school leader a 10-year study in 2018 - naesp 10-year...the pre-k-8 school leader in 2018 a 10-year...

The Pre-K-8 School Leader

in 2018

A 10-Year Study

Ninth in a Series of Research Studies Launched in 1928

The Pre-K-8 School Leader in 2018 A 10-Year Study Ninth in a Series of Research Studies Launched in 1928

NationalAssociationofElementarySchoolPrincipals1615DukeStreet,Alexandria,VA22314-3483Phone:703.684.3345 TollFree:800.386.2377Email:[email protected]:www.naesp.org

TheNationalAssociationofElementarySchoolPrincipals(NAESP)isthestrongestunifiedvoiceforpre-K-8leadersacrosstheU.S.andaroundtheworld.NAESP’smissionistoleadintheadvocacyandsupportforelementaryandmiddle-levelprincipalsandothereducationleadersintheircommitmenttoallchildren.NAESP’svisionforpre-K-8leadershipincludesprincipalshavingthevision,courage,wisdom,andprofessionalknowledgetoleadlearningcommunitiesthatcreateopportunitiesforallchildrentoachievetheirhighestpotential.NAESPwasfoundedin1921byavisionarygroupofprincipalswhosoughttoadvancetheprofession.Today,NAESPprovidestheprofessionalsupportsystemandthecriticalinformationthatyouneed24/7!

UniversityCouncilforEducationalAdministrationUVACurrySchoolofEducation,405EmmetSt.S.,Charlottesville,VA22901Phone:434.243.1041 Email:[email protected]:www.ucea.org

TheUniversityCouncilforEducationalAdministration(UCEA)isaninternationalconsortiumofresearchuniversitiesthatspecializeineducationalleadershippreparation,practice,andpolicy.UCEAhasasinglestandardofexcellenceformembership:superiorinstitutionalcommitmentandcapacitytoprovideleadershipfortheadvancementofeducationalleadershippreparation,scholarship,andpracticeconsistentwithUCEA'sestablishedmission.

Copyright©2018NationalAssociationofElementarySchoolPrincipals.

Authors:*EdwardJ.Fuller,MichelleD.Young,M.ScottRichardson,AndrewPendola,&KathleenM.WinnEditingandLayout:JenniferE.Cook

Cover photo: Monkey Business Images/Shutterstock.com

The Pre-K-8 School Leader in 2018

i

Table of Contents ListofTables ii

ListofFigures vi

Foreword vii

Acknowledgments viii

Preface xi

Chapter1:TheTypicalElementarySchoolPrincipalToday 1

Chapter2:ExperienceandProfessionalPreparationofElementarySchoolPrincipals 7

Chapter3:TheContextofLeadership:SchoolsandDistricts 21

Chapter4:RelationshipsandResponsibilities 30

Chapter5:DecisionMakingattheSchoolSite 39

Chapter6:AccountabilityandEducationalLeadership 47

Chapter7:ThePrincipalship:ConditionsofEmployment 54

Chapter8:ThePrincipal’sProfessionalLearning 74

Chapter9:ConcernsofPrincipals 81

Chapter10:FutureCareerIntentions 97

Chapter11:ConclusionandImplications 103

ScopeandLimitationsoftheStudy 109

References 110


ii

Tables Table2.1 PercentageResultsofTotalYearsEmployedasPrincipalinCurrentSchool,as

PrincipalAllTogether,andasaProfessionalinEducation,2018 .............................9

Table2.2 MeanAgeBasedonYearsasaPrincipalandGender,1998–2018.........................10

Table2.3 PercentageofPrincipalsbyTotalYearsofEmploymentasaProfessionalinEducation,1968–2018 ...........................................................................................10

Table2.4 PercentageofPrincipalsbyYearsasPrincipalinCurrentSchool(IncludingCurrentYear)andAllTogether,1928–2018 ...........................................................11

Table2.5 PercentageofPrincipalsWhoHaveServedinOtherSchoolDistricts,2018 ..........12

Table2.6 MeanYearsElementaryTeachingExperiencePriortoBecomingaPrincipal,2018 ........................................................................................................................13

Table2.7 PercentageofElementaryPrincipalsbyHighestDegreeandYearsasPrincipal,2018 ........................................................................................................................13

Table2.8 PercentageofPrincipalsEnteringThroughTraditionalandAlternativeRoutes ....15

Table2.9 PercentageofPrincipalsbyAgeatTimeofFirstAppointmentasPrincipal,2018 ........................................................................................................................17

Table2.10 MeanAgeatTimeofFirstAppointmentasPrincipal,1978–2018 .........................18

Table2.11 PercentageofPrincipalsHoldingPositionPriortoTakingPrincipalship,2018 ......19

Table2.12 PercentageofPrincipalsRatingValueofTypesofPreparationandExperiencetoSuccessasElementaryPrincipal .........................................................................20

Table3.1 PercentageofRespondentsIndicatingServingNumberofSeparatelyNamedSchools,1968–2018 ................................................................................................21

Table3.2 PercentageofRespondentsIndicatingServingTypeofSchool,1998–2018 ..........23

Table3.3 PercentageofRespondentsIndicatingHowAssistantPrincipalIsAssignedtoSchool,2018............................................................................................................26

Table3.4 PercentageofRespondentsIndicatingParentandCommunityAttitudesTowardtheSchoolanditsPrograms,2018 ............................................................27

Table3.5 PercentageofRespondentsIndicatingLevelofParentandCommunityInvolvement,2018 ..................................................................................................28

iii

Table4.1 PerceptionsoftheQualityofRelationshipsWithVariousGroupsbyYearsasaPrincipal,2018 ........................................................................................................32

Table4.2 AreasofGreatestDecreaseinLevelofInvolvement ..............................................34

Table4.3 PercentageofRespondentsIndicatingAuthorityinSelectingTeachers,byYearsasaPrincipal,2018 .................................................................................................36

Table4.4 PercentageofRespondentsIndicatingResponsibilityforSupervisingandEvaluatingStaff,byYearsasaPrincipal,2018........................................................36

Table4.5 PercentageofRespondentsIndicatingResponsibilityforInstructionalImprovement,byYearsasaPrincipal,2018...........................................................37

Table5.1 PercentageofRespondentsIndicatingPerceivedDegreeofAuthoritytoMakeDecisionsAboutSchool,byYearsasaPrincipalandGender,2018........................41

Table5.2 PercentageIndicatingPerceivedDelegationofDecisionMaking,byYearsofExperienceandGender,2018.................................................................................43

Table5.3 PercentageofRespondentsIndicatingaBalanceofAuthorityWithResponsibility,byYearsasaPrincipalandGender.................................................44

Table5.4 PercentageofRespondentsIndicatingDegreeofInfluenceonDistrictDecisionsImpactingElementarySchoolsandEducation,byYearsasaPrincipalandGender,2018 ..........................................................................................................45

Table5.5 PercentageofRespondentsIndicatingDegreeofInfluenceonDistrictDecisionsImpactingElementarySchoolsandEducation,byDistrictEnrollment,2018.........46

Table6.1 PercentageofRespondentsIndicatingPotentialImpactoftheEveryStudentSucceedsAct:ImpactAreasWithaSubstantialDifferencebyPrincipalExperience ..............................................................................................................50

Table6.2 PercentageofRespondentsIndicatingPotentialImpactoftheEveryStudentSucceedsActonStudents .......................................................................................51

Table6.3 ComparisonofthePercentageofRespondentsIndicatingtheImpactoftheNoChildLeftBehindAct(NCLB)andtheEveryStudentSucceedsAct(ESSA)onStudents..................................................................................................................52

Table7.1 LengthofContract,2008and2018 ........................................................................55

Table7.2 PercentageofRespondentsIndicatingAreasIncludedinFormalContract...........55

Table7.3 PercentageofRespondentsIndicatingContractLengthbySurveyYear ................57

iv

Table7.4 TimeSpentInsideandOutsideoftheSchoolBuildingDuringtheAcademicYear .........................................................................................................................59

Table7.5 TimeSpentInsideandOutsideoftheSchoolBuildingOutsideoftheAcademicYear .........................................................................................................................59

Table7.6 ReportedSalariesbyYearsasaPrincipalforNationalAssociationofElementarySchoolPrincipals(NAESP)andNationalCenterforEducationStatistics(NCES)Surveys....................................................................................................................60

Table7.7 PercentageofRespondentsforSelectedMedianSalaryRanges...........................61

Table7.8 MedianSalarybySchoolEnrollment ......................................................................62

Table7.9 MedianSalarybyAdequacyofPay.........................................................................63

Table7.10 MeasuresIncludedinPrincipalMeritPayPlans .....................................................64

Table7.11 PercentageofRespondentsIndicatingTypeofTenure,byYearsasPrincipal........65

Table7.12 PercentageofRespondentsIndicatingFrequencyofEvaluationbyYear...............66

Table7.13 PercentageofRespondentsIndicatingIndividualsProvidingOpinionsinPerformanceEvaluation .........................................................................................67

Table7.14 PercentageofRespondentsIndicatingGoalSettingIncludedinEvaluation ..........68

Table7.15 PercentageofRespondentsIndicatingLevelofMorale .........................................69

Table7.16 PercentageofRespondentsIndicatingFrequencyofCommendation,byGenderofRespondent............................................................................................71

Table7.17 PercentageofRespondentsIndicatingLevelofMorale,byFrequencyofCommendation .......................................................................................................71

Table8.1 PercentageofRespondentsReportingPerceivedNeedsforProfessionalDevelopment ..........................................................................................................76

Table8.2 PercentageofRespondentsIndicatingLikelihoodofUsingStrategiesforTheirOwnProfessionalDevelopment .............................................................................78

Table8.3 PercentageRespondentsIndicatingParticipationinOnlineProfessionalDevelopmentPrograms ..........................................................................................79

Table9.1 AreasCharacterizedasanExtremeorHighConcernby50%orMorePrincipals,2018 ........................................................................................................................84

Table9.2 PercentageofPrincipalsIdentifyingProgram-RelatedConcerns ...........................85

v

Table9.3 PercentageofPrincipalsIdentifyingConcernsAboutStudentIssues.....................87

Table9.4 PercentageofPrincipalsIdentifyingConcernsAboutFaculty-StaffIssues .............89

Table9.5 PercentageofPrincipalsIdentifyingConcernsAboutStakeholderIssues..............90

Table9.6 PercentageofPrincipalsIdentifyingConcernsAboutManagementIssues............91

Table9.7 PercentageofPrincipalsIndicatingSenseofJobSecurityOverthePrior3Years .......................................................................................................................93

Table9.8 PercentageofPrincipalsIdentifyingProblemsCurrentlyorPotentially(WithintheNextYear)RelatedtoJobSecurity,2018 .........................................................94

Table10.1 PercentageofPrincipalsIndicatingFutureIntentionsintheNext3Years.............98

Table10.2 PercentageofPrincipalsIndicatingFutureIntentionsintheNext3Years,byYearsofExperienceinEducation............................................................................99

Table10.3 PercentageofPrincipalsIndicatingFutureIntentionsintheNext3Years,byGenderandRace...................................................................................................100

Table10.4 PercentageofPrincipalsIndicatingFutureIntentionsintheNext3Years,byPrincipalMorale....................................................................................................101

Table11.1 PercentageofPrincipalswhoShareConcernsAbouttheAbilityofPublicEducationtoAttractQualityElementarySchoolPrincipals ..................................104

Table11.2 TrendDataonSalaries,Workweek,andContract,1956-57Through2017-18 ....106


vi

Figures Figure2.1 Percentageofprincipalswithamaster’sdegreeorhigher,1928–2018...............14

Figure3.1 Medianelementaryschoolenrollment,1928–2018. ............................................22

Figure3.2 Percentageofschoolswithstudentcouncils. .......................................................25

Figure4.1 Qualityofworkingrelationships:Percentageofrespondentsgivingeachrating. ....................................................................................................................31

Figure4.2 Areasofgreatestgrowthinlevelofinvolvement. ................................................33

Figure5.1 Percentageofrespondentsindicatinglevelofauthoritythatprincipalshavetomakedecisionsconcerningtheirownschools..................................................40

Figure5.2 Percentageofrespondentsindicatinglevelofauthorityprincipalshavetomakedecisionsconcerningtheirownschoolsfor1998,2008,and2018.............40

Figure5.3 Percentageofrespondentsindicatingchangesinthedelegationofdecisionmakingovertheprevious3years,from1998to2018. ........................................42

Figure5.4 Percentageofprincipalsindicatingabalanceofauthoritywithresponsibility....43

Figure5.5 Degreeofinfluenceondistrictdecisionsinfluencingelementaryschoolsandeducation...............................................................................................................44

Figure5.6 Percentageofrespondentsindicatingdegreeofinfluenceondistrictdecisionsinfluencingelementaryschoolsandeducation,1998,2008,and2018. ...............45

Figure6.1 PrincipalperceptionsofthepotentialimpactoftheEveryStudentSucceedsAct. ........................................................................................................................49

Figure7.1 Averagehoursinaprincipal’sworkweek,1928–2018..........................................58

Figure7.2 Adequacyofsalaryrelativetotimeandeffortrequiredforthejob. ....................62

Figure7.3 Percentageofrespondentsindicatingtypeoftenure,2008and2018.................65

Figure7.4 Percentageofrespondentsindicatingstudentperformancemeasuresincludedinevaluation. ..........................................................................................66

Figure7.5 Portfolioassessmentaspartofevaluation. ..........................................................69

Figure7.6 Percentageofrespondentsindicatingfrequencyofcommendation....................70


vii

Foreword As the nation progresses through the first quarter of the 21st century, the educationcommunity continues to strive toward ensuring the necessary conditions for all students tothrive.Towardthatend,inthepastdecadetheroleofprincipalleadershipinguidingteachingand learning has gained greater recognition. “Leadership is second only to classroominstructionasaninfluenceonstudentlearning,”wroteSeashoreLouis,Leithwood,Wahlstrom,andAnderson(2010,p.9)intheirnowseminalresearchlinkingprincipalleadershiptostudentsuccess.Butthisthinkingwasnotalwaysthecase.In2002,whentheNoChildLeftBehindAct(NCLB)wassignedintolaw,itwasdonesowith119mentionsof“principals”asschoolleaders.Fast-forward to the 2015 passage of the reauthorized version of the law: the Every StudentSucceedsAct(ESSA)of2015mentionsprincipalleadershipnofewerthan210times.Increasedvisibility and greater recognition for the critical role of school leaders—and in particularprincipals—in overall school success requires that now, more than ever before, we study,understand,andsupportprincipalsintheirleadershipoflearningcommunities.

Sincethe1928publicationofitsfirst10-yearstudy,TheK-8Principal,theNationalAssociationof Elementary School Principals (NAESP) has been doing just that—collecting data on theclimate, challenges,andconditions thatmark theprincipalship. ThePre-K-8School Leader in2018: A 10-Year Study is the ninth in this series of research studies, and it imparts newinformation about the current education climate; the challenges veteran, early career, andassistantprincipalsface;thestudentstheyserve;andtheconditionsunderwhichtheywork.Italso can assist us in identifying trends and making predictions about the future. NAESPleadership and staff rely on the data fromeach succeeding survey to guide in strengtheningadvocacy and policy efforts, delivering communication related services, and providingprofessionallearningopportunitiestoaddressthemostpressingneedsofourmembers.

Policy

Principals historically have needed to adapt to dramatic shifts that impact their schools,includingsignificantpolicychangesatthestateandfederallevels.Forexample,the2008studyrecordedprincipals’reactionstoNCLB,signedintolawinearly2002.NCLBsubstantiallyalteredthe landscape of education across the nation, and the federal government was widelyperceived as having too heavy a handon education policy. In contrast, the recently enactedESSA(2015)hasbeentoutedasreturningasignificantamountofcontrolbacktostates.

Foreword

viii

AlthoughitistooearlytodeterminetheimpactofESSAonstudentachievement,2018surveyrespondents foresee that thenew lawwillhave less impacton their roleasprincipalandontheirschoolsthanpreviouslywithNCLB.Additionally,whenaskedtopredicttheeffectofESSAon students, the majority of respondents anticipated the new law would have a positiveinfluence,specificallyontheattentiontotheneedsofallstudentsaswellasonthefocusonstudent socioemotionalneeds. Most strikingly, respondentsweremuchmorepositiveaboutthepotentialeffectofESSAthantheeffectofNCLBonEnglishlanguagelearnersandtheabilityofschoolstoaddresstheneedsofthewholechild.

The K-8 Principal’s Perspective

Thetop-rankedconcernfor2018respondingprincipalswasaddressingtheincreaseofstudentswithemotionalproblems.Infact,respondentsidentifiedanumberofstudent-relatedissuesasbeing of moderate, high, and extreme concern. Among those issues identified were themanagementofstudentbehavior,studentmentalhealthissues,absenteeism,lackofeffectiveadultsupervisionathome,andstudentpoverty.Incontrast,noneofthestudent-relatedissueswereidentifiedasamajorconcernin2008.Clearlytheconcernsregardingstudentpopulationshaveshiftedoverthepastdecade.

Conditions of employment continue to be a source of additional pressure for school leadersparticipatinginthisstudy.Theaveragenumberofreportedhoursperworkweekhasincreasedsteadily over thepast 90 years—from44hours in 1928, to 56hours in 2008, to 61hours in2018.Additionally,theaveragenumberofschool-relatedworkhoursperweekoutsideoftheschoolbuildingwasalmost8hoursfor2018respondents—anincreaseof1houroverthepastdecade.

Between 2008 and 2018, the longevity of contracts decreased such that themajority of thecontracttermsshiftedfrom2ormoreyearsinlengthin2008to1yearinlengthin2018.Themonthsdesignated inprincipal contracts have steadily increasedover time such that 50%ofrespondents in 2018 reported having a 12-month contract, compared to only 12% ofrespondentsin1958.

Othermajor2018takeawaysfromthe10-yearstudyhaveimplicationsfortheseareas:

• Equity: On average, principals surveyed were 50 years old, female, andWhite. Themedianschoolenrollmentincreasedfrom450in2008to505in2018.Further,62%ofprincipals indicated that the number of assistant principals assigned to their building

Foreword

ix

was not enough to ensure effective school leadership that meets the needs of allstudents.

• Pipeline: Mostprincipalscanandwillretireinapproximately8yearsiftheyremainintheirpresentsystem,whichaccordingtothestudy,theyintendtodo.Averageprincipaltenure is 11 years, with 7 years in their current school. No dramatic decrease wasrepresented in the percentage of principals who have served for 20 or more years.Fewer than5%of the administrators in this study reportedentering theprincipalshipthroughanalternativeroute,receivingthefirstprincipalshipat40yearsofage,having10 years’ experience as elementary school teacher prior to becoming principal, orhaving22totalyearsofexperienceineducation.

• Preparationandsupport: Whereasmore thanhalfof respondents indicated theyhadparticipatedinonlinedevelopmentprograms,respondentsalsoindicatedthatpracticalexperience as an administrator and as a teacherwas themost valuable influence ontheir success. Principals identified improving studentperformanceas the key areaofneedforprofessionaldevelopment.

• Authority: Over the last three decades, respondents have noted having substantiallyless influence over district decisions concerning elementary schools and elementaryeducation.

Responses to the 2018 NAESP 10-year study identify multiple areas of professionaldevelopment need, including improving student performance, improving staff performance,understandingandapplyingtechnology,timemanagement,usingsocialmediaeffectively,andschoolimprovementplanning. It isessentialthatstatesanddistrictsfocusonwhatprincipalsidentifyastheirlearningneedsandusethatinformation,alongwiththegrowingawarenessofnew models, to support principal learning throughout the career span and to developauthentic, relevant and high-impact professional learning opportunities for building-leveleducationalleaders.

As with prior NAESP 10-year studies, respondents conveyed themessage that they find theworkof leading schools tobe gratifying. Whenasked if theywoulddo it all over again, themajorityagreed that theywouldandalsowould recommend theprincipalshipasa career toothers. This is thebest newsour survey can report. The leadership and staff ofNAESP areproud to serve these dedicated school leaders and remain committed to our mission ofsupportingtheireffortsonbehalfofchildren.

L.EarlFranks,EdD,CAEExecutiveDirector


x

Acknowledgments Wewouldliketoacknowledgeandthankanumberofindividualsfortheircontributionstothisninth edition of the NAESP 10-year study. Undertaking a project of this magnitude, whichreportsonthecurrentstateofthefieldwhilealsoreflectingbackonpatternsovertheyears,requiresthetimeandattentionofagoodnumberofpeople.Foremost,wewouldliketothanktheprincipalsandassistantprincipalswhocompletedthesurvey,withoutwhomtherewouldbeno10-yearstudy.Weunderstandandappreciatethetimededicatedtocompletingasurveyofthislength.

Planning for and executing this edition of the 10-year study was a group effort under theleadership of former Executive Director Gail Connelly and current Executive Director EarlFranks.InadditiontoGailandEarl,wewishtothankDeborahTyler,HonorFede,KellyPollit,andScottRichardsonfortheirparticipationinthedevelopmentandreviewofthe2018surveyinstrument. It is important to note that this 10-year study occurred in themidst of NAESPleadershiptransition,andwesincerelyappreciatethetimethatGail,Earl,andtheirrespectiveleadershipteamsdedicatedtoensuringthequalityandfocusofthestudy.FollowingNAESP’sleadership transition, Gail Morgan played a significant role in keeping the project on track,offeringherknowledgeoftheneedsoftheNAESPmembershipandleadershipandbringingtotheprojecttheexpertiseofKaylenTuckerandDannyCarlson.

Wewould also like to thankour team,which includedKathleenWinn,AndrewPendola, andScottRichardson,whoenthusiasticallydedicatedtheirtimeandexpertisetosharingthestoryoftoday’spre-K-8schoolleader.

Finally,severalpeopleattheUniversityCouncilforEducationalAdministration(UCEA)mustbeacknowledgedfortheirassistancewithvariousphasesofthisproject, includingMarcyReedy;StephanieMcGuire;andoureditor,JenniferEllenCook.

MichelleD.Young EdwardJ.FullerUCEAExecutiveDirector UCEAAssociateDirectorforPolicyProfessor,UniversityofVirginia AssociateProfessor,PennsylvaniaStateUniversity


xi

Preface ThisninthiterationoftheNAESP10-yearstudydocumentsavarietyoftrendsandchangesintheworkandworkingconditionsof leaders inpre-K-8schools. TakentogetherwithpreviousNAESP studies,which have been conducted since 1928, the findings provide insight into keyfactors and trends impacting the public school system generally and school leadershipspecifically.

Inhisforewordtothe1988NAESP10-yearstudy,thenExecutiveDirectorSamSavashared,

Inmy35yearsasaneducator,Ihavewitnessedandexperiencedmanychangesintheprincipalship.Alotofthemhavebeenchangesforthebetter:principalstodaycertainlyenjoymoreprestige,highersalaries,andgreaterauthoritythantheydidwhenIwasarookie.Butsomeofthechangeshavebeentroubling.(Sava,1988,p.xi)

The decades since the 1988 study was published have been particularly challenging foreducationalleadersandhaveledtosignificantshiftsinthefocusoftheirwork.Shortlybeforetheadministrationofthe1988survey,ANationAtRiskwaspublished(NationalCommissiononExcellenceinEducation,1983),usheringina“tidalwaveofeducationalreform”(Sava,1988,p.xi).

The1983reportwasquicklyfollowedbyaseriesofadditional“nationalreports,”eachdriven by the desire to promote a particular point of view and all calling forimprovement of the educational system so that the United States might moreeffectivelycompeteinthe“informationage”andinaglobaleconomy.(Doud,1988,p.xiii)

Since that time, the numbers of national reports and efforts to promotemore effective andefficientschoolshavemultiplied.Mostsignificanthavebeentheaccountabilitymovementandthe emphasis on school choice with expanded alternatives to local public schools. Theaccountabilitypressuresonschoolleadershavebeenfurtherreinforcedbyanumberofreformefforts over the years including school report cards, performance-based funding, and schoolturnaround schemes, such as school reconstitution. These efforts were designed andimplemented as significant economic and demographic shifts took place within our nation,shifts that required schools tomeet theneedsof an increasinglydiverse studentpopulation,largernumbersofstudentsreceivingfreeandreduced-pricelunch,andincreasedpercentagesofstudentswithspecialneeds.“ThesestudentsgraceAmerica’sclassroomsbuttestthefiscalresources and the leadership abilities of principals and their staffs in meeting their needs”(Sava,1999,p.ix).

Preface

xii

What effect have these and other changes, such as changes in technology and access toinformation,hadontheroleofthepre-K-8schoolleader?Whataretheimplicationsofthesechangesforthosewhocurrentlyserveinorinspiretotheseroles?Likethosethatprecededit,the2018NAESP10-yearstudyattemptstoaddresstheseandotherquestions.Thisreportondatafromthe2018NAESP10-yearstudydocumentsadecadeofchangesandoffersinsightintothecurrentrealitiesofleadershipinpre-K-8schools.

NAESPhasaskedaconsistentsetofquestionsoverthelast90yearsandsupplementedthosequestions over time. The questions “represent an attempt to generate a comprehensivepictureofthecharacteristicsofelementaryschoolprincipals;theirattitudesaboutschools,theprincipalship, and their preparation for the position; and the assessment of problems facingtheirschools”(Protheroe,2008,p.xvi).

Wefounditenlighteningtocomparethefindingsofthis2018studywiththosefromyearspast,tofollowtrendsandidentifynewdevelopments.Forexample,whilevariationsonsupportingstudent learninghave consistently appearedamong the key concernsof educational leaders,other concerns have shifted over time. For example, in 1988 site-based management wasconsidered a key challenge for educational leaders; by 1998, a key challenge involvedunderstandingandutilizingtechnologyforlearningandmanagementpurposes.Today,studentmentalhealthissuesareamongschoolleaders’topconcerns.

Collectively, the studies document the history of the elementary school principal, andindividuallytheyprovideinsightintotheissuesofkeyimportancetoleadershipatthetimeofthestudy.Theinsightshaveimplicationsforthosewhocurrentlyserveasschoolleaders,thosewhosupportschoolleaders,andthosewhoprepareschoolleaders.


1

Chapter 1: The Typical Elementary School Principal Today Each of the 10-year study reports has provided a brief overview—a picture—of schoolprincipals.BillPharisandSallyZakariya,authorsofthe1978study,talkedaboutsuchprofilesandaboutelementaryschoolprincipals:

Principals are not average people. They occupy positions of leadership and respect,positions they have earned on the basis of advanced academic degrees and years ofprofessionalexperience.Byalmostanymeasureonemightuse,principalswouldhaveto be considered high achievers. Although principals are by no means averagethemselves,itisneverthelessinterestingtotrytoconstructtheprofileofanaverageortypicalprincipal.(Pharis&Zakariya,1978,p.1)

Accordingtothedatacollectedinthis2018studyoftheelementaryschoolprincipal,thetypicalprincipalisfemale,White,and50yearsold.Shecouldretireinabout8yearsifshestaysinthepresentsystemandintendstodoso.

Appointed to her first principalshipwhen shewas 40 years old, shehas been a principal forabout11yearsandprincipalinhercurrentschoolfor7years.Shehastaughtaboutadecadeattheelementaryschool level,and, intotal,has22yearsofexperienceineducation. Shehasamaster’sdegreeandcompletedherpreparationatauniversity-basedprogramafter teachingfor a number of years. In terms of helping her do her job well, she feels that on-the-jobexperiencesasaprincipalhavebeenmosthelpfultoher,followedbyherteachingexperience.Shealsonotedthatgraduateeducationhasbeenofsomeorhighvalue.

Shecharacterizesherauthoritytomakedecisionsconcerningherschoolasmoderate,althoughthelevelofauthorityvariesbyresponsibility. Shealsofeelstheauthoritygiventoherbytheschoolboardandsuperintendent is inbalancewithherresponsibilities. Inaddition,shefeelsshehassomeinfluenceoverdecisionsimpactingelementaryeducationasopposedtolittleormuchinfluence.Sheperceivesnochangeinthedegreetowhichdecision-makingauthorityhadbeendelegatedtoherschoolsiteinrecentyears.

Over the past few years, the extent to which she uses assessment data for instructionalplanning has increased, along with her involvement in helping teachers use effective

Chapter 1: Typical Elementary School Principal

2

instructional practice and her efforts to develop the school as a professional learningcommunity. Shespendsmuchofher time incontactwithstaff,especially inher supervisoryrole. Her awareness and involvement have increased dramatically regarding studentmentalhealthandstudentsocioemotionalawareness.

Sheconsidersherself tohaveprimary responsibility forsupervisionandevaluationofstaffaswell as for selection of teachers, but she is likely to share responsibility for instructionalimprovement with others in the school. She feels her relationships with individuals in theschool,community,anddistrictofficeareexcellent—particularlywithrespecttostudentsandteachers. Incontrast,sheperceivesherrelationshipwiththeschoolboardtobegoodratherthanexcellent.

This principal, though, still feels she hasmuch to learn. Indeed, the six areas in which shewould most like to receive assistance in improving her abilities are improving studentperformance, improving staff performance, understanding and applying technology, timemanagement, using socialmedia effectively, and school improvement planning. She ismostlikely to participate in school- and district-provided professional development as opposed tootherprofessionaldevelopmentopportunities.

The principalship is her sole responsibility, a change from times when principals were alsoexpectedtoteach.However,anassistantprincipalisnotassignedtoherbuildingunlesssheisassignedtoaschoolwithmorethan600students.Despiteleading505studentsandsupervisingbetween 36 and 70 staff members, her district also has no plans to assign principalshipresponsibilities—someadministrativeandothers instructional—totwopeopleso that the jobmightbemanageable. Sheconsiders theschool’sparents tobehighly supportiveandhighlyinvolvedwiththeschool’sprograms.

The typical principal has an employment contractwith her district that addresses salary andfringe benefit provisions as well as district expectations. In addition, she has a written jobdescriptionthatisstandardforallprincipalsinherdistrict,andsheisevaluatedonthedegreetowhichshemeetsthoseexpectations.Shehastenure,butasaprofessionalemployeeratherthanasaprincipal.Sheisevaluatedannually,andstudentperformanceresultsaretakenintoaccount in her evaluation. Goal setting is part of the evaluation process, and she is heldaccountableforprogresstowardmeetingthesegoals.Portfolioassessmentisnotanoptionforheraspartoftheevaluationprocess.Hersenseofjobsecurityhasstayedaboutthesameinthelastfewyears.

Majorconcernsfacingherschoolincludeanincreaseinthenumbersofstudentswithemotionalproblems,studentmentalhealthissues,studentsnotperformingtotheirlevelsofpotential,and


3

providingacontinuumofservicesforstudentswhoareatrisk.Theconcernaboutthementalhealthofstudentswasaclearandconsistentconcernofrespondents.

ShehasmixedfeelingsconcerningtheimpactoftheEveryStudentSucceedsAct(ESSA,2015).TheareasthatshefeelsESSAmayhavethemostpositiveimpactincludetheuseofassessmentdatatodriveinstruction,afocusoninstruction,attentiontotheneedsofallstudents,andfocusonstudents’socioemotionalneeds.Alternatively,shefeelsESSAmayhaveanegativeimpactonthefollowingareas:pressureonstaffduetoaccountabilitypressures,moraleofeducators,andfocusonnontestedsubjectareas.

Sheislikelytohavea12-monthcontractandworks,onaverage,61hoursperweekduringtheformalschoolyearand42hoursperweekoutsidetheformalschoolyear.Herannualsalaryisabout$96,000,andmerit/incentivepayisnotavailabletoher.

Hermoraleissomewherebetweenmoderatelyhighandhigh.Ifshewerestartingoutalloveragain, she would probably, although not definitely, choose to be an elementary schoolprincipal. However, she is concerned about the ability of public education to attract qualitypeople to the principalship, citing a salary not commensurate with responsibilities, timedemandsof the job,anever-increasingworkload,andstressas factors thatcoulddiscouragegoodcandidates.

Similarities and Differences Over Time

Inthissection,wehighlightsomeimportantsimilaritiesandchangesoverthelastdecade.Withrespect to thecharacteristicsofelementaryprincipals, they remain largelyWhiteand femaleandhavesimilar levelsofexperienceasbotha teacherandasaprincipal. Theyalsotendtohold similar levels of education and report experiencing similar types of preparationexperiences.


4

With respect to the characteristics of their schools anddistricts, a greaterpercentageof the2018 respondents than the 2008 respondents were responsible for leading more than oneschool.Inaddition,themediantotalenrollmentofrespondentsincreasedslightlyoverthepastdecade. There were only minimal changes, however, with respect to the diversity of thestudents in schools. Despite some reports by specific states about the number of assistantprincipals increasing inthepastyears,similarpercentagesofrespondentsreportedhavinganassistantprincipalin2008and2018.

Interestingly, the perception of parent support declined from 2008 to 2018, with a 15-percentage-pointdecrease in thepercentageof respondents feeling thatparentswerehighlysupportive. Similarly, respondents also perceived a decrease in the level of involvement ofparents.

Whereasthe2008respondentsreportedanincreaseintheirlevelofinvolvementinabout50%oftheareasincludedinthatsurvey,the2018respondentsindicatedanincreaseininvolvement

ARetrospectiveLookattheDiversificationoftheWorkForcein1948Duringtheearlyreports,muchofthewrittenconcerncenteredonreportingtheproportionsofmenandwomen leadingelementaryschools. Thepatternof thenumbersofmenandwomenwhoservedasprincipalsfluctuatedthroughouttheyears.In1948,therewasadifferenceinpercentagesofmenandwomenservingas elementary principal, at 59% and 41%, respectively (National EducationAssociation,1948).

A secondaryareaof imbalancewasbetween teachingprincipalsandsupervisingprincipals.Womenweremorereadilyteachingprincipals,andmoremenheldthesupervisingprincipalposition(NationalEducationAssociation,1948).

When describing the principal profile, data on racial and ethnic background ofelementaryprincipalswerenotoffereduntil the1978report (24yearsafter thedecisionof landmark court caseBrown v. Boardof Education (1954). The1978data revealed the imbalance between the percentages of principals of colorcomparedtoWhiteprincipals.Forexample,intheNortheast,95.3%ofprincipalswere White. In 1978, the Southeast reported the highest percentage ofelementaryprincipalsofcolorat19.3%.


5

inalmostallofthe27areasincludedinthesurvey.Thus,thereappearstobeafairlysignificantshiftinthelastdecadeconcerningtheamountofinvolvementofprincipalsinawidevarietyofareasinschooling.Whereasbothgroupsofrespondentsreportedincreasingtheirinvolvementregarding student assessment issues, the 2018 respondents noted a substantial shift in thedegree to which they are involved in addressing student mental health and socioemotionalneeds.

With respect to responsibility forhiring teachers, supervisingstaff,andensuring instructionalimprovement intheirschool,similarpercentagesofthe2008and2018respondentsreportedhavingprimaryresponsibilityforhiringstaff.Therewerechanges,however,inthepatternsofresponses between 2008 and 2018 respondents regarding responsibility for supervising staffandforinstructionalimprovement.Specifically,therewasadecreasefrom2008to2018inthepercentage of respondents reporting they had primary responsibility in these areas and anincreaseinthepercentageofreportingtheysharedtheresponsibilitywithothersintheschool.

From2008to2018,therewasaslightdeclineinthepercentageofrespondentsreportingthattheyhadahigh levelofauthoritytomakedecisionsconcerningtheirownschool. Therewasalso adecrease in thepercentageof respondents reporting thatdistrict personneldelegatedgreaterdecision-makingauthoritytotheschoolovertheprior3years.Despitethesechanges,there was no change in the percentage of respondents reporting an appropriate balancebetweentheirauthoritytomakedecisionsandthedegreetowhichtheywereheldresponsiblefortheirschool.

Whilethevastmajorityofrespondents inbothyearsreportedhavingacontract, therewasafairly dramatic increase in the percentage of respondents reporting having a 1-year contractrather than a longer contract over the past decade. With regard to the specificity of thecontract, therewas amarked increase from2008 to 2018 in the percentage of respondentsreporting the inclusion of both a specific salary and description of fringe benefits in thecontract.Inaddition,therewasasizableincreaseinthepercentageofrespondentsnotingthatthemannerinwhichtheywouldbeevaluatedwasincludedinthecontractlanguage.Further,similarpercentagesof respondents in the2years reportedhavingawrittencontractandthetermsofthecontract.

ARetrospectiveLookatContractsin1988Asnotedinthe1988study,“Foraleaderwhomustbepreparedtomakesometoughdecisions,thesenseofstabilityandsecuritythatgoeswithaprofessionalcontractwiththeschooldistrictisofcrucialimportance”(Doud,1988,p.75).


6

Inthecontinuationofa30-yeartrend,respondentsreportedanincreaseintheirsalaryandtheamount of time they spend on the job during the school year. A lower percentage ofrespondents,however,notedtheyparticipatedinanytypeofmeritpayplan.

Withrespecttothefrequencyofevaluation, therewasan increasefrom2008to2018 inthepercentageofrespondentsreportingthattheywereevaluatedeveryacademicyear.Similarly,from 2008 to 2018, there was an increase in the percentage of respondents reporting goalsettingwaspartoftheirevaluationprocessandthattheywereheldaccountableformeetingthegoalsset.

Therewereslightchangesinthereportedprofessionaldevelopmentneedsfrom2008to2018.Specifically, a greater percentage of 2018 respondents noted a need for professionaldevelopmentaround improving student achievement than in2008. In contrast, both setsofrespondents reported wanting assistance in the use of technology and improving staffperformance.

Finally, the 2008 and 2018 surveys both asked respondents to indicate their concerns in avariety of areas related to the school, program, students, staff, stakeholder issues, andmanagementissues.Withrespecttotheoverallschool,concernsofrespondentsshiftedfrom2008 issues suchas studentassessmentand instructionalpractices to2018 issuesassociatedwith student mental health and socioemotional needs. Interestingly, in 2008, none of thestudent-relatedissueswasidentifiedasamajorconcernbyamajorityofrespondents.Thiswasnot the case in 2018,with respondents noting the following issues:management of studentbehavior, student mental health issues, absenteeism, lack of effective adult supervision athome, and studentpoverty. Regarding staff, the same two issueswere ratedas thehighestconcernsby respondents inboth2008and2018—namely teacherperformance/effectivenessandprofessionaldevelopmentofstaff.

Thus,therehasbeenafairdegreeofsimilarityintheperceptionsofrespondentsin2008and2018. There were, however, some notable shifts from 2008 to 2018. Perhaps the mostimportant shifts were related to the amount of time spent working, salary, principals’ ownevaluation,levelofinvolvement,andconcernsaboutstudentwell-being.


7

Chapter 2: Experience and Professional Preparation of Elementary School Principals There isnoquestion that theworkof school leadership ischallengingor thatachievinghigh-quality education for all children in all schools is strongly tied to the capacity of educationalleaders (Hallinger & Heck, 1996a, 1996b; Leithwood & Jantzi, 2000, 2005, 2008; Leithwood,Seashore Louis, Anderson, & Wahlstrom, 2004; Robinson, Lloyd, & Rowe, 2008; Supovitz,Sirinides,&May,2010;Waters,Marzano,&McNulty,2003).InthesecondeditionofLeadingLearningCommunities:Standards forWhatPrincipalsShouldKnowandBeAble toDo,NAESPhighlighted the role of principal as becoming “more complex and challenging,” with theseprofessionals no longer simply managers of their schools (NAESP & CollaborativeCommunicationsGroup,2008,p.2).

Furthermore, a growing body of evidence has demonstrated the link between leadershippreparationandpractice (Leithwoodetal.,2004;SeashoreLouisetal.,2010;Young&Crow,2016;Young,Crow,Murphy,&Ogawa,2009). Thus far, researchhasrevealed linksbetweencharacteristics of principal preparation programs and graduate career outcomes (Fuller,Hollingworth, & An, 2016; Fuller, Young, & Baker, 2011) and demonstrated relationshipsbetween specific program features and the perceived success of school leaders (Darling-Hammond, LaPointe, Meyerson, & Orr, 2007; Leithwood, Jantzi, Coffin, & Wilson, 1996;Orphanos&Orr,2014;Orr,2010).

Essential to adequately preparing principals for their leadership roles and responsibilities ishaving a strong sense of the knowledge and skills they need. Over the last three decades,NAESP has worked with its partner organizations to articulate standards for school leaders.Beginning with the publication of Proficiencies for Principals in 1986, NAESP started on ajourneyof identifying theexpectations forexemplaryeducational leadershippreparationandpractice.

Most recently, NAESP participated, with other members of the National Policy Board forEducational Administration (NPBEA), in the development of the Professional Standards forEducational Leaders (PSEL) and the National Educational Leadership Preparation (NELP)standards.PSEListhelatestversionofnationaleducationalleadershipstandards,replacingtheInterstateSchoolLeadershipLicensureConsortium(ISLLC)standardsof2008,andNELP is the

Chapter 2: Experience and Preparation

8

newest version of national educational leadership preparation standards, replacing theEducationalLeadershipConstituentCouncil(ELCC)standards.

The NAESP 10-year studies serve as complementary resources to NAESP’s standard-settingwork by providing trend data concerning the paths people take to the principalship. Inaddition, theresearchersaskprincipalsabout thetrainingandexperiences thathavebeenofmostvaluetothem. Theseopinionscanprovideastrongdirectionforthoseplanninghighereducation graduate programs as well as associations and state departments of educationofferingdevelopmentopportunitiesforbothnewandexperiencedprincipals.

Question: Counting this year, how many years have you been employed as a principal? How many of those years were in your current school?

Respondingprincipalsreportedameanof11yearstotalexperienceasaprincipal,representinganincreaseof1yearfromthe2008figure,andwithalowerpercentageofrespondents(17.6%)reportingfewerthan4yearsofexperiencethanwasthecasein2008(20.8%).Thispercentageisstillmuchhigherthanreportedin1998(7.1%).

Maleprincipalshadbeeninthepositionfor2moreyearsthanfemaleprincipals (12and10years),which isacloser intervalthanin2008,whenthemeandifferencewas4years(13yearsfor men and 9 years for women). Like in 2008, femaleprincipalsare,onaverage,olderthantheirmalecounterparts.In 2008, the differencewas an average of 2 years (male: 49yearsold; female:51years),and in2018thedifference isanaverage of 3 years (male: 49 years old; female: 52 years).Women also have more years of experience than men. In2008thedifferencewasanaverageof1year(male:24years;female: 25 years). In 2018 thedifference is an averageof 2years (male: 21 years; female: 23 years). For bothmen andwomen themeannumberof years servingasaneducationalprofessionaldecreased.SeeTable2.1.

Whenconsideringotherexperiencepatternsofmaleand femaleprincipals, therehasbeenadramaticdecrease in thepercentageofprincipalswhohaveserved for20yearsormore. In2018,2.5%ofmalesand4.6%offemalesreportedservingasaprincipalformorethan20years.In2008,thepercentagesweremuchhigher,with23.1%ofthemalesand7.5%ofthefemales

Almost 40% of the responding

principals have been in the position for

fewer than 4 years, with overall means of

11 years as a principal and 7 years

in their current schools reported.


9

reporting this experience. Inboth cases, thepercentageofwomen is less than thatof theirmale counterparts. In comparison to 2008, the percentage differences between male andfemale principals have decreased significantly, indicating a shift towardmore females in theelementaryschoolprincipalship.

Table2.1PercentageResultsofTotalYearsEmployedasPrincipalinCurrentSchool,asPrincipalAllTogether,andasaProfessionalinEducation,2018

Yearsasaprincipal GenderSubgroup Total <5 5–14 15+ Male Female

IncurrentschoolLessthan4years 38.7 81.6 30.6 15.7 39.1 36.64–9years 33.6 17.7 48.3 22.1 31.0 35.010–19years 24.5 0.7 20.8 51.2 25.3 25.920+years 3.3 0.0 0.3 11.1 4.6 2.5

Meannumberofyears 7 2 6 12 7 7

Asaprincipalalltogether(includingyearsinpresentschool)Lessthan4years 17.6 73.5 0.0 0.0 36.6 39.14–9years 30.2 26.5 49.7 0.0 35.0 31.010–19years 39.2 0.0 50.3 53.5 25.9 25.320+years 13.1 0.0 0.0 46.5 2.5 4.6


Asaprofessionalineducation(includingyearsasaprincipal)Lessthan10years 1.0 3.4 0.3 0.0 1.2 0.310–14years 7.0 15.7 6.8 0.0 8.6 5.915–19years 17.3 30.6 20.7 1.2 22.4 15.020–24years 24.3 25.9 30.3 12.8 26.4 23.425–29years 19.2 17.0 21.4 17.4 13.2 20.930+years 31.2 7.5 21.1 68.6 28.2 34.3


Other interesting patterns are evident in the difference between the 1998, 2008, and 2018responses. Whereas 17.6% of respondents in 2018 reported having fewer than 4 years ofexperience,thepercentagewashigherin2008(20.8%)andlowerin1998(only7.1%).Atthemoreexperiencedendof the spectrum (20ormore yearsof experienceas aprincipal), only13.1%of the2018respondentsservedfor thisperiodof time,downfrom14.2% in2008andmuchlowerthan20.5%in1998.


10

The average age within the experience subgroups is also shifting, with the two moreexperienced groups older now than in 1998 but appearing to level off by 2018. For thesubgroupof5–14yearsexperience,theaverageagein1998was47,51in2008,and50in2018.Forthemostexperiencedprincipals(15ormoreyears),theaverageagein1998was53,57in2008,and57in2018.Forthesubgroupwithlessthan5yearsofexperience,theshiftisslightlydifferent:averageagein1998was45,44in2008,and47in2018.SeeTable2.2.

Table2.2MeanAgeBasedonYearsasaPrincipalandGender,1998–2018

Subgroup 1998 2008 2018

Yearsasaprincipal <5 45 44 475–14 47 51 5015+ 53 57 57

Gender Male 49 49Female 51 52

Question: How many years (including your years as a principal) have you been employed as a professional in education?

Themediannumberofyearsineducationhasheldsteadysince1998at25years,anincreaseof7yearssincethe1968study(seeTable2.3).Thepercentageofrespondentswhohadservedintheircurrentschoolasaprincipal for1–3yearsand4–9yearsdecreasedsince2008(in200841.5%hadserved1–3years,comparedto38.7%in2018;in2008,39.4%hadserved4–9years,compared to 33.6% in 2018), whereas those respondents serving as principal in their ownschoolforlongerthan10yearsincreased.Thepatternsaremoremixedwhenconsideringthenumberoftotalyearsofserviceasaprincipalinanyschool,asshowninTable2.4.

Table2.3PercentageofPrincipalsbyTotalYearsofEmploymentasaProfessionalinEducation,1968–2018

Yearsaseducationprofessional 1968 1978 1988 1998 2008 2018

9orless 13.3 7.0 2.4 1.0 4.0 1.010–19 40.3 38.4 36.8 15.9 32.4 24.320–29 18.6 43.6 44.5 58.3 26.2 43.630+ 27.7 11.0 16.3 24.9 37.4 31.2


11

Table2.4PercentageofPrincipalsbyYearsasPrincipalinCurrentSchool(IncludingCurrentYear)andAllTogether,1928–2018

Yearsasprincipal 1928 1948 1958 1968 1978 1988 1998 2008 2018

Incurrentschool1–3years 37.6 34.1 36.7 25.2 41.5 38.74–9 32.4 42.7 37.6 45.9 39.4 33.610–19 23.1 19.7 21.3 22.6 16.2 24.520+ 6.9 3.5 4.2 6.3 2.9 3.3

Medianyears 6 6 5 5 5 5 6 6 5

Alltogether1–3years 22.3 15.4 16.6 7.1 20.8 17.64–9 30.1 33.8 29.4 34.3 34.3 30.210–19 31.6 37.7 36.0 38.1 30.7 39.220ormore 16.0 32.2 17.9 20.5 14.2 13.1

Medianyears 10 10.5 9 9 10 11 11 10 10

Question: Have you ever served as a principal in another school district?

Answersinresponsetothisitemwereremarkablysimilartothosereceived in 1998 and 2008. In all cases, about one third of theprincipalssaidtheyhadworkedinanotherschooldistrict(35.0%in1998,34.3% in2008,32.3% in2018). Not surprisingly, themoreexperienced principals were much more likely to report havingworkedpreviously inanotherschooldistrict (50.6%of thosewith15 or more years of experience, down from 63.4% reported in2008). Of these, 24.4% had worked in more than two otherdistricts,ascontrastedwithonly12.9%oftheprincipalswithfewerthan5yearsofexperience.SeeTable2.5.

Just under one third of the responding principals previously worked in

another school district.

Principals reported an average of 25 years as a professional in education.


12

Table2.5PercentageofPrincipalsWhoHaveServedinOtherSchoolDistricts,2018

Yearsasprincipal GenderSubgroup Total <5 5–14 15+ Male Female

Yes 32.3 12.9 31.3 50.6 38.5 28.4No 67.7 87.1 68.7 49.4 61.5 71.6Ofthosewhohave:

Oneotherdistrict 60.9 85.7 69.6 47.7 52.9 67.1Twodistricts 23.4 7.1 21.7 27.9 29.4 20.5Morethantwodistricts 15.6 7.1 8.7 24.4 17.7 12.5

Question: How many years did you teach at the elementary level before becoming a principal?

Oftheprincipalswhoreportedelementaryteachingexperience,themeannumberofyearswas10, the same as reported in 2008 and 1998. Female principals taught for a higher averagenumberofyears(11.9)thanmaleprincipals(6.9years),whichissimilartothe2008numbers.Itwillbeinterestingtoseewhetherthistrendismaintainedinthe2028study.

Oneinterestingshiftsince2008concernstheaveragenumberofyearsofteachingexperienceprior to becoming a principal. In 2008, principalswith fewer years in the position reportedmore years teaching thanmore experienced principals (those with fewer than 5 years as aprincipal reported 11 years of teaching; those with 15 or more years reported 8 years ofteaching).However,in2018thosewithlessthan5yearsofexperienceasprincipalshad10.3yearsof experience, thosewhohad servedas aprincipal 5–14 yearshadanaverageof 10.5yearsofexperience,andthosewhohadbeenprincipalsfor15yearsormorehad9.2yearsofteachingexperience.SeeTable2.6.

ARetrospectiveLookattheDifferentExperiencesofMenandWomenin1948Women, more often than men, served as a teachingprincipaland/orservedasaprincipalinlargecities.


13

Table2.6MeanYearsElementaryTeachingExperiencePriortoBecomingaPrincipal,2018

Subgroup MeanyearsYearsasaprincipal

<5 10.35–14 10.515+ 9.2

Gender Male 6.9Female 11.9

Total 10.1

Question: What is the highest college degree you hold?

To provide some historical perspective on this question, 54% of the respondents in 1928reportedtheyhadnoacademicdegree,and in1958,21%of theprincipalssaid theyhad“noeducationrelatedtoelementaryschooladministration”beforebecominganelementaryschoolprincipal. Today, it isunusualforanindividualtopracticeasaprincipalwithoutanadvanceddegree(0.2%).SeeTable2.7.

Table2.7PercentageofElementaryPrincipalsbyHighestDegreeandYearsasPrincipal,2018

YearsasaprincipalDegree Total <5 5–14 15+

Bachelor’s 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.6Master’s 65.2 71.0 62.6 64.7Certificateofadvancedstudies/specialist 23.0 16.6 26.5 22.4Doctorate 11.7 12.4 10.9 12.4

Inthe1998report,DoudandKellertalkedaboutthecontinuingincreaseineducationallevelsofprincipalsover thehistoryof the10-yearstudies. Theynotedthat in1928,approximately15%of elementary principals held amaster’s degree. By 1948, the percentage of principalswith master’s degrees had increased to 64% of respondents. The 1998 survey providedevidence that not only had the master’s degree become a standard requirement for theprincipalship,therealsoappearedtobeamovetowardevenmorepreparationrequirements.Indeed,todayover65%ofrespondentshadamaster’sdegree,23%hadaspecialistdegree,andalmost12%hadadoctorate.SeeFigure2.1.

Over 96% of respondents reported having prior teaching

experience, and 93% of those averaged at least 10 years of elementary

school teaching experience.


14

Figure2.1.Percentageofprincipalswithamaster’sdegreeorhigher,1928–2018.

Thesehigheducational standardsare similar to those reported in2008and in1998. Almost12%haveadoctorate(10%in2008),andanadditional23%haveaspecialistdegree(28.9%in2008).Amongtheexperiencesubgroups,itisevidentthattheprincipalscontinuetoworkontheir formaleducation:34.8%of therespondentswith15ormoreyearsofexperiencehadadegree beyond a master’s degree (down from 42.3% in 2008), as compared to 29% of therespondentswithlessthan5yearsofexperience(alsodownfrom33.4%in2008).

TheNational Center for Education Statistics (NCES, 2017) survey data alignwith our findings(Taie,Goldring,&Spiegelman,2017). Amongpublicschoolprincipals,2.3%nationwidehadabachelor’sdegreeor less,61.3%hadamaster’sdegree,26.6%hadaneducationspecialistorprofessionaldiploma,and9.9%heldadoctorate.

16%

67%

82%90%

96% 98% 99% 99% 99.84%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

1928 1948 1958 1968 1978 1988 1998 2008 2018

A master’s degree or higher is considered a necessity for a

principalcandidate.


15

Question: Did you enter the principalship through a traditional route (e.g., teaching experiences and graduate study in educational leadership) or an alternate route (e.g., directly from business or another field without educational experience)?

Overthelast20years,therehasbeeninterestintappingpeoplefortheprincipalshipwhohavenoexperienceineducation.Theargumenthereisthatindividualswithmanagementskillsfromothersectorsalsoshouldbeabletomanageschools. ThisquestionwasaddedtotheNAESP10-year study in 2008 as a source of baseline data. Responses to this question in 2008indicatedthatonly1.8%ofrespondingprincipalsenteredtheprofessionthroughanalternativeroute. The percentages are still low today, although they have increased in some areas.Specifically, for those individuals with teaching experience, 2.6% of respondents reportedattendinganon-university-basedpreparationprogram,andanother1.2%reportedhavingnotraining (see Table 2.8). Another 0.5% of respondents indicated that they entered theprincipalshipfromanoneducationfield.Interestingly,thepercentageofwomenwhoattendedanon-university-basedprogramwashigher(3.8%)thantheirmalecounterparts(1.2%),butthepercentageofrespondentswithnopreparationwashigherformen(1.8%)thanwomen(0.9%).

Table2.8PercentageofPrincipalsEnteringThroughTraditionalandAlternativeRoutes

Yearsasprincipal GenderRoute Total <5 5–14 15+ Male Female

Teaching,thencompletinguniversity-basedpreparationprogram

95.7 94.5 95.9 96.5 96.5 94.7

Teaching,thencompletinganon-university-basedpreparationprogram

2.6 4.1 2.7 1.2 1.2 3.8

Teaching,thennoprincipalpreparationprogram

1.2 1.4 0.7 1.8 1.8 0.9

Directlyfromnoneducationfield 0.5 0.0 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.6

Fewer than 5% of the responding principals reported entering the

principalship through an alternative route.


16

ARetrospectiveLookatPreparationProgramCoursesin1928Threepiecesof note emerge fromprior reports concerning coursework toprepareprincipals. One concerns the efficiency and concern for course coherence. Theauthors of the 1928 report cautioned, “Unnecessary duplication in the teaching ofprofessional topics should be avoided” (National Education Association, 1928, p.150).

The1928reportwasveryspecific incourserecommendationstobeincludedinthefullpreparationoffutureschoolleaders.Principalsshouldhavecontent-areatrainingincludingthreecoursesinthearts(fine,industrial,andmusic),threeEnglishcourses(composition, literature, and public speaking), one course in foreign language, twocoursesinhealthfulliving(includingphysicaleducationandhygiene),fourcoursesinthe natural sciences (general chemistry, general physics, general science, andbiology), and three courses in social studies (economics, modern history, andsociology). “A person preparing for the principalship should have as wide anexperience with academic subjects as possible within the limitations of the wholetrainingprogram”(NationalEducationAssociation,1928,p.153).

The1948reportwasreleasedonlyafewyearsaftertheconclusionofWorldWarII,and university undergraduate course options reflected the concerns of the currentera. A common course selection for university students was military science(although popular, this was not a course specifically suggested in the training offutureprincipals).Asclassselectionshaveevolvedovertheyears,typicalcoursesofstudy do not include, for example, military science or hygiene—another commoncourse in 1948. When wondering if courses would change to reflect other publicconcerns or developments,we did not see a trend. During the Space Race of the1960s, engineering and science courses were not included in courserecommendations(coursesinpsychologywererecommended,however).

Higher education training continues to evolve in other ways. Now manypostsecondaryandgraduatecourses,orevenentireprograms,areofferedonline.


17

Question: How old were you when you were appointed to your first principalship?

Themeanageatwhichthe2018respondentswereappointedtotheirfirstprincipalshipis40,thesameas in2008butan increasesincethe1998survey,whenthemeanagewas36. Thetrend toward taking a position at a later age, which began sometime after 1978,may haveleveledoff.AccordingtoDoudandKeller(1998),”Thereisemergingevidencethatsuggeststhepoolofacceptablecandidates—bothmaleandfemale—isolderandmoreexperiencedthanithasbeeninthepast”(p.39).Inthe2018group,27.8%ofrespondentswere45orolderwhenfirstappointed.Thisisdownfrom32.1%in2008,butupfrom13.4%in1998.

Althoughmaleandfemaleprincipalsreportedsomedifferenceswithregardtotheirageatfirstappointment, the gap has narrowed slightly since the 2008 study. Specifically, femalescontinuetobe,onaverage,olderwhenfirstappointed;however,in2008thedifferencewas6years(ageof36formalesascomparedto42forfemales),buttodaythedifferenceis4years(2018:ageof37 formalesascompared to41 for females). Among femaleprincipals,35.1%wereatleast45whenfirstappointed,ascomparedto12.2%amongmales.SeeTable2.9.

Table2.9PercentageofPrincipalsbyAgeatTimeofFirstAppointmentasPrincipal,2018

Yearsasprincipal GenderAge Total <5 5–14 15+ Male Female

<26yearsold 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.6 0.026–29 6.7 2.1 7.1 9.9 11.0 4.130–34 17.7 6.9 18.0 26.2 26.6 12.835–39 24.7 21.2 24.2 28.5 31.8 23.140–44 23.0 26.0 22.5 21.5 17.9 25.045–49 16.0 22.6 15.3 11.6 8.7 21.350+ 11.8 21.2 12.9 1.7 3.5 13.8

Meanage 40 44 40 37 37 41

The mean age of appointment to first principalship increased for 30 years but has leveled off over the last 10 years.


18

Table2.10MeanAgeatTimeofFirstAppointmentasPrincipal,1978–2018

Year Meanage

1978 331988 341998 362008 402018 40

Question: How many of the different professional positions have you held?

The percentage of principals reporting elementary-level teaching experience has decreasedovertime.Thepercentagedecreasedfrom89.6%in1998to79.3%in2008.Overthelast10years,thepercentagedecreasedfurtherto77.7%(seeTable2.11).Similarly,thepercentageofprincipalswhotaughtat themiddle/juniorhighorhighschool levelalsodecreased. In2008,thepercentageof respondentswhohad taughtmiddle/juniorhighwas47%; today it is32%.The percentage of respondents who had taught high school was 25.6% in 2008; today it is22.5%. Femaleprincipals (85.7%)weremore likely thanmales (65.5%) to report elementaryteachingexperience,althoughtheywerelesslikelytoreportteachingexperienceattheothertwolevels.SeeTable2.11.

Inaddition, thepercentageof respondents reportingexperienceasanassistantprincipalhasdecreased at all levels except high school (elementary: 34.6%, down from 37.5% in 2008;middle/junior high: 15%, down from 10.8% in 2008; high school: 11.3%, up from 10.9% in2008). Respondentsalsoreported increasedexperience inothertypesofpositions, includingcoach (30%,up from23.9% in2008), school supervisor/curriculumspecialist (22.5%,up from16.1%in2008),centralofficeadministrator(11.3%,upfrom10.5%in2008),counselor(5.4%,upfrom4.9%in2008),andcollegefaculty(13.5%,upfrom10.5%in2008).

Principals have a wide variety of prior professional experiences.


19

Table2.11PercentageofPrincipalsHoldingPositionPriortoTakingPrincipalship,2018

Yearsasprincipal GenderPriorposition Total <5 5–14 15+ Male Female

Teacher Elementary 77.7 75.5 76.2 82.0 65.5 85.7Middle/juniorhigh 32.0 34.7 32.3 29.1 33.3 30.5Highschool 22.5 28.6 22.1 18.0 33.3 16.8

Assistantprincipal Elementary 34.6 34.7 39.1 26.7 31.6 37.4Middle/juniorhigh 15.0 17.0 11.9 18.6 16.7 13.1Highschool 11.3 12.2 11.9 9.3 16.7 9.0

Counselor 5.4 4.8 5.1 6.4 4.6 5.3Schoolsupervisor/curriculumspecialist

22.5 33.3 22.8 12.8 16.1 25.6

Coach 30.0 26.5 30.6 32.0 51.7 18.1Centralofficeadmin. 11.3 8.8 9.5 16.3 8.1 13.4Collegefaculty 13.5 17.7 10.5 15.1 11.5 14.0Note.Respondentswereaskedtocheckallexperiencesthatappliedtothem,sothetotalsinthetableexceed100%.

Question: How would you characterize the value of each of the following to you as an elementary school principal?

Respondentswereaskedtoassess15experiencesthatcontributeto leadershipdevelopmentover the course of one’s career, ranking them as very valuable, somewhat valuable,of littlevalue, and of no value. As shown in Table 2.12, in addition to on-the-job experience as aprincipalandateacher,respondentsrankednetworkingwithpeers,experienceasanassistantprincipal, and graduate education asmost valuable. Importantly, 42%of respondents neverhad an opportunity to serve as an assistant principal. Very few development opportunitieswererankedashavinglittleornovalue;thosesourcesconsideredofleastvaluewereInternetandotheronlineresources.

Respondents indicated that practical experience as a principal and as a teacher were the most valuable

in terms of supporting their success.


20

Table2.12PercentageofPrincipalsRatingValueofTypesofPreparationandExperiencetoSuccessasElementaryPrincipal

Valuerating

Typeofpreparation/experience

%respondentsreported

participatingVery

valuable SomewhatLittle/novalue

Graduateeducation 100 41.0 46.1 12.8

On-the-jobexperienceasprincipal 100 96.2 3.5 0.3

Experienceasateacher 99 84.7 13.1 2.2

Local-levelprofessionaldevelopment 97 26.7 44.8 28.4

State-levelprofessionaldevelopment 96 25.9 43.4 30.7

Stateprincipalorganization 96 32.0 34.4 33.6

Assistanceandfeedbackfromsupervisor 96 30.2 36.2 33.6

National-levelprofessionaldevelopment 81 26.4 35.4 38.2

Internetorotheronlineresource 81 9.7 33.5 56.9

Principalmentorshipprogram 76 39.7 35.4 25.0

Internshipaspartofgraduateprogram 74 27.3 31.6 41.1

Coaching 66 35.9 34.4 29.7

Experienceasassistantprincipal 58 79.6 16.2 4.3

ARetrospectiveLookattheInternshipin1998Surprisingly,DoudandKeller’s1998reportrevealedthattheinternshipwasstillnotpart of a principal preparation program for 34.1% of elementary principalrespondents,despitetheauthoringcommittee50yearsearliercallingforit(NationalEducation Association, 1948, p. 27). There continues to be a steady increase inincluding an internship as part of preparation, which we argue is a positivedevelopment, as research has shown the internship is a valuable experience forcandidates(Davis,Darling-Hammond,LaPointe,&Meyerson,2005).

Thetrendmayberelatedtostates’policydevelopment,asinternshipsarepartof30states’policies(Anderson&Reynolds,2015).Asapointofreference,internshipsandresidencies tookhold in themedical profession in the1920s. DuringWorldWar I,“the Council ofMedical Education began examining hospitals to accredit them for‘approved’internshipswiththesamevigorwithwhichithadalreadybeenevaluatingmedicalschools”(Ludmerer,1999,p.81).


21

Chapter 3: The Context of Leadership: Schools and Districts The job of the elementary school principals covers a wide range of situations and contexts.Research has shown that principals encounter many different challenges in the course of atypicalday. Someofthosechallengeshaveheldconstantovertheyears,whereasothersarenew. It isclearthatcontextmatters. Theworkthatelementaryandmiddleschoolprincipalsdo reflects changes in U.S. society and is affected by the school, community, and districtcontexts inwhich theywork. Inparticular, theworkofelementaryprincipals is impactedbychangingdemographics, the increasedemphasison improving schoolquality,making schoolsmoreresponsivetostudentneeds,thechangingrolesofparentsandteachers,andschoolanddistrict size and structure. In this chapter, we address some of these and other factorsinfluencingtheworkofschoolleaders.

Question: How many separately named elementary schools are under your direction?

Responses to this item indicate that while over time fewer principals were assignedresponsibilityformorethanoneschool,inthelast10yearsthistrendappearstohaveshiftedinreverse.The2018percentageislessthan10%butisanincreaseover10yearsago.Ofthoserespondentswithresponsibilityformorethanoneschool,5.8%indicatedtheyledtwoseparateschools, 1.2% reported leading three schools, and 1% indicated leading more than threeseparateschools.SeeTable3.1.

Table3.1PercentageofRespondentsIndicatingServingNumberofSeparatelyNamedSchools,1968–2018

Numberofschools 1968 1978 1988 1998 2008 2018

One 85.5 82.3 87.6 90.6 96.1 92.0Morethanone 14.6 17.7 12.3 9.4 3.9 8.0

Chapter 3: School and District Context

22

Question: What is your school’s enrollment?

DatareportedbyprincipalsindicatethatPreK-9principalsworkinschoolsranginginsizefromunder200toover700.Almost6%ofrespondentsworkedinschoolsthatenrolled200orfewerstudents, 21.3% worked in schools that enrolled 700 or more students, and the remaining

72.7% worked in midsized schools. The trends with regard toschool size are rather interesting. From 1928 to 1948, theaverageelementaryschoolenrollmentshranksignificantly,from632to520.Asignificantreductionoccurredagainbetween1968and 1978,when the average school enrollmentwent from540studentsto430students.Sincethen,thesizeoftheelementaryschool has held fairly steady until now. In 2018, principalsreportedanaverageenrollmentof505students,upanaverageof55studentssincethe2008survey.SeeFigure3.1.

Figure3.1.Medianelementaryschoolenrollment,1928–2018.

ThemajorityofrespondentsledschoolsthatservedstudentsinkindergartenthroughGrade5.Lessthan10%ofsurveyrespondentsledschoolsthatincludedGrades7and8,though30.5%ofrespondents did serve Grade 6 students in their schools. A much larger percentage ofrespondentsreportedhavingpre-K(50.1%)orearlychildhood(21%)programsintheirschools.

Themajorityofrespondents(67%)workedindistrictsenrollingupto9,000students.Ofthose,18% enrolled less than 1,000 students. Approximately 22% of respondents worked withindistricts with enrollments of 10,000–50,000 students, 8% worked in districts enrolling morethan50,000students,andlessthan0.5%workedindistrictswithenrollmentsover250,000.

632

520536 540

430 430 425450

505

300

350

400

450

500

550

600

650

1928 1948 1958 1968 1978 1988 1998 2008 2018

Enrollm

ent

The median school enrollment

increased from 450 in 2008 to 505 in 2018.


23

Question: How would you characterize the community your school serves?

Justoverhalfoftherespondentsreportedthattheyworkinruralareas(30.7%)orsmalltowns(24.3%).Ofthoselivinginruralareas,13.2%livedinremoteareas.About1in4respondents(22.7%) said they work in suburban communities, and 22.3% reported they work in urbancommunities.Ofthoseworkinginurbanareas,9.2%ledschoolsinmajorcitycentersand13%led schools inmedium-sized urban areas. Smaller schools tend to be clustered in nonurbanareas, although a few large schools are located in these communities. In contrast, largerschoolstendtobeclusteredinurbanareas.

Question: Would any of these describe the school in which you work?

Themajorityofsurveyrespondentsprovidedleadershipforapublicschool.Thepercentageofrespondents who reported leading magnet schools, charter schools, private schools, andreligiously affiliated schools decreased since the administration of the 2008 NAESP 10-yearsurvey. In comparison to 1998 and 2008 responses, there were decreases in each area, asshowninTable3.2.

Table3.2PercentageofRespondentsIndicatingServingTypeofSchool,1998–2018

Typeofschool 1998 2008 2018

Magnetschool 4.7 1.8 1.2Charterschool 0.9 1.8 0.6Studentsusevoucherstoattend 0.4 0.0 0.0Servessomenonneighborhoodstudentsunderachoiceplan

31.1 19.3 3.4

Privatelymanagedschool 1.3 0.0 0.6

The principals responding to the 2018 survey reported

working in a variety of settings.


24

Question: What is the composition of the student body of your school?

The average racial-ethnic composition of the schools represented inthis 2018 NAESP 10-year study has shifted slightly from thecompositionoftheaverageschoolin2008.ThepercentageofWhitestudents in the2008 studyheld steady in2018at71.2%. The shiftsoccurred among diverse student populations. In 2008, respondents’schools were on average 9.9% Black/African American; in the 2018study,thisincreasedto10.7%.Incontrast,inthe2008study,Hispanicstudentsmade up 14.2%of the student population, but in 2018 thepercentagedecreasedto10%.ThepercentageofAsian/PacificIslander

students increased from 0.9% to 2.6%, and the percentage of Native American studentsincreased from0.7%to2.6%. Finally, respondents to the2018survey indicatedthat2.8%oftheirstudentsweremixedrace.

Question: How many staff members do you supervise?

Afifthofrespondents(20%)reportedsupervising35orfewerstaffmembers.Oftheremaining80%, 57% reported supervising between 36 and 70 staff members, and 23% reportedsupervising71ormorestaffmembers.Thisisconsistentwiththepercentagesreportedinthe2008NAESP10-yearstudy.

In addition to the numbers of staff supervised, respondents were also asked about thecompositionof their teachingstaff. Respondingprincipals’ typical teachingstaff included,onaverage, 33 teachers, of whom 30 (90.9%) were women, 29 were White (87.8%), and 27(81.8%)hadmorethan3yearsofexperience.Aswasthecasewiththeraceorethnicityoftherespondingprincipals,thediversityoftheirteachingstaffdoesnotreflectthediversityoftheirstudents.

Question: Do you have a student council in your school?

The percentage of schools that support student voice and leadership opportunities throughstudentcouncilshasfluctuatedovertheyears.AsdemonstratedinFigure3.2,thepercentageofschoolswithstudentcouncilsin2018isslightlyhigherthan10yearsago,butlowerthanin1998.However,itappearsthatprincipalsaremakinggoodontheirintentionstoaddstudentcouncilswithintheirschoolcommunities.

The diversity of the student body shifted only slightly since 2008.


25

Figure3.2.Percentageofschoolswithstudentcouncils.

Question: Do you have any assistant principals? If so, how many? What allocation formula is used in your district?

Onethirdofparticipantsinthe2008NAESP10-yearstudyreportedworkingwithanassistantprincipal.Inthe2018study,thepercentagewasapproximatelythesame,withthepercentagesbeinghigher in larger schools and lower in smaller schools, as shown inTable3.3. Of thoseprincipalswhowereassignedoneormoreassistantprincipals, 24%wereprovidedonepart-time assistant principal, 25% were provided one full-time assistant principal, 2.6% wereassigned two full-time assistant principals, and 1% were assigned more than two full-timeassistantprincipals.

Approximately38%ofrespondentsfeltthatthenumberofassistantprincipalsassignedtotheirbuilding was adequate to ensure effective school leadership that meets the needs of allstudents.Theremaining62%disagreed,with27.5%stronglydisagreeing.Themostcommonlyreportedcriterionforallocatinganassistantprincipaltoaschoolwastheschool’senrollment.However,theuseofschoolenrollmentasthechiefcriterionhasdecreasedovertime.In1998,62.3%reportedenrollmentastheprimarycriterion,in2008thepercentagehaddecreasedto51.4%, and this year the percentage is down to 48.7%. Student characteristics, such as the

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

HaveaStudentCouncil

PlantoAddaStudentCouncil

Percentage

2018 2008 1998

In 2018, 62% of principals indicated the number of assistant principals assigned to their building was not enough to ensure

effective school leadership that meets the needs of all students.


26

percentage of English language learner students, was listed as the second most commoncriterion, at 12.3%. Interestingly, over 25% indicated that they were unsure how thosedecisionsweremade.

Table3.3PercentageofRespondentsIndicatingHowAssistantPrincipalIsAssignedtoSchool,2018

SchoolenrollmentResponse Total <400 400–599 600+

Yes 31.1 7.1 33.7 72.6No 68.9 92.9 66.3 27.4Ifyes,whatallocationformulaisusedinyourdistrict?

Basedonstudentcharacteristics(%inpoverty,%Englishlanguagelearner,etc.)

12.3 6.4 17.4 12.8

Basedonschoolenrollment 48.7 40.4 50.7 59.8Basedonstudentachievement 3.6 2.7 5.3 2.0Other 12.0 15.9 8.2 11.8Notsure 25.1 34.9 21.7 18.6

Note.Totalpercentagescanbeover100%.

ARetrospectiveLookattheEvolutionofthePositionin1978For many years, principals identified serving as either a supervising or teachingprincipal,andthejobsoftheteachingandsupervisingprincipalsdiffered.The1978reportnotedthesetitleshadwidelybeenphasedout(Pharis&Zakariya,1978).

In 1927, only 22.2% of elementary schools had an assistant principal. Thispercentage has increased over time, and 33%of elementary schools had assistantprincipals in 2008. Other trends have indicated the administrative positions inschoolscontinuetoevolvewiththeintroductionsofschooladministrationmanagers,for example. When schools incorporate this position, someonewithin the schoolassumesseveralofthemanagerialresponsibilitiesoftencompletedbytheprincipal.Thepurposeoftheschooladministrationmanger istofreeupprincipals’timethatinsteadcouldbededicatedtoinstructionandstudentlearning(Turnbulletal.,2009).


27

Question: How would you describe the attitude of parents and the community in general toward your school and its programs?

Elementary schools have long enjoyed strong parent and community support. In the 2018study,over60%describedparentsashighlysupportive,whichisdownfrom75%in2008.Likein 2008, the highly supportive rating was reported most often by the most experiencedprincipals(2008:86.4%;2018:73.9%). Interestingly,maleprincipals(63.8%)weremorelikelythantheirfemalecounterparts(59.5%)todescribeparentsashighlysupportive.SeeTable3.4.

Table3.4PercentageofRespondentsIndicatingParentandCommunityAttitudesTowardtheSchoolanditsPrograms,2018

Yearsasprincipal GenderResponse Total <5 5–14 15+ Male Female

Parents Highlysupportive 60.8 55.1 55.7 73.9 63.8 59.5Moderatelysupportive 33.0 35.8 37.8 22.5 30.5 34.3Littlesupport 5.8 8.3 6.1 3.5 5.8 5.6Nosupportatall 0.4 0.9 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.6

Community Highlysupportive 49.3 51.4 48.0 50.0 50.6 48.9Moderatelysupportive 41.7 38.5 42.3 43.0 42.0 41.4Littlesupport 8.7 10.1 9.4 6.3 6.9 9.4Nosupportatall 0.4 0.0 0.4 0.7 0.6 0.3

Communitieswerealsocharacterizedassupportive,thoughnotatthesamelevelsasparents.Almost 50% of principals described communities as highly supportive, and another 42%described communities asmoderately supportive. Again,maleprincipals (54.8%)weremorelikely than their female counterparts (53.7%) to describe communities as highly supportive,thoughthedifferencewasnotasstrikingaswiththeirassessmentofparentalsupport.Thesepercentagesarefairlysimilartothosereportedin2008.

Over 60% of principals described their students’

parents as “highly supportive.”


28

Question: How would you describe the level of involvement of parents and the community with your school?

Thepercentageofprincipalsdescribingtheirparentsashighlyinvolveddecreasedsince2008.In2008,approximatelytwothirdsofprincipalscharacterizedtheirschool’sparentsashighlyinvolved,withanother42.5%reportingthattheirparentsweremoderatelyinvolved.In2018,thesepercentagesfellto54.5%forhighlyinvolvedand38.6%forlittleormoderateinvolvement(seeTable3.5).Inthe2018study,anewcategorywasadded:“overinvolved.”Accordingtorespondingprincipals,6%ofparentswereoverinvolvedin2018.Thiscategorizationwasofferedmoreoftenbythelessexperiencedprincipals.

Table3.5PercentageofRespondentsIndicatingLevelofParentandCommunityInvolvement,2018

Yearsasprincipal GenderResponse Total <5 5–14 15+ Male Female

Parents Overinvolved 6.0 8.3 5.9 2.8 4.6 6.9Highlyinvolved 54.5 45.9 50.8 67.6 59.2 52.0Littleinvolvement 38.6 45.0 41.1 29.6 35.6 40.2Noinvolvement 0.8 0.9 1.2 0.0 0.6 0.9

Community Overinvolved 2.6 1.8 4.1 0.7 3.5 2.2Highlyinvolved 33.0 39.5 30.5 32.4 35.1 31.8Littleinvolvement 61.4 56.0 62.6 63.4 58.6 62.9Noinvolvement 3.0 2.8 2.9 3.5 2.9 3.1

Communitieswerecharacterizedasmuchlessinvolvedthanparents.Over61%weredescribedas having little involvement, and another 3% were described as having no involvement.Conversely,33%ofprincipalsdescribedtheircommunityashighlyinvolved,andanother2.6%werecharacterizedasoverinvolved.

Summary

Whileovertimefewerprincipalshavebeenassignedresponsibilityformorethanoneschool,inthelast10yearsthistrendappearstohaveshiftedinreverse,thoughthepercentageisstilllessthan10%.Themajorityofrespondentsledschoolsthatservedbetween200and700studentsenrolledinkindergartenthroughGrade5.Justoverhalfoftherespondentsreportedthatthey


29

work inruralareas(30.7%)orsmall towns(24.3%). Respondents indicatedthattheirschoolsenjoybothstrongparentandcommunitysupportandparentengagement,thoughthenumbersaredownfrom10yearsago.

Onethirdreportedhavinganassistantprincipal,and57%reportedsupervisingbetween36and70 staff members, who are overwhelmingly White and female. The populations thatrespondentsservearemorediversethantheschoolstaff,thoughstudentdiversityhasshiftedvery little since 2008. Finally, 62% of respondents indicated that the number of assistantprincipalsassignedtotheirbuildingwasnotenoughtoensureeffectiveschoolleadershipthatmeetstheneedsofallstudents.

ARetrospectiveLookattheSchoolin1948Fromthe1948report:

The elementary school principal has passed through several stages ofdevelopmentallofwhichstillexistinsomecommunities.Fromtheoneortwoteacherschool, inwhichtheclericalandadministrativedutieswere incidentaltoregularclassroominstruction,theofficehasdevelopedinsomecommunitiesuntil nowdemands a technically trained executiveof thehighest order. Thecommitteebelievesthatthefutureadvanceofthenation’spublicelementaryschools will be largely conditioned by the extent to which the idea of theelementary school principal as a professional leader and executive gainsgeneralrecognitioninpractice.(NationalEducationAssociation,1948,p.141)


30

Chapter 4: Relationships and Responsibilities A largebodyof researchunderscores the importanceofdevelopingandmaintainingpositiverelationshipswithotherinvolvedinschools.Indeed,theProfessionalStandardsforEducationalLeaders(PSEL)“recognizethecentralimportanceofhumanrelationshipsnotonlyinleadershipwork but in teaching and student learning” (NPBEA, 2015, p. 3). In addition, the PSEL alsodiscuss the more than 80 important responsibilities of school leaders (NPBEA, 2015). Thischapter reviews the perceptions of respondents about the quality of their relationshipswithvariousactorswithintheeducationalarena,perceptionsofrespondentsabouthowtheirlevelof involvement has changed in 22 different areas, and their perceptions of their level ofauthorityinmakingvariousdecisionsrelatedtotheirschool.

Question: How would you describe your working relationships with each of the parties listed?

AsshowninFigure4.1,themajorityofrespondentsperceivedthattheyhadexcellentworkingrelationships with students (81%), teachers (60.9%), and school advisory groups (51.5%).Moreover, about 50% of respondents believed they had an excellent relationship with theirsuperintendentandwithothercentralofficepersonnel.Incontrast,only31.8%ofrespondentscharacterized their working relationship with school board members as excellent. Whencombining “excellent” relationshipswith “good” relationships, only three categories receivedlessthan90%agreement. Thesethreecategorieswereschoolboard(82.4%),superintendent(97.1%),andothercentralofficepersonnel(88.3%).Therewereonlyminimaldifferencesintheperceptionsofrespondentsbetween2008and2018.

Over 80% of respondents perceive that they maintain excellent or good relationships with all of the various actors in

the educational arena, with more experienced respondents reporting the most positive relationships.

Chapter 4: Relationships and Responsibilities

31

Figure4.1.Qualityofworkingrelationships:Percentageofrespondentsgivingeachrating.

InTable4.1,wepresent the relationships forwhich therewere relatively largedifferences inperceptionsbetweenlessexperiencedprincipals(thosewithlessthan5yearsofexperienceasaprincipal)andmoreexperiencedprincipals(thosewithmorethan15yearsofexperienceasaprincipal). Note that there were not differences by years as a principal for relationshipsbetweenprincipalsandschoolboards,superintendents,andothercentralofficepersonnel.

As shown in Table 4.1, a greater percentage of more experienced principals than lessexperiencedprincipalsindicatedhavingexcellentrelationshipswithteachers,students,parents,communitymembers, and school advisory groupmembers. All of these differences favoredmoreexperiencedprincipalsbyatleast5percentagepoints,withthegreatestdifferencebeinga16.6-percentage-pointdifferencefortherelationshipbetweenprincipalsandteachers.

51.5

41.5

46.0

81.0

60.9

49.3

50.0

31.8

43.9

51.5

50.4

18.8

37.9

39.0

37.1

50.6

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

SchoolAdvisoryGroup

Community

Parents

Students

Teachers

OtherCentralOffice

Superintendent

SchoolBoard

Excellent Good Fair Poor


32

Table4.1PerceptionsoftheQualityofRelationshipsWithVariousGroupsbyYearsasaPrincipal,2018

Yearsasaprincipal

Rating <5 5–14 15+Teachers

Excellent 52.4 60.5 69.0Good 46.3 38.1 30.4Fair 1.4 1.4 0.6Poor 0.0 0.0 0.0

StudentsExcellent 77.6 80.3 85.4Good 21.8 19.7 14.6Fair 0.7 0.0 0.0Poor 0.0 0.0 0.0

ParentsExcellent 42.5 44.9 50.9Good 52.1 51.7 46.8Fair 4.8 3.1 2.3Poor 0.7 0.3 0.0

CommunitymembersExcellent 36.1 41.2 46.8Good 55.8 51.7 47.4Fair 8.2 7.1 5.8Poor 0.0 0.0 0.0

SchooladvisorygroupmembersExcellent 48.0 50.8 55.5Good 44.7 45.2 41.1Fair 7.3 3.2 3.4Poor 0.0 0.8 0.0

Question: During your tenure as a principal up to and including the last 3 years, how has your level of involvement as a principal changed with respect to the following areas?

Principalsmustattendtoaverylargenumberoftasks.Theamountoftimecommittedtothesetaskscanebbandflowovertimeaspolicies,strategies,andfocichange.Thus,the2018surveyasked respondents to identify the degree towhich their level of involvement in 27 different


33

areashadchangedovertheprevious3years.Figure4.2includesthe12areasforwhichatleast70% of respondents indicated either a large or a moderate increase in their level ofinvolvement. Also for each of these 12 areas, at least 22% of respondents noted a largeincreaseintheirlevelofinvolvement.

Figure4.2.Areasofgreatestgrowthinlevelofinvolvement.

Ofthefourareaswiththegreatestpercentageofrespondentsnotingalargeincreaseintheirlevel of involvement, two were associated with student issues, one was associated withpersonnel evaluations, and onewith the use of data in planning. Specifically, about 42% ofrespondentsnotedalargeincreaseininvolvementwithstudentmentalhealthissues,and32%

22.0

25.2

25.8

26.5

28.1

29.9

30.4

30.4

32.0

35.9

36.4

41.9

51.0

51.6

47.2

47.5

42.4

45.3

41.5

41.0

44.5

46.7

36.2

38.3

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Information technology

Introduction and use of effective instructional practices

Faculty and student use of social media

Development of school as a professional learning community

Safety and security issues

Communication through social media

Dealing with effects of student assessment scores on school’s accountability or accreditation result

Dealing with effects of student assessment scores on school’s image/reputation

Student socio-emotional well-being

Use of assessment data in instructional planning

Personnel evaluation

Student mental health issues

Large Increase Moderate Increase No Change Moderate Decrease Large Decrease


34

of respondents noted a large increase in involvement instudent socioemotional well-being. About 36% ofrespondents noted a large increase in involvement withpersonnelevaluationsandintheuseofassessmentdataininstructional planning. Other issues mentioned includeddealingwiththeeffectsofstudentassessment,socialmediause,safetyissues,instructionalpractices,andtechnology.

There were only three areas for which at least 10% ofrespondentsindicatedeitheramoderateorlargedecreaseintheirlevelofinvolvementwiththeareaovertheprevious3years.ThesethreeareasaredisplayedinTable4.2.Eventhough these three areas had the greatest percentage ofrespondents indicatinganoveralldecrease in involvement,the majority of respondents still indicated that their owninvolvementintheseareashadincreased.

Table4.2AreasofGreatestDecreaseinLevelofInvolvement

Changeinlevelofinvolvement

AreaofinvolvementLarge

increaseModerateincrease

Nochange

Moderatedecrease

Largedecrease

Resourceallocation 15.2 32.1 36.1 9.6 7.1Participationindistrictpolicydevelopment

6.4 30.0 53.4 5.9 4.4

Curriculumdevelopment 18.0 41.5 29.0 8.6 3.0

Relative to 2008, the 2018 respondents reported an increase in involvement with a muchgreater percentage of the areas presented to them. Specifically, the 2018 respondentsindicatedanincreaseininvolvementin22ofthe27areasincludedinthesurvey,whereasthe2008respondents indicatedan increase in involvement foronly7of the16areas included inthe survey. Although both sets of respondents indicated an increase in involvement withstudentassessment issues, the2018 respondents reportedan increase in involvement in theareas of student mental health and socioemotional issues—areas not included in the 2008survey.

A majority of respondents indicated

that their level of involvement in all 27 areas included in the survey had increased.

Areas with the greatest increase in involvement were

student socioemotional health, personnel evaluations,

and using data to improve instruction.


35

Question: What amount of time do you spend on the following activities?

Therewerefiveareasthatatleast25%ofrespondentsidentifiedasamongtheirtopfivetimeexpenditures.Thesefiveareasareinteractionwithstudents(46.1%),supervisionoffacultyandstaff(32.3%),informalinteractionswithteachers(28.5%),addressingsocioemotionalneedsofstudents (27.7%),anddisciplineandstudentmanagement issues (25.8%). Thus, respondentsidentifiedspendingmuchoftheirtimeinteractingwithstudentsandteachers.

Question: How has your time expenditure on the following areas changed over the last 3 years?

Respondentswere also asked to estimate the degree towhich the time spent on the sameareas had changed over the prior 3 years. Six areas garnered at least 20% of respondentsindicating that they spend a much greater time in the particular area. These six areas areformal teacher evaluations (33.8%), addressing socioemotional needs of students (33.7%),supervision of faculty and staff (22.5%), discipline and student management issues (22.5%),data use andmanagement (21.4%), and informal teacher observations (20.7%). Aswith theprior question, almost all of the highly rated areas included interactions with students andteachers.

Question: What is your level of authority in selecting teachers for your school?

A slight majority (54%) of all principals indicated that they held the primary authority forselecting teachers. This was about the same percentage as in 2008. An additional 24.6%indicated that they shared this authority with individuals with others, and a slightly lowerpercentage—18.8%—saidtheysharedthisauthoritywithindividualsinthecentraloffice.Only2.5%ofrespondentssaidtheyhavelittleornoresponsibilityfortheselectionofteachers.SeeTable4.3.

There were few differences across the levels of responsibility by years of experience as aprincipal. Theonlydifferenceofnotewasforthepercentagesofrespondents indicatingthattheysharedresponsibilitywithindividualsatthecentraloffice.Specifically,only12.9%oflessexperiencedprincipalsindicatedthattheysharedresponsibilitywithcentralofficepersonnel,ascomparedtoabout20%ofrespondentswithgreateryearsofexperienceasaprincipal.


36

Table4.3PercentageofRespondentsIndicatingAuthorityinSelectingTeachers,byYearsasaPrincipal,2018

YearsasaprincipalLevelofauthority

Allprincipals <5 5–14 15+

Primaryauthority 54.2 57.8 51.0 56.4Shareresponsibilitywithothersinschool 24.6 25.9 25.9 21.5Shareresponsibilitywithcentralofficepersonnel 18.8 12.9 20.7 20.3Havelittleresponsibility 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.7Havenoresponsibility 0.5 1.4 0.3 0.0

There were no differences of note between male and female respondents for any of theresponsecategories.Thus,notableisincludedwiththepercentagesbygender.

Question: What level of responsibility do you have for supervising and evaluating staff in your school?

The vast majority (80.4%) of respondents noted that they had primary responsibility forsupervisingandevaluatingstaff.Another16.7%ofrespondentsindicatedthattheysharedthisresponsibilitywithother individuals in the school. Only3%of respondents choseoneof theotherthreeoptions.SeeTable4.4.Alowerpercentageofthe2018respondentsthanthe2008respondentsnotedthattheyhaveprimaryauthorityforsupervisingandevaluatingstaff.Overthedecade,therewasaclearshifttosharingtheresponsibilitywithothersintheschool.

Table4.4PercentageofRespondentsIndicatingResponsibilityforSupervisingandEvaluatingStaff,byYearsasaPrincipal,2018




A greater percentage of the less experienced respondents than other respondents indicatedthattheyheldprimaryauthorityforsupervisingandevaluatingstaff.Specifically,86.3%ofless


37

experiencedprincipalsindicatedthattheyheldprimaryresponsibilityinthisarea,comparedtoabout78%ofrespondentswith5–14yearsasaprincipalandabout80%ofmoreexperiencedrespondents. Conversely, a lower percentage of less experienced respondents than otherrespondentsindicatedthattheysharedthisresponsibility.

Therewerenotanynotabledifferencesacrossanyofthefiveresponseoptionsbetweenmaleandfemalerespondents.Thus,notableisincludedwiththepercentagesbygender.

Question: What level of responsibility do you have for instructional improvement in your school?

With respect to the responsibility for instructional improvement, none of the three optionsgarneredamajorityofresponses. Theoptionwiththegreatestresponse(45.8%)wassharedresponsibility with others in the school. This was followed relatively closely by 38.5% ofrespondents indicating they had primary responsibility for this area. Finally, nearly 15% ofrespondents indicated that they shared this responsibilitywithpersonnel fromcentraloffice.Aswith thepriorquestion, therewasadecrease in thepercentageof respondents reportingthey held primary responsibility for instructional improvement in their school and acorrespondingincreaseinrespondentsnotingthattheysharedthisresponsibilitywithothersintheschool.SeeTable4.5.

Table4.5PercentageofRespondentsIndicatingResponsibilityforInstructionalImprovement,byYearsasaPrincipal,2018




A greater percentage of less experienced respondents (44.9%) than more experiencedrespondents(30.8%)indicatedthatinstructionalimprovementwastheirprimaryresponsibility.Conversely,aslightlylowerpercentageoflessexperiencedrespondentsthanmoreexperiencedrespondentsindicatedthattheysharedtheresponsibilitywithotherindividualsattheschoolorwithpersonnelincentraloffice.


38

Aswith theprior twoquestions, therewerenosubstantialdifferences in responsesbetweenmaleandfemalerespondents.Thus,notableisincludedwithresultsbygender.

Summary

Theresultsofthe2018NAESP10-yearstudysuggestsomeinterestingfindings.First,thevastmajorityofrespondentsperceivethattheymaintainexcellentorgoodrelationshipswithallofthevariousactorswithin theeducationarena. Inparticular, respondentsnotedverypositiverelationshipswithstudentsandteachers.

Inaddition,themajorityofrespondentsindicatedthattheirlevelofinvolvementinthe22areasincluded in the survey had increased over the previous 3 years. In particular, respondentsnoted dramatic increases in involvement in the areas of student socioemotional andmentalhealth,personnelevaluations,andtheuseofdataininstructionalimprovement.Policymakersand preparation program personnel should take note of these results and plan theirprofessionaldevelopmentandpreparationactivitiesaccordingly.

Finally,respondentsindicatedsharingauthoritywithotherindividualsintheirschoolandinthedistrictofficeregardingtheselectionofteachers.Respondentsalsoreportedsharingauthoritywith other individuals—primarily individuals in their own school—regarding instructionalimprovement.Incontrast,thevastmajorityofrespondentsperceivedtheypossessedprimaryauthority with respect to supervising and evaluating staff. Research is not clear about thedegree to which these areas should be the primary responsibility of principals or a sharedresponsibility between the principal and others. Thus, greater research—especially researchthatincludesthevoicesofprincipals—isneededtobetterunderstandtheseissues.


39

Chapter 5: Decision Making at the School Site Overthepast100years,therehasbeenaconstantdebateaboutthedegreetowhichdecisionsshouldbemadeatthedistrictlevelorattheschoollevel.Inthe1990s,therewasasubstantialpush todevolvedecision-makingauthority to theschool site, in thebelief that thequalityofdecisionswould increase ifmadebythoseworking inschools(Patrinos&Fasih,2009). Morerecently, advocates for a more centralized approach to decision making have argued thathaving central office personnel involved in decision making increases efficiency and equity(Corcoran, Fuhrman, & Belcher, 2001; Galiani, Gertler, & Schargrodsky, 2008). Researchsuggests the most effective approach for effective decision making is one in which schoolpersonnelandcentralofficepersonnelsharedecision-makingduties(Honig,2008).

Question: How would you describe the level of authority that principals in your district have to make decisions concerning their own schools?

Respondentswerealsoaskedabout theirperceptionsof the levelofauthority thatprincipalshavetomakedecisionsconcerningtheirownschool.AsshowninFigure5.1,thevastmajorityof respondentsperceivedthatprincipalshadahighormoderateauthority tomakedecisionsconcerningtheirschools.Indeed,over89%ofrespondentschoseoneofthesetworesponses,with41%ofrespondentsperceivingprincipalshadahighdegreeofauthority.Attheotherendofthecontinuum,about11%ofrespondentsthoughtprincipalshadalowdegreeofauthority,and less than 1% of respondents believed that principals had no authority at all to makedecisionsconcerningtheirschool.

As shown in Figure 5.2, there has been a slight but steady decline in the percentage ofrespondentsreportingthatprincipalshaveahighdegreeofauthoritytomakedecisionsabouttheir own school. This decline has been reflected in small increases in the percentages ofrespondents perceiving that principals have amoderate or low degree of authority tomakedecisionsabouttheirownschool.

Nearly all respondents believe principals have a high or moderate degree of authority to

make decisions concerning their own schools.

Chapter 5: Decision Making at the School Site

40

Figure5.1.Percentageofrespondentsindicatinglevelofauthoritythatprincipalshavetomakedecisionsconcerningtheirownschools.

Figure5.2.Percentageofrespondentsindicatinglevelofauthorityprincipalshavetomakedecisionsconcerningtheirownschoolsfor1998,2008,and2018.

InTable5.1,wepresentthe2018respondentperceptionsbyyearsasaprincipalandgender.Interestingly, a greater percentage of less experienced principals (38.1%) than moreexperienced principals (28.5%) believed principals have a high level of authority to makedecisionsabouttheirschool.Incontrast,agreaterpercentageofmoreexperiencedprincipals(16.3%) than less experienced principals (8.2%) perceived principals have either low or noauthoritytomakedecisionsabouttheirownschool.

41.3

47.3

10.8

0.7

High

Moderate

Low

None

48.443.9

7.60.1

42.3 40.8

15.8

1.1

41.347.3

10.8

0.70

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

High Moderate Low None

1998 2008 2018


41

With respect to the gender of the respondent, there were a few slight differences inperceptions. However, given the sample sizeand the relatively small valueof thedifferencebetweenthetwogroupsof respondents,weconcludethedifferencesareneitherstatisticallysignificantnorpracticallysignificant.

Table5.1PercentageofRespondentsIndicatingPerceivedDegreeofAuthoritytoMakeDecisionsAboutSchool,byYearsasaPrincipalandGender,2018

Yearsasprincipal GenderSurveyresponse <5 5–14 15+ Male Female

High 38.1 37.4 28.5 37.3 32.8Moderate 53.7 49.7 55.2 50.8 53.1Low 8.2 11.9 15.7 11.3 13.4None 0.0 1.0 0.6 0.6 0.6

ARetrospectiveLookatApproachestoDistributingLeadershipin1948

The research on the effective school leader and distributed leadership found aprominent role during the 1980s and early 2000s, respectively. Often described as abest practice approach to leadership, present literature acknowledges the positiveeffectsdistributedandcollaborative leadershiphasonschools (Harris,2004). Prior totheprominenceandfocusofthisleadershipframework,earlyreportsoftheelementaryprincipal referenced the practice. The 1948 report described the importance ofcollaborative leadership and decision making as a best practice, recommendingelementaryschoolprincipalscapitalizeontheexpertiseandleadershipofothersintheschool.Forexample,thereportnoted,

Inthefuturetheelementary-schoolprincipalwithimaginationandforesightwillnot plan alone. Hewill work closelywith his faculty, and hewill utilize otheravailable resources in planning for children. In fact, if he is to assume hisresponsibility for leadership, the cooperation of faculty, students, andcommunitymustbesecured.(NationalEducationAssociation,1948,p.11)

Later,thereportstated,“Theauthorityoftheelementary-schoolprincipalofthefutureshouldbeembodiedinthedemocraticprocess.…Hisqualityofleadershipshouldmakeitpossibletoshareauthoritywithhiscoworkers”(p.14).

Notably, no mention of collaboration was referenced in the 1988 report, and littlementionofcollaborationwasfoundinthe1998report.The2008reportfeaturedsomedatathatshowedprincipalsidentifiedcollaborativevisioningfortheschoolwasanareaonwhichtheyneededtoimprovetheirprofessionalpractice.


42

Question: Has your school district delegated more decision-making authority to the school site in the last 3 years?

As shown in Figure5.3, therewasa fairly substantial decrease in thedelegationofdecision-makingauthorityover theprevious3 years from1998 to2008and thena slightdecrease indecision-makingauthoritydelegatedtoschoolsfrom2008to2018.Specifically,thepercentageofrespondentsindicatingasubstantialamountofdecision-makingauthoritywasdelegatedtothe school site decreased from26.7% in 1998 to 13.4% in 2008 and finally to 7.7% in 2018.Importantly,overhalfof the respondents inboth2008and2018perceivednochange in thedegreetowhichdecision-makingauthorityhadbeendelegatedtotheschoolsite.

Figure5.3.Percentageofrespondentsindicatingchangesinthedelegationofdecisionmakingovertheprevious3years,from1998to2018.

As shown in Table 5.2, there were few differences in the perceptions of principals aboutchanges in the delegation of decision-making authority by either years of experience as aprincipalorthegenderof theprincipal. Therewereonlytwodifferencesofnotebyyearsofexperienceasaprincipal.First,agreaterpercentageoflessexperiencedprincipals(thosewithfewer than 5 years of experience) thanmore experienced principals (thosewith 15 ormoreyearsofexperience)perceivedslightincreaseinthedelegationofdecision-makingauthoritytotheschool.Second,agreaterpercentageofmoreexperiencedprincipalsthanlessexperiencedprincipalsperceivedamoderateamountofchangeinthedelegationofdecision-makingtotheschoolsiteovertheprevious3years.

26.713.4

7.4

45.8

32.137.5

27.4

54.5 55.2

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

1998 2008 2018Yes,asubstanzalamount Yes,moderateamount No


43

Table5.2PercentageIndicatingPerceivedDelegationofDecisionMaking,byYearsofExperienceandGender,2018

Yearsasprincipal GenderSurveystatement Total <5 5–14 15+ Male Female

Yes,asubstantialamount 7.4 6.7 6.5 9.3 5.2 7.7Yes,moderateamount 19.6 17.2 19.5 21.5 17.2 17.9Yes,aslightamount 17.9 23.9 17.1 14.5 17.8 18.5No 55.2 52.2 56.8 54.7 59.8 55.9

Question: In general, is the authority to run your school given to you by the school board and central administration in balance with the degree to which they hold you responsible when things go wrong?

In2018,72.6%of respondentsbelieved that theauthority to run their schoolwas inbalancewiththedegreetowhichtheyareheldresponsiblewhenthingsgowrong.Thispercentagewasnotdifferent than thepercentagesof respondentsagreeingwith thestatement inboth1998and2008,asshowninFigure5.4.

Figure5.4.Percentageofprincipalsindicatingabalanceofauthoritywithresponsibility.

Aswiththeprevioussection,respondentperceptionsdifferedbyyearsasaprincipal,asshowninTable5.3.Specifically,agreaterpercentageoflessexperiencedprincipals(76.2%)thanmoreexperiencedprincipals(69.8%)perceivedthattheirauthorityandthedegreetowhichtheyare

72.2 71.7 72.6

50

60

70

80

90

100

1998 2008 2018


44

heldresponsibleareappropriatelybalanced.Withrespecttothegenderoftherespondents,aslightly greater percentage of male (74.0%) than female (69.4%) respondents perceived thebalancebetweenauthorityandresponsibilitytobeappropriatelybalanced.

Table5.3PercentageofRespondentsIndicatingaBalanceofAuthorityWithResponsibility,byYearsasaPrincipalandGender

Yearsasprincipal GenderSurveyresponse <5 5–14 15+ Male FemaleYes 38.1 37.4 28.5 37.3 32.8

Question: How much influence do you think you have on school district decisions that affect elementary schools and elementary education?

AsshowninFigure5.5,alittlemorethantwothirdsofrespondents(68.5%)believedtheyhadeither someormuch influenceon schooldistrictdecisions that influenceelementary schoolsandeducation.Despitethisfairlylargemajorityofrespondents,only23.3%oftherespondentsperceivedtheyhadmuch influence. Strikingly,31.4%ofrespondents indicatedtheyhadonlylittleornoinfluenceonsuchdecisions—apercentagesignificantlygreaterthanthepercentageindicatingtheyhadmuchinfluence.

Figure5.5.Degreeofinfluenceondistrictdecisionsinfluencingelementaryschoolsandeducation

Asshown inFigure5.6, thedegree towhich respondentsperceived theyhave influenceoverdistrictdecisionsconcerningelementaryschoolsandelementaryeducationhasbecomemorenegativeovertime.Indeed,thepercentageofrespondentsindicatingtheyhadmuchinfluence

23.3

45.2

28.5

2.9

Muchinfluence

Someinfluence

Li|leInfluence

NoInfluence

Nearly one third of respondents

indicated they had little to no influence

on district decisions that

affect elementary schools and elementary education.


45

hasdecreasedfrom35.0%in1998to27.8%in2008andthento23.3%in2018.Conversely,thepercentageofrespondentsindicatingtheyhadlittleinfluenceincreasedfrom13.0%in1998to21.8%in2008andthento28.5%in2018.

Figure5.6.Percentageofrespondentsindicatingdegreeofinfluenceondistrictdecisionsinfluencingelementaryschoolsandeducation,1998,2008,and2018.

AsshowninTable5.4,therewerenodifferencesintheperceptionsofrespondentsbyyearsofexperience about their influence on district decisions affecting elementary schools andeducation.Indeed,therewereonlyveryslightdifferencesacrossthethreeexperiencegroupsforeachresponsecategory.Therewerealsonodifferencesinresponsecategoriesbygender.

Table5.4PercentageofRespondentsIndicatingDegreeofInfluenceonDistrictDecisionsImpactingElementarySchoolsandEducation,byYearsasaPrincipalandGender,2018

Yearsasprincipal GenderDegreeofinfluence <5 5–14 15+ Male Female

Muchinfluence 23.8 24.1 21.5 24.9 22.8Someinfluence 44.2 43.2 49.4 45.8 45.0Littleinfluence 30.6 28.6 26.7 27.1 29.4Noinfluence 1.4 4.1 2.3 2.3 2.8

As shown in Table 5.5, respondent perceptions of their level of influence differed by districtenrollment.Inshort,asdistrictenrollmentincreases,thepercentageofrespondentsindicatingthat principal havemuch influence on decisionmaking decreases substantially. Specifically,

35.0

50.9

13.0

1.1

27.8

46.5

21.8

3.9

23.3

45.2

28.5

2.9

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Muchinfluence Someinfluence Li|leInfluence NoInfluence

1998 2008 2018


46

46.1%of respondents in small districts (thosewith 1,000 or fewer students) responded thattheyhadmuchinfluence,whereasonly5.5%ofrespondentsinlargedistricts(thosewithmorethan10,000students)indicatedthattheyhadmuchinfluence.

Table5.5PercentageofRespondentsIndicatingDegreeofInfluenceonDistrictDecisionsImpactingElementarySchoolsandEducation,byDistrictEnrollment,2018

DistrictenrollmentDegreeofinfluence 1–1,000 1,001–2,500 2,501–10,000 >10,000

Muchinfluence 46.1 38.9 18.6 5.5Someinfluence 46.1 41.1 54.2 45.5LittleInfluence 7.9 18.9 22.0 45.5NoInfluence 0.0 1.1 5.1 3.6

Thisfindingisnotparticularlysurprising.Indeed,asdistrictenrollmentincreases,thelayersofbureaucracyincrease,andtheabilitytosharedecisionmakingbetweencentralofficepersonnelandschoolpersonnelbecomesincreasinglydifficult.

Summary

Recentresearchsuggeststhateffectivemodelsofdecisionmakingincludesharedauthorityformaking decisions between central office personnel and school personnel. Responses to the2018NAESP10-year studyappear to reflect this reality. Indeed, in someareas, respondentsindicate that principals have primary authority over particular decisions. In other areas,respondentsindicatethatcentralofficepersonnelretainprimaryauthority.Furtherinsupportof this interpretation is the finding that around two thirds of respondents believe they havesomeormuchinfluenceondecisionsmadeaboutelementaryschoolsandelementaryschoolsin their district. Perhaps the most difficult issue raised by this chapter is the difficulty increating shared models of governance in very large districts. This is certainly an area thatshouldbeinvestigatedbyschoolanddistrictleadersaswellasresearchers.

Over the last three decades, respondents have noted having substantially less influence over district decisions concerning

elementary schools and elementary education.


47

Chapter 6: Accountability and Educational Leadership Sincethefirst10-yearstudywasconductedin1928,principalshaveneededtoadapttooften-dramaticchangesinfactorsimpactingtheirschools,includingsignificantpolicychangesatthestateandfederallevels. Forexample,priortothe2008report,CongresspassedtheNoChildLeftBehindAct(NCLB,2002),whichsubstantiallyalteredtheU.S.educationsystem.Inthelast10-year study, researchers asked principals howNCLB impacted their role as a principal andhowthepolicyimpactedtheirschools.

WhereasNCLBwaswidelyperceivedasthefederalgovernmenthavinganoutsizedroleinlocaleducation,ESSA(2015)wastoutedasreturningasignificantamountofcontrolbacktostates.Principals’perceptionofhow thismightaffect them,however,wasunclear. Thus,weaskedprincipalsaboutthepotentialimpactofESSAusingthefollowingquestion.

Question: How do you expect ESSA to impact your practice in the following areas?

PrincipalswereaskedtoprovideanassessmentoftheimpactofESSAonsomeaspectsoftheirschool (verypositiveeffect,positiveeffect, little tonoeffect,negativeeffect,orverynegativeeffect).The18areasofpotentialimpactwerethesame18areasusedinthe2008surveythataskedprincipalsabouttheeffectsofNCLB.

As shown in Figure 1.1, responses clearly indicated principals believe ESSA could have bothpositiveandnegativeeffects.OverhalfofrespondentsthoughtESSAwouldhaveapositiveorverypositiveeffectonfourareas:

• Useofassessmentdatatodriveinstruction(59.8%),• Focusoninstruction(57.9%),• Attentiontoneedsofallstudents(56.5%),and• Focusonstudentsocioemotionalneeds(50.6%).

Interestingly, the 2008 respondents perceived that NCLB had a positive impact on three ofthese four areas. Specifically, the four areas impacted by NCLB that received the greatestpercentagesofpositiveresponseswerethefollowing:

Chapter 6: Accountability and Educational Leadership

48

• Useofassessmentdatatodriveinstruction(75.3%),• Focusoninstruction(71.7%),• Attentiontoneedsofallstudents(63.8%),and• Understandingofcontent-areastandards(63.3%).

Thedifference in theareas receiving themostpositive responsesbetweenNCLB in2008andESSAin2018wastheinclusionofa“focusonstudentsocioemotionalneeds”andtheexclusionof “understanding of content area standards” in the 2018 survey. Note also that thepercentagesofrespondentsperceivingNCLBhadapositiveimpactonthethreecommonareaswas much greater than the percentage of respondents predicting that ESSA would have apositiveimpactontheseareas.Thus,althoughamajorityof2018respondentspredictedthatESSAwould positively impact these four areas, the percentageswere onlymodestly greaterthan50%.

Of the 18 areas, the four with the greatest percentage of respondents predicting that ESSAwouldhaveanegativeimpactincludedthefollowingthreestatements:

• Pressureonstaffduetoaccountabilitypressures(30.5%),• Moraleofeducators(29.6%),and• Focusonnontestedsubjectareas(19.7%).

Thesewerethesamethreeareasthatreceivedthehighestpercentagesofnegativeresponsesin2008.Specifically,the2008areaswiththehighestpercentagesofrespondentsindicatingthatNCLBwouldhaveanegativeimpactwerethefollowing:

•Stressonstaffduetoaccountabilitypressures(65.0%),•Schoolmorale(60.2%),and•Impactonnontestedsubjectareas(59.4%).

Note that, once again, the percentages for the 2008 survey about NCLBweremuch greaterthan the percentages for the 2018 survey about ESSA. What explains the differences in thepercentagesacrossyears?Onepotentialreasonisthatthe2008respondentshadexperiencedtheimpactsofNCLBontheirrolesandontheirschools.Incontrast,2018respondentshadtopredict thepotential impactofESSAon their roleasprincipalandon their schools. Anotherpotentialexplanation is thatprincipalsperceivedNCLBtohaveagreatereffectontheir rolesand schools—regardless of whether the effect was positive or negative—than ESSA.Unfortunately,wecannotdeterminetheactualreasonsforthesedifferences.


49

Figure6.1.PrincipalperceptionsofthepotentialimpactoftheEveryStudentSucceedsAct.

Differences by Principal Experience

Wealsocomparedresponses forall18areasbyprincipalexperience. Principalswereplacedinto three groups: those with less than 5 years of experience, those with 5–14 years of

26.4

27.9

28.6

30.0

32.6

32.7

32.8

33.0

39.3

39.9

41.3

41.6

44.9

45.8

47.1

47.6

50.6

56.5

57.9

59.8

53.9

42.5

53.5

57.9

59.0

36.8

50.3

48.0

48.8

53.4

42.1

52.4

46.5

44.6

50.1

46.5

41.9

36.1

38.7

36.3

19.7

29.6

17.9

12.2

8.5

30.5

16.8

19.0

11.9

16.6

8.6

9.6

7.5

7.4

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%100%

Focusonnon-testedsubjectareas

Moraleofeducators

Abilitytoa|ract/retaingoodteacherstothefieldofeducazon

Parent/communitysupportofschools

Centralofficesupportforschool’smission

Pressureonstaffduetoaccountabilitypressures

Availabilityofsupplementaleducazonalprograms

Resourcesavailableforschool’sprograms

Abilityofprincipalstoleadeffeczvely

Gi�edandtalentedstudents

Abilityofschooltoaddresstheneedsofthewholechild

Qualityofteachers

English-languageLearnerstudents

Studentswithdisabilizes

Understandingofsubjectareastandards

Studentsingeneral

Focusonstudentsocio-emozonalneeds

A|enzontoneedsofallstudents

Focusoninstruczon

Useofassessmentdatatodriveinstruczon

PosizveEffect Li|leEffect NegazveEffect


50

experience,andthosewith15ormoreyearsofexperienceasaprincipal.Ingeneral,themostexperienced principals (those with at least 15 years of experience) tended to hold morenegativeperceptionsabouttheimpactofESSAthannoviceprincipals(thosewithfewerthan5yearsofexperienceasaprincipal).Thiswassimilartotheresultsforthe2008studythataskedprincipalstosharetheirperceptionsabouttheimpactofNCLB.

Becauseof thesamplesizesandourcalculationsof statistical significance,weonly reportonareaswithatleasta10-percentage-pointdifferencebetweengroups.

Ofthe18areas,onlytwoareashaddifferencesofatleast10percentagepoints(seeTable6.1).With respect to ESSA’s impact on the focus on student socioemotional needs, a greaterpercentageofnoviceprincipals(lessthan5yearsofexperience)thanexperiencedprincipals(15or more years of experience) predicted ESSA would positively affect the focus on studentsocioemotionalneeds. Interestingly,noviceandexperiencedprincipals alsodifferedon theirperceptions about whether ESSA would have a positive or negative effect on nontestedsubjects. A greater percentage of novice than experienced principals perceived that ESSAwould have a positive effect on nontested subjects; conversely, a greater percentage ofexperienced than novice principals thought ESSAwould have a negative effect on nontestedsubjects.

Table6.1PercentageofRespondentsIndicatingPotentialImpactoftheEveryStudentSucceedsAct:ImpactAreasWithaSubstantialDifferencebyPrincipalExperience

Yearsasaprincipal

Areaandresponse Total <5 5–14 15+Focusonstudentsocioemotionalneeds

Positiveeffect 52.7 57.8 53.4 47.1Littleeffect 39.5 36.1 39.5 42.4Negativeeffect 7.8 6.1 7.1 10.5

Focusonnontestedsubjectareas Positiveeffect 26.4 34.0 25.5 21.5Littleeffect 53.2 46.3 56.5 53.5Negativeeffect 20.4 19.7 18.0 25.0

Question: What is the perceived impact on students?

Principalswereaskedtopredict theeffectofESSAonstudentsbasedonvariousstatements.Fortwoofthesestatements,themajorityofrespondentspredictedESSAwouldhaveapositive


51

impact.Specifically,respondentsthoughtESSAwouldhaveapositiveimpactontheattentiontotheneedsofallstudentsaswellasonthefocusonstudentsocioemotionalneeds.

Forfourstatements,anequalpercentageofrespondentsperceivedESSAwouldhaveapositiveeffector littleeffectonstudents. Specifically,anequalpercentageofrespondentsperceivedESSAwouldhavelittleeffectonstudentsingeneral,studentswithdisabilities,Englishlanguagelearners,andtheabilityoftheschooltoaddresstheneedsofthewholechild. Finally,about40% of respondents predicted ESSA would have a positive effect on gifted and talentedstudents,whereas53%ofrespondentsthoughtESSAwouldhavelittleeffectonthesestudents(seeTable6.2).ItisimportanttonotethatthepercentageofrespondentswhopredictedESSAwouldhaveapositiveeffect isfargreaterthanthepercentageofrespondentswhopredictedthatESSAwouldhaveanegativeeffectforallsixareas.Indeed,forfiveofthesixareas,fewerthan10%ofrespondentsthoughtESSAwouldhaveanegativeeffectacrossallfivestatements.Theonlystatementforwhichover10%ofrespondentspredictedESSAwouldhaveanegativeeffectistheabilityoftheschooltomeettheneedsofthewholechild.Specifically,almost17%ofrespondentspredictedESSAwouldhaveanegativeeffectonaschool’sabilitytoaddresstheneedsofthewholechild.

Table6.2PercentageofRespondentsIndicatingPotentialImpactoftheEveryStudentSucceedsActonStudents

StatementPositiveeffect

Littleeffect

Negativeeffect

Attentiontoneedsofallstudents 56.5 36.1 7.4Focusonstudentsocioemotionalneeds 50.6 41.9 7.5Studentsingeneral 47.6 46.5 5.9Studentswithdisabilities 45.8 44.6 9.6Englishlanguagelearnerstudents 44.9 46.5 8.6Abilityofschooltoaddresstheneedsofthewholechild 41.3 42.1 16.6Giftedandtalentedstudents 39.9 53.4 6.7

Comparison of NCLB and ESSA

Finally, therewere substantial differencesbetween theperceptionsof the2008 respondentsabouttheimpactofNCLBonstudentsandthe2018respondentsabouttheimpactofESSAonstudents.AsshowninTable6.3,respondentsweregenerallymorepositiveabouttheeffectofESSAthantheeffectofNCLB.TheonlyexceptiontothisgeneralizationistheimpactofNCLBonattentiontoallstudents.Moststrikingly,respondentsweremuchmorepositiveaboutthe


52

potentialeffectofESSAthantheeffectofNCLBonEnglishlanguagelearnerstudentsandtheabilityof the school toaddress theneedsof thewholechild. Althoughwedonotknowthereasonsforthisdisparity,wesurmisethatESSA’sinclusionofaseparateassessmentforEnglishlanguage learner students and ESSA’s push to have states include a variety of noncognitiveoutcomesintheirschoolaccountabilitysystemsmayexplainthedifference.

Table6.3ComparisonofthePercentageofRespondentsIndicatingtheImpactoftheNoChildLeftBehindAct(NCLB)andtheEveryStudentSucceedsAct(ESSA)onStudents

NCLB ESSA

StatementPositiveeffect

Negativeeffect

Positiveeffect

Negativeeffect

Attentiontoneedsofallstudents 63.8 16.7 56.5 7.4Studentsingeneral 48.6 17.6 47.6 5.9Studentswithdisabilities 35.0 36.7 45.8 9.6Englishlanguagelearnerstudents 28.7 33.7 44.9 8.6Abilityofschooltoaddresstheneedsofthewholechild

21.3 43.6 41.3 16.6

ARetrospectiveLookattheFocusonStudentAchievementandStandardizedTestingFrom1927and1998

Principals’ concern with student learning and supporting the improvement of teacherpracticeshasbeenincludedinthereportssincethereportshavebeenavailable.Reportsfocused on student learning and achievement and demonstrated these were primaryleadership responsibilityareas fordifferent typesofprincipal roles (e.g., supervisingandteaching). More recently, studies have focused on testing and concerns about studentlearning. The 1928 report did not comment on standardized testing data. Theaccountabilitymovementwould not take place until approximately 70 years later. Theaccountabilitymovementwas relativelynew in1998,butalready therewasevidenceofthestressthataccompaniedthetestingexpectations.The1998reportstated,

Principalsinschoolsthatfailtomeettheminimumperformancelevelsmayreceivewarningsandmandatestoensurethatsignificantprogressismadetowardmeetingthesestandardswithinsomespecifiedperiodoftime(usuallyonetothreeyears).Suchmandatescreate tremendouspressure,and theyareconsidereda threat tojobsecuritybyabout20percentoftherespondents.(Doud&Keller,1998,p.70)

Today,thereports indicateaprimaryfocusontestingandtestscoresandmeetingstateandfederalaccountabilityrequirements.


53

Question: What is the perceived impact on principals?

Finally, about 39% of respondents predicted that ESSA would have a positive impact on aprincipal’sabilitytoleadeffectively.Incomparison,onlyabout12%thoughtESSAwouldhaveanegativeimpactonaprincipal’sabilitytoleadeffectively.Therewasnosubstantialdifferenceinperceptionsbyprincipalexperience.


54

Chapter 7: The Principalship: Conditions of Employment While principals focus on creating positive learning environments for students and workingconditions for teachers, principal working conditions affect their morale and effectiveness.Amidawidearrayofworkingconditions forprincipals, this chapter focusesonsomespecificconditionssuchassalary,benefits,timecommitment,contracts,andevaluation. TheseareashavebeenincludedintheNAESPsurveyssince1928becausetheyplayanimportantroleinthelivesofprincipals.

Question: Do you have a contract with your school district? If so, what are the terms of your contract?

In 2018, 91.3% of respondents stated that they had a contract. This was about the samepercentageasin2008.The2008resultsindicatedthatlessexperiencedprincipals(thosewithlessthan5yearsofexperienceasaprincipal)weremore likelytohaveacontractthanmoreexperiencedprincipals (thosewith15ormoreyearsof experienceas aprincipal). However,

therewerenodifferencesbyyearsofexperienceasaprincipalfor2018respondents.

Table 7.1 shows the vast majority of the 2018respondents with a contract had a 1-year contract(57.5%).Lessthan10%ofrespondentshadacontractforover3years. Comparing the responsesbetween2008 and 2018 showed a clear shift to shortercontracts. Specifically, about 40% of the 2008contractswerefor3ormoreyears,comparedtoonly22%of the2018 contracts. At theother endof thecontinuum, only about 39% of the 2008 contractswere1yearinlength,comparedtonearly58%ofthe

2018contracts.

Between 2008 and 2018, the time length of

contracts decreased such that the majority of the contract terms shifted

from 2 or more years in length in 2008 to 1 year in

length in 2018.

Chapter 7: Conditions of Employment

55

Table7.1LengthofContract,2008and2018

Year 1year 2years 3years >3years

2008 39.4 19.3 10.8 30.12018 57.5 18.3 15.8 8.4

Question: What areas are addressed in your contract?

The2018NAESP10-yearsurveyaskedrespondentstoidentifyifanyofthefollowingfiveareaswere included on their contract: salary, benefits, duties, expectations, and evaluation. AsshowninTable7.2,nearlyalloftherespondentsindicatedthatsalarywasintheircontract,andnearly80%indicatedbenefitswere included intheircontract. Twothirdsoftherespondentsconfirmed duties were included in their contract. About half of respondents reported thatspecificexpectations for theprincipalwere included in thecontractaswellas theevaluationmetrics. There were no differences in the areas included in the contracts by years ofexperienceasaprincipalorgender.

From 2008 to 2018, amuch greater percentage of respondents indicated that specific areaswereincludedinthecontractlanguage.Forexample,thepercentageofrespondentsindicatingsalary was included in contract language increased from about 79% to 92%, while thepercentagereportingtheinclusionoffringebenefitsincreasedfromabout57%to78%.

Table7.2PercentageofRespondentsIndicatingAreasIncludedinFormalContract

SurveyyearAddressedincontract 2008 2018

Change2008to2018

Salary 78.6 92.1 13.5Benefits 56.5 78.3 21.8Duties n/a 66.6 n/aExpectations 48.1 50.6 2.5Evaluation 37.9 49.6 11.7


56

Question: Do you have a written job description? If you have a written job description, are you held accountable and evaluated using it?

Ofthoserespondingtothisquestion,80%statedthattheyhadawrittenjobdescription.Thiswas about the same percentage of respondents as in 1998 and 2008. With respect toindividuals reporting having awritten job description, 79% reported that all principals in thedistrictreceivedthesamebasecontract,whereastheremaining31%respondedthatprincipalsintheirdistrictreceiveddifferentbasecontracts.Thiswassimilartotheresultsfromthe2008survey.

Ofthoseindividualswithawrittenjobdescription,about70%indicatedthattheyareevaluatedontheirjobdescriptionincludedinthecontract.Thiswasalmostidenticaltothe2008results.

Therewasno significantdifference inbeingevaluatedbasedon the jobdescriptionbetweenrespondentsreportingthesamebasecontractanddifferentbasecontracts.Further,wefoundnodifferencesinresultsbyyearsofexperienceasaprincipalorbygender.

Question: How many months or days are included in your contract?

AsshowninTable7.3,thelengthofcontractsfor principals has gradually increased overthe last 60 years. For example, 83% ofcontractswere lessthan11months in1958,whereas only about 24% of the 2018contractswere for less than 11months. Attheother endof the spectrum, only 12%ofcontracts in 1958 were for 12 months,comparedto50%ofcontractsin2018.

From 2008 to 2018, there were increases in the percentage of respondents indicating the inclusion of

specific areas in the contract, especially with respect to salary (92.1% in 2018) and benefits (78.3% in 2018).

The length of principal contracts has increased steadily over time such that 50% of respondents in

2018 reported having a 12-month contract, compared to

only 12% in 1958.


57

Table7.3PercentageofRespondentsIndicatingContractLengthbySurveyYear

Year <10months10months,lessthan11months

11months,lessthan12months 12months

1958 20.0 63.0 5.0 12.01968 21.4 47.2 13.9 17.91978 7.0 43.8 19.2 30.01988 5.7 40.0 21.5 32.81998 2.1 41.5 16.0 40.42008 4.0 24.6 24.3 47.12018 1.8 23.9 24.2 50.1

Question: Taking into consideration the time you typically arrive at school in the morning and leave in the afternoon, how much time (excluding evenings and weekends) do you spend at school each weekday? How many additional hours do you spend in school-related activities each week during the academic year?

Theoverallaveragenumberofhoursspentperweekonschool-relatedactivitieswhile intheschool building was 52.8. The average number of hours per work spent on school relatedactivitiesoutsideoftheschoolbuildingwas7.8.Theoveralltotalnumberofhoursworkedonschool-related activities per week was 60.6. This was about the same number of hoursworked—58.6—asreportedbyprincipalsinanationalstudyofprincipalsbytheNCES(2017).

AsshowninFigure7.1,theaveragenumberofreportedhoursforaworkweekhasincreasedsteadilyoverthelast90years—from44in1928to61in2018.

The average number of school-related work hours per week has increased 17 hours from

1928 to 2018. The average workweek during the school year in 2018 was 61 hours.


58

Figure7.1.Averagehoursinaprincipal’sworkweek,1928–2018.

AsshowninTable7.4,themediannumberofhoursspentatschoolduringtheacademicyearwas50,andthemediannumberofhoursspentoutsideofschoolduringtheacademicyearwas5.Overall,respondentsreportedthatthemediantotalnumberofhoursspentontheirjobs—eitherinsideoroutsideoftheirbuilding—was66.

Note that thenumbersofhours insideandoutside the schooldonotnecessarily sumto thetotal hours spent on performing job duties. This is because the analyses of each set ofresponsesareindependentfromtheotheranalyses.

Respondents at the10th percentile of hours reported spending45hours inside the school, 2hours outside the school, and a total of 50 hours performing their job duties during theacademicyear.Attheotherendofthecontinuum,respondentsatthe90thpercentileofhoursreportedspending60hours inside the school,20hoursoutside the school,anda totalof75hoursperweekperformingtheirjobduties(seeTable7.4).

44 44

47

50 50 51

5456

61

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

1928 1948 1958 1968 1978 1988 1998 2008 2018

Hou

rs

The average number of school-related work hours per week outside of the school building was

almost 8 hours for the 2018 respondents—an increase of 1 hour over the last decade.


59

Table7.4TimeSpentInsideandOutsideoftheSchoolBuildingDuringtheAcademicYear

DuringschoolyearPercentileofrespondent Insideschool Outsideschool Allhours10 45 2 5025 50 3 5350 50 5 6075 60 10 6690 60 20 75

Question: How many additional hours do you spend in school-related activities each week outside the academic year? How many additional hours do you spend in school-related activities each week outside the academic year?

As shown in Table 7.5, the median number of hours spent inside at school outside of theacademicwas40.Theaveragenumberofhourswas34.Themediannumberofhoursspentnot at school outside of the academic year was 4. Overall, respondents reported that themediantotalnumberofhoursspentontheirjobsoutsideoftheregularacademicyearwas42;theaveragewas40.

Table7.5TimeSpentInsideandOutsideoftheSchoolBuildingOutsideoftheAcademicYear

DuringschoolyearPercentileofrespondent Insideschool Outsideschool Allhours

10 8 0 1125 30 1 3550 40 4 4275 40 10 4890 45 14 56

Therewas,however,averywiderangeinthereportednumberofhoursperformingjobduties.Outsideoftheacademicyear,respondentsatthe10thpercentilereportedspending8hoursintheir school, 0 hours outside of their school, and 11 hours total performing their job duties.


60

Alternatively,respondentsatthe90thpercentilereportedworking45hoursintheirschool,14hoursoutsideoftheirschool,and56hourstotal.

Question: What is your salary as a principal?

Respondents were asked to report their salary. It is important to note that the reportedsalariesarenotadjustedbycostofliving.Becauserespondentsliveinawidearrayoflocationswithvaryingcostsof living,cautionmustbeused in interpretingtheresultspresented inthissection.

The median reported salary of all respondents was $92,250, and the average salary was$96,271,asshowninTable7.6.Theaveragesalaryisskewedupwardbyahandfulofprincipalsreportingsalariesgreaterthan$150,000.

Notsurprisingly,thereportedmedianandaveragesalariesincreasedwithyearsofexperience.Specifically, themediansalary for lessexperiencedprincipals (thosewith less than5yearsofexperience)was$90,000,whereasthemediansalaryforthemostexperiencedprincipals(thosewith15ormoreyearsasaprincipal)was$100,000.Thedifferencesforaveragesalariesweresomewhatsmaller.

Table7.6ReportedSalariesbyYearsasaPrincipalforNationalAssociationofElementarySchoolPrincipals(NAESP)andNationalCenterforEducationStatistics(NCES)Surveys

YearsasaprincipalMeasure Total <5 5–14 15+

Median $92,250 $90,000 $92,000 $100,000NAESP2018average $96,271 $94,756 $95,832 $98,257NCES2017average $94,600 $88,000 $95,500 $100,400Note.NCESdatafromCharacteristicsofPublicElementaryandSecondarySchoolPrincipalsintheUnitedStates:ResultsFromthe2015–16NationalTeacherandPrincipalSurvey,byS.Taie,R.Goldring,andM.Spiegelman,2017,Washington,DC:NCES.

The average school-related work hours per week outside of the academic year

was 40. Responses ranged widely.


61

As a check on the validity of the results from this study, we compared the NAESP surveyaverage salaries to theNCES (2017) survey average salaries for all principals andby years ofexperienceasaprincipal.Thecomparisonsbyyearsofexperiencearenotdirectlycomparable,as the NCES experience ranges were less than 3 years, 3–9 years, and 10 or more years.However, the NAESP results are fairly similar to the NCES results, thus suggesting that theNAESPresultsarerelativelyaccurateandgeneralizableacrosstheUnitedStates.

Comparingsalariesovertimeis incrediblydifficult. Suchcomparisonsnotonlymustfactor intheeffectsofchanges inthecostof living,butalsomustconsiderwhererespondents live,asindividualsinmetroareashavegreatersalariesthanindividualslivinginruralareas.Thiswouldrequireadjustingeachrespondent’ssalarybyactual location—informationwedidnotcollect.However, the results suggest that thesalariesearnedbyprincipalshave increasedover time,andthissuppositionissupportedbydatafromtheNCES(Hill,Ottem,&DeRoche,2016).Thus,evidence suggestsprincipalsnowworkmorehours thanpreviously andalsoarepaid slightlymorethanbefore.

Table7.7documentsthedistributionofmediansalariesacrossselectedrangesofpay.Atthetopendofthedistribution,about44%ofrespondentsreportedearningatleast$100,000peryear,with23%earningatleast$110,000peryear.Attheotherendofthespectrum,8.5%ofrespondents indicatedtheyearned lessthan$70,000peryear. Anadditional13.7%reportedearningbetween$70,000and$80,000.

Table7.7PercentageofRespondentsforSelectedMedianSalaryRanges

Salaryrange Percent<$70,000 8.5$70,000–79,999 13.7$80,000–89,999 21.6$90,000–99,999 12.1$100,000–110,000 23.0>$110,000 21.1

Similartoyearsofexperienceasaprincipal,salaryalsoappearstobeassociatedwiththesizeoftheschool,asshowninTable7.8. Indeed,themediansalaryofprincipals inschoolswiththelowest studentenrollmentwas$88,000,compared to$100,000 forprincipalsof schoolswiththegreatest schoolenrollment. Of course, schoolswith thegreatest studentenrollmentareoften located inurbanareas,whichhavehighercostsof livingandthushighersalaries foralloccupations.

Results suggest principals are working more hours

than ever before—and are also earning more money

than ever before.


62

Table7.8MedianSalarybySchoolEnrollment

Studentenrollment Mediansalary

1–300 $88,900301–400 $90,000401–600 $92,000>600 $100,000

Question: To what degree does your salary compensate you adequately for the time and effort required to do your job well?

As shown in Figure 7.2, exactly 50% of respondents agreed at some level that their salaryadequately compensated them for the time and effort necessary to do their job well. Ofcourse, this also means that 50% of respondents disagreed that their salary adequatelycompensatedthem.

More specifically, about 27% of respondents either agreed or strongly agreed with thestatement,whereas30%of respondentsdisagreedor stronglydisagreedwith the statement.Although the overall respondents were evenly split between some level of agreement andsomelevelofdisagreement,theoveralldistributionsuggestsmoreprincipalsaredisenchantedwiththeiradequacyofpaythansatisfied.

Figure7.2.Adequacyofsalaryrelativetotimeandeffortrequiredforthejob.

13.0

17.0

20.023.0

22.8

4.3

StronglyDisagree Disagree SomewhatDisagree

SomewhatAgree Agree StronglyAgree


63

Althoughnotdefinitive,thedatainTable7.9suggestsalarylevelisassociatedwithperceptionsofadequacyofthepay. Specifically,greatermediansalaryappearspositivelyassociatedwiththelevelofagreementwiththeadequacyofpay.Inshort,thegreaterthepay,thestrongertheagreementthatthepayadequatelycompensatedprincipalsfortheirtimeandeffort.

Table7.9MedianSalarybyAdequacyofPay

Doessalaryadequatelycompensateyou? Mediansalary

Stronglydisagree $90,000Disagree $84,250Somewhatdisagree $91,500Somewhatagree $96,500Agree $95,000Stronglyagree $98,000

Question: Does your district have merit or incentive pay for principals in addition to the typical step increases? If your district has merit pay, is any portion of it based on the achievement of students in the principal’s school?

Only10.5%of respondents reported that theirdistricthadadopted some formofmeritpay.Thiswasdownfromabout17%in1998and15%in2008.

Althoughfewerprincipalsin2018reportedbeinginvolvedinameritplanthaninthepasttwodecades, a far greater percentageof those inmerit plans reported that the plan focusedonmeasuresofstudentachievement.Indeed,onlyabout20%ofrespondentsfrom1998and2008reportedthatstudentachievementwasameasureintheirmeritplan,comparedtoabout45%in2018.

A decreasing percentage of respondents indicated their district has a merit pay plan for

principals—only 10% of principals in 2018 reported being involved in a merit plan.


64

Themeasuresincludedinthemeritpayplans,asreportedbythesmallpercentageofprincipalsemployed indistrictsusingmeritpay,areshown inTable7.10. Of the fouroptionsprovidedrespondents,almost33%reportedthattheirmeritpaywasbasedonstudentacademicgrowthmeasures,andabout22%notedthattheirmeritpayplanwasbasedontheoverallpercentageofstudentsscoringproficientorabove.Inaddition,another14%ofrespondentsindicatedthatthechangeinthepercentageofstudentsscoringproficientorabovewasameasureincludedinthemeritpayplan.Themajorityofrespondents,however,reportedthatsomeothermeasurewasincludedintheirmeritpayplan.

Table7.10MeasuresIncludedinPrincipalMeritPayPlans

Meritpaymeasure %respondents

%proficient 21.9Changein%proficient 14.1Growth 32.8Other 54.7

Question: What type of tenure, if any, do you have in your school district?

AsshowninFigure7.3,themajorityofrespondentsinboth2008and2018indicatedthattheyhadsomeformoftenure.Specifically,about56%ofrespondentsinbothyearsreportedhavingsomeformoftenure.Tenureasaprofessionalemployeewasthemostfrequentlymentioned(37%)typeoftenureinbothyears. Inthistypeoftenure,anindividualwouldbeguaranteedemploymentinaprofessionalpositionifremovedfromtheprincipalship.

While the prevalence of merit pay plans has decreased over the last two decades, the merit

plans are more likely to include measures of student achievement than in the past.


65

Figure7.3.Percentageofrespondentsindicatingtypeoftenure,2008and2018.

The2018responsesdifferedbyyearsofexperienceasaprincipal,withagreaterpercentageoflessexperiencedprincipals thanotherprincipals reporting tenureasaprofessionalemployee(Table 7.11). Further, a much greater percentage of the more experienced principals thanotherprincipalsreportedtenureasaprincipal.Thissuggeststhattenureasaprincipalmaybeindeclineasanoptioninschooldistrictsaroundthecountry.Moreresearch,however,wouldbeneededtoconfirmthis.

Table7.11PercentageofRespondentsIndicatingTypeofTenure,byYearsasPrincipal

YearsasaprincipalTypeoftenure <5 5–14 15+

Notenure 39.5 49.8 40.1Yes,asaprincipal 16.8 16.5 27.2Yes,asaprofessionalemployee 43.7 33.7 32.7

Question: How often are you formally evaluated?

The vastmajority of respondents (86.1%), as shown in Table 7.12, reported that they wereevaluatedeveryacademicyear.Another9.3%ofrespondentsnotedthattheywereevaluatedevery2to3years,while4.1%ofrespondentssaidthattheywererarelyorneverevaluated.

44.0

17.8

38.2

44.4

19.5

36.1

0 10 20 30 40 50

NoTenure

Yes,asaPrincipal

Yes,asaProfessionalEmployee

2018

2008


66

Table7.12PercentageofRespondentsIndicatingFrequencyofEvaluationbyYear

SurveyyearFrequencyofevaluation 1978 1988 1998 2008 2018

Onceayear 68 85 76 80 86Onceevery2–3years 10 8 13 12 9Rarelyornotatall 22 8 11 8 5

Question: How are student performance results taken into account in your evaluation?

Inthelast10years,almostallstatesadoptednewsystemsforevaluatingprincipals.Moreover,mostofthesesystemsincludedsomemeasureofstudentperformance.Figure7.4documentsthe student performance measures—if any—included in the performance evaluations ofrespondents. The sumof the responses exceeds 100%becausemultiplemeasures could beincludedinaperformanceevaluation.

Figure7.4.Percentageofrespondentsindicatingstudentperformancemeasuresincludedinevaluation.

The twomost frequentlymentionedmeasureswere student growth (34.2%), such as value-added measures or student growth percentiles, and the percentage of students scoring

3.4

9.5

18.8

20.7

28.5

31.2

34.2

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Notsure

Notafactor

Othermeasuresofstudentperformance

Changein%studentsscoringproficient

Performanceincluded,butnotaformalfactor

%studentsscoringproficient

Studentgrowth


67

proficientoradvanced(31.2%).Theseweretheonlytwomeasuresgarneringmorethan30%ofrespondents.

Thenexttwomostfrequentlycitedmeasureswerebothmentionedbybetween20%and30%of respondents. Specifically, 28.5% of respondents noted that student performance wasincludedintheirevaluationbutwasnotaformalfactor,and20.7%reportedameasurewasthechangeinpercentageofstudentsscoringproficientoradvanced.

Finally,threeresponseswerementionedbylessthan20%ofrespondents.Specifically,almost19%of respondents said thatothermeasuresof studentperformancewere included in theirevaluations,9.5%notedstudentperformancewasnota factor in theirevaluations,and3.4%wereunsureifanystudentperformancemeasureswereincludedintheirevaluation.

Question: From whom are opinions about your performance normally solicited?

Variousindividualsmayprovideinputontheevaluationofaprincipal.AsshowninTable7.13,the most frequently mentioned individual from whom an opinion was solicited was thesuperintendent (64.6%). Three other responses were mentioned by at least 40% ofrespondents: teachers (45.3%), “myself” (41.9%), and assistant/associate superintendents(41.0%). Both other central office personnel and parentswerementioned by about 29% ofrespondents, whereas about 16% of respondents mentioned students, and 8% mentionedothercommunitymembers.

Table7.13PercentageofRespondentsIndicatingIndividualsProvidingOpinionsinPerformanceEvaluation

Individualsinvolvedinevaluation %

Superintendent 64.6Teachers 45.3Myself 41.9Asst./assoc.superintendent 41.0Othercentraloffice 29.3Parents 28.6Students 15.8Othercommunitymembers 8.0Note.Respondentscouldindicatemorethanoneoption,sototalisover100%.


68

Question: Is goal setting a routine part of your evaluation process? Are you held accountable for progress toward meeting these goals?

As shown in Table 7.14, there was a substantial increase in the number of respondentsreporting that they participated in goal-setting as a routine part of their evaluation process.Specifically, about 76% of respondents reported participating in the goal-setting process in2008,ascomparedtoalmost91%ofrespondentsin2018.

Table7.14PercentageofRespondentsIndicatingGoalSettingIncludedinEvaluation

Goalsettinginevaluation 2008 2018No,goalsettingisnotincluded 23.8 9.7Yes,butnotheldaccountableformeetinggoals 20.2 29.3Yes,andheldaccountableformeetinggoals 56.0 61.0

Furthermore,thepercentageofrespondentsparticipatingingoalsettingandheldaccountableforthegoalstheysetalsoincreasedfrom2008to2018.Thus,clearlytherehasbeenapushformoreprincipalstoparticipateinthegoal-settingprocessandtohavethegoalsdevelopedfromtheprocessbeincludedaspartoftheirformalevaluation.

Question: Do you have the opportunity to use portfolio assessment as part of your evaluation?

Asshown inFigure7.5,almost41%ofrespondentsreportedthattheyhadanopportunitytouse portfolio assessment as part of the overall evaluation strategy. This percentage wassubstantiallygreaterthanthepercentagesforboth1998(34.3%)and2008(29.8%).Thus,whileprevious sectionshave identifiedan increase in theuseof studentperformancemeasuresaspartoftheevaluationofprincipals,thefindingsfromthisquestionshowanincreaseintheuseofauthenticassessmentapproaches,suchastheuseofportfolios.


69

Figure7.5.Portfolioassessmentaspartofevaluation.

Question: How would you describe your morale?

About50%ofrespondentsreportedhavingeitherhighorveryhighmorale,whereasonlyabout10% of respondents noted that their morale was either low or very low (Table 7.15). Theperceptionsofmoraledifferedslightlybyyearsasaprincipal.Mostimportantly,onlyabout7%oflessexperiencedprincipalsreportedhavingloworverylowmorale,comparedtoabout11%ofotherprincipalsreportinglowlevelsofmorale.

Table7.15PercentageofRespondentsIndicatingLevelofMorale

YearsasaprincipalLevelofmorale Total <5 5–14 15+

Veryhigh 12.3 10.9 12.2 13.7High 38.3 41.2 36.1 39.7Moderate 39.2 41.2 40.4 35.6Low 7.7 2.5 9.4 8.9Verylow 2.5 4.2 2.0 2.1

59.3

40.7No

Yes


70

Question: How frequently are you commended—by personal comment or in writing by the superintendent or other central office administrators—for something you have done as a principal?

Surprisingly,asshown inFigure7.6,almost84%of respondents reportedthat theyhadbeencommended by their superintendent or someone else from central office once a month ornever.Only4.3%ofrespondentsreportedreceivingsomeformofcommendationatleastonceaweek.

Figure7.6.Percentageofrespondentsindicatingfrequencyofcommendation.

Therewerenodifferencesbyyearsofexperienceasaprincipal. However,asshowninTable7.16, a greaterpercentageof female (41.3%) thanmale (32.8%) respondents reportednever

38.6

44.9

12.2

3.6 0.7

Never

Onceamonth

Onceeveryfewweeks

Aboutonceaweek

Morethanonceaweek

ARetrospectiveLookatSchoolClimateandFacultyMoralein1948Fromthe1948report:

The forward thinking principal has discovered that staff improvementcomesthru[sic]understanding,confidence,encouragement,andrespectfor personalities. He knows that his practices must exemplify therelationships which he expects to encourage among children andclassroomteachers.(NationalEducationalAssociation,1948,p.12)


71

receivingacommendation. At theotherendof thespectrum,a lowerpercentageof female(3.4%)thanmale(6.8%)reportedreceivingsomeformofcommendationatleastonceaweek.Althoughmoreresearchwouldbeneededtomakeadefinitiveconclusion,theevidencefromthissurveysuggeststhatfemaleprincipalsarelesslikelythanmaleprincipalstobecommendedbysuperintendentsorcentralofficepersonnel.

Table7.16PercentageofRespondentsIndicatingFrequencyofCommendation,byGenderofRespondent

Frequency Male Female

Never 32.8 41.3Onceamonth 46.3 44.7Onceeveryfewweeks 14.1 10.6Aboutonceaweek 5.1 3.1Morethanonceaweek 1.7 0.3

Notsurprisingly,asshown inTable7.17, thereappears tobeapositiverelationshipbetweenthe frequencywithwhich an individual is commended and themorale of the individual. Inshort,themorefrequentlyprincipalsreportbeingcommended,thegreaterthelevelofmorale.Forexample,47%ofthosebeingcommendedatleastonceaweekreportedveryhighmorale,comparedtoonly5.6%ofrespondentswhoreportedneverbeingcommended.

Table7.17PercentageofRespondentsIndicatingLevelofMorale,byFrequencyofCommendation

FrequencyofcommendationLevelofmorale Never

Onceamonth

Onceeveryfewweeks

Onceaweekormore

Veryhigh 5.6 13.2 20.3 47.4High 29.8 45.1 40.6 36.8Moderate 48.5 35.3 32.8 10.5Low 11.1 5.5 6.3 5.3Verylow 5.1 0.9 0.0 0.0


72

Summary

Consistentwiththeresultsofpriorsurveys,theresultsfromthissurveyindicatethat9out10principalshaveawrittencontract.Themajorityofsuchcontractshaveatermofonly1year,which continues a decades-long trend of principal contracts having a shorter time frame.Indeed,about57%ofrespondentsreportedbeingundera1-yearcontract—anincreaseof18percentagepointssince2008.Moreover,by2018,lessthan10%ofprincipalsreportedhavingacontractthatexceeded2years.

The areas covered by principal contracts also changed over the last decade. In general,principal contracts in2018weremuchmore likely to includespecificareas—especially salaryandbenefits—thaninprioryears.Moreover,atleast50%ofrespondentsnotedthatjobduties,expectations,andevaluationplanswereincludedintheircontract.

Withrespecttojobdescriptions,80%ofrespondentsindicatedhavingawrittenjobdescription,nearly identical to the percentage in prior years. Of thosewith job descriptions, about 70%reportedbeingevaluatedonthespecificitemsinthejobdescription.

While the lengthof contractshasdecreasedover time, thenumberofmonthsper year thatprincipalsarecontractedtoworkhasincreasedovertime.Specifically,halfofprincipalsin2018reported having a contract that covers the entire calendar year, compared to only 12% ofprincipalshavinga12-monthcontractin1958.

Principalsareworkingnotonlymoremonthsoutof theyear,butalsomorehoursperweek.Indeed, the2018respondents indicatedworkingnearly61hoursperweek. This includedanaverageofnearly8hoursperweekonschool-relatedactivitiesoutsideoftheschoolbuilding.Thetotalnumberofhoursworkedperweekwasanincreaseof17hoursperweeksince1928and 5 hours per week since 2008. Outside of the formal academic year, respondents alsoreportedworkinganaverageof40hoursperweek.

Resultssuggestthattheaveragesalaryofaprincipal issomewherearound$93,000peryear.Morethan44%ofrespondentsreportedmakinggreaterthan$100,000peryear,withmostofsuch individuals having greater levels of experience as a principal. The average salary forrespondents isaslight increase insalaryoverpreviousyears,whichwouldbeexpectedgiventheincreaseintimespentbyprincipalsoverthelastdecade.

With respect toperceivedadequacyof salary,50%of respondentsagreedat some level thattheirsalaryadequatelycompensatedthemfortheirtimeandeffort;theother50%disagreedat


73

some level. In general, thosewithgreater salariesweremore likely toperceive theirpay toadequatelycompensatethemfortheirtimeandeffortthanthosewithlowersalaries.

Only about 10% of respondents indicated participating in a merit pay plan, which was adecreaseinthepercentageparticipatinginsuchaplanin2008.Ofthosewithameritpayplan,almosthalfstatedthatthemeritpayplanincludedmeasuresofstudentachievement.

About56%ofrespondents indicatedthattheyhadsomeformoftenure. Thiswasconsistentwiththepercentagesinpriorsurveyyears.Themostcommonformoftenurewasprofessionaltenure,which guarantees an individual a professional jobwithin the education system if theindividuallosestheprincipalposition.

Almost9outof10respondentsnotedthattheywereevaluatedannually. Thepercentageofrespondents indicatingbeingevaluatedeveryyearhas increasednearly20percentagepointssince1978.Overonethirdofrespondentsnotedthatsomemeasureofstudentachievementisincludedintheirevaluation. Moreover,56%reportedtheyparticipateingoalsettingandareheld accountable for the goals set in their plan. In addition, nearly 41% of respondentsindicatedtheopportunitytouseaportfolioapproachintheirevaluationplan.

About50%ofrespondentsindicatedthattheirmoralewashighorveryhigh.Onlyabout10%ofrespondentsindicatedloworverylowmorale.Notsurprisingly,moralewasassociatedwiththefrequencybywhichprincipalswerecommendedbythesuperintendentorsomeoneelseinthe central office. Themore frequently a principalwas commended, thehigher the level ofmorale.

Specifically, with respect to being commended, nearly 39% of respondents reported neverbeing commended, and another 45% reported being commended only about once amonth.Alternatively,onlyabout4.5%ofrespondentsreportedbeingcommendedatleastonceaweek.


74

Chapter 8: The Principal’s Professional Learning Research has demonstrated that leaders play a critical and measurable role in schooleffectiveness(Coelli&Green,2012;Dhuey&Smith,2014;Hallinger&Heck,1998;Leithwoodet al., 2004; Robinson, Lloyd, & Rowe, 2008; Supovitz, Sirinides, & May, 2010). Moreover,principals are second only to teachers in their impact on student learning. Leithwood et al.(2004) estimated that about 25% of the total school effects can be attributed to principalleadership. Despite the critical role that principals play in student learning and schooleffectiveness, very little resources and attention are dedicated to principals’ professionallearning.AccordingtoPetersonandKelley(2009),principalprofessionaldevelopmentisoftenfragmentedandrarelyfocusesontheneedsofschoolleadersastheymovetonewcontextsorthroughthevariousstagesoftheircareers.

Inthischapter,wesharewhatrespondentstotheNAESP10-yearstudyidentifiedaskeyneedsfortheirprofessionallearningaswellasthemodesthroughwhichtheywouldprefertoreceiveprofessional development. This requirement is based on decades of research consistentlyfinding that, of all factors locatedwithin a school, teachers have the strongest influence onstudent outcomes (e.g., Rockoff, 2004; Seashore Louis et al., 2010), and principals have thesecondstrongestinfluence.

Question: In which of the following areas do you feel you are in need of professional development?

Inthe2018NAESP10-yearstudy,principalswerepresentedwith27leadershipchallengesandaskedtoidentifytheareasinwhichtheyneededprofessionaldevelopment(seeTable8.1).The

Principals identified improving student performance as the key area in which they most needed

professional development.

Chapter 8: Professional Learning

75

topfivechallengesidentifiedashighneedareasforprofessionaldevelopmentwere,fromthehighestidentifiedneed,thefollowing:

• Improvingstudentperformance(18.3%);• Improvingstaffperformance(15.8%);• Understandingandapplyingtechnology(12.8%);• Timemanagement(12.4%);and• Usingsocialmediaeffectively(11.9%)andschoolimprovementplanning(11.8%),tiedin

fifthplace.

Whenconsideredwithcategoriesidentifiedasmoderateneed,thetopfiveshiftsomewhattothefollowing:

• Improvingstudentperformance(70.7%combined),• Improvingstaffperformance(67.1%combined),• Schoolimprovementplanning(53.7%combined),• Planningandimplementationofcurriculumgoals(53.7%combined),and• Assessment/evaluationofinstructionalprogram(52.6%combined).

Incontrast,themostcommonlyidentifiedareasinwhichrespondingprincipalsfeltprofessionaldevelopmentwerenotneededwerethefollowing:

• Effectivefiscaladministration(lowneed:53.3%;noneed:18.8%),• Workingwithspecialinterestgroups(lowneed:52.6%;noneed:20.8%),• Negotiatingschoolpolitics(lowneed:49.2%;noneed:19.7%),• Negotiatingdistrictpolitics(lowneed:48.1%;noneed:20.2%),and• Negotiatingcommunitypolitics(lowneed:46.9%;noneed:21%).

Theseresultsaresomewhatdifferentthanthosereported10yearsago.In2008,thetopfiveareas identified for professional development, from the highest identified need, were (a)understandingandapplyingtechnology,(b)visioningandstaffimprovement,(c)improvingstaffperformance, (d) differentiating instruction, and (e) developing a professional learningcommunity.

Principals pointed to school-level (67.1%) and district-provided (64.9%) opportunities as the strategies they most likely would

use to address their own professional development needs.


76

Table8.1PercentageofRespondentsReportingPerceivedNeedsforProfessionalDevelopment

AreaofneedHighneed

Moderateneed

Lowneed

Noneed

Improvingstudentperformance 18.3 52.4 25.6 3.7

Improvingstaffperformance 15.8 51.3 28.7 4.2

Understandingandapplyingtechnology 12.8 39.2 38.2 9.9

Timemanagement 12.4 30.6 41.3 15.6

Usingsocialmediaeffectively 11.9 36.6 39.7 11.8

Schoolimprovementplanning 11.8 41.9 38.2 8.2

Differentiatinginstruction 10.8 40.0 40.1 9.1

Monitoringfaculty/studentsocialmediaissues 10.1 30.3 48.4 11.3

Dealingwithdiversity/multiculturalissues 9.2 31.6 44.7 14.5

Developingaprofessionallearningcommunity 8.4 38.5 41.2 11.9

Buildingpartnershipswithbusinessesandagencies 8.4 32.1 43.8 15.6

Conductingeffectiveteacherevaluations 8.2 32.4 45.9 13.5

Negotiatingdistrictpolitics 8.2 23.5 48.1 20.2

Developing/maintainingapositiveschoolclimate 7.9 39.3 39.8 12.9

Assessment/evaluationofinstructionalprogram 7.9 44.7 39.5 7.9

Negotiatingcommunitypolitics 7.9 24.2 46.9 21.0

Planningandimplementationofcurriculumgoals 7.6 46.1 37.7 8.7

Supervisionofinstructionalprogram 7.4 40.0 43.4 9.2

Conductingeffectiveclassroomobservations 7.4 32.1 47.4 13.1

Negotiatingschoolpolitics 7.4 23.7 49.2 19.7

Managingorganizationalchange 7.2 35.5 44.7 12.6

Effectivefiscaladministration 6.9 21.0 53.3 18.8

Assessment/evaluationofstaff 6.7 29.9 50.9 12.4

Visioning 6.4 35.3 45.9 12.4

Assessment/evaluationofstudents 5.6 35.3 47.2 11.9

Useofeffectivecommunicationsandpresentations 5.2 28.9 48.9 17.0

Workingwithspecialinterestgroups 4.7 21.8 52.6 20.8


77

Question: What strategies are you most likely to use to address your own professional learning needs?

Whenaskedwhichstrategiestheyweremostlikelytousetoaddresstheirprofessionallearningneeds,respondentsidentifiedthefollowingfivestrategiesaseitherhighlyormoderatelylikely(Table8.2):

• Participationinschool-levelopportunities(highlylikely:67.1%;moderatelylikely:26.9%),

• Participationindistrict-providedopportunities(highlylikely:64.9%;moderatelylikely:30.6%),

• Readingjournalsandbooks(highlylikely:51.8%;moderatelylikely:40%),• Face-to-facenetworkingwithfellowprofessionals(highlylikely:49.1%;moderately

likely:43.7%),and• Attendanceatstateassociationconferences(highlylikely:45%;moderatelylikely:

37.8%).

Interestingly,littlehaschangedsince2008;thesurveyrespondentsinthatyearidentifiedthesesameprofessionaldevelopmentstrategies.Alsolikein2008,respondentsindicatedtheywereunlikely to enroll in either a graduate or nondegree program to support their professionallearning.Alsoofinterest,over10%ofrespondentsindicatedthattheyhadnoaccesstotheuseofamentor.

Question: Have you participated in any online development programs? If yes, what is your assessment of the experience?

Morethanhalfofrespondents(56.3%)indicatedtheyhad participated in online development programs.Unlike in2008when this samequestionwasposed,therewaslittledifferenceinparticipationbyyearsofexperience. Similarly, gender did not seem to be afactor impacting participation either, as shown inTable 8.3. However, gender was a factor in howpositively participants rated their online experience.Women tended to rate their experiences as highly positive more often (64.1%) than men(48.5%). More experienced principals were slightly less taken with their online experiences

Principals responding to the 2018 survey reported

an increase in online professional development.


78

than their less experienced counterparts andmore likely to say they were unlikely to try itagain. Inexplainingwhytheywereunlikelytotryonlineprofessionaldevelopmentprogramsagain, respondents commented, “It is very difficult to replace the in-person experience,” “Istronglypreferthepersonalexperience,”and“Onlyifrequired.Impersonal.”

Table8.2PercentageofRespondentsIndicatingLikelihoodofUsingStrategiesforTheirOwnProfessionalDevelopment

StrategyHighlylikely

Moderatelylikely

Notlikely

Notavailable

Participationinschool-levelopportunities 67.1 26.9 4.0 2.0

Participationindistrict-providedopportunities

64.9 30.6 3.4 1.2

Readingjournals,books,etc. 51.8 40.0 7.6 0.7

Face-to-facenetworkingwithfellowprofessionals

49.1 43.7 6.4 0.8

Attendanceatstateassociationconferences

45.0 37.8 14.8 2.4

Attendanceatnationalassociationconferences

30.6 34.3 30.1 5.0

Participationinnationalassociationconferences

28.9 37.0 28.6 5.6

Onlinenetworkingwithfellowprofessionals 23.2 45.0 30.1 1.7

Useofamentor 19.0 33.6 37.1 10.3

Participationinonlinecourses/events 16.3 43.0 38.5 2.2

Enrollmentinagraduateprogram 12.6 16.0 66.2 5.2

Participationinuniversitynon-degreeprograms

5.0 22.4 64.9 7.7


79

Table8.3PercentageRespondentsIndicatingParticipationinOnlineProfessionalDevelopmentPrograms

Yearsasaprincipal Gender

Participation Total <5 5–14 15+ Male Female

Yes,haveparticipated 56.3 57.6 55.0 57.5 54.6 57.9

No 43.7 42.5 45.0 42.5 45.4 42.1

Ofthosewhosaid“Yes”:

Highlypositive,woulddoitagain 57.2 57.1 59.4 53.6 48.5 64.1

Notsogood,butwillingtotryagain 38.9 39.0 37.6 41.2 46.4 33.7

Highlyunlikelytotryagain 3.8 3.9 3.0 5.2 5.2 2.2

Summary

The need to address the developmental needs of principals at various career stages is welldocumentedintheliterature(Petersen&Kelley,2009).Responsestothe2018NAESP10-yearstudy identifymultiple areas of professional development need, including improving studentperformance, improving staff performance, understanding and applying technology, time

ARetrospectiveLookatProfessionalDevelopmentOpportunitiesFrom1928–2008

Schoolleadersworkingontheirownprofessionaldevelopmenthavedonesoinvaryingways.Someexamplesfrompriorreportsareasfollows:

• Takingsummerschoolclasses• Instructingcollege/universitycourses• Reading• Professionalorganizationmembershiporparticipation• Attendingmeetings• Homedefense• Professionalwritingopportunities• Committeework• Workshopandconferenceattendance• Onlineopportunities


80

management, using social media effectively, and school improvement planning. States anddistrictsmust pay attention to what principals identify as their learning needs and use thatinformation, alongwith the growing awareness of newmodels, to support principal learningthroughoutthecareerspan.Thisinformationcanbeusedtodevelopauthentic,relevant,andhigh-impactprofessionallearningopportunitiesforbuilding-leveleducationalleaders.


81

Chapter 9: Concerns of Principals How schools work and how they are led are subject to multiple and constantly shiftinginfluences. Each of the previousNAESP 10-year reports has articulated the key concerns ofpracticingbuilding-levelleaders.Althoughmanyoftheconcernsreflectthevaluesandeventsof a given decade, other challenges are more enduring. Increased emphasis on schooleffectiveness is prevalent in the current political context (e.g., Figlio & Loeb, 2011). Thisscrutinyhasitsrootsinthewidelypublicizedreport,ANationAtRisk(NationalCommissiononExcellenceinEducation,1983).Accordingtothe1988NAESP10-yearreport,

Thepast decadehasbeena timeof extraordinary change for elementary andmiddleschoolprincipals. Noperiod in thehistoryofeducation,eventhe“goldenyears”thatfollowed the launching of Sputnik, has witnessed such an intense focus on schooloperations andprogramquality as that touchedoff by thepublication in 1983of theU.S.DepartmentofEducation’sANationAtRisk:TheImperativeforEducationalReform.IssuedundertheauspicesofthenSecretaryofEducationT.H.Bell,ANationAtRisknotonlyhadanenormousimpactinandofitselfbuttouchedoffhalfahundredadditionalreports, each focusing on promoting the specific agenda of the sponsor as a way toimprovethenation'sschools.

The impact of these reports (and the actions they generated) came swiftly, and wasastonishing in its scope. The call for change, largely rooted in a return to a solidintellectualandacademicfocusandheavilypromotedasbeingnecessarytothenation'seconomic and political survival, resulted in the enactment of a range of new statemandates.…

At any rate, through all of the upheaval and uncertainty that change engenders,elementaryandmiddleschoolprincipalsmust“keepschool.”Theymustworkwiththestudentswhoareintheirclassrooms,theteacherswhoarealreadyontheirstaffs,theexistingcurriculum.Theymustfacetherealityofchanginghomeandfamilystructures,societalpressures, limitedfinancialresources,andthehostofotherproblemsthatarepresentintoday'sschools.(Doud,1988,pp.123–124)

Inthose10-yearstudieswhereNAESPincludedspecificquestionsfocusedonthe”concerns”ofelementaryandmiddle-schoolprincipals,readersareofferedaglimpseintothechallengesthatprincipalsfacedovertheyearsaswellashowthingshavechangedor,insomecases,remainedthesameoverseveraldecades.

Chapter 9: Concerns

82

In1958,someofthechallengesdiscussedinthereport includeda lackofclericalhelp,whichprincipalsfelt impactedtheirabilitytoprovideinstructionalsupport;aconcernthatprincipalswouldbeexpectedtotakeresponsibilityfor leadingmultipleschools;anddissatisfactionwithpreparationprograms.In1968,concernscontinuedwithregardtoclericalhelpaswellasthelackofofficespaceforschoolleaders.By1978,clericalstaffandspaceweredisplacedaskeyconcernsbycollectivebargaining.Whilemixedopinionswerereported,43%oftherespondingprincipalsfeltteachercollectivebargainingwashavinganegativeeffectoneducationquality,andanevenhigherpercentage(62%)saiditwashavinganegativeeffectonpublicopinion.Ofthoseprincipalswhohadexperiencedateachers’strikeintheirbuilding,almost50%feltthatithadstrainedtheirrelationshipwiththeirteachers.

As exemplified in the excerpt from the 1988 10-year study above (Doud, 1988), the decadebetween1978and1988borewitnesstoaheightenedfocusoneducationaleffectiveness.Thisfocus was reflected in the concerns expressed by respondents to the 1988 survey. Issuesconsideredtobemajorproblemsincludedprovidingprogramsforunderachievers,copingwithstate regulations and initiatives, effectively meshing instruction with special academicprograms,andparentinvolvement.

With the increased focus on educationalexcellence cameanevolution in theexpectationsforeducational leaders. Theseexpectationswerecaptured in the 1996 ISLLC standards for schoolleaders, a set of standards that reframedleadership around six key areas: leading andnavigating the school’s (a) vision, (b) instruction,(c)operatingandmanagementsystems,(d)familyand community involvement, (e) ethics, and (f)educationalpolitics. It isnottoosurprising,then,thatby199872%ofrespondentstotheNAESP10-yearstudyrankedfragmentationoftheprincipal’stime first on the list of overall concerns (Doud&

Approved by NPBEA in 1996, the ISLLC standards were

adopted or adapted by over 40 states. These standards were revised in 2008 and

again in 2015, resulting in a change of name to the Practice Standards for

Educational Leaders (PSEL).

ARetrospectiveLookatUnionsin1962and1978

The first collective bargaining agreement between school officials andteacherswassignedin1962(Loeb&Miller,2006).Itisunsurprising,then,that the 1978 report focused more attention on the membership,operations,andperceivedimpactofunionsandcollectivebargaining.

Chapter 9: Concerns

83

Keller,1998).Thisconcernwasfollowedbythreeothersthatreflectthechangingexpectationsforschoolsandschoolleadersintheabsenceofincreasedresourcestosupportthosechanges:studentassessment issues,studentsnotperforminguptopotential,and inadequate financialresources.

By2008,thefocusoneducationalexcellencehadevolvedintoeducationalaccountability.Thereauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act as NCLB (2002) introducedhigh-stakesstateaccountability intopubliceducation. Insteadofaskingprincipals to identifychallenges, the200810-year study (Protheroe,2008)provideda listof challengesandaskedrespondents, “How do principals in 2008 view these challenges?” The list of 58 concernsincluded inthesurvey instrumentwere identifiedbypracticingprincipalsandgrouped in fivedomains: program related, students, faculty/staff, stakeholders, and management. Threeprogram-related themes were ranked first among the 58 concerns, including providing acontinuum of services for students at risk (78.7%), student assessment (71.5%), andinstructional practice (69.6%). Other top concerns were the development of staff (68.3%),studentsnotperforming to theirpotential (67.8%), fragmentationofprincipal’s time (66.8%),financial resources (64.6%), increase in the number of students with emotional problems(63.15), includingassessment resultsof studentswithdisabilities inadequateyearlyprogresscalculations (62.1%), teacher performance (59.3%), implementing state (54.7%) and federal(50.6%)mandates,andpromotinginstructionalinclusionandcollaboration(52.9%).

Question: To what extent is each of the items currently or potentially (within the next year) a concern in the school for which you are now responsible?

Twelveareaswereidentifiedaseitherofextremeorhighconcerninthe2018NAESP10-yearstudy. Theseconcerns, listed inTable9.1, includethetopthreerankedconcerns from2008.However, the 2008 concerns (providing a continuum of services, student assessment, andinstructionalpractices)didnotrankinthetopthreein2018.Rather,theyweresupersededbyconcerns regarding the increased numbers of studentswith emotional problems andmentalhealthissuesaswellasstudentsnotperformingtotheirlevelofpotential.

The top-ranked concern for principals in 2018 was the increase in the numbers of

students with emotional problems.

Chapter 9: Concerns

84

Table9.1AreasCharacterizedasanExtremeorHighConcernby50%orMorePrincipals,2018

Area %ofprincipals

Increaseinthenumbersofstudentswithemotionalproblems 73.7Studentmentalhealthissues 65.5Studentsnotperformingtotheirlevelofpotential 62.3Providingacontinuumofservicesforstudentswhoareatrisk 61.6Studentassessment 57.2Studentpoverty 56.5Instructionalpractices 55.8Teacherperformance/effectiveness 55.1Professionaldevelopmentofstaff 55.0Fragmentationofprincipal’stime 53.5Managementofstudentbehavior 52.5Financialresources 50.8

Inthefollowingfivesubsections,weprovideasetoftables(Tables9.2–9.6)throughwhichweshare more insight into respondents’ perspectives in each of the five challenge domains:programrelated,students,faculty/staff,stakeholders,andmanagement.

Question: To what extent is each of the following program-related issues currently or potentially (within the next year) a concern in the school for which you are now responsible?

Respondentstothe2018NAESP10-yearsurveyidentifiedanumberofprogram-relatedissuesasbeingofmoderate,high,andextremeconcern. Amongthose issues identifiedasextremeconcerns were the increase in the number of students with emotional problems.Approximately40%rankedthisasanextremeconcern,another34%rankeditofhighconcern,and19%rankeditofmoderateconcern(seeTable9.2).

Following behind concerns regarding the increased number of students with emotionalproblemswerestudentsnotperformingtotheirlevelofpotential(22%rankedthisanextremeconcern, 40% as of high concern, and 27.5% as of moderate concern) and providing acontinuumofservicesforstudentswhoareatrisk(21%rankedthisanextremeconcern,40.5%asofhighconcern,and30%rankeditofmoderateconcern).

Chapter 9: Concerns

85

Interestingly,onlyoneofthesethreeissueswaslistedamongthehighestrankingconcernsin2008,providinga continuumof services for studentsat risk,whichwas rankedhighest. Theother two highest ranking concerns in 2008 were student assessment and instructionalpractice.

Table9.2PercentageofPrincipalsIdentifyingProgram-RelatedConcerns

LevelofconcernAreaofpotentialconcern Extreme High Moderate Low None

Increaseinthenumbersofstudentswithemotionalproblems

39.9 33.8 18.8 6.1 1.5

Studentsnotperformingtotheirlevelsofpotential

22.1 40.2 27.5 9.0 1.1

Providingacontinuumofservicesforstudentswhoareatrisk

21.2 40.4 29.7 6.3 2.4

Decliningorflat-linedstandardizedtestscores

17.3 27.7 34.5 15.3 5.2

Studentassessment 16.4 40.8 31.4 9.6 1.9Specialeducationprogram 14.2 31.6 33.2 17.7 3.3Assessmentresultsofstudentswithdisabilitiesforschoolaccountabilitypurposes

14.0 33.6 34.7 14.8 3.0

Schoolinvolvementwithdeliveryofsocialservices

13.8 24.0 35.2 18.6 8.3

Instructionalpractices 13.7 42.1 32.8 8.9 2.3Curriculumdevelopment 11.6 30.8 38.2 15.5 3.9Ensuringinclusion/collaborationwithrespecttoinstructionofstudentswithdisabilities

10.7 33.0 32.8 19.4 4.1

Addressingtheneedsofaculturallydiversepopulation

10.2 19.4 33.0 29.2 8.3

EducationofEnglishlanguagelearners 8.7 16.7 29.9 28.8 15.9Implementingprekindergartenprograms 6.5 14.9 23.6 24.0 31.0Englishlanguagelearnerprogram 6.5 15.7 28.6 32.3 17.0Implementingextended-dayprograms/summerprograms

6.1 14.0 30.3 29.9 19.7

Giftedandtalentedprogram 4.4 11.3 34.9 32.8 16.6Educationofgiftedandtalentedstudents 3.3 14.9 38.4 31.6 11.8

Chapter 9: Concerns

86

Question: To what extent is each of the following student-related issues currently or potentially (within the next year) a concern in the school for which you are now responsible?

In2008,noneofthestudent-relatedissueswasidentifiedasamajorconcernbyamajorityofrespondents. This, unfortunately, is not the case with the 2018 NAESP 10-year survey.Respondents identified a number of student-related issues as being of moderate, high, andextremeconcern.Amongthoseissuesidentifiedbyamajorityofrespondentsasanextremeorhigh concern were the management of student behavior, student mental health issues,absenteeism, lack of effective adult supervision at home, and student poverty. Of these,studentmentalhealthissuesgarneredthemostconcern,with33.4%ofrespondentsdescribing

ARetrospectiveLookatPrincipals’ConcernsAboutTheirSchools’PhysicalPlantin1928

In early surveys, a concern of principals and of the authors alike was the lack ofphysicalofficespacefortheindividualservingastheschoolprincipal.Althoughthemajority of principals in 1928 reported they had their own office, they expressedconcern about having the appropriate amount of space and materials, such as aconferenceroomavailablefor“professionalstudyaswellasforprivatediscussions”(National Education Association, 1928, p. 128). The office was clearly a pervasiveconcernasa17-pagechapterinthe1928studyfocusedonthisarea.Inthischapter,“TheElementarySchoolPrincipal’sOffice,”principals’officeswerereportedoftentoservemany purposes as awaiting room, storage, library, or even amedical room.Theofficeormanyofficeswerenotconducivetofulfillingtheneedsoftheposition.Principalsreportedlackofsupplies,suchasbookshelves.In2018,theseconcernsarenotasreadilyreported,indicatingthatunderstandingandappreciatingthestructuralneeds that help principals meet basic work setting needs has led to theserequirementsbeingmet.

This chapter in the 1928 report included data from principals about the officelocation,use,andmaterials.Sixteendifferentfloorplanswerepresentedofferinganarray of design options. The chapter also suggested that essentials of the officeinclude a convenient location, at least two rooms, space suggestions, organizationsuggestions,andadequateheatingandlighting.Suggestedequipmentincludedcorkbulletinboards,teachers’boxes,adesk,typewriter,trashcans,sliderule,andsafe.

Chapter 9: Concerns

87

this as an extreme concern and 32.1 % as a high concern. An additional 25.3% rated it amoderateconcern(seeTable9.3).Thisfindingreflectstheprogram-relatedconcernregardingtheincreasednumberofstudentswithemotionalproblems.

Table9.3PercentageofPrincipalsIdentifyingConcernsAboutStudentIssues

LevelofconcernAreaofpotentialconcern Extreme High Moderate Low None

Studentmentalhealthissues 33.4 32.1 25.3 8.1 1.1Studentpoverty 25.7 30.8 28.8 12.2 2.6Managementofstudentbehavior 20.9 31.6 33.0 13.1 1.5Lackofeffectiveadultsupervisionathome 20.5 29.0 31.4 16.1 3.1Safetyandsecurityofstudents 16.6 25.8 34.9 18.6 4.1Bullyingthroughsocialmedia 12.6 18.5 33.4 26.8 8.9Studenthomelessness 11.3 22.0 31.7 29.9 5.2Emotionalbullying 11.3 28.4 38.4 19.7 2.2Childabuse 10.2 24.0 34.0 27.1 4.8Studentstressoverself-identity 8.5 18.5 34.1 31.4 7.6Useofhand-heldtechnologicaltoolsintheclassroom(e.g.,cellphones,tablets)

7.0 14.6 31.7 34.5 12.2

Addictiontoonlineoptions(videogames,socialmedia,etc.)

6.6 15.9 31.6 29.0 17.0

Absenteeism 5.7 17.0 41.7 31.9 3.7Studentphysicalhealthissuessuchasobesity,asthma,etc.

5.7 17.0 41.7 31.9 3.7

Physicalbullying 5.5 15.7 40.6 33.0 5.2Studentintoleranceofotherstudents(race,ethnicity,class,sexualorientation,nationality,etc.)

4.4 10.3 32.5 39.3 13.5

Sexualharassmentofstudentsbyotherstudents

3.3 7.2 24.0 45.8 19.7

Inappropriatesexualbehavior 2.6 7.9 21.0 43.2 25.3Violenceinschools 2.6 5.5 17.5 39.7 34.7Useofdrugs 2.4 3.9 14.8 38.2 40.8Useofalcoholicbeverages 2.0 3.5 14.9 36.7 42.8Sexualorientation(includingtransgenderstudents)

2.0 3.7 19.4 45.0 30.0

Vandalism 1.9 4.4 18.1 45.9 29.7Gangactivity 1.3 2.2 10.9 30.8 54.8Useoftobaccoproducts 1.1 2.2 13.7 38.4 44.7

Chapter 9: Concerns

88

Although no student-related issues were identified as a major concern by a majority ofprincipals in 2008, the three top-rated student concerns were management of studentbehavior,safetyandsecurityofstudents,andbullying.Clearlytheconcernsregardingstudentpopulationshaveshiftedoverthelastdecade.

Question: To what extent is each of the following faculty-staff issues currently or potentially (within the next year) a concern in the school for which you are now responsible?

Respondentstothe2018NAESP10-yearsurveyidentifiedonlytwofaculty-staffissuesasbeinga major concern: teacher performance/effectiveness and professional development of staff.Interestingly,thesewerethesameconcerns identified inthe2008study. Specifically,16.2%rated teacherperformance/effectivenessasanextremeconcern,and38.9% identified it asahigh concern. Similarly, 15.3% consideredprofessional development as anextreme concern,andanother40%rankeditofhighconcern.

Interestingly, quite a few items appeared to be of no concern to the majority of principalsresponding to the 10-year survey: sexual harassment among the staff in the school, sexualharassmentofstudentsbystaff,andtheuseofalcoholicbeveragesordrugsamongtheschoolstaff.Furthermore,themajorityofrespondentsrated11ofthe16itemsasbeingoflittleornoconcern(seeTable9.4).

Similar to 2008, in 2018 principals identified only two faculty and staff issues: teacher performance and effectiveness and staff professional development.

In addition to student mental health, respondents indicated highest concern for management of student behavior, absenteeism, lack

of effective adult supervision, and student poverty.

Chapter 9: Concerns

89

Table9.4PercentageofPrincpialsIdentifyingConcernsAboutFaculty-StaffIssues

Levelofconcern

Areaofpotentialconcern Extreme High Moderate Low None

Teachershortages/difficultyinhiringqualifiedteachers

17.0 17.7 26.4 24.5 14.4

Teacherperformance/effectiveness 16.2 38.9 33.6 10.0 1.3

Teacher/staffmorale 15.5 26.6 38.8 16.2 3.0

Professionaldevelopmentofstaff 15.3 39.7 32.5 11.3 1.3

Teacherresistancetoimprovementefforts 12.9 25.7 37.3 21.6 2.6

Teacher/staffmentalhealth 10.9 26.6 36.4 22.5 3.7

Absenteeism 7.9 13.3 29.7 33.6 15.5

Safetyandsecurityofstaff 6.6 13.1 29.3 37.1 13.8

Teacherturnover 5.5 10.0 18.8 34.3 31.4

Abilityoffacultystafftoengageinrespectfulinterpersonalrelationshipswithotherfaculty/staff

4.2 12.6 29.3 33.4 20.5

Teacher/staffhealthissues 3.9 9.8 33.0 39.7 13.7

Teacherintoleranceofstudentdifferences(race,ethnicity,class,sexualorientation,nationality,etc.)

2.8 7.6 19.9 38.2 31.6

Teacherself-identity 1.5 4.6 13.8 31.8 48.2

Sexualharassmentamongthestaffintheschool

1.3 1.3 9.0 35.8 52.6

Sexualharassmentofstudentsbystaff 1.3 1.1 8.1 30.6 58.9

Staffgrievancesfiledthroughemployeeunions 1.3 4.2 10.7 38.6 45.2

Useofalcoholicbeveragesamongthestaffoftheschool

1.1 0.9 6.5 31.9 59.6

Useofdrugsamongthestaffintheschool 0.9 0.6 4.8 28.0 65.7

Question: To what extent is each of the following stakeholder issues currently or potentially (within the next year) a concern in the school for which you are now responsible?

Intheareaofstakeholderissues,respondentstothe2018NAESP10-yearsurveyidentifiedonlyoneissueasbeingofmajorconcern:financialresources. Approximately25.1%rankedthisas

Chapter 9: Concerns

90

an extreme concern, and another 25.7% ranked it of high concern (Table 9.5). The level ofparentalinvolvementwasalsoofconcern,thoughitwasidentifiedbyjustunderamajorityofrespondents. Approximately 15.7% ranked this as an extreme concern, and another 29.7%rankeditofhighconcern.

Interestingly, both of these issues were identified in the 2008 study. Further, financialresourceswas identifiedasamajorconcernbyjustoveramajorityandparental involvementwas identified by just under amajority of respondents. Worth noting, home schooling andpublicschoolalternativesalongwiththeconditionoftheschool’sphysicalfacilitywereratedoflittleornoconcernbythemajorityofparticipants.

Table9.5PercentageofPrincipalsIdentifyingConcernsAboutStakeholderIssues

Levelofconcern


Financialresources 25.1 25.7 33.2 9.8 6.3

Levelofparentalinvolvement 15.7 29.7 34.7 15.9 4.1

Publicschoolalternatives(vouchersandchoiceprograms)

14.4 16.8 24.2 26.0 18.6

Communitysupportforpublicschools 9.8 26.2 34.7 23.8 5.5

Parenttraining/advocacy/education 8.7 20.5 38.4 24.5 7.9

Conditionofthephysicalfacility 7.4 14.2 26.8 33.2 18.5

Homeschooling 0.9 5.2 18.5 47.2 28.2

Question: To what extent is each of the following management issues currently or potentially (within the next year) a concern in the school for which you are now responsible?

Respondentstothe2018NAESP10-yearsurveyidentifiedonlyonemanagementissueasbeingof major concern: the fragmentation of their time. Approximately 22.5% ranked this as anextremeconcern,andanother31%ranked itofhighconcern (seeTable9.6). This issuewasalso identified in the2008study,alongwith implementingstatemandatesand implementingfederal mandates. Although these latter issues were identified as concerns, the level ofconcerndidnotcomparetothefragmentationoftime.

Chapter 9: Concerns

91

Interestingly, quite a few items appeared to be of no concern to the majority of principalsrespondingtothe10-yearsurvey, includingdeclineinstudentenrollment, increaseinstudentenrollment, inadequate availability of technology or support services, attendance at centralofficemeetings,andtheneedtomarkettheschooltopreventstudenttransfers.

Table9.6PercentageofPrincipalsIdentifyingConcernsAboutManagementIssues

Levelofconcern


Fragmentationofyourtime 22.5 31.0 27.7 13.7 5.2

Evaluationofteachersandstaff 15.7 33.2 34.7 13.3 3.1

Implementationofstatemandates 13.7 26.0 35.4 19.2 5.7

Implementationoffederalmandates 12.2 24.5 35.4 21.4 6.5

Centralofficecontrolofdecisionsthatshouldbeschoolbased

10.3 15.3 27.7 31.0 15.7

Dismissalofincompetentstaff 10.2 14.2 27.1 35.4 13.1

Schoolfacilities 9.8 14.8 27.1 31.9 16.4

Attendanceatcentralofficemeetings 8.5 14.9 25.5 33.8 17.3

Demandsforinformationfromcentraloffice 8.1 18.6 29.5 31.9 11.8

Needsofdifferentteachers(millennialteachersvs.olderteachers)

7.9 20.7 37.8 26.0 7.6

Declineinstudentenrollment 6.8 14.0 21.0 29.5 28.6

Needtoadvertise/marketyourschoolasawaytocombatstudentstransferring

6.6 12.4 21.2 31.4 28.4

Increaseinstudentenrollment 6.5 11.3 25.3 32.5 24.5

Inadequateavailabilityoftechnologyorsupportservices

5.5 14.4 28.2 33.2 18.6

Widerangeofdifferentteacherabilities 5.5 18.8 36.0 33.2 6.5

Crisismanagement 5.4 14.6 34.3 38.0 7.8

Inadequateavailabilityofstafftrainingfortechnologyuse

5.4 16.1 35.2 31.0 12.4

Developmentofemergencyprocedures(e.g.,activeshooter)

4.6 14.9 31.2 35.4 13.8

Chapter 9: Concerns

92

Question: Has your own sense of job security decreased in the last 3 years? If yes, what are some of the reasons why?

Identifying challenges and understanding workplace conditions are not only important forunderstanding thepressureseducational leadershave facedover theyearsand their levelofjobsatisfaction,butalsocanprovideusefulinsightintotheirsenseofjobsecurity.Inthe2018NAESP10-yearstudy, themajorityofprincipals reportedfeelingaboutthesamesenseof job

ARetrospectiveLookatPrincipals’ConcernsRegardingClericalStaffin1928,1958,1968,1998,and2008

A second concern found throughout early reports was lack of paid clerical staff tosupportthework.Over70%ofprincipalsinthe1928datadidnotreportworkingwithafull-timepaidclerk. Further, theauthorswereunimpressedwiththeexpectationsandskill-levelsofthetypicalclerkswhoheldthesepositions. Theauthorsarguethatmoreclericalworkwouldbebeneficialso

more time could be secured for supervision and other technical work by(1) reducing thenumberof reportsand similardemands requiredofprincipals,(2) providing principals with assistance in accordance with their needs, and(3)trainingprincipalstomakefulluseofthehelpprovidedandtocapitalizeonthefreetimesecured”(NationalEducationAssociation,1928,p.264).

By 1988, over 92% of schools had at least one full-time secretary or clerical assistant(Doud&Keller,1988,p.63).

Areasontheclericalstaffconcernisthreadedthroughthesereportsislikelylinkedtothedistributionof time thataprincipal spendsondifferingaspectsof the job,particularlyadministrative work. Principals throughout the studies commented on not havingenough time to spend on elements of instructional improvement (e.g., NationalEducationAssociation,1958,p.101;NationalEducationAssociation,1968,p.51).

Itmaybeusefultonotethatalthoughtheconcernofnothavingafull-timesecretaryorcleric to assist in addressing the administrative concerns seemed to dissipate as thereportbecamemorerecent,principalsarestillconcernedabouttheirallocationoftime,as evidenced by the following 1998 segment: “Fragmentation of timewas clearly themost pervasive management issue for respondents (72% identified this as a majorconcern)” (Doud& Keller, 1998, p. 73). The terms secretary, clerk, andadministrativeassistantarenot included inthe1998or2008reports. Supportstaff isatopicofdatacollection,however.

Chapter 9: Concerns

93

securityovertheprior3years,withthesenseofjobsecuritybeinghigherinallcategoriesformoreseniorprincipals.Genderdidnotprovideanysignificantdifferences,thoughmenappeartofeelslightlymoresecurethanwomen.Incomparisonto2008responses,principalsappeartohaveagreatersenseofjobsecuritytoday(seeTable9.7).

Table9.7PercentageofPrincipalsIndicatingSenseofJobSecurityOverthePrior3Years

Yearsasprincipal GenderRating Total <5 5–14 15+ Male Female

Feelingmuchmoresecure 5.1 2.4 4.3 8.8 8.1 4.1Feelingmoresecure 12.3 15.3 13.6 7.5 11.5 11.5Hasstayedaboutthesame 54.8 45.2 54.7 63.3 51.2 57.6Feelinglesssecure 13.6 10.5 15.9 12.2 19.5 11.2Feelingmuchlesssecure 7.9 7.3 9.3 6.1 5.2 8.1Notapplicable 6.2 19.4 2.3 2.0 4.6 7.5

Question: Relative to your own feelings of job security, indicate the extent to which each of the items listed is currently or potentially (within the next year) an area of concern.

In addition to sharing their feelings regarding their job security, principals were asked tocommentontheconcernsthat impactedtheirsenseofstability. Respondentswereaskedtorate 13 concerns, which in previous studies were correlated with principals’ feelings of jobsecurity.Noneofthe13areaswasidentifiedbyamajorityofrespondentsasthreatstotheirjobsecurity. In fact,nineofthe13concernswereconsideredofnoconcerntoamajorityofprincipals. The top-ranked issues were unsatisfactory student performance (36.7%) andaccountabilityissues(36.5%),suchasfailureofschooltomeetstatestandards.Thefollowingcomments reflect some of the concerns regarding accountability: “Pressure ofmaintaining aparticularaccountabilitylabel,”“Thedistricthasremovedanddemotedanumberofprincipalsbasedontestscoresalone,”“Thereisconstantpressure,”“I’mheldaccountableforthingsthatareoutsideofmycontrol,”and“Thestatetestingprogramisinshambles,andyetthisisusedfor accountability.” After that, the percentage of principals’ selection of themajor concernoptiondecreasedsharplytothesingledigits(seeTable9.8).

Similarpatternswereevidentinthe2008study,wherenoneofthefactorswasidentifiedbyamajorityofrespondents,andaccountabilitywasidentifiedasoneofthetopconcernsby40%of

Chapter 9: Concerns

94

respondents.Reachingbackto1998,only20.9%ofrespondentsidentifiedaccountability(i.e.,failuretomeetdistrictorstatestandards)asamajorconcern.

Table9.8PercentageofPrincipalsIdentifyingProblemsCurrentlyorPotentially(WithintheNextYear)RelatedtoJobSecurity,2018

Yearsasprincipal GenderProblem Total% <5 5–14 15+ Male Female

Unsatisfactorystudentperformance

Majorconcern 36.7 37.9 39.2 31.3 32.8 39.3Minorconcern 43.1 42.7 41.1 46.9 47.7 40.2Notaconcern 20.2 19.4 19.8 21.8 19.5 20.6

Accountabilityissuessuchasfailureofschooltomeetstatestandards


ConflictswithteachersMajorconcern 9.8 8.9 10.9 8.8 9.2 10.6Minorconcern 43.5 46.8 44.2 39.5 44.3 42.7Notaconcern 46.7 44.4 45.0 51.7 46.6 46.7

ConflictswithsuperintendentMajorconcern 11.2 7.3 11.6 13.6 12.6 10.9Minorconcern 24.6 21.0 25.2 26.5 27.6 22.7Notaconcern 64.3 71.8 63.2 59.9 59.8 66.4

ConflictswithparentsMajorconcern 9.5 7.3 12.4 6.1 10.3 9.7Minorconcern 45.0 50.0 41.5 46.9 43.1 45.4

Notaconcern 45.6 42.7 46.1 46.9 46.6 44.9Conflictswithschool-basedadvisorygroup

Majorconcern 2.1 0.0 3.5 1.4 2.9 1.9Minorconcern 24.0 24.2 23.3 25.2 25.3 23.1

Notaconcern 73.9 75.8 73.3 73.5 71.8 75.1Lackofsuperintendentsupport

Majorconcern 16.5 11.3 16.3 21.1 17.2 17.1

Minorconcern 26.1 27.4 25.6 25.9 23.0 26.5Notaconcern 57.5 61.3 58.1 53.1 59.8 56.4

Superintendent/supervisorturnover Majorconcern 17.2 19.4 15.1 19.1 14.9 19.0


Chapter 9: Concerns

95

Yearsasprincipal GenderProblem Total% <5 5–14 15+ Male Female

Litigation Majorconcern 7.9 7.3 8.5 7.5 5.8 9.4Minorconcern 29.5 26.6 29.8 31.3 33.9 26.5

Notaconcern 62.6 66.1 61.6 61.2 60.3 64.2Reductioninforceduetodecliningenrollment

Majorconcern 12.1 12.1 12.4 11.6 9.8 13.7


Reorganization/consolidationofschools Majorconcern 10.2 8.9 11.2 9.5 8.1 11.8


Poorpersonalperformanceevaluation Majorconcern 5.7 4.8 7.0 4.1 8.6 4.4


Unpreparednessinsomeareaofleadership


Question: Have you ever been named in a civil suit related to your position as principal? To what was the complaint related? Were you satisfied with the outcome?

As in past decades, very fewprincipals indicated thatthey had been named in a civil suit. In 1998, 10.6%indicatedthattheyhadbeennamedinacivilsuit.Thisreducedto4.5%in2008buthasrisenagainto10.44%in the2018 study. The issues leading to the civil suitvaried widely among the respondents, with the toptwo reasons involving special education issues andliabilityforstudentinjury.Respondentsweresplitoverhow satisfied theywerewith the outcome of the civil suit, with 41.97% indicated that theyweresatisfied,15.12%indicatingthattheyweresomewhatsatisfied,and42.91%indicatingthattheywerenotsatisfied.

Special education issues were the most common

reason for a principal being named in a civil suit.

Chapter 9: Concerns

96

Summary

Principalswereaskedtosharetheirinsightintofivekeyareasofconcernrelatedtotheirwork:programrelated,students,faculty/staff,stakeholders,andmanagement.Accordingtothedata,12 issues were identified as major issues of concern by a majority of respondents. Theseconcernsincludedthreerelatedtostudentbehaviorandstudentemotionalandmentalhealth(an increase in thenumbersof studentswithemotionalproblemsandstudentmentalhealthissuesandmanagementofstudentbehavior),onefocusedonstudentdemographics(studentpoverty),andthreerelatedtostudentachievementandsupports(studentsnotperformingtotheir levels of potential, student assessment, and providing a continuum of services forstudents at risk). Two concerns focused on teaching (instructional practices and teacherperformance/effectiveness), and one focused on professional staff development. Financialresources were also within the top 12 major concerns, as was the fragmentation of theprincipal’stime.

Although the above list includes significant challenges for pre-K-8 principals, themajority ofrespondents reported feeling a fairly high sense of job security, which was also the case in2008.


97

Chapter 10: Future Career Intentions Maintaining strong leadership in a school requires a committed and stable principal. It takesseveralyearstobuildthetrust,relationships,routines,andinnerknowledgeoftheschool,andresearchhasshownthatittakes5–7yearsforaprincipaltoenactmeaningfulchange(Fullan,1991, 2002). When principals leave, schools not only undergo decreases in studentachievement (Miller, 2013), but the transition to a new principal also often undermines thepositive climate and social linkages that support both student and teacher success (Klingner,Boardman,&McMaster,2013;Loeb,Kalogrides,&Horng,2010).

Futurecareer intentionsofprincipals,examined inthischapter,arean important indicatorofhowsatisfiedcurrentprincipalsare,aswellashowmanyprincipalsaregoingtobeleavingthepositioninthenearfuture.Giventhatresearchersoftenhaveraisedconcernatthedifficultyinfillingvacantpositionsandthehighlevelsofturnoveramongprincipals(Loebetal.,2010;Papa,2007), it is importanttounderstandthefutureemployment intentionsofcurrentlyemployedprincipals.

Question: What are your future intentions in the next 3 years?

Fromthe2018NAESP10-yearstudy,showninTable10.1,62%ofprincipalsindicatedtheywereplanningonremainingemployedasaprincipalat theircurrentschool. Aside fromstaying intheir current position, another 9% indicated their intention to move to a central officeleadership role, specifically as an associate superintendent or superintendent. This wasfollowed by intentions to move to central office for a nonassociate or nonsuperintendentposition. Relatively few principals indicated that they were planning on transferring to adifferent school in either their owndistrict (4%)or anotherdistrict (6%). Finally, only 2%ofrespondents indicated they were planning on leaving education entirely, and just under 9%wereplanningonretiring.

Midcareer principals were more invested in their own districts and thereby wanted to stay in the system, whereas newer principals might have felt more mobile between districts.

Chapter 10: Future Intentions

98

Table10.1PercentageofPrincipalsIndicatingFutureIntentionsintheNext3Years

YearsasaprincipalIntention


Remainaprincipalatmycurrentschool 62.3 64.2 67.1 53.5Becomeaprincipalatadifferentschoolinmycurrentdistrict

3.8 2.8 3.7 2.1

Becomeaprincipalatadifferentschoolinanotherdistrict

5.8 11.0 3.7 4.2

Moveintoacentralofficerole(notanassociatesuperintendentorsuperintendent)

6.3 4.6 7.3 4.2

Moveintoacentralofficeleadershiprole(associatesuperintendentorsuperintendent)

8.7 11.9 10.2 3.5

Becomeahighereducationfacultymember 1.9 0.9 0.4 5.6Leavetheformaleducationsystem 2.4 1.8 2.9 2.8Retire 8.7 2.8 4.9 23.9

Future Intentions by Principal Experience

Reportedcareer intentionsdiffered,however,byexperienceasaprincipal.Notsurprisingly,afargreaterpercentageofrespondentswith15ormoreyearsofexperience(24%)reportedanintentiontoretirethaneitherprincipalswithlessthan5yearsofexperience(3%)orprincipalswith5–14yearsofexperience(5%).Incontrast,lessexperiencedprincipalsweremorelikelytoindicate an intention to move into a central office role than more experienced principals.Specifically, about 16% of respondents with less than 5 years of experience and 17% ofprincipalswith5–14 yearsof experience indicated their intention tomove into some centralofficerole.Finally,agreaterpercentageofrespondentswithfewerthan5yearsofexperience(11%) indicated they intended tobecomeaprincipal in another school thaneitherprincipalswith5–14yearsofexperience(4%)orprincipalswith15ormoreyearsofexperience(4%).

These results suggest midcareer and experienced principals are more invested in their ownschoolsanddistrictsandwanttoremain intheircurrentsystem. Lessexperiencedprincipalsfeellessattachmentandcommitmenttotheircurrentschoolanddistrict.

Future Intentions by Total Education Experience

Resultswerefairlysimilarwhendisaggregatedbytotaleducationexperience,asshowninTable10.2. For respondents with a total education experience (teacher, assistant principal, and


99

principal) of less than 20 years, moving to a central office leadership role as an associatesuperintendent or superintendentwas the secondmost frequently reported intention (13%)afterremainingintheircurrentschool(62%).Thesameheldtrueforrespondentswith20–27years of total education experience. Principals with 28 or more years of total educationexperiencemostfrequentlyindicatedintentionstoretire(21%).

Table10.2PercentageofPrincipalsIndicatingFutureIntentionsintheNext3Years,byYearsofExperienceinEducation

YearsineducationIntention <20 20–27 28+

Remainaprincipalatmycurrentschool 61.7 63.4 62.0Becomeaprincipalatadifferentschoolinmycurrentdistrict

4.4 4.0 3.1

Becomeaprincipalatadifferentschoolinanotherdistrict 8.7 6.3 2.1Moveintoacentralofficerole(notanassociatesuperintendentorsuperintendent)

9.2 6.3 3.1


12.6 11.4 2.1

Becomeahighereducationfacultymember 0.5 1.7 3.7Leavetheformaleducationsystem 2.9 1.7 2.6Retire 0.0 5.1 21.4

Future Intentions by Gender and Race/Ethnicity

Future intentionswerefairlyconsistentacrossgenderandrace/ethnicityaswell,asshown inTable 10.3. Specifically, a slightly greater percentage of female than male respondentsindicated intentions to remain in the education system; conversely, a slightly greaterpercentageofmalethanfemalerespondents indicated intentionsto leaveeducationentirely.These very slight differences are explained by differences in age and experience betweenfemaleandmalerespondents.Thus,theresultssuggestnosubstantialdifferencesinintentionsbygender.

Small numbers of respondents for specific racial/ethnic categoriesmake comparisons acrossgroups of respondents more complicated. Despite some apparent differences in futureintention across racial/ethnic groups, a statistical analysis of the data suggests few realdifferences in the patterns of intention. Most importantly, there were no substantial


100

differences between respondents from different racial/ethnic groups with respect to statedintentionstoremainatthesameschool.

Table10.3PercentageofPrincipalsIndicatingFutureIntentionsintheNext3Years,byGenderandRace

Gender RaceIntention Female Male Asian Black Hispanic White

Remainaprincipalatmycurrentschool

64.4 59.0 44.4 54.2 63.6 63.2

Becomeaprincipalatadifferentschoolinmycurrentdistrict

4.2 2.6 22.2 8.3 18.2 2.8


5.3 6.3 0.0 4.2 0.0 5.9


6.6 5.8 22.2 4.2 0.0 6.3


7.4 11.6 0.0 25.0 18.2 7.7

Becomeahighereducationfacultymember

1.9 2.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.2

Leavetheformaleducationsystem

2.4 2.6 0.0 4.2 0.0 2.6

Retire 7.9 10.0 11.1 0.0 0.0 9.3Note.Certaincategorieswereomittedduetolowresponserates:transgender,NativeAmerican,mixedrace,otherrace,and“prefernottoanswer”responses.

Future Intentions by Principal Morale

Finally,becauseaprincipal’ssatisfactionwiththecurrentpositioninfluencesfutureintentions(Tran, 2017), we examined future intentions by principals’ responses to the question, “Howwouldyoudescribeyourcurrentmoraleasaprincipal?”AsshowninTable10.4,themajorityof principals with moderate to very high morale intend to stay at their current schools,comparedtoonly38%ofrespondentswith lowmoraleand7%ofrespondentswithvery lowmorale. Interestingly, 29%of principalswith very lowmorale intend tomove into a centralofficeposition,butnotintoaroleasassociatesuperintendentorsuperintendent.Arelativelylarge percentage of principals with very low morale also indicated they intend to move toanother district (21%) or leave the education system altogether (21%). These results


101

demonstrate the importance of matching principals with a working environment that issupportive(Howley,Andrianaivo,&Perry,2005;Papa,2007)andensureshighmorale.

Table10.4PercentageofPrincipalsIndicatingFutureIntentionsintheNext3Years,byPrincipalMorale

Currentmoraleasprincipal

IntentionVeryhigh High Moderate Low

Verylow

Remainaprincipalatmycurrentschool 67.1 70.7 60.4 38.1 7.1Becomeaprincipalatadifferentschoolinmycurrentdistrict

2.9 2.7 5.9 2.4 0.0


2.9 5.8 5.0 9.5 21.4


2.9 3.6 7.7 11.9 28.6


15.7 7.6 7.7 9.5 7.1

Becomeahighereducationfacultymember 2.9 0.4 1.8 7.1 7.1Leavetheformaleducationsystem 1.4 1.3 1.4 9.5 21.4Retire 4.3 8.0 10.4 11.9 7.1

ARetrospectiveLookatSchoolAdministrationin1948,1958,and2008VirgilFinn,aVirginiasuperintendentandmemberoftheEditorialCommitteeforthe1948report,offeredthefollowinginsight:

The growth of the elementary school principal has been steady and thefuturelooksbright. Buttherateofgrowthandthequalityofgrowthinthefuturewilldependlargelyupontheprincipal’sconceptionoftheposition,hispreparation,hisrelationshipwiththeotheradministrativeofficers,teachers,pupils, and parents, and his ability to not only keep pace with newdevelopments in education, but to influence them constructively. (NationalEducationAssociation,1948,p.268)

In 1958, 87% of the supervising (nonteaching) principals reported the lack of anassistant principal. In 2008, two thirdsof the respondents still reported that theyhadnoassistantprincipalintheirbuildings.


102

Summary

Understanding principal career intentions is important for diagnosing trends in both jobsatisfaction and future shortages. The responses to the 2018 NAESP 10-year studydemonstrateseveralimportanttrends.First,whilethemajorityofprincipalsintendtostayintheircurrentpositions,movingtoapositionasassociatesuperintendentorsuperintendent isthemostcitedmove,asidefromretirement.Second,thesetrendsdifferbywhereaprincipalisinherorhis respectivecareerasaprincipaland inoveralleducation. Early-careerprincipalsintend to transferoutofdistrictmoreoften,whereas later careerprincipals look for verticalmoveswithinthedistrict.Third,therewerenotanymajordifferencesinintentionsbyprincipalgenderandrace/ethnicity,althoughlowresponseratesforcertaingroupsmightbepartofthisfinding. Fourth, intentions differ greatly by the level of morale the principal has for theposition.Principalswithlowmoralemostoftenintendtomovetocentraloffice,butnotintoaleadership position. Moreover, very few of the principalswith lowmorale intend to stay intheirschool,orevenmovetoaschoolinthesamedistrict.

It is important that states anddistricts pay close attention toprincipals’ future intentions sopolicymakers can anticipate transitions that may lead to shortages of school leaders. Thisincludes carefully examining where principals are in their careers in order to anticipate thetypesofmovestheymaybeinclinedtopursue.Inaddition,giventhatintentionsarerelatedtoseveralfactors,includingfit,workingconditions,andsatisfaction(Gatesetal.,2006;Goldring,Taie,&Riddles,2014),stateanddistrictleadersmustlistentoprincipals’concernsandsupporttheminensuringpositivemoraleintheirroleasaprincipal.


103

Chapter 11: Conclusion and Implications Inthisconcludingchapter,wereflectonsomeofthekeyfindingsfromthe2018NAESP10-yearstudy, share respondents’ thoughts regarding the future of the profession, and discussimplications.Principalsrespondingtothe201810-yearstudyconveyedthemessagethattheyfindtheworkofleadingschoolstobegratifying.Whenaskediftheywoulddoitalloveragain,themajority agreed that they would, and 62.4% indicated that they would recommend theprincipalship as a career to others. However, their personal satisfactionwas offset by theirperceptionsoftheincreasingdifficultyofthejobaswellastheirconcernthatpubliceducationis having an increasingly difficult time attracting good people to the profession and thenretainingthem.

Question: In the last 3 years, how has the degree of difficulty changed with respect to completing your job in an effective manner?

Respondents overwhelmingly indicated that the job has becomemore difficult than 3 yearsprior (36.8% reported much more difficult; 43.2% reported somewhat more difficult).Principalsfeltthatthelevelofdifficultywashamperingtheirabilitytobeeffective.Atthesametime, principals reported decreased level of support from the state (83%) and the public atlarge(70%).Further,statepolicieswerenegativelyimpactingworkingconditions(88%)andtheabilityofprincipalstobeeffectiveschoolleaders(72%).

ARetrospectiveLookatPrincipalCommitmentin1998Commenting on the NAESP 10-year reports, Sam Sava (1998)identifiedacommonelementconnectingthestudiesovertheyears:

the degree towhich principals believe in thework they doandderiveenormoussatisfactionfromshapingthelivesandfutures of our nation’s children. This powerful beliefcontinues to make the K-8 principalship one of the mostgratifyingprofessionsonecanhave.(p.x)

Chapter 11: Conclusion

104

In looking to the future, respondents were fairlyskeptical about changes in these conditions. Only32% believed that the public would become moresupportiveofpubliceducationoverthenext5years,and even fewer (20%) felt that state policymakerswouldbecomemoresupportive.Similarly,only15%of the respondents felt that state policies wouldimproveworking conditions, and 19% believed thatstatepolicieswouldfacilitatetheeffortsofprincipalstobeeffectiveschoolleaders.

Question: Concerns have been expressed by educators and others about the ability of public education to continue to attract quality people to the position of elementary school principal. Do you share this concern?

Over 70% of respondents indicated that they were concerned about the ability of publiceducationtocontinuetoattractqualitypeopletothepositionofelementaryschoolprincipal.This isanincreasefrom63%in2008. Likein2008,thoseleaderswithmoreexperienceweremore likely toexpressconcern. Additionally,womenprincipalsweremore likely tohold thisconcernthanmen(seeTable11.1).

Table11.1PercentageofPrincipalswhoShareConcernsAbouttheAbilityofPublicEducationtoAttractQualityElementarySchoolPrincipals

Yearsasprincipal GenderyouResponse Total <5 5–14 15+ Male Female

Definitelyyes 37.4 34.7 36.8 40.8 35.6 40.2Yes 32.7 29.0 33.7 34.0 35.1 31.2No 27.4 34.7 27.1 21.8 28.7 25.2Definitelyno 2.5 1.6 2.3 3.4 0.6 3.4

Whenaskedtocommentontheirresponses,participantsconsistentlypointedtothreethings:workload demands, time constraints, and compensation in the field of education. This isconsistentwith the comments provided in the 2008 study. Of the 225 comments provided,many speak tomultiple issues, including the threemost common themesmentioned above.Thefollowingcomments,forexample,reflecttheconcernsregardingworkloadandtime:

Few respondents believed that state policies would

improve working conditions or facilitate efforts of

principals to be effective school leaders.


105

• “Nothavingenoughtimetocompleteallthetasksassignedtoaschoolprincipal,especiallyiftheprincipaldoesn’thaveanassistantprincipal.”

• “Workloadincreaseiscausingearlyburnout.”• “Additionalrolesthatteachertakeonbeyondinstruction(parent,nurse,socialworker,

clergy,etc.)”• “It’sahugejob.Whilepeoplearewillingtotakeonsomepartsoftheposition,…the

addedresponsibilitiesduetobudgetcutsinotherareasleadtostressamongcandidates.”

• “Folksdonotunderstandtheamountoftimeittakestorunanefficient,effectiveelementary.Thisisnota9–5or7–3job.Thisisfull-time,allofthetime.”

Similarly, comments reflected the degree of stress that accompanied increased demand andtimeconstraints.Thefollowingcommentsprovidesomeinsightintothis:

• “Thepressuretomeeteveryone’sneedsishugeandsimplycannotbehandledbyonepersoninaday,month,oryear.”

• “Thepublicoutcryagainstteachersisfrustratingalongwiththehighlevelofstress.”• “Thisisastressfuljobthatisverytimeconsuming.Ittakestimeawayfromfamilies,

exercise,andenjoymentoflife.Thedemandsdon’tmatchupwiththepaywereceive.”

Unfortunately, fewleadershaveoutletsthattheyconsidertobesafespacesforsharingtheirconcerns regarding these and other pressures on themselves and their staffmembers. Onerespondent shared, “Iamcarefulaboutwho I speak toandwhat I share,asanysense that Imayneedhelporadvicemaybeseenasaweakness.”Thesecomments,alongwiththeinsighttheyprovidedcapturedinotherchapters,provideinsightintoaprofessionundertremendousstress—oneinwhichleadersareaskedtodomoreandmorewithlessandless.

Withregardtocompensation,respondentsnotedthatpoorcompensationplayedakeyroleintheirabilitytoattractandmaintainahigh-qualitystaff.Thefollowingcommentsreflectonlyasmallsampleofthecommentsfocusedonthisissue:

• “Lowpay,longhours,highexpectationsfornewteachers,demandingparents,lackofresources,etc.”

• “Demandsofteachersinrelationtoequitablepayofduties.”• “Salariesofschoolemployeesdon’tmatchthesalariesofprofessionalsinotherfields.”• “Teacherslovetheprofessionbuthavetofindalternativewaystosupplementtheir

income.”

Given that principals are drawn primarily from the teaching corps, the ability to attract andretain talent is critical. Respondents have identified challenges to attracting and retaining


106

talent, from the demands and stressfulness of the job to long hours and low compensation.Theseconcernsarenotnew.Similarconcernswereidentifiedinprevious10-yearstudies,andyetconcertedeffortstoaddresstheconcernshaveyettomaterialize.Thismustchange.Ifweare to assist principals in attracting and retaining talent aswell as build apipelineof qualityfutureleaders,wemustaddresstheseandotherchallengesthatthreatenthepipeline.

Closelyrelatedtotheconcernsregardingthecompensationofschoolstaffisthecompensationoffered toprincipals. Aswas thecasewith staff salaries, respondentsdidnot feel that theirsalarieswereadequategiventheincreaseddemandsandlevelsofstress.Table11.2providesan overviewof principals’ average compensation from1956-57 through 2017-18. Principals’payhasincreasedovertime;however,whenadjustedto2018values,salariesoverthelast10yearshavenotkeptupwiththerateofinflation.Infact,whencomparedtosalariesin2007-08,currentprincipalsappeartohavetakenapaycut.Theadjustedworthoftheirsalariestodayis$13,000lessthanin2007-08.Thisreversesaprevious50-yeartrendinwhichprincipalswerecompensatedbettereachyearthaninpreviousyears.

Table11.2TrendDataonSalaries,Workweek,andContract,1956-57Through2017-18

Salary

Year UnadjustedAdjustedto2018value

Avg.hoursworkedeach

week

%principalswitha12-monthcontract

1956-57 $6,600 $60,144 47 12%1966-67 10,200 78,032 50 181977-78 21,500 87,940 50 301986-87 39,988 87,251 51 331997-98 60,285 93,101 54 402007-08 84,506 101,023 56 472017-18 88,811 88,811 61 51

Arelatedproblemissalarycompression.Manynewprincipalsandassistantprincipalsarepaidlittlemore than they would havemade as experienced teachers. Salary compression oftenservesasadisincentivetomovingfromteachingtoaleadershipposition.

Education is a profession under tremendous stress—one in which leaders are asked to do

more and more with less and less.


107

Atthesametime,thenumberofhoursthatprincipalsworkeachweekhasincreasedovertime.Whereasin1956-57,principalsworked,onaverage,7hoursmorethanthetraditional40-hourworkweek,ahalfacenturylater,principalswereworking16hoursoverthetraditional40-hourworkweek.By2017-18,thishasincreasedto61hoursperweek.Couplingincreaseddemandsand stress with working 21 hours more than the traditional 40-hour workweek, one wouldexpectasignificantincreaseinsalary;however,thissimplyisn’tthecase.

It is worth noting that along with increased time demands have come increases in thepercentageofprincipalswith12-month,ratherthan9-month,contracts.AsnotedinChapter1,The Typical Elementary School Principal Today, the typical principal has an employmentcontract with the district that addresses salary and fringe benefits as well as districtexpectations.Likesalaries,thepercentageof12-monthcontractshasgraduallyincreasedovertime,withthelargestincreaseoccurringbetween1996-97and2007-08.

In addition to considering factors leading to a robust pipeline, it is important to considerfindingsrelatedtothecurrentpoolofeducationalleadersandhowwecansupportandretainthem. Two key factors are professional development opportunities and relationships withprincipals’ supervisors. Participants in the 2018 NAESP 10-year study did not consider theprofessionaldevelopmentopportunitiesavailabletothemtobeofhighvalue. Effortsshouldbededicatedtounderstandingwhatsittingprincipalsandassistantprincipalsneedwithregardtotheirprofessionallearningandsupportaswellastodevelopingprogramsandopportunitiesthatmeetthoseneeds.Considerationalsoshouldbegiventothepreferredmodesoflearningthatprincipalsindicateworkbestforthem.

Although the majority of principals characterized their relationships with their supervisors,superintendents, and boards of education to be positive, principals also raised troublingconcerns about the lack of understanding regarding theirwork and the complexities of theirpositionsandwork.Thealsodescribeddecreasedsupportofpubliceducationbyparents,localcommunities,andthestate. These findings imply theneed foroutreachandengagementbystate,district,andschoolleaderstoincreaseawarenessandsupport.

ARetrospectiveLookattheSupervisionofLeadershipin1948Focusing on the relationship between the district central office and theschool,thefollowingobservationwasoffered:“Theworkingrelationshipbetween elementary-school principals and supervisors of instructionneedstobeimproved”(NationalEducationAssociation,1948,p.13).


108

Fully55%ofrespondentsindicatedthattheyplantoretireassoonastheyareeligibletodoso,andtheother45%indicatedthattheywereeitherunsure(13%)orthattheywouldwaitafewyearsbefore leavingtheirpositions. Of relevanceto thenear future,35%of respondentsdoplan to retire by age60, 55%of respondents plan to retirebefore age70, and another 10%eitherareunsureofwhentheywillretireorplantoretireafterage70.However,asdiscussedin Chapter 10, only 9% of respondents plan to retire within the next 3 years, and somerespondents indicated that although they are already at or beyond retirement age, theycontinuetoworkasaleader.Themajorityofrespondents(71%)plannedtoremainaprincipaleitherintheircurrentschooloradifferentschooloverthenext3years,andanother14%plantotakeacentralofficeposition.Thisisimportanttokeepinmindwithregardtoattractingnewleaders,buildingapipeline,andsupportingcurrentleaders.

Over the last few decades, schools have operated in a climate of increased scrutiny andaccountability. Respondents to the 2018 NAESP 10-year study provided thoughtfulassessments of the impact of this on their students, staff, school cultures, andwork. Whilerecognizing the importance of focusing on student learning and meeting the needs ofhistoricallyunderservedstudentpopulations,principalsareconcernedaboutthelevelofstressaccountabilityhasplacedontheirschools,particularlygiventhedecreaseinrelativeresourcesoverthatsametime.

ThecomparisonsofferedthroughtheNAESP10-yearstudiesovertimeprovideinterestingandimportant insight into the elementary school principalship aswell as insight into the currentconditionsof leadership, thechallenges,and theopportunitiesprincipalsembrace incarryingout their work. The 2018 data indicate a continuation of many of the trends identified inpreviousstudies,suchastheincreaseintheincreasingdiversityofthestudentpopulationsthatpublicschoolsserve,theincreasedpercentageoffemaleprincipals,andtheincreasednumberof hours that principals work eachweek. The data also provide insight into the need for acomprehensiveapproach tobuildinga leadershippipeline that includespublicperceptionsofthefieldofeducation,recruitmentoftalentintotheteachingprofession,providinghigh-qualitypreparationanddevelopmentopportunitiesforalleducators,providingadequateresourcesforschools and professional compensation for school staff, and intentionally tapping anddevelopingeducationalleaders.Notoneofthesestepsisindispensable.

Given increased demands and increased stress with working 21 hours more than the traditional 40-hour workweek, one would expect a significant increase in salary; however, this simply isn’t the case.


109

Scope and Limitations of the Study ThiswasthesecondelectronicsurveyassociatedwithanNAESP10-YearStudy.Thefirststepintheprocessinvolvedsurveydevelopment.Westartedwiththequestionsthatwereincludedinthe 2008 10-year study. We then modified some of the questions and added additionalquestions. After an internal review of the draft, we invited a sample of current principalsreview thedraftandmakesuggestedchanges. The reviewers includednationally recognizedprincipalsattendinganNAESPgatheringinthefallof2016.Followingathoroughreviewoftheinstrumentbycurrentprincipals,wefinalizedthesurvey.

Thegreatdifficultyinconductingsuchastudyisgarneringresponsesfromagroupofprincipalsandassistantprincipalswhoare representativeofall leaders servingelementary schoolsandmiddleschools.Toaccomplishthis,NAESPobtainedwhatwasthoughttobealistofemployedassistantprincipalsandprincipals,andwemergedthatlistwithalistofNAESPmembers.Wereceived relatively few responses overall. We expanded the invitation list repeatedly andcontinued to send email invitations. Eventually, we emailed all NAESP members and asignificant proportion of the non-NAESP member list. Ultimately, we received less than ahandfulofresponsesfromnon-NAESPmembers,andthuswehavenoconfidencethatthelistprovidedtoNAESPwasaccurate.

Althoughthetotalnumberof893respondentsrepresentsslightlymorethan10%oftheNAESPpopulationandabout1%oftheelementaryschoolprincipalpopulation,wearequiteconfidentthe results of this survey are generalizable toNAESPmembers and somewhat confident theresultsgeneralizetoallprincipals.WebelievethistobetruebecausethepercentageofWhiterespondents, percentage of female respondents, and the age of the respondentsmatch thenationalaveragesforprincipalsalmostidentically.Inaddition,characteristicssuchasaveragesalaryandfuture intentionsof remainingaprincipalareclosetonationalestimates for thesevariables.However,thesamplehasmoreyearsofexperiencethantheaverageprincipal,andthedistributionofrespondentsbylocale(urban,suburban,town,andrural)doesnotmatchthedistributionofU.S.publicschoolprincipalsby locale. Giventhis information,werecommendthatreadersinterpretthefindingssomewhatcautiously,particularlywhenexperienceorlocaleofemploymentmightinfluenceperceptions.


110

References Anderson,E.,&Reynolds,A.L.(2015).Apolicymaker’sguide:Research-basedpolicyfor

principalpreparationprogramapprovalandlicensure.Charlottesville,VA:UniversityCouncilforEducationalAdministration.

Brownv.BoardofEducationofTopeka,347U.S.483(1954).

Coelli,M.,&Green,D.A.(2012).Leadershipeffects:Schoolprincipalsandstudentoutcomes.EconomicsofEducationReview,31(1),92-109.

Corcoran,T.,Fuhrman,S.H.,&Belcher,C.L.(2001).Thedistrictroleininstructionalimprovement.PhiDeltaKappan,83(1),78-84.

Darling-Hammond,L.,LaPointe,M.,Meyerson,D.,&Orr,M.(2007).Preparingschoolleadersforachangingworld:Executivesummary.Stanford,CA:StanfordUniversity,StanfordEducationalLeadershipInstitute.Retrievedfromhttp://wallacefoundation.org

Davis,S.,Darling-Hammond,L.,LaPointe,M.,&Meyerson,D.(2005).Developingsuccessfulprincipals.Stanford,CA:StanfordUniversity,StanfordEducationalLeadershipInstitute.

Dhuey,E.,&Smith,J.(2014).Howimportantareschoolprincipalsintheproductionofstudentachievement?CanadianJournalofEconomics/Revuecanadienned'économique,47,634-663.

Doud,J.L.(1988).Aten-yearstudy:TheK-8principalin1988.Alexandria,VA:NationalAssociationofElementarySchoolPrincipals.

Doud,J.L.,&Keller,E.P.(1998).TheK-8principalin1998:Aten-yearstudy.Alexandria,VA:NationalAssociationofElementarySchoolPrincipals.

EveryStudentSucceedsAct,Pub.L.No.114-95(2015).

Figlio,D.,&Loeb,S.(2011).Schoolaccountability.InE.A.Hanushek,S.Machin,&L.Woessmann(Eds.),Handbookoftheeconomicsofeducation(vol.3,pp.383-421).Amsterdam,TheNetherlands:Elsevier.doi:10.1016/B978-0-444-53429-3.00008-9

Fullan,M.(1991).Thenewmeaningofeducationalchange.NewYork,NY:TeachersCollegePress.

Fullan,M.(2002).Leadershipandsustainability.PrincipalLeadership,3(4),14-17.

References

111

Fuller,E.J.,Hollingworth,L.,&An,B.P.(2016).Theimpactofpersonalandprogramcharacteristicsontheplacementofschoolleadershippreparationprogramgraduatesinschoolleaderpositions.EducationalAdministrationQuarterly,52,643-674.doi:10.1177/1942775114559029

Fuller,E.,Young,M.,&Baker,B.D.(2011).Doprincipalpreparationprogramsinfluencestudentachievementthroughthebuildingofteacher-teamqualificationsbytheprincipal?Anexploratoryanalysis.EducationalAdministrationQuarterly,47,173-216.doi:10.1177/0011000010378613

Galiani,S.,Gertler,P.,&Schargrodsky,E.(2008).Schooldecentralization:Helpingthegoodgetbetter,butleavingthepoorbehind.JournalofPublicEconomics,92,2106-2120.

Gates,S.M.,Ringel,J.S.,Santibanez,L.,Guarino,C.,Ghosh-Dastidar,B.,&Brown,A.(2006).Mobilityandturnoveramongschoolprincipals.EconomicsofEducationReview,25,289-302.

Goldring,R.,Taie,S.,&Riddles,M.(2014).Teacherattritionandmobility:Resultsfromthe2012–13TeacherFollow-upSurvey(NCES2014-077).Washington,DC:NationalCenterforEducationStatistics.

Hallinger,P.,&Heck,R.H.(1996a).Theprincipal’sroleinschooleffectiveness:Anassessmentofmethodologicalprogress,1980–1995.InK.A.Leithwood,J.D.Chapman,P.Corson,P.Hallinger,&A.Hart(Eds.),Internationalhandbookofeducationalleadershipandadministration(pp.723-783).Dordrecht,TheNetherlands:Springer.

Hallinger,P.,&Heck,R.H.(1996b).Reassessingtheprincipal'sroleinschooleffectiveness:Areviewofempiricalresearch,1980–1995.EducationalAdministrationQuarterly,32,5-44.doi:10.1177/0013161X96032001002

Hallinger,P.,&Heck,R.H.(1998).Exploringtheprincipal'scontributiontoschooleffectiveness:1980–1995.SchoolEffectivenessandSchoolImprovement,9,157-191.doi:10.1080/0924345980090203

Harris,A.(2004).Distributedleadershipandschoolimprovement:Leadingormisleading?EducationalManagementAdministration&Leadership,32,11-24.

Hill,J.,Ottem,R.,&DeRoche,J.(2016).Trendsinpublicandprivateschoolprincipaldemographicsandqualifications:1987-88to2011-12.Statsinbrief(NCES2016-189).Washington,DC:NationalCenterforEducationStatistics.

Honig,M.I.(2008).Districtcentralofficesaslearningorganizations:Howsocioculturalandorganizationallearningtheorieselaboratedistrictcentralofficeadministrators'

References

112

participationinteachingandlearningimprovementefforts.AmericanJournalofEducation,114,627-664.

Howley,A.,Andrianaivo,S.,&Perry,J.(2005).Thepainoutweighsthegain:Whyteachersdon’twanttobecomeprincipals.TeachersCollegeRecord,107(4),757-782.

Klingner,J.K.,Boardman,A.G.,&McMaster,K.L.(2013).Whatdoesittaketoscaleupandsustainevidence-basedpractices?ExceptionalChildren,79(2),195-211.

Leithwood,K.,&Jantzi,D.(2000).Principalandteacherleadershipeffects:Areplication.SchoolLeadership&Management,20,415-434.doi:10.1080/713696963

Leithwood,K.,&Jantzi,D.(2005).Transformationalleadership.InB.Davies(Ed.),Theessentialsofschoolleadership(pp.31-43).ThousandOaks,CA:CorwinPress.

Leithwood,K.,&Jantzi,D.(2008).Linkingleadershiptostudentlearning:Thecontributionsofleaderefficacy.EducationalAdministrationQuarterly,44,496-528.doi:10.1177/0013161X08321501

Leithwood,K.,Jantzi,D.,Coffin.,G.,&Wilson,P.(1996).Preparingschoolleaders:Whatworks.JournalofSchoolLeadership,6,316-342.

Leithwood,K.,SeashoreLouis,K.,Anderson,S.,&Wahlstrom,K.(2004).Reviewofresearch:Howleadershipinfluencesstudentlearning.NewYork,NY:TheWallaceFoundation

Loeb,S.,Kalogrides,D.,&Horng,E.L.(2010).Principalpreferencesandtheunevendistributionofprincipalsacrossschools.EducationalEvaluationandPolicyAnalysis,32,205-229.

Loeb,S.,&Miller,L.C.(2006).Areviewofstateteacherpolicies:Whatarethey,whataretheireffects,andwhataretheirimplicationsforschoolfinance?Stanford,CA:StanfordUniversity,InstituteforResearchonEducationPolicy&Practice.

Ludmerer,K.M.(1999).Atimetoheal.NewYork,NY:OxfordUniversityPress.

Miller,A.(2013).Principalturnoverandstudentachievement.EconomicsofEducationReview,36,60-72.

NationalAssociationofElementarySchoolPrincipals.(1986).Proficienciesforprincipals:Elementaryandmiddleschools(3rded.).Alexandria,VA:Author.

NationalAssociationofElementarySchoolPrincipals&CollaborativeCommunicationsGroup.(2008).Leadinglearningcommunities:Standardsforwhatprincipalsshouldknowandbe

References

113

abletodo(2nded.).Alexandria,VA:NationalAssociationofElementarySchoolPrincipals.

NationalCommissiononExcellenceinEducation.(1983).Anationatrisk:Theimperativeforeducationalreform.Washington,DC:GovernmentPrintingOffice.

NationalEducationAssociation.(1928).Seventhyearbook,DepartmentofElementarySchoolPrincipals.Baltimore,MD:TheLordBaltimorePress.

NationalEducationAssociation.(1948).Theelementaryschoolprincipal—Todayandtomorrow.Twenty-seventhyearbookoftheDepartmentofElementarySchoolPrincipals.Washington,DC:NationalEducationAssociation.

NationalEducationAssociation.(1958).10-yearstudyofelementaryschoolprincipals.Washington,DC:Author.

NationalEducationAssociation.(1968).Theelementaryschoolprincipalshipin1968:Aresearchstudy.Washington,DC:NationalEducationAssociation.

NationalPolicyBoardforEducationalAdministration(2015).ProfessionalStandardsforEducationalLeaders2015.Reston,VA:Author.

NoChildLeftBehindActof2001,Pub.L.No.107-110(2002).

Orphanos,S.,&Orr,M.T.(2014).Learningleadershipmatters:Theinfluenceofinnovativeschoolleadershippreparationonteachers’experiencesandoutcomes.EducationalManagementAdministration&Leadership,42,680-700.doi:10.1177/1741143213502187

Orr,M.T.(2011).Pipelinetopreparationtoadvancement:Graduates’experiencesin,through,andbeyondleadershippreparation.EducationalAdministrationQuarterly,47,114-172.doi:10.1177/0011000010378612

Papa,F.C.(2007).Whydoprincipalschangeschools?Amultivariateanalysisofprincipalretention.LeadershipandPolicyinSchools,6,267-290.

Patrinos,H.A.,&Fasih,T.(2009).Decentralizeddecision-makinginschools:Thetheoryandevidenceonschool-basedmanagement.Washington,DC:WorldBank.

Peterson,K.D.,&Kelley,C.(2009).Researchontheprofessionallearningopportunitiesforschoolleaders.InM.Young,G.Crow,J.Murphy,andR.Ogawa(Eds.),Handbookofresearchontheeducationofschoolleaders.NewYork,NY:Routledge.

References

114

Pharis,W.L.,&Zakariya,S.B.(1978).Theelementaryschoolprincipalshipin1978:Aresearchstudy.Arlington,VA:NationalAssociationofElementarySchoolPrincipals.

Protheroe,N.(2008).TheK-8principalin2008:A10-yearstudy.Alexandria,VA:NationalAssociationofElementarySchoolPrincipals.

Robinson,V.M.J.,Lloyd,C.,&Rowe,K.(2008).Theimpactofleadershiponstudentoutcomes.Ananalysisofthedifferentialeffectsofleadershiptypes.EducationalAdministrationQuarterly,44,635-667.

Robinson,V.M.J.,Lloyd,C.A.,&Rowe,K.J.(2008).Theimpactofleadershiponstudentoutcomes:Ananalysisofthedifferentialeffectsofleadershiptypes.EducationalAdministrationQuarterly,44,635-674.doi:10.1177/0013161x08321509

Rockoff,J.E.(2004).Theimpactofindividualteachersonstudentachievement:Evidencefrompaneldata.AmericanEconomicReview,94,247-252.

Sava,S.(1988).Foreword.InJ.L.Doud,Aten-yearstudy:TheK-8principalin1988.Alexandria,VA:NationalAssociationofElementarySchoolPrincipals.

SeashoreLouis,K.,Leithwood,K.,Wahlstrom,K.L.,Anderson,S.E.,Michlin,M.,&Mascall,B.(2010).Investigatingthelinkstoimprovedstudentlearning.NewYork,NY:TheWallaceFoundation.

Supovitz,J.,Sirinides,P.,&May,H.(2010).Howprincipalsandpeersinfluenceteachingandlearning.EducationalAdministrationQuarterly,46,31-56.doi:10.1177/1094670509353043

Taie,S.,Goldring,R.,&Spiegelman,M.(2017).CharacteristicsofpublicelementaryandsecondaryschoolprincipalsintheUnitedStates:Resultsfromthe2015-16NationalTeacherandPrincipalSurvey(NCES2017-070).Washington,DC:NationalCenterforEducationStatistics.Retrievedfromhttps://nces.ed.gov/pubs2017/2017070.pdf

Tran,H.(2017).Theimpactofpaysatisfactionandschoolachievementonhighschoolprincipals’turnoverintentions.EducationalManagementAdministration&Leadership,45,621-638.

Turnbull,B.J.,Haslam,M.B.,Arcaira,E.R.,Riley,D.L.,Sinclair,B.,&Coleman,S.(2009).EvaluationoftheSchoolAdministrationManagerProject.NewYork,NY:TheWallaceFoundation.

Waters,T.,Marzano,R.J.,&McNulty,B.(2003).Balancedleadership:What30yearsofresearchtellsusabouttheeffectofleadershiponstudentachievement:Aworking

References

115

paper.Aurora,CO:Mid-ContinentResearchforEducationandLearning.RetrievedfromERICdatabase.(ED481972)

Young,M.D.,&Crow,G.G.(Eds.).(2016).Handbookofresearchontheeducationofschoolleaders(2nded.).NewYork,NY:Routledge.

Young,M.D.,Crow,G.M.,Murphy,J.,&Ogawa,R.T.(Eds.).(2009).Handbookofresearchontheeducationofschoolleaders.NewYork,NY:Routledge.

school leader a 10-year study in 2018 - naesp 10-year...the pre-k-8 school leader in 2018 a 10-year...

Documents