CALIFORNIA URBAN SUPERINTENDENTS AND THEIR SELECTION

CRITERIA FOR SECONDARY SCHOOL PRINCIPALS

by

Fal Asrani

_________________________________________________________________

A Dissertation Presented to the

FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

May 2010

Copyright 2010 Fal Asrani

 DEDICATION

My heartfelt gratitude and love to my husband and my two wonderful

children, who made all kinds of adjustments for me so that I would complete this

journey.

There were four special ladies at play behind the scenes whose support and

belief kept me moving without a stumble;

My mother, Maya, a generous and soft soul who always hoped that I would

earn a doctorate; ma, your fighting spirit kept me focused.

My mother-in-law, Pushpa, the kindest and most beautiful lady, who held the

“fort” so that I could fulfill my dream within the set timeline; Mom, I couldn’t have

done this without you.

My sisters, Didi and Molly, who gave me the mental strength to persevere,

even in the face of immense adversity.

To all of you in my family, I dedicate this to you.

ii
 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

My heartfelt gratitude to Dr. Rudy Castruita, for his guidance and support in

this process and for keeping me on track; I also thank him for being a true mentor to

me during a time when I needed a friend and a guide. Dr. Castruita, your kindness

and support will stay with me forever.

My sincere thanks to Superintendent Donald Gill, who shared his Trojan

spirit with me and cheered me on; Dr. Gill, your reaffirmation and belief in who I am

will never be forgotten.

I acknowledge several superintendents; Mr. Garcia, Dr. Cash, Dr. Kessler,

Dr. Werner, and Mr. Negri, for sharing your knowledge. Each of you gave of your

time so generously and being in your presence was truly an inspiring experience.

I acknowledge several faculty members from USC for their teachings in this

program with special thanks to Dr. Maggie Chidester for all her advice and support. I

also thank my dissertation committee, Dr. Pedro Garcia and Dr. Jeffrey Hubbard, for

their time and involvement.

And finally, my congratulations to members of my cohort for completing this

journey;

Fight On!!!

iii
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Dedication……………………………………………………………………….. ...ii

Acknowledgments………………………………………………………………....iii

List of Tables…………………………………………………………………….. ...v

List of Figures………………………………………………………………….. ...vii

Abstract………………………………………………………………………... ...viii

Chapter One: Overview of the Study…………………………………………....1

Chapter Two: Review of Related Literature…………………………………....23

Chapter Three: Methodology………………………………………………….....70

Chapter Four: Analysis of Data……………………………………………… ...82

Chapter Five: Conclusions, and Implications of the Findings For…………....158

Future Research

Glossary……………………………………………………………………….. ...182

References……………………………………………………………………......183

Appendices
Appendix A: Superintendent Anonymous Survey Protocol………….. ...191
Appendix A.1: Questions Based On Research…………………………. ...195
Appendix B: Survey Participants……………………………………......198
Appendix B.1: Interview Participants………………………………….. ...199
Appendix C: Superintendent Interview Protocol……………………......200
Appendix D: Invitation To Participate Letter………………………… ...202
Appendix E: California Professional Standards For Education……… ...203
Leaders (CPSEL)
Appendix F: Total Statistics………………………………………….....204

iv
 LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Demographic Data………………………………………………… ...85

Table 2: Student Enrollment Total and Percent of the Participating……….. ...85

Superintendents

Table 3: District API Total and Percent of the Participating……………….. ...86

Superintendents

Table 4: Total Years and Percent as Urban Superintendents……………….. ...86

Table 5: Total Years and Percent as Superintendent in their Current………. ...87

District

Table 6: Total Years and Percent of Working as Educator in their………… ...87

Current District

Table 7: Total Years Total and Percent in Public Education Including…….....88

Teaching

Table 8: Descriptive Statistics of the Measured Variables…………………. ...88

Table 9: Ranking of Background Responses……………………………….. ...89

Table 10: Ranking of Instruction Responses………………………………… ...90

Table 11: Ranking of Human Resources Responses…………………………....91

Table 12: Ranking of Management Responses………………………………. ...92

Table 13: Means for Subgroups with Male and Female Superintendents……....97
in Standard 1

Table 14: Means for Subgroups with Male and Female Superintendents……....98
in Standard 2

Table 15: Means for Subgroups with Male and Female Superintendents……....99
in Standard 3

v
Table 16: Means for Subgroups with Male and Female Superintendents….. ...101
in Standard 4

Table 17: Means for Subgroups with Male and Female Superintendents….. ...102
in Standard 5

Table 18: Means for Subgroups with Male and Female Superintendents….. ...103
in Standard 6

Table B-1: Survey Participants………………………………………………. ...197

Table B-2: Interview Participants……………………………………………. ...199

Table F-1: Case Processing Summary……………………………………….. ...204

Table F-2: Item-Total Statistics……………………………………………… ...205

vi
 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: The Breaking Ranks Model, 2001…………………………………... ...25

Figure 2: Effect Size of Leadership on Student Achievement (McREL Study).....37

Figure 3: Bolman and Deal; Reframing Organizations; 1997…………………. ...39

Figure 4: Characteristics of First and Second Order Changes. (MCREL study) ...44

Figure 5: Fullan’s Framework for Leadership, 2001…………………………......45

Figure 6: Victoria, Human Resources, Principal Selection……………………. ...61

Figure 7: Comparison of University Principal Preparation Program Course….. ...63

of Study

vii
 ABSTRACT

With the increased accountability measures of the past decade, the similarity

between the tasks taken on by principals and superintendents continues to be

reinforced. The study by McPherson and Crowson (1993) of principals in the

Chicago schools found that Principals were “mini-superintendents” as their

responsibilities at the sites involved contending with budgets, board relations,

entrepreneurship, leadership expectations, school community politics, and staff

development, all of which are similar to tasks completed within the role of the

superintendent. In an effort to identify how California superintendents select their

secondary school principals and gain a deeper understanding of the skills and

trainings that superintendents’ view as critical when selecting their secondary

principals, this mixed method study was conducted across twenty-three urban public

school districts in California.

Effective secondary principal leadership is closely entwined with increasing

student achievement and attaining the goals set forth by the superintendent. Research

on secondary school reform supports that schools with high achievement and a

strong sense of community is one where the principal has made a difference.

However, due to a decline in suitable candidates for secondary principalship and a

corresponding increase in candidates who do not wish to take on this challenging

position, there is a shortage in qualified candidates for this position (Education

Research Service, 2000).

viii
 Findings in this research study examines those qualities and skills that are

necessary for the 21st century secondary school principalship, as identified by

superintendents in California, and serve as recommendations to Principal Preparation

programs for future graduates who may successfully take on the challenges of the

21st century schools.

ix
 CHAPTER ONE

OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY

President Obama, in his speech to the Latina Foundation in March 2009,

referred to the need for American high schools to match the preparation of their

counterparts in Japan and India. This comment by the President, closely reflected the

findings in The World is Flat (Friedman, 2005), wherein the author alludes to the

lack of preparation of American public school students to operate in the current

global economy. Our secondary school preparation standards, as measured by

graduation rates and college admissions rates, continue to be debated and measured

and federal and state legislations have been making ongoing efforts for

improvements to public education for decades. The growing urgency to find

successful strategies that enable low-performing secondary schools to create positive

learning environments, has been supported by a growing body of research that places

student learning and the quality of instruction at the heart of secondary school reform

(Lachat, 2001).

The reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA,

1995), added the further responsibility of standards-based accountability to the job of

the superintendent and the principals. The latest comprehensive Federal Legislation,

No Child Left Behind (NCLB) of 2001, serves as a checkpoint for student

achievement within our public schools, with an accountability system that holds

Superintendents and Principals responsible for annual, measurable, student

1
improvement (Farkas et al., 2001). The past decade has seen significant activity in all

areas of public education, and “the concept of standards-based reform represents a

fundamental shift between policy and institutional practice” Elmore (2000, p. 5).

The current emphasis on accountability has added to the ongoing research in

the field, specifically addressing factors around effective Schools. In the past,

numerous studies of high-performing high-poverty schools have pointed to important

building-level factors that must be in place in order for all children to achieve at high

levels. Summary of research on effective schools from the 1970s and early 1980s

discusses the eight recurring attributes: a clear school mission; effective instructional

leadership and practices; high expectations; a safe, orderly, and positive

environment; ongoing curriculum improvement; maximum use of instructional time;

frequent monitoring of student progress; and positive home-school relationships

(Hoffman, 1991).

So how public is public education? The results of the state test scores have

become a source of data that determines the quality of the neighborhood and have

even been used by real estate agents as an advertising tool for high-end communities.

Parents too exercise their rights to question the spending of their tax dollars by

demanding school vouchers and supporting the charter school movement as a

response to poor quality schools in their neighborhoods. Chubb and Moe (1989)

concurred that parental choice is a positive move towards school improvement as it

holds schools and districts accountable for student learning. In this standards-based

system, identifying the leadership needed to guide and improve instruction becomes

2
a challenge at all levels. Principals and superintendents are now expected to fix all

the problems faced in the urban school districts responsible for providing PreK-16

education. These leaders are required to possess the skills and training that allows

them to balance community pressures, staff support, and instructional improvement,

with various levels of accountability (Elmore 2000).

In recent years, we have seen a revival of school reform research, targeting

teacher leadership and principal leadership, most likely due to widespread national

concerns about student achievement gaps, thereby creating a need for both secondary

principals and superintendents to evolve as instructional leaders (Reeves, 2008).

Effective Schools research ideas for focused improvements in classroom pedagogy,

teacher training, assessment tools, and principal leadership within the school house is

now measured by the Accountability Report card under NCLB. All public schools in

California conduct standardized tests annually, results of which determine the

individual school and district’s Academic Performance Index (API) score, which

then basically functions as the report card for the community and for schools.

Schools and districts that receive Title I funding, yet fail to reach their API/AYP

target growth, are identified as being under Program Improvement (PI) status, which

targets these schools for reform initiatives and reconstruction (NCLB, 2001). PI

status might ultimately lead to replacement of site principals and district

superintendents.

This heightened public accountability for student learning in the schools

requires school and district leaders to involve their stakeholders, visualize a

3
destination, engage in discussions related to a process for change, and get there in a

succinct and planned manner (McPherson & Crowson, 1993). This level of priority

is also based on the leader’s ability to serve as an instructional leader, creating strong

learning organizations with an emphasis on instructional leadership, a better balance

between accountability and authority and strong positive relationship between

themselves and their school Boards (Lashway, 2002). To strengthen the relationship

and accountability between superintendent and principal, discussions are underway

in Principal Leadership Academies that evolve around qualities and skills of

principals that effectively allow them to carry forward the vision of the

superintendent and the school board in creating schools that continue to contribute to

the culture of ongoing improvement.

Superintendents of public school districts face the pressures and demands of

the existing bureaucratic structure within the district and the School Board and the

political pressures from the community and the federal accountability mandates

associated with raising student scores. Due to high turnover of superintendents,

averaging about every three years (Hodgkinson & Montenegro, 1999), successful

reform efforts are dependent on specific and consistent commitment of time and

people (Desimoine, 2002). As the leader of school districts, Superintendents get

blamed for low performing schools and the problems that embrace a minority

neighborhood. Public Interest in the role of the superintendent in raising student

achievement has drawn attention to the districts that have successfully changed their

existing structures to create programs and supports that address the diverse learning

4
needs of all students. CRPE research titled An Impossible Job (Fuller et al., 2003)

comprised survey data from 100 superintendents from the nation’s largest urban and

semi-urban districts. One key finding on the role of the superintendent, defines this

individual as one who, due to crisis and external pressure from the stakeholders,

initiates changes that otherwise might have been impossible. In order to make these

improvements at school sites, the superintendent is dependent on well trained site

principals.

The current responsibility of the superintendent as an instructional leader has

evolved over time. The 21st century superintendent is a well educated and political

individual, responsible for quality decisions that effect school and district

performance, one of which involves successful assignment of principals who are

skilled in raising student performance (Byrd et al., 2006). In 1880, Charles Francis

Adams Jr., a Harvard- educated executive and grandson of President Adams, at a

meeting of the National Education Association, offered his perspectives on the future

of the Superintendency by describing three evolutionary stages of this position: first

as a building manager, second as an educational leader engaged in making changes

to education through the system of schooling and the process of learning; and lastly

he predicted what would be “the superintendent of the future”—an individual who

would use scientific methods to improve schooling and would be as specifically

qualified as doctor or an engineer. Adam’s prediction holds true for 21st century

superintendents, who are CEO’s of highly complex structures that include teachers,

unions, and parents, community organizations that include local businesses and

5
religious groups, local city politicians, and the school board. These individuals are

professionals prepared for “distinctly higher walks” (Blount, 1998).

Research on superintendent performance discuss the restrictions that impact

the office. Even though superintendents remain the ultimate person in charge, what

they can really achieve continues to remain vague in light of the restrictions placed

by federal and state mandates, parent and teacher groups, large number of charter

school organizations, and the standards-based accountability reforms that require that

one address how the job is done (Byrd et al., 2006). When schools fail to show

progress in meeting the achievement gap, the blame for this falls squarely on the

shoulders of the superintendent. Others may be faced with dire consequences such as

denial of school accreditation, state takeover, school closure, and political fallout

within the community (Duke, 2004). The education policies of a district are

developed by school boards, elected and appointed officials with limited knowledge

about the education system. They assign the superintendent the responsibility of

designing an evaluation system that fulfils the policy implementation. Chubb and

Moe (1990) have clarified that accountability is a key factor when creating an

evaluation design. Federal and state mandates too add an extra level of tension in

terms of the responsibilities of this office. Limiting the role of the school board and

increasing the authority of the superintendent and the schools, reorganizing the

secondary schools and the school district relationship, (Fuller et al., 2003) are some

suggested plans for increasing district wide changes leading to higher achievement.

Therefore, it is the superintendent who on behalf of the school board creates a

6
structure of accountability and is ultimately held responsible if the results are not

achieved (Fuller et al., 2003).

Thus the question remains as to how do superintendents engage in district

wide reform initiatives? To answer this question, Public Agenda Research group

(2007) identified that superintendents, as the district CEO, must engage in the careful

selection and placement of site leaders, matching the strengths of the candidate to the

needs of the position and then empowering them to make the changes at sites that

creates a professional learning community addressing student achievement (DuFour

et al., 2002) . When determining the factors that successfully usher in change

initiatives, it is critical to note that the hiring and placement of knowledgeable and

skilled leaders at school sites and a district-wide positive shift to curriculum are two

areas of focus for Superintendents (Glass & Bearman, 2003). Congress has also

made suggestions for school wide strategies related to curriculum, instruction,

organization, professional development, and parent involvement (Comprehensive

School Reform, 1997), requiring principals to focus on the quality of teachers and

outcomes of student learning.

In the 21st Century Schools of today, “Information and Communications

technologies are raising the bar on the competencies needed to succeed” (Literacy

Summit, 2002 p.4). Superintendents recognize that 21st century secondary principals

understand technological innovation and the nuances around globalization and are

capable of reassessing existing programs and introducing new initiatives that involve

digital age literacy, inventive thinking, effective communication, and high

7
productivity (NCREL, 2003). Successful secondary principals will be able to create a

school culture that prioritizes student learning and have deep knowledge and

experience of the change process. Superintendents identify candidates that confirm

that they can create a focused vision around the need for change, the understanding

of the organization, the process of change itself, and a clear definition of the

direction of the organization (Oakley & Drug, 1991). This school leader is an

individual who as a “Cultural Change Principal has learned the difference between

being an expert in a given content innovation and being an expert in managing the

process of change” Fullan (2002, p. 7).

21ST century secondary principal leaders operate as change agents to support

change within a school culture, and research in San Diego schools acknowledged

that systemic changes are dependent on faculty quality and accountability towards

improving student achievement (Darling-Hammond et al. 2005). Principals are

responsible for ensuring the proper hiring and placement of credentialed staff and

holding them responsible for student learning through effective evaluation of the

teaching and learning practices at the site. However, the “McAdams Report” (2003),

which surveyed the nations’ 120 largest school districts, concluded that

accountability practices across school districts required a closer look.

So what are the qualities of an effective change agent? Research continues to

maintain that quality of educational change is dependent on six common traits of

Leadership: Mendez-Morse (1992) identified these as: having a vision, believing that

schools are for learning, valuing human resources, being a skilled communicator and

8
listener, acting proactively, and taking risks; and Fullan (2001) identified five core

components of leaders as someone who has a moral purpose, and is capable of

understanding change, relationship building, knowledge creation and sharing and

coherence.

Over the past several decades the role of the secondary school principal has

gradually evolved and the 21st century principal is defined as: an Instructional

leader whose priority is to strengthen teaching and learning, professional

development, data-driven decision making and accountability at his site; a

Community leader who possesses a big-picture awareness of the school’s role in

society, the shared leadership practices among his staff, partnerships with the

community and parents that can draw resources to the schools programs, and the

relationship with their stakeholders that advocates for students and programs; and a

Visionary leader who demonstrates energy, commitment, entrepreneurial spirit,

values the conviction that all children will learn at high levels, and inspires others

with this vision both inside and outside the school building (Usdan et al., 2000) . The

responsibility of the superintendent requires that their selection and assignment of

secondary principals result in a culture that addresses the achievement gap within

student subgroups by focusing on instructional programs and quality teaching

(Lashway, 2002). Furthermore, the task of balancing the alternative tugs of external

political pressure from the community, the city mayor, the parent organizations, and

internal needs of students, staff and district office, demands that the secondary

candidate have the skills to be responsive to the various needs of his stakeholders,

9
which are, the skills of communication, political understanding, creating trust, and

providing educational leadership (Goodney, 2007).

Successful site leadership, is determined by successful practices which have

been researched several times. Research by the Southern Region Education Board

(SREB, 2001) identified three key practices of successful site leadership: (1)

Comprehensive understanding of classroom practices that contribute to student

achievement; (2) work with faculty and others to fashion and implement continuous

student improvement; (3) provide the necessary support for staff to carry out sound

school curriculum and instructional practices (Bottoms & O'Neill, 2001, p. 4). When

creating the criteria for hire, for a successful site leader, superintendents have

confirmed that there are five key areas: (1)Technical Leadership, which demonstrates

capacity to effectively optimize the school’s financial, physical and human resources

through sound management practices and organizational systems and processes that

contribute to the implementation of the school’s vision and goals. (2) Human

Leadership, which is the demonstrated ability to foster a safe, purposeful and

inclusive learning environment, and the capacity to develop constructive and

respectful relationships with staff, students, parents and other stakeholders. (3)

Educational Leadership which is demonstrated capacity to lead, manage and monitor

the school improvement process through a current and critical understanding of the

learning process and its implications for enhancing high quality teaching and

learning in every classroom in the school. (4) Symbolic Leadership which is

demonstrated capacity to model important values and behaviors to the school and

10
community, including a commitment to creating and sustaining effective

professional learning communities within the school, and across all levels of the

system. (5) Cultural Leadership which is an understanding of the characteristics of

Effective Schools and a demonstrated capacity to lead the school community in

promoting a vision of the future, underpinned by common purposes and values that

will secure the commitment and alignment of stakeholders to realize the potential of

all students (Victoria Human Resources, 2009).

Successful secondary principal selection requires a match between the

candidate and the school and this is usually demonstrated through knowledge and

skills related to areas associated with programs and the culture of the school.

Secondary principal selection criteria have gradually morphed to include key

practices associated with reform initiatives that drive changes in secondary schools.

These reform initiatives in California public schools include: initiatives to adopt and

implement policies and alternative pathways from high school to college, promoting

high achievement and high graduation rates by aligning high school graduation

standards with college entrance standards (JFF, 2007). Furthermore, introducing

Small Learning Communities (SLCs) and Pathway Programs, and understanding the

funding sources that support these initiatives, aimed at raising college admissions

rates and the college going culture (Adelman, 2006).

When reviewing the role of the superintendent and the secondary school

principal, it is evident that the similarities in both these positions revolve around the

preparation for the positions, the strengths as a visionary and political leader and the

11
ability to handle the human factors that involve parents, staff, and teacher unions.

This level of heightened political preparation demands that superintendents and

secondary principals communicate and collaborate on a plan for student achievement

that supports the structures that are reflective of the community (Duckworth, 2008).

Superintendents and secondary principals are expected to create a shift in the status-

quo, but manage the tension that inevitably follows. In order to support the

superintendent and create quick, small changes towards student progress, secondary

principals can become a source of strength or the weak link as they maneuver around

the “educational regime” that exists in all districts and tries to maintain the status

quo. These are educators who resist reforms that “jeopardize existing structure”.

However, superintendents and principals working within this status quo, use their

skills and training to ensure that changes do occur (Shipps, 2003).

The office of the principal, with its similarities to the office of the

superintendent in terms of the political, economic, and educational stresses, also

relies on communication as its strength. Standards for communication apply to both

these offices and reference can be drawn to two documents. The first, The

Professional Standards for the Superintendency identified by the American

Association of Secondary Administrator (AASA, 1993) states the following in

standard 3: “The superintendent will articulate district purpose and priorities to the

community and mass media; request and respond to community feedback;

demonstrate consensus building and conflict mediation; identify, track and deal with

issues; formulate and carry out plans for internal/external communication; …

12
formulate democratic strategies for referenda; and relate political initiates to the

welfare of the children”. The second document contains the standards developed by

the Interstate School leaders Licensure Consortium (ISLLC, 1996), which is used in

almost 80% of all state licensing requirements, identifies the standard of

communication for a site principal and states: “A school administrator is an

educational leader who promotes the success of all students in facilitating the

development, articulation, implementation, and stewardship of a vision of learning

that is shared and supported by the school community” (Hoyle, Bjork, Collier, &

Glass, 2005). The similarity of both these positions and the roles therein, require that

the selection of a site leader be closely matched to the needs of the superintendent.

Superintendents and secondary principals are ultimately responsible for

student achievement. Superintendents depend on their site principals, and therefore,

craft a team of highly trained leaders who have the skills and can work with the

resources to support their roles as extensions of the superintendent. However, the

current data indicates that increased responsibilities, long work hours, lack of district

support, and political pressure from unions are some of the reasons that have

contributed to principal shortage (Ediger, 2002). Additionally, due to retirement of

teachers who are baby boomers, there is a consequent shortage of candidates for

school administration. Recruiting and training of future administrators is a constant

priority and training programs should be required to graduate candidates who have

the skills and knowledge necessary to successfully reform a school or lead it through

a process that initiates changes. The current credentialing programs differ in the

13
format of training, which range between University programs, to online certification

courses, and ACSA implemented Principal Training Programs AB75, 2001 and AB

430, 2008, which created a public/private partnership between the county office and

school districts to train the leaders. However, the selection of these trained

candidates as secondary principals is dependent on the selection criteria established

by superintendents and school districts and this research aims to identify the

common skills, knowledge and training that are necessary for secondary principal to

be successful.

Statement of the Problem

The system of accountability in secondary schools has created the need for

superintendents to select qualified principals who can initiate reform efforts to

address the needs of diverse student learning. As urban school districts in the United

States come under increased scrutiny for their role in preparing students to be

competitive in the global economy, the role of the superintendent in creating a

district where students receive the preparation to be globally successful would

require that they hire secondary principals who understand the change process in

relation to program review and implementation. Current research and superintendent

concerns confirm a shortage of qualified candidates and that the Principal Training

Programs are doing an inadequate job of preparing their graduates for the challenges

of the secondary principalship. The 21st century skills initiatives for high schools

require the introduction of non traditional ideas supported by strong leaders with

“out of the box” thinking and calls for change in curriculum content, pedagogy and

14
teacher training, and leadership strategies. It calls for a systemic change that would

require the superintendent to hire the right principals for their secondary schools,

individuals with the training and skills to introduce new pathways and encourage the

development of a plan that negates the “one size fits all” concept for attaining a high

school diploma (Bragg and Kim, 2008).

Therefore superintendents needs to hire principals who have the skills to

navigate through the political, economic, and social roadblocks that will inevitably

appear both from within the school district and the community at large.

Purpose of the Study

The primary purpose of the study was to examine the role of the California

superintendent in selecting secondary principals under the recent demands of federal

and state accountability reporting practices. The study identified the existing models

and frameworks of leadership to contribute to the knowledge around key criteria for

secondary principal success which in return were the criteria for selection used by

superintendents in California.

Significance of the Study

This study identifies the skills, trainings and knowledge that superintendents

consider important when hiring secondary school principals and presents the key

competence criteria needed to be successful as a school leader in this time of high

accountability. Upon review of the hiring practices of twenty three urban

superintendents in districts ranging between ten to over fifty thousand students, this

study provides an insight and understanding of criteria that superintendents consider

15
important for secondary principals in the current accountability-driven global

environment. Furthermore, this study focuses on the consequent factors within the

selection process, based on the practices of 23 superintendents when matching the

right person to the right job.

This study would benefit superintendents who are considering their

recruitment criteria based on their understanding of the individual school site needs

in their district and their understanding of the existing district culture. The

perspectives provided by superintendents in this study would help identify the

common leadership practices which are being recognized as important by urban

superintendents for systemic change. This study also researches the impact of

personnel choices, the extent to which the superintendent considers personnel to be

important in the change process, key leadership factors that superintendents look for

in their principals, and finally, what is being done about recruiting and retaining the

people who match district vision, and what adjustments are being made within

leadership teams to find the right candidate for the secondary principalship. This

study will provide data to prospective and existing site principals, district leaders,

policymakers, educational institutions and researchers of principal leadership.

Finally this study contributes to the development of survey templates that

superintendents and human resources departments can use when considering the

placement, recruitment, retention, and reassignment of site leaders. This study has

been designed to provide additional literature on the common hiring styles of

successful practicing superintendents who have been recognized for making strong

16
progress within their districts in relation to student achievement and a culture of

ongoing improvement. Hiring secondary principals requires an in depth

understanding of the school sites and this document adds to the extant research on

how superintendents hire the principals for their school sites. The study provides

important insight into the attributes that are needed by 21st century secondary

principals and aims to answer one overarching question:

What implications, if any, would the current selection criteria of California

urban superintendents have on the preparation of future secondary school

principals?

Two other research questions also guided the study:

1. What skills, training and knowledge do superintendents look for when

hiring secondary principals?

2. How do superintendents ensure that the right candidate is selected for the

position and is successful in the position of secondary principal?

These research questions form the basis for the conceptual framework of the study,

collecting and analyzing data and providing findings for future considerations.

Conceptual Framework

Bolman and Deal’s (2005) research on the Four Frames of Leadership

provide the necessary background for research related to strong leadership skills in

each of the key positions, both at the superintendent and at the site level.

17
 Summary of the Methodology

In order to answer the questions above, a mixed-methodology approach to

research was used that consisted of both a quantitative and a qualitative component

to provide findings based on comprehensive analysis of the research problem. The

quantitative part of this study included a 35-question anonymous survey completed

by 17 superintendents in California enabled the analysis of data at multiple levels.

The qualitative part of this research was completed through one to one interview

sessions with five superintendents where each participant had to answer two broad

questions and 11 subquestions around hiring standards, skills and levels of

knowledge and placement criteria. The responses provided the data which were

analyzed to identify the selection criteria for secondary principals as well the

qualities required for successful fulfillment of the job of secondary principals.

It is not known whether superintendents identify similar criteria when hiring

secondary principals for their schools, nor is it known whether the administrative

standards established by CPSEL are being utilized to guide the selection process.

This study addressed the issue of identifying common criteria as regards training,

skills and qualifications, and common expectations of superintendents from the

secondary principals in their district that that guide their selection decision.

Assumptions

This study assumed the following:

1. The hiring practices of the superintendents have a direct link with how

quickly and effectively change occurs in a district.

18
2. If secondary principals are hired under clearly identified criteria

developed by the superintendent, change and progress at school sites will

occur.

3. The study also assumes that the participants in this case voluntarily

provided true and accurate responses in the surveys and interviews.

4. The tools and procedures used to collect the data for this research have

been based on existing and proven research survey procedures and

protocols and therefore are valid.

Limitations

The limitations of the study were as follows:

1. With restrictions of time and resources, the study was limited to twenty

three school districts in California.

2. The study was limited to voluntary participants.

3. Because of the nature of the qualitative data, the interpretation of the

findings is subject to the analysis of the data by the researcher.

4. The interview participants were all male superintendents.

Delimitations

The Delimitations relevant to this study were as follows:

1. This is a mixed method case study based on input from 23 urban school

district superintendents in northern and southern California.

19
 2. Records indicate that the secondary schools under the superintendents

interviewed have shown documented gains in student achievement within

the past three years (2005-2008).

3. Superintendents interviewed had more than 7 years of experience as a

superintendent.

Definition of Terms

The following definitions provide context for the study:

Accountability: Leaders are held responsible for student achievement under

various district, state, and federal mandates targeting student performance in

formative and summative assessments.

Achievement: Student performance in the state standards test and meeting the

proficiency goals which is interpreted as achieving the standards. Schools continue

to address ways to increase student achievement.

Achievement Gap: The gap in test scores as indicted by results in the

California Standards Tests between subgroups of students.

Assessments: use of tests, quizzes, projects, state tests etc., to gauge student

achievement; a process of documenting, in measurable terms, knowledge, skills,

attitudes and beliefs.

Content Standards: Standards identified in each curriculum area tested. The

standards define the highest achievement of proficiency that every student can

achieve by gaining the knowledge and concepts presented through standards-based

curriculum.

20
 Globalization: The process of transformation of local phenomena into global

ones and described as a process by which people of the world unite despite barriers

in language, distance, economy, and politics.

Pedagogy: the art or profession of teaching and refers to the strategies of

instruction or the style of teaching.

School Boards: Elected community representatives who are responsible for

hiring the superintendent and approving all policies within the district. They are

elected every two years and usually range between 5-7 members, depending on the

district size.

Secondary Principals: Principals of middle and high schools.

Stakeholders: parents, students, teachers, community members are the groups

of people who have a stake or interest in the success of educational.

Systemic Changes: Changes that occur in education at all levels and in all

areas of the system.

Organization of the Study

This study is organized by five chapters:

Chapter One provides an introduction to the study, including: Statement of

the problem, Purpose of the study, Research questions, Significance of the study, and

Organization of the Study.

Chapter Two presents a literature review pertaining to relevant information

addressed in this study along with the guidelines suggested my Bolman and Deal’s

four frames of leadership and the CPSEL standards.

21
 Chapter Three contains the methodology, instruments used, sample used for

the research, and data reporting.

Chapter Four reports the findings of the data as they relate to the research

questions guiding the study.

Chapter Five contains the final summary along with the conclusions, future

implications, and recommendations as it relates to current practice and future

research.

22
 CHAPTER TWO

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

Introduction

The current profile of public schools reflects significant changes in student

demographics, increased pressures of high stakes testing, and high turn over rates of

educational leaders (Dipaola & Tschannen-Moran, 2003). Superintendents delegate

the responsibility of achieving student success to individual school site principals.

Correspondingly, the trust and responsibility placed on the secondary principal

requires both the principal and the superintendent to work closely for the effective

utilization of personnel, curriculum, finance, and management strategies which will

create a level of measurable success in the individual schools (Lashway, 2002). “To

effectively execute the mission of the public schools, superintendents muster

resources that require trust between the leaders and the public” (Allen, 2008).

The superintendent’s selection and placement of principals have an impact on

how quickly and systemically changes will occur at school sites addressing student

achievement, and Douglas Reeves in his book, Leading Change in Our schools

(2009) clarifies the role of the principal as that of a change agent who is “not only in

the work of education but also in a complex enterprise of people, with all the drama

that accompanies personal pride and identity” (pg. 87). In 2000, Education Research

Service published an article that focused on the task of assigning a site principal who

23
can achieve these responsibilities and how retaining these individuals are an

important priority for the superintendent and the Board of Education.

For purposes of this study, the Secondary Principals are defined as site

principals in both middle and high schools in the California Public School system.

Under this shifting environment of high accountability, the success of the

superintendent and the Board of Education is closely intertwined with that of

secondary principals and their focus on API/AYP scores and graduation and college

admissions rates. Current research on graduation and drop-out rates indicate that our

secondary schools are failing to graduate their students on time (Greene & Winters,

2006) and therefore brings to the forefront of national discussion, the state of our

public school system. To address these needs and work towards increased student

achievement is no easy task; selecting an accomplished secondary leader is a

significant responsibility.

This secondary school reform template indicates the level of expertise

required by secondary principals in organizing the school structures and personnel

around reform initiatives aimed at improving student learning and achievement.

The 21st century principal under the current system of accountability is an

education leader (Fullan, 2002), and such leadership ability, according to Fullan, is

the single most important determinant of an effective learning environment.

Principals are entrusted with change measures and they are required to recognize and

understand the procedures and processes that allow changes that impact

organizational improvement. It is the school climate along with strong focused

24
leadership that impacts instructional quality (Kelley, Thornton, & Daugherty, 2005).

School leaders are faced with daily decisions that balance site needs and district

initiatives and success is determined by the powerful link between the school and the

district, one that creates the conditions that support these school leaders’ efficacy

(Leithwood & Jantzi, 2008). District leaders can have a strong impact on a site

leader’s confidence and efficacy by emphasizing their commitment to instruction and

student achievement and recognizing the role of the principal as an extension of the

superintendent (McPherson & Crowson, 1993).

Figure 1: The Breaking Ranks Model, 2001

25
 The literature review in this chapter is organized into four sections and

primarily focuses on the research regarding the contemporary principal and

addresses a) Hiring of school principals: A historical perspective; b) secondary

Principals - an extension of the Superintendent: c) secondary Principals- a change

agent for the Superintendent; d) preparation and Evaluation standards for secondary

principals.

The consequential report, A Nation at Risk (1983) focused public attention on

the decline of the American school system and the rising focus on the role of the

principal and its impact on raising student achievement. However, suitable

candidates for secondary principalship is showing a decline and Education Research

Service in 2000 published the finding that there was an increase among those who do

not desire to become a principal, consequently leading to a shortage of qualified

candidates. As the accountability system continues to impact the role of the

superintendents and secondary principals, both these positions continue to be closely

reflective of each other as they garner support in their efforts to increase student

achievement within their schools. Both these positions now respond directly to their

communities and are engaged in issues of social equity and innovation as they

address the needs of every student. Selecting suitable candidates for secondary

schools is the most important priority of the superintendent.

Secondary Principals: A Historical Perspective

A quick recap of the historical background of hiring principals starts in the

19th century when the concept of headmasters and principals became more

26
widespread with the advent of mass education. In the pre-industrial era (1650-1812),

teaching was done in a one-room school house taught by a single teacher and it was

during the decades between 1920 and 1960 that the need to hire principals slowly

evolved. Before 1955 few states had clearly identified standards for certifying

principals and simply required the candidates to posses a teaching certificate, three

years of classroom teaching experience, and approximately three to six courses in

educational administration (Goodwin et al., 2005). Today, principals are being asked

to wear many different hats and serve as curriculum and instructional leaders, human

resource managers, school budget experts, and building maintenance operators with

increased expectations for school improvement, and the responsibility of maintaining

positive school community relations with key stakeholders (Goodwin, 2005).

In the 1960’s a few factors led to candidates dropping out of the principal

application pool, which were as follows: 1) Teacher union activism resulted in pay

increases for the fifteen year veteran teacher to the level where the principal

positions had merely a thousand dollars more in pay from these veterans; 2) the

practice of lack of tenure in this position meant that cutbacks in principal positions

did not assure that person of a similar job; and 3) The responsibilities of this position

were immense compared to the pay. In the current decades, increased

responsibilities, lack of support and the accountability measures associated with

school test scores, that can remove principals from their positions (Taylor &

Williams, 2001), have led to a principal shortage (Ediger, 2002). In the 1960’s the

principal position was equivalent to the corporate industrial middle manager and

27
these candidates enrolled in graduate study, shadowed mentors in the position and

were required to pass the locally controlled principal examination. With tutors and

available prep books, these tests were easy to pass and those with inside contacts got

even further added benefits as they had access to details of the interview, which at

that time did not include much more than relying on the word of good references

(Baltzell & Dentler 1983).

Review of the literature on principal selection process in the mid 1970’s and

1980’s neither provides nor describes any consistent process and there are no reports

that provide a well developed practice for hiring during that time. However, given

that the role of the principal closely resembled the corporate middle manager, there

were some similarities in the steps of hiring for both these positions. Campbell

(1970) described this process as follows: The first step in the process was to identify

the criteria for hire which usually revolved around personal qualities such as high

levels of intelligence, verbal skills, effective judgment, organizational skills, and

interpersonal qualities. The next step involved a preliminary interview to eliminate

those who were unsuitable for the position. Then the applications of the remaining

candidates were given a thorough review for background and reference checks and

attention was given to letters of recommendation and biographical information.

During the final stage the candidates were subject to employment examinations, such

as selection tests, interviews and assessment centers (Anderson, 1991). The

importance of selecting an effective principal was a question raised as early as 1960

and the issue became aligned with the Civil Rights movement, and included the

28
validity of the test-based procedures for selecting administrators and the need to

affirm that the principal placements were free from influence, nepotism, as well as

sexual and racial discrimination. The union and parent groups also joined in

questioning the practices of hiring principals. The hiring of secondary principals in

general, after World War II, was based mostly by central office administrators and

school board member preferences. School districts lacked consistency in criteria or

preparation requirements for these positions. Schools and colleges also started

actively addressing the challenges of preparing candidates and thereby started

graduating mobile and highly competitive candidates who further constricted the

opportunities of women and blacks to be promoted from within (Baltzell & Dentler,

1983).

There was little support in the practices to show that the superintendent

viewed the secondary school principals as a key figure responsible for achieving

school goals and therefore district goals. The question remained as to how were these

principals selected for their schools? There were few written policies or procedures

on the hiring criteria of principals. DeFrahn (1973) conducted a survey of New

Jersey districts and concurred that superintendents were the main selectors and most

principals were selected from within the district and that interviews were the primary

vehicle for the selection. The selection was based on traits such as judgment,

personality, character and ability to communicate and little attention was paid to

skills and experience. A survey conducted by the California State legislature in 1977

also concurred with the findings and a study of Texas districts found that elementary

29
principals were hired by superintendents based on their traits such as honesty,

loyalty, and cooperativeness. As salaries increased, more men entered into teaching

and filled the positions of principals; as desegregation was enforced, closing down of

black-only schools led to a reduction in black principals.

Through the decades, legislations have been passed that have addressed the

inconsistencies and perceived and real discriminatory practices in the hiring process

for principals: 1) Title VII of the Civil right Act (1964) bans discrimination based on

race, religion, and gender; 2) the Americans with Disabilities Act (amended in 1990,

ADA) bans discrimination due to disability; 3) the Immigration Reform and Control

Act (1986) bans against national origin and citizenship; 4) the Equal Pay Act (1963)

bans discriminatory pay practices based on gender; and 5) the Age Discrimination in

Employment Act (1975) bans discrimination for persons over 40 years. These

Federal and State legislations exist to provide protection to applicants from bias

during the hiring process, but research has indicated that in the selection process of

school administrators, age Young & Fox, 2002) and gender (Reis, Young, & Jury,

1999) do affect hiring.

Research by Baltzell in 1983, funded by the National Institute of Education

(NIE), was an investigative study of how school principals were selected and focused

on two aspects: 1) describing and analyzing the characteristics of the common

practices in the selection process and 2) describing the process itself. As research

continued to address improvements in hiring practices, it also focused on behavioral

evaluation of candidates with regards to specific skills. Finkle (1976) and the

30
National Association of Secondary School Principals (NASSP) Assessment center in

1981 were part of reviewing this hiring process.

So what are the current practices in hiring a secondary principal and to what

extent do superintendents develop the criteria for selection? Research from Anderson

(1991) argues that districts that establish a set of criteria for selection before

beginning the selection process would identify candidates who had the skills and

experience to fit into the district and the needs of the school. Whaley (2002)

referenced school district hiring practices to indicate that districts engage in a two

step screening process; first the personnel office screens the resumes and

applications who meet the certification and experience standards and then the paper

screening for more formalized selection around skills, qualifications and experiences

and should include senior administration, teachers, parents and students. The next

step involves interviews and once again research indicates that the panel decides to

hire or reject a candidate within the first five minutes of the interview and that the

decisions are highly subjective in nature (Anderson, 1991).

So what are the gaps in Principal selection? The National Institute of

Education (NIE) funded a study in 1983 to gain deeper knowledge of the gaps by

reviewing the practices in several districts. “This study was designed and executed in

two phases: Phase 1 focuses on describing and characterizing common practices in

principal selection… and Phase 2 led directly from the findings of Phase 1 and

focused on describing and characterizing promising alternatives to common

practices” (Baltzell & Dentler, 1983, p. 1). Reviewing research on the practices of

31
principal selection confirms that historically, an individual who had a similar

perspective as that of the organization conducting the search, was selected through

the interview, which was the sole process. The effectiveness of this selection was

based on the applicants KSAO (knowledge, skills, abilities, and other competencies)

that could predict job performance (Young, 2008, p. 16). As the job of the principal

has continued to become more multifaceted, demanding and complicated (Walker,

1995), the challenge to find qualified individuals for this position continued to grow

and “growing anecdotal evidence suggests that it is increasingly difficult to find

school principals at a time when the demand for them is on the rise” (Copland, 2001,

p.528).

The New Teacher Project (TNTP) with support from The Broad Foundation

reported the results of its 2006 study of how urban districts recruit, select and hire

principals. Based on extensive literature, this study presented three major findings:

(1) There is a shortage of high quality principal candidates; (2) urban districts suffer

from low applicant to hire ratios, (3) relatively low quality candidates and a strong

practice of filling principal positions from internal candidates. Research by Young

(2008) identified four steps in the principal hiring process: 1) employee recruitment,

2) employee selection; 3) employee appraisal, and 4) employee promotion. Young

also identified that the selection of principals includes three steps: 1) pre-selection

which is the development of the policies and procedures for selection; 2) selection

which is the screening and the interview; and 3) post-selection which encompasses

the hiring decisions made by the selection committee.

32
 In order to determine the role of the superintendent in the selection of the

secondary principal, there is no clear research on the extent to which superintendents

get to make the final decision. However, there is an increased interest in district-run

internship programs which were regarded as training programs and therefore

structured around the criteria for selection. Research from several sources such as

Adkinson and Warren (1980) and Bailey and Warren (1980) showed good results

when districts implemented the training programs to create candidate pools. There

are differing opinions among principal preparation programs and among district

superintendents on what an effective principal preparation program should look like.

Superintendent responses in the extant research have identified a common theme that

the secondary principalship is a job for a skilled and committed individual.

However, based on evidence of current candidates being interviewed, it is evident

that preparation has not kept pace with the changes in the education world (Hess and

Kelley, 2005).

Secondary Principals: An Extension of the Superintendent

Portis and Garcia (2007) completed a study of the Gilroy district in Northern

California and Superintendent Edwin Diaz and focused on strategies that allow for

change in a district. They cited several factors and identified the need for principals

to hear and see the effects of the change in the vision of the superintendent, and if

they do, then it was hoped that the principals would embrace the vision and change

strategies more readily. This study also talked about the relationship between the

superintendents and their community at large and how the principals become an

33
extension of the superintendent when they represent their schools in the community.

The school district community looks upon the superintendent as the one responsible

for the placement of these principals, and correspondingly, the success or failure of

the principals is a reflection of the superintendent’s commitment to that community.

In this new era of accountability, the effect of the superintendent on secondary

school improvement is strong only when the superintendent is willing to “attack the

school systems inertia” (Hill et al. 1989) through focused directives to the secondary

principals. In his book Keepers of the Flame Kowalski (1995) researched big-city

school systems and the politics of the superintendency, which has mainly focused on

issues of authority and power of control. Susan Moore Johnson in her book Leading

to Change: Challenge of the New Superintendency (1996) identified three

educational leadership attributes of superintendents: “Crafting a Vision”, “Leading

Reform” and “Engaging school leaders in Change.” As the age of accountability

emerged, Lashway (2002) has talked about the unclear role of the superintendent

even though most people are aware that they are the primary person in charge of

facilitating education in American schools.

All this research simply clarifies the need for superintendents to present a

coherent plan by balancing the numerous and sometimes incompatible goals that the

public sets for schools (Cuban & Shipps, 2000). The success of the superintendent is

dependent on the individual’s ability to balance the conflict that arises from being an

instructional, managerial, and political leader. As the instructional leader,

superintendents are responsible for improving student learning; as a managerial

34
leader they are entrusted with keeping the district operating smoothly; and as a

political leader they have to balance the requests of the various stakeholders. The

secondary principal is viewed for their responsibility with the same lens (Waters &

Grubb, 2004).

The increased focus on school site accountability and shared decision making

models (Duke, 2004) have required superintendents and school boards to shift many

of the decisions regarding educating students to the school sites. As we have

observed, the evolution of the secondary principalship has gone from that of a

building manager to an educational leader; now we are also aware of the ways in

which this leader is also a site politician, a community liaison specialist, and a

gatekeeper of program changes (Kowalski, 2005). The study by McPherson and

Crowson (1993) of principals in the Chicago schools found that principals referred to

themselves as mini-superintendents since the current responsibilities of this office

has to contend with decisions around budgets, board relations, entrepreneurship,

leadership expectations, school community politics, and staff development. With

increased accountability measures, this image only continues to be magnified.

In order to understand how secondary principals are effective in attaining the

goals set forth by the Superintendent, one needs to review the research on secondary

school reform which indicates that schools with high achievement and a strong sense

of community is one where the principal has made a difference (Boyer, 1985), and

that “recognition of the principal at the epicenter of a learning community is

paramount for successful education reform” and “nothing has a greater effect on the

35
quality of education than the principal” (Barth 1990, p. 19). The key requirement for

creating a culture of reform leading to increased student achievement in secondary

schools is attributed to the leadership skills of the site principal and effective

leadership has been identified as the most essential element that allows an

organization to bring progress and sustain itself through the change process (Bolman

and Deal, 2003). The partnership between superintendents and secondary principals

were aptly summarized by Fullan (2003), when he said that, “everyone, ultimately,

has a stake in the caliber of schools, and education is everyone’s business” (p. 3).

These leaders, he confirmed, viewed schools through four levels of hierarchy: 1).

Level 1: Making a difference in individuals; Level 2: Making a difference in the

school; Level 3: Making a difference regionally; and Level 4: School leadership and

society. Fullan’s (2003) framework of moral purpose provides secondary principals

and superintendents with a mirror, as it were, on which they may reflect on the

similarities in their roles and responsibilities in education today.

To study the effect of the site principal in increasing student learning, the role

of the principal as an Instructional leader has become a primary focus of study.

McREL conducted a meta-analysis of more than 150 research studies and published

A New Era of School Reform (cited in Marzano, 2000) which reported the variances

in student achievement based on effective and ineffective schools and classroom

practices. Supported by the findings from another meta-analysis of 5000 studies

which examined the effects of principal leadership on student achievement, McREL

identified 21 leadership responsibilities for principals were identified, each

36
impacting student achievement, and concluded that the average effect size between

leadership and student achievement is .25, which was explained as one standard

deviation increase on principal leadership is associated with a ten percentile point

gain in school achievement. The chart below is provided to show the correlation.

Figure 2: Effect Size of Leadership on Student Achievement (McREL Study)

Research by Kathleen Cotton (2003) maintains that principal leadership has

an impact on student achievement though it is an indirect impact through the work of

the teachers and other support staff, parents and an overall campus attitude. A meta-

analysis of 69 studies involving over one million students concluded that there is a

quantitative relationship between the leadership behaviors of the principals and the

average academic achievement of students. The McREL study (2004) documented

37
that the changing environment in education today has resulted in a lack of clarity,

increased stress, ambiguity, and heightened need for trust.

In order to successfully hire a secondary principal who appears to be a good

fit for the district (Anderson 1991), and who has the skills and knowledge to

successfully lead the 21st century schools and meet the requirements of NCLB

(Taylor & Williams , 2001), superintendents have to be involved in identifying

leaders whose style of management reflects the needs of the school, and who can

work collaboratively to achieve collective goals identified by the Board of Education

and create structures around distributive leadership that maximizes the strengths of

all individuals in the organization and focuses responsibility for the total good

(Waters, Marzano & McNulty, 2005). In understanding the qualities needed by

secondary principals and superintendents to be effective, Bolman and Deal (1991)

have suggested four frameworks of leadership for determining how to approach

different, site-specific circumstances, and identified effective management styles

under these four frames of reference: (1) The Structural Manager tries to design and

implement a process or structure appropriate to the problem and the circumstances;

(2) the Human Resource Manager views people as the heart of any organization and

attempts to be responsive to their needs and goals to gain commitment and loyalty

and emphasizes support and empowerment; (3) the Political Manager understands

the political reality of organizations and can deal with those circumstances, and

understands how important interest groups are, each with an agenda and can manage

conflict and limited resources; (4) the Symbolic manager views vision and

38
inspiration as critical and correspondingly understands that people need something to

believe in. These leaders tend to be very visible and energetic and “walk the Walk”.

Understanding the effective and ineffective leadership styles under each frame is

often important when developing the hiring criteria for secondary principals.

Figure 3: Bolman and Deal; Reframing Organizations; 1997, Table 17.1, page 303.

Effective Leadership Ineffective Leadership

Frame Leader Leadership Process Leader Leadership Process

Analyst, Management by
Structural Analysis, design Petty Tyrant
architect detail and fiat

Human Catalyst, Support, Weakling,

Abdication
Resources servant empowerment pushover

Advocate, Advocacy, coalition Con artist, Manipulation,

Political
Negotiator building thug fraud

Inspiration, framing Mirage, smoke, and

Symbolic Prophet, poet Fanatic, fool
experience mirrors

Since the reauthorization of ESEA, most recently named as NCLB,

superintendent accountability has increased given the mandates that the district and

the schools have to define “Adequate Yearly Progress” based on their student

achievement data and confirm the reform initiatives that are implemented to support

low-performing schools. Use of data from assessments has allowed superintendents

to actively engage their site and district leaders, as they make decisions with regard

to instructional strategies, coaching techniques, and data-driven decision making

39
(Kathy Anthes, 2002). In order to hold principals and teachers responsible for

effective practices at the school sites, superintendents focus on professional

development, and base principal evaluations on instructional improvement without

having to directly micromanage classrooms and teachers (Bottoms & O'Neill, 2001).

By putting instruction on top of the district’s agenda, superintendents have also

aligned their roles as managers and political leaders with that of being the instruction

leader. It is through their principals that superintendents maintain control over

student progress at the school site and therefore placing principals who can provide

the desired results is critical (Youngs, 2008 unpublished).

Findings from Rolling Up Their Sleeves, a research study by the Wallace

Foundation (2003), concluded that principals and superintendents agree that the

ability to manage politics is the key to survival and that “politics and bureaucracy”

are the main reasons why their peers leave their careers in education. Principals also

indicate that their frustration with the levels of difficulty in the job is amplified

because they cannot communicate directly with the superintendents due to the layers

of deputy superintendents in the organizational process, and consequently asking for

direct feedback or help from the superintendent becomes difficult (Fink & Resnick,

2001).

Numerous studies have identified that uncoordinated and misdirected

services by district office staff can hamper the channeling of resources to support the

sites in their attainment of the superintendent’s vision. Research by Richard Muller

(2004) clarifies the role of the central office and includes responsibilities such as

40
clear and transparent focus on student achievement, strong emphasis on instructional

support and coherence, better use of data for schools needing improvement, and

optimizing human and financial resources to create the necessary balance between

centralization and decentralization and its support of the site principal.

In order to understand the gravity of the role of secondary principals and the

establishment of central office structures to support site functions, the McREL study

(October 4, 2006) combined data from various findings to identify the urgency of

this relationship, and they found that: 1) There is a statistical significance in the

relationship between district leadership and student achievement; 2) superintendent

tenure is positively correlated to student achievement; 3) effective superintendents

focus their efforts on creating a goal oriented district, and 4) effective

superintendents appear to provide school leaders with defined autonomy. This study

further recognized the need to identify the qualities of successful secondary school

principals and to fill in the gap that currently exists in successful hiring research.

Research by Hall (1979), Edmonds (1979), and others have shown that

principals can exert leadership which makes schools more effective in areas such as

climate, discipline, instruction and student achievement. Purkey and Smith (1982)

researched effective schools and stated that student academic achievement is

improved in schools where school leaders have well defined goals, trained staff,

cohesive learning environment that focuses on safety, and a system that monitors and

communicates student progress. Effective changes in secondary school sites involve

decisions that bring about long range improvements referred to as “systemic

41
changes,” which Floden et al. (1995) defined as coordinated and coherent education

reforms at the level of the individual schools, which result from principals

implementing district wide goals through site wide initiatives, while carefully

balancing the school community with the bigger federal, state and district

measurements.

The McREL(2004) study based its findings on 70 studies that included 2894

schools, 1.1 million students, and 14,000 teachers and staff, thereby supporting the

need for further research to determine the factors that superintendents view as

absolutely necessary for raising student achievement in 21st century schools.

Secondary Principals - A Change Agent for the Superintendent

Numerous studies have touched on the differences that have evolved through

the decades in the responsibilities of the secondary principals. Superintendents

recognize that today’s schools require principals who can create sustainable changes

by introducing and implementing initiatives that address student achievement in this

era of high accountability. In earlier decades, secondary principals had the following

main tasks, “supervising teachers, managing the building, and dealing with parents;

if the school was tidy and orderly, the staff content, the parents quiescent, and the

downtown bureaucracy untroubled, the principal was assumed to be doing his or her

job” (Meyer et al., 2003, p. 17). In the 21st century schools, however, while all of

those old responsibilities still continue, the principal’s main task now involves

developing a vision of learning, building a school culture and instructional programs

that are supportive of all students, managing staff, students and parents with their

42
needs and problems, understanding the new political connotations inherent to their

roles, and to produce excellent academic results as gauged by external measures such

as state proficiency tests keyed to statewide academic standards (p. 17).

This new 21st century principal is a key figure in creating the structural

changes that will support school wide progress. In order to be successful at creating

these changes, McREL’s Balanced Leadership Framework (Waters et.al, 2005)

determined that principals need to understand how the reform initiatives will impact

the individuals and institutions where the change occurs. The process of change

occurs at two levels: the first order change are those whose impacts (1) are consistent

with existing values and norms; (2) create advantages for individuals or stakeholder

groups with similar interests; (3) can be implemented with existing knowledge and

resources; and (4) agreement exists on what changes are needed and on how the

changes should be implemented (p.7). In an educational context, these translate into

introduction of teaching strategies, new assessment tools, support programs, and

supplemental or newly adopted materials. In areas of instructional leadership, these

bring about results and a focus on design preparation and professional development

programs. The second order change occurs when: (1) it is not obvious how the

change will improve things for people with similar interests, (2) it requires

individuals and groups to learn new approaches, (3) it conflicts with prevailing

norms and values and these changes are looked upon as a problem and not a solution

(p. 8). In the education context these are policies and initiatives that educators view

as dramatic and those that conflict sharply with prevailing norms and values.

43
Twenty-first century schools have access to research supporting extensive school

reform initiatives, and understanding which changes are first and second order for

which specific individuals, allow leaders to select the leadership practices and

strategies appropriate for their reform initiatives, and failure to do so could have a

marginal or negative impact on achievement (Waters et al. 2005). As an agent of

change, the secondary principal must possess deep understanding of the change

process.

Figure 4: Characteristics of First and Second Order Changes. (MCREL study)

First Order Change Second Order Change

An extension of the past
Within existing paradigms
Consistent with prevailing values and
norms
Incremental
Implemented with existing knowledge &
skills
Implemented by experts
A break with the past
Outside of existing paradigms
Conflicting with prevailing values and
norms
Complex
Requires new knowledge & skills to
implement
Implemented by stakeholders

Secondary principals who are involved in creating sustainable changes create

fundamental transformation in the culture of the school which involves a more

comprehensive style of leadership. “Principal of the future has to be much more

attuned to the big picture, and much more sophisticated at conceptual thinking, and

transforming the organization through peoples and teams” Fullan (2002, p. 4).

44
Several national educational reforms during this past century, such as the Elementary

and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965, the Individuals with Disabilities Act

(IDEA) of 1974, and the Public School Accountability Act (PSAA) of 1997, and the

recent NCLB (2001) to name a few, have created school conditions which have

resulted in shifts in the responsibilities of the principal. These changes are aimed at

impacting student achievement and require a leader with specific leadership skills to

create the culture that supports the changes.

Fullan’s framework for leadership identifies the key personality traits of

change leaders. He highlights “the personal characteristics of energy/enthusiasm and

hope, and five core components of leadership: moral purpose, understanding change,

relationship building, knowledge creation and sharing and coherence making” (p. 3).

Figure 5: Fullan’s Framework for Leadership, 2001

45
 ‘Moral purpose’ is defined as being “the intention of making a positive

difference in the (social) environment… the goal is system improvement… the school

principal has to be almost as concerned about the success of other schools in the

district as he or she is about his/her own school” (p.4). As an agent of change, the

principal has to have a deep understanding of the change process, which Fullan

defined through six guidelines: (1) Innovate selectively with coherence; (2) must

work through a process where others assess and come to find collective meaning and

commitment to new ways; (3) appreciate early difficulties of trying something new

(4) redefine resistance as a potential positive force… Naysayers sometimes have

good points; (5) reculturing is the name of the game: culture of what people value

and how they work together to accomplish it; (6) there is no step-by-step shortcut to

transformation; it involves the hard day-to-day work of reculturing (p. 5).

Understanding these processes, allows secondary principals to chart through the

various stakeholder demands, and learn how to balance that with school Board goals

and superintendent expectations.

Research continues to show the similarities between the roles of the

secondary principal and the superintendent around responsibilities that range from

curriculum, staff development, personnel, budgetary alignment, public relations,

school safety plan, campus discipline, and new programs, which are no different than

that of the superintendent, only on a much smaller scale. In 1974, the Select

Committee on Equal Educational Opportunity of the U.S. Senate issued this

statement about the role of the school principal:

46
 In many ways the school principal is the most important and influential
individual in any school. He or she is the person responsible for all activities
that occur in and around the school building. It is the principal’s leadership
that sets the tone of the school, the climate for learning, the level of
professionalism and morale of teachers and the degree of concern for what
students may or may not become (EEO, 1974).

In the mid 1990’s the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO)

developed the model standards reflecting what school leaders should know and

understand, what they should be able to do, and what they should value, believe, and

commit to (CCSSO, 1996). By 2004, 40 states had adopted these standards and today

these form the foundation for the national standards for principal preparations, the

Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium (ISLLC) standards and the

California Professional Standards for Education Leaders (CPSEL).

Within the last two decades California has continued to create a system

which has held principals more accountable for their school achievement. So what

does this accountability look like? A historical background of the development of an

accountability system in public education in California can be traced to 1991 when a

new legislation signed by the then Governor, Pete Wilson, created the California

Learning Assessment System (CLAS), the goal of which was to help develop a test

over the period of five years aimed at assessing student achievement which has now

evolved into the Standardized Testing and Reporting Program (STAR). The end

result is that this assessment process has continued to publicize the performance of

schools and districts which have required principals and superintendents to focus

more sharply on how their schools do business (Ediger, 2002).

47
 Questions related to the key skills and trainings that influence principal hire

also help us find the answers to what leadership factors influence systemic school

reforms. What could the principal be held accountable for and how could they create

the reforms that support student achievement? How would these principals be

prepared for these high profile jobs? Fullan identifies these as “moral purpose,

understanding change, relationship building, knowledge creation and sharing and

coherence making” (2001, p 4). The Critical Issues Committee of the Connecticut

Principals’ Center published The 21st Century Principal: A Call to Action (2004) to

address the lack of highly qualified candidates required to fulfill the complex

changes related to secondary school reform. The study addressed the concerns cited

in the Hartley report on the Future of School Leadership (2000) which noted the

following: (1) Insufficient authority given to the principal compared to the

responsibility of the position; (2) lack of public understanding of the role of and

escalating demands on educational administrators. The Institute for Educational

Leadership (IEL) report, Reinventing the Principalship (2000) stated that the

demands that are placed on principals have changed, but there has been little change

in the profession itself. This finding was supported by the Educational Research

Service Report in 2000 that confirmed that there has been a dramatic change in the

job over the last two decades as a paradigm shift has been made from managerial

functions to that of balanced leadership across a wide range of responsibilities. As a

change agent for the 21st century, principals have to develop their vision to include

the following: (IEL, 2004):

48
 1. Instructional leadership which highlights the goals related to improved

teaching and learning that is supported by data-driven decision making,

professional development plan and accountability.

2. Community leadership which encourages and practices shared decision

making among the stakeholders and creates a close bond between the

school and the parents and creates sustainable and systemic changes.

3. Visionary leadership that includes the commitment to all children and

providing the focus to all stakeholders to channel all resources to this end.

The McREL study confirms that superintendents have already begun to use

their Balanced Leadership research findings in their recruitment and selection

process. Furthermore, these research findings form the basis for designing

supervision and professional development programs for current principals. Some are

eager to begin using these responsibilities and practices in the performance

appraisal/evaluation process as well. Finding, recruiting and retaining qualified and

skilled change principals is the priority for superintendents in 21st century schools.

Secondary Principals: Standards for Preparation and Evaluation

“Our public-education system confronts a leadership famine amidst a feast of

“certified” leaders” Meyer et al. (2003, p. 16). Since 81% of the responses to a

survey favor holding public schools accountable for teaching students to meet the

standards (Rose & Gallup, 2002), this makes the candidate pool even smaller as

confirmed by a survey of Chicago principals where the majority responded that their

decision to leave the job had to do with the stress and the increased burdens

49
(Kennedy, 2000). The current Principal Preparation programs graduate hundreds of

candidates who receive administrator licenses through diverse pathways and yet

either show scant interest in actually serving as school administrators or fail to

possess the trainings and knowledge that is needed to lead today’s secondary schools

(Hess & Kelly, 2005).

Even though reports, such as the 2006 The New Teacher Project, indicate that

there is a shortage of school administrators who are willing and able to lead schools,

the problem of the preparation programs focus around the need for more skills

training. Supporters of this view ask for preparation similar to those asked for by

Kowalski (2004), who accepts that “substantial reforms in administrator preparation,

program accreditation, and state licensing standards” (p. 93) are necessary. Despite

the recent focus on reform for school leader preparation programs there still remains

a reluctance to change (McCarthy et al.1988 and Murphy, 1991). It is evident that

real reform will not occur until a crisis occurs within the field, compelling the system

to undergo a paradigm shift. As the need for qualified candidates for the secondary

principalship continues to increase, those who are already in those positions continue

to be the focus of study. The creation of a statewide assessment system attracted

scrutiny on the accomplishments of principals and superintendents. California

Education Code 52050.5(c) states: “Recent assessments indicate that many pupils in

California are not now, generally, progressing at a satisfactory rate to achieve a high

quality education.” The code implied that student achievement would be measured

and that schools would be held accountable for this achievement or lack thereof.

50
 The 2003 report by Public Agenda stated that “today’s school

superintendents want their principals to display prowess in everything from

accountability to instructional leadership and teacher quality, but principals

themselves don’t think they are equipped for these duties” (Hess & Kelley, 2005a, p.

1). In another official report to the Program on Education Policy and Governance

(Harvard University), an analysis of principal preparation programs and whether they

are effective in graduating principals who have the knowledge and skills necessary to

be successful leaders in today’s era of high accountability for student achievement is

quite disheartening. It categorically states that the preparation programs are

inadequate in their provision of knowledge and skills which would assist secondary

principals in making the kind of changes necessary in today’s era of accountability.

The Broad study entitled Better Leaders for America’s Schools: A Manifesto

(2003) concludes that the shortage of qualified candidates requires two courses of

action:

First, we should strive to locate and develop strong leaders within the
education field by recruiting proven educators with leadership qualities who
may not now be seeking such roles because of insufficient salary or because
of constraints that make the job of running a school or school system
unappealing. Second, we should cast a wider net, seeking prospective school
leaders wherever they can be found… particularly when it comes to creating
workable terms of employment for tomorrow’s school leaders. (p. 14)

The current research around the quality of secondary principal preparation

has been organized around these following questions: A) What do successful

principals need to know and be able to do? B) What changes should be incorporated

51
to create effective leadership training programs? And C) How do superintendents

attract, hire and retain these effective principals?

A) What do successful principals need to know and be able to do?

Secondary principals need skills and knowledge around state and federal

mandates related to curriculum rigor, assessment data, and teaching pedagogy;

current practices around principal evaluations require demonstration of

understanding and training in the use of data, research, technology, hiring or

termination of personnel, as well as exposure to management scholarship or inquiry

into educational productivity or governance (Goodney, 2007). In their report entitled

Preparing a New Breed of School Principals: It’s Time for Action, Bottoms and

O’Neill (2001) identified the knowledge that today’s principals are required to

possess: 1) comprehensive understanding of school and classroom practices that

contribute to student achievement; 2) know how to work with faculty and others to

fashion and implement continuous student improvement; and 3) know how to

provide the necessary support for staff to carry out sound school, curriculum, and

instructional practices.

In order to identify the candidates with skills and knowledge of secondary

schools, Richard Elmore summarized the new principalship in his report Building a

New Structure for School Leadership (2000) and focused on a leader who has the

ability to enhance the skills and knowledge of the people to support a common

culture of expectations and accountability. This finding echoed Fullan’s report

Leading in a Culture of Change (2001) in which he identifies the four critical roles

52
of school leaders as developing teachers’ knowledge, skills and dispositions,

developing a culture that celebrates itself as a professional learning community,

introducing and sustaining a coherent program and creating a resource pool that

includes technical support. Even as these researchers provide the big picture of what

a contemporary principal must do in their jobs to be effective, there is little data that

supports that the principal candidates are receiving training and knowledge on these

skills or are being interviewed for these skills as a prerequisite to being hired.

Unfortunately, most training programs provide little or no support in

preparing for these standards of evaluation. Findings by Hess & Kelly (2005b)

confirmed that principal preparation programs needed “significant attention to

accountability, managing with data, and utilizing research; to hiring, recruiting,

evaluating, and terminating personnel; to overseeing an effective instructional

program; and to exposing candidates to diverse views regarding educational and

organizational management” (2005a, p. 4). Art Levine’s (2005) Educating School

Leaders added to these trainings with a need for budgetary training. The Broad study

(2003) concluded that the core issues are not around quantity of suitable candidates,

but quality. The conventional training and certification programs are failing to

produce leaders with the vision, knowledge, and enthusiasm required to address the

issues of the achievement gap in our schools (p.16). Superintendents are aware that

these are the key job responsibilities of a secondary principal; how consistently

superintendents focus on ensuring that these are predetermining factors when

selecting and hiring a secondary principal needs further research.

53
 B) What changes should be incorporated to create effective leadership

training programs?

A report from the Southern Regional Educational Board (SREB), around the

preparation and practices of effective school leaders, concluded that the certificate

for professional leadership should only be granted to those who demonstrate the

ability to improve curriculum, instruction and student learning. Following the Hess

and Kelley reports and Art Levine’s (2005) Educating School Leaders Journals, a

joint response was submitted by a group of leaders representing the University

Council for Educational Administration, the American Educational Research

Association, and the National Council for Professors of Educational Administration

entitled An Educative Look at Educating School Leaders (Young et al., 2005). This

report also supported the conclusions offered in the Hess and Kelly and Levine

reports, in stating that high standards for schools of education and leadership

preparation are required along with a review of the financial practices that strengthen

them. Additionally, they agreed that all Principal Preparation programs should be

rigorously evaluated and that weak programs should be strengthened or closed.

An analysis of the current California Principal certification options indicates

that California Department of Education (CDE) provides five options for seeking an

administrative services credential: 1) completion of a college or university based

program currently accredited by the Commission on Teacher Credentialing (CTE);

or 2) completion of a State Board of Education approved AB 430 Principal Training

program; or 3) mastery of fieldwork performance standards through a Commission

54
Accredited program which pursuant to SB 1655 allow colleges and universities with

accredited programs leading to a professional Clear Administrative Services

Credential to offer a streamlines assessment option. The candidates may forego the

coursework component of the program and be allowed to demonstrate their

knowledge, skills and abilities through the assessment component of the program; or

4) passage of a National administrator performance assessment adopted by the

Commission; or 5) completion of a Commission approved program sponsored by a

local education agency or university based on new program standards.

These multiple certification options provide little consistency in the basic

training criteria. Five distinct research studies have been evaluated here for their

efforts at identifying the non-negotiable criteria for secondary principal preparation

programs.

1. The Southern Regional Education Board (SREB) 2001, proposed four

actions to improve school leadership training programs including: (1) a

leadership preparation prototype outside of the traditional university

based program, demonstrate it and market it; (2) create a network of

higher education institutions that have an interest in working together to

reshape the traditional leadership preparation program by giving greater

emphasis to the knowledge and skills needed by school leaders to

improve curriculum, instruction and student achievement; (3) work with

one or more state leadership academies to design, refine and implement a

leadership program that prepares existing and emerging leaders to plan

55
 and carry out comprehensive middle grades and high school reform; (4)

etablish a regional goal for improving leadership around a single priority:

raising student achievement in middle grades and high schools, and

develop indicators for tracking progress in achieving the goal over the

next decade.

2. A report entitled Seven Habits of Effective Principal Preparation

programs (2005) framework includes: (1) curriculum and instruction, (2)

clinical learning internships, (3) mentors, (4) collaborative experiences,

(5) authentic assessments, (6) research-based decision-making, and (7)

turnkey transitions. All seven components are suggested as behaviors that

when applied by principals into their leadership and management

routines, will lead to principals success (David & Jazzar, 2005).

3. The Stanford Educational Leadership Institute’s School Leadership

Study: Developing Successful Principals (2005) similarly examined

exemplary programs in an effort to identify common practices among

them. This study confirms the conclusions offered by Valentine (2001),

who suggested that graduates of programs that have a clear conceptual

foundation, are cohort based, and contain robust internship and mentor

components scored higher on the ISLLC performance assessment test,

received higher performance evaluations by supervisors, and were

perceived by teachers as being effective managers of their schools.

56
4. The review of preparation programs in universities report Schools Can’t

Wait: Accelerating the Redesign of University Principal Preparation

Programs (2005), provided four general conclusions. The first conclusion

centered on state policies and associated strategies that have produced

some change but have generally failed to produce programming that

ensures content mastery around the knowledge and skills necessary to

effectively lead schools today. Citing a lack of urgency in redesigning

principal program content, process, and outcomes based upon the current

needs of schools, the report suggested that a renewed commitment toward

immediate change emerge from state, university, and local school district

leadership. The problem is therefore to be viewed in a larger context; it is

simply not an issue of changing principal preparation programs; it is the

application of this change to overall redesign efforts within the context of

larger education reform initiatives at a state level.

5. Issued as a call to action, the Schools Can’t Wait report (2006) was aimed

at redesigning the University Principal preparation Programs to achieve

the following: (a) encourage policy makers to take bold steps at

motivating universities to collaborate with local school districts, (b) have

state agencies align their practice in support of universities and school

districts in the redesign process, (c) have university presidents recognize

that quality principals contribute to quality local schools that enhance the

economic and social conditions of their regions, and (d) have departments

57
 of educational leadership reject the status quo and devise programming

based on requisite knowledge and skills for effective principals.

C) How do superintendents attract, hire and retain these effective principals?

Discussion around principal evaluation and standards of performance has

seen the following evolution:

1. In 1982 the National Association of Secondary School Principals

(NASSP), the National Association of Elementary School Principals

(NAESP), and the National Association of School Boards (NASB), as

well as other experts in the education field and policy makers reviewed

standards for leadership and the new guidelines served as the standard for

administrator preparation programs from 1983-1995. These new

guidelines were designed to be all-inclusive and applicable to all school

administrators (superintendents, central office administrators, principals,

and assistant principals) and further included the following suggestions:

(1) Designing, implementing, and evaluating a school climate

improvement program that utilizes mutual staff and student efforts to

formulate and attain goals. (2) Understanding political theory and

applying political skills in building local, state, and national support for

education. (3) Developing a systematic school curriculum that assures

both the extensive enrichment activities and the mastery of fundamentals

as well as progressively more complex skills required in advanced

problem solving, and creative and technological skills. (4) Planning and

58
 implementing an instructional management system that includes learning

objectives, curriculum design, and instructional strategies and techniques

that facilitate high levels of achievement. (5) Developing staff

development and evaluation systems to enhance effectiveness of

educational personnel. 6) Allocating human, material and financial

resources to efficiently and accountably assure successful student

learning. (7) Conducting research and utilizing research findings in

decisions to improve long-range planning, school operations, and student

learning (Hoyle, 2005).

2. In 1995, the NPBEA developed Guidelines for Advanced Programs in

Educational Leadership for Principals, Superintendents, Curriculum

Directors, and Supervisors. Approved standard language in 2002 read,

“Candidates who complete the program are educational leaders who have

the knowledge and ability to promote the success for all students by” (p.

2). The seven standards of performance ranged from facilitating school

vision to responding to larger political constituencies (NPBEA, 2002).

3. The Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium (ISLLC) developed

new standards in 1996 which closely reflected the standards from AASA,

NASSP, and NAESP, and the NPBEA guidelines. These ISLLC

Standards were published by the Council of Chief State School Officers

(CCSSO) in response to the growing need for a clear structure of

leadership criteria in the face of increasing challenges and complexities

59
 for school administrators. The ISLLC standards addressed the absence of

one set of common standards in the field of educational administration

associated with knowledge, dispositions, and performances with the

intent to impact the efforts on three fronts: licensure, program approval,

and candidate assessment (Murphy & Shipman, 2002). As adopted by the

full consortium on November 2, 1996, the standards were very similar to

those proposed by the NPBEA.

4. In 1998 Mid-Continent Research for Education and Learning (McREL)

meta-analysis involved the finding of 21 leadership responsibilities which

are significantly associated with student achievement (Waters, Marzano,

and McNulty, 2005). Termed The Balanced Leadership Framework,

these standards for leaders are uniquely specific as they were developed

from a far more comprehensive analysis of research on school leadership

and student achievement (Waters, Marzano, & McNulty, 2005, p. 2). The

authors also contend that because the balanced leadership framework is

grounded in evidence, it limits subjective suppositions and provides more

emphasis on “concrete responsibilities, practices, knowledge, strategies,

tools, and resources that principal and others need to be effective leaders”

(Waters, et al., 2003, p. 2). Upon comparison of the ISLLC Standards and

the Balanced Leadership Framework it was determined that the McREL

standards add value to the ISLLC Standards in three key ways: (a)

increased utility, (b) guidance based upon quantitative research, and (c)

60
 the identification of leadership practices that should take primacy (Waters

and Grubb, 2004, p. 3).

5. The California Professional Standards for Educational Leaders (CPSEL)

identify six areas for training and development of a school administrator.

These are also used to guide formal evaluations and form the criteria for

hire. To maintain their accreditation, administrative preparation programs

must align their curriculum to the six thematic areas defined in the

CPSEL. These standards were adapted from the ISLLC standards

(Appendix 3).

Figure 6: Victoria, Human Resources, Principal Selection, Updated September 14,

2009 p.2

61
 Research from the Australia Public School Principal Selection Criteria

(Figure 6 above) refers to the various performance criteria needed for effective

schools. In the United States, research to gauge the preparation and the performance

of effective school leaders have resulted in two distinct points of view: One group

argues that historically, leadership criteria or standards were, at best, ambiguous and,

at worst, contradictory, impossible, or variant to common values and remains

concerned with the standards themselves and also the lack of concrete performance

criteria(Reeves, 2004). The second view of contention is against the contemporary

leadership standards and their perceived lack of use in practical situations—since the

argument has been made that there are no specific skills or knowledge being

identified for effective leaders, creating standards without outlining the specific skills

to meet the standards seems to be disjointed.

Despite differing opinions on the quality or lack thereof of suitable

preparation programs for future leaders, the consensus remains that there is no

universally agreed upon research and literature that identifies one set of universally

accepted standards for preparation and evaluation of the secondary school principal.

Review of five Administrative Credentialing programs in Southern California was

evaluated for their preparation standards, and some common themes were identified.

This credential is required for placement in an administrative position including

secondary principalship.

62
Figure 7: Comparison of University Principal Preparation Program Course of Study

Chapman CSU, Fullerton UCLA National Pepperdine

University University University
Management of Human Resource Management and Supervision and Evaluating,
personnel, Administration HR, budgets, Evaluation of Envisioning and
resources and Conflict Mngt, Instruction Planning
operations personnel, IT
HR in Diverse
communities
Supervision of Leadership in Curriculum, Curriculum Understanding
Instruction and Public Schools Instruction and Alignment, teaching and
Assessment Assessment Assessment and learning
Accountability
Legal and School Law and Political, legal Legal and Ethical Understanding
Financial aspects Regulatory and cultural Foundations Self and People
of education Process. context
School Finance Financial
leadership and
management
Leadership and Organizational Leadership Educational Understanding
organizational leadership Leadership in and
development schools today Transforming
Organizations
Leadership for Policy, Governance- Technology and Understanding
diversity, equity Governance, Public values Data Analysis Environments
and community Community and policy, local
Relations school districts

There is insufficient research to determine whether urban superintendents are

hiring and placing secondary principals in California public schools based on the

identified standards of performance and job requirements as listed above. Despite the

ISLLC standards and the CPSEL standards as part of the evaluation criteria, it

remains unclear as to whether all superintendents use these standards for hiring and

for principal evaluation. Discussions on effective leadership skills, often document

common qualities for effective principals. An educational dissertation by David Cash

63
(2008-unpublished) and a research study by the Wallace Foundation entitled Rolling

Up Their Sleeves (2003) have examined the role of the superintendent in public

education and support findings from Duckworth (2008) and Kowlaski (1995) which

identifies the superintendent as a CEO who selects and places the managers, vis-à-

vis, the secondary school principals to achieve the school level goals.

A study by Glass and Bearman (2003) concluded that there is a discrepancy

between what the standards state the principals should possess and what the

superintendents actually look for when hiring, even though by 2006, 44 states were

using the ISLLC standards as the basis for principal licensing (AASA Bulletin,

March 20, 2006). Thomas Goodney (2007-unpublished) in his dissertation concluded

that the research on superintendent selection criteria for secondary principals is

limited. Hess (2003) has criticized the recruitment process itself and has referred to

the national survey of superintendents where “fewer than 40 percent were happy

with their principals’ ability to make tough decisions, delegate responsibility to staff,

involve teachers in developing policies and priorities, or spend money efficiently”

(p.1). Further studies by Farkas et al. (2001) surveyed superintendents who reported

their disappointed with the level of principal preparation to face leadership

challenges related to staff evaluations, student achievement and supervision of their

teachers and requested additional training in areas of school law and supervision of

curriculum and personnel. What then would superintendents consider to be important

as part of the preparation for secondary principals? Further research is necessary to

answer this question.

64
 In order to successfully select an effective principal, hiring should be linked

to the practice of strategic human resource management where the performance of

the employee is measured against the attainment of the strategic objectives of the

organization. In public schools the selection process includes two distinct steps: a)

screening decisions which include paper credentials such as the application, resume,

and letters of recommendation, and b) interviewing decisions which include face-to-

face interviews with panels and possibly one-to-one conversations with the

superintendent to determine the “best fit” for the school. Research supports the active

role superintendents play in selecting the secondary principals and in districts with

less than 3000 students, the superintendent is the primary interviewer (Reichhart,

2008). Most superintendents are involved in developing the criteria to match the

school they are hiring for, get involved in the screening process as they try to

determine the skills, training, and knowledge of the applicants as being a “good fit”

for the position and participate in the final selection. Specific attention is given to

identify a candidates’ training and background that reflects the school’s need and the

community culture (Glass & Bearman, 2003). Special attention is paid to experiences

related to collective bargaining, community organizations, athletic programs,

supervision of administrative staff, and finance and budget decisions (Reichhart,

2008, p. 4). Baker (2001) identified several factors that are used by the

superintendent in the selection of principals. These were cited as experience,

communication skills, ability to deal with diverse populations, possess a strong sense

of justice and integrity, and evidence of the ability to solve problems effectively.

65
Only 25% of the superintendents interviewed by Baker (48 out of 182) stated that

they used the ISLLC standards of knowledge, understanding, and dispositions as part

of the selection criteria.

Gordon Karim, program associate with the Center for School and Community

Development at NCREL (1997) emphasized the changes in stakeholder roles in order

to make the school level services more effective. District and school administrators,

the school board along with teachers, support staff and parents are all responsible for

participating in the restructuring which reexamines staff assignments, roles and

relationships within schools. Superintendents today are not just hiring a principal to

run the day to day business of a secondary school; they are hiring an individual who

is able to understand the culture of the community that surrounds the school.

The selection of secondary school principals in this time of high

accountability and federal and state mandates is a challenge. The United States

department of Labor estimated that due to attrition and retirement of nearly 40% of

the 93,2000 principals in 1999, there would be a 10%-20% shortfall in qualified

principal candidates by 2009 (NCES, 2001). Further studies by the department

indicate that half of the 400 superintendents polled reported a shortfall of qualified

principals. Currently in California AB 430, the Administrator Training Program, is

the reauthorization of AB 75 and provides funding to school districts and the Local

Educational Agencies (LEA) to provide the necessary skills and knowledge training

for principals and assistant principals as instructional leaders. It also includes

leadership, infrastructure and support for instructional programs to improve student

66
achievement. The number of qualified applicants for the principal position continues

to remain a challenge, Morford reports that “within the next five years, 40% of the

principals are expected to retire creating a shortage of experienced leadership that is

needed in this era of increasing standards and accountability” (2002, p.62).

The advent of the standard-based reforms in instruction has required that

school districts focus on student achievement as a priority. Superintendents have

started to work directly with secondary principals to implement change. Even though

positive student academic growth is attained through school-based leadership which

allows for the school stakeholders to take ownership of their school, the involvement

of superintendents in the academic achievement process has been determined to be

critical for student growth (Waters& Marzano, 2006). Research indicates that it is the

direct leadership and relationship of the principal with teachers, support staff and the

community that impacts student achievement (Cotton, 2003).

In his research Whalen (2002) identified the common characteristics of

successful principals who are hired to improve problematic schools. These were: (1)

They do not need everyone to like them since turning around failing schools requires

principals who are willing to be very unpopular with many, sometimes, with most

faculty for extended periods of time. (2) They involve faculties in long range

planning; few schools turn around in one year; three is a minimum and four to six is

what is required and teachers need to be part of that plan. (3) They get rid of teachers

who do not or cannot be part of the change process. (4) They benchmark progress

and keep people trying. (5) They celebrate success and they recognize and appreciate

67
accomplishments. (6) They coach not command and are not afraid to give directions.

(7) They have courage to fail and acknowledge the failure calmly and encouragingly.

These attributes could be made part of a self-evaluation tool that is part of the

evaluation process.

A review of evaluation tools used for principals concluded that there were

very few well identified tools, and that the development of a policy document for this

purpose has been ignored (Anne Weaver Hart, 1993). Douglas Reeves (2008) has

underlined the importance of using principals in the evaluation process. Since there

is scant research on common factors that drive the superintendent’s selection of

principals, Glass and Bearman (2003) made an effort to look at the selection criteria

based on the ISLLC preparation and licensure standards and concluded that there

was no ownership of those standards in the hiring practice of superintendents. One

example of this was that ISLLC standards identify instructional leadership and

student assessment data for academic improvement and teacher observations, but the

interviewed superintendents responded that they gave as much importance to the

principal’s ability to maintain discipline and communicate effectively.

The National Association of Secondary School Principals (NASSP)

conducted a survey to receive feedback on the quality of principal candidates. Rating

the quality on a scale of 1 (poor) to 5 (excellent), the mean score was 2.89, which is

of concern since the existing pool is limited. Continuing to attract strong candidates

would require districts and superintendents to revise the job description as suggested

by the Fordham Institute in their 2003 report, which states that principals should be

68
“better compensated; [held] accountable for results firmly in control of budgets,

personnel, and operations; and [be] hired more for their leadership expertise than

their experience in the field” (p. 10).

Conclusion

There are inconsistencies on the focus of various administrative programs

and the level of preparation of the secondary principals. Despite ISSLC standards

being imbedded in the CPSEL standards in California and being part of some district

principal evaluation criteria, there is a need for further research to determine whether

superintendents are aware of these standards and whether they are actively

evaluating their secondary principals on these standards. The California credential

program requires that administrators earn their certification through accredited

programs, but in reality other options have been provided that bypasses these training

opportunities because of the urgency of filling secondary principal positions. Given

the shortage of qualified candidates and the abundance of credentialed administrators

who do not have the requisites preparation or knowledge related to secondary school

reform initiatives, there is a need for further research on what superintendents

consider important with regards to skills, knowledge and experiences when selecting

secondary principals and the Principal Preparation Programs addressing these in their

curriculum.

69
 CHAPTER THREE

METHODOLOGY

This chapter describes the purpose and design of the study, identifies the

sample used to conduct the research, explains the instrument used to conduct the

research, and clarifies the procedure to collect and analyze the data.

Purpose of the Study

Findings on Leadership Development in California (Darling-Hammond &

Orphanos, 2007) addressed the following questions: (1) What do we know about

how to develop principals who can successfully transform schools? (2) What is the

current status of leadership development on California? and (3) What might the state

do to systematically support the development of leaders who manage a new

generation of schools that are successful in teaching all students well?

This mixed-method study was conducted to identify the skills, trainings and

experiences that form the basis of the selection criteria of secondary school

principals. This study was designed to use the data to answer the following

overarching research question: What implications, if any, would the current selection

criteria of California urban superintendents have on the preparation of future

secondary school principals? Therefore, the purpose of this study is two-fold: first

to identify the criteria for hire and second, to use this information for better

preparation of future candidates.

70
 The first purpose of this mixed-method study has been to identify the criteria

around skills and training that superintendents select as integral to the success of a

secondary principal. When identifying the skills, training and experiences of the

candidates, reference is made to the current impact of NCLB which has resulted in

immense pressure for both the superintendent and the secondary principals to

demonstrate student achievement as indicated through proficiency in state tests and

increased graduation and college admissions rates. Twenty first century schools

demand that students be prepared to succeed in the global economy. The result has

seen a shift in the role of the secondary principal who is now focused on being an

Instructional leader with priority around reform initiatives to improve curriculum

content development, pedagogy, teacher training, and leadership strategies. Research

by Dufour et al. (2002), Fullan (2002) and Marzano et al. (2005), to name a few, has

focused on the leadership qualities of site principals to drive reform and student

achievement. This study aims to identify these very skills that form the criteria for

hire, as established by California superintendents in their districts when selecting

secondary principals. CIREPP completed case studies of eight principal-preparation

programs and confirmed the following standards were being covered: 1) Learning

and Instruction; 2) development of quality teaching and professional development; 3)

organizational development; 4) analyses and use of data to inform school

improvement; 5) change management; and 6) leadership skills, in addition to

knowledge around resource allocation to improve instruction and student

achievement. The New Teacher Project (2006) has further elaborated the areas of

71
shortcoming of principals and requested additional training in: a) preparation to face

leadership challenges related to staff evaluations, b) using data to analyze student

achievement, c) supervision of the school programs related to curriculum and

personnel, and d) school law. The second purpose of this study was to use the

findings around the selection criteria to better prepare future candidates since most

superintendents do not have a common criteria for hire. Even though ISLLC

standards have been adopted by 44 states to measure and evaluate principal

effectiveness and are ingrained in the Leadership training programs of most

universities, a survey conducted by Farkas et al. (2003) as part of The Wallace

Foundation Report Rolling Up Their Sleeves finds that superintendents in urban and

rural districts were not consistent in their response to what constitutes principal

effectiveness and many of these standards were not used for hiring or for evaluative

purposes.

Therefore this study provides superintendents with the opportunity to identify

the criteria that could better prepare future candidates in the Principal Preparation

Programs. Even though research indicates that Principals are the cornerstone of a

successful school (Dufour et al., 2002), superintendents’ surveyed in the 2005 study

stated that they think most principals provide mediocre performance and that

administrator training programs and principal certification programs are not proof of

high-quality skills (TNTP, 2006). Hess (2003) has criticized the recruitment process

itself and has referred to the national survey of superintendents where “fewer than 40

percent were happy with their principals’ ability to make tough decisions, delegate

72
responsibility to staff, involve teachers in developing policies and priorities, or spend

money efficiently” (p.1). Research by Glass and Bearman (2003) reported the

discrepancy between the ISLLC standards that identify key components of

principalship and what superintendents identify as important when hiring. This

finding was further supported by Kowalski (2004) who stated that “substantial

reforms in administrator preparation, program accreditation, and state licensing

standards” (p. 93) are necessary.

Two questions formed the basis of this study:

1. What are the skills, training and knowledge superintendents look for

when hiring secondary principals?

2. How do superintendents ensure that the right candidate is selected for and

is successful in the position of secondary principal?

Research Design

This project is designed as a mixed-method research study and was

conducted with superintendents who are responsible for the selection of secondary

principals. As a process, this study involved the collection of data from both

“inductive, open-ended encounters” and more “hypothetical-deductive attempts to

verify hypotheses”. (Patton, 2002, p. 253).

The quantitative portion of the study was completed through a 35-question

survey (Appendix A) where each of the questions is referenced to a research

addressing those specific skills. The participants were superintendents in either

Unified School Districts or in Union High School Districts. According to Mertens

73
(1998) “Surveys are good because they allow collection of data from a larger number

of people than is generally possible” (p.105). The McREL Balanced Leadership

Framework provides the background to the survey questions with research on

leadership skills in the principal position. Bolman and Deal (2005) provide the

background for Four Frames of Leadership. The data from these surveys were further

analyzed for a trend related to the gender of the superintendent, the years of

experience, and years in the current district.

The qualitative part of this research was completed through face-to-face

interviews (Appendix B), each of approximately 90 minutes in duration to allow

superintendents the opportunity to share current practices and trends in the selection

of secondary principals in their districts. Interview responses provided important data

for this case study and its purpose “is to allow us to enter into the other person’s

perspective . . . to find out what is in and on someone else’s mind, to gather their

stories” (Patton, 2002, p. 341). The data from these sources were used to answer the

two research questions presented above and allowed the researcher to create a layout

for the case analysis and provide “a specific way of collecting, organizing and

analyzing data… to gather comprehensive, systematic, and in-depth information”

Patton (2002, p. 298). The one-on-one interviews consisted of two broad questions

with eleven sub-questions which were open-ended but structured under the general

rubrics of “identified areas of job responsibility”.

The research also included data to reflect background information on the

demographics of the school and the superintendents’ years on the job in order to

74
allow the researcher to find if there are any consistencies in the selection criteria

based on superintendent experience (Appendix C).

Population and Sample

The population of this study was California urban superintendents.

Purposeful sampling of participants was used for the quantitative research which was

based on an anonymous survey which was mailed to 40 superintendents in Northern

and Southern California; 17 were returned in preaddressed stamped envelopes and

used for this study. The participants were a preselected group (all superintendents)

since random sampling would not be able to provide the details as needed to support

the study. Patton (2002) has confirmed “random probability samples cannot

accomplish what in-depth, purposeful samples accomplish, and vice versa” (p. 236).

The 35-question survey was divided into 2 parts: the first part requested

superintendents to provide information on their background and their district. Of the

17 respondents (N=17), 5 were female superintendents (n=5) and 12 were male

superintendents (n=12); more than 70% were males were as the rest were females,

30%. 16 superintendents were from Unified School District (94.1%) while only 1

(5.9%) was from a Union High School District. Ninety five percent of the

participating superintendents represented districts with over 15,000 students. The

range of responses were from districts with APIs between 600 and 850, with almost

50% of these urban districts having met the State target API of 800 which is a score

indicating that the school had reached a high level of proficiency in student

performance. All participants, 100%, indicated their years in public education was

75
over 20 years and over 80% of the respondents were serving as superintendents in

their current districts between 5 and 10 years and 94% of the respondents indicated

that they had been with their current districts for more than 5 years.

The male and female superintendent responses were analyzed to determine if

the female and male superintendents differed in their selection choices.

The qualitative research included five superintendents(n=5) all of whom were

male superintendents (100%) who met two preset criteria around district size and

principal performance. Sixty percent of the participants had 10 or more years of

experience as a superintendent, and 80% represented districts with more than 25,000

students. The interview protocol included three questions with corresponding four

sub-questions which were open-ended questions and allowed time for a more

detailed discussion and feedback on the hiring process and selection criteria.

Demographical data

Demographic data, including gender, ethnicity, years of experience, District

API were collected. Demographic information was self reported by superintendents

in the survey protocol.

Instruments

A mixed-method research included (a) 35-question survey for

Superintendents and (b) An interview questionnaire with 3 open-ended questions.

The data from the 35-questions was analyzed and scored under a 5 point Likert Scale

(1= not at all important to 5= very important). The 35 survey questions relate to four

categories under principal leadership and identified as B for background, M for

76
Management, HR for Human relations and I for instruction. Each of the survey

questions is based on research which identified the significance of the question in

relation to the Principal leadership in school.

The second instrument used for this research is the interview questionnaire

(Appendix C) which was part of the personal interview process. The data was

analyzed for trends around superintendent expectations related to skills, training, and

experience required by their secondary principals to be successful in California

public schools.

Procedures

The investigator mailed the survey to 40 superintendents along with the

participants Request to Participate letter (Appendix D) in northern and southern

California and a follow up request was sent in September. The survey was field

tested for reliability using the Cronbach’s alpha and for clarity and content.

Cronbach’s alpha is a statistical calibration commonly used to measure internal

consistency and reliability of a psychometric instrument. It is a classical test theory

that states that the reliability of the test scores can be expressed as the ratio of the

true score and total score. Cronbach’s alpha will generally increase when the ratio

between the items increase. For this reason it is called the internal consistency

reliability test.

The one-to-one interviews were conducted with urban superintendents who

met both the preset criteria around student performance and principal reform

initiatives. These five superintendents were selected based on the size of the district

77
which set the limit at over ten thousand students and districts in which the secondary

schools were involved in research based reform initiatives. An appointment was

made with each superintendent and an email was sent to them in advance that

contained the questions for the interview. All, except one, were conducted with the

superintendent at their place of work; one was completed over the phone because of

the distance and time limitations. Each of the participants was open and direct in

their responses which were audio-taped with prior approval. The interview was

transcribed and excerpts used in the qualitative study to validate their statements.

Data Collection

By August 2009 a packet was mailed to all identified superintendents and

principals in California with the following documents:

1. The Request to Participate letter

2. Survey for superintendents

3. A self-addressed stamped envelope to return the completed surveys.

Data Analysis

Descriptive statistics and analysis of variance was used in the quantitative

part of the study. The format to analyze the data remains consistent as that used by

William C Reichhart (2008) in the Indiana study. The data was collected using the

Statistical Package for the Social Sciences [SPSS] version (17.0) and was coded,

scored and analyzed. The Cronbach’s alphas for overall secondary principal selection

criteria were .883. (Appendix E) and according to reliability test, only 34 items were

used instead of 36. The selection total scale’s reliability is .883 which is very high.

78
However, because of the small sample size, statistically this data has its limitations.

The survey questions were grouped around four subscales, each of the questions in

the subscale being analyzed for reliability. The preliminary analysis of the alpha of

the total Background scale presented low reliability; as a result, the item which

impacted and lowered the Cronbach’s alpha was deleted: “Possess a degree beyond

the Master’s level.” The total adjusted reliability for the adjusted Background

subscale was .635 and a total of 8 Background items was used which presented

acceptable reliability. In the Instruction subscale, the item, “Ability to analyze test

data to improve teacher and student performance,” was also deleted to increase its

reliability to .710. In the Human Resource subscale all items were used and the

showed a high reliability at .814. Similarly, the reliability for Management was

reported as .815 which indicates high reliability. The four subscales were rated on a

Likert Scale of 1-5, and the results indicated that Human Relations subscale had the

highest mean of 4.62 compared with its counterparts. The mean of Instruction

criteria was 4.38 followed closely by the management criteria with a mean of 4.30.

The Background subscale had the lowest mean of 3.12, The total mean of the

Selection Criteria (4.11) indicates that these four subscales were significantly

Important.

The qualitative analysis consisted of the one-to-one interviews, results of

which were used to answer three open ended questions. The results of the survey

provided valuable information on the selection criteria and to the questions related to

the selection of and the success in the office of secondary principal.

79
 The analysis included:

(a) Descriptive statistics were provided in means and standard deviation

around the superintendent responses for all subscales based on gender, ethnicity,

tenure, district size, district API, and years in education.

(b) Detailed description of the ranking of the responses and frequency

distribution, means, and standard deviations as computed for all items on the survey.

(c) Testing for significance was completed by conducting repeated-measures

t-tests or analysis of variance on the item subgroups identified as Background (B)

Instruction (I), Management (M)and Human Resource (HR).

(d) Each question was examined for their internal consistency reliability

using the Cronbach’s alpha.

(e) The interview questionnaire addressed similar questions as the survey,

and analyzed for trend in the common responses.

Ethical Considerations

Several ethical considerations were made during the design, and throughout

the course of this study. Primarily, all University of Southern California Institutional

Review Board (IRB) guidelines and procedures were strictly followed.

Confidentiality of all of the participants in the study was strictly adhered to and

informed consent was acquired from all participants prior to the individual

interviews being conducted. All parties consented to participate in the study and all

participants were informed of the nature and purpose of the study. Additionally, all

80
steps were taken to protect the anonymity of all participants who were informed of

the confidential nature of their responses.

Summary

This chapter presents the quantitative outcomes including the ranking of the

responses, descriptive statistics, and analysis of variance (ANOVA) and qualitative

analysis of personal interviews of urban superintendents in order to answer the

overarching research question: What implications, if any, would the current selection

criteria of California urban superintendents have on the preparation of future

secondary school principals? The purpose of this mixed-method study is to reveal

the criteria identified as important by urban superintendents when selecting

secondary principals for the 21st century schools. Research continues to question

whether there are common criteria for hire and whether principal Training programs

should provide focused opportunities for future candidates to master these

requirements, it is hoped that the findings of this study will provide viable responses

to some of those questions.

81
 CHAPTER FOUR

ANALYSIS OF DATA

In an effort to answer the overarching research question What implications, if

any, would the current selection criteria of California urban superintendents have on

the preparation of future secondary school principals, this chapter presents multiple

types of data including: quantitative outcomes with the ranking of the responses,

descriptive statistics, and analysis of variance (ANOVA), as well as qualitative

analysis of personal interviews of urban superintendents.

This chapter presents the findings from a mixed-method study that included

both qualitative and quantitative responses from 23 urban superintendents in

California. The Quantitative data was compiled from the responses from surveys

with 17 superintendents and the Qualitative data was compiled from the responses

from five one-on-one interviews.

Secondary principal skills, knowledge and training were identified from

current research (Appendix A.1) and the survey required these skills be rated on a

Likert Scale (1-5 with 5 being the highest). The survey questions were also identified

to the ISLLC/CPSEL standards and analyzed through the Four Frames of Leadership

as formulated by Bolman and Deal.

Research findings from Glass and Bearman (2003) would suggest that there

is a discrepancy between the skills principals should possess in the areas such as

leadership, school management, staff training, and what superintendents actually

82
look for when hiring. Given some of these discrepancies, Goodney (2007-

unpublished), for example, in his dissertation study, concluded that the research on

superintendent selection criteria for secondary principals is limited. This mixed-

method research study was conducted to answer these two research questions:

a)What skills, training and knowledge do superintendents look for when hiring

secondary principals and b) How do superintendents ensure that the right candidate

is selected for the position and is successful in the position of secondary principal?

Analysis of Quantitative Data: Survey Results

The survey questions were organized around the ISSLC/CPSEL standards

and were divided into four subscales related to the Background of the principal

candidate, Management style of the principal, Human Relations skills necessary to

work with all stakeholders, and the Instruction knowledge for student achievement.

Each question was examined for their reliability using the Cronbach’s alpha. The

preliminary analysis of the alpha of the Background scale presented low reliability;

as a result, the item which impacted and lowered the Cronbach’s alpha was deleted:

“Possess a degree beyond the Master’s level.” A total of 8 Background items was

used with alpha, .67 which presented acceptable reliability. In the Instruction

subscale, the item, “Ability to analyze test data to improve teacher and student

performance,” was also deleted to increase its reliability to .71. As a result, a total

of 34 items were used to answer the previously proposed research questions.

83
 The following pages include the analysis of the survey data divided into 3

parts:

Part I includes Tables 1-7 and addresses information on Superintendent

Background which includes demographic data, size of the district, API of the district,

total years of experience as urban superintendent, years as superintendent in current

district, years as educator in current district, and total years as a public educator. This

information provided was used with the data from Part II to determine the level of

consistency, if any, in the selection criteria of principals based on the demographic

background of superintendents.

Part II includes Tables 8-12 and addresses the Analysis of Ranking of Four

Subscales and descriptive Statistics of the Measured Variables (n =17) to indicate

how superintendent responses identified each of the skills related to the Background

qualities of the principal, Instructional Leadership skills, Human Relations Skills,

and Management skills, as a requirement for selection.

Part III includes Tables 13-18 and addresses 5 additional questions to

determine whether there was any correlation between the data from Part I and Part II.

For example, whether tenure of the superintendent or gender of the superintendent

impacted the selection criteria and the ISLLC/CPSEL standards.

84
 PART I: Superintendent Background Data

Table 1: Demographic Data (n=17)

Total Percent
Gender Female 5 29.4
Male 12 70.6
District Unified School District 16 94.1
Union High School District 1

The demographic data of 17 anonymous superintendent surveys indicate that

the majority of the responses (70.6%) were from male superintendents and that

almost all superintendents (94%) represented k-12 districts.

Table 2: Student Enrollment Total and Percent of the Participating Superintendents

Total Percent
Student Over 50,000 5 29.4
Enrollment Over 20,000 9 52.9
Over 15,000 2 11.8
Over 10,000 1 5.9

Based on the above data, 95% of the participating superintendents

represented districts with over 15,000 students. These were all very large urban

school districts in California.

85
Table 3: District API Total and Percent of the Participating Superintendents

Total Percent
District API Over 900 0 0
Over 850 4 25.0
Over 800 4 25.0
Over 750 3 18.8
Over 700 3 18.8
Over 650 1 6.3
Over 600 1 6.3
Less than 600 0 0

The responses ranged from districts with APIs between 600 and 850 with

50% of these urban districts having met the State target API of 800, a score

indicating a high level of proficiency.

Table 4: Total Years and Percent as Urban Superintendents

Total Percent
Over 15 years 2 12.5
Over 10 years 4 25.0
Over 5 years 6 37.5
Less than 3 years 4 25.0

The majority of the respondents had 5 years or more of experience. This data

was analyzed in Part III to detect if experience of superintendents impacted the

selection criteria.

86
Table 5: Total Years and Percent as Superintendent in their Current District

Total Percent
Over 15 years 0 0
Over 10 years 6 40.0
Over 5 years 8 47.0
Less than 3 years 3 20.0

Over 80% of the respondents were serving as superintendents in their current

districts between 5 and 10 years and this information was analyzed further to

determine if the selection patterns of new superintendents in the district (less than 3

years) differed from those who had been in their current district a longer time.

Table 6: Total Years and Percent of Working as Educator in their Current District

Total Percent
Over 15 years 3 20.0
Over 10 years 2 13.3
Over 5 years 9 60.0
Less than 3 years 4 6.7

94% of the respondents indicated that they had been with their current

districts for more than 5 years. This data was analyzed to confirm if longevity in a

district impacts selection.

87
Table 7: Total Years Total and Percent in Public Education Including Teaching

Total Percent
Over 20 years 17 100
Over 15 years 0 0
Over 10 years 0 0
Over 5 years 0 0
Less than 3 years 0 0

All participants, 100%, indicated their years in public education was over 20 years.

PART II: Analysis of Ranking of Four Subscale Responses

The 34 item questionnaire addressed the Background of the principal

candidate, along with skills related to Management, Human Relations, and

Instruction Leadership.

Table 8: Descriptive Statistics of the Measured Variables (n=17)

Minimum Maximum Mean SD

Selection Criteria(total) 3.68 4.76 4.11 .30
Background 2.50 4.00 3.12 .43
Instruction 3.71 5.00 4.38 .41
Human Relations 3.88 5.00 4.62 .37
Management 3.55 5.00 4.30 .39

88
 The responses in each of the subscales were rated on a Likert scale with 5

being the highest. The Human Relations subscale had the highest mean of 4.62,

followed by the Instruction criteria which had a mean of 4.38, and the Management

criteria with a mean of 4.30. The Background subscale had the lowest mean of 3.12,

indicating that the criteria related to biographical variables of candidates were

significantly less important to the superintendents. The mean of the total Selection

Criteria (4.11) indicates the significant importance of all subscales.

Table 9: Ranking of Background Responses

Ranks Items Mean SD

B1 Positive professional references from previous employers 4.76 .437
B2 Have teaching experience at the secondary level 4.47 .624
B3 Educational philosophy consistent with Superintendent 4.29 .772
B4 Prior experience as principal 3.53 .800
B5 Previous administrative experience in this district 2.53 .874
B6 Employee from within district 2.35 .862
B7 Race 1.56 .964
B8 Gender 1.35 .702

Superintendents rated both “Positive professional references from previous

employers” (4.76) and “Having teaching experience at the secondary level”(4.47) as

the two most important experiences when considering a candidate for the

principalship. Superintendents also indicated that selecting candidates who had a

89
similar vision to the superintendents was highly important (4.29). However, gender

and race of the candidate had little impact in the selection.

Table 10: Ranking of Instruction Responses

Ranks Items Mean SD

IN1 Knowledge: API/ AYP STAR/ CST 4.71 .470
IN2 Commitment to diverse student need 4.59 .507
IN3 Knowledge: II ry school restructuring 4.53 .717
IN4 Knowledge: CTE, SLC, PLC etc. 4.47 .624
IN5 Proven performance of raising test scores 4.41 .712
IN6 Knowledge: master schedule/ new courses 4.00 .866
IN8 Knowledge: counseling & post-graduation 3.94 .827

The skills identified in this subscale have all been rated high as they relate

directly to Principals as the Instructional Leader of the school with the responsibility

of ensuring equity and access for all students to the programs and services that

address student achievement. Despite some criticism of the standardized tests as

being too prescribed and inadequately assessing student learning, schools and

districts continue to focus on the scores as an indication of student achievement and

the rigor of the school programs. Superintendents identified that principals are

required to understand the details of the API/ AYP scores for their school (4.71), use

the achievement data to work with teachers to raise instructional quality and also

address the diversity of student learning needs (4.59), leading to programs and

initiatives that help restructure the school through reform efforts aimed at raising

90
student and staff performance (4.53). The knowledge and skills of principals

associated with this subscale have been instrumental in secondary school reform.

Table 11: Ranking of Human Resources Responses

Ranks Items Mean SD

H1 Ability to communicate effectively 4.88 .332
H2 To be a good ‘fit’ for the job 4.82 .393
H3 Ability to work collaboratively 4.82 .393
H4 Ability to listen to others 4.76 .562
H5 Ability to tolerate high levels of stress 4.71 .470
H6 Ability to motivate others/ Vision & Planning 4.65 .493
H7 Ability to manage employee discipline 4.24 .752
H8 Knowledge and experience of Unions/contracts 4.06 .899

Superintendents confirmed that Principals, as Symbolic Leaders and

Visionary leaders (Bolman and Deal, 1997), must possess strong Human Relations

skills and identified that being a good communicator (4.88), being a good fit (4.82),

being able to work well with all(4.82) and be able to listen to others (4.76), were

some of the most critical skills for success.

91
Table 12: Ranking of Management Responses

Ranks Items Mean SD

M1 Strong computer skills in student database etc. 3.24 1.033
M2 Ability to supervise curriculum/evaluate instruction 4.65 0.606
M3 Ability to manage financial resources 3.94 0.827
M4 Flexibility to change 4.71 0.470
M5 Ability to plan effective professional development 4.12 0.78
M6 Demonstrated managerial abilities: facilities, budgets 3.75 0.775
M7 Ability to be a self-starter 4.65 0.493
M8 Ability to be a risk taker 4.41 0.618
M9 Ability to engage community stakeholders 4.41 0.618
M10 Ability to engage in data driven decision making 4.88 0.332
M11 Understanding of accountability system in education 4.47 0.717

In the public school system, NCLB mandates have created structures of

accountability at all levels, starting from school boards to the classroom teacher.

Using the results of student performance to initiate reforms and programs was rated

as a very important skill in principals (4.88) along with the requirement that

principals are good instructional leaders and understand that instruction and

curriculum drives student achievement (4.65). The data also affirms that the

‘principalship’ requires the candidate to take risks (4.41) and be a self-starter (4.41)

and be flexible to change (4.71). As is indicated by the overall mean scores, every

skill in this subscale has been identified as very important for the principal’s success

on the job.

92
 PART III: Co-relation of Data from Part I and Part II

This section addressed four additional questions to determine whether the

data from Part I and Part II had any correlation based on superintendent responses.

The superintendent survey responses were further analyzed to answer the

following questions and ascertain noticeable trends, if any, in the selection criteria.

1. Do Superintendents of Unified School Districts and Union High School

Districts differ in their selection criteria of secondary principals, and if

so how? (Table 1)

This question was asked to determine whether superintendents had different

priorities with regards to skills, traits and knowledge when selecting their secondary

principals based on whether it was a K-12 district or a 7-12 district. One way

analysis of variance was conducted to examine the difference between the selection

criteria of Superintendents of Unified School Districts and those of Union High

School Districts. The outcomes of the analysis indicated that there was no difference

in the selection criteria among the two groups, F (1,15) = .327, p > .05.

The Superintendents also did not present any difference in their responses to

the questions addressing the three subscales: Instruction, F (1,15) = 1.741, p > .05,

Human Relations, F (1,15) = 1.031, p > .05, and Management, F (1,15) = 1.671, p >

.05. However, the Background showed some difference with F (1,15) = 3.853, p=

.068 although it was not statistically significant.

This analysis indicated that selection criteria for superintendents were

consistent across unified and union high school districts.

93
 2. Do urban superintendents with less than 3 years of superintendent

experience differ in their selection criteria from those who have been in

that position for over 5 years, or over 10 years? Therefore does longevity

in the superintendent’s office impact the selection criteria? (Table 4)

According to the results of one-way analysis of variance, there was no

statistically significant mean difference between the selection criteria of

Superintendents with less than 3 years of serving in urban setting and their

counterparts with over 5 years, or over 10 years; F (1,12) = .149, p > .05.

The four subscales also did not show any mean differences between the

selection criteria of Superintendents in with less than 3 years of serving in urban

setting and their counterparts with over 5 years, or over 10 years: Background, F

(1,12) = .652, p > .05, Instruction, F (1,12) = .065, p > .05, Human Relations, F

(1,12) = .001, p > .05 and Management, F (1,12) = .230, p > .05.

In terms of the analysis of the Total years as Superintendent of their districts

(Table 5), there was no statistically significant mean difference between the selection

criteria of Superintendents with less than 3 years of serving and their counterparts

with over 5 years, or over 10 years, F (1,13) = .981, p > .05.

The four subscales did not present any mean differences either: Background,

F (1,13) = .217, p > .05, Instruction, F (1,13) = .379, p > .05, Human Relations, F

(1,13) = .918, p > .05 and Management, F (1,13) = .880, p > .05.

94
 3. Do superintendents, who have risen from within the district to their

current position, differ in what they are looking for in their secondary

principals from those who are hired as superintendents from other

districts?

This question was specifically asked in order to ascertain whether

superintendents who had been in the district as a teacher, or an administrator, and

had a deep understanding of the existing culture and the politics of the schools,

would differ in their criteria when compared to superintendents who had come from

other district and had less longevity within that district.

In order to answer the question, one-way analysis of variance was conducted.

There was no statistically significant mean difference between those two groups, F

(1,13) = .562, p > .05.

The two groups also did not have any statistically significant mean

differences in their rating of the subscale questions; Background, F (1,12) = .615, p

> .05, Instruction, F (1,12) = 2.313, p > .05, Human Relations, F (1,12) = .125, p >

.05, and Management, F (1,12) = .001, p > .05.

4. Do male and female superintendents’ differ in their selection of

secondary principals?

This question was asked to support whether there was any difference in how

female and male superintendents viewed the skills required by their secondary

principals. The results of the one-way analysis of variance indicated that there was

no statistically significant mean difference in the selection of secondary principals

95
according to the gender of superintendents, F (1,15) = .173, p > .05. In terms of the

four subscales, no mean difference was found: Background, F (1,15) = .017, p > .05,

Instruction, F (1,15) = .158, p > .05, Human Relations, F (1,15) = .221, p > .05,

and Management, F (1,15) = .071, p > .05.

5. How did female and male superintendent responses reflect the adherence

to the ISLLC/ CPSEL standards in their selection criteria? (Appendix E))

The ISLLC standards have six identified areas that address skills and

knowledge required for a principal. Research indicates a lack of fidelity to these

standards for principal evaluation. The following section analyzes superintendent

responses to determine to these standards. Pre-identified questions from the survey,

aligned to each of the four subscales, were used to determine male and female

superintendent adherence to each of the six CPSEL Standards.

96
 Standard 1: Facilitating the development, articulation, implementation, and

stewardship of a vision of learning that is shared and supported by the school

community.

Table 13: Means for Subgroups with Male and Female Superintendents in
Standard 1

Survey questions Male Female

Background 3.59 3.30
Previous administrative experience in the district 2.67 2.20
Teaching experiences as the secondary level 4.50 4.40
Instruction 4.00 3.80
Knowledge of counseling and post graduate options 4.00 3.80
Human Relations 4.67 4.60
Ability to motivate others: Vision and Leadership 4.67 4.60
Management 4.19 4.31
Skills in computer and student data base 3.33 3.33
Ability to engage in data driven decisions 4.92 4.80
Understanding of today’s education accountability 4.33 4.80
Total 4.06 3.94

The overall total mean above indicates that the male superintendents

considered skills related to the Standard 1 a little more “Important” (4.06) than

female superintendents (3.94).

Closer analysis of the subscale mean scores indicate that having prior

experience as a principal was not important to the hiring criteria. However,

secondary principal candidates must have secondary teaching experience, be able to

97
motivate their staff and stakeholders, and engage in discussions around student

achievement data around the importance of the API/AYP accountability measures. In

each of these categories the difference between the male and female superintendents

was not statistically significant enough and indicated that both male and female

superintendent rated the skills related to Standard 1 as significantly ‘Important’.

Standard 2: Advocating, nurturing, and sustaining a school culture and

instructional program conducive to student learning and staff professional growth.

Table 14: Means for Subgroups with Male and Female Superintendents in
Standard 2

Subgroups Male Female

Background 3.50 3.60
Prior experience as a principal 3.50 3.60
Instruction
Ability to analyze test data to improve teacher/student
- -
performance
Human Relations 4.83 4.80
To be a good fit for the job 4.83 4.80
Management 4.33 4.50
Ability to plan effective staff development 4.58 4.80
Ability to supervise curriculum/evaluate Instruction 4.08 4.20
Total 4.22 4.30

98
 The overall total mean of the responses to these questions indicate that the

female superintendents adhered to this standard a little more closely (4.30) than male

superintendent (4.22). However, all subscale responses indicated that superintendents

rated the skills required to meet Standard 2 as Highly Important. The item “Ability to

analyze test data to improve teacher and student performance” in the Instruction

subscale was removed from the analysis for low reliability and no mean on this item

was presented in Table 2. All superintendents indicated that selected candidates must

be a ‘good fit’ for the job in terms of similarity in beliefs, personality and vision of

the individual candidate to that of the superintendent.

Standard 3: Ensuring management of the organization, operations, and

resources for a safe, efficient, and effective learning environment.

Table 15: Means for Subgroups with Male and Female Superintendents in
Standard 3

Subscales Male Female

Instructions 4.17 3.60
Knowledge of master schedule/ new courses 4.17 3.60
Human Relations 4.08 4.00
Knowledge/experience of working with unions 4.08 4.00
Management 3.92 4.00
Demonstrate managerial abilities: plants, budgets 3.92 4.00
Ability to manage financial resources 3.92 3.60
Total 4.06 3.80

99
 Both male and female superintendent ratings for the skills related to this

standard was important but differed significantly within each subscale. Female

superintendents viewed the secondary principals’ knowledge of the master schedule,

understanding the process of introducing new courses, and the ability to manage

financial resources as less Important when compared to the principals’ ability to

work with unions, monitor and regulate the overall physical plant, and work with the

school budget to ensure organizational management. Alternatively, male

superintendents rated the Instructional skills higher than the management skills of

plant and the budget and laid special significance on the principals’ ability to manage

financial resources.

Standard 3: Promote success of all students by ensuring management of the

organization, operations, and resources for a safe, efficient and effective learning

environment.

Questions were not aligned specifically to address this standard.

Standard 4: Collaborating with families and community members,

responding to diverse community interests and needs, and mobilizing community

resources.

100
Table 16: Means for Subgroups with Male and Female Superintendents in
Standard 4

Subscale Male Female

Background 1.49 1.40
Gender 1.42 1.20
Race 1.55 1.60
Instruction 4.67 4.40
Commitment to diverse student need/programs 4.67 4.40
Human relations 4.75 5.00
Ability to work collaboratively with stakeholders 4.72 5.00
Management 4.58 4.00
Ability to engage stakeholders in decision making 4.58 4.00
Total 3.87 3.70

The mean scores indicated that superintendents identified the skills related to

this standard as Somewhat Important. Background criteria on the gender and race of

the principal candidates was identified as Not at All Important in the selection

process. Analysis of other responses reveal that once again male superintendents

focused on the Instructional skills of understanding and committing to diverse

student needs and programs as a critical skill when compared to female

superintendents, who on the other hand rated the ‘collaborative skills’ of the

candidate to be a Very Important skill with a Likert score of 5. It was however,

interesting to note that the difference in responses to the principals ability to engage

stakeholders in the decision making process. Also noteworthy, that during the

101
personal interviews, Gender and Race of the candidate received very different

responses.

Standard 5: Modeling a personal code of ethics and developing professional

leadership capacity.

Table 17: Means for Subgroups with Male and Female Superintendents in
Standard 5

Subscales Male Female

Background 3.54 3.60
Employee from within the district 2.25 2.60
Possess a degree beyond the Masters level - -
Positive professional references 4.83 4.60
Instructions 4.50 4.20
Proven performance of raising test scores 4.50 4.20
Human Relations 4.80 4.60
Ability to listen to others 4.92 4.40
Ability to tolerate high levels of stress 4.67 4.80
Management 4.08 4.20
Ability to plan effective professional development 4.08 4.20
Total 4.23 4.15

All superintendents rated this Standard as Important for secondary

principals.. Thus confirmation was provided that superintendents were very willing

to hire qualified candidates from outside the district and emphasized positive

professional reference as important. Further analysis indicated that male

superintendents required their principals to be good listeners and work at raising test

102
scores, while female superintendents emphasized that their principals be able to

tolerate high level of stress and provide effective staff development. Standard 5

emphasizes the principal as a leader who is able to demonstrate ethical behavior

while guiding his stakeholders towards developing a culture of success. The skills

‘Possess a degree beyond the Masters level’ was deleted because it had insufficient

responses to support a finding.

Standard 6: Understanding, responding to, and influencing the larger

political, social, economic, legal, and cultural context.

Table 18: Means for Subgroups with Male and Female Superintendents in
Standard 6

Subgroups Male Female

Background 4.17 4.60
Educational philosophy consistent with superintendent 4.17 4.60
Instruction 4.50 4.73
Knowledge of API/AYP/STAR/CST 4.67 4.80
Knowledge of CTE, SLC, PLC and research 4.42 4.60
Knowledge of secondary school reform 4.42 4.80
Human Relations 4.63 4.40
Ability to communicate effectively 4.92 4.80
Ability to manage employee discipline 4.33 4.00
Management 4.61 4.47
Ability: self- starter 4.75 4.60
Ability: Risk 4.67 4.40
Flexibility to change 4.42 4.40
Total 4.61 4.55

103
 The secondary principal is required to balance multiple stakeholder groups,

each with its own agenda and priority, and create a cohesive culture that supports the

larger more comprehensive and consequential need of student learning. Both male

and female superintendent responses indicated that Highly important that Principals

and superintendents share a common vision. Both female and male superintendents

indicated that the ability to take risk, be flexible, and make independent decisions

were very important skills.

Findings for Research Questions 1 & 2: Quantitative data

The data from the various tables indicate that there are little or no statistical

differences between how male and female superintendents rated the selection criteria

for secondary principals. Similarly, none of the factors such as tenure and longevity

in the district for a superintendent had any impact on how the secondary principal

selection was completed.

In the following section discusses the survey data analysis for each of the two

main research questions.

1. What skills, training and knowledge do superintendents look for when

hiring secondary principals?

The survey data indicates that when considering the skills required for

selection of secondary principals, superintendents required that the candidates

demonstrate a deep commitment to diverse student learning needs and be able to

work collaboratively with all stakeholders and engage them in the decision making

104
opportunities. It was important, therefore that the candidates displayed strong

communication skills that would enable them to explain their vision and motivate the

faculty and the community to move towards achievement of shared goals and

objectives, be willing to listen to diverse opinions and suggestions and be willing to

take risks and be flexible to recognize situations and demonstrate the ability to be a

self-starter and lead by example. These skills are more innate to the candidates and

superintendents rate them very highly in the Likert Scale.

Candidates are required to be trained to tolerate high levels of stress and

understand the steps necessary to create structures and support practices that

motivate others through vision and planning. It was also indicated that principals be

well versed in steps to manage employee discipline, and have training related to

classroom supervision and teacher evaluation. And finally, training in the use of

assessment data to drive instruction and create accountability across the school

community was also significant in the selection criteria.

In regards to the knowledge required to successfully implement the

responsibilities of the office, superintendents rated that principals must have

knowledge of secondary instruction and have had teaching experience at the

secondary level. There is high expectation that the candidate is well versed in the

accountability measures such as API and AYP as demonstrated through student

performance in California Standards Tests (CST) and be able to prove past

performance of raising test scores. In addition, significant importance is given to the

principals’ ability to create reform initiatives such as Professional Learning

105
Communities and Small Learning Communities and offering options for student

success through Career Technical Education and options in the master schedule.

2. How do superintendents ensure that the right candidate is selected for and

is successful in the position of secondary principal?

The four subscale questions were aligned to the six ISLLC/CPSEL standards.

The data indicated how superintendents selected the candidates adhering to these

standards of performance.

Standard 1: In this standard superintendents identified the skills required to

motivate others through creating a common vision that require these leaders to

engage their staff in decisions around student achievement data. Superintendents also

indicated that principals should have a deep knowledge of secondary instruction and

personal experience of having taught at the secondary level. Superintendent rating of

the skills that were necessary to meet this standard was identified as being Important.

Standard 2: In this standard superintendents rated the skills to be Important

and identified that principals selected had to be a ‘good fit’ for the job and would

require to have the knowledge to create a culture that focused on ongoing staff

development based on their observations and evaluations of the instructional

programs.

Standard 3: Even though specific questions were not aligned to this

standard, Superintendent responses related to skills that involve deep understanding

of master schedule and teacher assignments , along with the ability to communicate

106
with unions related to contracts and employee discipline. Working knowledge of

school facilities and school budgets also relate to this standard.

Standard 4: Secondary principals are responsible for creating a culture that

engages the diverse interests and needs of the stakeholders in a collaborative and

welcoming environment that attracts resources to meet the diverse student needs.

The mean response of the superintendents rated the skills needed to meet this

standard as Important.

Standard 5: The superintendents indicated that personal ethics and moral

leadership skills are Important to the selection process. Superintendents also

confirmed that receiving positive professional references was very important in the

selection process. Principal leadership capacity was recognized as that which was

reflected in their ability to tolerate high levels of stress, demonstrate strong listening

skills and engage in discussions related to raising test scores.

Standard 6: The skills in this standard relate to the larger political, social

and cultural context. With the system of accountability in public education,

superintendents rated the knowledge of the accountability factors (API and AYP

Scores) to be critical for the hiring process, along with the knowledge of secondary

restructuring as related to research based strategies such as PLC, SLC and CTE

initiatives. It was also recognized that in order to create a vision and communicate

that vision, principals had to possess strong listening and communication skills and

were willing to be self-starters and take risks while being willing to adjust to change.

107
The skills needed to meet this standard received the highest ratings and were

considered significantly important.

Analysis of Qualitative Data: Interview Results

The qualitative data was gathered from one-on-one interviews conducted

with superintendents from five urban/ suburban districts in California and analyzed

in order to compare the similarities or differences in responses around the identified

key issues of principal leadership. The superintendents were carefully selected under

these two criteria: 1) Experienced superintendent in either Union High School

District or Unified School District in California for more than five years; and (2)

Reform initiatives and test scores indicate high level of reform efforts, and the

secondary schools in this district or in the previous district have shown documented

gains in student achievement as identified through API scores within the past three

years (2005-2008). The details on the respondents is in Appendix B-1.

The questions for the interviews were detailed, with an emphasis on the

position of secondary principal leadership and superintendent hiring criteria. Each of

the two research questions were further analyzed through four sub-questions. The

qualitative responses provided detailed input from the superintendents and showed

the relationship between what superintendents believed were important, how they

currently selected their candidates, what kind of training and support they provided

to the principals in the jobs, what areas of weaknesses were evident and what they

wanted the future principal training programs to focus on.

108
 Both research questions were sub-divided into four follow-up questions,

allowing superintendents to expound not only on the hiring criteria, but also to

illustrate the importance of certain skills, trainings, and knowledge when an

individual is already in office. These questions allowed superintendents the

opportunity to reflect on their personal expectations and experiences with principal

success and to provide data for ongoing principal preparation opportunities.

Additional questions were also asked to gain deeper understanding of superintendent

selection criteria.

1.1. What skills, training, and knowledge are important for successful

secondary principalship?

Bolman & Deal (2003) have identified that individual satisfaction and

organizational efficacy depends heavily on the quality of interpersonal relationships

and have identified the Human Resource Frame as the set of skills that are required

to build a culture of support and relationships. Validating this research, all of the

superintendents in this study emphasized the importance of these skills. One of the

responding superintendents pointed out that principals should aspire to be effective

communicators to build successful relationships with all stakeholders:

Well for any one to be successful as a school principal at any level they need
to understand the primacy of building relationships and have the desire and
communication style to be able to do that successfully.

Otherwise, he said that the principals would see a negative impact and

consequence on their principalship and face corresponding obstacles to enacting

successful reform at the school:

109
 A number of people I hired had spectacular background in curriculum and
instruction and all the knowledge bases and experience bases you would
want… where I felt we went wrong was not adequately assessing the
relationship building and communication skills, or underestimating the
primacy of that in order to be able to accomplish any kind of change or
reform in a school.

Superintendents also stated that when leaders demonstrate strong people

skills which are highlighted by strong listening skills and deep empathy for the staff,

these are skills that are usually innate and not something that could be taught in a

credentialing program:

I am looking for a principal who has the skills that I can’t teach [italics mine].
Those are people who others gravitate to, who know how to read people in
the positive sense, know how to anticipate situations.

In the responses from the superintendent interviews, it was clearly identified

was that all the superintendents searched out principal candidates who had

knowledge and experience as a secondary teacher, leadership experience in learning

and teaching, ability to have the conversations that address teacher pedagogy and

instructional relevancy, and a clear vision for improving teaching and learning. One

superintendent emphasized that principals must have the understanding of the needs

of students, teachers and parents and had the ability to create the structures to support

these needs. This superintendent pointed out that these types of expertise and

leadership could come from their previous experience as an assistant principal,

teacher leader or from some other type of leadership experience.

… wanting someone who understands the culture of and behaviors of

students, teachers and parents for that level because it is so different dealing
with early adolescence and high school age.

110
 The focus on Leadership skills with emphasis on instructional leadership as

demonstrated through knowledge and understanding of content area and program

implementation was expressed as a requirement for the principal candidate of a

secondary school, and one superintendent confirmed:

I wanted someone who already was at a certain level….however they had

learned it, whether it was natural or it was something they really had to learn
the hard way,.. where I would have the confidence that they could lead a
school.

It was clearly articulated by a superintendent that in order to create a structure

of accountability in the classrooms which focused on pedagogy and content, the

secondary principal must have experience and knowledge of good teaching to be

able to “walk the walk” and guide instruction on his site through conversations

related to student achievement and teaching efficacy:

My background is in social science and English but I can go onto a science

class and go onto most subject areas and analyze very good teaching. Now
the key that I would see is not just go into the classroom but the follow up
discussion that occurs that force the teacher to be reflective.

Even though it was confirmed by all interviewees that Instructional leadership was

the priority for school reform, addressing issues of student achievement and the

existing issues of the achievement gap between subgroups was dependent on the

culture and the commitment of the organization as a whole. A superintendent

confirmed this belief by stating:

Content is critical. I am a firm believer that someone has to have a real

specialty, content area, maybe several that they have expertise in and
generally they do, because they were a math teacher or a science teacher so
content is really critical.

111
 Conclusion for 1.1: Based on the interviews from five superintendents, the

following skills emerged as common themes based on open and selective coding: (1)

Interpersonal skills leading to building positive and strong relationships with all

stakeholders through effective and clear communication and this was an innate skill

that cannot be taught in credential programs; and (2) Leadership skills with emphasis

on instructional leadership as demonstrated through knowledge and understanding of

content area and program which is attained through previous experience. Stanford

University researchers and The Wallace Foundation released a new report that

identifies the key features of effective programs. The report, Preparing School

Leaders for a Changing World: Lessons from Exemplary Leadership Development

Programs (2007), recognizes the close link between the quality of school leadership

and school performance. It examines the essential skills of good leadership and the

importance of focusing on instruction.

1.2. How would you rate these areas of responsibility for preparation for the

secondary principal position? This next section includes 11 key areas of principal

responsibility and the superintendent rating of these areas as Very Important,

Important or Not Needed. After analysis of data based on superintendent responses, a

brief conclusion is provided for each of these 11 areas.

1.2.1. Data Assessment: All superintendents rated this as Very Important.

All superintendents rated this knowledge and skill as ‘Very Important’ for

secondary principals. It was confirmed that rather than focusing on collecting and

creating the database principals should focus on analyzing the data through critical

112
questions and using the data to drive the instruction and programmatic changes. As

one stated:

I think of data I think of the ability to ask the right questions first and
foremost and then get the data and then analyze the data. Once the data is
analyzed…have the skills to be able to work with the staff to develop
strategies necessary to meet whatever the areas of need the data indicates.

Superintendents were adamant in their belief that data is what drives

programs and addresses the needs of the campus, while Principal initiated data

conversations allow decisions to be more objective and focused around the

importance of basing instructional improvements on what is reflected in the data. It

was further confirmed that using data to understand the needs of the student

subgroups allows the principal and the school community to monitor the programs

and instructional support services that address the learning styles of diverse student

learners and channel funding resources to target the specific needs:

… you have to know data so that you can focus instruction and data should
be driving what instruction is … you should be able to say I looked at the
data and it doesn’t matter what you think or what I think, the data speaks for
itself.

Another superintendent’s feedback reiterated the above comment:

… what was important to me is that someone valued making evidence based

decisions.. as opposed to jumping to conclusions which we all have a
tendency to do…it is real important for schools and staff that they have a
principal who is knowledgeable about what kind of learners you have; do you
have ELL learners, do you have African-American, Latino learners? A lot of
them are kinesthetic learners.

Conclusion for 1.2.1: Superintendent responses reflect the current research

that prioritizes the understanding and use of data to make systemic changes that

113
address issues of student achievement in the current era of accountability. Richard

Wallace (1996) has reported that school districts gather data that is often not

effectively utilized and the challenge remains on how to best use and analyze the

data to drive choices around support services for students to address the issues of the

achievement gap. Principals are held responsible for closing the achievement gap

and raising the test scores in their schools and principal selection criteria lays strong

emphasis on this skill. However, this is a very difficult skill and often principals are

not sufficiently train to be effective users of data to monitor and introduce programs

and services. It is recommended that principal training programs lay strong emphasis

on this training.

1.2.2. Campus Culture and leadership: All superintendents rated this as Very

Important

Understanding the inherent culture of the campus is critical to principal

success. The ability to understand and work within the established campus culture

determines the success of the principal and reduces the possibilities of upheavals

when new ideas are introduced. All Superintendents responded that principals must

recognize the leadership capacity inherent in the staff, identify those key individuals

by calling on them to participate in the school-wide decision making process, and

therefore create a system of ownership that shapes the culture.

With the diversity of all levels, you have to be very comfortable

understanding people’s points of view and their perspectives and thinking
about how each of them is going to respond to any action you take and be
aware that every single thing you do is going to cause a reaction whether you
want to or not.

114
 Another superintendent stated that the ability to recognize and respect

diversity is an important skill. Principals are successful when they are able to create a

culture of respect for all students and staff irrespective of race, gender and sexual

orientation.

What I am looking for are characteristics and attribute that I would believe
make them a respected, responsible leader amongst all their constituents.

Principals often enter a campus where the culture is established with certain

practices that are not supportive of student needs, yet have been sanctioned over the

years. Superintendents confirmed that even though it is imperative that Principals

tread with respect for the existing culture, principals who support the status quo

practices without questioning the validity are not assured of their principalship.

However, in order to make those changes the principal has to tread boldly and yet

respectfully and create a common vision that allows opportunities for questioning of

ongoing practices that are actually deterring student progress.

A new principal coming in must read the culture quickly and that’s a
balancing act. We always do it this way or that is the way it was since I got
here [that is not okay] I need principals to say, No, and I will back those
principals.

Conclusion for 1.2.2: In the hiring criteria for secondary principals,

superintendent responses identified the leadership skills to create a positive campus

culture as a Very Important skill. Marzano, Waters, & McNulty (2005) findings were

affirmed by the superintendent responses that principal candidates must understand

and recognize the delicate balance between the existing culture and the areas of

improvement. It is also instrumental that the principal is able to determine how to

115
best use the human resources on campus, to monitor and create program efficacy, be

a good listener, and most importantly recognize the key leaders on campus and

engage them in the decision making process in order to build capacity and to reduce

conflict.

1.2.3. Instructional Leadership: All Superintendents rated this as Very

Important

Superintendents expressed that the quality of instruction of a school is

dependent on the quality of teacher training and the level of accountability that the

principal places on all stakeholders to create the culture of learning. Principals of

high achieving schools are successful because they create high expectations of all

students, remain visible and accessible to students and parents, create a positive and

supportive school climate supported by shared leadership and promote and

instructional leadership through classroom observations and feedback to teachers

leading to professional development opportunities. Reiterating these ideas, one of the

respondents stated:

… key area, focusing on the how you work with teachers. If you have a high
quality instruction in classroom the discipline problems by and large go
away. It’s the kids who are bored, aren’t engaged, tune out that create the
dilemma. The other thing with shared instructional leadership is training your
staff to be aware of what is happening.

Conversations around instruction that engages staff and school leaders in

discussions must continue to address student achievement yet not allow teachers to

feel like they are being singled out. One superintendent stated:

116
 I was telling a principal who was having trouble with his staff focusing on
things…every time you walk in, have these 3 questions: What are you
teaching- not just chapter 32, but what is the concept that you are teaching?
How will you know that the students are learning? And what will you do if
they are not learning?

Conclusion for 1.2.3: Principal candidates must have knowledge of classroom

observations and strategies for evaluating good teaching. Kathleen Cotton (2003) has

researched and identified 26 essential traits and behaviors of effective principals who

demonstrate success as instructional leaders. It is the understanding that principals

have to be visible in classrooms and focus on deep discussions with teachers based

on the observations that superintendents identified as critical skills. Principal

preparation programs must focus on training principals in effective evaluation and

observation strategies along with the skills around asking critical questions related to

pedagogy, student engagement and rigor and relevance.

1.2.4. Shared vision with the superintendent: Superintendents rated this as

Very Important.

Most of the Superintendents clearly stated that principal candidates have to

express how they would create a clear vision which had to embrace the vision of the

school district, though not necessarily equated with replicating the superintendent’s

ideas or beliefs. It was the candidates’ innate definition of how they interpret the

values and norms of the district that makes them a good fit for the district. One

superintendent stated that he did consider site leaders who shared his vision, but

were able to think differently and strategically:

117
 It is Very important that they share my vision, but what I want are divergent
thinkers; I can’t have someone who says ‘yes Dr C whatever you say Dr C’.
If the shared vision is about improving student achievement…then that’s
good enough for me; how we get there, I will leave that to them.

One superintendent stated that a strong leader is one who is able to synchronize the

site goals with the district vision and therefore do not need to think like the

superintendent, but is successful in engaging the community around the vision that is

developed for the school:

Doesn’t necessarily have to be similar; it just has to be a vision that is doable

and has to be a vision that is not top down.

This skill is not something that can be easily gauged during an interview

process since candidates can read up the district vision and tailor their responses to

that theme. So one superintendent stated that he asks various questions to determine

the candidates suitability to the position based on his innate beliefs:

Trying to probe for example, what someone really means when they say all
students can learn and you find out a lot about them….various kinds of
situations just hypothetically or just asking them to describe a time when you
failed and what you learned from them. Those kinds of assessments allowed
me to find out what their beliefs were and whether they would be consistent.

Conclusion for 1.2.4: Understanding the goals and missions of the district and

being able to reflect that in the responses allows a candidate to demonstrate his

ability to be a good fit for the district. Deal and Peterson (1990) suggested that

principals should work to develop shared visions- rooted in history, values, beliefs--

of what the school should be, hire compatible staff, face conflict rather than avoid it,

and use story-telling to illustrate shared values. From the interviews it is evident that

superintendents are respectful of individual styles in implementing the vision, but

118
expect that the candidate understands and respects the mission and vision of the

district as a whole which in essence is the vision of the superintendent.

1.2.5. Political preparation: Most superintendents rated this as Important

Having the principal and the superintendent communicate the needs of the

school and having the Superintendent attuned to the needs of the school and the

district allowed both to be politically aware of the various agendas at play. The

ability to recognize a problem, analyze the facts and make sound decisions and then

communicate that with clarity and sensitivity is what makes this skill so essential.

When asked Superintendents responses varied and one stated:

To be successful, [you need] to be comfortable understanding the agendas,

the rules, and the alliance and coalitions that are needed in order to be
successful in any kind of political situation.

However, superintendents agreed that this was not a skill that could be taught

because of the number of stakeholder groups a principal interacts with:

This [education] is a relational business and its difficult…the rest of the

world that aren’t in education don’t really understand our culture and how we
function because we are a very open system and we have many, many
committees and we spend a lot of time working through groups and
committees and public board meetings on issues and events that we are going
to move forward with.

One of the respondents expressed the notion, that this is a difficult skill to assess

when hiring.

How politically prepared should somebody be? How can I assess that as a
superintendent? Until the person works in my district it is going to be very
difficult for me to assess that preparation because my take in political
preparedness is how do you respond to political situations and you can only
do that by being on the job.

119
It was confirmed by yet another superintendent who stated:

The political preparation is the one I see that principals have as a weaker area
because they don’t usually get put in positions quite often unless they have
done something.

But it was also affirmed that the principalship itself is a political position and it is the

lack of awareness that leads to problems:

Everything is political. I am always amazed at how politically naïve so many

people are. They just don’t understand cause and effect. They don’t see the
big picture that if I do this some of these other things will happen.

Conclusion for 1.2.5: Research by Howe and Townsend (2000) provided a

political-awareness inventory based on the fact that the principal is responsible for

dealing with diverse issues related to people and forces that are comprised of

interest-groups, political entities and such. Principals, as suggested by the

superintendent survey, are required to be risk-takers, but must be politically aware.

This is a skill that cannot be taught in Principal preparation programs but principals

can gain knowledge on how to assess situations through discussions related to

process.

1.2.6. Past experience in this position: All Superintendents rated this as Not

Important

The Wallace Foundation (2007) addressed the issue of candidate shortage

and superintendents acknowledged this factor in their response. However, they were

adamant that the candidate have secondary experience, not necessarily as a principal,

but one that qualifies the candidate to recognize the culture and the demands related

to those years of education. One superintendent addressed that issue in his response,

120
“If previous principalship was a criteria we would have no principals.” Another

stated:

… wanting someone who understands the culture of and behaviors of

students, teachers and parents for that level because it is so different dealing
with early adolescence and high school age.

Another stated that it is the quality of experience that qualifies a candidate:

Sometimes experience is overrated. You could have 30 years of experience,

but if you have never closed the achievement gap or done anything, then
what good is that? I would rather risk sometimes and hire someone who was
new with less experience, but is at least committed to trying to make it
happen.

Conclusion for 1.2.6: The superintendent responses indicated that secondary

principal candidates needed experience and knowledge of the secondary system, but

there was a lack of experienced principals. The Report of the Institute for

Educational Leadership’s Task Force on the Principalship (2000) recognized the

rapidly growing shortage of qualified, high-quality principals as a crisis. Furthermore

with the level of stress associated with the position as relates to the mandates and

accountability factors and long-hours of work, this position does not attract an

abundance of candidates.

1.2.7. Staff training experience: Majority of superintendents rated this as

Very Important

Staff training is critical to the development of teacher efficacy and principal

experience in implementing a plan that involves effective use of resources and time

to providing staff training is an important skill. It was indicated that principals were

not required to be trainers; rather it was their willingness and ability to recognize the

121
need that made them effective leaders. Furthermore, identifying the skilled teachers

in the building and allowing them to take the leadership in providing the training

created more support for the initiatives and program implementation, as was stated

by one respondent:

Staff is so much more accepting and I find that principals that get into trouble
try to lead and drive everything themselves and don’t build leadership
capacity.

Another superintendent supported the above observation and included that principal

participation in the process was very important:

At times you need to be seen doing some of the staff development so it’s not
that she(principal) is asking for it, but not participating.

The content of the training helped determine the success of the training:

I would rather hear about culturally relevant pedagogy, making the classroom
exciting so that learning is fun and joyful for students and about equity
centered things.

Conclusion for 1.2.7: In the study by Youngs and King (2002) the findings

indicated that effective principals can sustain high levels of capacity by establishing

trust and creating structures that promote teacher learning. Brad Kose (2009) in his

research at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, provided an empirically-

based framework on the principals’ role in professional development for social

justice. In each of these articles it was the principals who created the culture for

ongoing professional growth by engaging their staff in activities that addressed

teacher efficacy in meeting student needs. Candidates are required to have

knowledge of effective staff development strategies.

122
 1.2.8. Budget allocation experience: Majority of the superintendents rated

this as Important

Superintendents had a range of responses to how important knowledge of

budget allocation was for the candidate selected as a principal. Given this era of

financial cutbacks and having to work with reduced funding, school districts have

had to make cuts leading to decreases in school site budget allocations. When asked

to rate this skill and training, one superintendent referred to the existing budget crisis

in California to make his point:

A few years ago I would have said is Important but today I would say is Very
Important because of the serious financial crisis we are in…we cut 20 million
in this district last year and you can imagine how all the managers had to
really do a good job so that we protected the most critical programs and
services.

The common response was that this skill could be taught. Superintendents expressed

that principals could assign this task to an assistant principal but keep track of the

bottom line.

Lot of people may not have a lot of experience with budget, I would ask them
and I would want them to be honest about what they don’t know and I would
not necessarily hold that against them.

Conclusion for 1.2.8: Budget knowledge for principals is important in today’s

era of financial cutbacks but this is a skill that can be taught. However, candidates

should have a working knowledge of the various funding sources, restricted and

unrestricted funding, etc.

123
 1.2.9. Understanding PLC: Majority of the superintendents rated this as

Important:

With the need for continuous school improvement, principals are leaders in

schools that engage in ongoing practices that create Professional Learning

Communities that support the foundation for systemic changes. When asked about

the importance of principal’s possessing this knowledge the responses were quite

varied; one superintendent stated that this was a knowledge that could be learned

while another said:

That is what we are really about; that modeling, staff development… I think
it’s critical because we are one of the few professions that do not spend a lot
of time learning- we are educators and we don’t spend time learning which
frustrates me.

Another superintendent supported the above statement, “Huge for me but I think we

are really missing that; faculties are not there at this point, they pretend they want to

be there, but not there.”

Conclusion for 1.2.9: Professional Learning Communities is a reform effort

that aims to focus the culture of the school around learning and student

improvement. The role of the principal in engaging all stakeholders in discussions

around the four building blocks: mission, vision, values and goals, allow for the

school to discuss improved initiatives that help change the culture of the school

(DuFour & Eaker, 1998). The current practices at schools indicate that there are

certain parts of the PLC concept in practice, and there is increasing staff

development in introducing this concept. The aim of creating a PLC is to engage the

124
whole learning community to focus on student achievement. It is important that

principal candidates have some knowledge of the key concepts as it relates to

research related to school reform. Superintendents indicated that this was an

Important knowledge criteria for the secondary principals.

1.2.10. Experience with union activities: All superintendents rated this as

Important

Over the past two decades, the role of the Teachers’ unions in school districts

has gained significant importance and principal knowledge in terms of negotiations

and contract grievances have become a necessary part of the job; consequently, the

ability to work with and respond to the union leadership is a growing need

(Hannaway & Rotherham, 2006). With the strong presence of unions at school sites

it is inevitable that major reform efforts require principals to work with site unions in

a cohesive and collaborative manner. During the interview, the superintendents

elaborated and stated that it is important to work with the union leadership and listen

and honor the teachers’ views:

Important… what you do is you respect, listen to and honor all of your
teachers, even teachers that may not truly understand the mission, who are
recalcitrant, passive aggressive, but you are working with them, you respect
them, listen to them, and you work with your faculty.

A strategy suggested is to have teacher leaders given opportunities to participate in

positions of leadership and utilize their affinity with staff to drive change. It was

suggested that:

Allow some of your faculty members to become leaders within the school
with you and so you have a huge body of shared leadership and you want the

125
 ‘Nay Sayers’ on almost anything and everything look up and they are not just
looking at the principal driving something or leading something.

Conclusion for 1.2.10: The teacher unions are very active in public schools.

The ability of the principal to recognize that their role is to support their stakeholders

would necessitate that principals respect their focus. In case of aggressive situations,

it is recommended that principals learn to separate the people from the issues in

order to depersonalize the situation. It is recommended that principals should create

teacher leaders who can initiate and implement changes so as to allow the process to

happen smoothly. Superintendent surveys rated this as an Important skill. Principals

need significant training on issues related to contracts and grievances.

1.2.11. Parent/community exposure: All superintendents rated this as Very

Important

To be successful in building a positive school community, principals have to

build relations with their community by clearly listening and understanding the

concerns. Superintendents rated this skill as Very important and responded around

the common theme of understanding the culture which allows the principal to engage

his stakeholders in a collaborative and engaging process. One superintendent

expressed that this was a style of leadership:

Understanding of cultures and it also goes to show your core values about
how to make change,… the most successful leaders now are collaborative
leader and there are reasons for that which you have read that and so I was
very much looking for people who have collaborative leadership styles. …

126
 Another superintendent elaborated that by engaging with the community, the

principal is given the opportunity to express his vision and garner stakeholder

support and that this was especially critical at the secondary level.

Very Important… At a high school and middle school you have to be

engaged with your parents in all kinds of ways.

One superintendent identified that principals are not taught community related skills

in their training programs and therefore often fail to utilize the resources within the

community by attracting and crating partnerships with the parents.

I think community is way under utilized, parents and everything. Because it’s
inconvenient, well just think, as a teacher and as a principal, who has taught
you what to do with parents? There are no courses that say how you use
parents in your classrooms, no, no teacher gets that course. And then when
you get to be a principal, no one has offered you a course of what do you do
with a parent who comes to your office? How do you maximize their
leverage? So there are a lot of things that people need to learn.

Conclusion for 1.2.11: The superintendents have confirmed that the

secondary principal is a political position, constantly juggling various stakeholder

group interests. It is the leadership style of being collaborative and welcoming to

differing ideas that allow the principal to carry out his vision. “Principal of the future

has to be much more attuned to the big picture, and much more sophisticated at

conceptual thinking, and transforming the organization through peoples and teams”

Fullan (2002, p. 4). By working with the community and by welcoming the

community into the building, the principal is able to attract human and financial

resources that support and augment the instructional programs and services at the

site.

127
 1.3. If you were to assess the principal preparation programs, are they doing

a good enough job preparing the principals- why or why not? What would you

recommend these programs focus on as a priority?

Current evidence based on superintendent responses to the interviews support

the findings in the report from Hess and Kelley (2005) which indicate that the

preparation programs for principals have not kept pace with the changes in the

education world. With the advent of federal and state mandates which focus on

student achievement and implantation of standards-based school reform, the need for

strong principal leadership is even more critical (Larry Lashway, 2003).

Superintendents responded to this question in two distinct groups; one group used

current examples to elucidate the lack of real-world preparation, whereas another

group stated that the current university practices were partnering with districts and

supporting job-based trainings.In support of the first view, one superintendent stated:

I don’t think that they [university preparation programs] do a very good job at
all and the reason why is because I think the best way to prepare a principal
to be effective is to have that person to do the position. If the programs would
be more a combination of preparing for and engaging in principal-like
behaviors and activities, then I think it would be more affective. It would do
better preparing non-administrators for principal positions.

Another superintendent concurred and added:

I tell assistant principals that it is a million mile walk to the office next
door…because as the assistant principal you always have the principal who is
responsible… so I don’t know how much preparation you can do for the
million mile walk other than actually doing the job.

128
A third superintendent acknowledged the lack of quality training by the non-

traditional college programs, such as satellite campuses, and clarified that the

Association of California School Administrators was picking up the slack:

I don’t know if there is any program that covers the basics. ACSA does a
very good job with their academies. We were watching people get their
administrative credential out of the satellite programs and they just don’t give
them the experiences.

Public Agenda survey findings supported that 69 percent of principals and 80 percent

of superintendents believed that typical leadership programs "are out of touch with

the realities of what it takes to run today's school district" (Farkas et al, 2001). A

superintendent was candid in the challenges faced by principals who often have to

make strong decisions that might not be politically correct but is needed to be made

and that training programs do not and cannot provide that kind of knowledge. He

stated:

No they are doing a lousy job because they aren’t real. The problem with
being a principal or being a teacher, the only way you learn to do it is getting
there and doing it. I don’t think you can learn these jobs in a classroom.
…people aren’t yelling at you, people aren’t telling you what to do, …
everyone is so damn politically correct and people are gutless and they don’t
stand up for something and at the end of the day you have to.

There were some respondents who provided the other view that stated that university

programs are adjusting to the changes of the job:

… it’s hard to generalize on this one. I have seen as a fairly recent change
that has made a huge difference is the coaching, the way the people get their
Tier II credentials, What that has spawned is a lot of coaching programs for
beginning administrators and that has really helped increase peoples’
leadership competencies and operational competencies a lot so that extent to
which preparation programs are doing a better job of helping beginning
administrators to being open to learning form experienced colleagues.

129
 It was confirmed that additional training and ongoing support to new

principals is a real need. In most districts, superintendents recognized the need, but

were also candid in stating that the support is usually more for new principals in

areas of human resources policies or budget policies; the leadership trainings are

few. Moreover, experienced principals are often left to find their own solutions to

issues. To address the issue of inadequate preparation, many districts provide their

intern administrators the credential program in partnership with local universities.

One superintendent stated:

We have a principal preparation program in partnership with Cal State East

Bay. It’s excellent. We have hired some new administrators out of it…they
are or in-house teachers who are going through it and the first group of
administrators that came out of it are doing really well…

Another superintendent confirmed the exact same plan in place in his district:

UC Berkeley is running the principal program there and has agreed to start a
partnership in which we will team up with them and start pulling
administrators into UCB at their training.

Conclusion for 1.3: The current emphasis on principal behaviors is to ensure

that it impacts student achievement but presents a clear challenge because of the

content and the practices of existing leadership preparation programs. This has led to

the need for new areas of principal training, and university preparation programs are

being held to higher standards. As the job continues to become more multifaceted,

demanding and complicated “growing anecdotal evidence suggests that it is

increasingly difficult to find school principals at a time when the demand for them is

on the rise” (Copland, 2001, p. 528).

130
 Superintendents who were interviewed expressed their views based on the

quality of candidates that they interview as well as the principal performances in

their district. They focused on the leadership training of the candidates, the ability to

make decisions, the ability to handle the challenges of the position, and found that

the preparation trainings came up short. Leadership capacity of principals to initiate

change through quality teaching and effective culture, are skills not taught in any

program. However, they did express that many of the challenges of the job could not

be taught and were based on experiences themselves.

The superintendents indicated that the principal position is multifaceted and

that the Principal Training Programs do no address real-world situations at all. This

has been an underlying reason why superintendents and districts have engaged in

partnerships with respected programs in this area to provide in-house administrative

training and credential opportunities to their employees.

Despite the fact that Tier II credential program requirements have made

adjustments for on-the-job experience, CTC still acknowledges programs where the

candidate can “test-out” for the credential, or can complete it through an Online

program. Both these options seem to be in direct contrast to what is being requested

for by superintendents. The McREL report has stated that the leadership training in

professional universities has failed to provide candidates with the necessary ability to

lead systemic changes and have failed to sufficiently build the capacity of

practitioners to influence teacher practice and student learning outcomes in an urban

school context (Darling-Hammond et. al., 2005; Elmore, 2003, Marzano, 2002).

131
From these interviews there is much need to revisit the Principal credentialing

criteria and review the training programs.

1.4. Does your district provide support for individuals related to skills and

knowledge identified as areas of need through the evaluation process?

The superintendents interviewed stated that there are processes in place to

address the professional needs of principals, through systematic approaches that

involve district wide commitment to professional principal development, the level

and content of which differ within the individual districts. All of the superintendents

interviewed stated that they had dedicated time for principal development activities

to fill the gaps between the subject’s self-reported current skill and the desired skill

levels in the various areas which were important to job.

We absolutely made a plan for individual support for every administrator we

hired at the principal or higher level. If they were an assistant principal level,
if they were in the Tier II program they would get that kind of coaching
support, but beyond that probably from the superintendent and the district
office we really did not deal with them.

Another superintendent stated that the support came from the supervisors assigned to

the principals and responsible for evaluating and training the principals.

For principals we absolutely put a plan together for individual support

whether they were experienced or not. Lot of thought was put into who their
supervisor would be, what their goals of supervision were going to be, who
their coach was going to be… how they worked in triad…

Another superintendent responded by describing the process that is in place

in his district that allows for this support but confirms that the veteran principals are

often not targeted for ongoing support:

132
 We have two meetings a month on which we do a variety of staff
development activities and we do that at the district office. Then each new
principal or first or second year principal, teams with another principal and
then every principal has a district office staff member who is their supervisor
that will work with them to the degree they need to and obviously if someone
is every experienced and very talented and doing a great job, they spend less
time with the district office administrator than someone new or needs help or
even struggling.

In order to link principal support activities with the evaluation of the

principals in their affectivity on the job, superintendents were candid about the fact

that principals were often not evaluated annually and if they were keeping their

schools running smoothly, or there were limited complaints, they often did not get

any personal professional suggestions related to continuous improvements.

We have a lot of things in place to support site administrators and then they
go through a formal evaluation every other year, not every year, but they turn
it their goals every year. If they are having difficulties and it warrants they
are placed on a program improvement plan for one year and then we will
allot a lot of resources to that and if they need it then send them to
conferences, workshops, graduate school courses they want to do as part of
their own improvement plan.

Conclusion for 1.4: The systematic study of principal assessment has been

slow to develop. Despite the CPSEL standards adopted by ACSA and CTC, there are

inconsistencies on how districts evaluate principals and provide support for

improvement. Superintendents recognized that there is a need to clearly identify the

level of knowledge and skills of their secondary principals that allow them to

successfully meet the intense and unprecedented pressures under the current

measures of federal and state mandates to account for their schools’ performance

(Tucker & Codding, 2002), but did not indicate that ongoing structures were in place

133
for novice and experienced administrators. The assignment of district level

administrators to partner and guide, or place principals in a study group to work and

collaborate together appear to be a practice, but individual annual assessment and

review systems are in not common practice.

Research Question 2: How do superintendents ensure that the right

candidate is selected for the position and is successful in the position of secondary

principal?

The above research question was sub-divided into seven follow-up questions,

allowing superintendents to explain questions related to the interview process, the

criteria for success, skills needed to serve as leaders, superintendent role in the hiring

process, etc. These questions allowed superintendents the opportunity to reflect on

their personal expectations and experiences with principal success and to provide

data for ongoing principal preparation opportunities.

2.1. Identify the major leadership skills for secondary principals that result in

student achievement (Cotton, 2003).

Contemporary research on effective leadership skills identify that in order to

bring about systemic changes in schools, principals must have the knowledge and

skills and practices that address the school environment( Hallinger, 2003; Marzano

2003). Superintendent interviews provided support for these extant research findings

and validated the need to create 21st leaders with skills that will help reform their

schools. Research has emphasized the importance of the principal as an instructional

leader (Leithwood, 1999; Marzano, 2005; Murphy et al., 2006). In this capacity the

134
principal influences the quality of curriculum and classroom pedagogy by being

actively involved in the curriculum conversations and by supporting the

improvement of teacher practice. This was emphasized by a superintendent when he

said:

To me the instructional leadership is the most important... someone who

really knows their stuff… there are certain types of characteristics that
motivate people. Everywhere I go I ask, ‘Do I want my own child that class?’
And if it is not good enough for your own child, why is it good enough for
anybody? If you don’t want your child there then courageous conversations
need to take place and about what equity means.

Research supports that by focusing on developing teacher capacity, the principal will

directly impact the campus culture through improved student learning. One

superintendent stated, “Major leadership skills that I talked about earlier and that is

developing teacher capacity because the principal cant go out there and teach every

class and every kid.”

Superintendents detailed the changing role of the principal as an Innovator.

With the increased demands of the No Child Left Behind Act (2001) and state

mandates monitored by the AYP and API benchmarks, schools are required to

provide opportunities for equity and access for all children which is dependent on the

quality of principal leadership (Elmore, 2003) and which implies alternative options

that support student achievement. Often these are nontraditional options for students

to gain their diploma and the principal as a school leader and an instructional leader,

needs to come up with innovative ideas. Referring to this, one superintendent further

confirmed:

135
 And now it is all about student achievement, all about how well kids are
performing and those are different roles…..I think we will have more and
more kids involved in non traditional campus settings and so I am going to
need site administrators who are as I said earlier, divergent thinkers, going to
be able to think strategically, and be ok with that.

Several leadership theories and models have served as the basis for identifying

components of effective leadership development programs (Darling-Hammond et. al,

Murphy et al., 2003) and address ways to build the urban leadership capacity that

creates sustainable changes in schools. One superintendent stated:

I want someone who is going to transform the school- I don’t want a

caretaker. The school should be able to sustain itself even after the principal
is gone- so I am not looking for a series of starts and stops. I am looking for
somebody who is going to put something in motion that is going to sustain
after that individual has left the school.

A principal as a leader must be a strong communicator, good listener, a collaborative

decision maker, and thereby an effective leader who can articulate clear goals and

ground their leadership practice in instructional improvement based on listening and

staff engagement (Murphy, 2005). One superintendent stated:

To be successful as a school principal at any level, they need to understand

the primacy of building relationships and have the desire and communication
style to be able to do that successfully.

This theme continued with another superintendent when he identified the

success of a secondary school leader who has a large faculty, several interest groups

and a large community.

The most important leadership skill is the ability to listen carefully- to be an

active leader. The secondary principal has a very large and diverse faculty
and have to be excellent listeners; they have to actively engage their faculty
in a conversations and listen very carefully to lead that faculty through a

136
 process of self discovery, individually and collectively, as an organization as
to how best improve student achievement.

Conclusion for 2.1: Superintendents identified the leadership skills that

closely reflected those identified in the survey results: Effective communicators,

good listeners, risk-takers, able to engage their community and staff in collaborative

decision making process, and most importantly, willing to make sustainable changes.

Using these skills, the superintendents identified secondary leadership focus to be on

instructional leadership aimed at raising student achievement and teacher efficacy;

symbolic leader, who can gather the stakeholders around a clear message by

communicating their vision; and finally as a transformational leader who is willing to

make decisions and take risks that allow the community to engage in systemic

changes.

2.2. Which of the four styles of leadership do you focus on during the

selection process, given today’s high era of accountability? (Bolman and Deal,

2005)

The Leadership Framework by Boleman and Deal (2005) explains that there

is no correct answer to a situational reaction, which in turn supports that there are

always at least four approaches to take for each situation. This is when the leader has

to decide which approach or combination of approach would work best. Leaders

operate under four frames or styles of leadership: Structural, Political, Human

Resources, and Symbolic.

137
 One Superintendent in his example of having divergent thinkers identified the

Structural framework which is representative of a style that is analytical and design-

focused on structure, environment, and experimentation and adaptation. He stated:

And now it is all about student achievement, all about how well kids are
performing and those are different roles…..I think we will have more and
more kids involved in non traditional campus settings and so I am going to
need site administrators who are as I said earlier, divergent thinkers, going to
be able to think strategically, and be ok with that.

The Political Framework describes a leader whose style is focused on

coalition and building relationships; they clarify what they want and what they can

get; they assess the distribution of power and interests and build linkages to other

stakeholders. This was a common theme amongst superintendents who had

throughout the interview focused on a collaborative leader, who was willing to listen

and engage in discussions. One superintendent confirmed this leader as:

The most important leadership skill is the ability to listen carefully- to be an

active leader. The secondary principal has a very large and diverse faculty
and has to be excellent listeners; they have to actively engage their faculty.

This was confirmed by yet another superintendent who stated:

The most successful leaders now are collaborative leader and there are
reasons for that which you have read that and so I was very much looking for
people who have collaborative leadership styles. …

A third superintendent also referred to a collaborative style of leadership:

If you are a directive leader that wasn’t right for me as a superintendent, that
your natural inclination needed too be more of a collaborative leadership
style. I was also very much looking for someone who was flexible, could
adjust their leadership style based on what they were trying to accomplish
and what the situation was.

138
The Human Resource Framework is leadership that provides support, advocacy, and

empowerment through a principal who is visible and accessible automatically

engages in relation hip building that empowers and increases participation, sharing

of information and move decision making down into the organization. One

superintendent expressed his interest in this kind of leader since they focus on

capacity building and creating distributive leadership and stated:

Allow some of your faculty members to become leaders within the school
with you and so you have a huge body of shared leadership.

The Symbolic Framework is of a leader whose style is more prophetic and inspiration

by nature, one who views organization as a stage or theatrical space wherein to play

certain roles and use specific symbols to capture attention and discover and

communicate a vision. None of the responses focused on this frame of leadership;

rather the reference to vision and communicating that vision was expressed as

strength of a collaborative leader. This was how one superintendent framed his

response:

Visionary is important but if you really know your stuff and then you develop
your vision you are more apt to have people follow and be a part of it. But I
think being inclusive is important.

Conclusion for 2.2: Superintendent responses indicated that they did not view

their principals within the four frames of leadership; rather they focused on the

qualities of leadership that principals needed to be successful in leading schools. The

skills related to being strong communicators, good listeners, effective collaborators,

risk-takers were some of the examples used when discussing leadership style.

139
Assessment of the responses indicates, however, that superintendents prioritized the

Political Framework, closely followed by the Human Resources Framework and then

the Structural Framework. No responses related to the Symbolic Framework.

2.3. What are the weaknesses that result in unsuccessful tenure for secondary

principals?

This response was based on superintendents identifying three main factors as

that contributing to unsuccessful tenure of a principal. First, all of the

superintendents expressed the opinion that principals (generally) were not willing to

take responsibility for their decisions and were more concerned about politically

pleasing all constituents, thereby not gaining support for their leadership.

The reality is unfortunate, we don’t have very many and in our society people
are starving for people who are wanting to take the responsibility to lead, but
the problem is we have a bunch of wusses[superintendents] who are so
politically correct that they want to please anybody and everybody and then
they please nobody. Our [superintendents] job is not to be popular, I think we
can be popular, once people respect you they will allow you to do more
things and push the envelope.

A superintendent stated that principals must be willing to take risks to make

this happen on their campus; the risk taking is required to create change and progress

and address issues around staff and student performance;

All the effective schools research, all of it has one thing in common- you
have to have a great leader. Because schools might have great teachers, but if
you want a great school you must have a great leader…leadership makes or
breaks the school. Risk taking for the sake of taking risk is not a smart thing,
but risk taking for something that is going to bring something better I don’t
see that as a risk. Because even if it doesn’t work it is better than what status
quo is.

140
 Second, superintendents identified the political situations that can lead to

unsuccessful tenure. One superintendent was very factual in his opinion that lack of

student performance was not a reason for principals to be removed; in fact, principals

can hold status quo and demonstrate no actions to address lack of student

performance, and still maintain their position.

Here is the ultimate irony and it is typically not in the area of student
achievement….A person stays in a secondary school for 10 years and the
student achievement never improves; if the budget is balanced, the athletic
teams perform well, and there are not too many student discipline issues on
that campus; that is the tragedy.

The third area identified was the principals inability to create teams which led

to lack of teacher capacity and staff disengagement and ultimately to culture failure.

The responses ranged from leaders who were not willing to make tough decisions, to

holding status quo of their schools performance, and attitude and focus on the job.

One superintendent elaborated this by highlighting the ‘attitude’ of the principal that

contributes to the lack of team spirit, which could be either the attitude of leaving

things as they are so as not to create discord and therefore creating a culture that

lacks innovation and collaboration, or a principal whose attitude is that of fixing

everything quickly and therefore is perceived as pushing too hard.

In the last 48 months I have released 5 principals. One of them had a laissez
faire type of approach to leading and they did not lead, they did very little…
another is they [principals]become impatient with their staff and start to push
things and the staff starts to react to it and it becomes a snowball and they
can’t recover from it.

Conclusion for 2.3: Research on reasons for principal failure identifies poor

interpersonal skills and demonstrates poor decision-making abilities (Davis 1997).

141
Superintendents in this study identified that leaders for secondary schools must

possess the courage and the willingness to make tough decisions, the ability to

engage others in the decision making process, and creating a culture that holds

people accountable for student achievement. It was interesting to note that

superintendents were aware that secondary principals were generally left alone if

their parent constituents, sports boosters, PTA etc., and their school discipline were

under control. Academic achievement was not a criterion for remaining on the job.

Superintendents who were interviewed stated that they had removed their principals

for lack of performance, but were aware that this was a rare decision.

The crisis around shortage of qualified secondary principals has created a

need to provide support and training while these individuals are in their positions.

The Education Research Service (ERS) study has declared findings that principals

appreciate training sessions that allow principals time to network with their peers.

The areas of focus are usually job demands and exchanging of ideas regarding

implementing change (2000). Chicago Public Schools implemented a training

program geared to aspiring and experienced administrators and included case study,

simulation, reflective analysis and coaching (Peterson and Kelley 2001). There are

several districts who have implemented such support initiatives to ensure principal

success.

2.4. What skills do principals possess to serve as “change agents”?

Superintendents considered this question to be a key factor of leadership. The

responses were associated with principals’ styles of leadership, and the Collaborative

142
leader is what was identified as required for a ‘change Agent’. One superintendent

elaborated on this theme:

And I think you have to be a very active listener, you have to listen carefully,
engage your staff in a process of self discovery, you have to ask critical
questions and through that you will be a true change agent because its not
going to be flipping and flopping; you are going to lead the school or
organization through a process in which they are going to continue to get
better.

Another superintendent identified a change agent as one who builds capacity and

creates a culture in the organization where people are willing to engage in the change

process.

Change agents are people who know and have a really good sense of what
needs to be changed and then also has the skills to affect that change. They
know how to work with people. What they need to do is enlist their staff in
the work.

Part of the superintendent responses were about the change process and how

change is created. One superintendent was adamant that creating a change without

basis and data was ineffective. But he also stated that sometimes a leader might

initiate a change to simply shake up the status quo:

You will have people who will say I am a change agent and come in and
make change for change sake. Sometimes it makes sense to make a top down
decision, knowing that people are going to be ticked off, unclear, resentful
and having THE class go through “the third the third the third” in terms of the
change process.

Another superintendent provided an example of how a principal can initiate

change in his school without disrupting the culture, but making his mark as a leader:

First you start off by picking the low hanging fruits, do the certain things that
are easily fixed fix that will set the tone for your school. Sometimes people
think it is complicated, it is not. There are things that are broken, get it fixed;

143
 if the place is dirty, you help from the kids… this is creating a culture where
people see you as a leader willing to do the work.

All superintendents confirmed that systemic changes take time and require

collaboration and needs to provide the naysayers the opportunity to comment and

express their frustration:

I believe change with urgency and change with collaboration are not mutually
exclusive. In fact I believe that really in education the only way you that you
can make true change with urgency is with collaboration…collaboration does
not necessarily mean that things have to take a long time. Sometimes it does.

Conclusion for 2.4: Schools that undertake change process are successful due

to strong leadership. Michael Fullan(2002) has argued that the role of the principal is

more than just an instructional leader and has identified a set of characteristics and

skills that he calls ‘principal as a leader in a culture of change’. In his book Good to

Great, Jim Collins (2001) studied 11 businesses and identified the ultimate skill of

leadership as one “who builds enduring greatness”. Superintendent responses

around the definition of a ‘change agent’ were strongly reflective of this research and

identified a successful change agent as one who in order to lead systemic changes in

their schools engage the staff and the community; this leader is willing to listen to

the diverse opinions and willing to engage other decision makers in a culture that

celebrates collaboration and positive relationships; and this leader supports

discussions around the issues of change and builds his staff to initiate the process of

change.

144
 2.5. How have interview and selection process changed based on the

changing role of the secondary principal?

Principals today are faced with accountability measures that has greatly

changed their roles as school leaders and raised questions around their preparation

for this challenging job. The research from Southern Regional Educational Board

(SREB) has presented findings on what successful leaders need to be able to do and

what training they need to be successful. This era of high standards and

accountability requires a new breed of school leaders (Bottoms and Kelly, 2001).

The superintendents interviewed were very strategic in their responses in that they

linked the changing role of the secondary principal to the selection process and the

criteria for selection. With regards to the process of interview there was little

difference in how principal candidates completed the application, the interview and

then made the finalist list. This has been the process since 1960’s when principal

hiring involved a written response and a panel interview.One superintendent

confirmed that:

The process [of selection] has not changed, some of the content has; our
practicum, the writing samples we get from them plus the interview questions
have a lot more to do with NCLB, API, AYP, low performing subgroups,
achievement gap, all of these things; that is the big difference. It’s narrowing
down all those critical things.

Another superintendent stated that in his district, it was the process itself that had

changed in order to confirm the level of skills and knowledge they were looking for

in their principal.

145
 Process got much, much more sophisticated as I learnt about knowledge base
and skills and saw what is working, and we became more reflective. Rigorous
evidence based process. Traditional interviews were questions then moved to
the candidate to data presentation, role play. The final interview became more
situational. We started doing more interview research.

Yet, another superintendent stated that on occasion he skipped the hiring process and

placed a secondary principal in a school unilaterally in order to meet the specific

needs and some times it was a good decision and other times he received some

political pressure.

There were a couple of times I appointed a high school principal without

going through a process. One time it was really successful and one time it
wasn’t. But the board was very uncomfortable with the process of appointing
without going through the process that did not involve staff and community.

In order to find a suitable candidate, one superintendent stated that he was

looking for a leader and despite the process in place, it came down to him in making

the final selection and at that time the criteria was more than knowledge and skills; it

was the “good fit”:

It is more that I changed in what I was looking for. Wanting somebody who
is comfortable being a leader and it took me a number of years to know that
is what I was looking for. The conversations at the final interview were more
like they were already principals.

Conclusion for 2.5: In the responses on how superintendents have changed

their selection process for secondary principals, there have evolved a pattern that

draws attention to the change of content as part of the process. In light of current

federal legislation and the accompanying implications for effective school leaders,

superintendents are now even more accountable for increasing overall student

achievement in accordance with Adequate Yearly Progress requirements set forth in

146
the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). The school superintendent has been viewed

as the educational leader of the community since the inception of the position

(Cuban, 1988), now the selection and placement of the right candidate is a more of

reflection of the superintendent’s focus on instructional quality. The responses

confirmed that the content now validates the principals’ knowledge of the

accountability measures and the of data to make programmatic improvements.

Selecting a leader who can “walk the walk” is critical as the secondary principal has

multiple stakeholder groups to work with in order to achieve the goals that are set

forth. Superintendents take a personal responsibility in placing the right candidate in

the school.

2.6. What part do you play as superintendent in preparing the criteria for

hire?

Principals have a significant impact on the effectiveness of their schools and

the achievement of their staff and students. Rigorous, transparent and well designed

selection process is imperative for building and sustaining the district goals of

assigning candidates that are the best fit for the school. The superintendents

described their practices in the selection of secondary principals and creating the

criteria for their schools and it is important to note that the process differed between

districts; in some the superintendent was actively involved in the criteria for hire, in

others he came in at the end for the final selection of the candidate. One

superintendent clarified that the process of creating the criteria was the responsibility

of the assistant superintendents in charge of the school and the Human Resources

147
department, and indicated that it was set up this way to allow the supervisors who

worked closely with the principals and the community to determine the best fit; “I

don’t prepare the criteria for hiring and that is done as a collaborative effort with area

superintendents who are responsible for 8-10 schools in the district.”, while another

superintendent was more active in the process and was involved in developing the

criteria as well as in the final selection. He elaborated that to him this position was

the key administrative position in his district and he wanted to be responsible for the

selection:

Every Monday afternoon right on these couches and chairs sits the assistant
superintendent for business, curriculum and HR and we set every thing at this
level and review the criteria together as a team… I will as a superintendent
will interview every single teacher and administrator that is hired…a 1:1
interview with the superintendent.

The superintendents were asked to comment on how the criteria was developed for

the selection and whether there were changes for each school based on the needs of

the school. Superintendents clarified that elementary schools selection criteria

usually remained the same, one superintendent stated, “ Our questions for site

principals, say for the elementary level, we have 28 elementary schools, which has

98% of the questions for all 28 elementary schools.” However, all superintendents

did confirm that secondary schools would have questions more specific to each

school and gave examples to elucidate that questions for high performing schools

would be significantly different in content than a Program Improvement (PI) school.

One respondent confirmed this finding when he stated:

148
 For Secondary schools we would add questions depending on the school; like
A is a very high performing school and B is a low performing school… or for
A we have a SOS program run by Stanford and that is Students On Stress
because our kids at A have tremendous stress problems and we don’t have
that at B.

Superintendents confirmed that the process of hiring principals and

preparation of selection criteria involves all stakeholder representative input at the

school site and that substantial amount of time is spent in its preparation. It is an

expected practice that the principal selection panel consists of parent and teacher

representatives. One superintendent confirmed this practice in his district:

Certificated personnel director had two meetings- one with faculty about
issues they were looking for and what the process would be; and the other
with parents sponsored by PTA. We could predict about what would come
out but it was a process and included everyone who had a say.

Receiving input from the community and the site stakeholders also provide

good public relations for the principal since they had been selected by the

community itself. One superintendent confirmed that very belief when he stated:

I involve community in hiring the principal and so they were involved as

consultants... Parents are always on the panel and parents like that and get the
word out and good PR for the person.

Conclusion for 2.6: Superintendents all confirmed that they played an active

part in selecting the candidate, however differed in regards to the extent to which

they were involved in preparing the criteria. The confirmation was received that the

final criteria was prepared by the cabinet level but the process involved feedback

from teachers and parents at the site. With regards to process of hiring, the

superintendents stated that they were involved in some way in the final selection. It

149
was evident in my interviews that the superintendents were very aware of the

importance of having the final choice in selecting the candidate, but at the same time,

they believed that the best candidates would reach the finals if they were able to fit

the needs of the parents, staff and the community as well. It was evident that hiring

the secondary principal is an important responsibility for the superintendent.

2.7. Would superintendents shift other site/district leaders to open position

secondary positions?

This question was asked specifically to determine if the superintendents

would place district level experienced principals at sites that had a critical need and

given that national statistics state that there is a need for more trained principals. The

question also aimed to determine what level of importance was given to the

secondary principals by the superintendents who were interviewed. The responses

did not all touch on this answer but one superintendent stated that the importance

was based on the district organization chart and where this position was placed. He

stated:

Because we are organized by areas the principal in each area is like they are
at the top of the food chain. They are, organizationally, considered to be the
most important site administrator in those individual areas. So I would have
to say that in our organization chart they are very, very important.

In the discussions related to the reorganization of the district office staff, if

necessary, to place the right candidate in the secondary school, differing responses

were processed. This answer by itself helped determine the level of importance

superintendents placed on the secondary principal position because while some were

150
ready to make the switch if necessary, others stated clearly that the district

administrators had earned their way ‘up’ and it was not going to be easy to ask them

to return to the site. One superintendent confirmed his willingness to make this

adjustment but confirmed that it was a difficult decision and it was easier to move

the leaders at the site level to fill the vacancy:

This is how you get the right people in the right place and it is tough given
the differentiation of salaries and status between positions and it is also tough
given how much loyalty is important in a high school culture…it is very
competitive. So we moved around assistant principals to get the right people
in the right places.

This practice was seconded by another superintendent who stated that the decision

was not easy and once the directors had been placed at the district level it was easier

to open the position for hire. He confirmed his experience:

I sat here with my three assistant superintendents and we talked about

[that]…we could put any of them in there and they would be great, but we
decided to see if we could get a pool of applicants.

But there were two superintendents who adamantly stated that they had

indeed made this kind of adjustment and would continue to do so to get the right

people in the right position. One superintendent stated that due to teacher contracts

moving teachers was a difficult task; but administration did not have such

restrictions and the movements were possible to make the right adjustments when

needed. He stated:

Absolutely (I would move district people to site) did do that and would do
that. It is interesting for me that I am a firm believer to this day that I have to
have the right person doing the right job and the only areas that a
superintendent has control over is administration.

151
 Conclusion for 2.7: The superintendents were very aware that placing the

right candidate in the principal position was a critical decision and that often strong

candidates were already in the district. It was evident that all superintendents

considered the option of placing district administrators at sites when indeed it was a

good match, but not all were willing to make the disruption at the district. Some even

felt that the salary issue or the district status was “earned” and it was not an easy

shift. Others felt just the opposite and were willing to make the adjustment for the

best fit.

Additional Question

In this section a follow up question was asked at the superintendent interview

because the data from the anonymous survey required a follow up discussion. On the

question in the Background subscale, the data indicated that superintendents rated

the criteria related to the Race and Gender of the candidate as ‘Not at All Important’

as a selection criteria. During the personal interviews with the five superintendents, I

once again asked this question, and this time there was a very different response. The

honesty with which the responses were given indicated that majority of the

superintendents and their teams made the final selection of principals around

conversations of Race and Gender, but only in as much as the candidate was already

assessed to be a good fit for the school community. The question asked was: Do you

believe that the race and the sex of the candidate had any effect on your selection

and placement of a Secondary Principal? And the various responses indicated that

even though these were not initial selection criteria, it did impact the final decision in

152
as much as it impacted the unique needs for the school and the community. One

superintendent stated this on the issue of Gender of the candidate, “No shouldn’t but

could [impact the final decision]. It might sound weird but sometimes some schools

would work better with women,” while another was very honest with his personal

preference on the gender of the candidate based on his personal experience with

secondary principals and his response was related to the skills of the candidates as an

instructional leader:

I have said it out loud and I will say it, I have a huge bias for women- I think
women make better instructional leaders than men… but my experience has
born out that generally speaking women are much more collaborative, much
more willing to be wrong, much more willing to admit mistakes and do a
better job next time than men.

When asked to discuss the race of the candidate, the responses were more

specific to a situation as relates to the school and the community needs. It is evident

from these responses that the responsibility of placing a principal who will be

successful in the community and will be an asset to the school and the community

overrides the political perception of their selection.

I really believe in an ideal world we should hire people who reflect the
community in which we serve. If we live in a predominantly Chinese
community and you have an opportunity to hire a Chinese principal, all
things being equal, I would rather give the job to the Chinese candidate who
knows the culture and makes people feel comfortable, but you cannot say
that. In a political charged world we live in we cannot do that but in a
realistic world that would be. Absolutely why wouldn’t you and these are
assets above and beyond… I would not hire somebody who would not be
successful. I take responsibility for this.

Another superintendent was similar in his belief that the needs of the school and the

community had a tremendous impact on finding the right match for the school.

153
 The answer is yes, I have done it and did it last year and this year.
Absolutely. If I have a school that has predominantly Spanish speaking
parents and I need a Spanish speaking principal.

A third superintendent made a similar commitment to his school community,

overriding political perceptions to candidly state that the needs of the community

would support this decision.

As far as ethnicity goes, you bet and as far as language goes- you bet, I will
definitely take that into strong consideration and often times make a decision
not based solely on that but a decision based primarily on that.

However one superintendent response was clearly different and he was very

confident that race and gender would not impact the hiring process in his district

because the employees in his district were representatives of his community. He was

also unwavering in his belief that the selection was based on the qualification alone:

We work very hard to recruit leaders principals, and so forth, from a cross
sections of ethnic backgrounds because we have such a diverse population
and we would like that to be reflected in our teachers, administrators…Last
one we had Caucasian female, African-American male, Hispanic male and
we hired the Hispanic males because he seemed to have the best skills,
attributes, characteristics and everything else.

Conclusion for additional question: From the superintendent interviews it was

interesting to note the deeper reflection on the selection criteria that drove their final

decisions. Due to political perceptions in today’s world and to avoid accusations of

‘profiling’, candidates are placed in communities where they fail to build affinity or

are not accepted for their skills and knowledge because the community itself is

unable to overlook their assumptions. Selection of candidates for secondary

principalships is a significant responsibility and from the majority responses as

154
indicated above, it can be assumed that final decisions will always take into account

all the criteria that result in the ‘good fit’ of the candidate.

Major Findings of this Study

In order to answer the overarching question what implications, if any, would

the current selection criteria of California urban superintendents have on the

preparation of future secondary school principals, the findings provide information

that could ensure a candidate’s success in the selection process and, more

importantly, in the job itself. The data in this chapter illustrated the relationship

between what superintendents believed were important, how they currently selected

their candidates, what kind of training and support they provided to the principals in

the jobs, and which areas require further emphasis in the principal preparation

prorgams.

The major findings of the study are summarized as follows:

1. Superintendents were very consistent in their responses around the

selection criteria, as evidenced by high mean averages of the quantitative data

responses and the consistency of the qualitative data responses. Furthermore,

differences in the superintendent’s tenure in the district, experience as a

superintendent, size of the district, gender of the superintendent, and the academic

performance as indicated by the API score of the district, had no statistical

significance on the responses.

155
 2. Communication skills, including collaboration skills and decision making

skills would ensure the candidate’s success. The irony of these findings is that these

are innate traits of a candidate and cannot be taught in a Principal Training program.

3. Both the quantitative and the qualitative data indicated that the selection

of secondary principal was an important decision for the superintendents.

Superintendents were aware of the ISLLC standards but responses did not reflect

superintendent adherence to the standards with fidelity.

4. The interview process has undergone substantial change, both in content

and process due to the accountability measures in education and the need to engage

stakeholders in the selection process.

5. Superintendents denounced secondary principals who maintained status

quo and failed to question the practices and programs that failed to show results. It

was evident that superintendents focused on Principal candidates who recognized the

deeper issues reflected in the school performance data and strategies around that.

Based on the findings, listed below are common themes as indicated by

superintendents in this study:

1. Deep knowledge of federal and state mandates as regards API, AYP, CST

to support the high accountability guidelines.

2. Secondary teaching experience along with understanding of strategies for

diverse learners so as to effectively communicate with teachers about

pedagogy, student learning and classroom management and raise student

achievement through effective use of data to drive programs.

156
 3. The quality of secondary principal candidates was not at par and that the

number of qualified candidates was a small minority.

4. There exists an increased need to continue to support the secondary

principals to be successful in their jobs and that district’s should structure

weekly or bi-monthly meetings to address this. Partnerships with the local

universities and superintendents allow in-house training and hiring

advantage.

5. The interview process involves more details around the current research

based practices for school reform and includes situational questions

related to data and accountability measures and how these are used to

initiate reform strategies.

6. Candidates’ gender and ethnicity play a significant role in the final

selection of a candidate.

There is a need to correlate the significant areas in the study findings with the

Principal Preparation Programs. There is a need for further inquiry to substantiate

the results of this research. These issues will be addressed in detail in Chapter Five.

157
 CHAPTER FIVE

CONCLUSIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

Introduction

Chapter Five presents a summary discussion of the findings and data

presented in Chapter Four. This chapter includes the problem and purpose of the

study, research questions, a summary of the research methodology, and an outline of

the implications of the findings for future education policies and practice with

specific focus on the Principal Preparation Programs.

The Problem

The system of accountability in secondary schools has created the need for

superintendents to select qualified principals who can initiate reform efforts to

address the needs of diverse student learning. Current research and superintendent

concerns confirm a shortage of qualified candidates and that the Principal Training

Programs are doing an inadequate job of preparing their graduates for the challenges

of the secondary principalship.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of the study was to examine the superintendent selection criteria

for secondary principals in California under the recent demands of federal and state

accountability reporting practices. The study was conducted to answer one

overarching question: What implications, if any, would the current selection criteria

of California urban superintendents have on the preparation of future secondary

158
school principals? Two research questions were developed to guide the study: (1)

What skills, training and knowledge do superintendents look for when hiring

secondary principals? (2) To what extent did superintendents adhere to the

ISLLC/CPSEL standards as part of the selection criteria for secondary principals in

their districts?

These research questions formed the basis for the conceptual framework of

the study, collecting and analyzing data and providing findings for future

considerations.

Methodology

In order to answer the questions above a mixed-method study was conducted

with California Urban Superintendents. The quantitative part of this study was

conducted through a 35-question anonymous survey completed by 17

superintendents in California and the qualitative part of this research was completed

through one to one interview sessions for approximately 120 minutes with five

superintendents. The responses provided the data which were analyzed to identify

the selection criteria for secondary principals as well the qualities required for

successful fulfillment of the job of secondary principals.

Sample and Population

Superintendents who participated in the anonymous survey were required to

identify their background and district information. This information was further

analyzed for consistency in responses and to identify trends if any. The interviews

were conducted with experienced superintendents from either Union High School

159
District or Unified School District in California and who had (1) served as a

superintendent for more than 5 years and (2) Reform initiatives and test scores

indicate high level of reform efforts, and the secondary schools in this district or in

the previous district have shown documented gains in student achievement as

identified through API scores within the past three years (2005-2008).

Data Collection

The data was collected in two formats. The first was through an anonymous

survey that was mailed to 40 superintendents in California. 17 superintendents or

56.6% of the responses were analyzed for the study. The survey protocol addressed

questions on superintendent background and the district in general. Background

questions were around superintendents’ gender, total years as an educator in the

current district, total years as a superintendent in the current district, total years as a

superintendent, and total years as an educator, and district information was to

identify a union high school or a unified school district, the size, and the API. Each

of these categories was used to further desegregate superintendent response data for

a trend based on these criteria. The body of the survey consisted of 35 questions

based on the format used by William Reichert as part of his dissertation on The

Selection of Public School Principals in the 21st century By Indiana Public School

Superintendents (2008). These questions were divided into four subscales addressing

Background, Management, Human relations and Instruction skills of the secondary

principals and based on current research. The responses were rated on a five-point

Likert scale, with 1 being “Not at all Important” and 5 being “Very Important”.

160
 Data was collected through a second method. Personal interviews were

conducted with 5 superintendents. The interviews were conducted personally and

then transcribed for recording purposes. Each interview lasted almost ninety minutes.

Summary of Findings

The following section is organized into two parts:

Part I. This section uses the quantitative and qualitative data to answer the

first research question and provide conclusions: What skills, training and knowledge

do superintendents look for when hiring secondary principals?

Part II. This section uses the quantitative and qualitative data to answer the

second research question and provide conclusions: How do superintendents ensure

that the right candidate is selected for the position and Sis successful in the position

of secondary principal?

Part I. Analysis of Quantitative and Qualitative data for Research

Question 1.

What skills, training and knowledge do superintendents look for when hiring

secondary principals?

The Quantitative data collected from the superintendent surveys were further

researched to determine whether there were consistency based on superintendent

background and experience. Five follow-up questions were asked to further analyze

the responses to the four subscale categories related to Background, Instruction,

Human Resources and Management criteria identified in the survey.

161
 Findings for Quantitative Research question 1.1

Do Superintendents of Unified School Districts and Union High School

Districts differ in their selection criteria of secondary principals, and if so how?

One way analysis of variance was conducted to examine the difference

between the selection criteria of Superintendents of Unified School Districts and

those of Union High School Districts. The outcomes of the analysis indicated that

there was no difference in the selection criteria among the two groups, F (1,15) =

.327, p > .05

Findings for Quantitative Research Question 1.2

Do urban superintendents with less than 3 years of superintendent experience

differ in their selection criteria from those who have been in that position for over 5

years, or over 10 years? Therefore does longevity in the superintendent’s office

impact the selection criteria? According to the results of one-way analysis of

variance, there was no statistically significant mean difference between the selection

criteria of Superintendents with less than 3 years of serving in urban setting and their

counterparts with over 5 years, or over 10 years; F (1,12) = .149, p > .05.

Findings for Quantitative Research Question 1.3

Do superintendents, who have risen from within the district to their current

position, differ in what they are looking for in their secondary principals from those

who are hired as superintendents from other districts?

162
 In order to answer the question, one-way analysis of variance was conducted.

There was no statistically significant mean difference between those two groups, F

(1,13) = .562, p > .05.

Findings for Quantitative Research Question 1.4

Do male and female superintendents’ differ in their selection of secondary

principals?

The results of the one-way analysis of variance indicated that there was no

statistically significant mean difference in the selection of secondary principals

according to the gender of superintendents, F (1,15) = .173, p > .05.

Findings for Quantitative Research Question 1.5

How did female and male superintendent responses reflect the adherence to

the ISLLC standards in their selection criteria?

There was no significant difference in overall responses; males rated

Standard 3 higher.

Findings of Quantitative Subscale data: Background, Instruction,

Human Resources and Management

The responses in each of the four subscales were rated on a Likert scale with

5 being the highest. The results indicate that Human Relations subscale had the

highest mean of 4.62 compared with its counterparts. The mean of Instruction

criteria was 4.38 followed closely by the Management criteria with a mean of 4.30.

The Background subscale had the lowest mean of 3.12, indicating that the criteria

related to biographical variables of secondary principal candidates were significantly

163
less important to the superintendents. The total mean of the Selection Criteria (4.11)

indicates that these four subscales were significantly Important.

Summary of Quantitative data findings for Research Question 1

Skills: Superintendents required that the candidates demonstrate the ability to

work collaboratively with all stakeholders and engage them in the decision making

opportunities. Candidates need strong communication skills.

Trainings: To tolerate high levels of stress and understand how to create

structures that motivates others through vision and planning. Principals must be

confident in managing employee discipline, and have training related to classroom

supervision and teacher evaluation and in the use of assessment data to drive

instruction.

Knowledge: Superintendents identified that principals should have

knowledge of secondary instruction and teaching experience at the secondary level.

There is high expectation that the candidate is well versed in the accountability

measures such as API and AYP and proves past performance of raising test scores.

In addition, principals must demonstrate knowledge of reform initiatives such as

Professional Learning Communities and Small Learning Communities and Career

Technical Education.

The Qualitative data around Research Question 1 was collected from the

superintendent personal interviews. Four follow-up questions were asked to further

analyze the responses. These questions allowed superintendents the opportunity to

164
reflect on their personal expectations and experiences with principal success and to

provide data for ongoing principal preparation opportunities.

Findings for Qualitative Research Question 1.1

What skills, training, and knowledge are important for a successful

secondary principalship?

The following skills emerged as common themes based on open and selective

coding: (1) Interpersonal skills leading to building positive and strong relationships

with all stakeholders through effective and clear communication and this was an

innate skill that cannot be taught in credential programs; and (2) Leadership skills

with emphasis on instructional leadership as demonstrated through knowledge and

understanding of content area and program which is attained through previous

experience.

Findings for Qualitative Research Question 1.2

How would you rate these areas of responsibility for preparation for the

secondary principal position? (11 areas of skills, knowledge, training were

identified)

Each of the areas were identified as Very important or Important for the

selection process, except all superintendents rated that it was Not Important that the

candidate possess prior experience as a Secondary Principal, though they must have

experience of secondary schools in some level of leadership capacity.

165
 Findings for Qualitative Research Question 1.3

If you were to assess the principal preparation programs, are they doing a

good enough job preparing the principals- why or why not? What would you

recommend these programs focus on as a priority?

Superintendents responded to this question in two distinct groups; one group

used current examples to elucidate the lack of real-world preparation, whereas

another group stated that the current university practices were partnering with

districts and supporting job-based trainings.

Findings for Qualitative Research Question 1.4

Does your district provide support for individuals related to skills and

knowledge identified as areas of need through the evaluation process?

The superintendents confirmed that professional needs of principals were

addressed through systematic district wide commitment to professional development.

Summary of Qualitative data findings for Research Question 1

Skills: Secondary principals as instructional leadership must possess the skills

that allow them to use their knowledge and understanding of all aspects of secondary

instruction to drive student learning. When that is coupled with strong interpersonal

skills, highlighted by strong listening skills and deep empathy for the staff, it results

in building a positive school community. By prioritizing relations with their

community through active listening, recognizing and acknowledging the diverse

interests of his stakeholders, secondary principals engage their stakeholders in a

collaborative process. It is imperative that secondary principals understand and work

166
within the established campus culture to reduce the possibilities of upheavals when

new ideas are introduced, by inviting teacher leaders as decision makers. Successful

leaders are quick to recognize and respect diversity and are successful when they are

able to create a culture of respect for all students and staff irrespective of race,

gender and sexual orientation. Principal candidates must possess the skills to clearly

articulate their vision which is closely reflective of the school district, though not

necessarily equated with replicating the superintendent’s ideas or beliefs. This vision

should include a clear recognition of existing issues, analysis of the facts and data to

support sound decisions, and communication of a plan with clarity and sensitivity

that addresses the needs of the diverse factions that dominate the community. This is

political preparedness and the lack of this skill leads to discord and unsuccessful

tenure.

Trainings: Successful experience with creating collaborative processes and

decisions ensures success as a secondary principal. In order to create a common

vision, secondary principals must possess the trainings related to developing shared

visions, which include, story telling, creating a cooperative process to identify values

and beliefs, and how to engage staff. Successful schools have leaders who face and

deflect conflict rather than avoid it; having the trainings related to hiring of

compatible staff, working with union leadership and understanding and interpreting

contract language is an essential. Superintendents also identified that unlike prior

decades, the current fiscal crisis necessitates that secondary principals have a deep

knowledge of school budgets. Candidates should have a working knowledge of the

167
various funding sources, restricted and unrestricted funding, and be trained to work

with the parents and support groups to attract community resources to augment

programs and services. In order to create a campus that focuses the culture around

student learning, experience with implementing reform initiatives, such as

Professional Learning Communities or Small Learning Communities to address

student learning is important.

Knowledge: Secondary principals must possess deep knowledge and

understanding of content area and program implementation which would be focused

on improving student learning. By understanding how to analyze student

performance data to ask critical questions, secondary principals must improve the

quality of instruction and the quality of programs of a school. The knowledge is

further enhanced when secondary principals use classroom observations and

evaluations to address good teaching. The deep understanding of the role of a

secondary principal is not necessarily taught in Training programs; rather successful

candidates understand the important of creating high expectations of all students and

staff, creating a structure of accountability and remaining visible and accessible to

students and parents. These leaders implement practices that create a positive and

supportive school climate that is further supported by shared leadership and

implement a plan that involves effective use of resources and time to providing staff

training. In order to create systemic and sustainable improvements, these candidates

must possess a working knowledge of research based school reform initiatives.

168
 Part II. This section uses the quantitative and qualitative data to answer the

second research question and provide conclusions:

How do superintendents ensure that the right candidate is selected for the

position and is successful in the position of secondary principal?

The Quantitative data collected from the superintendent surveys were

analyzed to determine the adherence to the ISLLC/CPSEL standards. Each of the

criteria identified under the four categories (Background, Instruction, Human

Resources and Management) were matched to the applicable CPSEL standard.

In order to “Facilitating the development, articulation, implementation, and

stewardship of a vision of learning…,” (Standard 1) successful candidates could

engage stakeholders in discussions around student achievement and secondary

learning thereby crafting a common vision that solicits stakeholder input for

development and implementation.

Selected candidates who display qualities of “Advocating, nurturing, and

sustaining a school culture….” (Standard 2) would demonstrate knowledge of the

master schedule, understanding the process of introducing new courses, and the

ability to manage financial resources, work with unions, monitor and regulate the

overall physical plant, and work with the school budget.

Candidates who are capable of “Ensuring management of the organization,

operations, and resources for a safe, efficient, and effective learning environment”

(Standard 3) would demonstrate skills related to monitoring and regulating the

169
overall physical plant and channeling resources to support and create a safe learning

environment.

Successful candidates would provide examples of “Collaborating with

families and community members, responding to diverse community interests and

needs” (Standard 4) and would relate that to strategies that allow stakeholder

representation in school decisions and recognize and address ways to attract

community resources to support and augment school programs.

Selected candidate would confirm their strength in “Modeling a personal

code of ethics and developing professional leadership capacity” (Standard 5) by

gaining good references from previous employers and be able to provide examples of

being a good listener, tolerate high levels of stress and how to plan effective

professional development activities.

Finally, to demonstrate “Understanding, responding to, and influencing the

larger political, social, economic, legal, and cultural context” (Standard 6)

candidates would refer to situations related to balancing multiple agendas,

prioritizing requests and closely align the goals to the district vision and articulate

that to the community.

Part II: Analysis of Quantitative and Qualitative data findings for Research

Question 2.

Findings from the Quantitative Data

This stated that in order to get selected as secondary principal a successful

candidate must successfully describe how to create a common vision that engages

170
stakeholders in discussions around student achievement. This candidate will also be

required to demonstrate knowledge of secondary schools in relation to introducing

courses and programs of studies, working with unions and managing the school

plant. Examples of how to use funding sources to support student learning and how

to attract resources from the community to augment school programs will closely

reflect the skills possessed to engage the community in school decisions and the

ability to create a culture that prioritizes safety and efficiency. Finally, it is

imperative that the candidate possesses good references and is able to explain their

philosophy around education leadership that relates to balancing multiple agendas,

prioritizing requests and close alignment of his goals to that of the district and the

superintendent.

The Qualitative data around Research Question 2 was collected from the

superintendent personal interviews. Seven follow-up questions were asked to further

analyze the responses. These questions allowed superintendents the opportunity to

reflect on their personal expectations and experiences with principal success and to

provide data for ongoing principal preparation opportunities.

Summary of Qualitative data findings for Research Question 2.1

Identify the major leadership skills for secondary principals that result in

student achievement.

Effective communicators, good listeners, risk-takers, able to engage their

community and staff in collaborative decision making process, and most importantly,

willing to make sustainable changes. Superintendents identified secondary leadership

171
focus to be on instructional leadership aimed at raising student achievement and

teacher efficacy.

Summary of Qualitative data findings for Research Question 2.2

Which of the four frameworks of leadership (Bolman and Deal, 2005) do you

focus on during the selection process, given today’s high era of accountability?

Superintendent responses focused on the qualities of leadership needed to

successfully lead schools, which were skills related to being strong communicators,

good listeners, effective collaborators, and risk-takers. Assessment of the responses

indicated that superintendents prioritized the Political Framework, closely followed

by the Human Resources Framework and then the Structural Framework. No

responses related to the Symbolic Framework.

Summary of Qualitative data findings for Research Question 2.3

What are the weaknesses that result in unsuccessful tenure for secondary

principals?

Secondary school leaders fail due to lack of courage and the willingness to

make tough decisions, inability to engage others in the decision making process,

poor interpersonal skills, and being unsuccessful in creating a culture that promotes

accountability for student achievement. In practice, however, one superintendent

confirmed, principals maintain their tenure despite low test scores or lack of school

wide progress, as long as, the parent constituents, sports boosters, PTA etc., remain

satisfied and the school discipline is under control. Academic growth or successful

programs are often sacrificed in face of parental pressures.

172
 Summary of Qualitative data findings for Research Question 2.4

What skills do principals possess to serve as “change agents”?

In order to lead systemic changes in their schools, these principals must be

able to engage the staff and the community by listening and inviting diverse opinions

and engaging other decision makers. Collaborative and positive relationships would

support the issues of change.

Summary of Qualitative data findings for Research Question 2.5

How have interview and selection process changed based on the changing

role of the secondary principal?

The content of the interviews have changed to reflect current federal

legislation and the accompanying implications for effective school leaders to

increase overall student achievement. The content now tests the principals’

knowledge of the accountability measures, how to use data to make programmatic

improvements, personal leadership philosophies and the skills to work with multiple

stakeholder groups to achieve the goals that are set forth.

Summary of Qualitative data findings for Research Question 2.6

What part do you play as superintendent in preparing the criteria for hire?

The final criteria for hire are commonly decided at the cabinet level but the

process involved feedback from teachers and parents at the site. Superintendents

stated that they were involved in some way in the final selection.

173
 Summary of Qualitative data findings for Research Question 2.7

Would superintendents shift other site/district leaders to open position

secondary positions?

Recognizing the need to place suitable candidates in the secondary principal

position, superintendents were willing to reassign site level administrators but

reassigning a district director or coordinator to the principalship was not a common

practice.

Final Summary of Qualitative data findings for Research Question 2

In order to raise student achievement and engage in the change process, the

candidate must demonstrate the ability to engage the community and staff through

collaboration and strong communication skills. In addition, secondary principals

must be risk-takers who are functioning strongly at all times within the Political

Framework. Unwillingness to make tough decisions and inability to create a system

of accountability for student achievement results in principal failure. Keeping the

parent constituents, sports boosters, PTA etc., happy would ensure tenure; failure to

raise academic growth is not used to measure principal success.

The current content of the interview now includes reference to federal

legislation and the accompanying implications. Use of data in decisions and

leadership philosophies are key areas of focus. The panel usually consists of

stakeholder representatives and includes questions that have input from these

representative groups. Superintendents are involved in selecting the final candidate.

Hiring the right candidate is a priority and superintendents were willing to reassign

174
site level administrators but necessarily district directors or coordinators to the

position.

Conclusions

The conclusions below are based upon the data gathered from the analysis of

surveys and interviews conducted with the superintendents in California and relates

to research question 1 and 2.

Research Question 1

Based on the analysis of the quantitative and qualitative summary of findings

in the previous section, the conclusions below reflect the skills, training and

knowledge that California superintendents use as criteria during selection of

secondary principals. Candidates must:

1. Demonstrate strong communication skills coupled with strong

interpersonal skills, which highlight strong listening skills and deep

empathy for staff resulting in a collaborative approach to engaging all

stakeholders in the decision making process.

2. Identify with the superintendent’s and the district goals to clearly

articulate a vision that recognizes existing issues and addresses the

diverse needs of the school community. This level of political

preparedness is required.

3. Demonstrate knowledge of instructional leadership based on all aspects of

secondary instruction. Candidates must possess secondary teaching

experience and prior knowledge of secondary leadership in some

175
 capacity. Candidates must be well versed in the accountability measures

such as API and AYP and prove past performance of raising test scores.

4. Illustrate the usage of student performance data to ask critical questions

that address issues around quality of instruction and the quality of

programs of a school.

5. Exhibit Knowledge of classroom observations and evaluations to address

good teaching and to engage staff in discussion and staff trainings and

workshops to address student-centered instructional practices.

6. Express strategies that prioritize building relations with the community

through a collaborative process and attract community resources to

augment programs and services.

7. Understand and acknowledge the established campus culture to reduce

the possibilities of upheavals, to tolerate high levels of stress and face and

deflect conflict by inviting teacher leaders as decision makers.

8. Ability to create practices and structures that create a culture of respect

for all students and staff irrespective of race, gender and sexual

orientation. Ability to create a culture of high expectations of all students

and staff, a structure of measurable accountability through shared

leadership.

9. Effectively manage employee discipline, hiring of compatible staff,

working with union leadership, and interpreting employee contracts.

176
 10. Strong understanding of school budgets with working knowledge of

various funding sources, restricted and unrestricted funding.

11. Experience with implementing reform initiatives, such as Professional

Learning Communities or Small Learning Communities to address

student learning.

Research Question 2

Based on the analysis of the quantitative and qualitative summary of findings

in the previous sections, the conclusions below summarize how candidates are

selected for the secondary principalship. Superintendents and panels identify

candidates who:

1. Possess the knowledge, skills and trainings reflected in the six

ISLLC/CPSEL standards which are ingrained in the daily responsibilities

of a secondary principal and focus on secondary instructional leadership

to raise student achievement and teacher efficacy and understand how to

use data to make programmatic improvements...

2. Understand change through collaborative leadership and communication

and respect and .prioritize the ‘Political Framework’ for leadership to

work with diverse interest groups.

3. Demonstrate personal courage and practices for “out of the box” decision

making with superintendent support.

4. Possess strong knowledge and understanding of the accountability

measures.

177
 5. Districts need to create a process for training and mentorship of

principals, in addition to creating opportunities for peer reflection time.

Application of the Study to the Preparation of

Future Secondary Principal Candidates

This study has analyzed and summarized the data collected from California

superintendents in order to address the overarching question: What implications, if

any, would the current selection criteria of California urban superintendents have on

the preparation of future secondary school principals? The data indicates that the

principal training should focus on the following areas:

1. Understand and relate to the content of the interviews which now reflect

current federal legislation and accountability measures and accompanying

implications around increasing student achievement.

2. Demonstrate awareness that the competition for the job would most

probably be from candidates outside the district since there is a hesitancy

to reassign district personnel to the site.

3. Training in use of data: principals are not sufficiently trained as effective

users of data to monitor and introduce programs and services. It is

recommended that principal training programs lay strong emphasis on

this training.

4. Effective evaluation and observation strategies: emphasis to be given on

observations and evaluations that address student learning and ask critical

178
 questions to raise teacher efficacy around pedagogy, student engagement

and rigor and relevance.

5. Political preparedness: Interaction with diverse groups require political

preparedness and principals can gain knowledge on how to assess

situations through multiple situational discussions related to this process.

6. Understanding how to analyze and apportion Budgets: Candidates should

have a working knowledge of the various funding sources, restricted and

unrestricted funding, etc.

7. Use data to address accountability measures under federal mandates:

Principals should understand how to read the data as relates to PI, API,

AYP, Safe Harbor etc.

8. Planning effective professional growth and staff development activities

that engage staff in activities that addressed teacher efficacy in meeting

student needs.

9. Knowledge of research based reform initiatives and strategies to address

change process.

10. Knowledge of staff discipline FRISK manual and progressive discipline

and understanding of teacher and classified union role, contract language

and grievance process.

11. Understanding the role and importance of community and the utilization

of resources within the community by attracting and creating partnerships

with the parents.

179
 Recommendations for future research

1. There is a need to organize this research in a way where the qualitative and

quantitative data ask the same questions. This would provide a statistical

measure for consistency between the anonymous responses and the personal

interviews.

2. Larger sample size to include superintendents across California and then

across the United States to identify whether the selection criteria differed by

districts or locations. Additionally, grouping districts by similar size, similar

socio-economic and demographic criteria could result in data that could

identify differences in selections.

3. A study to analyze training programs and their preparation of the secondary

principal candidates is recommended.

4. A comparative study focusing on the quality of secondary principal

preparation should be conducted using data between graduates from Principal

Preparation Programs and those who are trained in-house within the district-

university partnership programs.

5. A study on online certification courses and how they differ from traditional

Principal Preparation programs provided by colleges and universities is

recommended.

6. It is recommended that a study be conducted to analyze the political

framework focusing on the four frames of Leadership by Boleman and Deal’s

(2005) and its direct impact on secondary principal success in that position.

180
 Conclusion

This study aims to add to the existing research on this topic associated with

secondary principal selection and other related topics about principal leadership.

Based on the research findings and the data in this chapter, the criteria for selection

of secondary principals closely match the existing research on principal leadership.

The outcome of this study could be used to guide aspiring secondary principals and

those who are relatively new in their positions to understand the expectations of

California Superintendents and be successful in implementing the responsibilities of

the office.

181
 GLOSSARY

Academic Performance Index (API)

Academic Yearly Progress (AYP)

Association for California School Administrators (ACSA)

California Professional Standards for Educational Leaders (CPSEL)

California Standards Test (CST)

Comprehensive School Reform (CSR)

Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA)

Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA)

Institute for Educational Leadership (IEL)

Interstate School leaders Licensure Consortium (ISLLC)

Local Education Agencies (LEA)

Mid-Continental research for Education and Learning (McREL)

National Association of Secondary School Principals (NASSP)

No Child Left Behind (NCLB)

North Central Regional Educational Laboratory (NCREL)

Processional Learning communities (PLC)

Small Learning Communities (SLC)

Southern Region Education Board (SREB)

Standardized Testing and Reporting Program (STAR)

The New Teacher Project (TNTP)

182
 REFERENCES

Adelman, C. (2006). The Toolbox Revisited: Paths to Degree Completion From High
School Through College. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Education.

Allen, Christopher S. (2008). Actions and behaviors public school superintendents

perceive to build trust with diverse and competing constituencies.
Dissertation Abstracts International.

Anderson, M. E. (1991). Principals: How to Train, Recruit, Select, Induct, and

Evaluate Leaders for America's Schools. Eugene, Oregon: ERIC
Clearinghouse on Educational Management, University of Oregon.

Baltzell, Catherine, & Dentler, Robert (1983). Selecting American School Principals:
Research Report.Washington D.C.: National Institute of Education.

Barth, R. S. (1990). Improving Schools from within; Teachers, parents and principals
can make the difference. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Blank, R. K. (1987). The Role of the principal as Leader; Analysis of Variation in

Leadership of Urban High Schools. The Journal of Educational Research, 81.

Blount, J. M. (1998). Destined to Rule the Schools: Women and the Superintendency.
Albany: State University of New York Press.

Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2003). Reframing Organizations; Artistry, Choice, and
Leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Bottoms, Gene, & O'Neill, Kathy (2001). Preparing a New Breed of School
Principals: It's Time for Action . Atlanta, GA: Southern Regional Education
Board.

Boyd, Victoria (1992). School Context: bridge or Barrier to Change. Southwest

Educational.

Boyer, E. L. (1985). The Image and the reality; Review of High School. Curriculum
Inquiry.

Bragg, D., & Kim, E. (). Middle College and Early College High Schools. Academic
Pathways to Access and Student Success (APASS),
doi:http://occrl.ed.uiuc.edu

183
Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.

Byrd, J., Drewa, C., & Johnson, J. (2006). Factors Impacting Superintendent
Turnover: Lessons from the field. NCPEA Education Leadership Review,
7(2).

Campbell, John P. (1970, June). Personnel Training and Development (NR no. 152-
293).

Cash, D. (2008). Defined Autonomy: How Superintendents work with principals to

create the defined autonomy at schools necessary for improved student
achievement. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California,
2008).

Christopher, Carl, et al. (2005-06). Instructional Leadership for Systemic Change;

the

Chubb, John E., & Moe, Terry (1990). Building in Accountability Mechanisms for
Democracies & Bureaucracies: From Governmental & Educational Special
Interest Operations. ERIC, 1991(RIEJUN1991).

Chubb, John E., & Moe, Terry M. (1989). Give Choice a Chance: Answers to the
Most Frequently Asked Questions about Mediocrity in American Education.
Brookings Institution, Washington D.C.

Copland, M. A. (2001). The Myth of the Super Principal. Phi delta Kappan, 82, 528-
533

Cotton, K. (2003). Principals and Student Achievement: What the research says.
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Cuban, L., Shipps, D. (2000). Reconstructing the Common Good in Education.

Stanford, California: Stanford University Press.

Darling-Hammond, Linda (Fall 2002). American Educational Research Journal. In

comparison of superintendent' and principals' beliefs and implementation
perceptions

Darling-Hammond, Linda, Hightower, Amy, Husbands, Jennifer, Lafors, Jeanette,

Young, Viki, et.al. (2005) Instructional Leadership for Systemic Change: a
Story of San Diego’s Reform. http://www.
Romaneducation.com/ISBN/1578861675 (3 ed., Vol. 39, pp. 639-673).

184
David, James, & Jazzar, Michael (2005). The Seven Habits of Effective Principal
Preparation Programs. National Association of Elementary School Principals,
84(5).

Deal, T., & Peterson, K. (1998). Shaping School Culture: the Heart of Leadership.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Deal, Terrence E., and Kent D. Peterson. (1990). The Principal's Role in Shaping
School Culture. Washington, D.C.: Office of Educational Research and
Improvement, 1990.

Desimone, Laura (2002). How Can Comprehensive School Reform Models Be

Successfully Implemented. 72(3), 433-479.

Dipaola, & Tscannen-Moran (2003). The Principalship at a Crossroads: A study of

the conditions and concerns of principals. NASSP Bulletin, 87(634).

Duckworth, Mark Thomas (2008). Non-traditional Public School Superintendents:

An exploratory case study. Ed.D. dissertation, North Carolina State
University, United States. Retrieved February 20, 2009, from Dissertations &
Theses: Full Text database.

DuFour, R, Eaker, R. Professional Learning Communities at Work: Best Practices

for Enhancing Student Achievement, NES

Dufour, R., Eaker, R., & Burnette, R. (2002). Getting Started: Re-Culturing Schools
to Become Professional Learning Communities. Bloomington, IN: Solution
Tree.

Duke, D. (2004). The Turnaround Principal: High-Stakes Leadership. Principal

Magazine, 84.

Ediger, M. (2002). Assessing the School Principal. Education, 123(1), 90-95.

Elmore, R. (2000). Building a New Structure for School Leadership. : Albert

Shanker Institute.

Farkas, S., Johnson, J., Duffett, A., & Foleno, T. (2001). Trying to Stay Ahead of the
Game. New York Public Agenda .

Fink, E., & Resnick, L. (2001). The Principal Shortage: Crisis or )pportunity.
Principal, 25-32.

185
Floden, R., Goertz, M., & O'Day, J. (1995). Capacity Building in Systemic Reform.
Phi Delta Kappan, 77.

Friedman, Thomas (2005). The World Is Flat. New York, NY: Farrar, Straus and
Giroux.

Fullan, Michael (2001). Leading in a Culture of Change. Education Leadership.

Fullan, Michael (2002). Principals as Leaders in a Culture of Change. Educational

Leadership, (May 2002), 7.

Fuller, H., Campbell, C., Celio, M., Harvey, J., Immerwahr, J., Winger, A., et al.
(2003). An Impossible Job? the View from the Urban Superintendent's Chair
(The Wallace Foundation). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing
Office.

Glass, T. E., & Bearman, A. (2003). Superintendent Selection of Secondary School

Principals. Paper presented at the meeting of the Education Commission of
the States. Denver, Co.

Glass, Thomas E. (1992). The Study of American School Superintendency:

American Education Leaders in a Time of Reform. American Association of
School Administrators.

Goodney, Thomas L. (2007). Assessing Knowledge, Understandings, Skills, And

Traits: A Discrepancy Analysis of Those who Prepare and Hire Secondary
Principals in Ohio. (Doctoral dissertation, Miami University, 2007).
Retrieved from ProQuest Information

Goodwin, R., Cunningham, M. L., & Eagle, T. (2005). The Changing Role of the
Secondary Principal in the United States: An Historical Perspective. Journal
of Educational Administration and History, 37(1), 1-17.

Greene, J. P., & Winters, M. A. (2006). Leaving Boys Behind: Public High School
Graduation Rates. Manhattan Institute of Policy Research, 48.

Hannaway, J., & Rotherham, A. J. (2006). Collective Bargaining in Education.

Boston, MA: Harvard Graduate School.

186
Hess, F. M., & Kelly, A. P. (2005a). Learning to Lead? What gets taught in
principal preparation programs (PEPG 05-02 Cambridge MA; Program on
Educational Policy and Governance at Harvard University). Washington, DC:
U.S. Government Printing Office. Retrieved from
http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/pepg/research.hlm

Hodgkinson, Harold L., & Montenegro, Xenia (1999). The U.S. School
Superintendent: the Invisible CEO. Institute of Educational Leadership,
(1999).

Hoffman, J. V. (1991). Teacher and School effects in Learning to Read. (Eds)

Handbook of reading research, Voll II. New York: Longman.

Howe, Mary Lee, and Townsend, Rene. The Principal as Political Leader. High
School Magazine, V7 n6 p11-16 Feb 2000

Hoyle, J., Bjork, L., Collier, V., & Glass , T. (2005). The Superintendent as CEO:
Standards-based performance. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

Institute of Educational Leadership (2000). Reinventing the Principalship (School

Leadership for the 21st Century Initiative).

Jones, R. (1995). Picturing your Perfect Principal. The Executive Educator, 17(5),
16-21.

Kelley, R., Thornton, B., & Daugherty, R. (Fall 2005). Relationships between
Measures of Leadership and School Climate. Education, 126(1), 17.

Kose, B.W. The Principal’s Role in Professional Development for Social Justice. An
empirically-Based Transformative Framework. Urban education November
2009 44(6); 622-663

Kowalski, T. J. (1995). Keepers of the Flame: Contemporary Urban

Superintendents. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Kowalski, T. J. (2001). The Future of the Local School Governance: Implications for
Board Members and Superintendents. Oxford, U.K: JAI, Elsevier Science.

Kowalski, Theodore J. (2005). Evolution of the School Superintendent as

Communicator.

Lachat, M. (2001). The Breaking Ranks Model. LAB at Brown University.

187
Lashway, Larry (2002). The Superintendent in An Age of Accountability. ERIC
digest.

Leithwood, Kenneth, & Jantzi, Doris (2008). Linking Leadership to student learning:
the contributions of Leader Efficacy. Educational Administration Quarterly,
44(4), 496-528.

Marzano, R., Waters, T., & McNulty, B. (2005). School Leadership That works.
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

McAdams, Donald, Wisdon, Sarah, & McClellan, Anne (2003). Urban School
District Accountability Systems (Center for Reform of School Systems).
Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

McPherson, Bruce R., & Crowson, Robert L. (1993, August). The Principal as Mini
Superintendent under Chicago School Reform: Chicago Public Schools.

Mendez-Morse, S. (1992). Leadership Characteristics that Facilitate School Change.

SEDL

Merriman, William, & Nicoletti, Augustine (2008). Globalization and American

Education. The Education forum, 72,

Meyer, L., & Feistritzer, E., et al. (2003). Better Leaders for America's Schools: A
Manifesto (Thomas B. Fordham Institute; The Broad Foundation).
Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Moore, S. Assessing the professional development needs of principals and leaders in

preK--12 educational settings. Ph.D. dissertation, Syracuse University,
United States -- New York. Retrieved January 9, 2010, from Dissertations &
Theses: Full Text.(Publication No. AAT)

Morford, L. (2002). The School leader Search: Finding, Hiring, and Keeping Good
Principals are More Important Than Ever. American School Board Journal.
189(11), 62-66

Muller, Robert D (2004, November). The Role of the District in During School
Reform. Maryland: A Review for the Denver Commission on Secondary
School Reform.

NCREL (2003). EnGauge 21ST CENTURY SKILLS; Literacy in the Digital Age.
NCREL http://www.ncrel.org/catalog/

188
Oakley, E., & Drug, D. (1991). Enlightened Leadership: Getting to the Heart of
Change. New York: Fireside.

Patton, Michael (2002). Qualitative Research and Evolution Methods (3 ed.).

Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.

Peterson, Paul E., & West, Martin R. (2003). No child left Behind: The Politics and
Practice of School Accountability. Brookings Institution Press.

Portis, Carrie, & Garcia, Mary W. (2007). The Superintendent as a Change Leader.
School

Public Agenda . Rolling Up Their Sleeves. The Wallace Foundation, 2005.

Reeves, Douglas (2008). Assessing Educational Leaders: Evaluating Performance

for Improved Individual and Organizational Results. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Corwin Press.

Reichhart, W. (2008). The Selection of Public School Principals in the 21st Century
by Indiana Public School Superintendents (Doctoral dissertation, School of
Graduate Studies) Indiana State University, 2008).

Reis, S. C., Young, I. P., & Jury, J. C. (1999). Female Administrators; A Crack in the
Glass Ceiling. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 13(4), 71-82.

Rose, L., & Gallup, A. (2002). The 34th annual Phi Delta Kappan/Gallup poll of the
public's

Shipps, Dorothy (2003). Pulling Together: Civic Capacity and Urban School
Reform.

Taylor , R., & Williams , R. (2001). Accountability: Threat or Target? School

Administrator, 58, 30-33.

Taylor, W.L. and Rosario, C. National Teachers’ Unions and the Struggle over
School Reform. University of Minnesota, Dept. of Psychology.

Usdan, M., McCloud, B., & Podmostko, M. (2000). Leadership for Student
Learning: Reinventing the Principalship (Institute for Educational
Leadership(IEL). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Victoria Human Resources. (2009). Developmental Learning Framework for School

Leaders Principal Selection.

189
Walker, L. (1995). The Principal Selection Process in Washington State Public
Schools;

Walters, T. J., & Marzano, R. (2006). School District Leadership that Works; The
Effect of Superintendent Leadership on Student Achievement. Alexandria,
VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development/
Communication Education, 54(2), 101-117

Waters, T., & Grubb, S. (2004). The Leadership We Need: Using Research to
Strengthen the Use of Standards for Administrator Preparation and Licensure
Program. McREL.

Whaley, J. (2002). Developing the Effective Principal: Hiring, Evaluation and

Retention Practices for the Superintendent. Gaithersburg, MD: Aspen
Publishers Inc.

Williams, Darnise (2009). A Case for Change: Building Leadership Capacity in

Urban High Schools. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Southern
California, 2009).

Winger, Abigail (2003). An Impossible Job? The View from the Urban
Superintendent's Chair (Center on Reinventing Public Education).
Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Young, I. P., & Fox, J. A. (2002). Asian, Hispanic, and Native American Job
Candidates: prescreened or screened within the selection process. Education
Administration Quarterly, 38(4), 530-554.

Young, K. (2008). Effects of Gender and National Origin of Middle School Principal
Applicants on the Screening process. Comparison of superintendent and
principal beliefs and implementation perceptions (Doctoral Dissertation
Gonzaga University) Dissertation Abstract International, 56, 2521

Youngs, Peter and King, Bruce.M.,(2002) Principal Leadership for Professional

Development to Build School Capacity, Educational Administration
quarterly, Vol 38, No.5 Pp643-670

190
 APPENDIX A

SUPERINTENDENT ANONYMOUS SURVEY PROTOCOL

INTRODUCTION:

Thank you for participating in this survey. This is an anonymous process and has
been field tested and timed for completion within 15 minutes.

The survey questions have been developed to answer the following three research
questions. The last column on the survey shows this link as well.

• What skills, training and knowledge do superintendents look for when hiring
secondary principals?

• How do superintendents ensure that the right candidate is selected for and is
successful in the position of secondary principal?

Selection for participation has utilized the following criteria:

• Currently a superintendent in either Union High School District or Unified

School District in California with over ten thousand students

• Previous or current experience with hiring secondary principals as a

superintendent.

• Secondary schools in this district or in the previous district have shown

documented gains in student achievement as identified through API scores
within the past three years (2005-2008) or introduced new programs such as
PLC, SLC, I.B etc.

Secondary principals include both middle and high school principals.

The compiled results will be made available to you if you indicate your request in the
box below. The results may be useful for University Principal Training Programs and
for HR departments when recruiting and retaining principals.

Yes, please send me the compiled results at ______________________________

(email address which does not identify you)

No, I do not need the compiled results

191
PART I: SUPERINTENDENT BACKGROUND

Please identify how many of the current secondary principals, middle and high
school, in your district have been hired during your superintendency?

High School _____ Middle School _____

Prior to being the superintendent, were you the assistant or deputy superintendent in
this district?

Yes No

Please check only 1 circle for each column below to help provide relevant
information that will help determine discrepancies of any in the hiring practices of
superintendents based on the various categories below.

The questions below refer to you and your district.

192
PART II: SURVEY

Superintendents please refer to the questions in light of Secondary Principal

Selection criteria:

1: Not at all important 2: Little Important 3: Somewhat Important

4: Important 5: Very Important

Answers linked to Answers linked to

research citation the 3 identified
Questions on Background Statement 1 2 3 4 5 chart, Appendix A Research Qs
1. Employee from within the district (1) (3)
Possess a degree beyond the Master’s
2. (2) (1)
level
Previous administrative experience
3. (3) (3)
within the district
4. Have prior experience as principal (4) (1) (3)
Have teaching experience at the
5. (5) (1) (3)
secondary level
6. Gender of the candidate (6) (3)
7. Race of the candidate (7) (3)
Positive Professional references from
8. (8) (3)
previous employers
Educational philosophy consistent
9. (9) (2) (3)
with the Superintendent
Answers linked to Answers linked to
research citation the 3 identified
Questions on Instruction Statement 1 2 3 4 5 chart, Appendix A Research Qs
Knowledge of the STAR/CST and
1. API/AYP criteria and its effects on (10) (1)
the school district
Knowledge of CTE, SLC, PLC and
2. (11) (1)
other research based strategies.
Knowledge of secondary school
3. (12) (1)
restructuring
Knowledge of secondary counseling
4. (13) (1)
and post-graduating options
Proven performance of raising test
5. scores in previous administrative (14) (2) (3)
positions
Commitment to identify diverse
6. student needs and program (15) (1)
implementation
Ability to analyze test data to improve
7. (16) (2)
teacher and student performance
Knowledge of the master schedule
8. (17) (1)
and introduction of new courses

193
 Answers linked to Answers linked to
Questions on Human Relations research citation the 3 identified
Statement 1 2 3 4 5 chart, Appendix A Research Qs
1. Ability to listen to others (18) (1)
2. Ability to communicate effectively (19) (1)
Ability to tolerate high levels of stress
3. without losing administrative (20) (2)
effectiveness
Ability to work collaboratively with
4. all stakeholders- parents, students, (21) (2)
staff, community
Ability to motivate others toward
5. (22) (2)
meeting goals: Vision and Planning
6. To be a good ‘fit’ for the job (23) (3)
Knowledge and experience of
working with employee unions and
7. (24) (1)
understanding and interpreting
contract language
Ability to manage employee
8. (25) (2)
discipline
Answers linked to Answers linked to
research citation the 3 identified
Questions on Management Statement 1 2 3 4 5 chart, Appendix A Research Qs
Strong computer skills and student
database: word processing, excel,
1. (26) (1)
Power Point, student database
programs
Ability to supervise curriculum and
2. evaluate classroom instruction in (27) (1)
terms of student performance
3. Ability to manage financial resources (28) (1)
4. Flexibility to change (29) (2)
Ability to plan effective professional
5. (30) (2)
development
Demonstrated managerial abilities in
6. plant supervision, budgets, (31) (1)
evaluations
7. Ability to be a self-starter (32) (1)
8. Ability to be a risk taker (33) (2)
Ability to engage community
9. (34) (2) (3)
stakeholders in decision making.
Ability to engage in data driven
10. (35) (2)
decision making
Understanding of the accountability
11. (36) (2)
system in today’s education system

194
 APPENDIX A.1

QUESTIONS BASED ON RESEARCH

B for background: Provides information on training, experience and sex of the

candidate.
I for Instruction: Instructional Leadership related to curriculum, pedagogy, data
analysis.
HR for Human relations: Supervisory and accountability capacity when dealing with
stakeholders
M for Management: Leadership Style

The chart below shows how each of the questions is based on research that identifies
that area as critical to the Principalship.

Item Statement Categ. Source

1. Employee from within the district B Hooker (2002), Simon (2003)

2. Possess a degree beyond Master’s level B
Previous administrative experience within the
3. B Baron (1990), Simon (2003)
district
4. Having prior experience as a principal B Brown & DeZwaan (2002)
5. Having teaching experience at the secondary level B Baron (1990)
6. Gender of the candidate B Glass & Bearman (2003)
7. Race of the candidate B Glass & Bearman (2003)
Positive Professional references from previous Blaise & Kirby (2000), Simon
8. B
employers (2003)

Baltzell & Dentler (1983),

Educational philosophy consistent with the
9. B Anderson (1991), Morford
superintendent
(2002).
NCLB, 2001, Glass &
Knowledge of STAR/CST and API/AYP criteria
10. I Bearman (2003), Fordhan
and its effect on the school district
Institute (2003)
Knowledge of CTE, SLC, PLC and other research
11. I NCREL (2003)
strategies
12. Knowledge of Secondary School Restructuring I Desimone (2002)
Knowledge of secondary counseling and post-
13. I Reeves (2009)
graduation options

195
 Proven performance of raising test scores in Ediger (2001), Rose and
14. I
previous administrative positions Gallup (2002)
Commitment to identify diverse student needs and
15. I Kelley & Peterson (2001)
program implementation
Ability to analyze test data to improve teacher and
16. I Morford (2002), Simon (2003)
student performance
Knowledge of the Master Schedule and
17. I Desimone (2002)
introduction of new courses

Bolman & Deal (1995), Dillon

18. Ability to listen to others HR
(1995)

19. Ability to communicate effectively HR Glass & Bearman (2003)

Ability to tolerate high levels of stress without
20. HR Guaglianone & Yerkes (1998)
losing administrative effectiveness
Ability to work collaboratively with all
21. HR Kelley & Peterson (2001)
stakeholders- parents, students, staff, community
Simon (2003), Kelley &
Ability to motivate others toward meeting goals:
22. HR Peterson (2001), Blank, R. K.
Vision and Planning
(1987)
McNeeley & Mertz (1998),
23. To be a good ‘fit’ for the job HR
Baker (2001)
Knowledge and experience of working with
24. employee unions and understanding and HR Shipps (2003)
interpreting contract language

25. Ability to manage employee discipline HR Shipps (2003)

Strong computer skills and student database: word
26. processing, excel, Power Point, student database M Hallinger & Leithwood (1998)
programs

Ability to supervise curriculum and evaluate

Ediger (2001), Johnson
27. classroom instruction in terms of student M
(2003), Simon (2003)
performance
Cuban (1988), Van de Walter
28. Ability to manage financial resources M
(1988)
29. Flexibility to change M Hall & Rutherford (1983)
30. Ability to plan effective professional development M Hall & Rutherford (1983)

Demonstrated managerial abilities in plant Cuban (1988), Austin et al.

31. M
supervision, budgets, evaluations (2001)
32. Ability to be a self-starter M Bolman & Deal (1995)
33. Ability to be a risk-taker M Hill & Lynch (1994)

196
 Ability to engage community stakeholders in
34. M Kennedy (2000)
decision making
Ability to engage staff in data-driven decision Darling-Hammond et al.
35. M
making (2005)
Understanding of the accountability system in McAdams, Wisdon &
36. M
today’s education system McClellan (2003)

197
 APPENDIX B

SURVEY PARTICIPANTS

Table B-1: Survey Participants

Total Total
Total Total years Total years in
Unified District years as years in
district as Supt in education in
or UHSD API Urban public
size this district this district
Supt educ.
Female Superintendents
>20000 Unified >650 NA NA NA NA
>20000 Unified >750 <3 <3 >5 >20
>20000 Unified >800 >10 <3 <3 >20
>15000 Unified >850 >3 >3 >3 >20
>20000 USD 700 >4 >4 >4 >20
Male Superintendents
>50000 Unified >750 <3 <3 >5 >20
>20000 UHSD NA >10 >10 >15 >20
>20000 Unified >800 >5 >10 >5 >20
>10000 Unified >750 >5 >5 >5 >20
>20000 Unified >800 >5 >5 >15 >20
>50000 Unified >850 >15 >5 >5 >20
>50000 Unified >850 >3 >3 >15 >20
>20000 Unified >850 >5 >3 >3 >20
>15000 Unified >800 >5 >5 >15 >20
>20000 USD >650 >10 NA NA >20
>50000 USD >750 >15 >4 .>4 >20

198
 APPENDIX B.1

INTERVIEW PARTICIPANTS

Table B-2: Interview Participants

A B C D E

District size 27000 32000 55000 8900 37500

# Secondary schools 12 10 25 5 10

Experience as Superintendent 11+ 3+ 15+ 10+ 7+

199
 APPENDIX C

SUPERINTENDENT INTERVIEW PROTOCOL

RQ#1: 1. What skills and training do you consider

important for a secondary principal in order for
What are the skills, training and
them to be successful in their positions? (Baker,
knowledge that superintendents
2001)Thomas pg. 21
look for when hiring secondary
principals in today’s era of
2. Below are a few significant areas of
accountability?
responsibility for the secondary principal. How
would you rate them when considering the
candidate’s preparation as a secondary school
principal?

Very important: Important: Not needed:

o Data assessment
o Campus culture and leadership
o Instructional leadership
o Shared vision
o Political preparation
o Past experience in this position
o Staff training
o Budget allocation
o PLC
o Union activities
o Parent/community exposure

3. If you were to assess the principal preparation

programs, are they doing a good enough job
preparing- why and why not? What would you
recommend these programs focus on as a
priority? (Pub Agenda, 2003.

4. Does the principal evaluation process in your

district identify the skills and knowledge the
principals need help with and do you have a plan
for individual support?

200
RQ #2: 1. What are some major leadership skills that you
think secondary principals must have to be
What Principal leadership skills
successful in bringing about student
do superintendents identify as
achievement (Cotton, 2003) (Marzano, 2005)
important in order to create
Cash dissertation
systemic changes in the
secondary schools in an era of
2. Which of the four styles of leadership do you
accountability?
focus on during the selection process, given
today’s high era of accountability? (Bolman and
Deal, 2005)

3. What are the weaknesses in leadership skills that

result in unsuccessful tenure for secondary
principals? Are there areas that you focus on
during your leadership training and workshops?

4. When principals are referred to as “change

Agents” what do you interpret that to mean?
(Reeves, 2008)

5. Please identify how your selection has changed

based on the changing role of the secondary
principal over this past decade and into the next
decade.

6. How do you identify a principal for a secondary

school in your district? What part do you play in
preparing the criteria for hire?

7. In your organizational chart how important is the

role of the secondary principal? Do you shift
other site/district leaders to best suit open
positions? Why or why not?

201
 APPENDIX D

INVITATION TO PARTICIPATE LETTER

August 8, 2009

Dear Dr. RE: INVITATION TO PARTICIPATE LETTER

This is an invitation to participate in a research study being conducted by me, Fal

Asrani, as part of my dissertation study at University of Southern California. The
study is titled “California Urban Superintendents and their Selection of Secondary
School Principals” and aims to identify the skills and trainings required by secondary
principals in today’s era of high accountability.

I understand that this is a busy time of the year for you and I extend my heartfelt
gratitude to you for taking this time to participate in this study. This survey has been
time-tested to take less than 15 minutes, is entirely voluntary, anonymous, and
involves no known risks to you nor has any associated costs for your participation.
This topic is being researched for the first time in California, although similar studies
have been conducted in other states. Your response is invaluable to this study. This
research will be available to university credential programs and to school districts to
attract, train, and retain their best candidates.

Enclosed in this packet is the copy of the survey and a self-stamped envelope for
your convenience. This survey is anonymous and does not require your name or
address. Please mark the box applicable if you are interested in receiving the results
of the survey. All questions related to this survey can be directed to me at
fasrani@usc.edu or on my cell at (949) 331-5404 or to my dissertation chair, Dr.
Rudy Castruita at rcastrui@usc.edu. For all questions regarding your rights as a
research subject, please contact USC Institutional Review Board (IRB) by e-mail at
upirb@usc.edu or by phone at (213) 821-5272.

I thank you for your time and support and wish you a successful 2009-10 school
year.

Sincerely,

Fal Asrani

202
 APPENDIX E

CALIFORNIA PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS FOR

EDUCATION LEADERS (CPSEL)

Standard 1: A school administrator is an educational leader who promotes the

success of all students by facilitating the development, articulation, implementation,
and stewardship of a vision of learning that is shared and supported by the school
community.

Standard 2: A school administrator is an educational leader who promotes the

success of all students by advocating, nurturing, and sustaining a school culture and
instructional program conducive to student learning and staff professional growth.

Standard 3: A school administrator is an educational leader who promotes the

success of all students by ensuring management of the organization, operations, and
resources for a safe, efficient, and effective learning environment.

Standard 4: A school administrator is an educational leader who promotes the

success of all students by collaborating with families and community members,
responding to diverse community interests and needs, and mobilizing community
resources.

Standard 5: A school administrator is an educational leader who promotes the

success of all students by modeling a personal code of ethics and developing
professional leadership capacity.

Standard 6: A school administrator is an educational leader who promotes the

success of all students by understanding, responding to, and influencing the larger
political, social, economic, legal, and cultural context.

203
 APPENDIX F

TOTAL STATISTICS

Table F-1: Case Processing Summary

N %

Cases Valid 16 94.1

Excludeda 1 5.9

Total 17 100.0

a. Listwise deletion based on all variables in the procedure.

204
Table F-2: Item-Total Statistics

Scale Mean if Item Scale Variance if Item Corrected Item-Total Cronbach's Alpha if Item
Deleted Deleted Correlation Deleted
B1 145.19 112.429 -.051 .880
B2 144.50 111.600 -.021 .883
B3 145.06 111.129 .018 .879
B4 144.13 111.050 .045 .876
B5 143.13 107.983 .297 .871
B6 146.19 108.029 .249 .872
B7 146.00 104.533 .345 .871
B8 142.81 110.963 .117 .873
B9 143.25 101.533 .632 .863
IN1 142.88 111.983 .005 .875
IN2 143.13 108.383 .266 .871
IN3 143.06 104.196 .505 .866
IN4 143.56 105.063 .390 .869
IN5 143.13 105.450 .421 .868
IN6 143.00 107.867 .388 .869
IN7 142.56 112.263 .000 .873
IN8 143.50 99.867 .684 .861
H1 142.81 107.096 .404 .869
H2 142.69 110.363 .248 .871
H3 142.88 108.117 .393 .869
H4 142.75 109.533 .304 .871
H5 142.94 104.729 .712 .864
H6 142.75 109.533 .304 .871
H7 143.56 98.663 .720 .860
H8 143.38 99.583 .809 .859
M1 144.31 100.096 .518 .866
M2 142.94 109.529 .181 .873
M3 143.63 99.983 .676 .861
M4 142.88 108.517 .353 .870
M5 143.38 101.583 .669 .862
M6 143.81 98.429 .861 .857
M7 142.94 104.729 .712 .864
M8 143.13 104.383 .582 .865
M9 143.19 107.096 .373 .869
M10 142.69 110.229 .267 .871
M11 143.00 107.467 .337 .870

With all items, the selection scale is very reliable with a = .876. However, I deleted
a few more items to increase reliability of subscales.

205