902191

research-article2020
JRLXXX10.1177/1942775120902191Journal of Research on Leadership EducationSchneider

Original Research
Journal of Research on

A Social Constructivist
Leadership Education
1­–17
© The University Council for
Grounded Theory of School Educational Administration 2020
Article reuse guidelines:
Principal Legal Learning sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/1942775120902191
https://doi.org/10.1177/1942775120902191
journals.sagepub.com/home/jrl

Tracey L. Schneider1

Abstract
This article presents a social constructivist grounded theory of school principal legal
learning. The author analyzed 10 interviews with K-12 school principals and 10 school
law faculty documents to investigate how principals develop the knowledge and
skills to address legal issues in schools. Two themes emerged. The first theme was
source of legal learning, with categories that included theoretical legal learning and
practical/reality-based learning. The second theme was supports for legal learning,
with categories that included supports of school law faculty, attorneys, policies,
building level–specific content, professional development, and a combined practice of
reflection to develop a common-sense approach.

Keywords
adult learning theory, principal, social constructivist grounded theory, school law

The K-12 school principal has a dynamic and complicated role, created in part by
the interplay of numerous laws governing schools. Principals are expected to
address legal issues in the school context, requiring that school leaders possess a
foundational knowledge of law, the ability to apply such knowledge in the practice
of school leadership, and even the ability to weave legal requirements into their
own leadership framework (Doctor, 2013; Shariff, 2004). In fact, knowledge of the
law, application of the law, and the ability to interpret legal standards for the com-
munity exist within the current widely accepted standards for school leaders
(National Policy Board for Educational Administration, 2015). The potential

1
Stockton University, Atlantic City, NJ, USA

Corresponding Author:
Tracey L. Schneider, Stockton University, 3711 Atlantic Ave, Atlantic City, NJ 08401, USA.
Email: Tracey.Schneider@stockton.edu
2 Journal of Research on Leadership Education 00(0)

ramifications of improper legal decisions are substantial; individual rights can be

violated and the financial costs tremendous (Petty, 2016).
Given the expectations, standards, and the potential ramifications of decisions
inconsistent with the law, principals are acutely aware of their responsibility to address
legal issues and apply legal requirements. Principals recognize that they are faced with
accountability requirements that call for knowledge of legal guidelines (Himmetoglu
et al., 2017) and frequently face new legitimate federal legal challenges that have
“huge implications for the day-to-day operations” (Petty, 2016, p. 26). Principals have
been calling for the knowledge and skills to properly address legal issues in schools
(Hess & Kelly, 2003; Shariff, 2004).
Yet, despite this call, research on school leader learning often focuses on the
principal’s development of knowledge and skills to impact instruction and student
achievement (Ylimaki, 2014). In the same way there is an intentional focus on prin-
cipal learning to impact instruction, there needs to be an intentional focus on prin-
cipal legal learning. For the purposes of this research, legal learning is defined as
the process through which principals acquire the foundational knowledge of legal
constructs and requirements necessary to address legal situations within schools.
This definition recognizes the principal is not a lawyer but is required to adopt a
practice-focused application of relevant laws and institutional policies that imple-
ment such laws in their schools (Doctor, 2013; National Policy Board for Educational
Administration, 2015).
The process of legal learning is unique in several ways. First, unlike developing
knowledge and skills to impact instruction, principals typically have no prior back-
ground in the law. Second, unlike developing knowledge and skills to impact instruc-
tion, principals have no preparational requirement for legal coursework (Petty, 2016).
Third, unlike developing knowledge and skills to impact instruction, principals have a
limited level of ultimate authority over legal issues, requiring contact with superinten-
dents or attorneys for the ultimate authority to act.

Research Purpose
It is time to answer the K-12 principal’s call for the tools necessary to help avoid costly
legal mistakes. The first step is to better understand the process of school principal
legal learning and the purpose of this research is to take that first step. The unique
nature of legal learning requires recognition of how learning is experienced by the
principal and intentionally developed by school law faculty. This research applies a
social constructivist grounded theory (Charmaz, 2014) methodology within the frame-
work of Adult Learning Theory (McGrath, 2009), to develop a theory of school prin-
cipal legal learning that is grounded in the voices and experiences of both principals
and school law faculty. The application of this methodology allowed the researcher to
answer the following questions: How do K-12 school principals experience legal
learning? and How do K-12 school principals develop the requisite knowledge and
skills to address legal issues in schools?
Schneider 3

Method
The social constructivist grounded theory approach allowed for the research to be
loosely situated in an existing theoretical framework while allowing the researchers
and participants to co-construct reality, shaped by participants’ experiences. The
subjective participant experiences generated the data, but the researcher negotiated
the meaning of those experiences to more deeply understand the principal legal
learning process and to generate a theory of that process (Charmaz, 2014; Creswell
& Poth, 2018). This approach allowed the researcher to recognize prior professional
experience as an education law attorney, and how this background impacted the
interpretation of data.

Theoretical Framework and Lens

Professional learning of any kind, legal learning included, is rooted in the theory of
adult learning through andragogy, promulgated by Malcom Knowles (McGrath, 2009;
Merriam, 2001). Knowles theory of andragogy and adult learning challenges the the-
ory of pedagogy, which assumes that individuals simply learn what they are told
(McGrath, 2009). By contrast, andragogy assumes adult learning is predicated on five
key tenets: (a) adults must be aware of the purpose and practical relevance of the learn-
ing materials, (b) adults must learn independently and self-directed so they can develop
strong self-concept, (c) adult learning must be grounded in practical experience, (d)
adults want to learn and their motivation is a combination of both intrinsic and extrin-
sic factors, and (e) adults learn best in a safe environment where they are free to
explore examples and situations without judgment (McGrath, 2009).
Using adult learning tenets to guide principal legal learning requires such learning be
based on relevant and practical subject matter that leads to personal mastery (Thompson
et al., 2004) of relevant laws; that such learning be transformative where principals are
free to engage in discourse (Calvert, 2016) about legal issues; that such learning have
varied experienced-based activities that allow for application (Zepeda, 2012) of laws;
and that such learning be self-directed to facilitate the principal’s own agency, capacity,
and intrinsic desire to prepare to address legal issues (Calvert, 2016; Zepeda, 2012;
Zepeda et al., 2014). Moreover, understanding how principals learn necessarily requires
reflection on how the principals were taught (McGrath, 2009) school law.
Within the context of adult learning theory, the researcher viewed principal legal
learning through a pragmatic lens (Muneja, 2015). The pragmatic lens allowed the
researcher to navigate the world in which principals practice (Charmaz, 2014) toward
development of a practical outcome-based theory (Creswell & Poth, 2018) of principal
legal learning.

Participants
School principal participants were sampled using two-part sampling strategy of initial
purposeful and snowball sampling followed by theoretical sampling, consistent with
4 Journal of Research on Leadership Education 00(0)

grounded theory methodology (Charmaz, 2014; Creswell & Poth, 2018). This process
yielded a sample of 10 principal participants and 10 sets of school law faculty docu-
ments. Principal participants spanned four different building levels: primary, elemen-
tary, middle, and high school, and two different states: Virginia and North Carolina.

Data Collection
The primary source of data collection methods included participant interviews.
Interviews were structured to gather a broad range of issues associated with principal
legal learning. Each interview consistent of the following semi-structured interview
questions, in addition to demographic and snowball sampling questions: (a) In what
ways have you learned about school law? (b) When do you first remember learning
about school law? (c) What do you remember learning about school law? (d) In what
ways do legal issues come up in your work, if at all? (e) How do you prepare to address
legal issues that you may face in your school? (f) What do you feel about the adequacy
of your preparation to address school law issues? and (g) Can you describe a school
law issue you addressed recently in your position and how you came to learn the infor-
mation that helped you address that issue?
The secondary source of data was the document review of school law faculty syl-
labi and course activities. These documents served as an additional source of objec-
tive information as part of theoretical sampling (Charmaz, 2014), a source of context
for interview data (Newman, 2013), and to ensure richness of perspectives. The
inclusion of school law faculty via syllabi and course activities provided the peda-
gogical perspective on principal legal learning. Ultimately, connecting the faculty
pedagogical perspective as well as the principal perspective has the potential to lead
to the establishment of a more coherent principal learning system (Brown et al.,
2014). School law faculty documents were identified and collected from the princi-
pal interview participants as well as an internet search for publicly available school
law course documents.

Data Analysis and Trustworthiness

Through rigorous analysis and constant comparison, the researcher analyzed interview
data intertwined with collection using an iterative process of initial line-by-line coding
with gerunds, memoing and focused coding to bring relationships and patterns between
initial codes into categories and themes, and memoing and axial coding to bring
dimension to the emerging themes (Charmaz, 2014). A similar process was followed
for the school law faculty document analysis. The written content of each document
was coded using initial line-by-line coding and focused coding. The focused codes of
the document review were then combined with the focused codes of the interview data
and synthesized within the axial coding process.
Ultimately, through this process, a theoretical coding process emerged. The theo-
retical codes illuminated patterns among the data, made relationships more coherent,
and identified the conditions under which the principal legal learning process emerged
Schneider 5

into a theory (Charmaz, 2014; Creswell & Poth, 2018). To ensure trustworthiness as
the theory emerged, the researcher generated reflexive memos to recognize and bias,
created a space where the participants told their own story in their own words, utilized
multiple data sources, and solicited thick and rich descriptions.

Findings and Discussion: The Theory of Principal Legal

Learning
The theory of principal legal learning that emerged from the research comprises
two major themes: the source of principal legal learning and the support for prin-
cipal legal learning. The source of principal legal learning as a theme signifies that
principals receive knowledge and models of skill development from a variety of
sources. Two categories (learning legal theory through textbooks and practical/
reality-based legal learning) and four subcategories within practical/reality-based
legal learning (learning through course content, learning through scenarios in
practice, learning through professional networks, and learning through teaching
others) illustrate the theme of the source of principal legal learning. The support
for principal legal learning as a theme signifies that certain elements scaffold prin-
cipal legal learning both pre-service and in-service. Six categories (school law
faculty support, attorney, and access to legal information support; policy support;
professional development support; building level–specific content support; and
applying common-sense with reflection support) related through a pattern of com-
plex dimensions to illustrate the theme of support for principal legal learning.
Throughout the entire legal learning process, principals expressed an overarching
dichotomy between the external and the internal through which they navigated
their legal learning.
Although the purpose of the research was not to validate tenets of adult learning
theory, these tenets were clearly interwoven throughout the process through which
principals develop the knowledge and skills to address legal issues in schools. Yet, at
each stage of the principal legal learning process, principals experience some unique
variation of adult learning theory, specific to legal learning.

Theme: Source of Legal Learning

The principal learning experience can first be classified by the source of the learning.
The categories related in a way that the participants seem to experience legal learning
from thematical sources of learning legal theory and practical learning. Facilitating
this relational pattern was the idea that learning legal theory is not reality-based,
whereas practical learning is grounded in reality. For Participant X, learning legal
theory was “food for thought, but not what we do” in reality.

Category: Learning legal theory through textbooks. The sole source of learning about
legal theory was textbook learning. Each principal identified having taken one school
law course with a significant component of textbook learning. Overwhelmingly,
6 Journal of Research on Leadership Education 00(0)

principals identified the value of textbook learning as providing the history of the law
and understanding the theoretical “why” laws exist. Principal U defined this as “where
we are and why we are” for school law issues. Participant R spoke of the necessity of
understanding the legal theories behind the “landmark cases” and how they may shape
schools today.
Despite the acknowledgment of the textbook as a source of understanding the
“where” and “why,” the learning legal theory through textbooks showed varying lev-
els of value provided by this source of learning for principals in the reality of day-to-
day practice. Each principal spoke about the textbook and its relevance. Several
proudly noted or pointed to the textbook’s presence on the office shelf during the
interview. Some recalled the value of theoretical textbook learning in practice. In par-
ticular, Participant Q found the theoretical textbook learning valuable to understand-
ing how to interpret legal documents and legalese.
The presence of the textbook and the recollection of the value of theoretical text-
book learning did not, however, equate to current, practical use. Participant S noted
that the books were left on the shelf from a former principal and referred to the text-
book at “merely words on paper.” Likewise, Participant Q described the text as “just a
giant book of cases.” Participant R said the textbook was present but not used, at least
not at this point in the principal’s career. Participant R’s comment presents an interest-
ing insight into the progression of legal learning. The textbook may have been used
early in Participant R’s career to show knowledge and power but later in a principal’s
career, common sense and reality take the place of the textbook.
The variation in principal feelings toward the value of learning legal theory did not
change the fact that each principal specifically noted a disconnect between learning
the theory of law from applying those theories in the daily practice of addressing
school law issues. Participant T noted that “studying case law and living it are very
different.” Further, whether overtly or interpreted through language choice, every
principal confirmed how Participant Z initially described theoretical textbook learn-
ing, as more passive “knowledge acquisition” at a static point in time as opposed to
active, dynamic, continuous legal learning.
This idea of theoretical textbook learning as mere knowledge acquisition was
underscored in the school law faculty syllabi review. Syllabus A refers to the section
on textbooks as “knowledge base.” A Syllabus B learning objective was “students will
become familiar with. . .” and, likewise, a Syllabus C learning objective used the ter-
minology to “inform” students. This suggests that direct objectives or goals of school
law coursework are textbook knowledge or one-way foundational knowledge acquisi-
tion. School law faculty action reinforces the principal’s voice, that theoretical text-
book learning is about passively acquiring knowledge rather than ensuring active
learning. However, principals seemed to describe this in a negative way and school
law faculty maintain it as an intentional course objective.

Category: Practical/reality-based legal learning.  Principal acknowledgment of theoretical

textbook learning as “mere knowledge acquisition” presented an interesting dichot-
omy between theory and reality. As the second component of this dichotomy, practical
Schneider 7

or reality-based learning was specifically distinguished from theoretical textbook

learning.
Practical or reality-based legal learning was not limited to one sole source of learn-
ing as was learning legal theory through textbooks. Practical or reality-based legal
learning occurred through four subcategories or subprocesses: learning through course
content, learning through scenarios in practice, learning from professional networks,
and learning from teaching others. Learning within each of these subcategories and
subprocesses is not of equal value. Figure 1 illustrates a greater and more significant
depth of learning through scenarios in practice and through professional networks than
it does through learning through course content scenarios and learning from teaching
others.

Subcategory: Learning through course content. Consistent with the theory/reality

dichotomy, practical or reality-based learning through course content occurs through
the use of scenarios. These scenarios are the vehicle that connects the theory to the
real-life legal situations faced by principals.
Adult learning theory would suggest that scenarios are only effective when job
embedded experience-based (Zepeda, 2012). However, principal participants identi-
fied value from scenarios in course content as well, specifically through scenarios
faced by other principals in prior court cases and scenarios faced by other principals
who have been invited to the course to share their experiences. Participant U found the
course as “powerful” in learning from the experiences of others to deepen the develop-
ment of legal knowledge, highlight the relevance of legal knowledge in practice, and
initiate the application of legal knowledge to real-life situations.
School law faculty are relying on the value of learning through textbook scenarios
as an integral part of the coursework. The syllabi indicate substantial intended use of
scenarios in the form of case law to move the foundational knowledge acquisition
toward more practical learning. In each of Syllabi A through J, learning activities
included briefing cases. This seems to be one way in which the foundational knowl-
edge acquisition of cases requires students to analyze and make a direct connection to
their own context. Syllabus A specifically noted “school-based hypotheticals” would
be used as “applications of a selected legal topic to local situation” for “examination
of existing practices,” and Syllabus C noted this as the importance of activities “for
many roles within schools.”
However, not all principal participants found the scenarios in textbook course con-
tent effective. Participant Q described reading scenarios through textbook cases as
diverging from what principals face in practice. Participant S likewise found the text-
book cases detached from what principals actually face.
However, at the same time, Participant S validated the secondary aspects of learn-
ing through scenarios in course content, learning from practicing principals discussing
scenarios as part of course activities. Participant S described a unique variation on the
school law course that facilitated principal learning by effectively bringing textbook
scenarios into reality through practicing principals. Participant S’s coursework prepa-
ration was two semesters in length. During the second semester, students witnessed a
8 Journal of Research on Leadership Education 00(0)

panel of practicing principals discussing legal scenarios that they experienced.

Students were given a direct opportunity to learn through the experiences of other
principals.

Subcategory: Learning through scenarios in practice. The experience of learning

through the scenarios of other principals not only emerged as a subcategory, it also
seemed to form a bridge between course content textbook scenarios and the principal’s
own experience learning through legal scenarios and issues in practice. According to
Participant V, legal learning is most effective through understanding a wide variety
of experiences. That begins with hearing about the experiences of others in course
content. However, Participant V went on to unequivocally express that learning on
the job is most valuable as only actual experience can “prepare me to be able to make
decisions when they need to be made in a timely, effective fashion.” Participant W
echoed that sentiment, suggesting that coursework and scenarios of others provide
the guiding rules, but it is only through on-the-job experience and active learning-
by-doing that the guiding rules become engrained to that point that decision-making
becomes natural.
Without exception, every participant emphasized that it is only by learning through
scenarios or legal issues personally experienced in practice when the most significant
and largest component of legal learning occurs. Although participants expressed their
legal learning process at this stage differently, they described the result of significant
legal learning occurring when they personally experienced legal scenarios in practice.
Participant S’s statements evoked the dimension of reality that exists in practical expe-
rience by describing learning taking place during “the act of something actually occur-
ring” and further explaining that nothing can really prepare a principal like personally
dealing with a situation and not hypotheticals. Participant T echoed that sentiment,
suggesting the learning occurs more quickly and drastically at this stage, describing it
as “baptism by fire.”
Surprisingly, an element of learning through scenarios in practice that adult learn-
ing theory would predict to emerge, professional development (Zepeda, 2012) did not
emerge. Although a few participants acknowledged having legal professional develop-
ment sessions as a principal, not a single principal expressed professional develop-
ment as a source of legal learning. Instead, professional development emerged, at
most, according to Participant R, as a form of support for staying updated and current
on changes in the law.

Subcategory: Learning through professional networks.  The process of legal learning

forms a clear progression from a principal’s personal learning through scenarios to
sharing those experiences and learning from the experiences of others in a professional
network. As participants described this progression, again, the idea of learning through
the scenarios of others forms a bridge in this process. These professional networks
were equally as significant a source of legal learning as a principal’s own personal
learning through scenarios in practice. Although not every participant described the
professional network using that terminology, every participant spoke of legal learning
Schneider 9

by reaching out to a collection of other school professionals for information, support,

and advice about legal issues.
The benefits of professional networks were clear and unequivocal, principal par-
ticipants spoke of the “power of a network” and found significant learning value in
“working together” to have “great conversations.” This type of collaboration allowed
principals to have another individual helping them to think through a legal issue and
ensure that principals are not acting as “lone rangers” trying to navigate an issue on
their own. Interestingly, Participant T surmised that this type of collaborative network-
ing is occurring as a direct result of the absence of legal professional development.
Thus, another benefit of professional networks is to fill the gap in other sources of
legal learning.
Professional networks do not have consistent or required membership. Although it
was clear that each participant maintained a professional network, members of each
professional network were unique to the principal participant. Participant R offered the
idea that membership in a professional network can fluctuate over time, based on a
principal’s needs at different points in their careers. The following were noted as poten-
tial members of a professional network, in order of frequency and expressed value to
the principals: other principals, supervisors, mentors, non-principal colleagues, school
resource officers, external government support agency contacts, and professional asso-
ciations. Professional networks were not limited to participants internal to the organiza-
tion as could be expected when dealing with private legal issues. In fact, not a single
principal limited members of the professional network to internal members only.
Participant T expressed a common sentiment of the principal participants, that the most
important characteristic of a professional network member is that they are “trusted,”
regardless of whether they are internal or external to the organization.
Given the breadth of membership, it is perhaps more noteworthy to identify the
individuals not included in the professional network. Overwhelmingly, principal par-
ticipants did not include attorneys in the professional network for learning and dis-
cussing legal issues. In addition, no participant discussed professional network
members as including any colleagues from coursework. Though every syllabus
included an element of small group work and collaboration in coursework, that col-
laboration does not seem to continue into practice.

Subcategory: Learning through teaching others.  The process of principal legal learn-
ing culminates with principals reaching the next level of learning through teaching
others. It is surprising that principal legal learning includes learning through teaching
others, given that legal instruction typically comes from an authority with formalized
legal training, which principals do not have. Yet, principal participants spoke of learn-
ing about legal issues so that they would be able to convey the issues to third parties.
Principals routinely identified third parties as belonging to two groups: staff mem-
bers and parents. Participant X most directly spoke to this issue and having to interpret
legal ideas and legal concepts to teachers because teachers have not had any founda-
tional school law courses. Participant T expressed the importance of developing an
accurate understanding of legal issues such that they could convey those issues for
10 Journal of Research on Leadership Education 00(0)

staff members and help them to place legal knowledge in the classroom context.
Participant T further explained that this would make staff members “more likely to
take ownership” of legal issues. Participant X also talked about interpreting law as a
form of external communication and public relations with parents. Participant X
explained that this most frequently occurs when the principal must share a standard or
explain legalese. Participant Y spoke of needing to have a thorough understanding of
the legal issues not only to be able to explain the issues to parents but also to “facilitate
a shared understanding.” Principal T illustrated the complexity of instructing parents
on legal issues, indicating that parents have asked whether the principal is an attorney
when the principal was trying to explain the legal guidelines and the school’s practice
related to custody. When challenged in this manner, a principal must have developed
the right depth of principal legal knowledge.
It was clear from the syllabi, that school law faculty are privy to the idea that
principals need to reach that level of transformative learning. Every syllabus
reviewed had a presentation component where future principals were required to
instruct fellow students and teach their legal learning to others, presumably to reach
that level of transformation.
This element of the principal legal learning process, though unexpected, is directly
connected to adult learning theory and the point at which adult learning reaches the
next level of transformative learning. The transformation occurs when the learner is
cognitively aware of their learning and can analyze, evaluate, and create knowledge to
transfer learning to others (Desimone, 2009; Ylimaki, 2014).

Theme: Supports for Legal Learning

Principal legal learning does not occur in a vacuum. The principal participants, through
their shared experiences, identified elements that support their sources of learning.
The supports emerged with a dimension that spanned from supports that provide a
very clearly defined, black-and-white, legal information to legal information that
facilitated learning through the less clearly defined, gray areas of the law. The black-
and-white supports include the school law faculty, the attorney, and to a certain extent,
policy. The gray area supports include policy, building level–specific content, profes-
sional development, and a process of developing common sense through reflection.
The distinction between the black-and-white and gray areas seems to be the support’s
ability to provide clear, concise direction as well as the support’s credibility with accu-
racy of legal information.

Category: School law faculty support. Principal participants spoke of the school law
faculty as having significant credibility as a source of accurate legal information. Prin-
cipals indicated that the school law faculty, in conjunction with the course materials,
provide principals with knowledge about what can and cannot be done without room
for interpretation. Participants Z, Y, X, and V all spoke of the value of the school law
faculty and the textbook that continues to be present on their office shelf for continued
learning support.
Schneider 11

Category: Attorney and access to legal information support. Each participant principal

noted the school’s attorney as a source of legal information. The attorney is seen as a
source of black and white with Participant W stating this directly. Participant V relayed
a statement from the school law faculty that they remember to this day. The school law
faculty informed Participant V that the attorney knows the law and that the principal is
not a lawyer, they are an educator. When the principals need to know the black-and-
white law, they need to contact the attorney. Participant U spoke of the attorney pro-
viding the “straight talk” necessary for principals to know where to draw the legal
lines. To that point, Participant R agreed that the attorney’s focus is strictly law and
should be contacted only for the law. It is up to the educator to apply the law in a “real-
istic common-sense situation.”
While each principal participant saw the attorney as a source of legal information,
access to that source of legal information differed drastically. Overwhelmingly, every
single participant has stated that they do not, as a principal, directly contact the school
attorney. Every single person uses an internal intermediary up the chain of command,
and even indirectly, had varying degrees of access to the attorney. Factors that seem to
influence that access are the approachability of the general counsel, the barriers to
access or gateways to access presented by the principal’s supervisor, and the culture of
the school to be either proactive or reactive in addressing legal issues. It is this lack of
access that may also explain why the attorney is never part of the principal’s profes-
sional network. In fact, Participant S referred to the attorneys as “the untouchables”
and Participant Z indicated an unwillingness to contact the attorney when the attorney
is presented as a “disciplinarian.”

Category: Policy support.  Every participant, unprompted, mentioned some form of pol-
icy and procedure, sometimes in the form of a code of conduct, used in practice to
support principal legal learning. However, variation emerged as to whether policies
were seen as black-and-white or gray and as to how policies were used as part of legal
learning.
The black-and-white dimension of policies emerged most frequently within the
code of conduct when principal participants use policies to identify legal provisions as
references and definitions. Every participant has discussed the inclusion of law explicit
in school policy and noted these documents as the first line of information for address-
ing a legal issue that arose in the school. Or as Participant X explained, policy is
something to “fall back on” and to help address the “run-of-the-mill” situations. More
explicitly, Participant Y discussed the idea of policies as “tightly written” boundaries.
Likewise, Participant W and Participant V both spoke of using the code of conduct to
instruct parents, in particular using definitions and code provisions as a point of refer-
ence (even literally pointing to it). To that end, written policies are seen as less likely
to be challenged and are a form of implementing structured due process that ensures
fairness and equity for all.
Conversely, the gray area dimension of policy is in how it is utilized and inter-
preted. Participants R and S did not see policy as a support for legal decision-making.
Participant R uses policy as merely a source of authority to show to others. Similarly,
Participant S identified the law being equated with policy that can provide a source of
12 Journal of Research on Leadership Education 00(0)

first guidance but noted that policy is written broadly with room for interpretation and
decision-making at different levels. It is within that gray area of decision-making at
different levels that principals can and should apply their own educational philoso-
phies to address a legal situation.

Category: Professional development support.  Professional development did not emerge

as a source of legal learning but did emerge as a form of support. Participant S
described potentially supportive benefits of professional development by describing a
legal professional development session that was valuable. That particular session did
not contain legalese, was chunked and extemporaneous, timely with school planning,
provided consistency in what to do and what not to do, and facilitated collaboration
and communication through “hands-on” activities as that is “where the learning and
processing [took] place.” Participants R and Q echoed a similar sentiment by sharing
that professional development is better when the faculty member is not “lawyer-ish”
and when provided in plain English, not legal jargon.
However, professional development did not emerge as a significant source of learn-
ing as it has typically had limitations. Every principal participant described their pro-
fessional development as district-wide not school-specific without any input from the
principals. Participant T noted that legal professional development is often outdated,
compliance-driven, and not connected to issues faced at buildings and practice.

Category: Building level–specific content support.  First emerging within the discussion of
professional development, overwhelmingly, principals are learning legal information
that is not specific to their context, specifically, their building level. Every principal
participant noted that when they do encounter legal information, it is never building
level–specific. Principals identified the content areas specific to their building level
where useful legal information can be tailored to context and facilitates legal learning.
For primary/elementary building levels, those areas include custody, discipline,
teacher-administrator rights and responsibilities, special education, allergies, or extra-
curricular activities, and mental health. For middle school and high school building
levels, those areas include substance abuse, discipline, Title IX, and social media.
The syllabus review confirmed the experiences of the principal participants. Each
syllabus clearly identified content areas that would be covered in the course. Those
areas are consistently broad and consistently absent of any connection to building
level needs in practice.

Category: Applying common sense with reflection for support.  A final area that emerged
as a source of support for principal legal learning is a principal’s ability to apply com-
mon sense and reflective practice. Almost every principal participant specifically used
the term “common sense” when speaking about addressing legal issues. Most notably,
Participant R spoke directly to this issue, stating that where the gray area exists, com-
mon sense needs to be applied to take appropriate action without overreaching.
To facilitate the development of common sense to address legal issues, principal
participants spoke of engaging in reflective practice. Participant Z and Participant Y
both discussed the idea of “hindsight” or “reflective practice.” When principals can
Schneider 13

Figure 1.  Theory of principal legal learning.

analyze and reflect upon their actions, whether successful action or mistake, principals
learn how to better address the legal issue moving forward and deepen their legal
learning. Furthermore, Participants R, S, and T, all spoke about taking additional steps
toward legal learning to avoid “negative reflection.” Much of this reflective practice
occurs within the professional network.
The theory of principal legal learning is illustrated in visual form in Figure 1.

Limitations
This study was limited by the potential for participants to feel pressured or influenced
by the researcher’s background as an attorney. Given this prior experience as an educa-
tion attorney, there is a potential for participants to feel like the researcher was judging
or evaluating their knowledge of school law. To compensate, the researcher was trans-
parent about this professional background and assured participants that the purpose of
the research was to understand the legal learning process and not to judge principal
actions. This served to lessen any intimidation and interaction power differences
(Charmaz, 2014).

Implications for Practice

Research about the process of principal legal learning has implications for two differ-
ent groups: principals and school law faculty. Principals, as adult learners of school
law, need to understand how they develop knowledge and skills that will inform their
14 Journal of Research on Leadership Education 00(0)

own practice. Principals have expressed desire for knowledge and skills to address
legal issues in schools (Hess & Kelly, 2003; Shariff, 2004). This research presents two
key implications for principals who desire to develop legal knowledge and skills and
deepen legal learning: get exposure to scenarios in practice until legal decision-making
becomes instinctual by cultivating professional networks and gain access to a wide
variety of supports that use the black-and-white to practice reflection to the point at
which learning becomes transformative.
Principal participants emphasized that learning occurs in practice after exposure to
actual legal scenarios. While it is most beneficial to personally experience the legal
scenarios, it is certainly not advisable to create legal issues in schools merely for the
benefit of principal legal learning. Instead, principals continually express the benefit
of exposure to scenarios, from any source. Although principals found the most value
in their own experiences, they did not entirely discount the benefit of course content
and textbook scenarios. The course content and textbook scenarios provide the foun-
dational knowledge. Principals can actively recall and build upon that foundational
knowledge by intentionally revisiting scenarios in practice. One valuable way of
building upon that foundational knowledge is through professional networks where
scenarios are discussed with trusted colleagues, mentors, and supervisors.
These networks and the intentional and active discussion of scenarios can and
should occur both formally and informally. In the formal setting, though principal
participants have not had regular, job-embedded legal professional development, they
desire for such formal learning opportunities. Principals can and should solicit oppor-
tunities that are current, are not presented in legal jargon, are chunked and tailored to
building-level content, are timely with school planning, provide consistency in what to
do and what not to do, and facilitate collaboration and communication through “hands-
on” activities. These formal sources of learning should be supplemented with the
informal discussions within the professional network. It is within the ongoing activi-
ties and informal discussions of scenarios that deep legal learning becomes instinctual
legal decision-making.
Principal participants identified a wide variety of supports that are not sources of
legal learning but can serve to facilitate legal learning. However, the breadth of those
supports seems to be underutilized. It is clear that school policy can provide clear
black-and-white legal decision-making guidelines. Moreover, policies were often
cited as a mechanism for principals learning by teaching others about school law
issues, both teachers and parents. Furthermore, principal participants indicate that pro-
fessional development, when done right, can also be a source of current, credible,
explanation of what to do and what not to do. Again, this is a source of black-and-
white that principals can use to navigate legal issues and translate those legal issues to
teachers and parents. Principals must recognize the existence of these supports, request
these supports, and utilize these supports until legal learning reaches that instinctual,
common sense, level of transformative learning.
School law faculty need to continually develop valuable and meaningful school law
programming. There is national principal shortage that some attribute to the weakness
of principal preparation and development (Gates et al., 2014). In this new era of school
Schneider 15

autonomy, accountability (Gates et al., 2014; Himmetoglu et al., 2017), and the rush to
legally challenge issues previously discussed (Petty, 2016), there is corresponding
need to understand how principals develop knowledge and skills to address legal
issues in schools. This research can help to refine current methods of principal school
law instruction and programming. Over time, this may help to attract and retain quality
principals to the profession and reduce legal fees.
One way to refine current coursework is to incorporate more real-life scenarios
from practicing principals. A second way to refine current coursework is to recognize
and emphasize building-level content differences. While principals need to be pre-
pared to practice at any level, it is beneficial for principals to be aware of building-
level legal issue differences so that they may draw upon that knowledge in practice. A
third way to refine current coursework is to begin to facilitate a professional network
for principals entering practice. School law faculty can and should consider pairing
practicing principals with principals in preparation specifically to discuss legal issues.
Doing so would facilitate all three recommendations for refined coursework. It would
give the practicing principals the opportunity to discuss real scenarios, ideally based
on intended building-level practice, and would initiate a trusting collegial relationship
to provide the foundation for a strong professional network.
It should be recognized that the syllabi indicate that school law faculty are trying to
incorporate these elements into current coursework activities consistent with current
knowledge of adult learning theory. The syllabi demonstrate how school law faculty
are seeking to facilitate self-directed learning through student/school administrator
choice of learning activities. The syllabi also demonstrate that school law faculty
incorporate scenarios and activities establishing current connections to practice and
ensuring learning is grounded in practical experience. Finally, syllabi have elements of
small group work and/or collaboration. It is not entirely clear whether this is intended
to initiate the development of a professional network. However, this research illus-
trates that even if school law faculty are intending to facilitate adult learning theory
tenets in school law coursework, principals are not understanding the purpose of learn-
ing activities or need a modified learning approach, specific for the unique intricacies
of legal learning.

Implications for Future Research

Several areas emerged that would warrant future research. While this research
produced valuable implications for refining school law coursework, there is still
much research that could be done to understand why school law coursework is
valuable for some principals and only a source of knowledge or information for
others.
The attorney is often identified as a source of significant credibility and legal
knowledge. Yet, mechanisms are not in place that facilitate direct principal contact
with attorneys. There was much variability in identifying mechanisms that would
facilitate principal and attorney interactions. Additional research that further explores
16 Journal of Research on Leadership Education 00(0)

the relationship of the school attorney and school principals who need legal advice to
navigate legal issues is warranted.
Professional development is an underutilized source of principal legal learning.
Professional development that is provided is internal and arranged by supervisors. In
some instances, the professional development is tailored to the needs of the district,
whereas in others it is not. In many instances the professional development is in
response to a significant legal case or law that would directly impact the district or
school. In all cases, the professional development is described as district-wide, not
school-specific. Additional research to identify the most effective elements of legal
professional development is warranted.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship,
and/or publication of this article.

Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of
this article.

ORCID iD
Tracey L. Schneider https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8718-2200

References
Brown, K. C., Squires, J., Connors-Tadros, L., & Horowitz, M. (2014, July). What do we
know about principal preparation, licensure requirements, and professional develop-
ment for school leaders? [CEELO policy report]. Center on Enhancing Early Learning
Outcomes. http://ceelo.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/ceelo_policy_report_ece_prin-
cipal_prep.pdf
Calvert, L. (2016). Moving from compliance to agency: What teachers need to make profes-
sional learning work. Learning Forward; National Commission on Teaching & Americas
Future.
Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative anal-
ysis (2nd ed.). SAGE.
Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among
five approaches (4th ed.). SAGE.
Desimone, L. M. (2009). Improving impact studies of teachers’ professional development:
Toward better conceptualizations and measures. Educational Researcher, 38, 181–199.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X08331140
Doctor, T. L. (2013). Should principals know more about the law? (Report ED539380). ERIC
Database.
Gates, S. M., Hamilton, L. S., Martorell, P., Burkhauser, S., Heaton, P., Pierson, A., . . . Gu, K.
(2014). Preparing principals to raise student achievement: Implementation and effects of
the new leaders program in ten districts. RAND Corporation.
Schneider 17

Hess, F., & Kelly, A. (2003). Learning to lead: What gets taught in principal preparation pro-
grams? https://sites.hks.harvard.edu/pepg/PDF/Papers/Hess_Kelly_Learning_to_Lead_
PEPG05.02.pdf
Himmetoglu, B., Aydug, D., & Bayrak, C. (2017). Opinions of school administrators about
accountability in educational organizations. Turkish Online Journal of Qualitative Inquiry,
8(1), 39–68. https://doi.org/10.17569/tojqi.288852
McGrath, V. (2009). Reviewing the evidence on how adult students learn: An examination of
Knowles’ model of andragogy. Adult Learner: The Irish Journal of Adult and Community
Education, 2009, 99–110.
Merriam, S. B. (2001). Andragogy and self-directed learning: Pillars of adult learning the-
ory. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 2001(89), 3–14. https://doi.
org/10.1002/ace.3
Muneja, M. S. (2015). A theoretical basis for adult learning facilitation: Review of selected
articles. Journal of Education and Practice, 6(31), 54–61.
National Policy Board for Educational Administration. (2015). Professional standards for edu-
cational leaders 2015.
Newman, M. (2013). Conceptualizations of school leadership among high school principals in
Jamaica. Journal of International Education and Leadership, 3(3), 1–7. http://www.jielusa.
org/
Petty, T. (2016). The significance of principal preparation and education law: Principals’ per-
ception of students’ rights. National Teacher Education Journal, 9(1), 25–38.
Shariff, S. (2004). Keeping schools out of court: Legally defensible models of leadership. The
Educational Forum, 68, 222–233.
Thompson, S. C., Gregg, L., & Niska, J. M. (2004). Professional learning communities, leader-
ship, and student learning. Research in Middle Level Education Online, 28(1), 1–15. http://
www.nmsa.org/Publications/RMLEOnline/tabid/101/Default.aspx
Ylimaki, R. M. (2014). The new instructional leadership: ISLLC standard two. Routledge.
Zepeda, S. (2012). Professional development: What works (2nd ed.). Eye on Education.
Zepeda, S. J., Parylo, O., & Bengtson, E. (2014). Analyzing principal professional development
practices through the lens of adult learning theory. Professional Development in Education,
40, 295–315. https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2013.821667

Author Biography
Tracey L. Schneider is an assistant professor at Stockton University. She received her PhD
from the College of William & Mary in Education Policy, Planning & Leadership (where much
of this research was conducted) and her JD from the University of Richmond School of Law.
Her research integrates issues related to education law and policy and specifically practical
implications for educational leaders.