Becoming a Public School Administrator

Public school administrator's responsibilities have greatly increased since the passage of the No Child Left Behind Act. Besides the coordination of a school or school district's day to day operations, administrators are now responsible for providing instruction leadership that will raise students' academic achievement levels to meet annual yearly progress goals. Besides the formal training gained from a school leadership program, new administrators should also make use of induction programs, mentoring opportunities, and professional support groups as they settle into their positions. These practical supports can connect theory to practice and help new administrators navigate the challenges of managing a school or district.

Keywords Adequate Yearly Progress; Induction; Mentoring; No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB); Principals; Professional Development; Reflection; School Leadership Programs; School Superintendents

School Administration & Policy > Becoming a Public School Administrator

Overview

A school principal's job is more complex than ever before (Archer, 2004; Institute for Educational Leadership [IEL], 2000, as cited by Grubb & Flessa, 2006). Besides their traditional duties of hiring and firing instructors, coordinating bus schedules, dealing with parents, disciplining students, overseeing the cafeteria, and supervising special education and other special programs (Grubb & Flessa, 2006), they are now also expected to provide instructional leadership (Cotton, in press; Leithwood, Louis, Anderson & Wahlstrom, 2004; Stein & Nelson, 2003; Tillman, 2005, as cited in Grubb & Flessa, 2006). Additionally, some principals are also expected to develop support services for low-income students (National Research Council, 2003, as cited in Grubb & Flessa, 2006). Every school has its own history, environment, and unique employees. Therefore, new principals need to be able to quickly assimilate into their new workplaces, manage an incredible workload, and learn their schools' unique protocols. If they are former teachers, new principals may also find it rather disconcerting to transition from a peer relationship with teachers into a supervisory relationship (Lashway, 2003a).

Principal's responsibilities have greatly increased with the 2001 passage of the The No Child Left Behind Act. The act mandates that states set annual measurable objectives “based on the percentage of students performing at or above proficiency. These standards are used to determine if schools, districts, and states make annual yearly progress” (Linn, 2005, p. 91). If the percentage of students passing state tests is insufficient, schools have not made adequate yearly progress. “Sanctions are imposed on schools not meeting their annual yearly progress two years in a row, and the consequences are increasingly severe for schools not meeting targets for third, fourth, and fifth years in a row” (Linn, 2005, p. 91). Students may be transferred to other schools, staff may be replaced, the state may take over the school, and federal funding may be withdrawn (Linn, 2005). States and the federal government put accountability for achieving No Child Left Behind Act mandates at the school level (Lashway, 2003b), putting enormous pressure on school principals to meet annual yearly progress levels.

In the past, students who majored in leadership administration programs have typically earned their degree, obtained a job, and only then received occasional professional development. That has changed in recent years with stakeholders realizing the importance of providing professional development opportunities on an ongoing basis. Another way new principals are being transitioned into their job is through participation in an induction period during which they receive mentoring and other structured support (Malone, 2001, as cited by Lashway, 2003b). Although professional development and induction had been primarily sponsored by local school districts, more and more states are supporting these types of programs by requiring principals to obtain additional certification that can include mentoring, reflection, and portfolio development (Lashway, 2003b).

School Leadership Programs

According from the most recent statistics from the National Center for Education Statistics, most school principals have at least a master's degree, although it there is a great deal of variation between the public and private sectors. In the private sector, about 33% of principals had not earned a master's degree compared to only 1% of public school principals (National Center for Education Statistics, 1996).

With the nation currently enmeshed in such a high-stakes environment, principals are facing a high degree of pressure to perform. New principals are faced with challenges not addressed in their schooling, and principals who have been in the profession for many years may not have the skills now required of them. Nevertheless, principals are charged with delivering student success, and expectation that may require them to undergo additional training. One study found that 69% of school principals and 80% of school superintendents felt that school leadership programs do not accurately reflect the reality of managing a school or school district (Farkas et al., 2001, as cited in Lashway, 2003b). Over 85% of both school principals and superintendents think that revamping leadership programs would help improve leadership, but no research has been conducted on the subject of improving leadership programs (Lashway, 2003b). A 2001 survey of 450 principal certification programs found that only 6% of the programs reviewed the personal qualities most desired in today's principals, and only 40% listed teaching experience as an entrance requirement (Creighton & Jones, 2001, as cited in Lashway, 2003b).

Choosing a Program

For prospective principals and school district administrators trying to select a school leadership program, several factors should be considered to assess a program's suitability. Some of these factors hinge on whether or not:

• The purpose of the program is explicitly stated and relevant to the prospective student's needs;

• The curriculum mirrors the program's stated purpose and is rigorous in nature;

• The curriculum effectively balances theory with practical experience;

• The faculty includes professional instructors as well as practitioners still working in the field;

• The admissions criteria are rigorous and relevant; and

• The program is fully accredited and practices continual self-assessment (Assam, 2005).

Research & Criticisms

In 2005, a four-year study was released that focused on the outcomes of students who participated in school leadership programs in the United States to determine if these graduates would be adequately prepared for the challenging situations in which they would find themselves. The report, Educating School Leaders, which was part of the Education Schools Project, followed national surveys of alumni, deans, faculty, and principals, including 28 detailed case studies (Assam, 2005). Assessing each program's core curriculum, admissions policy, instructor quality, practical training opportunities, and self-evaluation efforts, the study found that only one school demonstrated its ability to effectively train new administrators (Assam, 2005). Accordingly, these six components of school leadership programs need to be re-assessed (Assam, 2005):

• Core Curriculum. The core curriculum in most programs is comprised of abstract survey courses that are not integrated with actual leadership practices professionals encounter once employed.

• Admissions. School leadership programs tend to admit almost anyone who applies, and applicant's standardized test scores are among the lowest of all students pursuing any kind of graduate degree. The researchers believe this is because many of the students attending these programs have no interest in working in school administration: they just want to earn graduate credits to improve their instructor's salary. Because their leadership programs are so lucrative, schools accommodate these students by making the programs easy to complete.

• Instructor Quality. Programs either have too many part-time instructors from the field who are not up to date on best practices and current research, or else they have too many full-time professors who have little current field experience. Additionally, many faculty members have never worked as a school administrator, which severely limits their understanding of the workplace their graduates will encounter upon employment.

• Practical Training. Programs tend to lack meaningful internships or field instruction.

• Evaluation. Programs tend not to follow up on graduate outcomes, such as whether or not graduates become successful administrators, or contribute to higher student achievement in the schools they lead.

The study found that, for the most part, leadership programs should be redesigned in order to better align curriculum with the expectations placed upon educational leaders.

Re-Designing School Leadership Programs

While experts generally advise that higher education curriculum be updated to meet today's more rigorous expectations of school administrators, how this should be done is widely debated. Both academic study and practical experience have benefits and limitations. Academic study can provide a solid foundational knowledge of the field, but the profession encompasses so much more than academic theories. Practical experience can be an effective way to give students a taste of the field as it really exists, but this method only teaches students what is, not what could be (Daresh, 2002, as cited in Lashway, 2003b). Therefore, a good balance between the two is most beneficial to students.

School districts can support leadership development programs by working with local colleges and universities to develop curriculum, and to create internships in the schools so that students can attain a practical understanding of the field. School districts can also encourage their professional staff to serve as mentors and to even teach part-time in the program (Lashway, 2003b).

Support for New Administrators

Induction

Induction programs can be very helpful for new administrators. A good program can keep new administrators focused on the big picture while still helping them deal with more immediate needs. Since the majority of new principals are most concerned with learning what they need to know to get through their first year, an effective induction program will help them be more reflective as they learn and work. Induction should consist of more than just mentoring. School districts can employ a number of different strategies including portfolios, professional development plans, study groups, focus groups, workshops, visits to other schools, and retreats (Peterson, 2001, as cited in Lashway, 2003a). This means that induction should be continuous and combine a number of strategies to facilitate reflection (Lashway, 2003a).

Mentoring

Mentoring can be an effective tool to acclimate new administrators. Good mentors are empathetic and experienced. They can coach new administrators in technical skills; help them understand the politics of their positions; and provide new, fresh perspectives on administrative duties (Lashway, 2003a). However, the mentoring process can go awry if a mentor becomes controlling or tries to mold the new administrator into a mirror image of him or herself. Additionally, mentors who have a limited perspective and are unable to provide much help (Crow and Mathews, 1998, as cited in Lashway, 2003a). Good, effective mentors provide instructional support by keeping new administrators focused on learning issues, and also by providing models of successful, proven practices. They can also provide administrative and managerial support not only by giving practical advice, but also by helping the new administrator set priorities, and asking appropriate questions to encourage deeper thought and reflection. Good mentors can also provide emotional support during stressful times (Dukess, 2001, as cited in Lashway, 2003a).

Support Groups

School districts can set up special programs for administrators, including support groups comprised of principals working in similar circumstances such rural schools, large schools, or schools with high percentages of low-income, minority, or at-risk students. Grouped together, these professionals can share their concerns and challenges with one another and work together to generate solutions. School districts can also actively encourage their principals to visit each other's schools to observe their operations and practices. While visiting each school, principals can review the school's goals and objectives, examine their test data, and discuss instructor performance. Then they can visit each classroom to observe how other schools' instructors teach and interact with students. Each visit can end with an evaluation meeting (Lashway, 2002).

Other Support Resources

School districts that serve more rural areas, have difficulty finding appropriate personnel, or do not have the funds to develop comprehensive induction programs can partner with other school districts and states to create a more regional type of induction program. Professional associations, too, have a variety of professional development resources available. Some may require a fee; others can be attained at no cost. National and regional associations may provide many workshops, skills assessments, and training opportunities that can be helpful (Lashway, 2003a). Resources are also available online in the form of web casts and online reference libraries.

Further Insights

With the complexities, time constraints, and workloads accompanying administrative positions – and the repercussions that can occur if schools are not making adequate yearly progress – it is understandable that there is a high turnover in the profession and a shortage of instructors interested in becoming a principal (Gilman & Lanman-Givens, 2001, as cited in Grubb & Flessa, 2006). With all the duties that require immediate attention, it can be difficult for principals to address instructional issues, which also need attention if a school is to meet No Child Left Behind Act adequate yearly progress requirements.

Multiple Principals

Although the majority of schools have continued to use the model of dividing tasks between a principal and vice principal, some schools have begun the practice of employing more than one principal. Having more than one principal can allow principals to spend more time on instruction and the development of student services. It can also provide an opportunity for principals to have more meaningful contact with instructors and parents (Grubb & Flessa, 2006).

Dividing Tasks

School have adopted many different approaches to employing a multiple principal model (Grubb & Flessa, 2006):

• In some cases, principals share responsibilities and do not divide the school into separately run sections. Each principal is responsible for particular duties, such as instructional issues, teacher observations, or student services and after-school programs. For duties that require more cohesiveness, such as hiring, instructor evaluations, and staff meeting, the two are jointly responsible.

• Other schools may divide the principals' responsibilities along grade lines, so that, for example, one manages kindergarten through fourth grade, and the other manages fifth grade through eighth grade. With this kind of separation of grades, certain duties are divided: only one principal would be in charge of professional development for the entire school, only one would handle external communications, etc.

• In larger schools, more than two principals may be employed with different principals responsible for certain grades and another principal responsible for organizational issues such as finances, representing the school to the public, and the overall organization of the school. But even in cases of multiple principals, all of them would be involved in hiring, developing the curriculum, and determining the direction of the school.

The difference between the multiple principals model and the principal and assistant principal model is the degrees of authority. With the multiple principals model, the principals share decision-making power, whereas in the principal and assistant principal model, only the principal has this authority. When employing the multiple principal model, it is important for the school to remain as one entity, rather than turn into separate schools occupying the same building or buildings. To help retain cohesiveness, schools should meet as a whole, and all committees should include people from every part of the school (Grubb & Flessa, 2006).

Benefits & Challenges

There can be many advantages to having more than one principal. Someone is always on site who can make decisions, which can be even more important to year-round schools. Having more than one principal also makes it easier for teachers and parents to access a principal and get their needs met in a timely manner. Multiple principals should also be able to accomplish more. And if one principal resigns, continuity can still be preserved in the institution, making employees less uneasy as about the changes a new principal may bring. There may be some confusion among instructors, students, and parents about each principal's responsibilities, but, if the separation of duties is clearly spelled out, the confusion should be minimal and quickly overcome. Some people may try to play one principal off another, but his can be prevented if the principals have recognized the potential danger, have a good working relationship, and communicate extensively and effectively with each other (Grubb & Flessa, 2006).

Conclusion

New principals encounter many situations that were probably not addressed in their education, and principals with many years directing schools may not have some of the skills that are now required of them. With the potential ramifications of not meeting No Child Left Behind Act mandates of adequate yearly progress, most school districts and states no longer assume that an advanced degree denotes a candidate's readiness to become a principal or school superintendent. School districts and states now see the importance of providing ongoing professional development and assistance programs for their administrators to help meet state and federal standards for student achievement.

Principals need to be more flexible than ever and have sound backgrounds in instruction. The former is especially true if they work with a school that employs more than one principal. School administration can be a thankless job with many challenges and expectations. To compound the challenge of locating and retaining quality school administrators, salary considerations may be preventing others from entering the profession or transitioning from a teaching position into an administrative position. The Educational Research Service tracks salaries and wages for 33 different public school positions. While overall administrators have earned more than instructors, it was found that at the elementary school level, the difference in pay can be as little as 4% (Archer, 2002). Considering that most instructors work 10 months out of the year while administrators work 12 months, that many administrators often work well beyond regular working hours, and that administrators are placed under so much pressure to meet state and federal mandates for student accountability, it is more likely than not that administrators are not interested in a salary increase. It takes a special person with a strong vision and a sound background in instructional theory, as well as the support of the school district and state to be successful in today's high-stakes environment.

Terms & Concepts

Adequate Yearly Progress: Part of the No Child Left Behind Act, adequate yearly progress refers to annual measurable objectives based on the percentage of students performing at or above proficiency.

Induction: Induction is a comprehensive, ongoing program intended to help new administrators transition into their positions by providing them with both instructional and administrative guidance.

Mentoring: Mentoring describes a relationship in which a more experienced person, the mentor, guides, instructs, encourages, and corrects a less experienced person.

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB): The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 is the latest reauthorization and a major overhaul of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, the major federal law regarding K-12 education.

Professional Development: Professional development refers to training that helps professionals stay current with changing technology and practices in a field.

Reflection: Reflection is the process of deriving meaning and knowledge from an experience and consciously connecting this experience to areas of one's life, such as work.

Bibliography

Archer, J. (2002). Survey finds little pay advantage for principals. Education Week, 21 , 5. Retrieved October 6, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=7214862&site=ehost-live

Ash, R. C., Hodge, P. H., & Connell, P. H. (2013). The recruitment and selection of principals who increase student learning. Education, 134, 94-100. Retrieved December 15, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=90503451&site=ehost-live

Assam, A. (2005). The unprepared administrator. Educational Leadership, 62 , 88-89. Retrieved October 6, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=16975252&site=ehost-live

DeAngelis, K. J., & O’Connor, N. (2012). Examining the pipeline into educational administration: An analysis of applications and job offers. Educational Administration Quarterly, 48, 468-505. Retrieved December 15, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=77452381&site=ehost-live

Eddins, B., Kirk, J., Hooten, D., & Russell, B. (2013). Utilization of 360-degree feedback in program assessment: Data support for improvement of principal preparation. National Forum Of Educational Administration & Supervision Journal, 31, 5-19. Retrieved December 15, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=91851964&site=ehost-live

Grubb, W. & Flessa, J. (2006). "A job too big for one": Multiple principals and other nontraditional approaches to school leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 42 , 518-530. Retrieved October 6, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=22587319&site=ehost-live

Lashway, L. (2002). Developing instructional leaders. Washington, D.C.: Office of Education Research and Improvement. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED466023). Retrieved October 6, 2007 from EBSCO Online Education Research Database. http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/80/1a/28/6e.pdf

Lashway, L. (2003a). Inducting school leaders. Washington, D.C.: Office of Education Research and Improvement. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED479074). Retrieved October 6, 2007 from EBSCO Online Education Research Database. http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/80/1b/44/79.pdf

Lashway, L. (2003b). Transforming principal preparation . Washington, D.C.: Office of Education Research and Improvement. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED473360). Retrieved October 6, 2007 from EBSCO Online Education Research Database. http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/80/1a/ca/00.pdf

Linn, R. (2005). Issues in the design of accountability systems. Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, 104 , 79-98. Retrieved May 2, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=17238819&site=ehost-live

National Center for Education Statistics (1996). Schools and staffing in the United States: A statistical profile, 1993-94 . Retrieved October 6, 2007, from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs/96124.pdf

Suggested Reading

Boris-Schacter, S. & Langer, S. (2006). Balanced leadership: How effective principals manage their work. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Dimmock, C. & Walker, A. (2005). Educational leadership: Culture and diversity. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Kowalski, T. (2007). Case studies on educational administration. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Lunenburg, F. & Ornstein, A. (2007). Educational administration: Concepts and practices. Florence, KY: Wadsworth Publishing.

Marzano, R., Waters, T. & McNulty, B. (2005). School leadership that works: From research to results. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision & Curriculum Development.