Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Educational Management
Administration & Leadership
2014, Vol 42(1) 4060
The Author(s) 2013
Reprints and permission:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1741143213499254
emal.sagepub.com
Abstract
This study, conducted in one state in the United States, replicated similar research from over a
decade ago to compare principal demographics and reasons for remaining or leaving the profession. Demographics have trended with the nation. Principals are older, more diverse and are
largely eligible for retirement within the next five years. Similar demographics are noted in
Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom. The reasons for retiring have changed dramatically since the first survey. External mandates were the number one reason for retirement.
Another reason included spending more time with their family. Around the globe, other countries
are considering national initiatives, such as accountability and high-stakes testing or national
curriculum standards. This study may provide a cautionary note regarding the impact on
principal role and retention. Thus, while the study occurred in the United States, the policies
that influenced principals reasons for choosing to retire or stay in the profession appear to have
global implications.
Keywords
Administrator diversity, instructional leader, principal retention, retirement, southern United
States
Introduction
The role of the school leader has become increasingly complex in our global society (Townsend,
2009). Since this is such a vital role in teacher and student success, it is important to understand the
things that cause people to remain and leave this position. This study presents information about
this issue from the perspective of school leaders in Alabama, a southern US State. It also examines
the demographic make-up of these individuals. The research is unique in that it compared results
with findings of a study implemented over a decade ago. Although the research occurred in a single
state in the United States, it is relevant to a broader audience as it captures the changing dynamics
of the school leadership role.
Corresponding author:
Ellen H. Reames, Assistant Professor, 3074 Haley Center, Auburn University, AL 36849, USA.
Email: reamseh@auburn.edu
40
41
The manuscript begins with background information related to the global economy in which we
live and its impact upon schools and schooling. This is followed by a literature review dealing with
the issue of principal shortages in the United States. This section provides a backdrop for the purposes and scholarly significance of the study. Methods and findings are then presented. The manuscript concludes with a discussion and implications section that connects the findings to studies
from countries throughout the world.
Overview
The emergence of a global economy in the 1980s brought with it a change in the economic balance
of world powers; an international communications network; and an increased focus on the role of
education in assuring the economic success of nations (Townsend, 2009). This, in turn, led to an
expanded emphasis upon student learning and school success resulting in national initiatives
geared toward educational and school improvement in many nations. Examples include the passage of No Child Left Behind, a law enacted in the United States, charging schools with achieving
specific standards and eliminating achievement gaps between student subgroups; a movement
toward self-managing schools in New Zealand, Britain and Australia (Bush, 2009; Townsend,
2009); and the proliferation of tests used to make comparison of student achievement on a global
scale. These developments have also led to increased research on school factors related to student
success (Hoy and Miskel, 2001; Jacobson and Bezzina, 2010; Robinson and Timperley, 2007).
42
(Anderson et al., 2008). These initiatives provide standards upon which to build curriculum and
engage in program development. All of them appear to accept the notion that the role of school leaders has and will continue to be complex and preparation programs must be structured differently in
order to prepare potential leaders to lead schools of the 21st century effectively.
43
schools in the United States, but the challenges facing rural low-performing schools and districts
create conditions where it can be difficult or even impossible for rural districts and schools to
attract new principals and teachers (Kutash et al., 2010: 15) and to participate in turnaround practices. Geographic isolation, high poverty levels and lack of extensive human capital resources
when engaging in school reforms and particularly when attempting to turn failing schools around
are among the most challenging of these (Chalker, 2002). Alabama, the state in which this study
occurred, is primarily rural and is ranked as one of the top five Level IV Poverty (extreme poverty)
states (United States Census Bureau, 2011). In addition, of the 67 counties in the state only 11
counties have more than 25,000 citizens. In 2000 Alabama was 71% White, 26% Black, 3% Hispanic and 1% other (United States Census Bureau, 2000).
In Alabama, as in much of the nation, population declines in mostly rural high-minority counties reflect their economic disadvantage. Changing the trend of leaving high-poverty rural areas
takes concentrated effort to increase economic opportunities and the quality of life, which will,
of course, include the schools. Since these rural school systems are poor, it is difficult for them
to recruit and retain highly qualified teachers and school leaders. In fact, The Principal, Keystone
of a High-Achieving School: Attracting and Keeping the Leaders We Need (2000) report, which
was conducted by the Educational Research Service (ERS) reported in the United States, shortages
of principals in rural areas was higher than those for suburban or urban areas. Given the dire reality
of recruiting and retention in Alabama, the state is also hindered by options aimed at improving
rural areas. School closures are not a choice, since schools are physically far from one another.
Thus, capacity building seems to be the only choice for rural schools (Kutash et al., 2010). More
interventions need to be developed specifically for rural, high-poverty schools in need of improvement (Murphy and Myers, 2008). Among these interventions must be a focus on recruiting and
retaining the most promising leaders. This study was designed to assist the state in that effort and
to provide information that might be of value to others as they deal with these and similar issues in
the United States or in other parts of the world.
44
of a holistic, systemic reform (Fullan, 2005; Murphy and Myers, 2008 ) that takes place at the
school level and involves changing the school culture (Hall and Hord, 2001; Murphy and Myers,
2008). This requires highly qualified principals with longevity of service and the proper skill sets to
move schools forward.
The challenges principals face, the standards they must adhere to and their personal characteristics as well as district and student demographic data can play an important role in determining the
likelihood of success as a principal (Fuller and Young, 2009). If external and internal pressures,
politics and time constraints for meaningful organizational goals exist, and personal/family goals
cannot be met, frustrations may become too great and plans for leaving the profession may become
enticing (Weiss, 2005). Thus, in a state such as Alabama, with high levels of poverty, where it is
imperative that school leaders succeed, understanding the stresses principals face so that mechanisms can be implemented to help minimize them, is of particular importance. Demographic data
were examined to help determine if there might be issues related to recruitment and placement
of individuals into the principalship that might be related to longevity issues. Although the study
occurred in a single state, the findings and implications will add to the literature and should have
relevance for others who are seeking to assure that school leaders have the support they need to be
successful so that they will remain in the profession.
Methodology
The Survey of Leadership in Alabama (SOLIA) was used to collect data. The population for this
study was all currently employed principals throughout the state. The State Department of Education provided the researchers with a mailing list. The survey was mailed to Alabamas 1356 principals. A follow-up mailing was conducted approximately six weeks later. Both mailings included
a cover letter guaranteeing anonymity and a postage paid self-addressed return envelope. The survey data was held until supporting 2010 US Census reports and National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) data could be used to compare with the collected SOLIA data.
Instrumentation
Principal and school district demographic data such as gender, age, ethnicity, education level, current position, experience, geographic origin, retirement eligibility, school district and community
classificationsthat is, urban, suburban and ruralwere collected in Part I of the survey. Part II of
the survey included questions related to issues that might influence a principals decision to retire
or not retire. Those items were: (1) obtain a position out-of-state and begin a second career; (2)
burnout; (3) political conflicts in the local community; (4) financial inadequacies and uncertainty
in the district; (5) obtain another position in Alabama; (6) time requirements of the position; (7)
need more time with family; (8) frustration with barriers and inability to accomplish goals; (9)
external mandates or requirements from national, state or other sources; (10) internal mandates
from the district; (11) opposition from teachers organizations; and (12) system politics or political
stress. These factors were measured using a 15 Likert scale (from No Influence to Great Influence) and included all items from the Kochan and Spencer (1999) study. Part III included three
open-ended questions aimed at gaining a richer understanding of how the new Alabama Instructional Leadership Standards might affect the (1) quality of the leadership pool, (2) the quantity
of the leadership pool, and (3) how these same standards might influence the principals decision
to remain in the profession, retire or change professions.
44
45
To ensure the questions developed by the researchers accurately measured principals selfperceived factors, which influence their decision to retire or continue, the researchers took several
steps to have the questionnaire examined for content and face validity. Firstly, the demographic
section and the factors influencing retirement section were based on the survey in the Kochan and
Spencer (1999) study. Secondly, a panel of experts in survey research methods and educational
leadership examined the content validity of the survey. The questionnaire was revised based on
the feedback from these experts. Finally, the survey was field tested with eight principals and
superintendents to examine the face validity. Format, phrasing of questions and clarity of purpose
were revised based on the feedback of the field-testing participants.
The data generated from the study were coded and analyzed using the Statistical Package for the
Social Science (SPSS V 17.0). Descriptive statistics were the primary method used to analyze the
demographic data collected (Hair et al., 2009). Descriptive statistics (frequencies, means, standard
deviations and percentages) were used to compare the Kochan and Spencer (1999) and the SOLIA
study.
Cronbachs coefficient alpha was used to assess the internal consistency reliability of the four
scales: the factors influencing retirement scale (FIRS), the factors influencing administrators to
stay scale (FISS), the principal skills scale (PSS), and the importance of principal skills scale
(IOPSS). Usually, an internal consistency estimate of .70 or greater suggests that items are internally consistent (DeVellis, 2011). The scale scores for the domains of FIRS, FISS, PSS and IOPSS
showed internal consistency reliability. The respective alpha scores were: factors influencing retire
(a .855, n 246); factors influencing stay (a .775, n 242); principal skills (a .906, n 247);
and importance of skills scale (a .935, n 245).
Results
Changes in gender
Two hundred fifty-eight principals (20%) responded to the survey (see Table 1). One hundred fiftyone respondents or 59% were male and 106 or 41% were female. In the previous study, Kochan and
Spencer (1999) reported 59% males and 35% females with 6% not responding. While the studys
sample only represented a 19% response rate, Alabama school administrator demographics were
42% female and 58% male, or a close match to the previous sample. It appears that the state has
increased the number of female principals and decreased the gender inequities and these percentages fall within national gender averages. Battle (2009) reports women held 59% of public elementary positions and 29% of public secondary positions for an average of 41% of public
school principal positions. The 6% missing data from the 1999 Kochan and Spencer study cannot
be assumed to be female. If half were included this would put the SOLIA gender for female principals at the reported NCES national average of 44%.
46
NCES
SOLIA
Frequency
SOLIA
Percent
Male
Female
Missing
56%
44%
0%
151
106
1
59%
41%
0%
59%
35%
6%
258
100%
100%
Total
NCES: National Center for Education Statistics.
NCES
SOLIA
Frequency
SOLIA
Percent
83%
10%
1%
5%
1%
194
45
10
7
2
75%
17%
4%
4%
1%
84%
15%
1%
0%
0%
100%
258
100%
100%
principals. Nationally, Hispanics led 5% of public elementary high schools (Battle, 2009). The percentage of White, non-Hispanic principals in Alabama (75%) is larger than the states census report
on White, non-Hispanic percentages (68%). Disparity is also apparent in [state name]s African
American principalships when comparing to state census figures (United States Census Bureau,
2011). For example, while 17% of schools from the study were reported to be led by African American principals, the state population for this racial group is 26%. Hispanic principals were virtually
equal to the state population. Schools were led by a Hispanic principal 4% of the time and the state
Hispanic population was 3%. Comparing the trends from 1999 there is a small decrease of White,
non-Hispanic, and gains in other minority groups such as Hispanics and Native Americans, but
virtually no gains in the African American principal ranks.
Principal age. There is a dramatic change from data in the Kochan and Spencer (1999) study to the
SOLIA study. In this study there were 15% more principals age 50 and above than in the Kochan
and Spencer (1999) study. Also the under 40 and 4049 combined percentages of 42% as compared
to the combined 57% suggest todays school principals are older than those in the Kochan and
Spencer (1999) study. This is in line with national trends. Eighty-six percent of principal respondents were 40 years of age or older. Fifty-seven percent of principal respondents are between the
ages of 50 and 69. Twelve percent of these are between the ages of 60 and 69. Nationally, 85% of
the principals were over the age of 40 and 56% of principals are over the age of 50 (Battle, 2009).
46
47
Table 3. Comparison of national principal characteristics: educational level of principals Kochan and
Spencer/Survey of Leadership in Alabama (SOLIA).
NCES
SOLIA
Frequency
SOLIA
Percent
58%
31%
N/A
10%
1%
100
43
56
48
11
38%
17%
22%
19%
4%
40%
30%
17%
11%
2%
Total
100%
258
100%
100%
Educational level/degree
SOLIA
Percent
A masters degree
AA specialist degree
Doctorate
Missing
92
137
20
9
36%
53%
8%
3%
36%
59%
1%
4%
Total
258
100%
100%
Certification levels
Principals educational preparation. Data related to educational preparation indicated 39% of principals had a masters degree, 17% had a specialist degree, 22% had graduate credit towards a doctorate degree and 19% had an earned doctorate degree. Table 3 displays the educational degree and
post-degree levels of the principal respondents for both studies. These figures suggest almost 3/5 of
all principals in the state have education beyond a masters degree and 1/5 of all principals have an
earned doctorate degree. Nationally, Battle 2009 reports that 60% of public school principals have
masters degrees, 31% have educational specialist degrees and 9% have doctoral degrees. Our sample appears disproportionately more educated than the national average. Nationally, only 10% of
principals have earned doctorate degrees. In 2010 19% or twice the national average of principals
in the state had earned doctorate degrees. Fifty-nine percent of principals in the Kochan and
Spencer (1999) study had degrees and coursework beyond the masters degree. Since both studies
align it seems reasonable to conclude principals in this state continue to have higher educational
levels than the national average.
Principal certification. The findings related to principal certification, reported in Table 4, indicate
that the percentage of masters degree certification has not changed from the Kochan and Spencer (1999) study but AA, that is, educational specialist (EdS) has trended downward while doctorate certification has trended upward. This suggests that principals in this study sought higher
certification levels at about the same overall percentage rate as their Kochan and Spencer (1999)
counterparts. In general, there appears to be less appeal for the EdS but slightly more appeal for
doctorate-level certification.
47
48
Table 5. Comparison of position prior to principal at current school data: Kochan and Spencer/Survey of
Leadership in Alabama (SOLIA).
SOLIA
Frequency
SOLIA
Percent
Principal
Assistant principal
Teacher
Assistant superintendent/superintendent
Other
41
133
38
20
26
16%
52%
15%
7%
10%
20%
47%
19%
2%
22%
Total
258
100%
100%
Previous position
Table 6. Comparison of principals years in previous position data: Kochan and Spencer/Survey of Leadership
in Alabama (SOLIA).
SOLIA
Frequency
SOLIA
Percent
04
510
Subtotal
1119
2030
Missing cases
118
90
208
31
15
2
46%
35%
81%
12%
6%
0%
48%
28%
76%
19%
4%
1%
Total
258
100%
100%
Years in position
Previous positions of principals. Principals were asked to report previous positions that they had held
and how many years they had been in previous positions. Table 5 indicates that, as in the Kochan
and Spencer (1999) study, principals served in traditional roles as assistant principals 52% of the time
prior to becoming a principal. They served as teachers (15%) or principals in other schools 16% of
the time prior to becoming the principal in their present assignment. Two respondents served as athletic coaches/administrators, two served as superintendents, three as assistant superintendents and 13
or 5% in some other supervisory role prior to becoming the principal of their present school. Slightly
more had been principals and slightly less assistants with fewer going from teacher to principal than
in the earlier study. Most interesting were findings that 5% more went from the superintendency to
the principalship and 12% more went from other positions in the Kochan and Spencer (1999) study.
Apparently traditional pathways to the principalship are important in Alabama.
Principals and their years in previous positions. Most principals served in their prior position for less
than 10 years. Eighty-one percent or 208 principals indicated they served in a prior position to their
present role as principal for less than 10 years. If we combine the above information with information from Table 6, it seems evident that principals were assistant principals or teachers prior to
becoming principals and most served in these positions for less than 10 years. Said another way,
principals are likely to be administrators for the majority of their career and are appointed to these
positions rather early in their career. Percentages are very similar to what was found in the Kochan
and Spencer (1999) study.
48
49
Table 7. Comparison of national principal characteristics: age Kochan and Spencer/Survey of Leadership in
Alabama (SOLIA).
Age of principal
Under 40
4049
50 and above
Total
NCES
SOLIA
Frequency
SOLIA
Percent
13%
30%
57%
37
72
149
14%
28%
58%
10%
47%
43%
100%
258
100%
100%
SOLIA
percent
Current system
Another system
Missing cases
196
59
3
76%
23%
1%
83%
17%
0%
Total
258
100%
100%
49
50
Frequency
Percent
110
39
40
32
37
43%
15%
16%
12%
14%
Total
258
100%
Table 10. School community: rural, urban, suburban Survey of Leadership in Alabama.
Community served
Frequency
Percent
Rural school
Suburban school
Urban
Other
141
61
45
11
55%
24%
17%
4%
Total
258
100%
5 years is substantially more at 82%. These data are consistent with the data reported in Table 7,
which indicated that principals in the SOLIA study are older than those in the Kochan and Spencer
(1999) research. Responses to this question are detailed in Table 11.
Year planning to retire. The year a principal plans to retire differs from the year that they are eligible
to retire. This question is suggestive of when the principal is actually planning to leave the school
system regardless of eligibility to retire. In 2012, 63% planned to retire. In the year 2015, 75% are
planning to retire. These figures are less than the year eligible for retirement, but still suggest a high
rate of retirement for principals in this state by the year 2015. Interestingly, the percent of principals who planned to retire when they could was higher in the Kochan and Spencer (1999) study
than the SOLIA study. Eligibility to retire and plans to retire do not always match. Some of this
may be related to the economic conditions of the time. Some of these principals may stay longer
than the eligibility to retire year and others may leave earlier due to health or family problems.
However, whatever changes are made in the individuals decisions, it appears that there will be
a staggering number of school leaders who can and are planning to leave the profession within the
next few years. These data are reported in Table 12.
51
Table 11. Comparison of year principal is eligible to retire: Kochan and Spencer/Survey of Leadership in
Alabama (SOLIA).
Year eligible to
retire SOLIA data
(based on 25 yrs)
2010
2013 (3 yrs out)
2015(5 yrs out)
2032
SOLIA
cumulative
frequency
SOLIA
cumulative
percent
126
152
205
258
51%
71%
82%
100%
17%
70%
87%
100%
1997
2002 (5 yrs out)
2008 (10 yrs out)
2022
Table 12. Year principal planning to retire Survey of Leadership in Alabama (SOLIA) data.
Year planning to
retire SOLIA
(based on 25 yrs)
2010
2012
2015
2032
SOLIA
cumulative
frequency
SOLIA
cumulative
percent
33
111
142
258
32%
63%
75%
100%
40%
79%
100%
1997
2002
2008
2002
family (mean 3.19) and closely associated to this was the third most important factor influencing
retirement: time requirements of the position (mean 2.98). Principals in the Kochan and Spencer
(1999) study found political issues as the second reason they would retire, while for principals in
SOLIA, these issues were ranked as seventh or ninth. Principals ranked frustration with barriers
and the inability to accomplish goals (mean 2.91) as their fourth reason to consider retirement.
Their counterparts in the Kochan and Spencer (1999) study ranked this as fourth. Internal or district
mandates and requirements was the fifth most reported reason for considering retirement. The factor causing the least influence on the decision to retire was opposition from teacher organizations
such as the Alabama Educators Association (AEA) (mean 1.87). It should be noted that Alabama
is a non-union state, so although there is a strong teacher association, they do not have the right to
strike, nor do they engage in school district contract negotiations.
The top five reasons for retiring in SOLIA and in the Kochan and Spencer (1999) studies appear
dramatically different. Principals in the Kochan and Spencer (1999) study stated that they would
leave their positions primarily to get a job somewhere else, whereas principals in the SOLIA study
did not even seem to consider that as something they might want to do. It appears that external
mandates and job expectations are taking their toll on these principals and their families.
52
Table 13. Factors influencing the decision to retire: Kochan and Spencer/Survey of Leadership in Alabama
(SOLIA).
Top 5 reasons
Kochan &
Spencer
Mean
SOLIA
Standard
deviation
SOLIA
Top 5
reasons
SOLIA
3.48
1.35
3.19
2.98
2.91
2.85
2.74
2.73
2.35
1.40
1.42
1.36
1.24
1.41
1.35
1.26
X
X
X
X
2.32
1.41
2 tie
2.27
2.21
1.87
1.42
1.43
1.04
1
4
5
3
2 tie
Mean
Standard deviation
4.38
4.16
4.13
4.08
3.73
2.50
.899
1.04
1.12
1.06
1.26
1.36
from their family (mean 4.08). Personal finances (mean 3.73) was the fifth most important
reason to stay. In relation to other factors, one that did not appear to be an important consideration
for staying was being worried about what to do after they retired (mean 2.50). These questions
were not asked in Kochan and Spencer (1999) and so comparisons cannot be made. The support
principals receive from the community, family and faculty and the accomplishments that come
from working with children seem to be important factors for principals to remain in their positions.
53
41% of the principal positions. In addition, half of the state population, 51%, is female. Students,
and especially female students, need to see their gender in leadership roles. While Alabama has
made a positive trend in female principals during the last decade, moving from 35% to 41%,
researchers would be willing to speculate most of these positional gains have been made at the elementary school level. For example, nationally only 26% of women hold secondary principal positions while they held 56% of the elementary positions for a national average of 41%. Further
research should be conducted in the state and on a national level as to why secondary school principalships have persistently been a barrier for women.
A huge area of concern arises when looking at the trend for African American principals. They
are lagging behind their White counterparts in principal positions and have not made a significant
gain since the last study was done over a decade ago. While Alabama appears to have more African
American principals, 17%, than the NCES (2010) national average of 10%, it does not represent
the states overall racial composition of 26% nor does it represent the states non-White student
population of 41%, a statistic that has been on the rise during the last decade (SingletonRickman, 2010). In addition, recent data indicates that for the first time in history, public schools
in the south are serving more poverty-stricken minority students than any other population group.
Those that can afford private schools are continuing to leave and thus the balance has now shifted
to public schools serving poor and minority populations in this part of the country (Suitts, 2010).
Hispanics appear to be keeping pace in 2010. Even Native American principals have
increased. In relation to all of these changes if one looks at the percentage of White principals
it appears to have declined by 9%. That 9% decrease in White principals is largely explained
by the 4% Hispanic and Native American principals and the meager 2% increase in African
American principals. If these numbers are representative of what is going on in the state, then
African Americans, who represent the second largest group in Alabama, are not keeping pace
with other minority group principals.
Diversity is an important concept for all school personnel and especially those in leadership
positions (ALSDE, 2010; Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium, 2008; University
Council of Educational Administration, 2010). There is a growing recognition that the students
attending schools will best be served by adults who can understand their diverse backgrounds
(Howard, 2006; Leithwood et al., 2010; Murphy and Myers, 2008). In addition, these students
deserve to have role models in the community. Superintendents and community leaders in the state
should investigate why this situation continues to exist.
The state could address this issue in a number of ways. Firstly, there should be an examination
as to whether African Americans are entering masters programs to receive certification in the state
and if they are not, reasons should be investigated. If funding is an issue, scholarships or forgiveness loans might be considered for minorities and females to encourage their entry into the principal realm. In addition, mentoring programs should be considered as a means of encouraging
minorities and women to enter administrative avenues. If minorities and women are gaining their
degrees but not entering the administrative realms, the reasons should be examined.
A third factor for this state is to address the aging of the principal population. In Alabama the
majority of principals are 50 years or older. This is a large increase in comparison to the Kochan
and Spencer (1999) study. If we compare the aging principal data with eligibility to retire and plans
to retire data (Tables 11 and 12), the state numbers become almost overwhelming. By the year
2015, 82% of principals in Alabama are eligible to retire and 75% of them plan to retire. It is very
likely there will be a tremendous shortage over the next several decades. With the principals becoming older and planning to retire, the issue of who will replace them becomes paramount.
53
54
Some research has suggested extensive mentoring programs (Educational Research Service,
2000), especially for systems that face critical shortages, that is, rural and poverty-stricken areas,
as strategies to deal with the issue of replacing retiring principals and assuring that they will stay in
their positions. However, with present economic conditions professional development funds from
state sources have been completely halted. School systems that do mentor are doing so with no
resource support.
In Alabama, principal development and mentoring continues to primarily be addressed through
higher education institutions. This is not a bad thing. A recent redesign of state college and university educational leadership programs in 20072008 has been geared to assure that school systems
are receiving better leadership preparation. Some of these institutions are beginning to track their
graduates, but it is still too early to tell their impact. Since most of the principals come from the
ranks of the assistant principalship, the state may wish to address policy changes that permit additional funding for schools to hire more assistant principals during the next five years to assure a
more well-trained principal pool. A few years ago, the state was considering funding more extensive internship programs for those gaining graduate leadership degrees. Although funding is tight,
funding full year internships would strengthen the principalship program, provide extra help to
schools, and assure that as principals retire, there will be individuals in place who can replace them
more easily and more successfully because of their internship experiences. A policy that needs to
be addressed by Alabama is mentoring assistant principals. There is no formal mentoring program
sponsored by any branch of state government. Some more affluent local systems may have such
programs, but it is doubtful that any exist within rural school systems.
The final demographic to be considered is that principals in Alabama appear to be more educated than their national counterparts. In the last decade masters degrees have remained stable
at 40%. Specialist degrees have decreased from 30% to 17%, but graduate credit towards a doctorate degree and earned doctorates have increased from the Kochan and Spencer (1999) 28% figure to 41% in the SOLIA study. These findings are supported by comparing the Kochan and
Spencer (1999) and SOLIA study certification levels of principals. This is an interesting finding.
It does not match the demographics of the rest of the state, which has a lower percentage of college
graduates than the nation and there is no indication as to why this higher education level exists.
This would be an area for further study. In addition, it might be of value to determine what types
of schools these individuals serve and whether their student performance levels are higher than
those of principals without doctoral degrees.
Results from our study indicated that 55% of school districts in the state are rural. This is supported by census data (United States Census Bureau, 2011). In addition, most school systems promote administrators from teaching or assistant principal ranks (Table 5). In addition, the principals
reported that they were promoted to their current position after serving in another capacity within
the same system 76% of the time.
It might be advantageous for Alabama school systems to determine it this method for selection
of principals is somehow excluding minorities and women. It might be of value for school systems
to identify and groom minorities, particularly African Americans and females, within their community to take the school leadership positions. Grow-your-own programs such as Georgias Leadership Institute for School Improvement (www.galeaders.org) or the Australian Central Territory
(ACT) School Leadership Framework (2011) (http://www.det.act.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/
0011/64298/SchoolImprovementFramework.pdf) might be considered as models. The Alabama
State Department of Education should consider working with the legislature to put policies in place
to foster similar initiatives in Alabama.
54
55
56
is to change the role of the school leaders. There is a growing consensus that todays complex, rapidly changing global world may require school leadership models that rely on seeing the principal
not as the person in charge of the school, but rather as a facilitator, collaborator and as a team
player (DeLeon, 2006: 4). Spillane (2006) explains that the important part of distributive leadership is the joint interactions (p.3) and collective actions (p.4) of the leader and followers. He
suggests that leadership is best done through relationship building. Others suggest a democratic
brand of leadership that calls for high levels of participation from members in the organization
(Begley and Zaretsky, 2004; Kensler, 2010; Kensler et al., 2009; Murphy, 2002). The state of Alabama has already begun the process of creating this type of leadership model. It recently mandated
the use of school leadership teams comprised of teachers and school leaders to work as a team in
fostering student learning and school success. Research on the perceptions of principals regarding
this initiative should be conducted over the next few years to see if their reasons for contemplating
retirement and the percent that wish to retire changes.
Thomson (2008) suggests that principals and educational leaders initiate strategies to use the
media to tell their story in terms of the stresses they are living with to gain public support for the
lessening of demands upon them and their schools. He suggests that such initiatives might foster an
increase in responsibility from the broader community for dealing with the contextual elements in
the broader community that add to school failure. He further proposes that such actions may foster
public support and in turn make the job of school leader more tenable.
Acknowledgment
We extend our appreciation to Frances K Kochan and William Spencer for allowing us to compare SOLIA
data with those collected in their 1999 study.
References
Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE) (2010) Available at: http://www.alsde.edu/html/home.asp
(accessed 1 March 2010).
56
57
Anderson M, Kleinhenz E, Mulford B, et al. (2008) Professional learning of school leaders in Australia. In:
Lumby J, Crow G and Pashiards P (eds) International Handbook on the Preparation and Development of
School Leaders. New York, NY: Routledge.
Australian Council for Educational Leaders (ACEL) (2013) The ACEL leadership capability framework. Available at: http://www.curriculum.edu.au/leader/introducing_the_acel_leadership_capability_framewo,27729.
html?issueID=11775 (accessed October 26 2013).
Battle D (2009) Characteristics of Public, Private, and Bureau of Indian Education Elementary and Secondary
School Principals in the United States: Results From the 200708 Schools and Staffing Survey (NCES 2009323). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S.
Department of Education.
Begley PT and Zaretsky L (2004) Democratic school leadership in Canadas public school systems: professional value and social ethic. Journal of Educational Administration 42(6): 640655.
Bottery M, Ngai G, Wong PM, et al. (2008) Leaders and contexts: Comparing English and Hong Kong perceptions of educational challenges. International Studies in Educational Administration 36(1): 5671.
Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLB) (2005) Occupational Outlook Handbook, 20062007. Washington, DC:
U.S. Department of Labor. Available at: http://stats.bls.gov/oco/ocos007.htm (accessed 5 July 2009).
Bush T (2009) Leadership development and school improvement: Contemporary issues in leadership development. Educational Review 61(4): 375389.
Cantano N and Stronge JH (2007) What do we expect of school principals? Congruence between principal
evaluation and performance standards. International Journal of Leadership in Education 10(4): 379399.
Chalker DM (2002) Leadership for Rural Schools: Lessons for all Educators. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press.
Chaplain RP (2001) Stress and job satisfaction among primary headteachers: A question of balance? Educational Management and Administration 29(2): 197215.
Cowie M and Crawford M (2009) Headteacher preparation programmes in England and Scotland: do they
make a difference for the first-year head? School Leadership and Management 29(1): 521.
Darling-Hammond L (2000) How teacher education matters. Journal of Teacher Education 51(3): 166173.
DeLeon AG (2006) The school leadership crisis: Have school principals been left behind? Carnegie Reporter,
4(1): 15.
DeVellis RF (2011) Scale development: Theory and development. 3rd ed. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Dinham S (2007) How schools get moving and keep improving: Leadership for teacher learning, student
success and school renewal. Australian Council for Educational Research 51(3): 263275.
Doud JL and Keller EP (1998) The k-8 Principal in 1998: A Ten-year Study. Alexandria, VA: National Association of Elementary School Principals (NAESP).
Educational Research Service (1998) Is there a Shortage of Qualified Candidates for Openings in the Principalship? Washington, DC: Author.
Educational Research Service; National Association of Elementary School Principals; and National Association of Secondary School Principals (2000) The Principal, Keystone of a High-achieving School: Attracting and Keeping the Leaders we need. Arlington, VA: Authors.
Englezakis D (2002) Occupational stress, job satisfaction and coping actions among Cyprus headteachers. In:
Baldacchine G and Farrugia CJ (eds) Educational Planning and Management in Small States: Concepts
and Experiences. London: Commonwealth Secretariat, pp.119134.
Ferrandino VL (2001) Challenges for 21st-Century Elementary School Principals. Kappan 82(6): 440442.
Fullan M (2005) Leadership and Sustainability. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Fuller E and Young M (2009) Texas High School Project Leadership Initiative Issue Brief 1: Tenure and
Retention of Newly Hired Principals in Texas. Austin, TX: University Council for Educational Administration &Department of Educational Administration, The University of Texas at Austin.
57
58
Ginsberg R and Multon KD (2011) Leading through a fiscal nightmare: The impact on principals and superintendents. Kappan 92(8): 4247.
Gurr D, Drysdate L and Mulford B (2005) Successful principal leadership: Australian case studies. Journal of
Educational Administration 43(6): 539551.
Hair JF, Black WC, Babin BJ, et al. (2009) Multivariate Data Analysis: Global Edition. 7th ed. Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Pearson Education.
Hall GE and Hord SM (2001) Implementing Change: Patterns, Principles and Potholes. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Hallinger P (2003) School leadership preparation and development in global perspective: Future challenges
and opportunities. In: Hallinger P (ed) Reshaping the Landscape of School Leadership Development.
Lisse: Swets and Zeitlinger, pp.289300.
Hattie J (2003, October) Teachers make a difference: What is the research evidence? Paper presented to
Australian Council research annual conference, Melbourne. Available at: http://www.educationallea
ders.govt.nz/Pedagogy-and-assessment/Evidence-based-leadership/Measuring-learning/Teachers-Make-aDifference-What-is-the-Research-Evidence (accessed 14 September 2011).
Hean LL and Tin LG (2008) Envisioning in school leadership preparation and practice: The case of Singapore. International Studies in Educational Administration 36(1): 7280.
Howard G (2006) We Cant Teach What We Dont Know: White Teachers, Multiracial Schools. 2nd ed. New
York: Teachers College Press.
Hoy W and Miskel C (2001) Educational Administration: Theory, Research, and Practice. New York: Random
House.
Ingvarson L and Anderson M (2007) Standards for leadership: Gateway to a stronger profession. Australian
Council for Educational Research (ACER). Available at: http://research.acer.edu.au/research_conference_2007/2 (accessed 30 November 2011).
Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium (2008) Educational Leadership Policy Standards: ISLLC
2008. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers. Available at: http://www.ccsso.org/pub
lications/details.cfm?PublicationID365 (accessed 29 June 2009).
Jacobson S (2010) Leadership effects on student achievement and sustained school success. International
Journal of Educational Management 25(1): 3344.
Jacobson SL and Bezzina C (2010) Effects of leadership on student academic/affective achievement. In:
Lumby J, Crow G and Pashiards P (eds) International Handbook on the Preparation and Development
of School Leaders. New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 81103.
Kensler LAW (2010) Designing democratic community for social justice. International Journal of Urban
Educational Leadership 4(1): 121.
Kensler LAW, Caskie GIL, Barber ME, et al. (2009) The ecology of democratic learning communities: Faculty
trust and continuous learning in public middle schools. Journal of School Leadership 19(6): 697734.
Kersten T and Kersten J (2006) Development: Have you considered school administration. Kappa Delta Pi
Record 42(3): 120123.
Kochan F (2010) The deans role in educational leadership program redesign: The Alabama perspective.
Journal of Research in Educational Leadership 5(12.8): 507530.
Kochan F, Jackson B and Duke D (1999) Voices from the Firing Line: A Study of Educational Leaders
Perceptions of their Job, the Challenges they Face, and their Preparation Programs. Columbus, MO:
University Council for Educational Administrators.
Kochan F and Spencer WA (1999) Preparing Leaders for Tomorrows Schools: The Practitioners Perspectives. Research in the Schools 6(1): 916.
Kutash J, Nico E, Gorin E, et al. (2010) School turnaround: A brief overview of the landscape and key issues.
FSG Social Impact Advisors. Boston, MA: FSG Social Impact Advisors.
58
59
Leithwood K, Harris A and Strauss T (2010) Leading School Turnaround: How Successful Leaders Transform
Low-Performing Schools. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Leithwood K and Riehl C (2005) What we know about successful school leadership. In: Firestone W and
Riehl C (eds) A New Agenda: Directions for Research on Educational Leadership. New York: Teachers
College Press, pp.2247.
Leithwood K, Seashore-Louis K, Anderson S, et al. (2004) How leadership influences student learning.
Learning from Leadership Project, University of Minnesota and University of Toronto, commissioned
by the Wallace Foundation.
Leithwood K and Strauss T (2009) Turnaround schools: Leadership lessons. Education Canada 49(2):
2629.
Lugg C, Bulkley K, Firestone W, et al. (2002) The contextual terrain facing educational leaders. In: Murphy J
(ed) The Educational Leadership Challenge: Redefining Leadership for the 21st century, 101st Yearbook of
the National Society for the Study of Education. Chicago, IL: National Society for the Study of Education.
Lumby J, Walker A, Bryant M, et al. (2009) Research on leadership preparation in a global context. In: Young
MD, Crow GM, Murphy J, et al. Handbook of Research on the Education of School Leaders. New York:
Routledge.
Murphy J (2002) Reculturing the profession of educational leadership: New blueprints. Educational Administration Quarterly 38(2): 176191.
Murphy J and Datnow A (eds) (2003) Leadership for School Reform: Lessons from Comprehensive Reform
Designs. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Murphy J and Myers C (2008) Turning around Failing Schools. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
New South Wales Government (NSW) (2011) Leading and managing the school. Available at: https://www.
det.nsw.edu.au/policies/general_man/accountability/lead_sch/PD20040024.shtml (accessed 26 October
2013).
No Child Left Behind (2001) (NCLB) Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110, 115, Stat. 1425 (2001).
Papa F (2007) Why do principals change schools? A multivariate analysis of principal retention. Leadership
and Policy in Schools 6: 267290.
Reames E (2010) Shifting paradigms: Redesigning a principal preparation programs curriculum. Journal of
Research on Leadership Education 5(12.5): 436459.
Robinson VMJ and Timperley HS (2007) The leadership of the improvement of teaching and learning lessons
from initiatives with positive outcomes for students. Australian Journal of Education 51(3): 247262.
Rowe KJ (2003, October) The importance of teacher quality as a key determinant of students experiences and
outcomes of schooling. Australian Council for Educational Research Conference. Sydney. Available at:
http://research.acer.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article1001&contextresearch_conference_2003&seiredir1#search%22Rowe%2C%20K%202003%20Australia%22 (accessed 26 October 2013).
Roza M (2003) A Matter of Definition: Is there truly a Shortage of School Principals? Seattle: University of
Washington, Center on Reinventing Public Education.
Seashore-Louis K, Leithwood K, Wahlstrom WL, et al. (2010) Learning from leadership: Investigating the
links to improved student learning. Center for Applied Research and Educational Improvement, University
of Minnesota and Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, and University of Toronto 42: 50.
Silver M, Lochmiller CR, Coland MA, et al. (2009) Supporting new school leaders: Findings from a
university-based leadership coaching program for new administrators. Mentoring and Tutoring: Partnerships in Learning 17(3): 215232.
Southern Regional Education Board (2006) Schools Cant Wait: Accelerating the Redesign of University Preparation Programs. Atlanta, GA: Author. Available at: http://publications.sreb.org/2006/06_Schools_
Cant_Wait.pdf (accessed 15 July 2009).
59
60
Southern Regional Educational Board (2007) Schools Need Good Leaders Now: State Progress in Creating
Learner-centered School Leadership System. Atlanta, GA: Author.
Spillane JP (2006) Distributive Leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Suitts S (2010) A New Diverse Majority: Students of Color in the Souths Public Schools Southern Education
Foundation Research Report. Atlanta, GA: Southern Education Foundation.
Thomson P (2008) Answering back to policy? Headteachers stress and the logic of the sympathetic interview.
Journal of Education Policy 23(6): 649667.
Townsend T (2009) Third millennium leaders: Thinking and acting both locally and globally. Leadership and
Policy in Schools 8(4): 355379.
Tsiakkiros A and Pashiardis P (2002) Occupational stress of schools teachers, and headteachers: A qualitative approach. Pedagogical Review 33: 195213.
Tsiakkiros A and Pashiardis P (2006) Occupational stress among Cyprus headteachers: Sources and coping
strategies. International Studies in Educational Administration 34(2):100114.
Tucker S (2010) An investigation of the stresses, pressures, and challenges faced by primary school head
teachers in context of organizational change in schools. Journal of Social Work Practice 2(24): 6374.
University Council of Educational Administration (2010) Values, Vision and Goals. Austin, TX: University
Council of Educational Administration. Available at: http://www.ucea.org/values-vision-goals/ (accessed
1 April 2010).
United States Census Bureau (2000) Unites States Census Bureau Report. Washington, DC: United States
Census Bureau. Available at: http://www.census.gov/census2000/states/al.html (accessed 15 July 2009).
United States Census Bureau (2011) American FactFinder. Washington, DC: United States Census Bureau.
Available at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2011pubs/acsbr10-17.pdf (accessed 28 February 2010).
Walker A, Hallinger P and Qian HY (2007) Leadership development for school effectiveness and improvement in East Asia. In: Townsend T (ed.) International Handbook of School Effectiveness and School
Improvement. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer, pp.659677.
Weiss S (2005) District and school leadership. The Progress of Education Reform 6(2): 2328.
Wong K (2005) Conditions and practice of successful principalship in Shanghai. Journal of Educational
Administration 43(6): 552562.
Young MD and Grogan M (2008) Leadership preparation and development in North America. In: Lumby J,
Crow G and Pashiards P (eds) International Handbook on the Preparation and Development of School
Leaders. New York, NY: Routledge, pp.303324.
Author biographies
Ellen H. Reames is an Associate Professor and Educational Programme Coordinator at Auburn
University, USA.
Frances K. Kochan is Wayne T Smith Distinguished Professor in the Department of Educational
Foundations, Leadership and Technology, Auburn University, USA.
Linxiang Zhu is an assistant professor at Georgia Southern University, USA.
60