There are some implications of our findings for university leadership programs. One of these is the full consideration for more qualified, mature and experienced teachers in the process of recruitment and admissions. This is also supported by research in Virginia (DiPaola et al., 2003), in which 87% of the participating principals rated graduate school and teaching experience as the top two valuable experiences that helped them perform their jobs. Additionally, in investigating why some licensed individuals did not hold an administrative position, DiPaola et al. (2003) reported that nearly one-half of the participating principals thought these individuals were a poor fit for the position “because of an inappropriate disposition” or “poor judgment or common sense” (p. 58).
Another implication is the reexamination and redesign of the key knowledge, skills and values for effective school leadership covered in the preparation programs because some of the graduates felt underprepared and unconfident to take on administrative challenges as evidenced by this study. The examination and design of the curriculum should be considered as an ongoing process since the student populations and school environments are constantly changing. It is equally important for us to look at other aspects of the process of principal preparation, including “the selection (or, more often, self-selection) of candidates, the pedagogy and delivery methods used in the course” and “the qualifications of the faculty” (Hassenpflug, 2011, p. 24).
The results of our study also raise some additional questions, including: Are eligible candidates more likely to pursue an administrative position if they graduated from more selective colleges? Do the university administrative preparation programs emphasize the key and relevant knowledge, skills and values for effective school leadership? How do we motivate and support eligible candidates to take school leadership positions? What are the special barriers that hinder female candidates from pursuing a school leadership position? More research and investigations are needed to answer all of these important questions.
References
- Adams, J. P. (1999). Good principals, good schools.
Thrust for Educational Leadership, 29 (1), 8-11.
- California Commission on Teacher Credentialing. (2009).
Report on services credentials issued in California, 2003-04 to 2007-08. Sacramento, CA: Author.
- Center for the Future of Teaching and Learning. (2009).
Strengthening California’s system for preparing and supporting principals: Lessons from exemplary programs . Santa Cruz, CA: Author.
- Darling-Hammond, L.,&Orphanos, S. (2007).
Leadership development in California . Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University, Institute for Research on Education Policy&Practice.
- DiPaola, M.,&Tschannen-Moran, M. (2003). The principalship at a crossroads: A study of the conditions and concerns of principals.
NASSP Bulletin
, 87 (643), 43-65.
- EdSource. (2007).
Superintendents and principals: Charting the paths to school improvement. Mountain View, CA: EdSource.
- Educational Research Service (ERS). (2000).
The principal, keystone of high-achieving schools: Attracting and keeping the leaders we need . Arlington, VA: Author.
- Gates, S. M., Ringel, J., Santibanez, L., Ross, K. E.,&Chung, C. (2003).
Who is leading our schools? An overview of school administrators and their careers . Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
- Hancock, D., Black, T.,&Bird, J. (2006). A study of factors that influence teachers to become school administrators.
Journal of Educational Research&Policy Studies, 6 (1), 91-105.
- Harris, S., Arnold, M., Lowery, S.,&Crocker, C. (2000). Deciding to become a principal: What factors motivate or inhibit that decision?
ERS Spectrum, 18 (2), 40-45.
- Hassenpflug, A. (2011, May 18). Principal preparation: Moving beyond assessment.
Education Week , pp. 24-25.
- Heck, R.&Hallinger, P. (2009). Assessing the contribution of distributed leadership to school improvement and growth in math achievement.
American Educational Research Journal, 46 (3), 650-89.
- Kearney, K. (2010).
Effective principals for California schools: Building a coherent leadership development system . San Francisco: WestEd.
- Levine, A. (2005).
Educating school leaders . New York: Teachers College, The Education Schools Project.
- Loeb, S., Kalogridges, D.,&Horng, E. (2010). Principal preferences and the uneven distribution of principals across schools.
Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 32 (2), 205-229.
- Papa, F.,&Wyckoff, J. (2002).
The attributes and career paths of principals: Implications for improving policy . Albany, NY: University at Albany, Teacher Policy Research.
- Pijanowski, J., Hewitt, P.,&Brady, K. (2009). Superintendents’ perceptions of the principal shortage.
NASSP Bulletin, 93 (2), 85-95.
- Robinson, M. J., Lloyd, C. A.,&Rowe, K. J. (2008). The impact of leadership on student outcomes: An analysis of the differential effects of leadership types.
Educational Administration Quarterly, 44 (5), 635-74.
- White, M. E., Fong, A. B.,&Makkonen, R. (2010). School-site administrators: A California county and regional perspective on labor market trends (Issues&Ansers Report, REL 2010-No. 084). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory West. Retrieved from
(External Link)
- Wiley, S. (2001). Contextual effects on student achievement: School leadership and professional community.
Journal of Educational Change, 2 , 1-33.
- Winter, P., Rinehart, J.,&Munoz, M. (2002). Principal recruitment: An empirical evaluation of a school district’s internal pool of principal certified personnel.
Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 16 (2), 129-141.
