As school districts in Arizona and state Legislators struggle with appropriate funding for schools during difficult times economic times, and as they each debate the value of teachers and principals, the ingredients necessary to continue positive, supportive, stable and consistent school environments are usually left out. As one presupposes, an increasing number of beginning principals are being hired into school leadership positions in schools that are identified as underperforming. These “turn around principals,” face great challenges as they begin their leadership careers with this expectation cloud hanging over their head. If schools fail to make significant progress during an established period of time (ARS 15-241) then the school principal shall be removed. Contract or not!

Non -renewal or dismissal of a principal suggests that principals live and die by their employment contract. The length of their employment contract determines how long they will stay in any one school and any one district (DiTullio, 2002, p. 46).

Most states do not offer tenure to principals. Tenure status and rights are usually granted to teachers only. Principals of public schools became employees-at-will with individual employment contracts and generally leave their teacher tenure behind. In some districts across the nation, if a tenured teacher moves into a principal position they can retain their teacher tenure. This study, done in Arizona which by statute permits multiple year contracts for school administrators, sought to understand how contracts affect the morale and commitment of administrators? What is the degree of satisfaction over contract discussions? Given the increasing accountability of federal legislation, such as Race to The Top (American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009), administrators are increasingly being held accountable for student achievement.

Arizona School Administrators (ASA) is the umbrella non-profit organization serving all Arizona school administrators in their professional training development needs and other support services. The organization is unique in its configuration of the organization from the other 49 states in that its constituents include higher education administration professors.As stated in their description, “…members are K-12 public school administrators…and each of the state universities college of education in Higher Education,” (Arizona School Administrators, 2010). The Higher Education division provides leadership for administrators in community colleges and universities who work with public schools. This research study is a product of this unique relationship with ASA and their Higher Education Division.

In Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, one of the first needs that must be met is of safety and security. Researchers noted the following as reasons for not using short-term contracts for principals as: job security linked to job satisfaction (Blackman & Fenwick, 2000; Ferrandino & Tirozzi, 2000; Keller, 1998; Murray & Murray, 1999; Schambier, 1981; Sergiovanni & Staratt, 1998), and performance accountability tied to contract length (Border, 2002; DiTullio, 2002; Schambier, 1981; Sergiovanni & Staratt, 1998).

In 1993 the Massachusetts’ Education Reform Act eliminated tenure for public school principals as well as their right to collective bargaining. Through a qualitative study, expert informants from education law and professional associations in Massachusetts were interviewed. Along with the interviews a focus group of principals and a group of superintendents were asked the same questions (Border, 2002, p. 134). Results of the interviews indicated the contract discussions had no clear single frame of reference. After eight years of implementation the results were as varied as there were districts and superintendents. Many principals were still without contracts, while superintendents used the limited contract system to build leadership teams. It was clear that superintendents always controlled the contract discussions. Even with the shortage of principals, “this created a limited number of free agent type principals, most felt they had little or no say in their contract. This resulted in the feeling of lower morale and a decrease in job satisfaction,” (Border, 2002, p. 136).

Additionally, Borders (2004) found that of 80 administrators in Florida identified 70 or 87.5% of middle school assistant principals indicated that they had eleven or twelve month contracts. “The analysis of variance revealed that there was no difference between the length of their annual contract and their overall level of job satisfaction,” (p.96).

In a similar study DiTullio (2002) determined that security and contract duration was a fundamental issue that administrators wanted contract duration discussed in order to gain job security. As some principals were working without a written contract, normal written contracts were for two or three years. Principals felt, “…squeezed between superintendents who had a five year contract and teachers who had attained tenure…Some superintendents granted roll-over contracts to principals they wished to retain in their district” (p. 222). Through focus group discussions principals stated that to continue in the district a relationship with the superintendent was as one principal stated:

[Principals are] just non-renewed; and the bottom line is, they have been told by that superintendent, “Thank you, but no thank you.” And, “I don’t have to give you any reasons. I’m not renewing your contract (DiTullio, 2002, p. 157).

DiTullio (2002) found with short 194 day contracts come lower salaries and the ability for the superintendent to fire a sub-par principal. With greater responsibilities than the classroom teacher why do individuals seek the principalship when districts won’t offer multiple year contracts? Massachusetts, as does Arizona, requires that principals do not have more than a 3 year contract.

The advantages of multiple year contracts include the superintendants ability to build leadership teams using a limited contract system and increased accountability. The possible disadvantages for the district include: Increased turnover and loss of job security associated with short contracts can lead to job dissatisfaction, loss of motivation, and increased alienation.

The Arizona Revised Statues, section 15-503B (see Appendix A) allows governing boards to enter into multiple year employment contracts with public school superintendents or principals. The statute’s authority to school boards in entering into multiple year contracts is discretionary. The term of employment may be for any period not exceeding three years. However, if the superintendent’s or principal’s contract with the school district is for multiple years, the school district shall not offer to extend or renegotiate the contract until May of the year preceding the final year of the contract.

Prior to 2001, section 503B previously read, “the term of employment of superintendent's or principal’s may be for any period not exceeding three years.’’ section B was rewritten in 2001 (ch.379) to include the language, “However, if the superintendent’s or principal’s contract with the school district is for multiple years, the school district shall not offer to extend or renegotiate the contract until May of the year preceding the final year of the contract.”

The above revision was introduced by an Arizona legislator whose home school district terminated a series of superintendents prior to the end of their contracts and paid several hundreds of thousands of dollars in “buying out” residual salaries and benefits. The 2001 revision insured that no more than two years, at the most, of a three year contract would be paid out upon early termination of a superintendent’s three year contract. One result of this revision has been the trend for school boards to offer a superintendent an initial two year contract and then, after determining satisfactory performance by the end of the first year, the governing board would then offer an additional three year contract to take effect on July 1 of the subsequent year or terminate the contract after one year and then pay out the remaining one year's base salary and benefits or only the base salary depending on the exact wording of the contract. Arizona superintendents and principals, unlike some states, do not earn "tenure" even when they have multiple year contracts or serve as administrators with a series of one year contracts for a long period of time.

Two Arizona appellate cases provide some guidance as to administrator contracts. In Wolfe v. Sierra Vista Unified School District no. 68, an administrator had obtained “tenure” status as a teacher prior to accepting an administrative position. When his contract as an administrator was terminated, he was returned to full-time teaching but the District only offered him a probationary teaching contract. Wolfe argued he had a property right to his tenure status and the court agreed. The appellate court stated that although Plaintiff (Wolfe) did not teach during the nine years he served as an administrator, continuing status was not lost; “it would not be wise policy to burden the assumption of administrative duties with the loss of security previously acquired.” 722 P.2d 389,390 (Az. App. 1986). Wolfe stands for the proposition that an administrator who is reemployed as a full time teacher and has earned “tenure” or “continuing teacher” status in the same school district is entitled to resume continuing teacher status.

One recent case, Paczosa v. Cartwright Elementary School District, 213 P.3d 222 (Az. App. 2009), reached a different decision. Two long term administrators, Paczosa and Faulkner, worked as school principals until 2007. Paczosa worked for the District for twenty-three years, serving the last nine as school principal. Faulkner served twenty-five years in the District and was an administrator for fifteen years. All contracts for school principals were one year contracts. Both administrators, as in Wolfe had attained “tenure status” as continuing teachers in their respective districts prior to accepting their administrative contracts. Over a dispute concerning early retirement benefits, the District had offered a retirement incentive payout over three years, which Paczosa and Faulkner accepted. However, the Board later withdrew the proposed incentive payout over three years and Faulkner and Paczosa refused to accept a one year principal’s contract after being promised a three year contract. After thirty days the District declared the two positions “Vacant”, and the principals argued that they had retreat rights to teaching positions due to prior “tenure status” as continuing teachers often losing their administrative contracts. The Arizona Court of Appeals held that since the District did not offer the two principals a teaching contract, the principals did not meet the statutory definition of “certified teacher” and therefore were not entitled to receive continuing teachers' contracts after losing their administrative contracts.

The primary difference in the two cases was that Wolfe was in a probationary teaching position when he argued he had not lost his tenure status. Paczosa and Faulkner were not offered teaching positions by the District. The Paczosa case implies that had the two principals been offered teaching positions, they would have retained tenure status as a teacher, not probationary status.

One lesson learned from Paczosa is that when principals receive multiple year contracts, early retirement incentive pay can be spread out over two or three years in cash strapped districts since the statute allows for multiple year contracts. Additionally, multiyear contracts for school principals may provide for property rights due to early termination, under both state and federal law.

There are several states that offer principals multiyear contracts including Illinois, Maine, and Alabama. Illinois offers a five year performance based contract to school principals. The performance based contract must include the goals and indicators of student performance and academic improvement. See, IL ST CH 122 Sect. 10-23.8a. Illinois recently revised the statutes regarding multiple year contracts for school principals with student performance indicators in order to meet, in part, the requirements to compete for Race to the Top federal monies. Other justifications for multi year contracts are discussed below.

The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between multiple year contracts for principals and potential related issues (stability, satisfaction, accountability, etc.). The research questions addressed were:

1. How many districts offer multiple year contracts to principals in AZ?

2. Why are multiple year contracts not utilized by districts?

3. If multiple year contracts are used, is there a local board policy?

4. Is district stability increased with use of the multiple year contracts?

The Arizona School Administrators (ASA) Principal’s Survey administered during the fall, 2009, was electronically sent to a list of 512 school principals in conjunction with the Arizona School Administrators, an association of all school administrators in the state. The survey was listed on the ASA website. The survey intended to garner information regarding the use and perceptions of multi-year administrator employment contracts. See Appendix B for the survey.

A total of 192 surveys were returned indicating a 37.5% initial response rate. However, after the first several questions a large number of the respondents did not complete the remainder of the survey. At least two reasons can be speculated regarding this occurrence. First, the survey asked for written explanations regarding the effect of multi-year contracts in terms of evaluation, hiring, etc. It is certainly possible that in the very busy days of a school principal, many chose not to devote the time necessary to complete the survey. Secondly, since the first several questions ascertained that only about a third of the principals had more than one year contracts, it may be that their interest in the topic was minimal.

Regarding governing board policy supporting multi-year contracts, principals (n=192) that 34.4% of the governing boards allowed such contracts, 49.5% indicated no support for multi-year contracts, with 16.1% not knowing. Of the 139 principals answering question number 2, 51.1% had held or currently hold a multi-year contract (n=71). Explanations given as to why multi-year contracts were not given when they are allowed through Arizona law included all administrator contracts are renewed annually, the Board is unwilling to consider such, all administrators are at will and the ubiquitous I don’t know.

Regarding the legality of multi-year contracts under Arizona law (ARS 15-1503), only 53.5% (of 155 respondents) were aware of the law. However, 74.2% (of the 155 respondents) thought that such contracts would be beneficial to attracting additional qualified candidates to the principalship. Rationale given included: additional job security, professional comfort and fairness.

Asked if multi-year contracts would assist the principal evaluation process, 51.8% of the respondents (of 83 respondents) said yes. As to why, respondents indicated that it would allow more risk taking as a change agent, could show improvement over tenure, allow a growth model to occur and allow reward for a job well done.

Asked if multi-year contracts would hinder the principal evaluation process, 52.9% (of 70 respondents) said no.

The next series of questions (questions 11, 12 and 13) asked for an explanation of how multi-year contracts might affect various aspects of the school process. Only a small number of principals responded (n<20). Of those who did respond, several suggested the effect on school employees would be an increased sense of stability, continuity and/or consistency. In terms of effects on parent and student morale, several principals indicated it might provide stability and a sense of community/team. A few saw no effect achieved or weren’t sure of any.

Of 36 respondents, 52.8% felt that multi-year contracts would assist in the hiring of certified staff. Again, stability was mentioned as a rationale. Several mentioned that only if the principal were effective would hiring be effective.

A clear majority (75% of 32 respondents) didn’t know if there Superintendent was interested in multi-year contracts for principals. Half of the respondents (n=33) were in a district with an organization representing them. However (of 19 respondents) approximately one third (36.8%) indicated that the organization would support multi-year contracts with 63.2% saying the organization would not.

Approximately two thirds (66.7%) of 33 respondents indicated that they were not aware of any districts in Arizona issuing multi-year contracts. 12.1% weren’t sure.

As to the advantage of multi-year contracts, the handful of respondents noted stability and job security. Disadvantages noted included too much comfort and bad principals hanging on.

At the end of the survey, several demographic questions were asked. Since the respondents at this point numbered less than 30, those data are not included.

There are several conclusions to be drawn from this study.  First and foremost, while Arizona law allows multiyear contracts, half of the respondents (who should know) report that their respective governing boards are not interested in such contracts.  Why is this?  Is it the reality of the times of fiscal instability?  Is it the nature of our current 'assessment' mentality that 1 year is enough to make or break a principal?  Or, is it simply lack of interest of boards - if it isn't broken, don't fix it?  Or, a lack of interest on the superintendent’s part? Clearly, the next step in pursuit of these answers would be a survey of governing board members.

A second conclusion, although somewhat disturbing, is the lack of time or interest of Arizona principals completing the survey.  Is the issue not important enough to respond to their representative organization (who actually might have influence with governing boards or the state legislature on the issue)? 

A final conclusion is perplexing for two reasons. First, most principal respondents were unaware that multi-year contracts are allowable under Arizona law. When one is seeking a position it limits ones negotiation to not have this information at hand. Second, one may assume within administrator certification programs in Arizona that this fact is not taught to Arizona principals-in-training.

Clearly, the background research and results of this survey support potentially positive outcomes of multiyear contracts.  However, once again, what we know from research is not necessarily what is practiced.

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA). (2009). Section 14005-6, Title XIV, (Public Law 111-5), Race-to-the-top. Retrieved March 9, 2010, from: http://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop/legislation.html

Arizona School Administrators. (2010). ASA: Enhancing educational leadership. Retrieved March 5, 2010 from http://www.azsa.org/

Arizona School Administrators. (2009, October 27). ASA principal’s survey. Retrieved October 27, 2009 from http://www.azsa.org/surveys/

ARS 15-241. (no date). School accountability; schools failing to meet academic standards; failing schools tutoring fund; classification label for school districts and charter school operators. Retrieved March 9, 2010, from http://www.azleg.state.az.us/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/ars/15/00241.htm&Title=15&DocType=ARS

ARS 15-503. (no date). Superintendents, principals, head teachers and school psychologists; term of employment; evaluation; contract delivery; nonretention notice. Retrieved February 25, 2010 from http://www.azleg.state.az.us/ars/15/00503.htm

Blackman, M.C. & Fenwick, L.T. (2000). The Principalship.Education Week, 19(29), p.46, p. 68.

Border, H. R. (2004).Job satisfaction of Florida's middle school assistant principals as a factor for preserving an administrative workforce. Retrieved January 27, 2009 from http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=766122191&sid=4&Fmt=2&clientId=15474&RQT=309&VName=PQD

DiTullio, R. A. (2002). The changing employment status of Massachusetts' principals: Perspectives on contract discussions.Retrieved January 27, 2009 from http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=726376331&sid=2&Fmt=2&clientId=15474&RQT=309&VName=PQD&cfc=1

Ferrandino, V.L. & Tirozzi, G.N. (2000). The principal, keystone of a high achieving school: Attracting and keeping the leaders we need. Retrieved April 26, 2007 from: http//:www.nassporg/press_release/the_prin_tir.htm

Keller, B. (1998, March 25). Research explores the reasons why principals get the ax. Education Week, p. 21.

McREL. (2006). School district leadership that works: The effect of superintendent leadership on student achievement. Retrieved October 7, 2007 from www.mcrel.org

Murray, K.T. & Murray B.A. (1999). The administrative contract: Implications for reform. NASSP Bulletin, 83, (606), pp. 33-38.

Schambier, R.F. (1981). What to do when the pyramid crumbles: The path from XA to YB leadership. Anaheim, CA: National Adult Education Conference.

Sergiovanni, T.J. & Staratt, R.J. (1998). Supervision: A redefinition (6^th Ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill.