secondary school principalship
Post on 04-Jun-2018
234 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/13/2019 Secondary School Principalship
1/31
This article was downloaded by: [University of Tasmania]On: 22 January 2014, At: 20:24Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Leadership and Policy in SchoolsPublication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/nlps20
The Secondary School
Principalship in Australia and
New Zealand: An Investigation of
Changing RolesNeil Cranston , Lisa Ehrich & Jennie Billot
Published online: 09 Aug 2010.
To cite this article:Neil Cranston , Lisa Ehrich & Jennie Billot (2003) The Secondary School
Principalship in Australia and New Zealand: An Investigation of Changing Roles, Leadership
and Policy in Schools, 2:3, 159-188
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1076/lpos.2.3.159.16530
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information(the Content) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor& Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warrantieswhatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purposeof the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are theopinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed byTaylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon andshould be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor andFrancis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands,costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever causedarising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of theuse of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expresslyforbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditionshttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditionshttp://dx.doi.org/10.1076/lpos.2.3.159.16530http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/nlps20 -
8/13/2019 Secondary School Principalship
2/31
Leadership and Policy in Schools 1570-0763/03/0203-159$16.002003, Vol. 2, No. 3, pp. 159188 # Swets & Zeitlinger
The Secondary School Principalshipin Australia and New Zealand:An Investigation of Changing Roles
Neil Cranston1, Lisa Ehrich1, and Jennie Billot21Faculty of Education, School of Learning and Professional Studies,Queensland University of Technology, Kelvin Grove, Qld, Australia,and 2Centre for Educational Management, School of Education,UNITEC, Auckland, New Zealand
ABSTRACT
It has been well-documented in the literature that the roles and workloads of principals in manywestern countries have intensified in recent years, due to a range of pressures emanating from achanging turbulent policy environment. This study investigated the roles and workloads ofsecondary school principals from Queensland, Australia, and New Zealand. These wereexplored to determine if there was any discrepancy between how principals view their currentpractice and how they would desire their current practice to be. The study data drew on a
specially developed questionnaire in addition to a small number of targeted interviews andfocus groups. The findings indicated that for principals in Australia and New Zealand (i)pressure in the role and hours worked per week had increased compared with previous years;(ii) role overload, role ambiguity and role conflict now characterised the job to some extent; and(iii) principals devoted most of their time to management/administration and staffing issues, yettheir ideal week was described as one where they would dedicate time to strategic leadership,curriculum leadership and parent/community issues. They were highly satisfied with their role,overall. The paper also provides a discussion of the skills and competencies required of theprincipalship and issues for the ongoing professional development of school principals in bothcountries.
Address correspondence to: Dr. Neil Cranston, Faculty of Education, School of Learning andProfessional Studies, Queensland University of Technology, Victoria Park Road, Kelvin Grove,Qld 4059, Australia. Tel.: 61 7 3864 3288. Fax: 61 7 3864 3981. E-mail: n.cranston@qut.edu.au
Accepted for publication: March 11, 2003.
Downloadedby[UniversityofTas
mania]at20:2422January2014
-
8/13/2019 Secondary School Principalship
3/31
INTRODUCTION
The study is part of a collaborative project between researchers from theQueensland University of Technology (Australia) and UNITEC (New Zealand).
It reports on research into the role and workload of secondary school principals in
government schools in two large education systems New Zealand and the stateof Queensland in Australia. The paper begins by reviewing some significant
background literature that provides a context in which to understand the forces
that have impacted upon education and in turn shaped the role and workload of
the principalship. This is followed by a discussion of the methodology of the
study that drew upon questionnaire responses from principals as well as focus
group and interview data from principals and other stakeholders. The findings forthe two systems are presented separately, together with analysis of some of the
similarities and differences across the two sets of data. The paper also considers
the skills and competencies required for the principalship, particularly as
identified for the roles referred to above, as well as the emerging professional
development needs of principals in the current changing climate.
BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT
Since the 1980s, a multitude of reforms has taken place in education in
western countries including the United States of America, United Kingdom,
Canada, Australia and New Zealand and these have targeted mainly the
management of education (Beare, 1991; Whitty, Power, & Halpin, 1998;
Wylie, 1994). The reforms have been characterised by a strong interventionist
role of national governments in education; trends towards school based
management; extended forms of assessment; and new forms of accountability
for staff leaders (Beare, 1991; Whitty et al., 1998). A trend that has hadsignificant implications for the principalship in all of these countries has been
school based management. This is now briefly discussed with particular focuson Queensland, Australia and New Zealand.
School-based Management
New Zealands move to self-managing schools occurred in 1988 with theadvent of Tomorrows Schools (Minister of Education, 1988). This policy
introduced a radical change to school governance designed to abolish layers
of administration in order to locate decision-making as close to the point of
160 NEIL CRANSTON ET AL.
Downloadedby[UniversityofTas
mania]at20:2422January2014
-
8/13/2019 Secondary School Principalship
4/31
implementation and alter the balance of power between the providers and
clients of education (Education Review Office, 1994, p. 5). Central to the
reform was the importance of increasing the quality of partnerships betweenparents, schools and state. Up until the mid to late 1980s, Australian schools had
a very centralised and bureaucratic system. Around this time, individual states in
Australia began moves towards decentralising reforms. Focus on Schools (1990)
was the Queensland Department of Education (1990) policy that set a direction
for schools and their communities to have greater decision-making responsi-
bilities. Like their New Zealand school neighbours, government schools in
Queensland would now have greater control over resources such as operational
budgets and be accountable for education outcomes as well as be required to
involve parents and community members in school decision-making processes.However, the nature and degree of the devolution across the two countries has
not been the same. Unlike the reforms in New Zealand which have been
described as aradical experiment(Whitty et al., 1998, p. 21), the same cannotbe said for the reforms in Queensland in terms of the pace in which they were
introduced or their specific nature. In short, some of the differences between thetwo systems with respect to the extent of devolution enacted include:
New Zealand schools had a considerably longer and more intense
experience of school-based management models compared with Queens-
land schools, whose reforms, in comparison, have unfolded more slowly
and incrementally;
The extent of the devolution for New Zealand schools is considerably
greater, as Queensland schools still work within a structure of support from
districts and central office; such support is not as apparent in New Zealand.While Education Service Centres provide administrative and support
services to schools, they do so on a commercial basis only (Butterworth &
Butterworth, 1998); Bulk funding (i.e., the practice of managing the schools entire operating
resources, including teaching salaries) is optional for schools in New
Zealand schools, although not widespread. This has not been an option for
Queensland schools;
New Zealand schools operate with a Board of Trustees whereas a School
Council (with considerably smaller powers and responsibility) remain
optional in Queensland schools; and
Principals in New Zealand are employed on a limited term contract basis,
while those in Queensland have tenure.
CHANGING ROLES IN SECONDARY SCHOOL PRINCIPALSHIP 161
Downloadedby[UniversityofTas
mania]at20:2422January2014
-
8/13/2019 Secondary School Principalship
5/31
Of interest to this study is the extent to which a more devolved system might
impact positively or negatively on principal workload and satisfaction. This
issue is investigated later in the paper. Also discussed is how principals seetheir role in practice and how they conceive it might be in a more ideal sense.
That is, issues of role alignment between the real and the ideal become of
interest.
Increasing Accountability for Principals
Coupled with the greater decision-making powers for principals in Australia
and New Zealand has been enhanced accountability to the system (via the
implementation of policies, procedures) and to the community or Board of
Trustees in the case of New Zealand. The use of competency standards forschool leaders in Queensland, Australia (Standards Framework for Leaders,
1997) and New Zealand (Core Competencies for School Principals, 1995) for
the purposes of recruitment and appointment of school principals as well as
for professional development and training illustrates, from the systems
perspectives at least, the roles, responsibilities, expectations and account-
abilities inherent in the principalship.
The specific role of the principal as manager (Standards Framework for
Leaders, 1997) orcorporate manager(Department of Education, 1993) andChief Executive (Education Act, 1989 (NZ), Education Review Office,
1995) has been articulated in policy documents and reports in Australia and
New Zealand respectively in the 1990s and re-enforced the idea that principals
were those officers responsible for the day to day management of the schooland accountable for meeting systemic and community demands. Within a
policy environment characterised by demands for accountability and adher-
ence to policies and practices emanating from the Centre (or Department),
Webb and Vulliamy (1996) aptly noted that school principals are likely to
find themselves faced with competing interests. The challenge facing princi-pals to reconcile these contrasting expectations and demands is unlikely to
be straightforward. The issue of the competing roles of the principal is
explored next.
Role and Workload of Principals
To review thoroughly the empirical literature on the role of the principalship is
beyond the scope and possibility of this paper given the intense interest and
research undertaken in this regard across the last decade or so. Hence only a
limited discussion of the changing role and workload of the principal within a
162 NEIL CRANSTON ET AL.
Downloadedby[UniversityofTas
mania]at20:2422January2014
-
8/13/2019 Secondary School Principalship
6/31
school based management context as that relates specifically to this study is
provided.
A considerable number of studies have investigated the changing natureand role of the principalship within an environment of school reform and
restructuring (see Baker & Dellar, 1999; Boyle, 2000; Cranston, 2000; Harold,
Hawksworth, Mansell, & Thrupp, 2001; Wildy & Louden, 2000; Wildy &
Wallace, 1997; Wylie, 1997). An implication of the changing role has
inevitably resulted in an increased workload and tensions in the role (Baker &
Dellar, 1999; Boyle, 2000; Harold et al., 2001; Knight, 2000; Wylie, 1999a)
for principals in New Zealand and Australia. For instance, a qualitative study
by Harold et al. (2001) and quantitative study by Wylie (1999a) both
conducted in New Zealand found an increased administrative workload forschool principals due to school reform.
An increasing workload and changing role due to school reform was echoed
by principals in Australia. For example, Boyle (2000) found that principals
from the Australian Capital Territory noted an increased workload due to the
expanding role principals are now expected to play. Similarly in Knights(2000) study of 30 principals in Victoria, one of the common concerns raised
by principals was increased expectations of them and an increasing workload.
From his study of the principalship across a number of States in Australia,
New Zealand and elsewhere, Holdaway (1999) reported that the increased
stress and workload associated with the principalship explains in part, at least,
the reason for declining applications for the principalship. The principal
shortage in Australia is also due to the large numbers of principals who are
retiring and expected to retire over the next few years (Richardson, 2002).
Several studies (Cranston, 1999; Harold et al., 2001; Leithwood &
Menzies, 1998; Wildy & Dimmock, 1993) have highlighted that one of the
tensions facing principals is role ambiguity in terms of principal as leader or
manager. The findings from the abovementioned studies indicated that thedominant role played by principals was more managerial than oriented
towards educational leadership concerns or as participants in a study by
Harold et al. (2001) noted,a shift from professional leadership to managerial
roles(p. 2) for the principal. In their meta-analytic like study of 83 research
papers on school based management, Leithwood and Menzies (1998) noted
that under all types of school based management arrangements reported in the
sample, principals were taking on more managerial roles and less instructional
or curriculum leadership roles. The work of Beck and Murphy (1993) is worth
highlighting at this juncture. They remind us that the tension between the
CHANGING ROLES IN SECONDARY SCHOOL PRINCIPALSHIP 163
Downloadedby[UniversityofTas
mania]at20:2422January2014
-
8/13/2019 Secondary School Principalship
7/31
leadership role and management role of the principalship is historical; and its
legacy is likely to continue to be felt into the new millenium.
In summary, what this review of the literature has highlighted is that the roleand workload of principals in Australia and New Zealand, as well as the other
English-speaking countries, across the last decade or so have become more
complex and diverse. Significantly, the literature points to principals beingrequired to draw on both leadership and management skills and competencies
in response to the raft of educational reforms that have led to enhanced
responsibilities and accountabilities for schools. For principals, it has meant a
greater need to consult with their communities regarding decisions affecting their
schools and an almost pragmatic imperative to delegate and empower others in
the school to share leadership responsibilities. This study investigates theseissues for principals of state secondary schools in Queensland and New Zealand.
The next part of paper discusses the methodology that steered the study.
METHODOLOGY
The methodology used in the two education systems (Queensland and New
Zealand) was similar, with a specially developed principal questionnaire
comprising the main data collection strategy, augmented by interviews and focus
groups. The use of a mixed-method approach (Greene, Caracelli, & Graham,
1989; Marshall & Rossman, 1995) was employed in an endeavour to collect rich
data on the key areas of interest as effectively and efficiently as possible. Thediscussion below provides details of the approaches used in the two systems.
Queensland
The Queensland data were drawn from interviews, conducted in 2001 with a
small sample of principals, district and system level education departmentofficers; and, questionnaire responses collected in 2001, from a sample of
principals from state secondary schools in Queensland.Interviewswere semi-
structured in nature, based around a number of items addressing issues such as
the main roles of and challenges for principals; skills and competencies
necessary for the principalship; and perceptions of others view of the role.
Copies of the schedule were provided to respondents before the interview to
allow time for consideration of issues to be raised. Interviews took about
45 min to complete. Interviewees were assured that they (or their schools)
would not be identified in any reporting of findings. Notes were taken at
164 NEIL CRANSTON ET AL.
Downloadedby[UniversityofTas
mania]at20:2422January2014
-
8/13/2019 Secondary School Principalship
8/31
interview with comprehensive summaries developed following the interview.
These summarises were returned to interviewees for their review and
endorsement as accurate records of the discussions. Theinterviewedsample ofsix comprised one female and two male principals; a district director (i.e.,
supervisor of principals); and two officers from Education Queenslands
Central Office engaged in facilitating professional development for principalsthroughout Queensland.
The instrument for this study, called the Role of Secondary Principal
(ROSP) questionnaire, was developed from a number of inputs. These
included the educational literature, the Standards Framework for Leaders
document (Education Queensland, 1997), inputs from the above interviews,
critical comments from the New Zealand research partner, and ideas andconcepts from a similar study into the roles of secondary deputy principals
undertaken by one of the researchers.
The final version of the ROSP questionnaire comprised 18 closed items,about half of which contain several sub-sections within each item and 3
general (optional) open-ended items. The main categories addressed in the
closed items included (1) background information (i.e., gender, years as a
principal, school band, type and location; and level of satisfaction in the role);
(2) aspects of the role and workload of principals, such as hours worked per
week; pressure in the role; variety and diversity of the role; time devoted to
work during a typical week, ideal week and ideal week from the point of view
of the system; (3) the degree of role ambiguity, conflict and overload in the
job; and (4) the degree to which a range of skills and competencies are deemed
very important or not important at all. The optional open ended items asked
principals to (a) indicate their strengths, (b) areas of skill or competency that
require development; and (c) any other comments they would like to make in
regard to their role as a principal.
No names of respondents or schools were required on the questionnaire. Itwas anticipated the questionnaire would take about 10 min to complete. The
questionnaire was provided to participants electronically via email. Of the
312 principals who received the ROSP questionnaire, 108 were returned,
representing a response rate of approximately 35%.
New Zealand
The New Zealand data were drawn from a focus group conducted in 2001 with
a group of eight principals; interviews with representatives from the New
Zealand School Trustees Association (NZSTA), Principals Council (PC), and
CHANGING ROLES IN SECONDARY SCHOOL PRINCIPALSHIP 165
Downloadedby[UniversityofTas
mania]at20:2422January2014
-
8/13/2019 Secondary School Principalship
9/31
Secondary Principals Association of New Zealand (SPANZ); and, ques-
tionnaireresponses collected in 2001 from secondary school principals across
New Zealand using the ROSP questionnaire as described above.The focus group was used to obtain principals views on their role and
workload under Tomorrows Schools (Minister of Education, 1988), in an
environment where they could reflect and comment from within a group ofpeers. The focus group discussion was guided by several open-ended questions
focusing on issues such as the main responsibilities of being a principal, the
main challenges encountered, the skills and competencies necessary for the role
and their understanding of the expectations of the Ministry of Education. The
discussion lasted an hour and a half and was audio-taped. Consent was received
for use of material and quotes.The interviews were semi-structured and based on several questions that
were formulated from the research project objectives and informed by the
review of literature. All respondents received the interview questions in
advance to allow for reflection and interviews were audio-taped and later
summarised. Consent was received for use of material and quotes. The ROSP
questionnaire as above was used for data collection from principals.
Questionnaires were sent by mail to New Zealand secondary principals and
a stamped addressed return envelope was provided. There was a 59% response
rate (240 respondents) for the New Zealand questionnaires.
DATA ANALYSIS
Researchers from Queensland and New Zealand analysed their findingsindividually before executing the comparative analysis of the data. While
there was interest in how principals responded to each of the items and clusters
of items (e.g., the set of questions regarding skills and competencies), therewas also an interest in any statistically significant relationships across items.
For example, were there specific characteristics of principals, say, that werelinked to their satisfaction with being a principal? Relationships that proved to
be statistically significant are discussed later in the paper.
The qualitative data (i.e., interview questions and optional items on the
questionnaire) were analysed following the constant comparative method (i.e.,
Strauss & Corbin, 1990) that enabled key themes emerging from the data to be
identified. The responses to the survey item on overall satisfaction were cross-
tabulated with responses to the remainder of the survey time to explore
166 NEIL CRANSTON ET AL.
Downloadedby[UniversityofTas
mania]at20:2422January2014
-
8/13/2019 Secondary School Principalship
10/31
relationships among them. The Chi-square statistic was used to test the sig-
nificance of possible or apparent relationships. As overall satisfaction was mea-
sured using an ordinal scale, the Pearson and Spearman correlation coefficientswere used subsequently to investigate the strength of potential relationships.
FINDINGS
Thefindings are presented under a number of key headings using comments
from the interviews and focus group to illustrate and elaborate on issues
identified. Both similarities and differences among the data from the two
education systems are noted where appropriate. In particular, statisticallysignificant differences between the two sets of data on key items are highlighted.
School and General Characteristics of Respondents
Queensland
Fifty-four percent1 of respondents were located in city/urban schools, forty-
six percent in rural/remote schools. Respondents were located in schools of
various sizes and socio-economic environments. Administratively, schools are
allocated to a particular category, referred to as a Band, where the Band of a
school is based on a complex array of factors, including school size, socio-
economic status and other variables. Secondary schools are designated from
Bands 8 (smallest) to 11 (largest). Our findings indicated that respondents
were located in schools across the Band range, although those from Band 8
and 11 schools were smaller in number, reflecting their lower number in thepopulation of such schools across the state. The vast majority of respondents
worked in what might be termed typical secondary schools, i.e., those that
accommodated students from years 8 to 12. The remainder of respondentswere principals of P-10 or P-12 schools.
Sixty-four percent of participants were male and 36% of participants were
female. A significant majority of respondents have four or more years
experience as principals with a little under a third three or less years
experience. Almost half had nine or more years experience as principal. A
significant majority of respondents have been principal in their current schoolfor nine or less years.
1All percentages are rounded.
CHANGING ROLES IN SECONDARY SCHOOL PRINCIPALSHIP 167
Downloadedby[UniversityofTas
mania]at20:2422January2014
-
8/13/2019 Secondary School Principalship
11/31
New Zealand
Like Queensland, the majority of respondents were located in urban areas as
against rural areas, with schools being represented in all decile categories (ameasure of the schools socio-economic standing). Fewer schools were in the
lowest decile category with the highest number of schools being in decile range
3 to 5.
A similar gender profile data to Queensland was evident in the respondents.
Only one-third of respondents have more than nine or more years experience
although only one-quarter have less than 3 years. Three-quarters of
respondents have been principal at their currentschool for more than 4 years
and most principals (95%) have been principal at 2 schools or less. This
indicates that the majority of the respondents have less than nine yearsexperience and have also remained principal at their first or second school.
In summary, Queensland principals tended to be more experienced than
their counterparts in New Zealand (in terms of years as a principal and number
of schools as a principal).
Satisfaction With Role and Views About the Role
(Interviews and Questionnaire Responses)
Over 80 percent of the respondents in both countries reported being satisfiedor very satisfied with their role of principal, with only 10 percent (Queensland)
and 7 percent (New Zealand) indicating they were dissatisfied. All three
Queensland principals interviewed indicated that the principalship was
rewarding professionally and personally. One of these principals said, Imglad to be able to say Im a principal. Other similar unsolicited positive
comments were provided by other principals in the open-ended items on the
questionnaire. These included statements such as: I like my job it is
challenging and interesting; and I love this job and dont want to do
anything else the variety of work is stimulating.Comments by New Zealand principals were similarly positive. One
principal from the focus group emphatically declared: I thoroughly enjoy therole of principal and it gives me a huge sense of satisfaction.The group as a
whole affirmed that being a principal allowed them tomake a differencefor
students, staff and the community. Unsolicited comments from the open-
ended questions in the questionnaire includedI love my job; anddespite the
workload it is a hugely satisfying job.
It is worth noting that although principals in both countries reported similar
high (over 80%) levels of satisfaction with their position, the ratio of very
168 NEIL CRANSTON ET AL.
Downloadedby[UniversityofTas
mania]at20:2422January2014
-
8/13/2019 Secondary School Principalship
12/31
satisfied to satisfied was 1:1 for New Zealand principals and 1:2 for
Queensland principals, suggesting that New Zealand principals generally
enjoyed higher levels of satisfaction than their Queensland colleagues. Whilethis difference was not statistically significant, it is notable in the light of the
differences between Queensland and New Zealand identified in this research
and the fact that New Zealand principals have had more time to adapt to and
accommodate the changes to their role brought about by school-based
management reforms.
Importantly, overall satisfaction was related to:
the overall difference between principals actual (REAL) and preferred
IDEAL time allocations; and, the overall difference between principals actual (REAL) and SYSTEM
(i.e., those of the education employing authority) PREFERRED time
allocations.
That is, satisfaction was related to how well aligned the REAL and
EXPECTED roles were; the greater the alignment the higher the levels of
satisfaction. Further discussion of these time allocations with respect to
specific roles undertaken is provided later.Role ambiguity (i.e., not being clear of what their role is about or the
expectations on them)role conflict(i.e., between what they think they should
be doing and what othersexpectations might be) and role overload(i.e., too
much to do) were identified by both Queensland and New Zealand principals
as being matters of concern. Fourteen percent of principals from Queensland
and 10% from New Zealand noted that role ambiguity existed to a great
extent, while around half of them (43% for Queensland) and (54% for New
Zealand) noted it occurred to some extent. Thirty-two percent of Queensland
principals and 34% of New Zealand principals noted that role conflict occurs
to a great extent. Again around one half of participants from both countriesnoted it occurred to some extent (48% for Queensland and 51% for New
Zealand). Role overload was said to occur to a great extent by principals in
both systems with 75% of Queensland principals and 76% of New Zealand
principals respectively reporting it occurs to a greatextent.
The interview data supported thesefindings from the survey as role conflict,
role ambiguity and role overload were identified as inherent in theprincipalship. One Queensland principal, for example, summed it up when
she saidsometimes I wonder how I manage it all.Another in the open-ended
items of the questionnaire observed that I cannot continue to keep pace with
CHANGING ROLES IN SECONDARY SCHOOL PRINCIPALSHIP 169
Downloadedby[UniversityofTas
mania]at20:2422January2014
-
8/13/2019 Secondary School Principalship
13/31
all that is considered the realistic core of my role.Comments by New Zealand
principals were similar: The workload is relentless and it is a whirlwind
existence.Many principals from both systems expressed the concern that the
workload affected home and personal life and in one interview a principal
suggested that the incessant demands were creating tentacles of misery.Thispowerful image reveals the far reaching effects of an excessive workload on
this particular principals morale and general state of happiness. Another NewZealand principal blamed work overload on the lack of vision/strategy of the
Ministry of Education in their processes and hence the ambiguous demands
and constant moving sands.In general, the summation of comments indicated
that competing demands from the community, system/Ministry, and otherstakeholders often left principals feeling overwhelmed.
General Aspects of Roles and Responsibilities of Principals
Almost two-thirds of Queensland respondents indicated the number of hours
worked in their role as principal had increased compared with earlier, with
the remainder reporting them about the same. This was higher than for
New Zealand principals (46%). Similarly, 72% of Queensland respondents
indicated the pressure had increased in the past few years compared with 54
percent of New Zealand respondents. These differences between Queensland
and New Zealand could reflect the earlier and more extensive moves towards
school-based management in New Zealand, i.e., New Zealand principals had
experienced higher demands and workloads for longer than Queensland
principals.
Further, the vast majority of New Zealand principals (73%) indicated their
typical week workload was 60 hr or more, while most Queensland respondents
(49%) reported a typical workload of 5059 hr, with 43% reporting 60 hr or
more. Only 1% of New Zealand principals reported working 4049hr in atypical week compared with 8% of Queensland respondents. This may reflect
the more extensive degree of devolution in New Zealand than Queensland;
that is, there are greater responsibilities and accountabilities to be attended to
by New Zealand principals.
Over 80% of Queensland principals reported the variety and diversity of
what they did in their role had increased compared with earlier. One principal
noted that our role has become all encompassing. We are expected to be
financial wizards, counselling wizards, curriculum wizards, crisis manage-
ment wizards.While New Zealand principals reported increases in the variety
170 NEIL CRANSTON ET AL.
Downloadedby[UniversityofTas
mania]at20:2422January2014
-
8/13/2019 Secondary School Principalship
14/31
and diversity in their role, it was not to the same extent as their Queensland
colleagues, again possibly reflecting the differences in the extent of devolution
across the two systems noted earlier.Interview comments supported the questionnaire data that principals were
working longer hours and were facing greater pressures now than they did in
previous years. For example, while one Queensland principal claimed that he
spent between 7075 hr per week on his duties, several New Zealand principals
asserted that they work 80100 hr per week. A New Zealand principalprovided a powerful comparative statement regarding workload across the last
decade when he stated thatthe job is at least four times the job it was when I
started in 1991. It seems that some of the pressures in both systems were
attributed to the rate of change and the Government who constantly changesthe goal posts.
The real concern for many principals in both systems was the future
repercussions of the heavy workload. As one New Zealand principal stated,
many potential principals are being put off by senior management due to the
huge demands placed upon principals. As alluded to previously, some
principals in the study indicated that one of the major repercussions of an
excessive workload was the potential personal cost to their family and home
lives.
Specific Aspects of Role
The findings for a number of specific aspects of the role of principals are
provided. In thefirst instance,findings for each of the systems are considered
separately, followed by some relevant comparison across the two systems.
Data were collected via the ROSP questionnaire with respect to principals
views of their roles from three different perspectives:
how they actually dedicated their time in a typical week (the REAL);
how they would prefer to dedicate their time in an IDEAL week;
how they believed the SYSTEM would like them to dedicate their time in
an IDEAL week that is, what they think is expected of them. (Thesystem refers to the employing education authority and includes the views
of personnel such as District Directors and other senior officers within the
Department of Education).
Queensland
Table 1 summarises the role of principals in a typical (REAL) week.
CHANGING ROLES IN SECONDARY SCHOOL PRINCIPALSHIP 171
Downloadedby[UniversityofTas
mania]at20:2422January2014
-
8/13/2019 Secondary School Principalship
15/31
This table shows the role of the principal in a typical week (REAL)dominated by management/administration, staffing issues; and parent/community issues, while strategic leadership (72%) and educational/
curriculum leadership (75%) both had less prominence, although still quite
high prominence. The interview data confirmed that principals play multiple
and diverse roles and two principals used the term, Chief Executive Officer(CEO) to define their role. Principals and other interviewees alluded to roles
which included working with staff, being accountable to the system and
dealing with change. A strong current through the interview data was the
huge juggling act principals engage in as they attempt to carry out the
leadership and management dimensions of their work.
At this juncture, it is important to point out that no operational definitions of
any of the categories (i.e., strategic leadership, educational leadership, and so
on) were provided to respondents. Thus, principals responded according to
their own conceptions of each of the categories. However, these conceptions
are expected to be based in Queensland for example, on those drawn from
documents such as the Standards Framework for Leaders (Education
Queensland, 1997) which delineates these categories in considerable detail.Of course there are overlaps across two such broad categories asleadership
andmanagementbut they do offer a convenient way to examine the roles ofprincipals. All principals would be very familiar with these concepts as
defined in the Framework, as they form the basis of selection for the
principalship as well as principal performance review. In addition, principals
in interview had no difficulties in distinguishing across the two broadcategories of leadership and management and the types of activities that might
be considered to belong to each.
Table 2 summarises the role of principals in a preferred (IDEAL) week.
Table 1. Roles of Principals in a Typical or REAL Week (Queensland).
In a typical (REAL) week, time
dedicated to these activities
Great deal
of time (%)
Some time
(%)
Total
(great some) (%)
Strategic leadership 31 41 72
Educational/curriculum leadership 19 56 75
Management/administration 72 25 97
Student issues 40 41 81
Parent/community issues 45 49 94
Staffing issues 47 47 94
172 NEIL CRANSTON ET AL.
Downloadedby[UniversityofTas
mania]at20:2422January2014
-
8/13/2019 Secondary School Principalship
16/31
The role of the principal in a preferred week(IDEAL) from a principalsperspective would see the situation for the real week effectively reversed so
that there would be a significant focus on strategic and educational/curriculumleadership and parent/community issues. There would be less focus on
student, staff and administrative matters.
Table 3 provides a comparison across three views of the principals role:REAL v IDEAL v IDEAL (system).
The final column in Table 3 shows the role of the principal in an IDEAL
week from a SYSTEM perspective (as seen by principals). As illustrated, there
is a strong focus on strategic and educational/curriculum leadership, parent/
community issues as well as management and administration. In sum, the
system, as seen by principals, expects them to have a focus on both leadership
and management. Reflective of these questionnaire data, the interviewed
principals indicated that the system perspective of principals role was being
strategic andaccountableto the system.
Table 2. Roles of Principals in a Preferred or IDEAL Week (Queensland).
In an IDEAL week from principal
perspective, time dedicated tothese activities
Great deal
of time (%)
Some time
(%)
Total
(great some)(%)
Strategic leadership 84 16 100
Educational/curriculum leadership 71 25 96
Management/administration 2 45 47
Student issues 1 35 36
Parent/community issues 20 67 87
Staffing issues 8 51 59
Table 3. Roles of Principals Compared REAL v IDEAL (Queensland).
Comparison REAL and IDEAL week REAL(%)
IDEAL
(principal) %
IDEAL
(system) (%)
Strategic leadership 72 100 100
Educational/curriculum leadership 75 96 99
Management/administration 97 47# 84
Student issues 81 36# 76
Parent/community issues 94 87 94
Staffing matters 94 59# 73#
Note. Positive difference >20%, i.e. MORE of this activity desirable.
#Negative difference >20%, i.e. LESS of this activity desirable.
CHANGING ROLES IN SECONDARY SCHOOL PRINCIPALSHIP 173
Downloadedby[UniversityofTas
mania]at20:2422January2014
-
8/13/2019 Secondary School Principalship
17/31
Table 3 also indicates that principals reported their typical (real) role as
being somewhat different from both what they would like to see ideally, as
well as what they expected the system would like to see of them as principals.In general, respondents suggested they would like to see their role more
concerned with leadership, while the system expects both leadership and
management roles. At present, management and administration have a higher
prominence than principals would prefer. The earlier comments regarding role
ambiguity and role conflict are relevant here as is the earlier discussionregarding the overall satisfaction principals feel in their position. Noteworthy
is that how close their actual and preferred activities align is a key contributor
to their level of satisfaction. For example, overall satisfaction was related
(statistically significantly) to the actual time dedicated to strategic leadershipand to educational/curriculum leadership, preferred priorities as identified by
principals. That is, the greater the role alignment, the higher the level of
satisfaction.
New Zealand
Table 4 summarises the New Zealand data for a typical (REAL) week.
The role of the principal in a typical (REAL) week was reported as
dominated by management and administration and student and staffing issues.Community issues were also dominant. Notably, strategic leadership (65%)
and educational and curriculum leadership (71%) both had significantly less
prominence. From the comments offered in the questionnaire, one principal
summed up the challenge as the juggling of competing demands of paper andpeoplewhile several, like their Queensland colleagues, used the term CEO
to describe their position.
In contrast, in an IDEAL week (Table 5) the principals would almost
reverse the typical situation as outlined above.
Table 4. Roles of Principals in a Typical or REAL Week (New Zealand).
In a typical (REAL) week, time dedicated
to these activities
Great deal
of time (%)
Some time
(%)
Total(great some) (%)
Strategic leadership 21 44 65
Educational/curriculum leadership 14 57 71
Management/administration 78 20 98
Student issues 34 51 85
Parent/community issues 44 46 90
Staffing issues 46 49 95
174 NEIL CRANSTON ET AL.
Downloadedby[UniversityofTas
mania]at20:2422January2014
-
8/13/2019 Secondary School Principalship
18/31
The data, expressing similar trends to that from Queensland principals,
suggest that strategic leadership and educational leadership would have morefocus with a far less emphasis (64%) placed on management and admin-
istration and student issues.
Table 6 provides a comparison across the three views of the principals role:
REAL v IDEAL (principal) v IDEAL (system).
Thefinal column in Table 6 reveals that the role of the principal in an ideal
week from an ideal system perspective appears to be balanced, drawing on
aspects of both leadership and management. This is broadly similar to the
Queensland data. While management and community issues are still seen as a
priority, strategic, educational and curriculum leadership feature as the most
significant activities. The comments recorded in both questionnaires and
interviews also supported a more balanced role as being essential.
Broadly similar to the Queensland data, Table 6 also indicates that
principalsreal role was quite different from both what they would like to seeas an ideal, as well as what they expected the system would like to see of them
Table 5. Roles of Principals in a Preferred or IDEAL Week (New Zealand).
In an IDEAL week from principal perspective,
time dedicated to these activities
Great deal
of time (%)
Some time
(%)
Total
(great some) (%)
Strategic leadership 73 26 99
Educational/curriculum leadership 70 27 97
Management/administration 3 61 64
Student issues 8 44 52
Parent/community issues 13 64 77
Staffing issues 10 62 72
Table 6. Roles of Principals Compared REAL v IDEAL (New Zealand).
Comparison REAL and IDEAL week REAL(%)
IDEAL
(principal) %
IDEAL
(system) (%)
Strategic leadership 65 99 95
Educational/curriculum leadership 71 97 93
Management/administration 98 64# 87
Student issues 85 52# 57#
Parent/community issues 90 77# 85
Operational matters 95 72# 73#
Note. Positive difference >20%, i.e. MORE of this activity desirable.
#Negative difference >20%, i.e. LESS of this activity desirable.
CHANGING ROLES IN SECONDARY SCHOOL PRINCIPALSHIP 175
Downloadedby[UniversityofTas
mania]at20:2422January2014
-
8/13/2019 Secondary School Principalship
19/31
as principals. In general, respondents suggested they would like to see their
role more concerned with leadership, while the system expects both leadership
and management roles.In summary, then, there are similar broad trends in the data for the two
systems. However, compared with the New Zealand respondents, Queensland
principals expressed greater preference for strategic leadership, and less
preference for management/administration and student issues. The Queens-
land system was seen to expect principals to spend more time on educational/
curriculum leadership than their New Zealand counterparts.
The next part of the discussion is concerned with the nature and importance
of the skills and competencies principals believe are required of them as they
undertake the roles as identified above. The findings reported draw on bothquestionnaire and interview responses. Importantly, they highlight what
capacities are required of principals in the dynamic changing context in which
they work.
Skills and Competencies Important to the Roles
and Responsibilities of Principals
Queensland
As can be seen from Table 7 Queensland principals identified inspiring and
visioning change for their schools andstrong interpersonal/people skillsas the
key skills in undertaking their role. These were supported bysound delegation
and empowerment skills.
Comments such as the following were typical of those offered by
questionnaire respondents with respect to inspiring and vision change:
Table 7. Skills and Competencies for Principals (Queensland).
Skills, competencies important to
role as principal
Very
important
(%)
Important
(%)
Total(very import
important) (%)
Inspiring, visioning change for school 92 8 100
Demonstrating strong interpersonal, people skills 95 5 100
Capacity to delegate, empower others 83 17 100
Managing uncertainty for self and others 51 45 96
Managing change for self and others 59 40 99
Capacity to develop networks 54 43 97
Effective and efficient manager, administrator 46 44 90
176 NEIL CRANSTON ET AL.
Downloadedby[UniversityofTas
mania]at20:2422January2014
-
8/13/2019 Secondary School Principalship
20/31
inspiring people to align to a shared vision and values of the school;andthe
ability to genuinely gather the hearts and minds of the entire staff and
community. With respect to interpersonal/people skills, the following wereelaborated,the ability to get people to work together, to resolve conflict; anddevelop meaningful trusting relationships with all key stakeholders. While
the other skills and competencies listed in the questionnaire were reported
as important, they were seen to be less important to their roles and
responsibilities. The interview data confirmed the trends in the questionnairefindings above in so far as it was leadership and people skills more so than
management skills that principals articulated as being particularly critical.
Similar to the survey response data, less attention was evident in the interview
data regarding management issues except that one principal mentioned theimportance of developing effective and efficient systems to make it all
happen.
Twofinal matters are noted in this section. Thefirst concerns the point thatsome aspects of principals management and administrative roles appear to
cause considerable frustration for them. In this regard, the perceived under-
resourcing of state secondary schools contrasted with similar schools from the
non-government sector was noted by some respondents. The second matter
identified by Queensland principals relates to some rather insightful commentsabout the need to do a good job and to be seen as a competent principal as well
as observations that principals need to be persistent, hard workers, achievers
with common sense, creative and have a sense of humour. Importantly, several
noted notions of ethical and moral leadership when they highlighted
characteristics such as integrity, honesty, the capacity to empathise with
others and fairness.
New Zealand
As identified in Table 8, New Zealand principals noted inspiring, visioningchange and strong interpersonal skills, supported by sound delegation and
management skillsas key skills necessary to undertake their roles.
The focus group principals echoed this emphasis on inspiring and visioning
and also reflected on the passion and the mission that they brought to the
role.
With respect to interpersonal skills, some commented as follows, indicating
like some Queensland principals, an emphasis on the ethical and moral
dimensions of the way they operated with others, It is a complex people-
intensive position (being a principal), demanding much; andIt is impossible
CHANGING ROLES IN SECONDARY SCHOOL PRINCIPALSHIP 177
Downloadedby[UniversityofTas
mania]at20:2422January2014
-
8/13/2019 Secondary School Principalship
21/31
to please everyone, so all one can do is operate according to principle, be
constant as all need to trust you.While leadership skills are identified as very important, it is conceded that
management and administration skills are also highly relevant to the demands
of the principals role. One principal expressed that he saw his job asmanaging a business but, like some Queensland principals, added that
schools need more administration support.
New Zealand principals, perhaps reflective of the fact they have worked for
some years in a more devolved model of school based management than their
Queensland counterparts, highlighted the importance of, and time devoted to,
marketing of their school. That is, New Zealand schools operate in a more
competitive environment of self-management in which their schools
achievements need to be highlighted to attract potential students. Queensland
schools are generally less concerned with such matters at this time.
The need to market schools in the current competitive school environment
links with workload issues as one New Zealand principal explained:
I am very conscious of the large amount of time I spend on what wouldloosely be termed as marketing. There is an inequity between principal
workload in this respect; (especially for) lower decile, falling school rolls
where disproportionate amounts of time and money are spent on marketing
through necessity.
Although many New Zealand principals expressed concern and pessimism
regarding workload and the complexity of the demands placed upon them,
some optimistically indicated that they wished todo the right thingand feel
that they have the power to do so. Similar to the Queensland principals,
Table 8. Skills and Competencies for Principals (New Zealand).
Skills, competencies important
to role as principal
Very
important(%)
Important
(%)
Total
(very import important) (%)
Inspiring, visioning change for school 90 10 100
Demonstrating strong interpersonal, people skills 92 8 100
Capacity to delegate, empower others 72 27 99
Managing uncertainty for self and others 40 53 93
Managing change for self and others 50 46 96
Capacity to develop networks 41 55 96
Effective and efficient manager, administrator 66 32 98
178 NEIL CRANSTON ET AL.
Downloadedby[UniversityofTas
mania]at20:2422January2014
-
8/13/2019 Secondary School Principalship
22/31
observations were also made regarding strengths that principals need to
possess, namely being hard workers, keeping a sense of humour, being able to
speak their mind but also be trustworthy, honest and firm in order to achievecommon goals.
In sum, while there were many broad similarities in the findings for the
principals for the two systems, Queensland and New Zealand principals
differed significantly in terms of the importance they placed on being an
effective and efficient manager. Sixty-seven percent of New Zealandprincipals rated this as very important with another 32% rating it as
important. Queensland principals rated it 45% and 44% respectively. This
lesser emphasis for Queensland principals probably reflects the more
extensive levels of devolution in New Zealand compared with Queenslandand the accompanying higher levels of responsibility and accountability for
managing resources and budgets residing with New Zealand principals
compared with those in Queensland.
Despite this one significant difference, in both systems there were agreed
and strong views on what is takes in terms of skills and competencies to be a
principal in the changing context within which schools now operate. These
skills and competencies provide an important focus for professional
development of principals.
Professional Development
In Queensland, generally, principals identified leadership rather than
management skills as being critical to their role, where such leadership skills
are seen to encompass well-developed and expansive interpersonal skills. For
example, the two most frequently mentioned professional development areasindicated in this open-ended item were: leadership skills (including visioning,
change management, team building, interpersonal skills) and financial
management/business management. These two responses seem to reflectprincipalsperceptions of the systemsexpectations on them in terms of their
roles as both leaders and managers.
InNew Zealand, professional development opportunities were seen as vital
by the principals and stakeholders, with comments suggesting that it is essentialto attend PD opportunities and the principal network to reduce professional
isolation; andwe need training before starting the job and regularly throughthe first couple of years. However there was a strong consensus that
professional development is necessary at all stages of being a principal and
no less before the job begins. Such training would enhance skills identified as
CHANGING ROLES IN SECONDARY SCHOOL PRINCIPALSHIP 179
Downloadedby[UniversityofTas
mania]at20:2422January2014
-
8/13/2019 Secondary School Principalship
23/31
handling public relations, financial management, property, resourcing, staff
management and change management. Such skills are identified in thefindings
of this research as underpinning the competencies required of principals.
DISCUSSION
A number of themes emerging from the questionnaire and interview data are
identified for further discussion. These are issues relating to principals
satisfaction with their job; the contrasts between the real or actual role
compared with the ideal or preferred role and the system-expected role;
leadership v management; and, the skills and competencies required byprincipals to undertake their roles.
Satisfaction Despite Role Ambiguity, Conflict and Overload
An important finding of this study was the high percentage of principals in
both Queensland New Zealand who reported satisfaction in the role. Over
80% of Queensland principals and 85% of New Zealand principals were either
satisfied or very satisfied with the position they held, despite the fact they
reported role ambiguity, role overload and role conflict. Pressure in the rolewas more pronounced for Queensland principals as 72% noted this had
increased in recent years compared with 54% of New Zealand principals.
Perhaps this difference may be explained by the fact that New Zealand
principals have experienced more intensive pressure in the role since the late
1980s and were becoming more accustomed to it, whereas for Queensland
principals the pressures had become to be felt more in recent years as the
system had moved more along the devolution continuum. The majority of
principals (73%) in New Zealand indicated they worked 60 hr or more in a
typical week compared with the 43% of Queensland principals who reportedworking 60 hr or more. As highlighted previously, the greater degree of
devolution experienced by principals in New Zealand may have accounted for
the greater numbers of principals reporting working 60 hr or more. Despite the
long hours worked, as indicated earlier, a majority of principals reported role
conflict, role ambiguity and role overload. That is, there are real tensions for
principals as they endeavour to not only keep on top of a significant andvaried workload, but also as they struggle to be comfortable with those
issues on which they should be spending their time. This is explored further
below in the discussion about role alignment for principals.
180 NEIL CRANSTON ET AL.
Downloadedby[UniversityofTas
mania]at20:2422January2014
-
8/13/2019 Secondary School Principalship
24/31
The findings expressed by principals in both systems pertaining to role
conflict, role ambiguity and role overload mirror research conducted on the
principalship under school based management (Boyle, 2000; Holdaway, 1999;Knight, 2000; Portin, Shen, & Williams, 1998; Wildy & Louden, 2000; Wildy
& Wallace, 1997). Similarly the increasing workload (e.g., over 50 hr per week)
and pressure in the role reported by principals in this study is not dissimilar to
principals in other States in Australia (Boyle, 2000; Knight, 2000) as well as in
New Zealand (Wylie, 1999a) and in the USA (Portin et al., 1998).
Real versus Ideal
It seems that principal satisfaction can be understood in a variety of ways.
Firstly, principals in both systems identified an ideal (or preferred) week asone that would focus mainly on three key areas, viz. strategic leadership,
educational leadership and parent/community issues. When contrasted with
their typical (or actual) week, principals spent some time on strategic
leadership and educational leadership but not as much as what they would
wish. That both New Zealand and Queensland principals saw the ideal week
as one where they could devote more time to leadership matters is not
surprising. For instance, Boyles (2000) research came to the same conclusion
as principals in her study saw that educational leadership in curriculum andpedagogywere the most important and satisfying aspects of their work.
While principals in both systems identified parent/community issues as
important, an ideal week would see them devoting less time to these issues
than they currently spend. The percentage difference between the total time
devoted to these issues in a typical week (real) and time devoted in an ideal
week (ideal), was minimal for Queensland principals, but considerably greater
for New Zealand principals. The percentage difference for New Zealand
principals may be a reflection of the formalised structures of school govern-
ance (via Boards of Trustees) that mandate a close and strong relationshipbetween the principal and parents and community groups and therefore
considerable time required to maintain these relationships and networks. Both
Wylie (1999b) and Harold et al. (2001) note that under New Zealands school
based governance model, parents have become more vocal, more involved and
more willing to voice their concerns and raise issues with either the principal
and or Board of Trustees than previously.
Another issue for consideration here is the possible contribution to
principal satisfaction by the increasing diversity and variety of activities
inherent in the role. While no statistical relationship was evident in this data,
CHANGING ROLES IN SECONDARY SCHOOL PRINCIPALSHIP 181
Downloadedby[UniversityofTas
mania]at20:2422January2014
-
8/13/2019 Secondary School Principalship
25/31
principals in both systems, particularly Queensland principals, reported an
increase in the diversity and variety of the job. Holdaways comments about
the principalship did identify such a link between satisfaction and diversity:
The work of principals has become far more complex than it was when I
began teaching in 1955 but the challenge of dealing effectively with
stressors has the potential for generating more satisfaction than was
experienced by principals several years ago. (Holdaway, 1999, p. 8)
Thus, it may be that the diversity and variety in the role reported here by
principals is not seen as a negative. Rather, it may be one of the positive
manifestations of a highly challenging, complex and demanding position such
as that of the principal.
Leadership versus Management
As discussed previously, principals from both systems desired more time to
devote to leadership and less time for management and administration. Ideally
Queensland principals reported that they would prefer to spend half as much
time on management than they do currently, while for New Zealand
principals, an ideal situation would see them spending about one-third less
time on management and administration. Yet the reality for many of the
principals (and those interviewed) was that the role was like that of a Chief
Executive Officer charged mainly with management and administrative
responsibilities. Studies from Australia and elsewhere have highlighted that
one of the tensions facing principals is role conflict in terms of whether theirloyalties and energies should lie in either leadership or management
(Leithwood & Menzies, 1998; Wildy & Dimmock, 1993). Studies (e.g.,
Baker & Dellar, 1999; Cranston, 1999; Leithwood & Menzies, 1998; Wildy &
Dimmock, 1993) have found that the dominant role played by principals tends
to be more managerial than oriented towards educational leadership concerns.For instance, Wildy and Dimmock (1993) noted that principals tend not to be
involved greatly in instructional or curriculum leadership work, due to the
other demands on their time and load. Both Baker and Dellars (1999) and
Leithwood and Menzies (1998) commented that more managerial work
inevitably means less time on instructional and other leadership issues. A
study conducted by Brubaker and Simon (1987) 16 years ago in the United
States noted that principals preferred role was instructional leader while
their actual role was administrator. The tension which exists between the
educative role and the administrative role played by leaders seems to be a
182 NEIL CRANSTON ET AL.
Downloadedby[UniversityofTas
mania]at20:2422January2014
-
8/13/2019 Secondary School Principalship
26/31
perennial dilemma. It is possible that the current agenda of school based
management may in fact be exacerbating this tension, because of the heavy
administrative burden which characterises it.Noteworthy when one considers satisfaction of principals and what they do
during a week, is that those principals reporting higher levels of satisfaction
are those where what they do (typical, actual week) and what they would like
to do (idea, preferred) are similar and where this is also similar to what they
believe the system expects them to do. The important emphasis here is the
desired and expected role focus on aspects of leadership. This might be seen as
role alignmentand offers a particularly powerful concept for consideration in
future research into the principalship. While the findings from this study
suggest that there was evidence of role alignment due to high levels ofprincipal satisfaction, some of the qualitative data particularly from the New
Zealand principals highlighted a mismatch between principals expectations
of their role and the systems expectations. For instance, there was a strongsense of dissatisfaction from the New Zealand principals regarding the
continual interventions of the Ministry of Education (i.e., the system). These
interventions were manifested by the increasingly complex changes to
policies and practices and the demand that principals be able to manage new
requirements and tasks immediately.
That principals experience managerial challenges as well as dislocation,
change and uncertainty in their work has been documented in the literature
(Robenstine, 2000). Perhaps part of the answer to ensuring that there is role
alignment particularly in relation to principalsexpectations of their role andthe systems expectations of their role lies in the hands of Education systems.
There may need to be some strategic systemic responses in the form of
professional development of principals or enhanced school resourcing to
facilitate a shift from the current state to one more desired by both the
principals themselves and the system. This is not a necessarily easy to fulfil,particularly in these changing times. Furthermore, it would seem that any
mismatching of what principals actually do compared to what is viewed as
both appropriate (from a system perspective) and ideal (from the principals
perspective) demands further investigation if the principalship is to attract
quality educators in the future.
Skills and Competencies of Principals
The three most frequently noted skills and competencies both Queensland and
New Zealand principals identified as important for their role as principal were
CHANGING ROLES IN SECONDARY SCHOOL PRINCIPALSHIP 183
Downloadedby[UniversityofTas
mania]at20:2422January2014
-
8/13/2019 Secondary School Principalship
27/31
inspiring, visioning change for schools; demonstrating interpersonal skills;
and the capacity to delegate and empower others. All of these skills point to
capacities related to leadership and working effectively with others. In termsof professional development needs, principals from both countries also
identified leadership related skills and abilities. Such findings are not
surprising when one considers the changing agendas facing schooling and
school leaders as they move into the twenty first century. Principals see the
possession of good interpersonal skills as vital for enhancing and building
collaborative relationships with staff, students and members of the wider
community. All of the skills that relate to vision building, strengthening
relationships and partnerships and gaining commitment from staff and
students are consistent with the key personal competencies documented in theStandards Framework for Leaders (Education Queensland, 1997) and Core
Competencies for School Principals (Education Review Office, 1995).
Of the seven skills and competencies principals were asked to rate,
Queensland principals rated management/administration as the least impor-
tant, whereas New Zealand principals rated it as the fourth most important
skill. The findings reported in the qualitative data mirrored this emphasis, as
very few of the Queensland principals made mention of management/
administration as a particularly important skill in contrast with New Zealand
principals who conceded that management/administration skills are highly
relevant to the demands of the principals role. As alluded to previously, a
reason to explain this difference might lie with the greater degree of
devolution experienced by New Zealand principals. Thus the greater degree
of the devolution, the greater the expectation that principals will play the
role of manager/Chief Executive Officer and the greater the need to havecompetent administration/management skills.
The Queensland findings which showed that principals were interested in
developing leadership rather than management competencies is consistentwith the findings of Baker and Dellar (1999). Principals in their study
identified priority issues as those which wereassociated with the substance ofschooling, namely quality teaching and learningwhereastypical managerial
tasks of an administrator (p. 20) were not given any mention. In regard to
Queensland principals, there was one exception to the general trend away
from management/administration and that was in the area of financialmanagement. In fact, principals from both Queensland and New Zealand
noted thatfinancial management was an area of need. This is understandable
because under school based management arrangements, the importance of
184 NEIL CRANSTON ET AL.
Downloadedby[UniversityofTas
mania]at20:2422January2014
-
8/13/2019 Secondary School Principalship
28/31
possessing competent financial skills has become increasingly important for
school leaders. This need has been identified by other researchers. As an
example, Boyles (2000) study of principals in the ACT, found that two-thirdsof them rated financial management as an important issue for professional
development.
CONCLUSION
The research reported here is part of the continuing journey of endeavouring to
understand the principalship in these times of rapid and unpredictable change
and challenge for schools and school leaders. For these secondary principals,there are tensions and dilemmas around the broad focus of their roles in terms
of theleadershipversusmanagementaspects. This is well summarised by one
of the Queensland principals:
the most frustrating aspect to me is the following paradox: the system says
it wants us to lead, and when we are with colleagues in networks, we talk
and plan a lot of leadership stuff, but when we are in school there is a huge
and actual demand that we participate directly in many managerial and
administrative tasks.
However, such comments should not be extrapolated to describe these
secondary principals as being unhappy in their role. In fact, most were
satisfied with it. Many of the comments made by principals during theinterviews reinforced the view that they were deeply commitment to the job
and to making a difference in the lives of students. That school principalshave altruistic tendencies because they put the concerns of others, such as
students and staff, before their own needs has been identified by researchers
across many countries (Baker & Dellar, 1999). While it is true that principalsare working long hours, feel pressure (and this is increasing), identify
increased variety and diversity in the demands of their role as well as reporting
some role overload role conflict it is also true and most significant that the
majority of them are satisfied in their role as principal.
What is particularly interesting in relation to this satisfaction is that is
derives in part from what might be seen as role alignment. That is, wheretheir actual role the one typical for them in a week aligns with what they
actually would like the role to be like and with what the system expects of
them. In this regard, what principals would like to see again in broad focus
CHANGING ROLES IN SECONDARY SCHOOL PRINCIPALSHIP 185
Downloadedby[UniversityofTas
mania]at20:2422January2014
-
8/13/2019 Secondary School Principalship
29/31
terms is an enhanced leadership role and a lessened management role, that is
one that engages them in a major way on operational matters related to
students and staff. Lack of role clarity and consistency are issues of concernfor all the respondents, who expressed their frustrations at the continual need
to cope with often contradictory demands, while maintaining institutional and
visionary stability.
Generally for most principals involved in this study, one senses a group of
committed and able individuals, who like those in many other professions
struggle to make sense of, and respond to, changing demands on them. For the
system employing these principals, there are clear messages here as to what
contemporary research says about the role and workload of secondary
educational leaders. How the system might capitalise on the positivesidentified in this research, such as high levels of satisfaction among principals,
as well as how it might respond to the continuing role tensions faced by
principals and their on-going identified professional development needs arequestions for consideration in the future. The issue of adequate, timely,
effective, and ongoing professional development is critical not only for
principals currently in the position, but also for those aspiring to the
principalship as a way of preparing them for the multi-faceted demands of
the role. Given the current principal shortage in Australia and New Zealand,
the need for systems to prepare and nurture aspirant leaders is paramount.
Thefindings from this research have highlighted that professional support
via training and development in both leadership and management areas will
be required if principals are going to be able to continue to meet the challenges
inherent in their day to day work. Several authors (see Baker & Dellar,
1999; Boyle, 2000; Cranston, 1999; Holdaway, 1999) concur with this
point. The study underscored the urgent need for professional development
that focuses on broader educational leadership issues concerned with
empowering others and developing sustaining and meaningful relationshipswith those within the school community. Fundamentally, the study under-
scored the point that principals see themselves aseducationalleaders. Twoof the New Zealand interviewees summed this up well when they said, a
principal stands in the middle of it all with the task of bringing apedagogical understanding of whats appropriate in the modern day. Thus
professional development that enables principals to learn and/or build upon
their existing capacities so that they can bring ethical, moral and professional
dimensions to their role can only reinforce their identity as the rightful leaders
of schools.
186 NEIL CRANSTON ET AL.
Downloadedby[UniversityofTas
mania]at20:2422January2014
-
8/13/2019 Secondary School Principalship
30/31
REFERENCES
Baker, R.G., & Dellar, G. (1999). If its not one thing its another: Issues of concern to schoolprincipals. International Studies in Educational Administration, 27, 1221.
Beare, H. (1991). The restructuring of schools and school systems: A comparative perspective.
In G. Harman, H. Beare, & G.F. Berkeley (Eds.), Restructuring School Management
(pp. 1325). Canberra: Australian College of Education.Beck, L.G., & Murphy, J. (1993). Understanding the principalship: Metaphorical themes
1920s1990s.New York: Teachers College Press.Boyle, M. (2000). Thenew styleprincipal: Roles, reflections and reality in the self-managed
school.Practising Administrator, 22, 47, 22.Brubaker, D.L., & Simon, L.H. (1987). How do principals view themselves and others. NASSP
Bulletin, 71, 7278.
Butterworth, G., & Butterworth, S. (1998). Reforming education: The New Zealand experience,19841996. Palmerston North, NZ: The Dunmore Press.
Cranston, N. (1999). CEO or headteacher? Challenges and dilemmas for primary principals in
Queensland.Leading and Managing, 5, 100113.Cranston, N. (2000). The impact of school-based management on primary principals: An
Australian perspective. Journal of School Leadership, 10, 214232.Department of Education. (1990).Focus on Schools: The Future Organisation of Educational
Services for Students. Brisbane, Qld: Department of Education.
Department of Education. (1993).The professional development framework for principalship.
Brisbane, Qld: Department of Education.
Education Act. (1989). Wellington, New Zealand: Ministry of Education.
Education Queensland. (1997).Standards framework for leaders.Brisbane, Qld: Department ofEducation.
Education Review Office. (1994, Winter). Effective governance: School boards of trustees.National Education Evaluation Report, 7.
Education Review Office. (1995). Core competencies for school principals. Wellington, NZ:Ministry of Education.
Greene, J.C., Caracelli, V.J., & Graham, W.F. (1989). Towards a conceptual framework for mixed-
methods evaluation design. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis,11, 255274.Harold, B., Hawksworth, L., Mansell, H., & Thrupp, M. (2001). Self management: The
experience of New Zealand principals [On-line]. Available: http://www.icponline.org/
feature_articles/f10_00.htm (23.7.02)
Holdaway, E.A. (1999). The principalship: Observations and conclusions from severalcountries. International Studies in Educational Administration,27, 211.
Knight, S. (2000). The role of the primary school principal in a partially devolved system.
(Abstract). Unpublished EdD thesis, Monash University, Vic, Australia.
Leithwood, K., & Menzies, T. (1998). Forms and effects of school-based management: A
review. Educational Policy, 12, 325346.Marshall, C., & Rossman, G.B. (1995). Designing qualitative research (2nd ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Minister of Education. (1988). Tomorrows schools. Wellington, NZ: Government Printer.
Portin, B.S., Shen, J., & Williams, R.C. (1998, December). The changing principalship and its
impact: Voices from principals. NASSP Bulletin, 14.
CHANGING ROLES IN SECONDARY SCHOOL PRINCIPALSHIP 187
Downloadedby[UniversityofTas
mania]at20:2422January2014
-
8/13/2019 Secondary School Principalship
31/31
Richardson, J. (2002, March). Shortage of principals rings alarm bells.The Weekend Australian,
13.
Robenstine C. (2000). How school choice can change the culture of educational leadership.
Contemporary Education,37, 2630.Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory, procedures
and techniques.Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Webb, R., & Vulliamy, G. (1996). The changing role of the primary school headteacher.
Educational Management and Administration, 24, 301315.Whitty, G., Power, S., & Halpin, D. (1998).Devolution and choice in education:The school, the
state and the market. Camberwell, Vic: ACER.
Wildy, H., & Dimmock, C. (1993). Instructional leadership in primary and secondary schools in
Western Australia. Journal of Educational Administration, 31, 4363.Wildy, H., & Louden, W. (2000). School restructuring and the dilemmas of principals work.
Educational Management and Administration, 28, 173184.Wildy, H., & Wallace, J. (1997). Devolving power in schools: Resolving the dilemma of strong
and shared leadership. Leading and Managing,3, 132146.Wylie, C. (1994). Self-managing schools in New Zealand: The fifth year. Wellington, NZ:
New Zealand Council for Educational Research.
Wylie, C. (1997). At the centre of the web: The role of the New Zealand primary school
principal within a decentralised education system. Wellington, NZ: New Zealand
Council for Educational Research.
Wylie, C. (1999a). Ten years on: How schools view educational reform. Wellington, NZ:
New Zealand Council for Educational Research.
Wylie, C. (1999b). Choice, responsiveness and constraint after a decade of self-managing
schools in New Zealand. Paper given at AARE-NZARE conference, Melbourne, Vic,Australia [On-line]. Available: http://www.aare.edu.au/99pap/wy199264.htm
188 NEIL CRANSTON ET AL.
Downloadedby[UniversityofTas
mania]at20:2422January2014
top related