succsessful school principal

7/30/2019 Succsessful School Principal

1/15

Successful school principalship inlate-career

Bill Mulford, Bill Edmunds, John Ewington, Lawrie Kendall,Diana Kendall and Halia Silins

Leadership for Learning Research Group, Faculty of Education,University of Tasmania, Hobart, Australia

Abstract

Purpose Who are late-career school principals? Do they continue to make a positive contribution totheir schools? Do they feel tired and trapped or do they maintain their commitment to education andyoung people? The purpose of this paper is to explore these issues, employing the results of a surveyon successful school principalship with the population of Tasmanian government school principals.

Design/methodology/approach Surveys on successful school principalship were distributed to apopulation of 195 government schools (excluding colleges and special schools) in Tasmania. Returnrates were 67 per cent for principals and 12 per cent for teachers. Surveys sought responses in areassuch as demographic characteristics, leadership characteristics, values and beliefs, tensions anddilemmas, learning and development, school capacity building, decision making, evaluation andaccountability, and perceptions of school success.

Findings The findings confirm other research indicating that pre-retirement principals, whencompared with other principals, are more likely to have a strong work ethic, to consult widely and tohave a strong social consciousness. The findings contradict results from other research indicating thatpre-retirement principals, when compared with other principals, are more likely to be rigid andautocratic, disenchanted with and withdrawn from work, and tired and trapped.

Practical implications Such findings lead one to conclude that pre-retirement principals continueto be a committed and valuable resource and that therefore greater research and policy attention

should be given to the issue. With education systems undergoing major and continuing change, whileat the same time suffering potential shortages of effective school leaders, it is time to re-examineeducational career structures, especially for those principals approaching retirement.

Originality/value The papers originality lies in the evidence it provides about an area that is notwell researched.

Keywords Principals, Schools, Careers, Australia

Paper type Research paper

IntroductionIncreasing notice is being taken by employers of the age profile of the schoolprincipalship, especially given the small size of the replacement pool of teachers in

their early 40s, and possible reluctance on the part of experienced teachers to apply forleadership positions (Gronn, 2003). But the focus of this attention tends to be onreplacing the retirees rather than on the late career principals themselves. Who arethey? Do they continue to make a positive contribution to their schools? Do they feeltired and trapped or do they maintain their commitment to education and youngpeople? This article does not seek to provide deeper theorising about areas such as theeffects of age and end-term attitudes (see, for example, Super, 1957; Earley andWeindling, 2007) but to explore the practical implications of these issues employing the

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0957-8234.htm

JEA47,1

36

Received May 2007Revised September 2007Accepted December 2007

Journal of Educational

Administration

Vol. 47 No. 1, 2009

pp. 36-49

q Emerald Group Publishing Limited

0957-8234

DOI 10.1108/09578230910928070


2/15

results of a survey on successful school principalship with the population ofTasmanian government school principals.

BackgroundMost systems report concerns about replacing the large number of teachers andprincipals likely to retire in the near future (Anderson, 2006, p. 23). For example, usingCensus data Preston (2002) found that the proportion of teachers aged over 50 waslikely to double between 1996 and 2011 from 16 to 33 per cent. A nation-wide survey ofprincipals found that nearly 50 per cent of male principals in the sample of 337 wereaged 50-59; a figure which highlighted the potential for significant retirement by maleprincipals within the next five years (MCEETYA, 2003, p. 2, emphasis in original).Western Australian Catholic schools report that within five years 43 per cent of currentsecondary and 32 per cent of primary principals will have retired (MCEETYA, 2006).

The situation regarding principal retirements may get worse. Favourablesuperannuation schemes and increased work intensification may in fact be

combining to hasten principal retirements (Gronn, 2003). A recent AustralianEducation Union (AEU, 2005) survey of principals in all Australian public schoolsconfirms this heavy and increasing workload. In Queensland, Cranston and Ehrich(2002) found that, despite role overload, ambiguity and conflict being characteristic, 80per cent of principals were satisfied with their role. Victorian (Victorian Department ofEducation and Training, 2004) data shows that 75 per cent of school leaders agreedthat there is so much work to do, I never seem to get on top of it, 80 per cent feel thatthey come home too tired to do some of the things I like to do, 47 per cent have amedical diagnosis which connects any health problems (they have) to their work, and78 per cent rated their job most of the time as high stress. Consistent with theQueensland data and despite work intensification, school leaders in Victoria almostoverwhelmingly claim they love their job, and they think of themselves as privileged to

have such an important and rewarding vocation.However, this privilege may not translate to the next generation of school leaders.

Studies in Queensland, NSW, South Australia, Tasmania, and Victoria (Cranston et al.,2004; Carlin et al., 2003; Lacey, 2003) indicate that only approximately one-third ofteachers are willing to seek promotion to the school leadership positions. In Victoria,the average number of applications for government school principal vacancies perschool was about seven between 1999 and 2001, and in Tasmania average applicationsfell from 14 in 1985 to eight in 1999 (Gronn and Lacey, 2006). Similar results have beenreported for New Zealand. Latham (2004) found that while the majority of principals in40 New Zealand schools were highly satisfied with being a principal and wouldrecommend the principalship to others, the majority of teachers had no aspiration tofollow in their footsteps. Nearly two-thirds of the 500 teachers believed they could do

the job of principal but becoming a principal was not part of their career plan.Given the above situation, it is surprising that research has ignored issues related to

principals in the late stage of their career. Is the principals late career characterised bystagnation and conservatism or is it typified by freedom from constraints andinnovation? Stereotypes suggest late career may be characterised by withdrawal fromwork, slowness, lack of interest in continued professional development, rigidness, andan unwillingness to change. Macmillan (1998) found that late-career principalsappeared to disengage and took few or no risks when implementing change. On the

Schooprincipalshi

3


3/15

other hand, late career may be typified by maturity, wisdom, confidence, calmness,social consciousness, loyalty, and a strong work ethic and skills. For example, Woods(2002) found that late-career principals consulted more widely, appreciating thepractical value of consultation in getting teachers to support resulting decisions.

The application of career theory to the principalship suggests that principalsprogress through stages (for example: Day and Bakioglu, 1996; Earley and Weindling,2007; Weindling, 1999). The induction stage is where the new principal is socialisedinto the role. He or she has to confront many issues and difficulties, such as achievingacceptance, learning the school culture, learning ways to overcome the insecurity ofinexperience, and developing a sense of confidence. The establishment stage ischaracterised by growth and enthusiasm based on feelings of being in control,competent and confident. The maintenance versus renewal stage usually takes place inmid-career. Maintenance may come from feelings of stagnation and loss ofopportunities and/or enthusiasm. Alternatively, renewal occurs for those principalswho express high levels of self-fulfilment and job satisfaction. Finally, thedisenchantment stage may be a feature of long-serving principals who feel trappedand are stagnating in a position with nowhere to go. Gradually these principals canbecome autocratic in style and avoid change. Day et al. (2006) recently examined sixprofessional life phases for UK teachers, following research by Huberman (1989), andfound a concluding phase typified by sustaining or declining motivation, coping withchange and looking to retire. However, their research identified only one third ofteachers in this stage as tired and trapped while two thirds were maintaining theircommitment.

The studyThe samplesIn late 2005 and early 2006 surveys on successful school principalship were distributedto all 195 government schools (excluding colleges and special schools) in Tasmania. Atotal of 131 survey responses were received from secondary, composite and primaryschool principals. This represents a return rate of 67 per cent. A total of 494 teachers insecondary, composite and primary schools also responded to the survey, representing aresponse rate of 12 per cent. Surveys sought responses from principals, and in mostcases teachers, in areas such as demographic characteristics, leadershipcharacteristics, values and beliefs, tensions and dilemmas, learning anddevelopment, school capacity building, decision making, evaluation andaccountability, and perceptions of school success.

Results

Demographics. The majority of principals were male (57 per cent), especially amongthose with 11 years of experience (79 per cent). Females made up 47 per cent ofprincipals in primary and 20 per cent in secondary schools compared to nationalfigures of 68 per cent and 56 per cent respectively (Anderson, 2006). The mean age ofprincipals was almost 50.0 years with most being between 45.0 and 57.5 years. Thismean age and older age range is very similar to the national data (Anderson, 2006). Themean years of experience as a principal was 9.4 with males (11.4) being higher thanfemales (6.8). These figures are similar to the national figures of 11.0 years for males

JEA47,1

38


4/15

and 7.0 years females (Anderson, 2006). The average hours worked by principals was58 hours. This figure is similar to the national figure of 60 hours (Anderson, 2006).

There was a similar distribution between this sample and the population by schoolsector, except for a slight over representation of primary and under representation of

secondary teachers in the sample. The normal distribution of economic needs index(ENI) on which the population is established was matched in the sample for bothprimary and secondary schools. The age distribution of the sample and population ofteachers was similar, including when compared by level of school and gender. Themean age of teachers was 43.7 (primary 44.3 and secondary 42.4) which was similar tothe national figure of 45.0 (Anderson, 2006). Of note was the large proportion of femaleprimary school teachers (46.3 per cent) who were in the age range 45 to 54 years.Another 13.3 per cent of this group are aged 55 or over. The teacher cohort, that iscurrently in their early 40s, from whom the next generation of principals will bechosen, was very small. This cohort represents 17 per cent of all teachers and is similarto the 14 per cent figure for Victoria (Anderson, 2006).

A total of23, or 18 per centof the 131 principalssurveyed, were aged56 years and over(mean age 57.2 years) and as such were classified as pre-retirement principals. Theywere found to average 15.5 years of experience and to have been in their current positionfor 7.1 years. The meanage of the remaining principals surveyed (other principals) was47.9 years, with an average of 8.2 years of experience and 3.8 years in their currentposition. As would be expected, the majority (60 per cent) of principals in the up to 45years agegrouphad only oneto five yearsexperience.A further 30 per cent of principalswere aged between 50 and54. However,in the pre-retirement or 56plusyears age grouptherangeofexperiencewasspreadfairlyevenlyacrosstheyearsofexperiencecategories,including 22 per cent with one to five years experience (see Figure 1).

Pre-retirement principals reported that they worked slightly more hours a week thanother principals (59 hours versus 57 hours). Further analysis of the principal data

indicated that 17 per cent of pre-retirement principals surveyed were in secondaryschools, 9 per cent in composite schools and 74 per cent in primary schools, and that 73

Figure Principal age an

experien

Schooprincipalshi

39


5/15

per cent of the pre-retirement group were males and 27 per cent females. Whilepre-retirement principals were more likely to have a background in leadership andmanagement training than other principals (64 per cent versus 36 per cent), they had asignificantly (0.01) lower level of qualification than other principals (mean 2.17 versus

mean 3.00 on a five-point scale ranging from 1 for a diploma to 5 for a doctorate) (seeTable I).

A total of 95 of the 494 (19 per cent) teachers in the survey worked in schools withpre-retirement principals. The mean age of these teachers was 44.23, compared to thoseworking in the schools of other principals where it was 43.32.

Leadership characteristics. Principals were asked to indicate on a five-point scale(1/rarely to 5/always) the extent to which each of 44 leadership characteristics weredemonstrated in their practice, and teachers were asked the extent to which theybelieved each characteristic was demonstrated in the practice of their principal. Anumber of these characteristics allow us to examine similarities and differences betweenpre-retirement and other principals in terms of the areas identified in the literature,including characteristics such as commitment, consultation and willingness to change.

Consistent with earlier research (e.g. Mulford, 2003) teachers were found to beslightly less positive than principals in their responses; nevertheless, teachersresponses were at the high end of the principal leadership characteristics scale (3.80 to4.54).

There were few statistically significant differences between the pre-retirement andother principals responses regarding leadership characteristics. Only one significantdifference emerged in the principal responses with the other principals significantlymore likely to see themselves acting as a role model as the leading learner than thepre-retirement group of principals. Three significant differences emerged from theteacher data with those working with other principals significantly more likely thanthose working with pre-retirement principals to perceive their principal as facilitating

communication and being self reflective, but those working with pre-retirementprincipals were significantly more likely than those working for other principals tobelieve their principal distributed leadership. These results are summarised in Table II.

Values and beliefs. Principals were asked to indicate their extent of agreement(1/strongly disagree to 5/strongly agree) with a number of core values and beliefs.Teachers responded to the same items indicating both the extent that each item reflectsthe value or belief of their principal and of themselves, as a teacher. No significantdifferences were found between the groups of principals. The only item at a significantlevel (2-tailed t-test 0.05) was where other principals are more likely than the

Demographics: items

Other principals

(mean)

Pre-retirement principals

(mean)

Age of principal 47.94 57.17Years as a principal 8.15 15.48Years as principal in current position 3.78 7.13Hours worked in a typical week 57.25 59.00Qualifications (1 Diploma; 5 doctorate) 3.00 2.17Background in leadership training (%) 36 64Age of teachers 43.32 44.23

Table I.Demographics

JEA47,1

40


6/15

pre-retirement group to believe that they could make a difference. This differencewas significant for the teacher perceptions of principals (2-tailed t-test 0.03). On the

other hand, teacher perceptions of pre-retirement principals were significantly higherthan for other principals on actively promoting social justice (2-tailed t-test 0.02).

These results are summarised in Table III.

Leadership tension and dilemmas. Principals were asked to indicate the frequency(1/never to 5/always) with which they experienced nine leadership tensions anddilemmas. Pre-retirement principals were found to experience tensions/dilemmas morefrequently (on seven of the nine items in the survey see Table IV) than their younger

counterparts. On the other hand, pre-retirement principals experienced less tensionthan other principals about being out of their schools. Only this last tension wasfound to be statistically significant (2-tailed at the 0.05 level).

Tensions and dilemmas are also reflected in the open-ended part of the principalsurvey where that were asked to respond to the item What conditions do you knowabout in your school that you do not talk about but if you did might lead to school

improvement? As the following representative replies indicate, the pre-retirement

principals had particular concerns with the level of system support, especially withrespect to difficult teachers and top-down models of change:

Difficult teachers! . . . My capacity to effect change is zero!

Greater autonomy regarding hiring and firing of teachers.

The inability to deal effectively with . . . underperforming teachers due to Education

Department human resources and industrial relations structures. I could follow the process

(which would be agonising) for little result and chances are Id be blamed! So why bother?

Principals TeachersLeadershipcharacteristics: evidentin practice: items

Other(mean)

Pre-retirement9 mean)

t-test sig.two-tailed

Otherprincipals

(mean)

Pre-retirementprincipals

(mean)t-test sig.two-tailed

Committed 4.66 4.65 4.54 4.52Passionate 4.30 4.30 4.25 4.20Determined 4.38 4.22 4.42 4.27Promote school 4.03 4.17 4.13 4.27Act as role model asleading learner 4.22 3.70 0.01 3.98 3.78Initiate new projects 4.00 4.00 4.08 4.03Courageous 4.21 4.26 4.04 4.14Caring 4.26 4.52 4.22 4.36Facilitatecommunication 4.13 3.96 4.04 3.80 0.04Distribute leadership 4.26 4.35 3.99 4.25 0.02

Passionate aboutwell-being ofstaff/students 4.62 4.48 4.21 4.23Willingness to change 4.45 4.39 4.21 4.07Optimistic 4.35 4.22 4.42 4.35Self-reflective 4.31 4.00 4.09 3.84 0.03

Table ILeadersh

characteristi

Schooprincipalshi

4


7/15

Teachers

Principals

Aboutpr

incipal

Aboutthemselves

Valuesandbeliefs:items

Other

(mean)

Pre-retirem

ent

(mean

)

Sig.

t-test:

(2-tailed)

Other

(mean)

Pre-retir

e

(mean)

Sig.

t-test:

(two-tailed)

Other

(mean)

Pre-retire

(mean)

Sig.

t-test:

(two-tailed)

Activelypromotesocialjustice

4.6

2

4.52

4.3

2

4.5

2

.02

4.4

5

4.5

9

Parentshavearighttoc

hooseaschool

3.3

9

3.78

4.1

2

4.2

1

4.2

2

4.3

7

Everystudentcansucceed

4.4

4

4.80

4.4

4

4.4

6

4.3

9

4.5

3

Holdhighexpectationso

fstudents

4.8

0

4.61

4.4

6

4.5

2

4.6

3

4.6

8

Holdhighexpectationso

fstaff

4.7

8

4.61

4.5

2

4.5

4

4.4

0

4.5

9

BelieveIcanmakeadiff

erence

4.7

0

4.43

0.0

5

4.6

0

4.4

3

0.0

3

4.4

3

4.4

7

Stimulatestafftothinka

boutwhatthey

aredoingforstudents

4.5

3

4.43

4.2

2

4.1

5

4.1

9

4.2

0

Treatallmembersofthe

community

withrespect

4.8

6

4.91

4.5

6

4.6

3

4.8

2

4.7

8

Studentsareinvolvedin

important

schooldecision-makingp

rocesses

3.9

4

3.96

3.7

8

3.9

2

3.8

9

4.0

0

Studentwell-beingatsch

oolisimportant

tome

4.8

3

4.87

4.6

7

4.6

9

4.8

2

4.8

0

Studentsinvolvedformallyinclassroom

decision-makingprocess

4.2

0

4.09

4.1

7

4.0

9

4.2

2

4.2

0

Table III.Values and beliefs

JEA47,1

42


8/15

The current change agendas of the Department of Education are in crisis. . . . The level of

coercion is appalling. School improvement is seen as something bureaucracies do to schools.

Guiding our system to an understanding that the ram-raid political agenda . . . with its get it

right first time, destroy the morale of the troops model [does not work].

Pre-retirement principals would prefer to spend more productive time improving

pedagogy, as the following two representative responses to the same open-ended

question show:

More time to spend in classrooms observing teacher practice . . . [and] one-on-one with staff

discussing their practice.

Frank and open discussion about pedagogy particularly the most effective pedagogy.

Despite these tensions and dilemmas, few principals considered resigning from my

job as a school leader (mean of 2.11 on a five-point scale from never to always and

with 46 per cent stating never).

Principal learning and development. Principals indicated the extent of agreement(1/strongly disagree to 5/strongly agree) about their learning and the use (1/never to

5/All the time) of different sources of learning. The only item where the pre-retirement

group were significantly different than other principals was in their belief that they

experienced less support from their employers when making changes (see Table V).

This finding confirms the earlier concerns from the pre-retirement principals about

system level support. The mean for both groups is below the mid-point of the scale.Principals contribution to school capacity building. Of the 28 items investigating the

principals contribution to school capacity building (1/not at all to 5/high) only one

item, There are high expectations for students achievement, showed significant

difference between the two groups with other principals scoring higher than the

pre-retirement group (see Table VI).

Other capacity building items mirrored the results from the leadership

characteristics scale with no significant differences found between the two groups of

Leadership tensions and dilemmas: itemsOther principals

(mean)


(mean)Sig. t-test:

(two-tailed)

Loyalty to employers/taking part in public discourse 3.19 3.39Expectations of employers/priorities made at school 3.09 3.39Loyalty to employers limits my right to participate inpublic discourse 3.23 3.57Ethical dilemmas made me consider resigning 2.05 2.39Determining what constitutes success 2.19 2.52Choosing between competing values 2.50 2.52Between ad hoc problem solving and strategicplanning 3.03 3.22Present at school/participation outside school 3.91 3.39 0.05Being decisive/making decisions throughparticipatory processes 3.05 2.96

Table IVLeadership tensions an

dilemma

Schooprincipalshi

4


9/15

principals or teacher perceptions of their principals in terms of trust and collaboration,

empowerment, a shared and monitored vision, and supported experimentation.

School decision making. Principals (not teachers) were asked to indicate the degreeof autonomy (1/no autonomy to 5/full autonomy) and the extent to which they used

discretionary judgement (1/never to 5 always) in making decisions in a range of areas.There was no significant difference between groups, however, when comparing means,

the pre-retirement group of principals experience a lesser degree of autonomy and use

of discretionary judgement than other principals (on eight of the ten items listed in

Table VI). On the other hand, the evidence suggests pre-retirement principals may

have a higher degree of autonomy when allocating resources and organising

instruction and teaching. Pre-retirement principals also indicate they exercise higher

use of discretionary judgement when establishing cultures for teaching and allocating

resources (see Table VII).

Evaluation and accountability. There were no significant differences for eitherprincipals or teachers when comparing pre-retirement and other principals on a

range of items related to teacher and school evaluation and accountability. These itemsincluded those related to a culture and structure for monitoring and evaluating

teaching, and being accountable to stakeholders for school outcomes.

Perceptions of school success. There were no significant differences for eitherprincipals or teachers when comparing pre-retirement and other principals on a

range of items related to school success (e.g. literacy, numeracy, responsible and

democratic citizens), except for other principals in relation to students being

technically competent (other principals scoring higher than teachers) and for

teachers in relation to students in a physically and psychologically safe environment

and able to solve conflicts through negotiation (pre-retirement principals scoring

higher than teachers). The mean scores in the non-significant comparisons were in the

same direction with pre-retirement scoring higher than other principals. Thesedifferences are summarised in Table VIII.

Principals

Teachers

Capacity building: extent towhich I contribute: item

Other(mean)

Pre-retirement(mean)

Sig. t-test:(two-tailed)

Otherprincipals

(mean)Pre-retirement

principals (mean)

There are high expectationsof student achievement 4.27 3.91 0.03 3.93 3.82

Table VI.Significant difference inprincipals contribution toschool capacity building

Principal learning: item

Principals:others(mean)

Principals:pre-retirement

(mean)t-test:

sig. two-tailed

I experience support from my employers whenmaking changes in my work based on newknowledge and skills 2.94 2.39 0.01

Table V.Significant difference inprincipal learning anddevelopment

JEA47,1

44


10/15

Summary and conclusionOur recent research with Tasmanian government school principals confirms otherstate and national trends indicating the large proportion of principals in the late stage

of their career, that is 18 per cent aged 55 years or over and another 30 per cent aged 50to 54 years. Also consistent with the national data is the high proportion (73 per cent) ofthe pre-retirement principals who are male and the small cohort (17 per cent of allteachers) from which the next generation of principals are likely be chosen. However,when compared to the national data Tasmanian female government secondary schoolprincipals were underrepresented (56 per cent compared to 20 per cent).

Figures concerning pre-retirement principals can be seen as a threat or anopportunity. They serve to underline the need for much greater attention to be paid to

Use of discretionary judgement

Degree of autonomy

Pre-retirement principals (mean)

School decision makingOther principals

(means)Other principals

(means)


(means)

Items 4.07 3.91Structures for organisation ofteaching 4.04 3.96 3.99 3.87Structures for organisation oflearning 4.12 3.87 3.96 3.78Establishing cultures for teaching 4.03 4.00 3.87 3..91Establishing cultures for learning 3.89 3.87 3.88 3.83Management of teaching 3.81 3.96 3.72 3.83Resource allocation 3.81 3.78 3.86 3.91Personnel management 3.79 3.70 3.99 3.96Monitoring and evaluating teaching

and learning 3.96 3.83 3.81 3.61Planning and structures 3.96 4.00 3.92 3.83Organisation of instruction andteaching 3.96

Table VISchool decision makin

Principals Teachers

Item (perception ofsuccess)

Others(mean)


(mean)

t-test:sig.

two-tailedOthers(mean)


(mean)t-test:

sig.two-tailed

Technologicallycompetent: current levelof achievement 3.66 4.09 0.02 3.66 3.83Students in physicallyand psychologicallysafe environment 3.47 3.61 3.80 3.99 0.05Students able to solveconflicts throughnegotiation 3.87 4.04 3.33 3.59 0.02

Table VIISignificant differences f

perceptions of schosucce

Schooprincipalshi

4


11/15

the growing shortages of principals and their replacements. There is significantopportunity for education systems to consider the skills, accountability frameworksand support structures necessary for school leadership in the future. One aspect of thisshortage, but one not well developed in the research literature or in policy, centres on

the pre-retirement principals themselves. Who are they? Do they continue to make apositive contribution to their schools? How can they best be used in the final years oftheir career? Our research makes a start in responding to such questions.

Results from the present study confirm that pre-retirement principals feelambiguity, conflict and stress of the role more acutely than other principals. Forexample, we found that the pre-retirement principals were more likely to feel thetensions and dilemmas of their role when compared to other principals, especially inrelation to the perceived lack of support from their employer when making changes intheir work. Despite these tensions and dilemmas, and consistent with the findings fromCranston and Ehrich (2002) and the Victorian Department of Education and Training(2004), most principals have never considered resigning.

Our results also suggest that pre-retirement principals, when compared with otherprincipals, are less likely to:

. believe they make a difference;

. act as a role model

. facilitate communication;

. have high expectations; and

. be self-reflective.

Given the more positive results detailed below from our study, these findings aredifficult to explain. It may be that the outcomes of previous research, which suggestpre-retirement principals are more likely than other principals to be confident, mature,calm, and wise and that they are less likely to be bound by constraints, results in amore modest or realistic appraisal of their effects on others and their schools. Somesupport for this explanation is found in the smaller differences between principal andteacher mean scores for pre-retirement principals than other principals on itemshaving to do with making a difference, acting as a role model, high expectations,and being self-reflective. Also, on the item related to making a difference, allprincipal and teacher mean scores are very high scoring between 4.43 and 4.70 on thefive-point scale. The difference for facilitating communication was for teachers onlyand was not confirmed in similar items from the school capacity section of the survey.

Further support to this explanation can be found in the open-ended part of theprincipal survey where principals were asked to respond to the item what conditions

do you know about in your school that you do not talk about but if you did might leadto school improvement? As the following representative replies indicate, thepre-retirement principals were very open and honest about what was occurring in theirschools:

I do not know of anything that might lead to school improvement that I would not share withmy staff and parent community.

I would talk about any issue that I thought would lead to school improvement.

JEA47,1

46


12/15

Another possible explanation for the above findings, that pre-retirement principalsscored lower than other principals on items to do with initiating action (make a

difference, role model, facilitate communication), is that the pre-retirement principals

may be more likely than other principals to realise that success involves the whole staff

not just the principal (that is, we rather than I). This position may be supported bythe finding reported below that pre-retirement principals are more likely to distribute

leadership than other principals.

Further, our results suggest that pre-retirement principals, when compared with

other principals, are no different in terms of:

. willingness to change;

. promoting the school and initiating new projects

. being committed, passionate, determined, courageous, optimistic;

. being collaborative and empowering; and

. evaluation and accountability.

These results contradict findings from other research indicating that pre-retirement

principals, when compared to other principals, are more likely to be rigid and

autocratic, disenchanted with and withdrawn from work, and tired and trapped.Our results suggest that pre-retirement principals, when compared with other

principals, are more likely to:

. distribute leadership;

. not feel the tension between the need to be present at school and to participate

outside the school; and

. believe students are in a safe environment and able to solve conflicts through

negotiation.

While the area could benefit from in-depth case studies of pre-retirement principals inparticular school environments with particular challenges, our results do tend to

confirm other research indicating that pre-retirement principals, when compared to

other principals, are more likely to have a strong work ethic, to consult widely and tohave a strong social consciousness.

Taken together, our results confirm that the pre-retirement principals continue to be

a committed and valuable resource. Given this finding, it may be that more needs to bedone for these principals, both in terms of career paths as well as at the time of

transition to retirement. Is it wise career planning that once appointed to aprincipalship a person will always be a principal? The traditional and hierarchical

approach to educational careers may need to be challenged, with people more able tomove in and out of positions at the classroom, school and system levels (see, forexample, Brooker and Mulford, 1989). The current focus in England on system

leadership provides one example, focussing as it does on the school principal working

in full service schools in areas such as childcare, parenting support and other services(for example, speech therapy, mental health services), in federations or clusters of

schools and/or outside the traditional school networking with a range of other agenciesand institutions (NCSL, 2006a, b, c, d; PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, 2007). But it is too

Schooprincipalshi

4


13/15

soon to know whether this development will provide just another higher position in thetraditional career hierarchy or the chance for career flexibility.

At a time of a large and increasing proportion of principals in late career, it wouldmake for more sensible human resource practice, both for the principals themselves

and their education systems, to give greater research and policy attention to the issue.The work to 65, dead at 66 belief among some principals needs to be challenged,superannuation schemes need to be restructured and cooperative and flexible careeroptions put in place. With education systems undergoing major and continuingchange, while at the same as suffering potential shortages of effective school leaders, itis time to re-examine educational career structures, especially for those principalsapproaching retirement.

References

AEU (2005), National Principals Committee State of Our Schools Survey 2005, AustralianEducation Union, Melbourne.

Anderson, M. (2006), Australia: Country Background Report for the OECD Improving SchoolLeadership Activity, DEST, Canberra.

Brooker, P. and Mulford, B. (1989), Is a high school promotion system designed for the 50s goodenough for the 80s and 90s?, The Practising Administrator, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 12-16.

Carlin, P., dArbon, T., Dorman, D., Duignan, P. and Neidhart, H. (2003), Leadership Successionfor Catholic Schools in Victoria, South Australia and Tasmania, Australian CatholicUniversity, Strathfield.

Cranston, N. and Ehrich, L. (2002), Overcoming sleeplessness: role and workload of secondaryschool principals in Queensland, Leading and Managing, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 17-35.

Cranston, N., Tromans, C. and Reugebrink, M. (2004), Forgotten leaders: what do we knowabout the deputy principalship in secondary schools?, International Journal of Leadershipin Education, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 225-42.

Day, C. and Bakioglu, A. (1996), Development and disenchantment in the professional lives ofheadteachers, in Goodson, I. and Hargreaves, A. (Eds), Teachers Professional Lives,The Falmer Press, London, pp. 123-39.

Day, C., Stobart, G., Sammons, P., Kingston, A., Gu, Q., Smees, R. and Mujtaba, T. (2006),Variations in teachers work, lives and effectiveness, Research Report RR743,Department for Education and Skills, London.

Earley, P. and Weindling, D. (2007), Do school leaders have a shelf life? Career stages andheadteacher performance, Educational Management, Administration and Leadership,Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 73-88.

Gronn, P. (2003), The New Work of Educational Leaders: Changing Leadership Practice in an Eraof School Reform, Sage/Paul Chapman, London.

Gronn, P. and Lacey, K. (2006), Cloning their own: aspirant principals and the school-basedselection game, Australian Journal of Education, Vol. 50 No. 2, pp. 102-21.

Huberman, M. (1989), Professional life cycle of teachers, Teachers College Record, Vol. 91 No. 1,pp. 31-57.

Lacey, K. (2003), Factors that impact on principal class leadership aspirations, unpublishedPhD thesis, University of Melbourne, Melbourne.

Latham, D. (2004), A case study of teachers and principals perceptions of school leadership,unpublished EdD thesis, University of Tasmania, Hobart.

JEA47,1

48


14/15

Macmillan, R. (1998), Approaches to leadership: what comes with experience?, EducationalManagement and Administration, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 173-84.

MCEETYA (2003), Demand and supply of primary and secondary school teachers in Australia.Part E (ii) Qualitative Research National Survey of Principals, available at: www.

curriculum.edu.au/mceetya/public/demand/htm (accessed 27 January 2007).MCEETYA (2006), Catholic Education Office of Western Australia, paper presented at

Invitational Conference on National School Leadership, available at: www.mceetya.edu.au/mceetya/ (accessed 27 January 2007).

Mulford, B. (2003), School leaders: challenging roles and impact on teacher and schooleffectiveness, commissioned paper by the Education and Training Policy Division,OECD, for the Activity Attracting, Developing and Retaining Effective Teachers, Paris,available at: www.oecd.org/dataoecd/61/61/2635399.pdf (accessed 27 January 2007).

NCSL (2006a), System Leadership in Action, National College for School Leadership, Nottingham.

NCSL (2006b), New Models of Headship: Federations, National College for School Leadership,Nottingham.

NCSL (2006c), New Models of Headship: Primary Executive Heads, National College for SchoolLeadership, Nottingham.

NCSL (2006d), New Models of Headship: Secondary or Special School Executive Heads, NationalCollege for School Leadership, Nottingham.

Preston, B. (2002), Tracking trends in principal and teacher demand and supply, paperpresented at AARE, Brisbane, December.

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (2007), Independent study into school leadership, a researchreport prepared for the Department for Education and Skills, London, available at: www.dfes.gov.uk/research/ (accessed 27 January 2007).

Super, D. (1957), The Psychology of Careers, Harper, New York, NY.

Victorian Department of Education and Training (2004), The Privilege and the Price: A Study ofPrincipal Class Workload and its Impact on Health and Wellbeing, Victorian Department of

Education and Training, Melbourne.Weindling, D. (1999), Stages of headship, in Bush, T., Bell, L., Bolam, R., Glatter, R. and

Ribbins, P. (Eds), Educational Management: Refining a Theory, Policy, Practice,Paul Chapman Publishing, London, pp. 90-101.

Woods, R. (2002), Enchanted Headteachers: Sustainability in Primary School Headship, NationalCollege for School Leadership, Nottingham.

Corresponding authorBill Mulford can be contacted at: [email protected]

Schooprincipalshi

49

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints


15/15

Reproducedwithpermissionof thecopyrightowner. Further reproductionprohibitedwithoutpermission.

succsessful school principal

Documents