The Role of the Principal in Arizona Schools

The public school system in America has evolved to a point where the local school is subject to the control of several layers of government simultaneously. Education today is controlled by local, state and federal governments. This requires each governmental level to contribute in its own way to the support and governance of the public school system. It is also important to know the primary function of the American public school system, in legal theory, is not for the benefit of an individual or individuals, but rather the school exists as a state agency for the perpetuation of a civil society as we know it in America.

Historically, leading school improvement was generally left up to the individual principal of each school with guidance from the superintendent and school board. The local school principal was empowered to lead the staff in the process of identifying specific challenges facing the school and addressing them idiosyncratically. Typically, the local school principal assessed curriculum and instruction and was responsible for any necessary changes. The principal was free to infuse new technologies and introduce innovations considered appropriate.

Most school principals employed new technologies, methods, programs and innovations to resolve problems on a rather piecemeal basis. In some cases, the local school principal introduced several initiatives (reforms) each school year. Typically, the changes implemented by the principal were intended to address certain needs deemed important by the local school. Over several years a principal might introduce numerous reform initiatives, but the basic programs and services of the school remained intact. Reforms were simply attached to the existing school structure.

Today, leaders representing a variety of interest groups including the business community, parent organizations, teacher associations, state department of education and the federal government are actively involved with school reform and or school restructuring initiatives. This new leadership reality makes it very difficult for the principal to focus time and attention solely on education matters specific to the local school.

National reforms such as special education mandates and the recent No Child Left Behind legislation make it clear that elected officials ou outside of the local school have great influence in how schools are organized and curricula are developed, implemented and evaluated. The mandate to hold local school leaders accountable for assuring that all children make satisfactory academic progress annually brings greater outside pressure to bear on the local school principal, faculty and staff.

Standards for the Preparation of Principals

During the latter part of the nineteenth century schools began to recognize a position of head-teacher to manage the affairs of the school and provide organization for the school’s operation. The position of head-teacher gradually transitioned into the full time position of superintendent as the responsibilities for the running of schools became more demanding and the position was perceived to require a full time person. In the beginning days of the principals, t , t he person who held the position was usually selected from the classroom and had little, if any, formal training in administration. Schools were simple organizations and administration was not considered to be a difficult task; the administrator could get his/her training on the job, based on trial and error processes. While the first book in school administration (Chapters on School Supervision) was written in 1875, “professors of educational leadership and programs specific to school administration were unknown until the early 1900’s” (Fullan, 2002).

By the end of World War II there were 125 institutions of higher education which had programs specifically for the preparation of school administrators. During the 1950’s and ‘60’s the number of programs at different universities throughout the country burgeoned to over 500 specifically designed for preparation for educational administration. The primary driving force behind this growth of programs was individual states’ recognizing the uniqueness of being an educational administrator and requiring certification to hold the position. This general administrator’s certification evolved into specific administrative position certification, i.e., principal or superintendent.

Arizona has three types of administrative certifications: principal, superintendent and supervisor. In order to qualify for a principal certificate in Arizona, as in most other states, prescribed coursework is necessary. The individual also must have three years of qualified experience as a teacher. In recent years, completing a program of university coursework for certification only qualifies an individual to take the examination developed by the state education department. Upon passing the exam, the candidate is entitled to a principal certificate. In Arizona this examination is called the Arizona Educator Proficiency Assessment (AEPA).

The programs for preparing principals have gone through three distinct transitions:

All three periods witnessed much critical analysis about the health of educational administration in general and the status of preparation programs in particular…(involving) considerable muckraking about the way practicing administrators were managing schools. Identifying these three eras as prescriptive (1900-1946), scientific (1947-1985) and dialectic (1986 to present) the present era of change is marked by “devastating attacks on the current state of preparation programs, critical analysis of practicing school administrators and references to alternate visions of preparation programs…the rhetoric in this third period …seems both more strident and comprehensive than found in earlier eras of reform.” (Hseih & Shen , 1998, p. 110 ).

In response to the public demand for change in the way school administrators are prepared and practice, the Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium (ISLLC) developed a set of six standards for administrative practice. Although commissioned by the National Policy Board for Educational Administration (NPBEA) and the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO), all of the 10 member organizations that make up the NPBEA have endorsed these standards. Aligned with the ISLLC standards for practice are the Education Leadership Constituency Council (ELCC) seven standards for preparation mandated by the National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE). Of the three state universities in Arizona (Arizona State University, Northern Arizona University, and University of Arizona), only Northern Arizona University is currently seeking NCATE accreditation. The state department of education is one of the few states that did not adopt the ISLLC standards, although obviously based much of their own state standards on the ISLLC standards.

The Importance of Leadership Preparation

The Effective Schools research has indicated for more than two decades that a key component of a successful school is the leadership provided by the principal. This same literature also recognizes the importance of teacher leaders in schools that perform well. A study of 20 businesses which found some to be successful in the long term and found a similar number not successful, reported the following:

Larger than life, celebrity leaders who ride in from the outside are negatively correlated with taking a company from good to great. Ten of eleven good-to-great CEOs came from inside the company, whereas the comparison companies (lesser performing) tried outside CEOs six times more often. “Leaders who built enduring greatness were not high-profile flashy performers, but rather individuals who blend extreme personal humility with intense professional will (Fullan, 2002, p. 418).

In a comparison of 200 highly effective principals compared with 200 senior executives in business, Hay Management Consultants found that both groups were equally impressive in performance. Hay identified five domains of leadership evident in both groups. They were:

In a summary, the point is made that “the principal of the future has to be much more attuned to the big picture and much more sophisticated at conceptual thinking and transforming the organization through people and teams.” (Fullan, 2002, p. 414)

Why is leadership as a principal difficult? A great deal may be related to the differing expectations of what leadership is for a principal. In an examination of the differences in the leadership expectations from teachers, principals, and superintendents, there was little congruency between the three groups in the areas of skills and knowledge. Superintendents and teachers have different perspectives on the expected leadership of a principal. Superintendents view the job of a principal from the managerial and political aspect while teachers have a high expectation of instructional leadership. An effective principal is one who is able to balance these differing demands (Hseih & Shen, 1998, p. 110).

Who Becomes a Principal?

Historically, teachers become principals. A recent study published by RAND Corporation demonstrates that 99 percent of public school principals had teaching experience prior to becoming a principal and that 90 percent of private school principals had teaching experience before assuming the duties of a principal. Currently, there appears to be a shift in the number of years in teaching experience prior to becoming a principal as is indicated in Table 1. This change in experience indicates persons interested in becoming a principal are remaining in the classroom for a longer period of time prior to actually assuming the role of principal.

Source: Susan M. Gates and colleagues, 2003.

Similarly, due to more extensive teaching experience, it appears there will be a briefer career as a principal (or in education administration in general) as age of approximately 55 remains the average for leaving a career in education (Gates, Ringel, Santibanez, Ross, & Chung, 2003, p. 5-7).

While teaching appears to be a mandatory prerequisite to becoming a principal, roughly 50 percent of newly appointed principals come directly from the classroom. If not directly from the classroom, then where do principals come from? Table 2 provides an insight into the types of experience educators have prior to becoming a principal and the possible administrative career paths to the principal’s office. By comparing Arizona to the national average and surrounding states, one gains a perspective of whether Arizona is different or similar in the career path to the principal’s position. It should be noted that the categories of experience are not mutually exclusive, i.e., an athletic director may not have moved directly to the principal’s position but may have also been an assistant principal prior to becoming a principal (National Center for Educational Statistics, 1999-2000, p. 27-28).

In Arizona the clearest career path to becoming a principal is to be an assistant principal followed by the positions of department head, athletic director, and curriculum specialist. Arizona draws more heavily on assistant principals than its surrounding states or the national average with nearly 80 percent of principals having been an assistant principal. By comparison the national average is 67 percent and the next highest state (Nevada) is 71 percent of principals having had experience as an assistant principal.

Source: National Center for Educational Statistics, U.S. Dept. of Education, 2002.

While the information on charter school principals is not as discrete (the data are separated by region rather than state) an overview of charter school principals’ background can be seen in Table 3. Arizona is included in the West region data of this regional format. It should be noted that the information in Table 3 is not as comprehensive as that on regular principals contained in Table 2. This is a result of a lower percentage of response to the survey. However, it does paint a reasonably accurate picture of charter school principals’ prior experience. An open question regarding this data on prior experience is the lack of indication whether the non-principal experience reported was gained in regular public schools or in charter schools (National Center for Educational Statistics, 1999-2000, p. 79).

Source: National Center for Educational Statistics, U. S. Department of Education, 2002.

Note: * Those responding to survey.

** Arizona is in West region.

Previous teaching experience is found for 92 percent of charter school principals in the West Region which is slightly higher than the national average of 89 percent. Prior assistant principal experience is also found for a majority of charter school principals with the West Region showing slightly higher than the national average as well. In descending order of percentage, principals who had prior non-teaching experience in the positions other than assistant principal, came department head, curriculum specialist and athletic director – a pattern similar to regular public school principals.

When prior non-teaching experience of charter school principals and regular public school principals are compared, however, some differences do emerge (Table 4).

Source: National Center for Educational Statistics, U.S. Dept. of Education, 2002.

Note: * Those responding to survey.

** Arizona is in West region.

Charter school principals are much less likely to have been an assistant principal and somewhat less likely to have experience as an athletic director. Charter school principals, as a percentage, were more likely to have been a department head or curriculum specialist than their regular public education counterparts.

Who becomes a principal in Arizona? Teachers do, almost exclusively in regular public schools and to nearly the same degree in charter schools. Additionally, more than half of those who become principals have had some prior administrative experience. Eight out of ten regular public school principals in Arizona have been assistant principals as have six out ten charter school principals (National Center for Educational Statistics, 1999-2000, p. 83).

The demographic of prior experience for charter school principals is one that should be researched further. Conversations with three principals, two in regular public schools and one retired public school administrator who had become a charter school principal yielded an interesting trend in Arizona. Two principals in regular public schools indicated they intended to retire as soon as they were eligible and would seek principal positions in charter schools. One charter school principal that had moved from a regular school principal ship indicated that the new position was more satisfying. The reasons stated were that, while the responsibility for the entire operation was more demanding, there was less outside interference and less demand for administrivia which allowed for greater focus on the instructional program.

Who Prepares Principals in Arizona?

Arizona has several institutions that provide programs of study to qualify for the state examination and certification. Those that produce the greatest number of candidates for administrative certification, in order by number of students in their program, are:

Due to the mobility of population, not all school administrators in Arizona’s school are trained in Arizona. If certification is granted by a state with which Arizona has reciprocity, certification can be obtained by presenting evidence of certification and passing the AEPA and Arizona Constitution exam. It should be noted that charter and private school principals are not governed by the state requirement to have certification. Furthermore, critics of administrative certification requirements express that teaching requirements and certification are barriers that prevent alternative forms of leadership in schools, particularly from those outside of the education establishment (Gates et al., 2003, p. 5-7).