the information useful as they move to approve policy concerning the principalship that could place even more demands on principals and their time. Although this is a lo cal study, it could be useful to the principals’ professional organization, The National Association of Secondary School Principals, as they further study the secondary pri ncipalship in the future. Finally, the study may be of value to principals as they plan fo r school improvement as well as professional and personal growth. The results may a lso assist principals in understanding the importance of building relationships with their teachers, assistant principals and

PAGE 18

8 varied constituent groups. The qualitative as well as quantitative data analysis could help increase their understanding of their role by more clearly explicating the challenging, complex, and sometimes chaotic role they have. Purpose The literature is scant, if not non-exist ent, on the teachers’ perception of the role of the principal. The purpose of this study was to exa mine the perceptions of teachers on the changing role of middle school principal and compar e with the principals and assistant principals perceptions of the changing role of the middle school principal. Research Questions The research questions addressed in this study were : Question 1. Are there significant differences in pa rticipants’ perceptions on Role Changes by Position (Teacher vs. Assistant vs. Principal)? Question 2. Are there significant differences in pa rticipants’ perceptions on Current Role by Position (Teacher vs. Assistant vs. Principal)? Question 3. Are there significant differences in pa rticipants’ perceptions on Changes that Should Occur by Position (Teacher vs. Assistant vs. Principal)? These questions provided the framework for analyzin g the participant responses to the opened ended comment questions in the Principal’s R ole Questionnaire. Method This study used a mixed method approach and was a document analysis only. Quantitative data was obtained from three different research groups: teachers, assistant principals and principals using the Principal’s Rol e Questionnaire (Goodwin, 2002).

PAGE 19

9 Qualitative data was obtained from the open ended c omment statements at the end of each category of questions: changes, current, futur e. The Principal’s Role Questionnaire (Appendix A) wa s developed and validated by Dr. Rebecca Goodwin, Marshall University. Permissio n was obtained to use the questionnaire from Dr. Goodwin. Goodwin conducted a national survey in 2002 to examine the changing role of the secondary principa l. Goodwin used the Delphi technique to engage expert principals, those princi pals who were 2000-2001 Met-Life National Association of Secondary School Principals state high school principals of the year, in three rounds of electronic conversation an d rating activities. As a result, the expert panel of principals identified 45 descriptor s for the changing role of the principal. Goodwin (2002) created the Principal’s Role Questio nnaire using the 45 descriptors and a Likert scale that indicated a confidence level for each of the descriptors. The questionnaire was sent out to 375 secondary princip als who were members of NASSP. A moderate to high level of confidence for each descr iptor was obtained from the 109 principals who participated in the study. Principal s were the focus of Goodwin’s study and this study was different in that it also includ ed teachers and assistant principals. The survey method was used in this study as it pro vided both quantitative and qualitative data as well as ease of access and admi nistration. Statistical analyses were run on the quantitative data using SPSS 14. A content a nalysis was conducted on the responses of the open ended questions and patterns and themes were identified. “Content analysis is used to refer to any qualitative data r eduction and sense-making effort that takes a volume of qualitative material and attempts to identify core consistencies and

PAGE 20

10 meanings” (Patton, 2002, p. 453). “Inductive analys is involves discovering patterns, themes, and categories in one’s data. Findings emer ge from the data, through the analyst’s interactions with the data” (Patton, 2002 p. 453). A purposeful sample was used in the study. Accordin g to Patton (2002) purposeful sampling “illustrates characteristics of particular subgroups of interest; facilitates comparisons” (p.244). Every teacher, as sistant principal and principal in all 22 middle schools in an urban Florida school district were invited to participate in the study by completing the questionnaire. Limitations of the Study This study was restricted to one school district i n an urban school district in Florida restricting sample size to 22 middle school s. For the purpose of this study a middle school is a school that serves grades six th rough eight. Based on the sample size, nationwide generalizations would be limited. The di strict where the study took place is the 23rd largest in the nation, 7th in the state of Florida,. The structure of the pri ncipalship in this particular district may influence the respo nses from the participants as it may be the only administrative experience of the participa nt. At the time of the study, the researcher was a principal in the district which co uld be considered a limitation as well as an advantage to the study. Data were gathered using only a single instrument for a very complex problem. Definition of Terms Cultural Leadership: Tending to the symbolic resources of the school: i ts climate, traditions, and history (Portin, 2003).

PAGE 21

11 External Development Leadership: Representing the school in the community, developing capital, tending to public relations, re cruiting students, buffering and mediating external interests, and advocating for th e school’s interests (Portin, 2003). Human resources Leadership: Recruiting, hiring, firing, inducting, and mentori ng teachers and administrators; developing leadership capacity and professional development opportunities (Portin, 2003). Instructional Leader : Ensuring quality of instruction, modeling teac hing practices, supervising curriculum, and ensuring quality of tea ching resources (Portin, 2003). Managerial Leadership: Overseeing the operations of the school (its budge t, schedule, facilities, safety and security, and transportation ) (Portin, 2003). Micro-political Leadership: Buffering and mediating internal interests while m aximizing resources (financial and human) (Portin, 2003). Middle School : Schools that serve grades six, seven, and eight (Pinellas County Schools). Principalship : The principal’s position or job in a school. Strategic Leadership: Promoting vision, mission, and goals and developin g a means to reach them (Portin, 2003). Stakeholders : The groups of individuals that have an interest in a school or schools (Svendsen, 1998 ). Survey/Questionnaire : The Principal’s Role Questionnaire (Goodwin, 20 02). Summary It is evident that the demands on our schools, incl uding our teachers, administrators and support staff, are immense and c ontinue to increase and change in a

PAGE 22

12 way that no one could have predicted. Resources are scarce and there seems to be a state of fiscal uncertainty where education is concerned. Schools today serve more diverse, complex student populations who have many special n eeds that are academic as well as non-academic in nature, challenging everyone on the school campus and taking time away from instruction. Principals must be managers of their buildings but more importantly they must be instructional leaders, a r ole that some principals do not feel comfortable with or feel they have time for. This c omes at a point in time when there is tremendous pressure on schools to meet the accounta bility standards of NCLB and teachers, as well as principals, are feeling the st ress. Administrators across the United States recognize that the education system needs fu ndamental changes to keep pace with an increasingly complex global society (Anderson, 1 993; Murphy, 2001). Change can be difficult as stakeholders in the system tend to see change primarily from their own perspective and it has been noted that stakeholders want change, but in reality don’t want anything to change (McGuire, 2001). Principals need the skills, knowledge, and resources to deal with all the expectations, whether perceive d or real, logical or illogical, so they are able to address them effectively and successful ly. This is the non-rational world of the secondary principal, a world of complexity and nonl inearity (Fullan, 1997). Katz (1974), a renowned author of management theory, in the arti cle Skills of an Effective Administrator, stated that the selection and training of good adm inistrators is one of the most pressing problems in American Industry. Katz i s noted for his “three skills approach” (p. 3) to management: technical, human an d conceptual, all which he states can be developed and are not necessarily inborn. Ka tz contends that everything a leader

PAGE 23

13 does falls into one of these three categories and c learly the work of school leaders falls under his management approach, therefore making und erstanding the perceptions of the people that principals lead both a conceptual and h uman skill that are critical, in this ever changing time of accountability and uncertainty. Overview of Dissertation In Chapter 1, a brief review of the literature reve aled that the perceptions of teachers of the changing role of the principal was absent from the literature. Research questions were identified along with The Principal’ s Roe Questionnaire (Goodwin, 2002) as a method of data collection. The study used purp oseful sample which limits the generalizability of the study. Chapter 2 presents a literature review regarding the history, traditional roles, current conditions and preparati on of the principalship. Chapter 3 discusses the data collection and method of analysi s. Chapter 4 presents the data and the themes and patterns that emerge. Chapter 5 conclude s with a summary of the findings and recommendations for future research.

PAGE 24

14 Chapter Two Review of the Literature “The single most important factor in determining the climate of an organization is the top executive.” Charles Ga lloway Introduction Researchers, policy makers, and educational practit ioners agree; principals are the keystone of good schools (Educational Research Serv ice (ERS), 2000; Fullan, 2002; Olson, 2000; Portin, 2003; Shellard, 2003).The buil ding principal is considered the pivotal position in American public schools and thi s challenging position requires persons with exceptional ability, energy, and commi tment (Blas & Kirby 2000; Bloom, 1999; Chirichello, 2004; Cistone & Stevenson, 2000; ERS, 2000; Hallinger & Heck, 1996; Kennedy, 2002; National Policy Board for Educ ational Administration [NPBEA], 2001).The review of literature clearly points to th e principal’s office and its importance in terms of school success (Blas & Blas, 2004; Blas & Kirby, 2000; Cuban, 1986; Harris, 2004; McEwan, 2003; Olson, 2000; Stronge, 1993; Wan zare & DaCosta, 2001).“Effective school leadership, in the form of a dedicated, skilled principal, is a key element in creating and maintaining high-quality sc hools” (Cusick, 2003, p.1). Some researchers compare the principalship to that of a Corporate Executive Officer (CEO) (Hollar, 2004). The students are referred to as the principals’ clients and the principal, like a company president, encourages innovation, te amwork and risk-taking by his staff

PAGE 25

15 (Cuban, 1986; Hollar, 2004). Fenwick and Pierce (20 01) argue that great principals are master teachers with expert knowledge in teaching s trategies, curriculum content, classroom management, and child development. There are also many researchers who will argue that the principal, being the instructio nal leader, is the key ingredient to effective and high performing schools, making it th e most important position in the school (Blas & Blas, 2004; Blas & Kirby, 2000; C hirichello, 2004; Glatthorn, 2000; Gupton, 2003; Harris, 2004; McEwan, 2003; Peterson, 2001; Tirozzi, 2000; Wanzare & DaCosta 2001). According to Fullan, (1997) much focus has been pla ced on the principal’s leadership, however, “despite all the attention on the principal’s leadership we appear to be losing ground, if we take as our measure of prog ress the declining presence of increasingly large numbers of highly effective, sat isfied principals” (p.1). The Institute for Educational Leadership (IEL) furt her stated: Schools nationwide are grappling with serious probl ems ranging from random outbreaks of violence and crumbling facilit ies to staff shortfalls and chronically low academic expectations for stude nts, but many people believe that a scarcity of capable education leader s ranks among the most severe of the problems. Without strong leaders, sch ools have little chance of meeting any other challenge (2000, p.1). Researchers have addressed the lackluster enthusias m for the principal’s job and claim there is a shortage of candidates for the pos ition (Chirichello, 2004; ERS, 1999; 2000; Fink & Brayman, 2006; Grubb & Flessa 2006; No rton, 2002).Two main themes

PAGE 26

16 emerge for the shortage: there appears to be a shor tage of qualified candidates and those who are qualified aren’t applying for vacant positi ons (Chirichello, 2004; Cusick, 2003; ERS, 1999; 2000; Klempen & Richetti, 2001; Norton, 2002; Olson, 2000). The principal shortage is nationwide and is particularly evident at the secondary level (Cistone & Stevenson, 2000; Klempen & Richetti, 2001; Yerkes & Guaglianone, 1998).The multitude of social problems and the scarcity of re sources in urban areas have added to the difficulty of the principalship and have increa sed the reluctance of teachers to pursue a position which many believe is not doable (Chiric hello, 2004; Cistone & Stevenson, 2000; Cusick, 2003; Kimball & Sirotnik, 2000; NPBEA 2001; Portin, 2000). Kevin McGuire, Director of the Center for School Leadersh ip at the University of New York, cites four reasons for the perceived principal shor tage: (1) the fact that a large numbers of persons who went into education in the 1960s are no w reaching retirement age, (2) the perception that preparation programs are not reflec tive of the reality of daily school administration, (3) the lack of incentives that wou ld motivate teachers to move into administration, and (4) environment that is unforgi ving and not very supportive (McGuire, 2001, p.14). The reform efforts over the past 20 years, as well as social changes, have impacted the principalship (Cistone & Stevenson, 20 00; Kimball & Sirotnik, 2000; Murphy, 1994; Portin, 2000; Shen, Rodriguez & Rinco nes, 2000). Principals have reported that their job has changed both in the amo unt of work and complexity of the work (Delisio, 2006; ERS, 1999; Grubb & Flessa, 200 6; Norton, 2002; Portin, 2000). Portin (2000) recognized several themes in his stud y of the changing principalship over

PAGE 27

17 the past 20 years which has led to a greater sense of frustration, pessimism, decline in morale and enthusiasm for principals. The themes in cluded frustrations over a layering of responsibilities, the inability to find enough time to engage in perceived leadership activities of the school, ambiguity of authority, t he complexity in problems encountered and in decision making (p. 499). The objectives of this study were to research the perceptions and experiences of the principalship role, examine how the role has ch anged over the years, and examine teachers’, assistant principals’, and principals’ p erceptions of the role of the principal. History The history of the principalship was not precisely documented so the actual date that the principal position became an entity all of its own is unclear (Rousmaniere, 2007). Rousmaniere (2007) suggests three reasons why the p rincipal is missing from both the political history of school administration and the social history of schools. The first reason is that “histories of educational administra tion are written primarily by scholars with limited historical training in order to frame prescriptive guidance for contemporary school leaders” (p.3). A second reason that the pri ncipal has been neglected is that “historians of education have tended to encapsulate the entire field of school administration in the popular historical trope of t he administrative progressive” (p.4). She suggests that in the late nineteenth century educat ional reformers were basically divided into two groups: pedagogical progressives who promo ted a child-centered, humanistic approach to education, and administrative progressi ves who advocated for the development of school systems driven by values of f iscal economy and organizational

PAGE 28

18 accountability. Rousmaniere’s third reason why hist orians have overlooked the principalship is personal bias against them. She su ggests that most of us remember a teacher that inspired us but we tend to remember th e principal only for unfortunate, less pleasant reasons. The word principal was used as early as 1841 in a r eport Horace Mann wrote to the Massachusetts School Board and it was used as a n adjective to describe what the role function was (Wood, Nicholson & Findley, 1985). Hor ace Mann, considered the Father of American Education, is credited for providing th e leadership behind the common school movement which led to tax supported compulso ry schools (Bookbinder, 1992; Cremin, 1957; Matthews & Crow 2003; Wood, Nicholson & Findley, 1985). Teachers were responsible for running the one room schoolhouses in those days which included taking care of all administrative, j anitorial and clerical tasks (Bookbinder, 1992; Matthews & Crow 2003; Wood, Nicholson & Findl ey, 1985; Rousmaniere, 2007). Schools eventually grew larger and so did the respo nsibilities of the teacher. Schools designated a principal teacher or head teacher to t ake care of all the administrative tasks of the school and to serve as the leader of the sch ool. The principal teacher at that time still taught in the classroom (Bookbinder, 1992; Wo od, Nicholson & Findley, 1985). The term headmaster is also associated with the for mation of the principalship. In the eighteenth century the term headmaster was in c ommon use and the functions of the headmaster were similar to that of the head teacher (Bookbinder, 1992; Wood, Nicholson & Findley, 1985). Headmasters took care of the admi nistrative tasks of the school as did head teachers (Bookbinder, 1992; Wood, Nicholson & Findley, 1985). As schools grew,

PAGE 29

19 the need to have one person designated to be respon sible for the operations of the school became apparent. The head teacher eventually became what we now know as the principal. As towns grew larger, local school committees found that one and two teacher schools were inefficient, so smaller schools were c ombined. As the schools became larger, more authority was given to the head teachers. During the period of 1840-1870, school committees in the larger citie s felt the need to delegate administrative responsibility. The first superinten dents of schools were appointed in 1837 in Buffalo, New York, and in Louisville, Ke ntucky. Superintendents soon realized that the head teacher who also taught clas ses was not in a position to provide needed administrative assistance. The schoo l principalship developed into an official staff post as the head teacher assumed increasing responsibility for the administration of the local school. As these head t eachers were relieved of their teaching responsibilities, the word principal came into common use (Wood, Nicholson & Findley, 1985, p.2). Most of the duties principals performed were cleric al in nature prior to 1850. By 1900, the principal had become the manager of the school and assumed supervisory responsibilities to include supervision of instruct ion, instructional staff and staff development (Wood, Nicholson & Findley, 1985). Bookbinder (1992) also identified several factors that contributed to the early development of the principalship.

PAGE 30

20 1. The rapid growth of the cities during the 1850-1900 period and subsequent problems accompanying the schooling of an ever expa nding school age population. 2. The introduction of new sets of management problems related to the coordination of pupils and curriculum. 3. The reorganization of schools and the consolidation of departments under a single administrative head. 4. The establishment of the position of a head assista nt to free the principal from teaching responsibilities (p.10). The newly established school principal was a mid-le vel executive responsible for day-to-day building operations rather than strategi c policy decisions (Goodwin, Cunningham & Eagle, 2005; Rousmaniere, 2007). The p rincipal’s position continued to evolve during the nineteenth century into what is n ow known as the modern day principal (Bookbinder, 1992; Matthews & Crow, 2003; Wood, Nic holson & Findley, 1985). Of the many organizational changes that took place in public education in North America at the turn of the last century, few had greater impact on the school than the development of the principal. The creation of the principal’s office revolutionized the internal or ganization of the school from a group of students supervised by one teacher to a collection of teachers managed by one administrator. In its very conception, the appointment of a school-based administrator who wa s authorized to supervise other teachers significantly restructure d power relations in

PAGE 31

21 schools, realigning the source of authority from t he classroom to the principal’s office. Just as significant was the ro le that the principal played as a school based representative of the central ed ucational office. Created as a conduit between the district and the classroo m, the principal became an educational middle manager in an increasingly c omplex school bureaucracy (Rousmaniere, 2007, p. 1). Beck and Murphy (1993, p.202) assigned metaphorical themes to the general eras of the principalship based on evidence found in the litera ture: 1920s values broker, 1930s scientific manager, 1940s democratic leader, 1950s theory guided administrator, 1960s bureaucratic executive, 1970s humanistic facilitato r, and 1980s instructional leader. The 1990s metaphorical theme could be the principal as a “learning organization catalyst” (Linn, Sherman & Gill, 2007, p. 164). The 1960s and 1970s were a time of growth and chan ge for the principalship as teacher unions were on the rise and collective barg aining agreements changed the basic nature of the principalship from that of colleague of teachers to a representative of the school board (Goodwin, 2002). Beck and Murphy (1993 ) also described the role of the principal in the 1960s as a role in conflict due to the civil rights movement and other protest movements. Public education in the 1960s became front-page new s as a battleground in the War on Poverty and the quest for racial equalit y. Across the land in the generation following Brown appeared major changes in public education: desegregation, federal aid to schools se rving poor children,

PAGE 32

22 dozens of state and federal categorical programs ai med a neglected populations, legislation guaranteeing racial and se xual equity, new entitlements for handicapped pupils, state laws dem anding accountability and minimum standards for promotion and graduation, bilingual -bicultural programs, career education, and a host of other reforms large and small. The courts took an increasingly active r ole in school governance and finance. Teachers became more milita nt and well organized and won collective bargaining rights that preempted many traditional powers of school boards and superintend ents (Tyack & Hansot, 1982, pp. 214-215). These forces became and continue to be factors in t he complex responsibilities of the building principal. Beck and Murphy (1993) describe the 1970s as a per iod when the principal was described as a community leader, imparter of meanin g, facilitator of positive relationships, and juggler of multiple meaning. Pri ncipals started dealing with issues that were non-academic in nature such as: teen pregnancy drug abuse, alcoholism, decreasing attendance and were expected to provide leadership in solving these issues (Beck & Murphy, 1993). The 1970s also were noted for the passage of 1972 Title IX of the Education Amendments to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Fede ral Public Law 94-142 Education for Handicapped Children Act (now known as the Indi viduals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)). Title IX required administrators to ma ke sure that the schools were free of

PAGE 33

23 gender inequalities. Federal Public Law 94-142 prov ided a free and appropriate public education for all handicap children in the least re strictive environment possible. Hallinger (1992) described the principal’s role during the 19 60s and 1970s as one of program manager, as all these federal mandates required imp lementation and compliance. The 1980s brought about three waves of reform begi nning with the publication of A Nation at Risk (National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1 983) which called for increased achievement and accountability (Goodw in, 2002). The second wave began in 1986 when A Nation Prepared (Carnegie Forum on Education and the Economy, 1986) and Time for Results (National Governor’s Association, 1986) called for more teacher empowerment and restructuring of school gov ernance and the third wave, beginning in the late 1980s, emphasized the involve ment of teachers, parents, students, community members and business leaders in site-base d school management (Goodwin, 2002). Snyder and Anderson (1986) wrote extensively about this movement of school improvement which involved all stakeholders in the management of the schools. School administrators may have a vision for the school, bu t so do the state, the local school board, parents, community members, and the central office. The administrator must move the school in the direction of combined expectation s and visions (Snyder & Anderson, 1986). Murphy (1998) described the principal of the 1990s as leader, servant, organizational architect, social architect, educato r, moral agent, and person in the community. Murphy (1994) further claimed that princ ipals who were working hard at school improvement and reform had a difficult task and their jobs became much more

PAGE 34

24 demanding and difficult. “A nearly universal concer n is the expanded work load confronting principals in restructuring schools” (M urphy, 1994, p.95). McGuire (2001) noted in his interview with Curriculum Review, that political pressure was great for school improvement, however, it was wanted without having to make any changes. “To really move forward, you have to shake the cage, an d not everybody likes that” (p.1). Goens, 1998, p. 103 concurred, “It appears everyone wants reform but no one wants to change.” School improvement became filled with com plicated bureaucratic responsibilities and massive paperwork which left l ittle creativity at the school level (NASSP, 2001). The increased expectations for princ ipals, along with balancing strong leadership and shared power, as well as the need fo r increased resources created “role overload and role ambiguity” for principals (Murphy 1994, p. 95). Dale Brubaker (1995), a Professor of Education at the University of North Carolina, read the autobiographies of 500 principal s he had taught in graduate classes over the course of 20 years. He identified the foll owing themes about the changes in the principalship that emerged from those autobiographi es over the 20 year period: The importance of access to information. Public accountability. An emphasis on quantitative measures (data). More controlled accounting practices. An increase in feminist and ethnic consciousness an d career aspirations. Emphasis on curriculum and instruction. An increase in political involvement with both scho ol boards and legislatures. An impatience with externally imposed innovations Lack of time to accomplish all that needs to be don e Lack of reflection (pp. 88-95).

PAGE 35

25 Principal’s Role Many studies have examined the role of the principa l and how that role has changed over the past 20 years (Beck & Murphy, 1992 ; Brubaker, 1995; Catano & Stronge, 2006; Cistone & Stevenson, 2000; Crow & Gl ascock, 1995; Hallinger & Heck, 1996; Metlife Examination of School Leadership, 200 3; Murphy, 1998; Goodwin, Cunningham & Childress, 2003; Goodwin, Cunningham & Eagle, 2005; Langer & BorisSchacter, 2003; Pierce, 2000; Portin, 2000; Portin & Shen 1998; Portin, Schneider, DeArmond & Gundlach, 2003). In the last 20 years, s cholars of leadership theory have attempted to define types of leadership in schools to include: instructional, facilitative, transformational, visionary, curriculum, and school culture (Catano & Stronge, 2006). It is evident that the complexity of the principal’s r ole is increasing and demands a multitude of leadership skills (Catano & Stronge, 2 006; Fink & Brayman 2006; Fullan, 1997; Grubb & Flessa, 2006; Pierce, 2000; Portin & Shen 1998; Portin, Schneider, DeArmond & Gundlach, 2004). The role of the principal continually changes and principals are expected to provide leadership in response to numerous expectat ions and demands from a divergent public, which further complicates their role (Goens 1998; Holland, 1997; Murphy, 1994; Portin, 2003; Shellard, 2003; Shen, Rodriguez, & Ri ncones, 2000; Stronge, 1993; Tirozzi, 2001). In years past the principal was the building manager and took care of the operational aspects of the job such as monitoring s tudents and their behavior, as well as carrying out the directives of the superintendent a nd school board (Cuban, 1986; DiPaola & Moran, 2003; Rousmaniere, 2007). Principals carri ed out the school district’s

PAGE 36

26 initiatives, took care of personnel issues, ordered supplies, took care of budget issues, kept the school grounds safe, kept public relations tranquil, as well as be the busing coordinator and food service monitor (IEL, 2000). T oday’s principal is expected to continue the role of the past, take on new tasks, a nd also be the instructional leader of the school (Portin, 2003). Many researchers feel the ta sks of management and instructional leadership is overwhelming and leads to job dissati sfaction (Chirichello, 2004; Haar, 2004; Lashway, 2002; Pierce, 2000; Peterson & Kelle y, 2001). The principals’ role will change as the external en vironment changes (Bookbinder, 1992). Changing political, economic, a nd social environments, both national and international, have some impact on the role of the principal (Bookbinder, 1992; Hollar, 2004; Wanzare & DaCosta, 2001; Wood, Nicholson & Findley, 1985). Researchers have explored the circumstances of rura l administrators (Edinger & Murphy, 1995; Muse & Thomas, 1991) as well as urban adminis trators (Cistone & Stevenson, 2000; Kimball & Sironik, 2000) and found that role of the principals were not different in different settings. However, studies have shown tha t region, community and individual school’s needs affect the type of problems facing s chool principals (NCES, 1995; Portin, 2000). The principalship will also be affected by trends i n education which fall into three categories: teaching and learning, governance, and communication (Murphy, 1998). Pedagogy, psychology, and content are undergoing sc rutiny and revision as schools move toward constructivism, active learning, and coopera tive relationships (Murphy, 1998). The importance of technology and the inevitability of virtual learning will have powerful

PAGE 37

27 implications for curriculum and instruction (Terroz i, 2001). Shared governance that is more flexible and responsive to local school needs and based on the development of human resources will require new collaborative and developmental skills (Boyer, 1993; Murphy, 1998). Finally, the relations with the grea ter community will affect the control of schools and will demand communication and negoti ation skills by principals (Murphy, 1998). Matthews and Crow (2003) concluded from their stud y of the principalship that there are primarily seven different roles principal s have and that most everything a principal does, as part of the job, will fall into one of those categories: mentor, supervisor, leader, learner, manager, politician an d advocate. These roles are similar in nature to the seven critical leadership roles that Portin, Schneider, DeArmond & Gundlach (2003) describe in their study of the prin cipalship in 2000 in conjunction with The College of Education and the Center on Reinvent ing Public Education of the Daniel J. Evans School of Public Affairs, both at the Univ ersity of Washington and funded by the Wallace Foundation. The study was part of a maj or, multi-year, multi-million dollar effort by the foundation to help improve and develo p new leadership for American schools. Portin (2003, p. 18), Chair of the Educati onal Leadership Department at the University of Washington, took on the task of exami ning what principals actually do, not what principals should or could be doing or their e ffectiveness. The three year study involved 21 schools with the researchers conducting in depth interviews with principals, teachers, department heads, and assistant principal s. The goal of the research was to

PAGE 38

28 understand what it takes to actually lead a school. The research was guided by three questions, which were all perceptions: 1. Are there core roles that all principals play in re gardless of the type of school they lead? 2. How do these roles differ across traditional public magnet, charter, and private schools? 3. Do current training programs address the demands of the job? The study team hoped to issue findings in three key areas: dimensions of school leadership, leadership tasks, and whether training for principals could be improved. The study team drew five major conclusions at the e nd of the study: 1. The core of the principal’s job is diagnosing his o r her particular school’s needs and, given the resources and talents available, dec iding how to meet them (p.9). 2. Regardless of school type, schools need leadership in seven critical areas: 1. instructional (ensuring quality of instruction, mod eling teaching practices, supervising curriculum, ensuring quality of teachin g resources) 2. cultural (tending to the symbolic resources of the school: c limate, traditions, history) 3. managerial (overseeing operations: budget, schedule facilities, safety and security, transportation) 4. human resources (recru iting, hiring, firing, inducting and mentoring teachers and administrators, developi ng leadership capacity and professional development opportunities) 5. strategi c (promoting vision, mission, and goals and developing a means to reach them), 6. external development (representing the school in the community, developi ng capital, public relations,

PAGE 39

29 buffering and mediating external interests) and 7. micro-political (buffering and mediating internal interests while maximizing resou rces: financial and human) (p. 17). 3. Principals are responsible for ensuring that leader ship happens in all seven critical areas, but they don’t have to provide it. Principal s can be one man bands, leaders of jazz combos, or orchestra conductors (p. 25). 4. Governance matters and a school’s governance struct ure affects the way key leadership functions are performed (p. 31). 5. Principals learn by doing. However trained, most pr incipals think they learned the skills they need on the job (p. 37). The research report clearly brought to light that n ot every school needs the same type of leadership, not every school is the right place for principals with little training, and the principals’ authority matters a great deal (Hill, 2 003). When principals lack the authority to choose teache rs or adapt methods and schedules, they become mere middle managers. An d when they do not enjoy the support they require from policymaker s, district administrators, and training institutions, they can easily be put in a double bind of being responsible for everything while lack ing the authority to decide anything (Hill, 2003, p. 8). In order to perform the many functions of managemen t and assume all of the roles that are expected, principals must be skilled, for it is the principal who directs the activities of others and undertakes the responsibility for the re sults of the school (Bookbinder, 1992;

PAGE 40

30 Portin, 2003; Portin & Shen, 1998; Wood, Nicholson, & Findley, 1985). Robert Katz (1974) considered a legend for his publications in management, wrote in 1955 that the ideal executive is one who is equipped to cope effe ctively with any problem in the organization and one who possessed three managerial skills that are essential to be successful in management: technical skill, human sk ill, and conceptual skill. Katz (1974) argues that a skill is an ability that can be devel oped and not necessarily inborn and Tom Peters, author of In Search of Excellence agrees with him (NASSP, 1988). Technical skill, as Katz describes, is an understanding of, a nd proficiency in, a specific kind of activity. Technical skill involves methods, process es, procedures, or techniques (Katz, 1974; Peterson & Fleet, 2004). Human skill is the a bility to work effectively with others (Katz, 1974; Peterson & Fleet, 2004). It is the abi lity to perceive and recognize the perception of the people one works with and how one behaves as a result of that knowledge (Katz, 1974). The person with highly developed human skill is awa re of this own attitudes, assumptions, and beliefs about other ind ividuals and groups, he is able to see the usefulness and limitations of th ese feelings. By accepting the existence of viewpoints, perceptions, and beliefs which are different from his own, he is skilled in understand ing what others really mean by their words and behavior (Katz, p.3, 1974) Wanzare and DaCosta’s (2001) explanation of the pri ncipal’s job aligns with Katz’s managerial interpretation of human skill

PAGE 41

31 The principal’s job is to help the school achieve a high level of performance through utilization of its human and material resou rces. Simply put, the job of the principal is to get things done by working with and through other people (p.270). Murphy (1998) defines the principal’s job as the pe rson who guides good instruction, manages effectively, disciplines fairly and one who reaches out well beyond the campus. Conceptual skill refers to the ability to be a visi onary and see the global picture so that actions are taken to move the organization for ward (Katz, 1974; Peterson & Fleet, 2004). Perceiving how decisions will affect each an d every part of an organization is an essential element of conceptual skill and will dete rmine the success of those decisions on the organization as a whole (Katz, 1974). Given a v ision, the actual work of the leader is to facilitate the organization’s learning and respo nding to changing conditions. Leaders engage routinely in the following activities: devel op listening and sharing systems, stimulate discourse with information, build work gr oups and networks, expect selforganization to emerge, foster piloting of complete new system, and shed the old and nurture the new system (Snyder, Acker, Hocevar & Sn yder, 2000). Principals need to develop these three management skills, and all they encompass, if they are going to survive the complexities of the position (Bookbinde r, 1992; Portin, 2004; Portin & Shen, 1998; Terrozi, 2001; Wood, Nicholson, & Findley, 19 85). While previous principals functioned primarily as m anagers of school operations, today’s principal has to be much more than a manage r as the complexity of society continues to be ever changing, evolving, pressing a nd real (Copeland, 2001; ERS, 2000; Harris, Arnold, Lowery, & Crocker, 2000). As the jo b continues to change, none of the

PAGE 42

32 previous responsibilities have been taken away (Por tin, 2000). Administrators keep having additional responsibilities imposed on them by society’s present day demands; never giving anything up, just adding it to the alr eady long list of responsibilities and duties causing a layering effect (Peterson, 2001; P ortin, 2000; Richard, 2000; Supovitz, 2001; Whitaker & Turner, 2000; Whitaker, 2001). “Th e days of the hero principal are over,” says Carole Kennedy (2002). Principals are f inding that the energy level and enthusiasm needed to be effective and successful le aders of their schools, in present times, is very hard to sustain (Cusick, 2003; Stric herz, 2001). There is no question, based on the literature, that the demands and responsibilities on principals have increased tremendously over the years (Bookbinder, 1992; Hollar, 2004; Wanzare & DaCosta, 2001; Wood, Nicholson & Fi ndley, 1985). When looking at the expectations of the principal, Michael Fullan ( 1998) sums up the magnitude of the principalship, in his ad for the principalship: Wanted: A miracle worker who can do more with less, pacify rival groups, endure chronic second-guessing, tolerate low levels of support, process large volumes of paperwork and work double shifts. He or she will have carte blanche to innovate, but cannot spend much mo ney, replace any personnel, or upset any constituency (p. 6). Kennedy (2001, p.60) refers to the complexities of the job, “Only God need apply” and Tirozzi (2004) make reference that only super-heroe s apply while Quinn (2003) refers to principals as prizefighters. Michael Copland (2001, p. 528) describes his interpretation of the principalship by what his posting for the posit ion would be

PAGE 43

33 Position opening: School Principal, Anytown School District. Qualifications: Wisdom of a sage, vision of a CEO, intellect of a s cholar, leadership of a point guard, compassion of a counselor, moral strength of a nun, courage of a firefighter, craft knowledge of a surgeon, politica l savvy of a senator, toughness of a soldier, listening skills of a blind man, humi lity of a saint, collaborative skills of an entrepreneur, certitude of a civil rights act ivist, charisma of a stage performer, and patience of Job. Salary lower than y ou might expect. Credentials required. Copland admits that this job description is somewha t ridiculous; however, he feels he made his point. While Carole Kennedy (2002, p.28) worked at the U. S. Department of Education she found that “everyone agreed that the principal’ s job was more complex, but that the most obvious solution was for principals to simply gain additional skills and take on more responsibility.” The principal’s role must change f rom a management and administration emphasis to a leadership and vision focus (Tirozzi, 2001). Principals need to realize their role is changing from supervising to catalyst agent for organizational change (Baughman, 1996). The underlying premise of much of the resear ch on the principalship has been on improving the skills of practicing principals and t he preparation of aspiring principals, not on changing the expectations of principals (Hur ley, 1992). The future of the principalship, some have suggest ed, requires a return to its origin and to the role of principal teacher with ex pertise in curriculum and instruction (Teitelbaum, 1990; Tyack & Hansot, 1982). It is the position of Tyack and Hansot (1982)

PAGE 44

34 that management and instruction, practice and admin istration must merge, and that the teaching principal must motivate everyone in the sc hool to work toward a common purpose. Teitelbaum (1990) suggested that principal s should teach one class a year, and Boyer (1983) suggested that principals should teach occasionally. Murphy (1994) identified three roles for principal s in the future: “leading from the center, enabling and supporting teacher success, an d extending the school community” (p. 95). The first of these, which involves sharing decision making, appears to be the most difficult and it requires that the principal d evelop skills in group facilitation as well as trust. The second task, supporting teacher succe ss, requires a mutually held vision, webs of relationships, resources, information, and support for teacher growth (Cleckley, 2000; Murphy, 1994). The third function, extending the school community, confirms the importance of working with parents, community membe rs, governing boards, and promoting the school (Murphy, 1994). Current Conditions The reality of the principal’s job and its lacklust er appeal is heavily written about (Fullan, 1998; 2000; NASSP, 1998; NASSP, 2003; Pier ce, 2000). A shortage of qualified administrators is also debated (Cusick, 2003; Delis io, 2006; Klempen & Richetti, 2001). There are those who argue that there are plenty of qualified candidates but that they are just not choosing to apply for the position (Cusick 2003; Delisio, 2006; Lashway, 2002). An ERS survey reported shortages of qualified schoo l leaders (1998). Inadequate funding, continuous bad press, and district pressur es on principals have caused many to leave the profession. The report of the National As sociation of State Boards of Education

PAGE 45

35 Study Group on School Leadership (1999) identified problems that have led to this shortage: the job has become more complex, growing student populations coupled with retirements and decreasing applicants, lack of prof essional development and training, and a lack of coherent vision and system for developing and retaining quality principals. Research regarding shortages in the applications of qualified applicants for the principalship has identified factors which are disc ouraging to practicing principals and to potential applicants. Principals who chose to leave the position internalized these negative conditions and were not able to adapt to c hanging expectations (Mackler,1992). ERS (1998) found consistent responses regardless of grade level or community type which indicated salary, stress, and time were the t op-ranked barriers to applicants. “Fewer people are interested in taking on the job t hat many say is marked by heavy pressure, long hours, and inadequate pay” (Kimball & Sirotnik, 2000). The question that remains: Will there be enough qualified candidates who will apply when 40% of the administrators leave in the next seven years (Bloom & Krovetz, 2001; Copland, 2001; Hammond, Muffs, & Sciascia 2001; Klempen & Richetti 2001; Mann, 2002; Peterson & Kelley, 2001)? Cusick (2003) cited that a recent n ational study showed that 60% of superintendents said their districts were facing a shortage of qualified candidates for the principalship. He also indicated that a study of te achers who hold principal certification, fewer than half were willing to consider the job. M any teachers don’t feel the pay increase that they would receive to go into adminis tration is nearly enough to make up for all the extra hours they would have to put in (Deli sio, 2006; Kennedy, 2001; Price, 2004; Yerkes & Guaglianone, 1998). Over the past several years, while teachers have received

PAGE 46

36 well-deserved salary increases, communities and sch ool boards have been reluctant to adjust principals’ salaries proportionately. The re sulting salary encroachment has removed a strong incentive for taking on additional responsibilities (Tirozzi, p.2, 2000). Today’s principals have the weight of the world o n their shoulders as times have changed and society demands more services and accou ntability with NCLB (Kennedy, 2002). “Principal’s today are being held responsibl e for student achievement while working at a job that is emotionally depleting, exc essively time consuming, and defined by ambiguous responsibilities and authority” (Lange r & Schacter, 2003, p. 14). Role ambiguity and its resultant stress are the products of tensions in the principal’s position (NPBEA, 2001; Ripley, 1997). Ripley identified diff erent kinds of tensions that confront principals and pull them in different directions. T hey are tensions of leadership (collaborative vs. authoritarian, masculine vs. fem inine, instructional leader vs. manager, leader vs. servant), tensions of needs (needs of on e vs. needs of many, teacher as teacher vs. teacher as whole person, teacher growth vs. stu dent growth), and social and cultural tensions (principal’s vision vs. communal vision, r hetoric vs. reality, stability vs. change) (1997, p. 55-64). Balancing the tensions imposed by divergent forces is crucial to the daily work of principals and Ripley suggests that g ood principals embrace these tensions, understand them, them and then use them to make sch ools better. Principals in schools today continue to be stretche d in the historical tension between management and instructional leadership (Le wis & Lee, 2000; Mertz & McNelly, 1998; Ripley, 1997; Wolk, 1999). This tens ion contributes to job dissatisfaction when principals are socialized in their preparation programs to the role of instructional

PAGE 47

37 leaders, but once on the job the expectations are t hose of a manager (Avant & Miller, 1992; Crow & Glascock, 1995). Terrozzi (2001) also acknowledged this tension, but he reversed the issues. He contended that principals a re trained to be managers, but must be instructional leaders. The conflict between the pri ncipals’ ideal role of planning, goal setting, supervision, and curriculum development an d the actual role of attention to details, crisis management, monitoring of pupil beh avior, and required, routine activities exemplifies the complexity of the expectations for those who lead schools (Avant & Miller, 1992; Holland, 1997). Mitchell (1990) conte nded that there are four dimensions of principal’s work: supervision, administration, m anagement, and leadership, and that the school culture and personal preference determin e which of the distinct elements is dominant. The alleged evolution of the principal fr om manager to instructional leader to transformational leader has further complicated the question of role conflict (Hallinger, 1992; Malone & Caddell, 2000). The National Association of Secondary School Princ ipals (NASSP) conducted a study in 1998, A Ten-Year Study: The K-8 Principal in 1998, and found that principals in 1998 worked at least 50% more hours than they did i n 1988. In addition they found that principals “are less appreciated, have greater acco untability and have little time to learn or think about how to manage competing demands and constituencies” (Pierce, 2000, p. 1). Principals basically spent their time in three major areas: staff supervision, interaction with students, and discipline/student management (P ierce, 2000). Instructional leadership doesn’t appear to be in the mix and the need for th e principal to be the instructional

PAGE 48

38 leader today is perceived to be greater than ever ( Blas & Blas, 2004; Glatthorn, 2000; Gupton 2003; Hurley, 2001; Shellard, 2003; Tirozzi, 2004). Why does the principalship appear to be so u nattractive? Michael Fullan (1998) states: The metaphorical walls of the school have come tumb ling down. Out there is now in here, as government policy, parent and community demands, corporate interests, and ubiquitous technology have all storm ed the walls of the school. The relentless pressures of today’s complex environment s have intensified the workload for principals (p. 6). Fullan (2001) further confirms the difficulties of the job. With the move toward self-management of schools, th e principal appears to have the worst of both worlds. The old world is still around with expectations to run a smooth school, and to be resp onsive to all; simultaneously the new world rains down on schools with disconnected demands, expecting that at the end of the day the s chool should be constantly showing better test results, and ideally become a learning organization (p.138). The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 has added addi tional pressure on the principalship as it provided legislation to remove the principal if the school fails to meet new standards for adequate yearly progress (Cusick, 2003; DiPaola & Moran, 2003; Foster, 2002; Hurley, 2001; NASSP, 2001; Rayfield & Diamantes, 2003;Yerkes &

PAGE 49

39 Guaglianone, 1998). Peterson & Kelley (2001) in the ir article Transforming School Leadership also speak of the realities of the job Principals’ daily work is characterized by hundreds of short tasks of enormous variety – one minute talking with at teach er about materials, the next coping with a student issue, followed by another do zen questions, issues and problems to be solved. Their work is constantly int errupted by the continuous stream of issues that have to be addressed, reports that have to be completed and people who want a piece of the principal’s time (p. 8). Another reason the position seems so unattractive is that principals generally felt unsupported by their districts and were burdened by politics and bureaucratic red tape. The image of an overworked, aging, underpaid princi pal-bureaucrat tangled in a web of administrative duties, unionized teachers, uninvolv ed parents, and disinterested students is not real appealing (Fenwick & Pierce, 2001). “Of ten left out of contract negotiations that give teachers substantial decision making powe r, principals are still legally accountable for what occurs in their schools” (Cush man, 1992, p. 5). In addition, Portin, Shen and Williams, (1998) state: A number of significant changes have occurred in ou r public schools, including shifting federal program priorities, adoption of st ate curriculum standards, and the implementation of site based decision making. These changes come at a time when many schools are also experiencing significant changes in the ethnic and socioeconomic composition of their student body, an d when many families are

PAGE 50

40 struggling to meet challenges arising from family b reak-up, poverty, or job requirements that limit time available to be with t heir children (p.1). The future for principals and what roles and respon sibilities they will have is complicated. Setting the tone, facilitating teachin g and learning processes, providing leadership and direction for programs and policies, mentoring new teachers, evaluating more staff, and nurturing school environments for a ll students, are critical skills for tomorrow’s principals (Tirozzi, 2001). The roles an d responsibilities of future principals will continue to be heavily impacted by the nation’ s economic, societal, and political forces (Murphy,1998). Hausman, Crow and Sperry (200 0, p. 14) further state that “the ideal principal must be prepared to face a world of decentralized school structures, increasing and changing environmental boundaries an d roles, less homogeneous schools, closer contact with stakeholders and a market drive n view of education.” It is clear that future principals need to be trained to be successf ul in an ever changing environment (Bookbinder, 1992). If the role of the principal is to be strengthened, the bureaucratic and legislative control must be returned to the school leader (Boyer, 1983; IEL, 2000). Boyer (1983) recommended that principals have increased c ontrol over budgeting and staffing with adequate funds allotted for school improvement and that hiring should done at the school level. Principal Preparation Studies have supported the notion that the competen cies needed to be a principal in the past have dramatically changed and the reaso ns for the changes are many. Some of the most significant causes include: the social cli mate that has been created by the decline

PAGE 51

41 of public trust in schools and the weakening of tra ditional values, the overwhelming growth in the range and magnitude of the principal’ s responsibilities, society’s expectation that public schools solve most of its p roblems and increased accountability (ERS, 1999, 2003, 2005; Hay, 1980; NPBEA, 2001; Por tin, Shen & Williams, 1998). Accountability has provided a whole new dimension t o the principal’s job as principals are responsible for moving student achievement forw ard on a steady progression. No Child Left Behind (NCLB) sets achievement goals for all students and holds the principal and teachers responsible for meeting those goals. T he goals for NCLB are hefty and have no additional resources attached to them. This make s the need for principals to be experts on instructional strategies and best practices even greater, as they try to move student achievement forward. Zepeda (2004) claimed that stu dent achievement is the cornerstone of the success of principals, and teachers are a ke y factor in the area of student performance. If the principal’s success depends on teacher and student performance, the principal’s approach as an instructional leader is crucial to promote student achievement. The need for training is evident. DiPaola and Moran (2003) stated that: Instructional leaders must be steeped in curriculum instruction, and assessment in order to supervise a continuous improvement process that measures progress in raising student performance. Principals must be awa re of the special needs of all youngsters and need to be aware of the latest resea rch on learning and effective teaching strategies in order to monitor instruction and provide the necessary resources. More complex special education requireme nts, due to the adoption of the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA) and Ch apter 504 of the American

PAGE 52

42 with Disabilities Act (ADA), have compounded expect ations for instructional leadership. These expectations may be difficult to meet for those principals trained before instructional leadership was such a major component of the role. It is even more difficult to meet for those people com ing to the principalship from outside the field of education (p. 2). Principals’ preparation programs cater to the role of instructional leader, however, once on the job, principals find that the reality of the job is one of management (Chirichello, 2004; Crow & Glascock, 1995; Terrozi, 2001). The pr incipal is expected to rally the entire school community around the goal of improved student achievement/performance and also maintain a balance between all of the othe r responsibilities (Haar, 2004; Hollar, 2004; Lashway, 2002; Pierce, 2000). “No matter how desirable it is for principals to be instructional leaders, their managerial responsibil ities aren’t going away” (Lashway, 2002, p. 1). School principals will have to acquire new and different skills in order to create a climate for excellence through continuous improvement in student performance, promoting excellence in teaching, sustaining staff development, ensuring coherent curriculum and instructional strategies, and requir ing accurate assessment strategies (Tirozzi, 2001). Haar (2004) summed up the argument for principals t o be instructional leaders in order to raise student achievement in this time of accountability. Principals who were building managers used to be go od enough. It is clear today that principals must serve as leaders for student l earning. They must know academic content and pedagogical techniques. They m ust work with teachers to

PAGE 53

43 strengthen skills. They must collect, analyze and u se data in ways that fuel excellence. They must rally students, teachers, par ents, local health and social service agencies, youth development groups, local b usinesses, and other community residents and partners around the common goal of raising student performance. And they must have the leadership skil ls and knowledge to exercise the autonomy and authority to pursue these strategi es (p. 20). The North Central Regional Educational Laboratory, confirmed that the most important role for the principal is to be the instructional l eader Across the nation, today’s schools feed, counsel, p rovide physical and mental health services, and protect students while they ed ucate and instruct. Principals must be experts on current education law and policy and they must act as coordinators for social services and fundraisers. T heir roles have evolved to include public relations consultant, security offic er, technology expert, and diplomat; fulfilling these roles adequately is nece ssary to ensure that schools function coherently and smoothly every day. Above a ll, today’s principals must focus on student learning: instructional programs, curricular and pedagogical issues, and models of assessment (NCREL Policy Issu es, p.1, 2003). The role of instructional leader for principals has evolved over time as responsibilities have increased and changed. The pr incipal has become accountable for instructional improvement, staff development, curri culum design, development and implementation of site-based decision making plans, and complex discipline and school safety issues (Blas & Blas, 2004; Ferrandino & Ti rozzi, 2000; Glatthorn, 2000;

PAGE 54

44 Gupton, 2003; McEwan, 2003). The principal is also seen as the change agent in the school. In order to meet the expectations for highe r student achievement and accountability, principals must create a new cultur e on their campuses that encourage and promote teaching and learning. They must transform their school organization working through people and teams, while maintaining high pe rformance standards (DiPaola & Moran, 2003; DuFour, 2004; Fullan, 2002). Some have suggested that the future of the principa lship requires a return to its origin, the role of principal teacher with an exper tise in curriculum and instruction (Teitelbaum, 1990; Tyack & Hansot, 1982). Tyack and Hansot (1982) stated that management and instruction, along with practice and administration, must merge, and that the teaching principal must motivate everyone in the school to work toward a common purpose. Researchers have suggested that pri ncipals teach a class at least occaisionally (Boyer, 1983; Teitelbaum, 1990) howev er the majority of principals in the NASSP (2001) survey indicated that they didn’t have the time. In a study of Virginia school administrators, DiPao la and Moran (2003) asked principals to identify the problems and issues they faced in their expanding role as instructional leaders. Principals indicated that th ey needed professional development in the areas of standardized testing, classroom practi ces, faculty and staff development, curriculum alignment with standards, effective use of instructional time and increasing staff morale. Principals also indicated that they n eeded training in how to use research and data to improve educational performance.

PAGE 55

45 Another factor that has changed the competencies th at principals of today need is an increase in local community involvement in schoo l decision making (DiPaola & Moran, 2003; Hay, 1980; No Child Left Behind Act, 2 001). Principals of the past made most of their decisions in an autocratic, top down management style (Cunard, 1990; Lyons, 1999). They may have received input from som e key people on their staff or from outside organizations such as the PTA president, bu t for the most part they made decisions and staff followed (Lashway, 2002). Today principals are expected to solicit input from all stakeholder groups before making dec isions. Some researchers feel that principals literally go into schools with their han ds tied behind their back and must possess the skills needed to overcome all the obsta cles (Cushman, 1992; Klempen & Richetti, 2001; Schmieder & Cairns, 1998; Stricherz 2001). A majority of principals agree that experience, not graduate school, is a key ingredient to being a successful principal and expe rience as an assistant principal for at least a year was essential (NASSP, 2003). According to a survey by NASSP, most principals have been teachers and hold at least a M aster’s degree since most states require principals to have an advanced degree. The state of Florida requires a Master’s degree wit h certification in Educational Leadership (Florida Department of Education (FLDOE) 2007). The state of Florida directs each of the 67 districts to develop their o wn principal certification program for their potential principal candidates (FLDOE). The F lorida Department of Education must approve the program before it can be implemented. T he program must be performance based so that each principal candidate can demonstr ate competence in each of the Florida

PAGE 56

46 Principal Leadership Standards which are: instructi onal leadership, operational leadership and school leadership (Delta School Leaders, 2007, Appendix B). Improved and different skills for new and ever ch anging complex issues are needed by principals before they ever take their fi rst job. Principal preparation programs can barely keep up with the change and are perceive d as outdated. There is a general consensus among researchers and educational leaders that typical educational leadership programs are out of touch with the realities of run ning today’s schools (Baker, 2004; Lashway, 2003; Murphy, 2002). “Regardless of the ye ar appointed, principals have been trained and certified as administrators through pro grams that are largely irrelevant to, and grossly inadequate for, the work responsibilities f ound in the school principalship” (NCREL, 2003, p.2). There is growing support to cha nge leadership programs so they are more realistic and meet the job requirements. Progr ams can no longer be based on a business model or university model (DiPaola & Moran 2003, Murphy, 2002). Cohort models are suggested where several individuals work together as a team to acquire the necessary skills needed to meet the responsibilitie s of the principalship (Lauder, 2000). The Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium (ISLLC) was established in 1994 under the guidance of the Council of Chief Sta te School Officers to help raise the bar and set standards for educational leaders and r eshape the principal preparation programs. The ISLLC was a consortium that worked wi th 32 education agencies and 13 education administrative associations to establish an education policy framework for school leadership. The overall objective of the con sortium was to create standards that

PAGE 57

47 would improve the quality of prospective principal candidates. The ISLLC adopted six standards for school leadership that are currently adopted by 35 states. They are: Standard 1 – A school administrator is an education al leader who promotes the success for all students by facilitating the develo pment, articulation, implementation, and stewardship of a vision of lear ning that is shared and supported by the school community. Standard 2 – A school administrator is an education al leader who promotes the success of all students by advocating, nurturing, a nd sustaining a school culture and instructional program conducive to student lear ning and staff professional growth. Standard 3 – A school administrator is an education al leader who promotes the success of all students by ensuring management of t he organization, operations, and resources for al safe, efficient, and effective learning environment. Standard 4 – A school administrator is an education al leader who promotes the causes of all students by collaborating with famili es and community members, responding to diverse community interests and needs and mobilizing community resources. Standard 5 – A school administrator is an education al leader who promotes the success of all students by acting with integrity, f airness, and in an ethical manner. Standard 6 – A school administrator is an education leader who promotes the success of all students by understanding, respondin g to, and influencing the larger political, social, economic, legal, and cultural co ntext. The ISLLC also worked with Educational Testing Serv ice (ETS), (best known for administering the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT)), to create a comprehensive examination called the School Leaders Licensure Ass essment (SLLA). However, the SLLA is currently used in only 10 states (Murphy, 2 002). Potential school administrators need to be fully aw are of what is expected of them and possess the tools and skills that they will nee d to lead schools. Principal preparation programs across the country are redesigning themsel ves to meet the ever changing needs

PAGE 58

48 of the school administrator (Lauder, 2000; Shen & C rawford, 2003; Murphy, 2001; Lashley, 2003). Guidance From the Field Principals and former principals have written many articles on their perceptions on how to be successful in the principal position. One of the most critical pieces of advice is to have a vision and communicate that vision to your staff and school community. The staff and community need to know where you want the school to go and what it will take to get there (Brewer, 2001; Chapko & Buchko, 2002; Peterson, 2001). Involving your school community and realizing that parents can be your greatest allies can only help you accomplish your goals (Chapko & Buchko, 2001; Brewe r 2001). Hiring wisely is another good piece of advice (Brewer, 2001; Chapko & Buchko 2001; Schmieder & Cairns, 1998). Jim Collins in his book Good to Great continually talks about having the right people on board to move the organization forward. C ollins feels that when you hire the right people, they will be intrinsically motivated to do a great job because it is in the best interest of the organization. Hiring the best teach ers, who are innovative in the way they deliver instruction, will help to ensure that the i nstructional program of the school continues to move forward (Hollar, 2004). Not takin g everything too personally and maintaining a sense of humor is another piece of ad vice (Parsons, 2001; Brewer, 2001). The job is stressful enough without internalizing t hings that happen. Peterson (2001, p. 21) feels strongly that it is important to “enjoy t he rush.” A principal’s day is filled with hundreds of tasks, situations, actions and decision s. If you are going to enjoy your job as

PAGE 59

49 principal, you need to be able to thrive in that ki nd of environment and get a sense of energy and satisfaction from it (Brewer, 2001; Pete rson, 2001). Summary There is no shortage of literature regarding the pr incipalship and the different ways the position has changed over the years and ho w it will continue to change in the future. There is a great deal of concern pertaining to the demands of the job itself and whether or not it is feasible for the principal to be the instructional leader of the school, which is cited as being the most important role the principal should have. The reality of the position as documented by NASSP, NAESP, Institu te for Educational Leadership, as well as many researchers, clearly brings to light t he fact that most principals spend their time keeping their campuses safe (to include lunch duty, parking lot duty, hall duty, discipline) and dealing with political issues such as parent conferences, school board mandates and litigation. Time after the school day is spent covering student activities, taking the principal, as well as his or her assista nts, well into the night. It is not unusual for an administrator to work a 10 to 14 hour day, 6 0 to 80 hours a week, to include weekends, covering the school day and all the extra curricular activities that are associated with the school, including community events. The literature cited in this literature review indi cates an apparent shortage of qualified applicants entering the field of educatio nal leadership. One would only have to look at the demands of the job to realize that the hours, the pay and the adverse affect all of that would have on one’s personal life doesn’t s eem worth it. Teachers at the top of the pay scale, with supplements such as National Board Certification, are making close to

PAGE 60

50 what administrators make in some school districts. Encroachment of the two pay scales is an issue. With the current emphasis on administrators being the instructional leaders in schools, something has to give. A new model for sch ool administration should be developed so that the needs of the teachers, studen ts, and parents can be met while administrators focus their efforts on student achie vement and not just discipline and hall monitoring A common theme in many of these articles is the gro wing recognition that while principals play a critical role in school success, they cannot do it alone. Merely strengthening their skills as individuals will not be enough to accomplish today’s ambitious reform agenda. The current debate over th eir role will help no one if it merely piles more expectations on top of already overburde ned and under-supported school administrators. This final quote from DiPaola and Moran, The Principalship at a Crossroads: A Study of the Conditions and Concerns of Principals (2003) sums up the underlying message in most of the journal articles reviewed by the researcher. Dipaola and Moran conducted a study in Virginia to examine the condit ions and concerns of principals. This was just one of the many articles that appeared in the special issue of the NASSP Bulletin March 2003, Characteristics of the Secondary Princi pal, which discussed the stress and demands of the principalship The data in this report reveal a profession under s tress. The role of the principal has been expanded to include significant responsibilities for the

PAGE 61

51 instructional leadership of schools, ensuring that all children achieve to meet high standards, and that the needs of children with special learning challenges are met. At the same time, principals ar e spending more time coping with student behavior problems. The manageri al tasks of principals have also been expanding, and principals report burgeoning paperwork loads. Although e-mail has enabled greate r communication with parents, teachers, and the community, it has a dded a significant new time demand on principals. Including numerous mana gement tasks in the role without sufficient resources to accomplish the m does a disservice both to principals and the schools that depend on t hem. It also decreases the prospects of better school leadership. Policyma kers need to recognize the extensive responsibilities of principals and th e real limitations of time. It should be recognized that the expectations that have grown up around the principal’s role—expectations from teachers, co aches, advisers, parents, superintendents, and school board members —have continued to grow even as policymakers have expanded the respon sibilities of the role (p.10).

PAGE 62

52 CHAPTER 3 METHOD “Leaders must be close enough to relate to others, but far enough ahead to motivate them.” John C. Maxwell Introduction The purpose of this study was to exam ine the perceptions of teachers on the changing role of middle school principal and compar e with the principals and assistant principals perceptions of the changing role of the middle school principal. The researcher was very interested in the feedback from middle sch ool teachers as the review of literature revealed that the teacher’s voice was ab sent regarding the secondary principal’s role. This study used a mixed methods approach. Quantitat ive data were obtained from the Principal’s Role Questionnaire from three ident ified research groups. Qualitative data were obtained from the open ended comment questions at the end of each category of questions on the survey. This was a document analys is; no face to face interviews took place. “Document analysis includes studying excerpt s, quotations, or entire passages from…open-ended written responses to questionnaires and surveys” (Patton, 2002, p.4). Responses (data) from the open ended comment questi ons in each of the three sections of the Principal’s Role Questionnaire were analyzed to determine if any themes or patterns

PAGE 63

53 emerged from the different research groups concerni ng the changes, current role, and future role of the principal. The proper authorizations required by the school s ystem and the university were obtained prior to conducting the study. Institution al Review Board (Appendix E) as well as the school district’s (Appendix F) permission wa s obtained prior to approaching any of the middle school target groups. Dr. Rebecca Goodwi n, Marshall University, gave permission to the researcher to use the Principal’s Role Questionnaire and offered advice to the researcher at the beginning of the study. The researcher is a middle school principal in the selected district and took appropriate safeguards to make sure the survey was anonymous so that participants would feel comfortable completing the survey openly and honestly. At no time was any name asked for or any school identification require d. The researcher worked with and through the Research and Accountability Department at the school district. The department informed the researcher that being an em ployee of the district did not automatically allow privileges to access all email addresses of teachers and assistant principals, as any researcher from any organization would not be afforded that same benefit. The attorneys for the district stated that since each middle school principal signed an authorization agreeing that their school would p articipate in the research study, that the researcher would have to go through the princip al of the school to send out the survey to teachers and assistant principals. The researche r spoke to the middle school principals at a district meeting and explained the situation w ith the school district. All principals agreed that they would send the survey out to their teachers. The researcher wrote the

PAGE 64

54 cover letter for all three target groups and includ ed the live link. The researcher then emailed the cover letter and link to the principals and asked them to send it out to the appropriate groups. The researcher was permitted by the district to email the principals directly with their letter and link. The cover lett er for each group can be found in Appendix G. Each principal responded by email that they had forwarded the researcher’s request out to the teachers and assistant principal s. One week into the survey period the researcher asked the principals to once again send the letter and link out to the teachers and assistant principals and then again three days before the close of the survey in order to encourage a better response rate. The researcher used the survey method in this study as it provided quantitative as well as qualitative data. Quantitative data were ob tained by performing appropriate statistical analysis using SPSS 14 on the responses from the Principal’s Role Questionnaire (PRQ) (Goodwin, 2002) and the open en ded comment questions in each section of the survey provided qualitative data. On e of the researcher’s committee members had a concern that respondents may not take the time to give their thoughts for the comment request statements and wanted the resea rcher to make the text box, as well as the request to comment, as inviting as possible and the researcher complied. Goodwin (2002) and Duffy (2002) concluded that there are me thodological issues in Internet research such as sampling, environment, confidentia lity, anonymity, and response rates and researchers using this methodology need to unde rstand how to use its strengths and also how to compensate for its limitations.

PAGE 65

55 A content analysis was conducted on the responses to the questions and patterns and themes were identified. Patton (2002) refers to content analysis as any qualitative data reduction and sense-making effort in which the researcher takes a volume of qualitative material and attempts to identify core consistencies and meanings. The researcher first read through each category of resp onses in order to get a general feel for the data. Extraneous data was eliminated. Extraneou s data were determined, by the researcher and a doctoral colleague, to be comments that did not address the specific area of interest. For example, “I don’t have time to com plete this survey”, “Get real”, and “My principal needs to go” were comments that were cons idered to be extraneous. The researcher worked closely with the doctoral colleag ue, who has served on dissertation committees for another university, to help eliminat e researcher bias to ensure that no data was discounted inadvertently. The fourth comment re quest concerning general thoughts about the role of the principal was given more lati tude. Data charts were developed and displayed. Ke y words and phrases were posted and as categories presented themselves they were listed Comments/phrases were then listed under categories and comments that were related or had the same meaning were given check marks to indicate how many respondents had si milar perceptions. The researcher then grouped items together and produced themes. Th e data charts and data reduction charts were scrutinized by the doctoral colleague a nd the thought process used by the researcher was questioned and explained. The doctor al colleague and the researcher met several times to be certain that no piece of data o f relevance was discounted. Agreement was reached on the themes and the researcher contin ued with the analysis. Once core

PAGE 66

56 consistencies and meanings were identified, the res earcher conducted an inductive analysis, discovering patterns, themes, and categor ies in the data. Through the researchers’ interaction with the data, the finding s emerged. Research Questions A review of the literature indicated that the voice of the teacher was scant regarding the changing role of the secondary princi pal. This study seeks to answer the question: Is there a significant difference between the perceptions of middle school principals, assistant principals and teachers regar ding the changing role of the secondary middle school principal in an urban Florida school district? The research questions addressed in this study were : Question 1.Are there significant differences in par ticipants’ perceptions on Role Changes by Position (Teacher vs. Assistant vs. Principal)? Question 2. Are there significant differences in pa rticipants’ perceptions on Current Role by Position (Teacher vs. Assistant vs. Principal)? Question 3. Are there significant differences in pa rticipants’ perceptions on Changes that Should Occur by Position (Teacher vs. Assistant vs. Principal)? Design of the Study Population and Sample This study involved all 22 middle schools in an urb an Florida school district. The researcher chose to include all the middle school t eachers and administrators in hopes of getting a high rate of response to the Principal’s Role Questionnaire. There were

PAGE 67

57 potentially 1408 participant respondents in the tar get groups. No other selection criterion other than middle school teacher, assistant princip al or principal was used. This urban school district is the seventh largest school district of Florida’s 67 and 23rd of more than 16,000 school districts in the nation The district covers 280 square miles, 38 miles long and 15 miles wide at it broade st point. The population is approximately 950,000 making it the most densely po pulated district in Florida with 3, 315 people per square mile. Approximately 110,00 0 students are enrolled in the district’s K-12 program. The district is comprised of 82 elementary, 22 middle and 17 high schools as well as 49 alternative education ce nters. The student population is 64.0% white, 19.0% black, 8.6% Hispanic, 3.5% Asian, 4.4% multiracial and .3% American Indian. Forty-two percent of the students qualify f or free or reduced lunch. The district employs approximately 11,000 full and part time tea chers (Florida Department of Education, 2007). A purposeful sampling was used in this study. Accor ding to Patton (2002, p.244) purposeful sampling “illustrates characteristics of particular subgroups of interest; facilitates comparisons.” Basha and Harter (1980) s tate that “a population is any set of persons or objects that possesses at least one comm on characteristic.” The common characteristic among the targeted groups is middle school and comparisons were made between and among the three targeted groups; princi pals, assistant principals, and teachers. Each targeted group had their responses c ompared to the other two targeted groups. The targeted groups were also considered a recruited sample. Recruited samples are used for targeted populations in internet/web s urveys that require more control over

PAGE 68

58 the makeup of the sample (Watt, 1997). In this stud y the principals, assistant principals and teachers were targeted and recruited to partici pate in the web based survey. For the purposes of this study the researcher focus ed solely on secondary middle schools, schools serving grades six through eight, in the targeted district. All middle school principals (n=22), assistant principals (n=6 6), and teachers (n=1320) were asked to complete the PRQ. The researcher made a short pr esentation to the middle school principals at a district middle school association meeting, explained the purpose of the study, and asked for their cooperation in completin g the PRQ. Principals were also asked to encourage their faculties to participate. The re searcher emailed all the potential participants a cover letter that included an explan ation of the purpose of the study, the link to the PRQ, the school district’s approval to conduct the study as well as Institutional Review Board approval. The Survey “The word survey is used most often to describe a m ethod of gathering information from a sample of individuals” (Ferber, Sheatsley, Turner & Waksberg, 1980). The researcher chose the survey method due t o the large potential sample size, which gave every targeted employee the opportunity to be a participant. The targeted respondents had daily access to computers. Placing the survey instrument on the World Wide Web allowed for instantaneous dissemination an d quick return. Scheuren (2004) described the importance of surveys: Our society is no longer an industrial society but an information society. We require prompt and accurate flow of information on preferences, needs, and

PAGE 69

59 behavior. It is in response to this critical need f or information on the part of the government, business, and social instructions that so much reliance is placed on surveys (p.9). In order to obtain feedback on the survey instrumen t (PRQ) prior to the study a small pilot study was conducted. The researcher pos ted the PRQ on Surveymonkey.com and asked six high school principals to complete it and provide feedback. The principals were also asked to forward it to their assistant pr incipals and several willing teachers. At the end of the survey the researcher asked: How long did it take you to complete the PRQ? Was any question/part of the PRQ confusing? Please provide any comments about the PRQ that you would like to share. A total of 40 respondents completed the pilot surve y. Of the 40 respondents, 12 were male, 27 were female and one was thrown out due to obvious erroneous comments. Eleven respondents indicated that the survey took a bout 10 minutes, three indicated 15 to 30 minutes and 16 indicated five to seven minutes. No respondent felt any of the questions were confusing. The researcher considered the feedback from the high school pilot group and felt that the length of the survey and the time it took to complete was reasonable. The researcher felt confident and also conscientious of the respondents’ time when the cover letter was written for the survey th at was completed in the fall semester of 2007, in estimating the length of time to complete the survey to be about 15 minutes. The survey method used in this study provided many advantages to the researcher: reduced cost, speed, feasibility and qu ality were just a few (Dedrick, 2002).

PAGE 70

60 The Internet provides researchers with a tool where a questionnaire can be created, distributed, returned, and data electronically sent to statistical programs literally within hours, for minimal cost (Dedrick, 2002; Wyatt, 1997 ). The researcher was very conscientious of the respondents’ time and felt tha t the internet survey was the best option to get the most feedback. Polland (1998) sug gests that the survey is an appropriate tool to gather information under three conditions: when the goals of the research call for quantitative and qualitative data, when the informa tion sought is specific and familiar to the respondents, and the researcher has prior knowl edge of the responses likely to emerge. It was assumed for the purposes of this study that assistant principals and teachers have some expectations of their principals and have had some interactions with them. At the very least, it was assumed that they probably h ad some knowledge of their principals’ work in the school. The information in the Principa l’s Role Questionnaire Survey should not be unfamiliar to the targeted research groups, however it is understood that the respondents may not be able to answer every questio n due to lack of understanding or knowledge of the particular item being addressed in each category of the PRQ. Principal’s Role Questionnaire The Principal’s Role Questionnaire (Goodwin, 2002; Appendix A) was developed and validated by Dr. Rebecca Goodwin, Marshall Univ ersity and as stated earlier, permission to use the survey was obtained. Goodwin conducted a national study in 2002 to examine the changing role of the secondary princ ipal. In the course of her study, principals from every state described the changes i n the principalship, current role of the

PAGE 71

61 principalship, and what the principalship of the fu ture should or might look like. Goodwin’s study was conducted in two stages. During the first stage, Goodwin used a Delphi technique to engage principals, who were 200 0-2001 MetLife-National Association of Secondary School Principals state hi gh school principals of the year, considered experts, in conversation. “Delphi is a m ultiple iteration survey technique that enables anonymous, systematic refinement of expert opinion with the aim of arriving at a combined or consensual position” (Bowles, 1999, p.3 2). The technique offers a number of benefits: use of an expert panel, anonymous feed back with less pressure on panel members to conform than in a committee, systematic refinement, development of consensus, easy, and inexpensive (Bowles, 1999). Th e Delphi research is predicated on the assumption that the informed opinions of a grou p of experts are likely to be correct (Goodwin, 2002). Goodwin’s study required a three r ound Delphi to reach consensus. In each iteration, the panel of experts were presented with three questions: (1)What changes have occurred in the role of the contemporary secon dary principal? (2)What is the current nature of the role of a secondary principal? (3)Wha t changes should occur in the role of the secondary principal? Following round one, the researcher sum marized, clarified, and restated the comments. The resulting synthesis was reviewed by a n independent panel of principals and researchers to reduce the chance of researcher bias. Subsequent rounds were structured as rating iterations in which the commen ts of the panel in round one were presented to the experts, and they were asked to ra te their confidence in the accuracy of each statement using a four point Likert scale (Goo dwin, 2002). The participants were

PAGE 72

62 again asked to comment on the statements. Goodwin a nalyzed the experts’ opinions and summarized, clarified and restated the comments whi ch were again reviewed by the independent expert panel of principals and research ers. Consensus was established for 67% of the items after two rounds, and after the th ird round the Delphi was concluded and 45 descriptors for the changing role of the pri ncipal were identified (Goodwin, 2002). The second phase of Goodwin’s study used the Princi pal’s Role Questionnaire, which was developed from the results of the Delphi study, to indicate a level of confidence in each of the 45 role descriptors identified by the p rincipal expert panel. Goodwin randomly selected 375 (n=375) secondary principals, who were members of the National Association of Secondary School Principals, to part icipate in rating each role descriptor on the PRQ. The PRQ used a Likert scale which indic ated a confidence level for each of the 45 role descriptors. The responses to the PRQ w ere analyzed using measures of central tendency to determine consensus and level o f confidence. The analysis was done using SPSS11.0. Consensus was established when the standard deviation for an item was less than .60. The mean and the mode for each item on the questionnaire were calculated to determine the respondents’ level of confidence t hat the statement was true. The items with a mean of 1.00 to 1.40 and a mode of 1 were co nsidered to have a high level of confidence. The items with a mean of 1.41 to 2.00 a nd a mode of 1or 2 were considered to have moderate confidence. The items with a mean greater than 2.00 and a mode of 2 or 3 were considered to have low confidence (Goodwin, 2002). The 109 (n=109) principals who participated in completing the PRQ indicated a moderate to high level of confidence for each of the role descriptors, giving the PRQ co ntent validity. Appendix C includes

PAGE 73

63 Goodwin’s data analysis regarding the 45 role descr iptors used in the PRQ (Goodwin, 2002). In summary, the PRQ was validated in three phases. First, Goodwin’s summary of the Delphi was validated by an expert panel of doct oral level researchers who are or have been practicing principals. Second, the PRQ was rev iewed in paper form by a panel of experts, by the doctoral committee of the researche r and by a representative of the Institutional Review Board at West Virginia Univers ity. Third, the PRQ was validated electronically with a small group of practicing pri ncipals (Goodwin, 2002). The PRQ (Appendix D) was created in SurveyMonkey an d the universal resource locator was (url): (www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=0VOmhiWOhniSVM1HMTC KWg%3d%3d). The survey was live from October 2, 2007 to October 16, 2007. SurveyMonkey does not allow a respondent to go back into a survey once th at respondent hits the “done” key, therefore it is highly unlikely that someone would complete the survey more than once. There were no identifying characteristics in the su rvey in order to protect the respondents’ anonymity. Reminders to complete the P RQ were emailed to participant on two additional occasions. Perception Perception is the process of acquiring, interpreti ng, selecting, and organizing sensory information (McMahon, McMahon & Romano, 199 0, p. 107) and its importance is “well-established in the leadership, micro-polit ics, and organizational power literature” (Blas & Kirby, 2000, p.132). Early researchers who studied the process of interpretation;

PAGE 74

64 organizing lots of information to construct somethi ng more complete for ourselves, were called Gestalt psychologists, gestalt meaning an or ganized whole, shape or form (Koffka, 1922; McMahon, McMahon & Romano 1995).The responden ts’ educational experiences most likely played a role in their interpretations of the principalship, as it is suggested, that as we gain experience, we change our perceptio ns and interpretations. “As we acquire new information our precepts shift. Percept ion is always a matter of interpretation and expectation” (McMahon, McMahon & Romano, 1995 p .111). Perception is our own interpretation of the way we think something should be and this in turn becomes our reality, and not necessarily the way things really are (McMahon, McMahon & Romano, 1995). The researcher collected data on teachers’ and admi nistrators’ perceptions of the principal’s role by utilizing a survey that had ope n ended questions in each section for the participant to respond to. The open ended questionn aire is a useful personal document for qualitative research because it focuses on the subj ective perceptions of people (Allport, 1942). A questionnaire is defined as a personal doc ument when the research participants exercise substantial control over the content of th eir responses (Blas & Kirby, 2000), which in this case they did. The researcher realize s that a limitation of this study is that the perceptions of each individual will be differen t based on his or her own experiences regarding the principalship. It is also the assumpt ion of the researcher, as it was in Wulff’s 1992 study, The Changing Role of the School Principal in Washin gton State that “the perceptions, opinions, and perspectives o f building principals are essential to understanding their changing roles” (Wulff, 1996, p .13).

PAGE 75

65 Instrumentation Data were gathered electronically through a we b based survey, the PRQ, which utilized a Likert rating scale for 36 principal rol e descriptor statements and also provided areas for comments. Data from the PRQ provided prin cipals information regarding the way their role is perceived by assistant principals and teachers. This information could be very valuable to principals as they attempt to buil d trust and strong relationships within their school communities which has been cited as be ing essential for successful and effective schools (Blas & Blas, 2004; Bryk, A. & Schneider, B. 2003; DuFour & Eaker, 1998; Fullan 2003; Glatthorn, 2000; Gupton, 2003; H arris, 2004; Marzano, 2003; McEwan, 2003; Murphy & Datnow, 2003; Scheurich & S krla 2003, Zepeda, 2004). Teachers may find this information enlightening in terms of how they view the role of the principal and how similar or different the reality of the position is from their own perception based on data gathered from principals’. Data Analysis Data was entered into SPSS version 14.0 for Window s. Descriptive statistics were conducted on demographic data. Descriptive statisti cs include frequency and percentages for nominal (categorical/dichotomous) data and mean s/standard deviations for continuous (interval/ratio) data. Three composite scores were calculated for Role Ch anges, Current Role, and Changes that Should Occur, by averaging number of i tems in that section, respectively. Cronbach’s alpha tests of reliability were conducte d on each of the survey subscales to

PAGE 76

66 assess the consistency in which people responded to the questions. George and Mallery (2003) suggest the following rules of thumb for eva luating alpha coefficients, “ > .9 = Excellent, > .8 = Good, > .7 = Acceptable, > .6 = Questionable, > .5 = Poor, < .5 = Unacceptable.” To examine question 1, a univariate ANOVA was cond ucted to assess if differences exist on Role Changes by Position (Teac her vs. Assistant vs. Principal). The assumptions of normality and homogeneity of varianc e will be assessed; power and effect size are reported. For any significant difference r evealed, a Scheffe post hoc test was conducted. To examine question 2, a univariate ANOVA was cond ucted to assess if differences exist on Current Role by Position (Teac her vs. Assistant vs. Principal). The assumptions of normality and homogeneity of varianc e were assessed; power and effect size were reported. If a significant difference was revealed a Scheffe post hoc test was conducted. To examine question 3, a univariate ANOVA was cond ucted to assess if differences exist on Changes that Should Occur by P osition (Teacher vs. Assistant vs. Principal). The assumptions of normality and homoge neity of variance were assessed; power and effect size were reported. If a significa nt difference was revealed, a Scheffe post hoc test was conducted. Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) is an appropriate stat istical analysis when the purpose of research is to assess if mean difference s exist on one continuous dependent variable between two or more discrete groups (indep endent variable). In other words, an

PAGE 77

67 ANOVA is the appropriate test when the dependent va riable is continuous and the independent variable is categorical. The ANOVA uses the F test, “which is the ratio of two independent variance estimates of the same popu lation variance,” (Pagano, 1990, p. 329).The F test allows researchers to make the over all comparison on whether group means differ. If the obtained F is larger than the critical F, the null hypothesis is rejected. The assumptions of normality and homogeneity of va riance/covariance matrices were assessed. Normality assumes that the scores ar e normally distributed (bell shaped) and were assessed using the one sample Kolmogorov S mirnov test. Homogeneity of variance assumes that both groups have equal error variances and were assessed using Levene’s test. In addition thirty-six ANOVAs were conducted on ea ch of the individual role descriptor statements to determine if differences e xist between the three groups regarding each statement. If the ANOVA was statistically sign ificant post hoc tests (p<.05) were conducted to determine which group (s) mean score r ating was statistically significant from the others. The first three open ended statements were made at the end of the corresponding section of the PQR for the respondents to comment a bout each of the categories of role descriptors and the fourth request allowed the resp ondent to make any general comments regarding the principalship: (1) Please comment abo ut any of these statements regarding changes in the role of the principal, (2) Your perc eptions about the current role of the middle school principal are extremely important to the future of the position. Please comment on the current role of the principal, (3) Y our comments about the future of the

PAGE 78

68 principalship will help the district as well as uni versity programs. Please comment about the future of the principalship and (4) The voice o f teachers and assistant principals has been overlooked when reviewing the literature about the role of the principal. Please make general comments about the role of the princip al that you would like to share. Miles and Huberman’s Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook (1994), as well as Patton’s Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods (2002), were used as resources for the qualitative data analysis The research question, Is there a significant difference between the perceptions of m iddle school principals, assistant principals and teachers regarding the role of the p rincipal in an urban Florida school district?, as well as the three research categories changing roles, current role, future role, were used as a guide for analyzing the responses to the opened ended comment requests. Procedures for data collection and analysis were gu ided by Miles and Huberman’s sourcebook. Descriptive data relevant to understand ing teachers’ and assistant principals’ as well as principals’ perspectives were collected and analyzed to generate categories, themes, conceptual understandings, and theoretical ideas. Professional Use The researcher is a middle school principal in the selected school district and has been an educator at the secondary level for twenty two years, ten of which has been as a principal. By virtue of the current position of the researcher there is a high level of understanding of the pressures of today’s administr ators.. The author wanted to continue to grow professionally, and lead the school/faculty to greater success and achievement. The researcher would like to continue to build a cu lture of collegiality among staff and

PAGE 79

69 feels it’s important to understand teacher and assi stant principals perceptions of the principal’s role. It is the intent of the researcher to use the infor mation to help educate principals about the perceptions of the targeted research grou ps so that principals can possibly have better working relationships with these groups for the betterment of the school. The data will be shared at a Middle School Association Level Meeting upon completion of a positive defense and be the topic of professional d iscussion. The researcher also mentors new principals and would be able to share the resea rch findings one-on-one in that capacity In terms of the bigger picture, the resear cher hopes to share the data with key school district officials to initiate a conversatio n about the diverse needs and roles of the middle school leaders, in hopes of enlightening tho se in power to effect change. The study will add to the literature on the duties and changing role of the secondary principalship by including the teacher an d assistant principal perceptions and perspectives of the principal’s role. A clearer und erstanding of the perceptions and expectations of each group could lead to a more col laborative working relationship and enable the principal to adjust or redefine his or h er role for the success of the total school community.

PAGE 80

70 Chapter Four RESULTS “Management is doing things right; leadership is doing the right things.” Peter F. Drucker Presentation and Analysis of Data Chapter Four of this mixed-method study of the secondary middle school principal presents the data collected and a statistical and q ualitative analysis of the data. This chapter is presented in four sections: (a) populati on and sample, (b) Principal’s Role Questionnaire – quantitative, (c) Principal’s Role Questionnaire – qualitative, and (d) a summary of the major findings. Population and Sample This study involved 22 middle schools in an urban F lorida school district and included all middle school teachers and administrat ors in order to garner a high rate of response to the Principal’s Role Questionnaire (PRQ ). There were potentially 1408 participant respondents in the three target groups. No other selection criteria were used. For the purposes of this study, the researcher focu sed solely on secondary middle schools in the targeted district. Middle schools in this district are schools serving grades six through eight. All middle school principals (n= 21), assistant principals (n=66), and teachers (n=1320) were asked to complete the PRQ. T he researcher was a principal at one of the target middle schools and at the request of the committee chair did not complete a survey. The researcher had an overall good response rate to the PRQ, yielding 371 survey participants or 26% of the total target audience. T hree hundred twenty seven teachers

PAGE 81

71 participated, 25% of the teacher targeted group, 21 assistant principals, 32% of the assistant principal targeted group, and 12 principa ls, 57% of the targeted principal group. The “request for comment” questions did not have as good of response rate as the Likert scale PRQ survey questions. Seventy four (74) respo ndents or 20% made a comment for the first open ended question regarding changes in the role of the principal. Seventy eight (78) or 21% of the respondents made a comment for t he second open ended question concerning the current role of the principal. Fifty nine (59) or 16% of the respondents made a comment for the third open ended question wi th respect to the future role of the principal and 73 (20%) of the respondents made a ge neral comment about the role of the principal, for the final and fourth comment. Principal’s Role Questionnaire Descriptive statistics A total of three-hundred and seventy one people par ticipated in this study by completing the online survey for a response rate of 26%. The number of participants in each targeted group was: 327 teachers (n=327, 90.8% ), 21 assistant principals (n=21, 5.8%), and 12 principals (n=12, 3.3%) respectively. Of the targeted groups who responded, 82 (22.7%) were male and 270 (77.3%) wer e female. Table 1 presents the categories of total educational experience for the three groups. Table 2 shows the mean and standard deviations of participants’ age and ex perience in current role.

PAGE 82

72 Table 1. Frequency and Percent of Total Experience Overall Teacher Assistant Principal Principal Exp Freq Percent Freq Percent Freq Percent Freq Percent 0-3 55 15.1 54 16.6 0 0.0 1 8.3 4-10 89 24.4 82 25.2 3 14.3 0 0.0 11-15 55 15.1 48 14.8 6 28.6 0 0.0 16+ 166 45.5 141 43.4 12 57.1 11 91.7 Table 2. Means and Standard Deviations of Demographic and Re search Variables Variables N Min Max M SD Age 356 23.00 66.00 44.66 11.75 Experience current 364 .00 39.00 9.23 9.17 Role Changes 304 1.30 4.00 3.24 .44 Current Role 286 1.07 4.00 3.23 .41 Changes that Should Occur 273 1.25 4.00 3.09 .45 Composite scores Composite scores were computed for Role Changes, Cu rrent Role, and Changes That Should Occur by averaging the survey questions in that section. The means and standard deviations are presented in Table 3. Cronb ach’s alpha reliability coefficients were calculated for past (=.832), current (=.858), and future roles (=.866) and were all considered to be of good reliability (Stevens, 1996).

PAGE 83

73 Table 3. Means and Standard Deviations Research Variables by Position Teacher Asst Principals Principals Variables M SD M SD M SD Role Changes 3.20 .44 3.51 .40 3.67 .21 Current Role 3.21 .42 3.40 .28 3.66 .25 Changes that Should Occur 3.07 .46 3.19 .46 3.51 .36 Research Questions The research questions addressed in this study were: Question 1. Are there significant differences in pa rticipants’ perceptions on Role Changes by Position (Teacher vs. Assistant vs. Principal)? Question 2. Are there significant differences in pa rticipants’ perceptions on Current Role by Position (Teacher vs. Assistant vs. Principal)? Question 3. Are there significant differences in pa rticipants’ perceptions on Changes that Should Occur by Position (Teacher vs. Assistant vs. Principal)? The assumptions of normality and homogeneity of var iance were met except for homogeneity of variance for Current role and normal ity for Changes that should occur. However, Stevens (1996) stated that violations of t hese assumptions have very little affect on the test. To examine question 1, a univariate ANOVA was cond ucted to assess if differences exist on Role Changes by Position (Teac her vs. Assistant vs. Principal). The ANOVA was statistically significant, F (2, 293) = 10.59, p < .001 (eta=.067,

PAGE 84

74 power=.989). Post hoc tests (evaluated at p<.05) re vealed that both Principals and Assistant principals had statistically greater mean score ratings compared to teachers (Table 3). Principals and assistant principals did not differ statistically. To examine question 2, a univariate ANOVA was cond ucted to assess if differences exist on Current Role by Position (Teac her vs. Assistant vs. Principal). The ANOVA was statistically significant, F (2, 276) = 8.52, p < .001 (eta=.058, power=.989). Post hoc tests (evaluated at p<.05) revealed that p rincipals had statistically greater mean score ratings compared to teachers (Table 3). No ot her statistical differences were found. To examine question 3, a univariate ANOVA was cond ucted to assess if differences exist on Changes that Should Occur by P osition (Teacher vs. Assistant vs. Principal). The ANOVA was statistically significant F (2, 262) = 5.03, p < .01 (eta=.037, power=.814). Post hoc tests (evaluated at p<.05) re vealed that principals had statistically greater mean score ratings compared to teachers (Ta ble 3). No other statistical differences were found. Additional Analyses Thirty-six ANOVAs were conducted on each of the pr incipal role descriptors to assess if differences exist on each descriptor by P osition (Teacher vs. Assistant vs. Principal) (Table 4). Fifteen of the 36 ANOVAs were statistically significant. The Fvalue superscript a indicates that Teachers’ scores were lower than bot h the Assistant Principals and Principals; b indicates that Teachers’ scores were lower than onl y Principals, and c indicates that Assistant Principals had lower score s than Principals. No other significant statistical differences were foun d. Seven of the thirty-six ANOVAs in

PAGE 85

75 Table 4 were significant (as indicated by *), howev er, post hoc tests (p<.05) for those seven items revealed that no group’s mean score rat ing was statistically different from another’s group concerning that particular role des criptor, therefore no superscript is indicated. The first research question on the survey, “What co ntemporary changes have occurred in the role of the secondary principal?” c onsisted of 10 principal role descriptor statements, items 1-10, for the survey participants to respond to with a level of agreement: 1=strongly disagree, 2=disagree, 3=agree 4=strongly agree. Four role descriptors were statistically significant under th is category. Mean score ranges for teachers, assistant principals, and principals were considered to be in agreement with scores ranging from 2.50 – 3.49 and in high agreeme nt with scores of 3.50 – 4.00. Research question two, “What is the current role of the secondary principal?” consisted of 14 principal role descriptor statement s, items 11-24, and nine were statistically significant. Mean score ratings range d from 2.86 – 3.41 for teachers, 3.14 – 3.67 for assistant principals, and 3.18 – 3.91 for principals. The third research question, “What changes should o ccur in the future role of the secondary principal?,” consisted of 12 principal ro le descriptor statements, items 25-36, and only two were statistically significant in this category. Mean score ratings were 2.85 – 3.39 for teachers, 2.71 – 3.48 for assistant prin cipals, and 3.17 – 3.82 for principals. Findings are presented below in Table 4 for each pr incipal role descriptor statement and an item by item summary of the role descriptors is located in appendix H.

PAGE 86

76 Table 4. ANOVAs on Each of the 36 Principal Role Descriptor Statements from the PRQ Survey Principal’s Role Questionnaire ANOVA statistics Teacher Asst Principal Principal Changes F Sig. M S D M S D M SD 1. Being an instructional leader has become the princi pal’s primary role. 13.522a .001 2.52 .84 3.33 .58 3.25 .75 2. The principal today is held to higher standards of accountability in many areas including academics, finances, and safet y. 7.783 a .001 3.27 .74 3.76 .44 3.83 .39 3. Higher standard of achievement exist for students, and principals are accountable for such student outcomes as test score s, drop out rate, suspensions, etc. 7.113 b .001 3.18 .76 3.60 .60 3.83 .39 4. The principal is required to serve as a liaison bet ween different constituencies such as: school and community, schoo l and district, school and government. 2.932 .055 3.43 .57 3.62 .50 3.75 .45 5. Technology has increased both responsibility and ac countability for the principal. 5.494 b .005 3.23 .67 3.55 .51 3.75 .45 6. The principal must be an expert on teaching and lea rning. 4.457* .012 2.96 .82 3.38 .59 3.42 .51 7. The possibility of litigation has increase substant ially. 2.064 .129 3.49 .60 3.25 .79 3.67 .49 8. Principals must cope with social and economic issue s that impact student behavior and performance. 2.306 .101 3.41 .63 3.57 .51 3.75 .45 9. Implementation of site-based decision-making strate gies transfers responsibility to the principal. 3.523* .031 3.06 .71 3.45 .60 3.33 .98 10. The principal must meet the enhanced needs of a mor e diverse student population as a result of legislation and s ocial changes. 3.686* .026 3.38 .65 3.62 .50 3.82 .40 11. The role of the principal is to establish the visio n and purpose for the school. 1.908 .150 3.25 .69 3.52 .68 3.45 .69 12. The principal is the key to school success. 6.628 b .002 2.86 .82 3.24 .77 3.64 .50 13. The principal has the power to lead change 1.561 .212 3.39 .59 3.62 .50 3.45 .52 14. The role of the principal is in transition and is i ncreasing in complexity. 8.992 a .001 3.20 .68 3.67 .48 3.82 .40 15. The changing role of the principal requires a commi tment to continual professional development for both new and established principals. 5.647 b .004 3.31 .59 3.57 .51 3.82 .40 16. The role of the principal is to fit more complex ex pectations into old budgets and time frames. 9.400 a .001 3.17 .70 3.67 .58 3.82 .40 17. The role of the principal is more focused on school security since Columbine. 3.327* .037 3.23 .68 3.38 .59 3.73 .47 18. The state and national emphasis on standards, asses sment, and accountability have increased the importance of the principal’s role as instructional leader. 10.682 b .001 3.07 .74 3.62 .50 3.82 .40 19. There is a disconnect between what principals belie ve is important in 3.486 c .032 3.16 .76 3.00 .84 3.73 .47

PAGE 87

77 Principal’s Role Questionnaire ANOVA statistics Teacher Asst Principal Principal their role (achievement, student success, instructi onal leadership) and what demands their daily attention (parent issues, student issues, social issues, management issues). 20. Principals are multiple program managers: facilitie s, personnel, finance, safety, food service, fund raising, athlet ics, and community relations. 4.961 b .008 3.29 .70 3.48 .51 3.91 .30 21. Principals are responsible for the academic, social emotional, physical, and moral needs of students. 7.506 b .001 2.90 .73 3.25 .64 3.64 .50 22. Principals are responsible for the morale of the st aff. .624 .536 3.41 .71 3.33 .48 3.18 .60 23. Required documentation has increased the paperwork and clerical aspect of the principal’s role. 3.847 b .022 3.33 .64 3.19 .51 3.82 .40 24. Special education regulations have greatly complica ted the role of the principal. .725 .485 3.20 .73 3.14 .73 3.45 .69 25. Increased responsibilities must mean increased prof essional assistance. 1.740 .177 3.15 .70 3.29 .64 3.50 .67 26. Increased paperwork requirements must mean increase d clerical assistance. 1.387 .251 3.15 .75 3.24 .70 3.50 .67 27. There should be an increase in administrative staff ing to include persons with a variety of responsibilities and expe rtise. .357 .700 3.10 .77 3.24 .77 3.17 .94 28. Principals should have more training in dealing wit h current issues. 1.675 .189 3.08 .71 2.95 .80 3.42 .51 29. The principal must have skills in collaboration and cooperation and must develop these skills in teachers and students. 3.061* .048 3.39 .59 3.48 .51 3.82 .40 30. Principals will have to facilitate a system of inst ructional delivery that meets the need of a high speed/high technology society including virtual classes, interactive classrooms, and other distance-learning tools to provide just-in-time curriculum and instru ction. 2.380 .094 3.13 .68 3.29 .64 3.55 .52 31. The principal will be responsible for providing pro grams that meet the needs of the school’s diverse population. 3.925* .021 3.16 .66 3.43 .60 3.58 .51 32. The principal should have increased responsibility for resource management to meet school goals, including hiring a nd firing teachers. 11.089 a .001 2.85 .85 3.43 .68 3.75 .45 33. The principal’s autonomy should commensurate with h is/her responsibility. 10.159 b .001 2.96 .63 3.24 .77 3.75 .45 34. The future of the principalship depends on the abil ity of the community to focus on educational goals. 2.005 .137 2.86 .75 2.71 .90 3.25 .45 35. The principal will be responsible in bringing the s chool and community together. 3.733* .025 2.93 .69 3.14 .57 3.42 .51 36. Principals must accept an enhanced role in the poli tical arena and be an active advocate for public education. 1.528 .219 2.98 .77 2.86 .85 3.33 .65 Note df =2, 312; a = Teachers< Asst. and Principals; b = Teachers < Principals, c = Asst. < Principals, *no statistical mean score difference between groups

PAGE 88

78 Summary The purpose of this study was to determine i f the perceptions of current principals and assistant principals (administrators) differ si gnificantly from teachers’ perceptions in regards to what the secondary middle school princip al’s role is and what it might or should look like in the future, thus adding the tea cher’s voice to existing literature. This study was modeled after Goodwin’s (2002) national r esearch study, On the Edge of Chaos: A Delphi Study of the Changing Role of the S econdary Principal, where confidence levels among principals on the role desc riptors contained in the Principal’s Role Questionnaire were high (67% high and 33% mode rate). Goodwin’s study involved principals only and the voice of the teacher had no t been addressed regarding the perceived changing role of the principal. This stud y adds the teachers’ viewpoint about the role of the middle school principal to the lite rature. The research questions: Q1 What contemporary changes have occurred in the role of the secondary principal?; Q2 What is the current ro le of the secondary principal?; and Q3 What changes should occur in the future role of the secondary principal? were statistically significant and revealed that differe nces did exist between teachers and principals regarding mean score ratings on the thre e categories (changes, current, and future) of principal role descriptors on the PRQ. T he additional analyses for the 36 individual principal role descriptors revealed that principals and assistant principals had statistically greater mean score ratings compared t o teachers for five role descriptor statements over the three categories (changes, curr ent, and future). In addition, principals had statistically greater mean score ratings than t eachers for nine role descriptors and

PAGE 89

79 principals had great mean score ratings than assist ant principals for one role descriptor. No significant mean score rating differences were f ound among the three targeted groups for 21 principal role descriptor statements on the PRQ, although teacher mean score ratings for all 36 PRQ items were lower than princi pals’ and assistant principal mean score ratings were lower than principals’ for 29 PR Q items. Concerning changes that have occurred in the role of the principal, teachers had statistically lower mean score ratings (m=2.52/3.27 ) than principals (m=3.25/3.83) and assistant principals (m=3.33/3.76) regarding the pr incipal’s primary role being one of instructional leader and that principals are held t o higher standards of accountability in many areas including academics, finances, and safet y. Teachers (m=3.18/3.23) had statistically lower mean score ratings than princip als (m=3.83/3.75) but not assistant principals (m=3.60/3.55) for the role descriptors c oncerning the principals’ accountability for such student outcomes as test scores, drop out rate, suspensions, etc., and that technology has increased both responsibility and ac countability for the principal. Regarding the current role of the secondary princip al, teacher mean score ratings were lower (m=3.20) than principals (m=3.82) and as sistant principals (m=3.67) concerning the complexity of the principals’ role a nd its current state of transition. Teachers (m=3.17) also had lower mean score ratings than both the principals (m=3.82) and assistant principals (m=3.67) regarding the pri ncipal’s role to fit more complex expectations into old budgets and time frames. Teac hers had lower mean scale score ratings than principals, but not assistant principa ls, for the following role descriptors: the principal is the key to school success (teacher, m= 2.86, principals, m=3.64, assistant

PAGE 90

80 principal, m=3.24), the changing role of the princi pal requires a commitment to continual professional development for both new and establish ed principals (teachers, m=3.31, principals, m=3.82, assistant principal, m=3.57), t he state and national emphasis on standards, assessment, and accountability have incr eased the importance of the principal’s role to be the instructional leader (te achers, m=3.07, principals, m=3.82, assistant principal, m=3.62), principals are multip le program managers (teachers, m=3.29, principals, m=3.91, assistant principal, m= 3.48), principals are responsible for the academic, social, emotional, physical, and mora l needs of students (teachers, m=2.90, principals, m=3.64, assistant principal, m=3.25), a nd that required documentation has increased the paperwork and clerical aspect of the principal’s role (teachers, m=3.33, principals, m=3.82, assistant principal, m=3.19). O ne role descriptor, “there is a disconnect between what principals believe is impor tant in their role and what demands their daily attention,” had lower mean score rating s by assistant principals (m=3.00) as compared to principals (m=3.73) indicating that pri ncipals rated this role descriptor higher than assistant principals. Question three, referencing the changes that should occur in the future role of the secondary principal, teachers (m=2.85) had lower me an score ratings than principals (m=3.75) and assistant principals (m=3.43)in regard s to the principal having increased responsibility for resource management to meet scho ol goals, including hiring and firing teachers. Teachers (m=2.96) had lower mean score ra tings than principals (m=3.75) but not assistant principals (m=3.24) regarding the pri ncipal’s autonomy commensurate with his/her responsibility.

PAGE 91

81 Principal’s Role Questionnaire Comment Request Resp onses Miles and Huberman’s (1994) Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook, was used as a guide for the qualitative data analys is. Miles and Huberman’s data analysis model (Figure 1) was used to analyze the data colle cted as the model serves as a tool to help ensure that “the qualitative researcher doesn’ t jump to hasty, partial, unfounded conclusions” (Miles & Huberman, 1984, p.21). Figure 1. Miles and Huberman’s Data Analysis Model Linacre (1995, p.405)) states that Miles and Huberm an’s model is productive and useful for “researchers who care about their research.” Li nacre (1995, p.405) continues to point out that the “iterative process of analysis does re quire more thought, and take more time, than off-the-shelf quantitative analysis, but is mo re likely to lead to useful and defensible findings.” Data display is a key element in Miles a nd Huberman’s qualitative methodology and better displays are a major avenue to valid qualitative analysis. “All Data Collection Data Display Data Reduction Conclusions: Drawing/verifying Miles and Huberman, 1994

PAGE 92

82 displays are designed to assemble and organize info rmation in an immediately accessible, compact form, so that the analyst can see what is h appening” (Miles & Huberman, 1984, p.21). The researcher then can either draw justifie d conclusions or move on to the nextstep analysis which the display suggests may be use ful. Qualitative data gives us a sense of what is happening in real life (Miles and Huberm an, 1994) and in this study the perceived role of the principal was examined. The major challenge in qualitative research is data reduction as everything seems to look important and the researcher must take a lot o f information and reduce it to a short report (Linacre, 1995). Numbers are not totally lef t out of the qualitative analysis as the researcher identifies patterns or themes in the dat a. Patterns or themes are identified when the researcher isolates something that happens in t he data a number of times and that consistently happens in a specific way. Linacre (19 95) sums up the essence of qualitative data and points out that no two observers may see t hings in the same light. “Qualitative data are words rather than numbers and words describe and explain. Words suggest new perspectives. Conclusions express ed as words seem more convincing than pages of numbers. But words are als o ambiguous and difficult to compare objectively. It is never clear how much of a verbal description of one instance carries over to other instances. One obser ver’s description, however precise, may not concur with another’s” (p.406). Changes in the Principal’s Role – Teacher Responses As stated earlier, the researcher was partic ularly interested in the teacher responses, as there is an absence of literature regarding thei r perceptions, in terms of the role of the

PAGE 93

83 principal. Qualitative data were sought through ope n-ended questions at the end of each section of the PDQ. Participants were asked to comm ent on changes in the role of the principal, the current role and the future role of the principal. Comment request #1, “Please comment about an y of these statements regarding changes in the role of the principal,” produced 74 responses, 65 were teacher responses. The overall perceptions of the 65 teacher responden ts support the statement that the principals’ role has changed. Their remarks also su pported the notion that although the perception is that the principal’s role has changed the reality is that the traditional managerial roles are still present. Some supportive key terms and phrases regarding changes in the principal’s role were: “human resour ce manager,” “sets the attitude,” “more political than educational,” “disciplinarian ,” “decision maker,” “technology/technician,” “less time,” “too many req uirements,” “instructional leader is only one role,” and four comments included referenc ed the principal’s role as a “communicator.” Several comments suggested that st udent discipline takes too much time and therefore principals are unable to spend t ime in more important roles. Another comment suggested that the role has changed, but th e person in the position has not. Some teacher comments emphasized that th e principal position requires attention to many operational issues or responsibilities that may keep principals in the “managerial” mode of running a school, instead of a change agent or instructional leader. Comments also indicated a perception that the princ ipal is limited in his or her scope of work because of top down directives and that site b ased decision making has been deemphasized as evidenced by these comments:

PAGE 94

84 “Principals are not allowed to run schools as they should be run due to mandates.” “Principals are limited because of directives” “Site based decisions have been deemphasized” Another perception is that principals are more inte rested in looking at the bottom line, consumed with test data. “Principals are more interested in looking at the numbers.” This comment goes hand in hand with accountability issues principals are facing with NCLB and Florida’s A++ plan. Technological changes are also perceived to have impacted the principalship and a sense that princip als need to be experts on the technology aspect of the job was broached. The comm ent, “Technology has increased – limited face to face approach,” implied that technology has made the principal’s po sition less personal which may affect teacher and staff mo rale. Current Role of the Principal – Teacher Responses Comment request #2, “Your perceptions about the current role of the middle school principal are extremely important to the future of the position. Please comment on the current role of the principal,” generated 78 respon ses, 71 of which were teachers’. One theme that emerged was the issue of morale and the principalship. Staff morale and the principalship produced the most related comments in dicating that it is of high importance to teachers. Teachers expressed this sentiment in k ey comments below. “Knowing your leader cares about you” “They need to work to improve teacher morale” “Support staff and staff morale”

PAGE 95

85 “Keeping up morale for all staff” “Get to know the staff better” Staff morale falls under human resource management and is clearly a role that was supported in the literature review (Katz, 1974; Mat hews & Crow, 2003; Portin, 2003; Wanzare & DaCosta, 2001). It was evident that teach ers in this study wanted to feel supported and appreciated by their principals and t hat it should be a key role for principals. The data analysis also revealed that teachers reco gnized the principals’ role regarding politics, safety, increased paperwork, an d following policy. One comment suggested that principals should minimize procedure s and stress which suggests that principals need to make sure unnecessary work isn’t being demanded of teachers thus increasing their heavy workload which in turn incre ases teacher stress. “Safety is more a result of increased litigation.” “Principals should work very hard to minimize proce dures and stress.” “Required documentation has increased paperwork.” “Politics, legislation, and the demands of the community often get in the way of the principal’s true passion.” “Principals today seem to be more of a watchdog; th e role is one of policy following and safety concerns.” “They appear to be little more than political puppe ts for the superintendent.” Meeting the diverse needs of the particular school community was an observation of teachers for the current role of the principal. The perception that the school

PAGE 96

86 community/population is ever changing just as socie ty is ever changing also emerged from the teacher comments and has been documented i n the literature (Copeland, 2001; ERS, 2000; Goens, 1998; Harris, et al, 2000; Hollan d, 1997; Murphy, 1994; Portin, 2003; Shellard, 2003; Shen, Rodriguez, & Rincones, 2000; Stronge, 1993; Tirozzi, 2001). Representative comments from teachers were: “We are expected to meet the needs of a n ever changing population and an ever changing society.” “The role is constantly changing because of the div ersity of students and district mandates.” “You cannot have achievement, student success and i nstructional leadership if you do not attend to the needs of parents, students staff, and the school society as a whole.” A perception that emerged for the current pr incipalship role was that there are too many responsibilities and roles for the position. A s one respondent put it “Principals have so many irons in the fire that I sometimes wonder h ow they get it all done.” Another stated: “The job will allow you to work 24/7 if you choose.” The perception that the many expectations on principals hindered success wa s suggested and the lack of time to get everything done also surfaced in the following teachers’ comments. “Too many expectations on the principal create a wo rk environment in which it is impossible to be successful.” “Principals must deal with so many variables – educ ation, assessment, budget, special needs, safety and crime, and litigation – it’s tough.”

PAGE 97

87 “Not enough time in the day to do a good job of eve rything.” “Principals no longer have time and resources neces sary to run their schools to the best of their ability.” Future Role of the Principal – Teacher Responses Comment request #3, “Your comments about the future of the principalship will help the district, as well as university programs. Pleas e comment about the future of the principalship,” generated 59 responses from researc h participants, 56 were from teachers. Technology was the top comment from responde nts in regards to the future role of the principal. Four of the 56 comments dealt specif ically with the need for principals to be up to date and trained on the latest technology. Two representative comments were: “The role of principal will be heavily influenced b y the development of new technologies,” and “The future of the principalship will require more technical training.” Teachers also asserted that being a good col laborator was an important role for the principal with three specific comments. As one teac her shared: “The role of future principals should be that of a collaborator. They should work together with each of the different stakeholders an d form leadership committees to take on some of the responsibilities and be part of the decision making process.” Other teacher comments were similar to the princip als’ role expectations expressed by Mathews and Crow (2003) and Portin, Schneider, DeAr mond & Gundlach (2003) that the principal should be visible in the community and ta ke a more active political role to advocate for public education. One comment suggeste d that the principal’s role must

PAGE 98

88 move toward being academic in nature and not just o ne of disciplinarian, “Administrators have to get out of the discipline business and into the curriculum business if we are to move forward.” General Comments Concerning the Role of the Princip al Comment request #4, “The voice of teachers a nd assistant principals has been overlooked when reviewing the literature about the role of the principal. Please make any general comments about the role of the principal th at you would like to share,” provoked 73 participant responses, 67 were teachers. Two mai n themes emerged from the data analysis: What the principal should not do and what the principal should do. There were several extraneous remarks in the data that were el iminated in this section because the remarks were irrelevant to the research. A few exam ples of those remarks were: “I really like our current principal”, or “My principal needs to go”, “You need to get real” and “what a ridiculous word – principalship.” The Principal Should Not There were six survey responses that dealt w ith the perception of what the principal should not do. The comments from the teachers sugge sted that the principal should not have favorites (in regards to staff), should not de legate everything and should not have too much power. Some examples are: “One individual with too much power can cause a gre at deal of damage, not the least of which is driving well-qualified teachers from the profession.” “The assistant principals carry out many of the dut ies of the principal…it is important for the principal to be an active part of the team.”

PAGE 99

89 “A good principal doesn’t have favorites.” The Principal Should Thirty three survey responses provided data concerning the perceptions of what principals should do. Responses ranged from being a good manager and disciplinarian to being a politician; an advocate for public educatio n and his or her school. The perception that the principal should be a morale builder had t he most specific responses with six. Four representative comments follow: “Teachers will go the extra mile when they are thou ght of as professionals who are competent in their field and provided the appro priate respect and authority to do their jobs well.” “Emphasis has been placed on student success, but t he teachers well being is greatly overlooked.” “A good leader needs to have the ability to make th eir staff feel valued.” “The principal is very important in keeping the mor ale up at a school.” Comment request #2 elicited similar data as far as the importance of the principal’s role regarding staff morale. The principal should also be a good communic ator as evidenced by these comments from teachers: “Principals that are in direct communica tion with their teachers execute their policies better.” “A principal needs to be well versed in many areas— particularly communication and people skills”.

PAGE 100

90 “Lack of tact, lack of communications skills, favor itism, and over all indifference can kill a classroom and thus a school population. ” Other comments from teachers were in direc t alignment with previous researchers’ work (Boyer, 1993; Fullan, 1998; Hill, 2003; Hollar 2004; Mathews & Crow, 2003; Murphy, 1998; Portin, et al., 2003; Terrozi, 2001) indicated the role of the principal should be: a good listener, assistive and supportiv e, disciplinarian, manager, delegator, community representative, human resource manager (h iring, recruiting, retaining) and should also be visible. Comments supporting these p erceived roles were: “A principal’s power lies in the percep tion of their level of service to their shareholders. Staff must feel as though the principal is their primary facilitator that enables their success.” “The principal should be more involved with the com munity.” “The most important role of the principal is hiring Putting the best possible teachers in the front of the students is more impo rtant than the role of instructional leader.” “The principal should listen to the voice of the te achers about literature since we have to teach and we know more about the needs of the students.” “I believe principals need to be seen on campus fre quently.” “The ability to communicate and delegate well are a lways the most important qualities needed in any manager.” “Discipline needs to be a focus for every school.” “A principal should first of all be a good listener .”

PAGE 101

91 “Principals should get out into the cla ssrooms on a much more regular basis.” Administrator Responses Principals’ and assistant principals’ resp onses to the open ended questions were somewhat more focused on the substance of the quest ion, which makes sense because they are administrators and have more experience wi th the different roles being addressed, whereas many of the teacher’s comments w ere focused on their role as teacher and their frustration with the system as a whole, m aking the comments more personal in nature to them. Twenty one assistant principals and twelve principals completed the survey, however only nine assistants and eight prin cipals made comments to the opened ended questions. It was evident in the comments that the perception regarding the perceived desired change in the role of the principal, from o ne of manager to instructional leader, was real; however, the respondents commented that t he operational/managerial tasks of running a school made that role change challenging. Serving a diverse population with many needs and having to answer to many different s takeholder groups were also perceived as a key changes in the role of the princ ipal. The lack of site based management also emerged as the participants’ percep tion was that there has been a return to the top down management approach. The lack of ti me and the inability to get everything done to serve all the stakeholder groups well also emerged as a perception of principals and assistant principals. Some administr ator responses that were representative of these perceptions were: “The principal answers to so many groups now that I think it is becoming

PAGE 102

92 increasingly difficult for him or her t o focus attention on any one area of need. It is almost an impossible job to do well.” “Principals must meet the needs of diverse populati ons.” “Site based decision making with limite d true and effective control of resources is the other area that has not been ad dressed in this transfer of responsibility.” “Although the role of the principal has shifted to that of instructional leadership, the traditional management responsibili ties are also still evident. The job is becoming increasingly more difficult to master.” “The role of curriculum leader is desired, but the daily grind makes that difficult.” “Site based decision making is very li mited.” “Principals today have many responsibilities that d etract from being the movers of instruction. Operational tasks cons tantly pull me away from the classroom.” There were six individual responses, listed below, regarding the perceptions of the current role of the principal and they clearly indi cate that time, litigation, and safety are key concerns for the role and also that principals must be able to multi-task. “The principals’ role is to set the tone for the s chool’s climate. Principals are multi-tasking, multi-role people.” “Too much to do for administrators and teachers. No t enough time in the day to do a good job of everything.” “The role of the middle school principal is transfo rmational, instructional and managerial in nature.”

PAGE 103

93 “Nearly every decision must now be weighed against the possibility of litigation.” “Safety is more a result of increased litigation.” “Principals no longer have time and resources neces sary to run their schools to the best of their ability.” As far as the future, only three administr ative survey participants responded in this category. One comment dealt with technology and the need for training as well as assistance (as in a full-time technology person) in keeping it all running. Two comments suggested that the principal needs to be more of a politician and advocate for his or her school and public education. The last comment request in the PRQ regarding any g eneral thoughts on the principalship elicited only six individual response s from administrative participants. Collaboration, team builder, understanding human be ing and people person were skills mentioned in the comments regarding the future role of the principal. One comment listed below painted a bleak future for the principalship while another suggested that principals should have more decision making authority. “In reality, the future of the principalship is doo med for failure. The added roles, tasks and responsibilities require additional reso urces. This comes at a time when the resources are drying up as the budget is c ut again and again.” “The role of the principal should be enhanced to in clude more decision making authority over core curriculum issues. Too often, elected officials and state or district personnel are dictating initiatives that a re to occur at the school level without thinking through the impact of those initia tives. It leaves the principal

PAGE 104

94 trying to figure out how to meet the requirements of the mandate without sacrificing student or staff time or resources on w asted initiatives.” Teachers had similar principals’ role perceptions r egarding technology, being an advocate for education, and collaboration as indica ted by these comments: “The role of the principal should be more collabora tive than autonomous.” “If a principal’s people skills are lacking, he or she will be an ineffective leader.” “It is important for principals to be understanding people persons.” Summary The qualitative and quantitative data reflect simil arities as well as differences in role perception of the principal between teachers a nd administrators. Although the overall ANOVAs for the three major research questions were statistically significant, indicating a difference in mean score ratings for each category of principal role descriptors between the three groups, individually there were only 15 r ole descriptor statements that were statistically significant. Teachers, principals, an d assistant principals had similar mean score ratings for 21 principal role descriptors, in dicating that teachers’ and administrators’ perceptions regarding the different principal role descriptors, were more similar than different indicating that the three gr oups are more in agreement with each other than the overall research questions suggest.

PAGE 105

95 CHAPTER FIVE CONCLUSIONS (Summary, Discussion of Findings, and Recommendatio ns) “Probably the most important -and the most difficultjob of the school based reformer is to change the prevailing culture of a school. Ultimately a school’s culture has far more influence on life and learning in the schoolhouse than the state department of education, the superin tendent, the school board, or even the principal can ever have.” Roland Barth Chapter Five includes a review of the purpose and methods of the study and a synthesis of the findings and their relationship wi th the professional literature. The implications and limitations of the study, as well as recommendations for further study, are also discussed. Summary of the Study’s Purpose and Procedures Purpose of the Study The purpose of this study was to examin e the perceptions of teachers on the changing role of middle school principal and compar e with the principals and assistant principals perceptions of the changing role of the middle school principal. The lack of the teacher’s voice in the literature concerning their perceptions regarding the role of the principal was the catalyst that prompted the resear cher to conduct the study. Part of the process required investigating the literature regar ding the changing role of the secondary principal over the past 10 years. The research ques tions for this study were:

PAGE 106

96 Question 1. Are there significant differences in pa rticipants’ perceptions on Role Changes by Position (Teacher vs. Assistant vs. Principal)? Question 2. Are there significant differences in pa rticipants’ perceptions on Current Role by Position (Teacher vs. Assistant vs. Principal)? Question 3. Are there significant differences in pa rticipants’ perceptions on Changes that Should Occur by Position (Teacher vs. Assistant vs. Principal)? Synthesis of Findings and Conclusions Methodology The American Heritage College Dictionary (1997) defined methodology as “A body of practices, procedures, and rules used in a discipline or an inquiry; a set of working methods; the study or theoretical analysis of such working methods” (p.858). The analysis of the procedures of inquiry in this r esearch study provided intriguing questions and interesting possibilities for future methodological research. This study used a mixed methods approach. Quantitat ive data was obtained from the Likert scale Principal’s Role Questionnaire sur vey (1=strongly disagree, 2=disagree, 3=agree, 4=strongly agree) and qualitative data was captured from the open ended comment requests at the end of each category of rol e descriptor statements. Mean score ranges for teachers, assistant principals, and prin cipals were considered to be in agreement with scores ranging from 2.50 – 3.49 and in high agreement with scores of 3.50 – 4.00. Each open ended comment request was re lated to the set of principal role descriptors in each category (changes, current, fut ure) on the PRQ The last open ended

PAGE 107

97 comment request allowed respondents to add general comments about the role of the principal. The comment requests were as follows: 1. Please comment about any of these statements regard ing changes in the role of the principal. 2. Your perceptions about the current role of the midd le school principal are extremely important to the future of the position. Please comment on the current role of the principal. 3. Your comments about the future of the principalship will help the district as well as university programs. Please comment about t he future of the principalship. 4. The voice of teachers and assistant principals has been overlooked when reviewing the literature about the role of the prin cipal. Please make any general comments about the role of the principal th at you would like to share. The Principal’s Role Questionnaire The Principal’s Role Questionnaire (PRQ) (Goodwin, 2002) was used in this study with slight modification as approved by the r esearcher’s doctoral committee. The PRQ was developed and validated by Rebecca Goodwin, Marshall University, in 2002. Permission to use the PRQ was obtained by the resea rcher in February of 2007. The questionnaire had three sections of principal role descriptor statements that addressed the changing role of the principal, the current role of the principal and changes that should occur in the principal’s future role. Goodwin’s PRQ was developed and used for existing principals after expert principals created and agre ed on principal role descriptor

PAGE 108

98 statements through several iterations during a Delp hi technique research process. The survey was originally developed for principals, not teachers, however the researcher felt that teachers would be able to rate the role descri ptor statements based on their school based experience. Principals’ Roles Matthews and Crow (2003) suggest that there are pr imarily seven different roles principals have and that most everything a principa l does falls into one of the seven categories. The roles are: mentor, supervisor, lead er, learner, manager, politician and advocate encompass just about everything a principa l does. Portin, Schneider, DeArmond & Gundlach (2003) had similar findings and conclude d that regardless of school type, schools need leadership in seven critical areas: in structional, cultural, managerial, human resources, strategic, external development and micr o-political. Goodwin (2002) summarized these roles using the National Council f or the Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) standards for advanced programs i n education administration (NPBEA, 1995) into these four categories: strategic leadership, instructional leadership, organizational leadership, and political and commun ity leadership. These four categories encompass the seven roles and seven leadership type s described by Matthews & Crow (2003) and Portin, Schneider, DeArmond & Gundlach ( 2003) and provided the framework to analyze the data and draw conclusions regarding the data presented in this study. Twelve principal role descriptor statements from t he PRQ referred to the role of instructional leadership for the principal (curricu lum, ensuring quality of instruction,

PAGE 109

99 ensuring quality of teaching resources, supervision and the learning environment; professional development and human resources, and s tudent personnel services), thirteen principal role descriptors were categorized as refe rring to organizational leadership (organizational management, interpersonal relations hips, financial management and resources allocation, and technology and informatio n systems), six principal role descriptors fell under strategic leadership (profe ssional and ethical leadership, information management and evaluation, promoting vi sion, mission and goals), and five principal role descriptors were categorized under t he political and community leadership role of the principal (community and media relation s, educational law, public policy and political systems, developing capital, buffering an d mediating internal as well as external interests) (Goodwin, 2002; Mathews & Crow, 2003; Po rtin, Schneider, DeArmond & Gundlach, 2003). There was also an opportunity for respondents to comment about any aspect of the role of the principal at the end of t he survey. The voice of teachers was lacking in the literature and this study contribute d to the literature by capturing the teachers’ voice regarding the changes, current stat us and future role of the principal. The electronic survey (Appendix D) was created and placed on surveymonkey.com and was live from October 1, 2007 through October 16, 2007. The initial letter of invitation was sent out to resear ch participants along with two additional reminders to complete the PRQ. The researcher had a 26% response rate, which was better than the researcher initially anticipated, h owever lower than the 30% considered as a minimal response rate for electronic surveys (Bou rque & Fielder, 2003).

PAGE 110

100 Overall, teachers, assistant principals, and princi pals agreed on all 36 role descriptors presented in the PRQ based on the mean score ranges of 2.50 – 3.49 for agreement and 3.50 – 4.00 for high agreement. There was no mean score rating less than 2.52 for any descriptor statement. Teacher mean sco re ratings were less than principals’ for all 36 PRQ items and less than assistant princi pals for 31, however all mean score ratings were over 2.52 and considered to be in agre ement as they fell in the agreement range. Assistant principals were in high agreement for 12 role descriptors on the PRQ based on mean score ratings of 3.50 and above and i n agreement for the other 24 PRQ items. It is not surprising that assistant principa ls had higher overall mean score ratings than teachers and that they were more in alignment with principals as both groups are considered administrators and most likely have also been teachers; having experienced the work of teachers. It was assumed, on the other hand, that teachers probably haven’t been administrators and therefore haven’t experienc ed the work of an administrator first hand, which is a possible reason for the overall lo wer mean score ratings on the PRQ. Instructional Leadership Changes that have occurred in the role of the secon dary principal for instructional leadership produced two role descriptor statements that had similar mean score ratings between teachers, assistant principals, and princip als. Those were: the principal must be an expert on teaching and learning; and, principals must cope with social and economic issues that impact student behavior and performance Under the category of current role of the secondary principal for instructional leadership there was one role descriptor statement that teachers, principals and assistant

PAGE 111

101 principals had similar mean score ratings for: spec ial education regulations have greatly complicated the role of the principal. The category of future role of the secondary princ ipal for instructional leadership yielded three role descriptor statements that had s imilar mean score ratings between the three groups which were: principals should have mor e training in dealing with current issues; principals will have to facilitate a system of instructional delivery that meets the needs of a high speed/high technology society inclu ding virtual classes, interactive classrooms, and other distance-learning tools to pr ovide just-in-time curriculum and instruction; and, the principal will be responsible for providing programs that meet the needs of the school’s diverse population. Teachers had lower mean score ratings than princip als and assistant principals on one principal role descriptor regarding changes tha t have occurred for principals under instructional leadership: being an instructional le ader has become the principal’s primary role. Teachers mean score ratings were lower than p rincipals but not assistant principals for the role descriptor statement: higher standards of achievement exist for students, and principals are accountable for such outcomes as tes t scores, drop out rates, suspensions, etc. Concerning instructional leadership and current rol e descriptors, teachers had lower mean score ratings than principals but not as sistant principals for the following three role descriptor statements: the changing role of the principal requires a commitment to continual professional development for both new and established principals; the state and national emphasis on standards, assessment, and accountability have increased the

PAGE 112

102 importance of the principal’s role as an instructio nal leader; and, principals are responsible for the academic, social, emotional, ph ysical, and moral needs of students. Summary Teachers’ data indicated the need for the principa l to be experts on good teaching and learning. It was evident that teachers understo od that principals are dealing with a more diverse student population in terms of cultura l, physical, psychological, social, economic, and academic backgrounds. Meeting the nee ds of today’s student population, as well as future populations, requires principals to stay abreast of research based instructional delivery models that will meet the ne eds of their students. Teachers indicated that technology does and will continue to play a key role in education and principals need to be technologically literate not only to keep up with technological equipment, but also virtual classrooms, and help te achers get the technological training they need. Some teachers in this study did not see the princi pal’s primary role as the instructional leader, as it was the lowest rated sc ore of the 36 PRQ items. The teachers’ mean score of 2.52 was still considered in agreemen t with the statement however it was not as high as the principals’ (3.25) or assistant principals’ (3.33) mean score rating. Teacher (3.07) scores were also lower than principa ls’ (3.82) concerning the role statement: the state and national emphasis on stand ards, assessment, and accountability has increased the importance of the principals’ nee d to be the instructional leader; however both mean score ratings were over 3.0 and c onsidered in agreement. For the purpose of this study, an instructional leader is d efined as the person who ensures the

PAGE 113

103 quality of instruction and teaching resources, mode ls teaching practices, and supervises curriculum (Portin, 2003). Teachers and principals in this study were in agreement with mean score ratings of 2.96 and 3.42 that principals should be experts on teaching and learning. Teachers had a lower mean score than prin cipals’, 3.18 and 3.83respectively, regarding the principals’ accountability for studen t achievement and discipline but were still in the agreement range. The possibility for t he lower score ratings could be that traditionally in this school district assistant pri ncipals deal with discipline and teachers feel the weight of test score accountability as bei ng on their shoulders as they are the ones in the classroom teaching the students. The princip al may not have a direct hand in disciplining students or teaching a child for the p urpose of taking a test, however research reflects that the principal is held accountable for the data that the school produces whether it is disciplinary statistics or test score s. Teachers also had lower mean scores than principal s concerning continual professional development for principals yet they ag reed that principals need to meet the needs of a diverse, high speed/high technology soci ety, which appears to be contradictory. Strategic Leadership There were no principal role descriptor statements under changes that have occurred in the secondary role of the principal tha t were classified under strategic leadership however, there were two principal role d escriptor statements under current role that teachers, assistant principals and principals had similar mean score ratings on. They

PAGE 114

104 were: the role of the principal is to establish the vision and purpose for the school and the principal has the power to lead change. Teachers had lower mean score ratings than princip als but not assistant principals regarding the principal’s strategic leadership role descriptor under current role: the principal is key to school success. Teachers had lo wer mean score ratings than principals and assistant principals regarding the descriptor s tatement: the role of the principal is in transition and is increasing in complexity. As far as the future role of the principal under strategic leadership, the teachers had lower mean s core ratings than principals but not assistant principals regarding the role descriptor: the principal’s autonomy should commensurate with his/her responsibility. Summary Teachers, assistant principals, and principals perc eived that as the leaders of the school, principals should set the tone at the schoo l and establish the mission, vision, and the goals to meet them. Teachers as well as princip als and assistant principals indicated that they felt the principal does have the power to lead change and that the role of the principal is complex and in transition, which is in agreement with the literature. Some teachers did not want to see the principal’s autono my increase to match the level of responsibility of the principal, as indicated by al most a point difference in mean score ratings, teachers 2.96, principals 3.75, however, t hey were still considered in agreement with the item. Other responses on the PRQ indicated all three groups want to work collaboratively together and teachers indicated tha t principals have the power to lead change, so it could be inferred that the “power to lead change” comes from collaboration.

PAGE 115

105 Operational Leadership/Managerial Teachers, assistant principals, and principals had similar mean score ratings for the principal role descriptor: implementation of si te-based decision-making strategies transfers responsibility to the principal, under ch anges that have occurred in the role of the secondary principal. The current operational leadership role descriptor s for the principals generated similar mean score ratings between teachers, assist ant principals and principals for the role descriptor: the role of the principal is more focused on school security since Columbine. The changes that should occur in the future role o f the secondary principal yielded four role descriptor statements that teachers, assi stant principals, and principals had similar mean score ratings: increased responsibilit ies must mean increased professional assistance; increased paperwork requirements must m ean increased clerical assistance; there should be an increase in administrative staff ing to include persons with a variety of responsibilities and expertise; and the principal m ust have skills in collaboration and cooperation and must develop these skills in teache rs and students. Teachers had a lower mean score rating than princi pals and assistant principals under operational changes in the principalship role for the role descriptor: the principal today is held to higher standards of accountability in many areas including academics, finances, and safety. Teachers had lower mean score ratings than principals but not assistant principals for the role statement: techno logy has increased both responsibility and accountability for the principal.

PAGE 116

106 The operational difference between teachers, who h ad lower mean score ratings than assistant principals and principals, under cur rent role was: the role of the principal is to fit more complex expectations into old budgets a nd time frames. Teachers had lower mean score ratings than principals but not assistan t principals for the following two role descriptors: principals are multiple program manage rs: facilities, personnel, finance, safety, food service, fund raising, athletics, and community relations; and, required documentation has increased the paperwork and cleri cal aspect of the principal’s role. Teachers indicated their need for more clerical ass istance however they did not see the paperwork aspect of the principal’s job as having i ncreased. Under operational leadership, for the future role of the principal, teachers had lower mean score ratings than principals and assist ant principals for the role descriptor: the principal should have increased responsibility for resource management to meet school goals, including hiring and firing teachers. Summary Teachers did perceive that if a site based managem ent model was being used at the school level more responsibility would fall on the principal. All three groups perceived school security as an important issue and that it has required principals to focus more time and attention to it. Teachers also indica ted that with all the paperwork requirements placed on schools that there is a need for more clerical assistance, as well as the need to increase professional assistance to dea l with all the requirements, responsibilities, and needs of students, teachers, and staff. Teachers’ mean score ratings (3.15) were lower than principals’ (3.50) regarding increased paperwork and clerical

PAGE 117

107 tasks for the principal, however, their scores were still in agreement range. Skills that teachers and principals also agreed on for the prin cipal were the ability for the principal to get people to collaborate and cooperate and both indicated the need for principals to develop these skills in teachers and students based on their mean score ratings of 3.39, teachers and 3.82, principals. Teachers and assistant principals had lower mean s cores regarding principals being held to higher standards of accountability in academics, finances, technology, and safety with scores of 3.27, 3.76, and 3.83 respecti vely but once again all three scores fell in the agreement range with assistant principals an d principals in high agreement. It appeared that some teachers did not want principals to have more responsibility concerning resource (human and financial) managemen t, including hiring and firing teachers due to their lower mean score rating of 2. 85 on the item compared to principals’ 3.75, however both scores fell in the agreement ran ge. Political and Community Leadership/External Develop ment Leadership Under changes, principals, assistant principals and teachers had similar mean score ratings for the role descriptor statements: t he principal is required to serve as a liaison between different constituencies such as: s chool and community, school and district, school and government and that the possib ility of litigation has increased substantially. Under the category of future role of the principal there were three role descriptor statements that teachers, assistant prin cipals and principals had similar mean score ratings: the future of the principalship depe nds on the ability of the community to focus on educational goals; the principal will be r esponsible in bringing the school and

PAGE 118

108 community together; and principals must accept an e nhanced role in the political arena and be an active advocate for public education. Summary Teachers did perceive that the principal is a liai son between many different stakeholder groups and that one role of the princip al needs to be to bring the school and school community together to reach educational goal s. Being an advocate for education and being vocal and visible in that arena was an ac cepted role that teachers expressed for the future of the principal. Summary of All Responses The literature clearly acknowledges the impact prin cipals have on schools they lead, as they are considered the keystone of effect ive schools (Educational Research Service (ERS), 2000; Fullan, 2002; Olson, 2000; Por tin, 2003; Shellard, 2003). It is the principal’s office that is singled out when speakin g of school success or failure which is why the position has been said to be the key positi on in American public schools (Blas & Kirby 2000; Blas & Blas, 2004; Bloom, 1999; Chi richello, 2004; Cistone & Stevenson, 2000; ERS, 2000; Hallinger & Heck, 1996; Kennedy, 2002; Harris, 2004; McEwan, 2003; Olson, 2000; Stronge, 1993; Wanzare & DaCosta, 2001; National Policy Board for Educational Administration [NPBEA], 2001) In this study, teacher responses to the descriptor: the principal is key to school s uccess were lower than principals, however, they were still considered in agreement wi th a 2.86 mean score rating. It is possible the wording of the statement caused the it em to get lower ratings from teachers because it may have led teachers to believe that th e principal was the only factor to be

PAGE 119

109 considered for a school’s success. The research has shown that successful schools have effective principals, which is just one piece of th e puzzle when looking at the total school picture. Since the 1980s, it has been generally recognized t hat the primary role of the principal should be that of instructional leader (G oodwin, 2002; Hallinger, 1992) and this study confirms that principals acknowledge the inst ructional leadership role. However, there was not strong agreement between principals a nd teachers concerning the principal’s primary role being the instructional le ader based on the mean score ratings on the PRQ. Comments for this role indicator varied fr om teachers. Some suggested that principals should just let the teachers teach and l eave them alone, while others suggested that principals are unable to be instructional lead ers due to all the other responsibilities they have, making it difficult to focus or devote m uch time to that particular role. Instructional leadership is an area that the litera ture suggests principals should be spending most of their time, but studies have shown that principals spend their time in three major areas: discipline/student management, s taff supervision/needs, interaction with students in general (Pierce, 2000) and comment s in this study lend support to that notion. Teachers did indicate that the future role of the principal should be more instructional in nature and particularly that princ ipals should know what good teaching and learning is and looks like in the classroom. The significance of the principal to the school com munity has been well established in the literature (Boyer, 1983; Edinger & Murphy, 1995; ERS, 2000; Goodwin, 2002; Hallinger & Heck, 1996; Holland, 199 7) and this study supports the

PAGE 120

110 importance of the principal’s role in the community Teachers, as well as principals, see the need for the principal to be a role model in th e community and to be more involved in advocating for their school and public education in general. The principals’ authority and ability to make decis ions were both key issues that surfaced in the discourse regarding the perceived p rincipal shortage (Cusick, 2003; Delisio, 2006; ERS, 1998; Fullan, 1998; Kennedy, 20 01; Kimball & Sirontnik, 2000; Lashway, 2002; NASSP, 1998; NASSP, 2003; Pierce, 20 00; Price, 2004). Researchers found that potential principal candidates were not applying for principal jobs because of the perception was that the principal is responsibl e for everything but lacks the authority to make decisions (Cushman, 1992; Fenwick & Pierce, 2001; Hill, 2003; Langer & Schacter, 2003). The lack of decision making power was just one reason the job was unappealing to potential candidates and this sentim ent was expressed by principals in the literature as well as in this study. As Hill (2003, p.8) stated “when principals lack the authority to choose teachers or adapt methods and s chedule, they become mere middle managers…they can easily be put in a double bind of being responsible for everything while lacking the authority to decide anything.” Br yk and Schneider (2003) reference the principals’ ability and authority to change staff w ho are not on board with the school’s mission and vision as being key to developing relat ional trust and collaborative working environments cite cases where principal’s without t hat authority have been unsuccessful in bringing about the desired changes needed for sc hool reform. Goodwin’s (2002) study also confirmed the principals’ erosion of authority and the need to increase the autonomy of the principal. School boards need to empower pri ncipals and give them the authority

PAGE 121

111 they need to make and implement decisions (Boyer, 1 983, Chmelynski, 2001; ERS, 1999; Goodwin, 2002; Kennedy, 2000; Mallone & Caddell, 20 00). High agreement did not exist for PRQ items that suggested increasing the p rincipal’s authority, autonomy, responsibility, or hiring and firing power, as they were the lowest rated items on the PRQ with the exception of the principal as the instruct ional leader. Katz ‘s (1974) human skill, the ability to work eff ectively with others, is key to a principal’s success and clearly teachers throughout this study emphasized the need for principals to be very in touch with the morale of t he staff and to make collaboration a way of work in their schools. Interestingly enough, teachers and principals agreed in this area as indicated by comments from teachers and pri ncipals and their responses on the PRQ. Complexity of the principal’s role has been well re searched in the literature (Catano & Stronge, 2006; Fink & Brayman 2006; Fulla n, 1997; Goodwin, 2002; Grubb & Flessa, 2006; Pierce, 2000; Portin & Shen 1998; P ortin, Schneider, DeArmond & Gundlach, 2004) and this study supports previous fi ndings. Role tension adds to the complexity of the principal position. Ripley (1997) identified different kinds of tensions that confront principals and pull them in different directions. Tensions of leadership (collaborative vs. authoritarian, masculine vs. fem inine, instructional leader vs. manager, leader vs. servant), tensions of needs (needs of on e vs. needs of many, teacher as teacher vs. teacher as whole person, teacher growth vs. stu dent growth), and social and cultural tensions (principal’s vision vs. communal vision, r hetoric vs. reality, stability vs. change)

PAGE 122

112 (1997, p. 55-64) all add to the complexity of the r ole. This tension is magnified by the many programs the principal manages as confirmed by principals in this study. Conclusions The Changing Role of the Secondary Principal The plethora of research reporting shortages in ap plicants for the principalship has brought much popular and professional attention to the principalship and the principal’s perceived role(s), as well as the conditions in whi ch principals’ work. Overall, this study supports the findings of other reports, studies, an d articles in terms of principal perceptions of the principals’ role (Educational Re search Service, 1999; Goodwin, 2002; Institute for Educational Research, 2000; National Association of Secondary School Principals, 2001; National Commission on Excellence in Educational Administration, 1987; Public Agenda, 2001; and United States Depart ment of Education, 2000). These studies, including this research, indicated that th e principalship has become more complex and that changes in society and in educatio n have contributed to this complexity. Teachers in this study did not have high agreement (m=3.20) that the principalship is more complex, which leads the researcher to postula te that there may be a disconnection between the principal’s work and the many different roles encompassed in the position, and what teachers want or see the role of the princ ipal to be. This study did not address specifically what role or roles teachers want princ ipals to have or fulfill however, through their comments, teachers did indicate that the role s of collaborator and educational advocate were important.

PAGE 123

113 Principals in this study agreed (m=3.25) that bein g an instructional leader has become the principal’s primary role. Principals sco red higher (m=3.82) on the role descriptor that emphasized that accountability has increased the importance of the principal to take on the role of instructional lead er. This indicates that principals do see the instructional leadership role as important howe ver comments principals made on the PRQ indicated that other demands and responsibiliti es of the position may prevent them from giving the role the attention needed, thus not making it a primary role. Teachers on the other hand rated this item the lowest of all 36 role descriptors with a mean rating score of m=2.52, indicating that they did not highl y agree that instructional leadership was the principal’s primary role. Teacher and admin istrator comments indicated that there are many demands occupying the principal’s ti me and that could explain the lower score for that particular item. One comment a teach er made indicated that although the role has changed the person in the position has not This comment may suggest the possibility that a principal takes on or continues the role that he or she feels most comfortable with or that he or she is not willing t o change. It is refreshing to see that teachers and principal s are more on the same page than not when you consider that there was no significant statistical difference on 22 of the individual principal role descriptors and no PRQ it em had a mean score rating below a 2.52, indicating agreement on all 36 PRQ items. Whi le the findings in this study did not reveal any new or unexpected insights into the prin cipalship or principals’ roles, it did reinforce previous studies and confirm the complexi ty and non-linearity of the principal’s job. It also raises a question about what teachers want from their principals and what

PAGE 124

114 roles they see as important to them. Teachers’ mean score ratings for all 36 PRQ role descriptor items were lower than principals’ and no ne had a mean score rating of 3.50 or higher, which was the score needed for high agreeme nt between teachers and principals. Since most principals have come up through the rank s having been teachers and know the scope of teachers’ work, some level of agreement wa s expected. It was expected that teachers’ lack of experience as administrators woul d affect their responses to the PRQ and there were statistically significant mean score ratings for 14 of the role descriptors between principals and teachers. The PRQ data showed no high level of agreement betw een teachers and principals which led the researcher to postulate that much wor k must be done to bring school staffs together for the common good of the students and co mmunity they serve, in order to achieve success with their student population. Prev ious research indicated schools that are successful have an effective principal and staf f that works collaboratively together and have a strong sense of collegiality (DiPaola & Moran, 2003; ERS, 2000; Mathews & Crow, 2003; Murphy, 1994; Portin, et al., 2003; She n & Crawford, 2003; Shen & Rodriguez, 2000; Tirozzi, 2001; Wanzare & DaCosta, 2001). Teachers in this study indicated they wanted a collaborative work atmosphe re and creating that type of environment with large staffs would be one of the c hallenges for current and future principals. Bryk and Schneider refer to an ideal sc hool size of about 350 students, small, in order to establish a trusting, collaborative sch ool environment, further stating that the larger the school the less face to face interaction occurs and more bureaucratic relations

PAGE 125

115 exist. Unfortunately in large school districts such as the one in this study, most schools are 3 to 6 times that size. Jim Collins, author of Good to Great talks about having the right people on the bus in order to make things happen. Bryk and Schnei der (2003) suggest that in order for the principal to reshape the school community, he o r she should hire strong people into staff vacancies and counsel out those whose practic e remains inconsistent with the school’s mission and values. “The inability of the principal to remove a few problematic teachers undermined trust (p.43)” and the faculty o f the school mentioned were unsuccessful in their attempts to collaborate and t he academic environment did not improve. Teacher data in this study indicated that some teachers do not want principals to have the authority to hire and fire, control over r esources, or have the autonomy that is commensurate with their responsibility, based on th eir mean score ratings for all these items being below 3.0. This puts principals in a pr ecarious position as ultimately the principal is charged with the responsibility for im provement of student achievement, as well as the safe and effective running of his or he r school. In order to remove problematic employees, principals must go through due process, which can take years. The researcher understands the need for due process however believ es the process takes too long and damages the overall culture of the school. An “us and them” attitude cannot exist between pri ncipals and teachers if school staffs are truly to get anything done and overcome the many obstacles that may prevent the accomplishment of the goals established in educ ation. Unfortunately, this study’s teacher comments confirms that there is still a per ception of an underlying tone of “us

PAGE 126

116 and them” on school staffs; “us” being the teachers and “them” being the administrators. In order to make headway in our schools, teachers a nd administrators need to work collaboratively, creating a collegial school enviro nment that promotes high expectations for all students as well as all staff. The continuo us work to bring people together, to work collaboratively, is clearly laid out for principals Bryk and Schneider (2003) postulate that relational trust must exist in order for there to be meaningful school improvement. During t heir 10 year study of 400 Chicago elementary schools they found that relationship tru st among teachers, parents, and school leaders improves the routine work of the school and was the key resource for them. Survey results on school trust were linked to evide nce from the schools’ academic productivity as measured by student assessment in r eading and mathematics to assess its’ influence on student achievement. According to Bryk and Schneider (2003) there are four key elements for relational trust: respect, persona l regard, competence in core role responsibilities, and personal integrity. Listening to what each person has to say and valuing it in the decision making process is the fi rst element, respect. Having a willingness to do more than the job requires, more than the minimum is the second element, personal regard. The third element, compet ence in core role responsibilities has to do with competence; having the skills and qualif ications to do your job and the last element, personal integrity, is about keeping your word and doing what you say you are going to do. Bryk and Schneider (2003) further stat e that relational trust is much more than just making everyone feel good.

PAGE 127

117 Relational trust entails much more than just making school staff feel good about their work environment and colleagues. A school can not achieve relational trust simply through some workshop, retreat, or form of s ensitivity training, although all of these can help. Rather, schools build relati onal trust in day-to-day social exchanges. Through their words and actions, school participants show their sense of their obligations toward others, and others disc ern these intentions. Trust grows through exchanges in which actions validate these e xpectations (p.43). Goodwin’s (2002) Delphi study generated many intere sting responses from principals concerning their many roles. When asked to indicate what those roles were, one principal responded eloquently with the followi ng quote that sums up the research quite well. “Accountant, acrobat, advisor, arbitrator, buffer, business manager, change agent, cheerleader, child advocate, coach, communicator, c onfidant, consultant, coordinator, counselor, curriculum designer, curric ulum leader, damage controller, decision maker, delegator, disciplinari an, door mat, encourager, evaluator, facilitator, facility engineer, financia l planner, fire marshal, foundation, friend, housekeeper, historian, human resources exp ert, initiator, innovator, instructional leader, leader, liaison, manager, med iator, mentor, motivator, negotiator, orator, organizer, politician, public r elations specialist, pacifier, pastor, peacemaker, problem solver, psychologist, researche r, risk-taker, role model, scheduler, servant, supervisor, surrogate parent, t arget, teacher visionary. This has always reminded me of the scope of our jobs. Howeve r, I still believe our main

PAGE 128

118 two roles are establishing a vision to bring about improvement in student achievement and keeping a tent over the circus” (Go odwin, 2002, p.178 ). Roles listed are many and varied, as the response c learly explicates the magnitude and importance of the principal position. The principal through these many roles, attempts to keep the show running smoothly, hoping that by doin g so the tent stays over the circus, allowing the school operation to go on effectively and efficiently everyday for the students we serve. Limitations of the Study This study was conducted in one urban school distr ict in Florida restricting sample size to 22 middle schools. Based on the samp le size, nationwide generalizations are limited. The structure of the principalship in this particular district could have possibly influenced the responses from the particip ants as it may be the only administrative experience of the participant. The study used a single instrument, the online Pri ncipal’s Role Questionnaire survey, for a very complex issue; therefore, no ans wer to “why” participants responded the way they did was sought or given, which would b e very helpful for future studies of the principalship. The wording of the principal rol e descriptor statements was possibly a limitation of the study as each statement could hav e been interpreted differently and not as intended. The PRQ was originally designed for pr incipals and may not have been considered teacher friendly. The survey itself was a limitation as there is no way of knowing if respondents accurately reflected their p ositions, experience, and age. The survey response rate of 26% was also considered a l imitation. Bourque and Fielder

PAGE 129

119 (2003) state that a 30% response rate is minimal, h owever they also acknowledge that you get what you can get when conducting mail or in ternet surveys. The researcher was also a principal in the selecte d district which presented an advantage as well as a limitation for the study. Re searchers must prepare to understand the subjects being examined; having background know ledge is key to successful inquiry (Patton, 2002). The researcher had been a teacher, assistant principal, and principal in the district and had both knowledge and first hand expe rience regarding the expectations of each of those roles. Patton (2002) states that the human factor in a qualitative inquiry and analysis is both a great strength and a fundamental weakness. Each qualitative study is unique and the analysis will depend on the “skills, training, insights, and capabilities of the inquirer (p.433).” The researcher attempted to limit bias and predispositions by soliciting an independent doctoral colleague to rev iew the data several times during the research process; making sure each reduction of the data didn’t eliminate anything significant. Research Implications The research literature indicates the importance of the principal position to schools and this study may be of value to those per sons who establish the expectations for the principalship and who regulate schools, as it is evident that there is only so much one person can humanly do given the level of author ity and span of control of the principal’s position. The study may be of use to accrediting agencies who establish standards for school administration programs. It can also inform professors of school administration on

PAGE 130

120 the complexity of the principalship as they conside r both theory and practice for prospective principals in order to keep learning bo th academic and practical. Teaching potential principal candidates the skills to overcome the obstacles presented will be very useful to them for their fut ure role. Although this is a local study, it may be useful to the principals’ professional or ganization, The National Association of Secondary School Principals (NASSP), as they furthe r study the secondary principalship in the future. This study provides useful informati on for teachers and teacher unions as well as local school boards and districts. As profe ssional organizations plan conferences and professional development they can address these issues with their constituent groups. National organizations like NASSP could provide mor e information and research through their publications and websites. National, state, a nd local boards of education would be better educated and informed when handing down addi tional mandates, expectations, responsibilities and requirements for schools and p rincipals if they took the time to read and understand the research that this study, as wel l as all the aforementioned studies, provides. The high level of agreement between administrators and teachers on the PRQ regarding increased clerical, professional, as well as administrative help, should be of interest to legislators who establish budgets and d etermine categories for the allocation of monies to school districts. Additional resources ar e needed to change staffing ratios in order to meet the needs of the school population. L egislators will have further use of the study as they establish the parameters and procedur es for school accountability understanding the constraints placed on principals.

PAGE 131

121 State and local boards of education are charged wit h developing policies to provide direction for the operation of schools and are charged with implementing these policies. This study may be of use to these governi ng boards as they consider the role and function of the principal and devise regulations re garding certification, administrative and clerical staffing, length of employment, pay, profe ssional development, recruitment and evaluation of principals. The results may be of fur ther value when the boards create policies affecting the relationships of principals with staff and community and as they consider policies and mandates that place more dema nds on the principals’ time. This study may be of value to those organizations as the y plan professional development for teachers and principals and publish professional li terature to their respective local groups. Ultimately, the study will be of value to principal s as they plan for school improvement and personal as well as professional gr owth. The qualitative as well as quantitative data analysis could help increase the principals’ understanding of their role, as well as validate what they may be feeling or exp eriencing, by more clearly explicating the challenging, complex, nonlinear role they have. The results may also assist principals in understanding the importance of building relatio nships, trust, and collaboration as they work to create a climate of collegiality and teamwo rk in their schools. In addition this study will be beneficial to those who work with asp iring principals or who mentor new principals, in order to provide them with a better understanding of the stakeholders they serve as well as the challenges they may encounter in the position.

PAGE 132

122 Recommendations for Further Study This study adds to previous research conducted reg arding the principals’ perceptions of their changing roles, duties and res ponsibilities (Delisio, 2006; Fullan, 2001; Goodwin, 2002; Kennedy, 2001; NASSP, 1998; 20 00; 2001; 2003; Pierce, 2000; Tirozzi, 2000; 2001; 2004). Further research should be conducted regarding teachers’ perceptions about principals in general and of utmo st importance is to find out why teachers responded the way they did. Studies should include what teachers’ expectations are of principals and what they want their role(s) to be. Another interesting study might be to find out how teachers think principals spend their time and another might focus on the principal’s power and authority and how it diff ers in each state or district. Larger studies should seek to find out if teacher percepti ons regarding the principal’s role across the nation are similar in findings. If principals a re to lead teachers, then it is important to know what the teacher role perceptions of principal s are and how those role perceptions and the reality of the position can come together f or and in the best interest of schools. Recommendations It appears, based on this study, that there is som ewhat of a disconnection between teachers and principals regarding the principals’ r ole and what principals are responsible and accountable for based on lower mean score ratin gs for all 36 PRQ role descriptor statements and no high agreement on any item. Unfor tunately in this time of fiscal uncertainty and accountability it seems that the un derlying tone on school staffs is becoming more “us and them” instead of “we”. It is the researchers’ opinion that there are many reasons for this breakdown; however, the m ove away from site based

PAGE 133

123 management may have precipitated this relationship erosion. Teachers at one time were empowered to make decisions based on the needs of t he school and be creative in school improvement planning. However, the challenges of im plementing NCLB have caused the school district in this study, and possibly others, to return to a top-down management approach and mandate what each school will do. Fort unately this prescriptive scenario is just a sign of the times and no conspiracy appears to exist on the part of the local school boards or school administration to take the teacher s’ voice out of the equation. What I know as a principal is that in order to be successf ul, the faculty and staff must believe that all students can learn and that everyone is in thei r position for the children. We must change our instructional approach to meet the needs of our changing student population, which means we have to be willing to grow professio nally ourselves. Having the right people on the bus (Collins, 2001) is essential to s chool success and when the right people aren’t on board, infighting occurs, negativity spre ads like cancer, and nothing moves forward. It takes years to bring school staffs toge ther and create trusting, collaborative working environments (Bryk & Schneider, 2003). Murp hy’s (1994, p.95) suggestion to “lead from the center” takes time and unfortunately in this era of accountability, and the urgency of it all, time is not on our side. It is a disheartening to the researcher to think that it would take so much time to bring people tog ether, and that some people may not be in the profession to meet the needs of all stude nts, no matter what it takes. School and district leaders must make conscientious efforts to repair the damage that has been done and rebuild relationship with school staffs. It is also the researcher’s position that they

PAGE 134

124 should also put processes in place to get the right people on board and give principals the authority they need to do their jobs. Professional Use The researcher is a middle school principal in the selected school district and has been an educator at the secondary level for twenty two years, sixteen as an administrator, ten of which has been at the principal level. By vi rtue of the current position of the researcher, a keen understanding of the pressures o f today’s administrators, as well as teachers, exists. The frustration is building with and among all stakeholder groups. The researcher wants to continue to grow professionally and lead the school/faculty to greater success and achievement by continuing to build a cu lture of collegiality among staff and feels it is important to understand teacher percept ions of the principal’s role. It is the intent of the researcher to use the infor mation to help educate principals about the targeted groups’ perceptions regarding th e principal’s role so that principals can have a better understanding of the staffs they lead As a result, principals can make conscientious attempts to create better working rel ationships, conditions, and overall school climates, which ultimately will lead to more effective, successful, schools. The data will be shared and be the topic of professiona l discussion at a Middle School Association Level Meeting upon completion of a posi tive defense. The researcher mentors new principals and would be able to share t he research findings, one-on-one, in that capacity. In terms of the bigger picture, the researcher hopes to share the data with key school district officials to initiate a convers ation about the diverse needs and roles of the middle school leaders, in hopes of enlightening those in power to effect change by

PAGE 135

125 providing principals with the resources, authority, support, and autonomy they need to procure results.

PAGE 136

126 References Avant, G. R., & Miller, J. O. (1992, April). Work r ole expectations of public school principals and their judgments concerning the resu lts of their work. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Asso ciation Annual Meeting. San Francisco, CA. Allport, G. W. (1942). The use of personal document s in psychological science. New York: Social Science Research Council. Anderson, B. (1993). The stages of systemic change. Educational Leadership 51, (1), 14-18. Baker, J. (2004). Where are the new principals? Today’s School 29 33. Basha, C., & Harter, S. (1980). Research methods in librarianship: Techniques and interpretation. Orlando, FL: Academic Press, Inc. Beck, L. G., & Murphy, J. (1992, August). Searching for a robust understanding of the principalship. Educational Administration Quarterly 28 (3), 387-395. Beck, L. G., & Murphy, J. (1993). Understanding the principalship: Metaphorical themes, 1920s1990s. New York: Teachers College Pre ss. Blas, J., & Blas, J. (2004). Handbook of instructional leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Blas, J., & Kirby, P. (2000). Bring out the best in teachers Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Bloom, G. (1999, September/October). Sink or swim n o more. Thrust for Educational Leadership, 29 (1), 14-18.

PAGE 137

127 Bloom, G., & Krovetz, M. (2001). A step into the pr incipalship. Leadership, 30, (3), 1213. Bookbinder, R. (1992). The Principal: Leadership for the Effective and Pro ductive School. Springfield, IL: Charles Thomas Publishing. Bourque, L. & Fielder, E. (2003). How to conduct se lf-administered and mail surveys. Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA. Bowles, N. (1999). The delphi technique, Nursing Standard, 13, (45), 32-36. Boyer, E. L. (1983). High school: A report on secon dary education in America. New York: Harper & Row. Boyer, C. E. (1997). A portrait of the principalshi p in Georgia. (Doctoral dissertation, Georgia Southern University, 1997). ProQuest Disse rtation Abstracts, 58/09. Brewer, H. (2001). Ten steps to success. Journal of Staff Development, 1, 30-31. Brubaker, D. L. (1995). How the principalship has c hanged: lessons from principals’ life stories. NASSP Bulletin 79 (574), 88-95. Bryk, A. & Schneider, B. (2003). Trust in schools: A core resource for school reform. Educational Leadership, 60 (6), 41-44. Cantano, N., & Stronge, J. (2006). What are princip als expected to do? Congruence between principal evaluation and performance stand ards. NASSP Bulletin, 90, (3), 221-237. Carnegie Forum on Education and the Economy. (1986) A nation prepared: Teachers for the 21st century. Washington D.C.: The Task Force for Teach ing as a Profession. ED 268120.

PAGE 138

128 Chapko, M., & Buchko, M. (2001). Surviving the prin cipalship. Principal, 80, (4), 38-39. Checkley, K. (2000, May).The contemporary principal : New skills for a new age. Education Update, 42 (3), 1-8. Chmelynski, C. (2001, November 13). Fewer educators want to move up to the principal’s office. School Board News. www.nsba.or g Chirichello, M. (2001 ). Collective leadership: Sharing the principalship. Principal. 81, (1), 46-51. Chirichello, M. (2004). Collective leadership: Rein venting the principalship. Kappa Delta Pi Record, 40, (3), 119-120. Cistone, P. J., & Stevenson, J. M. (2000, August). Perspectives on the urban principalship. Education and Urban Society 32 (4) 435-443. Collins, J. (2001). Good to great: Why some compani es make the leap and others don’t. New York: HarperCollins. Copland, M. (2001). The myth of the superprincipal. Phi Delta Kappan, 82, (7), 528533. Cremin, L. (1957). The republic and the school: Hor ace Mann on the education of free men. New York: Teacher’s College Press Cuban, L. (1986) Principaling: images and roles. Peabody Journal of Education. V63, (1), 107-119. Cunard, R. (1990). Sharing instructional leadership : A view to strengthening the principal’s role. NASSP Bulletin, 74, 30-34.

PAGE 139

129 Crow, G. M., & Glascock, C. (1995). Socialization t o a new conception of the principalship. Journal of Educational Administration 33 (1), 22-43. Curriculum Review. (2001, December). Do you have wh at it takes to be an effective school leader: An interview with Kevin McGuire. Cu rriculum Review, 41 (41), 14-16. Cushman, K. (1992). The essential school principal: A changing role in a changing school. Horace, 9, (1), 1-12. Cusick, P. (2003). The principalship? No thanks. Education Week, May 14, 2003. www.edweek.org Deal, T. & Peterson, K.(1999). Shaping school cultu re: The heart of leadership. San Francisco: Joessey-Bass. Dedrick, Dr. (2002). Design of systemic studies. Fa ll semester, 2002, Pro-Copy. Delisio, E. (2006). It’s time to reinvent the princ ipalship. Education World. www.education-world.com Derrington, M. L. (1989). The role of the principal : Tradition, transition, and transformation. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Washington, 1989). ProQuest Dissertation Abstracts, DAI-A 50/08, http ://proquest.umi.com DiPaola, M.,& Moran, T. (2003). The Principalship a t a crossroads: A study of the concerns of principals. NASSP Bulletin, 87, 43-65. Dituri, J. (2004). Explaining teachers’ intentions to aspire to the principalship. (Doctoral dissertation, Teachers College, Columbia University, 2004). ProQuest Dissertation Abstracts.

PAGE 140

130 Drue, J. G. (1981). The high school principalship i n Michigan from 1960 to 1980. (Doctoral Dissertation, Wayne State University, 19 81). ProQuest Dissertations Abstracts, DAI-A, 42/11A. Duffy, M. E. (2002, First Quarter). Methodological issues in web-based research. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 83-88. DuFour, R. (2004). What is a professional learning community? Educational Leadership, 61, (8), 6-11. DuFour, R., & Eaker, R. (1998). Professional learni ng communities at work. Alexandria, VA. Association for Supervision and Cur riculum Development. Edinger, J., & Murphy, P. J. (1995, June). The cont emporary rural principalship. Education Research and Perspectives 22 (1), 66-79. Educational Research Service (1998). Is there a sho rtage of qualified candidates for openings in the principalship: An exploratory study Educational Research Service, (1999). Professional development for school principals. ERS, The Informed Educator Series, Arlington, VA. Educational Research Service (1999, February). Stud y of the principalship. ERS Bulletin, 26 (6). Educational Research Service (2000). The principal, keystone of a high-achieving school: Attracting and keeping the leaders we need Arlington, VA: Educational Research Service. Educational Research Service (2003). Redefining the role of the principal. The Informed Educator Series. Arlington, VA. www.ers.org

PAGE 141

131 Educational Research Service (2001). Reinventing th e principalship. ERS, 28, (6). www.ers.org Feirsen, R. (1994, December). One job, five roles: the principal. Curriculum Review, 34 (4), 14. Fenwick, L., & Pierce, M. (2001). The principal sho rtage: Crisis or opportunity? Principal, 80, (1), 24-32. Ferber, R., Sheatsley, P., Turner, A.& Waksberg, J. (1980). What is a survey? Washington: American Statistical Association. Ferrandino, V. (2001). Challenges for 21st century elementary school principals. Phi Delta Kappan, 82, (16), 440. Ferrandino, V., & Tirozzi, G. (2001). How do you re invent a principal? Education Week, January, 2001. (available online: www.naesp. org ) Ferrandino, V., & Tirozzi, G. (2000). The principal keystone of a high-achieving school: Attracting and keeping the leaders we need Education Week, March 22, 2000. Fink, D., & Brayman, C. (2006). School leadership s uccession and the challenges of change. Educational Administration Quarterly, 42, (1), 62-89. Fiore, D. (2002). Barriers and gaps: Improving the preparation of school leaders in an era of accountability. Commonwealth Educational Po licy Institute. Florida Department of Education. www.fldoe.org Forster, K. (1999). Accoutability at the local scho ol. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 31, (2), 175-187.

PAGE 142

132 Foster, L. (2002). Finding the fun in the principal ship. Principal Leadership, 3, (2), 1619. Fullan, M. (2001). The new meaning of educational change New York: Teachers College Press. Fullan, M. (2002). The change leader. Educational Leadership, 59, (8), 16-20. Fullan, M. (1997). What’s worth fighting for in the principalship? New York: Teachers College Press. Fullan, M. (1998). Leadership for the 21st century: Breaking the bonds of dependency. Educational Leadership. 55, (7), 610. George, D., & Mallery, P. (2003). SPSS for windows step by step: A simple guide and reference. 11.0 update, 4th ed. Allyn and Bacon: Boston. Gilman, D. A., & Lanman-Givens, B. (2001, May). Whe re have all the principals gone? Educational Leadership, 58 (8), 72-75. Glatthorn, A. (2000). The Principal as curriculum leader. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Goens, G. (1998, October). Too many coxswains: Lead ership and the principal. NASSP Bulletin, 82, (600), 103-110. Goodlad, J. (1984). A place called school. New York : McGraw-Hill Book Company. Goodwin, R. (2002). On the edge of chaos: A delphi study of the changing role of the secondary principal. Doctoral Dissertation. Goodwin, R., Cunningham, M., & Childress, R. (2003) The changing role of the secondary principal. NASSP Bulletin, 87 (634), 26-42.

PAGE 143

133 Goodwin, R., Cunningham, M., & Eagle, T. (2005). Th e changing role of the secondary principal in the United States: An historical pers pecitve. Journal of Educaitonal Administration and History, 37, (1), 1 -17. Grubb, W., & Flessa, J. (2006). A job too big for o ne: Multiple principals and other nontraditional approaches to school leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 42, (4), 518-550. Gullatt, D., Ritter, M. (2000). Measuring local pub lic school effectiveness. Contemporary Education, 71, (4), 29-33. Gupton, S. (2003). The instructional leader toolbox Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin, Press. Haar, J. (2004). The role of professional developme nt in the principalship. Catalyst for Change, 33 (2), 20-24. Hale, E. (2005). Preparing and supporting whole lea ders. Leadership Connections, 4, (1). Institute for Educational Leadership, Wash ington, D.C. Hale, E., & Moorman, H. (2003). Preparing school pr incipals: A national perspective on policy and program innovations. Institute for Educ ational Leadership, Washington, D.C. Hallinger, P. (1992). The evolving role of American principals: From managerial to instructional to transformational leaders. Journal of Educational Administration, 30 (3), 33-48.

PAGE 144

134 Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (1996, February). Reas sessing the principal’s role in school effectiveness: A review of empirical research, 1980 -1995. Educational Administration Quarterly, 32 (1), 5. Hammond, J.,Muffs, M., & Sciascia, S. (2001). The l eadership crisis: Is it for real? Principal, 81, (2), 28-32. Harris, S. (2004). Bravo principal! Larchmont, NY. Eye On Education. Harris, S., Arnold, M., Lowery, S., & Crocker, C. ( 2000). Deciding to become a principal: What factors motivate or inhibit that d ecision? Educational Research Service Spectrum Spring 2000. Hausman, C., Crow, G., & Sperry, D. (2000). Portrai t of the ideal principal:Context and self. NASSP Bulletin, 84, (617), 5-14. Hay, G. (1980). How has the principal’s role change d? Four areas in which the past twenty years have made major alterations. Education Canada, 20, (4), 26-29. Hill, P. (2003). Introduction: Making sense of lead ing schools. A report prepared under a grant from the Wallace Foundation to the Center on Reinventing Public Education. University of Washington, Seattle, Washi ngton. Holland, W. D. (1997, January). The high school pri ncipal and barriers to change: The need for principal credibility. NASSP Bulletin, 81 (585), 94-98. Hollar, C. (2004). The principal as CEO. Principal, 84, (1), 42-44. Hurley, J. (2001). The principalship: Less may be m ore. Education Week, 20 (37), 37.

PAGE 145

135 Hurley, J. C. (1992). Become a principal? You must be kidding. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the National Rural Education Association. Traverse City, MI. Institute for Educational Leadership. (2000, Octobe r). Leadership for student learning: Reinventing the principalship. A Report of the Tas k Force on the Principalship. Washington, D.C.: IEL. Jackson, D. (2004). Principals’ Instructional Leade rship Practices: A Comparison of those whose school make and do not make adequate y early progress in the state of Georgia. (Doctoral dissertation, Universi ty of Georgia, Athens, Georgia, 2004).ProQuest Dissertation Abstracts. Katz, R. (1974). Skills of an effective administrat or. Harvard Business Review, 52, (5) pp. 1-12. Kochamba, D. M., & Murray, R. K. (2000). Critical l eadership skills: A teacher's perception of the effective leader. National Forum of Educational Administration and Supervision Journal 17(4). Koerner, T., & Sava, S. (1998). Is there a shortage of qualified candidates for openings in the principalship? Educational Rese arch Service. Koffka, K. (1922). Perception: An introduction to the Gestalt-theorie, Psychological Bulletin, 19, 531-585. Kolek, M. (2002). A lack of principals: Crisis in C onnecticut. (Doctoral Dissertation, University of Connecticut, 2002). Pro Quest Dissertation Abstracts, AAI3076707.

PAGE 146

136 Kennedy, C. (2002). The principalship: Too much for one person? Principal, 82, (1), 28-31. Kennedy, C. (2001). Splitting the principalship. Principal, 80, (4), 60-61. Kimble, K., & Sirotnik, K. A. (2000, August). The u rban school principalship: Take this job and...! Education and Urban Society, 32 (4) 53 5-544. Klempen, R. & Richetti, C. (2001). Greening the nex t generation of principals. Education Week, December 12, 2001. www.edweek.org Knuth, R., & Banks, P. (2006). The essential leadership model, NASSP Bulletin, 90, 418. Langer, S., & Boris-Schacter, S. (2003). The embatt led principal. Principal, 83, (1), 1444. Langer, S., & Boris-Schacter, S. (2003). Challengin g the image of the American principalship. Principal, 83, (1), 14-18. Lashway, L. (2002). Rethinking the principalship. Research Roundup, 18, (3), 1-7. Lashway, L. (2003). Transforming principal preparat ion. Clearinghouse on Educational Policy Management. ERIC Digest No. 165. Lauder, A. (2000). The new look in principal prepar ation programs. NASSP Bulletin, 84, (617), 23. Lewis, J., & Lee, S. (2000). The best job in the wo rld. Northwest Education, 5, (3), 3439.

PAGE 147

137 Lezotte L. W. (1984, April). One perspective on an effective schools research agenda. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Ameri can Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA. Linn, G., Sherman, R., & Gill, P. (2007). Making me aning of educational leadership: The principalship in Metaphor. NASSP Bulletin, 91. Lyons, J. (1999). How school principals perceive th eir roles, rewards, and challenges. Educational Research Service Spectrum, winter, 199 9. Mackler, J. (1992). On the move: High school princi pals and ex-principals in a time of transition (Vermont). (Doctoral dissertation, The University of Vermont and State Agricultural College, 1992). Mackler, J. (1996). A survivor’s guide to the principalship: Overcoming the challenges, NASSP, 80, 84-89. Malone, B. & Caddell, T. (2000). A crisis in leader ship. Clearing House, 73, (3), 162165. Mann, L. (2002). Selling the principalship. Principal, 82, (1), 32-33. Marzano, R. (2003). What works in schools. Associat ion of Supervision and Curriculum Development, Alexandria, VA. Matthews, L. & Crow, G. (2003) Being and becoming a principal, Boston, MA Pearson Education, Inc. McEwan, E. (2003). 10 traits of highly effective principals. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

PAGE 148

138 McMahon, J., McMahon, F., & Romano, T. (1995). Psyc hology and you. St. Paul, MN: West Publishing Company. Mertz, N., & McNeely, S. (1998). Women on the job: A study of female high school principals. Educational Administration Quarterly, 34, (2), 196-222. MetLife Survey of the American Teacher: An examinat ion of school leadership. (2003). www.Metlife.com Millette, W. (1994). Perceptions of urban school pr incipals toward administrative preparation programs: An Assessment. Dissertation abstracts. http://scholarworks.umass.edu Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Mitchell, D. (1990). Principal leadership: A theore tical framework for research. Report. ED327952. Murphy, J., & Datnow, A. (2003). Leadership lessons from comprehensive school reform. Thousand Oaks, CA. Corwin Press. Murphy, J. (2002). How the ISLLC standards are resh aping the principalship. Principal, 82, (1), 22-26. Murphy, J. (2001). The changing face of leadership preparation. School Administrator, 58, (10), p.14. Murphy, J. (1998). What’s ahead for tomorrow’s prin cipals? Principal, 78, (1), 13-14. Murphy, J. (1994). Redefining the principalship in restructuring schools. NASSP Bulletin, 79, (560), 94-100.

PAGE 149

139 Muse, I., & Thomas, G. (1991). The rural principal: Select the best. Journal of Rural and Small Schools, (3), 32-37. Muse, I., & Thomas, G. (1991). The thinning ranks o f rural school administration: The principalship in trouble. Rural Educator, 13, (1), 8-12. National Association of Secondary School Principals (2000) The principal, keystone of a high achieving school: Attracting and keeping th e leaders we need. National Association of Secondary School Principals (1998). In search of excellence – a talk with Tom Peters about the principalship. NASS P Bulletin, 72, 36-45. National Association of Secondary School Principals (2001). Priorities and barriers in high school leadership: A survey of principals. Re port. www.principals.org Naitonal Association of Secondary School Principals (2003). Special issue: Characteristics of the secondary principalship. 87 (634). National Center for Education Statistics. (2007). N umbers and types of public elementary and secondary schools from the common c ore of data: 2005-2006. U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educationa l Research and Improvement. National Commission on Excellence in Education. (19 83, April). A Nation at risk: The imperative for education reform. A report to the N ation and the Secretary of Education United States Department of Education by the National Commission on Excellence in Education. http://www.ed.gov/pubs/Na tAtRisk/index.html National Commission for the Principalship. (1990) P rincipals for our changing schools. Paper. Fairfax, VA.

PAGE 150

140 National Governor’s Association. (1986) Time for re sults. www.nga.org National Policy Board for Educational Administratio n. (2001, July). Recognizing and encouraging exemplary leadership in America’s scho ols: A proposal to establish a system of advanced certification for administrat ors. Arlington, VA. NCREL Policy Issues. (2003) [available online: www. ncrel.org ] No Child Left Behind (2004). NCLB: A toolkit for te achers. US Department of Education, Jessup, MA. Norton, M. (2002). Let’s keep our quality school pr incipals on the job. High School Journal, 86, (2), 50. Olson, L. (2000). Policy focus converges on leaders hip. Education Week, January 12, 2000. www.Edweek.org. Olson, L. (2000). New demands, new pressures alter administrator’s roles. Education Week, January 19, 2000. www.edweek.org Orr, M. (2004). Explaining teachers’ intentions to aspire to the principalship. (Doctoral Dissertation, Teachers College, Columbia Universit y, 2004). ProQuest Dissertation Abstracts, AAI3148098. Pagano, R.R. (1990). Understanding statistics in the behavioral sciences 3rd ed West Publishing Company: St. Paul, MN. Parsons, R. (2001). Ten principles for principals. Principal, 80, (4), 49-51. Patton, M. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluatio n methods. Thousand Oak, CA: Sage Publishers.

PAGE 151

141 Peterson, K. (2001). The roar of complexity. Journal of Staff Development, 22, (1), 1821. Peterson, T., & Fleet, D. (2004). The ongoing legac y of R.L. Katz, Management Decision, 42, (10), 1297-1308. Peterson, K. & Kelley, C. (2001). Transforming scho ol leadership. Leadership, (3), 811. Pierce, M. (2000). Portrait of the super principal. Harvard Education Letter, Sept./Oct. 2000. [available online: www.edletter.org ]. Polland, R. (1998). Essentials of survey research a nd analysis. A Workbook for Community Researchers, (available online: www.tfn. net/-polland/QUEST2.htm Portin, B. S. (2000). Principal distinctives in the United States: The intersection of principal preparation and traditional roles betwee n education reform and accountability. Paper presented at the annual meet ing of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, Lou isiana. April 24-28, 2000. Portin, B. S. (2000, August). The changing urban pr incipalship. Education and Urban Society, 32, (4) 492-506. Portin, B. (2004). The roles that principals play. Educational Leadership, 61, (7), 1418. Portin, B., Shen, J., & Williams, R. (1998). The ch anging principalship and its impact: Voices from principals. NASSP Bulletin, 82, (602), 1-8. Portin, B., Schneider, P., DeArmond, M. & Gundlach, L. (2003). Making sense of leading schools, E-Bulletin, 31, (8), 1-59.

PAGE 152

142 Price, W. (2004). How should we prepare school lead ers for the difficult tasks they will face in the era of standards and accountabili ty? Education Week, January 7, 2004. www.edweek.org Public Law 94-142. Education of all handicap childr en act. www.scn.org Quinn, T. (2002). The impact of principal leadershi p behaviors on instructional practices and student engagement. Journal of Educational Administration 40, (5), 447-467. Quinn, T. ( 2003). The flexible principal. Principal, 82, (4), 16-44. Quinn, T. (2003). Helping principals cope. Principal, 82, (4), 16-21. Rayfield, R., & Diamantes, T. (2003). An analysis o f administrator attitudes toward tasks in school administration. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 31, (3), 253-256. Richard, A. (2000). Panel calls for fresh look at d uties facing principals. Education Week, November. [available online:www.edweek.org]. Ripley, D. (1997, May). Current tensions in the pri ncipalship. NASSP Bulletin, 81 (589), 55-65. Rosen, M. (1997). Ten skills of highly effective pr incipals. Principal, 76, 60. Rousmaniere, K. (2007). Go to the principal’s offic e: Toward a social history of the school principal in North America. History of Education Quarterly, 47, (1), 122. Scheuren, Fritz. (1999). What is a survey? American Statistical Association. Shellard, E. (2003). Defining the principalship, Principal, 82, (4), 56-60.

PAGE 153

143 Scheurich, J., & Skrla, L. (2003). Leadership for e quity and excellence: Creating high achievement classrooms, schools, and districts. Th ousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Shen, J., & Crawford, C. (2003). Introduction to the special issue: Characteristics of the secondary principalship NASSP Bulletin, 87, (634), 2-8. Shen, J., Rodriguez-Campos, L. & Rincones-Gomez, R. (2000, August). Characteristics of urban principalship: A national trend study. Ed ucation and Urban Society, 32 (4), p. 481-492. Silvers, E. R. (1991). The principal in Wisconsin. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Wisconsin Madison, 1991). ProQuest Dissertation Ab stracts 52/07A, 2361. Schmieder, J., & Cairns, D. (1998). Ten skills of h ighly effective principals. Techniques, 73, (7), 28-29. Snyder, K., Acker, Hocevar, M., & Snyder, K. (2000) Living on the edge of chaos: leading schools into the global age. Milwaukee, Wi sconsin: ASQ Quality Press. Snyder, K., & Anderson, R. (1986). Managing product ive schools: Toward an ecology. Orlando: Academic Press, Inc. SPSS techniques series: Statistics on Likert scale surveys. (available online: www.uni.edu/its/us/document/stats/spss2.html Stevens, J. (1996). Applied multivariate statistics for the Social Sciences. (3rd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

PAGE 154

144 Stricherz, M. (2001). School leaders feel overworke d, survey finds. Education Week, November 21, 2001. Stricherz, M. (2001). Despite retirements, baby bus ters scarce in principal’s Positions. Education Week, 21, (8). October 21, 2001. Stronge, J. (1993). Defining the principalship: Ins tructional leader or middle manager. NASSP Bulletin, 77, 1-7. Supovitz, J. (2001). Instructional leadership in a standards-based reform. [ED 463 574]. Svendsen, A. (1998). The stakeholder strategy. San Fransisco, CA. Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc. Teitelbaum, H. (1990). November/December. Why not a principal teacher? The Clearing House 64(2), 103-4. Tirozzi, G. (2004). How do you reinvent a principal ? Education Week, December, 2004, [available online:www.edweek.org]. Tirozzi, G. (2003). Politics and education: A conun drum for school leadership. Best practices, best thinking, and emerging issues in s chool leadership. Thousand Oaks: Corwin Press. Tirozzi, G. N. (2001, February). The artistry of le adership: The evolving role of the secondary school principal. Phi Delta Kappan 82, ( 6) 434-439. Tirozzi, G. (2000). The principalship. Education Week, March 2000 [available online: www.edweek.org]. Title IX Education Amendments of 1972. www.dol.go v/oasam/regs/statutes/titleix.htm

PAGE 155

145 Trochim, W. (2006). Likert Scaling. (available onli ne: www.socialreasearchmethods.net/kb/scallik.php Tyack, D., & Hansot, E. (1982). Public school leade rship in America, 1920-1980. New York: Basic Books, Inc. Wanzare, Z., & Da Costa J. (2001). Rethinking instr uctional leadership roles of the school principal: Challenges and prospects. Journal of Educational Thought, 35, (3), 269-295. Watt, J. (1997). Using the internet for quantitativ e survey research. Marketing Research Review, July. (available online:www.swiftinteractive.com/wh ite1asp. Waxman, W. H. (1999, October). Three things that ca n be done now to make a principal’s job easier. NewsLeader, 47 (2), 10. Whitaker, K. (2001). Where are the principal candid ates? Perceptions of superintendents. NASSP Bulletin, 85, 82-92. Whitaker, T., & Turner, E. (2000). What is your pri ority? NASSP Bulletin, 4, (617), 1621. Wolk, R. (1999). Who will lead? Teacher Magazine, 11, (1), 7-8. Wood, C., Nicholson, E. & Findley. (1985). The secondary school principalship. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc. Wulff, K. L., (1996). The changing role of the prin cipal in Washington State. (Doctoral Dissertation, University of Washington, 1996). Pro Quest Dissertations Abstracts.

PAGE 156

146 Yerkes, D. L., & Guaglianone, C. L. (1998, November /December). “Where have all the high school administrators gone?” Thrust for Educat ional Leadership, 28, (2), 1015. Zepeda, S. (2004). Instructional supervision. NASSP Bulletin, 88, 1-88.

PAGE 157

147 APPENDIX A

PAGE 158

148

PAGE 159

149

PAGE 160

150

PAGE 161

151

PAGE 162

152

PAGE 163

153

PAGE 164

154

PAGE 165

155 APPENDIX B

PAGE 166

156 Florida Principal Leadership Standards Florida’s school leaders must possess the abilities and skills necessary to perform their designated tasks in a high-performing manner. The s chool leader, commensurate with job requirements and delegated authority, shall demonst rate competence in the following standards: Instructional Leadership Instructional Leadership High Performing Leaders promote a positive learning culture, provide an effective instructional program, and apply best practices to student learning, especially in the area of reading and other foundational skills. Managing the Learning Environment High Performing Leaders manage the organization, op erations, facilities and resources in ways that maximize the use of resources in an instr uctional organization and promote a safe, efficient, legal, and effective learning envi ronment. Learning, Accountability, and Assessment High Performing Leaders monitor the success of all students in the learning environment, align the curriculum, instruction, and assessment p rocesses to promote effective student performance, and use a variety of benchmarks, learn ing expectations, and feedback measures to ensure accountability for all participa nts engaged in the educational process. Operational Leadership Decision Making Strategies High Performing Leaders plan effectively, use criti cal thinking and problem solving techniques, and collect and analyze data for contin uous school improvement. Technology High Performing Leaders plan and implement the inte gration of technological and electronic tools in teaching, learning, management, research, and communication responsibilities. Human Resource Development High Performing Leaders recruit, select, nurture an d, where appropriate, retain effective personnel, develop mentor and partnership programs, and design and implement comprehensive professional growth plans for all sta ff – paid and volunteer. Ethical Leadership High Performing Leaders act with integrity, fairnes s, and honesty in an ethical manner.

PAGE 167

157 School Leadership Vision High Performing leaders have a personal vision for their school and the knowledge, skills, and dispositions to develop, articulate and implement a shared vision that is supported by the larger organization and the school community. Community and Stakeholder Partnerships High Performing Leaders collaborate with families, business, and community members, respond to diverse community interests and needs, w ork effectively within the larger organization and mobilize community resources. Diversity High Performing Leaders understand, respond to, and influence the personal, political, social, economic, legal, and cultural relationships in the classroom, the school and the local community. SBE Rule 6B-5.0012, Approved April 19, 2005

PAGE 168

158 APPENDIX C

PAGE 169

159

PAGE 170

160

PAGE 171

161

PAGE 172

162

PAGE 173

163

PAGE 174

164

PAGE 175

165

PAGE 176

166

PAGE 177

167

PAGE 178

168

PAGE 179

169

PAGE 180

170

PAGE 181

171 APPENDIX D

PAGE 182

172 Appendix D Principal’s Role Questionnaire Part A: Demographic Information 1. My present position is: 2. My gender is: 3. My age is: 4. My total experience in my present position is: 5. My total experience in all my educational positions is: Part B: What contemporary changes have occurred in the role of the secondary middle school principal? Please indicate your level of agreement for each st atement that follows: A – strongly agree B agree C – disagree D – strongly disagree 1. Being an instructional leader has become the p rincipal’s primary role. 2. The principal today is held to higher standard s of accountability in many areas including academics, finances, and safety. 3. Higher standard of achievement exist for stude nts, and principals are accountable for such student outcomes as test scores, dro p out rate, suspensions, etc. 4. The principal is required to serve as a liaison between different constituencies such as: school and community, school and district school and government. 5. Technology has increased both responsibility a nd accountability for the principal. 6. The principal must be an expert on teaching an d learning. 7. The possibility of litigation has increase sub stantially. 8. Principals must cope with social and economic issues that impact student behavior and performance. 9. Implementation of site-based decision-making strate gies transfers responsibility to the principal. 10. The principal must meet the enhanced need s of a more diverse student population as a result of legislation and social c hanges. Please comment about any of these statements regard ing changes in the role of the principal.

PAGE 183

173 Part C: What is the current role of the secondary m iddle school principal? 1. The role of the principal is to establish the visio n and purpose for the school. 2. The principal is the key to school success. 3. The principal has the power to lead change 4. The role of the principal is in transition and is i ncreasing in complexity. 5. The changing role of the principal requires a commi tment to continual professional development for both new and establish ed principals. 6. The role of the principal is to fit more complex ex pectations into old budgets and time frames. 7. The role of the principal is more focused on school security since Columbine. 8. The state and national emphasis on standards, asses sment, and accountability have increased the importance of the principal’s role as instructional leader. 9. There is a disconnect between what principals belie ve is important in their role (achievement, student success, instructional leader ship) and what demands their daily attention (parent issues, student issues, soc ial issues, management issues). 10. Principals are multiple program managers: facilitie s, personnel, finance, safety, food service, fund raising, athletics, and communit y relations. 11. Principals are responsible for the academic, social emotional, physical, and moral needs of students. 12. Principals are responsible for the morale of the st aff. 13. Required documentation has increased the paperwork and clerical aspect of the principal’s role. 14. Special education regulations have greatly complica ted the role of the principal. Your perceptions about the current role of the midd le school principal are extremely important to the future of the position. Please com ment on the current role of the principal.

PAGE 184

174 Part D: What changes should occur in the future rol e of the secondary middle school principal? 1. Increased responsibilities must mean increased professional assistance. 2. Increased paperwork requirements must mean inc reased clerical assistance. 3. There should be an increase in administrative staffing to include persons with a variety of responsibilities and expertise. 4. Principals should have more training in dealin g with current issues. 5. The principal must have skills in collaboratio n and cooperation and must develop these skills in teachers and students. 6. Principals will have to facilitate a system of instructional delivery that meets the need of a high speed/high technology society including virtual classes, interactive classrooms, and other distance-learning tools to provide just-in-time curriculum and instruction. 7. The principal will be responsible for providin g programs that meet the needs of the school’s diverse population. 8. The principal should have increased responsibi lity for resource management to meet school goals, including hiring and firin g teachers. 9. The principal’s autonomy should commensurate w ith his/her responsibility. 10. The future of the principalship depends on the ability of the community to focus on educational goals. 11. The principal will be responsible in bringing t he school and community together. 12. Principals must accept an enhanced role in the political arena and be an active advocate for public education. Your comments about the future of the principalship will help the district as well as university programs. Please comment about the futur e of the principalship. The voice of teachers and assistant principals has been overlooked when reviewing the literature about the role of the principal. Please make any general comments about the role of the principal that you would like to share. Thank you for taking the time to participate in thi s research project.

PAGE 185

175

PAGE 186

176

PAGE 187

177

PAGE 188

178

PAGE 189

179

PAGE 190

180

PAGE 191

181 APPENDIX E

PAGE 192

182

PAGE 193

183 APPENDIX F

PAGE 194

184

PAGE 195

185 APPENDIX G

PAGE 196

186 Oct. 1, 2007 Dear Teachers: My name is Dawn Coffin and I am the principal of Oa k Grove Middle School. I am also a graduate student at the University of South Flori da. I am currently conducting a study on the Changing Role of the Secondary Middle School Principal as part of my dissertation process. Teacher perceptions of the pr incipal’s role are very limited in the literature and this is an opportunity for your voic e to be heard. Please take a moment and complete the Principal’s Role Questionnaire at (web address). The questionnaire is anonymous voluntary, and only takes a few minutes of your t ime. It has also been approved by Pinellas County Schools (#090708-05) an d the University of South Florida Institutional Review Board (#106154). The question naire is a simple “click and go” so that hopefully it is not cumbersome. There are thre e categories of questions: 1. What contemporary changes have occurred in the role of the secondary principal? 2. What is the current nature of the role of the secon dary principal? 3. What changes should occur in the future in the role of the secondary principal? At the end of each section there is an opportunity for you to make comments if you wish. The web address is live so all you have to do is do uble click on it to start. I know how busy each and every one of you is and I appreciate your taking the time to complete this questionnaire. If you have any questi ons please email me directly, coffind@pcsb.org Thank you and have a great school year.

PAGE 197

187 October 1, 2007 Dear Assistant Principal: My name is Dawn Coffin and I am the principal of Oa k Grove Middle School. I am also a graduate student at the University of South Flori da. I am currently conducting a study on the Changing Role of the Secondary Middle School Principal as part of my dissertation process. Assistant principal perceptio ns of the principal’s role are very limited in the literature and this is an opportunit y for your voice to be heard. Please take a moment and complete the Principal’s Role Questionna ire at (web address). The questionnaire is anonymous voluntary, and only takes a few minutes of your t ime. It has also been approved by Pinellas County Schools (#090 708-05) and the University of South Florida Institutional Review Board (#106154). The questionnaire is a simple “click and go” so that hopefully it is not cumberso me. There are three categories of questions: 1.What contemporary changes have occurred in the ro le of the secondary principal? 2.What is the current nature of the role of the sec ondary principal? 3.What changes should occur in the future in the ro le of the secondary principal? At the end of each section there is an opportunity for you to make comments if you wish. The web address is live so all you have to do is do uble click on it to start. I know how busy each and every one of you is and I appreciate your taking the time to complete this questionnaire. If you have any questi ons please email me directly, coffind@pcsb.org Thank you and have a great school year.

PAGE 198

188 October 1, 2007 Dear Principal: As you are aware I am a graduate student at the Uni versity of South Florida. I am currently conducting a study on the Changing Role o f the Secondary Middle School Principal as part of my dissertation process. Princ ipal perceptions of the principal’s role are very important and this is an opportunity for y our voice to be heard. Please take a moment and complete the Principal’s Role Questionna ire at (web address). The questionnaire is anonymous voluntary, and only takes a few minutes of your t ime. It has also been approved by Pinellas County Schools (#090 708-05) and the University of South Florida Institutional Review Board (#106154). The questionnaire is a simple “click and go” so that hopefully it is not cumberso me. The survey will be up from October 2nd through October 16th. There are three categories of questions: 1. What contemporary changes have occurred in the role of the secondary principal? 2. What is the current nature of the role of the secon dary principal? 3. What changes should occur in the future in the role of the secondary principal? At the end of each section there is an opportunity for you to make comments if you wish. The web address is live so all you have to do is do uble click on it to start. I know how busy each and every one of you is and I appreciate your taking the time to complete this questionnaire. If you have any questi ons please email me directly, coffind@pcsb.org Thank you and have a great school year.

PAGE 199

189 APPENDIX H

PAGE 200

190 Individual PRQ Role Descriptors 1. Being an instructional leader has become the princi pal’s primary role. Teachers mean score ratings were lower for this role descrip tor than both the assistant principals and principals indicating that the princ ipals and assistant principals rated this item higher than the teachers. 2. The principal today is held to higher standards of accountability in many areas including academics, finances, and safety. Teachers mean score ratings were lower for this role descriptor than both the assist ant principals and principals indicating that principals and assistant principals rated this descriptor higher than the teachers. 3. Higher standard of achievement exist for students, and principals are accountable for such student outcomes as test score s, drop out rate, suspensions, etc. Teacher and assistant principal mean score ratings were lower than principals’ mean score ratings indicating that the principals rated this role descriptor higher than the other two targeted group s. 4. The principal is required to serve as a liaison bet ween different constituencies such as: school and community, school and district, school and government. There was no statistical difference in the mean sco re ratings for teachers, principals, and assistant principal, indicating sim ilar ratings among the three groups for this role descriptor. 5. Technology has increased both responsibility and ac countability for the principal. Teacher and assistant principal mean score ratings were lower than

PAGE 201

191 principals’ mean score ratings indicating that the principals rated this role descriptor higher than the other two target groups. 6. The principal must be an expert on teaching and lea rning. There was no statistical difference in the mean score ratings fo r teachers, principals, and assistant principals, indicating similar ratings am ong the three groups for this role descriptor. 7. The possibility of litigation has increase substant ially. There was no statistical difference in the mean score ratings for teachers, principals, and assistant principal, indicating similar ratings among the thr ee groups for this role descriptor. 8. Principals must cope with social and economic issue s that impact student behavior and performance There was no statistical difference in the mean sc ore ratings for teachers, principals, and assistant pri ncipal, indicating similar ratings among the three groups for this role descriptor. 9. Implementation of site-based decision-making strate gies transfers responsibility to the principal. There was no statistical difference in the mean sco re ratings for teachers, principals, and assistant principal, indi cating similar ratings among the three groups for this role descriptor. 10. The principal must meet the enhanced needs of a mor e diverse student population as a result of legislation and social ch anges. There was no statistical difference in the mean score ratings for teachers, principals, and assistant principal, indicating similar ratings among the thr ee groups for this role descriptor.

PAGE 202

192 11. The role of the principal is to establish the visio n and purpose for the school. There was no statistical difference in the mean sco re ratings for teachers, principals, and assistant principal, indicating sim ilar ratings for this role descriptor. 12. The principal is the key to school success. Teacher mean score ratings were lower than principals’ mean scores but not assistan t principals indicating that the principals rated this role descriptor higher than t he other two targeted groups. 13. The principal has the power to lead change. There was no statistical difference in the mean score ratings for teachers, principals, and assistant principal, indicating similar ratings among the three groups f or this role descriptor. 14. The role of the principal is in transition and is i ncreasing in complexity. Teacher mean scores were lower for this role descri ptor than both the assistant principals and principals indicating that the princ ipals and assistant principals rated this item higher than the teachers. 15. The changing role of the principal requires a commi tment to continual professional development for both new and establish ed principals. Teachers mean score ratings were lower than principals’ mean score ratings but not assistant principals indicating that the principals rated this role descriptor higher than the other two targeted groups. 16. The role of the principal is to fit more complex ex pectations into old budgets and time frames. Teachers mean score ratings were lower for this ro le descriptor than both the assistant principals and principals i ndicating that the principals and assistant principals rated this item higher than th e teachers.

PAGE 203

193 17. The role of the principal is more focused on school security since Columbine. There was no statistical difference in the mean sco re ratings for teachers, principals, and assistant principals, indicat ing similar ratings among the three groups for this role descriptor. 18. The state and national emphasis on standards, asses sment, and accountability have increased the importance of the principal’s ro le as instructional leader. Teacher mean score ratings were lower than principa ls’ mean scores but not assistant principals indicating that the principals rated this role descriptor higher than the other two targeted groups. 19. There is a disconnect between what principals belie ve is important in their role and what demands their daily attention. Assistant principal and teacher mean score ratings were lower than principals’ indicatin g that the principals rated this role descriptor higher than both groups. 20. Principals are multiple program managers: facilitie s, personnel, finance, safety, food service, fund raising, athletics, and communit y relations. Teachers mean score ratings were lower than principals’ mean scor es but not assistant principals indicating that the principals rated this role desc riptor higher than the other two targeted groups. 21. Principals are responsible for the academic, social emotional, physical, and moral needs of students. Teacher mean score ratings were lower than princip als’ mean scores but not assistant principals indicating that the principals rated this role descriptor higher than the other two targeted groups.

PAGE 204

194 22. Principals are responsible for the morale of the st aff. There was no statistical difference in the mean score ratings for teachers, principals, and assistant principal, indicating similar ratings among the thr ee groups for this role descriptor. 23. Required documentation has increased the paperwork and clerical aspect of the principal’s role. Teacher mean score ratings were lower than princip als’ mean scores but not assistant principals indicating that the principals rated this role descriptor higher than the other two targeted group s. 24. Special education regulations have greatly comp licated the role of the principal There was no statistical difference in the mean sco re ratings for teachers, principals, and assistant principal, indicating similar ratings among the three groups for this role descriptor. 25. 25. Increased responsibilities must mean increased prof essional assistance. There was no statistical difference in the mean score ra tings for teachers, principals, and assistant principal, indicating similar ratings amo ng the three groups for this role descriptor. 26. Increased paperwork requirements must mean increase d clerical assistance. There was no statistical difference in the mean sco re ratings for teachers, principals, and assistant principal, indicating sim ilar ratings among the three groups for this role descriptor. 27. There should be an increase in administrative staff ing to include persons with a variety of responsibilities and expertise. There was no statistical difference in the

PAGE 205

195 mean score ratings for teachers, principals, and as sistant principal, indicating similar ratings among the three groups for this rol e descriptor. 28. Principals should have more training in dealing wit h current issues. There was no statistical difference in the mean score ratings for teachers, principals, and assistant principal, indicating similar ratings amo ng the three groups for this role descriptor. 29. The principal must have skills in collaboration and cooperation and must develop these skills in teachers and students. There was no statistical difference in the mean score ratings for teachers, principals, and assistant principal, indicating similar ratings among the three groups f or this role descriptor. 30. Principals will have to facilitate a system of inst ructional delivery that meets the need of a high speed/high technology society includ ing virtual classes, interactive classrooms, and other distance-learning tools to provide just-in-time curriculum and instruction. There was no statistical difference in the mean sc ore ratings for teachers, principals, and assistant pri ncipal, indicating similar ratings among the three groups for this role descriptor. 31. The principal will be responsible for providing pro grams that meet the needs of the school’s diverse population. There was no statistical difference in the mean score ratings for teachers, principals, and assista nt principal, indicating similar ratings among the three groups for this role descri ptor. 32. The principal should have increased responsibility for resource management to meet school goals, including hiring and firing teac hers. Teacher mean score

PAGE 206

196 ratings were lower for this role descriptor than bo th the assistant principals’ and principals’ indicating that the two groups rated th is item higher than the teachers. 33. The principal’s autonomy should commensurate with h is/her responsibility. Teacher mean score ratings were lower than principa ls’ mean scores but not assistant principals indicating that the principals rated this role descriptor higher than the other two targeted groups. 34. The future of the principalship depends on the abil ity of the community to focus on educational goals. There was no statistical difference in the mean sco re ratings for teachers, principals, and assistant pri ncipal, indicating similar ratings among the three groups for this role descriptor. 35. The principal will be responsible in bringing the s chool and community together. There was no statistical difference in the mean sco re ratings for teachers, principals, and assistant principal, indi cating similar ratings among the three groups for this role descriptor. 36. Principals must accept an enhanced role in the political arena and be an active advocate for public education. There was no statistical difference in the mean sco re ratings for teachers, principals, and assistant principal, indicating sim ilar ratings among the three groups for this role descriptor.

PAGE 207

About the Author Dawn Elizabeth Coffin received a Bachelor’s Degree in 1988 and an Educational Specialist Degree in 2002 from the University of So uth Florida. She started teaching in 1987 and became an Assistant Principal in 1993 and Principal in 1999. She received the PTA Principal of the Year Award in 2000 and LMS Pri ncipal of the Year Award in 2002. She was also the Middle School Association Presiden t in 2005. Earning the Doctor of Education Degree in Educational Leadership and Poli cy Studies was a personal and professional goal.