Skip to content Skip to navigation

Connexions

You are here: Home » Content » School Administrators' Efficacy: A Model and Measure

Navigation

Content Actions
  • Download module PDF
  • Add to ...
    Add the module to:
    • My Favorites
    • A lens
    • An external social bookmarking service
    • My Favorites (What is 'My Favorites'?)
      'My Favorites' is a special kind of lens which you can use to bookmark modules and collections directly in Connexions. 'My Favorites' can only be seen by you, and collections saved in 'My Favorites' can remember the last module you were on. You need a Connexions account to use 'My Favorites'.
    • A lens (What is a lens?)

      Definition of a lens

      Lenses

      A lens is a custom view of Connexions content. You can think of it as a fancy kind of list that will let you see Connexions through the eyes of organizations and people you trust.

      What is in a lens?

      Lens makers point to Connexions materials (modules and collections), creating a guide that includes their own comments and descriptive tags about the content.

      Who can create a lens?

      Any individual Connexions member, a community, or a respected organization.

      What are tags? tag icon

      Tags are descriptors added by lens makers to help label content, attaching a vocabulary that is meaningful in the context of the lens.

    • External bookmarks
  • E-mail the author
  • Rate this module (How does the rating system work?)

    Rating system

    Ratings

    Ratings allow you to judge the quality of modules. If other users have ranked the module then its average rating is displayed below. Ratings are calculated on a scale from one star (Poor) to five stars (Excellent).

    How to rate a module

    Hover over the star that corresponds to the rating you wish to assign. Click on the star to add your rating. Your rating should be based on the quality of the content. You must have an account and be logged in to rate content.

    		(0 ratings)

Recently Viewed

This feature requires Javascript to be enabled.

School Administrators' Efficacy: A Model and Measure

Module by: National Council of Professors of Educational Administration

Summary: The efficacy construct refers to peoples’ beliefs about and confidence in their abilities to attain success in their actions. The purpose of this research is to advance the study of school administrators’ efficacy through a unique model and measure designed to target the confidence of school administrators in performing a variety of leadership/management tasks. An instrument was created to measure school administrators’ efficacy levels, based on the Educational Leadership Constituent Council (ELCC) Standards. A sample of 367 early career principals and principal trainees was surveyed. Through factor analysis, eight dimensions of school administrator efficacy were derived. Based on Cronbach’s Alpha, the instrument has high reliability; thus, this instrument can serve as a consistent tool in evaluating school administrators’ efficacy levels.

logo.gif

Note:

This module has been peer-reviewed, accepted, and sanctioned by the National Council of the Professors of Educational Administration (NCPEA) as a scholarly contribution to the knowledge base in educational administration and authored by McCollum, D., Kajs, L., and Minter, N. (January 2006).

Introduction

Self-efficacy has long been a key construct in education. The self-efficacy construct refers to “peoples’ judgments of their capabilities to organize and execute courses of action required to attain designated types of performances” and peoples’ confidence to attain success in their actions (Bandura, 1986, p. 391). Essentially, self-efficacy is the belief and confidence an individual has in performing a specific task. Self-efficacy is known to be an important construct in predicting the success of an individual on multiple types of tasks. In education, self-efficacy has been studied relative to students, teachers, and less often school administrators, e.g., principals and superintendents.

Background

The value of the self-efficacy construct is supported by research (Bandura, 1982, 1986; Covington, 1984; Dimmock & Hattie, 1996; Gibson & Dembo, 1984). It is related to individuals’ persistence, effort, and success on tasks they perform (Bandura, 1986). If a person believes that he/she has the ability to determine successful outcomes through effort and persistence, then this increases his/her performance and self-efficacy level (Bandura, 1986). In circular fashion, Bandura (1982) and Covington (1984) assert that the success of self-efficacious individuals tends to lead to greater efforts to achieve and persist through difficult tasks. Moreover, observing successful actions of others can raise a person’s self-efficacy level through vicarious experiences (Bandura, 1986). “Seeing or visualizing other similar people perform successfully can raise self-percepts of efficacy in observers that they too possess the capabilities to master comparable activities…” (Bandura, 1986, p. 399). Consequently, mentoring experiences in which protégés observe their mentors’ successful actions can serve to positively develop protégés’ self-efficacy.

Self-efficacy research has primarily focused on teachers, with little information on the construct’s use to understand behaviors of school administrators, e.g., principals and superintendents. Teacher efficacy began being addressed in the 1970s focusing on the belief that a teacher has the capacity to affect student performance (Berman, McLaughlin, Bass, Pauly, & Zellman, 1977). Early studies of teacher efficacy indicate that the construct is strongly related to student achievement (Armor et al., 1976). In addition, teachers with greater efficacy experience less stress, tend to support teaching innovations, are more likely to stay in their field, and are more apt to experience better relationships with administrators (Parkay, Greenwood, Olejnik, & Proller, 1988; Smylie, 1988).

Robin Henson, Kogan, and Vacha-Haase (2001) indicate that many positive teacher behaviors and student outcomes are associated with teacher efficacy, including positive job-related behaviors of teachers. Efficacious teachers tend to deal better with failing students, and engage in such actions as avoiding criticism and persisting through difficulties (Gibson & Dembo, 1984). Also, efficacious teachers are more apt to seek outside help in dealing with disciplinary problems, when assistance is needed (Emmer & Hickman, 1990).

The usefulness of the self-efficacy construct in projecting teachers’ inclinations raises the question, could not this same construct serve in the same capacity for school administrators? What if self-efficacious school administrators, e.g., principals, are better able to cope with stress, experience better relationships with teachers, are more successful in student interactions, and are more likely to seek help when needed? Subsequently, the self-efficacy construct could serve as useful indicator to identify potentially effective school leaders or to serve as a tool for self-assessment among school administrators to determine professional development needs.

The research on school administrators’ efficacy is scarce. One study by Dimmock and Hattie (1996) is the creation of a principal’s self-efficacy scale in the context of school restructuring. In that study, the authors found that their highly specific self-efficacy measure (geared only toward actions necessary when a school is restructuring) was positively related to principals’ ability to effectively deal with changes in their schools and changes in their role as principals. Because of the benefits of self-efficacy studies among teachers, it is critical that self-efficacy investigation is extended among school administrators, especially since research has shown that principal leadership is vital to the improvement of schools in effectively preparing students (Barth, 2001; Lunenburg & Ornstein, 2004).

School Administrator Efficacy Scale (SAES)

The purpose of this study is to advance the research of school administrators’ self-efficacy through the creation of a unique measurement instrument designed to specifically target the efficacy of school administrators in performing a variety of administrative tasks. Unlike Dimmock and Hattie’s (1996) instrument, the measure in the present study was created to address a large number of every day tasks performed by many school administrators. The tasks were derived from the Educational Leadership Constituent Council (ELCC) Standards. The items based in these standards help support the content and face validity of the scale and help ensure that the many facets of a school administrator’s job are addressed.

ELCC Standards

The Educational Leadership Constituent Council (ELCC) is made up of four school administrator organizations that include the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD), American Association of School Administrators (AASA), National Association of Secondary School Principals (NASSP), and National Association of Elementary School Principals (NAESP) (NPBEA, 2002-a). “The purpose of this council is to review university-based educational administration programs that seek NCATE (National Council of Accreditation of Teacher Education) accreditation using national standards developed by the National Policy Board for Education Administration (NPBEA)” (NPBEA, 2002-a, p. 1). The National Council of Accreditation of Teacher Education is a national, professional accreditation body for a college or school of education that includes undergraduate and graduate programs (e.g., reading, special education), one of which is educational administration. The national standards used by the ELCC in its review process, are entitled Standards for Advanced Programs in Educational Leadership, commonly referred to as ELCC Standards (NPBEA, 2002-b).

The NPBEA was established in 1988 as an alliance of ten national educational associations working toward the improvement of university programs that prepared school administrators (NPBEA, 2002-c). The intent of the NPBEA was to strengthen the preparation of school administrators with “…more rigorous admission requirements, greater depth of academic courses, and more careful attention to field or practicum experiences under the guidance of proved educational leaders in the field” (Starratt, 2003, p. 7). To strengthen academic preparation for school administrators (e.g., principals and superintendents), the NPBEA, in 1989, recommended that the curriculum include a common core of knowledge and skills related to key themes of school administration, including:

Societal and cultural influences on schooling

Teaching and learning processes and school improvement

Organizational theory

Methodologies of organizational studies and policy analysis

Leadership and management processes and functions

Policy studies and politics of education

Moral and ethical dimensions of schooling…(Kowalski, 2003, p. 70)

The current ELCC Standards outline seven (7) standards, with one through six (1-6) focusing on key elements of school administration (e.g., community collaboration, resource management). The seventh (7th) standard spotlights the effective application and synthesis of knowledge and skills learned in standards (1-6) in an extended, capstone, internship experience, the equivalent of six months with nine to twelve (9-12) hours a week. The ELCC Standards are as follows (NPBEA, 2002-b, pp. 1-18):

Table 1. ELCC Standards

Table 1
Standard 1 Candidates who complete the program are educational leaders who have the knowledge and ability to promote the success of all students by facilitating the development, articulation, implementation, and stewardship of a school or district vision of learning supported by the school community.
Standard 2 Candidates who complete the program are educational leaders who have the knowledge and ability to promote the success of all students by promoting a positive school culture, providing an effective instructional program, applying best practice to student learning, and designing comprehensive professional growth plans for staff.
Standard 3 Candidates who complete the program are educational leaders who have the knowledge and ability to promote the success of all students by managing the organization, operations, and resources in a way that promotes a safe, efficient, and effective learning environment.
Standard 4 Candidates who complete the program are educational leaders who have the knowledge and ability to promote the success of all students by collaborating with families and other community members, responding to diverse community interests and needs, and mobilizing community resources.
Standard 5 Candidates who complete the program are educational leaders who have the knowledge and ability to promote the success of all students by acting with integrity, fairly, and in an ethical manner.
Standard 6 Candidates who complete the program are educational leaders who have the knowledge and ability to promote the success of all students by understanding, responding to, and influencing the larger political, social, economic, legal, and cultural context.
Standard 7 The internship provides significant opportunities for candidates to synthesize and apply the knowledge and practice and develop the skills identified in Standards 1-6 through substantial, sustained, standards-based work in real settings, planned and guided cooperatively by the institution and school district personnel for graduate credit.

Method

Participants

The participants in this study were 367 early career principals and principal trainees who were actively in their principal role or teaching in school districts of the Houston Metropolitan area. The mean teaching experience of the participants was 8.4 years (SD = 5.66). The mean time of experience as a principal was 4 months (SD = 2.16). The mean age of the participants was 35.83 (SD = 8.12) years old. There were 289 females and 78 males. The sample included 213 White, 96 Hispanic, 51 African-American, 2 Asian, 2 Latino, 2 biracial people, and 1 other.

Materials

The first step in developing the instrument, titled the School Administrator Efficacy Scale (SAES) was writing items to address the ELCC Standards (NPBEA, 2002-b). The items were worded to reflect confidence, beliefs about knowledge, and beliefs in one’s abilities, all of which are synonymous with efficacy related to being a school administrator. Fifty-six items were written for the scale. The items are listed in the factor analysis table of the Results section. Participants responded using one to seven (1-7) Likert intervals. Response options ranged from 1 (not at all true of me) to 7 (completely true of me), indicating how true each statement was about them. In addition to the SAES, a demographic survey was used to describe the sample.

Procedure

Participants received an informed consent document, a set of instructions for completing the SAES, and a copy of the SAES. At the start of each of the testing sessions, participants completed the consent form. After that, participants completed the SAES and returned them to the researcher. There were approximately 20 testing sessions, each lasting about 20 minutes.

Results

Factor Analysis

Factor analysis was used to determine the dimensions of the SAES and establish the instrument’s initial construct validity. A principal axis factoring method was used with a varimax rotation. Eight factors were extracted and rotated. The eight factors accounted for 64.57 percent of the variance in the SAES scores. Factor 1 accounted for 11.96 percent of the variance. Factor 2 accounted for 11.03 percent of the variance. Factor 3 accounted for 9.29 percent of the variance. Factor 4 accounted for 7.40 percent of the variance. Factor 5 accounted for 7.21 percent of the variance. Factor 6 accounted for 6.38 percent of the variance. Factor 7 accounted for 6.18 percent of the variance. Factor 8 accounted for 5.13 percent of the variance.

Items with factor loadings less than .4 were suppressed and dropped. The minimum factor loading for statistical significance is .4 (Hair, Anderson, & Tatham, 1987). Therefore, items 16, 24, 27, and 29 were not included in the factor analysis shown in Table 2.

Table 2. Factor Analysis of SAES

Table 2
Items Factor Loadings
    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Instructional Leadership & Staff Development                
23. I am confident in my skills to assess the staff development needs of a school. 0.65              
14. I am confident in my knowledge of best-practice research related to instructional practices. 0.64              
15. I am able to develop a systematic process for mentoring teachers on my campus. 0.64              
13. I am able to understand the process of curriculum design, implementation and evaluation. 0.60              
25. I am confident that I possess the skills needed to implement the effective use of resources so that priority is given to supporting student learning. 0.56              
26. I am confident in my skills to engage staff in the development of effective campus improvement plans that result in improved student learning. 0.56 0.41            
21. I understand the development of a professional growth plan. 0.53              
20. I am confident that I can lead staff to appreciate the kinds of knowledge and skills students and their families can add to the learning process. 0.51              
18. I am confident that I understand and can communicate to staff the complex instructional and motivational issues that are presented by a diverse student population. 0.51              
12. I am confident in my understanding of all of the instructional programs in my school. 0.47              
19. I am confident in my skills to lead staff to understand and respect the diversity of our student population. 0.46           0.45  
17. I am able to demonstrate the effective use of technology to my fellow teachers. 0.45              
22. I have a clear sense of my own personal development needs and the resources I can access to address those needs. 0.43              
School Climate Development                
6. I have the ability to assess school climate using multiple methods.   0.74            
8. I have the ability to engage parents in the assessment of our school climate.   0.74            
7. I have the ability to engage staff in the assessment of our school climate.   0.72            
10. I am confident that I know how to use data about our school climate to encourage appropriate student behavior.   0.72            
11. I am confident that I know how to use data about our school climate to support a positive learning environment.   0.68            
9. I am confident that I know how to use data about our school climate to improve the school culture in ways that promotes staff and student morale.   0.67            
5. I have the ability to engage students in the assessment of our school climate.   0.59            
Community Collaboration                
56. I am confident I can solicit community resources to resolve school issues.     0.74          
55. I am able to supplement school resources by attaining resources from the community.     0.74          
41. I am confident in my ability to use marketing strategies and processes to create partnerships with business, community, and institutions of higher education.     0.57          
40. I understand community relations’ models that are needed to create partnerships with business, community, and institutions of higher education.     0.55          
42. I can identify and describe the services of community agencies that provide resources for the families of children in my school.     0.54          
54. I am confident I can resolve issues relating to budgeting.     0.51          
43. I am confident in my skills to involve families and community stakeholders in the decision-making process at our school.     0.44     0.41    
Data-based Decision-Making Aligned withLegal and Ethical Principles                
48. I can explain to staff and parents how the decisions in my school are related to state and national institutions and politics.       0.67        
47. I can explain to staff and parents the decision-making process of my school district.       0.57        
52. I am able to explain the role of law and politics in shaping the school community.       0.55 0.41      
49. I am confident in my ability to examine student performance data to extract the information necessary for campus improvement planning.       0.53        
46. I am confident in my ability to apply appropriate research methods in the school context.       0.53        
51. I can make decisions within the boundaries of ethical and legal principles.       0.5     0.46  
45. I am confident in my ability to understand and evaluate education research that is related to programs and issues in my school.       0.49        
44. I can make sound decisions and am able to explain them based on professional, ethical and legal principles.       0.42        
Resource & Facility Management                
36. In accordance with legal principles, I am confident I can find information to address problems with facilities.         0.75      
35. I am able to provide safe facilities (building, playground) according to legal principles.         0.71      
37. I am able to find the appropriate personnel to resolve facility-related problems.         0.57      
34. I am confident in my knowledge of legal principles that promote educational equity.         0.56      
38. I am confident in my ability to identify additional resources to assist all of the individuals my school.         0.42      
Use of Community Resources                
32. I am confident I could use community resources to achieve school goals.           0.74    
31. I am confident I could use community resources to solve school problems.           0.73    
30. I am confident I could use community resources to support student achievement.           0.69    
Communication in a Diverse Environment                
53. I am confident that I can be sensitive to student diversity.             0.58  
33. I know that my students and colleagues can trust me to be ethical in handling sensitive information.             0.56  
50. I am confident in my communication abilities to lead in a variety of educational settings.             0.50  
28. I am confident in my skills to interact positively with the different groups that make up my school community.             0.42  
39. I am confident in my ability to lead my staff in involving families in the education of their children.             0.41  
Development of School Vision                
2. I can develop a vision that will help ensure the success of all students.               0.76
1. I am confident that I possess the skills to lead a school community in the development of a clear vision.               0.72
3. I am able to use strategic planning processes to develop the vision of the school.               0.62
4. I am confident that I can establish two-way communication with stakeholders (staff, parents, students, community) in order to obtain the commitment necessary for implementing the vision for our school.               0.44

Reliability Analysis

After interpreting the factors, internal consistency (reliability) analysis was conducted using Cronbach’s Alpha for each of the SAES subscales. Initially, Factor 1 (Efficacy for Instructional Leadership and Staff Development subscale) had an alpha of .83; it appeared that item 17 was detracting from the reliability, so item 17 was removed. The final alpha calculation was .93. Factor 2 (Efficacy for School Climate Development subscale) had an alpha of .93. Factor 3 (Efficacy for Community Collaboration subscale) had an alpha of .91. Factor 4 (Efficacy for Data-based Decision Making Aligned with Legal and Ethical Principles subscale) had an alpha of .93. The alpha for Factor 5 (Efficacy for Resource and Facility Management subscale) was .89. Factor 6 (Efficacy for Use of Community Resources subscale) had an alpha of .95. The alpha for Factor 7 (Efficacy for Communication in a Diverse Environment subscale) was .81. Last, Factor 8 (Efficacy for Development of School Vision subscale) had an alpha of .86.

Conclusion

The School Administrator Efficacy Scale (SAES) can serve as a valuable instrument toward the preparation of effective school administrators. The scale is based on ELCC Standards that serve as a guide for the improvement of university-based educational administrator programs, e.g., principalship and superintendency (NPBEA, 2002-c). The SAES addresses eight interpretable and internally consistent dimensions with subscales’ internal consistency ranging from good (α = .81) to excellent (α = .95). These subscales address knowledge and skills outlined in the ELCC Standards, pertinent to the development of an effective educational administration curriculum. Because of these results, the SAES can serve as a useful tool in administrator preparation programs throughout the United States.

The SAES can be used as a formative and summative assessment tool, e.g., pretest and posttest, to gauge an educational administration program’s level of success in preparing school administrators. For example, the Collaborative Bilingual Administrator Training (CBAT) program is using the SAES as a pretest, mid-point assessment, and posttest to determine effectiveness of administrator preparation, since the curriculum is aligned to the ELCC Standards. CBAT is a five-year federally funded initiative to prepare 70 bilingual school administrators in a major Metropolitan area.

The Ohio State University is another example of a university using an assessment instrument based on ELCC Standards. The purpose of the questionnaire, which includes Likert-type statements and open-ended comment sections, is to measure level of proficiency (i.e., little, some, sufficient, and exemplary) in implementing activities listed in the ELCC Standards (e.g., developing a school vision, promoting community involvement). Both, graduate students (candidates) and their field mentors complete this questionnaire at the end of graduate students’ field experience (The Ohio State University, 2004-a, 2004-b). Since it has reliability ranging from good to excellent, the SAES instrument could strengthen the assessment process of the internship experience by gauging graduate students’ administrator efficacy levels. If low levels of efficacy of graduate students are measured in administrative areas, then graduate students, mentors, and university faculty can constructively address these areas, either individually or in groups, before program completion.

The SAES can serve as a viable self-assessment tool by current school administrators. Using it as a diagnostic instrument, results can guide school administrators in planning their annual professional development activities. Moreover, it could be used with school administrators across a school district, if taken anonymously, to plan district-wide workshops on relevant knowledge, skill, and disposition issues. Participants would need to be assured anonymity to encourage sincerity and truthfulness in responses.

In closing, while there is a scarcity of research on the assessment and development of school administrator efficacy, the SAES can serve as a valuable resource for universities with school administrator preparation programs. This tool, based on the ELCC Standards, can be used to assess graduate student progress in knowledge and skills as well as evaluate the relevancy of university curriculum. Current school administrators can use the SAES as a self-assessed, diagnostic instrument to determine professional needs, while school districts can use feedback from the scale to plan relevant workshops for school leaders. Because of the multiple implications of school administrator efficacy on leadership and organizational management, further research on this topic is needed.

References

Armor D., Conroy-Oseguera, P., Cox, M. King, N., McDonnell, L., Pascal, A., Pauly, E., & Zellman, G. (1976). Analysis of the school preferred reading programs in selected Los Angeles minority schools. (Report No. R-2007-LAUSD). Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED130243).

Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37(2), 122-147.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Barth, R. S. (2001). Learning by heart. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Berman, P., McLaughlin, M., Bass, G., Pauly, E., & Zellman, G. (1977). Federal programs supporting educational change. Vol. VII Factors affecting implementation and continuation (Report No. R-1589/7-HEW) Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. 140 432).

Covington, M. V. (1984). The self-worth theory of achievement motivation: Findings and implications. The Elementary School Journal, 85(1), 1-20.

Dimmock, C., & Hattie, J. (1996). School principals’ self-efficacy and its measurement in a context of restructuring. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 7(1), 62-75.

Emmer, E., & Hickman, J. (1990, April). Teacher decision making as a function of efficacy, attribution, and reasoned action. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Boston, MA.

Gibson, S., & Dembo, M. (1984). Teacher efficacy: A construct validation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(4), 569-582.

Hair, J. F, Jr., Anderson, R. E, & Tatham, R. L. (1987). Multivariate data analysis with readings (2nd ed.). New York: Macmillan.

Henson, R. K., Kogan, L. R., & Vacha-Haase, T. (2001). A reliability generalization study of the teacher efficacy scale and related instruments. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 61(3), 404-420.

Kowalski, T. J. (2003). Contemporary school administration (2nd ed.). Boston: Pearson.

Lunenburg, F. C., & Ornstein, A. C. (2004). Educational administration (4th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.

NPBEA (National Policy Board for Educational Administration). (2002-a). Educational leadership constituent council (ELCC): Program reviewer application. Fairfax, VA: National Policy Board for Educational Administration. Retrieved February 13, 2005, from http://www.npbea.org/ELCC/

NPBEA (National Policy Board for Educational Administration). (2002-b). Educational leadership constituent council (ELCC): New ELCC Standards – NCATE approved. Fairfax, VA: National Policy Board for Educational Administration. Retrieved February 13, 2005, from http://www.npbea.org/ELCC/

NPBEA (National Policy Board for Educational Administration). (2002-c). Educational leadership constituent council (ELCC): Instructions to implement standards for advanced programs in educational leadership. Fairfax, VA: National Policy Board for Educational Administration. Retrieved February 13, 2005, from Instructions to Standards for preparing ELCC Program Report at http://www.npbea.org/ELCC/

Parkay, F. W., Greenwood, G., Olejnik, S., & Proller, N. (1988). A study of the relationship among teacher efficacy, locus of control, and stress. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 21(4), 13-22.

Smylie, M. A. (1988). The enhancement function of staff development: Organizational and psychological antecedents to individual career change. American Educational Research Journal, 25, 1-30.

Starratt, R. J. (2003). Centering educational administration. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

The Ohio State University (2004-a). ELCC questionnaire: Educational administration (Completed by candidate at the end of field experience. Retrieved February 20, 2005, from http://education.osu.edu/EdAdmin/pdf/Principalship_Candidates.pdf

The Ohio State University (2004-b). ELCC questionnaire: Educational administration (Completed by field mentor at the end of field experience. Retrieved February 20, 2005, from http://education.osu.edu/EdAdmin/pdf/Principalship_FM.pdf

Comments, questions, feedback, criticisms?

Send feedback