What Knowledge Matters Most to On-the-Job School Administrators in Florida?

Module by: Carol Mullen

Summary: This study asks, what knowledge matters most to on-the job school administrators? This article is a report of an investigation into what practicing leaders in Florida believe they must know and be capable of in order to effectively perform their role. The focus is relevant to the preparation of principals and to best practices that can advance the profession of educational administration. Reflecting an unusual approach to empirical study, this study initiates conversation about establishing a knowledge base for principals and professors by exploring leadership as actually practiced in schools and by turning to novice administrators for feedback. For the purposes of this research, new administrator/leader was defined as assistant principals and principals who have been working in their school-based positions for up to 2 years.

This study asks, what knowledge matters most to on-the job school administrators? This article is a report of an investigation into what practicing leaders in Florida believe they must know and be capable of in order to effectively perform their role. The focus is relevant to the preparation of principals and to best practices that can advance the profession of educational administration. Reflecting an unusual approach to empirical study, this study initiates conversation about establishing a knowledge base for principals and professors by exploring leadership as actually practiced in schools and by turning to novice administrators for feedback. For the purposes of this research, new administrator/leader was defined as assistant principals and principals who have been working in their school-based positions for up to 2 years.

Conceptual Frameworks and Literature

Few studies reveal what beginning leaders do on the job from their own perspective (exceptions include Oliver, 2003; Rallis & Goldring, 2000). Because the assistant principal’s role in leading schools has been nearly overlooked, a gap exists concerning the daily challenges involved and the extent of preparedness (Bartholomew & Fusarelli, 2003). While the results reported herein are provisional and situated, they should have relevance to the national agenda.

The novice administrator was featured for several reasons. The fresh viewpoints of newcomers in any field offer valuable information. Also, because new leaders have specific understandings of their own learning (Crows & Matthews, 1998), this subculture is worthy of study. Hence, this analysis of administrative leadership explored two related areas of socialization: (1) salient work that beginning school leaders currently perform, and (2) suggestions for improving university preparation programs.

Gender and race in the principalship also has relevance. The U.S. Department of Education reports that only 39% of all principals from 1993 to 1994 were women, and 14% belonged to an ethnic minority group (Henke, Choy, Geis, & Broughman, 1996). The traditional gender and racial imbalances are gradually changing—more females than ever lead secondary schools and males, elementary schools. However, the workforce of principals is still largely male and white (Spencer & Kochan, 2000).

Methods

Study Design

Evidence from survey questions is reported and results from focus groups more qualitative in nature are integrated. This study was carried out from 2000 to 2003, and in three successive phases:

This paper reports the findings from phases 2 and 3.

Data Collection: Instrument and Rating

The Likert-scale instrument contained three parts: (1) demographics of participants (numerical data); (2) matrix representing the nature of the work and tasks new leaders perform (numerical data); and (3) open-response commentary on experiences as a beginning school administrator, graduate preparation, and critique of the instrument itself. Respondents rated each of the topic sections from “0” to “5”; their responses were “weighted” relative to both the areas and the items selected.

Using theFlorida Association of School Administrators’ (2002) directory, participants were identified and telephoned. The survey was then postal mailed to 271 willing new leaders, representing 56 of the state’s 67 school districts. In all, 115 beginning leaders from the same number of Florida schools participated, 91 [33%] as survey respondents and the rest as focus group members.

Five core leadership areas were assessed on the survey: (1) instructional supervision;(2) school organization; (3) student services; (4) community relations; and (5) school management. Each of these domains was accompanied by administrative duties. (See Table 1 for a list of the salient areas and corresponding priority tasks, and Table 2 for greater specificity.) The areas had emerged from educational leadership literature (e.g., McCarthy, 1999), comprehensive reviews (e.g. Mullen, Gordon, Greenlee, & Anderson, 2002), the ISLLC Standards (CCSSO, 1996), and feedback gathered from phase 1.

Data Analysis Procedures

The research team interpreted the survey results and later met with two focus groups (participant respondents) to perform separate analyses of the data set. For this purpose, the numerical ratings obtained were tallied and summarized (see Table 2). Also, both groups scrutinized the themes that the researchers had constructed from the open-ended survey items. Finally, not only had the discussion groups verified the researchers’ data analysis, they had also functioned as peer assessors whose feedback was built into successive phases. (The results of the open-ended survey question are reported in Mullen [2004].)

Study Results

Demographic Characteristics

More female leaders (60%) responded to the survey. The beginning administrator of Florida’s schools is most often a white female from 36 to 55 years old, working at the elementary, middle, or secondary level. She is typically from an urban or suburban area, primarily an assistant principal but also a principal holding an advanced degree. His or her professional goal most often targets the principalship and, to a lesser degree, county office administration.

Geographically, 67% of the respondents identified their school communities as “urban” and 33%, “rural.” Within this participant pool, 36% lead at the elementary school level, while 33% work at the middle level and 31% in secondary sites. An almost equal response was obtained from successive principals, as 50% were assistant principals, 45%, principals, and 5% “other.”

Contextual Influences

Context influenced the numerical results: No hierarchical distinction existed among the core administrator areas. However, different weights or values were attributed to each. Notably, instructional supervision was the most heavily emphasized (60%) area in the self-reports, closely followed by school organization (60%). Although both areas were given the same weight, they were not tied for top; school organization, unlike that of instructional supervision, was emphasized relative to specific items/tasks only. Next, in order of consequence as reflected in the new leaders’ time and energy, were student services (40%); community relations (30%), and school management (10%).

As Table 1 indicates, all five of the domains had varying significance for the administrators.

To expound, the most critical administrator duties (e.g., assist in interviewing and hiring faculty and staff and participate in Parent-Teacher-Student Association/School Advisory Council [PTSA/SAC]) selected relative to the five leadership domains were tallied. Through inductive analysis, the relative importance of the domains surfaced: Instructional supervision received the top billing, and school organization and management had prominence relative to single tasks, with weight given to faculty meeting attendance and budget management (see Table 2).

Conceivably, at a time of economic expansion, the primary concern of an organization would be personnel. However, this is certainly not a time of fiscal advantage for Florida’s public schools. Yet the value placed on instructional supervision was nonetheless maintained as a priority, suggesting that new administrators function beyond the managerial role (see Table 2).

The bigger picture suggests that new school leaders devote (or perceive themselves as devoting) more time and energy to instructional supervision than anything else, including financial operations. This outcome has significant implications for professional accountability. Instructional leadership involves administrators in faculty hiring, classroom management, teacher–student interaction, instructional support, and standardized test analysis. Given the top 10 administrator tasks selected on the survey, instructional supervision achieved prominence, chosen 50% of the time.

In comparison, student services appeared in 20% of the top choices, and school management, school organization, and community relations just 10% each (see Tables 1 and 2).

Interestingly, although community relations had attained only 10% significance within the context of the core leadership areas, one of its items/tasks—participate in PTSA/SAC involvement—received the same rating (63%) as the top candidate within instructional supervision. However, this community task did not have the same weight when the results were reviewed holistically.

Survey weight distribution. Attention given to the core leadership areas on the survey was intentionally unequal—their differences are empirically supported. The leadership literature and the piloted feedback obtained for this study ascribe varying weights to the categories and subsequently the tasks reflected within each. Notably, published studies highlight (as does the survey) the vital role of instructional leadership for principals (e.g., Glickman, Butters, & Maxey, 2003).

The survey instrument, backed by current research, reflects the increasing responsibility of leaders for student performance and teacher development. Administrators are expected to promote teacher development, proficiency, and reflection, using such methods as peer coaching (Glickman, et al., 2003).

Discussion

Application to Leadership Preparation and Standards

Five core leadership areas characterize best practices in school leadership. Importantly, a transforming shift may be occurring in the principalship, from the role of manager to instructional leader, whose multitasking competencies include managerial operations. The changing role of administrative leadership is a central premise of the Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium (ISLLC) Standards: “Effective school leaders are strong educators, anchoring their work on central issues of learning and teaching and school improvement” (Council of Chief State School Officers [CCSSO], 1996, p. 5).

Based on these research results, about 50 to 60% of graduate program preparation can be devoted to instructional supervision, but not to the exclusion of the other core areas. Best practices would give authority to the primary and secondary tier, ranging from hiring staff to supporting teachers’ efforts at classroom management and standardized testing. Indeed, the goal is to create an instructional climate that all employees can support. The ISLLC Standards uphold that strong school communities involve its members in sharing a “vision of learning” (CCSSO, 1996, Standard 1, p. 10) and offer an “instructional program conducive to student learning and staff professional growth” (Standard 2, p. 12).

School organization should also be stressed, albeit not to the same overall extent. Creating school schedules, attending staff and administrative meetings, planning school activities, and reviewing curriculum documents are all vital functions that aspirants would benefit from experiencing first-hand. Preparation in school management must focus on finances and budgeting. Similarly, ISLLC highlights the leader’s responsibility for managing the organization in order to create a “safe, efficient, and effective learning environment” for all students (CCSSO, 1996, Standard 3, p. 14). The other core leadership areas (e.g., student services) should also be featured, but in relation to the weights ascribed and the salient tasks identified (see Table 2). Once again, context has a definite influence on this picture.

School Level Relevance

Different educational levels of the school and the client base (i.e., student) affect the outcome of the administrator’s duties: “Our roles as administrators differ by factors such as level [e.g. primary or secondary], and geographic area.” And, “I noticed that the priorities we gave to the survey items differed within our group, depending on the level of school in which we administer. We all had our own ideas about which administrative duties were more important based on our own situations.”

Contextual Responses to Survey

Context was stressed in the new administrators’ responses: “My answers on your survey are dependent upon my particular needs for this particular school.” An assistant principal for curriculum shared this reflection, uniting the practice of school leadership with the preparation for the role: “While it’s very important for administrators to review and enforce the curriculum, I don’t think it is that crucial for leadership students to learn because the curriculum is so varied depending on the school site.”

Several participants also referred to differentiation in their leadership tasks and positional authority. According to Oliver’s (2003) 2000–2002 study of new assistant principals in California, a divergence in responsibilities and, implicitly, status is evident: The principal generally focuses on “leadership activities associated with instruction and programs,” while the assistant principal performs “management oriented tasks” (p. 38). Notwithstanding, balance in their respective duties is necessary.

This categorical breakdown was less prominent in my study, although still apparent. This result supports Oliver’s contention that principals should engage in designing mentoring systems for administrator apprentices. The assistant principals I surveyed, like the principals, valued instructional leadership. However, the ratings differed somewhat, as the vice principals may not have had the chance to carry out those particular duties. A few had confirmed as much.

Cultural Constraints

The instrument I developed is not exhaustive of all the leadership activities that new school leaders perform in Florida, let alone throughout the nation. This culturally situated research extends to the survey itself, which reflected the current literature and variables that coalesced in 2000. My participants all wore “cultural lenses,” a variable that Walker and Dimmock (2002) acknowledge.

Conclusion

School leaders’ insights into the work and socialization of administrators emerge from within a culturally bound system. Recommendations for improving graduate preparation programs through a re-assessment of the balance given to core areas of content should bear in mind this inevitable limitation.

With a focus on “best practices,” the results provided could assist with the improvement of obsolete programs. It is expected that preservice administration programs will be aligned not only with the goals of our universities, policymaking bodies, and the public, but also with the needs of school districts, administrator candidates, and practicing school leaders.

The picture painted herein is certainly not static or comprehensive. For example, a larger participant population could produce different insights, so, too, could a location other than Florida.

Finally, new administrator studies are to be strongly encouraged. This pioneering area of leadership studies has the great potential to nourish best practices in our teaching and scholarship.

References

Bartholomew, S. K., & Fusarelli, L. D. (2003). Reconnecting preparation and practice through the work lives of assistant principals. In F. C. Lunenburg & C. S. Carr (Eds.), Shaping the future: Policy, partnerships, and emerging perspectives (pp. 291-300). [NCPEA Yearbook]. Lanham, MD: ScarecrowEducation.

Crow, G. M., & Matthews, L. J. (1998). Finding one’s way: How mentoring can lead to dynamic leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO). (1996). Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium Standards for School Leaders (pp. 1-23). Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers. [Online]. Available: http://www.ccsso.org/content/pdfs/isllcstd.pdf

Florida Association of School Administrators. (FASA). (2002). Florida education directory by FASA, 2002–2003 school year. Tallahassee, FL: Florida Board of Education/CMD Publishing.

Glickman, C. D., Butters, J., & Maxey, S. (2003). Leadership, public purpose, and powerful American schools: A wake-up call. In F. C. Lunenburg & C. S. Carr (Eds.), Shaping the future: Policy, partnerships, and emerging perspectives (pp. 56-69). Lanham, MD: ScarecrowEducation.

Henke, R. R., Choy, S. P., Geis, S., & Broughman, S. P. (1996). Schools and staffing in the United States: A statistical profile, 1993-94 (NCES No. 96-124). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. [Online]. Available: http://nces.ed.gov/pubs.

McCarthy, M. M. (1999). How are school leaders prepared? Educational Horizons, 77(2), 74-81.

Mullen, C. A., Gordon, S. P., Greenlee, B., & Anderson, R. H. (2002). Capacities for school leadership: Emerging trends in the literature. International Journal of Educational Reform, 11(2), 158-198.

Mullen, C. A.(2004). Climbing the Himalayas of school leadership: The socialization of early career administrators. Lanham, MD: ScarecrowEducation.

Oliver, R. (2003). Assistant principal job satisfaction and desire to become principals. NCPEA Education Leadership Review, 4(2), 38-46.

Rallis, S. F., & Goldring, E. B. (2000). Principals of dynamic schools: Taking charge of change. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

Spencer, W. A., & Kochan, F. K. (2000). Gender related differences in career patterns of principals in Alabama: A statewide study. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8(9), 1-12. [Online]. Available: http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v8n9.

Walker, A., & Dimmock, C. (Eds.) (2002). School leadership and administration: Adopting a cultural perspective. New York: RoutledgeFalmer.

Comments, questions, feedback, criticisms?

Send feedback

• E-mail the author of the module, What Knowledge Matters Most to On-the-Job School Administrators in Florida?

Footer

More about this content: Metadata | Version History

• How to reuse and attribute this content
• How to cite and attribute this content

This work is licensed by Carol Mullen under a Creative Commons Attribution License (CC-BY 2.0).

Last edited by National Council of Professors of Educational Administration on Sep 7, 2006 12:40 pm GMT-5.