THE PRINCIPALSHIP

A STUDY OF
PRESCRIPTIONS, PRACTICES AND PERCEPTIONS
WITHIN A CHRISTIAN SCHOOL CONTEXT

GEORGE SEARS, BA, BEd, MEd (Admin)

A Portfolio of Research Submitted for the

Doctor of Education Award
School of Education, Faculty of the Professions
The University of Adelaide

July 2006
 THE PRINCIPALSHIP
A STUDY OF
PRESCRIPTIONS, PRACTICES AND PERCEPTIONS
WITHIN A CHRISTIAN SCHOOL CONTEXT

PORTFOLIO TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page
Abstract i
Dedication iii
Acknowledgements iv
Declaration v

CHAPTER 1: PREAMBLE TO THE PORTFOLIO

1.1 The Research Study 1

1.2 Overview, Rationale and Relevance 2
1.3 Portfolio Structure 6
1.4 Research Methods 8

CHAPTER 2: SECTION ONE – PRESCRIPTIONS OF THE PRINCIPALSHIP

2.1 Introduction 13
2.2 Importance of the Principalship 15
2.3 General Prescriptions of the Principalship 20
2.4 Role of the Principalship 34
2.5 Instructional Leadership of the Principalship 55
2.6 Metaphors of the Principalship 68
2.7 Perceptions of the Principalship 81
2.8 Leadership Function of the Principalship 89
2.9 The Future of the Principalship 96
2.10 Conclusions

CHAPTER 3: SECTION TWO – PRACTICES OF THE PRINCIPALSHIP

3.1 Introduction to Principalship Practices 103

3.2 The Research Data on Principalship Practices 118
3.3 Analysis of Data on Principalship Practices 130
3.4 Conclusions 159

CHAPTER 4: SECTION THREE – PERCEPTIONS OF THE PRINCIPALSHIP

4.1 Introduction 165

4.2 The Research Task 165
4.3 Perception as a Social Reality 166
4.4 Research Methodology 174
4.5 Research Distinctiveness and Relevance 187
4.6 Perceptions of the Principalship 188
4.7 Conclusions 290
CHAPTER 5: PORTFOLIO CONCLUSIONS

5.1 Principalship Prescriptions and Practices 296

5.2 Principalship Prescriptions and Perceptions 299
5.3 Principalship Perceptions and Practices 301
5.4 Principalship Role Satisfaction 304
5.5 The Principalship of the Future and Alternative Models

APPENDICES 308

BIBLIOGRAPHY 381
LIST OF TABLES, FIGURES AND SCHEDULES

Table 1 General School Data 115

Table 2 School Family Profile Data 116
Table 3 School Location and Structure 116
Table 4 Principals’ Characteristics 117
Table 5 Observational Times 118
Table 6 Location Detail from Principalship Observations 119
Table 7 Type of Activity Detail from Principalship Observation 120
Table 8 Type of Person Interaction from Principalship Observation 121
Table 9 Length of Interaction in One-Day Principalship Observation 121
Table 10 Journal Time 122
Table 11 Location Data from Principals’ Journal Records 122
Table 12 Type of Principalship Activity from Principals’ Journal Records 123
Table 13 Type of Person Interaction from the Principals’ Journal Records 123
Table 14 Interactional Analysis from Principals’ Journal Records 124
Table 15 Activity Analysis and Satisfaction Rating from Principals’ Journal 125
Records
Table 16 Satisfaction and Proportion of Time Recorded in Principals’ Journal 126
Records
Table 17 Principalship Hours Worked by Principals from Observation and 131
Journal Records
Table 18 Principalship Daily Interaction Summary 132
Table 19 Aggregate Principalship Daily Interaction Analysis 132
Table 20 Principals’ Journal Data – Location Analysis 135
Table 21 Location Analysis Summary - Principals’ Journal Data 136
Table 22 Location Analysis Summary – Principals’ Observation Data 136
Table 23 Principalship Location Analysis - Observation and Journal Summary 137
Table 24 Principalship Type of Activity Analysis 139
Table 25 Principalship Type of Activity Summary 140
Table 26 Principalship Type of Activity Grouped Data 140
Table 27 Principals’ Meeting Activity in Own Office 141
Table 28 Principals’ Meeting Characteristics Summary 143
Table 29 Principals’ Meeting Analysis – Planned Meetings 144
Table 30 Principals’ Meeting Analysis – Unplanned Meetings 144
Table 31 Principals’ Meetings Aggregate Observation and Journal Time 145
Analysis
Table 32 Type of People Interaction with the Principal 146
Table 33 Type of People Interaction Aggregate Data (Rank Order) 146
Table 34 Principal Satisfaction Indices (PSIs) 150
Table 35 Length of Activity and Principalship Satisfaction Rates 152
Table 36 Principal Satisfaction and Proportion of Length of Interaction from 154
Principals’ Journal Records
Table 37 Satisfaction Allocation According to Activity Type from Principals’ 155
Journal Data
Table 38 Aggregated Data for Principalship Satisfaction Rating According to 156
Activity Type
Table 39 Aggregate Data for Principalship Satisfaction According to 156
Satisfaction Rating
Table 40 Aggregate Data for Principalship Satisfaction According to 157
Satisfaction Rating
Table 41 Questionnaire Response Numbers 183
Table 42 Parent Questionnaire Responses 184
Table 43 Principalship Qualifications Perception Index Summary 195
Table 44 Overall Metaphor Choice Summary 247
Table 45 Overall Aggregate Metaphor Choice Ranking 247
Table 46 Metaphor Imagery Summary 249
Table 47 Metaphor Imagery Ranking 250
Table 48 Open-Ended Response Item Scope and Definition 254
Table 49 Practicing Principals’ Perceptions of Principalship Qualifications 263
Table 50 Principalship Qualifications – Perception Index Summary 263
Table 51 Category Aggregate Average Perception Index Comparisons 264
Table 52 Principal Perception of Personal Qualities – Perception Index 265
Groupings
Table 53 Principals’ Ranking of Personal Qualities 266
Table 54 Personal Qualities Group Ranking (Top 5) 266
Table 55 Principals’ Perceptions of Professional Skills – Perception Index 267
Groups
Table 56 Principals’ Professional Skill Ranking of Importance 268
Table 57 Professional Skills Group Ranking (Top 5) 269
Table 58 Hours Worked Data Summary 270
Table 59 Principals’ Group Time Allocation – Perception Index 271
Table 60 Time Allocation Group Perception Indices – Top Five Duties 272
Table 61 Inter-Group Comparison of the Lowest Ten Duties of Principals’ 273
Group Perceptions
Table 62 Inter-Group Comparisons of Ranked Principalship Time Allocation 274
Data According to Perception Index
Table 63 Inter-Group Comparisons of Ranked Principalship Personal Qualities 275
Data According to Perception Index
Table 64 Inter-Group Comparisons of Ranked Principalship Professional Skills 276
Data According to Perception Index
Table 65 Average Inter-Group Ranked Variances With Principals’ Group 277
Perception Summary
Table 66 Principals’ Group Metaphor Choice Summary 278
Table 67 Group Summary of Metaphor Classifications 279
Table 68 Inter-Group Perception Maps 1, 2 and 3 Dispersal Patterns 282
Table 69 Average Perceptual Variances with Combined Teacher and Board 284
Group Perceptions
Table 70 Average Perceptual Variances With Combined Teacher and Student 285
Group Perceptions
Table 71 Inter-Group Perception Index Dispersal Patterns and Principals’ 287
Group Perceptions
Table 72 Perceptual Variation (%) With Principals’ Group Based on Average 289
Item Variations and Perception Indices
Table 73 Inter-Group Perception Agreement (%) Summary 290
SCHEDULES

Page No.
Schedule A Perception Index Calculation Example 186
Schedule B Principalship Qualification Perception Index Inter-Group 196
Comparisons with the Aggregate Average
Schedule C Personal Qualities P.I. Ranking of Importance 198
Schedule D Principal Personal Qualities – Top 5 P.I. Ranking of Importance 199
Schedule E Principalship Personal Qualities Perception Index Group 201
Comparison with the Aggregate Average
Schedule F Inter-Group Perception Agreement Summary for Principalship 202
Personal Qualities (% Agreement)
Schedule G Principal Personal Qualities – Teacher Ranking 203
Schedule H Principal Personal Qualities – Student Ranking 204
Schedule I Principal Personal Qualities – Parent Ranking 204
Schedule J Principal Personal Qualities – Board Ranking 204
Schedule K Principal Personal Qualities – Perceived Ranking of Importance 204
Group Summary
Schedule L Professional Skill Ranking of Importance According to Perception 208
Index (P.I.)
Schedule M Response Group Perceptual Agreement with the Most Important and 209
Least Important Ranked Professional Skills
Schedule N Principals’ Professional Skills Perception Indices Group 210
Comparison with Aggregate Average
Schedule O Principalship Professional Skills – Parent Ranking 234
Schedule P Principalship Professional Skills – Board Ranking 235
Schedule Q Principalship Professional Skills – Teacher Ranking 235
Schedule R Principalship Professional Skills – Student Ranking 235
Schedule S Principalship Professional Skills Ranking Summary 236
Schedule T Principals’ Time Allocation – Group Perception Index Rankings 241
Schedule U Principals’ Time Allocation – Perception Index Comparison with 244
Aggregate Average
Schedule V Metaphor Selection – Most Favoured Metaphors 246
Schedule W Open Ended Response Summary 252
Schedule X Open Ended Response Rankings 253

FIGURES

Page No
Figure 1 Principal Satisfaction Indices (Averages) 150
Figure 2 Principal Satisfaction Quadrant Matrix 152
Figure 3 Principal Satisfaction Indices for Interaction Length PSIs 153
Figure 4 Proximity to Principal: Practical Model 177
Figure 5 Proximity to Principal: Organizational Model 177
Figure 6 Perception Index Factors 185
TABLES/GRAPHS

Page No
Table/Graph 1 Teaching Experience (Years) 189
Table/Graph 2 Principals’ Age (Years) Requirement 191
Table/Graph 3 Minimum Tertiary Qualification 193
Table/Graph 4 Unallocated Data Display
Table/Graph 5-28 Principalship Personal Qualities - See Appendix F 321
Table/Graph 29 Financial Planning Skill Perception of Importance 212
Table/Graph 30 Building Development Skill Perception of Importance 213
Table/Graph 31 Student Discipline Skill Perception of Importance 215
Table/Graph 32 Record Keeping Skill Perception of Importance 217
Table/Graph 33 Marketing and Publicity Skill Perception of Importance 219
Table/Graph 34 Communication Skill Perception of Importance 220
Table/Graph 35 Inter-Personal Relationships Skill Perception of Importance 222
Table/Graph 36 Curriculum Development Skill Perception of Importance 224
Table/Graph 37 Dispute Resolution Skill Perception of Importance 226
Table/Graph 38 Staff Management Skill Perception of Importance 227
Table/Graph 39 Staff Development Skill Perception of Importance 228
Table/Graph 40 Organizational Management Skill Perception of Importance 229
Table/Graph 41 Public Relations Skill Perception of Importance 231
Table/Graph 42 Leadership Skill Perception of Importance 232
Table/Graph 43 Future Planning Skill Perception of Importance 233
Table/Graph 44 Perception of Weekly Hours Worked 238
Table/Graph 45-67 Principalship Time Use Perception Data – See Appendix I 348
Table/Graph 68-74 Metaphor Perception Data – See Appendix K 373

PERCEPTION MAPS

Page No
Perception Map 1 Principalship Personal Qualities 280
Perception Map 2 Principalship Professional Skills 281
Perception Map 3 Principalship Practice Time Allocation 281
Perception Map 4 Principalship Personal Qualities (inc. Head i.e. Principal) 286
Perception Map 5 Principalship Professional Skills (inc. Head i.e. Principal) 286
Perception Map 6 Principalship Practice Time Allocation (inc. Head i.e. Principal) 287
APPENDICES

Page No
Appendix A Principalship Role – Time Analysis Work Sheet 309
Appendix B Background Information for Principalship Survey 311
Appendix C Request Letter to Principals 313
Appendix D Perceptions of the Principalship Questionnaire 315
Appendix E Survey Items – Personal Qualities, Professional Skills and Time 320
Use
Appendix F Personal Qualities Perception Data Table/Graphs 5-28 321
Appendix G Principalship Personal Qualities Perception Index Summary 346
Appendix H Principalship Professional Skills – Perception Index Summary 347
Appendix I Principalship Time Use Perception Data Table/Graphs 45-65 348
Appendix J Group Perceptions of Principals’ Time Allocation – Perception 372
Index Summary
Appendix K Metaphor Perception Data – Table/Graphs 68-74 373
 THE PRINCIPALSHIP

A STUDY OF PRESCRIPTIONS, PRACTICES AND PERCEPTIONS WITHIN A

CHRISTIAN SCHOOL CONTEXT

ABSTRACT

The Principalship occupies a unique and defining position that influences the shape of

schooling. It is the role of the school principal that has great significance for determining the

quality of the education that students receive, and for securing the best outcomes from the

educational enterprise in modern society. This portfolio of research explored a deeper

understanding of the role of the principal via a three part investigation of the prescriptions,

practices and perceptions of the principalship.

In Section One, a study of the literature on the principalship was used to define the

prescriptions, as a theoretical basis for understanding the principalship. Observation and

personal journals were used in Section Two, to document and subsequently analyse 338 hours

of day-to-day principalship practice, in five Christian schools. Section Three focussed on

perception as a powerful dynamic in the field of social discourse, which has particular

relevance for principalship interactions. Perceptions of the principalship from staff, parent,

student and board members, in the five Christian schools, were analysed from a total of 840

survey responses.

Previous studies, in the area of perceptions of the principalship, have undertaken to identify

congruence in the various interest-group’s perceptions of the principalship. In contrast, this

study examined the perceptions of the principalship in relation to principalship prescriptions

in the literature and principalship practice in the field study. The analysis of data was

focussed on the nature and extent of variance and congruence between the perceptions of the

principalship and the prescriptions, on the one hand, and actual practices, on the other.

i
The results of this study established that there was variance in the prescription, practice and

perception data of the principalship. Idealized concepts of the principalship, concerning

curriculum and visionary leadership, were challenged by principalship practice which was

overwhelmingly administrative. While patterns of perceptual congruence were identified in

prescriptions of personal qualities and professional skills for the principalship, there was

considerable variance in the perceptions of what the principal actually did. The perceptual

variances identified were relevant not only to existing principalship practice, as regards

expectations and performance assessment, but also, to the recruitment of future principalship

candidates and the development of training strategies for pre-service programs.

ii
 DEDICATION

For the furtherance of the effectiveness of the school principalship, which presides over the

great responsibility and task incumbent on each generation to train and educate the next.

iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

A debt of gratitude and thanks is acknowledged to those who have contributed to making this
portfolio of research possible;

• The University of Adelaide and the School of Education for the opportunity to
undertake doctoral study at such a distinguished tertiary institution.

• The Scholarship of those who have preceded me in the study of the principalship, and
the benefit that their research endeavours and outcomes have provided for this study.

• The late Professor Kevin Marjoribanks whose recognition of the value of this study
was an inspiration, and whose advice in his supervisory role an encouragement.

• The supervision of Dr Margaret Secombe in particular, and latterly Emeritus Professor

Robert Crotty, whose graciousness towards emerging scholarship and whose advice
and direction to assist that scholarship become a reality were invaluable.

• The five participating Christian School communities that opened themselves to the
research strategies and tasks that sourced the data for this study.

• The five participating school principals who, as colleagues, risked vulnerability and
disruption to allow for my incursion into their principalship.

• The endeavours of my father, Alan Sears, and his wife Jean who assisted with
collating the survey data.

• The very special technical assistance of Adam Connell whose expertise made possible
the graphical data displays.

• The Board of Management of Craigmore Christian School who during my twenty-five

year principalship at Craigmore Christian School supported and encouraged my
research endeavours.

• Outstanding beyond the acknowledgement of the above contributions to this portfolio

of research, two contributions are acknowledged with special reference and
appreciation. My wife, Chris, was a constant encouragement and support throughout
the eight year realization of this research portfolio, providing typing and information
processing skills, but more so, the patience and fellowship of a true companion. The
Lord Jesus, who is my life, I own as the source of the inspiration that began this study,
the encouragement to continue and the insights to sharpen and shape the resulting
study of the principalship. Thank you, Lord.

iv
DECLARATION

This Research Portfolio contains no material which has been accepted for the award of any
other degree or diploma in any university or other tertiary institution and that, to the best of
my knowledge, belief and intention, the portfolio contains no material previously published or
written by another person, except where due reference is made in the text of the portfolio.

I give consent that this portfolio, when deposited in the University Library, be made available
for photocopying and loan if accepted for the award of the degree of Doctor of Education.

____________________________
George A. Sears
July 2006

v
CHAPTER ONE

PREAMBLE TO THE PORTFOLIO

1.1 The Research Study

The purpose of this portfolio is to increase the understanding of the role of the principal in the

context of schooling. The particular sites chosen for research were five Christian schools

with a cohort of year eleven students. At these schools, the perceptions that governance

members, staff, parents and students had of the principal were investigated. The purpose was

to examine the extent that these perceptions related to the generalized prescriptions, on the

one hand, and actual practices of the principalship, on the other.

The prescriptive aspect was defined from the academic literature on the principalship, while

the principalship practice was investigated through the structured process of observation and

self-analysis of the principals from the school sites involved in the study. The prescriptions

gleaned from the literature were documented as representative of the theoretical and academic

considerations of the principalship, that is to say, what the principalship was posited to

involve. The practices were, on the other hand, what the principalship was found to embody

and entail.

Research into school effectiveness and school improvement from the mid-1980’s brought

into focus and prominence the relationship between the principal’s behaviour and influence,

and desired school outcomes (Stoll & Fink, 1996; Hopkins & Harris, 1997; Harris & Hopkins,

2000; Jackson, 2000; Teddlie & Reynolds, 2000). According to this research, the

principalship lies at the heart of the educational function of schooling and is pivotal to

improving the quality of learning in schools (Restine, 1997; Waters & Grubb, 2004). The

principal therefore, exercises an influence of great moment in the evolving trends and

emphasis in educational practice and intention. As a result it is imperative that the role and

1
responsibility of the principal’s function is appropriately understood and applied. In this

regard, the convergence of principalship prescriptions and practices must be analysed, as they

give rise to the qualities and components which are perceived to comprise the role of the

principalship.

In varying degrees, all stakeholders in the principal’s position and task are influenced by their

perceptions of the role and position. Any divergence between perceptions and what may be

known or understood of the principalship from other sources, namely prescriptions and

practices, serves to highlight misinformation, misunderstanding, and misapplication of the

principalship to the purposes of schooling.

Schooling is a high-profile societal domain, so the principal, as the person in the front line of

schooling, is under increasing expectation to deliver appropriate outcomes (Dunford, Fawcett

& Bennett, 2000). Outcomes that reflect public policy or national goals are particularly

sought after. However, beyond this, and more compelling than merely economic or political

considerations, are the generational futures forged in schools today. Failure here

impoverishes the human capital of future generations, and invites the condemnation of history

upon those who have the present custodianship of the development of this capital. Such

custodianship is vested in the educational institutions and educational providers in modern

society. Schools therefore command and demand an essential place of priority and

understanding, if they are to serve their societal function effectively. Crucial to achieving this

priority and understanding is the role of the principal who presides over the organizational

vitality, structure and outcome of schooling.

1.2 OVERVIEW, RATIONALE AND RELEVANCE

The focus of this research is the role of the secondary school principal; prescriptions,

practices and perceptions. Ensuring the effectiveness of this role by adequate understanding

2
and definition is imperative to securing the best outcomes from schooling in terms of student

achievement. This imperative is not overstating the case, as the principal’s importance to

school success has been underscored by the effective schools’ research (Hallinger & Heck,

1996; Thomas & Vornberg, 1991). Such research and subsequent investigations, have

established that it is the principal who sets the overall tone within a school (Pajak & McAbee,

1992). The principal is the gatekeeper and gate-opener of their school (Hargreaves & Fullan,

1998). The Principals, as Lum (1997, p. 222) observed

dominate school culture from kindergarten level through high school. They are

positioned at the top of the hierarchy in the organizational structure of school

membership and ultimately responsible, having the final say as overseers to everything

that goes on at school.

Evidence from Waters, Marzano & McNulty (2003) in a meta-analysis of research on school

leadership, found that principalship practice has a statistically correlated relationship to

student achievement. The principal was identified as the single most important person in

determining the quality of the education that children receive. Similar correlations were

reported by Waters and Grubb (2004).

Nadebaum (1991), in assessing the changing role of the principal in the 1990’s, noted that

principals are critically placed at the interface between the school and the community, and

that “they as a group have the potential to make the greatest impact on the shape of schooling

in the next decade” (p. 12). Research on the principalship abounds with similar conclusions

that indicate the ongoing importance of the principalship to schooling. (Anderson & Grinberg,

1998; Rooney, 2000; Day 2000). Furthering the understanding of the principalship is

therefore both relevant and necessary. With this in mind, this research seeks to contribute to

an improved insight into school principalship.

3
It is evident that the role of the principal extends beyond the detail and definition of mere role

prescriptions. Ethnographic studies, such as that undertaken by Blumberg and Greenfield

(1980), attest to this. They concluded that “the principal’s general work situation is

ambiguous” (Blumberg & Greenfield, 1980, p. 178), despite documented frameworks for

referencing the principal’s role. It was evident in their study that any theoretical framework

for the principalship became “highly idiosyncratic to the needs and dispositions of the

particular principal and the context of the particular work situation” (Blumberg & Greenfield,

1980, p. 198), and that the principal’s role in practice “only remotely resembled the sort of

highly abstract and rational conceptual framework one would find in the normal textbook on

school administration” (Blumberg & Greenfield, 1980, p. 197). The theory-practice divide

that their conclusion identified is characteristic of much of the literature findings

(Sergiovanni, 2001; Day, 2000).

Divergence, however, does not only exist with regard to the prescriptions and the practices of

the principalship. As more systematic studies of the actual practice of the principalship were

undertaken, so a growing recognition has emerged of “the gulf between what had been

perceived as the role of the principal, and what principals actually did” (Duignan, 1987, in

Simpkins, Thomas & Thomas, 1987, p. 41). This observation brings into focus an important

dimension to be considered when analysing the role of the principal, namely, the individual

stakeholder’s perceptions of the role.

Perception is a powerful dynamic in the field of social interaction. All people see and act in

relation to one another as a result of what they perceive, and this is shaped at least as much by

factors within themselves as by external variables (Robinson, 2001; Maund, 2003). In

educational contexts and discourse, perceptions abound, arising out of the intensity of social

interaction that is integral to schooling. School administration is constructed, and interpreted

4
by perceptions. These perceptions define and determine the social interaction for the

participants, at every level and in whatever role. It is therefore important for school

administration, that the nature and significance of the dynamic of perception in school life is

acknowledged and understood. Furthermore, while perceptions shape the views held by

others of the principal’s role, the principal’s own perceptions shape his or her personal view.

The principal’s role has been described as an “impossible job” (Archer, 2004; d’Arbon, 2003)

and found to possess a mix of ambiguity, intensity and diversity, resulting from an

unpredictable context for the practice of the principalship, and an unclear definition of the role

to be practiced. The combination of ambiguity, intensity and diversity confuses and

contaminates perceptions of what is required of the principal by others, and expected by

principals of themselves. Donaldson (1991, p. 45) acknowledged that during his

principalship he “lived with ambiguity and … inevitably … communicated ambiguity to those

around (him)”. The extent and the accuracy of this assessment demonstrates how perceptions

are fostered and formed by the transference of one social actor’s mindset to another social

observer’s comprehension. The result is an interplay between what is perceived to

characterize a role, the detail that defines it in terms of role prescriptions, and then the

practices that give the role expression.

Within a school context the participants affected by the interplay of the prescriptions,

practices and perceptions of the principalship are the stakeholders in the principalship role,

comprising students, staff, parents and governance members. It is the nature of these

stakeholders’ perceptions of the principalship that is of interest to this study, and particularly

their interplay with published prescriptions and actual practices, as a triad, of variables that

shape the principalship. This study examines the interplay among the elements of this triad,

with a view to developing an improved understanding of the principalship. In particular, the

5
study investigates the extent to which the prescriptions and practices of school principalship

are related to the key stakeholders’ perceptions of the school principalship in a Christian

secondary school context.

1.3 PORTFOLIO STRUCTURE

In this portfolio three research sections are presented which consider separately prescriptions,

practices and perceptions of the principalship. The focus of the first section is the

prescriptions of the principalship derived from a review of the literature on the principalship.

Prescriptions refers to the detail that emerges from academic and other considerations of the

principals’ role which are understood to define, or prescribe, the essential features of the

principalship. The resulting prescriptions serve to provide a theoretical framework for

understanding the principal’s role and function. The purpose of the theoretical framework is

to provide a reference, against which the subsequent analysis of the practices and perceptions

of the principalship can be evaluated.

The focus of the second section is on the practices of the principal. This was determined by

documenting and identifying the actual time-on-task activities of the five principals in the

study. Observational and journal records captured data which were indicative of what each

principal actually spent time doing on a daily basis. These data were taken as representative

of the practices of the principalship.

In the third section of the portfolio the perceptions of the principalship are investigated.

Previous studies of principalship perceptions (Gorton & McIntyre 1978; Williams 1978) have

had a focus of identifying congruence between various interest group’s perceptions of the

principalship. This study is distinctive, as the focus of interest was not between differing

perceptions of the principalship, but how such perceptions related to both the theoretical or

formal prescriptions of the principalship, and to the actual practices of those employed in the

6
role. The purpose of the portfolio was to examine how such perceptions were related to the

prescriptions and to the practices of the principalship.

Four interest groups within each school community, together with each principal’s self

assessment, provided data to identify what the principal’s role was thought to be. These

groups were the stakeholders identified previously as staff, students, parents and governance

members of the school community. It was their perceptions which were examined in relation

to the prescriptions and practices of the principalship that were identified in the first two

portfolio-sections. The juxtaposition of prescriptions, practices and perceptions, as three

elements of a triad of variables used to define the principalship, allowed the level of

dissonance, if any, to be explored.

Sergiovanni (1987) used the concept of mindscapes which he defined as mental images and

frameworks through which administrative and school reality, and the individual’s place in that

reality, are envisioned. These mindscapes, which can be regarded as a form of perceptual

understanding, are “not thought about much, for they are assumed to be true. Thus, when a

schooling mindscape does not fit the world of practice, the problem is assumed to be in that

world. Rarely is the prevailing mindscape challenged, or indeed abandoned in favour of

others” (Sergiovanni, 1987, p xii).

This study does not challenge such mindscapes, or perceptual understandings, but analyses

the extent to which they are related to the prescriptions and practices of the principalship. A

clarification of the nexus between perceptions and the prescriptions and practice of the

principal can only help to inform the practice of the principalship. For school governing

bodies, for example, perceptions often determine the appointment of and expectations about

the role of the principal. Variance between perceptions and expectations in this undertaking

has a significant bearing on principalship recruitment practices, and subsequent performance

7
appraisal assessments. Further symbiotic relationships can be identified where perceptions

affect prescriptions, and prescriptions guide and inform practice. In addition, the field of

principalship practice gives rise to perceptions of the principalship and these then find

expression in prescriptive detail about the role.

This study seeks to identify the extent of the congruence in the prescriptions, practices, and

perceptions of the school principalship in a Christian secondary school context. As a result,

the aspects of principalship prescriptions, practices and perceptions can be more aligned,

detrimental aspects highlighted, and strategies for ameliorating dissonance made possible, or

at least assisted.

1.4 RESEARCH METHODS

Data in this research portfolio are qualitative and quantitative in nature, collected via a

mixed-method approach. The personal, the ethnographic, and the empirically descriptive

ways in which the principal’s role can be analysed and understood were thereby facilitated.

As regards the prescriptive aspects of the principalship, which was the focus of section one,

the data source was the academic and other literature on the principalship. The data for

establishing the practices of the principalship in section two reflected its highly personalised

qualitative nature, and the need for an approach within an interpretive paradigm. Personal

reflections, interviews, journal keeping and observational shadowing, were used to acquire an

understanding of the principalship through the eyes of practitioners selected from five

Christian secondary schools, as they made sense of their world.

The third section, to complete this research portfolio, has perceptions of the principalship as

its focus. A questionnaire method was used to achieve an understanding of the perceptions of

the principal held by various stakeholders, and significant others, namely governing bodies,

8
staff, students, school parent community, and the principals themselves, in the five schools

used for the research. Both prescribed and open-ended participant response questions were

included in the questionnaire, to enrich the data quality, depth and diversity. The qualitative

data provided a consistent link with the interpretive perspective of the overall study, while the

numerical data allowed for some quantitative analysis.

9
 CHAPTER TWO:

SECTION ONE

PRESCRIPTIONS OF THE PRINCIPALSHIP

10
 CHAPTER TWO

SECTION ONE: PRESCRIPTIONS OF THE PRINCIPAL

CONTENTS Page No.

2.1 Introduction 13

2.2 Importance of the Principalship 15

2.2.1 School Effectiveness 16
2.2.2 School Change and Reform 18
2.2.3 Increasing Demands 20

2.3 General Prescriptions of the Principalship 20

2.3.1 Ambiguity 21
2.3.2 Unpredictability 23
2.3.3 Vulnerability 25
2.3.4 Challenges 26
2.3.5 Variety 28
2.3.6 Complexity 30
2.3.7 Changing Paradigms 32

2.4 Role of the Principalship 34

2.4.1 Role Definition and Implications 35
2.4.2 Major Role Classifications 38
2.4.3 Skill Elements 41
2.4.4 Vision 43
2.4.5 Alternatives and Change 43
2.4.6 Change Agent 47
2.4.7 Role-Shift 49
2.4.8 Role Conflict 52
2.4.9 Human Resource Management 52
2.4.10 Personality Effects 53

2.5 Instructional Leadership of the 55

Principalship
2.5.1 Competing Dimensions 56
2.5.2 Time Allocation 58
2.5.3 The Management Challenge 59
2.5.4 Encouragements to Instructional 62
Leadership
2.5.5 Should Principals be 64
Instructional Leaders?
2.5.6 Instructional Versus 65
Transformational Leadership
2.5.7 The Way Forward 67

2.6 Metaphors of the Principalship 68

2.6.1 The Nature and Use of 69
Metaphors

11
 2.6.2 Metaphors and Perception 70
2.6.3 Generalized Metaphors 71
2.6.4 Particular Metaphors 75
2.6.5 Crisis Metaphors 77
2.6.6 Stakeholder Metaphors 77
2.6.7 Metaphors for the Future 79
2.6.8 The Power of Metaphors 80

2.7 Perceptions of the Principalship 81

2.7.1 Perceptions and Reality 81

2.7.2 Differing Perceptions 83
2.7.3 Task Perceptions 85
2.7.4 Cultural Perceptions 87
2.7.5 Market and Media Perceptions 87

2.8 Leadership Function of the Principalship 89

2.8.1 Leadership and Management 89

2.8.2 The Nature of Leadership 90
2.8.3 Paradigms of Leadership 91
2.8.4 The Essentials of Leadership 93
2.8.5 Leadership and Change 93
2.8.6 Future Leadership Standards 95

2.9 The Future of the Principalship 96

2.9.1 Future Possibilities 97

2.9.2 Technology and the Future 98
School

2.10 Conclusions 100

12
2.1 INTRODUCTION

Studies into the role of the principal in schooling have reported a pattern of diversity,

variability, intermittent intensity, and conflicting and competing orientations for the

principalship. Therefore, any prescribed role for the principal will subsume many roles, and

draw from a mix of various role characteristics. While the role of the principal as the

designated head of the school organization at a local level is clear enough, exactly what this

headship comprises, demands and necessitates, are the challenges that researchers have sought

to determine. Various catalogues and categories of prescriptive detail of the principalship

have resulted. It is the purpose of this section of the portfolio to summarize this prescriptive

detail from the survey of principalship discourse that has been documented in academic

journals, articles and more substantial texts.

Studies and articles that have analysed the nature and function of the principalship, have

encouraged various themes to emerge. Some themes reflect ideal notions of what the

principalship should involve, while others are descriptions of what the position does involve,

derived from observation. At various times particular themes gain prominence, arising out of

the broad political landscape and national agenda of schooling. In some cases, particular

political interests or outcomes may be served, or alternatively, the themes relate to the ideal

or desired outcomes of schooling. When the focus has been the latter, the situation of the

principal has readily emerged as a vital component and therefore essential field of study.

In this section the prescriptions of the principalship, established from the literature on the

principalship, are summarized in appropriately titled sub-sections. The titles chosen reflected

the predominant principalship issues and themes that featured in the literature. Some issues

and themes within principalship discourse were self-evident and pervasive, for example, the

principal as an instructional leader. Other aspects of the principalship were less precisely

13
defined and broader in scope to reflect the myriad variations of tasks which must be classified

to give expression to the prescriptions of the principalship. The first three sub-sections, with

general headings, summarize these latter aspects of the principalship, related to the

importance, the general prescriptions and the role of the principalship.

Imagery and other literary devices were very evident in the literature on the principalship.

The reason for this was the difficulty to encapsulate the essence of the principalship in a

meaningful and understandable way. To overcome this difficulty, a range of metaphors were

used to give increased expression and richness to the understanding of the principalship.

Allied to the metaphors were the varying perceptions used to conceptualise the principalship.

Such perceptions often relied heavily upon metaphors as a means of expression.

Consequently the prescriptions of the principalship that emerged from the use of perception

and metaphors were recorded in separate sub-sections, appropriately titled, as these were a

pertinent consideration to the focus of the research in chapter four.

The leadership feature of the principalship was a significant theme of principalship studies

and the resulting literature. Leadership as a generic focus within this literature has gained

prominence and indicated the significance of the principalship to schooling. Considerations

of the principal as an instructional, curriculum or transformational leader have given

expression to this significance, and have become classifications for describing the unique

leadership characteristic of principalship practice. A sub-section to summarize the

prescriptions of the leadership function of the principalship was therefore allocated.

The concluding theme engaged with prescriptions of the principalship for the future. As

futures generally are developed from the past and present, so too future prescriptions of the

principalship have present day correlations. While much will not change in the principal’s

role, what does change could be enormously significant for the principal personally, and for

14
the general constituency served by the principalship. Research interest in the principalship of

the future inevitably involves speculation and hypothesis, however, future projections provide

a glimpse of the possibilities, from which present day strategies to develop the principalship

could benefit.

2.2 IMPORTANCE OF THE PRINCIPALSHIP

The uniform conclusion and consistent claim from the literature on the principalship is of the

primacy of the principal in the educative function and effectiveness of schooling (Southworth,

1993; Hargreaves, 1994; Troman, 1996; Fullan, 2002). Hallenger & Heck (1996) noted that

the belief that principals have an impact on schools is long-standing in the folk
wisdom of American educational history … we might add that … the role of the
principal in terms of effecting change is equally strongly held in the United Kingdom
and in Australian research. (p. 5)

A seminal inquiry undertaken by the United States Senate determined

in many ways the school principal is the most important and influential individual in
any school … it is his (sic) leadership that sets the tone of the school, the climate for
learning, the level of professionalism and morale of teachers, and the degree of
concern for what students may or may not become … If a school is a vibrant,
innovative, child-centred place; if it has a reputation for excellence in teaching; if
students are performing to the best of their ability, one can almost always point to the
principal’s leadership as the key to success. (Educational Opportunity, 1972, p. 305)

Andrews, et al. (2004) underscored the belief that the principalship is critically important to

educational success, as has historically been perceived. However, the principal is also

influential in the decision making process that must accommodate the larger challenges of 21st

century society (Pierce & Stapletone, 2003). Via the school system many of these challenges

are identified and confronted. The school principal therefore presides over one of the key

instruments in society for societal evolution and the induction of emergent generations of

citizens into society structures and practices (Duignan, 2005; Keane, 2003).

15
2.2.1 School Effectiveness

Everyone, according to Dunford, Fawcett, & Bennett (2000) agrees that effective leadership at

the principal level “is one of the most important factors in the success of a school” (p. 1). It is

the principal’s leadership which has the strongest independent influence on school

improvement, school planning, school structure and organization, school mission, and school

culture (Leithwood, Jantzi, & Steinbach, 1999). Principals are the key players that ensure an

excellent education for their students; they determine whether and how to implement

standards; they decide what to emphasize or omit (Uchiyama & Wolf, 2002; Wolf, Borko,

Elliot, & McIvor, 2000).

The importance of the principalship is well supported by the research literature on effective

schools and school effectiveness (Jackson, 2000; Day, Harris, Hadfield, Tolley, & Beresford,

2000). Austin (1979) established a causal relationship between the impact of the principal

and school effectiveness, with the principal’s impact as the distinguishing feature between the

high-achieving and low-achieving schools studied. Hausman (2000) noted that for effective

schools to be developed and maintained, it was the principal’s role that was crucial.

The National Association of Secondary Principals (1979) was unambiguous and unequivocal

in its conclusion on the matter of the principalship when it stated “the principal is the key to a

good school” (p. v). The principal occupies the key position in the school organization, and

this position is not one of passive or neutral administration. Greenfield (1991) noted that the

moral values of the principal have a persuasive effect in shaping the culture of the school

organization and environment. Since principals are at the apex of the school organization,

they have the greatest scope to influence the power and policy that shape school cultures

(Day, 2000; Harris & Bennett, 2001).

16
Effectiveness and improvement represent an ongoing quest for educators. Attempts to

confront the components of such effectiveness and improvement, have ranged across a

number of variables. A certain elusiveness has contributed to this, as researchers in the field

have sought to isolate the determining factors in school effectiveness and improvement. One

challenge has been the semantic distinction between descriptions like effectiveness, success

and excellence (Sergiovanni, 1987). These terms elude precise definition, which has served

to make it all the more difficult to identify their presence in school contexts, and then to

identify the measures by which such outcomes can be quantified and adjusted. Despite this,

research efforts have been undeterred from seeking to provide an improved understanding of

what comprises and contributes to school effectiveness and improvement (Hargreaves &

Fullan, 1998; Teddlie & Reynolds, 2000; Kinsler & Gamble, 2001; Harris & Bennett, 2001).

Numerous components emerge from such studies, although their order of significance remains

open to conjecture. Typically, the role of the principal emerges as having a place of

significant influence (Sarason, 1996; Day, 2000; Gilman & Lanman-Givens, 2001). Even

where the conventional wisdom about the level of influence of the principal is downplayed,

there is still the recognition of the principal as part of the web of influential factors in school

outcomes (Hallinger & Heck, 1996).

Studies of the principalship have variously tried to settle on adequate descriptions for the role.

Instructional managers, inspirational leaders, managers of resources, organizational experts,

cultural leaders, teacher advocates, have all been used to capture the essence of the role.

However, despite the varying adequacy of such labels, there remains little doubt that effective

principals create an atmosphere conducive to student learning, teacher involvement and

growth, community support and high expectations (Riehl, 2000; Azzara, 2000; Day, 2000;

Dubin, 1991; Hargreaves, 1995).

17
2.2.2 School Change and Reform

Nadebaum (1991) assessed the changing role of the principal in the 1990’s, and noted that

principals are critically placed at the interface between the school and the community, and

that “they as a group have the potential to make the greatest impact on the shape of schooling

in the next decade” (p. 12). The extent of this impact is seen even more so because of the

critical location of the principalship within the educational context, and the place of education

within the wider social order. Hargreaves & Evans (1997) noted that the mechanism for the

principal’s impact on educational and societal change arises because

education is a preparation for a changing society; if society is changing, education

must follow suit. In other words, a functional relationship is assumed in which
education serves the needs of society. At the same time … by developing education in
a particular way, the nature of the wider society will be systematically reformed. (p.
24)

Lipham (1981) claimed that the key factor which underscores the importance of the

principal’s role is the principal’s position “at the critical confluence of the intraorganizational

and extraorganizational forces which either foster or impede educational change and

improvement” (p. 118). The principal must therefore contend with intra-societal and inter-

generational change that is external to the school, and at the same time engage with intra-

school variables and variations in order to produce the desired school improvement and

school effectiveness.

Miles’ (1978) in his summation of the principal as a change agent in schools made the point

that “a decade of research has given us some important information about the process of

change in schools; all findings seem to indicate that without the principal’s active support and

endorsement almost any effort by outsiders will fail” (p. 8). Further, Miles noted that

“identifying the principal as a key change agent is no longer a novel idea, indeed it has

become a piece of accepted wisdom in the literature of change” (p. 9). Fullan (2002) reported

18
that “effective school (principals) are the key to large-scale, sustainable educational reform”

(p. 16).

Given that educational reform is an ever present feature of the educational and political

landscape, the role of the principal cannot be understated. Henrietta Schwartz, formerly Dean

of the School of Education, San Francisco State University (in Dubin, 1991) says of the

principal that

in any kind of real reform, that is classroom level reform, the principal has the
responsibility and the power, and hopefully, the skills and the knowledge, to
restructure the context of the school to facilitate what it is the teacher and the student
do together which, presumably, is learning. The principal is the facilitator. He (sic) is
the vision maker, the symbol manipulator, the resource manager, the values mentor
and the keeper of the ethics and standards for that school building. His (sic) role is,
therefore, critical. Demands on himself (sic) and his (sic) staff are virtually
superhuman, given the nature of resource allocation to American public schools. As
far as I am concerned a good principal is in the nature of a folk hero. Reform can be
done without him (sic) in a very haphazard fashion. With the principal’s active
participation, reform can be done extraordinarily well – efficiently and effectively. I
don’t think reform can be achieved at the local grass-roots level without the principal.
(p. 105)

Educational change and reform have become the operational climate for school

administration, in response to wider societal change dynamics. The result is to further elevate

the significance of the principalship and recast its role accordingly. School restructuring and

change requires leadership, and the principal is seen as a linchpin (Hallinger, 1992; Gilman &

Lanman-Givens, 2001; Anderson & Grinberg, 1998). However, any such place of

significance for the principalship in the change process presents a unique challenge.

Contemporary concepts of transformational leadership have moved away from the more

directive, authoritarian styles of the past, to a more democratic, inclusive facilitating role

(Leithwood & Jantzi, 1990; Sarason, 1996; Riehl, 2000). But this must be done in such a

19
way that the pervasive influence of the principalship is re-negotiated, without necessarily

being reduced.

2.2.3 Increasing Demands

An indicator of the importance of the principalship role is the demands placed upon the role.

Increasingly, principals address an expanded set of community concerns that are not

necessarily of an educational nature. The school principal has become, in part, the

replacement for the church and the family, in dealing with lifestyle issues and values. In

addition, there are the educational challenges of the increasing representation of groups with

disadvantage within the wider school population. Amidst these demands, and perhaps

causally linked, is the perception of teachers, parents and students, that the principal is the

ultimate source of wisdom in the school (Rooney, 2000). The principal, therefore, by default

or design, becomes the custodian of multiple agendas and expectations extending beyond

uniquely school-based educational issues. Diverse factors arise from the array of expectations

affecting the principalship that challenge the task of the principal to transform the school

function to be responsive to societal influences (Drucker, 1993). The oversight of this

transformation process causes the role of the principal to assume great importance.

The importance of the principal to the function of schooling, invites enquiry as to the

prescriptions that underpin that importance. In this regard, much has been detailed in the

literature on the principalship, as the result of broad surveys of what a principal does. It is out

of this generalized detail that the substance that informs prescriptions of the principalship is

derived. The following section provides a synthesis of the detail as regards the general

prescriptions of the principalship.

2.3 GENERAL PRESCRIPTIONS OF THE PRINCIPALSHIP

The principalship exists beyond the detail and definition of mere prescriptions, as indicated in

the ethnographic study undertaken by Blumberg and Greenfield (1980). Their study of eight

20
school principals provided many valuable insights into the principalship. While the principals

in their study had an acknowledged framework for referencing their roles, it was evident that

“it only remotely resembles the sort of highly abstract and rational conceptual framework one

would find in the normal textbook on school administration” (p. 197). The content of this

section brings together the general features of the principalship that have been noted in the

research literature.

2.3.1 Ambiguity

The theory-practice gap has been noted as a feature of the principalship. Past assessments of

the principalship have tended to be both prescriptive and idealistic (Thomas, 2000) and not

always congruent with actual principalship practice. The view is posited that the principal

performs a series of easily identified and categorized tasks and functions. More recent studies

have indicated otherwise (Sergiovanni, 2001). As more systematic studies of principal

behaviour and activity have occurred, so there has been a “growing recognition of the gulf

between what has been perceived as the role of the principal, and what principals actually

did” (Simpkins, Thomas, & Thomas, 1987, p. 41). What these studies have revealed is

that the principal’s role is complex, ambiguous, and that he or she must attempt to
cope with long days punctuated with numerous interruptions, many short-term
interpersonal contacts, not always of his or her instigation, many issues at various
stages of resolution, and a general perception that he or she arrives late, leaves early,
and wanders around the school in between time. (Thomas, 2000, p. 41)

Donaldson’s (1991) experience resulted in his observation that “as a practising principal, I

found that the description of the principalship in texts and courses did not, by and large, fit

what I did and what went on daily in school” (p. 3). The reason is the detached context in

which the principal role finds description in texts on administration. The resulting analysis of

the principalship function gives rise to a segmented and compartmentalized view which is far

removed from the daily reality. Ethnographic studies have helped to redress this dissonance

21
between theory and practice (Barth, 1979; Foster 1971; Wolcott 1973; Blumberg &

Greenfield, 1980). Such studies locate the principalship as a more active and re-active agent

in face-to-face people interactions, as distinct from a technician of organizational theory and

its application.

The result of the dissonance between prescription and practice for Blumberg and Greenfield

(1980) was to characterize school principalship as

highly idiosyncratic to the needs and dispositions of the particular principal, and the

context of the particular work situation. This individualized view of the role serves as

a reference point for action for these people where problems and solutions are shaped

by the nature of the individual’s personal perspective. (p. 197)

Sergiovanni (1987) also noted an ambiguity in the school setting and the principalship

domain. His expression for describing it, however, was in terms of uncertainty, instability,

complexity, and variety. The effect is that “value conflicts and uniqueness are accepted

aspects of educational settings” (p. xiii), with the result that “though one may be comfortable

in viewing the principalship as a logical process of problem solving, or as the application of

standard techniques to predictable problems, a more accurate view may be a process of

managing messes” (Schon, 1984, p. 16). Sergiovanni (2001) appeals to the metaphor of the

swamp as an appropriate depiction of this messiness.

While role redefinition for the principalship may seek role clarification and prescription as a

goal, it could actually promote further ambiguity as an outcome. The conclusion of Hallinger

& Hausman (1993) was that restructuring, with respect to the principal’s role and

responsibilities, created an overwhelming ambiguity in the area of the principal’s role and

responsibility. Perhaps this is not surprising, when no consensus is evident as to what is the

appropriate role of the principal in a restructured school (Hallinger & Hausman, 1993).

22
2.3.2 Unpredictability

The principal’s door is increasingly the place where competing demands are confronted

(Ferrandino & Tirozzi, 2000; Day 2000). The consequence of these demands, according to

Wyant, Reinhard & Arends (1980) is “stress, uncertainty, and feelings of impotence and

ineffectiveness” (p. 10). Stress arise from the increase of regulations, meetings, paperwork,

gaining public approval and financial support, resolving conflicts, staff evaluation and the

interruption to planned routines. School principals, according to Allison (1997) and others

(Robertson and Matthews, 1988; Fallon, 1981; Gmelch, 1988)

face very busy and highly unpredictable work days with many individuals and groups
competing for their time … overworked, constantly under fire and unappreciated …
confrontation, conflict, and compromise are constantly … faced with more pressure,
more aggression, more change and more conflict than ever before … and severely
stressed. (p. 39)

Contributing to the principals’ unpredictable work situation is the occurrence of interruptions

to their work routine and schedule. Thomas & Ayres (2000) pursued a study of the nature,

scope and frequency of interruptions encountered by principals. They investigated the notion

proposed by Keith (1977) that “… a headmaster’s work consists mainly of interruptions to it”

(p. 111). Thomas & Ayres (2000) found that the principals studied

could anticipate devoting at least one third of their work days to dealing with
interruptions … in the order of 25 interruptions per day … average time per
interruption ranged from four to over five minutes (Thomas & Ayres, 2000. p. 75).

The result is the impression that the principal’s job is divided between disruption and

administration, with little time for deliberate leadership.

Schools are nested organizations with multiple internal and external connections that render

the principal’s role as unique in comparison to many occupational roles (Goldring, 1990;

Hausman, 2000). The outcome is a chaotic concept of the principalship, which equates to

23
organizational descriptions of schools as loosely coupled systems, organized anarchies, or

garbage-can-models of decision making that reflect the messy conceptualization of schools

that many principals have had all along (Wyant, Reinhard, & Arends, 1980). Despite the

apparent dysfunction implied by this conceptualization of the principalship, there is a

dimension to the messiness according to Stacey (1996), that can be harnessed for

organizational benefit, via the creativity it inevitably demands and inspires.

Arising out of the ambiguity, conflict and messiness of the principalship, aspirants to the role

are prevented from having anything but a vague understanding of much of what it entails. It

is difficult for outsiders to understand the loneliness, the conflict, the dullness of the routines,

the busy work and the anguish that accompany having to solve complex educational and

organisational problems with extremely limited resources (Sergiovanni, Bulringame, Coombs,

& Thurston, 1992; Johnson, 2002). Paperwork goes with the territory (Azzara, 2000).

Further, the daily work of the principal has been found to be characterised by “fragmentation,

brevity, verbal communication, physical movement, one-to-one interaction, interruptions and

crisis … which contribute to the principalship as a profession which is haunted by prohibitive

conditions, yet propelled by the idea that it can produce changes” (Dubin, 1991, p. 192).

Donaldson (1991) reported that

it seems impossible to tell anyone, even another principal, what one does on the job.
So many of my activities as principal were determined by happenstance that my
attempts to describe what I did often degenerate into lists of unconnected events …
The job is simply too fast-moving and the role too ambiguous to permit neat
structuring. (p. 15)

This unpredictable flow of events means that for the principal each week presents new

challenges responding to needs, requests and circumstances, which place the principal at the

24
disposal of numerous calls, as a servant of diverse interests (Archer, 2004; d’Arbon, 2003;

Johnson, 2002; Allison, 1997).

2.3.3 Vulnerability

As disconcerting as various observations and summaries of the principalship are, it is

somewhat concerning that Miles (1978) should report that

no uniform expectation exists for the principal role, and thus principalship is
vulnerable to a myriad of internal and external demands … The principal in many
ways is a person overworked, facing major role conflict and unable to manage the
demands of the job itself, much less lead a faculty towards major innovation and
change. (p. 9)

The principalship is possessed of too many hats to wear, and not enough time to wear the

preferred hat of educational leadership; hundreds of decisions to be made each day with little

margin for error; and fragmented time and unexpected problems (Ferrandino & Tirrozzi,

2000; Rooney, 2000).

Principals are ever conscious of the fluidity of their situation. Closure is rarely achieved from

the issues that open up amidst the myriad of situations confronting the principal as they are

“reaching for the brass ring, perfecting, finetuning, not only themselves, but providing

opportunities for others” (Dubin, 1991, p. 71). Out of this fluidity arises the demand for the

principal to remain current in terms of societal needs, educational trends and learning theory.

The rapid speed of change and development in some of these areas adds to the challenge for

principals who manage the education of students for the students’ world, which may be quite

foreign to the world of the principals’ familiarity. This challenge was highlighted in an

interview with Dr Robert Corrigan, former President of San Francisco State University, that

Dubin (1991) reported. Corrigan made the assessment that the need for the principal to be in

touch warranted his or her

25
 constantly skimming eighteen periodicals, five newspapers, and the major literary
works of the time, so as to know what is happening and apply all this to what (they)
are responsible for in the managing of a school. (Dubin, 1991, p. 90)

2.3.4 Challenges

Principals are victims of the moment (Fullan & Stiegelbauer, 1991). They work long hours to

manage ongoing tensions and dilemmas (Day, 2000; Pierce & Stapleton, 2003). The presence

of such dilemmas within the practice of the principalship inspired a dilemma-research-

approach by Walker and Dimmock (2000). Their approach is validated, in part, because

principals “increasingly encounter situations where consensus cannot be achieved … this

renders obsolete the traditional rational notion of problem solving” (p. 6).

The immediacy and physical presence of interruptions draws the principal inevitably and

unavoidably into the crisis of the moment. Sources of such crises and immediacy range from

telephone calls, student fights and conflicts, salespeople, parent requests, central office

checks, maintenance breakdowns, staff health or stress, and external environmental factors.

Response management rather than crisis management, is then the operational dilemma.

Crisis situations, by their nature, defy management, responses not so. For the principal the

dilemma and challenge is to respond to the unexpected and unpredictable, with an approach

that brings control and a desirable outcome, when impending detrimental alternatives present

themselves.

Donaldson (1991), reporting on his own principalship, identified a tension which was given

effect even when no crisis was extant or imminent. For him it was a “fear, usually deeply

buried, that some event or condition of the school would come to light and (he) would not

know about it” (p. 32). This fear became for Donaldson (1991) an impulse to ensure a

comprehensive knowledge about his school. The rationale for this often frenetic approach to

the principalship, lay in

26
 the expectation that the principal should be a step ahead of others, and should
command an efficient communication network in order to resolve problems and
provide informed direction to the school community … the know-all-and-be-
everywhere activity … was nurtured by others’ needs to believe that the leader was
mysteriously in the know. (Donaldson, 1991, p. 32)

A rather unexpected outcome of this fear-driven, neurotic, data-gathering approach to the

principalship, was the general school awareness it generated and encouraged. The principal’s

efforts to source data under this regime yielded important information about staff, students,

and the school, information that permitted the principal, with some confidence, to instigate

positive practices or offset negative ones.

Notwithstanding the ambiguity, isolation and pressure, the principalship is challenging,

stimulating and rewarding; the greatest challenge, according to Peters (1976, p. 25) is “how to

arrive at school with a smile, keep it all day, still have it when he (sic) gets home and then

sleep soundly when he (sic) goes to bed at night”. While this may be the challenge at the

personal level, at the professional and system level the challenge is somewhat more serious.

The stress that principals face has increased with the variety of their responsibilities (Johnson,

2002). Craven (2004) cited a report that 47% of principals and assistant principals have stress

related medical conditions. A once very stable profession is now facing unprecedented

turnover with the nature of the principalship making it appear increasingly unattractive to

would-be leadership contenders (Scott, 2005). Research cited by Scott indicated that

the adverse impact principalship had on family life (was) the top reason that schools
have difficulty recruiting principals – the fact that the role was so complex and
required such large amounts of time. (p. 6)

A study of beginning principals referred to in Harvey (2000)

revealed the problematic nature of taking up the principalship … All of the

beginning principals experienced periods during the first year of appointment

27
 where they questioned their motivation and suitability … one … would die of
a heart attack in the second year of appointment. … there was a view ‘… that
the job killed him’. (p. 18)

Pierce and Stapleton (2003) noted the huge demands on a principal’s time, with a fifty percent

increase in hours worked being reported from time on task studies done in 2003, compared to

1975. Longer hours, teacher unions, and difficult community problems have rendered the

principalship as a position that few seek.

2.3.5 Variety

Thomas (2003), as a practicing principal, noted that “the variety of situations that a Head

encounters is enormous” (p. 41). The catalogue of a single morning during her practice

testified to the following

a new HSC mathematics syllabus; fundraising function; graffiti in the locker room; the
suicide of a girl’s cousin; an interstate teacher exchange; a parental complaint about a
girl being dropped from a water polo team for unsporting play; the appointment of
school prefects; a girl’s absence from music classes; how far apart to sit divorced
parents at the valedictory dinner; a girl’s application to the UK; litter in the
quadrangle; a student request to send a petition to the Prime Minister about cruelty to
animals; the employment of a physics teacher; criteria for selecting students;
computurising the uniform store and clothing pool; safety on student expeditions;
whether a group should sell gelato in the junior and senior schools; a media call; fire
drills; a senior girls’ extension English project; and judging a Year 11 simulated trial.
(Thomas, 2003, p. 41)

From this catalogue, of but one morning, it is evident why the principalship is described as a

creative opportunity, but relentless. It is a 24-hour job with the principal on call for a school

fire, a death in the family, a lost child, and for spontaneous consultations (Holden, 2004).

Today’s principals, according to Dunford, Fawcett, and Bennett (2000)

have to be experts in public relations, leading from the front, managing and appraising
staff, choosing computer systems, working in partnership with governors,

28
 understanding the complexities of performance-related pay, and selecting the
management team to help them run the place … (they) suffer from exposure because,
within each school, the buck stops with them. All their activities take place in the
spotlight, and the pressure comes both from within and from without. (p. ix)

Krug, Ahadi, and Scott (1989) while documenting how a principal’s day is a kaleidoscope of

changing events, activities, stresses, and rewards, discerned identifiable and predictable

patterns of activities, beliefs, and moods. Each of these factors – activities, beliefs, and

moods – function to demarcate changes from hour to hour. In terms of changes from

principal to principal however, principal persona, style and beliefs, appear to have significant

importance (Brereton, 1993). Persona, style and beliefs are personalized aspects of the

principalship which determine the individual responses to the diverse claims upon the

principalship that are dealt with. Brereton (1993) suggested that

time must be found for ritual paperwork, yet the process of learning the names of
students and parents requires a definite physical presence … as well there must be
time for professional space and thinking … quiet time and energy to reflect, to build a
useful professional network and to attend professional conferences. Daily
commitments, though, must still be kept. Meetings occupy nights and days,
sometimes in unrelenting succession … Through all of this, principals must be true
and absolute leaders, able to make tough decisions. At the same time, they must be
team builders and members of these teams, watched anxiously by the staff … they
must be strong, creative and proactive leaders in curriculum and professional
development. The ideas initiated by intelligent staff must not threaten them.
Interwoven through all of this is the daily trivia, the inevitable adolescent crisis, and
the “helpful” memos from on high. (p. 15)

Thomas (2003) noted that

if the picture seems chaotic, it’s also very colourful and stimulating. No two days - or

minutes – are the same. However, it can be very hard sometimes to lift one’s sights

above the day-to-day turmoil and the trivia, and plan for the long term (p. 41).

29
Morris, Cranson, Porter-Gehrie and Hurwitz (1984) studied elementary and secondary school

principals in Chicago. They found that principals typically spend 50 per cent of their time

outside the office, in face-to-face contact with teachers and students.

The busy principal covers a great deal of ground … it is a management in a form

unusual for most organisations because it is, in large part, administration at the work
station of other persons …. It is the principal who gets around, who visits teachers in
their offices, who investigates areas of potential trouble, who smoothes the flow of
messages from one area to another, who is on call and easily summoned by those
needing assistance. (p. 211)

The principalship is characterised by a high activity level, as a

moving-dynamic occupation in almost a literal sense; the rhythm of the job, from
arrival … to the close of day is typified by pace and movement, by frequent and
abrupt shifts from one concern to another, and by the excitement pervading any
visitation dealing with young people .. the principal’s job is different from other
managerial positions because it is essentially an oral occupation, a job of talking. The
principal governs the school mostly by talking with other people, usually one at a
time, throughout the day. (Morris et al, 1984, p. 209)

2.3.6 Complexity

Bredeson (1988[a]) proposed that the principalship has become the dumping ground for all of

the maintenance responsibilities in the school. This was due, in part, to the evolution of the

principalship from principal-teacher, to a manager and facilitator of any and all events within

the school. The result is that more and more complexity has been added to school functions

and, consequently, the administrative requirements of the principalship. Increased

responsibility for the totality of school operations, for meeting regulated curriculum

standards, and for meeting the special educational needs of all children, have added to this

complexity. Further still have been the effects on the principalship of the increasingly

litigious nature of schools, the assumption of responsibilities and activities previously

assumed by other agencies and institutions in society, the expansion of extracurricular

30
programs, and the professionalization and credentialism of school staff. Beyond this, there

have been a proliferation of mandates that require schools to ameliorate the social and cultural

problems which society have not resolved.

The externally and internally generated requirements of schools have added to the burden and

complexity of the role expectation of the school principal. With no clear sense of who should

assume all of the resulting responsibilities, the principalship has become a catch-all for the

tasks not accepted by other administrators, by teachers, or by the community. Principals are

reporting increased stress levels because of the social dislocation in their school communities

(Carr, 2002). The socially toxic environment of today’s youth (Durka, 2000) has, by default

and demand, infiltrated the landscape of the principalship. “Principals have to have a whole

suite of skills that, 10 years ago, they didn’t have to have. Even the legislative landscape has

changed” (Cannon, 2005, p. 6.)

Principals today are forced to clarify roles and responsibilities, at a time when the schools and

societies they inhabit are in a state of turmoil (Murphy & Hallinger, 1992). Political, social,

economic, and demographic changes are introducing unparalleled opportunities, unexpected

crises, and seemingly intractable problems (Murphy, 1994). More students, whom educators

have failed to help in the past, are entering schools where principals and teachers have a

mandate to educate them successfully, even as the definition of success is expanding

dramatically. Murphy and Beck (1994) noted that the economic imperative to enhance

educational outcomes for all participants, and hold school leaders accountable for doing so, is

placing inordinate pressure upon the principalship.

Loader (2004) reported that “people almost expect the school principal to supply them with

everything they need … to be like God” (p. 29). The thinking that underlies this expectation

31
assumes that the principal should solve every problem encountered by school constituents.

Herein lies a trap for the principal which ensnares them with the impossible.

As a principal, you may know that your can’t solve all the problems, know all the
answers, control everything, predict the future and never make mistakes, but you
probably still feel under pressure to be what you can’t be. In the past this may have
led to principals assuming an autocratic role. Today it tends to lead to many principals
feeling a sense of failure, contributing to their short stay in the role. (Loader, 2004, p.
29)

The challenge facing principals is therefore quite complex (Murphy, 1994). Principals must

adapt to new notions of leadership which range from implementers to initiators, compliance

officers to entrepreneurial risk takers, bureaucratic managers to collaborative colleagues.

Principals must adopt leadership strategies and styles in harmony with the organizations they

lead via leadership philosophies that flow from the centre of a web of personal relationships,

not from the apex of an organizational pyramid. The base of influence for the contemporary

principal draws its authority from professional expertise and moral persuasion rather than line

authority. The complexities of running a school will determine the choices of leadership style

and leadership strategies (Bonnet, 2003).

2.3.7 Changing Paradigms

Crowson and Boyd (1993) contend that principals in the twenty-first century, must be able to

forge partnerships and build strategic alliances across the various stakeholders and agencies,

where interests or operations converge at the school site. They note that a purely academic

focus is a crumbling paradigm of schooling. Rather, schools have seen, and will continue to

see, the growing incursion of issues related to poverty, injustice, violence, and health care.

Against this diverse backdrop of competing and conflicting principalship expectations is the

tyranny of the unexpected. Inability to manage or negotiate the unexpected can become

enormously disruptive to daily school life and distracting to the principal. So much so that

32
the unexpected can set the agenda, rather than more intentional purposes and goals. The

challenge for the principal is to prevent this from occurring. However, the unexpected and

unpredictable vagaries of daily school administration result in principals

flying by the seat of their pants in the early going, and beyond this to reproduce the
folkways and folkwisdom of former mentors … when … no-one can stop school life
long enough to understand what … [this reality] … is doing (to the principal) … or to
imagine how … [the principal] might influence it differently. (Donaldson, 1991, p. 3)

Availability and responsiveness characterise the principalship. However, there is an inherent

paradox between these postures, and between the time-efficient and self-directed principal.

Whether the latter is characteristic of the principalship is contestable, except perhaps in well

resourced schools. In well resourced schools responsiveness to daily management

unpredictability can be devolved from the principalship. The result could mean, that the

recipients of the tasks thus devolved acquire in their role and function the crisis-management

operation that otherwise characterised the principalship. Perhaps such recipients are better

able to deal with the tyranny of responsiveness. However, for many principals, the posture of

responsiveness creates a regime and activity pattern that results in feelings of perpetually

stemming a tide of requests, complaints, questions and issues.

Donaldson (1991) reported that despite the benefits of engagement in diverse personal

contacts and interactions

it was frustrating and tiring because the tide never ebbed. Far from [the] image of the
purposeful, energetic, young principal leading his (sic) school towards success, [he]
often felt overwhelmed by the sheer number of people [he] dealt with and by the time
that each required. (p. 28)

Characterizations of the availability, responsiveness and accessibility of the principalship are

independent of personal leadership style or school structure and reflect the ambiguity of the

teaching process, and the unpredictability of students. It is such environmental characteristics

33
that bedevil the principalship and the province of school administration, making it an

extraordinarily fuzzy activity (McPherson, Crowson, & Pitner, 1986).

General prescriptions of the principalship highlight the diversity, complexity and challenge of

the principalship. Against the backdrop of these general features of the principalship, studies

have explored more specific detail. One such detail is the scope and substance of what

comprises the actual role of the principal. In many respects this is the crux of any

understanding of the principalship, and the platform upon which prescriptions of the

principalship are constructed. The following section gives attention to how the principalship

is conceptualised and constructed as a distinct role. It is this role clarification and

specification that assists the amelioration of role conflict.

Role conflict is a particularly relevant dimension of the principalship because of the

connection with perception. Perceptions often lie at the heart of role-conflict, or at least,

serve to exacerbate causes of conflict. Research of perceptual understanding reveals that role

perception contributes to role-conflict because, “more often than not there exists a systematic

tendency to perceive the expectations of others to be closer to one’s own than in fact they are”

(Lipham & Hoeh, 1974, p. 130). Conflict arising from such perceptions will reflect the extent

of the disparity in perceived expectations. The clarification of the principal’s role is therefore

a necessary step towards harmonising the influence of perceptions with the prescriptions of

principal behaviour and expectation.

2.4 ROLE OF THE PRINCIPALSHIP

The role of the principal is described as “one of the most demanding … ever encountered,

because of the sheer range of management and leadership accountabilities it entails”

(Dunford, Fawcett, & Bennett, 2000, p. 2). It is also best conceived as part of a web of

34
environmental, personal, and in-school relationships, that combine to influence and produce

school outcomes (Hallinger & Heck, 1996).

The role of the principal is replete with theories, anecdotes, and perspectives. Principals

accordingly have to be “on-the-site researcher, seeking for the truth just as an historian or

anthropologist does, … in order to distinguish necessary important information from

background static” (Dubin, 1991, p. 107). As leaders principals are torn between opposite,

often contradictory, directions amidst the theories about their role, a role which is becoming

less circumscribed and increasingly subject to debate. (Walker & Dimmock, 2000; Walker &

Quong, 1998)

What then can be said about the role of the school principal? This is of more than just

semantic interest. In a research project undertaken by Williams (1978), the issue arose as a

significant discussion point and research outcome, with the conclusion that

perhaps the most important theoretical issue emerging from this project is that the
notion of ‘the role of the principal’ as a universal concept is a non-existing grail …
There are obviously some universals in the principal’s role irrespective of the nature
of the school, but it may be of more use from a practical point of view to try to
identify variation in the role of principals in different types of schools and differences
in approaches which they ought to take to meet these varied situational requirements.
(p. 164)

2.4.1 Role Definition and Implications

Two perspectives of role definition exist. One considers a role as that which is prescribed

upon an individual by a social context, the other as the emergent effect of an individual’s

interaction with and within a social context. The extent of external influences on role

definition in this interaction is variable and problematic. The importance however arises

because “the concept of role … is at once the building block of social systems and the

35
summation of the requirements with which such systems confront their members as

individuals” (Katz & Kahn, 1966, p. 197).

The environment of the school is a social system which is complex, extensive, and a

significant vehicle for realizing and reproducing societal aspirations. Understanding how

such a system uses and determines the various role functions it needs and generates to achieve

its objectives, is crucial to system success. From this perspective the symbolic interactionist

approach to understanding and interpreting social discourse, and the dynamic of socially

constructed environments, is relevant.

Cohen and Manion (1994) pointed out that “symbolic interactionists direct their attention to

the nature of information, the dynamic activities taking place between people” where such

“interaction implies human beings’ activity in relation to each other, taking each other into

account, acting, perceiving, interpreting, acting again” (p. 33). From this interplay, roles find

both expression and definition as human functions which are perceived as determined by, and

determiners of, the resulting social influences and influencers (Meltzer, Petras, & Reynolds,

1975). The process of creating influences is in reality the practical outworking of the role

expression, and understanding of the principalship, within the social environment of the

school.

The active engagement of principals, with and within their social context, involves perceiving

various types of expectations. Once these expectations are discerned, the task for the principal

becomes one of fulfilling them by pursuing a selected set of prescriptions with varying levels

of proficiency, and differing stylistic approaches. Any understanding of the principals’ role

must consider this fluid interaction of principals with their school context. In this regard

Sergiovanni et al. (1992) noted that the role of the principal is “capable of being played or

interpreted in several different ways” (p. 310). However there is an important reciprocal

36
dimension. While incumbents in any role have a determining effect upon their role, a role is a

set of expectations applied to them. Therefore the principal’s role is not entirely or

exclusively self determined. Significant others, in the same social context, have a perspective

derived from their expectations and perceptions of the principalship. The study of the

principal’s role is therefore made all the more complex by these varying perspectives.

The consideration of role definition has methodological implications for the study of the

principal’s role. The methodology that seeks to empathize with the operational context and

conceptualisation of the principalship, from the principal’s point of view, will provide a

partial resolution of the problem of diverse perspectives of the principal’s role. Such a

methodology, in the words of Meltzer et al (1975),

must get inside the actor’s world and must see the world as the actor sees it, for the
actor’s behaviour takes place on the basis of his/her own particular meaning. Through
some form of sympathetic introspection the student (of this behaviour) must take the
stand point of the acting unit (person or group) whose behaviour he/she is studying,
and must attempt to use each actor’s own categories in capturing that actor’s world of
meaning. (p. 57-8)

Principals face daily pressures of competing images about what their role should be (Day,

Harris, Hadfield, Tolley, & Beresford, 2000). Even the best principals, according to

Blumberg & Greenfield (1980), have a difficult time maintaining an appropriate balance

between the tasks of managing a smooth running school, and serving as a catalyst or a

facilitator for instructional leadership. As such, the principal is a leader, “always aware of the

entire picture and being all things to all people” (Dubin, 1991, p. 71). The role of the

principal therefore has an abiding common feature, despite much fluidity, such that

the role of the principal is the same today as it was five years ago. He (sic) is still a

leader. The outside world may have changed, but the role of the principal is the same.

37
 He (sic) is the person to lead the school and articulate the vision. And that will always

be the case. (Dubin, 1991, p. 94)

The challenge to this, from contemporary principalship perspectives, is not to dispute the

leadership role, but to debate the form, feature and focus that such leadership takes (Day,

Harris, Hadfield, Tolley, & Beresford, 2000; Grace, 1995; Ribbins, 1996).

A concern in the role definition of the principalship is the extent to which principals

themselves have been engaged in defining their role, and articulating it for others’ benefit.

Any deficiency in this, both at the consultation phase and the subsequent communication

phase, creates a source of tension in the complex operational world of the modern principal.

Principals need continually to contribute to the definition of their role.

By indicating very clearly those activities and responsibilities that individual principals will

not assume, a role definition of the school principalship emerges that leaves time for

envisioning and for interpreting the work of the school, for various educational stakeholders

in the community. Bredeson (1988[a]) makes the point that besides personal adaptations to

the administrative role, principals need to be proactive in redefining the nature of their role

and its attendant responsibilities. Failure to do so will cause the role of the principal to

become further confused, particularly by becoming a repository for any and all activities not

delegated or assumed by others in the school or in the community.

2.4.2 Major Role Classifications

Sergiovani (1987) identified a number of major roles that converge on the principalship. The

statesperson leadership role has its focus on the school’s overall mission, philosophy, working

assumptions, values and beliefs, as well as the quality and relevance of the school’s broad

goals and objectives; Educational leadership gives prominence to concerns about the actual

development and articulation of educational programs; Supervisory leadership role,

38
encompasses staff development and supervising policies and practices; Organizational

leadership role, ensures effective organizational focus on goals and purposes, and the

structural relevance and vitality to deliver planned outcomes; Administrative leadership role,

provides the support systems and arrangements to disengage teachers from the pervasive

administrative distractions that encroach upon their student teaching and learning priorities.

While such attempts to demarcate features of the principal’s proper or necessary role are

helpful, the principalship role is not so prescriptive or precise. Miles (1978) noted that

no uniform expectation exists for the principal role and thus the principal is vulnerable
to a myriad of internal and external demands … the principal in many ways is a person
overworked, facing major role conflict and unable to manage the demands of the job
itself, much less lead a faculty toward major innovation and change. (p. 9)

Attempts to catalogue and prescribe the role of the principal are numerous. In doing so,

various classifications result, which define areas of principalship responsibility under

headings such as Instruction and Curriculum Development, Pupil Personnel, Staff Personnel,

Community-School Leadership, School Plant and School Transportation, Organization and

Structure, School Finance and Business Management. Beyond these categories, the taxonomy

of the principal’s role behaviour ought to include, responding to social change, evaluating

school processes and products, administering and improving the instructional programme,

making effective decisions, preparing the organization for effective responses to change, and

achieving effective human relations and morale (Culbertson, Henson, & Morrison, 1974).

Roe and Drake (1974, pp 13-14) defined the dual concept of the principalship as combining

administrative-managerial and educational-leadership emphases with the following detail:

Administrative-Managerial Emphasis

a. Maintaining adequate school records of all types

b. Preparing reports for the central office and other agencies.
c. Budget development and budget control
d. Personnel administration

39
e. Student discipline
f. Scheduling and maintaining a schedule
g. Building administration
h. Administering supplies and equipment
i. Pupil accounting
j. Monitoring programmes and instructional processes prescribed by the central office.

Educational-Leadership Emphasis

a. Stimulate and motivate staff to maximum performance

b. Develop with the staff a realistic and objective system of
accountability for learning (as contrasted to merely monitoring programmes and
instructional processes in input terms as prescribed by the central office)
c. Develop co-operative assessment procedures for on-going programs to identify and
suggest alternatives for improving weak areas
d. Work with staff in developing and implementing the evaluation of the staff
e. Work with staff in formulating plans for evaluating and reporting student progress
f. Provide channels for the involvement of the community in the operation of the school
g. Encourage continuous study of curricular and instructional innovations
h. Provide leadership to students in helping them to develop a meaningful and
responsible student government
i. Establish a professional learning resources centre and expedite its use.

Deal (1987) (In Greenfield, 1988, p. 17) reduced the role of the principalship to providing ten
important services for the school, namely:

1. A communications centre of the school

2. A clearinghouse for the transaction of school business
3. A counselling centre for teachers and students
4. A counselling centre for school patrons
5. A research division of the school, for the collection, analysis and evaluation of
information regarding activities and results
6. A repository of school records
7. The planning centre for solving school problems and initiating school improvements
8. A resource centre for encouraging creative work
9. A co-ordinating agency cultivating wholesome school and community relations
10. The co-ordinating centre of the school enterprise

Donaldson (1991, p. 6) summarized the sources from which the various role models of the
principalship are drawn as:

(1) legal/financial role definitions set in a national bureaucratic organisational framework

(2) instructional leadership role definitions derived from effective schools and best
practices literature; and
(3) change-agent role definitions from school innovation literature.

Models such as these, which seek to define or identify the role of the principal, “start with a

model of what principals ought to be and develop recommendations for preparing or

40
improving principals from there” (Donaldson, 1991, p. 7). Whether this is an entirely valid

generalization would be challenged by those who have sought to construct technical

descriptions of the role of the principal in the aforementioned ways. Such idealized pictures

of the principalship are invariably informed by theoretical prescriptions of the principalship.

However, a more functional approach constructs a role definition of the principalship by

working backwards from what actually comprises the essential work done by the principal.

In this regard the principalship role involves:

(1) committing time, energy and attention to activities that advance the education of
children;
(2) identifying the proper people to involve in essential activities and providing for their
success; and
(3) understanding and developing proper relationships to maximize these peoples’ and the
school’s success. (Donaldson, 1991, p. 7)

The result is the conception of the principalship role in terms of other people, and facilitating

others’ success, a conception which reflects the essence of the position, both historically and

organizationally.

Lists can be multiplied around common core elements and themes to give prescriptive detail

to the broad sweep, and all inclusive scope, of the principal’s role within the school

community. Distinctions between the principalship in different sizes and types of schools will

vary the emphasis and depth to which particular role descriptions have significance.

However, a great deal of agreement exists in the principalship role across the various school

settings. A useful feature of this agreement is the resulting taxonomies of skills needed by the

principal. The focus on the skills needed to undertake the principalship, provides a blue-print

for pre-service training programmes, and in-service professional development.

2.4.3 Skill Elements

The essential skills needed for the principalship consist of problem analysis, good judgement,

perceptiveness of differences in requirements and expectations, decisiveness, clear

41
communication skills, ability to organise strong interpersonal skills, sensitivity, emotional

stability, encouraging confidence, high motivation, and possession of sufficient flexibility to

respond to change. To these traits and skills, Dubin (1991) added “adequate professional

knowledge, beginning with understanding of leadership, curriculum development, school law,

school management, human relations and community composition” (p. 61).

Blumberg and Greenfield’s (1980) study of eight principals identified a range of skills and

abilities related to the role of the principal. They noted that “leading schools effectively

requires expressive abilities, tolerance for ambiguity, vision and initiative, skills at collecting

and analysing data, and a great deal of physical energy and psychological strength” (p. 269).

While allowing scope for idiosyncratically distinct approaches to the principalship, Blumberg

and Greenfield (1980) noted the presence of features of functional equivalence, where each

principal’s

perspective clearly differentiated them as individuals …… suggesting that there are

many roads to effectiveness as a principal. This is so because schools are highly
ambiguous organisations, structurally very similar, yet peculiar according to variations
in the social, racial and economic characteristics of the containing community. (p.
269)

In a study of a primary school principal who was shadowed for an entire year, Wolcott (1973)

concluded:

the principal’s role is that of a mediator rather than innovator or commentator. Much
of his (sic) time and energy is devoted to conflict resolution or the prevention of
conflicts latent in the system of inter-relationships. It is also clear that with this
emphasis on the mediator’s role, it is impossible for the principal to attend in any
depth to the educational process itself. (pp. viii-ix)
From this standpoint, conflict management and resolution skills become an essential

dimension of the principalship. Conflict is after all, a normal and necessary part of the micro-

42
political landscape of schools (Murphy & Louis, 1994; Hargreaves, 1995). Conflict therefore

needs to be embraced as a positive force for change (Clarke, 2000; Hargreaves, 1995).

2.4.4 Vision

Helping to formulate vision is a critical function of the principal’s role. The priority for the

principal and school community is to ensure that a shared vision is developed, in which the

principal is seen as a valued participant, assisting the vision stakeholders to broaden their

vision perspective (Murphy, 1994). The importance of the principal in this vision-casting role

was highlighted by Bogotch and Roy (1997) who noted that, the “principal was frequently the

only individual in the school who had an institutional perspective” (p. 236). The principal

sees the relationship between institutionalized core values and their expression, to shape the

actions and motives in driving the school agenda (Starratt, 1993).

Within the school life-span each principal has a tenure which is but a small segment. School

vision however, will comprise components which pervade the entire school history and vision

components which have brief life cycles. The principals’ role expectation is to serve the

wider vision of the school which has longevity, and participate in the development of shorter

vision cycles which are constrained and defined by time, circumstance and resources. For

both vision components the principal adopts the role of sustainer, sponsor and spokesperson

of the vision. The principal in this role uses the vision to inform activities, garner and

distribute resources, cultivate networks and groups into a supportive synergy. However, the

effect of this role dynamic has been to move the principalship more into the domain of a

management function.

2.4.5 Alternatives and Change

The theoretical construction of the role of the principal presents alternatives as instructional

leader, reflective practitioner, site-based manager, or symbol maker. All shape the role of the

principal in the twenty-first century. In addition, the economic rationalist agenda presents

43
schools as value-adding production units. The principal’s role is thereby cast as a chief

executive and managing director, whose focus is market forces, service provision, and

customer satisfaction (Grace, 1995). In the light of this corporatization of the principalship,

the compatibility of more abstract and idealistic roles associated with the moral dimension of

schooling is a legitimate question (Dempster & Mahoney, 1998). Social justice, collegiality,

and the public good do not have the same measurability as economic or corporate variables.

The result is that principals who take moral values seriously and see them as central to their

calling, are likely to face increased tensions in resolving the distraction of corporate, market,

or policy driven economic variables (Grace, 1995) and the alternative roles they project.

One such cause for role-tension with corporate images of the principalship is the child

advocacy role which Pierce and Stapleton (2003) indicated is an important role function of the

principalship in the twenty-first century. Against the back-drop of changing demographics in

school populations, there are increasing levels of social and economic need, cultural and

ethnic diversity, and child neglect and abuse. In this milieu, “the principal’s role is to provide

a socially just and equitable education for every student within the school. … the principal’s

job is to ensure that every child is seen as a child of promise” (Pierce & Stapleton, 2003, p.

95). The challenge for such a role dimension for the principal is enormous. Not only must

they steel themselves with the mindset and mandate reflected in these ideals, but they must

inculcate them throughout the culture of their school setting.

The expectations of schools have increased in direction, quantity and diversity. Schools today

are often parts of complex systems and networks. The effect of this has been to move the

principalship to a more professionalised role, with increased levels of specialization. An

indication of this professionalism and specialization is reflected in the training programmes

for principals. Law, governance, politics, business and financial management, behaviour

44
theory, as well as the more traditional educational focus on curriculum, assessment, student

discipline and policy development are all required areas of knowledge and varying levels of

expertise. Holden (2004) stated

a school principal needs to have her (sic) head around the business, the human
resources, the marketing, the finances, the budgeting process, industrial relations,
enterprise agreement, ICT infrastructure, and at the same time be able to deal with
anything from the death of a colleague or a child to the celebration of a Bar Mitzvah.
(p. 17)

Role change effects the principalship to produce insecurity, and heightened negativity if that

insecurity persists. The change process itself is dynamic and leaves residual effects made up

of school and staff dislocation, adjustment, and re-training, which may be quite independent

from the resulting changes. Amidst these residual effects the principal is required to grapple

with various dilemmas which Murphy (1994) identifies as having four facets. The first has to

do with the emergent complexity of the modern principalship. The principal’s role is being

reshaped as more difficult, more demanding, more complex, more time consuming, and more

professionally alienating. Principals are according to Alexander (1992)

being asked not only to implement unclearly defined innovation, but also to assume
new professional roles for which there is no clear definition … They believe they are
… caught in change, trying to cope, perform, and lead to transformation of their
schools without a clear understanding of their ultimate role in the newly emerging
process. (pp. 14, 16)

The second dilemma, according to Murphy (1994) relates to the search for role definition and

clarification, without appropriate roadmaps. This dilemma arises within the dynamic of

change, because of a lack of clarity of what it is that the principal is expected to engage or

become, together with difficulty to envision alternative futures beyond the status quo of

schooling as we know it (Hallinger, Murphy, & Hausman, 1992). The third dilemma for

45
Murphy (1994), relates to the challenge of redefining the principals’ role with the associated

challenge to redefine themselves. MacPherson (1989) states that in essence

individual principals have to set aside dynamic conservatism, allow part of their
professional self to die and be bereaved, as it were, and then negotiate a new and
dimly perceived future in the emerging organization. (p. 42)

The final dilemma according to Murphy (1994) has to do with accountability, which centres

on the principal’s place as having ultimate responsibility, officially and legally, while others

are empowered to make the decisions. Shared decision making models are being embraced

and encouraged without shared accountability (Hess & Easton, 1991; Pierce & Stapleton,

2003).

Educational restructuring requires that principals engage with a wider constituency of

stakeholders, participants and interest groups. Principals in this environment must become

more adept at nurturing, liaising, consulting, and communicating, to effectively manage the

context in which schools are now placed. Public relations activities loom large in this

landscape, and an entrepreneurial role in a market driven context is an emergent role

expectation and function for the principalship (Hallinger & Hausman, 1993).

It is clear that the wider involvement of school communities, and the changing function and

form of schooling, have resulted in a massive increase in the principal’s work with school

governance (Earley, Baker, & Weindling, 1990). Extended participation rates of other school

stakeholders in the governance function has increased the influence of perception as a factor

in the practice and prescription of the principalship. Hallinger and Hausman (1993) noted

that the “direct participation of parents (has) made parental beliefs, values and perceptions

more prominent in the lives of professional educators” (p. 138). The principal cannot ignore

these perceptions because it is with these perceptions, and to these perceptions, that the

principal is held accountable.

46
Developments in the environment of educational practise impinge on the principalship,

prompting a level of controversy over what should comprise the role of the principal; what

functions and tasks should be included in the role, and, among functions and tasks, which are

to be considered most important (Sergiovanni, 1987). It may well be asked whether the

principal is, or should be, a school manager or an educational leader, that is, whether

management functions or educational functions should dominate. The elusiveness of

resolving this dichotomy is made all the more difficult because schools serve different

communities, have different aspirational outlooks, are led by principals with different

personal attributes and training, and who preside over unique faculty structures (Sergiovanni,

1992).

Role overload and role ambiguity have come to characterize the role of the principal

(Alexander, 1992). The traditional role of the principal has changed significantly

(Christensen, 1992; Bradley, 1992) due to the impact of school reform and school

restructuring. A loss of control, and a loss of professional intensity, have been significant

elements of this change (Bredeson, 1993). The principal’s role, according to Vandenberghe

(1992), is conducted now in a turbulent policy environment, which has been agitated by the

global scale and pace of change, within education. Earley et al. (1990) reported that schools

are suffering from innovation overload or initiative fatigue. Not surprisingly the principals of

such schools will bear the cumulative effects of these features and the overburden of

increasing expectations, complexities and role ambiguities (Smylie, 1992).

2.4.6 Change Agent

The role of the principal as an agent of change, and the principalship as a focus of change

implementation, have become centres of interest for the philosophical discourse of critical

theorists, feminists and Marxists (Giroux, 1992; Maxcy, 1995; English, 1994; Evers &

Lakomski, 2000). The interest of such discourse is to transform the principalship into a role

47
which is vitally concerned with the establishment of compassion and justice in schools and

society (Murphy & Beck, 1994). School leaders therefore must be able to balance a variety of

roles, and contend with the vagaries and discontinuities that result from multiple roles.

Challenging the change agenda is at times for the principal, as important as participating in it.

The multifaceted character of education must be understood by the principal, and its various

dimensions articulated to challenge attempts at oversimplification, or reduction. Incessant

politically motivated change and restructuring in education, as a feature of late twentieth

century western education, must at times be challenged as it has yielded little benefit to

improve teaching and learning (Hargreaves & Fullan, 1998; Pierce and Stapelton, 2003).

There is however a strongly contrasting perspective of the principal as a change-agent. Riehl

(2000) argues that “although principals are often looked on as agents of change, they tend to

monitor the continuity of both institutions and society” (p. 59). Given the role, preparation

and traditions, as well as the contexts in which principals serve, they are, it could be said, not

fundamentally orientated toward change (Sarason, 1996). From this perspective the principal

as an administrator tends to be

steeped in a structural-fundamentalist perspective that tends to view the existing social

order as legitimate, one that espouses the values of democracy and meritocracy, and
that adopts a managerial orientation instead of a socially transformative one.
(Sarason, 1996, p. 59)

Real organizational change occurs not simply when technical changes in structure and process

are undertaken, but when stakeholders in schools, construct new understandings about what

the intended or desired change means. In this regard the role of the principal is crucial

(Sarason, 1996).

48
2.4.7 Role-Shift

The management shift in the role definition of the principal, in the face of the restructuring of

education, has produced a dramatic change to the principal’s professional life. The

significance of such change is critical because of the predominant, if not formalized, career

pathway to the principalship. Typically, principalship pre-service takes place in an

educational context and not in a management or business orientated setting. Yet it is the latter

skills, abilities and expectations which are becoming more of a feature of contemporary

principalship.

Boyle (2000) suggested that the shift to school based management has changed the role of the

principal by introducing an evident tension between professionalism and managerialism.

Principals in school situations report an expanded role necessitating an adjustment to, and

acceptance of, business management, economic rationalism, and market orientated

imperatives and realities. The result of this has been the need to acquire and apply a new

operational skill-set, longer hours of work, and the challenge to settle on an acceptable

balance of professional and personal allocations of time and attention (Harris & Bennett,

2001).

The devolving structure of schools has caused them to enter a more fluid phase of their

history. Devolved decision making and resource management requirements give greater

autonomy to schools, but with few clues on how to deal with the shift. McPherson and

Crowson (1992) suggested that

there is so much more now to be managed: a modest budget, an improvement plan, a

school-community relationship, a school-site cut off from its do-it-our-way
bureaucracy, a student body with critical learning needs, students and parents (and
communities) requiring a brokerage of added services and resources. (p. 20)

49
The measurable effect reported in studies in the United Kingdom, showed 40 percent of

principals believed they were taking on a more administrative role (Earley, Baker, &

Weindling, 1990). A similar trend was shown in studies conducted in New Zealand

(McConnell & Jeffries, 1991) and the United States (McPherson & Crowson, 1992). The

resulting role shift has occurred at the expense of the principal’s instructional leadership and

educational role.

School based management involves investing schools with enhanced decision making and

resource allocation autonomy. With this autonomy comes greater school based control over

school outcomes, and accountability for delivering agreed guaranteed outcomes. The

resulting re-engineered school context therefore, heralds or necessitates, an appropriate re-

engineering of the principal’s role. According to Clarke and Newman (1997) such devolution

has meant

doing more for less in pursuit of the holy grail of efficiency; trying to be strategic
while juggling an ever increasing number of injunctions and restrictions from central
government, managing the problems arising from overlapping, fast changing and often
contradictory policy agenda; and struggling to balance all this with living a life
beyond the work place. (pp. x, xii)

The changing role of the principal in democratised decision making procedures challenge

today’s principals in tomorrow’s schools to operate with non-distributed legal responsibility,

in a regime of distributed decision making responsibility. Beck (1994[a]) pointed out that

what has been occurring simultaneously are two levels of relationship that keep the
principal in the same legal and perceptional role in regard to external authorities, but
change his or her internal actions and work within the school community of faculty,
staff, students and parents. (p. 216)

The answer to this challenge is to modify the legal responsibilities of the principal in line with

changes to the role implementation. Where the latter involves collegiate and shared decision

50
making procedures, there should result a reciprocal re-distribution of legal responsibility for

decisions.

In a frank admission, Donaldson (1991) noted that he had not considered very carefully his

managerial responsibilities before he took the job of a principal. He further disclosed that he

never had a secretary before, and did not conceive of himself as a management executive. He

was mildly shocked at the expectation that he should oversee and direct a myriad number of

office activities. He soon discovered that he needed to do these things fast and well, if he was

to devote more time and energy to what he considered the more important function beyond

the office.

The significance of the required role for the principalship as an administrative executive of an

office function, is underlined by the fact that the school office is the communication centre of

every school. Good office and executive management strategies, systems, deployments, and

resourcing are therefore crucial, and the principal’s oversight and initiative compelling.

Donaldson (1991) recorded how he

came to appreciate how (his) role could affect the character of human interaction in
the office … the office secretarial function, given its public visibility and potential for
establishing the tone of the school, does indeed require extraordinary skills and
personal attributes. (p. 43)

Awareness of the importance of the office function of the principalship creates a special

tension, namely that

of feeling anchored to the office while feeling pulled out into the school … [this
being] … the result of changing expectations for the principal; the old office-bound
manager who conducted business by the public address system, by memo, and by
faculty meetings is being replaced by a highly visible instructional leader who
monitors and shares in the performance of teaching. (Donaldson 1991, p. 43)

51
There is therefore the need to ensure that an effective office function occurs, in order to

release the principal for the loftier enterprises out in the school. The tendency is however, for

the office function to subsume all other role requirements incumbent on the modern principal.

2.4.8 Role Conflict

It is important to note that conflict is not just in the arena of interpersonal relationships and

interactions. Role conflict is a dimension of the principalship which has been identified in the

literature. The major types of role conflict according to Lipham and Hoeh (1974) are:

1. Inter-role conflict or disagreement between two or more roles simultaneously fulfilled

by the principal - wearing too many hats.

2. Inter-reference group conflict or disagreement in two or more reference groups in their

expectations for the role of the principal – caught in the middle.

3. Intra-reference-group conflict or disagreement within a reference group in their

expectations for the role of the principal – caught in the cross-fire.

4. Role-personality conflict or disagreement between the expectations for the role of the
principal and their personality need-expectations – the principal versus the position.
(p. 130)

One of the significant role-conflicts that challenges the principalship, is the need to maintain

a meaningful presence and profile within the school and beyond the school. The increasing

political role of the principal as a school advocate, spokesperson and agent inevitably draws

the principal away from the operational site of the school. Donaldson (1991) noted that

“public events demanded a surprising amount of (his) time, and much of that time was beyond

school hours” (p. 32). He further developed the perspective that “public relations was less a

campaign to put our best face forward, and more a function of establishing relationships with

the public that demonstrated (his) informed leadership” (p. 33). The result being an

engendered public confidence in the principalship and the school.

2.4.9 Human Resource Management

The role of the principal, by and large, subsists under the assumption that if principals do their

job, then teachers will teach and students will learn (Joyce, Calhoun, & Hopkins, 1999). As

52
such, the principal becomes the lynchpin in educational systems. This is borne out by

Donaldson (1991) who placed the role of the principal as decisive and overarching. He

suggested, “the principal is hired to run the school” (p. 65). How this reality is

operationalized will vary from principal to principal, from school to school. Various types of

leadership approach and style, will thereby characterize the resulting role. However, at the

heart of the operationalized role that emerges for any principal, will be the central function to

know the personnel under their purview, understand how to deploy them properly, and

develop strategies to support their success. Human resource management is an essential

aspect of the principalship, which according to Donaldson (1991) is crucial to the principal’s

role because “the principal, to paraphrase a military expression, is only as good as his or her

faculty and staff” (p. 65).

2.4.10 Personality Effects

To evaluate the role of the principal, a useful consideration was raised by Greenfield (1988).

He proposed

an understanding of the antecedents to effective school administration can be gained

by focusing more attention on understanding the personal qualities of administrators,
which are the knowledge, skills, beliefs and personal dispositions characterizing the
individual, and the relationships between those qualities and the demands and
characteristics of the work situation itself. (p. 213)

Role effectiveness and role preference for the principal are affected by the personal qualities

of the principal. While relationships between the personal qualities of school administration

and the elements of the school work culture and organizational context are not well

understood, evidence suggests that the principal’s character is central to leading a school well

(Blumberg & Greenfield, 1980). The essential features of character that form a helpful

taxonomy of desirable personal traits include:

• Being highly goal oriented and having a keen sense of clarity regarding instructional
and organizational goals.

53
 • Having a high degree of personal security and a well-developed sense of themselves
as persons.

• Having a high tolerance for ambiguity and a marked tendency to test the limits of the
interpersonal and organizational systems they encounter.

• Being inclined to approach problems from a highly analytical perspective and being
highly sensitive to the dynamics of power in both the larger systems and in their own
school.

• Being inclined to be proactive rather than reactive – to be in charge of the job and not
let the job be in charge of them.

• Having a high need to control a situation and low need to be controlled by others –
they like being in charge of things and negotiating action.
• Having high needs to express warmth and affection toward others, and to receive it –
being inclined toward friendliness and good-natured fellowship.

• Having high needs to include others in projects on problem solving, and moderate to
high needs to want others to include them. (Blumberg & Greenfield, 1980, pp. 181-
185)

Research interest in the personality aspect of the principalship could yield a significant field

of insight into the role of the principalship. While technical competence, experience and

wisdom in dealing with the demands of the principalship will always feature in the role, how

personality attributes are given expression and effect, will vary according to individuality and

style. Clearly some personality types and styles are going to be advantageous in certain

situations, and complement the principal’s understanding of what to do, by engaging the issue

when doing so in the most propitious manner.

Allied to the issue of personality type, Greenfield (1986) included moral imagination and

interpersonal competence. Greenfield noted that

the school is a normatively complex and ambiguous organizational setting wherein

one encounters numerous moral dilemmas. A principal is regularly confronted by the
necessity to take action or make a decision, in the face of competing and often
conflicting standards of goodness; hence the importance of the ability to exercise
moral imagination. Further, the school situation is essentially social, and if the
principal is to influence instructional and organizational arrangements, he or she is

54
 constrained by the necessity to work closely with and through people; hence the
importance of being interpersonally competent. Greenfield, 1988 (pp. 222-223)

If, as Greenfield suggested, such qualities are important to the effective discharge of the

principalship role, they therefore deserve further investigation. In addition, they deserve to be

seen as a necessary consideration in the role determination for the principal, and a key aspect

for consideration in principalship recruitment, appointment and pre-service training.

For the principalship there are, as have been detailed, many conceptualizations of the role.

Such conceptualizations rarely occur without significant recourse to the principal as an

instructional leader. For practitioners and observers of the principalship, there is a unifying

sense that instructional and curriculum matters lie at the heart of any prescription of the

principalship. The literature on the principalship is replete with references to the principal as

an instructional leader, and this literature is reviewed in the following section. Many

students of the role of the principal have considered instructional leadership to be its essence.

The principal in this role is seen as the one with the task of advancing the core educational

function of schooling, which has to do with the education, growth and achievement of

students.

2.5 INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP OF THE PRINCIPALSHIP

Instructional leadership is the most universally accepted characteristic of the principalship,

and often a feature mandated in State legislatives (DuFour, 2002). However, it remains the

holy grail of the principalship. Instructional leadership is an illusive ideal which does not

generally materialize in the daily routine of principalship practice, even though it may figure

strongly in principalship role prescriptions.

55
2.5.1 Competing Dimensions

The literature on the subject of the principalship reveals two dimensions to the role

expectation of the principalship. These two dimensions, or strands, comprise administration

or management on the one hand, and curriculum or instructional leadership on the other

(Clarke & Newman, 1997; Levacic, 1997). Amidst the tension deriving from the conflicting

and competing interests of these dimensions, lies a diverse, extensive, and ever increasing

range of sub-roles. Barth (1980) provided details of this diversity.

The principal is ultimately responsible for almost everything that happens in school
and out… responsible for personnel – making sure that employees are physically
present and working to the best of their ability… in charge of programs – making sure
that teachers are teaching what they are supposed to, and that children are learning it,
… accountable to parents – making sure that each is given an opportunity to express
problems, and that those problems, major or minor, are addressed and resolved …
expected to protect the physical safety of children – making sure that the several
hundred lively organisms who leave each morning return, equally lively in the
afternoon. Over the years principals have assumed one small additional responsibility
after another – responsibility for the safe passage of children from home to school,
responsibility for making sure the sidewalks are ploughed of snow in winter,
responsibility for health education, sex education, moral education, responsibility for
teaching children to evacuate school buses and to ride their bikes safely. We have
taken on lunch programs, then breakfast programs; responsibility for the physical
condition of the furnace, the wiring, the playground equipment. We are now
accountable for children’s achievement of minimum standards at each grade level, for
the growth of children with special needs, of the gifted and of those who are neither.
The principal has become a provider of social services, food services, health care,
recreation programmes and transportation – with solid skills education worked in
somehow. (pp. 4-6)

Further expansion of school related issues since 1980 comprise vocational training, drug and

aids education, bullying and violence prevention, after school care, mediation in family

dysfunction or breakdown, teenage suicide, students at risk programmes, marketing and

56
promotion, citizenship training. The resulting accumulation of items under the school’s

jurisdiction, ultimately and inevitably fall to the principal’s responsibility (Pierce & Stapleton,

2003).

Diverse interests that settle on schooling create for the principalship a distraction from what

most principals believe to be their core-function as instructional or educational leaders

(Leithwood, Jantzi, & Steinbach, 1999). The result according to Blumberg and Greenfield

(1980) is that

the time of an educational administrator (i.e. principal) is subjectively misallocated.

Educational administrators report that they do not spend time the way they should. In
particular, they see themselves as spending too much time in clerical work, routine
administration, report writing, and attending meetings called by others; they report too
little time spent on educational leadership, general planning, supervision and
curriculum development. In general they believe they do a better job in these areas in
which they spend their time (e.g. financial management, plant management,
personnel) than they do in those areas in which they think they should spend their
time. (p. 45)

Generally, it is the role of the principal as an educational leader that draws educators to a

career focus towards the principalship. Instructional or educational leadership is “the

emphasis that most principals profess they dream about but cannot achieve” (Roe & Drake,

1974, p. 13). Studies in the area of role preference consistently reveal that principals would

like to devote more time than they do, to supervision of instruction, student related activities,

and curriculum (Lipham & Hoeh, 1974; Melton, 1971; Ferrandino & Tirozzi, 2000). The

result is a professional dilemma for principals, as to how to fulfill their role and avoid a sense

of guilt about not fulfilling the curriculum leadership expectations that they held to be the

ideal (Bredeson, 1988[a]). Frustration is added to guilt for the principal because of the

discrepancy between the professional literature and what was confronted on a daily basis.

Curriculum leadership, while recognized as one of the most important responsibilities of the

57
principalship, is a responsibility that principals were unable to spend the time on, or devote

the necessary resources to, in order to fulfill even conservative expectations of curriculum

leadership (Krug et al. 1991). The pervading indication, therefore, across the range of sources

that inform the discussion of the principal’s role is a

mental picture of a professional person being torn apart on the one hand by
responsibility to keep school through the proper administration and management of
people and things as expected by the central administration. In this little drama the
eternal struggle always takes place and in the end the strong instructional leadership
role is always set aside because of the immediacy and press of every day
administrative duties. (Roe & Drake, 1974, p. 10)

2.5.2 Time Allocation

Melton’s (1971) study of Californian principals revealed that curriculum and instructional

leadership occupied some 18 percent of respondents’ actual time, as compared to a preferred

ideal of 31 percent. Williams (1978) recorded a 17 percent allocation of actual time spent by

secondary principals on the educational programmes of their schools. When principals are

asked to report how they would like to spend their time, there is invariably this difference

between what they report to be their actual time-on-task (Sergionvanni, Burlingame, Coombs

& Thurston, 1992).

Donaldson (1991), in a self-analysis of time-on-task, reported teacher and curriculum

involvement at 0-5 percent daily and 10-40 percent weekly. The mathematical discrepancy

was explained by the line that “principals are always doing more than one activity at a time”

(p. 16). While Donaldson’s time component in part exceeds the data for other studies, it was

not achieved easily. Success for Donaldson in promoting this priority reflected his choice “to

work as a principal because of an interest in teaching and because (he) believed that teaching

can be improved by the principal” (p. 23). Difficulty occurred because “teacher observation,

support and curriculum planning often required blocks of time uninterrupted by the student,

58
public and administrative concerns … and …competition on (his) schedule between

pedagogical and curricula issues and everything else (were) continuous and draining” (p. 23).

The continuous and draining effect of other principalship matters on instructional leadership,

has been reported elsewhere as suffocating, distracting and disengaging (Ferrandino &

Tirozzi, 2000; Gilman & Lanman-Givens, 2001).

Sergiovanni (1987) noted the general belief that instructional leadership activities, student

relationships, and professional development activities should be the principal’s highest

priority, and that management routines should be secondary in comparison. Time distribution

for the principal more often reflects a reversal of these priorities, although studies of

successful principals reveal a greater correspondence with the ideal.

The indication is that options do exist for the principal, as to the style and emphasis of their

principalship, despite the managerial imperative for the principalship being an omnipresent

tension (Day, Harris, Hadfield, Tolley, & Beresford, 2000). Resolving this tension in favour

of student ideals depends on the calibre of the principalship, and the moral leadership

exercised (Dempster & Mahoney, 1998; Fullan, 2002). Principals are not necessarily

hopeless victims of their work situation, and they do have some control over their priorities

and the extent to which they pursue priorities of instructional leadership (Morris, Cranson,

Porter-Gehrie, & Hurwitz, 1984).

2.5.3 The Management Challenge

Despite the idealized perception of the principalship role as an instructional leader, it is

evident that

school principals are, for the most part managers: their work environment gives most
of them little choice in this matter. While this situation does not prevent a few
committed and talented individuals from achieving excellence as instructional leaders,
most principals find themselves frustrated by their inability (be it skill, knowledge, or

59
 time allocation) to move beyond the management function inherent in the role of
principal as it has evolved during the past hundred years. To the extent that the work
environment remains unchanged … principals will experience increasing difficulty in
realizing the instructional leadership conception of the principalship. (Blumberg &
Greenfield 1980, p. 46)

The management tension within the role of the principal has importance for incumbent

principal behaviour and expectations, pre-servicing, professional development, and

appointment strategies and priorities. For those aspiring to the principalship, the realization

of a management and instructional leadership dichotomy is a key area for induction. Yet

there is little to inform would-be-principals of what this dichotomy is really like in practice

(Blumberg & Greenfield, 1980). All too soon for principal aspirants, once in situ, the

idealized concept of the principalship becomes tarnished by management pressures. These

take them away from the role of instructional leadership, to which they feel called and

appointed.

Even the best principals struggle to secure and maintain an “appropriate balance between the

task of managing a smooth running school and serving as a catalyst for, and facilitator of,

instructional improvement” (Blumberg & Greenfield, 1980, p. 9). Yet, it is evident that

principals hold tenaciously to the domain of instructional leadership, as the province of their

jurisdiction in the life of the school. Principals are adamant, “we don’t want to give up that

title ... we don’t want to be known as managers. We still want to be educational leaders”

(Murphy & Louis, 1994, p. 165).

Clearly, for the school principal, there is a tension between instructional leadership and

management, a tension that, in the contemporary scene, is finding itself increasingly resolved

in favour of managerial demands and expectations. In addition, the role of the principal has

changed over time as schooling and society have changed. From the nineteenth century role

60
of the principal as head teacher, to the twentieth century role as a school manager and

instructional supervisor, there appears to be a more recent trend towards a new perspective of

the principal as a professional manger. Despite the fact that principals consistently report

their heart desire is for school improvement from an educational perspective, not an

administrative or managerial perspective. The resulting pressure of managerial expectations

threatens the educative role of the principal. What results is a tension and dysfunction with

educational improvement as the casualty (Bennett, Bryk, Easton, Kerbow, Luppescu &

Sebring, 1992, p. 24).

The role of the principal as a reform agent at the forefront of instructional improvement,

challenges the principal’s instructional leadership role. McConnell and Jeffries (1991) noted

that principals who formerly had time for direct classroom support of teachers and their

students, and were involved in demonstration teaching, special programs or coaching, now

found the demands of restructuring had shifted the emphasis of their action, time and

commitment. They felt that a management emphasis had “taken over from instructional

leadership” (McConnell & Jeffries, 1991, p. 24).

Described as roadblocks by the National Association of Secondary School Principals (1979),

the principal’s desire to be an instructional leader is further hampered by the growing

administrative detail, lack of time, variations in teacher competency, apathetic parents, and

problem students. As a result of these roadblocks, most time is spent on management,

whereas principals would prefer that most time was spent on programme development,

planning and professional development. Bennett et al. (1992) noted that

in general, principals sense that they are now spending more time than they should on
local school management and control and district office functions. Administrative
aspects of their job divert effort away from those concerns that principals believe

61
 deserve more attention and their own professional development and instructional
leadership. ( p. 24)

2.5.4 Encouragements to Instructional Leadership

Despite the evident presence of roadblocks to the instructional leadership model of the

principalship (Cuban, 1988), there are emergent features suggesting a way for this model’s

realization. In this regard, Pierce and Stapleton (2003) suggested that what students need to

know in the twenty-first century has the effect of moving the principalship towards an

instructional leadership emphasis because

the principal serving primarily as a manager has been supplanted by the need for the
principal to be the leader of instruction (Pierce & Stapleton, 2003, p. 93).
They suggested a new world that

demands principals who know how to identify teacher leaders, build strong
instructional teams, enlist leadership within the school community, oversee
instruction, and, of course, understand what instruction is needed. Additionally,
today’s principals must keep apace of curricular reforms and find ways to provide
faculty with the professional development necessary for meaningful improvement. (p.
93)

Previous to the more recent encouragements to instructional leadership, Edmonds (1979) had

noted a perspective and impetus to the principal’s instructional role, based on the evidence

that “strong administrative leadership was a characteristic of instructionally effective schools”

(p. 164). Essentially, therefore, there is no divide between instructional and managerial roles.

Instructional leadership and effective management are entwined and interdependent

principalship functions.

Krug, Ahadi and Scott (1991) undertook a study of principals’ instructional leadership to

identify any distinguishing features of effective principals. They found, in common with

other studies, that principals are involved in a variety of activities during the course of the

62
week. Countless demands are placed on the principal, and these demands cause many of the

principal’s activities to be brief, diverse, and fragmented (Schainker & Roberts, 1987).

Consequently, if a principal is to engage in effective instructional leadership, this leadership

must be conveyed in the context of brief, diverse and fragmented activities.

The types of activities that principals are engaged in appear the same for effective and less

effective instructional leaders. The difference is how effective instructional leaders

conceptualize and use activities as opportunities for conveying instructional leadership. In

other words, instructional leadership cannot be defined as a specific set of concrete

behaviours, but rather a framework or an approach to school administration, that infiltrates

many of the principal’s daily activities.

Perceptions of principal activity, not the activity itself, are the empowering and transforming

dynamic in principal instructional leadership. In this connection, Krug et al. (1991)

concluded that it seems inadequate to consider effective instructional leadership simply in

terms of a distinct set of activities. Rather, the way that the principal undertakes instructional

leadership is determined by assessing the meanings principals ascribe to principalship

behaviours and activities. The study of effective instructional leadership however, should not

as a result ignore behaviour and focus exclusively on thoughts and beliefs. Instead, the

meanings principals ascribe to their behaviours require consideration as the important

component of instructional leadership.

Murphy and Beck (1994) suggested that two emergent themes hold out hope of moving the

principalship towards a more instructional leadership focus. The first is the challenge to

principals to see themselves as learners. Barth (1980) and Evans (1999) proposed principals

should move away from roles as head managers or head teachers, and rather be seen as head

learners, leading a learning community of which they are an active part. As well as

63
legitimizing the essential learning function of schools, a culture of learning, through

leadership participation and modelling is promoted. The second theme to reform and refocus

the principalship towards instructional leadership promotes the teaching aspect of school life.

Here the quest for the principal is to prioritize school pedagogy, over and above other school

functions. Both of these themes counter the managerial emphasis and demand of the

principalship, and move it more into the domain of instructional leader.

2.5.5 Should Principals be Instructional Leaders?

Reporting the tension within the role of the principal between management and leadership

behaviour and pressures reveals that not everyone agrees that the principal should play an

instructional leadership role (Miles, 1978; Lambert, 2002). The role of instructional leader is

suggested as a prerogative, not a prescription for the principalship. Teacher surveys rarely if

ever yield responses in terms of the principal seen in an instructional leadership role

(Lambert, 2002). While this does not discount the focus seen elsewhere in the literature, of

the vital role of the principal as an instructional leader, increasingly it is contended that the

days of the principal as the lone instructional leader are over (Lambert, 2002; Olson, 2000).

What is envisioned is instructional leadership as the shared work of everyone in the school.

The leadership capacity of the whole school is energized towards this end.

In essence, the role of the principal as instructional leader is too narrow a concept (Fullan,

2002). It is suggested by Greenfield that

instructional leadership is a very narrow view of the work of school principals,

particularly to the extent that it suggests that working directly with teachers is what
effective principals actually do …. prescriptions calling for principals to be
instructional leaders confound the issue by implying that the way they do spend their
time is inappropriate. (Greenfield 1988, p. 208)
Principalship work is

64
 largely social in character, occurs outside classrooms, and involves a lot of verbal,
face-to-face interaction … reforms that call for principals to work more closely and
directly with teachers on instructional matters are somewhat misleading and based on
a normative rather than an empirical conception of the work of principals.
(Greenfield, 1988, p. 209)
Further still, principals who interpret their calling to mean that they should spend more time

working directly with teachers, are likely to frustrate themselves, and indeed may do their

staff and the students they serve a dis-service (Deal, 1987; DuFour, 2002). However,

Hallinger and Hausman (1993) recognized

while responsibility for instructional leadership is clearly more diffuse … than in the
past, this has not diminished the need for the principal’s instructional leadership. With
more people involved in educational decision making, it has been our observation that
there is an even greater need for the principal to understand the nature of educational
processes and their impact on teachers and students (p. 140).

2.5.6 Instructional Versus Transformational Leadership

The instructional leadership role of the principal as a feature of 1980’s literature, gave way to

the new leadership variant of transformational leaders in the 1990’s. Transformational

leadership, as reported by Leithwood, Begley, and Cousins (1992), moved the centrality of

the principal’s role to leading from the back, as distinct from the front and centre of school

development. The principalship is thereby embedded in a more democratic and consultative

atmosphere for decision making.

The transformational leader has a different mindset and modus operandi, to that of the

instructional leader. Underlying transformational leadership is a consultative, inclusive

perspective of the principal in the organizational setting. Herein lies a challenge, particularly

where directive rather than consultative styles of leadership are applied. Hallenger and

Hausman (1993) reported that conflicting styles and approaches to school leadership, render

the change process all the more difficult and problematic. Transformational leadership

65
approaches assume a co-operative mindset from those embraced by a transformational style.

Where school staff want to be led, they will be inclined towards more directive and

prescriptive leadership styles and principalship behaviour. Where staff have a willingness to

participate in leadership behaviours and responsibilities, they will embrace more inclusive

principal leadership approaches.

Conley and Goldman (1994) observed evolving leadership styles to be the necessary

principalship response to more liberalized, decentralized decision making and teacher

empowerment, where the principal leads without dominating. Hallinger, Murphy and

Hausman (1992) noted in this regard, that collaborative decision making contexts require

mediation, consensus building, and trust. As more stakeholders receive a voice in the

decision-making process, inter-group tensions intensify. Parents, for example, want to be

empowered in educational decisions, yet teachers view themselves as the experts in

curriculum and instruction.

However, as Hallinger and Hausman (1993) reported

although parents and teachers bring important knowledge about students to school

decision making, it is also the case that their knowledge of potential solutions to

problems may be limited. (p. 167)

Particular characteristics of this limitation, which erodes the potential contribution of parents

and teachers to instructional ideals, arises out of parents and teachers’ different focus, insight,

or perspective of what should be taught, and associated instructional issues, to those which

characterize the principalship perspective.

Leithwood et al. (1992) suggested the abandonment of transactional or control-orientated

styles of principalship, including instructional leadership. Preferred is the facilitative

66
approach of transformational leadership, with its emphasis on collaboration, collegiality, and

enablement (Conley & Goldman, 1994). These descriptions of the principalship promote the

concept of a more indirect leadership function, in which Glickman (1989) described the

principal as “not … the sole instructional leader but rather the leader of instructional leaders”

(p. 6).

Associated with the transformational leadership model of the principal, is the uncertainty and

ambiguity that it introduces for the participants within the purview of the principal’s

leadership, and for the principal (Conley & Goldman, 1994). Where more traditional styles

and roles of the principalship find principals struggling with ambiguity, an evolving

transformational model with shared leadership and decision making leads to shared

ambiguity. Amidst this shared ambiguity, a further dynamic emerges to keep the principal

from the educational leadership mandate: it is the task of co-ordinating the more loosely

networked environment of transformation leadership and accountability, for outcomes where

authority over school development and progress has been divested from the principal and

invested in other stakeholders. Co-ordinating the increased participation rate of others and

the many issues for decision making, sets its own agenda and further propels the role of the

principalship into a domain of uncertainty, which distracts from instructional leadership ideals

or preferences.

2.5.7 The Way Forward

DuFour (2002) offered an alternative emphasis to that of the instructional leader. This

involves a re-allocation of emphasis to the learning outcomes of students, rather than the

instructional input by teachers. DuFour suggested that “teachers and students benefit when

principals function as learning leaders rather than instructional leaders” (DeFour, 2002, p. 13).

67
It is this learner and learning-centric model of the principalship that represents the way

forward for the principalship (National Association of Elementary School Principals, 2001).

Alternative perspectives for the principal, other than instructional leader, give a greater

recognition to a broader role perspective and work description for the principalship. These

take into account that the principal spends limited time working directly with teachers in

classrooms. The exercise of the principal’s instructional influence is therefore indirect on the

instructional activities of teachers, and hence the instructional environment of the school. To

call for more and better instructional leadership is proposed as a “prescription that reflects

virtually no understanding or recognition of the realities of the school principal’s work

situation” (Greenfield, 1991, p. 210).

What prescriptions, therefore, do reflect a valid and precise understanding of the

principalship? Diverse and varied role characteristics of the principalship make adequate

prescriptive labels elusive. To overcome such inadequacy, the use of metaphors has been

employed. Metaphors have become a devise to speak meaning into the prescriptions of the

principalship, where words and labels have proven ineffective. The following section outlines

the scope, variety and application of the metaphors of the principalship, that have been used

to detail and explain the essential prescriptions.

2.6 METAPHORS OF THE PRINCIPALSHIP

Metaphors are helpful comparable images that assist the perception and understanding of

abstract or elusive concepts or entities. The principalship is such an entity because the school

environment is characterized by a lack of precision and predictability, due to uncertainty,

diversity, intricacy, and instability across a broad range of variables. A precursor to the task

of managing such ambiguity, for the principal, is a clear understanding of the role of the

68
principal. Facilitating and assisting this understanding has occurred through the use of

metaphors.

2.6.1 The Nature and Use of Metaphors

A metaphor, by its nature, is a familiar image with established and connected characteristics.

These characteristics allow comparisons that are readily understood when used as an

explanatory device. Metaphors with understood characteristics are particularly useful where

the domain seeking clarification, or description, has inherent ambiguity, and where perception

tends to dictate reality. Lakoff and Johnson (1980) suggested that, “our conceptual system is

largely metaphorical … the way we think, what we experience, and what we do every day, is

very much a matter of metaphor” (p. 4). The use of metaphors therefore create unity out of

diversity, to give shape and form to our experiences and perceptions (Kittay, 1987).

Due to the complex, ambiguous and paradoxical nature of organizational structures and

operations, differing and simultaneously held images of organizational life arise. Metaphors

allow such images to find a vehicle for expression, reconciliation and explanation (Morgan,

1986). Metaphors can assist organizational participants to construct different perspectives of

an organization, both at various points of contact, and at different moments of interaction.

Metaphors are not literal descriptions of reality. The power and strength of a metaphor

stimulates thinking in a particular direction, as a way to sharpen and dramatize meaning

(Sergiovanni, 1987). Metaphors provide links between theory and practice and are a creative

outlet for descriptions where words struggle to capture the essence of what is described, or to

be understood. Evans (1999) records the place of metaphors as explanatory devices by noting

that “the science of organizations can better express its truth with metaphors, than it can with

the sophistry of complex quantification” (p. 142). For this reason, the description and

69
understanding of the principalship has attracted the use of metaphors drawn from various

contexts and objects.

Metaphors convey, describe, examine, and assist understanding regarding the ideas, concepts,

models, and theories that address phenomena in education (Bredesen, 1988[a]). Terms like

ambiguous, obscure, complex, and vague, which occur in descriptions of the principalship,

have encouraged the use of metaphors as a tool for communicating and conveying meaning as

to the role of the principal. Blumberg (1989) chose the metaphor of the school system as a

feudal kingdom, with the castle and the king symbolising the local school and its principal,

while Edmonds, (1979) used the metaphor of a ship’s captain to encapsulate the essence of

principalship. Bredeson (1988[a]) noted that the diverse metaphors of the principalship are

lenses for the study and practice of administration which provide assistance to schematize and

organize insights, provide labels for data and observation, and provide a basis for formal

theory.

2.6.2 Metaphors and Perception

Metaphors have featured readily when defining the prescriptions of the principalship, and in

confronting the prevalence of perception in this task. The metaphors that result reflect the

perceptual filter of the proponent as more than just convenient and picturesque descriptive

devices. They are incisive windows into what an individual perceives about the principalship,

and how they interpret the cultural and creative aspects of the role (Beck & Murphy, 1993).

Blumberg and Greenfield (1980) in their study of eight principals used metaphors, with each

principal being given a description that the researchers felt captured the essence of their

principalship. The resulting metaphors included the Politician, the Organiser, the Helper, the

Rationalist, the Catalyst, the Broker, the Humanist and the Juggler. Part of the design of this

study was to receive feedback on the principals’ reaction to the perceptions of their role-

70
behaviour, as conveyed by the metaphors used. In most cases the response was “yes, that’s

the way I am. The picture you painted tells the story” (Blumberg & Greenfield, 1980, p. 209).

However, it was not the research aim to match pictures with people, but to use the metaphors

as a stimulus for discussion of what life was like for a principal, and thereby obtain a clearer

picture of the role of the principal. The effectiveness of metaphor usage, in this instance, is a

pointer to how perceptions are effectively elicited and identified via metaphors.

Since perceptions are internal, subjective creations of the mind, their expression is helped by

metaphors. Perceptions depend more on variables within a person's mind, than an external

real variables (Tronc, 1977). Understanding and expressing perceptions are assisted by

connections with external realities linked to metaphors. The richness of metaphors to capture

the essence of personal perceptions of the principalship results in the principalship described

as sometimes like a bug, and sometimes like the windshield, like Don Quixote, like an

underwater juggler, and acting like manure or fertilizer (Beaudoin & Taylor, 2004).

According to Kittay (1987), the link between metaphors and perception yields a mutual

subservience and utility. Perception consists of the mental images by which we construct

social reality, as regards the world we see and negotiate, and the people and roles we confront

and with which we interact. Resulting images of organizational life and organizational

positions and roles, such as the principalship, are metaphorical in nature, acquired in part

through metaphor, and identified and described in part through metaphor (Grady, 1993;

Lakoff & Johnson, 1980).

2.6.3 Generalized Metaphors

According to Bredeson (1988[b]) there is a rich tapestry of metaphors of the principalship, the

diversity resulting from the principalship as a constellation of positions and a variety of roles

(Knezevich, 1975). One such role which is richly endowed with metaphorical association is

71
the role of the principal in the politics of decision making and change. Such images of the

principal as ombudsman, advocate, orchestrator, persuader, mediator, broker, and catalyst, are

used to convey something of the negotiating and politicizing, that are intrinsic to the role

concept of the principalship. The range of alternative metaphors offsets the risks of

oversimplification and distortion.

Beck and Murphy (1993) after examining the metaphorical language used to discuss the

principalship, concluded that “the role of the principal is an extremely malleable one, shaped

by a diverse set of concerns and events” (p. 7), and furthermore, that “the majority of events

that have influenced educational metaphors are fundamentally non-educational in nature and

national or international in scope” (p. 197). In other words, it is the world outside the school

context that has driven the understanding and interpretation of the role of the principal within

the school context. This feature is not of itself undesirable or counterproductive. It is, after

all, the society outside the school that has created the concept and necessity of schooling.

Nadebaum (1991) attempted to explain and understand the changing role of the principal in

the twentieth century using two metaphors, that of Noah, and that of the butterfly. The

principal’s role as Noah, is seen as one of compliance within a highly centralized and

bureaucratic organization, governed by standardized and detailed regulations. In such an

operational environment, Nadebaum suggested that the principal is

Noah epitomized, with little necessity for sophisticated problem solving processes,
and scope for creative leadership in the realm of the development of the school and the
staff. (Nadebaum, 1991, p. 12)

As a contrast, the post 1989 trend towards devolution of certain central functions to more

school-based autonomy has transformed the role of the principal. The corporatization of

schools now requires the principal to be familiar and adept with general managerial skills,

financial management, human resource management, information technology management,

72
programme management and the processes of corporate planning, and industrial negotiation.

This new environment for the principal has, according to Nadebaum (1991) created increasing

ambiguity as to whether the principal is a middle manager in the system, or the chief

executive officer of a unit, namely the school. As a consequence of a new operational

environment for the principal there is the need for a new paradigm for understanding the

principalship. Nadebaum (1991) suggested the relevance of Chaos-Theory to this new

paradigm.

Chaos-Theory postulates reality as disorderly, unstable, and seething and bubbling with

change and process. Rather than seeing the prevalence of instability as dysfunctional, chaos

can be advantageous through the opportunity it provides for systemic adjustment. However,

the process of macro-change in such a system is incremental. Nadebaum (1991) drew on the

mechanism of Lorenzo’s Butterfly-Effect, to explain this incrementalism. The principalship,

in the role of the butterfly, is by small effects able to multiply large scale consequences. The

appeal of this paradigm, embracing creativity out of chaos in whatever way such creativity is

advanced, prompted the caution from Hargreaves and Fullan (1998) that

the last thing we want is for leagues of head-teachers (principals) who are recent
converts to chaos theory, to go forward and gleefully throw their schools into disarray,
and to push the anxiety levels of their teachers and parents so high that no useful work
gets done any more. (p. 117)

Sergiovanni et al. (1992) identified three major views of educational administration and the

associated metaphors. The first is that of the principal as a consummate manager, where

efficiency is the focus. Metaphors to describe this notion of school administration have taken

up with images of a well-oiled machine, and an educational engineer who services an

assembly line of educational processes. The second focus is that of the humanistically-

orientated principal, whose focus is the organic or personal side of organizational life. Images

73
of the principal in this paradigm draw from the metaphor of the missionary and the gardener.

The third view of educational administration presents the principal as gamesman, politician,

and broker. Beyond these, metaphors such as coalitions, trade-offs, gamesmanship, and the

thermostatic person who exercises a controlling or regulating influence, are also used to

describe the phenomena of educational leadership and school administration.

In Dubin’s interview of Ramon Cortines, Superintendent, San Francisco School District

(Dubin, 1991), he asked “How would you define the principal as you see him/her?” The

response included metaphor use indicative of the difficulty to define the principalship in its

own right, due to its variable and multi-faceted nature. To Cortines the

principal is all things to all people. He (sic) is a counsellor to kids and middle-aged
teachers who are undergoing a crisis at home, or to the parent community which may
be having economic problems. He (sic) is a counsellor, a benevolent dictator, a
manager, a manipulator, an enforcer, a motivator. (Dubin, 1991, p. 92)

In Bredeson’s study (1988[a]) three predominant metaphors were related to the principals’

purpose, namely maintenance, survival and vision. The metaphors of maintenance were the

dominant depiction of the principalship. Metaphorical themes of maintenance, survival, and

vision have significant implications for the daily practices of principals, and for

administrative preparation programs. Each principal in Bredeson’s study performed similar

tasks, had similar daily routines, and yet differed little, despite very clear differences in their

administrative images of leadership style and action. Continuing school processes did not

result from personal choice or characterization, but from community, organizational, and

professional role expectations. These expectations of the principal were as the ultimate

director, the facilitator, the keeper, the maintenance manager, or the person in the organization

who sees and understands the total process, and is responsible for everything that goes on.

74
The principal was responsible for keeping school processes going, like the ring-master of a

circus.

Donaldson (1991) presented a different twist to the circus context, from which the metaphor

of the principal as a ring master is often suggested to be an apt description. Rather than using

this identity within the circus setting to describe the principalship, he reported how he “often

went to work feeling overburdened … often returned from work exhilarated by the activity

and the day, but not certain of the long term effects of what (he) had accomplished” (p. 45).

With the turmoil of these diverse emotions, he saw himself as “a juggler of goals, of tasks, of

people and of students. This meant that (he) was a juggler of (his) attention … time …

energies, and thus of the immediate staff around (him) and (his) family” (p. 45).

2.6.4 Particular Metaphors

Three particular areas of focus for the metaphors of the principalship are those of

maintenance, survival and vision. The acceptance of the maintenance metaphor for the

principalship takes hold of the more tangible aspects of the position. There is security and

status in defining responsibilities as a facilitator, resource person, and provider, who watches

over everything and keeps processes going. Maintenance functions give the principalship a

school presence with a public nature that makes principalship undertakings apparent.

Recognizable principal behaviours are expected by most constituents, as distinct from behind

the scenes planning, needs analysis, or curricular and organisational change. Less obvious or

measurable tasks do not provide reinforcement of the principal’s role, and may not be equally

valued.

Maintenance as the predominant metaphor of the principalship also has a future sense,

although it is more readily related to the acceptance and continuation of the present. The

purpose of maintenance is to preserve present arrangements, and keep things running as

75
efficiently and effectively as possible; it is not to create new structures, functions or purposes.

Alternatively the survival metaphor for the principalship assumes a necessarily reactive

posture, characterized by crisis-based management and satisficing. Survival decision making

has little or no thought of the future, in terms of the broader issues of education. Survival for

the principalship implies the effective return to the maintenance mode of operation.

It is the vision metaphor of the principal that is highly attuned to future ideals and

considerations. The metaphor of vision offers the most hope of the principalship, but it is also

the most problematic (Bredeson, 1988[a]). Although principals aspire to broader views of

educating children, and to look beyond present issues and conceptualizations of schooling,

they are generally frustrated by the frenetic pace of their work. There is the natural tendency

to become personally involved in the most current and pressing situations. The realities of

politics, career mobility, salary increases, and an endless number of system constraints, all

conspire to rob even the most earnest visionary from devoting significant blocks of time,

resources, and energy, to creative possibilities for the future. Yet, the greatest hope for the

further evolution of the principalship, lies beyond the image of an overseer of the internal

maintenance of curriculum, staff, student personnel systems, facilities, and finances.

Spending more time and energy engaging the vision metaphor, does not mean that the

principal must abandon maintenance or survival tasks and activities. It would be impossible

to deal solely with the future, with no concern for past history, or the problems and issues of

the present. The challenge for principals is to examine daily routines, priorities, and

resources, to ensure that the principalship functions with knowledge of the past, remains well

grounded in the present, and continues looking to the future. Survival and vision images are

not mutually exclusive perspectives. Survival in the present with the immediacy of existence,

76
involves positioning the principalship for the future to look beyond the issues and crises of the

present.

2.6.5 Crisis Metaphors

Metaphors abound to depict the crisis some believe to be the pervasive order of the day in

education. Crisis imagery readily draws from battle metaphors, where the concern is

expressed that “education may be fighting a losing battle” (Alexander, 1992, p. 22). Within

this perspective of crisis, the principal is caught in its midst and in its grip. Aquatic images

also present the work environment of the principal as turbulent, “to steer a course; … to keep

(the) raft afloat as (they) are carried through the rapids” (Wendling, 1992, p. 75). Aquatic

imagery is further extended to illustrate the overburden of the change agenda as “a never

ending array of new reform initiatives (which) may smite the educational enterprise – and

drown principals in the process” (Murphy, 1994, p. 40).

2.6.6 Stakeholder Metaphors

Day et al. (2000) examined the differing aspects of the leadership behaviour of principals.

They sought the perspective of other school community participants and stakeholders, as to

the leadership behaviour and style of particular school principals. Metaphors were used to

assist this task. The resulting teacher metaphors of the principalship included skipper,

captain, maverick, juggler, and a big spider in the middle of the web. Parents and governors

used the metaphors of captain of the ship, hospital matron, juggler, pied piper, tower of

strength, a tiger, a nun-type image, grand master, stage director, first among equals, chief

knitter, team leader, and a flower opening up with the students at the centre. From the student

group the metaphors of the principalship included leader of the world, driver of the train,

leader of the pack, ship’s captain, queen bee, the biggest branch of a corporate tree, polka-dot

plant, energy source, the sun at the centre of the solar system, clockwork inside a clock, an

engine, rugby scrum-half, netball centre, shepherd, gardener, babysitter, sergeant, godfather,

77
grandfather, priest, Father Christmas all year round, detective, policewoman, judge, an owl, a

beaver, a mountain goat striving forever upwards, a swan and an armadillo which is crunchy

on the outside and soft inside.

The richness, diversity and creativity of student metaphor choices for the principalship were a

noticeable feature of the Day et al. (2000) study, evidence no doubt of a less complex

understanding of the principalship than that of other respondent groups. In addition, a

characteristic that predominated in the metaphors chosen by students was the relational

connections suggested or described, as distinct from images connected with aloofness or

technical managerial functions.

Lum (1997) noted that predominant among student metaphors of the principal were images of

authority, and a conceptualization of this authority as negative.

High school students appear naturally predisposed to see the principal in negative
ways. And these images are not only an active part of their conscious daily lives, but
deeply embedded in students’ collective unconscious. (Lum, 1997, p. 216)

Darth Vadar as a sinister and unrelenting evil presence, in the movie Star Wars, became an

apt depiction of the negative student viewpoint of the principalship, and illustrative of the

sometimes in-human or non-human student conceptualization of the principalship.

Students presuppose the worst in their expectations about the character, conduct and
consequences of their interactions with the principal. And no matter how familiar or
unfamiliar with the principal they are, this general perspective transforms to the
particular instances and colors the whole of student’s mental states. (Lum, 1997, p.
217)

Irrespective of a particular principal’s persona, students tend to regard the principal, per se, as

a bad authority figure. However, Lum (1997) also reported an interesting twist to this general

metaphorical and perceptual student view of the principalship where

78
 students refute the negative characterization of their general metaphorical assertions
when probed about their particular principal … students hold a generalized negative
view of the principal that does not apply to particular cases. (p. 218)

A further area where negative aspects of the principalship warrant consideration, Starratt

(1993) suggested as giving acknowledgement to “the darker side of our nature … the warrior,

the killer, the aggressor, the calculator, the manipulator, the thief, the exploiter – in a word,

our vices” (p. 105). Acknowledging the negative and positive elements of character and

behaviour in the practice of the principalship facilitates authentic leadership and the

recognition of the whole self of the principal (Duigan and Bhindi, 1997; Starratt, 1993).

Sergiovanni et al. (1992) noted the usefulness of the theatrical metaphor to depict the

principalship. Diversity of approaches to the principalship are portrayed in terms of a

theatrical license to adopt differing role interpretations. Context, audience, and purpose all

affect these interpretations, with the audience as particularly significant. Principals play to an

audience of critics that cannot agree on what is a good performance, and in fact, no single

approach to the principalship can yield complete audience satisfaction. The result is a role

play to the audience that the principal discerns to be the one that the principalship is required

to be responsive to, or otherwise are most vocal in asserting their presence.

2.6.7 Metaphors for the Future

Murphy and Beck (1994) posited six metaphors to articulate the future directions of

principalship discourse. In these the principal is seen as a servant, a person in community, a

moral agent, an organizational architect, a social advocate, an activist, and finally as an

educator. Clearly the future challenge in all of these conceptualizations of the principalship is

to create dynamic and adaptive schools, that are recognized by their communities as the best

place for students to learn (Hough & Paine, 1997). The jazz band metaphor encapsulates this

79
for the principalship, as “they play a critical role in selecting the tune, establishing the key,

and inviting the players to play” (Hough & Paine, 1997, p. 190). In so doing, the principal

cannot play for others, yet by improvisation, as in the jazz ensemble, the principalship can

negotiate system needs, dysfunction, or shortfalls. Improvization may be the overarching

skill and role of the principal into the future.

2.6.8 The Power of Metaphors

There is more than just a descriptive character to metaphors. Metaphors may create realities,

especially social realities, and become a guide for future action where such actions fit the

metaphor. This in turn, reinforces the power of the metaphor to make experiences coherent

and become self-fulfilling prophesies (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980). The application of this

process to the perception of the principalship is particularly significant.

From a principal’s point of view metaphors reveal a great deal about the principal’s own

interpretation of their organizational role and their conceptualization of schooling. Metaphors

are powerful devices that help the principal articulate the role perception that they have of

their principalship. Other school stakeholders can thereby more easily and readily understand

the principalship, and the principal gains personal role clarification in the process. Some of

the more illusive aspects of the principalship rely on metaphor usage for articulation and

identification.

Metaphors have the capacity to clarify and create the perceptions of the social context in

which the principalship is both conducted and conceived (Grady, 1993). Dealing with the

presence and accuracy of these perceptions is an important component in the practice of the

principalship. The process of changing perceptions, is the mechanism for changing the

prescriptions and practices of the principalship. The following section considers the issue of

perception, and its significance in the literature of the principalship.

80
2.7 PERCEPTIONS OF THE PRINCIPALSHIP

Individual perspectives of school organization and personnel have importance for the function

of schooling. These perspectives are phenomenological in nature (Greenfield & Ribbins,

1993). That is, people create individualized meanings of social events, social actions and

associated social actors (Harris & Bennett, 2001). Therefore, for every aspect of the

educative function of schooling, observers or participants will often have different

interpretations, different perspectives and hence different perceptions.

It has been noted that “perceptions govern the whole direction taken by education” (Tronc,

1977, p. 67). The mechanism for this arises because

the direction taken by education depends to a large measure on the perceptions held by
administrators, since their particular perceptions of the task and their own
administrative roles will influence not only the identification of significant problems,
but also the priority given to them. Accordingly, depending on a principal’s
perception of what a leader should do, he (sic) might concern himself (sic) with day-
to-day trivia or he (sic) might undertake far-sighted major planning of policy. (Tronc,
1977, p. 17)

2.7.1 Perceptions and Reality

Perceptions determine reality in social contexts and social interactions, “… in a sense the

only reality is perceived reality – and people’s perception of their surroundings have a

powerful influence on what they do” (Brandt, 1989, p. 10). In the school context the situation

of the principalship involves the interplay of the perceptions of other people and the personal

perceptions of the principal. Making sense of the perceptions and the inevitable variance and

dissonance, is vital to the study of the principalship because perceptions

are implicit mental images and frameworks through which administrative and
schooling reality, and one’s place within these realities is envisioned. They are
intellectual and psychological images of the real world of schooling and of the

81
 boundaries and parameters of rationality that help us to make sense of this world.
(Sergiovanni, 1987, xi)

Perceptions of the principalship have their genesis from the time of the principal’s

appointment. Harvey (2000) noted that the school is a social phenomenon consisting of

“those aspects of social interaction that are imagined, enacted and controlled by the

participants as they embark upon collective and individual projects” (p. 9). Into this life-

world steps the newly appointed principal. Whether appointed from within or from outside

the school community, the principalship is conceived within the context of the school to

which they are appointed. The initiating behaviour and events comprising the early stages of

appointment, and in some cases even pre-dating arrival, have a lasting influence on the public

perception of the beginning principal (Anderson, 1991). An auspicious start by the new

principal engenders confidence and trust within the school community. Alternatively, a

hesitant, troubled, and generally less than ideal commencement can quickly generate a legacy

of unhelpful perceptions. These perceptions can constrain the performance, and the emerging

professional identity of the beginning principal for the duration of their principalship at that

school, and even beyond (Harvey, 2000).

How principals perceive their role will determine how they discharge it. Similarly, how other

people perceive the role of the principal will determine how they relate to it, and aspire

towards it. Influencing such aspirations for those who could pursue a principalship

appointment has significance for the recruitment to perpetuate the principalship. Lacey

(2003) noted that teachers make their judgments on the appeal or otherwise of the principal’s

position according to their perception of it. The emergent evidence is that teachers see

principals as having low levels of job satisfaction (Lacey, 2003; Gronn, 2003) which dispose

them negatively towards the principalship. To confront this negativity, it is essential that

practicing principals articulate a more positive perception of their role, and that role

82
prescriptions of the principalship encourage such an articulation to take place with integrity

and authenticity.

2.7.2 Differing Perceptions

Disparity in the perception of the principalship and the actual operation of the principalship

reflects and contributes to dysfunction in the educational setting. The existence of such

disparity is evident in the research literature on the principalship. Parents, students, teachers

and school governance representatives reveal a lack of understanding of how a principal

actually spends their time (NASSP, 1979; Foskett, 1967; Morris, Cranson, Porter-Gehrie, &

Hurwitz, 1984; Williams, 1978; Beck & Murphy, 1993).

The National Association of Secondary School Principals (1979) investigated the

circumstances of 60 effective principals in the United States of America and found that “the

principal operates in obscurity, void of accurate perceptions by the very people with whom he

(sic) works” (NASSP 1979, p. 18). They concluded, “this situation benefits no-one, so joint

clarification of perceptions is a high priority” (p. 18).

Principals themselves, when trying to make sense of their world, find a significant variance

between how they would like to spend their time in comparison to how they actually spend

their time. The variance that exists is between the real and the ideal perceptions of the

principalship, as perceived by principals. The ideal perception is a principalship that favours

instructional leadership activities, student relationships, and professional development

activities as the principal’s highest priority, with less emphasis on management activities.

Studies of actual time on task by principals report principalship practices that are contrary to

this ideal perception (Howell, 1981; Sergiovanni, 1987). Typically, the principal finds the

perceptions of others intruding upon their own perceptions and hence priorities.

83
Differing perceptions of the role dichotomy of the principal are of particular significance

when it comes to school governance and the supervision of principal appointees. Blumberg &

Greenfield (1980) reported a study undertaken by Foskett (1967). Although dated, this study

provided a valuable insight into the various perceptions of the principal. Foskett applied a

role-norm inventory to measure the expectations held for principals in regard to their actions

towards teachers, pupils and parents, the profession generally, and the community. The focus

was agreement or disparity between mutual expectations and the perceptions of these

expectations. It was reported that while the highest agreement occurred between principals

and teachers, the lowest agreement existed between the principals and their school board and

superintendent. The lowest agreement level reported between principals and school boards is

of great operational significance for schools, if capable of generalization, as the school board

is the authority which appoints, supervises, and directs the principal. Harmonizing role

expectations and perceptions, in this instance, is of paramount importance.

Disparity between perceptions of the principal’s role by school governance and the actual role

of the principalship promotes perceptual discontinuities and relational dysfunction.

Perceptual congruence, on the other hand, yields beneficial relational outcomes. Blumberg &

Greenfield (1980) reported from Foskett’s study that

if the actual views of the central administration are different from what the principals
think they are, the behaviour of the central administration may appear capricious and
unpredictable. The result can be a sense of insecurity and frustration or even an
antagonistic attitude. When the opposite is the case, as with teachers and to some
extent the lay population, a feeling of mutuality and support may result. (p. 32)

Of the interest groups associated with the principalship the NASSP (1979) study found

student perceptions were most aligned with how the principal utilizes time. This study was

unable to clarify the causes of differences in the various group perceptions of the way the

principal actually utilize time. Variances could be the result of the diversity of role

84
expectations that are possible for the principalship, or simply the diversity of viewpoints

possessed by stakeholders in the principalship.

2.7.3 Task Perceptions

Perception determines the role or function undertaken, and how that role or function is

interpreted and reported. Similar behaviour may be perceived by one principal as, reminding

children of a school goal, or by a different principal as, monitoring a student’s progress, and

by a trained observer as simply bus duty. Action identification theorists, Harre and Secord

(1972) and Vallacher and Wegner (1977), reported important individual differences

associated with different ways of segmenting and labeling behaviour. In particular, as

individuals gain expertise within a domain, they tend to identify their actions at a higher level

of abstraction. Krug, Ahadi and Scott, (1991) pointed out, in this regard, that experienced

principals are more likely to conceptualize behaviour in terms of global strategies or goals,

than as low level descriptive activities. A novice principal is likely to conceptualize the

activity of walking the hallways, as simply walking the hallways, while an experienced

principal will conceptualize and use such an activity in terms of some higher level, such as

monitoring student progress, or communicating a school goal.

For Krug, Ahadi and Scott, (1991) the most dramatic finding in their study related to principal

perceptions. While trying in vain to identify indicators of difference between effective and

less effective principals, they found that it was the perception of what the principal did, not

what they did, that differed. The meanings that various principals ascribed to each task,

showed signs of consistent variance between effective and less effective principals.

Consequently, while any two principals may be required to monitor the lunch room, the less

effective principal may view this task as simply monitoring the lunch room, or even as a

distraction from more important activities. In contrast, the more effective principal is more

likely to view the task as an opportunity to promote instructional climate by recognizing

85
outstanding student achievement, defining mission by communicating school goals to

students, or monitoring students’ progress by asking students what they are learning, what

they are gaining from their lessons, and so forth (Krug et al. 1991).

An observer has no way of knowing how a principal will perceive their behaviour, or the

meaning(s) that the principal will ascribe to them. The observer can only provide a low level

description of the behaviour, a description that may not be consistent with the principal’s own

level of action identification. The inclusion of the principal’s interpretation of their own

behaviour, is fundamental to understanding the principalship. Task perception has important

methodological significance for research of the principalship, which would benefit from

incorporating methods that reveal the principal’s perception of what they do (Donmoyer,

1985; Krug, Ahadi and Scott, (1991); Walker & Dimmock, 2000). Probing these perceptions

is of interest in order to understand the practices of the principalship, as distinct from more

formal prescriptions. To assist this, the concept of dilemmas is suggested as a way of

decoding principal’s perceptions of the social and political frames within which they work.

(Hallinger, Leithwood, & Murphy, 1993; Walker & Dimmock, 2000).

Dilemmas are part of the fabric of school life (Handy, 1994; Kidder, 1995). Therefore, the

principalship is faced with tensions, dilemmas and paradoxes as inevitable, endemic and

perpetual (Handy, 1994). The nature of these tensions and dilemmas is that they

don’t centre upon right versus wrong. They involve right versus right. They are
genuine dilemmas precisely because each side is firmly rooted in … core values.
(Kidder, 1995, p. 18)

Principals dealing with dilemmas require leadership and management frameworks that permit

the acceptance of opposites as necessary to each other (Handy, 1994). Re-engineered internal

frameworks that create scope for dilemma resolution effectively embrace the presence of

86
internal diversity. The multicultural context of contemporary schooling adds to this diversity

and dilemma analysis serves a useful purpose for exploring ethnocentric school contexts

which are distinct from Western traditions and Judeo-Christian logic (Dimmock & Walker,

1998). Different cultural settings and the differing ethnicity of participants in the

principalship domain, shape perceptions of the principalship according to particular ethnic

mores and practices. Differing perceptions of the principalship, from those of more

conventional first-world traditions and forms, inevitably occur in multi-cultural or cross-

cultural settings for principalship practice.

2.7.4 Cultural Perceptions

Culturally diverse settings for educational administration are encouraging new paradigms of

thinking about the principalship. The dominant Anglo-Saxon perspective of educational

structures and functions is challenged by the cultural diversity that predominates today in

many Western societies and school settings. Within this cultural diversity, Maxcy (1998)

proposed the concept of leadership as an aesthetic form.

Reference to aesthetics in relation to leadership considers the personal elements of how

leadership is given effect, and its emotional, relational aspects. In this form, the principal is

relieved of the perception of their role in terms of bureaucratic elements. In its place results a

perception of the principalship that is a matter of qualitative experience which requires an

awareness of artistic perceptions and skills. The artistic attitude, “provides the perceptive

apparatus through which leaders may examine alternative patterns of rendering chaos into

order” (Maxcy, 1998 p. 229). Perception of the role of the principalship, thereby embraces

perception within the role of the principalship.

2.7.5 Market and Media Perceptions

An indirect influence on the perception of the principalship, is the perception of the school.

School image is an important distinctive for schools to distinguish particular school

87
characteristics to attract enrolments and support budget driven agenda. Associated

perceptions of the school affect and are affected by perceptions of the principalship. As a

result the challenge of selling and marketing a school to the community is, for the principal, a

perception creating, perception changing, perception challenging function. In this function

the media is often engaged to promote school distinctives. However, the media can exercise

an independent influence as it engages with public debate and public interest centred around

school issues.

Glanz (1998) investigated the influence of the media in perpetuating or popularising certain

perceptions of the principalship by examining the common stereotypes of school leaders in a

study of films and TV sitcoms. In all, 35 American television sitcoms and major motion

pictures from 1950 to 1997 were analysed. The result was an overwhelming tendency to

depict school principals as autocratic, bureaucratic, or just plain silly. Characteristics of

school principals as insecure, out-of-touch, conservative, petty, humourless, dimwitted,

socially inept, inflexible and blinkered predominated. In some depictions more sinister

characterizations of the principal as unethical, ruthless and scheming were portrayed.

While a comical intent may underlay some of the depictions suggested by Glanz (1998), other

implications could be implied, namely, the subtle and not-so-subtle slight at the figurehead

role of the principal in the hierarchical structure of schooling. The fallibility of the principal

as a human instrument is highlighted to demean the perception of the principalship as a role

that is not to be taken seriously. Principals, like other authority figures in society, are easy

targets for humour. This humour, by and large, highlights extremes and exceptions, while

alternative images are too easily overlooked.

Despite the range and variety that characterizes the perceptions of the principalship, there is

an over-riding sense that leadership, in some form, is an implied activity. The principal is a

88
leader. As an abiding conceptualization and expectation of the principalship, leadership has

become a re-invigorated focus of interest for principalship studies. It is this interest, and the

contribution that results to the prescription of the principalship, that is presented in the

following section.

2.8 LEADERSHIP FUNCTION OF THE PRINCIPALSHIP

Leadership is now a central function of the principalship (Williams, 2002). The perspective

of school leadership that is implied is quite distinct from merely managerial aspects. Cole

(1996) distinguished leadership as dynamic and defined in behavioural terms, whereas

management is static and process orientated. Leadership in a school context involves vision

development, vision casting, and vision realization. Leadership gives direction to the work of

others, assisting them towards meaning, relevance, and creativity (Bennett, 1995).

Clarke (2000) identified a recent burgeoning interest in educational leadership. They

attributed the interest to a combination of factors, comprising school effectiveness and school

improvement considerations throughout the 1990’s. Leadership, is a core element in the

discourse of both school effectiveness and improvement (Day, 2000; Williams, 2002).

Within this discourse the principal is the person, and the principalship is the position, invested

with the task of delivering the required leadership behaviour and intentionality within a

school context.

2.8.1 Leadership and Management

Traditionally, educational leadership as noted by Andrews et al. (2004) is associated with

positional authority, and is therefore in the school context the unique domain of the principal.

The image of leadership promoted by this perspective assumes a top down and frontal style,

but

to construe educational leadership as a subset of educational administration and to link

school leadership to positional authority, is (a view) looking through a lens that may

89
 have been justified in an industrial age, but is inadequate to the challenges of the post-
industrial knowledge-based world. (Andrews, Conway, Dawson, Lewis, McMaster,
Morgan, & Starr, 2004, p. 18)

The dichotomy between leadership and management has important implications for the

principalship (Bizar & Barr, 2001). Management tends to focus on preserving the status quo

and conducting business; leadership is seen as more creative, revitalizing and reforming. As a

result, management is viewed in negative terms, while leadership is a positive activity

(Hughes, 1999). Leadership is viewed positively because it connotes progress, change and

innovation. However, transcending the dichotomy between leadership and management is

necessary for the principalship, because it combines elements of both.

The principal’s task is to maintain the critical balance between management tasks, which

preserve the culture of the school, and leadership tasks, which move it forward to explore new

or revised goals, policies, or procedures (Bizar & Barr, 2001). Leadership and management

are equally relevant and important to the practice of the principalship; both occur equally

strongly as components of prescriptions of the principalship, and both are equally valid and

prominent perceptions of the principalship.

2.8.2 The Nature of Leadership

The etymology of leadership embraces the concept of direction finding and direction

following. Having identified the direction to be taken to accomplish a task, leadership

embraces the mutually dependent tasks of informing and motivating others to undertake the

journey and the challenge, and providing strategies for doing so. The leader is a key

functionary who contributes special skills of vision and guidance to colleagues, who are

equipped and capable to complete a task (Hough & Paine, 1997).

The leadership function of the principalship, is the ability to “lead people by setting an

inspiring example with the express aim of realizing the vision and values of the (principal)”

90
(Williams, 2002, p. 17). Leithwood (1994) expanded this to include building school vision

and stability, promoting school goals, providing intellectual stimulation, offering

individualized support, modelling best practice, inculcating important organizational values,

demonstrating high performance expectations, creating a productive school culture, and

developing structures to foster participation in school decisions. Leadership within this model

is viewed as transformational as distinct from transactional. That is, it is not just about the

technical process of getting things done, but creating a moral environment which elevates the

conduct, purposes, and aspirations of what is done and the people engaged in doing so (Bass

& Avolio, 1993).

2.8.3 Paradigms of Leadership

Transformational leadership has become the new leadership paradigm for the principalship

(Bryman, 1992; Sims & Lorenzi, 1992; Leithwood, Tomlinson & Genge, 1996). Implicit in

this perspective of leadership and the principalship is an increasing use of the concept of

spirituality, to appeal to meaning and values as essential leadership dynamics (Duignan &

Bhindi, 1997). Trust, honesty in relationships, social conscience and social justice

requirements all point to the need for character as a fundamental component of

transformational leadership practices (Hodgkinson, 1991). The concept of the principal as a

transformational leader, therefore, places an increasing expectation on the character and

personality requirements of the principal (Day, 2000; Azzara, 2000).

The reconceptualisation of the principalship in terms of transformational prescriptions is best

understood, according to Kinsler and Gamble (2001), as a shift from authority to influence.

Working through influence becomes the new paradigm for the leadership of the principal.

The principal is one with others in the organizational structure and must make things happen

collegiately by making use of human relations skills to motivate people in teams and through

team structures (Conley & Goldman, 1994; Hausman, 2000; Kinsler & Gamble, 2001).

91
Andrews et al. (2004) conceptualized the transformational leadership style in terms of a

parallelism which “recognizes the sophistication of today’s teaching professional and also

reflects the uniqueness of today’s schools as learning organizations” (p. 19). Parallel

leadership

engages teacher leaders and administrative leaders in collaborative action, while at the
same time encouraging the fulfillment of their individual capabilities, aspirations and
responsibilities. It leads to strengthen adjustment between the school’s vision and the
school’s teaching and learning practices. It facilitates the development of a
professional learning community, culture building and school-wide approaches to
teaching and learning. It makes possible the enhancement of school identity, teacher’s
professional esteem, community support and students’ achievements. (Crowther,
Andrews, Dawson and Lewis, 2001, p. 73)
The development of such a concept of the principal’s leadership is gaining a consensus as the

way forward for the principalship. The consequence is to invite investigation of the

prescriptions that arise out of this leadership construct.

Associated with the concept of transformational leadership is that of authentic leadership,

with a mindset on service and not control (Block, 1993; Duignan & Macpherson, 1992).

Authentic leaders implement their practice outwardly from their own commitment, not

inwardly from a management paradigm (Evans, 1996; Uchiyama & Wolf, 2002). They

exercise leadership described by Starratt (1993) as

able to critique the shortcomings, and the myths that support, the status quo. …
leadership grounded in a new anthropology, and understanding of the human condition
as both feminine and masculine, as multi-cultural, as both crazy and heroic, violent
and saintly, and as embedded in and responsible to nature. (p. 136)

Authentic leadership within a transformational paradigm is pertinent to the principalship

because school principals set the tone for others. Therefore, the attitude, approach and

92
general persona of the principal as a leader, becomes significant in and for the cultural

environment of the school’s operation.

The stresses and struggles of teaching requires leadership that can inspire and encourage

resilience, hope and optimism. The principal, as such a leader, must articulate and discuss

such qualities as hope, when the going gets tough, in order to re-energize teachers, mitigate

the stress of their circumstances, and point to new directions and creative solutions to their

challenges (Hargreaves & Fullan, 1998). Amidst this leadership paradigm, the principal will

confront various paradoxes, including the paradox of leading towards what is new and

different, while preserving what is traditional; learning new and different truths and

technologies, while retaining proven existing values and models; initiating change when

things are going well; securing win-win outcomes; and establishing the balance between

essentials and desirables (Hough & Paine, 1997).

2.8.4 The Essentials of Leadership

Leadership is all about connecting (Holden, 2004). Leaders connect means to ends, solutions

to problems, resources to needs, and people to tasks, goals, visions, and futures. Connection

is the essence of collaboration, and as Hargreaves and Fullan (1998) suggested:

the principal of the last decade (1987-1997) was urged to develop collaborative
cultures within schools, the principal of the next decade (1998-2008) should be
leading the way to redefine collaboration so that it encompasses alliances with groups
and individuals outside the school. (1998, p. 126)

Leadership involves moving organizations, situations and people toward future

reconfigurations of present circumstances. Risk-taking will become the necessary mindset of

the future principal under conditions of uncertainty, with a persuasive and irreducible

approach to pervasive social change (Bauman, 1997). Embracing risk as a conscious

leadership disposition, is not to abandon protocols of good sense and wise judgment, but

93
rather to recognize that risk taking in conditions of uncertainty can be a spur to creativity

(Hargreaves & Fullan, 1998). The task and process of doing this is besieged with challenges,

in a world of diversity and uncertainty (Hargreaves & Fullan, 1998).

While it is axiomatic that leadership in schools is not only vested in the principal, the

principal is the leader of the whole school. The basic elements of this leadership, Hough and

Paine (1997) articulated as vision, system design, role model and ambassador, training and

development, manager and steward. In the context of the principalship as transformational,

the principal is projected more and more as a cultural and moral leader and as a visionary

(Schein, 1997; Deal & Peterson, 2000). To adopt and give effect to these prescriptions, the

principalship must have political awareness, and give greater weight to human values and

interpersonal considerations, rather than a technical focus on goals of efficiency, rationality,

and productivity (Seyforth, 1999; Kinsler & Gamble, 2001). Interpersonal considerations

highlight an essential aspect, namely, the role model vested in the principalship as a learner.

Hough and Paine (1997) suggest, “if the principal and other leaders are not recognized as

learners then there is little chance that they will be leading an organization which recognizes

its core business as learning” ( p. 181).

2.8.5 Leadership and Change

Hargreaves and Fullan (1998) appealed for educational leaders who will push for change, but

who do so with a multi-option approach, and a creative intent in applying and adapting such

options. Recognizing and accepting this approach and mindset is important for effective

principal leadership practice, part of which involves developing the capacity to manage the

stress from emotionally and psychologically draining environments (Maurer, 1996).

Leadership in such a context will always encounter levels of resistance and leadership

dissatisfaction. As a result, future leaders must learn to think through systems in the context

of local knowledge and local variables.

94
Leadership as a facilitator of change and development, or a catalyst for such change, has an

inherent tension. The tension arises when the initiator of change is moving that change more

rapidly than other participants can cope with, or believe is desirable. If the leadership role of

the principal is too much ahead of the change process, driving the change, then the facilitator

role is violated. Tensions that arise due to the changing times and needs of education, and

hence the principals’ role of leadership within such a changing educational context, have

resulted in the development of standards for leadership behaviour (McCarthy, 1999; Waters &

Grubb, 2004).

2.8.6 Future Leadership Standards

Leadership studies have tried to codify best practice into law-like structures or leadership

guidelines. However, what emerges is that leadership practice is highly localized and

specialized, so as to defy universalities or empirical postulates (Evers & Lakomski, 2000).

Codifying leadership qualifications and practice must recognize that there are many ways for

principals to excel, many kinds of leaders, and that every leadership style has both a downside

and a positive attribute (Evans, 1996).

Prescriptions of the principalship that possess flexibility in the technical requirements for

school leadership fit with the variable school setting that principals encounter. Such

prescriptions also accommodate the diversity amongst principals themselves, in personal

style, approach and philosophy of leadership. Seyforth (1999) noted that

whereas principals previously regarded themselves and were regarded as individuals

using formal authority to control and direct the activities of subordinates, now their
role as leader is being reconceptualised as facilitators and professional peers, who,
though still central in the decision-making process, collaborate with teachers to make
decisions. (p. 75)
Attempts to delineate standards of principal leadership reinforce the call for a new kind of

leader. Such a leader is one who can transform schools into truly collaborative research

95
centres, where principals work with parents and teachers in providing the best education for

all children (Kinsler & Gamble, 2001; Waters & Grubb, 2004). It therefore remains to

examine the prescriptions that anticipate this new leadership paradigm for the future

principalship. In this regard, contextual change in the circumstances of schooling suggests a

reworked ideal for the principalship. The form and function implicit in the resulting

prescriptions of this ideal for the future principalship will require development and analysis.

The following section seeks to identify those elements which could shape, or are currently

shaping the process in this development, towards prescriptions of the future principalship.

2.9 THE FUTURE OF THE PRINCIPALSHIP

The prescriptions of the principalship that have been reviewed, portray the principalship

operating within an environment of dysfunction, fluidity, and unpredictability. Against such a

backdrop, the principalship is generally seen as contributing advantageously to the present

function of schooling. Remarkably, this positive assessment of the principalship is made,

despite the inevitable and unavoidable imperfection due to the disadvantageous environmental

factors that impinge on the principalship. Perhaps there is, too, a recognition, implicit or

otherwise, that present practitioners of the principalship demonstrate a quality and dedication

which is, by and large, producing effective principalship practice. The future for the

principalship requires every benefit and advantage to assist the principalship, as this will

promote the best interests and outcomes of schooling.

Irrespective of principalship prescriptions, practices and perceptions of past and present role

performance, there is the compelling need to establish a re-engineered principalship paradigm

for the future. Implicit in this is the acceptance of what cannot be changed, in the operational

domain of the principalship, and a recognition of what can be changed, and perhaps needs to

change. Perpetuating the present configuration of schooling will perpetuate the milieu that

96
currently impinges on the principalship. As such, the variables that create the present

instability, complexity, ambiguity, and variety for the principalship will persist. In addition,

there is the exacerbating effect of the changing dynamic of the social environment, the

features of which affect the school as a product of that environment, and as a perpetuator of

its characteristics.

Further still, future conceptions of the principalship must embrace the notion that the business

of schools as strictly and exclusively academic is crumbling (Crowson & Boyd, 1993). The

challenge of social issues relating to poverty, injustice, violence, health care and family

dysfunction are all distracting, or undermining, influences on the paradigm of the school as an

exclusively academic institution. The result is that the 21st century requires of the principal

the role as broker and perpetuator of partnerships and strategic alliances with parents,

business, social service agencies and external training providers. The principal of the 21st

century must engage the energy and work of all school stakeholders, so that students in the

school context are well served regarding the requirements for the outcomes of 21st century

schooling (Murphy & Beck, 1994).

2.9.1 Future Possibilities

As to the future of the principalship, Hallinger and Hausman (1993) referred to the notion of

the school of the future as an envisioned school, where the principal of the school is not the

chief officer per se, in the old traditional role, but a person who serves as a resource, a guide,

a facilitator. The principal would engage the school community in a shared vision of

appropriately recast beliefs, norms and practices to suitably reflect the collaborative culture of

a networked world (Sergiovanni, 1987). A team approach to the principal’s role results, to

ensure a shared transformational leadership style, that is able to be sustained and reproduced

(Lewis, 2001).

97
Etheridge and Valesky (1993) and Murphy (1991) asserted that the principal in the envisioned

structure of the future, must abandon traditional bureaucratic notions of leadership and

assume a facilitative role. Otherwise, attempts at school transformation will be significantly

impaired or prevented. Principals’ perceptions of their role in such envisioned structures will

be crucial.

2.9.2 Technology and the Future School

Coincidental with developing and possible future changes to school structures and

expectations are the effects of technological innovations and applications to schooling.

Children entering schools in the year 2007, or thereafter, will graduate into a markedly

different world to that of the present. The determining factor is the rate and nature of the

affects of technological innovation and change in the educational landscape of resources and

methodologies. Schools are a major focus for participation in this change process, and will

reflect its influence. Lewis (2001) suggested that it may be the case that terms like principal,

teacher, classroom and school will be replaced by more appropriate alternatives, to suit the

emergent social context and expectations of schooling. The operational environment of

schools

will need to be continually redefined and challenged as principals and their school
communities move into the next millennium … principals will not only be required to
have a working knowledge of organizational culture, but will need to be able to
develop a unique internal collaborative culture that makes their school competitively
distinctive from other schools. (Lewis, 2001, p. 5)

The most significant determiner of the shape and form of the future principalship will be the

shape and form of the future school. External influences such as politics, technology,

ecology, economics, family patterns, and social mores all affect the school site. The result is

an inevitable and irresistible impetus for the internal re-configuration of present school roles

and structures.

98
According to Moffett (1994)

a few decades from now people will regard the schooling of today with revulsion, as
astonishingly primitive, in the same way that we deplore the eighteenth century
treatment of the mentally ill. Our successors will not be able to understand how
citizens dedicated to personal liberty and democracy could have placed learning on a
compulsory basis, such that citizens had to report to certain buildings every working
day of their youth in order to be bossed about by agents of the state. (p. 5)

In the light of this, it is not surprising that postulates of future schooling foreshadow school

change. Schools could be centres of more natural learning with less contrived curriculum

(Loader, 1997). Schools as institutions need to strive for greater congruence with human

nature and the human condition, providing for higher order needs, self-respect and self-

actualization (Senge, 1990).

The principalship, as a key element in the topography of schooling, will more than likely be at

the vanguard of this school change and reconfiguration. Envisioning what schools will

become, and need to become, will dictate much of what the principalship will be in the

envisioned structures of the future school. Elements of community and organization will have

redefined features, and call for appropriate leadership attributes and behaviours at the

principalship level (Leithwood, Jantzi, & Steinbach, 1999). Widespread alternative family

structures will be too pervasive to ignore (Scherer, 1996), as well as the reality of working

parents. The school as a community, will take on new responsibilities for nurturing and

inculturation. Organisational structures will need to embrace efficiencies of resource

allocation, and concepts like life-long-learning. The principalship will need to embrace these

requirements with a mindset that encourages their realization by personal practice and

perspective.

It may be the case that it is not the principalship that requires change but the prescriptions of

the principal, whether as instructional leader, facility manger, or transformational leader.

99
Implicit in a changed approach to future prescriptions of the principalship will be the

perception of the principal within the decision-making hierarchy and process of school

management. The principal’s own role perception will be an important determiner to his or

her role positioning and practice. Technological innovation and change will continue to

impact the school setting to change the technologies of education and its structure and

organization. As the school setting is more often reactive to external societal changes, there is

limited scope for the principalship to re-claim the initiative and set the agenda. It therefore

becomes very difficult for the principal to get ahead of developments, with unknown

outcomes or, in fact, to influence them advantageously for a given purpose. The future for the

principalship suggests a practice that accepts the extramural influences on schooling and

looks for re-engineered intramural structures and responses to deal with them.

2.10 CONCLUSIONS

Whatever results for the principalship in the future, it is certain that the stream of literature on

the principalship will continue to flow. There will be no last word. The principalship is a

dynamic evolving role, in keeping with the school setting. Analysis and research will strive

for new understandings to promote improved principalship practices. It is, after all, the

practice of the principalship which has paramount significance to the school context and the

purposes of schooling.

To understand the principalship beyond prescriptions in the literature, the next section of this

portfolio is a focus on the practice of five Christian Secondary School principals. The study

of their practices, by observation and journal records, is intended to establish the presence of

what has been noted as prescribed elsewhere, or otherwise, and provide further descriptive

detail to enhance the understanding of the principalship.

100
 CHAPTER THREE:

SECTION TWO

PRACTICES OF THE PRINCIPALSHIP

101
 CHAPTER THREE

SECTION TWO – PRACTICES OF THE PRINCIPALSHIP

CONTENTS Page No.

3.1 Introduction to Principalship Practices 103

3.1.1 The Research Task 104
3.1.2 The Research Method 105
(a) Relevant Paradigm
(b) Observational Study
(c) Interview Inquiry
(d) Journal Records
3.1.3 The Research Sites 114
3.1.4 The Research Subjects 117

3.2 The Research Data on Principalship Practices 118

3.2.1 Observational Data 118
3.2.2 Journal Data 122
3.2.3 Interview Data 126

3.3 Analysis of Data on Principalship Practices 130

3.3.1 Introduction 130
3.3.2 General Aspects 131
3.3.3 Locational Aspects 134
3.3.4 Type of Activity Aspects 138
3.3.5 Type of Person Interaction 145
3.3.6 Levels of Satisfaction 149
3.3.7 Interview Reflections 158

3.4 Conclusions 159

102
3.1 INTRODUCTION TO PRINCIPALSHIP PRACTICE

The school principal in the twenty-first century is a corporate and educational leader invested

with the task of management and leadership, which have complex, and at times, competing

aspects to be mitigated for the advancement of organizational goals and strategic educational

outcomes. The principalship therefore attracts a diverse range of expectations, and combines

a multifunctional array of interests and necessary undertakings. Central to the expectations,

interests and undertakings of the principalship are the prescriptions that underpin and define

the appointment. These prescriptions, which were the focus of section one, attempt to

describe the tasks that the principal is engaged to do, and the roles that are to be performed.

Prescriptions, however, cannot detail every element of the task and role of the principalship.

They are general in scope, cryptic in detail, and representative rather than exhaustive, in terms

of covering every variable of the intended, likely, or imagined practice of the principalship.

The challenge when documenting the prescriptive detail of the principalship is to find a

balance between breadth and depth. Too much breadth inhibits the necessary clarity of

particular school priorities and purposes; too much depth overwhelms the principalship with

detail that competes with flexibility and the ability to respond. It is this flexibility and

responsiveness that breathes life and creativity into a role which calls for adaptiveness and

proactivity. Prescriptive detail and depth can constrain the principalship. It may be that this

is an intentional consequence to secure the level of management accountability that is

required by the employing authority. An adequate level of prescriptive depth and detail,

however, can avoid misunderstandings about the role expectations. The more scope given to

role definition in prescriptions, the less scope there will be for the influence of perceptions on

the manner the principals’ role is considered and practiced.

103
A common core of prescriptive detail underpins the principalship in all contexts,

notwithstanding, that local school variables dictate particular prescriptive emphases or

priorities. According to the age and stage of a school there are varying prescriptive details

and priorities that arise for the principal. The character of the resulting principalship then

reflects the inter-relationship between such prescriptions and perceptions, giving rise to the

resulting principalship practices. What these actual practices comprise is the research focus

of this section of the portfolio.

3.1.1 The Research Task

The research task in this section is to determine what activities occupy the operational world

of the principal. The question to be asked is, what does the principal do from day-to-day?

The task of identifying and classifying principalship practices has been the subject of various

studies (Thomas, 2003; Holden, 2004; Dunford, Fawcett & Bennett, 2000.) The moving,

dynamic and fluid nature of the principalship (King, Ahadi and Scott, 1991; Morris et al,

1984) challenges attempts to codify the detail of principalship practice, but renders it a

desirable and necessary undertaking to provide and promote improved understanding of the

role. While prescriptions outline in general terms what the role of the principal embraces a

priori, the quest for the specifics of the practice that results is a necessary interest. In many

ways the discrepancy or divergence between the former prescriptions and the latter practices

presents a bewildering challenge for the understanding of the principalship (Simpkins,

Thomas & Thomas, 1987; Thomas, 2000; Donaldson, 1991).

Prescriptions invariably find expression in grand terms like vision, leadership, innovation,

decision making, and role model. Practices assume more modest or procedural descriptions

such as administration, conflict resolution, public relations, reporting, and crisis management.

Prescriptions suggest an over-arching and inspirational role for the principal; practices are

104
more engaged, immersed and driven functions. One challenge that arises from the

discrepancy and divergence in these notions of the principalship, is to establish how

principalship prescriptions find expression in principalship practice. Conversely, there is the

challenge to identify the way in which the more routine practices of the principalship, give

expression to the loftier notions contained within the ideals of principalship prescriptions.

Having established the broad survey of these prescriptions in the previous section of the

portfolio, the data from the observed and journalized daily practices of five principals is the

focus of what follows.

3.1.2 The Research Method

The domain of the principalship is characterized by a dynamic and fluid kaleidoscope of

events, activities and patterns (Krug, Ahadi and Scott, (1991); Thomas, 2003; Day, 2000). No

two days are the same with unpredictability and spontaneity being ever present realities

(Thomas, 2003). These features of the principalship call for a method of study which

accommodates variableness and variety in the study domain, and the idiosyncratic activities

and responses of participants in that domain. For these reasons the methods aligned with

more qualitative research data and approaches were considered to be relevant.

Of particular relevance within the genre of qualitative research methods, as they related to this

study, were the descriptive or interpretive research approaches. The central endeavour in such

approaches, summarized as an interpretive paradigm, is the understanding of the subjective

reality of human experience. The starting point for this understanding is the individual, in this

case the principal, and analyzing the principals’ interpretations of their professional life-

world. The resulting data were enriched with the meanings and purposes of the school

principals from which they were sourced (Cohen & Manion, 1994).

105
The integrity of interpretive studies requires that every effort is made to get inside the domain

that is in focus. The object is to gain an understanding from within the site and phenomena

studied. What is sought are data possessing the quality that they have not been externally

imposed. Therefore, research in the human sciences endeavours to elicit principles and truths

from subjective data. To do this, the preferred methods of research involve description,

interpretation, self-reflection and critical analysis. Human science research, according to Van

Manen (1991), seeks the individual meanings given to human phenomena in order to

understand lived experience, as distinct from natural science approaches that taxonomize

natural phenomona, or explain behaviour in terms of probabilities or statistical indicators.

(a) Relevant Paradigm

Ethnography is an interpretive approach that has particular value and relevance to the study of

the principalship. Ethnography is concerned with investigating, through observation, the

context in which human behaviour takes place and the human activity that occurs within that

context. The principal operates within the social setting of a school that has its own unique

cultural ethos, within which each participant, including the principal, must frame his or her

behaviour. The broad contextual characteristics of the school setting define the phenomena of

principalship practice externally, while the internal influences result from the principal’s

personal construction of the social setting in which the practice occurs (Langenbach, Vaughn

& Aagaard, 1993). These external and internal factors comprise the life-world of the

principalship, into which ethnographic researchers seek to enter. The benefit of the resulting

ethnographies is the richness and diversity of the qualitative data that they provide. Further

to this, however, is the realization that domains like the principalship are challenging to study

in any other way. The nature of the principal’s work site, his or her role and type of activity,

makes more structured, covert or concealed observation very difficult, if not impossible. To

position the principalship, so that it was capable of such observation and study, would be to

106
change its fundamental characteristic of multiple engagements, in multiple situations, at

multiple sites and with multiple subjects.

Ethnographic approaches recognize that social actions and social actors operate within a

particular cultural setting (Langenbach, Vaughn, Aagaard, 1993), that is, a setting which has

protocols, language, symbolic interactions, and role recognition, unique to the discourse of the

particular social situation and its participants. Schools are richly embedded with such

elements, as dynamic and diverse sites of social engagement. The research task in such a

domain is greatly enhanced by engaging with the internal dynamic and interplay of these

environmental features.

Integrated to the cultural perspective of social discourse is the study of the people within that

social context. Interactive engagements and lived experiences become relevant and sought

after to better understand participant behaviour. For this reason ethnographic studies take the

features of interpersonal control and meaning into consideration. The understanding of such

features is sought from within the social context being studied, and determined by the social

actors who interact and inter-relate within that context. It is the social actors’ own

experiences that provide the filter through which all that happens to them, and around them, is

interpreted by them. Ethnographers accept the participants’ perception of the phenomena

examined, to understand the every day life and activity of daily events from an emic, or

insider, perspective (Green & Bloome, 1997). To achieve this insight the primary source of

data collection is observation.

For the purpose of this section of the research portfolio the observational approach was that of

an unconcealed non-participant observer (Krathwohl, 1998). Each of the five principals in the

study were viewed during the complete course of a nominated Thursday. The choice of a

common day for the observations was not intended to identify, or explore, any correlation, or

107
comparison, between the principals’ activities unique to a given day of the week. However,

by doing the observation of each principal on the same day of the week, there was a

uniformity to the study. The Thursday chosen for each observation was representative of

what would approximate to the normal pattern of the daily routine for each principal. Any

exceptional events, such as sports’ days, conferences, or unusual out-of-school activities were

avoided in relation to the chosen Thursday. The observation took place from the moment the

principal arrived at the school site, to the end of that day’s engagements, after which she or he

would be returning home.

Supplementing the observational data, each principal in the study was required to keep a five

day journal of his or her practice. By this approach the principal could document his or her

lived experience, and the interpretations that were made of that experience. In this manner

the study of the principalship engaged with the phenomenon of the person in a role, rather

than a role fulfilled by a person. While there were prescriptive aspects for the role of the

principalship that were fulfilled by all principals, the personal qualities of each principal

brought a uniqueness of approach, personality, and outworking, beyond precise role

descriptions for the practice of the principalship. Describing the essence of this uniqueness

required qualitative approaches that have “great potential for capturing the complex layers of

meaning that always coexist in any educational experience” (Legemann and Shulman, 1999,

p. 6).

The essential interest of this study was to explore and expose the personal experience of the

principal, especially the perceptions, interpretations, and understandings of the school’s social

context and interactions in which the principal was a participant (Bogdan & Biklen, 1992).

The task was to understand the principalship from the point of view of each principal (Barritt,

Beckman, Blecker & Mulderij, 1985) by placing the principal at the centre of inquiry.

108
Extracting data related to this principal-centric perspective, acknowledged that educational

activities and practices were social in nature and content. Accordingly, there were

inescapable moral and fundamental political features to the work of the principal, no matter

how fleeting or extensive, formal or informal, public or domestic their educational situation

was.

While quantitative analysis extracted valuable detail from the setting of the principalship,

there was a depth and richness to the educational and principalship function beyond data that

were capable of reduction into purely statistical form. An ethnographic approach was a

means of accessing this depth and richness of the principalship operation through observation

and personal journal records.

(b) Observational Study

Non-participatory un-concealed observation of the five principals was the approach used to

avoid influencing the principal’s responses to events and people, and limiting any distortion

of the way that others interacted with the principal. Despite this intention, it was not possible

to eliminate all influence on the events and people observed, due invariably to the

geographical location of the principal’s activities, and the physical confines of personal office

space.

The data gathering during the observation consisted of a diary of activity customized for the

task, and designed for ease of recording any rapid flow of events or activities. Columns were

used to record the time of each activity, the location of each activity, and then a brief

description of the nature of the activity, giving particular attention to what, if any, other

members of the school community were involved in the interaction or activity with the

principal. The simplicity of the data recording instrument was important and necessary so

that attention was not drawn away from the primary task of observation. Nuances and

109
inflexions in the flow of principalship activity were important to discern, so that the character

and essence of each principal’s work practices could be documented fully.

Transitory or incidental aspects of the principals’ interactions were interesting features

accompanying the mainstream of activity. More often in the form of an aside by the

principal, or an observational insight by the observer, they enriched the resulting chronicle of

observed practice. By way of example, it was observed that often one interaction led to and

generated others, so that tasks diverged in nature. As the divergence moved the principal into

informal or unstructured settings, so a multiplicity of other interactions occurred. One such

informal period of eighteen minutes contained thirteen separate and distinct interactions

comprising students, parents and staff. On another occasion a thirty minute yard duty

recorded 36 student interactions. It was evident that informal activity could gain momentum

towards formalization. An important factor which affected this process was the relational and

personality characteristics of the principal.

A further factor that affected principalship activity, was the nature of the principals’

involvement in planned school events or activities. For one principal a forthcoming school

camp was a catalyst for a number of principalship interactions. These interactions were not

evidently related to camp details, but occurred due to the shared interest in the camp

preparations. Principalship participation in school events created a natural connection with

other school participants, and resulted in interactions and engagements with the principal that

were casual, non-bureaucratic, almost friendship based.

Principalship activity was observed to be influenced by non-school factors. One observation

day included a principal whose spouse was in hospital. On arrival at school the principal

received a telephone call from a staff member who was traumatized by possum problems at

home which they felt the need to attend to. These unpredictable variables at the personal level

110
of the principal, or other school members, affected principalship practice. The principals’

administration therefore, embraced a sensitivity to the personal circumstances of other

participants in the school environment, which introduced conflicting priorities and distracting

issues into the world of principalship practice.

Ubiquitous paperwork haunts principalship practice. One principal commented, “some days

you feel like no more than a clerk shuffling paper”. The challenge for the principal was to

undertake paperwork that gave expression to principalship objectives and supported preferred

principalship practice. While it was observed that the principalship role is an executive

administrative role, each principal brought to administrative tasks an individual personal

approach and organizational style. It was evident that these factors transformed the

administrative practice of the principalship into a dynamic, interactive practice.

An unobtrusive posture was taken throughout the observation of the principal and the

particular school community notified of the observational activity taking place. However,

there was an unavoidable awareness of the observation by those who interacted with the

principal during the observation period. Often an explanatory comment concerning the

presence of the observer was necessary to put those who interacted with the principal at ease.

The preferred naturalness of principalship interactions while under observation, was therefore

not entirely possible.

During the observational period, where a confidential or private matter was attended to by the

principal, the observational position was removed to a place outside the principal’s office.

Withdrawal to this position was also employed on several occasions where it seemed

appropriate for the benefit of the principalship interaction taking place. The necessity and

occurrence of withdrawal to a location outside the immediate vicinity of the principal’s

activity was not detrimental to the intention of the study undertaken, or diminishing of the

111
value of the data collected. This was because the actual content or substance of each

principalship interaction was not the focus. What was observed comprised:

• the duration of each separate principalship interaction.

• the location of each separate principalship interaction.
• the general descriptive nature of each separate principalship interaction.
• the presence or involvement of other people in each principalship interaction and the
nature of the community sub-group they represented.

The result of the observation of these features yielded data relating to:

• the location of the principalship activity.

• the generalized type of activities involved.
• the type of personal interaction that took place during the observation period.

From the data related to each of these domains a composite of the actual practices of the

principalship could be constructed.

(c) Interview Inquiry

The desire to fully understand the nature of principalship practice suggested the value of

including an interview as part of the data collection methodology (Langenbach, Vaughn,

Aagaard, 1993). The interview procedure allowed the mindset of those studied to be

explored. In the context of this study, interview data were important to access the perceptions

that could only be articulated from within, and not observed from without. Six questions, for

each principal in the study to consider in advance, were used for the interview phase. These

questions were:

1. What was it about the Principalship that attracted your interest in making application
for your present position?

2. To what extent does your practice of the Principalship equate to your perceptions of
the Principalship?

3. How would you like your current practices to change in order to better equate to your
idea of the Principalship?

4. What advice would you give to any person seeking Principalship?

112
 5. Quite often the Principalship has been described in the literature in terms of
metaphors, word pictures, that might capture something of the diversity, or essence of
the principalship. What are some of the metaphors that come to your mind, that you
would use to describe or characterize the Principalship?

6. If you knew in your early years, that you were to become a Principal, what
experiences, skills, and areas of interest would you have cultivated, because you knew
of the relevance for you as a Principal?

Each interview was taped and the transcript of the interview constructed. The transcript was

submitted to the principal for amendment, expansion and approval as an important research

protocol (Cohen & Manion, 1994). Taped interviews place comments on the record that the

person interviewed may prefer to withdraw, or at least provide more explanatory, factual, or

contextual detail, to more accurately reflect the position and intention that the original

response intended to convey. In this instance no amendments to the interview transcripts

were submitted or required by the interview subjects.

(d) Journal Records

To further probe the practice of the principalship, the use of personal journals and diaries

were used as a valuable data source. Consequently, a five day journal was kept by each

principal to record their actual practices over the required period. To guide the principals’

record keeping of daily activities, a time analysis worksheet (Appendix A) was provided.

Upon consideration of the various ways to gather detail of each principals’ daily practice,

various coding styles were explored. An analysis of possible approaches resulted in the

conclusion that the detailed coding of principalship practices by the principal in the course of

practice, or immediately following, was a device that assisted the researcher but did not

necessarily suit the convenience of the principal.

Pre-set codes, to be used by the principal, required familiarity with the codes, or constant

reference to them. The flow of practice would therefore be interrupted, and recording of

relevant data frustrated or constrained. To avoid these consequences, and assist the ease with

113
which a journal of daily practice was constructed, the level of prescription required of the

principal was limited to four items. The four items were the time of each activity, the location

where the activity took place, the detail of what activity occurred, and the satisfaction level

that resulted for the principal from the activity. The record was to be in the form and extent

preferred by the principal using the template provided as a basis. The resulting detail was

collated to make the relevant correlations and comparisons for this study under the same three

categories used in the observational component, namely, location, activity type, and type of

person interaction.

The indicator for each principalship interaction of a satisfaction level was in the form of a tick

placed in pre-set columns marked low, moderate, good and high. The addition of an appraisal

of the satisfaction level related to the outcome of each interaction, was a valuable insight into

the principalship. This dimension could not have been considered as part of the observational

phase without either, interrupting the situation of the observation, or forming a subjective

appraisal of each principal engagement. The preferred and chosen method, to probe the task

satisfaction of the principal, was to invite a self assessment by the principal.

3.1.3 The Research Sites

Five Christian schools in the Adelaide metropolitan area were used as the sites for the

research reported in this portfolio. They were involved in the study following approaches to a

total of seven schools. The five schools which volunteered their participation were

considered to be a suitable data base for the purpose and overall intention of the research task

being undertaken.

The five principals who participated in this study exercised their principalship in schools

which had a cohort of Year 11 students. Four of the schools comprised the year levels,

Reception to 12, with one school, years 7 to 12. The presence within each school of a Year

114
11 cohort was the basis of choice, to facilitate an informed student input into the third section

of the study. Apart from this feature of the selected schools, the only other criterion for

involvement was the willingness of the schools, and particularly their principals, to participate

in the study.

Background information of the characteristics of each school, as assessed by the respective

principal, was sought via a Principalship Survey (Appendix B). This data gathering

instrument was designed to be relatively straight forward for the principal to complete, and

intended to gain notional rather than substantive background detail of each school in the

study. Selected areas of information concerning each school were chosen for each principal

to report against. These areas were representative of the range of possible indicators about

each school, and deemed to be sufficient to adequately contextualize the research study. The

resulting school information is summarized in Table 1, 2 and 3 following, and is expressed in

a way that respects confidentiality and the identity of the school.

Table 1: General School Data

SCHOOL

CATEGORY 1 2 3 4 5

1. Commencement Early 1980’s Early 1980’s Early 1980’s Late 1970’s Early 1980’s
2. Age Range of School 20-25 years 20-25 years 20-25 years 25-30 years 20-25 years
3. Enrolment Range 900-1000 500-700 500-700 400-500 500-700
4. Catchment Area 0-10 km 0 – 75 km 0-30 km 0-30 km 0-30 km
5. Enrolment Growth Mod increase Mod increase Recent increase Mod increase Mod increase
6. Staff Turnover Low Low Moderate Low Low

115
 Table 2: School Family Profile Data

SCHOOL
CATEGORY
1 2 3 4 5
1. SES Score 102 100 97 100 92
2. Socio Economic Status Upper Middle Middle Middle Middle Lower Middle
3. School Card Families 16% 23% 20% 30% 35%
4. Single Parent Level Low Low Moderate Moderate Moderate
5. Instability/Dysfunction Low Low Moderate Low Moderate
6. Pension/Welfare Levels Low Low Moderate Moderate Moderate
7. Trade Occupation Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate High
8. Unemployment Low Low Low - -
9. Professional Low Moderate Moderate - -
Occupations
10. Low Income Earners Moderate Low Moderate Moderate High
11. High Income Earners Low Low Low Low -
12. Participation in Moderate High Low Low Moderate
School

Notes:
1. SES Score is a Commonwealth Government category that measures the school
population against demographic socio-economic data. The higher the score the more
affluent the population base of a school. SES refers to Socio-Economic Status.

2. School card families are those assessed by the State Education Department to qualify
for financial assistance with school costs.

Table 3: School Location and Structure

SCHOOL
CATEGORY
1 2 3 4 5
1. Older established area - X - X X
2. Inner metropolitan area - - X X -
3. New/Developing area X - - - X
4. Light industrial area - - - - -
5. Housing Trust area X - - - -
6. Private residential area X X - - X
7. Inner city area - - - - -
8. Re-development area - - X - -
9. Semi-rural area - - - - X
10. On main road - X X - -
11. On a church site - - - - X
12. Outer metropolitan area X X - - X
13. No. of campuses 1 1 2 1 2
14. Enrolment policy Open Restricted Restricted Open Restricted
15. Governance Type Parent- Parent- Church- Church- Church-based
controlled controlled based based

116
3.1.4 The Research Subjects

The five principals in this study participated as the result of the willingness of their school

community to be involved as a research site. To engage the participation of the school

community an approach was made to the school governing body. Prior to doing this the

principal’s support was sought by personal approach and consultation (Appendix C: request

letter to Principals). The purpose of this was to explain the research project, and avoid any

sense of personal insecurity or reluctance on their behalf, because of their school’s

involvement. It was explained that their particular principalship was not the focus of the

research, but the investigation was the generic role of the principalship. Assurances were

given that every effort would be made, in the data collecting approaches used, to prevent the

critique or appraisal of their particular principalship. Each principal’s support of the research

was necessary because the research required school-based data collection and, hence, access

to the school community. At a practical level it was the principal who facilitated access to

staff, students and parents. Beyond this, each principal was required to consent to a one day

observation of daily practice, together with the keeping of a personal five-day journal.

Having gained the principal’s agreement to be involved, an appropriate approach was made to

the school governing body. The relevant characteristics of the principals in this study are

tabulated in Table 4. All the principals had served in their current placement for five years or

more.

Table 4: Principals’ Characteristics

PRINCIPAL SCHOOL
CHARACTERISTICS 1 2 3 4 5
1. Age at appointment to first 42 years 49 years 51 years 42 years 50 years
principalship
2. Years teaching experience 18 years 26 years 31 years 21 years 28 years
when first appointed
3. Highest tertiary qualification Bachelor Master’s Bachelor Bachelor Bachelor
at appointment Degree Degree Degree Degree Degree
4. Hours worked per day 11.7 hours 11.5 hours 12.3 hours 10.5 hours 10.4 hours
according to study data
5. Hours per week from (4) 58 hours 57 hours 61 hours 52 hours 52 hours

117
For the five schools which indicated their willingness to be involved, the agreement of their

respective governing bodies was followed by the arrangements for data collection at the

school site. The predominant time-frame for this was the 2003 South Australian school year.

3.2 THE RESEARCH DATA ON PRINCIPALSHIP PRACTICES

The research data gathered at five different school sites, from five different school

communities, involved five practising school principals. In total 338 hours of data were

collected relating to the practices of the principalship. The resulting data comprised 289

hours of journal keeping by the five principals, and 49 hours of first hand observation or

shadowing. In total, this study of the practices of the principalship collected data from an

accumulated consideration of 30 days of principalship practice, each day of 11.3 hours

average duration.

3.2.1 Observational Data

Principalship practices were studied by observation for one day in the case of each principal

participant. A total of 48.5 hours of uninterrupted observational data collection took place.

This was made up as follows:-

Table 5: Observational Times

SCHOOL 1 2 3 4 5 TOTAL
Hours observed 9 9.5 11 10 9 48.5 hours

The daily average observation time was 9.7 hours. The domains of interest during the

observational period were the location of each principalship interaction, the type of activity

involved in each interaction, and the description of the people involvement. The data

obtained relating to the location of principalship practice are summarized in Table 6.

118
 Table 6: Location Detail from Principalship Observation
Location of Principalship Activity (% Time)
Principal’s School Staff Class School Other Off Total Total
School Office Admin Room Room Yard Office Campus Other % Time
(Minutes)
1 73 9 2 1 4 0 0 11 100 541
2 47 15 26 0 8 1 3 1 100 570
3 34 3 23 13 14 6 7 0 100 654
4 69 2 15 5 5 0 0 4 100 599
5 74 4 12 3 6 1 0 0 100 546
Ave % 59 6 16 5 7 2 2 3 100 2910

From the locational data, a noteworthy feature was the time spent by the principal in the

school administration area, made up of the principals’ office, school administration area, and

staff room. The average percentage of the principals’ time in the school administration area,

so defined, was 81%, ranging from a low of 60% for principal 3 to a high of 90% for principal

5. Excluding principal 3 from the average, as an exception to the observed behaviour by the

majority of the principals in the study, yielded an average of 87%, which was more

representative of the majority principalship practice. The variance for principal 3 could be

accounted for as a compensation by the principal for the remoteness of their office location

from the main concourse of school activity. The other 4 principals in the study had office

locations more closely connected with wider school community interaction.

The nature of the principalship activity engaged in during each reported time interval,

expressed as percentages of the total observational time, is summarized in Table 7.

119
 Table 7: Type-of-Activity Detail from Principalship Observation

SCHOOL (% TIME)
ACTIVITY
1 2 3 4 5 Ave %
Personal Admin 24 19 25 35 50 31
Telephone Use 10 6 4 12 10 8
Planned Meeting 43 45 26 21 3 27
Informal Meeting 14 18 19 13 25 18
(Unplanned)
Staff Matter 0 0 0 0 0 0
Student Matter 1 0 0 1 0 1
Enrolment Process 4 0 2 10 0 3
Parent Matter 0 5 2 0 0 2
Yard Duty 0 3 0 2 6 2
Personal Space 4 4 5 6 6 5
Other 0 0 17 0 0 3
Total (%) 100 100 100 100 100 100
Total (minutes) 564 595 776 678 555 3168

The aggregate of the personal administration time and telephone usage, where the principal

was alone, represented an average 39% of principalship activity time. The total minutes per

day for the observed activities exceeded the time indicated in the location data summarized in

Table 6 by 258 minutes. This occurrence resulted from some activities counted twice, where

the activity fitted more than one category. For example, a planned enrolment meeting was

counted also as a planned parent matter. The personal space category included any

refreshment, lunch, or personal hygiene matters. From the data it was evident that an average

of 84% of principalship activity comprised personal administration, telephone use, or planned

and unplanned meetings. In the case of Principal 3 there was an anomalous 17% of time

comprising other activities. This included travel time to a second campus and classroom

teaching, neither of which were activity features for the other four principal observations.

The observed principalship interactions with various people are summarized in Table 8, with

interactive times expressed as a percentage of the total time observed.

120
 Table 8: Type of Person Interaction from Principalship Observation

Type of Person Interaction (% Time)

School No Admin Teaching School Total Total
Interaction Staff Staff Students Parents Outsider Other (%) (mins)

1 28 9 42 7 4 8 2 100 564
2 16 10 20 9 26 18 1 100 634
3 35 15 12 18 18 2 0 100 736
4 35 10 19 8 13 10 5 100 630
5 49 15 23 6 0 5 2 100 546
ave % 32 12 22 10 13 9 2 100 3110 mins

Similar to the data for the type of activity, some person interactions involved people from

more than one category. Hence, the total of 3110 minutes of person interaction exceeded the

2910 minutes of the location time recorded. Of interest was the classification, no interaction,

which was recorded when the principal worked alone. Nearly 1/3 of the principals’ daily

practices, in this observational study, involved no direct or indirect involvement of other

people with the principal.

Further to the time specific focus of the observational task denoting location, type of activity,

and people interaction, the detail in Table 9 summarizes the length of each interaction that

was observed. The relevance of this to the principalship arises because of the often reported

brevity and frequency of principalship interactions.

Table 9: Length of Interactions in One-Day Principal Observations

Number of Length of Interaction (%) Ave Freq of Average Length

School Interactions Interaction of Interaction
< 5 mins 5-10 mins 11-20 mins > 20 mins Per Hour
1 85 64 16 15 5 9/hr 6.6 mins
2 81 60 24 9 7 8/hr 7.5 mins
3 64 39 33 16 12 6/hr 10 mins
4 106 70 17 8 5 10/hr 6 mins
5 84 56 28 11 5 9/hr 6.5 mins
Total 420 58% 24% 12% 7% 8/hr 7.3 mins
Ave 84/day ave

121
3.2.2 Journal Data

The five principals in this study were required to keep a five day journal of consecutive days

of principalship practice. The total time of the journal record keeping activities was 289

hours, made up as follows:

Table 10: Journal Time

School 1 2 3 4 5 Total

Hours 61 59 63 53 53.4 289.4

Journalised

The daily average time of the journal keeping records was 11.5 hours. From the five journal

records the detail in Tables 11, 12 and 13 summarizes the principalship practice for the three

domains of interest. Time allocations are expressed as whole number percentages of the total

time indicated.

Table 11 – Location Data from Principals’ Journal Records

Location (% Time)
Principal’s School Staff Class School Other Off Total Total
School Office Admin Room Room Yard Office Campus (%) Time
Area Area Area (mins)
1 51 3 5 8 9 15 9 100 3,660
2 37 6 18 6 6 6 21 100 3,560
3 43 4 6 14 10 1 22 100 3,762
4 59 0 9 7 8 1 16 100 3,177
5 54 17 11 3 9 0 6 100 3,205
Total 49 6 10 8 8 4 15 100 17,364
ave (%)

From Table 11 the average percentage time spent by the principal in the school administration

area, comprising the principal’ office, school administration and staff room areas was 65%.

Where off-campus time allocations were recorded, these included any time allocation for

school work at home. For comparison with the observational study, the average 15% off-

campus activity in Table 11, comprising mainly personal administration at home, was added

122
to the average 49% work time in the principals’ school office, to total 64%. The observed

allocation of time spent in the principal’s office averaged 59%.

Table 12: Type of Principalship Activity From Journal Records

NATURE OF PRINCIPALSHIP SCHOOL
ACTIVITY (% TIME) 1 2 3 4 5 AVE
Personal Admin 27 29 34 47 36 35
Telephone Use 2 2 5 3 5 3
Planned Meeting 48 47 38 34 37 41
Informal Meeting 9 4 8 3 13 7
Staff Matter 4 3 2 3 1 3
Student Matter 5 4 2 1 1 3
Enrolment Process 2 2 11 0 4 4
Parent Matter 0 0 0 0 0 0
Yard Duty 2 3 0 5 1 2
Personal Space 1 3 0 4 2 2
Other 0 3 0 0 0 0
Total (%) 100 100 100 100 100 100
Total Time (Mins) 3,761 3,390 3,695 3,229 3,761 17,836

As noted for the observational data, some types of principalship activity involved more than

one category, hence the variation in the total minutes of 17,723 allocated to type of activity,

compared with the 17,364 for locational time.

The third aspect of principalship practice, for which data was collected, was the classification

of the various people groups with whom the principal interacted during the recording period.

These data are summarized in Table 13.

Table 13: Type-of-Person Interaction From the Principals’ Journal Records

TYPE OF SCHOOL (% TIME) AVE

PERSON 1 2 3 4 5 TIME (%)
Other Persons 21 20 27 47 26 28
Admin Staff 35 19 9 10 33 21
Grounds Staff 0 0 1 0 0 0
Teaching Staff 13 16 13 17 11 14
Students 7 10 19 9 12 12
Parents 6 25 17 3 18 14
School 18 10 14 13 0 11
Outsider
Other 0 0 0 1 0 0
Total 100 100 100 100 100 100

123
The distribution of type-of-person interaction comprised 28% personal administration, 21%

interaction with administrative staff, and then an average allocation of approximately 13% of

principalship practice time to the three other major school stakeholders, namely teachers,

students and parents. The significantly higher, and apparently disproportionate 47% of time

for principal 4 with other persons, can be explained in terms of the geographic remoteness of

the principal’s office location and the resulting accessibility of the principal to other school

personnel.

Details from the journal keeping records, in Tables 11, 12 and 13, are further summarized in

Table 14 to record the frequency and length of each principalship activity.

Table 14: Interactional Analysis From Principals’ Journal Records

SCHOOL
1 2 3 4 5 Ave
No. of Interactions/Day
1 30 16 26 27 37 27
2 27 18 39 10 18 22
3 25 15 41 32 14 25
4 23 16 24 28 16 22
5 21 19 20 18 11 18
Total 126 84 150 115 96 114

Length of Interactions (%)

< 5 minutes 12 0 12 8 2 7
5-10 minutes 24 11 34 24 26 24
11-20 minutes 24 15 17 29 26 22
> 20 minutes 40 74 37 39 46 47
Total (%) 100 100 100 100 100 100

Ave Frequency of Interactions 2.1 1.4 2.5 2.2 1.8 2

Per Hour

Ave Length of Interaction (mins) 29 42 25 28 33 31

The results recorded in Table 14 show significant variations to the observational record. The

average daily interactions which were observed totalled 84, compared to an average of 23

recorded in the principals’ journal records. From five days of observation, 420 principalship

124
interactions were noted, whereas the 25 days of journal records contained a total of 571

principalship interactions. This discrepancy could be regarded as the result of the following

factors:

1. The principals were recording activities in blocks of time, without necessarily giving
regard to distinct but subsumed interactions. It appeared evident that aggregate
recordings occurred as distinct from the more detailed separation of event
descriptions, made possible by observation.

2. The greater awareness to detail which was possible for an observer compared to a
participant when recording activities.

3. The low level of attention to detail by the research subjects in their journal records.
When principalship activities were observed, some 58% were of less than 5 minutes
duration, while the journal records contained only 7% of principal activity of less than
five minutes duration.

From the journal data the relative frequencies of the satisfaction level that principals recorded

against each interaction, with regard to the length of the activity, are summarized in Table 15.

Table 15: Activity Analysis and Satisfaction Ratings From Principals’ Journal Records

TOTAL NO. OF
SCHOOL ACTIVITIES SATISFACTION INDICATOR FREQUENCY (%)
Low Moderate Good High Total (Ave)

1 126 4 59 33 4 100
2 84 1 12 43 44 100
3 150 2 51 46 1 100
4 115 0 41 59 0 100
5 96 3 19 56 22 100
Total 571 2 39 47 12 100

As many as 98% of the journalized principalship activities received a satisfaction assessment

of moderate or better, including a rating of 59% of the journalized principalship activities at

satisfaction levels of good or high. Table 16 provides a detailed analysis of the proportion of

the principals’ time that received various satisfaction ratings.

125
 Table 16: Satisfaction and Proportion of Time Recorded in Principals’ Journal
Records

SCHOOL TOTAL TIME SATISFACTION INDICATOR FREQUENCY TOTAL

(MINS) (%) (AVE)
Low Moderate Good High 100

1 3660 1 43 48 8 100
2 3560 1 6 49 44 100
3 3762 1 38 58 3 100
4 3177 0 44 56 0 100
5 3205 1 12 68 19 100
Total 17,364 1 29 56 14 100

It is evident that of the actual time engaged by the respective principals in principalship

practice, 70% of the time received a satisfaction rating of good or high, with 99% a moderate

to high satisfaction rating. The variance in the satisfaction rating given in the high category

by principals 2 and 5, as distinct from principals 1,3 and 4, could be attributed to the

personality differences between the principals. Principals 2 and 5 were noticeably gregarious,

outgoing people-persons, whose general personality was distinctively positive.

3.2.3 Interview Data

The purpose of the interview approach to the analysis of principalship practice, was to go

beyond merely statistical data and engage more personal, subjective understandings. As a

phenomenological study the principalship involves experience within which the principal

makes sense of their practice. The value of an interview method to explore and expose the

experience of the practice of the principalship, from the subjective perspective of the

principal, is self-evident and substantive.

Six questions were used in the interview methodology to probe the practice of the

principalship in an open-ended fashion. The interview setting provided seamless access to

data comprising the five principals’ perceptions of the practice of the principalship. The

range of responses to the 6 interview questions are detailed as follows:-

126
Question 1: What was it about the Principalship that attracted your interest in making
application for your present position?

Responses included:

• I really don’t know why I applied for this position other than I saw the advertisement
and something leapt within me and I felt I should apply … I think it was just God
prompting me to apply.
• I thought I could do the job … I thought I wanted to do the job.
• I wanted to have a go at it.
• I was invited to apply, I saw that was the Lord’s leading.
• Rather than making application, I was approached.
• It wasn’t something that I sought, but I did see it as a door that God was opening, and
I wanted to be obedient.

Question 2: To what extent does your practice of the Principalship equate to your
perceptions of the Principalship?

Responses included:

• I had no intention of becoming the principal, but in two years I was.

• The job is much as I expected.
• I expected parents to seek my advice … not many do that.
• Totally different.
• I thought I’d be making big decisions about buildings, and appointments of staff and
so on .. big picture stuff, and that was in a sense what I thought the job would be
about. But the vocation is vastly different.
• I find that I spend a lot of time on management of details, perhaps more than being out
in front exploring new territory and showing the way.
• It’s difficult to get around to planning as much as I would like.
• In truth I have found it very, very challenging.

Question 3: How would you like your current practices to change in order to better
equate to your idea of the Principalship?

Responses included:

• I do a lot of administrative work … I get way-laid in paper warfare.

• Being more proactive, seeing a problem and going to do something abut it … getting
in front of things.
• Being a bit more people orientated than staff orientated.
• I’m happy with how it is.
• I think the job changes as the length of your time increases.
• Its amazing the amount of trivial paperwork that soaks up your time.
• The more I’m in the role, the more difficult it gets to adequately deal with the
immense amount of paper work.

127
Question 4: What advice would you give to any person seeking Principalship?

Responses included:

• Have a good team around you.

• Make sure that you have good personal assistant support.
• Listen to others.
• Be sure you are called to it.
• Don’t expect to win every battle.
• Don’t be discouraged about the outcomes that appear with students.
• Don’t neglect your own family, especially your spouse.
• Don’t be task orientated as the dominant thought, relationships are too important.
• Always remember that you (as the principal) have the big picture for the school.
When people are talking to you remember they’ve got the small picture and are
providing you with another part of the big picture.
• Know when your season is finished. Don’t stay on a year too long.
• Without any question there must be a call.
• What is their motivation? If their motivation is for status and money and being the top
dog, I’d say forget it, because it’s just lots of hard work.
• Make sure you want to lead, you want to make that contribution.
• Make sure you want to make a difference.
• There is not as much glory in it as many think.
• Don’t.

Question 5: Quite often the Principalship has been described in the literature in terms
of metaphors, word pictures, that might capture something of the diversity, or essence of
the Principalship. What are some of the metaphors that come to your mind, that you
would use to describe or characterize the Principalship.

Responses included:
• Mother, parent.
• Shepherd.
• Someone holding the light by which others walk and follow.
• A football coach.
• The conductor of an orchestra.
• Yacht captain or skipper.
• A scholar.
• A father, a shepherd.
• A dam, a sieve, a pit-crew and a coach.

Question 6: If you knew in your early years, that you were to become a Principal, what
experiences, skills and areas of interest would you have cultivated, because you know of
the relevance for you as a Principal?

Responses included:
• Doing a leadership training course.
• Completing an acting principal role … before thrown in the deep end.

128
 • How to run an Enterprise Agreement, I wish I had more skill in this area.
• I would have observed how people delegate more.
• I would have watched more closely people who are good speakers.
• Negotiation skills.
• A greater amount of study about Christian Education.
• More Biblical studies and how to write a Christian curriculum.

The practice of the principalship was found by four of the five principals to be at considerable

variance to their pre-appointment perceptions of principalship practice. Where this variance

was described as insignificant, there was still a level of deviation from the expectations of the

perceived role of the principal. In one instance, the deviation in the practice of the

principalship consisted in a lack of parental consultation with the principal regarding

decisions concerning students’ educational outcomes.

The principal who reported the least deviation in their perceptions of the principalship and

their ultimate practice, reported the benefit of some mentoring as principalship preparation.

The role of mentoring prior to appointment to the principalship allowed perceptions to be

more readily harmonized with eventual practice. Amongst the reported discontinuities

between the perceived and actual practices of the principalship were:

• a level of surprise at the range of unexpected issues.

• a greater challenge than expected.
• a higher level of responsibility.
• the difficulty of building on a predecessors’ principalship.
• the challenge of dealing with staff attitudes and expectations.
• the paperwork and administrative overload.

Further to these, the expected pastoral and nurturing role of staff, and the public leadership

role, were both overtaken by the management detail which prevented principalship practice

from engaging effectively with vision and planning.

For prospective principals seeking the role, the advice given by two of the principals was a

clear negative, while the other three recommended to proceed with caution. The two negative

responses were not flippant, but could have been off-hand. Both of these principals reported

129
good satisfaction levels with principalship practice in the journal data. One had a good to

high satisfaction level for 37% of principalship interactions and 56% of principalship time.

The other reported a result of 78% and 87% respectively. These two principals both

enunciated the need for maturity and experience as pre-requisites for the principalship.

The cautionary advice from three principals centred on ensuring that principal aspirants had a

sense of calling and vocation underpinning a principalship appointment. In addition, a good

support team was essential and a consultative and collegiate leadership approach

recommended. They pointed out that not every battle could be won, nor would every

outcome be favourable or work out as planned. Resilience to discouragement must be high,

and while the desire to make a difference should be present, the focus of principalship

practice should not be task orientated.

The final interview question invited the principals to consider the skills, knowledge or

experience that they considered, in hindsight, to be desirable to acquire earlier in life as a

preparation for the principalship. Each reported skills in the area of counselling to be

beneficial. Beyond this, there was the sense that a greater knowledge and grounding in

pedagogical understanding would be valuable, to provide an enhanced capacity to envision

and articulate the aims and ethos of the school and its curriculum. At the personal level, a

supportive network for accountability was considered to be advantageous, and a less

independent operational environment for the practice of the principalship.

3.3 ANALYSIS OF DATA ON PRINCIPALSHIP PRACTICES

3.3.1 INTRODUCTION

Five principals participated in the observation, journal record-keeping and interview tasks

which enabled an analysis of their practice to be recorded to determine the features of the

practical outworking of the principalship. Against the benchmark of the resulting data on

130
principalship practices, the prescriptions of section one in the portfolio and the perceptions of

section three can then be compared, contrasted, and to whatever extent possible, harmonized

in the portfolio’s conclusion.

3.3.2 General Aspects

During the observation and record-keeping periods within this study, the overall average

duration of the principals’ day was 11.3 hours. There were, however, considerable

differences recorded between the observational data and the journal record-keeping data

displayed in Table 17.

Table 17: Hours Worked by Principals from Observation and Journal Records
PRINCIPAL’S LENGTH OF DAY (HOURS)
PRINCIPAL 1 2 3 4 5
Data Source Observ Journ Observ Journ Observ Journ Observ Journ Observ Journ
Daily Ave 9.0 12.2 9.5 11.9 10.9 12.5 10 10.6 9.1 10.7
Hours
Combined Ave* 11.7 11.5 12.3 10.5 10.4

*The average is weighted to reflect the 5 days of journal records and one day of observation.

The average calculation was highlighted because it was based on the total hours over which

the data was gathered from the various sources, not the average of the different sources of

data. From Table 17 the following ranges and averages were identified:

Observational Range = 9.0 to 10.9 hrs/day = 1.9 hrs

Observational Average = 9.7 hrs/day
Journal Range = 10.6 to 12.5 hrs/day = 1.9 hrs
Journal average = 11.6 hrs/day

The approximately 20% variance in the observational and journal averages was due, it is

suggested, to the different approaches used in each case for collecting data. The higher daily

average that occurred with the self-analysis may be indicative of the Hawthorne Effect

(Cohen & Manion, 1994). This effect referred to the occurrence whereby research subjects

changed behaviour that was a focus of study. A consistency of 1.9 hours in the range of the

daily totals for both the observation and journal averages occurred.

131
Another general feature of the principalship was the number of daily principalship

interactions and engagements. Table 18 summarizes the record of the interactions from the

different sources that are used to collect the data during the period of the study.

Table 18 – Principalship Daily Interactions Summary

PRINCIPALSHIP INTERACTIONS
PRINCIPAL (AVE. NO/DAY) TOTAL DAILY
1 2 3 4 5 AVE
Journal 25 17 30 23 19 591 23
Observation 85 81 64 106 84 420 84
Overall 35 28 36 37 30 991 33

A total of 991 principalship interactions were reported. However, there was a significant

disparity between the number of interactions reported from the self-analysis and that of

observation. Across the 25 days of journal keeping by the 5 principals, some 571

principalship interactions were reported, with a daily average of 23 interactions. From the 5

days of observation, 420 principalship interactions occurred at an average of 84/day. The

combined average number of daily interactions was 33. Based on these data the following

features of daily principalship interactions were summarized in Table 19.

Table 19 – Aggregate Principalship Daily Interaction Analysis

TOTAL DAILY TOTAL AVE LENGTH

SOURCE INTERACTIONS AVERAGE DURATION OF INTERACTION
RECORDED (MINS) (MINS)
Journal Record 571 23 17,340 30
Observation Record 420 84 2,940 7
Combined Record 991 33 20,280 20

Observational data yielded a higher frequency of recorded principalship interactions per day

than the journal data because the detached, non-involved, and objective perspective of the

observer to the principal’s routine allowed for greater specification. In the observer position a

more detailed and dissected reporting of events and interactions was possible. The daily

average number of interactions of 84 from the observational records, yielded an average

132
length of 7 minutes for each interaction, in keeping with previous studies which reported the

heightened activity of the principalship (Thomas, 2000; Sergiovanni, 2001; Dubin, 1991).

Occurring within the observational data for schools 3 and 4 was an interesting feature for

principalship study. The geographical setting of the principal’s office seemed to significantly

affect the two principalship practices. As the same researcher observed the activities of both

principals 3 and 4, a high level of confidence existed as to the accuracy and validity of the

recorded data. For these locations, principal 3 was observed to engage in 64 clearly distinct

interactions and principal 4, in 106 interactions. These recordings represented the lowest and

highest number of daily principalship interactions observed. Both principals had a similar

demeanor, mode of operation, and level of school engagement. The key difference between

these principalship practices appeared to be the geographical location of the principal’s office.

In school 3, the principal’s office was geographically removed from the staff area and general

concourse of the school administration. It was therefore not conveniently accessible to other

school participants, or within the normal spatial environment of school routines. Principal 4,

in contrast, operated from an office location that had proximity to the school administration

and staff areas. The 106 interactions observed for Principal 4 reflected the ease with which

members of the school community could access the principal, and the fact that the routine of

other school personnel brought them readily into individual contact with the principal.

The other 3 principals in the study, operated from office areas that were positioned in the

locality of the respective school administration function, but somewhat removed from the

staff locations. For these principals the number of observed interactions were consistent

across the three schools, and the resulting average of 83 interactions, compatible with the 84

average recorded in the overall study.

133
While the purpose of this study was not to investigate the factors that might impinge on the

practice of the principalship, the geographical setting of the principalship appeared to have a

bearing on principalship practices. Consistent with this observation, were the data derived

from the locational analysis. For principals 3 and 4, whose geographic settings were at the

extremes, in terms of proximity and accessibility to other school personnel and functions, the

data suggested a relationship between the principal’s office location and setting, and

principalship practices. Principal 3, whose office setting was more remote, spent half the

equivalent time, 34% compared to 69%, in his office than did principal 4. Principal 3 spent

double the equivalent time, 50% compared to 25% for principal 4, in areas frequented by

other school users. Whether this was a conscious practice by these two principals in response

to the respective differing geographic locations of their office area, was not explored in this

study. However, from observation, a prima facie association was suggested.

The effect of the geographical setting of the principalship on the practice of the principalship

is worthy of further study. Certainly, for school design and facility planning, the physical

location of the principal’s office must address the sometimes competing and conflicting

realities of proximity and remoteness, privacy and accessibility, detachment and engagement.

The type of desired practice for a school principal, in a given location, could well be

significantly influenced by the locational setting of the principals’ office. While the

connection between the locational impact of the principal’s office on the principalship was

noted, the purpose of this study was to analyze the actual practice of the principal in which the

locational aspects of the role were considered. The following sub-section presents the results

of this analysis.

3.3.3 Locational Aspects

In the journal and observational records of the practice of the principalship the places where

principal interactions or events occurred were logged. Eight categories were designated to

134
define the locational aspects of what occurred. Making use of these eight categories, the

percentage of the time spent by each principal in a particular location, is recorded in Table 20.

Table 20: Principals’ Journal Data – Location Analysis

LOCATION (% TIME SPENT)

PRINCIPAL’S SCHOOL OTHER STAFF CLASS SCHOOL OUT OF OTHER
SCHOOL DAY OFFICE ADMIN OFFICES ROOM ROOM YARD SCHOOL
AREA
1 67 12 8 3 5 5 0 0
2 63 0 7 5 13 12 0 0
1
3 39 0 12 2 0 0 47 0
4 39 1 46 6 8 0 0 0
5 49 2 0 7 11 31 0 0

1 27 4 0 22 25 3 19 0
2 39 6 7 18 10 11 9 0
2
3 36 11 7 6 0 10 30 0
4 34 3 0 39 3 2 19 0
5 48 2 14 4 0 4 28 0

1 23 0 1 3 31 4 35 3
2 47 5 4 7 14 8 0 15
3
3 50 7 0 7 5 16 0 15
4 30 7 0 10 16 12 0 25
5 75 4 0 5 0 5 0 11

1 81 0 0 13 0 6 0 0
2 23 0 1 14 11 0 39 12
4
3 61 0 0 6 10 0 6 17
4 70 0 2 3 7 18 0 0
5 69 0 0 6 6 19 0 0

1 72 7 0 7 0 5 0 9
2 24 54 0 7 0 5 0 10
5
3 60 11 0 5 0 18 0 6
4 50 0 0 26 10 14 0 0
5 81 0 0 8 6 5 0 0

From Table 20 an aggregated summary of the time spent by each principal in the eight

designated school areas is displayed in Table 21.

135
 Table 21: Location Analysis Summary – Principals’ Journal Data

LOCATION (% TIME SPENT)

School Principal’s School Other Staff Class School Out of Other Total
Office Admin Offices Room Room Yard School (%)
Area
1 51 3 15 5 8 9 9 0 100
2 37 6 6 18 6 6 21 0 100
3 43 4 1 6 14 10 8 14 100
4 59 0 1 9 7 8 10 6 100
5 54 17 0 11 3 9 0 6 100
Total 49 6 4 10 8 8 10 5 100
(ave)

The allocation in the “other” category in Table 21 was a classification of principal activity

distinct from the off-campus detail in Table 11, to allow for the aggregation of data with the

observation records. The off-campus activities involving school work at home, were

separated into the “other” column to facilitate the aggregation.

The observation data for the location aspect of principal practice, recorded over one day of

observation for each principal, is summarized in Table 22.

Table 22: Location Analysis Summary – Principalship Observation Data

LOCATION (% TIME SPENT)

School Principal’s School Other Staff Class School Out of Other Total
Office Admin Offices Room Room Yard School
Area
1 73 9 0 2 1 4 0 11 100
2 47 15 1 26 0 8 3 1 100
3 34 3 6 23 13 14 7 0 100
4 69 2 0 15 5 5 0 4 100
5 74 4 1 12 3 6 0 0 100
Total 59 6 2 16 5 7 2 3 100
(ave)

Principalship practice in Schools 2 and 3 recorded significantly lower use of the principal’s

office area. Features of the principal’s office location and functionality in these cases could

explain this occurrence. Principal 3 had an office that was located some distance from other

school administration facilities, while principal 2 had a small office area. The geographic

setting of the principals’ office, in terms of proximity to other school functions, and the

136
general environment of the principals’ office were factors that affected the location of

principalship practice.

Table 23 summarizes the combined analysis of the journal and observation records for the

locational aspect of the principalship practice data. The average was weighted to represent 6

days of data for each principal, consisting of 5 days of journal and 1 day of observational

data.

Table 23 – Principalship Locational Analysis: Observation and Journal Summary

LOCATION (% TIME SPENT)

Principals’s School Other Staff Class School Out of Other Total
Source Office Admin Offices Room Room Yard School %
Area
Journal 49 6 4 10 8 8 10 5 100
Observation 59 6 2 16 5 7 2 3 100
Total (ave) 51 6 3 11 7 8 9 5 100

Self-analysis and observation data indicated that the primary location for the practice of the

principalship was the designated principal’s office. An overall average 51% of the principal’s

practice took place in this location. However, underpinning this average were significant

daily variations for each principal and variations among principals. The daily variations

ranged from a low of 23% of time spent in the principal’s office, to a high of 81%. The most

frequent spread of time for practice located in the principal’s office was from 25% to 50%.

Almost half (47%) of the time recorded fell within this time range. Among the five principals

in the study, the use made of their own office area ranged from 37% to 61% of time under

self-analysis, and 34% to 74% under observation. These daily, and among principal

variations in the hours of practice located in the principals’ office, were due to the differing

demands arising from the activity of the principalship, and the differing administrative style

of the principal.

137
The principal’s office was part of the administrative hub of the school, which also comprised

the general administration area, associated offices for key administrative staff, and the staff

room. From the journal data in this study, the average time that principals spent located in the

administrative hub of the school, so defined, was 71%. This increased to approximately 78%

when a proportional adjustment was made to discount for the average 9% of time spent away

from the school. The observational data recorded an average 83% of unadjusted time spent

by the five principals in the general location of the school administration area. These data

indicate that a substantial component of principalship practice was located in the

administrative area of the school, as the locus of the life-world of the principal. The

following sub-section provided details concerning the type of activities undertaken by the

principal in the various locations of principalship practice.

3.3.4 Type of Activity Aspects

An issue, besides that of the location of the principal’ practice, was the nature of those

practices. Similar to the previous data that was used to analyze the location of principals’

activities, the data for considering the type of activities undertaken came from journal and

observation records. One challenge in this task was to determine what level of detail was

appropriate and adequate, to give evidence of the type of activities that comprised the

practices of the principalship. Various levels of detail could be investigated. Personal

administration, for example, could be dissected to the level of writing a letter, and then further

to identifying the content and intent of the letter. For the purposes of this study, dissection to

this level of detail, was not the intention. The activities that comprised the practice of the

principalship were considered at a broader level of classification. Further research could

provide the underlying detail to the classifications used in this study, but to do so would

require a higher level of involvement from the principal to accommodate the intrusiveness

that would be required to access more detail.

138
The classifications that were used to establish a taxonomy of principalship practice in this

section comprised, personal administration, telephone use, planned meetings, informal

meetings, staff matters, student matters, enrolment interviews, public relations, student

discipline, yard duty, parent meetings, personal space and other. Personal administration

described the range of administrative tasks initiated by the principal at their discretion and

often undertaken without the direct involvement of others. A particular principalship activity

could, however, result in a classification in more than one of the designated categories. For

example, a planned meeting for an enrolment assessment, or an informal meeting on a staff

matter. Personal space included bathroom use and lunch breaks, while the “other” category

predominantly encompassed travel time. With these explanatory points in mind, the data on

principalship activity are presented in Table 24.

Table 24: Principalship Type-of-Activity Analysis

SCHOOL (% TIME ALLOCATED)

ACTIVITY 1 2 3 4 5
Obs Journ Obs Journ Obs Journ Obs Journ Obs Journ
Personal 24 27 19 28 25 34 35 47 50 36
Admin
Telephone 10 2 6 2 4 5 12 3 10 5
Use
Planned 43 48 45 50 26 38 21 34 3 37
Meeting
Informal 14 9 18 4 19 8 13 3 25 13
Meeting
Staff 0 4 0 3 0 2 0 3 0 1
Matter
Student 1 5 0 3 0 2 1 1 0 1
Matter
Enrolment 4 2 0 2 2 11 10 0 0 4
Interview
Personal 4 1 4 3 5 0 6 4 6 2
Space
Student 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Discipline
Parent 0 0 5 0 2 0 0 0 0 0
Meeting
Yard Duty 0 2 3 2 0 0 2 5 6 1
Public 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0
Relations
Other 0 0 0 1 17 0 0 0 0 0
Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

139
When the data in Table 24 was aggregated to give a combined result for each school, the

summary in Table 25 resulted.

Table 25: Principalship Type-of-Activity Summary

DATA SOURCE (% TIME ALLOCATED)

ACTIVITY OBSERVATION JOURNAL COMBINED
AVERAGE AVERAGE (WEIGHTED AVE)
Personal Admin 31 35 34
Telephone Use 8 3 4
Planned Meeting 28 42 39
Informal Meeting 18 7 9
Staff Matter 0 3 2
Student Matter 0 2 2
Enrolment Interview 3 4 4
Personal Space 5 2 3
Student Discipline 0 0 0
Parent Meeting 2 0 0
Yard Duty 2 2 2
Public Relations 0 0 0
Other 3 0 1
Total 100 100 100

From the reported time allocated to the various principalship activities, there was a significant

correspondence between the observation and journal data. The grouping of related activities

into three main categories of principal practice further evidenced this correspondence, as

summarized in Table 26.

Table 26: Main Categories of Principalship Activity

SOURCE (% TIME SPENT) COMBINED

CATEGORY ACTIVITY GROUP OBSERVATION JOURNAL WEIGHTED
AVERAGE (%)
1 Personal Admin and
Telephone Use 39 38 38
2 Meeting Involvement 46 49 48
3 Total Administration 85 87 86

In Table 26 the Category (1) items represented administrative activity, where the principal

was alone. Telephone use did involve another party, but not in the location where the

140
principal was physically situated. From the reported data in this category, 38% of the

principal’s practice did not include the physical presence of other people.

Category (2) data in Table 26 represented principalship practice involving other people in

formal or informal meetings. The distinction between these types of meetings was

determined by whether they were pre-arranged, with an appointment time in the principal’s

work schedule. Informal or unplanned meetings were not allocated a specific appointment

time, but occurred out of, or in the flow of events, and as the circumstances of the principal’s

practice necessitated or allowed. From the journal and observational data in this study, 48%

of the principals’ practice involved meetings, with 81% of these meetings scheduled as

planned or structured. From the observational data the planned meeting format comprised

only 61% of the meeting activity. The lower rate could have occurred because the principals,

while under observation, avoided any planned structured meetings on the day that was to be

committed to the pre-arranged activity of research participation. In summary, the principals’

activity that was observed and journalized comprised an average 86% of principalship

practice (Category 3).

The location in which the principals’ meeting activities took place, was further considered.

Table 27 summarizes the proportion of meetings which occurred in the principals’ own office.

Table 27: Principals’ Meeting Activity in Own Office

% OF MEETINGS IN PRINCIPALS’ OFFICE

SCHOOL PLANNED MEETINGS UNPLANNED MEETINGS
Observation Journal Combined Observation Journal Combined
(Ave) (Ave)
1 59 37 40 68 35 41
2 52 20 24 16 28 23
3 11 2 3 19 35 29
4 64 57 58 48 56 53
5 100 35 36 69 42 50
Total (ave) 57 30 32 44 39 39

141
The combined averages in Table 27 were calculated relative to the actual overall observation

and journal time recorded, not merely the average of the observation and journal data. From

these data regarding the meetings, 32% of planned meeting time, and 39% of unplanned

meeting time, took place in the principals’ office. The low recorded use of the principals’

office area for meetings by principals (2) and (3) occurred because each office was not

conducive to the conduct of meetings.

For principal (3) the remoteness and isolation of the office, while ideal for privacy and

confidentiality, impinged on the transparency of the principal’s practice. The isolation of the

principal’s office from the main administrative concourse exposed potential accusations of

impropriety. The remoteness was also a barrier for other school participants to have informal

and incidental contact with the principal. The realization of these features of the office

location for principal (3) resulted in the principal making use of other venues for meetings,

and engaging in an increased proportion of time away from the principal’s office. The office

of principal (3) received the lowest use for planned meetings, recording a combined average

3% of planned meeting activity.

The second lowest use of the principal’s own office for planned meetings was reported by

Principal (2) at 24%. Principal (2) had an office area located in a relatively public part of the

school. This affected privacy and confidentiality, which had a deterrent effect on the use of

the principal’s office for planned meetings. The office in question was relatively small and

busy, which further acted as a disincentive for meeting use.

The nature of the principals’ meetings, whether planned or unplanned, are summarized in

Table 28.

142
 Table 28: Principals’ Meeting Characteristics Summary

TYPE OF SCHOOL (%) COMBINED

MEETING 1 2 3 4 5 AVE

Planned 41 58 43 41 41 45
Unplanned 59 42 57 59 59 55
Total 100 100 100 100 100 100

From the data summary in Table 28 it was evident that the overall balance between planned

and unplanned meetings favoured the latter. However, from a case-by-case assessment, all

but one of the principals, principal (2), operated under a meeting regime where approximately

60% of meetings were unplanned and 40% planned. The significance of this reflected the

fluid nature of school administration, and the spontaneity with which principalship practice

adapted to deal with this fluidity. Where this was not the case, as appeared for principal (2), it

may indicate a particular administrative style of principalship, or the presence of

organizational structures and routines which involved middle-management functions.

The administrative style of the principal determined what decision-making protocols and

procedures were in place. For the principal who preferred a more deliberative and consensus

approach, there was a necessary emphasis and reliance on structured meetings and planned

decision-making processes and occasions. The principal who operated with a more top-down

and directive administrative approach, tended to embrace unplanned opportunities from which

organizational decisions emerged.

A further characteristic of the meeting activity of the principal to be noted was the duration of

the meetings that occurred, whether planned or unplanned. Tables 29 and 30 detail the

proportional allocation of meetings to various designated time spans.

143
 Table 29: Principals’ Meetings Analysis – Planned Meetings

PLANNED MEETINGS – LENGTH OF MEETING (% FREQUENCY)

SCHOOL <5 mins 5-10 mins 11-20 mins > 20 mins TOTAL
Obs Journ Obs Journ Obs Journ Obs Journ
1 3 0 10 0 13 13 13 48 100
2 4 0 2 2 4 4 12 72 100
3 0 0 6 6 3 9 9 67 100
4 4 0 0 0 0 30 17 49 100
5 0 0 3 10 0 20 0 67 100
Ave 2 0 4 4 4 15 10 61 100

Table 30: Principals’ Meetings Analysis - Unplanned Meetings

UNPLANNED MEETINGS – LENGTH OF MEETING (% FREQUENCY)

SCHOOL <5 mins 5-10 mins 11-20 mins > 20 mins TOTAL
Obs Journ Obs Journ Obs Journ Obs Journ
1 48 2 9 18 5 0 0 18 100
2 66 0 13 3 6 0 0 12 100
3 22 2 19 31 5 2 5 14 100
4 58 0 3 21 9 6 0 3 100
5 34 0 18 9 7 18 0 14 100
Total 46 1 12 16 6 5 1 12 100

Variances in the observed and journalized activity of the principals are evident in the data

summaries reported in this study. An explanation for these variations, in part if not entirely,

was found in the acknowledgement that certain features of principalship practice did not occur

on the day of the observation. Beyond this source of data variation was the effect, peculiar to

observational studies, where the behaviour of the person observed was influenced by the

observational activity. The unplanned meeting activity reported in Table 30 appeared to

reflect this latter effect, particularly for meetings of less than five minutes duration.

From the summaries in Tables 29 and 30, which recorded the percentage frequency of the two

types of meetings, and the length of meetings, it was clear that planned meetings were longer

than unplanned meetings. It was expected that this would be the case because of the

deliberate structure of planned meetings, in contrast to the more spontaneous nature of

unplanned meetings, which most often arise in response to immediate needs and

144
circumstances. The distinction between the varying lengths of planned and unplanned

meetings is further emphasized in the aggregated data of Table 31.

Table 31: Principals’ Meetings Aggregated Observation and Journal Time Analysis

PLANNED MEETINGS (%) UNPLANNED MEETINGS (%)

SCHOOL < 20 mins > 20 mins < 20 mins > 20 mins
1 39 61 82 18
2 16 84 88 12
3 24 76 81 19
4 24 76 97 3
5 33 67 86 14
Average 29 71 87 13

Of the two types of meetings reported in Table 31, 71% of planned meetings lasted longer

than 20 minutes while 87% of unplanned meetings were less than, or equal to, 20 minutes in

length. Combining this information with the previously reported features of principalship

practice dealing with meeting activity, indicated that 48% of the principals’ time was spent in

meetings, of which 55% were unplanned, and 87% were less than 20 minutes in duration.

Since 86% of the principals’ practice involved personal administration, including telephone

calls and meetings (see Table 26, Category 3), there was only a small percentage of time for

other principalship practice which was distributed amongst staff, students, and enrolment

matters. Of interest from the data in this study was the zero proportion of time allocated to

student discipline, parent meetings, and public relations. All five principals reported no

allocation of time to student discipline, or parent matters, over the five days of the self-

analysis period.

3.3.5 Type of Person Interaction

The reporting of the various interactions for each principal included details of the type of

people who were involved in the interaction that occurred. A classification of the people

145
groups engaged by the principals’ practice and the proportion of time engaged in interaction

with the principal is recorded in Table 32.

Table 32: Type of People Interaction With Principal

SCHOOL (% TIME)

TYPE OF 1 2 3 4 5 TOTAL
PERSON (AVE)
Obs J Obs J Obs J Obs J Obs J Obs J
No Other Person 28 21 16 20 35 27 35 47 49 26 33 28
Admin Staff 9 35 10 19 15 9 10 10 15 33 12 21
Grounds Staff 2 0 1 0 0 1 5 0 0 0 1 0
Teaching Staff 42 13 20 16 12 13 19 17 23 11 23 14
Students 7 7 9 10 18 19 8 9 6 12 10 12
Parents 4 6 26 25 18 17 13 3 0 18 12 14
School Outsider 8 18 18 10 2 14 10 13 5 0 9 11
Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0
Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

A further synthesis of the data in Table 32, using a weighted average to combine the five-day

journal records and the one day observation data, is displayed in Table 33.

Table 33: Type of People Interaction Aggregate Data (Rank Order)

TYPE OF SCHOOL (% TIME) COMBINED

PERSON 1 2 3 4 5 AVERAGE
No Other Person 22 19 28 45 30 29
Admin Staff 31 18 10 10 30 20
Teaching Staff 18 17 13 17 13 16
Parents 6 25 17 5 15 14
Students 7 10 19 9 11 11
School Outsider 16 11 12 12 1 10
Grounds Staff 0 0 1 1 0 0
Other 0 0 0 1 0 0
Total 100 100 100 100 100 100

From Table 33, the data indicated that the principals recorded no interaction with other people

for 29% of the principalship practice recorded. The remaining 71% of the principals’ time,

involved interaction with different groups of people, with the relative frequencies of these

group interactions, ranked from largest to smallest, recorded in Table 33. The principals’

most frequent interaction was with those involved in the administration function of the school,

146
which accounted for 20% of principals’ interactions. Such an outcome was not entirely

unexpected as a feature of the interactions that occurred as a result of the practice of the

principalship. Further time distribution, which had a group average of 14%, located the

parent interaction at the mean, administration staff and outsiders at the extremes, and student

and staff interactions in between. The principals’ role, as the chief executive officer of the

school, suggested that this pattern represented a relatively balanced distribution. The

principal was after all expected to deal with the cross section of interest groups represented

within a school community. The 29% of time, where no interaction with other people was

recorded, reflected the requirement of the principal to deal with a significant proportion of

school matters personally and individually, and accounted for the isolation that was

commonly reported as part of the principalship role (Beavis & Bowman, 2000; Bowman,

1991; Dwyer, Lee, Barnett, Filby & Rowan, 1985).

Some of the data provided on the various type-of-person interactions, revealed differences

with the data given for the type-of-activity comprising principalship practice. For example,

the percentage figures for parent, student and teaching staff type-of-person interactions were

much higher than those recorded for parent, student or teaching staff principalship type-of-

activity. Staff and student matters each accounted for only 2% of the total time reported by

the principal when recording various activities, yet staff and student interactions were given

16% and 11% respectively when recording type-of-person interactions. The discrepancy that

was evident warranted investigation to ensure the credibility of the data. Upon checking the

principal observational and journal records, each set of principalship type-of-person and

principalship type-of-activity data was validated.

The individual sets of data represented a comparison of how the principals’ time was

allocated, within a defined set of parameters, and relative to the alternative categories

147
considered. The 2% of time spent on student matters was estimated relative to the other types

of activities that engaged the principals’ time, while the 11% student interaction was gauged

relative to the other interactions for the principal. The apparent anomaly between 2% of

activity time as student focused, and yet 11% of people contact as student contact, was

resolved when it was understood that for the principal, while an activity was not

predetermined as student focused, it brought the principal into student contact. An example

of this was yard duty. On yard duty the principal was able to initiate and respond to

engagement with students beyond merely supervising school yard activity. A similar

rationale applied to other people interactions that occurred for the principal.

It was observed that when the principal pursued activity beyond the school office area, the

principal was more accessible to other school personnel. As a result various impromptu

interactions occurred. The unstructured presence of the principal, in the flow of school life,

gave opportunity for various and numerous interactions with representatives across the

spectrum of school community participants. The principal’s physical presence in a particular

school location was assumed, by such representatives, to indicate availability for interaction

and resulting discourse. Such contact, if limited to the requirement of an appointment with

the principal, in all likelihood would not have occurred. An example of this was evident in

the observation of principal 3. Principal 3 left the principal’s office to attend a parent-teacher

evening. In transit a meeting with the deputy principal occurred and an impromptu discussion

of a student matter ensued. Eight minutes elapsed, after which the assistant principal came

into the same location and joined the discussion. After a further eight minutes, the interaction

ended and the principal proceeded to an intended destination. During this discussion with the

principal an interesting exchange occurred. The principal, possibly for the observer’s benefit,

made a comment that the school day was unusually quiet. However, the deputy principal’s

perspective was that the school day had been chaotic. A further example of how the

148
principal’s presence created interaction opportunities was a simple task of a bathroom visit.

From the time of leaving the principal’s office to the return, an interval of 12 minutes, four

interactions took place with school personnel, in transit, all of an informal, incidental nature,

all prompted by the principal’s accessibility and proximity.

3.3.6 Levels of Satisfaction

Satisfaction was a relevant indicator to consider when studying the practice of the

principalship. Satisfaction equates with notions of fulfillment, effectiveness, success and

well-being. As such, the concept of satisfaction was a useful indicator of effective principal

practice, from the principal’s point of view. Principal satisfaction levels provided an insight

into how inputs and outcomes were connected, in the minds of the participating principals,

during the course of their practice. In this context, satisfaction was not related necessarily to

the ideal but the actual. Satisfaction was taken as an indicator of what the principal was able

to do, with what was available, and the extent to which the outcome met the desired plan or

need.

From the satisfaction ratings provided in the journal records, as detailed in Tables 15 and 16,

based on principalship activity and time allocation respectively, a principalship satisfaction

index (PSI) was calculated in Table 34. By applying a numerical scale, using the indices one

to four, and allocating them to the satisfaction levels low, moderate, good and high

respectively, a PSI for each principal was calculated as a weighted average out of 100. The

satisfaction index for the work practices undertaken by the principal was interpreted as

revealing the extent to which the practice met the personal standards or expectations of the

principal. The overall total PSI was the result of aggregating the combined principals’

activity based and time based satisfaction data.

149
 Table 34: Principal Satisfaction Indices (PSIs)
PRINCIPAL PSI
ACTIVITY BASED TIME BASED AVERAGE
1 2.37 2.63 2.5
2 3.30 3.16 3.23
3 2.46 2.63 2.55
4 2.59 2.56 2.58
5 2.97 3.06 3.02
Average PSI 2.74 2.81 2.78
Overall Total PSI 3.69 2.83 3.25

Representation of the PSI values from Table 34, in Figure 2, allowed for ease of comparison.

Figure 2 displays the average value for individual principals’ satisfaction ratings for time use

and activity type.

Figure 1: Principal Satisfaction Indices (Average)

Overall Total PSI 3.25

Principal 5 3.02

Principal 4 2.58

Principal 3 2.55

Principal 2 3.23

Principal 1 2.5

0 1 2 3 4
LOW MODERATE GOOD HIGH

Satisfaction Rating

The individual principals’ PSI ranged from 2.5 to 3.23 with an average of 2.78 on the 4 point

scale. Satisfaction levels for principalship practice, thus indicated, were in the range 63% to

81% of the possible satisfaction level, at an average of 70%. The indication was that the

150
principals in the study had a positive response to principalship practice at a personal level.

Collectively the principalship group had a satisfaction rating marginally above good, on the 4-

point scale, the description “good” was subjectively determined by each principal. Further

study could detail the qualities of principalship practice that give rise to a classification that a

principal would describe as good.

Of interest was the pattern of the PSIs into two identifiable groupings. Principals 1, 3 and 4

comprised group one, with an average group PSI of 2.54, or 64%, Principals 2 and 5,

comprised group two, with a group PSI of 3.13, or 78%. The two distinct groups, and the

difference in PSIs, were seen as reflecting the personality type of the principals involved, as

observed by the researcher. Those of group two were of a sanguine disposition, extrovert,

optimistic, gregarious, and people focussed rather than task focussed. This personality type

pre-disposed the principal to a positive perspective when assessing principalship practice.

The group one principals were of less extroverted and effusive personality type. Principals 1,

3 and 4 displayed a perspective of principalship practice that was less exuberant, and

indicated conservative or constrained satisfaction assessments. The 14% difference between

the group average satisfaction ratings was notable in drawing attention to the personality of

the principal as a factor of interest to the practice of the principalship.

From the satisfaction ratings in the principals’ journal records, a further correlation between

satisfaction levels and the duration of each interaction was possible. Table 35 records how

the satisfaction ratings were allocated, by the principals, to activities on the basis of the length

of the activity.

151
 Table 35: Length of Activity and Principalship Satisfaction Rates

SATISFACTION LENGTH OF ACTIVITY (MINUTES)

RATING
0-5 mins 6-10 mins 11-20 mins 21-30 mins > 30 mins
Low 6% 2% 2% 0% 1%
Moderate 60% 45% 45% 32% 26%
Good 30% 47% 41% 48% 60%
High 4% 6% 12% 21% 13%
Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

In Table 35 it is noteworthy that the shorter the principalship activity the increased frequency

that a low satisfaction rating is reported. Correspondingly, the longer the activity, the greater

proportion of such activities receive a higher satisfaction rating. For activities greater than 30

minutes in length, 73% receive a good to high satisfaction rating, while only 34% of activities

of 0-5 minutes duration, receive a good to high rating.

A diagram of the relationship between the principalship satisfaction level and the length of

activity, in the form of a Principal Satisfaction Quadrant Matrix, enabled the correlations of

satisfaction and activity duration to be displayed. The data in this matrix was calculated by

aggregating the data in Table 35 into four groupings. Quadrant one (lower left) data was the

aggregate average of the low and moderate satisfaction ratings for the 0-5 minute and 6-10

minute activity lengths (e.g. 6+2+60+45=113÷4=28%).

Figure 2: Principal Satisfaction Quadrant Matrix

High

22% 33%
Satisfaction

28% 17%
Low

Short Activity Duration Long

152
A further PSI value, displayed in Figure 3, was calculated using the satisfaction data based on

time duration data in table 35.

Figure 3: Principal Satisfaction Indices for Interaction Length PSIs

Interactive Length (Minutes)

0 to 5 2.3

6 to 10 2.59
11 to 20 2.63
21 to 30 2.92
>30
2.85

0 1 2 3 4
LOW MODERATE GOOD HIGH

Satisfaction Rating

From the PSI values in Figure 3, the lowest satisfaction rating, which occurs for the shortest

interaction interval from 0-5 minutes, received a moderate satisfaction rating. At 2.3 this PSI

indicated a 58% satisfaction level experienced by the principals. For the interaction interval

of 21-30 minutes, the PSI is 2.92, or 73% of the possible satisfaction range. There is a

gradual increase in principalship satisfaction as the duration of each interaction increases, up

to the 30 minute interval. From this point the satisfaction rating declines. The relevance of

this feature applies to the extent to which principalship interactions occur in the less than or

greater than 30 minute range.

A further analysis of the satisfaction data was possible by considering the proportion of each

of the satisfaction ratings recorded against the various activity length categories. Table 36

displays these data, which record, for example, that 48% of the satisfaction ratings that occur

153
at the good satisfaction level. Of these, 18% are for activities of greater than 30 minutes

duration.

Table 36: Principal Satisfaction and Proportion of Length of Interaction from

Principals’ Journal Records

% OF EACH PRINCIPALSHIP ACTIVITY RATING IN

SATISFACTION TIME LENGTH CATEGORIES AVE TIME
RATING 0-5 mins 6-10 mins 11-20 mins 21-30 mins > 30 mins (%)
Low 1 0 1 0 0 2
Moderate 10 7 10 5 7 39
Good 5 8 9 8 18 48
High 1 1 2 3 4 11
Total (%) 17 16 22 16 29 100%

The marked increase in the satisfaction rating with the increased time of the interaction, is

seen from the 18% recorded for the greater than 30 minute category, and indicates that the

length of activity is a greater influence for good satisfaction outcomes than for other

satisfaction categories.

From the principals’ journal data, 29% of the interactions are recorded as greater than 30

minutes, the highest proportion of interaction times (Table 36). However, in the observational

data (Table 9) only 7% of interactions are greater than 20 minutes, with 58% of interactions

less than 5 minutes. The discrepancy in the journal and observation data, at this point, is

explained as a feature of the recording process referred to previously.

The observational data, with a frequency of short interactions, should have implied a lower

overall satisfaction level for principalship practice. This is not the case when the satisfaction

ratings, which were only available from the journal records, are considered. The journal data

recorded a high level of overall satisfaction with principalship practice. The significance of

this higher level of principalship satisfaction was of particular interest when viewed against

the backdrop of several negative comments which were reported in the interview data of

principalship practice.

154
Further to the satisfaction correlation with the duration of principalship practice is the

correlation between satisfaction and type of activity. Two types of correlation were made in

this regard. Firstly, there were the data that revealed the satisfaction distribution across the

categories, high, good, moderate and low for each recorded activity type. Table 37 displayes

these data.

Table 37: Satisfaction Allocation According to Activity Type From Principal Journal
Data

ACTIVITY SATISFACTION RATING (%) TOTAL

TYPE HIGH GOOD MODERATE LOW %
Personal Admin 6 36 54 4 100
Planned Meetings 19 59 22 0 100
Informal Meetings 15 57 28 0 100
Telephone 4 48 44 4 100
Public Relations 33 33 34 0 100
Student Discipline 0 0 0 0 0
Enrolment 18 64 9 9 100
Student Matters 13 58 29 0 100
Yard Duty 36 21 43 0 100
Staff Matters 20 80 0 0 100

In the Table 37 data a significant pattern is evident where a satisfaction rating was available.

With one exception, all activities receive the majority of their satisfaction ratings in the good

to high category. The exception is personal administration, where 42% of the principalship

satisfaction rating is good to high. This is significant because personal administration

comprises the largest percentage of principalship practice, as detailed in Table 7. The 31% of

principals’ time engaged in personal administration represented nearly one third of

principalship practice, and this practice gave rise to satisfaction ratings at the lower levels.

When the group data were aggregated, in Table 38, it was evident that principal practice

produces higher satisfaction responses when the practice engages with other school members,

in either structured or unstructured activity.

155
Table 38: Aggregated Data for Principalship Satisfaction Rating According to Activity Type

SATISFACTION RATING (%)

AGGREGATED HIGH GOOD MODERATE LOW TOTAL
ACTIVITY TYPE %
Personal Admin
(incl. Telephone) 6 38 52 4 100
Meetings 18 58 24 0 100
All Other 20 52 25 3 100
Interactions

In Table 38, the personal administration activity records an above moderate satisfaction rating

for 96% of the principalship activity, which is similar for the other activity types. However,

for personal administration, the higher satisfaction categories are only recorded for 44% of

such activity, whereas other activities recorded in excess of 70% of the principals’ satisfaction

at the higher levels. Meeting type activities, according to these data, yield no negative

satisfaction rating and are heavily weighted towards the higher satisfaction outcomes for the

principalship.

The second correlation from the satisfaction data for principalship activity, considers the

allocation of activities to each of the high, good, moderate and low categories. Table 39

records the proportion of the satisfaction ratings that are related to each activity type.

Table 39: Satisfaction Allocation for Principalship Activities Within Each Satisfaction Category

ACTIVITY SATISFACTION RATING (%)

TYPE HIGH GOOD MODERATE LOW
Personal Admin 19 29 54 72
Planned Meetings 39 31 16 0
Informal Meetings 19 18 12 0
Telephone 3 9 11 19
Public Relations 1 0 0 0
Student Discipline 0 0 0 0
Enrolment 3 3 0 9
Student Matters 5 6 4 0
Yard Duty 8 1 3 0
Staff Matters 3 3 0 0
Total 100 100 100 100

156
From Table 39, planned meetings predominate as the greatest source of high satisfaction for

principalship practice, attracting 39% of the high satisfaction ratings. These data were

aggregated, as done previously, and the results summarized in Table 40.

Table 40: Aggregate Data for Principalship Satisfaction According to Satisfaction

Rating

AGGREGATED SATISFACTION RATING (%)

ACTIVITY TYPE HIGH GOOD MODERATE LOW
Personal Admin
(incl. Telephone) 22 38 65 91
Meetings 58 49 28 0
All Other 20 13 7 9
Interactions
Total 100 100 100 100

From Table 40, the activity type which commands the largest proportion of high and good

satisfaction ratings relates to meetings, at 58% and 49% respectively. The 91% of the low

satisfaction allocation, recorded against the personal administration activity of the

principalship, was due to the predominance of this type of activity amongst principalship

practice, and unlike the other activities, did not involve interaction with other people. Of note

is the result that 19% of low satisfaction derives from telephone usage.

The analysis of principalship practice and satisfaction rating in Tables 37 to 40, which detail

principalship activity types, reveals a high level of satisfaction with administrative activity

when the principal is working alone or in the company of others. Personal administration and

meeting activity, recorded as aggregate data in Table 38, reports good or high satisfaction

levels for 44% and 76% respectively. The enhanced satisfactory rating for meetings, at 32%

higher than for personal administration, reflects the involvement of others. Meeting

participation, displayed in Table 27, accounted for 48% of principalship practice, therefore a

high level of principalship satisfaction recorded against this type of activity was significant.

157
The overall weighted average time spent by the five principals in the location of the

administration area was 77%. Correlated with this high proportion of principal practice,

focused on the administration area of the school at 77%, was a principal satisfaction rating of

either good or high for 76% of the meeting activity which occurred in the school

administration location. The use, therefore, of structured and unstructured meetings, to give

expression to the principalship role, yielded a high level of personal satisfaction for the

principal in doing so.

3.3.7 Interview Reflections

The interviews with the five principals in this study revealed a common link to the practice of

the principalship, namely, a sense of calling. In Christian schools there is an open

acknowledgement of the spiritual dimension to educational interests and outcomes, therefore,

reference to a spiritual component to the principalship was expected from the respondents.

The spiritual component was articulated by the principals in the study as a sense of calling,

God’s leading, God’s prompting, and God’s provision. These expressions described a

spiritual initiative that was experienced by the principals, in the study, in their respective

principalship appointment.

The sense of calling, as a feature of the practice of Christian school principalship, equated to

the complementary and generalized concept of vocation. Practice of the principalship, as a

calling or vocation, was imbued with purpose, deliberateness and a sense of appointment and

mission. Allied with this, the study group reported a desire to make a difference to the lives

of others through the principalship role, and to do so by responding to the opportunity or

invitation for which they felt prepared and available. Motivated by calling, in the

principalship appointment, was a common element across the study group. So too was the

discovery that the practices of the principalship deviated from the expectations and

perceptions of the principalship that were held prior to appointment.

158
Of the five principals interviewed, only one reported that he or she was completely happy

with his or her present principalship practice. In this case, changes to the principalship during

the period of appointment to the role, had facilitated greater flexibility of choice and

opportunity in the principalship practices undertaken and pursued. The other four principals

interviewed suggested the need for changes to adjust, improve, or release principalship

practice, and thereby align it more with their perceptions of the role. Organizational and

structural changes were suggested as a major necessity to direct principalship practice away

from constraining administrative requirements and paperwork.

The principals in this study chose the metaphors of mother, parent, father, shepherd, light-

holder, pit-crew, coach, sieve and dam to describe principalship practice. Of these metaphors,

more than half displayed a paternal or maternal reference, which indicated a sense of

relational priority and focus in the practice of the principalship. The pit-crew and coaching

metaphors emphasised the skill development and team building components of principalship

practice. The pit-crew metaphor further suggested that the principal’s task was to allow the

various team members to utilize skills, and equip them with the resources and opportunity to

do so. The metaphor of the dam and the sieve highlighted the practice of the principalship in

protecting school endeavours and personnel from distracting alternatives, or the pressure of

multiple agendas. As a sieve filtered elements to separate good from bad, so the principal

filtered out the less desirable alternatives to allow the school focus to be unadulterated by

unwarranted distractions or pursuits.

3.4 CONCLUSIONS

The analysis of the data in this study was based on the concrete realities of five principals’

day-to-day functioning, with particular reference to the location, time spent and person

interactions. The findings underpin the notion that principalship practice is essentially

159
administrative, and conducted within the confines of the administrative hub of the school.

While the principals, in this study, interacted with the broad cross-section of key school

stakeholders in a relatively uniform fashion, the main engagement of principalship practice

was with the administrative staff of the school. The pattern of such engagement varied

between principals, and differences were noted from the data obtained by observation and

self-analysis. However, from the actual observed practice, the pattern of principal activity

was a succession of short activities that were of less than 5 minutes duration and amounted to

an average of 84 separate interactions per day.

The pattern of this observed principalship practice was consistent with the prescriptions of the

principalship reported in the first section of the portfolio. These prescriptions noted the short-

term contacts that punctuated the practice of the principalship (Thomas, 2003; Day, 2000;

Thomas & Ayres, 2000). Fast-moving, fragmented time intervals, a kaleidoscope of events

and high activity levels were descriptions of principalship practice which required the school

principal to be flexible, multi-task orientated and responsive (Donaldson, 1991).

The group of principals studied reported a clear sense of vocation and calling as a motivation

to undertake their current position. However, associated with this sense of purpose was a

common expression that the actual practice differed markedly from what they had anticipated

and expected. Management and administrative activity predominated at the expense of the

more attractive and inspirational practices of leadership and vision fulfillment. Despite the

emphasis on administrative practice, it was the more educational and leadership aspects of the

principals’ role that received greater emphasis in the prescriptions of the principalship and

were reported by the principals in this study as the priority of their principalship. For these

principals, administrative skills received less focus as desired qualities or prerequisites for the

principalship, than interpersonal qualities and pedagogical experience. By placing value on

160
these latter two skill areas, the principals were identifying the desire, or necessity, to promote

notions of principalship practice that went beyond purely administrative functions.

In this study principalship practice involved significant hours of work and commitment, with

an average of 11.3 hours per day recorded. While aspects of curriculum and instructional

leadership were a focus of much that was written to prescribe the principals’ role, these were

not investigated. However, the high level of administrative practice reported, suggested that

instructional and curriculum leadership ideals for the principalship, were undertaken and

pursued as an administrative outcome. Administration was clearly the conduit of influence

for principalship practice, and the means by which the principalship implemented and

achieved the more lofty and transcendental notions of principalship practice. The findings of

this study indicated that the visionary and leadership prescriptions of the principalship

required realization through the medium of daily administration. The routine of solitary

office work, regular meetings, and the numerous incidental transactions that occurred with

school stakeholders, was the vehicle for the principalship to articulate the ideals and

aspirations of the principalship. Coincident with the long hours, fragmented interactions,

office bound and administrative focus of principalship practices, the five principals in this

study evidenced high personal satisfaction levels. Personal satisfaction with principalship

practice was interpreted as a personal measure of effectiveness, success and fulfillment.

While the principals studied desired to be released from the administrative bias of

principalship practice, they were able to establish, through administrative practice, the ability

to effectively direct the school program to achieve the educational outcomes they were

responsible for, that they were expected to deliver, and that they desired to accomplish. The

extent to which other stakeholders perceived these challenges in the practice of the

principalship is one of the issues explored in Section Three of the portfolio.

161
 CHAPTER FOUR:

SECTION THREE

PERCEPTIONS OF THE PRINCIPALSHIP

162
 CHAPTER FOUR

SECTION THREE – PERCEPTIONS OF THE

PRINCIPALSHIP
Page No.

CONTENTS 4.1 Introduction 165

4.2 The Research Task 165

4.3 Perception as a Social Phenomenon 166

4.3.1 The Nature of Perception 167
4.3.2 The Operation of Perception 169
4.3.3 Perception in the Present Study 173

4.4 Research Method 174

4.4.1 Overview 174
4.4.2 Symbolic Interactionism 175
4.4.3 Data Sources and Collection 176
4.4.4 Questionnaire Structure 178
4.4.5 Questionnaire Administration and 180
Responses
4.4.6 Tools of Analysis – Perception Index 185

4.5 Research Distinctiveness and Relevance 187

4.6 Perceptions of the Principalship 188

4.6.1 Qualifications Needed 188
4.6.1 (a) Years of Teaching Experience
4.6.1 (b) Age
4.6.1 (c) Minimum Tertiary Qualification
4.6.1 (d) Qualifications Summary
4.6.2 Desirable Personal Qualities 196
4.6.3 Professional Skills Perceived as Important 206
4.6.3 (a) Financial Planning Skills
4.6.3 (b) Building Development Skills
4.6.3 (c) Student Discipline Skills
4.6.3 (d) Record Keeping Skills
4.6.3 (e) Marketing and Publicity Skills
4.6.3 (f) Communication Skills
4.6.3 (g) Interpersonal Relationship Skills
4.6.3 (h) Curriculum Development Skills
4.6.3 (i) Dispute Resolution Skills
4.6.3 (j) Staff Management Skills
4.6.3 (k) Staff Development Skills
4.6.3 (l) Organisational Management Skills
4.6.3 (m) Public Relations Skills
4.6.3 (n) Leadership Skills
4.6.3 (o) Future Planning Skills

163
 4.6.4 Principal’s Duties and Responsibilities 237
4.6.4 (a) Weekly Hours Worked
4.6.4 (b) Time Spent
4.6.5 Metaphor Perceptions 245
4.6.6 Open Ended Perceptions 250
4.6.7 Principals’ Perceptions 260
4.6.7(a) Principalship Qualifications
4.6.7(b) Principalship Personal Qualities
4.6.7(c) Principalship Professional Skills
4.6.7(d) Hours Worked
4.6.7(e) Principalship Time Allocation
4.6.7(f) Inter-Group Comparisons with the
Principals’ Group Ranking
4.6.7(g) Metaphors of the Principalship
4.6.8 Perception Maps 279

4.7 Conclusions 290

164
4.1 INTRODUCTION

The focus of this section of the portfolio is perceptions of the principalship. The mindsets

from which these perceptions were sourced and solicited, were the four key stakeholder

groups in the purview of principalship practice. These stakeholders were the governance,

staff, student and parent cohorts.

The principalship functions subject to three constraining and conditioning influences.

Influences of prescription, practice and perception effect and shape the principalship.

Prescriptions lay down the principalship intention; practices detail its interpretation in action;

perceptions are indications of the principalship influence and effect. While prescriptions and

practices possess a tangible substance and objective precision, perceptions are more elusive

and subjective. Yet it can be argued that, very often the perceptions of the principalship

define the principalship role, determine the character of interaction with the principalship, and

form the standard against which principalship success, or otherwise, is determined.

Perception pervades the discourse of school life and school contexts, and dictates the

intentionality and extensionality of that discourse. As a key person and presence in the school

context, the principal is therefore subject to perceptual effects which shape, influence and

interpret the operation of the role. The study of the perceptions of the principalship is of

value and necessary to effectively understand and inform the prescriptions and practices of the

principalship role.

4.2 THE RESEARCH TASK

The research task was to determine the nature of the perceptions of the principalship from

four stakeholder sub-groups within five particular Christian school communities. Governance

representatives, parents, staff, and students comprise the four groups that interact most

significantly with the principal. These groups are therefore in the most advantageous

165
position, relative to the principalship, to form a perception of the principalship informed by

objective detail and constructed by subjective interpretation. Subsequent to identifying the

perceptions of the principalship amongst the respondents, the extent to which the

prescriptions and practices were related to these perceptions of the principalship were

investigated.

A survey, in the form of a questionnaire, was used to solicit the perceptions of the

principalship in the areas of principalship qualifications, personal qualities, professional

skills, duties and responsibilities. Further data on the perceptions of the four survey groups

were collected through the use of metaphors and responses to the statement, “When I think of

the role of the school principal, I think of ….”. The range of response opportunities provided

by these categories and approaches, allowed varied and ample scope for the expression of the

perceptions that people associated with the principalship had formed of the principalship role.

4.3 PERCEPTON AS A SOCIAL PHENOMENON

In this study the concept of perception was a crucial element. Prescription and practices

defined the principalship in a substantive, empirical and quantifiable way, but did not

comprise the full scope of the principalship. Much of the role of the principalship is

understood in terms of what the role is perceived to comprise and represent, not merely what

is prescribed or practiced. Exploring an understanding of the principalship involved

determining the presence, or otherwise, of agreement in the perceptions of the principalship

and the detail concerning the principalship that existed within the prescriptions and practices

of the role. Reliance on perceptual data for analysis and application was justified because of

the significance of the notion of perception as an operational factor in social constructions.

To substantiate the use of perception in social analysis, a synopsis follows of the nature,

166
operation and significance of perception from psychological and philosophical considerations

of perception, within the field of social discourse.

4.3.1 The Nature of Perception

According to Maund (2003, p. ix) “debate about the nature of perceptual knowledge and the

objects of perception comprises a thread that runs through the history of philosophy”.

Throughout this debate, the range and difficulty associated with questions about the nature of

perception have frustrated agreement. Eminent thinkers such as Galileo, Descartes, Locke,

Husserl and others, attempted to resolve the relationship between perception and the physical

and social environment which our senses process, in the acquisition of a knowledge and

understanding of reality. At the fundamental level McKenna (1994) suggested that the

framework for perception involved the sequence, stimulus-attention-organization-

interpretation-response. While attempts were made by the Gestalt School of Psychology, to

construct laws governing the operation of perception, these psychologists confronted the

challenge that “in different circumstances the same things appeared differently, either to

different people placed differently, or to the same person on different occasions” (Maund,

2003. p. 1). Influential contributors to Gestalt Psychology were Max Wertheimer, Kurt

Koffka, and Wolfgang Kohler, whose idea of a gestalt, as the end result of all perceptual

processes, was a catalyst for interest in perception from the early 1900’s. It was generally

recognized that psychological theories of perception all had some basis in Gestalt Theory

(Hamlyn, 1979).

Gestalt is a German word with loose equivalence in English to a form, or configuration, or

whole. According to the Gestalt School the end result of all perceptual processes was a

gestalt (Best, 1999). Gestalt psychology viewed perception therefore, as the process of

looking at an object and arranging what was seen, or observed, into a coherent whole, which

167
then became what was understood to be the nature of the object observed. Implicit to the

Gestalt approach was the assumption that the way things were observed was always

determined by the neurological process in and of the brain (Hamlyn, 1979). In establishing

the resultant configuration of the object that was the subject of the perceptual process, the

Gestalt School asserted that for every whole, the whole was more than the sum of its

individual parts. While subsequent developments in the enquiry into the nature of perceptions

have moved from some Gestalt premises, this latter characteristic persisted as an accepted

result of perceptual activity. For the principalship this means that there was great scope for

differing perceptual outcomes concerning the role.

Individuals related to the principalship and configured the variety of elements that comprised

the role in a subjective way. While common elements such as authority, leadership, vision,

management and integrity, to name but a few, comprised the raw data of individual

interactions with the principalship, the Gestalt notion of how these make up the wholeness

that was perceived varied. Variance occurred for different individuals and their interactions

with the principalship, but also for interactions by the same individual over time. Because the

Gestalt whole was more than, and hence different from its component parts, there was a

dynamic potential to the perceptual process. Of significance to this potential was the prior

experience of the principalship that the perceiver brought to subsequent principalship

interactions.

The Gestalt School of Psychology devalued the place and role of experience to the perceptual

process, in contrast to the phenomenological view proposed by Husserl (Burrell & Morgan,

1979). From a phenomenological perspective the perceptions that result from the reception of

external stimuli are conditioned by the experience and prior learning of the perceiver. The

contribution of experience to the perceptual process produces a dynamic element in

168
perception formation. Dynamic elements of perception result from the accumulated layers of

interaction, stimuli and experience, not just single occurrences. For the principalship

therefore, the perceptions that form in the minds of others vary over time and between

circumstances. Analysis of individuals’ perceptions of the principalship can be seen as

providing a snapshot at a certain moment in a fluid field of study, not necessarily a definitive

end-point.

4.3.2 The Operation of Perception

The McKenna (1994) summary of the operation of perception indicated that the initial part of

the process of perceptual formation and operation involved a sensory function and a

neurological effect that resulted. However, “it is widely recognized that no form of

perception can be explained in terms of passive registration of signals emanating from sense

organs. Perception is an active process which creates a picture of the objective world from

minimal and partially familiar cues” (Roth, 1980, p. 129). Roth further pointed out that the

perceptual consciousness “depends on the interaction of a number of disparate interdependent

psychological functions: state of general arousal, perceptions of the objective and subjective

world, memory, reasoning and emotion” (Roth, 1980, p. 130).

The component of emotion is of particular significance as it has been shown repeatedly to

“exert an important selective effect on what is perceived” (Roth, 1980. p. 131). The

significance of emotion, in the context of the formation of perceptions of the principalship, is

particularly relevant, as principalship interactions within the school community have the

propensity to produce highly emotive environments. The perceptions of the principalship

generated within these environments reflect the differing emotional factors in operation.

Other internal states possessed by perceivers also have a place in the perception of the

principalship. McKenna (1994) pointed out that variables of personality, maturation and

169
previous learning contributed to the formation of perceptions and these were not readily

quantifiable. Each of these subjective elements pre-dispose the perceiver to the stimuli

received, influence how they process them, and consequently affect the nature of the

perceptions that resulted. The vagaries of the subjective influences on individual perception

formation, in the case of illusions serve to highlight the role of interpretation in the perceptual

process.

Interpretation of external stimulus occurs as the cognitive response that gives meaning,

significance, and relevance to perceptual data. McKenna (1994) identified that the cognitive

context for perceptual interpretation comprised “various thought processes, ideas, and feelings

about experiences and happenings in the world around us, which we have built up based on

our own life experience” and formed “a primary determinant of perception” (p. 138). It is at

the interpretative stage of the perceptual process that misperceptions or perceptual errors

occur. In the idiosyncratic and problematic environment of the principalship, misperception

in the interpretation of the personal characteristics and professional conduct of the principal is

inevitable.

Contributing to misconception in the perceptual process is the effect of assumptions that

occur in social interactions to classify the people, personalities, and positions that are

encountered. Sub-conscious and conscious connections are made between people in different

situations and roles and the personalities that accompany them. For the principalship the

characteristics such as authority, power, control, sternness, and aloofness attract a personality

association from parents, staff or students, when interacting with the principal, that shape

perceptions of the principalship accordingly. Once any pre-existing perceptions are formed, as

the basis of a set of personality assumptions, it is likely that the perceptions persist,

particularly if they are somewhat negatively focused.

170
The position of the principalship is subject to the “halo effect”. This occurrs where certain

personal and professional qualities are ascribed to the principalship because of the position.

Associated with the “halo effect”, which possesses negative and positive features, is the

stereotyping of an individual within the perceptual process. The perception of the

principalship is subject to stereotype according to social identity theory (Arnold, Robertson &

Cooper, 1991; Devine, 1989). The need to create a mental structure of the social world, in

which social discourse takes place, causes the identity of self and others to be conceptualized

in terms of the characteristics of the group to which individuals are assigned. These group

characteristics can become significant influences in the process of perceptual formation and

interpretation.

Associated with stereotypical ascriptions is the occurrence of perception management

(Schlenker, 1980). This phenomenon is the actual process whereby either, or both, of the

parties to perceptual formations, attempt to influence the perceptions that occur. The

principalship is therefore not removed from the ability to influence the perceptions that school

stakeholders form of the principalship role. Creating an environment and mode of discourse

that encourages positive and constructive perceptions of the principalship is part of the

perceptual landscape of principalship activity. The ability of the principal to be, other than

merely the passive recipient of the perceptual formation of those who perceive the role of the

principal, allows principals to positively dispose such perceptions to themselves and the

principal’s task. The influence of perception management assumes an important place in the

process of encouraging future aspirants to the principalship role.

Stereotypical and manipulative effects on perception were a significant study undertaken by

the psychologist J.J. Gibson. Arising out of “The Aryan Myth” perpetuated by the Nazi

regime in Germany, Gibson’s work in 1939 underlined the psychological law that

171
 a word or an idea can so constrain our thinking and distort our perception that our
behaviour becomes inappropriate to the object stimulus. We see things … not as they
are, but as we are, … . When the perception is sufficiently rigid, an object will be
perceived not at all in accordance with its actual sensory stimulation, but in
congruence with preconception” (Reed, 1988. p. 61).

Stereotypes are therefore powerful instruments which contaminate the perceptual process, and

once socially established are reinforced in subsequent perceptual formation as a norm or

standard. However, it is the outworking of the cause and effect role of learned behaviour, pre-

conditioning, and past experience that causes some divergence amongst perceptual

psychologists.

Gestalt Psychology downplays or discounts the role that experience plays in perceptual

formations (Hamlyn, 1979). Phenomenology however, emphasizes the role of experience.

The phenomenological approach presumes that perception involves more than retinal

stimulation and cortical excitation, but involves the interpretation and processing of the

stimulus reaching the senses that govern perception formation. What is perceived in this

paradigm is the reconstruction of environmental stimuli in terms of the additional information

derived from experience, education, personality and training (McKenna, 1994). Consistent

with the recognition of subjective pre-conditions Hamlyn (1979) contended that

perceiving is … not a matter merely of receiving sensations which are produced

directly by stimulation of our sense-organs, although of course, having our sense-
organs stimulated is a necessary condition of our perceiving something. It is not
however, a sufficient condition. This is evident enough from the fact that sometimes a
certain degree of sophistication is required in order for it to be possible for us to see
things in a particular way … . Indeed it may well be the case that all the ways in
which we see things are a product of learning and interpretation (1979, p. 23).
To perceive, in the words of Noe (2004), “is not merely to have sensory stimulation. It is to

have sensory stimulation one understands” (p. 181).

172
4.3.3 Perception in the Present Study

The present study’s research into the perceptions of the principalship, formed in the minds of

those within the sphere of the principalship, revealed varying levels of sophistication

possessed by observers to the principalship and other associated effects. The choice of the

year eleven cohort, as the survey group, in this study, to represent student perceptions,

recognized the desire to access a level of student sophistication in the understanding of the

principalship. In doing so, however, the perceptions of students with different levels of

sophistication were not considered. Further studies, to explore the effect of students’

developing sophistication in the formation of perceptions of the principalship, could be

beneficially undertaken.

Perception “is a natural process in the world that is a means by which perceivers acquire

knowledge about objects in the perceivers’ environment” (Maund, 20003, p. 16). Included in

this world, at the organizational and structural level of the school, was the role of the

principalship. Perceptual understandings of the principalship, therefore, formed a vital data

source and basis for the analysis of the principalship.

The respondents’ perceptions of the principalship were the sum of the reception of sense-data

concerning principalship actions, that had independent existence from the perceiver, together

with ideas, impressions and representations (Robinson, 2001). The perceiver to the

principalship, apprehended, discerned, observed, and recognized features of principalship

behaviour (Hacker, 1987) as part of the mechanism by which the perceiver acquired both

practical and theoretical knowledge of the principalship (Maund, 2003). Varying degrees of

complexity or sophistication determined the formation of judgments and thoughts, which then

converted the raw data of principalship prescriptions and practices, into the perceived data of

how the principalship actually effected the recipients in the field of operation of the principal.

173
The locus of the data for this study was the perception of stakeholders who received the

action and activity of the principalship, namely students, staff, parents and governance

members. Identifying the subjective and qualitative features of the perceptual understandings

of these stakeholder groups was crucial to investigating how the principalship was

understood. Assessing how the principalship was understood, from the perceptions of the

four groups, as stakeholders, allowed the level of agreement, or otherwise, between the

perceptual understanding of the principalship and the prescription and practices which defined

the principalship, to be established.

4.4 RESEARCH METHOD

4.4.1 Overview

The focus of study was the principalship, as it was perceived by the four main stakeholder

groups that came within the sphere of influence of the principalship. Perception, as

previously established, is the result of sensory data received and processed by participants in

social contexts, against the back-drop of pre-existing mental images and understandings.

Interpretation and understanding of the social context, according to such perceptions,

comprise the reality for the participants in the social context. Whether the result is a correct

understanding of objective reality is a moot point, as too is the existence of an objective

reality in social contexts, due to the various perspectives that have expression and interplay.

Social contexts are fluid and comprised multi-layered and multi-variant phenomena.

Perceptions develop from these phenomena and are the filter by which the phenomena are

processed in the course of social engagements. The meaning and the resulting perceptions of

events and items are, in the observer’s mind, not necessarily in the event or item observed, as

they are “subject to distortions because of the observer’s emotions, motivations, prejudices,

mental states, sense of values, physical condition, and errors of inference” (Langenbach,

Vaughn & Aagaard, 1993, p. 119). The investigation of social contexts is therefore assisted

174
by a methodology that gives attention to the perceptual aspects of the phenomena of human

experience. The research approach of symbolic interactionism is such a methodology. As an

interpretist approach to data collection, the symbolic interactionist view is “that the mind

creates reality and that an objective world separate from the perceptions of the person cannot

be known” (Langenbach, Vaughn & Aagaard, 1993, p. 136).

4.4.2 Symbolic Interactionism

Symbolic interactionism is a theoretical perspective of social interactions and social contexts

that has its origin in social psychology. From the perspective of symbolic interactionism,

social settings are viewed as a complex network of interacting individuals who symbolically

interpret their place and participation in the social context of their interactions. The

methodological implications of the symbolic interactionist paradigm, are that social reality, in

any context under investigation, is understood from the perspective of the participants in the

social context. Participants are best positioned to interpret their world of involvement and

interaction (Van Manen, 1991).

Symbolic interactionism views human behaviour as the result of how individuals perceive

others’ behaviour towards them, and how individuals’ self-perception determines the way that

they in turn respond or react towards others. The social context of schooling is beset by the

existence, operation, and effect of such perceptions. The principalship role in this context is

particularly subject to perceptual effects, and is a focus for perceptual interpretations.

Symbolic interactionism maintains that personal perceptions are the filter through which the

individual’s life-world and lived experience is interpreted, therefore only the perceptions of

those engaged in social discourse yield appropriate data for understanding social phenomena.

Symbolic interactionism suits the dynamic character of the principalship role and function

which is full of people-centred interactions. These interactions imply that participants act in

175
relation to others, taking others into account, acting, perceiving, interpreting, and acting again

(Cohen & Manion, 1994). The dynamic interplay of persons and personalities is a

characteristic of school sites and the educative function, and therefore, the perspective of

symbolic interactionism would appear to provide an appropriate methodology for researching

the perceptions of the principalship.

4.4.3 Data Sources and Collection

Two models describe the relationship of the key participants to the principal’s operational

world and organizational role. They are a practical model, based on interactional proximity to

the principal, and an organizational model based on decision making proximity. The

positioning of participants according to these models influences the knowledge of the

principalship gained, and hence the perceptions of the principalship role that are formed.

The primary observers and receivers of principalship behaviour are those in the immediate

vicinity of the principalship. In terms of practical and therefore interactional proximity to the

principal, on a daily basis, the primary persons and receivers of the principalship role, in order

of proximity from greatest to least are staff, students, parents, school governance (Figure 4).

However, in terms of decision making and organizational protocols, the order of proximity to

the principalship, in an organizational model is governance, staff, students, parents (Figure 5).

176
 Fig. 4: Proximity to Principal: Fig 5:Proximity to Principal:
Practical Model Organizational Model

Practical Model Organizational Model

Focus – Interaction Focus- Decision Making

Principal Governance

Staff Principal

Students Staff

Parents Students

Governance Parents

The model of proximity to the principalship, and the place of each class of individual in the

model, shapes the perceptions that are formed of the principalship. Perceptions of authority,

efficiency, approachability, decisiveness, competence, respect and reliability, are

representative of the perceptions that occurred in connection with the principalship. The array

of possible perceptions, created and formed, possesses differing significance according to the

subgroup within the two models illustrated. Wherever a school participant is placed, in

proximity to the principalship, it is assumed that the perceptions formed of the principalship

reflect actual reality. It is part of the conscious and subliminal task of the principalship to

create the perception that this is necessarily so.

To determine the perceptions of the principalship that were held by the sub-groups involved

in the principalship’s life-world, a perception questionnaire was developed and applied

(Appendix D). Administration of the questionnaire to the four sub-groups occurred

separately, after each school community was made aware of their school community’s

involvement in the research project. The substance of the questionnaire was common to all

177
groups, with the introduction to the questionnaire related to the particular group, to focus the

responses of that group, whether parent, staff member, student or governance respondents.

Survey group responses were made anonymously.

4.4.4 Questionnaire Structure

The design of the research instrument for gathering data was developed to avoid the

questionnaire becoming a de facto critique of the incumbent principal of the schools

involved. The intent to avoid such a connection, was clearly stated in the questionnaire at 1.6

of the introduction.

The focus of this research is to investigate the role of the principal, not to analyse the
way a particular principal undertakes the task of principalship. While your experience
or observation of a particular principal may influence what you understand of the
principal’s role, it is the role of principalship, not the person doing the principalship,
that is of interest in this research.

Despite the intent of this approach, and the clear statement to this effect to inform and direct

the questionnaire respondents, it was evident that responses were often formed with a

particular school principal in mind. Examples from the responses revealed that for some

respondents, their view of the role of the principalship had a strong personal association with

the principal with whom they had most familiarity:

• Our principal at _____ has our fullest respect and support

• Our own great principal whom we had as students …

The questionnaire contained six perception related sections, namely, principalship

qualifications, personal qualities, professional skills, principals’ duties and responsibilities,

metaphors of the principalship, and an open-ended response item. These six areas of

consideration for respondents were designed to focus their thoughts towards the perceptions

that they held of the principalship, in the areas selected for this study as important and

178
relevant to the principalship role. Responses were structured for ease of completion by

respondents, and ease of collation into a statistical form for analysis and interpretation.

The involvement of a significant student cohort in the research, albeit at Year 11 level,

required a straightforward, structured, and uncomplicated questionnaire instrument to ensure

the quality and confidence levels of the resulting data. For this reason the questionnaire

responses were structured as either choices between supplied alternatives, or ranking items on

a scaled response. Following each of the latter type of questions, where appropriate, the

respondents were asked to rank the five most important items already considered in the scaled

responses. The purpose of this ranking was to enhance the quality of the data gathered, by

requiring respondents to think more deeply about their perceptions of the principalship. The

request for a ranking response encouraged a critical assessment by respondents of the

weighting, and hence the relative value, placed on various features of the principalship

(Tuckman, 1999).

Following the first four structured response items in the questionnaire, two sections were

included to diversify and enrich the data. These took the form of open-ended, qualitative

response opportunities. The first used word pictures to give respondents an opportunity to

classify the perceptions that they had of the prncipalship. These word pictures consisted of

alternative metaphors of the principalship, and were provided as frames of reference to assist

respondents to communicate their perceptions of the principalship. The metaphors supplied

provided a representation by association, to assist respondents to identify and provide a

linguistic expression for their subconscious and conscious images of the principalship.

The study by Lum (1997) drew heavily on metaphorical representations to access data about

student perspectives of the principalship. From the metaphors used in that study, alternative

metaphor groupings such as, a god, a policeman and Darth Vader, were provided for survey

179
respondents to select the choice of item that for them best described the role of the principal.

Lum’s model was utilized in the structure of the questionnaire in this study.

The second of the final two sections of the questionnaire comprised on open ended response

opportunity. To encourage and stimulate responses, the statement, “when I think of the role

of the school principal I think of ….” was posited for completion by respondents. The

purpose of this unstructured opportunity for response, was to give scope for more divergent

individualized responses. The use of an opening phrase to prompt responses was designed to

focus, but not constrain responses, which could range from one word to several sentences.

The nature and design of the questionnaire proved to be most effective. Following the

administration of the survey to the survey groups, it was evident that the survey satisfied the

requirements of a good questionnaire, as clear, unambiguous, uniformly workable to

minimize potential errors from respondents, able to engage interest, encourage co-operation,

and elicit answers as close as possible to the truth (Cohen & Manion, 1994).

4.4.5 Questionnaire Administration and Responses

The administration of the questionnaire took two forms. For the parent cohort the

questionnaire was administered as a postal survey. In the case of the staff, student and

governance groups, the questionnaire was administered personally in pre-arranged sessions.

It should be noted that the staff group comprised teaching and ancillary staff, of whom the

majority were teaching staff. The code “T” was used instead of “S” for staff, to distinguish

the staff responses from the student cohort. The reference throughout the portfolio to teacher

responses was inclusive of the school staff generally. Board groups for each school included

the Principal of the school as a member; as such, the principal in each case completed the

survey. Responses from the five principals were not, however, analysed as part of the Board

responses, but considered separately as a principals’ sub-group.

180
Survey administration to the governance and teacher groups took place by a pre-arranged

appointment and commenced with the researcher providing a brief introduction to the survey.

For each survey group the questionnaire was completed in approximately twenty minutes.

Very few questions were asked by the questionnaire respondents for explanation or

clarification of survey items, and it appeared evident that respondents “enjoyed” the task.

Feedback after the survey’s completion and collection indicated that the questions for

response awakened in respondents an awareness of the complexity and diversity of the

principalship. The result was a heightened appreciation of the role of the principalship

generally, and a greater appreciation more specifically for their particular school principal.

The student group comprised the cohort of Year 11 students at each of the five schools in the

study. This student group was chosen as representative of student perceptions of the

principal. The basis of choice of Year 11 students was because this cohort of students had

received sufficient exposure to principalship behaviours to have formed a perception of the

role of the principal, and had received sufficient opportunity through schooling, to develop

the intellectual and language skills necessary to articulate the resulting perceptions that were

formed.

The choice of the Year 11 cohort was not intended to exclude or devalue the validity of the

perceptions of any other student year group. However, in confining the data field to a

manageable and yet meaningful level, a choice of a representative student cohort was

necessary and appropriate. Cross-age variations in student perceptions of the principal could

reasonably be expected. However, recording and analyzing the differences or variations in

student perceptions of the principalship was outside the scope and intent of this research, even

though a possible worthwhile extension of it.

181
Including student perceptions in this study had methodological significance in two ways.

Firstly, it recognised the value of students as a data source. Numerous studies have

substantiated the value and credibility of student data when researching school issues

(Anderson, 1996; Smees & Thomas, 1998; Maden & Rudduck, 1997; Levin, 1994). While

the student perspective on educational issues has been increasingly recognized and

considered, there has been little written on students’ views of the principalship (Day, et. al.

2000). Inclusion of students’ perceptions was therefore a means of redressing this lack,

particularly as students have a unique insider perspective on the principalship (MacBeath,

1998). According to Day et al, the distinctive perspective of students was derived from

their daily experience as “participant observers” of the social interactions which

occurred in a wide range of the natural settings of school life; classrooms, corridors,
assembly halls, head teacher’s office, the playground – a wider range of settings than
those experienced by other(s) ……. students’ perspectives thus encompassed a
number of their own “angles of observation”, enabling them to offer valuable insights
into the head teacher (principal) not merely as a leader and manager in the school, but
as a teacher, a public figure and even as a private individual with a life beyond school.
(Day, et al. 2000, p. 115).
Students observed the principalship in a greater array of settings than any of the other three

focus groups in the study. The contribution that students brought to understanding and

recording the various perceptions of the principalship was therefore most worthwhile.

The second methodological implication of including student perceptions of the principalship

involved designing a suitable instrument to solicit student perceptions. At the same time the

desirability of a common instrument for data collection, across the four response groups,

required the collection of data with a uniform and comparable approach that was suitable for

both student and adult respondents. The survey was therefore designed for use in common

with staff, parents, governance and students, with a structure, terminology, and response

provision to cater for the variables of age, experience, maturity, and reading comprehension.

182
Design features included appropriate response stimulus that encouraged participation and

maximized response rates, and thereby enhanced the quality of the data collected.

The administration of the questionnaire to the students took place in a designated, pre-

arranged forty minute session. Students were given information about the research process as

a mechanism for creating or generating knowledge, and then invited to participate. All

questionnaire responses were voluntary. The method in which the survey was delivered to

staff, student, and governance groups, yielded 100% response rates, on the number of

questionnaires distributed, as displayed in Table 41.

Table 41: Questionnaire Response Numbers

DISTRIBUTION SUB-GROUP RESPONSES

SCHOOL STAFF STUDENTS GOVERNANCE
1 40 55 12
2 40 28 12
3 21 49 9
4 31 36 4
5 47 41 9
Total 179 209 46

Absences from any of the sub-groups, on the day of the questionnaire administration, were

excluded from the survey. Otherwise, the necessity to identify absentees would negate the

publicised anonymity guaranteed to respondents, and make the process of implementation

more intrusive and disruptive to the school site. In addition, when the survey results were

coded for statistical analysis, and a respondent had not responded to a survey item, non-

responses were treated as missing data.

The parent questionnaire was distributed as a postal survey. Prior to its distribution to

parents, a school newsletter entry was placed concerning the school’s agreement to

participation in the research, to notify parents of the survey. Following this entry, the next

intra-school communication distribution contained one copy of the principalship survey for a

183
parent in the recipient family to complete and return to the school office in a supplied, pre-

addressed envelope. Follow-up reminders, via subsequent school newsletters and school

daily notices, were given to increase the response rates prior to a cut-off date. After the cut-

off time, the parent surveys were collected from the school office. Overall the parent

response rates were lower than expected or desirable, as indicated in Table 42.

Table 42: Parent Questionnaire Responses

PARENT SURVEY DISTRIBUTION AND RESPONSE

SCHOOL SURVEYS SURVEYS RESPONSE
DISTRIBUTED RETURNED RATE (%)
1 540 106 20
2 428 65 15
3 319 102 32
4 359 86 24
5 281 47 17
Total 1927 406 21

No optimal sample size is suggested for questionnaire research, but a recommended

minimum of thirty responses is desirable where statistical analysis is envisaged (Cohen &

Manion, 1994). According to Wadsworth (1997), response rates for postal surveys occur at

about 40%, with this increasing to 80-90% for face-to-face questionnaire interviewing.

Follow-up is the key to improved response rates (Tuckman, 1999). However, in this instance,

follow-up would have been intrusive to the school site, and administratively difficult in view

of how the questionnaire was distributed.

The aspect of the postal questionnaire implementation that contributed to the lower than

desirable parent response rate, was the indirect access to the respondents surveyed. A

dependency on the school, as the intermediary in the process of gaining parental responses,

diminished the ability to encourage increased responsiveness. No criticism of the school sites

is intended by this assessment of the parent survey responses, but an alternative methodology

184
for the parent survey component of the research could have been explored and utilized, to

gain a higher response rate from the parent group.

4.4.6 Tools of Analysis - Perception Index

Analyzing the raw percentage data of perception frequencies required a tool to allow for intra-

group and inter-group comparisons. A tool was developed for the purpose of this study, to

allow for the desired level of analysis. The tool or device to assist the process of analysis was

called a perception index (PI). The perception index calculation assigned a numerical value to

the perceptions recorded by members of each survey group. Having assigned a numerical

value the perceptions within each group, or item, and across groups and items, were then

analysed.

The perception index assigned to group perception data resulted from a calculation where the

response category “slightly important” was used as a base. After a perception factor of one

was assigned to this base, as the most neutral of the four response categories, the other

categories were allotted values as in Figure 6.

Figure 6: Perception Index Factors

RESPONSE CATEGORY PERCEPTION FACTOR

Not at all -2
Slightly Important 1
Important 2
Very Important 3

The perception index for any survey item or group data was the sum of the response category

frequency, multiplied by the relevant perception factor for that category, and expressed as a

percentage of three hundred, the maximum value possible. This figure was then considered as

a point score, not a percentage value, and representative of the strength of the group

perception for a particular item. The perception index indicated the strength of the group

perception, as to importance, and allowed for the assessment of variations of perception

185
between and within response groups, for a particular item. The index merged the effect of the

perception responses, in the four response categories, and provided an overall perception

indicator.

Schedule A following, provides an example of the perception index calculation for the

principalship skill of curriculum development, using the teachers’ average perception

frequencies for the importance of this skill area to the principalship.

Schedule A: Perception Index Calculation Example

Category Category
Response Perception Perception axb
Category Factor (a) Frequency (%) (b)

Not at all important -2 2 -4

Slightly important 1 22 22
Important 2 51 102
Very important 3 23 69
Total 189

Item perception index = (189/300) x 100 = 63(nearest whole number)

The range of possible values for the perception index was from -67 to 100 representing lowest

to highest levels of importance respectively. The significance of the perception index was

interpreted with reference to this range of possible values for the index and in comparison

with other items or group perception index values. The actual numerical value of the

perception index was only significant to the extent that it reflected the strength, or otherwise,

of the perception of importance of the item considered, relative to the range and the size of

other group or category perception indices.

186
4.5 RESEARCH DISTINCTIVENESS AND RELEVANCE

Previous studies in the area of perceptions and the principalship (Gorton and McIntyre 1978,

Williams 1978) identified congruence between various interest-group perceptions of the

principalship. In contrast, while aspects of congruence were apparent, the distinctiveness of

this study was the comparison or juxtaposition between the perceptions of the principalship

and the role prescriptions and actual practices of the principalship. The intention was to

examine the relationship between perceptions and the prescriptions and the practices of the

role, and incidental to this purpose, the congruence within the perceptual data.

The use of the concept of perception to gain an insight into the principalship was not to

indicate that perceptions provided an accurate description of principalship behaviour.

Bernstein made the point that social structures and interactions were a consequence of more

than just the way social relations were perceived. “The very process whereby one interprets

and defines a situation is itself a product of the circumstances in which one is placed”

(Bernstein in Cohen and Manion, 1994, p. 35). Differential power relations imposed upon

these circumstances and determined the perspectives and perceptions of those involved. This

was particularly relevant for principal interactions, in which the principal, by his or her status,

demeanour and initiating behaviour, not only created, but also influenced the perceptions of

others as regards the principals’ role. Such perceptions resulted from first-hand experience,

or were based on the hearsay and folklore that pervaded school life and invariably settled

upon the person and role of the principal as a significant presence in the school environment.

The purpose of this study was to analyse the extent to which the perceptions of the

principalship related to the prescriptions and practices of the principalship. A clarification of

the nexus between the perception and the practice of the principalship was pertinent to the

practice of principalship. For example, school governance perceptions, whether consciously

187
or not, determined the appointment and the expectation of the principal. Variance between

perception and expectation, at this level, effected both the recruitment practices and

performance appraisal of the principalship. This research portfolio therefore, aimed to

identify the presence, or extent of variances in the prescriptions, practices and perceptions of

school principalship in a Christian secondary school context. In doing so, a platform was

provided from which any indicated variance, or disharmony, between the prescriptions,

practices and perceptions of the principalship could be more aligned, and any detrimental

aspects signalled and ameliorated.

4.6 PERCEPTIONS OF THE PRINCIPALSHIP

The data obtained on perceptions of the principalship are discussed under the sub-headings

used for the questionnaire: qualifications, personal qualities, professional skills and duties and

responsibilities. (See copy of questionnaire in Appendix D.) The perceptual data recorded

against these categories for the four stakeholder groups are presented, using the symbols T for

teachers (including all staff), S – students, P – parents, and B – Board members.

4.6.1 Qualifications Needed

Three aspects were presented to respondents to determine their perceptions of principalship

qualifications: years of teaching experience, age, and desirable minimum tertiary

qualifications. These three were indicative aspects, selected as qualifications for the

principalship that response groups could understand and process. More technical or

professionally specific qualifications could have been difficult for some respondents to

associate with the requirements of the principalship.

188
4.6.1(a) Years of Teaching Experience

The perception data in the category, years of teaching experience, that respondents perceived

to best describe the requirement for a person to become a secondary school principal are

displayed in Table/Graph 1.

Table/Graph 1: Teaching Experience (Yrs)

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%
Frequency

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
T S P B T S P B T S P B T S P B T S P B T S P B
School 1 School 2 School 3 School 4 School 5 Average
10 to 12 10% 60% 22% 25% 20% 57% 37% 8% 24% 43% 28% 11% 26% 58% 26% 0% 19% 48% 28% 11% 20% 53% 28% 11%
13 to 15 43% 25% 35% 25% 30% 25% 29% 25% 19% 27% 22% 44% 35% 25% 35% 25% 43% 17% 36% 22% 34% 24% 31% 28%
15 to 18 40% 7% 28% 33% 35% 18% 28% 50% 24% 22% 19% 22% 19% 14% 23% 75% 17% 21% 23% 33% 27% 17% 24% 43%
Over 18 3% 7% 12% 17% 13% 0% 3% 17% 33% 8% 27% 22% 13% 3% 12% 0% 19% 10% 13% 33% 16% 6% 13% 18%

The averages, for the four survey groups, summarises the overall range of perceptions of

teachers, students, parents and school Board respondents. The majority perception of students

favoured a quantum of 10-12 years teaching experience for the principalship, while the other

groups tended towards higher categories. When a perception index calculation was applied to

the student data, the resulting -10 perception index reflected the student perceptions towards

the lower choice category.

The teacher and parent responses were similarly distributed across the categories of teaching

experience, with the highest perception frequency in the 13-15 year range of 34% for teachers

and 31% for parents. In contrast the Board and student perceptions recorded a stronger 43%

189
and 53% respectively, in the most common group choice of the level of years of teaching

experience perceived to best suit the principalship. The difference in the student and Board

data, however, is that the students’ perceptions were of a lower level requirement at 10-12

years, while the Board perceptions favoured the higher level of 15-18 years.

The perception index for the teaching experience data produced indices for the student,

parent, teacher and Board perceptions of -10, 21, 32 and 49 respectively. The size of the

index indicated the trend in the group perceptions. The higher the value for the index, the

more strongly the group perceptions are skewed towards the highest category of choice, in

this case, the over 18 years of teaching experience. The perception indices reflected the

Board perception of a greater number of years teaching experience, as a pre-requisite for the

principalship, and the student perception of a lower requirement. Placed between these

extremes were the parent and teacher perceptions. On a school-by-school basis, only the

student perceptions displayed evidence of consistency across the response groups. Each

student group perceived the lower level of years of experience to be the best description of

this qualification requirement for the principalship.

4.6.1(b) Age

The respondents’ perceptions of an age qualification for the principalship, were sought in the

categories, 30-35 years, 36-40 years, 41-45 years, 46-50 and over 50 years. For the purposes

of tabulation and display, four groupings were used, with the last two categories combined as

46 and over. The use of four groups maintained consistency across the study, with all other

data items occupying four categories. Data display was assisted by the use of four categories

instead of five, and the perception index calculation was made possible for this item.

Table/Graph 2, following, contains the detail of the responses to the age criteria that response

groups perceived to best describe what is required for a person to become a secondary school

principal.

190
 Table/Graph 2: Principals’ Age (Yrs) Requirement

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%
Frequency

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
T S P B T S P B T S P B T S P B T S P B T S P B
School 1 School 2 School 3 School 4 School 5 Average
30 to 35 0% 31% 2% 0% 8% 11% 11% 8% 5% 29% 5% 0% 3% 39% 6% 0% 2% 29% 6% 0% 4% 28% 6% 2%
36 to 40 35% 31% 29% 33% 28% 32% 18% 25% 19% 29% 25% 33% 48% 39% 28% 50% 30% 31% 34% 33% 32% 32% 27% 35%
41 to 45 45% 24% 46% 58% 50% 36% 57% 67% 43% 27% 36% 67% 29% 14% 40% 50% 38% 19% 36% 56% 41% 24% 43% 59%
46 above 10% 13% 17% 8% 8% 14% 9% 0% 29% 8% 22% 0% 10% 8% 20% 0% 30% 17% 17% 0% 17% 12% 17% 2%

Three of the four response groups recorded the same highest frequency of response in the 41-

45 years age category. In this regard, the perceptions of teacher, parent and Board

respondents coincided. The student group perceptions, however, were at variance, with the

36-40 year category as the most frequent choice. The different age perception for the

principalship, by the student and adult respondents, was further demonstrated when the data

were aggregated for responses at either end of the spectrum of choice. For the teacher, parent

and Board groups, 58%, 60% and 61% respectively of responses occurred in the 41 years and

over range. A student aggregate of 60% occurred for choices in the 40 year and below

alternative. When the mid-range age categories were considered, namely 36-40 years and 41-

45 years, the combined responses for the Board members accounted for 94% of total Board

responses. The parent, teacher, and student responses comparatively were 70%, 72%, and

56%. The predominance of perceptions in a limited range, for the Board data, indicates a

stronger convergence in the perceptions of Board members regarding the preferred age for the

principalship. Students, from this analysis, appeared ambivalent towards a specific age

191
requirement for the principalship, albeit, that the student data were skewed towards a younger

age perception for the principalship.

At an individual school level there were variable patterns in the responses, with general

agreement in the perceptions of teacher, parent and Board groups. The perception indices for

these three groups were 52, 51 and 52 respectively. There was consistency in the student

perceptions for schools 1, 3 and 5 with perception indices of 19, 16 and 21 respectively.

However, Schools 2 and 4 were noticeable exceptions. For School 2, the perception index of

41, pointed to a higher age category, although this school community recorded 50% of

reported perception frequencies above 40 years and 43% below. School 4, with a perception

index of 4, recorded 78% of the reported perception frequencies in the less than 40 years

category.

4.6.1(c) Minimum Tertiary Qualification

The perceptions of the minimum tertiary qualification requirement, that was considered

desirable for the principalship, were sought by referring to four categories. These categories

were, bachelor’s degree, honours degree, master’s degree and doctorate or Ph.D. The data

that resulted are displayed in Table/Graph 3.

192
 Table/Graph 3: Minimal Tertiary Qualification

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%
Frequency

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
T S P B T S P B T S P B T S P B T S P B T S P B
School 1 School 2 School 3 School 4 School 5 Average
Ordinary Deg 25% 20% 21% 50% 33% 29% 28% 17% 43% 37% 34% 56% 35% 25% 31% 25% 34% 24% 23% 44% 34% 27% 28% 38%
Honours Deg 23% 36% 33% 33% 30% 57% 32% 25% 29% 39% 29% 22% 19% 28% 23% 25% 30% 45% 49% 33% 26% 41% 33% 28%
Masters Deg 50% 40% 41% 17% 38% 11% 37% 58% 29% 18% 32% 22% 42% 44% 34% 25% 30% 19% 26% 11% 38% 27% 34% 27%
Doc. Of Ph.D 0% 2% 2% 0% 0% 0% 2% 0% 0% 6% 2% 0% 0% 3% 5% 25% 2% 7% 2% 11% 0% 4% 2% 7%

A noteworthy feature of the recorded perceptions for the minimum tertiary qualification for

the principalship, was the Board result. The Board responses recorded the greatest frequency

for the lowest minimum qualification. Parent, student, and teacher responses were more

towards the higher degree level choices. When the perception index calculation was applied

to these data, the student cohort average records the highest value of 18, followed by parent

17, teacher 11 and Board 9.

A 38% frequency of staff perceived that a Master’s Degree was an appropriate minimum

tertiary qualification, but the strength of this perception was offset by 34% of staff whose

perception favoured the appropriateness of a bachelor’s degree. Parent and student

perceptions recorded almost identical perception indices, which although higher than the

193
Board or staff indices, reflected a perception of an appropriate minimum qualification below

the Master’s degree level.

For each group of respondents, the perception that a minimum tertiary qualification for the

principalship, below the Master’s degree level, occurred in 60-68% of respondents’

perceptions. However, it could be expected in the future, that this perception would move

towards higher entry level tertiary qualifications for the principalship. The Board responses,

which recorded the highest percentage allocation of 7% for the appropriateness of a Doctorate

or PhD, although modest, perhaps foreshadow this trend. Teacher perceptions recorded a

frequency of 0% for the Doctorate or PhD category, which suggests that school staff placed

less value on higher level academic qualifications as a relevant feature of the principalship.

4.6.1(d) Qualifications Summary

Table 43 resulted as the summary of the perception index values, for the three qualification

categories across the five schools and four response groups. The numerical values of the

perception indices for the response groups, in each category response, indicates that the

teacher and Board groups perceived that the qualifications for the principalship required

longer teaching experience, higher age and lower tertiary qualifications than were perceived

by the student and parent groups.

194
 Table 43: Principalship Qualifications Perception Index Summary

TEACHING AGE MINIMUM TERTIARY

EXPERIENCE QUALIFICATION
School 1
Teacher 37 52 24
Student -20 19 27
Parent 28 56 26
Board 47 58 -11
School 2
Teacher 33 45 13
Student -18 41 7
Parent 7 46 19
Board 53 49 36
School 3
Teacher 39 61 0
Student 3 16 6
Parent 28 51 10
Board 44 56 -15
School 4
Teacher 20 43 11
Student 3 4 25
Parent 22 52 15
Board 58 50 33
School 5
Teacher 32 64 9
Student -2 21 19
Parent 22 48 20
Board 55 48 0
Perception Index
Averages
Teacher 32 52 11
Student -10 20 18
Parent 21 51 17
Board 49 52 9
Aggregate 23 44 14
Averages

To assess the inter-group comparisons in the perceived qualification requirements for the

principalship, the perception indices were compared to the aggregate averages (last line of

Table 43) category indices in Schedule B following. This summary uses a positive or

negative sign which indicates where the group indices are above or below the aggregate

average and thereby establishes patterns of inter-group perceptual congruence.

195
 Schedule B: Principalship Qualifications Perception Index Inter-Group Comparison
with the Aggregate Average

CATEGORY TEACHERS STUDENTS PARENTS BOARD

Teaching Experience + - - +
Age + - + +
Minimum Tertiary Qualification - + + -

The patterns evident in these data indicate 100% teacher and Board group agreement, 67%

student and parent group agreement, 33% agreement for the teacher and parent, and parent

and Board groups, followed by 0% agreement for the teacher and student, and student and

Board groups.

4.6.2 Desirable Personal Qualities

Perception data for this component of the principalship comprised 24 personal qualities

(Appendix E). Respondents were required to classify each personal quality according to

whether the item was perceived as very important, important, slightly important or not

important at all, as a personal quality of relevance to the principalship. The data for the group

perceptions of the 24 nominated principalship personal qualities are detailed in Appendix F,

Table/Graphs 5 to 28.

The list of 24 nominated personal qualities was not intended to be exhaustive but sufficiently

comprehensive, indicative, and representative of the range of personal qualities that the

principalship was reasonably expected to require or display. The 24 items gave sufficient

scope for the expression of perceptions in this category and for differences in the group

responses to be identified.

Data in this section of the survey were considered to be relevant to the research focus for two

reasons. Firstly, they made possible a basis for establishing the existence, and/or the nature,

of any divergence in the general perceptions of the principalship within the survey groups.

196
Further research could explore the connection between the perceptions of the required, or

desirable, personal qualities for the principalship, and the extent that these qualities were

present within a cohort of principals. The second basis of relevance for considering the

perceptions of nominated personal qualities of the principalship was that the practice of the

principalship, in the widest sense, encompassed the qualities of character that were integral to

principalship functions. It was the perceptions of the practice of the principalship in the

widest sense that was of interest in this study. Therefore, the perceptions of the wider view of

principalship practice, across the three variables, personal qualities, professional skills and

professional activities, provided a more complete understanding of teacher, student, parent,

and Board perceptions of the principalship.

Appendix G details a summary of the perception indices for each personal quality recorded by

the respondent groups, in the five participating school communities. In addition, an aggregate

average perception index column was added, to reflect the overall respondents’ perceptions

for each nominated personal quality. From the general data in Appendix G, the group average

perception indices, for the perceptions of the personal qualities of the principalship, were used

to rank the 24 personal qualities presented in Schedule C.

197
 Schedule C: Personal Qualities P.I. Ranking of Importance
TEACHER P.I. STUDENT P.I. PARENT P.I. BOARD P.I. AGGREGATE P.I.
RANKING RANKING RANKING RANKING

Trustworthy 96 Leader 93 Trustworthy 94 Leader 96 Trustworthy 95

Leader 95 Trustworthy 93 Leader 91 Trustworthy 96 Leader 94
Communicator 94 Understanding 91 Reliable 91 Wise 93 Wise 91
Reliable 94 Reliable 91 Wise 90 Communicator 89 Communicator 91
Wise 91 Wise 89 Communicator 90 Visionary 88 Reliable 90
Consistent 91 Communicator 89 Fair minded 88 Consistent 86 Consistent 87
Fair minded 89 Respectable 88 Consistent 88 Fair minded 85 Fair minded 87
Understanding 87 Kind 85 Understanding 86 Reliable 85 Understanding 86
Respectable 87 Fair minded 84 Friendly 84 Energetic 82 Respectable 83
Friendly 85 Organizer 83 Knowledgeable 81 Respectable 82 Visionary 81
Energetic 83 Consistent 82 Confident 80 Friendly 80 Friendly 89
Organizer 82 Confident 81 Visionary 78 Understanding 78 Organizer 79
Visionary 82 Tolerant 79 Organizer 78 Optimistic 75 Knowledgeable 78
Confident 81 Knowledgeable 79 Open 78 Knowledgeable 74 Confident 78
Optimistic 80 Visionary 75 Tolerant 78 Organizer 73 Tolerant 76
Knowledgeable 78 Optimistic 75 Optimistic 75 Confident 71 Optimistic 76
Open 77 Friendly 65 Kind 74 Innovative 71 Energetic 75
Tolerant 76 Cheerful 63 Respectable 74 Tolerant 69 Kind 73
Innovative 72 Energetic 62 Energetic 74 Open 66 Open 71
Kind 70 Open 61 Innovative 71 Kind 61 Innovative 66
Cheerful 60 Innovative 48 Cheerful 66 Cheerful 59 Cheerful 64
Outgoing 52 Outgoing 47 Outgoing 58 Outgoing 56 Outgoing 53
Forceful 38 Forceful 41 Popular 37 Popular 41 Forceful 38
Popular 27 Popular 38 Forceful 36 Forceful 38 Popular 36

The use of the perception index (P.I.), to construct Schedule C revealed the differences in the

perception range between the groups. For the student, parent and Board groups, the

perception indices recorded a range from 55 to 59 points, from the highest to lowest ranking

respectively. In the case of the teacher cohort, this range was 69. The proximity of school

staff to the role and person of the principal, increased the capacity of these school participants

to form perceptions of the personal qualities of importance to the principalship based on

greater familiarity than was possible for other school stakeholders. The smaller range in the

perception indices of the student, parent and Board groups, indicates greater agreement in the

perceptions of members of the school community who viewed the principalship more

remotely than the staff.

From the perception indices, the ranking of the top five personal qualities of perceived

importance to the principalship are displayed in Schedule D.

198
 Schedule D: Principal Personal Qualities – Top 5 P.I. Ranking of Importance

Rank Teachers P.I. Rank Students P.I. Rank Parents P.I. Rank Board P.I.

1. Trustworthy 96 1. Leader 93 1. Trustworthy 94 1. Leader 96

2. Leader 95 Trustworthy 93 2. Leader 91 Trustworthy 96
3. Communicator 94 2. Understanding 91 Reliable 91 2. Wise 93
Reliable 94 Reliable 91 3. Wise 90 3. Communicator 89
4. Wise 91 3. Wise 89 Communicator 90 4. Visionary 88
Consistent 91 Communicator 89 4. Fair minded 88 5. Consistent 86
5. Fair minded 89 4. Respectable 88 Consistent 88
5. Kind 85 5. Understanding 86

The range of items in Schedule D, consists of eleven distinct personal qualities identified by

the response groups as the items with the highest perceived importance for the principalship.

These eleven items comprise trustworthy, reliable, wise, consistent, fair-minded,

understanding, respectable, kind, a leader, communicator and visionary. Of these personal

qualities, four have common reference to each response group, namely trustworthy, leader,

communicator and wise. This quartet of personal qualities recorded the overall highest level

of perceived importance when the ranking of the top five items were analysed, according to

perception index, in Schedule C.

Other items in the top five ranking of importance in Schedule D included three items that are

mentioned once, and hence unique to the list in which they were mentioned. In this regard,

students identified the qualities of kind and respectable, and only the Board cohort assigned a

top five ranking to the principal as a visionary. Although the presence of the Board’s

perceived importance of the visionary quality was expected, the visionary quality was

perceived to have less importance than other personal qualities that related to the daily

mainstream role of school administration, namely leadership, wisdom and trustworthiness.

The selection by students of the personal qualities of kind and respectable is indicative of the

personal, relational contact that students have with their school principal.

199
Further analysis of the items, given in Schedule D, revealed that the strongest level of inter-

group agreement in the perception of the five highest ranked personal qualities of importance

to the principalship, occurred for the teacher and parent respondents at 88%. The inclusion of

the personal quality of understanding is the only quality that differentiates teacher and parent

perceptions. Other levels of inter-group perceptual agreement are 63% for teachers and

Boards, 60% for parents and students, 55% for parents and Boards, 50% for teachers and

students, with the lowest level for students and Boards at 40%.

Further levels of agreement, or otherwise, in the perceptions of importance of the nominated

personal qualities submitted to parents, teachers, students and Board members were obtained

from Appendix G, by comparing the group average perception index with the aggregate

average perception index value. The comparisons are displayed in Schedule E where the

positive or negative sign indicates the trend in the group average, either above or below the

aggregate average perception index.

200
 Schedule E: Principalship Personal Qualities Perception Index Group Comparisons
with the Aggregate Average

PERSONAL AGG GROUP

QUALITIES AVE TEACHERS STUDENTS PARENTS BOARD

Optimistic 76 + - - -
Energetic 75 + - - +
Friendly 86 - + - -
Wise 91 - - - +
Leader 94 + - - +
Fair Minded 87 + - + -
Innovative 71 + + + +
Respectable 83 + + - -
Outgoing 57 - + + -
Tolerant 76 + + + -
Open 73 + - + -
Cheerful 68 - + - -
Organizer 79 + + - -
Consistent 87 + - + -
Kind 73 - + + -
Forceful 39 - + - -
Confident 78 + + + -
Knowledgeable 78 + + + -
Understanding 86 + + + -
Communicator 91 + - - -
Reliable 90 + + + -
Trustworthy 95 + - - +
Visionary 81 + - - +
Popular 45 - - + +

The presence of agreement, or otherwise, in the perceptions of the response groups was

determined from the occurrence of the same sign, positive or negative, for a particular item.

The result of this analysis identifies that 63% agreement occurred in the perceptions of

students and parents, as the highest level of inter-group agreement, followed by 54%

agreement for teachers and parents, 42% for teachers and students, and teachers and Board,

and 38% for parents and Boards. The lowest level of inter-group agreement of 25%, was

identified for students and Boards. The correlations for the full list of personal qualities

differed from the correlations derived from the ranking of the top five qualities, both

summarised in Schedule F. Common to both sets of responses was the student-Board

201
correlation as the lowest inter-group level of agreement regarding the personal qualities of

perceived importance to the principalship.

Schedule F: Inter-Group Perception Agreement Summary for Principalship Personal

Qualities (% Agreement)

GROUP TOP FIVE TOTAL AVERAGE

AGREEMENT QUALITIES QUALITIES
Teacher-Parents 88 54 71
Student-Parents 60 63 62
Teacher-Board 63 42 53
Parent-Board 55 38 47
Teacher-Student 50 42 46
Student-Board 40 25 33

Several features are noted in these data of the inter-group perceptual agreement of

principalship personal qualities. Firstly, the greatest difference in the perceptions of

important principalship personal qualities occurred for the students and the teachers, on the

one hand, and students and Board members, on the other. To some extent this could be

expected due to the operation of variable factors of maturity, experience and perceptive skill.

However, it is worth noting that the divergent perceptions occurred between those who

organized and determined school outcomes, namely Boards and teachers, and the student

group, for whom the outcomes were determined. Secondly, the low average level of

agreement in teacher and student perceptions at 46% occurred, despite student and teacher

proximity to the principalship, continuity of association with the principal, and hence the

greater level of shared experience of principalship personal qualities. Despite this

association, less than half of the student and teacher inter-group perceptions correlated.

A third feature is the low inter-group correlation between teacher and Board perceptions of

50%. The teacher and Board groups are the members of the school community with the

greatest vested interest in principalship practice, and most capable of, or likely to have,

influence on that practice. It is from the teacher cohort that future principals could be

202
expected to be appointed by Boards of governance. Yet, considerable divergence of

perception on the personal qualities of importance to the principalship, by those who

appointed principals, and those who aspired to the principalship, is evident. A more desirable

outcome, that would have assisted the appointment process of the principalship, would have

been for teacher and Board perceptions of the principalship to possess greater agreement than

appears to be evident in these data.

A fourth feature is noted in the inter-group correlations in Schedule F. Despite the strength of

the 71% highest average level of correlation for the teacher and parent inter-group

perceptions, there existed considerable divergence in the general inter-group perceptions. For

the response groups, in this category of principalship practice, the mean level of inter-group

perceptual agreement was 52%, which reflected the presence of substantial perceptual

variation.

Further to the respondents’ assessment of the perceived level of importance of each personal

quality to the principalship, the personal qualities were ranked to indicate the five most

important qualities perceived by each respondent. The most popular selections for each of the

five ranked positions are detailed in Schedules G to J.

Schedule G: Principal Personal Qualities –

Teacher Ranking

RANK SCHOOL 1 SCHOOL 2 SCHOOL 3 SCHOOL 4 SCHOOL 5

1. Wise Leader Leader Visionary Wise
2. Leader Leader Visionary Leader Wise
3. Trustworthy Trustworthy Confident Leader Trustworthy
4. Communicator Consistent Communicator Communicator Communicator
5. Trustworthy Trustworthy Communicator Visionary Communicator

203
 Schedule H Principal Personal Qualities –
Student Ranking

RANK SCHOOL 1 SCHOOL 2 SCHOOL 3 SCHOOL 4 SCHOOL 5

1. Leader Leader Wise Leader Leader
2. Leader Wise Respectable Leader Trustworthy
3. Fair minded Friendly Trustworthy Understanding Trustworthy
4. Reliable Understanding Friendly Friendly Trustworthy
5. Friendly Fair minded Understanding Fair minded Reliable

Schedule I: Principal Personal Qualities –

Parent Ranking

RANK SCHOOL 1 SCHOOL 2 SCHOOL 3 SCHOOL 4 SCHOOL 5

1. Leader Leader Wise Wise Trustworthy
2. Leader Trustworthy Leader Fair minded Leader
3. Communicator Leader Trustworthy Communicator Fair minded
4. Understanding Communicator Communicator Communicator Fair minded
5. Trustworthy Communicator Communicator Trustworthy Visionary

Schedule J: Principal Personal Qualities –

Board Ranking

RANK SCHOOL 1 SCHOOL 2 SCHOOL 3 SCHOOL 4 SCHOOL 5

1. Wise Leader Wise All different Leader
2. Trustworthy Leader Leader All different Trustworthy
3. Communicator Communicator Reliable Communicator Visionary
4. Communicator Reliable All different All different Communicator
5. Visionary Trustworthy Wise All different Communicator

For the items in Schedules G to J, a weighting was used, according to the rank of each item,

whether in first or fifth position, that identified the three most important personal qualities

perceived by each group. The results are summarized in Schedule K.

Schedule K: Principal Personal Qualities –

Perceived Ranking of Importance Group Summary

RANKING GROUP
TEACHERS STUDENTS PARENTS BOARD
1. Leader Leader Leader Leader
2. Wise Trustworthy Communicator Communicator
3. Trustworthy Wise Trustworthy Wise

A high level of agreement in the group perceptions was evident, with the four personal

qualities of leadership, trustworthiness, communication and wisdom identified as the four

204
premium qualities. These four qualities also occupy the positions of importance in the

analysis that uses the perception index data, presented in Schedule D. Thus it was that two

different approaches established the perceptions of important personal qualities associated

with the principalship, and produced consistent results. Such an outcome underlined the

validity of the perception index calculation and analysis, and the validity of leadership,

trustworthiness, wisdom and communication as the outstanding personal qualities of perceived

importance to the principalship. Of this quartet, trustworthiness and wisdom are internalized

character qualities, while leadership and communication are outward expressions. All four

qualities actively engage with, and affect the school community, and facilitate the visible

expression of principalship practice.

Understanding the group perceptions of the personal qualities of importance to the

principalship also required the consideration of those items that were classified of least

importance amongst the 24 qualities presented. In Schedule C each of the four response

groups rated the three items, outgoing, forceful and popular, at the lowest level of importance.

The qualities of forceful and popular were recorded in the two lowest positions by all survey

groups. The student and teacher cohorts recorded popularity as lowest, while the parent and

Board groups placed forceful as least important. It is of interest that these three qualities are

devalued in perceived importance for the role of the school principalship despite their high

profile and public character in the media, for example.

The lowest importance assigned to the personal qualities of outgoing, forceful and popular,

reflects the changing paradigms of leadership in contemporary organizational and

administrative practice. Current leadership paradigms tend to favour less domineering and

directive leadership approaches that are more conducive to collegiate and team decision

making structures. Personal qualities that create a sense of presence for the principal, such as

205
outgoing, popular and forceful, appear to have been replaced by fair minded, friendly and

understanding as preferred qualities.

The rank given to the perception of the visionary aspect of the principalship is a notable

contrast amongst the survey groups. The visionary quality was ranked fifth in importance for

the principalship by the Board responses, and by the other groups no higher than twelfth. The

higher ranking of the visionary quality, by the governance respondents, could be expected, as

they have the responsibility for the future direction of the school, with the principal as a

significant contributor. The teacher group, however, perceived the visionary quality as

thirteenth in importance, out of twenty-four, which was a significant variance to the Board

perceptions. Future principal appointments are drawn from the teacher cohort and yet, in

these data, the visionary expectations of the Board for the principalship diverged from the

general teacher perceptions of this aspect of the principalship role.

4.6.3 Professional Skills Perceived as Important

Fifteen representative professional skills were submitted to respondents for assessment in

relation to the principalship, as to whether they were very important, important, slightly

important or not important at all. The skills were: financial planning, building development,

student discipline, record keeping, marketing and publicity, communication, inter-personal

relationships, curriculum development, dispute resolution, staff management, staff

development, organizational management, public relations, leadership and future planning.

The list was not intended as an exhaustive or exclusive classification of the most important

professional skills to the principalship, but rather was presented as a sufficiently diverse and

recognizable skill set, to establish teacher, student, parent and Board respondent perceptions

of the principalship in the area of professional skills.

Generally the perceptions of the professional skills of perceived importance, from the four

response groups, revealed substantial consensus. For 40% of the skill items, the highest

206
frequency responses occurred in the same level-of-importance category, for the student,

teacher, parent and Board groups. The professional qualities of the principal to which this

applied were financial planning, communication, inter-personal relationships, staff

management, leadership and future planning. In addition, in 87% of the skill items, three or

four of the response groups recorded the highest frequency in the same level-of-importance

category for the same item. Two of the fifteen items, namely building development and

curriculum development, received noteworthy perception responses. For curriculum

development, the predominant perceptions of the teacher and Board groups indicated that this

skill was important to the principalship, while the student and parent groups perceived it to be

very important. This difference is of interest because curriculum development relates to the

core function of schooling, yet it was viewed to have lesser importance by the providers of the

curriculum than by the end recipients.

The teacher cohort reported a perception of the skill of curriculum development at a lower

level of importance than the other three group responses. Teacher responses recorded a rate

of 24% in the slightly important and not at all important categories, compared with 19% for

the Board responses and 10% and 9% for the student and parents respectively. While teacher

and Board perceptions acknowledged an important place for professional skills, in the area of

curriculum development, the lower rating indicated by these two groups, who worked more

closely with the principal, indicates a perception of a lesser role for curriculum development

activity in principalship behaviour.

While recognizing the presence of general agreement, in the overall group perceptions of

principalship professional skills, there were subtle variations. Differences occurred in the

degree of endorsement, by group members, of the perception of an item’s importance to the

principalship. To identify these nuances in the different group responses, the perception index

207
was used. The results of the calculation of the perception indices for the group perceptions of

the importance of the various professional skill items are detailed in Appendix H.

From the group average perception indices in Appendix H, the ranked fifteen professional

skill areas, for each of the four response groups, are detailed in Schedule L.

Schedule L: Professional Skill Ranking of Importance

According to Perception Index (P.I.)

TEACHER P.I. STUDENT P.I. PARENT P.I. BOARD P.I.

RANKING RANKING RANKING RANKING
Leadership 96 Leadership 93 Leadership 93 Leadership 97
Communication 93 Future Planning 87 Communication 90 Communication 92
Inter-Personal 93 Staff Management 85 Staff Management 85 Staff Management 89
Relationships
Staff Management 91 Staff Development 83 Inter-Personal 85 Inter-Personal 89
Relationships Relationships
Future Planning 86 Communication 83 Dispute Resolution 85 Dispute Resolution 84
Dispute 82 Organizational 79 Student Discipline 83 Future Planning 83
Resolution Management
Organizational 81 Curriculum 78 Staff Development 82 Organizational 75
Management Development Management
Public Relations 80 Inter-Personal 74 Future Planning 79 Public Relations 75
Relationships
Staff Development 78 Dispute Resolution 73 Organizational 76 Staff Development 72
Management
Student Discipline 75 Student Discipline 72 Curriculum 76 Student Discipline 72
Development
Curriculum 63 Public Relations 72 Public Relations 73 Curriculum 69
Development Development
Marketing and 59 Financial Planning 63 Financial Planning 54 Financial Planning 62
Publicity
Financial Planning 55 Record Keeping 56 Building 43 Marketing and 55
Development Publicity
Building 48 Building 51 Marketing and 42 Record Keeping 50
Development Development Publicity
Record Keeping 43 Marketing and 45 Record Keeping 40 Building 43
Publicity Development

According to the perception index ranked data of professional skills, in Schedule L, the

professional skill of leadership received a common rank position in first place. From the

aggregate average perception indices recorded for the data categories in Appendix H, the four

skills that were perceived as most important professional skills for the principalship were,

leadership, communication, staff management and inter-personal relationships. The four

208
lowest ranked professional skills of importance to the principalship were financial planning,

marketing and publicity, record keeping and building development. Schedule M contains the

summary of the extent of the inter-group agreement with the ranked perceptions of importance

at the highest and lowest levels.

Schedule M: Response Group Perceptual Agreement with the Most important and Least
Important Ranked Professional Skills

PROFESSIONAL AGGREGATE AGREEMENT WITH

SKILLS AVERAGE GROUP ITEMS (%)
P.I. T S P B
Most Important
Leadership 94
Communication 90
Staff Management 88 100 75 100 100
Inter-Personal Relationships 85

Least Important
Financial Planning 59
Marketing and Publicity 50
Record Keeping 47 0 25 25 100
Building Development 46

In Schedule M, the aggregate average perception indices of the total surveyed responses

corresponds with the Board perceptions of the professional skills of highest and lowest

importance to the principalship, and the Board rank of the skills in these two categories.

Further to this, using the eight professional skill items in Schedule M, the other group

comparisons were calculated from the data in Schedule L. The strongest agreement level

reported for these comparisons was for the parent and Board groups at 63%, thereafter, 38%

for parent-teacher, student-parent and student-Board agreement and 25% for teacher-student

and teacher-Board group agreement.

Further comparisons of the group responses resulted from using the deviation in the average

group perception index and the aggregate average for the response group, for a particular

209
item. When the deviation occurred in the same direction, either positive or negative, the

group perceptions were inferred to display a trend towards agreement. Schedule N details this

analysis.

Schedule N: Principal’s Professional Skills

Perception Indices Group Comparison with Aggregate Average

PROFESSIONAL SKILL GROUP AGGREGATE

ITEM TEACHER STUDENT PARENT BOARD AVERAGE

Financial Planning - + - + 59
Building Development + + - - 46
Student Discipline - - + - 76
Record Keeping - + - + 47
Marketing and Publicity + - - + 50
Communication + - + + 90
Inter-Personal Relationship + - + + 85
Curriculum Development - + + - 71
Dispute Resolution + - + + 81
Staff Management + - + + 88
Staff Development - + + - 78
Organizational Management + + - - 78
Public Relations + - - - 75
Leadership + - - + 94
Future Planning + + - + 83

For the construction of Schedule N, and other similar schedules that follow, a zero deviation,

in the group average and the aggregate average, is classified as positive or negative, to agree

with the next closest perception index value to the aggregate average. Where there are two

alternatives the sign chosen, positive or negative, is in agreement with the remaining value.

This latter situation occurred only once, for the item future planning.

The pattern of inter-group agreement, where the group perceptions are the same sign, positive

or negative, displayed in Schedule N, occurred at its highest level of 67% for the teacher and

Board groups. Thereafter the inter-group agreement was 40% for teacher-parent and parent-

Board groups, 33% for student-parent, student-Board groups, and 27% for the teacher-student

group perceptions. The strongest level of inter-group agreement recorded for the teacher-

210
Board perceptions of the professional skills of importance to the principalship, at 67%, also

conveyed a significant 33% level of variance. Substantially greater variance patterns occurred

for all other inter-group comparisons in this category of principalship practice.

While the study focus assessed the correlation in the overall group perceptions and practices

of the principalship, it was relevant to establish alignment or disparity in the actual group

perceptions of particular items that pertained to principalship practice by considering the

perceptions of the professional skill items individually. Perceptual data of individual

principalship skills provided insight into principalship practice, because the practice of the

principalship involved the application of professional skills. The perceptual data for each of

the 15 professional skill areas considered are therefore displayed and analysed in the

following sub-section.

211
4.6.3(a) Financial Planning Skills

Table/Graph 29: Financial Planning Skills - Perceptions of Importance

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%
Frequency

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
T S P B T S P B T S P B T S P B T S P B T S P B
School 1 School 2 School 3 School 4 School 5 Average
Not at all Imp. 8% 5% 2% 0% 3% 0% 5% 0% 10% 4% 3% 0% 0% 3% 6% 0% 2% 2% 2% 0% 4% 3% 3% 0%
Slightly Imp. 28% 22% 31% 50% 18% 21% 42% 8% 19% 27% 35% 33% 26% 14% 30% 25% 36% 14% 21% 33% 25% 20% 32% 30%
Imp. 50% 40% 45% 50% 53% 68% 40% 92% 57% 45% 43% 56% 52% 61% 42% 0% 53% 52% 62% 67% 53% 53% 46% 53%
Very Imp. 13% 33% 21% 0% 28% 7% 11% 0% 10% 24% 17% 11% 19% 22% 16% 75% 9% 31% 13% 0% 15% 24% 15% 17%

The professional skill of financial planning recorded a range of response frequencies from

61%-76% in the important or very important response categories. The strongest perceived

importance was from the student group. The 76% of student responses, that placed this skill

in the important or very important categories, are 7% higher than the next strongest indication,

which came from the Board respondents. The strength of the student response to this item,

contrasted to the parent and teacher responses, but was comparable to the Board response.

The perception index reflected this for student and Board groups at 63 and 62 respectively.

No group recorded a ranking of the professional skill of financial planning above 12th position

out of 15 items, based on the perception indices.

212
4.6.3(b) Building Development Skills

Table/Graph 30: Building Development Skills - Perception of Importance

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%
Frequency

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
T S P B T S P B T S P B T S P B T S P B T S P B
School 1 School 2 School 3 School 4 School 5 Average
Not at all Imp. 5% 7% 6% 17% 3% 0% 6% 8% 5% 12% 7% 0% 0% 3% 5% 0% 6% 5% 9% 11% 4% 5% 6% 7%
Slightly Imp. 38% 31% 42% 58% 28% 36% 51% 58% 33% 24% 36% 67% 52% 25% 38% 25% 47% 36% 49% 56% 39% 30% 43% 53%
Imp. 48% 51% 44% 25% 48% 46% 37% 33% 57% 45% 52% 33% 35% 61% 44% 25% 43% 43% 38% 33% 46% 49% 43% 30%
Very Imp. 5% 9% 7% 0% 15% 11% 3% 0% 0% 18% 3% 0% 10% 11% 7% 50% 4% 14% 2% 0% 7% 13% 4% 10%

Teacher and student responses indicated a slightly stronger perception of importance for the

skill of building development than the parent and Board cohorts. The Board perceptions

devalued the significance of this skill, and registered the highest frequency of perception

response, at 59%, in the two lowest categories of importance. The exception to this overall

Board perception occurred in School 4. The Board of School 4 recorded the highest group

perception of 50% in the very important category, for the building development professional

skill. The strength of this perception was tempered by the small data field of four Board

members.

Related to the School 4 Board response, in particular, and as a background feature to the

general Board perceptions of the building development skill area for the principalship was the

involvement of the schools, in the study, in recent or continuing building development

213
programmes. Despite this, the Boards indicated a lower perception of the importance of

building development skill to the principalship, than other school stakeholders, whose

perceptions of the importance of building development skill for the principalship perhaps

resulted from the association of the principal with school building development projects.

The visibility of the principal, on the building site, promoting the building development,

alerting the school community to disruptive effects of building work, and the role of the

principal in opening or commissioning ceremonies for completed buildings, would contribute

to a heightened perception of the principals’ involvement in building development. Students,

who shared each school day with the principal, would be particularly influenced by these

factors. The student average response frequency of 61%, in the important and very important

categories, underscored the stronger student perception of this skill, at a level 21% higher than

the Board responses. Comparative perception index values for the groups, recorded the

student group at the highest perception index level of 51 and the Board and parent groups at

the lowest level of 43. Building development skill was placed in one of the lowest 3 places of

importance as a principalship skill, according to the perception index ranking for all response

groups.

214
4.6.3(c) Student Discipline Skills

Table/Graph 31: Student Discipline Skills - Perception of Importance

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%
Frequency

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
T S P B T S P B T S P B T S P B T S P B T S P B
School 1 School 2 School 3 School 4 School 5 Average
Not at all Imp. 3% 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 5% 4% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2% 0% 0% 1% 2% 0% 0%
Slightly Imp. 10% 7% 3% 8% 3% 4% 2% 8% 5% 14% 5% 22% 19% 22% 6% 25% 11% 12% 6% 0% 9% 12% 4% 13%
Imp. 43% 44% 30% 67% 35% 46% 38% 50% 71% 55% 40% 56% 39% 61% 38% 0% 43% 40% 23% 100 46% 49% 34% 54%
Very Imp. 43% 47% 66% 25% 63% 50% 57% 42% 19% 27% 55% 22% 42% 17% 50% 75% 47% 45% 68% 0% 43% 37% 59% 33%

Student discipline, as a professional skill of importance for the principalship, received

relatively strong endorsement across the survey groups. The aggregate average perception

index for this skill area was 76. Ranking of student discipline by teacher, student and Board

groups located it 10th in importance out of the 15 items, and 6th by parents. Further evidence

of the greater level of importance perceived for this skill, by the parent cohort, was the 93% of

parent responses in the important and very important categories.

School structures for student discipline, invariably removed the principal from direct

involvement, at least in the first instance. Senior staff or deputy principals dealt with breaches

of the student behaviour code and the consequences, in the first instance, with the occurrence

of serious student misbehaviour, or where initial discipline action was unsuccessful or

ineffectual referred to the principal. The operation of this approach, or some other school-

based model, may help explain the school-based differences in the perception of the

215
importance to the principalship of student discipline skills. School 4 reported a higher level of

teacher, student and Board perception that designated student discipline as slightly important,

which suggested the presence and operation of a school-based approach to student discipline

that did not focus on principalship involvement.

Despite the level of importance that the respondents attached to the professional skills of

student discipline, the principalship practice observed in this study did not bear this out. The

observation and journal practice of the five principals comprised 338 hours of principalship

practice, yet throughout the observed activity (49 hours) and the personal record keeping of

each individual principal (289 hours), there were no recorded principalship involvements in

student discipline activities. This result could have occurred as an anomaly in the recording

period, or point to principalship practice that established school discipline structures and

policies, with involvement by the principal thereafter confined to a consultative, supportive

role that ensured the structures and policies were given effect.

216
4.6.3(d) Record Keeping Skills

Table/Graph 32: Record Keeping Skills - Perceptions of Importance

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%
Frequency

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
T S P B T S P B T S P B T S P B T S P B T S P B
School 1 School 2 School 3 School 4 School 5 Average
Not at all Imp. 10% 7% 13% 17% 5% 0% 6% 0% 24% 8% 15% 0% 6% 6% 7% 0% 9% 0% 15% 0% 11% 4% 11% 3%
Slightly Imp. 35% 27% 31% 58% 23% 18% 38% 50% 38% 45% 36% 44% 45% 39% 40% 25% 32% 21% 38% 67% 35% 30% 37% 49%
Imp. 40% 40% 40% 25% 50% 71% 49% 50% 19% 43% 43% 33% 35% 42% 38% 0% 49% 52% 36% 22% 39% 50% 41% 26%
Very Imp. 13% 25% 14% 0% 23% 11% 5% 0% 10% 4% 6% 11% 13% 14% 8% 75% 11% 26% 9% 11% 14% 16% 8% 19%

The general perception from the survey groups was that the professional skill of record

keeping was of moderate importance for the principalship. Evidence of this occurred in the

slightly important and important response frequencies for each group, which when combined,

revealed similar perception response levels for teacher, student, parent and Board groups of

72%, 79%, 77% and 74% respectively.

Board group perceptions recorded the highest aggregate frequency in the lesser importance

categories, but overall recorded the highest group perception index of 50. Perceptions by the

Board respondents that diminished the importance of record keeping, as a skill for the

principalship, did so despite its role as a mechanism by which the principal fulfilled internal

and external organizational accountability requirements. Perceiving record keeping skill as

low in importance, placed the Board at risk of undermining the necessary accountability

217
expectations of the principal. However, the Board of School 4, was an exception. A

perception index of 83, and 75% response frequency in the very important category, indicated

a strong perception that record keeping was a very important principalship skill. The sample

field of 4 for this Board should be noted. In contrast, the Board of School 1 perceived record

keeping skills to warrant a 16% allocation as not important at all, the only school Board that

recorded any response at this low level of importance. A perception index of 25 resulted for

this Board, and suggested that record keeping within the school was located elsewhere than

with the principal, as a feature of its structure and staffing.

218
4.6.3(e) Marketing and Publicity Skills

Table/Graph 33: Marketing and Publicity Skills - Perception of Importance

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%
Frequency

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
T S P B T S P B T S P B T S P B T S P B T S P B
School 1 School 2 School 3 School 4 School 5 Average
Not at all Imp. 3% 7% 8% 8% 0% 4% 15% 0% 10% 16% 10% 0% 0% 6% 5% 0% 6% 10% 9% 0% 4% 8% 9% 2%
Slightly Imp. 28% 44% 40% 42% 23% 50% 35% 33% 19% 41% 37% 44% 42% 25% 34% 0% 17% 40% 38% 33% 26% 40% 37% 31%
Imp. 53% 35% 46% 33% 50% 29% 37% 50% 38% 33% 42% 56% 42% 50% 42% 75% 53% 36% 43% 56% 47% 36% 42% 54%
Very Imp. 15% 15% 6% 17% 28% 14% 11% 17% 33% 10% 9% 0% 13% 19% 12% 25% 23% 14% 9% 0% 22% 15% 9% 12%

In these data, three out of the four response groups shared the perception that marketing and

publicity skills are important for the principal. The student cohort was the exception with a

marginal emphasis of slightly lesser importance. The teacher and Board group data indicated

the stronger perception of importance of this skill area to the principalship, with perception

indices of 59 and 55 respectively. These respondents would have participated with the

Principal in promotional and marketing activities, to gain a heightened awareness of the skills

needed, and the priority of marketing and publicity for school viability and development.

Students and parents are typically the focus of promotional and marketing endeavours, which

they would observe to involve varying levels of principalship involvement, but not necessarily

as the domain of the principalship. Hence, the lower perception of importance reported by

students and parents for the importance of marketing and promotion skills to the principalship.

219
School 4 data, for the Board perceptions of marketing and promotion skill, were in contrast to

the other respondents, and recorded perceptions rated entirely in the important and very

important categories. Local school circumstances could explain this contrasting perception.

Located in a region of strong competition for enrolments amongst neighbouring schools, the

Board of School 4 evidenced an increased perception of the significance and importance of

marketing and promotional activities, with the expectation of the principal as a significant

contributor to promotional undertakings.

4.6.3(f) Communication Skills

Table/Graph 34: Communication Skills - Perception of Importance

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%
Frequency

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
T S P B T S P B T S P B T S P B T S P B T S P B
School 1 School 2 School 3 School 4 School 5 Average
Not at all Imp. 0% 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2% 0% 0% 3% 6% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 2% 0% 0%
Slightly Imp. 0% 4% 1% 8% 0% 4% 2% 0% 10% 2% 2% 11% 0% 17% 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2% 5% 1% 4%
Imp. 15% 16% 10% 8% 5% 18% 25% 17% 10% 33% 23% 11% 10% 28% 16% 25% 13% 29% 15% 11% 10% 25% 18% 14%
Very Imp. 80% 78% 87% 83% 95% 71% 72% 83% 81% 63% 75% 78% 87% 50% 76% 75% 87% 71% 83% 89% 86% 67% 79% 82%

Professional skill in communication was perceived as very important to the principalship by

all response groups and in excess of 66% of each group. The student group returned the

lowest response level. Communication was an aspect of the principalship that received

strong, uniform endorsement overall, with an aggregate average perception index of 90, the

second highest of the 15 professional skill items. At the individual school level, School 4

220
students recorded the perception that communication skills are of lower importance to the

principalship. This cohort recorded a group perception index of 69, and a 22% response

frequency in the aggregate of the two lowest categories of importance. The latter percentage

indicated a six times higher response in the lower perception response categories than any

other group, which could be explained by local circumstances.

Communication skills are important for the principalship as the public face of the school

organization, required to articulate the school ideals, ethos, vision and values. Only exceeded

in the perceptions of importance by leadership skills, communication skill forms a vital

component to many other skills, particularly leadership. Much of the principal’s activity

involves talking, discussion, liaison and general interaction of both an oral and written form.

Skill across the range of technologies of communication are necessary for the principalship, to

explain school functions and validate school directions and intentions.

221
4.6.3(g) Inter-Personal Relationship Skills

Table/Graph 35: Inter-Personal Relationships Skills - Perception of Importance

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%
Frequency

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
T S P B T S P B T S P B T S P B T S P B T S P B
School 1 School 2 School 3 School 4 School 5 Average
Not at all Imp. 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 4% 0% 0% 0% 3% 1% 0% 0% 2% 2% 0% 0% 2% 1% 0%
Slightly Imp. 0% 4% 2% 0% 0% 11% 3% 0% 5% 14% 4% 0% 0% 17% 1% 0% 0% 17% 6% 11% 1% 12% 3% 2%
Imp. 10% 42% 20% 17% 8% 25% 32% 33% 24% 33% 29% 22% 23% 42% 21% 25% 23% 36% 28% 22% 17% 35% 26% 24%
Very Imp. 88% 55% 77% 83% 93% 57% 63% 67% 71% 49% 67% 78% 77% 39% 69% 75% 77% 45% 62% 67% 81% 49% 67% 74%

Inter-personal relationship skill was one of the six skill items that recorded a common

perception by the four survey groups. The strength of the common perception of this skill

area was the lowest average of the top six skills. Teacher, parent and Board groups all

registered over 93% of aggregated responses to the perception category that indicated inter-

personal relationship skills are important or very important to the principalship. The student

group recorded 83% of responses in these categories. The student average response that

registered the perception of this skill area as very important to the principalship, did so at a

level 19% lower than the parent response which was the next lowest group.

While student perceptions were in general agreement with the perceptions of the other

response groups, student perceptions of this skill were more diverse. Application of the

perception index calculation to the more diverse student perceptions of the importance of

inter-personal relationship skill, resulted in the lowest group index of 74, 11 points less than

222
the average aggregate perception index. Only the student group did not record this skill in the

first 4 rankings of importance for the principalship. This result reflected the different type of

inter-personal interaction with the principal that occurred for student and adult members of the

school community. The teacher group perception index of 93 was the highest group index for

this skill area. The strength of the teacher perceptions of importance of inter-personal skills to

the principalship, reflected the proximity of the staff to the principal in day-to-day interaction.

The student cohort of Schools 4 and 5 were at variance with the response pattern evident

elsewhere. These two schools recorded a higher frequency of responses contrary to the

perception that inter-personal relationship skills are very important for the principalship.

Generally, the total student group perceived a level of importance of interpersonal skill for the

principalship, but at a lower level than was perceived by the other response groups.

223
4.6.3(h) Curriculum Development Skills

Table/Graph 36: Curriculum Development Skills - Perceptions of Importance

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%
Frequency

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
T S P B T S P B T S P B T S P B T S P B T S P B
School 1 School 2 School 3 School 4 School 5 Average
Not at all Imp. 5% 0% 1% 8% 3% 0% 0% 0% 5% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 2% 0% 0% 2% 0% 1% 2%
Slightly Imp. 25% 4% 3% 0% 10% 18% 9% 42% 29% 18% 11% 44% 32% 6% 7% 0% 15% 10% 11% 0% 22% 11% 8% 17%
Imp. 45% 33% 44% 42% 65% 32% 49% 42% 52% 45% 45% 44% 45% 39% 36% 50% 51% 33% 43% 56% 52% 36% 43% 47%
Very Imp. 23% 64% 51% 50% 23% 46% 40% 17% 14% 37% 43% 11% 23% 56% 49% 50% 34% 55% 45% 44% 23% 51% 46% 34%

The response groups’ perception of curriculum development skill for the principalship

indicated modest levels of importance, with perception indices ranging from 63 to 78. The

Board and teacher groups perceived a lower level of importance, when rating this skill,

compared to the student and parent groups. Perception index comparisons recorded the

teacher index of 63 as the lowest group index, 8 points lower than all the other group indices.

The pattern of group perceptions in this skill area was noteworthy and surprising. The teacher

and Board respondents, possess greater familiarity with the internal curriculum planning and

development functions of the school, than student and parent participants. Yet these groups

appeared to devalue the importance of curriculum development skill for the principalship.

Staff and Board awareness that the task of curriculum development was not necessarily an

exclusive principalship expectation, could explain the lower staff and Board perceptions of

this skill area. The average level of 4% of responses from teacher and Board members that

224
indicated curriculum development skill had no importance to the principalship, suggested a

familiarity with a structure that allocated the task of curriculum development as a distributed

responsibility within the school.

The individual school Board perceptions for Schools 2 and 3 indicated a lesser importance for

curriculum development skills. These Boards recorded the lowest Board perception indices,

of 57 and 55 respectively, and therefore perceived curriculum leadership as a lesser role for

the principalship. In contrast, the parent perceptions of the importance of curriculum

development skill for the principalship at these schools recorded perception indices of 76.

The considerable variance in the Board and parent perceptions at Schools 2 and 3 was of

interest because both schools operated with a parent-controlled governance structure. The

Boards, as representative of the parents in these schools, did not appear to reflect, as Boards,

the perceptions of the parent communities of the schools, in regard to the importance to the

principalship of curriculum development skill.

225
4.6.3(i) Dispute Resolution Skills

Table/Graph 37: Dispute Resolution Skills - Perceptions of Importance

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%
Frequency

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
T S P B T S P B T S P B T S P B T S P B T S P B
School 1 School 2 School 3 School 4 School 5 Average
Not at all Imp. 0% 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 5% 0% 0% 0% 2% 0% 0%
Slightly Imp. 5% 9% 3% 8% 3% 0% 2% 0% 14% 20% 2% 0% 6% 19% 0% 0% 2% 10% 2% 0% 6% 12% 2% 2%
Imp. 38% 33% 33% 42% 20% 54% 38% 58% 38% 47% 36% 33% 32% 39% 28% 25% 51% 48% 26% 56% 36% 44% 32% 43%
Very Imp. 55% 56% 63% 50% 78% 46% 58% 42% 48% 31% 61% 67% 61% 42% 65% 75% 47% 38% 70% 44% 58% 43% 64% 56%

Dispute resolution was perceived to have a high level of importance to the principalship skill

set. Each survey group recorded strongly in the important and very important categories,

where at least 85% of responses occurred. Student perceptions of the importance of this skill

were lower than the teacher, parent and Board groups, with a perception index of 73, some 8

points below the aggregate average index. For students the experience of dispute resolution

tends to involve other members of the school staff than the principal, whereas dispute

resolution that involves staff, parents, or the Board, receives more common reference to the

principal. Individual school variations were evident in the group responses, although there

was a strong perception throughout, that dispute resolution is an important professional skill

for the principalship.

226
4.6.3(j) Staff Management Skills

Table/Graph 38: Staff Management Skills - Perception of Importance

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%
Frequency

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
T S P B T S P B T S P B T S P B T S P B T S P B
School 1 School 2 School 3 School 4 School 5 Average
Not at all Imp. 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Slightly Imp. 0% 5% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 10% 0% 0% 0% 8% 1% 0% 2% 0% 6% 11% 0% 5% 2% 2%
Imp. 30% 25% 20% 33% 10% 36% 22% 17% 24% 35% 27% 22% 23% 42% 24% 25% 26% 31% 19% 22% 22% 34% 22% 24%
Very Imp. 68% 69% 76% 67% 90% 64% 77% 83% 76% 55% 73% 78% 77% 50% 67% 75% 72% 69% 72% 67% 77% 62% 73% 74%

Perceptions of the importance of staff management skill for the principalship were strongly

located at the highest level of importance by all response groups, one of only six professional

skills that recorded uniform agreement. The aggregate average perception index of 88 for the

skill of staff management ranked it third in overall importance. The staff perception index of

91 was the highest group index and indicated the strong perception of importance for this skill

by the staff group. The student cohort endorsed the importance of this skill, but at a lower

level than the other groups, with a group perception index three points less than the aggregate

average index.

227
4.6.3(k) Staff Development Skills

Table/Graph 39: Staff Development Skills – Perception of Importance

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%
Frequency

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
T S P B T S P B T S P B T S P B T S P B T S P B
School 1 School 2 School 3 School 4 School 5 Average
Not at all Imp. 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 8% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2%
Slightly Imp. 13% 5% 4% 8% 8% 4% 2% 8% 29% 8% 3% 0% 13% 17% 0% 0% 4% 0% 4% 11% 13% 7% 3% 6%
Imp. 40% 25% 35% 58% 35% 32% 48% 50% 48% 45% 37% 78% 45% 33% 38% 50% 47% 31% 38% 33% 43% 33% 39% 54%
Very Imp. 45% 69% 60% 33% 58% 64% 49% 33% 24% 47% 60% 22% 42% 50% 55% 50% 49% 69% 55% 44% 43% 60% 56% 37%

The perception index for staff development skill ranged from 72 to 83 across the group

average responses, with an aggregate average of 78. The lowest response level was the Board

cohort. The student group recorded the highest perception level of importance for this skill, 5

points higher than the staff, and 11 points higher than the Board perceptions. Parents were

also stronger, in the perception of the importance of this professional skill to the principalship,

than the staff or Board responses, a result that reflected the greater sensitivity experienced by

students and parents to the effects of staff performance. The Board group recorded a

frequency of 2% of responses that perceived staff development as not at all important, and 6%

as only slightly important to principalship practice.

228
4.6.3(l) Organizational Management Skills

Table/Graph 40: Organizational Management Skills - Perception of Importance

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%
Frequency

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
T S P B T S P B T S P B T S P B T S P B T S P B
School 1 School 2 School 3 School 4 School 5 Average
Not at all Imp. 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 5% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0%
Slightly Imp. 15% 7% 6% 8% 5% 7% 3% 17% 5% 14% 9% 0% 3% 8% 3% 0% 6% 7% 11% 22% 7% 9% 6% 9%
Imp. 28% 44% 35% 75% 35% 43% 52% 33% 29% 45% 51% 33% 42% 47% 49% 50% 45% 29% 36% 33% 36% 41% 45% 45%
Very Imp. 55% 49% 58% 8% 60% 50% 42% 42% 62% 41% 40% 67% 55% 44% 40% 50% 49% 64% 51% 44% 56% 50% 46% 42%

Perception levels for the importance of organizational management skill were strong, with an

overall average perception index of 78. Of the fifteen skill items presented to respondents,

organizational management was considered to be of mid-ranked importance. A stronger staff

perception of the importance of this skill to the principalship, and weaker Board perception,

reflected how staff are directly affected by the organizational management of the principal.

Student perceptions were in agreement with the teacher cohort, and consistent with the

proximity of the student and teacher groups to the more immediate school effects of the

principal’s application of organizational management skills.

At the individual school sites, group perceptions indicated a consistent level of importance for

the skill of organizational management. There was, however, some notable perceptual

divergence between Board and staff group perceptions of this skill area. The Board responses

229
for Schools 1 and 3 recorded perception indices of 61 and 88 respectively. These were the

highest and lowest indices from the survey responses. Perceptual divergence at the Board

level, and to this extent, highlighted a variable understanding for stakeholders with special

knowledge of the principalship and responsibility for the principal’s role. The occurrence of

perceptual divergence in a skill area that related to the overall administration of the school and

concerned the senior executive officer, is of operational significance for school governance

policies and practices for principalship recruitment and appraisal.

A further notable divergence occurred in the perception of the importance of organizational

management to the principalship in some staff perceptions. For example, school 3 recorded

the highest staff frequency, of 5%, of responses in the category of lowest importance, and the

highest frequency of responses, of 62%, to indicate that organizational management is a very

important skill for the principalship. Divergent perceptions of the principalship occurred for

these staff, despite the fact that they were the closest group to the management effects of the

principal.

230
4.6.3(m) Public Relations Skills

Table/Graph 41: Public Relations Skills - Perceptions of Importance

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%
Frequency

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
T S P B T S P B T S P B T S P B T S P B T S P B
School 1 School 2 School 3 School 4 School 5 Average
Not at all Imp. 0% 2% 0% 0% 0% 4% 2% 0% 5% 4% 1% 0% 0% 3% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 2% 1% 0%
Slightly Imp. 5% 15% 11% 8% 3% 0% 8% 25% 5% 16% 7% 0% 6% 8% 9% 0% 2% 12% 13% 33% 4% 10% 10% 13%
Imp. 43% 45% 53% 58% 40% 54% 57% 50% 33% 39% 48% 56% 35% 44% 45% 25% 47% 57% 30% 44% 40% 48% 47% 47%
Very Imp. 50% 38% 34% 33% 58% 43% 32% 25% 52% 41% 44% 44% 55% 44% 36% 75% 51% 31% 55% 22% 53% 39% 40% 40%

Public relation skills were ranked tenth in importance of the fifteen items submitted to

respondents. The aggregate average perception index for the groups was 75, which indicated a

perception that respondents attached some importance to public relations skill for the

principalship. The highest indicator of importance came from the teacher cohort, with 53% of

responses placing public relations skill in the very important category and a group perception

index of 80. School staff are the group most acquainted with the activity and necessity of the

principal’s role as the public face of the school community. The staff group at each school

recorded the highest level of responses that consistently classified public relations skill as very

important. Other group responses varied between schools in the strength of the assessment of

importance of this skill to the principalship.

School 4 staff and Board groups recorded the strongest perception of the importance of public

relations skill as a principalship skill, with 54% and 75% respectively, of response frequencies

231
in the very important category. This school, as previously noted, is geographically located in a

highly competitive enrolment zone. Public relations activity was, therefore, a necessary

undertaking to secure the school’s profile and presence within its zone.

4.6.3(n) Leadership Skills

Table/Graph 42: Leadership Skills - Perception of Importance

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%
Frequency

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
T S P B T S P B T S P B T S P B T S P B T S P B
School 1 School 2 School 3 School 4 School 5 Average
Not at all Imp. 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Slightly Imp. 0% 2% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 4% 1% 0% 3% 3% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 2% 0% 0%
Imp. 5% 9% 9% 8% 3% 11% 14% 8% 5% 16% 7% 0% 6% 14% 7% 0% 19% 17% 11% 22% 8% 13% 10% 8%
Very Imp. 93% 89% 89% 92% 98% 89% 85% 92% 95% 78% 92% 100 90% 83% 86% 100 81% 83% 87% 78% 91% 85% 88% 92%

Leadership skill for the principalship received the highest indication of importance amongst

the items for response, and the strongest level of perceptual agreement by the different group

participants. With an aggregate average perception index of 94, leadership skills was

perceived as the professional skill of prime importance for the principalship. The individual

school responses were similarly very strong in emphasizing the importance of this skill to the

principalship.

The staff and Board perceptions of the leadership role of the principal were the highest, with

perception indices of 96 and 97 respectively. The Boards of two schools, Schools 3 and 4,

232
gave unanimous endorsement to leadership skills as being very important. School 4,

however, recorded the highest frequency of staff perceptions of importance in the category

which indicated a perception of lesser importance for leadership skill. A more distributed

leadership model perhaps operated or was preferred by the staff in this context, thereby

removing some of the emphasis on the principal to provide leadership. Such a model,

however, was not reflected in the governance response for this school.

4.6.3(o) Future Planning Skills

Table/Graph 43: Future Planning Skills - Perception of Importance

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%
Frequency

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
T S P B T S P B T S P B T S P B T S P B T S P B
School 1 School 2 School 3 School 4 School 5 Average
Not at all Imp. 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0%
Slightly Imp. 5% 4% 0% 0% 5% 7% 9% 0% 10% 2% 7% 0% 0% 0% 6% 0% 2% 0% 6% 0% 4% 3% 6% 0%
Imp. 35% 29% 45% 50% 43% 39% 45% 83% 14% 37% 32% 33% 29% 28% 36% 50% 28% 29% 47% 22% 30% 32% 41% 48%
Very Imp. 58% 67% 54% 50% 53% 54% 43% 17% 76% 61% 61% 67% 71% 72% 51% 50% 68% 71% 43% 78% 65% 65% 50% 52%

Future planning skills for the principalship recorded the fifth highest aggregate average

perception index of 83, and the second highest agreement among the groups, as determined by

the closeness of the respective group perception indices. All group average frequencies

recorded this skill in the very important category. Of particular interest was the lower level of

importance recorded by the parent and Board groups, compared with staff and student

233
responses. For the parent cohort, 50% of respondents classified future planning as very

important, with 52% of the Board responses likewise. These frequencies compared with 65%

of student and staff responses, which placed future planning in the upper category of

perceived importance.

A contrast in the overall Board response, in particular, and those of staff and students, perhaps

resulted from a recognition of the Board responsibility for the future planning task of the

school. The Board of School 2, for example, recorded the lowest group perception index of

71 for this skill area, yet had recently addressed a serious and weighty consideration of future

school planning. The lower perception of importance of the principalship professional skill of

future planning was, for this school, recognition that the principal is a contributor to future

planning, not a prime mover or guiding influence. School Boards are required to address

future planning issues that extend beyond the tenure of a current principal appointment, and

are required to provide for principalship succession planning. These factors help to explain a

lower Board perception of principalship involvement in the future planning of school

requirements.

Beyond the assessment of the importance of each of the fifteen skill items individually, each

survey respondent ranked the five most important skills. The ranked order indicated by the

parent, Board, teacher and student groups are summarized in Schedules O, P, Q, and R

respectively.

Schedule O: Principalship Professional Skills –

Parent Ranking

RANK SCHOOL 1 SCHOOL 2 SCHOOL 3 SCHOOL 4 SCHOOL 5

1 Leadership Leadership Leadership Communication Leadership

2 Staff management Communication Staff Management Leadership Staff Management
3 Communication Staff Management Staff Management Leadership Leadership
4 Communication Staff Management Leadership Leadership Staff Management
5 Dispute Resolution Communication Future Planning Future Planning Dispute Resolution

234
 Schedule P: Principalship Professional Skills –
Board Ranking

RANK SCHOOL 1 SCHOOL 2 SCHOOL 3 SCHOOL 4 SCHOOL 5

1 Leadership Leadership Leadership Leadership Leadership

2 Inter Personal Staff Management Inter Personal All Different Future
Relationships Relationships Planning
3 Leadership Inter Personal Inter Personal All Different Future
Relationships Relationships Planning
4 Future Planning Dispute Resolution Staff Management Staff Public
Management Relations
5 Staff Development Staff Management Organizational Future Future
Management Planning Planning

Schedule Q: Principalship Professional Skills –

Teacher Ranking

RANK SCHOOL 1 SCHOOL 2 SCHOOL 3 SCHOOL 4 SCHOOL 5

1 Leadership Leadership Leadership Leadership Leadership

2 Communication Staff Future Planning Leadership Staff
Management Management
3 Staff Communication Inter Personal Staff Management Staff
Management Relationships Management
4 Leadership Student Communication Inter Personal Staff
Discipline Relationships Management
5 Public Relations Future Planning Dispute Resolution Future Planning Future
Planning

Schedule R: Principalship Professional Skills –

Student Ranking

RANK SCHOOL 1 SCHOOL 2 SCHOOL 3 SCHOOL 4 SCHOOL 5

1 Leadership Leadership Leadership Future Planning Leadership

2 Leadership Leadership Leadership Curriculum Communication
Development
3 Communication Staff Staff Leadership Staff
Development Management Management
4 Dispute Leadership Student Future Planning Staff
Resolution Discipline Development
5 Leadership Future Planning Future Planning Dispute Resolution Future Planning

Analysis of these schedules reveals that the parent cohort recorded the closest group

consensus in the perceptions of the highest ranked professional skills of importance to the

principalship. Only 5 separate skill items appear in the rank items of the parent group,

235
whereas for each of the other groups, 8 separate items occur. The latter number could be

increased for the Board group, because Board 4 recorded two rankings made up of all

different items. This occurrence for Board 4, with the least Board members, meant that the

smallest Board displayed the greatest diversity of perception, in ranking the five most

important professional skills for the principalship.

The weighted frequency of the responses in Schedules O to R, according to the ranked

positions, first to fifth, of each item, produced the pattern of perception of the top three items

in each group recorded in Schedule S.

Schedule S: Principalship Professional Skills Ranking Summary

RANKING TEACHERS STUDENTS PARENTS BOARD

1 Leadership Leadership Leadership Leadership

2 Staff Management Future Planning Staff Management Inter Personal Relationships
3 Communication Communication Communication Staff Management

In Schedule S, the professional skills of leadership, followed by staff management and

communication were perceived as the most important skills for the principalship. The highest

level of agreement for the skill ranking occurred for the teacher and parent groups. The Board

group perceptions evidenced the greatest divergence from the other three groups.

The data in Schedule S provides a further basis for underpinning the validity of the perception

index calculation used in this study. From the perception indices for each group, the rank of

the perceived importance of the fifteen professional skills was obtained, with the results

previously displayed in Schedule L. The top three ranked items for each group in Schedule L

(twelve in all) are the same twelve items that occur in Schedule S. From these twelve items

in Schedule M, the three professional skills that recorded the highest frequency are the same

three items in Schedule L and Schedule S, namely leadership, staff management and

236
communication. The only difference that occurs in these two schedules is for communication

and staff management which occupy second and third ranked positions respectively, in the

data derived from the perception index analysis. Where respondents ranked the items directly

as in Schedule S, these items occupy the reverse ranked positions. This similar result, from

two different processes, using data derived from different sources, provides a strong

indication of the authenticity of the research data and the validity of the methodology and

analytical approaches that have been used.

4.6.4 Principals’ Duties and Responsibilities

Further to the analysis of the perceptions of particular professional skills of significance to the

principalship, respondents reported perceptions of the principals’ duties and responsibilities.

These data are considered in the next sub-section under the heading of weekly hours worked

and time spent.

237
4.6.4(a) Perception of Weekly Hours Worked

Table/Graph 44: Perception of Weekly Hours Worked

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%
Frequency

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
T S P B T S P B T S P B T S P B T S P B T S P B
School 1 School 2 School 3 School 4 School 5 Average
<44 5% 14% 7% 0% 0% 21% 13% 0% 13% 14% 7% 0% 3% 15% 13% 0% 0% 11% 18% 0% 4% 15% 12% 0%
45-51 10% 49% 46% 14% 13% 41% 43% 56% 25% 51% 44% 33% 18% 44% 46% 0% 26% 48% 33% 33% 18% 47% 42% 27%
52-59 23% 32% 28% 29% 43% 38% 28% 44% 33% 24% 39% 33% 36% 31% 30% 0% 43% 32% 35% 44% 36% 31% 32% 30%
>59 62% 5% 19% 57% 45% 0% 15% 0% 29% 12% 10% 33% 42% 10% 11% 100 30% 9% 14% 22% 42% 7% 14% 43%

The data from the survey question which sought perceptions of the weekly hours worked by

principals, were sorted into four categories; less than 44 hours/week, 45-51 hours/week, 52-59

hours/week and greater than 59 hours/week. Adjusting the five categories in the survey to

the four mentioned, facilitated the use of the perception index calculation. Calculation of the

average group indices resulted in a Board perception index of 71, teacher index 69, parent 41

and student 33, with an overall aggregate average index of 50. Board and teachers’

perceptions of the principalship displayed relative agreement with indices of 71 and 69

respectively. The level of the agreement reflected in these indices indicated the perception

that principals work from 52 to 59 hours/week. A pattern of agreement was also evident in

the student and parent perceptions with perception indices of 41 and 33 respectively. The

index level for these groups corresponded with the perception that the principals’ work period

was from 45 to 51 hours/week.

238
The variance in the distribution of the perceptions of the weekly hours worked by the

principal reflected, as previously noted, the more informed observation and awareness of

principalship practice possessed by the teacher and Board groups. These two groups worked

more closely with the principal than student and parent group members, and particularly were

associated with the principal beyond the prescribed school day. Despite this, there was a

subset of teacher respondents, 4%, whose perceptions of the principalship were towards a

lesser number of hours worked/week. However, it was only with the student and parent

responses that a significantly higher proportion of perceptions were of a lesser weekly work

period. The student and parent groups reported at least 50% more responses in the lower two

perception categories than the teacher or Board groups.

From the individual school data, there were variations in the group data between schools and

within schools. Discernable patterns, or explanations, that accounted for these variations due

to the local circumstance of the school community, would require further investigation

beyond the scope of this study. The 100% result for the Board of School 4, with a perception

of the hours worked by the principal as greater than 59 hours/week, was an exception. The

composition of this Board, with four members, made Board unanimity more likely than for

larger Board groups.

4.6.4(b) Time Spent

Data in this section represents the perceptions that the teacher, student, parent and Board

groups reported concerning the daily activity of the principal. The teacher group included

ancillary staff within its responses. Twenty-three items (see Appendix E) were presented to

respondents as a cross-section of representative activities that engaged the principal at varying

levels on a daily and/or weekly basis. The items were not intended to be exhaustive, but

239
sufficient to provide a basis for discerning the perception levels and patterns within and

between the response groups.

Respondents were given four categories in which to nominate the perception of the time spent

by the principal on a task, expressed as a percentage of the total time. Responses were not

required to total 100% of the principals’ time use. This aspect received some requests for

clarification when the supervised surveys were administered. On such occasions, it was

explained that each item was to be assessed in isolation, and a perception of the time

allocation by the principal expressed as either, most of the time (greater than 50%), much of

the time (26-50%), a reasonable amount of the time (5-25%) or as little or no time (less than

5%). Because the 23 items were not presented as a complete statement of principalship

practice, and there were occasions for overlap between some items, it was not necessary for

responses to total 100% of the principals’ time. Appendix I records the separate data for each

of the twenty-three response items in Table/Graphs 45 to 67.

The four alternative categories for response made it possible for the perception index

calculation, established and applied previously, to be calculated for these data. To do so in a

way that was consistent with previous applications, the median response category was

designated as expressing a reasonable amount of time (5-25%) and assigned a factor of one.

From this base the little or no time category (less than 5%) was assigned a minus two factor,

the much of the time category (25-50%) a factor of two, and the most of the time category

(greater than 50%) a factor of 3. Summarized perception indices for the perceived allocation

of the principals’ time are detailed in Appendix J.

The reconfigured perception index data from Appendix J are displayed in Schedule T, which

identifies the group perceptions of principalship practice. In fact, Schedule T can be seen as

240
representing a single important snapshot of the perceptions of principalship practice reported

by student, staff, parent and Board members.

Schedule T: Principals’ Time Allocation Group Perception Index Ranking

TEACHER P.I. STUDENT P.I. PARENT P.I. BOARD P.I. AGGREGATE P.I.
RANKING RANKING RANKING RANKING AVERAGE
RANKING

School 52 School 61 School 49 School 50 School 53

Planning Planning Planning Planning Planning
Board Matters 48 Board Matters 61 Board Matters 42 School 48 Board Matters 44
Administration
Correspondence 47 Principals’ 48 Policy 41 Telephone 40 School 41
Meetings Development Administration
School 46 Staff Meetings 57 Correspondence 38 Budget and 34 Principals’ 38
Administration Finance Meetings
Policy 39 Enrolment 52 Staff Meetings 37 Enrolment 34 Correspondence 38
Development Interviews Interviews
and Enquiries and Enquiries
Telephone 39 Policy 48 Principals’ 35 Staff Meetings 29 Enrolment 38
Development Meetings Interviews
and Enquiries
Budget 38 Student 47 School 34 Correspondence 27 Policy 37
and Finance Progress Administration Development
Principals’ 35 Budget and 46 Curriculum 34 Student 27 Budget and 36
Meetings Finance Planning Progress Finance
Enrolment 34 Curriculum 44 Enrolment 30 Principals’ 24 Staff Meetings 35
Interviews and Planning Interviews Meetings
Enquiries and Enquiries
Parent 23 Correspondence 40 Telephone 28 Board Matters 24 Telephone 34
Meetings
Conflict 21 Parent 38 Budgets and 27 Policy 20 Student 23
Resolution Meetings Finance Development Progress
Staff 18 School 39 Conflict 27 Staff 18 Conflict 23
Recruitment Administration Resolution Counselling Resolution
Professional 17 Student 36 Staff 25 Staff 15 Parent Meetings 23
Reading Discipline Counselling Recruitment
Staff Meetings 16 School 35 Parent 24 Conflict 11 School 21
Assemblies Meetings Resolution Assemblies
Student 10 Staff 35 Student 22 Curriculum 9 Staff 21
Discipline Recruitment Progress Planning Recruitment
Student 4 Report 33 Professional 21 Parent Meetings 8 Curriculum 20
Progress Writing Reading Planning
Buildings and 3 Conflict 32 Student 20 Professional 5 Staff 18
Grounds Resolution Discipline Reading Counselling
Staff 1 Staff 28 School 14 Report Writing 3 Professional 16
Counselling Counselling Assemblies Reading
Curriculum -6 Telephone 27 Staff 14 Student -5 Student 15
Planning Recruitment Discipline Discipline
School -7 Professional 21 Report 14 School -6 Report Writing 9
Assemblies Reading Writing Assemblies
Student -13 Student 20 Student 13 Student -13 Student 2
Counselling Counselling Counselling Counselling Counselling
Report -15 Buildings & 15 Buildings & -8 Buildings and -23 Buildings and -3
Writing Grounds Grounds Grounds Grounds
Classroom -38 Classroom -18 Classroom -27 Classroom -27 Classroom -28
Teaching Teaching Teaching Teaching Teaching

241
Principalship time use, as expressed in the perceptions ranked in Schedule T, highlights

several features of the group perceptions. Firstly, the range of the group perceptions, based

on the perception index values are 90, 79, 76 and 77 for the teacher, student, parent and Board

groups respectively. The larger range of the perceptions of the teacher group resulted from

the teachers’ proximity to the principalship. Compared to the other group members, teachers

possessed greater access to knowledge concerning the detail and diversity of time allocations

associated with principalship practice. From this knowledge the teacher perceptions of the

principalship are not as generalized as the other group responses, as indicated in the size and

relative similarity of the perception index range for the student, parent and Board groups.

Secondly, the rank order of the time use items, records the same two items for each response

group as the greatest and least perceived allocation of principalship time, namely, school

planning and classroom teaching respectively. School planning is the only item commonly

reported by all response groups as a feature of the top six items of time usage. In this group,

policy development and Board matters are the next most frequent items nominated by three

of the four response groups. However, it is noteworthy that the Board cohort did not record

either policy development or Board matters in the six duties perceived to occupy most of the

principal’s time.

Thirdly, the perceptions of the six duties ranked lowest, according to the respective perception

indices with regard to time allocation, contain classroom teaching and student counselling as

commonly reported by all groups. Classroom teaching is perceived uniformly as the lowest

level principalship activity. The only other duty that received uniform recognition as a lower

level principal activity is student counselling, which all response groups ranked 21st out of the

24 items. Seven duties altogether, including student counselling, appear in the lowest 6

ranked positions across all response groups, the other five are curriculum planning, school

242
assemblies, report writing, staff counselling and student discipline. From these five items,

only the teacher group classified curriculum development in the lowest time use category, and

student discipline is similarly placed only by the Board respondents.

From the four response groups there are six inter-group pairings, namely, teacher-Board,

student-Board, parent-Board, student-parent, student-teacher, and teacher-parent. A

comparison of the item rankings, to assess the level of inter-group agreement in the perceived

time allocation of principalship practice, reveals only moderate correlation. The highest level

of inter-group agreement in the ranked positions of the various duties is 22%, reported by four

out of the six inter-group pairings. When the ranked variance is extended to include a rank

displacement of two, the level of agreement is 57% for teachers and parents, 48% for parents

and Board groups, 39% for teacher-student and student-Board groups, and 30% for teacher-

Board and student-parent groupings. These results indicate a relatively low level of

agreement in the respondent group perceptions of the time allocation for the various duties

presented as representative of principalship practice.

To further analyse the level of agreement, or otherwise, in the group perceptions of

principalship practice, Schedule U was constructed. Schedule U recorded the trends in the

group perceptions of each duty submitted to respondents.

243
 Schedule U: Principals’ Time Allocation
Perception Index Comparison with Aggregate Average

PRINCIPAL GROUP
ACTIVITY TEACHERS STUDENTS PARENT BOARD

School Planning - + - -
School Board Matters + + - -
Correspondence + + + -
Classroom Teaching - + + +
Student Discipline - + + -
Buildings and Grounds + + - -
Student Progress - + - +
Telephone + - - +
Principals’ Meetings - + - -
School Assemblies - + - -
Budget and Finance + + - -
Professional Reading + + + -
Conflict Resolution - + + -
Parent Meetings + + + -
School Administration + - - +
Staff Meetings - + + -
Staff Recruiting - + - -
Enrolment Interviews & Enquiries - + - -
Staff Counselling - + + +
Student Counselling - + + -
Curriculum Planning - + + -
Report Writing - + + -
Policy Development + + + -

In Schedule U the positive or negative sign indicates where the group perception index is

above or below the aggregate average index for each principalship activity. When the same

result, either positive or negative, is recorded, this reflected a common trend in the group

perceptions. Levels of inter-group agreement in the perceptions of principals’ time use are

thereby identified.

The result of the analysis in Schedule U, is a level of perceptual agreement of 61% for

students and parents, 56% for teachers and Boards, 43% for teachers and parents and parents

and Boards, 30% for teachers and students, and 13% for students and Boards. The average

inter-group perceptual agreement in the time that the nominated duties occupy principalship

244
practice is 41%. Generally, across the response groups, there is a relatively low level of

correspondence in the perceptions of the extent that the nominated duties occupy the

principals’ time.

The 56% level of inter-group agreement, for teacher and Board perceptions of principalship

practice, represents a lower than desirable level of congruence, because the teacher and Board

groups are crucial to the process of principalship appointment. Therefore, the greater the

level of agreement in the teacher and Board group perceptions of the principalship, the more

advantageous for the principalship. For the other inter-group comparisons in this study, the

data indicates the presence of only low level agreement in the perceptions of the task

allocation of principalship practice. Further to the investigated level of agreement in the

inter-group perceptions of principalship practice, the issue for consideration remained the

extent of agreement, or otherwise, in the perceptions presented in this section of the study and

the practices of the principalship reported in the preceding section. The conclusion to the

study presents the outcome of this comparison.

4.6.5 Metaphor Perceptions

Opportunity for perceptions of the principalship to be further identified in the survey occurred

through the use of seven metaphor selections. Perceptions, as mental abstractions, invariably

lack precise definition or explanation. In such cases metaphors can assist the task of

perceptual identification. Accordingly, seven groups of three metaphors were presented for

respondents to identify the metaphor, from each group, that they understood best described

the role of the principal. The seven metaphor groups were:

a. Counsellor, Manager, Figurehead

b. Dictator, Manipulator, Enforcer
c. Scholar, Supervisor, Ruler
d. Politician, Organiser, Helper
e. Visionary, Innovator, Motivator
f. A God, A Policeman, Darth Vader
g. Disciplinarian, Expert, Friend

245
The structure of each group was not designed to intentionally reflect a connection among the

three metaphors in the group. Metaphor groups were randomly constructed, with the

particular metaphors chosen from the literature on the principalship, where use of metaphors

occurred to describe or explain the principalship. The combination, or sets, of metaphors

used in this instance yielded the responses displayed in Schedule V.

Schedule V: Metaphor Selection – Most Favoured Metaphors

METAPHOR GROUP RESPONSE SCHOOL 1 SCHOOL 2 SCHOOL 3 SCHOOL 4 SCHOOL 5 OVERALL

GROUP CHOICE

Teacher Manager Manager Manager Manager Manager Manager

Student Figurehead Counsellor Figurehead Manager Figurehead Figurehead
A
Parent Manager Manager Manager Manager Manager Manager
Board Manager Manager Manager Manager Manager Manager
Teacher Enforcer Enforcer Enforcer Enforcer Enforcer Enforcer
Student Enforcer Enforcer Enforcer Enforcer Enforcer Enforcer
B
Parent Enforcer Manipulator Enforcer Enforcer Enforcer Enforcer
Board Enforcer Enforcer Enforcer Manipulator Manipulator Enforcer
Teacher Supervisor Supervisor Supervisor Supervisor Supervisor Supervisor
Student Supervisor Supervisor Supervisor Supervisor Supervisor Supervisor
C
Parent Supervisor Ruler Supervisor Supervisor Supervisor Supervisor
Board Supervisor Supervisor Supervisor Supervisor Supervisor Supervisor
Teacher Organiser Organiser Organiser Organiser Organiser Organiser
Student Organiser Helper Organiser Organiser Organiser Organiser
D
Parent Organiser Organiser Organiser Organiser Organiser Organiser
Board Organiser Organiser Organiser Organiser Organiser Organiser
Teacher Motivator Motivator Visionary Visionary Motivator Visionary
Student Motivator Motivator Visionary Motivator Motivator Motivator
E
Parent Motivator Innovator Visionary Motivator Motivator Motivator
Board Motivator Motivator Visionary Visionary Visionary Motivator
Teacher Policeman Policeman Policeman Policeman Policeman Policeman
Student Policeman Policeman Policeman Darth Vader Policeman Policeman
F
Parent Policeman Darth Vader Policeman Policeman Policeman Policeman
Board Policeman Policeman Policeman Policeman Policeman Policeman
Teacher Expert Friend Expert Expert Friend Expert
Student Disciplinarian Friend Disciplinarian Disciplinarian Friend Friend
G
Parent Expert Expert Friend Friend Friend Expert
Board Friend Friend Friend Expert Expert Friend

Isolating the most frequent metaphor choice, from the group responses, produced the

summary in Table 44, which also contained two columns representing the overall group

metaphor choice and its average frequency.

246
 Table 44: Overall Metaphor Choice Summary

METAPHOR RESPONDENT GROUPS AGGREGATE AGGREGATE

GROUP TEACHER STUDENT PARENT BOARD OVERALL AVE
CHOICE FREQUENCY
(%)
A Manager Figurehead Manager Manager Manager 55
B Enforcer Enforcer Enforcer Enforcer Enforcer 62
C Supervisor Supervisor Supervisor Supervisor Supervisor 66
D Organiser Organiser Organiser Organiser Organiser 57
E Visionary Motivator Motivator Motivator Motivator 42
F Policeman Policeman Policeman Policeman Policeman 59
G Expert Friend Expert Friend Friend 40

The overall aggregate choice of metaphor, for the seven groups of metaphors, is ranked by

reference to the aggregate average frequency of the responses for that metaphor in Table 45.

The strength of perception with which a metaphor choice from each group of metaphors is

endorsed by the response groups, and any common element in the group choices are identified

in Table 45.

Table 45: Overall Aggregate Metaphor Choice Ranking

RANK MOST POPULAR AVERAGE COMMON METAPHOR

METAPHOR FREQUENCY IMAGE
CHOICE
1 Supervisor 66 Administration
2 Enforcer 62 Authority, Rules
3 Policeman 59 Power, Control
4 Organiser 57 Administration
5 Manager 55
6 Motivator 42
7 Friend 40 Relationships

Metaphor imagery of authority and power, namely, enforcer and policeman, record an average

frequency of response of 61%, while for administration, namely, supervisor, organizer and

manager, 59%, and the relationship metaphors of motivator and friend, 41%. Authority

related metaphors of the principalship predominate, but the distinction between authority and

administration metaphor imagery is marginal.

247
To further explore this distinction, the primary data in Appendix K, which records the group

metaphor perception data, was referred to, and the metaphors grouped according to imagery.

Those with an emphasis on authority, power, rule or control, were considered as inclusive of

the metaphors figurehead, dictator, enforcer, ruler, a god, policeman and disciplinarian. The

metaphors of administration, management and organization were considered to be manager,

manipulator, supervisor, politician, organizer, innovator and expert. When allocating the

metaphors, in this configuration, the authority component of supervisors and politicians was

recognized, but these two role characterizations were allocated to reflect their function in

promoting organizational effects. It was noted, that the overall result of the analysis was not

altered by allocating the supervisor and politician metaphors to the group of metaphors related

to authority. When this was done, the effect was a reduction in the range of difference in the

average aggregate figures, not a change in the order of magnitude.

The third group of metaphors reflected a relational imagery and included counsellor, helper,

motivator, Darth Vader, friend, scholar and visionary. Darth Vader is a metaphor of the

principalship used in the research study by Lum (1997). As a character in the Star Wars

sagas, Darth Vader’s persona would generally be regarded in negative or sinister terms.

Grouping the metaphors into 3 sets of 7, as described, resulted in the frequencies for the

various metaphor responses displayed in Table 46.

248
 Table 46: Metaphor Imagery Summary

METAPHOR GROUP FREQUENCY (%)

IMAGE METAPHORS TEACHERS STUDENTS PARENTS BOARD AVE
AGGREGATE

Authority Figurehead 19 41 25 10 24
Power Dictator 7 23 6 8 11
Rules Enforcer 64 62 65 58 62
Control
Ruler 9 13 22 8 7
A god 12 9 14 13 12
Policeman 59 56 52 69 59
Disciplinarian 20 35 20 12 22

Total Ave Freq (%) 27 34 29 25 28

Administration Manager 69 34 49 68 55
Management Manipulator 18 7 17 24 17
Organization Supervisor 63 69 52 81 66
Politician 28 14 16 37 24
Organizer 53 52 65 57 57
Innovator 18 11 21 9 15
Expert 36 14 36 41 32

Total Ave Freq (%) 41 29 37 45 38

Relational Counsellor 6 18 15 21 15
Helper 11 26 9 6 13
Motivator 33 49 39 47 42
Darth Vader 8 25 12 6 13
Friend 36 45 33 45 40
Scholar 23 11 16 11 15
Visionary 44 33 32 44 38

Total Ave Freq (%) 23 30 22 26 25

Total Responses (%) 91 93 88 96 91

It should be noted in Table 46, that the total response frequencies are less than 100% because

some respondents did not make all of the required metaphor choices. A common response

omission occurred in the metaphor group which compared the metaphors, a god, a policeman,

and Darth Vader. In this group the response rates are, 79% teachers, 89% students, 78%

parents and 88% Board members.

249
From the data in Table 46, the three predominant metaphor categories of authority,

administration and relational are identified according to their ranked position in the total

average frequency of responses in each category and displayed in Table 47.

Table 47: Metaphor Imagery Ranking

PREDOMINANT RESPONSE GROUP RANKING

METAPHOR IMAGERY TEACHERS STUDENTS PARENTS BOARDS OVERALL

Authority 2 1 2 3 2
Administration 1 3 1 1 1
Relational 3 2 3 2 3

Metaphor choices, ranked according to the predominant imagery of the nominated metaphors

in Table 47, reveal that the metaphors of the principalship with the strongest endorsement are

those that reflect administration. Only the student group departs from this, with authority as

the predominant metaphor imagery of the principalship. Overall, the second most frequently

nominated image of the principalship relates to authority and power, followed lastly by

relational aspects.

From the data in Table 44, the correlation of group perceptions, defined by metaphor, was

considered. The resulting group agreement, in the metaphor choice that best describes the

principalship, is 86% for the teacher and parent group, the parent and Board group, and the

student and Board group. The other levels of metaphor agreement are 71% for teacher and

Board, and parent and student groups, and 57% for the teacher and student groups.

4.6.6 Open Ended Perceptions

The last item in the perception survey gave respondents the opportunity to express an open-

ended response to the prompt, “When I think of the role of the school principal I think of

……..”. Perceptual expression was invited, without the constraints and structure that other

survey response items imposed on the perceptions, to release more spontaneous personal

250
expressions. Prompted by the lead-in phrase, a total of 106 items were gleaned from the

written responses and classified according to the key concepts or words used. By way of

example, a response that the role of the principal was thought of as

a calling which required an inordinate amount of time input, while needing the
wisdom of Solomon, and the dedication of Abraham. One who is required to
constantly lay down their life for others

was classified under the items, sense of calling; difficult and demanding role; wisdom;

dedication; community minded; selfless; serving; and consistent. In this case therefore, one

response statement identifies eight perception items of the principalship.

Similar ideas, or concepts, expressed differently, such as respected, respectable, admired and

liked, are grouped together as one item. Matching, or compatible concepts, such as patient-

tolerant, listener-open, experience-senior-mature are grouped as single items. Using this

approach, the parent group provided 1837 responses, students 638, staff 894 and Boards 224,

for a total of 3593 responses to the 106 categories or items.

The 106 separate classifications of perceptions were established from the parent survey

responses. As the largest response group, parents provided the broadest range of items, into

which the other group responses were allocated. Using one set of reference items to classify

the 4 group responses, standardized the resulting data and facilitated comparison and analysis.

After the responses were allocated from each of the groups, the 106 items were reduced to 30,

and the frequency of the responses displayed in Schedule W.

251
 Schedule W: Open Ended Response Summary

ITEM DESCRIPTION GROUP RESPONSES

(%) AGG
T S P B AVE
1. Leader 7 6 8 10 7.8
2. Admin/Business Management 4 4 3 3 3.5
3. Difficult Role/Who would want it? 4 2 1 8 3.8
4. Visionary/Future Directions 6 3 5 9 5.8
5. Large Responsibility/In Charge/Control 5 8 4 6 5.8
6. Approachable/Available/Accessible 2 5 4 1 3.0
7. Understanding/Wise/Discerning 3 3 4 3 3.3
8. Reliable/Trustworthy/Stable 2 2 2 1 1.8
9. Respected/Respectable/Role Model 3 4 6 0 3.3
10. People Person/People Skills 3 1 3 1 2.0
11. Male/Authority/Discipline 1 7 1 1 2.5
12. Busy/Active/Hectic/Varied/Dedicated 3 3 2 4 3.0
13. Ambassador/Represents School/Figurehead 2 3 1 1 1.8
14. Team Person/Delegator 2 1 3 5 2.8
15. Communicator/Connect With Parents 4 2 3 5 3.5
16. Student Focus 4 9 5 4 5.5
17. Experienced/Skilled/Capable 4 1 4 6 3.8
18. Decision Making/Strong/Decisive 5 3 3 1 3.0
19. Overarching Perspective/Knows What is Happening 3 1 1 1 1.5
20. High Ideas and Intentions 2 1 3 4 2.5
21. Personal Qualities 6 14 9 4 8.3
(Friend/Friendly/Optimistic/Positive/Fair/Non Partisan/
Listener/Open/Sens of Humour/Confident/ Consistent/
Outgoing/Empathy/Kind/Compassionate/Gentle)
22. Innovative/Creative/Flexible/Facilitator 2 1 2 1 1.5
23. Encourager/Motivator 4 3 3 4 3.5
24. Giving Person/Servant/Humble/Family Person/ 3 2 3 3 2.8
Community Minded
25. Sense of Calling/Spiritual 3 1 4 2 2.5
26. Focal Point/Captain/Rudder/Glue 1 1 2 1 1.3
27. Staff Focus/Consultative/Negotiator 4 3 3 4 3.5
28. Knows Curriculum/Teaching/Passionate about School 3 2 3 2 2.5
29. Patient/Tolerant/Counsellor/Guide/Non- Judgemental/ 3 3 3 2 2.0
Conflict Resolution/Pastor/Shepherd/Father
30. Sets Tone of School/Governance Aims/Always Planning/ 2 1 2 3 2.0
Risk Taker/Gatekeeper
10 100 100 100 100
0

Comparing the relationship of the item frequencies for each group, and the average for each

item, allows for the level of agreement in the group perceptions to be established.

Frequencies that are above the average were determined to evidence a similar perception, as

252
were those below the average. The level of inter-group agreement, in the Schedule W open-

ended perceptions for the groups, is 47% for teachers and Boards, 40% for teachers and

parents, and students and parents, 37% for parents and Boards, and 33% for students and

Boards. When the 30 open-ended response perception items are ranked, from highest to

lowest frequency, Schedule X results.

Schedule X: Open Ended Response Rankings

STAFF STUDENTS PARENTS BOARDS
1. Leader Personal Qualities Personal Qualities Leader
2. Visionary Student Focus Leader Visionary
3. Personal Qualities Large Responsibility Respected Difficult Role
4. Large Responsibility Male/Authority/Discipline Visionary Large Responsibility
5. Decision Maker Leader Student Focus Experienced/Skilled
6. Administration Approachable Large Responsibility Team/Delegator
7. Difficult Role Administration Approachable Communicator
8. Communicator Respected Understanding/Wise Busy/Active
9. Student Focus Visionary Experienced/Skilled Student Focus
10. Experienced/Skilled Understanding/Wise Sense of Calling High Ideals
11. Encourager/Motivator Busy/Active Administration Personal Qualities
12. Staff Focus Ambassador People Person Encourager/Motivator
13. Understanding/Wise Decision Maker Team Person/ Staff Focus
Delegator
14. Respected Encourager/Motivator Communicator Administration
15. People Person Staff Focus Decision Maker Understanding/Wise
16. Busy/Active Patient/Counsellor High Ideals Giving Person/Servant
17. Overarching Perspective Difficult Role Encourager/Motivator Sets Tone of School
18. Giving Person/ Reliable/Trustworthy Giving Person/ Sense of Calling
Servant Servant
19. Sense of Calling Communicator Staff Focus Knows Curriculum
20. Knows Curriculum Giving Person/ Knows Curriculum Patient/Counsellor
Servant
21. Patient/Counsellor Knows Curriculum Patient/Counsellor Approachable
22. Approachable People Person Reliable/Trustworthy Reliable/Trustworthy
23. Reliable/Trustworthy Team Person/Delegator Busy/Active People Person
24. Ambassador Experienced/Capable Innovative Male/Authority/
Discipline
25. Team Person/ Overarching Perspective Focus Point Ambassador
Delegator
26. High Ideals High Ideals Sets Tone of School Decision Maker
27. Curriculum Innovative Difficult Role Overarching Perspective
28. Sets Tone of School Sense of Calling Male/Authority/ Innovator
Discipline
29. Male/Authority/ Focal Point Ambassador Focal Point
Discipline
30. Focal Point Sets Tone of School Overarching Perspective Respected

Using the Schedule X data for the four response groups, the five highest open-ended

perception items of the principalship are, in descending order, leadership, personal qualities,

vision, large responsibilities and student focus. Average frequency values in Schedule W,

253
produced a similar result, with the order, personal qualities first, then leadership, vision, large

responsibility and student focus. To assess the significance of these data, several of the items

are defined in terms of a cluster of characteristics as recorded in Table 48.

Table 48: Open-Ended Response Item Scope and Definition

ITEM ASSOCIATED IDEAS AND CHARACTERISTICS

1. Leader Leadership
2. Personal Qualities Friend, friendly, optimistic, positive, fair, non-partisan, listens, open, sense of
humour, confident, commitment, outgoing, empathy, kind, compassionate, gentle
3. Vision Visionary, future directions
4. Large Responsibility In charge, organizational control, a lot on their mind
5. Student Focus Seeks best interest of students, understands young people, in touch with students,
student outcomes and safety, crucial role in students’ personal development

Some respondent’s perspectives were expressed in terms that did not readily accommodate

classification, or were expressed colourfully and cryptically. Such statements or comments

included the following:-

From Parents:-
• don’t want to see (principal) at school
• who would want it (principalship)?
• special person;

From students:-
• don’t do much for everyone
• boring
• drinks coffee
• someone who doesn’t care
• too much non-family time
• grumpy old man
• boring meetings that take hours
• an easy job that just runs the school day in and day out
• a person who does not run the whole school because lots of people help, but it’s made
to look like they do
• a mean, grumpy old man who always watches you
• an unhappy man
• a nice guy who can talk and help children;

From teachers:-
• lots of hours in the office meeting multiple and contradictory demands
• an impossible task to be everything to everyone
• often remote and removed from what is going on

254
 • has no life and works too hard
• I admire their dedication and feel sorry for their families
• someone who meets challenges head on and leaps tall buildings with a single bound
• keeps boat afloat;

From Board
• a role too big and vast to contemplate fulfilling it effectively
• captain steering the ship

A significant feature of the open-ended responses was the frequent reference to the perceived

difficulty and weightiness of the role of the principalship. These references carried a direct or

implied sense of negativity towards the desirability of the principalship role as seen in the

following responses:-

Teacher 1

When I think of the role of the school principal I think of someone with enormous
responsibility and a very difficult job. He/she must please the parents, students, staff and the
board and also the local community. I don’t believe that many people are in a position to
achieve this. I admire anyone who wishes to tackle this position, I certainly wouldn’t. Thank
God that some people are called.

Teacher 2

When I think of the role of the school principal I think of a job I would hate to do myself – so
much responsibility, so many roles to fulfill, so many expectations. I take my hat off to
anyone willing to do it!

Teacher 3

When I think of the role of the school principal I think of a person who has an enormous role
to fill. The principal has to interact successfully with students from age 5-18+, parents of all
kinds, a diverse staff and an equally diverse board. The principal carries the final
responsibility for curriculum and behavioural matters, as well as the image of the school
within the community.

Teacher 4

When I think of the role of the school principal I think of a job I would avoid! Largely a
political position tempered with the potential to effect some good in the lives of staff, students
and families in the school community. A difficult task given that consensus on anything is just
about impossible! A necessary role in the forming and implementing of education in our
present system.

255
Board 1

When I think of the role of the school principal I think of someone who can never please
everyone, but everyone expects him (sic) to. Someone who lives in a glass bowl with everyone
watching, analyzing, criticizing.

Board 2

When I think of the role of the school principal I think of a person with an ocean-full of
responsibilities but just a thimble-full of time. A visionary frustrated by those who cannot see
past the status quo. A communicator but not perceived as a listener. A mild mannered man
(sic) with a big S on his chest.

Board 3

When I think of the role of the school principal I think of a person at the top of a very
unstable, inefficient and dis-organised pile of people, with staff like a herd of cats, with
students who don’t know where they are going and what they are doing, and where the
goalposts are, both invisible and constantly moving.

Board 4

When I think of the role of the school principal I think of lots of hard work … lots of ‘hats’
that have to be worn for the various roles in a single day … loneliness – a job at the ‘top’
with responsibility for many but relationship with few. The power and influence to shape and
change the lives of many, not few.

Parent 1

When I think of the role of the school principal I think of a strong leader with excellent
communication skills, wealth of experience and a very strong character which can withstand
enormous stress and work load.

Parent 2

When I think of the role of the school principal I think of the incredible responsibility that
he/she carries on their shoulders, particularly that for a Christian school principal, who is
accountable before God for what goes on at the school. I take my hat off to any principal who
can match the expectations of so many – staff, students, parents, board etc.

Parent 3

When I think of the role of the school principal I think of a very hard working, dedicated
person who is selfless and ever faithful to their calling.

256
Parent 4

When I think of the role of the school principal I think of how much I would not like the task.

Student responses to the open-ended survey opportunity were often cryptic and ranged across
the spectrum of positive and negative comments, as the following illustrate.

Student 1

When I think of the role of the school principal I think of hard work/long hours; difficult
decisions; makes a big difference.

Student 2

When I think of the role of the school principal I think of some-one you don’t see except in
assembly’s.

Student 3

When I think of the role of the school principal I think of a figure at a school whom you can
never really get close to.

Student 4

When I think of the role of the school principal I think of a very talkative, generally confident
person who knows what is best for the school’s staff and students.

Student 5

When I think of the role of the school principal I think of a man, not really woman, very
experienced, friendly, is in charge of everything but gets others to do it. Has final say.

Student 6

When I think of the role of the school principal I think of a big scary guy who patrols the
school and doesn’t have all that much to do with the students. That’s what the Vice-
Principals for.

Student 7

When I think of the role of the school principal I think Darth Vader would be a compliment.

Student 8

When I think of the role of the school principal I think of someone who you should be able to
relate to, who can help you out, can easily talk to. An encourager, someone who builds you
up and helps to shape the person you’ll become and the future you will have.

257
Student 9

When I think of the role of the school principal I think of a friendly leader of the school, who
likes to talk to the students and to help them. I also think that they have a really difficult time
with discipline at times. I think it would be rewarding.

Student 10

When I think of the role of the school principal I think of someone who you can go and see if
you have personal or educational problems. Someone who is friendly, interesting and a role
model for everyone.

Student 1
When I think of the role of the school principal I think of a nice caring friendly person full of
wisdom.

From the open-ended responses there is a strong perceptual sense that the role of the

principalship was difficult, demanding and in the eyes of some displeasing. The data in

Schedule W reflects this perception in items 3 and 5. When combined, these items place the

perception of the principalship as difficult and demanding, at the highest level for the staff

and Board responses, second for the students and third for the parent group. The average

frequency of 9.6%, that results from combining items 3 and 5, represents the highest

aggregate average of all the data from the open-ended perception responses. Underscoring the

pervasive sense that the role of the principalship is demanding, and perceived somewhat

negatively by the respondents, was the absence of any survey responses to indicate an

aspiration to be a school principal, or regret that respondents had lacked the opportunity or

qualifications to become a principal.

Personal qualities of character for the principalship featured prominently in the open-ended

responses. Following behind the combination of items 3 and 5, the second most frequent

item, at 8.3% relates to the personal qualities of the principalship. Attributes, in this category,

that received mention included friendliness, optimistic, positive, fair, open, humour,

confidence, outgoing, consistent, kind, compassionate, gentle and empathy. A composite of

258
these personal attributes appears in Schedule W as personal qualities, item 21. Personal

qualities are the highest recorded item mentioned by the parent and student respondents.

Students, in particular, record 14% of their open-ended responses in the area of personal

qualities, which is the highest survey response for all groups and items.

The emphasis on personal qualities in the perception of the principalship recognised its

people-related and socially interactive role. Comments of this aspect were evident in the

following teacher responses, together with references to other features of the principalship.

Teacher 5

When I think of the role of the school principal I think of a person who carries a huge
responsibility for the welfare of all from ground staff to youngest student. Principal needs to
be multi-skilled, especially in dealing with people – counselling, conflict resolution, inspiring,
motivating. Schools are people places and need people – people to bring out the best!

Teacher 6

When I think of the role of the school principal I think of a person who has a strong
intellectual pedigree about education and policy. I see the person as being very mature as
this inspires a certain confidence that comes from experience. I see the person as being more
people-orientated rather than task, a person whose door is open to staff with the staff being
free and confident to approach the principal.

Leadership was also a strong emphasis in the open-ended perceptions. The average frequency

of reference to leadership, of 7.8%, is the second highest individual item average. As the

highest ranked item in the data, from the group ranking in Schedule X, leadership was

consistently reported as a primary perception of the principalship. Expected and sought after,

leadership appears, in the minds of staff, students, parents and Boards, to be synonymous with

the principalship, even allowing for the following comment by teacher 7:-

Teacher 7

When I think of the role of the school principal I think of someone who thinks they are in
touch with their staff and students but really don’t know what it is like in the classroom.

259
4.6.7 Principals’ Perceptions

The five principals from the school communities that participated in this study completed the

same survey instrument that was used with other respondents. The resulting perceptions of

the principals themselves are considered in the following section. Because there were only

five participants in the principal cohort, the data base is not large enough for meaningful

aggregation, as occurred with the other responses. Instead the principals’ responses are

reported individually, with the designated principal number unrelated to the school number to

ensure confidentiality. In the discussion that follows, comparisons are made between the

perceptions of the principals and those of the other respondent groups reported previously.

From the open-ended survey question the following statements were reported:-

Principal 1
When I think of the role of the school principal I think of long hours of paperwork. Lots of
meetings! Dealing with difficult student issues. Consultations with teachers. Not seeing
enough of students. Purpose/fulfillment of helping talented teachers do wonderful things with
students.

Principal 2
When I think of the role of the school principal I think of a visionary with strong relationship
with the Lord who has the courage to stand on the faith that the Lord has placed in his/her
heart. He/she has a love for staff and students and wants to draw the best out of them.
He/she is willing to learn from experiences. He/she can be trusted – a person of integrity.

Principal 3
When I think of the role of the school principal I think of versatility. Love of kids and people;
passion for teaching and learning; wise, Godly, prayerful, dedicated, zany.

Principal 4
When I think of the role of the school principal I think of
• a pastor to teachers/staff and Board members
• a guide to the school community
• an energizer – providing energy to the organization
• a ‘conductor’ – bringing together many elements that make up a school
• an empathetic yet critical friend of the school
• an upholder and encourager

260
Principal 5
When I think of the role of the school principal I think of a person operating with integrity,
seeking to be a servant leader, to honour God’s call on his/her place in the school. Clear
understanding of the role of parents/teachers/other staff and students and their
interrelationship is vital. To lead by example is fine in some areas but no one person can be
an expert in all so to trust in others’ gifts and their application to the role of Christian
education is also a vital aspect of the principalship. I also think of the vital role and
relationship between the Board Chair, Board members and the principal: the distinction
between governance and management.

From these five statements there are five distinct or discernable strands to the perceptions of

the principalship. These strands are classified as pertaining to the following features:-

Strand 1: Difficulty of the principalship, involving meetings, student discipline

and remoteness from students.

Strand 2: Sense of vision and spiritual calling, with the high ideal of helping students and
therefore must love kids and staff, and have a passion for teaching and
learning.

Strand 3: Composite of personal qualities which comprise wise, dedicated, versatile,

trustworthy, humility, learner, integrity and zany!

Strand 4: Role as a leader with an understanding of the school community and the
distinctive features of governance and management.

Strand 5: Operational approach of teamwork with the principal as a pastor, counsellor,

guide, encourager, motivator, and critical friend whose empathy encourages
community inter-relationships.

It is noted that Strand 4, referring to leadership and organizational management aspects,

receives relatively little mention from the principal’s cohort. There is also a higher profile, in

the principals’ perspectives, for Strand 2 items, which refer to calling, vocation and more

inspirational and spiritual aspects of the principalship. The reference to a spiritual perspective

of principalship practice was an expected outcome of the context of this study in the setting of

five Christian Schools. Spiritual references similarly occurred within the data from the other

261
survey groups, with the parent group reporting the highest group reference to a spiritual

perception of the principalship, at 4%, and ranked 10th in frequency.

While one principal gave expression to the demanding nature of the principalship, mentioned

in Strand 1, the aspects in Strands 3 and 5 predominated. These two strands emphasise the

perceptions of the principalship in terms of the required personal qualities in Stand 3, and

operational attitudes, influences and approaches in Strand 5. The presence of these two

aspects, in the principals’ perceptions of their role, was in harmony with the perceptions

expressed by the other response groups. If the perceptions of practicing principals are

indicative of the practice of the principalship, then, in the categories of personal qualities, and

operational approaches and attributes, there exists substantial agreement in the parent, staff,

student and Board perceptions of principalship practice.

The analysis of the responses for the principals’ group yields somewhat qualified results due

to the small group size. Nevertheless, the limited size of the principals’ data group was an

unavoidable consequence of the structure of this study. Further research into the perceptions

of practicing principals, to increase the data field, would strengthen the confidence levels in

these data and their analysis.

Data from practicing principals, concerning the perceptions of principalship practice, could be

interpreted as a valid commentary or insight into the practice itself. The following analysis

adopts this rationale as a basis for data analysis. From this perspective the perceptions of the

five principals provide an insight into the practices of the principalship, against which the

other survey group perceptions are compared and contrasted. Of interest is the extent that the

principals’ own perceptions reveal the presence, or otherwise, of inter-group agreement with

the detail of principalship practice.

262
4.6.7(a) Principalship Qualifications

The perceptions of the five principals, as regards teaching experience, age and desired

qualifications for the principalship are reported in Table 49.

Table 49: Practicing Principals’ Perceptions of Principalship Qualifications

TEACHING EXPERIENCE AGE QUALIFICATION

CATEGORY FREQUENCY CATEGORY FREQUENCY CATEGORY FREQUENCY
(YEARS) (%) (YEARS) (%) (YEARS) (%)

10-12 0 30-35 0 Bachelor’s Degree 80

13-15 0 36-40 40 Honours Degree 0
16-18 40 41-45 40 Master’s Degree 20
Over 18 60 Over 45 20 Doctorate or Ph.D. 0

Total 100 Total 100 Total 100

The perception index calculation for the data in Table 49 is tabulated in Table 50 and

presented together with the perception index data calculated for the four other survey groups.

Table 50: Principalship Qualifications – Perceptions Index Summary

CATEGORIES (P.I.)
YEARS DESIRABLE MINIMUM GROUP
GROUP TEACHING AGE TERTIARY AGGREGATE
EXPERIENCE QUALIFICATION AVE PI

Principals 87 60 -40 36
Teachers 32 52 11 32
Students -10 20 18 9
Parents 21 51 17 30
Boards 49 52 9 37

Category Aggregate 36 47 3 -
Average PI

Table 51 further assessed the levels of inter-group agreement, described previously in this

study for Schedules B, E, N and U, by using the category aggregate average perception index

as a benchmark.

263
 Table 51: Category Aggregate Average PI Comparisons

GROUP
CATEGORY H T S P B

Teaching Experience + - - - +
Age + + - + +
Minimum Qualification - + + + +

Overall, from Table 51, the level of inter-group agreement with the principals’ (H)

perceptions is at the highest level of 67% for the Board group. Thereafter, the principal-

teacher and principal-parent agreement is 33%, while no agreement occurs for the principal

and student groups.

Further to this, the three components of principalship qualifications, namely, teaching

experience, age and tertiary qualifications, are assessed for levels of inter-group congruence.

In the case of teaching experience, the principals’ perception index indicates a strong view for

a higher level of experience as a principalship requirement. In contrast, the teacher, student

and parent perception indices indicate a perceived lower level of teaching experience

requirement. The Board perception, of this principalship qualification, was towards the

higher level, but not to the same extent as the principals’ group perception.

The age qualification for the principalship evidences considerable parity in the perception

indices of the principal, teacher, parent, and Board groups towards an age range of 41-45

years. Student perceptions are more towards the 36-40 years age range, and distinctly

different from the other group perceptions with a group perception index at least 31 points

lower than all other groups. This student result is not entirely unexpected. The perception

level of students indicates either a preference for younger principals, or alternatively, the

difficulty for young people to conceptualize age related assessments.

264
The perception levels of the desirable minimum tertiary qualifications for the principalship

evidence a disparity in those of the principals’ group and the other four groups. The

principals’ group indicated a clear perception of the adequacy of a Bachelor’s degree level

qualification. In contrast, the other groups reported perceptions that favoured the higher

degree qualifications, with the student group indicating the strongest perception in this regard.

If, as is suggested, the perceptions of the principalship by practicing principals provides a

proxy for principalship practice, then the principalship qualification data suggests varying

levels of agreement in group perceptions of principalship practice. Agreement in the area of

the principalship age requirement occurs with all except the student group; agreement in the

teaching experience requirement occurs only with the Board cohort; and divergence by all

four survey groups occurs in the perception of the desirable minimum tertiary qualification

requirement.

4.6.7(b) Principalship Personal Qualities

The principals’ perception data of the relative importance of nominated personal qualities for

the principalship did not allow for detailed or precise delineation because of the small group

size. While recognizing this limitation, it is possible to identify some instructive patterns in

the data by using the perception index. When this index is calculated for each personal

quality assessed by the principals’ group, several groupings occur as indicated in Table 52

Table 52: Principal Perceptions of Personal Qualities – Perception

Index Groupings

PERCEPTION PERSONAL QUALITIES

INDEX
93 Wise, Leader, Understanding, Visionary, Communicator, Trustworthy
87 Optimistic, Energetic, Friendly, Fairminded, Open, Cheerful, Consistent, Confident,
Knowledgeable, Reliable
80 Kind
73 Innovative, Respectable, Tolerant, Organizer
60 Outgoing
47 Popular
40 Forceful

265
The six items perceived by the principals’ group in the highest perception index level of 93, in

Table 52, are predominantly the leading personal qualities identified by the five principals

when they ranked, in order, the five most important qualities. Table 53 details the resulting

ranked items.

Table 53: Principals’ Ranking of Personal Qualities

RANK PRINCIPAL 1 PRINCIPAL 2 PRINCIPAL 3 PRINCIPAL 4 PRINCIPAL 5

1 Open Trustworthy Visionary Visionary Wise

2 Optimistic Open Wise Leader Leader
3 Communicator Fairminded Communicator Consistent Knowledgeable
4 Understanding Leader Trustworthy Trustworthy Communicator
5 Wise Knowledgeable Knowledgeable Optimistic Visionary

When the items in Table 53 are given a weighted frequency according to rank, the hierarchy

of importance is firstly, visionary, then leader, wise, trustworthy, open, communicator.

Comparisons of these six items with the highest perception index group in Table 52 reveals

that only one item differs in each list, namely, understanding in the perception index group,

and open, in the principals’ ranking. Once again, a level of congruence has occurred in the

perception index and the directly ranked data, to enhance confidence in the perception index

device, and underscore the validity of the results determined from the data.

Correlating the principals’ perceptions of the importance of the nominated personal qualities

in the survey, and the other respondent groups’ perceptions, involved drawing together the

five sets of ranked items from the survey groups. This occurs in Table 54.

Table 54: Personal Qualities Group Rankings (Top 5)

RANK PRINCIPALS TEACHERS STUDENTS PARENTS BOARDS

1 Visionary Leader Leader Leader Leader

2 Leader Wise Trustworthy Communicator Communicator
3 Wise Trustworthy Wise Trustworthy Wise
4 Trustworthy Visionary Friendly Wise Trustworthy
5 Open Communicator Understanding Fairminded Reliable

266
Variances of perception are evident for the ranked items in Table 54, with regard to the

visionary aspect of the principalship. The principals’ group placed the visionary quality

foremost in importance, yet for the other groups, only the teacher cohort allocated this quality

a rank in the top five personal qualities, at fourth place. Similarly, the Board group

perceptions did not locate the visionary quality in the five qualities ranked most important.

Further to this there is a core of three personal qualities which recorded uniform recognition

throughout the five qualities ranked as most important. These are leader, wise and

trustworthy. Inter-group consensus establishes the perception of this group of personal

qualities as the defining personal qualities of the principalship. In addition, with reference to

the perceptions of the principals’ group as a benchmark for the practice of the principal, the

teacher perceptions aligned most, with 80% agreement, while the student, parent and Board

groups evidence 60% agreement.

4.6.7(c) Principalship Professional Skills

The perception index calculation of the professional skills of importance to the principalship,

from the five school principals, produced the results summarized in Table 55. Perception

index values for such a small sample group allowed limited item distinction, so an approach

which used clusters of items with the same perception index was employed.

Table 55: Principals’ Perceptions of Professional Skills – Perception Index Groups

PERCEPTION PROFESSIONAL SKILLS

INDEX

100 Communication, Future Planning

93 Inter-Personal Relationships, Staff Management, Staff Development, Organizational
Management, Public Relations, Leadership
87 Marketing and Publicity
80 Financial Planning, Student Discipline, Dispute Resolution
73 Curriculum Development
60 Building Development, Record Keeping

267
Broad observations are possible from the clusters of items in Table 55. At the upper end are

communication and future planning, with building development and record keeping at the

lower indicated level of importance. When this result is compared to Schedule L, where the

other group perception rankings are displayed, there is substantial correlation at the upper and

lower levels. At least one of the skills of communication or future planning appear in the

highest two perception index placements, and either one, or both, of building development or

record keeping occur in the lowest two places. Curriculum development in the group data

receives an average perception index score of 72 which compares closely with the principals’

perceptions of the importance of this item.

Beyond the use of the perception index assessment of the importance of the nominated

professional skills, the principals’ group, as for the other respondents, was asked to indicate

the five most important skills. Table 56 summarizes the resulting principals’ perceptions.

Table 56: Principals’ Professional Skills Ranking of Importance

RANK PRINCIPAL 1 PRINCIPAL 2 PRINCIPAL 3 PRINCIPAL 4 PRINCIPAL 5

1 Communication Inter-Personal Staff Leadership Inter-Personal

Relationships Management Relationships
2 Inter-Personal Organizational Communication Future Planning Organizational
Relationships Management Management
3 Future Planning Leadership Student Communication Leadership
Discipline
4 Financial Planning Financial Planning Public Relations Staff Staff management
Development
5 Staff Development Future Planning Future Planning Public Relations Staff Development

When the items in Table 56 are assigned a weighted frequency, according to rank, the leading

eight items, in descending order, are interpersonal relationships, communication, leadership,

future planning, organizational management, staff management, staff development and public

relations. These eight ranked items are the same skills in the two highest perception index

positions displayed in Table 55.

268
Establishing the principals’ group perceptions of the importance of various professional skills

to the practice of the principalship allowed a comparison across the five survey groups. The

first five highest ranked professional skills for each group, including the principals, are

detailed in Table 57.

Table 57: Professional Skills Group Rankings (Top Five)

RANK PRINCIPAL TEACHER STUDENT PARENT BOARD GROUP

GROUP GROUP GROUP GROUP

1 Interpersonal Leadership Leadership Leadership Leadership

Relationships
2 Communication Staff Management Future Planning Staff Inter-Personal
Management Relationships
3 Leadership Communication Communication Communication Future Planning
4 Future Planning Future Planning Staff Dispute Staff
Management Resolution Management
5 Organizational Inter-Personal Staff Future Planning Dispute
Management Relationships Development Resolution

From the five lists in Table 57, the two skills of leadership and future planning are the only

skills common to each list. Organizational management is recorded as important by the

principal group and none of the others, while staff management is reported in all groups

except the principal group. Slightly different interpretations by survey respondents, of the

two skills of staff management and organizational management, perhaps explains the

distinction in the classification of these items by the groups. Staff management and

organizational management could have been understood to represent a commonly perceived

important professional skill area for the principalship.

The highest level of group agreement with the principals’ group perceptual classifications

occurs with the teacher group at 80%. Student, parent and Board agreement with the

principals’ perceptions of the top five ranked professional skills is 60%. As noted previously,

the principals’ group perceptions of their own practice is a useful indicator of the practice of

the principalship. Based on this assumption, there is a significant divergence of perception

269
when considering the role and influence of leadership as a principalship skill. A lower level

of significance is given to leadership skill by the principals’ group than the level of

significance attached to the principal as a leader in the perceptions of the other stakeholders.

4.6.7(d) Hours Worked

The perceptual data of the survey item for hours worked, for the separate groups, including

the principals’ group, are summarized in Table 58 based on the category frequencies that were

recorded.

Table 58: Hours Worked Data Summary

CATEGORY GROUP FREQUENCIES (%)

(HOURS) PRINCIPAL TEACHER STUDENT PARENT BOARD

<44 0 4 15 12 0
45-51 0 18 47 42 27
52-59 20 36 31 32 30
>59 80 42 7 14 42
Perception Index 93 69 33 41 71

A significant aspect to the data in Table 58 is the comparison with the actual hours worked

recorded by the principals in Section Two of this Portfolio. No group perceptions, including

the principals’ group, recorded strongly in the 52-59 hours category which corresponded to

the 57 hours of reported principalship practice. The teacher, Board and principals’ group

response frequencies over-estimated the hours worked by the principal, and the parent and

student groups under-estimated this feature of the principalship. However, the group

perception indices for the teacher and Board groups, at 69 and 71 respectively, did correspond

to the 52-59 hours per week category.

Inter-group perceptions of the hours per week worked by the principal are divergent, while

agreement with the actual hours worked occurs for the teacher and Board groups. The

perception of principalship practice by the principals, regarding the hours worked per week, is

considerably divergent from their own actual practice as a group, as well as from other group

270
perceptions. The closest agreement of perception of hours worked, according to perception

index, is between the principal and Board groups, albeit with a 22% perception index

difference.

4.6.7(e) Principalship Time Allocation

The analysis of the perceptions of principals’ time allocation did not involve a ranking of the

nominated items. The perception index provided the only means for inter-item and inter-

group comparison. The perception indices for the time allocation detail for the principals’

group are detailed in Table 59.

Table 59: Principals’ Group Time Allocation – Perception Index

PERCEPTION TIME ALLOCATION ITEMS

INDEX
53 School Administration
47 School Planning, Correspondence
20 Enrolment Interviews and Enquiries
14 Telephone Calls
0 Budget and Finance, Policy Development, Staff Counselling
-7 Student Progress, Student Discipline, Board Matters, Curriculum Planning, Student
Counselling
-27 Staff Meetings
-47 Classroom Teaching, Buildings and Grounds, Principals’ Meetings, School Assemblies,
Parent Meetings, Report Writing, Conflict Resolution
-67 Staff Recruitment, Professional Reading

In Table 59, the significance of the zero and negative perception indices is in relation to the

time allocation categories against which respondents indicated their perceptions. The

negative end of the index scale corresponded to the lowest time allocation category choice,

which was less than 5% of the time. The larger the negative value of the perception index the

lower the perceived time allocated by the principal to that particular activity. From the data in

Table 59, the principals’ group perceptions of time use, from the nominated duties, places

school administration, school planning and correspondence towards the upper end of the 5-

25% of time category, while staff recruitment and professional reading are at the lower end of

the less than 5% of the time category. Amongst the principals’ group perceptions of time

271
allocation, there are no duties that were perceived to occupy greater than 50% of the time, and

slightly less than 10% of the indicators are recorded in the 25-50% time allocation.

Perception index data was used to compare the principals’ group perceptions of time use with

the other respondents, with the results displayed in Table 60.

Table 60: Time Allocation Group Perception Indices – Top Five Duties

GROUP PRINCIPAL TEACHER STUDENT PARENT BOARD

1 School School Planning School School Planning School Planning

Administration Planning
2 School Planning Board Matters Board Matters School School
Administration Administration
3 Correspondence Correspondence Principals’ Telephone Telephone
Meetings
4 Enrolment School Staff Meetings Budget and Budget and
Interviews and Administration Finance Finance
Enquiries
5 Telephone Calls Policy Enrolment Enrolment Enrolment
Development Interviews and Interviews and Interviews and
Enquiries Enquiries Enquiries

In Table 60 there is only one task that receives uniform group acknowledgement in the top

five duties, namely school planning, while school administration receives 80% recognition in

the group perceptions. The group perceptions of principalship duties that most agree with the

principals’ group are the Board and parent groups, at 80%, followed by 60% for the teacher

group.

The time allocation item that reported a significant variance of perception amongst the groups

is that of Board matters. Only the student and teacher groups recorded Board matters in the

top 5 time allocations for principalship practice, and ranked it second in importance as a time

allocation for the principal. In contrast, governance matters are not perceived by the

principals’ group to occupy a significant time component of principalship practice, neither is

it apparent from the Board group that they perceived otherwise.

272
At the lower end of the perceived allocation of time to various duties, are items which reveal

some useful correlations. Table 61 lists the duties recorded by the principals’ group in the

lowest ten duties and identifies how the other four groups similarly place these duties.

Table 61: Inter-Group Comparison of the Lowest Ten Duties of

Principals’ Perceptions

LOWEST TEN YES OR NO AS TO PLACEMENT IN LOWEST TEN DUTIES

DUTIES PRINCIPALS TEACHERS STUDENTS PARENTS BOARDS

1. Staff Meetings Yes No No No No

2. Classroom Teaching Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
3. Buildings and Grounds Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
4. Principals’ Meetings Yes No No No No
5. School Assembly Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
6. Parent Meetings Yes No No Yes Yes
7. Report Writing Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
8. Conflict Resolution Yes No Yes No Yes
9. Staff Recruitment Yes No Yes Yes No
10. Professional Reading Yes No Yes Yes Yes

While it was previously noted that there was only one of the top five duties common to all

group perceptions of the time spent by the principal, there are four common items in the lower

ten duties. These four items are classroom teaching, buildings and grounds, school

assemblies, and report writing. Further still, while there are no duties in the top five with a

uniform disparity between the principals’ group perceptions and the other four groups, there

are two such duties in the lowest ten items. These two allocations are to staff meetings and

principals’ meetings, which are both perceived by the 4 stakeholder groups to utilize a greater

amount of time for the principal than is indicated by the principals’ group perceptions.

Increased divergence is therefore evident in the perceptions of those items that the teacher,

student, parent and Board groups report as occupying less of the principal’s time.

273
4.6.7(f) Inter-Group Comparisons with Principals’ Group Ranking

The sample size for the principals’ group limited fine distinctions between the principals’

group time allocation perception for particular duties. However, this was not the case for the

other four groups. To undertake further inter-group comparisons, the principals’ group

perception indices, for the time use items in Table 59, were ranked. Multiple items with the

same perception index are listed in the order reported in the survey. Table 62 displays the

principals’ ranking, thus allocated, with a comparative listing of the item rank from the

perception indices of the four other groups.

Table 62: Inter-Group Comparison of Ranked Principalship Time Allocation Data

According to Perception Index

PRINCIPALS’ GROUP TIME GROUP RANKING OF TIME ALLOCATION

ALLOCATION RANKING STAFF STUDENT PARENT BOARD

1. School Administration 4 12 7 2
2. School Planning 1 1 1 1
3. Correspondence 3 10 4 7
4. Enrolment Interviews and Enquiries 9 5 9 5
5. Telephone 6 19 10 3
6. Budget and Finance 7 8 1 4
7. Policy Development 5 6 3 11
8. Staff Counselling 18 18 13 12
9. Student Progress 16 7 15 8
10. Student Discipline 15 13 17 19
11. Board Matters 2 2 2 10
12. Curriculum Planning 19 9 8 15
13. Student Counselling 21 21 21 21
14. Staff Meetings 14 4 5 6
15. Classroom Teaching 23 23 23 23
16. Buildings and Grounds 17 22 22 22
17. Principals’ Meetings 8 3 6 9
18. School Assemblies 20 14 18 20
19. Parent Meetings 10 11 14 16
20. Report Writing 22 16 20 18
21. Conflict Resolution 11 17 12 14
22. Staff Recruitment 12 15 19 13
23. Professional Reading 13 20 16 17

Average Rank Variance Frp, 5.2 6.3 5.6 4.4

Principals’ Group Ranking

274
The last row in Table 62 indicates the average group variance in the ranking of each duty,

compared with the principals’ group ranking. The Board group ranking, of the nominated

items. reported the least variance from the principals’ group ranking, at 4.4, or equivalent to 4

ranked places. The greatest variance is 6.3, or 6 ranked places, for the student group. The

greater variance for the student group data is consistent with aspects of the data analysis

previously reported. The parent and staff groups displayed an average rank variation of 5

places, with the parent group variance of 5.6 tending towards 6.

When a similar calculation is made using the data for personal qualities and professional

skills, Tables 63 and 64 result respectively.

Table 63: Inter-Group Comparison of Ranked Principalship Personal Qualities

According to Perception Index

PRINCIPALS’ GROUP RANKING TEACHERS STUDENTS PARENTS BOARDS

OF PERSONAL QUALITIES
1. Wise 5 5 4 3
2. Leader 2 1 2 1
3. Understanding 8 3 8 12
4. Communicator 3 6 5 4
5. Trustworthy 1 2 1 2
6. Visionary 13 15 12 5
7. Optimistic 15 16 16 13
8. Energetic 11 19 19 9
9. Friendly 10 17 9 11
10. Fairminded 7 9 6 7
11. Open 17 20 14 19
12. Cheerful 21 18 21 21
13. Consistent 6 11 7 6
14. Confident 14 12 11 16
15. Knowledgeable 16 14 10 14
16. Reliable 4 4 3 8
17. Kind 20 8 17 20
18. Innovative 19 21 20 17
19. Respectable 9 7 18 10
20. Organizer 18 13 15 18
21. Tolerant 22 22 22 22
22. Outgoing 12 10 13 15
23. Popular 24 24 23 23
24. Forceful 23 23 24 24
Average Rank Variance 4.2 5.3 4.0 3.6
From Principals’ Group Ranking

275
Average ranked variances for the data in Table 63, reveal a similar pattern of differing inter-

group perceptions for principalship personal qualities as is present for the time allocation data

in Table 62. The variances in the personal qualities data are in the lower range, from 3 to 5

places, compared to the time allocation variance range of 4 to 6 places. Both sets of data

reveal significant inter-group disagreement in the particular perception category, either

personal qualities or time use, that is assessed. For the variances in the perception of

principalship professional skills, however, the inter-group variances, displayed in Table 64,

are all in the 2.2 to 2.8 range, or equivalent to 2 places.

Table 64: Inter-Group Comparison of Ranked Principalship Professional Skills Data

According to Perception Index

PRINCIPALS’ GROUP RANKING OF TEACHERS STUDENTS PARENTS BOARDS

PROFESSIONAL SKILLS

1. Communication 2 5 2 2
2. Future Planning 5 2 8 6
3. Inter-Personal Relationships 3 8 4 4
4. Staff Meetings 4 3 3 3
5. Staff Development 9 4 7 9
6. Organizational Management 7 6 9 7
7. Public Relations 8 11 11 8
8. Leadership 1 1 1 1
9. Marketing and Publicity 12 15 14 13
10. Financial Planning 13 12 12 12
11. Dispute Resolution 6 9 5 5
12. Student Discipline 13 12 12 12
13. Curriculum Development 11 7 10 11
14. Building Development 14 14 13 15
15. Record Keeping 15 13 15 14

Average Rank Variance From 2.2 2.7 2.8 2.4

Principals’ Group Ranking

Group perceptions of the prerequisite professional skills for the principalship, in Table 64,

evidence the highest level of inter-group agreement. While the four survey group perceptions

of the important professional skills are in comparative agreement, the 2 place variance with

the principals’ group perceptions represents a 13% level of disparity. This inter-group

276
disparity with the principals’ group perceptions of principalship professional skills compares

with a 13-21% disparity for principalship personal qualities, and a 17-26% disparity for

principalship time use perceptions. Table 65 presents a summary of the inter-group ranked

variances with the principals’ group perceptions for the three survey categories that pertain to

principalship practice.

Table 65: Average Inter-Group Ranked Variances With Principals’

Group Perceptions

SURVEY GROUPS
TOTAL PLACE %
CATEGORY TEACHERS STUDENTS PARENTS BOARDS CATEGORY VARIANT VARIANCE
AVERAGE

Personal 4.2 5.3 4.0 3.6 4.3 4 17

Qualities
Professional 2.2 2.7 2.8 2.4 2.5 2 13
Skills
Time 5.2 6.3 5.6 4.4 5.3 5 22
Allocation

Combined 3.9 4.8 4.1 3.5 - 3 17

Average

From the summary data in Table 65, where the perceptions of the principals’ group are used

as a benchmark for principalship practice, the perceptions of teachers, students, parents and

Boards reveal varying levels of divergence concerning principalship practice. This

divergence is at its lowest level for the category of perceptions of principalship professional

skills and for the Board survey group. The greatest divergence occurs for the perceptions of

the category of time allocations to the various duties and tasks of the principalship and for the

student survey group at 4.8 ranked places. Overall a 17% variance is reported in the

perceptions of the teacher, student, parent and Board groups compared with the principals’

group.

4.6.7(g) Metaphors of the Principalship

The five principals provided responses to the metaphor analysis of the principalship

perceptions via the seven metaphor groups in the survey. To analyse the responses, the

277
metaphors were grouped according to the predominant imagery of the metaphor into three

classifications, namely, authority and power, administration and management, and

relationship or relational metaphors. Grouping the responses from the five principals in this

manner resulted in more substantial aggregate data on which to base the analysis. Table 66

summarizes the principals’ group metaphor data.

Table 66: Principals’ Group Metaphor Choice Summary

METAPHOR IMAGE METAPHOR % FREQUENCY

Authority Figurehead 0
Dictator 0
Enforcer 60
Ruler 0
A god 20
Policeman 60
Discipline 0
Total Average % 20
Administration Manager 60
Manipulator 40
Superman 80
Politician 60
Organizer 0
Innovative 0
Expert 20
Total Average % 37
Relational Counsellor 40
Helper 40
Motivator 60
Darth Vadar 0
Friend 80
Scholar 20
Visionary 40
Total Average % 40
Total Group Responses (%) 97

Metaphor usage, to assist the identification of the principals’ group perceptions of

principalship practice, places the relational metaphors at the forefront, with a total average

response rate of 40%, followed by administration 37%, and lastly, 20% for the metaphors of

authority and power. Classification of the respective group ranking assigned to the metaphor

clusters by the principals’ group compared to those of the teacher, student, parent and Board

groups are summarized in Table 67.

278
 Table 67: Group Summary of Metaphor Classifications

METAPHOR GROUP RANKING OVERALL NON-

IMAGERY PRINCIPAL TEACHERS STUDENTS PARENTS BOARDS PRINCIPAL GROUP
GROUP RANKING

Administration 2 1 3 1 1 1
Authority 3 2 1 2 3 2
Relational 1 3 2 3 2 3

Agreement between the separate group rankings of the metaphor imagery is substantial for the

teacher and parent groups at 100%. In contrast, there is only 9% (one item out of 12)

agreement with the principals’ group metaphor rank and the other groups. This occurs with

the common position which is given by the principal and Board groups to the metaphor of

authority. For the combined teacher, student, parent and Board groups, there is no agreement

with the principals’ group ranking of the perceptions of the principalship via metaphor. The

inference from this is that the perceptions of the role of the principalship, by teacher, student,

parent and Board group members, are at considerable variance from the practice of the

principalship as represented by the principals’ group data.

4.6.8 Perception Maps

To assist the task of drawing together the perceptions of the principalship across the spectrum

of variables and respondents that were considered, six perception maps were constructed.

The display of the perceptual data, via a map, was to further identify and clarify the patterns

of inter-group perceptual congruence, or otherwise. The maps were constructed so that the

focus was not directed to the specific items that generated the perceptual responses from the

survey groups, but rather the overall configuration of the responses. This feature of the

perception maps’ construction, and subsequent use, was consistent with the overall intention

of the study. This intention was to identify and assess the levels of congruence in the various

stakeholders’ perceptions of the principalship, in the broad categories of prescriptions,

279
practices and perceptions, not the specific items that comprise these fields. The perception

maps served to provide an appropriate and effective visual device for achieving this objective.

Perception Map 1 is based on the perception index data in Appendix G, which comprised the

perceptions of the importance of 24 personal qualities to the principalship. These 24 personal

qualities listed in Appendix E, are represented by the numbers 1 to 24 on the horizontal axis,

with the corresponding perception index value recorded on the vertical axis. In addition to the

perception index responses from teacher, student, parent and Board groups, an aggregate

average (AGV) was plotted. The aggregate average perception index provided a base line to

assess patterns of congruence, or otherwise, in the response groups’ perceptions of the

personal qualities that are important to the principalship.

Perception Map 1 - Principalship Personal Qualities

100

90

80

70
Perception Index

60

50

40

30

Teacher
20 Student
Parent
10 Board
AGV

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Personal Qualities (Appendix E)

A similar approach was used to construct Perception Map 2 and 3. Perception Map 2 is based

on the perception index data in Appendix H, and the 15 professional skills listed in Appendix

280
E. Perception Map 3 is based on the perception index data in Appendix J and the 23 time

allocation items in Appendix E.

Perception Map 2 - Principalship Professional Skills

100

90

80

70
Perception Index

60

50

40

30
Teacher
20 Student
Parent
10 Board
AVG

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Professional Skills (Appendix E)

Perception Map 3 - Principalship Practice Time Allocation

80

60

40
Perception Index

20

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

-20

Teacher
Student
-40 Parent
Board
AVG

-60
Time Allocation (Appendix E)

281
In these three perception maps, the pattern of perceptual congruence is indicated by the

closeness of the lines representing the group data and the average aggregate line. The overall

strength, or otherwise, of the group perceptions is evidenced by the position of the group lines

relative to the vertical axis.

The perceptions in Maps 1 and 2 recorded a closer pattern of congruence than the perceptions

displayed in Map 3. To validate and quantify this assessment of congruence, the dispersal of

the group perceptions displayed in the perception maps was considered. This was undertaken

by quantifying the inter-group variances in the perception indices, for each of the items in the

three categories of response, namely, personal qualities, professional skills and time use. The

inter-group variances, evident in Maps 1, 2 and 3, are summarized in Table 68. In this table

the inter-group variances are indicated for students and Boards (S-B), students and teachers

(S-T), students and parents (S-P), teachers and Boards (T-B), teachers and parents (T-P) and

parents and Boards (P-B)

Table 68: Inter-Group Perception Maps 1, 2 and 3 Dispersal Patterns

PERSONAL QUALITIES PROFESSIONAL SKILLS TIME ALLOCATION

INTER-GROUP P.I. INTER- P.I. INTER-GROUP P.I.
COMPARISON DISPERSAL GROUP DISPERSAL COMPARISON DISPERSAL
(POINTS) COMPARISON (POINTS) (POINTS)

S-B 191 S-T 123 S-B 549

S-T 144 S-B 96 S-T 514
T-B 134 S-P 95 S-P 297
P-B 130 T-P 93 P-B 286
S-P 109 P-B 77 T-P 280
T-P 82 T-B 57 T-B 262
Category Ave 132 Category Ave 90 Category Ave 365
Dispersal Dispersal Dispersal
Ave Dispersal 5.5 Ave Dispersal 6 Ave Dispersal Per 15.9
Per Item Per Item Item

In Table 68, the data for the average inter-group dispersal in the perception indices, confirms

the previously reported pattern of variance in the perceptual data. Maps 1 and 2 for personal

qualities and professional skills evidence greater levels of perceptual congruence than Map 3.

282
The strongest agreement in the group perceptions is firstly for personal qualities with an

average perception index dispersal per item of 5.5 points, followed by professional skills at 6

points and time allocation 15.9 points. A higher level of congruence in the survey groups’

perceptions of the personal qualities and professional skills that are important to the

principalship occurred. However, when the details of day-to-day principalship practice are

considered, there is an evident perceptual disparity or disagreement in the survey groups’

perceptions. The level of this perceptual disparity is over 2.5 times greater for perceptions of

principalship time use, than perceptions related to important personal qualities and

professional skills for the principalship.

The relative congruence of the group perceptions for principalship personal qualities and

professional skills, and disparity for the perceptions of the time use data are noteworthy.

While previously, these three survey categories were considered as a composite of

principalship practice, a distinction can be made between the two categories that report

perceptual congruence and the one category that does not. The categories of personal

qualities and professional skills, where there is relative perceptual agreement, share a

common link as applicable to the requirements or prescriptions of the principalship. In these

terms, therefore, it is the group perceptions of principalship prescriptions that convey

congruence and the perceptions that relate to principalship practice that convey disparity.

When the itemized inter-group comparisons, in Table 68, are considered, the inter-group

disparity or disagreement in the perceptions of the principalship prescriptions (i.e.

professional and personal qualities) and practice (i.e. time allocation) are most pronounced

between the student group and the Board and teacher groups. The significance of this

disparity centres on two important operational aspects of the principalship. The first involves

recruitment and appointment, the second the outcomes of schooling.

283
The teacher and Board groups preside over the outcomes of schooling which are its student

effects. Yet students’ perceptions of principalship prescriptions and practices vary markedly

from the perceptions of teachers and Boards, as displayed in Table 69. Student perceptions

evidence an overall 72% greater variance than the parent perceptions of the principalship,

when compared to the combined teacher and Board perceptions.

Table 69: Average Perceptual Variances With Combined Teacher and Board Group
Perceptions
CATEGORY VARIANCES (P.I. POINTS)
PERSONAL QUALITIES PROFESSIONAL SKILLS TIME ALLOCATION
GROUP
AVE GROUP AVE AVE GROUP AVE AVE GROUP AVE
VARIATION VARIANCE/ VARIATION VARIANCE/ VARIATION VARIANCE/
ITEM ITEM ITEM
Students 168 7.0 110 7.3 532 23.0
Parents 106 4.4 75 5.0 283 12.3
Combined
Average 137 5.7 93 6.2 408 17.7

Table 69 considers the Teacher and Board groups as a unit which represents school

governance. It is this unit that establishes school policies and practices. The parent and

student cohorts are predominantly external to governance or structural functions, and

therefore the recipient communities served by principalship practice. Disparity in the

perceptions of the principalship, as the executive officer of school governance, and therefore

the provider of school services, affects how the services are evaluated and received.

Table 70 compares the combined teacher and student group perceptual data with parent and

Board perceptions. Teacher and student group members are in the closest operational

proximity to principalship practice. These groups observe the principalship more closely than

parent or Board group members. In the combined teacher and student data, divergence in the

pattern of perceptions of the principalship with the parent and Board groups, is not as

pronounced as for the Table 69 data. While the parent perceptions recorded a similar pattern

of divergence it is the Board group that is of greater interest in Table 70.

284
 Table 70: Average Perceptual Variances With Combined Teacher and Student Group
Perceptions

CATEGORY VARIANCES (P.I. POINTS)

PERSONAL QUALITIES PROFESSIONAL SKILLS TIME ALLOCATION
GROUP
AVE AVE AVE AVE AVE AVE
GROUP VARIANCE/ GROUP VARIANCE/ITEM GROUP VARIANCE/
VARIATION ITEM VARIATION VARIATION ITEM
Parents 96 4.0 86 5.7 289 12.5
Boards 163 6.8 77 5.1 406 17.7
Combined
Ave 130 5.4 82 5.4 348 15.1

Board perceptions recorded a significantly higher level of disparity than the parent group, in

the level of importance of various personal qualities to the principalship and in the time

allocation of principalship practices. Divergence or disparity at this level indicated that the

Board group, which appoints the principal, and to whom the principal is accountable,

displayed a different perception of principalship prescriptions and practices, compared with

the teacher and student group who share the daily activities and environment of school life

with the principal. Board perceptions evidenced an overall 33% greater variance than the

parent perceptions of the principalship, when compared to the combined teacher and student

perceptions.

Further to the use of Perception Maps 1, 2 and 3, to draw together the data of the various

group perceptions, the perceptions of the five principals in the study were considered. To do

this the perceptions of the five principals, in the categories personal qualities, professional

skills and time allocation, were superimposed on Perception Maps 1, 2 and 3 respectively to

generate Perception Maps 4, 5 and 6 as follows:-

285
 Perception Map 4 - Principalship Personal Qualities (inc. Head)

100

90

80

70
Perception Index

60

50

40

30 Teacher
Student
20 Parent
Board
10 AVG (T,S,P,B)
Head

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Personal Qualities (Appendix E)

Perception Map 5 - Principalship Professional Skills (inc. Head)

100

90

80

70
Perception Index

60

50

40

30 Teacher
Student
Parent
20
Board
AVG (T,S,P,B)
10 Head

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Professional Skills (Appendix E)

286
 Perception Map 6 - Principalship Practice Time Allocation (Inc. Head)

100

80

60

40
Perception Index

20

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

-20

-40
Teacher
-60 Student
Parent
Board
-80 AVG (T,S,P,B)
Head
-100
Time Principalship Practice Time Allocation (Appendix E)

Perception Maps 4, 5 and 6 are structured as noted previously for Perception Maps 1, 2 and 3

regarding the axis labelling. From the revised perception maps that incorporated the

principals’ (or Heads) perceptions, there is greater agreement in the perceptual patterns in

Maps 4 and 5 than for Map 6. This mirrored the previous inter-group analysis. To further

explore and quantify this agreement, the dispersion in the perceptions of the principals,

designated as “H” for Head, and the four stakeholder groups is assessed in Table 71.

Table 71: Inter-Group Perception Index Dispersal Patterns and

Principals’ Group Perceptions

PERSONAL QUALITIES PROFESSIONAL SKILLS TIME ALLOCATION

INTER-GROUP P.I. INTER-GROUP P.I. INTER-GROUP P.I.
COMPARISON DISPERSAL COMPARISON DISPERSAL COMPARISON DISPERSAL
(POINTS) (POINTS) (POINTS)

B-H 183 P-H 211 S-H 1233

S-H 179 S-H 194 P-H 954
T-H 164 B-H 186 T-H 772
P-H 143 T-H 169 B-H 758
Category Ave 167 Category Ave 190 Category Ave 929
Dispersal Dispersal Dispersal
Ave Dispersal per 7.0 Ave Dispersal per 12.7 Ave Dispersal per 40.4
Item Item Item

287
The dispersal rates in the perceptions of the principals (Heads) and the four stakeholder

groups in Table 71, are greater than those for the stakeholder group analyses in Table 69 and

70. The perceptions that comprised the prescriptive aspects of the principalship, namely

personal qualities and professional skills, display a combined average dispersal per item of

19.7 in Table 71 compared to 11.9 in Table 69, and 10.8 in Table 70. Inter-group variances

with the principals’ perceptions of principalship prescriptions are therefore 66% and 82%

greater, respectively, than for the four stakeholder group comparisons in Table 69 and 70.

For the detail of principalship time allocation, the average variance is 40.4 per item in Table

71, compared to variances of 17.7 and 15.1 in Table 69 and 70, respectively. Variance or

dispersal is therefore, 128% and 168% greater for the perceptions of the principals and the

other response groups, than for the variance in the inter-group perceptions. Substantial

perceptual variance occurs for the stakeholder groups’ perceptions of the level of importance

of various prescriptive qualities and skills for the principalship and the time allocation of

principalship practice. It is, however, in the area of principalship practice that the greatest

variances are recorded in the data analysis for all inter-group comparisons.

Individual group level comparisons with the principals’ group perceptions, report the largest

divergence in perception for the principals’ group and the student respondents. The

divergence in the student and principals’ group perceptions is 230% greater for principalship

practice than it is for the prescriptive requirements that are perceived as important for the

principalship. The smallest divergence between the principals’ group perceptions and the

other group responses occurs with the teacher cohort. The perceptual congruence of the

teachers’ responses is 31% greater than is the case for the students, when teacher and student

perceptions are compared to the principals’ group responses. The Board congruence with the

principals’ group perceptions is 2% less than the teacher-principal agreement. The inter-

group variances with the principals’ group are summarized in Table 72. The variances in the

288
perception of teachers, students, parents and Board members with the principals’ group were

calculated using the average variation for each item in the categories of principalship personal

qualities, professional skills and time allocation.

Table 72: Perceptual Variation (%) With Principals’ Group Based on Average Item
Variations in Perception Indices

PRESCRIPTION VARIANCE PRACTICE

VARIANCE OVERALL
GROUP PERSONAL PROFESSIONAL COMBINED TIME AVERAGE
QUALITIES SKILLS AVERAGE ALLOCATION VARIANCE

Teachers 7 11 9 34 18
Boards 8 12 9 33 18
Parents 6 12 9 33 18
Students 7 13 10 54 26
Overall 7 13 9 40 21
Average

From these data in Table 72, the prescriptive detail concerning the principalship, reported an

overall average 9% variance in the group perceptions. This variation increases to 40%, when

the perceptions of the time that a particular duty occupies the principal is reported by

teaching, student, parent and Board members. An overall average inter-group perceptual

disparity of 21% resulted in the reported perceptions of principalship prescription and

practice.

From the range of data and analyses that have been reported, there emerge various patterns of

inter-group congruence and disparity concerning the perceptual understanding of the

principalship. These patterns are evident within and between the four primary stakeholder

groups, namely, teachers, students, parents and Boards, and between these groups and the five

practicing principals in the study. Various specific and localized features of the pattern of

perceptual agreement, or otherwise, have been identified which give rise to the following

conclusions concerning the perceptions of the principalship.

289
4.7 CONCLUSIONS

In this section of the portfolio a range of perceptual data concerning the principalship has

been reported and analysed. These data were related, in the first instance, to three main

principalship categories, namely, personal qualities, professional skills and time use. The

principalship, in its broadest sense, comprises the integration of these three aspects, not just

the single component of day-to-day task allocation and detail. The personal qualities and

professional skills that the school principal brings to the role of the principalship are

fundamental variables that influence the resulting practice. Teacher, student, parent and

Board members’ perceptions of the principalship are therefore influenced by perceptions of

the personal qualities and professional skills of importance to the principalship, together with

the perceptions of day-to-day time use.

Further to this, perceptions of the principalship have been reported via metaphor use and

open-ended responses designed to broaden and enrich the detail of the survey groups’

perceptions of the principalship. Table 73 summarises the range of data that was reported for

the inter-group comparisons of principalship qualifications, personal qualities, professional

skills, time allocation and metaphor analysis, in Schedules B, E, N, U and Table 44

respectively.

Table 73: Inter-Group Perception Agreement (%) Summary

GROUP QUALIFI- PRINCIPALS’ PRINCIPALS’ PRINCIPALS’ PRINCIPALSHIP OVERALL

PAIRING CATIONS PERSONAL PROFESSIONAL TIME METAPHORS AVERAGE
QUALITIES SKILLS ALLOCATION

T-B 100 42 67 56 71 67
P-S 67 63 33 61 71 59
P-T 33 54 40 43 86 51
P-B 33 38 40 43 86 48
S-T 0 42 27 30 57 31
S-B 0 25 33 13 86 31
Category 33 44 40 41 76 48
Average

290
In Table 73 the highest level of overall agreement, in the perceptions of the principalship,

occurred with the teacher and Board groups, at 67%. These two group perceptions of the

principalship were most significant to the principalship. Boards of governance appoint the

principal, therefore, an understanding of the principalship is crucial to the task of making the

appointment effectively. The staff work most closely with the principal and it is from the

teacher cohort that future principal aspirants emerge and subsequent principalship

appointments are made. Perceptions of the role of the principal influence the career interest

and preparation of teachers aspiring to the principalship. Once appointed, new principals

bring to the role the personal perceptions that they understand comprise the principalship.

Perceptions that prove to be inaccurate, when confronted by the actual practice of the

principalship, could necessitate considerable adjustment by the new appointees.

At the lower level of agreement, of 33%, in the inter-group perceptions were the student and

Board, and student and teacher groups. A feature of these two correlations was the presence,

in both cases, of the student cohort. Student perceptions of the principalship differed

markedly from the two most influential groups which determined the structure and operation

of the school experience for students. The group which received the application of the

principalship, namely the students, perceived the role quite differently from the Board group,

which was responsible for the principalship appointment, and the staff group which executed

principalship policy procedures.

Students are the primary focus of the service provided by schooling, and those most affected

by the service that is provided. At a time in the evolution of schooling when student

disaffection, gender and socio-economic achievement disparities, and student behavioural

concerns are relevant issues in schools, the disparity between school governance and student

perceptions of the principalship is important. School planning and school structures reflect

291
the governance perceptions of schooling and the principalship role within it, not those of

students. To adequately address student needs, the divergent student perspectives require

understanding and recognition as part of the process. Failure to do so reproduces, into the

future, the different student and teacher perceptions of principalship prescriptions and

practices, and the divergent governance perspectives that result. Teachers are of particular

significance to the task of harmonizing variant perceptions of the principalship because of

their on-going interaction with students at the classroom level, as well as their closeness to the

principal.

The highest recorded inter-group agreement of 100% occurred for principalship qualifications

between the teacher and Board groups. However, this was also the area of lowest general

overall inter-group agreement (33%). Qualifications for the principalship that focussed on

age, teaching experience and minimum tertiary qualifications were perceived with greatest

disparity across the survey groups. It was of interest that the parent-student groups, who have

a lesser role in school policy, displayed the second highest inter-group agreement in this

category. This highlighted the way that the perceptual disparity, regarding the qualifications

for the principalship, occurred mainly between those inside and those outside the school

organization.

Principalship prescriptions were suggested as a composite of personal qualities and

professional skills. As such, the overall inter-group agreement was 42% (see Table 73),

which was the same as the level reported for the inter-group agreement of the perceptions of

principalship practice, in terms of time use. Both of these results indicated a relatively low

level of overall inter-group perceptual agreement regarding the prescriptions and practices of

the principalship. A similar overall 41% level of inter-group agreement occurred in the data

reported in Schedule W, which summarized the group responses from the open-ended survey

292
section. For each of these data categories, despite the low overall inter-group agreement,

there was a stronger level of agreement for the teacher-Board groups. Teacher-Board

agreement for the perceptions of principalship qualifications, prescriptions, practices and

open-ended response frequencies were 100%, 55%, 56% and 57% respectively. This

consistent pattern of stronger inter-group agreement between the teacher and Board groups,

referred to previously, corresponded to a consistent pattern of weaker agreement across the

categories for the student-teacher and student-Board groups. The level of this weaker

agreement, involving student perceptions and those of teachers and Boards, for principalship

qualifications, prescriptions, practices and open-ended responses were 0%, 32%, 22% and

32% respectively.

An exception to the categories where lower levels of inter-group agreement occurred was in

the metaphor analysis of principalship perceptions. In these data, reported in Table 73, the

levels of inter-group agreement were markedly higher and averaged 76%. The prominence of

the parent group in the highest level of inter-group agreement was noted. The higher

perceptual agreement reported via metaphors, and particularly involving the parent group,

could reflect the assistance that the metaphors provided in the articulation of respondents’

perceptions of the principalship.

The lowest inter-group agreement recorded in the metaphor analysis occurred for the teacher-

student groups, at 57%. This outcome, for the two stakeholder groups most closely associated

with the day-to-day practice of the principalship, highlighted the different perceptions that

teacher and students brought to their understanding of the principalship. Student metaphor

choices afforded a low level of acknowledgement to the administrative function of the

principalship, which teachers perceived as its predominant feature. In contrast, the teacher

group metaphors placed lesser emphasis on the principals’ relational activity than the stronger

293
student perceptions, despite the predominant student perception of the principal as an

authority figure.

To establish the levels of agreement, or otherwise, in the perceptual understanding of the

practices of the principalship, the principals’ group perceptions of their practice was used as a

benchmark. In this analysis, which had a particular focus in Perception Map 6, a marked

disparity occurred in the inter-group comparisons with the principals’ perceptions. Teachers,

Boards and parents evidenced similar levels of disagreement at 33 or 34%, with the

perceptions that the principals’ group indicated, as practitioners, regarding the time allocation

to the tasks that were submitted for consideration. Student perceptual variation, in this

analysis, was 54%. The higher level of disparity between the student and principals’ groups

was indicative of the organizational position of the students within the school structure and

environment.

If, as was argued, the principals’ group perceptions of their practice was a valid proxy for

principalship practice, then it was this aspect of the principalship which reported the highest

levels of inter-group variation with the principals’ perceptions. The level of perceptual

variance, of 40%, reported in this study, revealed a less than desirable level of understanding

of actual principalship practice. The significance of this divide between perception and

practice, encumbers the principalship with stakeholder expectations that are unsatisfied and

perhaps unattainable. Disparate stakeholder perceptions frustrate the practice of the

principalship because the value of what the principal does is not recognized, and the perceived

aspects that are not undertaken become sources of dysfunction. The overall group variance of

21% with the principals’ practice, as perceived by the principals’ group, and the 59% inter-

group perceptual disagreement in the perceptions of principalship time use, indicated a level

of perceptual disparity in the understanding of the principalship that requires amelioration to

serve the best interests of effective principalship practice.

294
 CHAPTER FIVE:

PORTFOLIO CONCLUSIONS

295
PORTFOLIO CONCLUSIONS

The purpose of this portfolio of research was to examine the relationship between the

prescriptions, practices and perceptions of the principalship. Prescriptions detailed aspects

that were understood to characterize the principalship from the perspective of academic or

theoretical considerations and studies. Practices of the principalship were the actual features

and activities that engaged the daily time use of the principal. Perceptions of the principalship

were the features and substance that observers of the principalship associated with the

principalship role.

Perception was used in this study as the reference point for considering principalship

prescriptions and practices. Irrespective of the detail that was prescribed concerning the

principalship and intended by the practice that was given effect, it was the recipients’

perception of principalship role behaviour that constituted, for them, the reality of the

principalship function. Yet, individual perception proved to be an abstract and elusive

variable which was not easily identified and determined. These features rendered perceptual

data subject to diverse interpretations and, at best, only suggestive of indicative trends in the

data that were analysed. However, while it was difficult to form definitive assessments or

conclusions based on perceptual data, it was possible to discern patterns or connecting

threads, or the unexpected lack of these, that were instructive, relevant and valid.

5.1 PRINCIPALSHIP PRESCRIPTIONS AND PRACTICES

Patterns of inter-connection between the prescriptions and practices of the principalship were

investigated in this study. Aspects of variance were identified that were consistent with the

growing gulf in the practices, and prescriptions of the principalship, discussed by Simpkins,

Thomas and Thomas (1987). Walker and Dimmock (2000) argued that these variances have

occurred because

296
 schools throughout the world operate in an increasingly complex and confusing
environment. School leaders in particular are exposed to the problems, paradoxes and
dilemmas associated with shifting educational landscapes. Recent research into the
dilemmas faced by school principals presents a picture of leaders torn between
opposite, often contradictory directions, as their roles become less circumscribed and
more subject to debate in times of societal change (p. 5).

Section One of this study demonstrated that the literature on the principalship described the

principalship role as one of enormous pressure, dysfunction, variability and ambiguity. Such

characteristics were seen as endemic to principalship practice and the environmental factors

that effected the principal, who lacked a reciprocal capacity for their control or removal.

Societal concerns, dysfunctions and public policy issues, shaped the school agenda which the

principalship, as the gatekeeper to the school, undertook to modulate and moderate according

to the desired school effects and responses. The principalship was therefore, more often, in a

reactive mode.

While this study did not attempt to identify the features or causes of reactive principalship

behaviour, or activity, it reported the number of daily interactions as a reflection of reactive

occurrences. For the principalship practice reported in the observation and journal data of

Section Two, the frequency of interaction ranged from 23 to 84 interactions per day, with an

average of 33. Interaction times ranged from 7 minutes to 30 minutes duration, with an

average of 20 minutes per interaction. These data were consistent with prescriptions of the

principalship that described the role as dynamic and responsive with each day punctuated by

numerous and brief encounters. The observation data particularly reflected such

prescriptions.

A significant feature of the interactions that occurred in the observed and journalized

principalship practice, was the location of the interactions. The reported principalship

297
practice was located at the site of the principals’ office for 51% of the time, where 29% of the

time the principal worked alone. The 51% of time spent by the principal in the principals’

office, was consistent with the 50% of time noted by Morris et al (1984).

Principalship prescriptions ranged across an expanded set of items that included

administrative, managerial, and educational leadership aspects. Role prescriptions, in terms

of management, business, finance, organizational and personnel functions, created a tension

within the principalship regarding educational and instructional leadership. Principalship

prescriptions consistently reported the ideal of the principalship for the dynamic of leadership,

not the static of management (Cole, 1996). Instructional leadership that incorporated the

notions of vision and pedagogy were the inspiration behind principal prescriptions. These

features were also the ideals for the principalship practice that this study reported. However,

the tensions reported in prescriptions of the principalship, between the real and ideal element

of principalship practice, were similarly evident.

From the practice data the predominant focus of the principals’ time was on administrative

functions, and located within the administrative precinct of the school. Personal

administration, including telephone use, comprised 38% of the various classifications of

principalship activity and occupied 51% of the principals’ time, with a focus on the

principals’ office. A total of at least 71% of the principals’ practice was confined to the

administrative hub of the school. A further 48% of the recorded practice was in meetings of a

planned or unplanned nature, with the result that a total of 86% of the principalship practice

was administrative in nature. The effect of this predominantly administrative feature of the

principalship was to suggest that the ideals of principalship prescription, in terms of

leadership and vision, required expression in and through the context of administrative

practice.

298
5.2 PRINCIPALSHIP PRESCRIPTIONS AND PERCEPTIONS

Prescriptions of the principalship often focussed on the curriculum related aspects of the

principalship. Curriculum involvement and influence were not, however, perceived as a

significant priority for the principalship by the stakeholder groups, or by the principals’ group

in this study. Fifteen representative professional skills were assessed, by respondents,

according to the level of importance for the principalship. Included in these items was

curriculum development, which was ranked eleventh in importance by the teacher and Board

respondents, and twelfth by the principals’ group. These represented the three most

significant contributors to the stakeholders in the curriculum aspects of the principalship.

These perceptual data showed a significant discrepancy with the prescription of the

principalship at the forefront of school curricula initiatives and strategies. Other surveys

(Lambert, 2002), also reported a variance between the low perception of the principal as a

curriculum or instructional leader, and prescriptions that suggested otherwise.

Leadership prescriptions for the principalship contained an implied and assumed role that was

vision related. Therefore, vision formulation and vision casting were frequent principalship

prescriptions. For the principals’ group in this study, the visionary element to the

principalship was perceived as the highest in importance amongst the twenty-four personal

qualities that were considered. Other group perceptions of the visionary element, however,

only had the teacher cohort record vision in a top five ranked position of importance for the

principalship. Of significant interest, from the principals’ group perception of the importance

of the visionary quality to their principalship, was the divergent inter-group perception of the

other stakeholder groups, and particularly the Board group, which did not include visionary

among the top five ranked personal qualities of importance for a principal.

299
To modify the variance in the perception of the principal’s visionary role, evident from the

structured survey responses, was the outcome when a less structured response opportunity

was provided. Data from these responses indicated greater prominence to the visionary aspect

of the principalship. Staff and Board open-ended responses indicated a perception of high

significance for the principal as a visionary within the school context. This disparity between

the structured and less structured responses could be seen as reflecting either the different

methodology of data collection, or the fact that other qualities or functions were perceived to

embrace the visionary role. Support for this latter explanation occurred in relationship to

future planning, which received a top five rank as a professional skill of importance to the

principalship by all response groups. Future planning, in the minds of respondents, perhaps

subsumed visionary aspects. If this was the case then there was a more unified perception

that being imaginative, creative and innovative was an important part of the principalship.

Operationally the personal qualities that the principal brought to the role were crucial,

particularly those qualities that engaged with the social context and social dimension of the

principalship. The ability to listen, negotiate, counsel and mediate are essential to the

principalship because conflict, and its associated dysfunctional manifestations, such as clashes

of personality, are a normal part of the micro-political landscape of schools (Hargreaves,

1995). Prescriptions of the principalship embraced the operational significance of conflict

management and dispute resolution to the principalship, and suggested that it was to be

harnessed as a positive force for organizational change (Clarke, 2000).

Dispute resolution, as a professional skill for the principalship, was a separate skill item

submitted for perception response. It was ranked fifth or sixth in importance by adult

respondents and ninth by the student group. Associated with dispute resolution was the

broader skill category of inter-personal relationships. Inter-personal skill was ranked third or

300
fourth in importance by adult respondents and eighth by students. Evident from these data

was substantial agreement in the perceptions and prescriptions of the importance of the inter-

personal dimension for the principalship.

Principalship prescriptions have described the principalship as essentially a social function

(Greenfield 1988), so inter-personal and communication activities were frequent features of

principalship prescriptions. The strong inter-group perception of communication, as an

important principalship skill, recognized this social dynamic of the principalship. The

principals’ group placed inter-personal and communication skills as first and second

respectively, in perceived importance to the principalship, and more important than the

leadership perception that other groups reported.

5.3 PRINCIPALSHIP PERCEPTIONS AND PRACTICES

A useful device that emerged in this study for establishing the presence of agreement, or

otherwise, in the perceptions of the principalship and principalship practices, was the

comparison of the survey group perceptions with those of the principals’ group. From this

comparison of the teacher, student, parent and Board groups’ ranked perception of time use

by the principals’ group, when compared with the perceived ranking of the 23 nominated

activities, which were used as indicative of principalship practices, there was an overall 22%

item rank variance. This result indicated that parents, students, teachers and Boards generally

lacked an understanding of the way a principal actually allocated his or her time. The student

group evidenced the greatest variance in perceptions of principal practice details of 27% with

the Board group the least variance of 19%.

However, when a Perception Map analysis was used to assess the nature, or otherwise, of

inter-group perceptions of principalship practice, the variance was markedly greater. Using

the principals’ group assessment of their own practice, as a reference for principalship

301
practice, the construction of perception index data revealed a 40% variance in the inter-group

perceptions of principalship practice. Highlighted in this analysis was the area of

principalship practice as the location of greatest variance in perceptual understanding of the

principalship.

Metaphor use was a feature of this study because of its use as an indicator of perception. For

the principals’ group, their perception of principalship practice gave preference to the

relational metaphors of helper, counsellor, motivator, friend and visionary. None of the other

survey groups perceived principalship practice predominantly in these terms. Instead, the

overall practice of the principalship was perceived as administrative, followed by the exercise

of authority and then by relational features. The Board and student groups ranked the

relational aspect of principalship practice higher than the teacher and parent groups.

However, it should be noted that perceptions of principalship practice, as predominantly

administrative, equated with the practice data that were reported in this study.

For the inter-group analysis of the perceptions of the principals’ time use, excluding the

principals’ group, the average agreement was 41% across the 23 time use items considered. It

was the parent and student groups which displayed the highest perceptual agreement, of the

perceived allocation of principalship time and tasks at 61%. Teacher and Board perceptual

agreement in this category was 56%. However, the lowest agreement in perceptual

understanding of principalship practice, occurred between the student group and the teacher

and Board groups. Students recorded 13% and 30% agreement with the Board and teacher

perceptions, respectively. Divergence in these inter-group comparisons was of note because it

was the student group that was the recipient of principalship practice and the Board and

teacher groups that respectively, determined and implemented that practice.

302
Principalship practice was particularly significant in the way that such practice could

influence the perception that staff acquired of the principalship. The resulting staff

perceptions directed, or discouraged, future principalship aspirations, from members of staff

who might pursue such a role, and affected the approach and conduct that such aspirants

applied to subsequent principalship appointments. The staff groups reported an overall 18%

average variation with the principals’ group perceptions of principalship practice, but within

this was a 34% variation in time allocation perceptions. It was evident from the principals’

group open-ended responses, that the experience of principalship practice differed

significantly from pre-appointment perceptions. Coupled with this was the presence of

negative responses from the principals’ group in the study, in the counsel suggested for

principalship aspirants.

Conflict was a dimension of school life, at the student level, which invariably produced an

associated discipline outcome or response. Although the parent group perceived student

discipline as a higher level principalship function, the student, staff and Board groups

recorded an equal rating to student discipline skill as the tenth placed principalship skill of

importance, out of fifteen. This agreed with the principal group’s assessment of the extent of

their involvement in student related conflict as a feature of principalship practice. The low

level of principalship practice involved with student related conflict and discipline was

evident in the data on principalship practice in this study. Throughout the thirty days of

principalship practice data there were no reported occurrences of principalship involvement in

student discipline matters. The literature that provided the basis for principalship

prescriptions, similarly contained minimal direct reference to a significant student discipline

function for principalship practice. Instead, references to social dysfunction and adolescent

dislocation (Carr, 2002; Durka, 2000), as features of the decision-making environment of the

303
principalship, implied that student behavioural issues would occur and require appropriate

principalship responses.

5.4 PRINCIPALSHIP ROLE SATISFACTION

Job satisfaction was regarded as a vital component to be facilitated in prescriptions,

reproduced in practice and communicated in perceptions. Regarding principalship

satisfaction, while there were reports of a profession in crisis (Alexander, 1992; Murphy,

1994; Rooney, 2000; Ferrandino & Terozzi, 2000) and evident concerns in the interview data

in this study, there was also a finding of great promise for present and future principalship

practice. That promise was located in the high level of principalship satisfaction reported.

An average 81% satisfaction level, for the activities documented, was reported by the study

group of five principals for their principalship practice. This level of principalship

satisfaction resulted from a self-generated satisfaction assessment. On this basis the

principals’ group recorded an average activity related satisfaction level of 92% and an average

time use satisfaction level of 71%. Recent studies by the New Zealand Council of Education

(Roulston, 2006) have similarly reported encouraging levels of satisfaction for principalship

practice. The reported data, in this study, identified that 77% of the principals surveyed

enjoyed their role, although the tyranny of inadequate time to perform the role properly was

expressed.

Differences in the satisfaction levels reported by individual principals were suggested as a

function of the personality type of the principal. This was not to suggest that there was a

preferred personality type for the principalship, but reflected the effect of the personality of

the principal on the practice of the principalship. Personality effects on the principalship

remain an under-researched and yet potentially powerful dimension to the prescriptions,

practices and perceptions of the principalship for the future.

304
5.5 THE PRINCIPALSHIP OF THE FUTURE AND ALTERNATIVE MODELS

The principalship of the future will be required to engage with the findings from an increased

level of national and international research (Pyke, 2002; Caldwell, 2000; Olsen, 1999),

suggesting that a shortage of aspirants for the principalship was evident in Australia and

western countries. However, this shortage Roulston observed, from the research of Barty,

Thomson, Blackmore & Sachs (2005) was

more complex than a lack of numbers. Generally, the percentage of teachers

interested in taking on a leadership role has not changed markedly over time but, for
various reasons, they are not always choosing to apply for positions or to apply in the
areas they are most needed (Roulston, 2006. p. 3).

The challenge for the future, therefore, for those with a vested interest in the viability and

vitality of the principalship, is to address the prescriptive expectations of the principalship and

the elements of its operational reality and practice, to ensure that positive perceptions of the

principalship prevail within the mindset of teachers.

A feature of the practice of the principalship which needs to be addressed is the long hours

reported. The average 11.3 hour days for principalship practice recorded in this study,

indicated a work demand level upon the role that is a disincentive for principalship

recruitment. Roulston (2006) noted that

many aspiring school leaders point to the ever-expanding role of the principal as a
deterrent to taking on leadership roles. They refer to the weight of accountability,
pressure from parents, the shift from managing discipline to establishing sound and
emotional support for students, increasing expectations, the need for effective
financial and risk management, the increased responsibilities that reduced their role as
education leaders and the difficulty of finding staff, as all acting as deterrents to the
aspiring principals (Roulston, 2006. p. 3).
The principal in the school of the twenty-first century has been moved by the circumstances

of contemporary school demands and constraints into the role of a corporate executive. The

305
corporate executive function is being discharged and expressed, however, within an

educational context, with educational outcomes as the product of the school corporation. The

administrative focus of principalship practice reported in this study, and the reference by

practicing principals to the administrative overload as a feature of the principalship, reflects

this corporate model. It is, further, a model that engages with industrial, legal and statutory

requirements, as much, if not more so, than educational functions. Either the continuing

principalship, into the future, will engage with these business, financial, economic and legal

realities, that characterize corporate administration, as the legitimate and recognized practice

of the principalship, or the present dissonance in principalship practice between corporate and

educational expectations will persist.

The present dissonance for the principalship has occurred because prescriptions of the

principalship have pursued notions of educational and instructional leadership, with the

perceptions of the principalship influenced accordingly, when in fact principalship practice

has evidenced very little opportunity for the expression or realization of such leadership

constructs. The way forward requires acceptance of the administrative and corporate role that

is a necessary function of school organization, and that requires accommodation within the

operation of school leadership. From this acceptance, the school organizational functions that

are corporate as opposed to educational in nature can be delineated.

Two quite different models for development seem possible. The first acknowledges that the

domain of the principal is the educational function, for which they are by experience and

qualification more ideally suited and equipped. Then the corporate practice embedded in

existing prescriptions of the principalship can be re-located elsewhere in the school structure,

in an extended or additional business management position, for example. The result for the

principalship of the future would be a role that is defined in terms of the educational,

306
instructional and curriculum perspectives that are at the heart of principalship prescription

and practice.

Alternatively, if the existing administration, management and educational breadth in the

prescriptions and practices of the principalship are preserved into the future, a restructure of

the school organization is called for. Sub-units, presided over by the existing principalship in

a nested organizational structure, may allow for a more prescribed practice that reflects and

maintains the viability of the traditional principalship role. In this restructured school the

principal becomes part of an executive directorate, made up of sub-unit principals, under the

co-ordinating management of an executive director. While this reconfigured school structure

presents cost implications for school staffing, these need to be evaluated against the cost

implications of the principalship as it is presently constituted.

However, while restructured principalship models for the present pattern of schooling are

necessary, it is towards the future pattern of schooling that the principalship must be focussed.

As the model of schooling, borne in the industrial age is confronted by the technological

implications of the present, so there will emerge the necessity for re-configured school

structures and amended paradigms of schooling. These new structures and paradigms of

schooling present the greatest potential for new paradigms of the principalship. The

emergence of such new paradigms may, hopefully, encourage prescriptions of the

principalship that are reflective of actual and sustainable practice, and then, in turn, produce

realistic perceptual understandings of the principalship in the stakeholder communities that

are served by the schools of the future, and the principalship that presides over the emergent

jurisdiction of such schools.

307
APPENDICES

Page No
Appendix A Principalship Role – Time Analysis Work Sheet

Appendix B Background Information for Principalship Survey

Appendix C Request Letter to Principals

Appendix D Perceptions of the Principalship Questionnaire

Appendix E Survey Items – Personal Qualities, Professional Skills and Time

Use

Appendix F Personal Qualities Perception Data Table/Graphs 5-28

Appendix G Principalship Personal Qualities Perception Index Summary

Appendix H Principalship Professional Skills – Perception Index Summary

Appendix I Principalship Time Use Perception Data Table/Graphs 45-65

Appendix J Group Perceptions of Principals’ Time Allocation – Perception

Index Summary

Appendix K Perception Data Table/Graphs 68-74

308
APPENDIX A: PRINCIPALSHIP ROLE-TIME ANALYSIS WORKSHEET

General Explanatory Information

Thank you for your participation in this Time Analysis. Your willingness to be
inconvenienced to further the understanding of the principalship role is appreciated and
commendable.

1. Commencement time is to be the time at which the first role related activity,
involvement or event occurs on the day of the time analysis.

2. Conclusion time is to be the conclusion of the last role related activity, involvement or
event on the day of the time analysis.

3. Every attempt should be made to record the times for each role activity as precisely as
possible or at least a close approximation.

4. Where a period of time is allocated for lunch or other personal breaks these can be
designated as PERSONAL SPACE (P.S). If any effective role tasks occur in these
times then indicate this via a note in the appropriate space next to this time period.

5. For ease of annotation you may use abbreviations or codes, but when doing so provide
an explanatory key.

6. Telephone calls can be designated as incoming (T/in) or outgoing (T/out) with a brief
explanatory note as to the nature of the call, e.g. student discipline, enrolment, parent
call, general admin, industrial.

7. If an activity is interrupted then note the interruption as a new item. When returning
to the previous activity indicate the resumption with an arrow linking to the
interrupted activity, e.g.

9.05 meeting with staff member

9.10 t/in – parent
9.13 meeting with staff member

8. You are not expected to indicate names, confidential details or sensitive descriptions,
e.g. the descriptions “student discipline” or “student counselling” are sufficient to
cover all types of these activities.

9. Five consecutive days of time use are being sought. Ideally they should not include
special atypical days (e.g. sports day, conference, non-student day etc.).

10. The satisfaction level columns are for you to indicate your assessment of the outcome
of each role event according to your expectation or requirement.

309
APPENDIX A (cont)

INSTRUCTION AND INTRODUCTION

Enclosed is an explanatory sheet and 10 time analysis work sheets (2 per day if needed). Feel
free to photocopy more as required. I have included a completed sample for your reference.
When doing this I was surprised at how many things happened, and it is easy to overlook
keeping the record up to date. It is important that every interaction is recorded, however
incidental it may seem. Ideally the days need to be consecutive, however if an atypical day
(e.g. conference, sports day, sickness) falls in the sequence, then omit this day from the time
analysis and pick up one extra day at another time. Keep the details of each event brief. It is
the nature of the interaction that is important and of interest, not the detail of what was going
on, or what you did. E.g. Yard Duty is sufficient to cover a time period or Staff Meeting,
without recording every detail during such an activity. It is each separate principalship
activity and it’s time duration that is the issue. However, be as specific and itemized as you
are able to, without making it tedious.

When completed at a time that suits, please forward the completed sheets in the stamped
addressed envelope.

Thank you once again for your assistance. It is greatly appreciated.

PRINCIPAL ROLE – TIME ANALYSIS WORKSHEET (SAMPLE)

DAY: ONE/TWO/THREE/FOUR/FIVE (Circle as applicable) DATE: _____________

Satisfaction Level
Time Location Detail Low Moderate Good High
8.00 am Office Admin prep for the day /
8.15 am Staff Staff devotions and prayer /
Room
8.30 am Staff Teacher discussion re the /
Room day’s activities
8.40 am Office Admin – correspondence /
8.45 am Office Telephone – parent /
request
8.48 am Office Admin /
8.55 am Classroom Teaching lesson /
9.55 am Office Admin – policy review /
10.12 am Office Teacher visit /
10.15 am Office Budget meeting with /
Bursar
10.40 Office Admin /
11.00 am Assembly Student assembly /
Hall
11.40 am Classroom Lesson /

310
APPENDIX B: BACKGROUND INFORMATION FOR PRINCIPALSHIP SURVEY

The following information is required to contextualize the research study in which you have
participated. Its use will be in generalized summaries or descriptions that will not make direct
personal references to you or your school. The general reference will be in the form of
“School 1” and “Principal 1”, with the data related to both couched in terminology that is not
intended to reveal the identity of either.

Your assistance to complete the following details and return in the stamped addressed
envelope would be appreciated.

Principal Code ______

1. At the time of your first appointment to the Principalship (NOTE: the appointment
may not be at your current school) what was your

1.1 years of teaching experience __________years

1.2 Age __________years
1.3 Highest tertiary qualification (tick one)
Ordinary Degree [ ] Masters Degree [ ]
Honours Degree [ ] Doctorate or Ph.D [ ]

2. For your current school, could you provide the following detail as at February 1, 2005.

2.1 Total enrolment __________

2.2 Total No. of Year 11 students ______
2.3 Total No. of staff _______ (as per payroll)
2.4 Total No. of school families ________
2.5 Year in which the school was commenced _______

3. General school characteristics as at 2005

3.1 Socio-economic status (circle) lower middle / middle / upper middle / upper
3.2 Employment characteristics (Tick which apply. More than one category may
apply)
• Level of unemployment low [ ] moderate [ ] high [ ]
• Level of pension/welfare recipients low [ ] moderate [ ] high [ ]
• Level of trade occupations low [ ] moderate [ ] high [ ]
• Level of professional occupations low [ ] moderate [ ] high [ ]
• Proportion of low income earners low [ ] moderate [ ] high [ ]
• Proportion of high income earners low [ ] moderate [ ] high [ ]

3.3 Family structure

• Proportion of single parent families low [ ] moderate [ ] high [ ]
• Level of family instability/dysfunction low [ ] moderate [ ] high [ ]

3.4 Parental participation in school life low [ ] moderate [ ] high [ ]

3.5 Current percentage of school card families ________%
3.6 Enrolment growth mod increase [ ] rapid increase [ ] stable [ ]
declining [ ]

311
3.7 Staff turnover: low [ ] moderate [ ] high [ ]
3.8 Catchment area radius: 0-10km [ ] 0-15k [ ] 0-20 km [ ] 0-30 km [ ]
3.9 Geographic location (more than one description may apply)
Older established area [ ]
Inner metropolitan [ ]
New/developing [ ]
Light industrial [ ]
Housing Trust [ ]
Private residential [ ]
Inner city [ ]
Re-development [ ]
Semi rural [ ]
On main road [ ]
On a church site [ ]
Outer metropolitan [ ]
3.10 Type of governance:
Church based [ ] Parent Controlled [ ] Other [ ]
3.11 Enrolment policy:
Open [ ] Restricted [ ]
3.12 What is the school motto?
_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________

3.13 What is the school’s Mission Statement?

_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________

3.14 Attach a copy of your most recent Job or Role Description as provided by your
Board or as you understand it to be.

312
APPENDIX C: REQUEST LETTER TO PRINCIPALS

May 28, 2001

Title First Name Last Name

Job Title
Company
Address 1
Address 2

Dear (First Name)

Greetings n the Saviour’s Name. As a fellow Christian School Principal, and as a personal
undertaking, I am writing to gain your assistance in the cause of furthering the understanding
of the roles we share in common. Your agreement won’t involve any extra work for you, and
minimal inconvenience. The actual practical impact of your agreement to this request
probably won’t take effect until 2002. Now that you are all relaxed and know this is not
another burden to add to the existing ones, I should explain more fully.

In 1999 I was accepted into a new post-graduate degree program at the University of Adelaide
towards a Doctor in Education award. This necessitates a research thesis in an area of
professional interest. The principalship was an obvious choice, and one that I was attracted to
in the hope that I could leave some lasting legacy to inform future incumbents as to the role of
the Principal in Christian Schools. The proposal that I have submitted, and which has been
approved by the Faculty of Education at Adelaide is:

“An investigation of the extent to which the prescriptions and practices of school
principalship are related to the perceptions of the principalship in a Christian
secondary school context.

In order to undertake this research I need the co-operation and involvement of Christian
Schools such as [Company] which have a secondary component. My purpose in writing to
you is to gain your permission for me to approach your School Board to seek their approval
for your school’s involvement. In addressing this matter to you first, I recognize that your
support is crucial, and I wouldn’t presume to approach your Board without your knowledge
and consent. Should you express your willingness to be involved, I will then write to the
Chairman of your School Board to seek their approval.

What will it all involve if approval is gained?

1. No cost to your school or yourself, of course.

2. A questionnaire to be filled out by the Board assessing their perception of what the
Principalship role involves. This questionnaire and the others used in the study will be
so structured that they will not be an assessment of your Principalship. The point of
the study is to look at the broad notion of what key stakeholders perceive principalship
to be about, not what they think a particular principal does. This point will be stressed
in any preliminary briefing. I would be requesting 45 minutes approximately of the
Board’s time to administer this survey to the Board.

313
 3. A postal survey questionnaire to be sent out to your school parent community. I
would supply all the stationery for this, but request that your school communication
channels are used for the survey distribution and collection. The survey intent and
design would be the same as in (2) above.

4. A survey of staff to take 40-60 minutes, and again along the same lines as (2), being
administered by me to those staff who volunteer to be involved.

5. A survey of your Year 11 students. This would involve approximately 45 minutes and
I would administer it to those students who volunteer. The presentation of this could
be made quite useful to students. I would talk with them about the role of research in
knowledge formation, and how further study takes the individual from knowledge
acquirer and knowledge user to knowledge maker.

6. Access to school documents concerning the principalship, namely recruitment

advertisements and job statements. Issues like salary and packages are not relevant to
this study.

7. For yourself as the Principal, I would be requesting the following activities which
could be spread over a year to minimize disruption:

(a) a survey for you to complete (a principal-friendly one, as I know what the
other sort do for my angst!)
(b) a time and task log to be kept over a nominated school week. This will need to
be selected at random to validate the results and facilitate generalizability.
(c) 2-3 days of shadowing. This will involve me being with you on 2-3 separate
days, spread over a year. I would be an unobstrusive and uninstrusive observer
of your activities. This would be the scary bit, but as a fellow principal, I
would be on your side, a sympathetic observer, someone who has been there
and done that. Hopefully the collegiate bond we share would make this non-
threatening. Note that the research write up will not betray secrets, not
mention names, or schools by name. The data being collected concerns what
is done, not how it is done. For private meetings, discipline sessions or
sensitive matters, I would excuse myself and pick up with you when you had
finished. The idea of the shadowing is for you to go about your “normal”
routine and approach without interference from me. I would just be watching
and noting what you did without comment or involvement.

8. A free complimentary copy of the research report – now that, I am sure, has won you
over!

My apologies that this has turned into quite a lengthy epistle. However, the detail was
necessary so that you knew what you were getting into (or missing out on, as the case may
be!). If you are willing to assist me, it would be most appreciated. Should this not be the case
I will understand and get over it. This request has been sent to the other Christian schools like
yours, with a secondary component to Year 11.

314
APPENDIX D: PERCEPTIONS OF THE PRINCIPALSHIP QUESTIONNAIRE

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Thank you for participating in this research project by completing this
questionnaire.

1.2 The focus of research is the perceptions that various interest groups have
of the role of the principalship.

1.3 As a member of the Parent interest group your responses concerning various
aspects of the principalship role in a Christian Secondary School are being
sought as part of a research project to enhance the understanding of this
important role in the educational function of schooling.

1.4 There are no right or wrong responses to the survey questions.

1.5 What is being sought are your perceptions of the principal’s role, that is to say,
what you understand to be the role of the principal in a Christian Secondary
School setting.

1.6 The focus of this research is to investigate the role of the principal, not to
analyse the way a particular principal undertakes the task of principalship.
While your experience or observation of a particular principal may influence
what you understand of the principal’s role, it is the role of principalship, not
the person doing the principalship, that is of interest in this research.

1.7 Your responses are made anonymously and no disclosure of any school
connection will be sought or made.

2.0 SURVEY DETAIL

2.1 Principalship Qualifications

Tick the box which you feel best describes what is required for a person to
become a Secondary School Principal.

a. Years of Teaching Experience:

10-12 F 13-15 F 16-18 F over 18 F

b. Age: 30-35 F 36-40 F 41-45 F 46-50 F over 50 F

c. Desirable minimum tertiary qualification:

Ordinary Degree F Masters Degree F

Honours Degree F Doctorate or Ph.D. F

315
2.2 Personal Qualities
a. From the following list of personal qualities how important do you rate them
in relation to the role of Principalship. Indicate whether you rate them Very
Important, Important, Slightly Important, or Not Important At All.

Very Imp Slightly Not

Imp Imp Imp
4 3 2 1
Optimistic F F F F
Energetic F F F F
Friendly F F F F
Wise F F F F
Leader F F F F
Fairminded F F F F
Innovative F F F F
Respectable F F F F
Outgoing F F F F
Tolerant F F F F
Open F F F F
Interesting F F F F
Organiser F F F F
Consistent F F F F
Kind F F F F
Forceful F F F F
Confident F F F F
Knowledgeable F F F F
Understanding F F F F
Communicator F F F F
Reliable F F F F
Trustworthy F F F F
Visionary F F F F
Popular F F F F

b. From the above list, please indicate what you believe are the five most
important qualities

1. _________________________ 4. _______________________

2. _________________________ 5. _______________________

3. _________________________

316
2.3 Principal’s Professional Skills

From the list of skills listed below how important do you rate them in relation to
the principalship role? Indicate whether you rate them Very Important,
Important, Slightly Important, or Not Important At All.

Very Imp Slightly Not Imp

Imp Imp at all

Financial Planning F F F F
Building Development F F F F
Student Discipline F F F F
Record Keeping F F F F
Marketing and Publicity F F F F
Communication F F F F
Inter-Personal
Relationships F F F F
Curriculum
Development F F F F
Dispute Resolution F F F F
Staff Management F F F F
Staff Development F F F F
Organisational
Management F F F F
Public Relations F F F F
Leadership F F F F
Future Planning F F F F

b. From the above list, please indicate what you believe are the five most
important qualities

1. ______________________ 4. ____________________
2. ______________________ 5. ____________________
3. ______________________

2.4 Principal’s Duties and Responsibilities

a. How many hours per week do you think the average Secondary Christian
School Principal works in order to fulfil their duties and responsibilities:

< 40 hours per week F

40 – 43 F
44 – 47 F
48 – 51 F
52 – 55 F
56 – 59 F
> 59 F

317
 b. From the following duties indicate how you think they occupy the principal’s
time.
Most of Much A Reasonable Little
Of the of the amount of or no
Time Time Time Time
(> 50%) (25-50%) (5-25%) (< 5%)
Classroom Teaching F F F F
School Planning F F F F
Student Discipline F F F F
Buildings and Grounds F F F F
Student Progress F F F F
Telephone Calls F F F F
Principals’ Meetings F F F F
School Assemblies F F F F
Budget and Finance F F F F
School Board Matters F F F F
Professional Reading F F F F
Conflict Resolution F F F F
Correspondence F F F F
Parent Meetings F F F F
School Administration F F F F
Staff Meetings F F F F
Staff Recruitment F F F F
Enrolment Interviews
And Enquiries F F F F
Staff Counselling F F F F
Student Counselling F F F F
Curriculum Planning F F F F
Report Writing F F F F
Policy Development F F F F

2.5 From each of the following groups of word pictures, circle the one that to you
best describes the role of the Principal.

a. Counsellor, Manager, Figurehead

b. Dictator, Manipulator, Enforcer
c. Scholar, Supervisor, Ruler
d. Politician, Organiser, Helper
e. Visionary, Innovator, Motivator
f. A god, A policeman, Darth Vader
g. Disciplinarian, Expert, Friend

318
 2.6 Complete this statement:

“When I think of the role of the school principal I think of

Thank you for completing this survey and contributing your insights about the Principalship.

319
APPENDIX E: SURVEY ITEMS – PRINCIPALSHIP PERSONAL QUALITIES,
PROFESSIONAL SKILLS AND TIME USE

Principalship Principalship Principalship

Personal Qualities Professional Skills Time Use

1. Optimistic 1. Financial Planning 1. Classroom Teaching

2. Energetic 2. Building Development 2. School Planning
3. Friendly 3. Student Discipline 3. Student Discipline
4. Wise 4. Record Keeping 4. Buildings and Grounds
5. Leader 5. Marketing and Publicity 5. Student Progress
6. Fairminded 6. Communication 6. Telephone Calls
7. Innovative 7. Inter-Personal Relationships 7. Principals’ Meetings
8. Respectable 8. Curriculum Development 8. School Assemblies
9. Outgoing 9. Dispute Resolution 9. Budget and Finance
10. Tolerant 10. Staff Management 10. School Board Matters
11. Open 11. Staff Development 11. Professional Reading
12. Cheerful 12. Organisational Management 12. Conflict Resolution
13. Organiser 13. Public Relations 13. Correspondence
14. Consistent 14. Leadership 14. Parent Meetings
15. Kind 15. Future Planning 15. School Administration
16. Forceful 16. Staff Meetings
17. Confident 17. Staff Recruitment
18. Knowledgeable 18. Enrolment Interviews and
Enquiries
19. Understanding 19. Staff Counselling
20. Communicator 20. Student Counselling
21. Reliable 21. Curriculum Planning
22. Trustworthy 22. Report Writing
23. Visionary 23. Policy Development
24. Popular

320
APPENDIX F: PRINCIPALSHIP PERSONAL QUALITIES PERCEPTION DATA

Table/Graph 5: Principal Personal Qualities – Optimistic

Table/Graph 6: Principal Personal Qualities – Energetic
Table/Graph 7: Principal Personal Qualities – Friendly
Table/Graph 8: Principal Personal Qualities – Wise
Table/Graph 9: Principal Personal Qualities – Leader
Table/Graph 10: Principal Personal Qualities – Fair Minded
Table/Graph 11: Principal Personal Qualities –Innovative
Table/Graph 12: Principal Personal Qualities – Respectable
Table/Graph 13: Principal Personal Qualities – Outgoing
Table/Graph 14: Principal Personal Qualities – Tolerant
Table/Graph 15: Principal Personal Qualities – Open
Table/Graph 16: Principal Personal Qualities – Cheerful
Table/Graph 17: Principal Personal Qualities – Organiser
Table/Graph 18: Principal Personal Qualities – Consistent
Table/Graph 19: Principal Personal Qualities – Kind
Table/Graph 20: Principal Personal Qualities – Forceful
Table/Graph 21: Principal Personal Qualities – Confident
Table/Graph 22: Principal Personal Qualities – Knowledgeable
Table/Graph 23: Principal Personal Qualities – Understanding
Table/Graph 24: Principal Personal Qualities – Communicator
Table/Graph 25: Principal Personal Qualities – Reliable
Table/Graph 26: Principal Personal Qualities – Trustworthy
Table/Graph 27: Principal Personal Qualities – Visionary
Table/Graph 28: Principal Personal Qualities - Popular

321
 TABLE/GRAPH 5: PRINCIPAL PERSONAL QUALITIES - OPTIMISTIC

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%
Not at all Imp.
Slightly Imp.
50%
Imp.
Very Imp.
40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
T S P B T S P B T S P B T S P B T S P B T S P B
School 1 School 2 School 3 School 4 School 5 Average
Not at all Imp. 0% 4% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2% 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2% 2% 0% 0% 2% 1% 0%
Slightly Imp. 3% 5% 8% 8% 5% 11 8% 8% 19 14 5% 0% 10 3% 5% 0% 4% 14 6% 0% 8% 10 6% 3%
Imp. 35 31 41 58 45 32 43 75 38 53 47 56 35 56 37 75 47 40 51 44 40 42 44 62
Very Imp. 60 56 50 25 48 57 48 17 43 31 42 44 55 42 48 25 49 40 38 56 51 45 45 33

322
 TABLE/GRAPH 6: PRINCIPAL PERSONAL QUALITIES - ENERGETIC

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%
Not at all Imp.
Slightly Imp.
50%
Imp.
Very Imp.
40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
T S P B T S P B T S P B T S P B T S P B T S P B
School 1 School 2 School 3 School 4 School 5 Average
Not at all Imp. 0% 31 0% 0% 0% 21 0% 0% 0% 16 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 7% 0% 0% 0% 15 0% 0%
Slightly Imp. 0% 56 3% 8% 3% 57 8% 0% 14 49 12 22 3% 22 6% 0% 9% 17 13 0% 6% 40 8% 6%
Imp. 38 9% 50 25 30 18 57 67 43 24 56 44 35 53 53 25 36 36 45 56 36 28 52 43
Very Imp. 60 4% 46 67 68 4% 34 33 43 10 31 33 61 25 34 75 55 36 40 44 57 16 37 51

323
 TABLE/GRAPH 7: PRINCIPAL PERSONAL QUALITIES - FRIENDLY

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%
Not at all Imp.
Slightly Imp.
50%
Imp.
Very Imp.
40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
T S P B T S P B T S P B T S P B T S P B T S P B
School 1 School 2 School 3 School 4 School 5 Average
Not at all Imp. 0% 87 0% 0% 0% 86 0% 0% 0% 71 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2% 0% 0% 49 1% 0%
Slightly Imp. 0% 9% 4% 0% 0% 14 2% 8% 19 24 1% 11 6% 0% 1% 0% 2% 0% 6% 0% 6% 10 3% 4%
Imp. 40 2% 35 50 33 0% 34 50 43 4% 37 67 23 19 38 75 30 17 19 56 34 8% 33 59
Very Imp. 58 2% 59 50 68 0% 63 42 38 0% 61 22 71 81 55 25 68 83 70 44 60 33 62 37

324
 TABLE/GRAPH 8: PRINCIPAL PERSONAL QUALITIES - WISE

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%
Not at all Imp.
Slightly Imp.
50%
Imp.
Very Imp.
40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
T S P B T S P B T S P B T S P B T S P B T S P B
School 1 School 2 School 3 School 4 School 5 Average
Not at all Imp. 0% 65 1% 0% 0% 93 0% 0% 0% 71 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 46 0% 0%
Slightly Imp. 3% 33 2% 8% 0% 7% 0% 0% 0% 22 1% 0% 0% 11 3% 0% 2% 0% 4% 0% 1% 15 2% 2%
Imp. 25 0% 22 17 15 0% 18 33 24 6% 13 0% 26 25 20 25 17 26 26 11 21 11 20 17
Very Imp. 70 0% 75 75 85 0% 80 67 76 0% 85 100 74 64 71 75 81 74 68 89 77 28 76 81

325
 TABLE/GRAPH 9: PRINCIPAL PERSONAL QUALITIES - LEADER

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%
Not at all Imp.
Slightly Imp.
50%
Imp.
Very Imp.
40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
T S P B T S P B T S P B T S P B T S P B T S P B
School 1 School 2 School 3 School 4 School 5 Average
Not at all Imp. 0% 82 0% 0% 0% 86 0% 0% 0% 80 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 49 0% 0%
Slightly Imp. 3% 15 0% 0% 0% 14 0% 0% 5% 16 0% 0% 0% 0% 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 9% 0% 0%
Imp. 5% 2% 11 17 0% 0% 15 0% 10 2% 15 11 6% 8% 28 25 23 17 19 11 9% 6% 18 13
Very Imp. 90 2% 88 83 100 0% 83 100 86 2% 85 89 94 92 62 75 77 83 79 89 89 36 79 87

326
 TABLE/GRAPH 10: PRINCIPAL PERSONAL QUALITIES - FAIR MINDED

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%
Not at all Imp.
Slightly Imp.
50%
Imp.
Very Imp.
40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
T S P B T S P B T S P B T S P B T S P B T S P B
School 1 School 2 School 3 School 4 School 5 Average
Not at all Imp. 0% 58 0% 0% 0% 68 0% 0% 5% 55 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 36 0% 0%
Slightly Imp. 3% 36 1% 0% 0% 32 2% 8% 0% 33 3% 0% 0% 14 2% 0% 0% 5% 2% 0% 1% 24 2% 2%
Imp. 15 5% 23 42 20 0% 29 33 29 12 26 33 32 33 28 50 32 33 15 56 26 17 24 43
Very Imp. 80 0% 75 58 80 0% 66 58 67 0% 70 67 68 53 62 50 68 62 81 44 72 23 71 56

327
 TABLE/GRAPH 11: PRINCIPAL PERSONAL QUALITIES - INNOVATIVE

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%
Not at all Imp.
Slightly Imp.
50%
Imp.
Very Imp.
40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
T S P B T S P B T S P B T S P B T S P B T S P B
School 1 School 2 School 3 School 4 School 5 Average
Not at all Imp. 3% 35 0% 0% 0% 39 3% 0% 5% 24 1% 0% 0% 3% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 20 1% 0%
Slightly Imp. 15 55 14 42 5% 50 12 33 19 45 8% 11 6% 14 7% 0% 9% 19 13 11 11 36 11 19
Imp. 38 11 48 42 68 11 60 58 52 29 60 56 55 58 51 50 57 38 45 44 54 29 53 50
Very Imp. 43 0% 35 17 28 0% 23 8% 24 2% 29 33 39 25 36 50 34 43 40 44 33 14 33 31

328
 TABLE/GRAPH 12: PRINCIPAL PERSONAL QUALITIES - RESPECTABLE

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%
Not at all Imp.
Slightly Imp.
50%
Imp.
Very Imp.
40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
T S P B T S P B T S P B T S P B T S P B T S P B
School 1 School 2 School 3 School 4 School 5 Average
Not at all Imp. 0% 71 0% 0% 0% 79 2% 8% 0% 69 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 44 1% 2%
Slightly Imp. 0% 24 3% 8% 0% 18 6% 0% 10 29 3% 0% 3% 17 2% 0% 6% 2% 4% 0% 4% 18 4% 2%
Imp. 20 5% 28 42 25 4% 32 50 29 2% 28 22 42 36 27 50 19 19 23 44 27 13 28 42
Very Imp. 78 0% 67 50 75 0% 58 42 62 0% 68 78 52 47 64 50 74 79 70 56 68 25 65 55

329
 TABLE/GRAPH 13: PRINCIPAL PERSONAL QUALITIES -
OUTGOING
100%

90%

80%

70%

60%
Not at all Imp.
Slightly Imp.
50%
Imp.
Very Imp.
40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
T S P B T S P B T S P B T S P B T S P B T S P B
School 1 School 2 School 3 School 4 School 5 Average
Not at all Imp. 8% 36 1% 0% 5% 25 5% 8% 14 20 3% 0% 3% 0% 1% 0% 4% 10 2% 0% 7% 18 2% 2%
Slightly Imp. 23 38 29 58 23 61 25 33 33 29 31 56 32 28 28 0% 30 21 23 22 28 35 27 34
Imp. 53 22 52 33 53 14 51 42 48 41 50 33 42 47 48 75 57 33 47 67 50 31 49 50
Very Imp. 15 4% 17 8% 20 0% 17 8% 5% 10 15 11 23 25 17 25 9% 36 26 11 14 15 18 13

330
 TABLE/GRAPH 14: PRINCIPAL PERSONAL QUALITIES - TOLERANT

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%
Not at all Imp.
Slightly Imp.
50%
Imp.
Very Imp.
40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
T S P B T S P B T S P B T S P B T S P B T S P B
School 1 School 2 School 3 School 4 School 5 Average
Not at all Imp. 0% 51 0% 0% 0% 57 0% 0% 0% 45 1% 0% 3% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 31 0% 0%
Slightly Imp. 13 36 7% 0% 8% 39 11 17 19 45 7% 44 13 11 2% 25 17 5% 11 11 14 27 7% 19
Imp. 38 13 40 75 48 4% 55 67 57 10 47 33 52 42 43 25 49 45 30 56 49 23 43 51
Very Imp. 48 0% 53 25 45 0% 32 17 24 0% 45 22 32 44 49 50 34 50 57 33 37 19 47 29

331
 TABLE/GRAPH 15: PRINCIPAL PERSONAL QUALITIES - OPEN

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%
Not at all Imp.
Slightly Imp.
50%
Imp.
Very Imp.
40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
T S P B T S P B T S P B T S P B T S P B T S P B
School 1 School 2 School 3 School 4 School 5 Average
Not at all Imp. 0% 42 0% 0% 0% 46 0% 8% 5% 31 2% 0% 6% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2% 24 0% 2%
Slightly Imp. 5% 35 3% 17 5% 36 6% 17 14 43 10 33 0% 14 6% 0% 9% 12 4% 0% 7% 28 6% 13
Imp. 50 13 39 58 53 14 52 50 29 18 49 44 39 44 38 75 43 45 43 78 42 27 44 61
Very Imp. 43 7% 58 25 43 4% 40 17 52 8% 38 22 55 42 50 25 49 40 51 22 48 20 47 22

332
 TABLE/GRAPH 16: PRINCIPAL PERSONAL QUALITIES - CHEERFUL

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%
Not at all Imp.
Slightly Imp.
50%
Imp.
Very Imp.
40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
T S P B T S P B T S P B T S P B T S P B T S P B
School 1 School 2 School 3 School 4 School 5 Average
Not at all Imp. 0% 62 2% 0% 0% 75 0% 8% 0% 45 2% 0% 0% 3% 0% 0% 0% 2% 2% 0% 0% 37 1% 2%
Slightly Imp. 13 27 18 33 10 14 20 42 43 41 22 33 23 6% 9% 50 15 5% 13 11 21 19 16 34
Imp. 65 7% 57 58 58 11 55 25 38 12 51 44 42 39 49 25 62 43 60 78 53 22 54 46
Very Imp. 20 4% 23 8% 33 0% 23 25 14 2% 25 22 35 53 34 25 21 50 23 11 25 22 25 18

333
 TABLE/GRAPH 17: PRINCIPAL PERSONAL QUALITIES - ORGANISER

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%
Not at all Imp.
Slightly Imp.
50%
Imp.
Very Imp.
40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
T S P B T S P B T S P B T S P B T S P B T S P B
School 1 School 2 School 3 School 4 School 5 Average
Not at all Imp. 0% 62 0% 0% 0% 64 0% 0% 0% 55 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2% 0% 2% 0% 0% 36 0% 0%
Slightly Imp. 10 22 9% 33 0% 32 8% 17 10 41 11 0% 3% 25 14 25 6% 5% 6% 0% 6% 25 10 15
Imp. 35 15 33 33 43 4% 49 58 52 4% 46 67 32 39 38 25 38 19 38 78 40 16 41 52
Very Imp. 53 2% 57 33 58 0% 42 25 38 0% 43 33 65 36 41 50 53 76 51 22 53 23 47 33

334
 TABLE/GRAPH 18: PRINCIPAL PERSONAL QUALITIES - CONSISTENT

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%
Not at all Imp.
Slightly Imp.
50%
Imp.
Very Imp.
40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
T S P B T S P B T S P B T S P B T S P B T S P B
School 1 School 2 School 3 School 4 School 5 Average
Not at all Imp. 0% 64 0% 0% 0% 54 0% 0% 0% 57 0% 0% 3% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 35 0% 0%
Slightly Imp. 5% 27 3% 0% 0% 43 2% 8% 0% 33 2% 0% 0% 8% 1% 0% 0% 5% 0% 0% 1% 23 1% 2%
Imp. 10 9% 19 25 15 4% 28 33 19 10 29 33 29 47 30 50 23 31 23 67 19 20 26 42
Very Imp. 83 0% 77 75 85 0% 69 58 81 0% 69 67 68 39 63 50 77 64 74 33 79 21 70 57

335
 TABLE/GRAPH 19: PRINCIPAL PERSONAL QUALITIES - KIND

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%
Not at all Imp.
Slightly Imp.
50%
Imp.
Very Imp.
40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
T S P B T S P B T S P B T S P B T S P B T S P B
School 1 School 2 School 3 School 4 School 5 Average
Not at all Imp. 0% 62 1% 0% 0% 79 2% 8% 5% 61 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 4% 0% 1% 40 2% 2%
Slightly Imp. 10 31 7% 50 8% 21 14 25 19 29 11 33 23 8% 8% 25 11 5% 4% 11 14 19 9% 29
Imp. 55 4% 51 33 55 0% 52 67 48 10 45 33 48 31 42 50 60 36 45 67 53 16 47 50
Very Imp. 33 2% 41 17 38 0% 31 0% 29 0% 43 33 29 61 44 25 30 60 45 22 31 24 41 19

336
 TABLE/GRAPH 20: PRINCIPAL PERSONAL QUALITIES - FORCEFUL

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%
Not at all Imp.
Slightly Imp.
50%
Imp.
Very Imp.
40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
T S P B T S P B T S P B T S P B T S P B T S P B
School 1 School 2 School 3 School 4 School 5 Average
Not at all Imp. 5% 18 15 8% 13 7% 14 0% 19 16 20 22 10 11 20 25 11 17 9% 0% 11 14 15 11
Slightly Imp. 40 35 34 67 38 50 43 50 48 33 39 56 48 36 35 0% 53 19 38 56 45 34 38 46
Imp. 43 35 32 17 40 39 32 50 33 35 31 11 42 42 31 50 30 48 34 33 38 40 32 32
Very Imp. 10 13 17 0% 10 4% 8% 0% 0% 16 9% 11 0% 11 8% 25 6% 14 17 11 5% 12 12 9%

337
 TABLE/GRAPH 21: PRINCIPAL PERSONAL QUALITIES - CONFIDENT

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%
Not at all Imp.
Slightly Imp.
50%
Imp.
Very Imp.
40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
T S P B T S P B T S P B T S P B T S P B T S P B
School 1 School 2 School 3 School 4 School 5 Average
Not at all Imp. 3% 64 0% 0% 0% 64 2% 8% 0% 55 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 37 1% 2%
Slightly Imp. 5% 25 2% 17 0% 32 3% 17 14 24 7% 11 6% 11 6% 25 6% 5% 2% 0% 6% 20 4% 14
Imp. 33 7% 37 58 40 4% 45 42 19 18 45 67 45 50 44 25 53 38 36 56 38 23 41 49
Very Imp. 58 4% 60 25 60 0% 49 33 67 2% 46 22 48 39 44 50 38 57 60 44 54 20 52 35

338
 TABLE/GRAPH 22: PRINCIPAL PERSONAL QUALITIES - KNOWLEDGEABLE

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%
Not at all Imp.
Slightly Imp.
50%
Imp.
Very Imp.
40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
T S P B T S P B T S P B T S P B T S P B T S P B
School 1 School 2 School 3 School 4 School 5 Average
Not at all Imp. 0% 47 0% 0% 0% 50 0% 0% 0% 57 0% 0% 0% 3% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 31 0% 0%
Slightly Imp. 13 45 0% 8% 5% 46 3% 25 10 39 3% 0% 6% 14 7% 0% 6% 12 2% 0% 8% 31 3% 7%
Imp. 45 7% 47 67 40 4% 51 58 38 4% 47 56 68 47 42 50 49 36 43 89 48 20 46 64
Very Imp. 40 0% 52 25 55 0% 45 17 52 0% 50 44 26 33 45 50 43 52 53 11 43 17 49 29

339
 TABLE/GRAPH 23: PRINCIPAL PERSONAL QUALITIES - UNDERSTANDING

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%
Not at all Imp.
Slightly Imp.
50%
Imp.
Very Imp.
40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
T S P B T S P B T S P B T S P B T S P B T S P B
School 1 School 2 School 3 School 4 School 5 Average
Not at all Imp. 0% 73 0% 0% 0% 82 0% 8% 0% 71 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 45 0% 2%
Slightly Imp. 3% 25 1% 8% 0% 18 0% 0% 0% 29 2% 0% 3% 3% 1% 0% 4% 7% 0% 0% 2% 16 1% 2%
Imp. 18 2% 29 33 33 0% 43 67 38 0% 34 33 39 19 33 50 32 29 28 78 32 10 33 52
Very Imp. 78 0% 69 58 68 0% 55 25 57 0% 64 67 58 78 60 50 64 64 70 22 65 28 64 44

340
 TABLE/GRAPH 24: PRINCIPAL PERSONAL QUALITIES - COMMUNICATOR

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%
Not at all Imp.
Slightly Imp.
50%
Imp.
Very Imp.
40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
T S P B T S P B T S P B T S P B T S P B T S P B
School 1 School 2 School 3 School 4 School 5 Average
Not at all Imp. 0% 75 0% 0% 0% 82 0% 0% 0% 59 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 43 0% 0%
Slightly Imp. 0% 20 1% 0% 0% 18 0% 0% 0% 39 0% 0% 0% 3% 0% 0% 0% 2% 4% 0% 0% 16 1% 0%
Imp. 13 4% 13 25 18 0% 23 25 29 2% 28 33 13 36 17 25 11 19 15 44 16 12 19 31
Very Imp. 85 2% 85 75 83 0% 75 75 71 0% 72 67 87 61 77 75 89 79 79 56 83 28 77 69

341
 TABLE/GRAPH 25: PRINCIPAL PERSONAL QUALITIES - RELIABLE

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%
Not at all Imp.
Slightly Imp.
50%
Imp.
Very Imp.
40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
T S P B T S P B T S P B T S P B T S P B T S P B
School 1 School 2 School 3 School 4 School 5 Average
Not at all Imp. 0% 71 0% 0% 0% 89 0% 0% 0% 80 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 48 0% 0%
Slightly Imp. 0% 24 0% 17 0% 7% 2% 0% 0% 18 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2% 0% 0% 0% 10 0% 3%
Imp. 13 4% 18 42 15 4% 22 58 24 2% 21 0% 16 39 23 50 21 19 17 44 18 13 20 39
Very Imp. 85 2% 81 42 85 0% 75 42 76 0% 79 100 84 61 71 50 79 79 81 56 82 28 78 58

342
 TABLE/GRAPH 26: PRINCIPAL PERSONAL QUALITIES - TRUSTWORTHY

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%
Not at all Imp.
Slightly Imp.
50%
Imp.
Very Imp.
40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
T S P B T S P B T S P B T S P B T S P B T S P B
School 1 School 2 School 3 School 4 School 5 Average
Not at all Imp. 0% 76 0% 0% 0% 89 0% 0% 0% 80 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 49 0% 0%
Slightly Imp. 0% 24 0% 8% 0% 11 0% 0% 5% 18 0% 0% 3% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2% 11 0% 2%
Imp. 5% 0% 12 8% 0% 0% 17 17 19 2% 11 0% 3% 22 14 0% 6% 12 11 11 7% 7% 13 7%
Very Imp. 93 0% 87 83 100 0% 82 83 76 0% 88 100 94 78 81 100 94 86 87 89 91 33 85 91

343
 TABLE/GRAPH 27: PRINCIPAL PERSONAL QUALITIES -
VISIONARY
100%

90%

80%

70%

60%
Not at all Imp.
Slightly Imp.
50%
Imp.
Very Imp.
40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
T S P B T S P B T S P B T S P B T S P B T S P B
School 1 School 2 School 3 School 4 School 5 Average
Not at all Imp. 0% 51 0% 0% 0% 54 2% 0% 0% 53 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2% 0% 0% 0% 32 1% 0%
Slightly Imp. 15 35 6% 8% 8% 43 14 17 14 29 6% 0% 3% 28 8% 0% 4% 12 13 0% 9% 29 9% 5%
Imp. 40 11 42 50 43 4% 42 25 33 12 33 11 19 33 37 25 32 43 32 22 33 21 37 27
Very Imp. 43 2% 50 42 50 0% 42 58 52 6% 60 89 77 39 49 75 64 43 53 78 57 18 51 68

344
 TABLE/GRAPH 28: PRINCIPAL PERSONAL QUALITIES - POPULAR

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%
Not at all Imp.
Slightly Imp.
50%
Imp.
Very Imp.
40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
T S P B T S P B T S P B T S P B T S P B T S P B
School 1 School 2 School 3 School 4 School 5 Average
Not at all Imp. 20 13 7% 8% 13 11 14 25 24 20 13 0% 13 19 14 0% 26 29 13 11 19 18 12 9%
Slightly Imp. 48 33 49 58 40 39 38 42 48 18 55 44 52 39 43 50 43 26 43 56 46 31 46 50
Imp. 25 33 33 33 43 39 42 25 29 43 23 44 32 19 27 25 30 36 32 33 32 34 31 32
Very Imp. 5% 22 9% 0% 5% 11 5% 8% 0% 18 10 11 3% 22 10 25 2% 10 11 0% 3% 17 9% 9%

345
 Appendix G: Principalship Personal Qualities
Perception Index Summary

School 1 School 2 School 3 School 4 School 5 Average Ave

T S P B T S P B T S P B T S P B T S P B T S P B AGG
Optimistic 84 76 80 66 80 82 79 70 75 70 74 81 82 80 74 75 82 70 73 85 80 75 75 75 76
Energetic 85 69 80 86 89 62 75 80 77 50 72 55 85 68 71 92 82 61 74 81 83 62 74 82 75
Friendly 85 92 84 83 90 95 86 78 73 88 85 70 88 94 81 75 89 94 83 81 85 94 84 80 86
Wise 88 87 90 89 95 98 92 89 92 88 93 100 91 84 85 92 93 91 87 96 91 89 90 93 91
Leader 94 91 95 94 100 95 93 100 94 90 95 96 98 97 81 92 92 94 92 96 95 93 91 96 94
Fairminded 91 84 91 86 93 89 86 83 83 81 88 89 89 80 81 67 89 86 92 81 89 84 88 85 87
Innovative 71 75 72 59 75 76 65 58 62 62 71 74 78 66 72 67 75 75 74 77 72 71 71 71 71
Respectable 91 89 87 81 92 92 80 70 85 89 88 93 81 76 82 67 89 92 87 85 87 88 74 82 83
Outgoing 53 53 61 49 60 70 56 42 39 46 57 52 60 66 58 75 54 58 64 63 52 61 58 56 57
Tolerant 78 79 82 75 80 86 72 67 68 78 78 59 69 76 78 75 72 82 83 74 76 79 78 69 76
Open 78 65 85 69 80 72 77 51 73 60 73 62 77 76 77 75 81 74 81 74 77 69 78 66 73
Cheerful 68 80 66 58 75 88 66 50 54 75 65 62 71 79 70 58 67 79 66 67 67 80 66 59 68
Organizer 80 80 82 66 87 88 77 69 76 84 77 78 87 70 71 75 79 90 77 74 82 83 78 73 79
Consistent 91 85 91 92 95 84 88 83 94 82 89 89 85 73 83 67 92 86 89 78 91 82 88 86 87
Kind 73 83 77 56 77 93 69 48 64 84 76 66 69 84 75 67 74 86 76 70 70 85 74 61 73
Forceful 49 44 40 28 41 51 34 50 25 39 29 22 37 44 27 42 36 41 46 52 38 43 36 38 39
Confident 80 60 85 69 87 87 79 61 84 76 78 70 80 76 75 75 75 84 85 81 81 81 80 71 78
Knowledgeable 74 79 83 72 83 82 80 64 81 84 82 81 73 67 75 83 78 80 82 70 78 79 81 74 78
Understanding 91 90 89 83 90 94 84 64 82 90 87 89 85 92 82 83 87 86 89 74 87 91 86 78 86
Communicator 94 88 94 92 95 94 90 92 90 86 91 89 96 86 88 92 96 92 90 85 94 89 90 89 91
Reliable 94 87 93 76 95 95 90 81 92 93 93 100 95 87 86 83 93 92 92 85 94 91 91 85 90
Trustworthy 96 92 95 91 100 96 93 94 94 93 95 100 97 93 90 100 98 94 94 96 96 93 94 96 95
Visionary 75 77 80 78 81 84 73 61 79 72 83 96 91 70 76 92 87 74 79 93 82 75 78 88 81
Popular 24 31 43 36 38 42 36 22 19 31 35 55 33 35 33 58 19 23 38 33 27 33 37 41 35

346
 Appendix H: Principal Professional Skills –
Perception Index Summary
Response School 1 School 2 School 3 School 4 School 5 Group Averages Aggregate
Categories Ave
T S P B T S P B T S P B T S P B T S P B T S P B

Financial 49 62 59 50 66 57 47 63 47 59 54 59 61 65 49 83 55 68 58 55 55 63 54 62 59
Planning
Building 45 48 32 25 53 52 40 36 46 47 44 44 50 57 46 75 44 50 37 33 47 51 43 43 46
Development
Student 70 76 87 72 86 82 82 77 65 67 82 66 73 64 77 83 77 74 85 67 75 72 83 72 76
Discipline
Record 44 56 42 25 59 63 46 50 20 41 37 48 46 49 42 83 46 68 36 48 43 56 40 50 47
Keeping
Marketing and 57 46 44 46 68 47 36 60 58 34 43 51 53 57 46 75 60 44 44 48 59 45 42 55 50
Publicity
Communication 90 89 93 91 98 84 89 94 90 84 90 88 92 69 86 92 95 90 91 95 93 83 90 92 90
Inter-Personal 94 83 90 94 97 77 85 88 88 71 87 92 92 69 81 92 91 72 80 84 93 74 85 89 85
Relationships
Curriculum 57 86 80 72 67 73 76 57 55 71 76 55 63 82 74 83 73 78 75 81 63 78 76 69 71
Development
Dispute 81 79 86 80 91 81 84 80 79 66 85 88 84 73 83 92 81 69 87 81 82 73 85 84 81
Resolution
Staff 87 87 88 88 97 87 90 94 95 81 90 92 92 80 83 92 89 89 87 84 91 85 88 89 88
Management
Staff 76 87 84 74 83 87 81 69 64 78 85 73 75 77 79 83 80 89 82 70 75 83 82 72 78
Development
Organizational 78 80 81 61 85 80 77 68 78 74 76 88 82 78 71 83 79 85 78 73 81 79 76 76 78
Management
Public 80 71 71 74 85 75 71 67 72 68 78 81 79 74 68 92 82 72 78 62 80 72 73 75 75
Relations
Leadership 95 96 94 96 99 96 93 96 98 89 97 100 95 93 91 100 93 94 94 92 96 93 93 97 94
Future 82 88 83 83 82 81 74 71 89 86 84 88 89 90 76 83 85 90 75 92 86 87 79 83 83
Planning

347
APPENDIX I – PRINCIPALSHIP TIME USE PERCEPTION DATA (FOLLOWING)

Table/Graph 45: Classroom Teaching

Table/Graph 46: School Planning
Table/Graph 47: Student Discipline
Table/Graph 48: Buildings and Grounds
Table/Graph 49: Student Progress
Table/Graph 50: Telephone Calls
Table/Graph 51: Principals’ Meetings
Table/Graph 52: School Assemblies
Table/Graph 53: Budget and Finance
Table/Graph 54: School Board Matters
Table/Graph 55: Professional Reading
Table/Graph 56: Conflict Resolution
Table/Graph 57: Correspondence
Table/Graph 58: Parent Meetings
Table/Graph 59: Staff Meetings
Table/Graph 60: School Administration
Table/Graph 61: Staff Recruitment
Table/Graph 62: Enrolment Interviews and Enquiries
Table/Graph 63: Staff Counselling
Table/Graph 64: Student Counselling
Table/Graph 65: Curriculum Planning
Table/Graph 66: Report Writing
Table/Graph 67: Policy Development

348
 TABLE/GRAPH 45: CLASSROOM TEACHING

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%
Little <5%
Reasonable 5-25%
50%
Much 25-50%
Most >50%
40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
T S P B T S P B T S P B T S P B T S P B T S P B
School 1 School 2 School 3 School 4 School 5 Average
Little <5% 80 51 74 10 73 46 57 75 62 69 52 33 74 44 56 25 68 60 62 67 71 54 60 60
Reasonable 5-25% 15 38 24 0% 25 54 35 17 38 29 41 67 23 39 30 75 32 26 30 33 27 37 32 38
Much 25-50% 3% 5% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2% 0% 0% 0% 5% 0% 0% 17 6% 0% 0% 12 4% 0% 1% 7% 3% 0%
Most >50% 0% 4% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 2% 0% 0% 0% 2% 0% 0%

349
 TABLE/GRAPH 46: SCHOOL PLANNING

100%

90%

80%

70%

60% Little <5%

Reasonable 5-25%
50%
Much 25-50%
Most >50%
40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
T S P B T S P B T S P B T S P B T S P B T S P B
School 1 School 2 School 3 School 4 School 5 Average
Little <5% 0% 4% 2% 0% 0% 0% 5% 0% 14 6% 5% 0% 3% 3% 3% 0% 4% 2% 2% 0% 4% 3% 3% 0%
Reasonable 5-25% 45 25 47 42 35 29 42 42 38 31 35 67 32 25 33 25 34 19 51 56 37 26 42 46
Much 25-50% 38 55 37 50 43 43 37 50 33 45 43 33 48 44 33 75 47 50 30 44 42 47 36 51
Most >50% 10 15 11 8% 18 29 11 0% 14 18 13 0% 16 28 24 0% 15 29 13 0% 15 24 14 2%

350
 TABLE/GRAPH 47: STUDENT DISCIPLINE

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%
Little <5%
Reasonable 5-25%
50%
Much 25-50%
Most >50%
40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
T S P B T S P B T S P B T S P B T S P B T S P B
School 1 School 2 School 3 School 4 School 5 Average
Little <5% 30 13 25 33 18 14 25 42 33 18 25 67 35 11 17 50 30 5% 17 11 29 12 22 41
Reasonable 5-25% 58 45 53 42 55 54 49 58 62 49 55 33 39 47 45 50 57 52 51 89 54 50 51 54
Much 25-50% 10 31 14 25 23 29 15 0% 5% 20 16 0% 19 33 22 0% 13 33 23 0% 14 29 18 5%
Most >50% 0% 11 5% 0% 5% 0% 6% 0% 0% 12 2% 0% 6% 8% 8% 0% 0% 10 4% 0% 2% 8% 5% 0%

351
 TABLE/GRAPH 48: BUILDINGS AND GROUNDS

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%
Little <5%
Reasonable 5-25%
50%
Much 25-50%
Most >50%
40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
T S P B T S P B T S P B T S P B T S P B T S P B
School 1 School 2 School 3 School 4 School 5 Average
Little <5% 13 24 31 58 18 25 43 58 48 33 48 78 52 28 33 50 45 33 62 44 35 28 43 58
Reasonable 5-25% 65 40 48 25 65 36 37 33 43 47 38 22 42 47 49 50 47 38 34 56 52 42 41 37
Much 25-50% 18 27 15 8% 13 36 9% 8% 5% 16 10 0% 6% 22 9% 0% 9% 24 0% 0% 10 25 9% 3%
Most >50% 3% 7% 1% 0% 5% 0% 3% 0% 0% 4% 0% 0% 0% 3% 1% 0% 0% 5% 0% 0% 2% 4% 1% 0%

352
 TABLE/GRAPH 49: STUDENT PROGRESS

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%
Little <5%
Reasonable 5-25%
50%
Much 25-50%
Most >50%
40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
T S P B T S P B T S P B T S P B T S P B T S P B
School 1 School 2 School 3 School 4 School 5 Average
Little <5% 0% 0% 0% 0% 25 0% 17 17 24 8% 13 22 45 17 16 50 40 12 26 0% 34 9% 18 22
Reasonable 5-25% 55 27 53 92 60 39 52 75 62 37 59 67 42 31 41 25 47 33 53 10 53 33 52 72
Much 25-50% 10 35 13 0% 15 46 14 8% 5% 33 25 11 13 39 27 25 13 33 17 0% 11 37 19 9%
Most >50% 0% 18 5% 0% 0% 14 12 0% 5% 22 2% 0% 0% 14 8% 0% 0% 21 0% 0% 1% 18 5% 0%

353
 TABLE/GRAPH 50: TELEPHONE CALLS

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%
Little <5%
Reasonable 5-25%
50%
Much 25-50%
Most >50%
40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
T S P B T S P B T S P B T S P B T S P B T S P B
School 1 School 2 School 3 School 4 School 5 Average
Little <5% 8% 27 12 0% 0% 14 22 8% 19 27 16 0% 23 33 16 0% 4% 21 19 0% 11 25 17 2%
Reasonable 5-25% 50 20 47 67 55 36 40 58 43 39 54 78 35 33 53 10 40 38 40 67 45 33 47 74
Much 25-50% 35 27 31 33 35 25 29 25 19 20 25 22 32 17 16 0% 43 29 30 33 33 24 26 23
Most >50% 5% 22 7% 0% 10 21 6% 8% 14 14 5% 0% 10 17 6% 0% 13 12 6% 0% 10 17 6% 2%

354
 TABLE/GRAPH 51: PRINCIPALS' MEETINGS

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%
Little <5%
Reasonable 5-25%
50%
Much 25-50%
Most >50%
40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
T S P B T S P B T S P B T S P B T S P B T S P B
School 1 School 2 School 3 School 4 School 5 Average
Little <5% 18 9% 13 25 10 4% 15 25 19 4% 14 22 13 8% 10 0% 9% 0% 15 0% 14 5% 14 14
Reasonable 5-25% 50 25 43 50 38 43 42 67 48 18 42 56 55 31 40 10 38 29 36 67 46 29 41 68
Much 25-50% 20 29 35 25 38 25 29 8% 29 37 30 22 23 39 33 0% 40 48 32 33 30 35 32 18
Most >50% 10 35 6% 0% 15 25 9% 0% 5% 39 12 0% 6% 22 12 0% 11 24 13 0% 9% 29 10 0%

355
 TABLE/GRAPH 52: SCHOOL ASSEMBLIES

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%
Little <5%
Reasonable 5-25%
50%
Much 25-50%
Most >50%
40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
T S P B T S P B T S P B T S P B T S P B T S P B
School 1 School 2 School 3 School 4 School 5 Average
Little <5% 68 20 26 50 30 18 29 50 29 10 21 22 61 22 24 50 34 14 34 33 44 17 27 41
Reasonable 5-25% 28 45 55 42 60 54 43 50 57 41 58 67 35 28 38 50 40 45 51 67 44 43 49 55
Much 25-50% 3% 24 14 8% 8% 18 17 0% 5% 20 16 11 3% 33 22 0% 23 21 6% 0% 8% 23 15 4%
Most >50% 0% 11 3% 0% 0% 7% 5% 0% 10 29 4% 0% 0% 17 9% 0% 2% 19 4% 0% 2% 16 5% 0%

356
 TABLE/GRAPH 53: BUDGET AND FINANCE

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%
Little <5%
Reasonable 5-25%
50%
Much 25-50%
Most >50%
40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
T S P B T S P B T S P B T S P B T S P B T S P B
School 1 School 2 School 3 School 4 School 5 Average
Little <5% 10 7% 12 25 5% 7% 18 0% 19 20 19 11 6% 8% 9% 0% 4% 5% 21 0% 9% 10 16 7%
Reasonable 5-25% 63 35 47 58 33 32 55 58 48 39 45 56 58 31 49 75 60 31 45 10 52 33 48 69
Much 25-50% 18 42 30 17 55 46 18 42 24 29 29 33 26 47 28 25 28 43 23 0% 30 41 26 23
Most >50% 8% 15 8% 0% 8% 11 3% 0% 5% 12 4% 0% 10 14 3% 0% 9% 21 6% 0% 8% 15 5% 0%

357
 TABLE/GRAPH 54: SCHOOL BOARD MATTERS

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%
Little <5%
Reasonable 5-25%
50%
Much 25-50%
Most >50%
40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
T S P B T S P B T S P B T S P B T S P B T S P B
School 1 School 2 School 3 School 4 School 5 Average
Little <5% 8% 5% 7% 33 3% 0% 6% 25 0% 0% 5% 11 13 6% 10 0% 6% 2% 4% 11 6% 3% 6% 16
Reasonable 5-25% 53 31 46 50 25 29 48 33 38 24 49 56 32 25 31 10 43 21 55 78 38 26 46 63
Much 25-50% 28 33 35 17 55 50 31 33 57 57 34 33 52 44 38 0% 38 43 23 11 46 45 32 19
Most >50% 10 29 9% 0% 18 18 11 8% 5% 18 10 0% 3% 25 10 0% 13 33 13 0% 10 25 11 2%

358
 TABLE/GRAPH 55: PROFESSIONAL READING

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%
Little <5%
Reasonable 5-25%
50%
Much 25-50%
Most >50%
40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
T S P B T S P B T S P B T S P B T S P B T S P B
School 1 School 2 School 3 School 4 School 5 Average
Little <5% 23 20 1% 50 15 14 31 17 33 27 21 44 35 28 23 25 15 31 30 22 24 24 21 32
Reasonable 5-25% 53 38 29 33 63 57 58 75 52 49 58 22 48 42 51 75 38 43 51 78 51 46 50 57
Much 25-50% 20 29 52 17 20 25 5% 8% 10 18 13 33 16 22 13 0% 40 24 11 0% 21 24 19 12
Most >50% 3% 11 17 0% 3% 0% 2% 0% 0% 6% 5% 0% 0% 8% 5% 0% 6% 2% 4% 0% 2% 6% 6% 0%

359
 TABLE/GRAPH 56: CONFLICT RESOLUTION

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%
Little <5%
Reasonable 5-25%
50%
Much 25-50%
Most >50%
40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
T S P B T S P B T S P B T S P B T S P B T S P B
School 1 School 2 School 3 School 4 School 5 Average
Little <5% 23 16 16 25 18 18 22 33 33 18 16 33 19 25 8% 50 13 12 11 0% 21 18 14 28
Reasonable 5-25% 45 27 60 50 48 50 55 42 52 51 55 56 55 31 48 50 53 38 60 67 51 39 56 53
Much 25-50% 30 44 20 25 30 29 17 25 10 18 25 11 19 31 33 0% 32 48 17 33 24 34 22 19
Most >50% 0% 13 1% 0% 5% 4% 0% 0% 0% 10 2% 0% 3% 14 6% 0% 2% 2% 9% 0% 2% 9% 3% 0%

360
 TABLE/GRAPH 57: CORRESPONDENCE

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%
Little <5%
Reasonable 5-25%
50%
Much 25-50%
Most >50%
40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
T S P B T S P B T S P B T S P B T S P B T S P B
School 1 School 2 School 3 School 4 School 5 Average
Little <5% 5% 11 8% 25 3% 7% 14 25 14 4% 16 22 3% 22 9% 0% 2% 5% 2% 0% 5% 10 10 14
Reasonable 5-25% 50 36 56 67 63 57 54 50 38 55 48 22 39 44 47 10 34 33 19 78 45 45 45 63
Much 25-50% 28 36 25 8% 30 29 26 17 33 33 30 56 39 14 30 0% 49 55 51 22 36 33 32 21
Most >50% 15 16 9% 0% 5% 4% 2% 8% 14 8% 4% 0% 16 19 7% 0% 15 7% 21 0% 13 11 9% 2%

361
 TABLE/GRAPH 58: PARENT MEETINGS

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%
Little <5%
Reasonable 5-25%
50%
Much 25-50%
Most >50%
40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
T S P B T S P B T S P B T S P B T S P B T S P B
School 1 School 2 School 3 School 4 School 5 Average
Little <5% 23 16 18 25 8% 11 15 33 29 14 18 33 23 14 9% 25 19 10 19 22 20 13 16 28
Reasonable 5-25% 50 45 58 75 63 54 65 50 43 31 55 56 58 31 51 75 51 57 57 67 53 43 57 64
Much 25-50% 20 25 17 0% 23 36 14 17 19 37 24 11 19 39 29 0% 28 26 15 11 22 33 20 8%
Most >50% 5% 13 3% 0% 8% 0% 2% 0% 10 18 2% 0% 0% 17 5% 0% 2% 7% 2% 0% 5% 11 3% 0%

362
 TABLE/GRAPH 59: STAFF MEETINGS

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%
Little <5%
Reasonable 5-25%
50%
Much 25-50%
Most >50%
40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
T S P B T S P B T S P B T S P B T S P B T S P B
School 1 School 2 School 3 School 4 School 5 Average
Little <5% 35 4% 9% 8% 15 0% 11 8% 29 10 9% 11 29 11 6% 0% 15 0% 6% 11 24 5% 8% 8%
Reasonable 5-25% 48 29 51 75 70 43 46 67 52 22 52 89 55 22 41 10 49 17 51 78 55 27 48 82
Much 25-50% 10 40 32 17 15 46 29 17 19 43 30 0% 13 42 35 0% 28 57 26 11 17 46 30 9%
Most >50% 5% 27 4% 0% 0% 11 9% 8% 0% 24 8% 0% 3% 25 12 0% 9% 26 13 0% 3% 23 9% 2%

363
 TABLE/GRAPH 60: SCHOOL ADMINISTRATION

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%
Little <5%
Reasonable 5-25%
50%
Much 25-50%
Most >50%
40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
T S P B T S P B T S P B T S P B T S P B T S P B
School 1 School 2 School 3 School 4 School 5 Average
Little <5% 8% 13 11 8% 3% 14 12 0% 33 20 15 11 10 17 20 0% 6% 19 23 0% 12 17 16 4%
Reasonable 5-25% 38 31 40 50 28 39 35 58 19 22 33 33 19 28 29 25 32 43 26 44 27 33 33 42
Much 25-50% 38 36 35 33 58 29 34 33 48 41 38 56 48 33 27 50 45 21 28 56 47 32 32 46
Most >50% 15 20 10 0% 13 14 12 8% 0% 14 10 0% 23 19 17 25 17 17 19 0% 13 17 14 7%

364
 TABLE/GRAPH 61: STAFF RECRUITMENT

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%
Little <5%
Reasonable 5-25%
50%
Much 25-50%
Most >50%
40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
T S P B T S P B T S P B T S P B T S P B T S P B
School 1 School 2 School 3 School 4 School 5 Average
Little <5% 20 20 27 25 43 11 32 50 5% 12 25 11 35 28 30 25 17 17 23 0% 24 17 28 22
Reasonable 5-25% 63 38 50 67 43 54 32 50 76 45 48 67 45 19 35 75 49 38 49 67 55 39 43 65
Much 25-50% 10 22 15 8% 10 21 23 0% 14 20 23 22 16 28 21 0% 28 24 13 33 16 23 19 13
Most >50% 5% 18 4% 0% 5% 7% 6% 0% 5% 22 3% 0% 3% 25 6% 0% 6% 21 11 0% 5% 19 6% 0%

365
 TABLE/GRAPH 62: ENROLMENT INTERVIEWS AND ENQUIRIES

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%
Little <5%
Reasonable 5-25%
50%
Much 25-50%
Most >50%
40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
T S P B T S P B T S P B T S P B T S P B T S P B
School 1 School 2 School 3 School 4 School 5 Average
Little <5% 28 11 18 17 10 4% 15 0% 5% 4% 6% 0% 10 8% 13 0% 23 5% 23 22 15 6% 15 8%
Reasonable 5-25% 50 40 58 58 40 57 43 58 33 27 43 44 61 31 45 10 47 38 51 78 46 38 48 68
Much 25-50% 18 35 18 25 35 18 23 42 29 31 35 44 29 36 24 0% 23 36 13 0% 27 31 23 22
Most >50% 3% 15 3% 0% 15 21 12 0% 33 39 15 11 0% 25 10 0% 4% 21 9% 0% 11 24 10 2%

366
 TABLE/GRAPH 63: STAFF COUNSELLING

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%
Little <5%
Reasonable 5-25%
50%
Much 25-50%
Most >50%
40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
T S P B T S P B T S P B T S P B T S P B T S P B
School 1 School 2 School 3 School 4 School 5 Average
Little <5% 25 20 20 17 33 25 15 42 48 20 15 11 45 28 19 25 30 21 13 0% 36 23 16 19
Reasonable 5-25% 50 42 57 67 60 46 55 58 52 45 59 89 42 22 47 75 47 26 64 67 50 36 56 71
Much 25-50% 18 24 18 17 5% 18 18 0% 0% 18 18 0% 13 31 26 0% 21 40 13 33 11 26 18 10
Most >50% 3% 15 3% 0% 0% 7% 5% 0% 0% 16 8% 0% 0% 19 3% 0% 2% 12 6% 0% 1% 14 5% 0%

367
 TABLE/GRAPH 64: STUDENT COUNSELLING

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%
Little <5%
Reasonable 5-25%
50%
Much 25-50%
Most >50%
40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
T S P B T S P B T S P B T S P B T S P B T S P B
School 1 School 2 School 3 School 4 School 5 Average
Little <5% 43 36 38 33 40 29 9% 58 67 29 27 67 65 28 26 75 38 17 30 11 50 28 26 49
Reasonable 5-25% 48 36 43 58 45 39 63 42 29 41 54 33 23 36 43 25 49 29 53 67 39 36 51 45
Much 25-50% 5% 20 14 8% 13 32 17 0% 5% 22 15 0% 13 28 22 0% 13 45 11 22 10 30 16 6%
Most >50% 3% 7% 2% 0% 3% 0% 5% 0% 0% 8% 2% 0% 0% 8% 3% 0% 0% 10 2% 0% 1% 7% 3% 0%

368
 TABLE/GRAPH 65: CURRICULUM PLANNING

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%
Little <5%
Reasonable 5-25%
50%
Much 25-50%
Most >50%
40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
T S P B T S P B T S P B T S P B T S P B T S P B
School 1 School 2 School 3 School 4 School 5 Average
Little <5% 33 22 18 33 48 11 12 33 57 16 13 44 61 6% 7% 50 26 7% 11 11 45 12 12 34
Reasonable 5-25% 55 27 39 33 53 39 52 42 33 39 52 44 26 33 40 25 49 31 55 33 43 34 48 36
Much 25-50% 8% 29 30 33 0% 39 28 25 10 31 33 11 10 28 31 25 17 43 19 56 9% 34 28 30
Most >50% 3% 22 10 0% 0% 7% 3% 0% 0% 14 1% 0% 3% 33 14 0% 9% 19 9% 0% 3% 19 7% 0%

369
 TABLE/GRAPH 66: REPORT WRITING

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%
Little <5%
Reasonable 5-25%
50%
Much 25-50%
Most >50%
40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
T S P B T S P B T S P B T S P B T S P B T S P B
School 1 School 2 School 3 School 4 School 5 Average
Little <5% 53 24 23 25 50 11 31 50 43 14 20 22 48 22 20 50 62 21 38 22 51 18 26 34
Reasonable 5-25% 35 35 39 75 43 43 42 17 52 31 57 78 32 44 51 50 28 38 43 67 38 38 46 57
Much 25-50% 10 22 29 0% 5% 36 18 25 5% 41 20 0% 19 25 20 0% 6% 33 13 11 9% 31 20 7%
Most >50% 0% 20 7% 0% 3% 11 3% 8% 0% 14 3% 0% 0% 8% 2% 0% 2% 7% 2% 0% 1% 12 3% 2%

370
 TABLE/GRAPH 67: POLICY DEVELOPMENT

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%
Little <5%
50% Reasonable 5-25%
Much 25-50%
40% Most >50%

30%

20%

10%

0%
T S P B T S P B T S P B T S P B T S P B T S P B
School 1 School 2 School 3 School 4 School 5 Average
Little <5% 5% 13 11 17 20 4% 3% 42 19 8% 9% 67 6% 11 13 0% 6% 10 6% 0% 11 9% 8% 25
Reasonable 5-25% 55 36 37 67 58 46 55 50 29 41 41 33 58 31 33 50 30 19 45 22 46 35 42 44
Much 25-50% 30 27 35 17 18 36 29 8% 38 29 42 0% 26 39 38 50 36 52 38 56 30 37 37 26
Most >50% 8% 24 14 0% 5% 11 8% 0% 14 22 7% 0% 10 19 9% 0% 26 19 6% 22 12 19 9% 4%

371
 Appendix J: Group Perception of Principals’ Time Allocation
Perception Index Summary

School 1 School 2 School 3 School 4 School 5 Group Ave (%) Ave

Item T S P B T S P B T S P B T S P B T S P B T S P B Agg

Classroom Teaching -47 -13 -41 -67 -40 -13 -25 -45 -28 -37 -17 0 -42 -6 -22 8 -35 -21 -28 -33 -38 -18 -27 -27 -28
School Planning 50 56 49 55 57 65 45 47 39 53 47 44 57 63 54 58 53 66 47 48 52 61 49 50 53
Student Discipline 7 37 6 8 34 27 16 -8 1 29 13 -33 -4 39 26 -16 8 46 25 22 10 36 20 -5 15
Buildings & Grounds 28 23 6 -25 23 18 -8 -22 -14 9 -13 -70 -16 15 2 -16 -8 9 -29 -26 3 15 -8 -23 -3
Student Progress 4 38 13 25 13 58 27 20 13 50 29 15 -8 38 28 -8 -3 47 12 33 4 47 22 27 23
Telephone 40 28 35 44 52 40 25 39 28 23 29 40 28 16 23 33 51 28 26 44 39 27 28 40 34
Principals’ Meetings 29 56 34 17 45 53 32 11 26 65 36 18 31 52 39 33 44 64 35 44 35 58 35 24 38
School Assemblies -34 27 13 -14 5 25 10 -17 10 48 20 15 -27 32 21 -17 8 39 3 0 -7 35 14 -6 21
Budgets and finance 33 48 35 13 52 47 21 47 23 30 26 33 41 49 31 42 43 56 22 33 38 46 27 34 36
School Board Matters 40 57 40 5 60 60 42 25 55 64 46 33 40 59 39 33 47 66 43 26 48 61 42 24 44
Professional Reading 19 29 59 -12 27 26 4 20 2 17 19 0 3 19 14 7 36 12 9 11 17 21 21 5 16
Conflict Resolution 20 39 23 17 29 28 15 8 2 27 27 4 21 53 37 17 32 39 33 44 21 32 27 11 23
Correspondence 46 45 39 11 44 36 28 20 39 45 30 29 52 28 36 33 56 51 60 40 47 40 38 27 38
Parent Meetings 20 33 21 8 38 34 22 5 18 43 24 4 17 43 35 8 24 37 18 15 23 38 24 8 23
School Administration 47 46 38 33 57 36 38 50 16 35 37 40 54 39 31 67 52 31 30 51 46 37 34 48 41
Staff Meetings 4 61 36 20 23 56 36 36 11 33 39 22 11 53 45 33 34 70 43 26 16 57 37 29 35
Staff Recruitment 19 32 13 11 -3 32 11 -17 36 42 18 30 5 31 12 8 30 38 21 44 18 35 14 15 21
Enrolment Interviews 14 44 22 25 45 49 32 36 60 66 49 55 33 54 32 33 20 54 19 11 34 52 30 34 38
& Enquiries
Staff Counselling 15 32 21 22 1 18 30 -9 -15 30 30 22 -7 28 23 8 12 33 27 44 1 28 25 18 18
Student Counselling -6 8 0 3 0 15 31 -25 -32 17 12 -34 -27 19 15 -42 0 38 7 30 -13 20 13 -13 2
Curriculum Planning 5 36 31 11 -14 39 31 9 -20 37 32 -7 -22 59 43 -8 19 53 33 41 -6 44 34 9 20
Report Writing -17 30 24 8 -13 42 8 -3 -8 42 22 11 -9 25 19 -17 -26 28 0 15 -15 33 14 3 9
Policy Development 43 45 42 22 23 48 44 -6 36 50 43 -34 43 48 37 50 56 53 42 67 39 48 41 20 37

372
APPENDIX K – METAPHOR PERCEPTION DATA (FOLLOWING)

Table/Graph 68: Group A Metaphor Perceptions

Table/Graph 69: Group B Metaphor Perceptions

Table/Graph 70: Group C Metaphor Perceptions

Table/Graph 71: Group D Metaphor Perceptions

Table/Graph 72: Group E Metaphor Perceptions

Table/Graph 73: Group F Metaphor Perceptions

Table/Graph 74: Group G Metaphor Perceptions

373
 TABLE/GRAPH 68: GROUP A METAPHOR PERCEPTIONS

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%
Counsellor
50% Manager
Figurehead
40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
T S P B T S P B T S P B T S P B T S P B T S P B
School 1 School 2 School 3 School 4 School 5 Averages
Counsellor 5% 7% 15 33 5% 39 3% 17 0% 12 21 11 13 22 15 22 9% 10 21 22 6% 18 15 21
Manager 68 40 52 67 78 25 55 67 67 29 40 78 61 44 50 67 74 33 51 67 69 34 50 69
Figurehead 20 45 26 0% 18 32 29 17 29 57 28 11 16 25 20 11 15 50 26 11 19 42 26 10

374
 TABLE/GRAPH 69: GROUP B METAPHOR PERCEPTIONS

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%
Dictator
50% Manipulator
Enforcer
40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
T S P B T S P B T S P B T S P B T S P B T S P B
School 1 School 2 School 3 School 4 School 5 Averages
Dictator 5% 16 6% 0% 5% 14 11 17 19 22 5% 0% 3% 36 2% 11 4% 29 6% 11 7% 24 6% 8%
Manipulator 23 7% 12 17 23 4% 60 17 14 8% 3% 0% 13 11 7% 44 21 2% 6% 44 19 6% 18 24
Enforcer 65 69 73 67 63 71 20 58 62 65 81 100 68 44 70 33 66 64 85 33 65 63 66 58

375
 TABLE/GRAPH 70: GROUP C METAPHOR PERCEPTIONS

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%
Scholar
50% Supervisor
Ruler
40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
T S P B T S P B T S P B T S P B T S P B T S P B
School 1 School 2 School 3 School 4 School 5 Averages
Scholar 25 9% 18 17 23 21 3% 17 38 10 26 0% 19 6% 14 11 11 12 19 11 23 12 16 11
Supervisor 60 67 58 83 70 64 14 67 52 71 55 78 61 78 62 89 72 67 74 89 63 69 52 81
Ruler 8% 16 16 0% 8% 11 74 17 5% 16 12 22 10 11 8% 0% 15 14 4% 0% 9% 14 23 8%

376
 TABLE/GRAPH 71: GROUP D METAPHOR PERCEPTIONS

80%

70%

60%

50%

Politician
40% Organiser
Helper

30%

20%

10%

0%
T S P B T S P B T S P B T S P B T S P B T S P B
School 1 School 2 School 3 School 4 School 5 Averages
Politician 38 11 24 33 33 7% 15 42 33 24 18 22 19 19 15 44 19 10 11 44 28 14 16 37
Organiser 45 67 64 58 58 32 68 50 43 55 62 67 58 50 59 56 66 60 74 56 54 53 65 57
Helper 10 15 5% 8% 8% 57 8% 8% 19 16 13 11 10 22 9% 0% 13 24 13 0% 12 27 9% 6%

377
 TABLE/GRAPH 72: GROUP E M ETAPHOR PERCEPTIONS

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

Visionary
50% Innovator
Motivator
40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
T S P B T S P B T S P B T S P B T S P B T S P B
School 1 School 2 School 3 School 4 School 5 Averages
Visionary 35 31 29 42 40 18 8% 33 48 63 58 56 65 28 34 44 34 24 30 44 44 33 32 44
Innovator 20 18 11 0% 5% 4% 69 0% 24 8% 5% 0% 16 25 12 22 23 2% 9% 22 18 11 21 9%
Motivator 38 45 51 58 53 75 14 67 24 27 29 44 10 39 42 33 40 57 60 33 33 49 39 47

378
 TABLE/GRAPH 73: GROUP F METAPHOR PERCEPTIONS

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%
A god
50% A Policeman
Darth Vader
40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
T S P B T S P B T S P B T S P B T S P B T S P B
School 1 School 2 School 3 School 4 School 5 Averages
A god 5% 11 9% 0% 15 25 26 33 10 4% 24 11 19 3% 7% 11 13 0% 6% 11 12 9% 14 13
A Policeman 63 67 71 83 55 61 11 42 67 61 48 67 55 42 59 78 60 52 72 78 60 57 52 69
Darth Vader 15 16 0% 0% 10 4% 52 8% 10 31 4% 0% 0% 42 2% 11 6% 33 4% 11 8% 25 13 6%

379
 TABLE/GRAPH 74: GROUP G METAPHOR PERCEPTIONS

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%
Disciplinarian
50% Expert
Friend
40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
T S P B T S P B T S P B T S P B T S P B T S P B
School 1 School 2 School 3 School 4 School 5 Averages
Disciplinarian 23 35 25 0% 18 11 14 8% 29 63 21 11 13 39 17 22 19 31 23 22 20 36 20 13
Expert 38 27 41 33 28 14 65 42 43 8% 27 44 39 17 33 44 34 7% 17 44 36 15 36 42
Friend 30 33 26 67 53 75 5% 50 24 27 42 44 35 36 35 33 38 55 57 33 36 45 33 46

380
3.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Alexander, G.C. 1992. “The Transformation of an Urban Principal: Uncertain Times,

Uncertain Roles” in Murphy, J. and Louis, K.S. (eds) Reshaping the Principalship, pp. 278-
281. Corwin Press Inc. Sage: Thousand Oaks, California.

Allison, D.G. 1997. “Coping with Stress in the Principalship”, Journal of Educational
Administration, 35(1):39-55.

Allison, D.J. and Allison, P.A. 1993. “Both Ends of a Telescope: Experience and Expertise
in Principal Problem Solving”, Educational Administration Quarterly, 29(3): 302-22.

Anderson, B.E. 1996. “Why Am I in School? A Study of Swedish Adolescents’ Perceptions

of Their School Situation”, EERA Bulletin, July:17-23.

Anderson, G.L. and Grinberg, J. 1998. “Educational Administration as a Disciplinary

Practice: Appropriating Foucault’s View of Power, Discourse and Method”. Educational
Administration Quarterly, 34(3):329-353.

Anderson, M. 1991. Principals: How to Train, Select, Recruit, Induct and Welcome
Leaders in America’s Schools. Executive Clearing House in Educational Management:
Eugene, Oregon.

Andrews, D., Conway, J., Dawson, M., Lewis, M., McMaster, J., Morgan, A. and Starr, H.
2004. “School Revitalization the Ideas Way”, ACEL Monograph Series, No. 34, May 2004.

Archer, J. 2004. “Tackling an Impossible Job”, Education Week, 15 September.

Arnold, J., Robertson, I.T., & Cooper, C.L. 1991. Work Psychology: Understanding Human
Behaviour in the Workplace. Pitman Publishing: London.

Austin, G. 1979. Process Evaluation: A Comprehensive Study of Outlines. Maryland State

Department of Education. Eric: Ed160644.

Azzara, J. 2000. “The Heart of School Leadership”, Education Leadership, 58(4):62-64.

Barritt, L., Beckman, A.J., Blecker, H., & Mulderij, K. 1985. Researching Education
Practice. University of North Dakota, Center for Teaching and Learning: Grand Forks, N.D.

Barth, R. 1979. Run School Run. Harvard University Press: Cambridge, Ma.

Barth, R.S. 1980. “Reflections on the Principalship”, Thrust for Educational Leadership,
9(5):12-17.

Barth, R.S. 1981. “The Principal as Staff Developer”, Boston University Journal of
Education, Spring: 144-61.

Barth, R.S. 1991. Improving Schools from Within: Teachers, Parents and Principals Can
Make a Difference. Jossey-Bass: San Francisco, Oxford.

381
Barty, K., Thomson, P., Blackmore, J. & Sachs, J. 2005. “Unpacking the Issues: Researching
the Shortage of School Principals in Two States in Australia”, The Australian Educational
Researcher, 32(3).

Bass, B.M. and Avolio, B.J. 1993. “Transformational Leadership: A Response to Critiques”
in Chemers M.M., Ayman, R. (eds), Leadership Theory and Research: Perspectives and
Direction, pp. 49-80. Academic Press: San Diego:

Bauman, Z. 1997. Post Modernity and its Discontent. Polity Press: Cambridge

Beaudoin, M.N., and Taylor, M. 2004. Creating a Positive School Culture. Corwin Press:
California.

Beavis, A. and Bowman, D. 2000. “The Principal and the Challenges of Aloneness: A Pal
Perspective” in Thomas, R.A. (ed) Challenges of the Principalship, The School Principals’
Handbook Series, pp. 89-97. The Professional Reading Guide for Educational
Administrators: Point Lonsdale, Vic.

Beck, L.G. 1994(a). Cultivating A Caring School Community: One Principal’s Story in
Reshaping the Principalship in Murphy, H. & Louis, K.S. (eds). Reshaping the
Principalship, pp. 177-221. Corwin Press Inc., Sage.

Beck, L.G. 1994(b). Reclaiming Educational Administration as a Caring Profession.

Teachers College Press: New York.

Beck, L.G. and Murphy, J. 1993. Understanding the Principalship: Metaphorical Themes
1920’s-1990’s. Teachers College Press: New York.

Bennett, A.L., Bryk, A.S., Easton, J.Y., Kerbow, D., Luppescu, S., and Sebring, P.A. 1992.
Charting Reform: The Principals’ Perspective. Consortium on Chicago School Research:
Chicago.

Bennett, N. 1995. Managing Professional Teachers. Paul Chapman Publishing: London.

Best, J.B. 1999. Cognitive Psychology. Brooks/Cole Wadsworth: Belmont, Ca.

Bizar, M. and Barr, R. 2001. School Leadership in Times of Urban Reform. Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates: Mahwah.

Block, P. 1993. Stewardship: Choosing Service Over Self-Interest. Berrett-Koehler: San

Francisco, Ca.

Blumberg, A. 1989. School Administration as a Craft. Allyn and Bacon Inc: Boston.

Blumberg, A. and Greenfield, W. 1980. The Effective Principal – Perspectives on School

Leadership. Allyn and Bacon Inc: Boston.

Bogden, R.C. & Biklen, S.K. 1992. Qualitative Research for Educators: An Introduction to
Theory and Methods. Allyn & Bacon: Boston.

382
Bogotch, I.E and Roy, C.B. 1997. “The Context of Partial Truths: An Analysis of
Principals’ Discourse”, Journal of Educational Administration, 35(3):234-252.

Bonnet, A. 2003. “Understanding the Power of the Principal”, Education Horizon, 7(5):14-15.

Bowman, D. 1991. “Peer Support and Supervision of Heads”. Paper presented at the
A.H.I.S.A. Conference, Wesley College, Perth, October 1991.

Boyle, M. 2000. “The ‘New Style’ Principal: Roles, Reflections and Reality in the Self-
Managed School”, The Practicing Administrator 22(4):4-22.

Bradley, A. 1992. “New Study Laments Lack of Change in Chicago Classrooms”,

Education Week 11(27):1-9.

Brandt, R. 1982. “On School Improvement: A Conversation with Ronald Edmonds”,

Educational Leadership, 40(3):31-35.

Brandt, R. (Ed.). 1989. Effective Schools and School Improvement. Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development: Alexandria, VA.

Bredeson, P.V. 1988(a). “An Analysis of the Metaphorical Perspectives of School

Principals” in Burden, J.L. (ed.) School Leadership: A Contemporary Reader, pp. 297-317.
Sage: Newbury Park, USA.

Bredeson, P.V. 1988(b). “Perspectives on Schools: Metaphors and Management in

Education”, Journal of Educational Administration, 26(31):293-310.

Bredeson, P.V. 1993. “Letting go of Outlived Professional Identities: A Study of Role

Strain for Principals in Restructured Schools”, Educational Administration Quarterly,
29(1):34-68.

Brereton, E. 1993. “Where’s the Boss? He’s Watering the Garden”, Principal Matters 5(3):
15.

Brubaker, D., Simon, L. and Tysinger, N. 1993. “Principals’ Leadership Styles: The Power of
the ‘Halo Effect’”, NASSP Bulletin, 77(553):30-36.

Brubaker, D.L. 1995. “How the Principalship Has Changed: Lessons from Principals’ Life
Stories”, NASSP Bulletin, 79(574):88-95.

Bryman, A. 1992. Charisma and Leadership in Organizations. Sage: Newbury Park,Ca

.
Burbach, H.J. and Figgins, M.A. 1991. “Screen Images of Principals – A New Vision is
Needed”, NASSP Bulletin, 75(539):52-58.

Burrell, G and Morgan, G. 1979. Sociological Paradigms and Organisational Analysis.

Heinemann Educational Books: London.

Calabrese, R.L. and Barton, A.M. 1994. “The Principal: A Leader in a Democratic Society”,
NASSP Bulletin, 78(558):3-10.

383
Caldwell, B.J. 2000. “Innovation and Abandonment for Successful Leadership in Schools of
the Third Millennium”. Paper given at New Zealand Principals’ Federation and the
Australian Primary Principals’ Association Conference, Christchurch, N.Z., June 29-30.

Cannon, H. 2005. In Scott. R. “Research Works on Blueprint for Effective School

Leadership”, Education Review 15(41): 6.

Carr, N. 2002. Worldview, Wisdom and Wonder: A Quest for Transformation Through
Education, in Pascoe, S., (Ed.) 2002. Values in Education, pp. 173-183, Australian College
of Education: Canberra.

Chamley, J.D., McFarlane, F.R., Young, Russell L., and Caprio, E.M. 1992. “Overcoming
the Superprincipal Complex: Shared and Informed Decision Making”, NASSP Bulletin.
76(540)1-8.

Checkley, K. 2000. “The Contemporary Principal: New Skills for a New Age”, Association
for Supervisors and Curriculum Development, 42(3).

Christensen, G. 1992. “The Changing Role of the Administrator in an Accelerated School.”

Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association,
San Francisco.

Clarke, J. and Newman, J. 1997. The Managerial State. Sage: London.

Clarke, S. 2000. “Toward the Door We Never Opened: Revealing the Inner Principal.”
Journal of the Australian Council of Education Administrational, 6(1):51-61.

Cohen, L. and Manion, L. 1994. Research Methods in Education. 4th Ed, Routledge: London.

Cole, G.A. 1996. Management: Theory and Practice. D.P. Publications: London.

Conley, D.T., and Goldman, P. 1994. “Ten Propositions of Facilitative Leadership”, in J.

Murphy and K.S. Louis (eds) Reshaping the Principalship: Insights from Transformational
Reform Efforts, pp. 239-281. Corwin Press: Thousand Oaks, Calif.

Craven, S. 2004. “Is the Principalship Sustainable?” Directions in Education. 13(32):2.

Crowson, R.L., and Boyd, W.L. 1993. “Co-ordinated Services for Children: Designing Arks
for Storms and Seas Unknown”, American Journal of Education 101(2):140-79.

Crowther, F.,Andrews, D., Dawson, M. and Lewis, M. 2001. Ideas Facilitation Folder
Education Queensland: Brisbane.

Cuban, L. 1988. The Managerial Imperative and the Practice of Leadership in Schools.
State University of New York Press: Albany.
Culbertson, J.A., Henson, C. and Morrison, R., (Eds.) 1974. Performance Objectives for
School Principals. McCutchan: Berkeley, California.

384
d’Arbon, T. 2003. “Future Principals for Schools of the Future”. Paper presented at the
National Conference of Australian Council for Educational Leaders, Sydney, 2003, p. 17.

Day, C. 2000. “Beyond Transformational Leadership”, Educational Leadership 57(7):56-59.

Day, C., Harris, A., Hadfield, M. Tolley, H., and Beresford, J. 2000. Leading Schools in
Times of Change. Open University Press: Buckingham, Philadelphia.

Deal, T. 1987. “Effective School Principals: Counselors, Engineers, Pawnbrokers, Poets …

or Instructional Leaders?” in Greenfield, W. (ed), Instructional Leadership: Concepts, Issues
and Controversies, pp. 230-45. Allyn and Bacon: Boston.

Deal, T.E., and Peterson, K.D. 2000. “Eight Roles of Symbolic Leaders” in The Jossey-Bass
Reader on Educational Leadership, pp. 202-216. Jossey-Bass: San Francisco.

Dempster, N. and Mahoney, P. 1998. “Ethical Challenges in School Leadership” in

MacBeath J. (ed.) Effective School Leadership: Responding to Change, pp. 125-139. Paul
Chapman: London.

Devine, P.G. 1989. “Stereotypes and prejudice: Their automatic and controlled
components”, Personality and Social Psychology, 56:5-18.

Dimmock, C., and Walker, A. 1998. “Towards Comparative Educational Administration:

The Case for a Cross-Cultural, School-Based Approach”, Journal of Educational
Administration, 36(3-4):379-401.

Donaldson, G.A. 1991. Learning to Lead: The Dynamic of the High School Principalship.
Greenwood Press: New York.

Donmoyer, R. 1985. “Cognitive Anthropology and Research on Effective Principals”,

Educational Administration Quarterly 21(2):31-57.

Drucker, P.F. 1993. Post-Capitalist Society. Harper Business: New York.

Dubin, A.E, (Ed.). 1991. The Principal as Chief Executive Officer. The Falmer Press:
London.

DuFour, R. 2002. “The Learning Principal”, Educational Leadership, 59(8):12-15.

Duignan, P. 1987. The Culture of School Effectiveness. in Simpkins, W.S., Thomas, A.R.
and Thomas, E.B. (eds). Principal and Change: The Australian Experience, pp. 297-311.
University of New England Monograph: Armidale.

Duignan, P.A. and Macpherson, R.J.S. (Eds.) 1992. Educative Leadership: A Practical
Theory for New Administrators and Managers. Falmer Press: London.

Duignan, P.A., and Bhindi, N. 1997. “Authenticity in Administration”, Journal of

Educational Administration 35, (3): 195-209.

385
Duignan, P.A. 2005. “Socially Responsible Leadership: Schools for a More Just and
Democratic Society”, Leading and Managing, 11(1):1-13.

Dunford, J., Fawcett, and R., Bennett, D. 2000. School Leadership: National and
International Perspectives. Kogan Page Limited: London, UK.

Durka, G. 2000. “Teaching Youth in a Socially Toxic Environment”, Religious Education

95(4):443.

Dwyer, D.C., Lee, G.Y., Barnett, B.G., Filby, N.N. and Rowan, B. 1985. Understanding the
Principals’ Contribution to Instruction: Seven Principals, Seven Stories. Far West
Laboratory for Educational Research and Development: San Francisco.

Earley, P., Baker, L. and Weindling, D. 1990. Keeping the Raft Afloat: Secondary
Leadership Five Years On. National Foundation for Educational Research: Windsor.

Edmonds, R. 1979. “Effective Schools for the Urban Poor”, Educational Leadership,
37(1):15-27.

Educational Leadership in Schools Reader. 1980. Deakin University Open Campus

Program: School of Education. Waurn Ponds, Victoria.

Educational Opportunity. 1972. “Revitalizing the Role of the School Principal.” in Toward
Equal Educational Opportunity, United States of America Senate Report No. 92-000:305-307.

English, F. 1994. Discourse and Theory in Educational Administration. Harper Collins:

New York.

English, F. 1997. “The Cupboard is Bare: The Post-Modern Critique of Educational

Administration,” Journal of School Leadership, 7(1):4-26.

Etheridge, C.P. and Valesky, T.C. 1993. “Stages of Team Decision Making Development
and Related Variables”. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational
Research Association, Atlanta. April, 1993.

Evans, D.L. 1995. “Some Reflections on Doing the Principalship”, NASSP Bulletin,
79(567):4-15.

Evans, R. 1996. The Human Side of School Change: Reform, Resistance, and the Real-Life
Problems of Innovation. Jossey-Bass: San Francisco.

Evans, R. 1999. The Pedagogical Principal. Qual Institute Press: Edmonton, Alberta,
Canada.

Evers, C.W., and Lakomski, G. 1996. “Science in Educational Administration: A

Postpositivist Conception,” Educational Administration Quarterly, 32(3):379-402.

Evers, C.W., and Lakomski, G. 2000. Doing Educational Administration. A Theory of

Administrative Practice. Pergamon Press: New York.

386
Fallon, B. 1981. “The Third World: Escape from Stress and Burnout”, NASSP Bulletin, 65
(449):28-30.

Ferrandino, V.L. and Tirozzi, G.N. 2000. “Principals May Get a Share of the Federal Pie:
Our Time Has Come”, NAESP, February 23.

Ferrandino, V.L. 2005. Leading Early Childhood Learning Communities: Standards for
What Principals Should Know and Be Able to Do. NAESP, 85(1):72.

Foskett (1967) The Normative World of the Elementary School Principal in Blumberg, A.
and Greenfield, W. (eds) The Effective Principal – Perspectives on School Leadership, pp.
30-32. Allyn & Bacon Inc: Boston.

Foster, M. 1971. Making Schools Work. Strategies for Changing Education. Westminster
Press: Philadelphia.

Foster, W.P. 1980. “Administration and the Crisis of Legitimacy: A Review of Habermasian
Thought”, Harvard Education Review 50(2):496-565.

Foster, Z.H. 1981. “The Third World: Escape From Stress and Burnout”, NASSP Bulletin,
65(449):28-30.

Fullan, M.G., and Stiegelbauer, S. 1991. The New Meaning of Educational Change.
Teachers College Press: New York.

Fullan, M. 2001. Leading in a Culture of Change. Jossey-Bass: San Francisco.

Fullan, M. 2002. “The Change Leader”, Educational Leadership, 59(8):16-20.

Gilman, D.A., Lanman-Givens, B. 2001. “Where Have All the Principals Gone?”
Educational Leadership, 58(8):72-74.

Ginsberg, R. 1988. “Worthy Goal …Unlikely Reality: The Principal as Instructional

Leader”, NASSP Bulletin, 72(507):76-82.

Giroux, H.A. 1992. “Educational Leadership and the Crisis of Democratic Government”,
Educational Researcher, 21(4):4-11.

Glanz, J. 1998. “Autocrats, Bureaucrats and Buffoons: Images of Principals”, The School
Administrator Web Edition, 9(55):34-36.

Glassner, B. and Loughlin, J. 1987. Drugs in Adolescent Worlds: Burnouts to Straight. St.
Martin’s Press: New York.

Glickman, C. 1989. “Has Sam and Samantha’s Time Come at Last?” Educational
Leadership, 46(8):4-9.

Gmelch, W.H. 1988. “Educator’s Response to Stress: Towards a Coping Taxonomy”,

Journal of Education Administration, 26(2):222-31.

387
Goldring, E.B. 1990. “Elementary School Principals as Boundary Spanners: Their
Engagement with Parents”, Journal of Educational Administration, 28(1):53-62.

Gorton, A. and McIntyre, K. 1978. The Senior High School Principalship. Volume II: The
Effective Principal. National Association of Secondary School Principals: Reston, VA.

Goss, N., Mason, W.S., and MacEachern, A.W. 1958. Explorations in Role Analysis. John
Wiley & Sons Inc: New York.

Grace, G. 1995. School Leadership: Beyond Educational Management: An Essay on Policy

Scholarship. Lewes: Falmer.

Grady, N.B. 1993. “Examining Teachers’ Images Through Metaphors”, in Studies in

Education Administrator, 58: 23-31.

Gregory, R.L. 1986. Odd Perceptions. Methuen: London and New York.

Green, J and Bloome, D. 1997. “Ethnography and Ethnographies of and in Education: A

Situative Perspective” In Flood, J.,. Heats, S.B and Lapp D. (eds) Handbook of Research on
Teaching and Literacy Through the Communication and Visual Arts, pp. 181-202. Simon &
Schuster MacMillan: New York.

Greenfield, T.B. 1986. “The Decline and Fall of Science in Educational Administration”,
Interchange, 17(2):57-80.

Greenfield, T. 1991. “Re-forming and Re-valuing Educational Administration: Whence and

When Cometh the Phoenix?” Educational Management and Administration, 19(4):200-17.

Greenfield, T. and Ribbins, P. 1993. Greenfield on Educational Administration. Routledge:

London.

Greenfield, W.D. 1986. “Moral, Social and Technical Dimensions of the Principalship”,
Peabody Journal of Education, (1):130-49.

Greenfield, W. (Ed.) 1987. Instructional Leadership: Concepts, Issues and Controversies.

Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Griffith, D., Stout, R.T., and Forsythe, P. (Eds). 1988. Leaders for America’s Schools.
McCutchan Publishing Corporation: Berkley, California.

Gronn, P. and Rawlings-Sanaei, E. 2003. “Principal Recruitment”, Australian Journal of

Education, 47(2):172-184.

Hacker, P.M.S. 1987. Appearances and Reality. Blackwell: Oxford.

Hallinger, P. 1992. “School Leadership Development: Evaluating a Decade of Reform”,

Education and Urban Society, 24(3):300-316.

388
Hallinger, P. and Hausman, C. 1993. “The Changing Role of the Principal in a School of
Choice” in Murphy, J. and Hallinger, P. (eds) Restructuring Schooling: Learning from
Ongoing Efforts, pp. 114-142. Corwin Press: Newbury Park, CA.

Hallinger, P., Leithwood, K., and Murphy, J. (Eds.) 1993. Cognitive Perspectives on
Educational Administration. Teachers College Press: New York.

Hallinger, P. and Hausman, C. 1994. “From Attila the Hun to Mary had a Little Lamb:
Principal Role Ambiguity in Restructured Schools” in Murphy, J. and Louis, K.S. (eds).
Reshaping the Principalship, pp. 154-176. Corwin Press, Thousand Oaks. Cal.

Hallinger, P. and Heck, R.H. 1996. “Reassessing the Principal’s Role in School
Effectiveness: A Review of Empirical Research 1980-1995”, Education Administration
Quarterly, 32(1):5-44.

Hallinger, P. Murphy, J. and Hausman, C. 1992. “Restructuring Schools: Principals’

Perceptions of Fundamental Educational Reform”, Education Administration Quarterly,
28(3):330-349.

Hamlyn, D.W. 1979. The Psychology of Perception. A Philosophical Examination of

Gestalt Theory and Derivative Theories of Perception. Routledge & Kegan Paul: London.

Handy, C. 1994. The Empty Raincoat: Making Sense of the Future. Random House:
London.

Hargreaves, A. 1994. Changing Teachers, Changing Times: Teachers’ Work and Culture in
the Post Modern Age. Teachers College Press: New York.

Hargreaves, A., and Fullan, M. 1998. What’s Worth Fighting for in Education? Open
University Press: Buckingham.

Hargreaves, A. 1995. “Development and Desire. A Postmodern Perspective” in Guskey,

T.R. and Huberman M. (eds). Professional Development in Education. New Paradigms and
Practices, pp. 9-34. New York: Teachers College Press.

Hargreaves, D. 1995. “School Culture, School Effectiveness and School Improvement”,

School Effectiveness and Improvement, 6(1):23-46.

Hargreaves, A., and Evans, R. 1997. Beyond Educational Reform, Bringing Teachers Back
In. Open University Press: Buckingham, Philadephia.

Harre, R. and Secord, P.F. 1972. The Explanation of Social Behaviour. Basil Blackwell,
Oxford.

Harris, A. and Bennett, N. (eds.) 2001. School Effectiveness and School Improvement.
Continuum: London.

Harris, A. and Hopkins, D. 2000. “Alternative Perspectives on School Improvement”,

School Leadership and Management 20(1):9-15.

389
Harvey, M. 2000. “Entering the Life-World of the School: A Challenge to the Beginning
Principal”, in Thomas, Ross, A. (ed) Challenges to the Principalship, pp. 9-20. The
Professional Reading Guide for Education Administration: Victoria.

Hausman, C.S., Crow, G., and Sperry, D.J. 2000. “Portrait of the ‘Ideal Principal’: Context
and Self”, NASSP Bulletin, 84(617):5-14.

Heck, R.H. and Marcoulides, G.A. 1993. “Principal Leadership Behaviours and School
Achievement”, NASSP Bulletin, 77(553):20-28.

Hess, G.A., and Easton, J.Q. 1991. “Who’s Making What Decisions: Monitoring Authority
Shifts in Chicago School Reform”. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American
Educational Research Association: Chicago, April 6.

Hodgkinson, C. 1991. Educational Leadership: The Moral Art. State University of New
York Press: Albany, NY.

Holden, S. 2004. “Just Connecting”, Professional Educator, 3 (3):16-17.

Hopkins, D. and Harris, A. 1997. “Improving the Quality of Education for All”, Support for
Learning, 12 (4):147-51.

Hough, M. and Paine, J. 1997. Creating Quality Learning Communities. MacMillan

Education Australia: Melbourne.

Howell, B. 1981. “Profile of the Principalship”, Educational Leadership, 28(4):333-336.

Hughes, L.W. 1999. “The Leader: Artist? Architect? Connoisseur?” in Hughes, L. (ed) The
Principal as Leader, pp. 3-24. MacMillan: New York.

Jackson, D. 2000. “The School Improvement Journey: Perspective on Leadership”, School

Leadership and Management, 20(1):61-79.

Johnson, J. 2002. “Staying Ahead of the Game”, Educational Leadership, 59(8):26-30.

Joyce, B., Calhoun, E. and Hopkins, D. 1999. The New Structure of School Improvement:
Inquiring Schools and Achieving Students. Open University Press: Buckingham.

Kalz, D. and Kahn, R.L. 1966. The Social Psychology of Organizations. John Wiley & Sons
Inc: New York.

Keane, J. 2003. Global Civic Society? Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.

Keith, B.R. 1977. The Lives of Frank Rolland. Rigby: Adelaide.

Kidder, R.M. 1995. How Good People Make Tough Choices: Resolving the Dilemma of
Ethical Living. William Morrow: New York.

Kinsler, K. and Gamble, M. 2001. Reforming Schools. Continuum: New York.

390
Kittay, E.F. 1987. Metaphor: Its Cognitive Force and Linguistic Structure. Clarendon Press:
Oxford.

Knezevich, S.J. 1975. Administration of Public Education. Harper & Row: New York.

Krathwohl, D.R. 1998. Methods of Educational and Social Science Research – An

Integrated Approach. Longman: New York.

Krug, S.E., Ahadi, M.S.A. and Scott, C.K. 1991. “Current Issues and Research Findings in
the Study of School Leadership” in Thurston, P.T. and Zodhiates, P.P. (eds) Advances in
Educational Administration, Volume 2: pp 241-60. Jai Press: Greenwich, Conn.

Lacey, K. 2003. Factors that Impact on Principal-Class Leadership Aspirations.

Unpublished PhD Dissertation, University of Melbourne.

Lagermaan, E.C. & Shulman, L.S. 1999. Issues in Education Research, Problems and
Possibilities. Jossey-Bass: San Francisco.

Lakoff, G. and Johnson, M. 1980. Metaphors We Live By. University of Chicago: Chicago.
Il.

Lambert, L. 2002. “A Framework for Shared Leadership”, Educational Leadership, 59(8):

37-40.

Lane, B.A. 1992. “Cultural Leaders in Effective Schools: The Builders and Brokers of
Excellence”, NASSP Bulletin, 76(541):86-88.

Langenbach, M., Vaughn, C. and Aagaard, L. 1993. An Introduction to Educational

Research. Allyn and Bacon: Boston.

Leithwood, K. Begley, P., and Cousins, B. 1992. Developing Expert Leadership for Future
Schools. Fulmer: Bristol, PA.

Leithwood, K., Chapman, J., Corson, D., Hallinger, P. and Hart, A. (Eds.) 1996.
International Handbook of Educational Leadership and Adinistration. Kluwer: Dordrecht.

Leithwood, K. and Jantzi, D. 1990. “Transformational Leadership: How Principals Can Help
Reform School Cultures”, School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 1:249-280.

Leithwood, K., Jantzi, D. and Steinbach, R. 1999. Changing Leadership for Changing
Times. Open University Press: Buckingham, Philadelphia.

Leithwood, K., Tomlinson, D. and Genge, M. 1996. “Transformational School Leadership”

in Leithwood, K., Chapman, J., Carson, D., Hallinger, P. and Hart, A. (eds) International
Handbook of Educational Leadership and Administration, pp. 785-840. Kluwer: Dordrecht.

Leithwood, K. 1994. “Leadership for School Restructuring”, Educational Administration

Quarterly, 30(4):498-518.
Levacic, R. 1997. “Locally Managed Schools in England: Results After Six Years”. Paper
presented at the American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting, Chicago.

391
Levin, B. 1994. “Improving Educational Productivity Through a Focus on Learners”,
Studies in Educational Administration, 60:15-21.

Lewis, J. 2001. “Principalship of the Future: How to Get There from Here”, The Practicing
Administrator 23(3):4-7.

Lipham, J.M and Hoeh, J.A. (Jr). 1974. The Principalship: Foundations and Functions.
Harper & Row: New York.

Lipham, J. 1981. Effective Principal, Effective School. National Association of Secondary

School Principals. Rexon: Virginia.

Loader, D.N. 1997. The Inner Principal. The Faber Press: London.

Loader, D.N. 2004. “Mistaken for God”, Teacher: The National Education Magazine,
October, p. 29.

Lum, J.B. 1997. “Student Mentality: Intentionalist Perspectives About the Principal”,
Journal of Educational Administration, 5(3):210-233.

MacBeath, J. (ed) 1998. Effective School Leadership: Responding to Change. Paul

Chapman: London.

McCay, E. 2001. “The Learning Needs of Principals”, Educational Leadership, 58(8):75-77.

McCarthy, M. 1999. “The Evolution of Educational Leadership Preparation Programmes”.

in Murphy, J. and Louis, K.S. (eds). Handbook of Research in Educational Administration,
pp. 119-139. Jossey-Bass: San Francisco.

McConnell, R. and Jeffries, R. 1991. Monitoring Today’s Schools: The First Year.
University of Waikato: Hamilton, New Zealand.

McKenna, E. 1994. Business Psychology and Organisational Behaviour. Lawrence

Erlbaum Associates: Hove, U.K.

McPherson, R., Crowson, F. and Pitner, N. 1986. Managing Uncertainty: Administrative

Theory in Education. Merrill: Columbus, Oh.

McPherson, R.B., and Crowson, R.L. 1992. “Creating Schools that ‘Work’ Under Chicago
Reform: The Adaptation of Building Principals”. Paper presented at the annual meeting of
the University Council for Educational Administration: Minneapolis, November, 1992.

MacPherson, R.J.S. 1989. “Radical Administrative Reforms in New Zealand Education:

The Implications of the Pilot Report for Institutional Managers”, Journal of Educational
Administration, 27(1):29-44.

Maden, M. And Rudduck, J. 1997. “Listen to the Learners”, Times Educational Supplement,
July.

392
Maund, B. 2003. Perception. Acumen: Chesham.

Maurer, R. 1996. Beyond the Wall of Resistance. Bard Books: Austin.

Maxcy, S.J. 1995. Democracy, Chaos and the New School Order. Corwin Press: Thousand
Oaks, C.A.

Maxcy, S.J. 1998. “Preparing School Principals for Ethno-Democratic Leadership”,

International Journal of Leadership in Education, 1(3):217-235.

Melton, J. 1971. “Role Perceptions of the Elementary School Principalship”, National

Elementary Principal, 50:40-43.

Meltzer, B.N., Petras, J.W. and Reynolds, L.T. 1975. Symbolic Interactionism: Genesis,
Varieties and Criticism. Routledge & Kegan Paul: London.

Miles, M.B. 1978. Technographic Methods and Their Problems. Centre for Policy
Research: New York

Moffett, 1994, “The Children’s Machine” in Loader, D.N. (ed) The Inner Principal, p. 153.
Faber Press: London.

Morgan, G. 1986. Images of Organization. Sage: California.

Morris, V.C., Cranson, R.L., Porter-Gehrie, C., and Hurwitz, E.(Jr). 1984. Principals in
Action: The Reality of Managing Schools. Charles E. Merrill Publishing Co: Columbus, Oh.

Murphy, J. 1994 “Transformational Change and the Evolving Role of the Principal: Early
Empirical Evidence” in Murphy, J. & Louis, K.S. (eds) Reshaping the Principalship, pp. 20-
55. Corwin Press, Thousand Oaks, Cal.

Murphy, J., and Beck, L.C. 1994. “Reconstructing the Principalship: Challenges and
Possibilities”, in Murphy, J. and Louis, K.S. (eds) Reshaping the Principalship, pp. 3-19.
Corwin Press: Thousand Oaks, Cal.

Murphy, J. 1991. Restructuring Schools: Capturing and Assessing the Phenomena.

Teachers College Press: New York.

Murphy, J. and Beck, L.G. 1995. School-Based Management as School Reform: Taking
Stock. Corwin Press: Thousand Oaks, C.A.

Murphy, J. and Hallinger, P. 1992. “The Principalship in an Era of Transformation”,

Journal of Educational Administration, 30(3):77-88.

Murphy, J. and Louis, K.S. (eds.) 1994. Reshaping the Principalship: Insights from
Transformational Reform Efforts. Corwin Press Inc. Thousand Oaks: California.

Nadebaum, M. 1991. “Noah or Butterfly? The Changing Role of School Principals in the
1900s”, ACEA Monograph Series, 10.

393
National Association of Secondary School Principals. 1979. “The Senior High School
Principalship”, The Summary NASSP, Vol III.

Noe, A. 2004. Action in Perception. The MIT Press: Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Olsen, L. 1999. “Demand for Principals Growing, but Candidates Aren’t Applying”,
Education Week, 18(25):1-22.

Olsen, L. 2000. “Principals Try New Styles as Instructional Leaders”, Education Week,
20(9).

Pajak, E. and McAbee, L. 1992. “The Principal as School Leader, Curriculum Leader”,
NASSP Bulletin, 76(547):21-30.

Parkay, F. and Hall, G. (eds.) 1992. Becoming a Principal: The Challenges of Beginning
Leadership. Allyn & Bacon: Needham Heights, Massachusetts.

Peters, R.S. (ed.). 1976. The Role of the Head. Routledge & Kegan Paul: London.

Pierce, M. and Stapleton, D. (eds) 2003. The 21st Century Principal – Current Issues in
Leadership and Policy. Harvard Education Press: Harvard.

Pyke, N. 2002. “Country Heads”, The Tablet, February 9.

Reed, E.S. 1988. James J. Gibson and the Psychology of Perception. Yale University
Press: New Haven and London.

Restine, L.N. 1997. “Experience, Meaning and Principal Development”, Journal of

Educational Administration, 35(3):253-262.

Ribbins, P. 1996. “Heads and Leadership Today: Waving or Drowning?” Forum, 38(1):24-5.

Riehl, C.J. 2000. “The Principals’ Role in Creating Inclusive Schools for Divisive Students:
A Review of Normative, Empirical, and Critical Literature on the Practice of Educational
Administration”, Review of Educational Research, 70(1):55-81.

Robertson, F.R. and Matthews, K.M. 1988. “How Principals Cope with Stress”, NASSP
Bulletin, 22 (509):79-85.

Robinson, H. 2001. Perception. Routledge: London and New York.

Roe, W.H., and Drake, T.L. 1974. The Principalship. MacMillan Publishing Co: New York.

Rooney, J. 2000. “Survival Skills for the New Principal”, Educational Leadership, 58(1):77-
78.

Roth, M. 1980. “Consciousness and Psychopathology” in Josephson, B.D., and

Ramachandran, V.S. (eds). Consciousness and the Physical World, pp 123-139. Pergamon
Press: Oxford.

394
Roulston, J. 2006. “The Principal Shortage and What We Should Be Doing about It”,
Independent Schools Queensland Briefing, 10(2):1.

Sarason, S.B. 1996. Revisiting the Culture of the School and the Problem of Change.
Teachers College Press: New York.

Schainker, S.A. and Roberts, L.M. 1987. Helping Principals Overcome On-the-job
Obstacles to Learning, Educational Leadership, 45(1):30-33.

Schein, E.H. 1997. Organizational Culture and Leadership. Jossey-Bass: San Francisco.

Scherer, M. 1996. “On Our Changing Family Values: A Conversation with David Elkind,”.
Educational Leadership, 54(1):5-11.

Schlenker, B. 1980. Impression Management. Brookes Cole: Monterey, CA.

Schon, D. 1984. The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. Basic
Books: New York.

Scott, R. 2005. “Research Works or Blueprint for Effective School Leadership”, Education
Review, 15(41):6

Senge, P. 1990. The Fifth Discipline: the Art and Practice of the Learning Organization.
Currency Doubleday: New York.

Sergiovanni, T.J. 1987. The Principalship: A Reflective Practice Perspective. Allyn &
Bacon Inc: Boston.

Sergiovanni, T.J. 1992. Moral Leadership: Getting to the Heart of School Improvement.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Sergiovanni, T. 2001. Leadership: What’s in it for Schools? London: Routledge Falmer.

Sergiovanni, T.J., Bulingame, M., Coombs, F.S., Thurston, P.W. 1992. Educational
Governance and Administration. Allyn and Bacon: Boston.

Seyforth, J.T. 1999. The Principal: New Leadership for New Challenges. Prentice-Hall:
Upper Saddle River, NJ.

Silvernmann, D. 1993. Interpreting Qualitative Data – Methods of Analysing Talk, Text and
Interaction. Sage Publications: London.

Simpkins, W.S., Thomas, A.R. and Thomas, E.B. (Eds). 1987. Principal and Change: The
Australian Experience. University of New England Monograph: Armidale.

Sims, J.H.P. and Lorenzi, P. 1992. The New Leadership Paradigm: Social Learning and
Cognition in Organizations. Sage: Newbury Park, CA.

Smees, R. & Thomas, S. 1998. “Valuing Pupils’ Views About School”, British Journal of
Curriculum and Assessment, 8(3):7-9.

395
Smylie, M.A. 1992. “Teacher Participation in School Decision-Making: Assessing
Willingness to Participate”, Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 14(1):53-67.

Southworth, G. 1993. “School Leadership and School Development: Reflections from

Research”, School Organization, 13(1):73-87.

Stacey, R. 1996. Complexity and Creativity in Organizations. Berrett-Koehler: San

Francisco, Ca.

Starratt, R.J. 1993. The Drama of Leadership. Palmer Press: London.

Stoll, L. and Fink, D. 1996. Changing our Schools: Linking School Effectiveness and School
Improvement. Open University Press: Buckingham.

Teddlie, C. and Reynolds, D. (eds), 2000. The International Handbook of School

Effectiveness Research. Falmer Press: London.

Thomas, A.R. and Ayres, J. 2000. “Time Lost or Time Gained? The Challenge of
Interruptions” in Thomas, E. (ed). Challenges of the Principalship: The School Principals’
Handbook Series, pp.71-77. Reading Guide for Educational Administration: Point Londsdale,
Victoria.

Thomas, C. and Vornberg, J.A. 1991. “Evaluating Principals: New Requirements, Direction
for the ‘90’s”, NASSP Bulletin, 75(539):59-64.

Thomas, D. 2003. “Principal Rewards”, Educare News, 134:41.

Thomas, R.A. (Ed.). 2000. The School Principal’s Handbook Series: Challenges of the
Principalship. The Professional Reading Guild for Education Administration: Victoria.

Troman, G. 1996. “Headteachers, Collaborative School Culture and School Improvement: A

Changing Relationship?” Educational Action Research, 4(1):119-44.

Tronc, K. 1977. Educational Administration: Challenge and Change. Australia International

Press & Publications, Melbourne.

Tuckman, B.W. 1999. Conducting Educational Research. Harcourt Brace College:

Fortworth.

Turner, J.H. 1974. The Structure of Sociological Theory. The Derry Press: Homewood,
Illinois.

Uchiyama, K.P. and Wolf, S.A. 2002. “The Best Way to Lead”, Educational Leadership,
59(8):80-83.

Vallacher, R.R. and Wegner, D.M. 1977. Implicit Psychology: An Introduction to Social
Cognition. Oxford University Press: New York.

396
Vandenberghe, R. 1992. “The Changing Role of Principals in Primary and Secondary
Schools in Belgium”, Journal of Educational Administration, 30(3):20-34.

Van Manen, M. 1991. The Fact of Teaching: The Meaning of Pedagogical Thoughtfulness.
The Althouse Press: London.

Wadsworth, Y. 1997. Do it Yourself Social Research. Allen & Unwin: Australia.

Walker, A. and Dimmock, C. 2000. “Leadership Dilemmas of Hong Kong Principals:

Sources, Perceptions and Outcomes”, Australian Journal of Education, 44(1):5-25.

Walker, A. and Quong, T. 1998. “Valuing Differences: Strategies for Dealing with Tensions
of Educational Leadership in a Global Society”, Peabody Journal of Education, 73(2):81-105.

Waters, T. and Grubb, S. 2004. The Leadership We Need: Using Research to Strengthen the
Use of Standards for Administrator Preparation and Licensure Programs. Mid-Continental
Research for Education and Learning: Colorado.

Waters, T., Marzano, R. and McNulty, B. 2003. Balanced Leadership: What 30 Years of
Research Tells Us about the Effect of Leadership on Student Achievement. Mid-Continental
Research for Education and Learning: Aurora, Colorado.

Wendling, D. 1992. “Marathon Running on a Sand Dune: The Changing Role of the Head
Teacher in England and Wales”, Journal of Educational Administration, 30(3):63-76.

Williams, J.G. 1978. Report on Stage I of Research Project: Profiles of Principals. W.A.
Institute of Technology: Perth.

Williams, J. 2002. Professional Leadership in Schools. Kogan Page Limited: London.

Wolcott, H.F. 1973. The Man in the Principal’s Office. Holt, Rinehart & Winston: New
York.

Wolf, S.A., Borko, H., Elliot, R. and McIver, M.C. 2000. “That Dog Won’t Hurt!
Exemplary School Change Efforts Within the Kentucky Reform”, American Educational
Research Journal, 37(2):349-393.

Wyant, S.H., Reinhard, D.L., and Arends, R.I. 1980. Of Principals and Projects.
Association of Teacher Education: Reston, Virginia.

397