INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP: HOW PRINCIPALS CONCEPTUALIZE THEIR

ROLES AS SCHOOL LEADERS

Caryn D. Cooper

A DISSERTATION

in

Educational and Organizational Leadership

Presented to the Faculties of the University of Pennsylvania

in

Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the

Degree of Doctor of Education

2017

Supervisor of Dissertation:

_______________________________________
Janine Remillard, Associate Professor of Education

Dean, Graduate School of Education:

______________________________________
Pamela L. Grossman, Dean and Professor

Dissertation Committee:

Janine Remillard, Associate Professor of Education

Leslie Nabors Olah, Adjunct Professor of Education

Diane Waff, Practice Professor of Education





ProQuest Number: 10284315




All rights reserved

INFORMATION TO ALL USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.

In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.






ProQuest 10284315

Published by ProQuest LLC (2017 ). Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author.


All rights reserved.
This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code
Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC.


ProQuest LLC.
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346
 DEDICATION

This dissertation is dedicated to the memory of my parents who inspired me to pursue my dreams
and always reminded me that:

“I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me.”

Philippians 4:13

Percy Marcellus Cooper

January 2, 1943 – August 11, 1991

Norma Patricia Cooper

April 22, 1945 – November 7, 1989

ii
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Throughout this process, I was fortunate to have support from many people. I

would like to thank the entire Mid-Career Program for their guidance and support. I am

extremely grateful for the leadership from Dr. Mike Johanek. In addition, I will be

forever grateful to Martha Williams for her love, guidance, and friendship. Her

unwavering support kept me going throughout the process.

I would also like to express my sincere gratitude to Dr. Janine Remillard, my

dissertation chair, for her mentorship and support. Her insightful advice, coupled with

her ability to get me to think deeper was instrumental throughout the process. I am

grateful for the critical and meaningful advice received from my committee members, Dr.

Leslie Nabors Olah and Dr. Diane Waff. Their feedback and recommendations were

extremely valuable.

To my children: Brandyn, Brett, and Brittany, your love, encouragement, and

support have been amazing. This work would not have been possible without your

assistance. I love you to infinity and beyond.

Finally, I am thankful to the entire Cohort 9 family, particularly Barbara Russell

and Penny Nixon. Your prodding, pushing and words of encouragement were greatly

appreciated.

iii
 ABSTRACT

INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP: HOW PRINCIPALS CONCEPTUALIZE THEIR

ROLES AS SCHOOL LEADERS

Caryn Denise Cooper

Janine Remillard

Several research studies in education have shown there is a strong correlation

between K-12 school principals, instructional leadership, and student achievement

(Liethwood, Seashore-Louis, Anderson, & Wahlstrom, 2004; Waters, Marzano, &

McNulty, 2003). Research has further revealed that, second only to the classroom

teacher, principals have a tremendous impact on student learning outcomes (Davis,

Darling-Hammond, LaPointe, & Meyerson, 2005). While researchers vary in defining the

level of impact, most agree that principals have an indirect impact on student

achievement, and extant studies have recognized that principals are critical to student

learning. Yet, prior studies provide little insight into how principals contextualize their

roles.

The primary objective of this study was to understand how early-career principals

conceptualized their roles as leaders in schools, as well as the leadership practices used

by four elementary/middle school principals.

A secondary objective of the study was to understand how principals’ preparation,

professional development, and other activities informed their conceptions and practices.

The four principals in the study were asked about their preparation as well as any

ongoing professional development they may have received.

iv
 Qualitative methods of in-depth interviewing, on-site visits, and artifact collection

were used to collect data from the four principals. The findings from this study revealed

that principals’ roles were complex. The findings further revealed that principals did not

feel that they were prepared to carry out their roles as instructional leadership. A major

contribution of this study was related to understanding a principal’s trajectory to school

leadership and how they were prepared. Given the limitations expressed by the

principals, it is necessary for districts, state education departments and principal

preparation programs to further investigate and develop programs to strengthen

principals’ school leadership. Further research is also needed in understanding how

principals utilize their time, including building the capacity of teacher leaders and other

stakeholders in the school.

v
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Dedication .......................................................................................................................... ii

Acknowledgements .......................................................................................................... iii

Abstract ............................................................................................................................. iv

List of Tables .................................................................................................................... ix

List of Figures .................................................................................................................... x

Chapter One ...................................................................................................................... 1

Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 1

Research Problem ............................................................................................................. 3

Research Questions ........................................................................................................... 5

Rationale for the Study..................................................................................................... 5

Conceptual Framework .................................................................................................... 8

Chapter Two .................................................................................................................... 14

Literature Review ........................................................................................................... 14

Principals’ Conceptualization of their Roles as Leaders............................................. 14

Summary .......................................................................................................................... 15

Principal’s Role as Instructional Leader ...................................................................... 16

Summary .......................................................................................................................... 26

Principal Learning .......................................................................................................... 26

Summary .......................................................................................................................... 29

Principal Preparation for Instructional Leadership ................................................... 29

Summary .......................................................................................................................... 36

Chapter Three ................................................................................................................. 37

Research Methodology ................................................................................................... 37

Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 37
vi
Qualitative Research ....................................................................................................... 38

Study Setting.................................................................................................................... 39

Participant Selection ....................................................................................................... 40

Data Sources .................................................................................................................... 45

Instruments ...................................................................................................................... 46

Interviews......................................................................................................................... 46

Documents and Artifacts ................................................................................................ 47

Data Collection and Analysis ......................................................................................... 47

Role of the Researcher .................................................................................................... 50

Chapter Four ................................................................................................................... 51

Principals’ Conceptions and Practices .......................................................................... 51

Principals’ Perceptions of their Roles ........................................................................... 53

Patterns in Principals’ Conceptions of their Roles ...................................................... 66

Principals’ Daily Practices ............................................................................................. 68

A Typical Monday for Principals .................................................................................. 70

Time Spent on Instructional Leadership ...................................................................... 70

Tensions between Conceptions and Practices .............................................................. 73

Barriers to Enacting Instructional Leadership Practices ........................................... 79

Enacting Instructional Leadership: Lessons Learned from Allison .......................... 82

Summary .......................................................................................................................... 85

Chapter Five .................................................................................................................... 87

Principal Preparation ..................................................................................................... 87

Preparing for Principal Leadership .............................................................................. 92

Principals’ Perceptions of their Principal Preparation Programs ............................. 97

Learning on the job....................................................................................................... 102

vii
Participating in professional development ................................................................. 104

Learning from mentoring............................................................................................. 105

Summary ........................................................................................................................ 106

Chapter Six .................................................................................................................... 109

Discussion and Recommendations .............................................................................. 109

Principals’ Conceptions of their Role as Instructional Leader ................................ 110

Principal Practices and the Role of Instructional Leadership .................................. 114

Connecting Principals’ Preparation to Conceptions of their Role ........................... 117

Other Opportunities to Learn About Instructional Leadership .............................. 121

Recommendations ......................................................................................................... 122

Reflections ...................................................................................................................... 124

Appendix A .................................................................................................................... 127

In-depth Open-ended Interview Protocol ................................................................... 127

Appendix B .................................................................................................................... 129

Principal’s Background Information .......................................................................... 129

Appendix C .................................................................................................................... 130

Principal’s Leadership Log .......................................................................................... 130

Appendix D .................................................................................................................... 131

Document Summary Form........................................................................................... 131

Appendix E .................................................................................................................... 132

Contact Summary Form............................................................................................... 132

References ...................................................................................................................... 133

viii
 LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1 The Impact of Five Leadership Dimensions on Student Outcomes

Table 3.1 Research Strategies and Data Sources
Table 4.1 Principals’ Background and Experiences
Table 4.2 Principals’ Perceptions of their Roles
Table 4.3 Principals’ Definitions of Instructional Leadership
Table 4.4 Typical Monday for Principals
Table 4.5 Percentage of Time on Instructional Tasks During a Week
Table 4.6 Principals’ Perceived Instructional Leadership Practices
Table 4.7 Principals’ Actual Instructional Leadership Practices
Table 5.1 Principal Trajectory

ix
 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. The Impact of Five Leadership Dimensions on Student Outcomes

x
 CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

The impetus for this study was that children were achieving at different levels

depending on where they live in New Jersey, the United States, or the world. In my 14

years of public school administration, I have seen varying student performance levels

across schools and districts. This pattern is representative of a larger trend in the United

States. Enactment of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act (United States Department of

Education, 2001) placed increased pressure on school leaders to raise student

achievement. The NCLB Act was a reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary

Education Act (ESEA), enacted in 1965 to provide funds to elementary and secondary

schools to help raise academic standards and accountability. The NCLB Act was also

designed to help close the achievement gap between white and minority students. Under

the auspices of this act, states sought to close schools labeled ineffective if appropriate

standards were not met. To meet the goal of increased student achievement, effective

school leadership is critical.

While several schools across the country were meeting standards outlined by

states to meet the demands of NCLB, other schools were not meeting the demands. In her

book It’s Being Done, Karin Chenoweth (2007) documented the success of 15 schools

that have met the requirements of NCLB. It’s Being Done offered evidence that despite

race and socioeconomic status, students were learning. Chenoweth (2007) argued, “The

challenges these schools have overcome include ideas that poverty and discrimination are

insuperable barriers to academic achievement” (p. 226), and maintains the notion of

teaching students traditionally labeled “hard to teach is theoretically possible” (p. 226).

1
 According to Chenoweth (2007), a similar characteristic at all of the successful

schools was that principals played a critical and active role in leading their schools

toward academic achievement. She describes instructional tasks principals were involved

in such as regular classroom visits, examining student work, and meaningful professional

development. She argued, principals in these schools are not doing paperwork during the

school day. Chenoweth (2007) stated, “They have high-quality, dedicated, and competent

office and building staff who feel themselves part of the educational mission of the

school” (p. 225). Having competent office and building allowed principals to spend more

time on academics and less on building logistics, argued Chenoweth (2007).

Other researchers have also found that a principal’s involvement in instructional

tasks yielded positive outcomes for students (Liethwood et al., 2004; Waters et al., 2003).

Although the principal’s impact on student outcomes was indirect, these researchers

found that effective leadership by the principals yielded increased academic gains. One

of the more convincing of these findings came from Waters et al. (2003). In their meta-

analysis of over 30 years of research, they found a correlation between effective

leadership and student achievement.

The research on instructional leadership and the leadership practices outlined by

Waters et al. (2003) was the impetus for my study. Waters et al.’s, as well as the research

on effective schools, instructional leadership, and principal preparation programs, led me

to consider how well principals were prepared to take on leadership roles in schools. In

reviewing Educating School Leaders by Dr. Arthur Levine, former president of Teachers

College, Columbia University, I was dismayed to learn that Levine (2005) found several

programs to be inadequate. Levine’s summary was compelling. He stated, “At a time

2
when America’s schools face a critical demand for effective principals and

superintendents, the majority of the programs that prepare school leaders range in quality

from inadequate to poor” (p. 1).

Hess and Kelly (2007) also studied the importance of principal preparation

programs. Their study yielded concerns about whether such programs adequately

prepared principals to lead schools. The authors raised questions about principals’

preparedness to increase learning outcomes for children and their ability to address the

challenges associated with increasing learning outcomes. The queries by Hess and Kelly

(2007) were questions that I explored in this study.

To understand how principals were prepared to lead schools, the methodology of

this study involved asking principals questions related to their preparedness, as well as

any professional development they may have received. Answers to questions related to

how principals saw themselves as leaders of schools were solicited to understand how

principals conceptualized their roles. An examination of leadership practices was also

explored.

Research Problem

There are over 600 districts in New Jersey with varying student achievement

levels. It has been well documented that gaps in student achievement exist (Boykin &

Noguera, 2011; Darling-Hammond, 2010; Hancock, 2001; Rebell & Wolf, 2012). Several

researchers asserted the gaps are connected to poverty, yet other researchers argued that

students living in poverty have made gains in many districts (Boykin & Noguera, 2011;

Darling-Hammond, 2010; Hancock, 2001; Rebell & Wolf, 2012).

Two researchers who contended disparities exist because of class and

3
socioeconomic status were Rebell and Wolff (2012). They argued, “America will attain

its goals of equity in preparing students to function effectively as citizens and productive

workers only through a concerted effort to eliminate socioeconomic barriers” (p. 62).

However, this claim had been previously challenged by several researchers, including

Ronald Edmonds (1979), a former Director of Urban Studies. He challenged the Coleman

Report’s claim that schools had little to do with student achievement. Edmonds argued,

“We can, whenever and wherever we choose, successfully teach all children whose

schooling is of interest to us. We already know more than we need in order to do that.

Whether or not we do it must finally depend on how we feel about the fact that we

haven’t so far” (p. 23).

Like Edmonds, many other researchers believed principals were key players in

whether schools could make a difference in student achievement. This claim was

supported by several other researchers (Mitchell & Castle, 2005; Orr & Orphanos, 2011;

Waters et al., 2003), who maintained that effective principal leadership would result in

increased learning outcomes for students.

The roles and responsibilities of principals are extensive. In addition to managing

the administrative components of schools, principals are required to show leadership in

instructional activities. They must be able to identify teaching practices that will impact

learning. The increased expectations placed on principals to monitor instruction,

facilitate professional learning, and use data to drive instruction, raised an important

question for research: to what extent are new leaders provided with the tools that will

help them to serve as instructional leaders? The purpose of this qualitative study was to

4
understand principals’ leadership styles and practices and triangulate their perspective on

their preparation for this work with their actual practices.

Research Questions

The following research questions guided this study:

RQ1: How do early-career K-8 principals conceptualize their roles as school

leaders?

RQ1a: What role does instructional leadership play in this broader conception?

RQ2: What practices does the principal engage in on a regular basis?

RQ3: How have these principals learned about their roles as school leaders?

RQ3a: What did they learn about instructional leadership in their principal

preparation programs?

RQ3b: What other opportunities have they had to learn about school leadership?

Rationale for the Study

The following statement from a report commissioned by The Wallace Foundation

and produced by the Stanford Educational Leadership Institute outlines the importance of

this study.

Our nation’s underperforming schools and children are unlikely to succeed until
we get serious about leadership. As much as anyone in public education, it is the
principal who is in a position to ensure that good teaching and learning spreads
beyond single classrooms, and that ineffective practices aren’t simply allowed to
fester. Clearly, the quality of training principals receive before they assume their
positions, and the continuing professional development they get once they are
hired and throughout their careers has a lot to do with whether school leaders can
meet the increasingly tough expectations of these jobs (Darling-Hammond,
LaPointe, Myerson, Orr, & Cohen, 2007, p. 3).

In schools where effective leadership was taking place, leaders tended to engage

others in instructional leadership and other leadership practices throughout the school.
5
Because effective instructional leadership is critical to the success of schools, it was

important to understand how these practices were enacted. It was also important to

understand how principal preparation programs prepared leaders to provide the desired

leadership and ways to support principals’ development of these capacities as they moved

into their positions.

There has been a tremendous focus on school performance. Although teacher

practices and learning outcomes have been at the center of this focus, several studies have

found principal leadership to have a strong impact on student achievement. In a study

commissioned by The Wallace Foundation, the authors found “Leadership is second only

to classroom instruction among all school-related factors that contribute to what students

learn at school” (Liethwood et al., p. 7). This study examined how principals

conceptualized their leadership and the relationship between principal preparation

programs and its effect on principal leadership practice.

6
 PRINCIPALS’ PREPARATION
Knowledge/Skills PRINCIPALS’ CONCEPTIONS
Stance on Leadership Views Instructional Leadership
Management

PRINCIPALS’ PRACTICES
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT Knowledge
Time
Visibility
Nature of Interactions
with Students
Nature of Interactions
with Parents
Use of Resources
Other Opportunities to Learn Culture Building
Leadership

Figure 1. Conceptual Framework

7
Conceptual Framework

The primary focus of this study was K-8 principals’ conceptions of their roles and

their practices. By principals’ conception of their roles, I was particularly interested in the

extent to which they saw themselves as instructional leaders. Drawing on research

Wallace Foundation (2013), I define instructional leadership as the extent to which a

principal views oversight of teaching and learning as a primary role and takes effective

actions to influence instruction. Because improving instruction often involves learning on

the part of teachers (Seashore-Louis, Leithwood, Wahlstrom, and Anderson, 2010), I

believe instructional leadership involves facilitating professional learning communities,

where teachers and principals collaborate around mission, vision, and effective

instructional practices. I see this person as someone who is visible, approachable, and a

provider of instructional resources for teachers. An important component of instructional

leadership is the principal’s ability to collaborate with and develop teacher leadership.

While principals are expected to be good managers, the literature on effective schools

suggests that effective principals also need to act as instructional leaders (Seashore-Louis

et al., 2010).

In addition to examining principals’ conceptions of their roles, it was necessary to

examine their actual practices. While principals may have perceived their role to be

managers, instructional leaders, or disciplinarians, it was important to understand what

they currently did in their roles. Stronge (1988) argues, “While most would agree that

instructional leadership is critical in the realization of effective schools, it is seldom

prioritized. For example, among the many tasks performed by principals, only one-tenth

of their time is devoted to instructional leadership” (p. 34). Waters et al. (2003) also

8
found that there were 66 practices that were associated with effective leadership. Using

the Balanced Leadership Framework developed by Waters et al. (2003), five

responsibilities and sixteen practices were selected as a focus. These responsibilities were

selected because these practices were easily visible in school settings in the form of

agendas, programs, or information garnered from interviews. The following

responsibilities were listed as a focus:

• Culture

• Resources

• Involvement in curriculum, instruction and assessments

• Knowledge of curriculum, instruction and assessments

• Visibility

In addition, I think of principals’ practices as being comprised of the following

components: knowledge use; time use; visibility; nature of interactions with students;

nature of interactions with teachers; nature of interactions with parents; use of resources;

and culture building.

• Knowledge use: Principals bring a wide array of knowledge to their positions.

They know about schools, curriculum, management, and school finance,

among other things related to running a school. An instructional leader would

have deep knowledge about curriculum, instruction, and assessment practices

known to be effective, such as using small-group instruction to differentiate

learning, formative assessment techniques, as well as being familiar with the

curriculum standards for his/her setting.

9
• Time use: With the responsibilities of leading a school comes the ability to

prioritize roles and responsibilities. Principals must use time wisely, ensuring

that teaching and learning is the central focus of the school. To do this,

principals must involve teacher and parent leadership to effectively manage all

aspects of the school; for example, teaching and learning and building

management.

• Visibility: Principals must be seen throughout the day. As school leaders, they

must be seen as approachable and involved in the day-to-day activities of the

school. When principals are visible, they are able to ward off potential

discipline situations. In addition, a visible principal is able to ensure the

fidelity of classroom implementation of effective practices.

• Nature of interactions with students: Principals interact with students in

multiple ways. These interactions can occur during classroom visitations,

recess or lunch, and sometimes during meetings or awards presentations.

Principals can also interact with students throughout the day while walking

the halls. These interactions help students feel comfortable and safe in their

learning environment.

• Nature of interactions with teachers: Principals interact with teachers in a

myriad of ways. Teacher–principal interactions can ensue during grade-level

meetings, faculty meetings, and during one-on-one conferences related to

teacher evaluations or other aspects of instruction. Interactions can also take

place in informal ways, such as spontaneous classroom visits, school-wide

cultural activities, and other collaborative opportunities.

10
 • Nature of interactions with parents: Principals’ interact with parents in several

ways. The interactions range from disciplinary issues to collaborative

planning for school and district initiatives. In addition to the traditional

interactions through principals’ involvement with the PTA, parental

involvement in school- and district-wide committees can provide increased

opportunities for high-quality principal–parent interactions. Through the

advancement of technology, principals are able to communicate more

frequently with parents via e-mail, tweeting, Facebook or other social media

connections. Many principals also interact through weekly or monthly

newsletters, providing a sense of community.

• Use of resources: Principals ensure that teachers have the necessary resources

to carry out their instructional duties. This includes providing resources for

teaching, as well as professional development activities.

• Culture building: The principal develops a sense of collaboration by

developing shared mission, vision, and purpose. Open communication allows

every educator’s voice to be heard.

I am also interested in examining the factors that influence principals’

conceptions of their roles and their practices. The primary influences are likely to be

related to experiences principals received during internships with their mentoring

principals, a requirement of most principal preparation programs. Many principals have

also garnered experiences from attending conferences, workshops, and other forms of

professional development that have influenced their conceptions and practices. As I

interviewed participants for this study, I sought to determine:

11
 1) Whether principals felt that their graduate programs prepared them adequately

to be effective school leaders. Most programs provided students with courses

in curriculum, budgeting, law, and supervision. Programs required a brief

internship and an examination. The study assessed whether participants felt

that these types of experiences were sufficient.

2) Whether involvement in state-led leadership programs like the Leaders-to-

Leaders program in New Jersey provided the support and guidance principals

needed to be effective school leaders. The program pairs new and

inexperienced principals with veteran principals for additional mentoring and

for the purpose of learning about current trends in educational leadership.

3) Whether principals’ involvement in district-based or out-of-district

conferences and workshops provided the support and guidance needed for

them to become effective leaders.

I wanted to learn if any of the experiences listed above contributed to the principals’

knowledge, skills, and stance on what it meant to be an effective leader in a school.

This study sought to uncover the leadership conceptions and practices of four

early-career principals. It also attempted to connect the principals’ preparation to their

conceptions and practices. In Chapter Two, I situate my study in researching the roles and

responsibilities of principals, instructional leadership, and student achievement. To gain

insight on principal preparedness, I included research of principal preparedness and

principal learning. Chapter Three provides an overview of the methods and tools I used to

gather and analyze data. In Chapter Four, a detailed analysis of each principal’s

perception of their role is provided. Chapter Five provides an analysis of the principals’

12
preparation for school leadership. The final chapter discusses findings and provides

recommendations.

13
 CHAPTER TWO

LITERATURE REVIEW

In an era of high-stakes testing and accountability, there has been an increased

level of school accountability with a focus on increased instructional leadership. This

study was informed by theories of instructional leadership and how principals were

prepared to take on the role of school leader.

The literature review is organized into four sections. The first section discusses

research related to how principal leadership is conceptualized. The limited research in

this area validates the importance of this study. The second section outlines various

research studies on principals as instructional leaders. In this section, I discuss leading

researchers’ ideas about practices associated with strong instructional leadership. The

third section is related to principal learning. This section focuses on how professional

development has influenced principals’ learning. The final section is related to how

principals are prepared for principal leadership and the effectiveness of these programs.

Principals’ Conceptualization of their Roles as Leaders

There was limited research documenting how principals conceptualize their roles.

In 2008, Frick and Gutierrez examined high school principals’ perspectives on their

work. The study looked at principals’ moral and ethical practices unique to educational

leadership. The study included 11 principals from secondary schools in suburban, rural,

and urban settings.

The findings from Frick and Gutierrez (2008) indicated principals

overwhelmingly believed they had a legal responsibility to children. The principals

expressed the need to ensure “teaching and learning was an essential component of their

14
moral responsibility to students … ” (Frick & Gutierrez, 2008, p. 47). The principals in

this study expressed “a central part of their job was ensuring that pedagogy and programs

were in place so that students had the best possible learning opportunities and so

experienced the positive results of academic achievement” (Frick & Gutierrez, 2008, p.

45).

Mitchell and Castle (2005) also examined how principals perceived their roles as

instructional leaders. These researchers sought to understand how principals thought

about and carried out instructional leadership. They studied 12 elementary school

principals who were purposely chosen because of their “reputations for building

instructional capacity with staff and a history of generating effective school improvement

strategies” (p. 414). The study consisted of multiple interviews and observations of the

principals. During the study, Mitchell and Castle (2005) took field notes of principals’

actions and strategies used to engage teachers and students. They also took notes about

principals’ reflections on their days as they related to instructional leadership. They found

“considerable diversity of [principals’] views and actions concerning the instructional

role” (Mitchell & Castle, 2005, p. 416). Initial interviews with principals yielded a wide

range of understanding of instructional leadership. Furthermore, many principals in the

study viewed instructional leaders as curriculum experts and eliminated themselves from

the equation because they perceived themselves as lacking this expertise.

Summary

Although there are limited findings on how principals’ conceptualized their roles

as school leaders, results from these two studies indicated that teaching and learning is a

major conception for these principals. In both studies, the instructional capacity of the

15
principal was important. In the Mitchell and Castle (2005) study, the notion that

principals’ connected instructional leadership capacity with curriculum expertise may

offer some insights into principals and instructional leadership.

Principal’s Role as Instructional Leader

With the focus on NCLB and accountability, there has been immense

concentration on instructional leadership. According to an article published by the United

States Department of Education (2005), “A clearly defined understanding of instructional

leadership is imperative if that leadership is to be successful” (p. 1). The article lists key

elements of instructional leadership. The researchers argued that teaching and learning

must be at the top of the list of priorities, along with knowledge of scientifically based

reading research, curriculum and instruction, data analysis and school culture (United

States Department of Education, 2005).

MacNeill, Cavanagh, and Silcox (2003) also supported the notion of instructional

leadership but added, “A pedagogically oriented approach to the principalship is

essential” (p. 16). MacNeill et al. (2007) added pedagogic leadership is evidenced by the

following:

• Commitment to a shared vision and sense of mission about student

learning

• Application of expert knowledge about student learning and development

• The engagement and empowerment of teachers

• Creation and sharing of knowledge throughout the school

• Application of a re-culturing approach towards school improvement

16
 • Emphasis on pedagogic rather than administrative functions by the

principal

Several other studies (Liethwood, Patten, & Jantzi, 2010; Waters et al., 2003)

have also found instructional leadership to be an important factor in effective schools.

Additionally, in an earlier study on instructional leadership, Heck (1992) sought to

determine if principals’ instructional leadership practices were predictive of school

outcomes. Like several other researchers (Goldring, Huff, May, & Camburn, 2008;

Spillane, Halverson, & Diamond, 2004), Heck (1992) understood the importance of the

social contexts of schools, specifically as it related to school demographics. Therefore,

school demographics were an important moderating factor in studying principals’

effectiveness.

The sample from Heck’s (1992) study included California schools that had

consistently achieved above or below schools with similar demographics over a three-

year period. Twenty-three elementary and 17 high schools were identified. Included in

the sample were 15 high performing elementary schools and seven high performing high

schools. Principals and a random sample of six teachers from each school were selected

to complete a questionnaire assessing each principal’s level of commitment to specific

leadership practices. Participants used a 5-point Likert scale to rate the level of

implementation of each principal activity at their respective schools.

After completing a discriminant analysis, Heck (1992) found several instructional

leadership practices that were predictive of increased learning outcomes for students. The

findings from his study also offered important policy implications. He argued, “At least

some leadership activities of the principal appear to be good predictors of school

17
performance…the resulting profile of the principal’s instructional leadership provides

opportunities for changing the desired direction of the organization” (Heck, 1992, p. 29).

Heck’s study highlighted three key activities that supported his findings “…The

three that tend to dominate…are the amount of time principals spend directly observing

classroom practices, promoting discussion about instructional issues, and emphasizing

the use of test results for program improvement (Heck, 1992, p. 30). Subsequent research

also confirmed that there are several principal leadership practices that can result in

increased learning outcomes for students. In the Wallace Foundation’s research on

effective schools, Seashore-Louis, et al. (2010) found that there were effective leadership

practices inherent to the role of the principal. They noted, when coupled together, there

were five key practices that principals performed that would lead to positive learning

outcomes for children. Below is a list of the key practices:

1. Shaping a vision of academic success for all students, one based on high

standards;

2. Creating a climate hospitable to education in order for safety, a cooperative

spirit, and other foundations of fruitful interaction to prevail;

3. Cultivating leadership in others so that teachers and other adults assume their

part in realizing the school vision;

4. Improving instruction to enable teachers to teach at their best and students to

learn at their utmost; and managing people, data, and processes to foster

school improvement.

In addition to learning about the practices that principals engaged in daily,

Goldring et al.’s (2008) study examined the complexity of the principal’s role and how

18
schools’ context and principals’ individual characteristics influenced leadership practice.

They examined the practices of 46 principals in an urban southeastern district of the

United States. Twenty-nine elementary schools, nine middle schools, four high schools

and four alternative/special needs schools were included in the study. The researchers

studied how principals allocated their time, with an additional focus on individual

principal attributes and school contexts. Teacher surveys, principal surveys and the daily

logs of principals were used to help understand the factors that influenced principals’

practices.

The findings from Goldring et al. (2008) offered compelling information about

principals’ practices in schools. The study illuminated the notion that contextual

differences in schools appeared to be a factor in how principals executed leadership.

Based on data retrieved from principal activity logs, Goldring et al. (2008) grouped the

principals into three clusters. The clusters were eclectic, instructional leadership, and

student centered.

Goldring et al. (2008) found that principals in the eclectic group divided their time

across various areas and was mostly aligned with the literature related to the notion of

principals being fragmented (2008, p.344). These principals’ time was mostly evenly

distributed over multiple responsibilities, with the exception of more time on personnel

issues and less time on student affairs. Conversely, principals in the instructional

leadership and student-centered clusters focused their attention primarily in one area of

responsibility (Goldring 2008, p.345). Principals in the instructional leadership cluster

spent the most time on activities related to the following:

• Monitoring and observing instruction

19
 • School restructuring or reform

• Supporting teachers’ professional development

• Analyzing student data or work

• Modeling instructional practices

• Teaching a class

Principals in the student-centered cluster spent the majority of their time on student

affairs. Student affairs included activities like attendance, discipline, counseling and

hall/cafeteria monitoring.

An additional key finding in Goldring et al.’s (2008) study was related to the

eclectic principals’ ability to devote time to many different areas throughout the day. The

findings revealed that eclectic principals worked “in schools where students come from

less disadvantaged backgrounds, and teachers hold higher expectations for student

achievement and [where] students are more engaged” (p. 349). A surprise finding was

related to the amount of time that principals in low-income schools spent on instructional

leadership activities. According to the researchers, “principals working with students

more at-risk focus their activities on instructional leadership and student affairs”

(Goldring et al., 2008, p. 349). This is most likely due to the many reform efforts

targeted at schools with low achievement levels. In addition, students from

disadvantaged backgrounds may warrant more services that are not required for students

from more privileged backgrounds.

Goldring et al.’s (2008) study offered compelling reasons to further examine the

principal’s role and how leadership is distributed across schools. It further highlighted

the need to engage teachers and others in school wide leadership practices. While
20
principals remain the primary sources of leadership in schools, teachers and others can

serve in informal leadership roles throughout the school. This is particularly necessary

due to the myriad responsibilities of the principals. Involving other stakeholders also

ensures buy-in to the overall mission and vision of the school.

Among the leadership practices associated with instructional leadership and

increased learning outcomes for students, teacher leadership appears to have received

some prominence. In a report on principal leadership, Seashore-Louis et al. (2010) found

a strong relationship between collaborative leadership and effective schools. The report

identified distributed leadership as a factor in schools that showed increases in learning

outcomes. Seashore-Louis et al. (2010) reported, “Compared with lower-achieving

schools, higher-achieving schools provided all stakeholders with greater influence on

decisions” (p. 35). In their report, Seashore-Louis et al. (2010) indicated, “The higher

performance of these schools might be explained as a consequence of the greater access

they have to collective knowledge and wisdom embedded within their communities” (p.

35). The report also concluded that, “When principals and teachers share leadership,

teachers’ working relationships with one another are stronger and student achievement is

higher” (Seashore-Louis et al., 2010, p. 282).

Spillane, Halverson, and Diamond (2004) also understood the importance of

sharing leadership, however, they focused on leadership from a distributed perspective.

Their primary argument was related to the idea that “leaders, followers and situations” (p.

10) are key to effective leadership in schools. They argued, “rather than seeing

leadership practice as solely a function of an individual’s ability, skill, charisma, and/or

cognition…it is best understood as a practice distributed over leaders, followers, and their

21
situation” (Spillane et at., 2004, p. 11). In framing their distributive perspective, Spillane

et al. (2004) offered the following definition of school leadership:

We define school leadership as identification, acquisition, allocation,

coordination, and use of the social, material, and cultural resources necessary to
establish the conditions for the possibility of teaching and learning. Leadership
involves mobilizing school personnel and clients to notice, face, and take on tasks
of changing instruction as well as harnessing and mobilizing the resources needed
to support the transformation of teaching and learning. (p. 12)

Like Goldring et al. (2008), Spillane et al. (2004) understood that school

leadership activities were related to contextual factors. Hence, they argued that

leadership activities were a function of situations and should not be managed by a single

person or people with specific titles. Although Spillane et al. (2004) acknowledged that

the role of the principal was important in schools, their distributed leadership framework

brought forth the importance of moving beyond specific “roles, strategies, and traits of

the individuals who occupy formal leadership positions to investigate how the practice of

leadership is stretched over leaders, followers, and the material and symbolic artifacts in

the situation” (p. 27).

In addition to determining the specific practices that would yield increased gains

for schools, some researchers (Robinson, Lloyd & Rowe, 2008; Waters et al., 2004) have

highlighted the level of impact that specific leadership practices have on student

achievement. Waters et al. (2004) performed a meta-analysis of research from 30 years of

studies. They identified 21 leadership responsibilities and 66 practices that fostered

balanced leadership. In their meta-analysis, Waters et al. (2004) quantified the effects of

leadership on student achievement. They found that there was a substantial link between

principal leadership and student achievement. Waters et al. (2004) argued, “the average

effect size between leadership and student achievement is .25” (p. 2). They concluded,
22
“We have identified 66 leadership practices embedded in the 21 leadership

responsibilities, each with statistically significant relationships to student achievement”

(p. 2).

Robinson et al. (2008) also found that school leaders impact student outcomes.

However, in their 2008 paper on the impact of leadership on student outcomes, they

focused on the type of leadership practices that impacted student outcomes. In their 2008

meta-analysis, they first compared the level of impact between instructional and

transformational leadership. Next, they identified the specific leadership dimensions and

calculated their relationship to student outcomes (Robinson et al., 2008).

To gather data for their meta-analysis, Robinson et al. (2008) found 27 studies

that indicated links between leadership type and student outcomes. The three leadership

types they examined were instructional leadership, transformational leadership, and other

types of leadership. In their analysis, they found there was a “considerable difference in

mean effect size between the three types of leadership” (p. 655). The authors argued,

"This confirms the utility of analyzing the impact of types of leadership rather than of

leadership in general" (Robinson et al. 2008, p. 655). The findings also revealed

"instructional leadership on student outcomes is 3 to 4 times greater than that of

transformational leadership" (Robinson et al., p. 655). This claim supported the notion

that instructional leadership had a powerful effect on learning outcomes.

The second part of the Robinson et al. (2008) study examined specific leadership

practices. Listed below are the instructional practices they identified.

• ESTABLISHING GOALS AND EXPECTATIONS

23
 Includes the setting, communicating, and monitoring of learning goals, standards,

and expectations, and the commitment of staff and others in the process so that

there is clarity and consensus about goals.

• STRATEGIC RESOURCING

Involves aligning resources selection and allocation with priority teaching goals.

Includes provision of appropriate expertise through staff recruitment.

• PLANNING, COORDINATING, AND EVALUATING TEACHING AND THE

CURRICULUM

Direct involvement in the support and evaluation of teaching through regular

classrooms visits and provision of formative and summative feedback to teachers.

Direct oversight of curriculum from school-wide coordination across classes in

year levels and alignment to school goals.

• PROMOTING AND PARTICIPATING IN TEACHER LEARNING AND

DEVELOPMENT

Leadership that not only promotes but also directly participates with teachers in

formal or informal professional learning.

• ENSURING AN ORDERLY AND SUPPORTIVE ENVIRONMENT

Protecting time for teaching and learning by reducing external pressures and

interruptions in establishing an orderly and supportive environment both inside

and outside classrooms (Robinson et al. (2008, p. 656)

The study looked at the degree of impact the practice had on student achievement.

The dimensions were derived from 12 of 27 studies found during their research.

According to Robinson et al. (2008), each dimension had varying effects related to
24
student outcomes. Dimension one, establishing goals and expectations, yielded a

moderately large effect on student achievement. Robinson et al. (2008) argued, “In

schools with higher achievement or higher achievement gains, academic goal focus is

both a property of leadership and the quality of school organization” (p. 659).

Table 1shows the dimensions and their impact on student outcomes. As

observable in the table 1, dimension four, promoting and participating in teacher learning

and development, had the largest effect. Robinson et al. (2008) argued, “This is a large

effect and provides some empirical support for calls to school leaders to be actively

involved with the teachers as the “leading learner” of their school” (p. 663). Dimension

five, ensuring an orderly and supportive environment, had the smallest impact on student

outcomes.

Table 2.1
The Impact of Five Leadership Dimensions on Student Outcomes (n = 199)
Leadership Dimension Effect Sizes (n) Mean
From Studies (n) Effect Size
1 Establishing goals and expectations 49 effect sizes from 7 0.42
studies
2 Strategic resourcing 11 effect sizes from 7 0.31
studies
3 Planning, coordinating, and evaluating 80 effect sizes from 9 0.42
teaching and the curriculum studies
4 Promoting and participating in teacher 17 effect sizes from 6 0.84
learning and development studies
5 Ensuring an orderly and supportive 42 effect sizes from 8 0.27
environment studies
(Robinson, Lloyd, & Rowe, 2008, p. 657)

Grissom, Loeb and Master (2013), conducted a longitudinal studying the

connection between specific leadership behaviors and school performance. Their study

illuminated the amount of time principals spent on an instructional practice and its impact

on student achievement. Their findings suggested that principals’ instructional activities

25
had no impact on students’ achievement unless the instructional activity was also

associated with teacher professional development or coaching. This finding suggests that

instructional practices in isolation will not yield positive effects on student achievement.

Summary

In summary, according to these authors (MacNeill et al., 2007; Mitchell & Castle, 2005),

teaching and learning are key aspects of the role of the principal. Goldring et al.’s (2008)

research showed that principals’ leadership activities were contextual; in schools with

high numbers of students with low socioeconomic statuses, principals tended to focus

more on instructional leadership. This finding is most likely associated with the demands

to increase learning outcomes for disadvantaged students.

Because teaching and learning are top priorities for instructional leaders,

principals who focus their attention in these areas are likely to have increased learning

outcomes for students. Although, as we learned from Grisson et al. (2013), isolated

instructional leadership practices, without coaching or professional development, will not

yield positive student learning outcomes.

Principal Learning

Researchers have argued that principal learning is essential to the development of

instructional leadership and increased student achievement (Dyer, 2008; McCay, 2001).

According to Karen Dyer (2008), former president of the National Staff Development

Council (NSDC), included in NSDC’s purpose is the following quote: “every educator

engages in effective professional learning every day so every student achieves” (p. 7).

Dyer (2008) argued that this learning is also intended for principals, stating, “School site

leaders cannot hope to sustain momentum in doing all that is required to reach high levels
26
of student achievement if they give little attention to their own professional growth (p. 7).

Tuscan Unified School District (TUSD) also found principal learning to be important to

learning outcomes for students. In Harriet Arzu Scarborough’s 2008 article, “A Winding

Path: Tucson Follows Circuitous Route Toward Professional Learning,” she chronicled

the district’s path toward creating opportunities for professional learning for principals.

At the center of TUSD’s plan for improving student achievement was a plan directed

toward principal learning. Scarborough (2008) TUSD’s plan for principal learning

included four main components: helping principals understand what effective instruction

looked like, assistance to principals in coaching teachers, coaching for principals in

developing instructional leadership skills, and professional reading.

Through their work at the Annenberg Institute for School Reform, Evans and

Mohr (1999) shared their core beliefs about professional development for principals. In

their article, Evans and Mohr asked the following questions:

• Can principals’ professional development truly improve principals’ practice?

• Can we encourage new behaviors that allow principals to make a genuine

difference in their schools?

• Can we support principals as they strive to be grounded and focused, bold,

and unafraid? (Evans & Mohr, 1999, p. 530)

Evans and Mohr discussed seven core beliefs about principal professional

development. They believed that “Principals’ learning is personal and yet takes place

most effectively while working in groups” (p. 531). They argued that while principal

learning is individualized, the learning is more effective while working in groups. Evans

and Mohr stated, “Work in groups reinforces the value of building on one another’s

27
thinking and of being willing to let go of earlier thinking in order to construct knowledge

together” (p. 531).

They also believed that in order to strengthen learning for teachers and students,

principals must also focus on their own learning. During Evans and Mohr’s (1999) work

with groups of principals, they were involved in examining student work for the purpose

of understanding their curriculum responsibility and the level of its importance. They

held that, in order to make a positive impact on teaching and learning, principals must be

learners. In belief three Evans and Mohr argued that principals must “push to move

beyond assumptions” by having text-based discussions on literature related to effective

practices. These rich discussions allowed principals to center their conversations on new

knowledge rather than “simply telling stories” (p. 531). The fourth belief is that

“Principals need time to listen, reflect, and design work for their groups” (p. 532). The

idea is that, in addition to acquiring new skills, principals must be thoughtful and

reflective of their learning, planning and the “implications of the plan” (p. 532). In belief

five, the authors maintained “it takes strong leadership in order to have truly democratic

learning” (p. 532). According to the authors, teamwork and democracy are the hallmarks

of belief five. Belief six states, “Rigorous planning is necessary for flexible and

responsive implementation” (p. 532). The authors argue that planning is essential to

connecting the work around goals and learning. In the final belief, Evans and Mohr state,

“New learning depends on protected dissonance” (p. 532). The authors contend that a

safe place to learn together is important and that principals must also understand that they

must reexamine their beliefs and be willing to engage in uncomfortable conversations.

McLaughlin and Talbert (2006) also discussed the importance of principals as

28
learners. They argued that principals are usually left out of the equation when new reform

efforts are planned. These researchers discussed professional opportunities in New York,

Philadelphia, and San Diego. In these districts, structured professional development

opportunities were organized for principals. According to McLaughlin and Talbert

(2006), because of these professional development initiatives, the quality of observations,

the amount of time spent on instructional leadership, and the depth of feedback given to

teachers have increased.

Summary

This section highlights the importance of professional learning for principals.

According to researchers (Dyer, 2008; McCay, 2001), when principals are involved in

professional learning, the learning outcomes are increased for students. The overarching

theme was that in order for schools to improve or maintain effectiveness, professional

learning for principals must be a focus. In addition to the learning that must happen for

teachers, principals must also reflect on their learning, as well as learn from their

colleagues. When principals engage in professional learning, the amount of time spent on

instructional leadership and the depth of feedback to teachers increase.

Principal Preparation for Instructional Leadership

Schools and school districts are not the only institutions being held accountable

for student achievement and learning outcomes. There has been an increasing amount of

literature surrounding the roles of colleges and universities in providing effective

preparation for school leaders. One of the most significant studies comes out of Teachers

College, Columbia University. Arthur Levine, a former president of the college,

conducted an examination of leadership programs throughout the country. Levine (2005)

29
argued, “In a rapidly changing environment, principals and superintendents no longer

serve primarily as supervisors. They've been called to lead in the redesign of their schools

and school systems” (Levine, 2005, p. 12).

Levine’s (2005) sample included deans, alumni and principals from over 1,000

schools of education. Overall, Levine’s study found that educational administrative

programs and schools of education were not successful. He used the following criteria to

determine the effectiveness of the schools’ programs:

• Purpose: The program’s purpose is explicit, focusing on the education of

practicing school leaders; the goals reflect the needs of today’s leaders, schools,

and children; and the definition of success is tied to student learning in the schools

administered by the graduates of the program.

• Curricular coherence: The curriculum mirrors program purposes and goals. The

curriculum is rigorous, coherent, and organized to teach the skills and knowledge

needed by leaders at specific types of schools and at the various stages of their

careers.

• Curricular balance: The curriculum integrates the theory and practice of

administration, balancing study in university classrooms and work in schools with

successful practitioners.

• Faculty composition: The faculty includes academics and practitioners, ideally the

same individuals, who are expert in school leadership, up to date in their field,

intellectually productive, and firmly rooted in both the academy and the schools.

Taken as a whole, the faculty’s size and fields of expertise are aligned with the

curriculum and student enrollment.

30
 • Admissions: Admissions criteria are designed to recruit students with the capacity

and motivation to become successful school leaders.

• Degrees: Graduation standards are high and the degrees awarded are appropriate

to the profession.

• Research: Research carried out in the program is of high quality, driven by

practice, and useful to practitioners and/or policy makers.

• Finances: Resources are adequate to support the program.

• Assessment: The program engages in continuing self-assessment and

improvement of its performance. (Levine, 2005, p. 13)

Levine’s (2005) study found that many of the schools were not successful on any of the

assessed criteria. Levine argued,

Their curricula are disconnected from the needs of leaders and their schools. Their
admission standards are among the lowest in American graduate schools. Their
professoriate is ill equipped to educate school leaders. Their programs pay
insufficient attention to clinical education and mentorship by successful
practitioners. The degrees they award are inappropriate to the needs of today’s
schools and school leaders. Their research is detached from practice. And their
programs receive insufficient resources. (p.23)

Levine (2005) also found that there were a significant number of off-campus

programs. He said, “In theory, such programs are desirable, but in practice they are often

of lower quality than their campus-based counterparts and their faculties are composed

disproportionately of adjunct professors. He also noted that there were a number of weak

non-research schools “pushing to award doctorate degrees in educational administration”

(p. 24). Through interviews of schools of education faculties, Levine found that there

was a push to offer doctoral degrees to increase the stature of schools of educations. He

said the respondents in the study informed him that the degree in educational

31
administration was the “easiest to win state approval” (p. 24).

Levine’s (2005) findings also revealed that the “competition for students among

educational programs is driving down program quality” (p. 24). According to Levine,

many of the students who attended these programs were mainly interested in gaining

access to credits. Hence, graduate programs were forced to lower admission standards

and program quality to attract students who were interested in earning quick degrees to

gain salary increases in their school systems.

According to Levine (2005), school districts and states should discontinue the

practice of salary advancement through credits. He further suggested adding a structure

that only rewards teachers and administrators for course credits specifically related to

their current positions. Levine believed this would eliminate the need to water down

educational administration degree programs.

Levine’s report also recommended that the educational administration programs

be reviewed at the college and university level. He believed that additional resources

should be included in schools of educations’ budgets to improve the quality of their

programs. He added that the doctoral programs should be reserved for students interested

in research and not practitioners in school or district administrators (Levine, 2005).

Levine believed that doctoral programs in education were necessary for school

leadership, as an alternative, he recommended a certificate program for students

interested in becoming superintendents.

Margaret Terry Orr and Stelios Orphanos (2011) studied whether graduate-level

preparation programs influenced the effectiveness of school leaders. Orr and Orphanos

examined previous research on instructional leadership and effective principal

32
preparation programs. They reviewed survey research that compared 65 principals who

had graduated from one of four exemplary leadership programs to a sample of 111

principals. They came up with the following questions:

• How does principals’ completion of an exemplary leadership preparation

program, consisting of both high-quality features and internships, relate to the

acquisition of knowledge about instruction and organization leadership and

the use of effective leadership practices?

• What is the relationship for principals among effective leadership practices,

school improvement progress, and school effectiveness climate? How are

these relationships moderated by the degree of district support and the extent

of challenging problems and students in poverty?

• What is the contribution of types and quality of leadership preparation to

variations in school improvement progress and school effectiveness climate?

The results of their study indicated that there was a relationship between program

type and leadership practices. However, there is a stronger relationship between program

and internship quality and leadership practices (Orr & Orphanos, 2011). Their results

further indicated, “This influence is indirect, mediated through the extent to which

graduates learn about organizational leadership” (Orr & Orphanos, 2011, p. 47). The

findings illuminate the idea that principals’ leadership capacity is correlated to the

knowledge gained about organizational and instructional leadership in preparation

programs.

Linda Darling-Hammond et al. (2010) also wrote about the importance of

principal preparation. In their 2010 book, Preparing Principals for a Changing World,

33
they discussed the findings of their study on effective school leadership programs. The

study sought to find answers to the following questions:

• What do we know about how to develop principals who can successfully

transform schools and lead instructional improvement?

• What distinguishes programs that are the most successful in recruiting,

preparing, and developing strong school leaders?

• What are the most effective ways for states, districts, and other funders to

support programs that develop leaders who have the knowledge and skills to

transform schools and school communities to meet the learning needs of all

children? (Darling-Hammond, Meyerson, LaPointe, & Orr, 2010, p. 5)

To answer the questions listed above, Darling-Hammond et al. (2010) studied the

pre-service and in-service preparation programs for several schools. As part of the study,

Darling-Hammond et al. (2010) conducted walk-throughs at schools and conducted

interviews with teachers and superintendents.

After three years of research, Darling-Hammond et al. (2010) concluded, “We are

convinced that some programs are more effective than others, and we find that the

approaches and design features of these programs and the conditions supporting them

follow systematic patterns” (p. 80). The multiple-year study found that it was possible to

develop principals who were able to engage in practices, such as “shared vision and

practices, leading instructional improvement, developing organizational capacity and

managing change” (Darling-Hammond et al., 2010, p. 180).

Darling-Hammond et al. (2010) also found that there were some common

practices in effective pre-service programs they studied. They were as follows:

34
• A comprehensive and coherent curriculum aligned to state and professional

standards: in particular, the national Council for Accreditation of Teacher

Education/Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium Standards, which

emphasized instructional leadership.

• A program philosophy and curriculum that emphasize leadership of

instruction and school improvement.

• Active, student-centered instruction employing pedagogies that facilitate the

integration of theory and practice and stimulate reflection, such as problem-

based learning, action research, field-based projects, journal writing, and

portfolios that feature ongoing feedback along with self, peer, and faculty

assessment.

• Faculty who are knowledgeable in their subject areas, including expert

scholars and practitioners who have had experience in K-12 teaching and

school administration.

• Social and professional support in the form of cohort structure, as well as

formalized mentoring and advisement from expert principals.

• Vigorous, carefully targeted recruitment and selection processes that

proactively bring expert teachers with potential for leadership into the

principalship.

• Well-designed and supervised administrative internships that provide

opportunities for candidates to engage in leadership responsibilities for

substantial periods of time under the tutelage of expert veterans (Darling-

Hammond et al., 2010, pp. 181–82).

35
Summary

This section outlined the importance of how principals are prepared to take on the

role of school leadership. Beginning with Levine’s 2005 article, outlining the most

effective principal preparation programs throughout the country, this section provided

evidence of the importance of preparing principals to meet the increasing needs of the

21st century, which included being “sound in pedagogical practices and curriculum

design, recognize outstanding practices, know how to analyze data, and how to create and

sustain professional learning cultures” (Reams, 2010, p. 439).

36
 CHAPTER THREE

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Introduction

The purpose of this qualitative study was to learn about how principals

conceptualize their roles as school leaders. A secondary purpose was to learn how each

principal was prepared for school leadership. This chapter is presented in five sections.

The first section provides a detailed description of the methodology used and the

rationale for its use. The second section provides details on the participants in this study

and the criteria used to select the participants. The third section provides an overview of

the data collection process. The fourth section provides information on the analysis of the

data. The final section provides a detailed description of the research design of this study.

Included is the rationale for its use, the setting, the participants, the instruments, and the

data analysis.

In addition to learning about the conceptions and preparation of principals, this

study sought to understand principals’ leadership practices. It further examined how

principals’ perspective of their preparation for this work was aligned with their actual

practices.

The following research questions are addressed in this study:

RQ1: How do early-career K-8 principals conceptualize their roles as school

leaders?

RQ1a: What role does instructional leadership play in this broader conception?

RQ2: What practices does the principal engage in on a regular basis?

RQ3: How have these principals learned about their role as school leaders?

37
 RQ3a: What did they learn about instructional leadership in their principal

preparation program?

RQ3b: What other opportunities have they had to learn about school leadership?

Qualitative Research

This study used a qualitative approach. According to Creswell (2003),

“Qualitative researchers tend to use open-ended questions so that participants can express

their views” (p. 9). Creswell (2003) further added, “The process of qualitative research is

largely inductive, with the inquirer generating meaning from the data collected in the

field” (p. 9). This study was particularly poised for qualitative research due the

researcher’s ability to uncover the relationship and experiences of the principals.

Maxwell (2005) said, “the ‘data’ in a qualitative study can include virtually anything that

you see, hear, or that is otherwise communicated to you while conducting the study” (p.

79). This was true of this study. During the winter of 2013 data collection began, both

formally and informally, from four principals. The data collected in this study came

primarily from interviews and observations; however, information was also garnered

from informal conversations and data collected from the school site. Data collected from

observations were recorded on contact and document summary forms. Principals also

completed activity logs over a one-week period.

In addition to understanding how principals were prepared for instructional

leadership, I compared how the practices that principals espoused to were enacted in their

schools. The data for Table 3 was gathered primarily through principal interviews,

although some of the data was garnered from on-site visits and documents/artifacts

38
collected from the schools. The documents and artifacts included grade level/faculty

agendas and minutes, as well as walk-through data.

Study Setting

The four principals in this study all worked for Greenville Public Schools1, a mid-

sized urban district located in the Mid-Atlantic region of the United States. At the time of

the study, the district served approximately 7,000 students in 15 schools. According to

district data, 60% of the students were Latino, 39% were African American and 1% were

described as other. Over the past several years, there had been a steady increase in the

number of Latinos and English Language Learners (ELL). At the time of this study,

approximately 60% of Greenville’s students were eligible for free or reduced lunch. In

addition, 15% of students received special education services.

Although the median income level and home values, as reported by city-data.com

(2013), were approximately $52,000 and $260,000, respectively, many of the children

who attended the Greenville Public Schools hailed from lower income homes and

apartment complexes; in addition, many of the families were far below the median

income, with most qualifying for free or reduced lunch.

There were several English Language Learners (ELL) represented throughout the

district. Each year, the district has received several students from Spanish speaking

countries. Many of the students who arrived each year were new to the United States and

often had limited or no schooling. The students generally entered the school system

several grade levels behind their developmentally appropriate grade. In six of the 10

1 Greenville Public Schools is a pseudonym

39
elementary schools, there were 60% or more ELL and Latino students. The ELL and

Latino student populations were not represented to this degree at the other four

elementary schools in the district, where the majority populations were African American

students.

This study included four principals from the Greenville Public School District.

While the schools of these principals share similar demographics, there were varying

achievement levels and programming amongst the schools. In addition, three of the four

schools were designated as schools in need of improvement. Schools or subgroups

(student grouped by special needs, race or socioeconomic status) that score in the lowest

5% of the state on the statewide assessment receive this designation.

Participant Selection

The participants in this study were selected from principals with experience

ranging from one to five years. They were middle and elementary principals in a mid-

sized urban school district in the Mid-Atlantic part of the United States. The participants

were selected based on their years of experience, as well as their willingness to

participate in the study. To understand how principals’ preparation programs prepared

students for school leadership, I selected principals from diverse preparation programs.

Four participants were selected for interviews. The purpose of limiting the study to four

participants was to gain an in-depth understanding of how principals were prepared to

lead schools. In order to ensure heterogeneity, principals were selected after completing a

brief profile sheet listing the number of years as a principal and type of preparation

program.

40
Bruce Johnson

The first principal interviewed for this study was Bruce Johnson. He had been a

principal at Parker Elementary School for three years. Bruce participated in traditional

teacher preparation and school leadership programs. Prior to becoming a principal, he

taught for 8 years and served as a vice principal in Greenville.

Parker Elementary School is nestled between local businesses and stores. Of the

approximately 400 students who attended the school, 74% were Latino and the remaining

students were African American. In addition, 47% of the students who attended Parker

were ELL and 17% received services for disabilities. The school was also designated as

a Title I school with over 90% of the students who qualified for free or reduced lunch.

Based on student achievement data for Parker Elementary, the school had

consistently performed at low levels on state assessments. The most recent assessments

showed that 43% of the students were proficient in math, while only 26% were proficient

in literacy. Bruce’s school significantly lagged behind in achievement when compared

with other state and “like” schools. “Like” schools are defined as schools in the state

with similar demographics. Parker had been designated as a school in need of

improvement because the school’s ELL students performed at the lowest levels in the

state on state assessments.

Allison Miller

Allison Miller, the second principal in the study, was also in her third year as

principal of Towson Academy. She participated in a traditional teacher preparation

program and earned her master’s degree in teaching. She received her principal’s

certification after taking additional courses in school law and finance. Prior to becoming

41
a principal, Allison served as a teacher for 17 years. In addition, she served as a

supervisor and vice principal in Greenville Public Schools.

At the start of this study, Towson Academy served middle school students. The

school increased their enrollment to include high school students. The school served a

diverse population with an enrollment of about 374 students. Fifty-five percent of the

students who attended the school were African American, 42% were Latino and 3% of

the students were represented by other nationalities. Seventy-one percent of the students

who attended this school received free or reduced lunch. In addition, 7% of the students

received services for disabilities.

While the demographics of this school were similar to other schools in this study,

the process in which students entered the school was selective. The school accepted

students through an application process. Students applied to multiple programs within

the school. The school offered an honors program, as well as several elective programs.

The programs consisted of visual arts, performing arts, dance, computer graphics and

vocal music. Because the school’s focus was on the arts, students arrived at various

academic levels.

Since the school’s inception, in 2010, the school had shown consistent growth in

Language Arts Literacy, although they had struggled on the state assessments in

mathematics. In general, students who entered below grade level in the 7th grade, showed

dramatic improvement by Grade 8. According to data received from the school, in 2012,

55% of the seventh graders at Towson Academy were proficient, however, when those

students became eighth graders, 85% of the students were proficient or advanced

proficient. Current data revealed that overall, 68% of the students were proficient in

42
literacy, while only 47% were proficient in math. According to the information retrieved

on the school, the students’ performance in Language Arts Literacy was high, when

compared with students across the state and very high when compared to like schools.

Michael Jones

Michael Jones, the third principal in the study, had been a supervisor for several

years. Prior to his role at Johnson Elementary School, he had served mostly in high

schools. In addition, before becoming an educator, Michael worked in the business

sector. He became a teacher through his state’s alternative method and taught for five

years. In addition, he participated in an accelerated program to become a school

administrator. Before becoming an elementary principal, he also served as a supervisor

for alternative education and a high school vice principal.

At the start of this study, Michael was in his fourth year as a principal. His school

is centrally located in the city’s business district. The student population hailed from low-

income housing in the vicinity of the school. Unlike the other schools in the district, that

have large lot sizes and are surrounded by grass and trees, Johnson Elementary is on a

smaller lot and lacked the greenery that existed on the other campuses.

There were approximately 320 students housed at Johnson Elementary School.

The student population was represented by 83% Latino students and 17% African

American students. Michael’s school was also a Title I school with 93% of the students

qualifying for free or reduced lunch. In addition, 62% were ELL and receive additional

instruction in English, while 12% of the students received services for learning

disabilities or special needs.

43
 Johnson Elementary had also been identified by the state as a school in need of

improvement school. The school had been identified because the students’ overall

performance, on assessments, was one of the lowest 5% in the state. The most recent

state assessments indicated that only 19% of the students at Johnson Elementary were

proficient in Literacy and 48% were proficient in mathematics. According to data

retrieved on the school, Johnson Elementary students’ academic performance

significantly lagged behind like schools in the Greenville District, as well as all schools

throughout the state.

Randy Green

The final principal in the study was Randy Green. Randy was in his first year as

principal of Maple Middle School. Prior to taking on that role, Randy had been a teacher

for eight years and a middle school vice principal in a neighboring district for 10 years.

Maple Middle School had approximately 450 students. The school is located on the East

side and received students from the five elementary schools in that area. Like Johnson

and Parker, the Latino populations were highly represented in the school. The Maple

School student population was represented by 56% Latinos and 44% African Americans.

The school was also a Title I school with 83% of students qualifying for free or reduced

lunch. In addition, 22% of the students received services for a disability and 13% of the

students were ELL.

Like Johnson and Parker, Maple Middle School had been identified as a school in

need of improvement. The school’s students with disabilities sub-group performed at the

lowest level in the state. According to information received from the district, Maple

lagged in comparison to like schools and schools across the state. On recent state

44
assessments, 58% of the students were proficient in literacy and 51% were proficient in

math. The school’s 11% proficiency rate on state assessments, for students with

disabilities, landed the school on the list for schools in need of improvement.

Data Sources

The primary source of data was from semi-structured interviews with principals.

The interview protocol was disseminated to the participants prior to the questioning, so

that careful thought could be given to responding to the questions. Other sources of data

included artifacts from the setting related to instructional meetings, faculty meetings,

planning, and professional development. Data was also gathered from field notes written

during site observations.

The matrix presented in Table 3 illustrates how the various research strategies and

data sources in my study mapped onto my research questions.

Table 3.1
Research Strategies and Data Sources

Needs Research Questions Data Sources Outcomes

A better understanding RQ1. How do early-career K-8
of how principals see principals conceptualize their
their roles as leaders of roles as school leaders?
a school.
An understanding of RQ1a. What role does
how instructional instructional leadership play in
leadership is enacted in this broader conception?
schools.
RQ2. What practices does the
principal engage in on a regular
basis?
An understanding of RQ2. What instructional
the instructional leadership practices does the
practices that principals principal engage in on a regular
engage in. basis?
An understanding of RQ3. How have these principals
how principals are learned about their role as
prepared for leadership. school leaders?
An understanding of RQ3a. What did they learn
how principals are about instructional leadership in
prepared for leadership. their principal preparation
program?
Open-ended Interview An analysis of how each
Review of Artifacts principal sees his/her role as a
Field notes school leader
Open-ended Interview A description of how principals
Review of Artifacts enact leadership in schools
Principal Leadership Log
Protocol
Field notes
Open-ended Interview A description of how principals
Review of Artifacts enact leadership in schools
Principal Leadership Log
Protocol
Field notes
Open-ended Interview An analysis of how principals are
prepared for leadership and how
this preparation informs their
practice
Open-ended Interview A description and analysis of the
principals’ learning

45
 RQ3b. What other opportunities
have they had to learn about
school leadership?

Instruments

The instruments used in this study were a Principal Interview Protocol and a

Principal Leadership Log. The interview protocol used semi-structured open-ended

questions to capture the principals’ views and thoughts on principal leadership,

preparation and practice. The leadership log was designed to record the actual practices

of principals in a specific week.

The instruments were designed in an effort to triangulate the data from the study.

According to Maxwell (2005), “triangulation reduces the risk that your conclusions will

reflect only the systematic biases or limitations of a specific source or method, and allows

you to gain a broader and more secure understanding of the issues you are investigating”

(pp. 93–94).

Interviews

In order to obtain an in-depth understanding of how principals saw their roles,

how they were prepared, and the practices they prioritized, semi-structured open-ended

interviews took place with each principal. The interview protocol included 11 open-

ended questions. Interviewing principals in their school setting allowed me to observe the

school and gain insight into the daily practices of each principal. Open-ended and follow-

up questions were used to solicit in-depth responses to the questions. The interview

questions were designed to assist me in gaining an understanding of the principals’

preparation, conceptions of their roles, as well as the practices they prioritized and

valued. The participants were also asked questions about their background and

46
experiences (see Appendix B).

Documents and Artifacts

A variety of documents in the school setting were examined, including but not

limited to agendas and minutes from curriculum/planning meetings, faculty meetings,

formal and informal walk-throughs, and observations. I collected this information to aid

in the triangulation of the data sources. For example, if principals said they regularly

meet with grade-level teams to discuss student work, I looked for documentation to

support that claim. Collecting this information helped me to understand how the

principals’ espoused leadership practices were actualized in schools. Information

obtained from school documents and artifacts were recorded on Document Summary

sheets (See Appendix D).

Data Collection and Analysis

The primary method of data collection in qualitative research involves interviews

(Creswell, 2003). This method also served as the primary method for securing answers to

my research questions. After developing questions to be included in the interview

protocol, a pilot-test of the questions was conducted. Maxwell (2005) suggests piloting

your interview questions with people similar to those in your study. He argues that this

process will ensure that your questions will “work as intended” (p.93). I conducted a

pilot-test of the interview questions with principals who were not participants in my

study. Through the pilot-test, I was able to gain feedback that aided in strengthening the

interview protocol.

Data collection began in February 2013. The process included recorded semi-

structured open-ended interviews with each participant in their school setting. Due to a
47
scheduling conflict, one principal was interviewed via the telephone. The interview

protocol was designed to allow principals to provide descriptive accounts of their

perceptions and experiences as a principal.

As recommended by Maxwell (2005), analysis of the data was ongoing. Prior to

transcription, I listened to each recorded interview. Maxwell (2005) suggested that

listening to recordings prior to transcription would be helpful in gathering initial

information. He contended that written notes should be taken and analytic memos

developed and used in data analysis. Hence, in addition to reviewing transcribed notes, I

used written memos to capture initial thoughts and reactions to the data.

Coding of the transcribed interviews took place using Dedoose software. The

data were initially coded using broad categories related to the literature on principal

leadership and the conceptual framework. Subsequent coding included the grouping of

data into sub-categories. For example, the initial code under the broad concept of

instructional leadership was sub-coded with specific roles and practices under

instructional leadership.

In addition to the open-ended interviews, principals were asked to log all

activities they engaged in during one week (see Appendix C). The leadership log was

used as way to compare principals’ espoused beliefs about their roles and practices with

their self-reported practices. Principals were asked to record their daily activities for one

week into the log. The school day was divided into seven hours for a total of 35 hours per

a week. Principals generally listed activities in 1-hour blocks or two activities in each

hour. The activities were assigned a .5 to 1-hour occurrence, depending on how the

activity was represented in the principals’ activity log. The Principal leadership log data

48
was coded using the themes that had emerged from the interview data. Additional codes

were added to align with principals’ actual instructional leadership practices.

Site observations were also used to aid in understanding principals’ perceptions of

their roles and practices. Individual meetings were arranged with each principal to

observe the participant in their natural setting. The following observations were made:

• Bruce in a grade level meeting

• Allison in a meeting with non-tenured teachers

• Michael conducting a walk-through

• Randy facilitating a faculty meeting

Field notes were taken and coded. While at the site, documents and artifacts were

collected to assist in the triangulation of all data sources. After each site visit, field notes

and document summaries were completed. I also used Contact Summary forms (see

Appendix E) to assist when I needed to contact the participants for clarification or

additional information.

After reviewing and organizing the data, tables were created to gain a clear

understanding of the data. The tables provided a pictorial representation of the principals’

conceptions of their roles. They also illuminated the idea that principals’ conceptions

were not always aligned with their actual practices.

The data from the interviews also highlighted how each principal was prepared

for leadership. Through coded data from interviews and background information on the

principals, themes emerged about principals’ preparation. A table was also created to

bring forth the principals’ trajectory towards leadership, which appeared to have an

impact on their conceptions and practices. In addition, data from all sources were
49
analyzed for themes and connections between preparation, conceptions of role and actual

practices.

Role of the Researcher

As a principal at Greenville Public Schools, my role was that of an insider. As an

insider, I had a clear understanding of the district’s context. Because of my insider role I

had easy access to the district and the study’s participants. My insider role, coupled with

my experiences as a veteran administrator for over 12 years, had the potential to create

biases. Therefore, careful listening and observing was necessary to ensure the validity of

this study. It was important to eliminate my beliefs and assumptions in an effort to

maintain objectivity in capturing data from the principals’ words and actions.

50
 CHAPTER FOUR

PRINCIPALS’ CONCEPTIONS AND PRACTICES

My purpose in conducting this qualitative study was to investigate early-career

principals’ understandings of their roles as school leaders, how these conceptions were

formed, and the ways they were enacted in their daily practice. Through interviews,

observations, activity logs, and the collection of artifacts, I examined the conceptions and

practices of four early-career principals from an urban district in the Mid-Atlantic region

of the United States. I used the term “early-career” to refer to principals who have been

practicing for five years or fewer. Examining these beginning principals’ practices and

beliefs, along with how they were formed, is important because it will help us to gain

insight on principals’ development and how we can strengthen it.

Although each principal was certified to serve as a school principal, they all

entered the profession through different processes. In addition, each principal had varying

responsibilities leading up to his/her role as principal. In this chapter, I present findings

on how the four principals conceptualized their roles as school leaders and specifically

how instructional leadership played into their broader conception and their enactment of

these conceptions in schools.

This chapter is organized around two main assertions:

1. The early-career principals in the study described instructional leadership as a

critical part of their roles, although they had different understandings of this

work in relation to other demands.

2. Despite the articulated commitment to instructional leadership, a number of

tensions existed between what the principals believed and what they were able

51
 to do. These tensions were largely a result of the beginning principals’

perceptions that they were responsible for everything in their school and the

demands faced from decreased resources and increased emphasis on

accountability.

In the first section of the chapter, I present the findings on principals’ perceptions

of their roles. The findings were based on data retrieved from principal interviews,

observations, and documents/artifacts. The section begins with a brief overview of the

principals’ perceptions, followed by a comparison of the similarities and differences in

their perceptions of their roles. In-depth summaries of each principal’s perception of their

roles are included to illuminate their voices. Also included in this chapter is a chart

revealing principals’ perceived roles. The section concludes with a summary of the

principals’ perceptions of their roles as school leaders.

In section two of the chapter, the principals’ prioritized practices are highlighted.

The section includes a discussion with principals about the most important tasks they

engaged in, followed by a chart outlining how the principals believed they spent their

day. The section includes a chart outlining the actual activities principals engaged in on a

regular basis as derived from observations, artifacts/documents from the school site, and

the principals’ leadership logs. The section concludes with a chart that highlights

activities derived from the leadership log of a typical Monday for the principals and a

summary of the chapter.

In order to help the reader understand the principals’ experiences, a brief snapshot

of each principal is provided in table 4.1.

52
Table 4.1
Principals’ Background and Experience

Principal Years of Years as a Grade Level of Type of Principal Preparation

Pseudonym Teaching Principal or the School Program(s)
Supervisor (As Principal)
Bruce Johnson 9 years 2.5 years – K-5th grade Received a master’s degree in
4 years lead Principal Elementary Educational Leadership
teacher in 1 year – VP
academic
programs
Allison Miller 17 years 3 years – 7th-8th grade Master of Arts in Teaching
Principal Middle School
6 years –
Supervisor 9th-11th grade
2 years – VP High School
Michael Jones 5 years 3.5 years – K-5th Grade Alternate Route to Teacher
Principal Elementary Certification and then continued
4 years – with his Master’s in Educational
Supervisor Administration (additional 7
4 years – VP courses)
Randy Green 7 years, 5 months – 6th-8th grade Received master’s in
including 2 Principal Middle School Educational Leadership
years as 9 years – VP Doctorate in Educational and
grade-level Organizational Leadership
advisor

Principals’ Perceptions of their Roles

In order to connect principals’ conceptions of their roles to instructional

leadership, it was important to examine the espoused beliefs and practices of principals.

My analysis uncovered several key similarities among the four principals in how they

conceptualized their roles. Each principal in this study believed that instructional

leadership should be a central role. They all indicated that teaching and learning should

be their primary focus. While each principal expressed differently what an instructional

leader would look like, they all agreed that principals were responsible for facilitating the

following instructional tasks: instructional focus walks, grade-level meetings, and formal

and informal observations. Second, each principal believed that one of his or her roles

was to develop a vision for the school. Third, the principals also believed that one of their

53
primary roles was to create a safe learning environment. A final similarity was that

principals believed they were responsible for everything, which included being

responsible for discipline, paperwork, budgeting, and meetings with various stakeholders.

Being responsible for everything received prominence as principals described their many

roles.

In this section, the following research questions are examined:

How do early-career K-8 principals conceptualize their roles as school leaders?

What role does instructional leadership play in this broader conception?

To better understand the principals’ conceptions, preparation and practices, semi-

structured open-ended interviews were conducted with each principal. In an effort to

illuminate the voices of the participants, direct quotes from each principal are included.

Bruce

Among all of the principals in the study, Bruce was the most explicit and direct

about his role as an instructional leader. As a teacher and teacher leader, he had always

taken an active role in the instructional components of his school. Bruce defined

instructional components as working with a primary focus on teaching and student

learning. He shared his experience as a member of the school’s leadership team and

coordinator of the after school program as examples of his commitments to instructional

leadership as a teacher. As a member of the school’s leadership team, Bruce played a

central part in establishing school wide learning goals. He also assisted in establishing

and monitoring school wide improvement plans. Bruce believed the leadership

opportunities he experienced as a teacher has allowed him to prioritize instruction as a

principal.

54
 Bruce is an extremely confident male who is mission-driven. Throughout the

interview, Bruce made his perception of his role very clear. When asked to name the

most important tasks of a school principal, he adamantly stated that his primary role was

that of an instructional leader. He defined instructional leadership as a leader’s ability to

focus on instruction. He believed that an important part of his role was to ensure that his

school had the necessary tools for instruction. He believed that, as an instructional

leader, his job was to ensure that during professional learning community (PLC)

meetings, the emphasis was on teaching and student learning. During the 45-minute

interview, Bruce mentioned instructional leadership multiple times. The following quote

illustrates Bruce’s perception of his role:

The most important task of the school principal obviously is leading the building
instructionally. You know, setting up instructional programs that will make a
difference in the kids’ academics. It really doesn’t matter what type of school it
is- whether it’s a high performing school or whether the school is in the focus
category. You really want to make sure that you are the instructional leader of the
building (B. Johnson, personal communication, February 12, 2013).

During the interview, Bruce provided examples of ways he believed his leadership was

enacted in the school. When asked to discuss how he spent his day as a principal and the

practices he believed were most important to his work, he shared the following activities:

• Establishing a vision and setting goals

• Establishing clear expectations for students and teachers

• Developing and monitoring programming

• Reviewing school assessment data

• Reviewing lesson plans

• Conducting instructional focus walks that focused on ensuring curriculum and

55
 teaching was aligned

• Supervising instruction

• Improving instructional outcomes

As the interview unfolded, Bruce discussed another area that was a central focus

of his leadership; he cited school climate as an area requiring his attention. Bruce

admitted that, in previous years, school climate topped his list of priorities. He said the

school had been a revolving door for administrators, causing it to have limited and

inconsistent schoolwide structures. He also added that the school community did not have

a structure that allowed for consistent educational practices; hence, discipline was high

and school morale low. Bruce believed that establishing a clear vision and a good school

climate would allow him to better address the instructional needs of the school. He also

held that one of his central roles was to ensure there was a safe learning environment for

students. Bruce stated:

You know you can’t have good instruction and good classroom environments if
the behavior is not good … I think that a few years ago that probably would’ve
been number one for me because coming into school where there had been seven
principals before me in nine years the behavior wasn’t very good so that was more
towards the top of my list (B. Johnson, personal communication, February 12,
2013).

Establishing positive relationships with stakeholders was also very important to

Bruce. He said, “It’s very important that you’re a cheerleader for your building … the

human resource side and the cheerleading side shouldn’t be overlooked … making sure

you have good relationships with parents and colleagues” (B. Johnson, personal

communication, February 12, 2013). When asked to elaborate, he explained that having

56
positive relationships would allow people to look favorably upon his school, which he

thought would increase participation in school-wide activities.

In summary, Bruce’s perception of his responsibilities was that he should be an

instructional leader. He believed that instruction should play a pivotal role in his daily

activities and that his job was to ensure instructional programs were running effectively.

Establishing relationships, monitoring the learning environment of the school, and

ensuring the school’s vision was enacted were also all very important.

Allison

Allison, the only female in the study, saw herself as a servant leader. She placed

a heavy emphasis on serving and being there for children. As a servant leader, she

thought that it was important to be there for her staff and students. This stance was

especially evident in her service to children. She said, “My door is always open for a

child. I will stop whatever I am doing if a child needs me” (A. Miller, personal

communication, February 14, 2013). Allison’s statement about being there for students is

also aligned with her relational stance. She believed that one of her roles was to establish

positive relationships with all stakeholders. She said, “I value every member of the team

… I think it is extremely important to be a good listener to really understand somebody

else’s perception of something” (A. Miller, personal communication, February 14, 2013).

This particular stance was also noted throughout observations and conversations with

Allison. She really allowed her staff to be a part of the school’s development. As a small

school that was developing, she needed input from everyone. Allison stated, “I allow

students be a part of certain decision-making teams in our educational community

because I want them to know that their voice is valued” (A. Miller, personal

57
communication, February 14, 2013).

Similar to Bruce, Allison also believed one of her primary roles was to focus on

instruction. She was intimately involved in the teaching and learning aspects of the

school. Although Allison did not explicitly mention instructional leadership during the

40-minute interview, her emphasis on instruction was evident during the interview and in

her actions. In describing her perceptions of her role, Allison primarily mentioned

instructional duties. A key area of focus of Allison was programming and instructional

planning. She, along with teacher leaders throughout her school, collaborated on

teaching and school wide programming. In addition, a visit to Allison’s school

illuminated her focus on instruction. During my visit, I observed her meeting with a

group of first-year teachers. A review of my notes exposed Allison’s commitment to

instructional leadership. During my visit, Allison was providing direct support and

guidance to these first-year teachers as they discussed their struggles in the classroom.

As Allison and the teachers discussed strategies for improving teaching, teachers were

appreciative of the support they received from their principal. They thanked her for

taking the time to meet with them. The first year teachers voluntarily give up their lunch

to discuss effective teaching practices with the principal.

Allison, a very soft-spoken and confident school leader, primarily discussed her

role as ensuring teaching and learning was taking place in her school. She further

expressed the importance of ensuring that she was there for teachers and students, with

students being a central consideration in her role. In addition to Allison’s espoused

beliefs about her role, her leadership logs provided evidence of how she conceptions of

instructional leadership were enacted. Allison’s days were primarily filled with

58
instructional tasks. Her principal leadership logs included activities like: instructional

walk-throughs, teacher observations, professional development and instructional

meetings. She also believed that among her number-one priorities was to ensure that the

environment was conducive to learning. When asked to prioritize her most important

tasks, Allison said, “Safety … providing a safe environment that is conducive to

learning” (A. Miller, personal communication, February 14, 2013). In order to ensure

that her building was safe, Allison regularly meets with her school safety team. She also

ensures that all emergency plans are intact and discipline issues are minimized. An

important safety consideration was ensuring that she had a sufficient number of staff

members to monitor the instructional and operational needs of the school.

Compared to the other three principals, Allison had served as a teacher for the

longest period of time. She was a classroom teacher for 17 years prior to becoming a

supervisor of instruction. In addition, unlike the other principals, she received her

master’s degree in teaching, and not administration. Allison also regularly attends

curriculum and leadership workshops, which has enhanced her knowledge around

effective practices in teaching and leadership; more will be discussed about this in

Chapter Five.

As Allison shared her vision for the school and the work that she was engaged in,

I sensed the pride she felt in her work and accomplishments. Allison is the founding

principal of the magnet school, which is in its fourth year. Students throughout the district

compete for a spot in the school through a competitive application process. While the

school has had some struggles with the state’s guidelines for Adequate Yearly Progress

during the early years, the school has boasted considerable growth, something that

59
Allison was very proud to share. She mentioned that students entered the school with

very low state assessment scores and within one year they have shown dramatic

improvements. She cited a student who had entered with a score of 150 and rose to 189,

which is just below the state’s proficiency level of 200.

Allison saw her role as multifaceted. She said, “Besides being an accountant, a

maintenance supervisor, and a supervisor of instruction, I mean, there are so many facets

to a principal’s role. It’s never ending really” (A. Miller, personal communication,

February 14, 2013). According to Allison, principals are required to perform multiple

tasks. The required tasks, as discussed by Allison, can be organized into three main

categories: management, instruction, and relationships. I use management to categorize

tasks such as paperwork, climate, checking emails, and returning or answering phone

calls, while instructional tasks are any tasks associated with teaching and learning, and

relationships refer to the interactions Allison has with staff and students.

Allison believed that principals should spend no more than 20% of their day on

management issues. However, when I conducted the interview, she said she spent many

more hours on discipline and paperwork. Allison says, “Unfortunately, discipline,

paperwork … should be 20% of our day … everything kind of falls on me … it takes me

away from what I really should be doing” (A. Miller, personal communication, February

14, 2013). Allison believed that, as a principal, she should spend more time visiting

classrooms and on instructional tasks. She also believed her role was to interact

frequently with teachers and students. Allison described how she would like to spend her

time in this way:

60
 I wish I could be in those classrooms. I wish I could be teaching students. I was
just observing an English class, which I was dying to jump in. It was a Socratic
Seminar and of course I couldn’t because I was not the facilitator or any part of
the group. I would love the opportunity to just really be able to do that on a daily
basis, to work with teachers on a daily basis. And I really would love to spend
time with students who are never in trouble; I don’t interact with them much. That
to me would be ideal (A. Miller, personal communication, February 14, 2013).

In summary, Allison believed her role was multifaceted. She was very

instructionally focused in her orientation, but found herself being pulled toward other

demands of her position. Although she placed considerable emphasis on ensuring

instruction was a priority, she valued her role as nurturer to children, ensuring that their

needs were met first. The interview and other collected data showed that Allison believed

that responding to the needs of teachers was also an important role. She also emphasized

ensuring that the vision developed for the school was being enacted daily in all aspects of

the school.

Michael

Like Allison, Michael saw his role as multifaceted, but, like Bruce, his approach

was managerial. He said, “My role as the principal … I would say I’m like the CEO and

I’m not responsible for just one thing, I’m responsible for many things” (M. Jones,

personal communication, February 27, 2013). He also believed that one of his chief roles

was to establish a vision for the school. He believed this vision should be developed with

key stakeholders. He said, “I think that one of the most important tasks is being able to

develop a vision for the school. And yes that should also include stakeholders who are

trying to develop that vision” (M. Jones, personal communication, February 27, 2013).

When asked how he prioritized his roles, Michael said, “My first priority is ensuring,

number one, that we have a safe learning environment. That’s number one because

61
without that, I can’t say that any learning is going to take place (laugh)” (M. Jones,

personal communication, February 27, 2013).

Michael saw instructional leadership as playing a major role in a principal’s

responsibility, even though he does not seem to be able to fit instructional leadership

practices into his schedule on a regular basis. The instructional leadership practices that

Michael believed and wished he could spend more time on were providing ongoing

feedback to teachers and classroom walkthroughs. He also said he would like to spend

more time coaching teachers. When asked to explain the many things he is responsible

for, Michael had this to say:

In addition to the responsibility of managing the instructional practices of

teachers, I have the responsibility of managing staff, managing the day-to-day
operations of the building, including budgeting, parental involvement, building
maintenance and crisis management (M. Jones, personal communication,
February 27, 2013).

Michael had less experience in teaching and leadership than any of the principals

in this study. He openly expressed that he is still learning to lead a school instructionally.

He earned his administrator’s certification almost immediately after participating in New

Jersey’s Alternate Route to Teaching Certification program. The college where Michael

received his yearlong training for teaching allowed students to take a few additional

courses to receive a master’s degree in educational administration, which qualified

Michael for certification as a principal. In Chapter Five, I provide more information on

Michael’s preparation.

According to Michael, most of his time was spent on management issues.

Although he has been able to commit some time to instructional leadership practices

(e.g., instructional walk-throughs, involving his leadership team in school-wide decisions,

62
and providing regular feedback to teachers), he believed the social context of his school

required him to dedicate more time to discipline issues. Michael’s school is located in

one of the most economically depressed communities in the district. He cited discipline

and social problems related to students’ socioeconomic status as reasons for not

prioritizing instruction. In addition, like Allison, Michael cited being the sole

administrator in the building as a factor that kept him from prioritizing instruction.

Below, Michael shares some of the difficulties he faced in prioritizing instruction in his

school:

When you have students who come to school angry because they are not properly
prepared for learning and they want to fight everybody. These issues must be
addressed before we can teach these students. We do but it’s very difficult … you
never know what kind of outburst you’re going to have in the classroom, cafeteria
or anywhere in the school really. It’s difficult to focus on instruction when I’m the
only administrator in the building (M. Jones, personal communication, February
27, 2013).

During the interview, Michael included understanding curriculum and leading

curriculum development, understanding effective teaching practices, and monitoring the

use of data to make instructional decisions as important skills needed to serve in the role

of principal; however, he did not position himself to lead these efforts in his school.

When asked to name the most important tasks of the principal, here is what he said:

I think you should have some understanding of curriculum and curriculum

development, teaching practices, and obviously now using data to make the
necessary decisions in instruction (M. Jones, personal communication, February
27, 2013).

Overall, Michael believed that his primary role as principal was to be responsible

for everything, with instructional leadership playing a central role, even though he was

not always able to fulfill the instructional portion of his role. Everything included not

only managing and supervising instructional programs; it also included managing the
63
tremendous amount of paperwork generated by school, district, and state initiatives.

Everything also included collaborating with parent, teacher, and district leaders, as well

as managing the maintenance of the building. And, finally, everything included

effectively managing discipline in the school.

Randy

Similar to the other three principals, Randy believed instructional leadership

should be his primary role. He believed that one of his roles was to assist teachers in

understanding their roles. When asked to describe his role, he said, “Teacher of teachers.

I am supposed to be an instructional leader … primarily the role of the principal is to be

an instructional leader and to articulate the vision for the school and to work on the vision

collaboratively” (R. Green, personal communication, February 28, 2013).

While Randy believed being an instructional leader was important, because he

was new to a building plagued with frequent changes in leadership, he believed his initial

role should be communications and establishing relationships with all stakeholders.

Randy said, “I believe instructional leadership is important but entering a building where

there have been multiple principals and a lot of apathy, I believe my relationship skills

are paramount” (R. Green, personal communication, February 28, 2013).

Although Randy is new to the principalship, he is no stranger to administration.

Prior to accepting the principalship at this school, he served as a vice principal for nine

years in another school district. While Randy understood the tenets of instructional

leadership, he also believed that being responsible for everything in the school made it

difficult to prioritize instruction appropriately. He said, “I am supposed to be an

instructional leader; my job is to do all that I can to move the school forward” (R. Green,

64
personal communication, February 28, 2013). When asked to describe ‘all,’ Randy noted

that, in addition to instruction, he is responsible for managerial tasks, such as managing

the attendance of both staff and students, as well as coordinating the placement of

substitute teachers and other tasks that allow the building to run smoothly.

Randy believed his most important role was to be an effective communicator. He

was the only principal who emphasized effective communications. While others

discussed building relationships as a subset of communications, he very directly and

explicitly acknowledged communications as a top priority. Randy articulated the

importance of effective communications by stating, “The most important task of a school

principal, I believe, is to communicate well” (R. Green, personal communication,

February 28, 2013).

As Randy articulated his role as an effective communicator, embedded in his

description was the importance of setting and sharing a school vision and mission

collaboratively, as well as the importance of establishing positive interactions with all

stakeholders. There was also a relational stance embedded throughout his responses. He

prided himself on his ability to establish relationships with all stakeholders, adding,

“Building relationships builds trust, which result in improved relationships that will

ultimately impact student achievement” (R. Green, personal communication, February

28, 2013).

While instructional leadership does play an important role in Randy’s conception,

the newness of his role as principal and newcomer to the district has caused him to

prioritize effective communications. During a visit to a faculty meeting at Randy’s

school, I was able to see the enactment of his relational emphasis. As Randy was

65
discussing the importance of communications with his staff, he reminded all staff

members to check their emails for daily correspondence from him. In order to emphasize

the importance of his request, he jokingly said, “I don’t send pictures of funny animals or

things like that so when you see an email from me please make sure you read it” (R.

Green, personal communication, February 28, 2013). He also provided reassurance to the

staff that he believed they were working hard.

Overall, Randy believed that his role as principal included multiple

responsibilities, with instructional leadership being paramount. He also believed

communication and relationship building was very high on his prioritized list of

responsibilities.

Patterns in Principals’ Conceptions of their Roles

The principals in this study were asked through interviews to describe their role as

principal. Table 5 provides a summary of the principals’ primary conceptions of their

roles as school leaders. The roles in the table were mostly generated from participants’

responses during the interview. If a principal mentioned a role or if there was evidence to

support a role during a site observation, an (x) listed under a role indicates one of the

ways in which the principals perceived their role. In some cases, documents collected

from the site were also used to determine principals’ perceptions of their roles.

The results show that all four principals believed that developing a shared vision,

instructional leader, disciplinarian and “everything” were primary roles. Three of the four

principals believed creating a safe learning environment and establishing good

relationships were primary roles.

66
Table 4.2
Principals’ Perceptions of their Roles

Roles Bruce Allison Michael Randy

Develop a shared vision X X X X
Disciplinarian X X X X
Create a safe learning environment X X X
Manager X X
Establish good relationships X X X
Instructional leader X X X
Communicate effectively X
Chief Executive Officer X
Teacher of teachers X X
Provide teacher resources X X
Responsible for everything X X X X
Use data X X
Assist teachers with curriculum and instruction X

Because I was particularly interested in the principals’ views of instructional

leadership, at the conclusion of each interview, I asked the interviewee to define

instructional leadership. I intentionally waited until the end of the interview to avoid

influencing the participants’ responses on how they perceived their role. Table 6 captures

the principals’ thoughts on instructional leadership.

Table 4.3
Principals’ Definitions of Instructional Leadership

Principal Definitions of Instructional Leadership

Bruce An instructional leader focuses on instruction; he or she ensures that teachers have the
resources to effectively provide instruction. Instructional leaders also ensure that PLCs
are functioning and that the emphases are on teaching and learning (B. Johnson, personal
communication, February 12, 2013)
Allison A true instructional leader is one who leads by example. It’s an individual who has the
ability to inspire those they lead by providing support in areas of self-improvement and
aspires to have all those servicing the students in a learning community to succeed.
Mediocrity is not acceptable nor is it tolerated from any stakeholders (B. Johnson,
personal communication, February 12, 2013).
Michael Instructional leadership is when a clear vision/mission is evident. There is a plan and
structure in place for the execution of that vision and it facilitates improvement for
student achievement (B. Johnson, personal communication, February 12, 2013).
Randy Instructional leadership is when the leader of the building is not just the manager of the
school but involved in curriculum, the fidelity of curriculum, and having conversations
around teaching and learning and focuses on student achievement, professional
development and the support to teachers need (B. Johnson, personal communication,
February 12, 2013).

67
 An analysis of the principals’ definitions of instructional leadership revealed that

principals had variations in their understanding and foci for instructional leadership.

Bruce believed that he should be a provider of resources, while Allison valued setting

high expectations, modeling, and inspiring teachers. Randy believed having

conversations around curriculum and supporting teachers was important.

While the definitions were diverse, all four of the principals believed that

instructional leadership was connected to increasing learning outcomes for students.

Bruce, Randy, and Allison’s definition also connected professional learning and self-

improvement to the definitions of instructional leadership. These three principals also

associated helping teachers with instructional leadership.

Randy was the only principal who specifically mentioned focusing on curriculum,

although Bruce did mention focusing on instruction, which generally includes the

curriculum. Michael’s definition was broad and did not offer specifics around what

instructional leadership would look like in practice. His definition appeared to be

managerial in nature. He included setting a vision and a plan to implement the vision.

However, unlike the other principals, Michael does not include what that plan would

entail.

Principals’ Daily Practices

In order to gather data on the principals’ daily practices, the participants were

asked to keep a log of their activities over a one-week period. While the data gathered

from the logs was limited to one week, the five-day log provided a more detailed

description of how principals enacted their leadership in schools. It showed that

68
principals did not participate in instructional tasks as frequently as they purported during

the interview.

The logs also showed that each principal did engage in instructional tasks during

the week, although, in some cases, much of their days were filled with non-instructional

tasks. In addition, the data revealed that the principals were mostly consistent in the

practices they engaged in daily. For the most part, they appeared to have a routine of

engaging in similar practices daily. With the exception of Allison, who was completely

immersed in instructional leadership practices on Monday and Tuesday of the week, the

principals’ daily practices were mostly consistent.

Bruce had one day where 71% of his day was spent on instructional activities;

however, the other days were consumed with mostly non-instructional tasks. He spent a

considerable amount of time in meetings with parents, teachers, and other stakeholders on

tasks unrelated to instruction. He also spent some time managing discipline.

On Wednesday, Randy spent 57% of his day on instructional activities. The

activities he engaged in on this day were mostly spent on common planning meetings and

classroom walkthroughs. The remaining days of the week were primarily filled with

visiting students during the breakfast and lunch programs, meeting with various

stakeholders throughout the week, and paperwork. He also expended a good part of his

day on managerial tasks, such as budget and supply requests and responding to and

sending emails.

Michael was pretty consistent throughout the week, with an average of 37% of his

time spent on instructional activities. Those tasks were primarily participation in grade

level meetings, teacher meetings, and classroom visits. What is not clear from the data is

69
his level of involvement during those meeting and the focus of his classroom visits. For

example, when Bruce visited classrooms, he listed different foci. On one day he was

looking at student engagement and other days at student work.

A Typical Monday for Principals

Table 7 presents a summary of a typical Monday for participants in this study.

The activities depict actual occurrences in the principals’ day. The table illuminates the

idea that principals’ days are filled with numerous tasks ranging from meetings with

parents to lunch duty. What is not captured here are the many additional hours these

principals spend before and after of the school day. The activities completed before and

after school were not collected or analyzed, as principals’ extended hours varied.

Table 4.4
Typical Monday for Principals
Parent Building Meeting Emails/
Custodial Discipline
Bruce meeting walkthrough Lunch duty with PD type
meeting issue
Lesson plan Committee evaluations
Parent Building Classroom Classroom English
Allison Post Math
meeting walkthrough visitation visitation meeting
observation meeting
Announce- Meet with
Michael Classroom Teacher Administration Lunch PLC
ments Admin Team
walkthroughs meetings Follow-up coverage meetings
Phone Worked
Check Meet with conference with
Randy Meet Classroom
emails Student with new Cafeteria teacher
with VP Walkthroughs
Council parent evaluation
software

While Table 7 represents data from a typical Monday, it also provides a glimpse into

some of the leadership practices the principals engage in daily.

Time Spent on Instructional Leadership

In order to calculate the actual time participants spent on instructional leadership

practices, the principals’ leadership activities were coded and organized by categories.

The categories were created to align with the instructional tasks principals included in

70
their logs. While not exhaustive, the selected categories were also aligned to the

literature on instructional leadership practices. The categories were being visible in

classrooms, focusing on instruction, facilitating professional development, building

school culture, developing teachers, and building school culture. Each of the categories

included various activities.

Principals recorded their daily activities in a Principal leadership log. Table 8

represents the daily hours principals spent on instructional leadership. It also includes the

percentage of the day and week that was dedicated to instructional leadership. The

participants recorded the amount of time they spent on various tasks throughout the week

in a leadership log. The tasks were mostly recorded in intervals of 30 minutes and one

hour. The logs included a 7-hour workday with a total of 35 hours logged for the entire

workweek. Tasks that were associated with instructional leadership, as defined by the

literature on instructional leadership and the conceptual framework, were included in

Table 8.

Table 4.5
Time Spent on Instructional Leadership Tasks During a Week

Principals MONDAY TUESDAY WEDNESDA THURSDAY FRIDAY Instructional

Y Leadership %
Hrs. DP Hrs. DP Hrs. DP Hrs. DP Hrs. DP WP

Bruce 3 43% 5 71% 3 43% 3 43% 3 43% 49%

Allison 6 86% 7 100% 4 57% 3 43% 5 away 71%

Michael 3 43% 3 43% 2 29% 2 29% 3 43% 37%

Randy 1 14% 1 14% 4 57% 1 14% 2 29% 26%

Note: Hrs.=Daily hours spent on instructional leadership (IL) DP= Daily % of the day on IL WP
=weekly % on IL

Tables 7 and 8 provide a glimpse into the number of hours and the type of

practices these principals engaged in daily. Highlighted in the tables are the ideas that
71
instructional leadership occurs on a limited basis. They also expose the idea that

although principals believed that instructional leadership was an important role, as

articulated during interviews, the principals were inconsistent in enacting the practices

associated with instructional leadership; instructional leadership was occurring less

frequently than purported by the principals. During the interviews, principals named

multiple instructional tasks that they regularly engaged in (see Table 9). However, as is

evident from the tables 7 and 8, which were generated from self-reported logs of their

practices, the principals were not always able to enact their conceptions.

Given the numerous responsibilities of principals, during the interviews, I asked

the principals to explain how they prioritized their responsibilities. While principals

overwhelmingly stated instruction was a priority, their perceptions of their roles, as listed

in Table 5, confirms that being responsible for everything probably limited the principals’

ability to focus on any one thing. This perception was emphasized strongly by each

principal. The daunting job of being responsible for leadership, management, and

instruction were important tasks that these principals wanted to succeed in; however,

their current structure of being responsible for everything must be revisited. Tables 7 and

9 confirm that the multiple responsibilities required of the principals caused conflicts in

their ability to enact their conceptions.

The following section discusses the practices principals would like to engage in

regularly, as well as the actual practices principals engaged in regularly. The section also

includes an analysis of the tensions principals realized while enacting their perceived

practices.

72
Tensions between Conceptions and Practices

This study sought to uncover how instructional leadership played into principals’

broader conceptions of their role as school leaders. This section examines the tensions

between principals’ perceived and actual practices. During the interview phase of the

data collection process, the participants were asked a series of questions to better

understand the conceptions of their roles, as well as the practices they believed they

engaged in most frequently. In order to gather data on the participants’ commitment to

instructional leadership, the following questions were asked during the interviews:

1. What recommendations would you give to universities preparing students to

become school leaders? What areas should they devote more time to? Why?

2. In your opinion, what are the most important tasks of a school principal?

3. What three activities do you spend the most time on in any week?

4. To what activities do you wish you could devote more time?

5. How do you ensure that teaching and learning is happening in your school?

6. How often do you meet with teachers and for what purpose?

These questions were designed to learn about the principals’ commitment to instructional

leadership practices without specifically using the term instructional leadership.

Subsequent phases of the data collection process included, site observations,

document/artifact collections and the completion of principal leadership logs. The

triangulation of all data sources revealed that in spite of the principals’ perceived

commitment to instructional leadership, their actual engagement in instruction was much

less central in their daily activities (see Tables 10 and 11).

73
 Principals were asked which tasks they devoted the most time. In addition, they

were asked to share their main priorities.

When asked to describe the most important tasks they engaged in on a regular

basis, the principals responded in the following ways:

Bruce: The most important task of the school principal obviously is leading the
building instructionally. You know, setting up instructional programs that will
make a difference in the kids’ academics. You really want to make sure that you
are the instructional leader of the building. You have to make sure that you’re
reviewing data. You have to make sure you understand what your school needs—
conduct[ing] needs assessments, setting goals for the teachers and the kids—I
mean, really setting that up to make sure that you understand and your staff
understands what your goals are. You know that’s the most important task, and
you know that involves many different facets, but that’s the biggest task and then
monitoring that plan. Basically, instruction and supervision and keeping a good
school climate are really the most important tasks (B. Johnson, personal
communication, February 12, 2013).

Allison: Wow! There is so much, but I am going to limit myself. To me, the most
important task is to ensure that students are learning. That, to me, is priority
number one. Making sure that there’s instruction that is vigorous and that it
[instruction] is following a standard and that we are meeting the objectives of the
course … knowing that students are being instructed in a sense that it is elevating
them intellectually, socially, and just moving them. I think that, to me, is the most
important thing (A. Miller, personal communication, February 14, 2013).

Michael: I think the most important task is being able to develop a vision for the
school. And yes, they should also include stakeholders that are trying to develop
that vision, but you should come to the table with some idea and experience and
background about what needs to happen … I think you should have some
understanding of curriculum and curriculum development, teaching practices, and
obviously now using data to make the necessary decisions in development. These
are the areas you should focus on (M. Jones, personal communication, February
27, 2013).

Randy: The most important task of a school principal, I believe, is to

communicate well. This is an industry that is profoundly human, and nothing gets
the human upset more than unclear communications. I think the most important
task for a principal is to be able to communicate with all levels of stakeholders—
whether it is the parents, teachers, or students—so they have a clear understanding
of where you are coming from … what your vision is for the school … then a
mission that you build collaboratively. So I think that articulating that vision

74
 through transparent communications is important (R. Green, personal
communication, February 28, 2013).

While participants mentioned numerous activities that consumed their day, for the

purposes of this study, the activities that were mentioned by the principals, which were

aligned to the conceptual framework, as well as the literature on instructional leadership

practice, were extracted from the interview via Dedoose and included in Table 9.

The responses to questions related principals’ espoused activities yielded over 100

responses, with most of the principals mentioning activities in the category of focusing on

instruction. Bruce led with 25 mentions, whilst Randy only mentioned two practices in

this category. In discussing practices in this category, Randy shared that examining data

and monitoring instruction was important. The activity that participants shared most

frequently under focusing on instruction was monitoring instruction. All principals

believed that they should be ensuring that teaching and learning was taking place in their

schools.

Bruce also had more mentions under facilitating teacher meetings. During the

interview, Bruce was asked to name the three activities he spent the most time on in a

given week, he responded, “class visitations, meetings, either parent or teacher meetings

and planning or reviewing [plans] (B. Johnson, personal communication, February,

2013). When asked to elaborate, he discussed a variety of meetings that he participated in

or led. Some of the meetings included, grade level meetings, goal setting meetings, data

meetings, as well as planning meetings. The planning meetings were related to

completing school improvement plans. Later in the interview, he also discussed meetings

he had with teachers for various situations. Bruce added:

75
 Formally, I have at least two meetings with the teachers weekly one being the
staff meeting … making sure that everyone is on the same page and have a
common mission. We've created PLCs here with the focus of special subject areas
and they meet monthly …and grade level or vertical articulation meetings with
the teachers, which I sit on weekly or biweekly (B. Johnson, personal
communication, February 12, 2013).
Table 9 provides a detailed account of the instructional practices that principals believed

they engaged in daily. It also includes practices that they believed were most important in

their roles.

Table 4.6
Principals’ Perceived Instructional Leadership Practices

Principals’ Instructional Leadership Practices Bruce Allison Michael Randy

Number of times practices mentioned

Facilitating teacher meetings (e.g., professional learning 8 2 2 2

communities/grade-level meetings)

Being visible in the classroom (e.g., walk-throughs, class visits, 9 4 2 6

observations/evaluations)

Focusing on instruction (e.g., conducting data analysis, 25 11 8 2

instruction monitoring, lesson planning, providing teacher
feedback)

Facilitating professional development 1 2 1 1

Building school culture 13 1 6 9

Total time perceived on IL practices 56 20 19 20

Although the principals were able to articulate an array of instructional practices

that they valued, the actual leadership practices derived from leadership logs, school

documents and observations revealed that their actual practices were limited. Table 10

makes evident the actual hours that principals spent on instructional leadership practices

during the school day.

The school day was divided into seven hours for a total of 35 hours per a week.

Principals generally listed activities in hour blocks or two activities in each hour. The

76
activities were assigned a .5 to 1-hour occurrence, depending on how the activity was

represented in the principals’ activity log.

Table 4.7
Principals’ Actual Instructional Leadership Practices

Principals’ Instructional Bruce Allison Michael Randy

Leadership Practices Number of hours actual practice

Facilitating teacher meetings (e.g., 4 4 6 3

professional learning communities/grade-
level meetings)
Being visible in the classroom (e.g., walk- 5 6 7 4
throughs, class visits,
observations/evaluations)
Focusing on instruction (e.g., conducting data 4 6 0 2
analysis, instruction monitoring, lesson
planning, providing teacher feedback)
Facilitating professional development 4 5 0 0
Building school culture 0 4 0 0
Total time spent on instructional leadership 17 25 13 9

The amount of time spent on instructional leadership practices, as listed in Table

10 and the leadership practices observed and represented in Table 9 tell a very different

story about how the principals’ espoused beliefs are enacted in their schools.

To understand how principals understood and enacted instructional leadership, the

practices identified by the principals were grouped under the following headings: 1)

Facilitating Teacher Meetings, 2) Being Visible in the Classroom, 3) Focusing on

Instruction, 4) Developing Teachers, and 5) Building School Culture. These practices

encompassed activities such as facilitating grade-level meetings, walk-throughs, and

other activities specifically focused on teaching and learning. Non-instructional tasks

included activities like non-instructional meetings, discipline, paperwork, and other office

tasks. The non-instructional tasks are not included in the tables.

After analyzing all data sources, interviews, documents, notes from observations
77
and leadership logs, activities related to the facilitation of teacher meetings and being

visible in the classroom appeared most frequently. The frequency of these practices is

probably related to the idea that districts have required principals to organize grade-level

meetings and professional learning communities. These meetings are usually embedded

in teachers’ schedules, providing fixed times for principals to meet with teams of

teachers. In addition, principals are required to formally observe teachers. This

requirement forces principals to engage in instructional conversations with teachers about

their practice through pre- and post-observations.

While the results indicated that instructional walk-throughs were practices all

principals engaged in, this was finding was not very strong due to limited supporting

data. For example, Bruce specifically labeled his walk-throughs with an instructional

focus, while the other participants just indicated walk-through. With the exception of data

from Allison’s school, the enactment of teacher leadership was also a limited finding. In

some instances, evidence of teacher leadership was embedded in instructional leadership

tasks of principals. For example, when the participants’ artifacts showed that teachers

facilitated grade-level meetings or led professional learning communities, I

acknowledged the task as a principal practice because the school leader created the

conditions for those practices to occur. However, overall, the practice of teacher

leadership was nearly void from the data.

Although Allison expressed concern over not having formal leadership assistance

in her school (e.g., in the form of an assistant principal, coaches, or formal teacher

leaders), she was the only principal who managed to create a structure that facilitated

ongoing teacher leadership. This was evident through an analysis of school documents

78
and an observation at her school. In observing artifacts from Allison’s school, it was clear

that there was a practice of shared leadership; for instance, multiple teachers were

involved in facilitating and leading workshops and grade/department meetings.

The practice of teacher leadership in Bruce’s school was mostly related to turnkey

training and professional learning communities, as evidenced through the interview and

documents accessed from Bruce’s building. However, there was limited evidence to

support the consistency of these practices.

During a visit to a faculty meeting at Randy’s school, there was some

resemblance of teacher leadership. One teacher gave a report on a school safety

committee, and other teachers shared information about events or chimed in on topics to

share ideas. However, similar to the data from Bruce’s school, there was limited evidence

to support the ongoing use of teacher leadership. Meetings, observations, and an

examination of documents at Michael’s school did not yield evidence that teacher

leadership was enacted at the school.

The results from this study show that while principals understood many of the

practices associated with instructional leadership, as indicated by their perceptions of

their roles listed in Table 5, the enactment of the practices associated with instructional

leadership was limited. For example, all of the principal indicate that a primary role was

that of an instructional leader.

Barriers to Enacting Instructional Leadership Practices

During the interview, principals were asked several questions to assist me in

understanding the leadership practices that they valued, that they engaged in on a regular

basis, and that they wished they could spend more time on. Across the four principals,

79
there were several themes that emerged as principals’ actual practices were revealed

through a review of documents, site visits, and leadership logs. These themes were

connected to principals’ beliefs about how they perceived their roles as well as their

preparedness, experiences, and values. The following themes related to principals’ actual

practices emerged:

1. All principals were engaged in an array of practices throughout the week.

2. Principals spent a considerable amount of time on non-instructional tasks

(e.g., parent meetings, district meetings, checking emails, and other

administrative tasks).

3. Principals believed that instructional practices should be a priority; however,

there was a difference between principals’ perception of the amount time they

spent on instructional tasks and their actual time spent.

Although principals were conscious about their inability to focus on instructional

practices as frequently as they would have liked, the data revealed that most of the

principals believed they were doing more in the area of instructional leadership than they

actually were doing (Table 10). Hence, the revelation that principals experienced tension

in actualizing their conceptions and perceived practices can be better understood through

principals’ responses.

Although Randy would like to spend more time on instructional leadership

practices, he believes one of the hindrances to focusing on instructional practices is the

enormous amount of paperwork that comes with the job of the principal. He said, “I like

visiting classrooms (laugh), but trying not to get bogged down in paperwork is a

challenge” (B. Johnson, personal communication, February 12, 2013). Each principal

80
expressed different restraints related to trying to focus on practices they valued and felt

would move their schools in a positive direction. Here is what Allison had to say:

Unfortunately, discipline, paper work, in which anything we read that should be

20% of our day. But not having absolutely any help … I don’t have a lead teacher,
social worker, nurse—everything kind of falls on me. So it takes me away from
what I really should be doing (A. Miller, personal communication, February 14,
2013).

Allison’s comments illuminate her belief that she should do more instructionally.

Her 71%, as measured during this study, is not enough. She believes that 80% of her time

should be devoted to instruction.

Michael also believed that not having assistance in addressing myriad issues

prevented him from focusing on instructional practices. Michael said:

I’m putting out fires … I am a unique case. I have other colleagues who have the
same situation, like when you are the only administrator in the building … but
when you are the only administrator in the building in such a high-risk area, there
are a lot of things that take place in the course of the day (M. Jones, personal
communication, February 27, 2013).

Each principal believed that his or her inability to focus on instruction was

connected to the impediments produced by the district or the state. The impediments

ranged from lack of resources to lack of time to properly implement district and state

initiatives. While Allison and Michael’s explanations were primarily connected to the

lack of human resources, Randy believed his tension was connected to the tremendous

amount of paperwork required of him, which limited the amount of time he could work

with teachers and students. He said, “I am inundated with paperwork, even though I try to

complete paperwork at home or after the school day; unfortunately, there are times when

I have to shut my door and complete paperwork … tracking attendance, following up on

emails, and ensuring that the building is held in place” (R. Green, personal

81
communication, February 28, 2013). Bruce also experienced this tension while trying to

prioritize instruction. He said:

Even though I spend a decent amount of time in the classroom, I wish I could
spend more time in the classroom regularly...I would prefer to be in there daily or
every other day for little bit of a deeper observation … I get some of that in, but I
don't get anywhere close to what I would like to because of the fact [that] you get
pulled for a parent meeting or district meeting [or to deal with] discipline or any
number of other tasks (B. Johnson, personal communication, February 12, 2013).

The findings from this study help us to understand how principals conceptualize

their roles as school leaders and how instructional leadership plays into their broader

conceptions. The findings also assist us in understanding the barriers that principals face

while enacting leadership in schools. In the following section, I take a look into the

leadership practices of Allison. Although Allison believed that she should do more

around instructional leadership, data from this study suggests that she is able to enact

instructional leadership more often than the other three principals.

Enacting Instructional Leadership: Lessons Learned from Allison

The previous section illuminated Bruce, Michael, and Randy’s expressed tensions

related to enacting instructional leadership in their schools. Although Bruce expressed a

strong commitment to instructional leadership, he believed that being pulled for various

meetings with parents, students and central office prohibited him committing additional

time to instruction. Michael also wanted to focus more on instruction, however, he

believed that being the lone administrator a school with ongoing challenges limited his

ability to focus on instruction. He maintained the school’s location, dominated by large

numbers of at-risk students, affected his ability to devote more attention to instructional

leadership; He alleged a great deal of his time was spent on discipline. Randy held that

82
paper-work, emails and other managerial tasks were obstacles that prevented him from

devoting more time to instructional leadership.

While Bruce, Michael, and Randy expressed barriers to enacting instructional

leadership, Allison, a seasoned educator, stood out in her ability to regularly engage in

instructional leadership. She appeared to focus more on instruction despite the other

demands she faced. She too, believed that paperwork and discipline were problem areas,

yet she still was able to prioritize instruction more frequently than the other principals.

Data collected from Allison revealed that despite the barriers she faced, she

regularly engaged in instructional practices. The data revealed that 71% of her week was

spent on instructional tasks. On average, this was about 37% more time than the other

principals. According to Allison, she spends most of her days meeting with teachers

about instruction. Her principal’s log indicated the same. On a typical Monday, she had

a meeting with a parent to discuss a student’s behavior; she also conducted her daily

walk-through. During Allison’s walk-through, she stopped in each class. Her primary

focus was to ensure that teaching was occurring and that students were engaged. On this

same Monday, Allison participated in two department meetings, two classroom visits and

a post teacher observation. The post observation was a follow-up to a formal observation

conducted by Allison.

As Allison discussed how her leadership practices were enacted in her school, her

stance on culture and climate continued to resonate. She said, “The culture of the school

is very important … as a team, we set goals for the school. We set clear expectations for

participation and leading activities in the school” (A. Miller, personal communication,

83
February 14, 2013). Allison believed that the time she and her team have invested in

planning has contributed to the success of her instructional program.

In reviewing the data across all four principals, what stood out about Allison was

her commitments to excellence, relationships, and ensuring that teachers and students

received what they needed to be successful. Throughout the interview, Allison mentioned

being there for kids and teachers. She also discussed setting high expectations for all

staff members. Allison’s definition of instructional leadership also encompassed

language superior to the definitions from the other three principals. In her definition, she

included the idea that an instructional leader leads by example. This one statement

represented much of what set Allison apart from the other three principals. According to

Allison, leading by example meant being a role model for teachers and students.

Allison’s leading by example meant that she was engaged in ongoing professional

learning for herself, which provided her with the knowledge and skills to be a resource to

her teachers. It also allowed her to fulfill her belief that her role was to provide her staff

with the support they needed to be successful.

The second part of her instructional leadership definition—inspiring and

supporting others—was evident in the data collected from Allison’s school. Unlike data

collected from the other principals’ schools, teachers led many of Allison’s school-level

workshops and professional development activities. Allison’s ability to inspire teachers to

take on leadership roles was another area that pushed Allison ahead in the

implementation of instructional leadership practices in her school.

An added strength for Allison was her emphasis on setting high expectations and

ensuring that the students got what they needed to be successful. Throughout Allison’s

84
interview and during our informal conversations, it was apparent that her belief in setting

high standards for everyone, including herself, was paramount to her success as a leader.

Allison also credited some of her success with being the founding principal of the

school. She said:

When I founded the school, I only had one hundred students. We had to build the
program from the ground up. Because of the small number of students and
teachers, we were able to build a learning team together. Once the school got
bigger, we had already established the practice of teacher leadership, and as new
teachers came on board, they embraced the established practices and continued to
take on leadership roles in the school (A. Miller, personal communication,
February 14, 2013).

While barriers to instructional leadership existed for all principals, Allison’s

background and experiences allowed her instructional leadership to exceed the other

principals’. This was evident in her beliefs, role, and practices of instructional leadership.

Chapter Five will provide more details about Allison and her trajectory to school

leadership.

Summary

The results of this study suggested that these early-career principals had many

conceptions of their roles. One of their primary conceptions was that they were

responsible for everything. They all believed that it was their responsibility to ensure that

all aspects of the school were properly functioning. This included managing personnel

issues, discipline, meetings, budgeting, reports, and instruction. Embedded in this notion

of being responsible for everything was the responsibility of managing the tremendous

amounts of paperwork that subsisted with the responsibility of managing those tasks.

As principals expressed concern over the impact of being responsible for all of the

day-to-day activities, they also uttered concern over the time required to effectively

85
manage all that needed to be done to manage both the instructional components as well as

the operational components of the building. This idea was even more prominent in

schools where there were no assistant principals. The principal was truly responsible for

everything in the school.

All of the principals stated that they believed that their primary roles should be to

monitor instruction, facilitate professional learning communities/grade-level meetings,

observe and provide feedback to teachers, and facilitate teacher learning. They also

believed that they engaged in many of these practices on a regular basis, although the

data revealed that there were tensions in the principals’ abilities to enact their

instructional leadership conceptions. In fact, principals spent much less time on

instructional leadership practices than they perceived. Only Allison was able to devote a

substantial amount of time to instruction.

In Chapter Six, I provide more information on the implications of this study as

well as recommendations to remedy some of the inconsistencies in the enactment of

instructional leadership in schools.

86
 CHAPTER FIVE

PRINCIPAL PREPARATION

Introduction
Because principals play a vital role in establishing the direction of effective

schools (Darling-Hammond, LaPointe, Myerson, Orr, & Cohen, 2007), a secondary

purpose of this qualitative study was to investigate how the four early-career principals

were prepared for their roles. I wanted to explore the relationship between principals’

preparation, conceptions, and practices to consider whether—and if so, how—their

programs influenced their work. During the interviews, I asked principals to respond to

questions about how they were prepared to take on the role of school leader. Analysis of

the data gathered from the interviews led to a deeper understanding of how these

principals formed their conceptions and practices.

The four principals participating in the study all work in the same school district

and received their principal certification from the State between 2002 and 2009. The

requirements for principal certification in this state and across the nation have

transformed in recent years. Prior to the changes, principals were required to earn a

master’s degree in educational leadership or educational administration, demonstrate

proficiency on a state assessment, and complete a yearlong mentoring program with a

school or district administrator. Currently, the certification criteria (effective September

1, 2008) in New Jersey has expanded to include the requirement of a master’s degree in

curriculum and instruction or in any other recognized field of leadership or management.

In addition, the expectation is that principals complete a two-year mentoring program

prior to receiving a standard principal’s certification exists.

87
 Two of the four principals in this study also participated in New Jersey’s Leader-

to-Leader program. Leader-to-Leader is a state-required mentoring program. Upon being

offered an administrative job (e.g., vice principal, principal, or director), districts must

enroll the prospective employee in this program. Once enrolled, the prospective

employee will receive mentoring by an experienced principal. The Leader-to-Leader

program is a two-year mentoring program that aligns the work that administrators are

doing with the Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium (ISLLC) Standards for

School Leaders.

The mentors assist principals in aligning their work to the standards. Over the

course of the two-year time period that individuals work together, the mentors provide

verbal and written feedback to principals. At the conclusion of the first year, principals

submit a portfolio outlining their work over the course of the year. During the second

year, principals conduct action research and present their findings to a committee of their

peers and mentors. Michael and Randy were not required to participate in this program

because they had earned a standard principal’s certificate while serving in their roles as

vice principals.

In the upcoming section, I provide a brief description of the program of study that

each of the principals in the study followed as they prepared for their current role. In

addition, I discuss the trajectory these principals followed as they approached the role of

school principal. Table 5.1 provides a summary of their trajectories. The columns in the

table represent the span before, during, and after the principals began their principal

preparation program.

88
 The three categories under the heading Before Principal Preparation summarize

the experiences that these principals engaged in prior to entering a program to prepare for

school leadership. The first column shows how these principals were prepared to enter

the teaching profession. Three of the four principals participated in a traditional teacher

preparation program. The fourth principal participated in New Jersey’s Alternate Route to

certification program. The Alternate Route program allows college graduates with non-

teaching degrees to train to become teachers. The second column outlines the subject and

number of years each principal taught. The final column in this section shows the

leadership and supervisory experiences that the principals engaged in prior to entering a

principal preparation program.

The second category, entitled During, represents the activities that occurred

during the principals’ preparation as well as the types of programs in which they enrolled.

This category includes the variety of courses the principals were required to take in order

to receive their master’s degree and principal’s certification. It also includes the required

state assessments that principals were required to pass prior to being issued a Certificate

of Eligibility. Once candidates meet the degree and proficiency requirements, they are

eligible to seek employment as a supervisor, vice principal, or principal.

The final category represents what happened, as the category suggests, After

Principal Preparation. The first section under this category identifies current and former

employment positions held under this certification. The second section lists the state-

required mentoring programs. All four principals were required to participate in

mentoring programs prior to being issued a standard certification. Because Michael and

Randy received their standard certification prior to accepting a principalship, they were

89
not required to enroll in the Leader-to-Leader program. After successful completion of

the Leader-to-Leader program, a standard principal’s certificate is issued by the State.

90
 Table 5.1
Principal Trajectory

Before Principal Preparation During After Principal Preparation

Principal Teacher Teaching Leadership Principal First Position Mentoring Other Learning
Preparation Experience Experience Preparation (after Earning Experience Opportunities
(as a Teacher) Certification)

Bruce Traditional teacher Physical education After School Traditional Vice principal of NJ Leader-to- Ongoing
program—physical and health for 8 Coordinator university- middle school (1 year) Leader (2 participation in
education/health years years); state professional
School Praxis Exam: School required development for
Management Leadership Series teachers in literacy
Team Chair

Allison Traditional teacher Business and Supervisor of Praxis Exam: School Vice principal of NJ Leader-to- Curriculum and
program–business computer classes instruction Leadership Series middle school (1 year) Leader (2 leadership
and computers for 17 years years); state conferences
required Professional
journals

Michael Alternate route Middle school Supervisor of Fast track to principal High School Vice 1 year Workshops
teacher–math math for 5 years alternative certification Principal mentoring as
education Vice Principal
program Praxis Exam: School
Leadership Series

Randy Traditional teacher Middle school Grade-level Traditional principal Vice principal of 1 year as Vice Communication
program–history history for 8 years chair- 1 year preparation program middle school (10 Principal with colleagues
years)
Praxis Exam: School
Leadership Series

91
 In order understand how the participants were prepared for school leadership, a

series of questions and follow-up questions were asked during the interviews. Principals

were asked to discuss how they were prepared for school leadership. After transcribing

and coding the data for possible themes and sub-themes, the data was organized into

categories. The categories focused on the strengths of the preparation programs, areas of

weakness of the programs, areas the participants wished the programs had focused on and

ways that the principals learned about school leadership.

The organization of the chapter is arranged according to the following assertions:

• The principals in this study did not feel that their formal preparation

adequately prepared them to manage the many diverse roles of

principalship

• The principals’ experiences before formal preparation and what they

engaged in after formal preparation had a much stronger impact on the

principals as leaders than their principal preparation program.

Preparing for Principal Leadership

Even though each principal had the experience of being a classroom teacher,

some of their experiences as informal teacher leaders and supervisors accentuated their

experiences while serving in the role of principal (see Table 11). The following section

discusses the path that each of the four principals took prior to entering a principal

preparation program.

Bruce served as an elementary teacher prior to preparing for the principalship. He

believed that his experiences as a teacher leader strengthened his understanding of school

92
leadership. During the interview, Bruce discussed how the experiences he had while

coordinating an after-school tutoring program, and chairperson of the school management

team. In addition, he was a member of the school leadership team (see Table 11). In

these roles, Bruce had the experience of being a part of team that developed school wide

instructional goals. This same team gave him the experience of looking at school wide

data and developing improvement plans. Bruce believed that these experiences

strengthened his ability to focus on instruction and credits these experiences with his

success as a principal.

Although Bruce took a traditional path to the role of principal (teacher-vice

principal-principal), his experiences were far from traditional. As a teacher, he was very

active in the instructional programs of his school. He said, “I always knew I wanted to be

a principal … so I knew that as a teacher, I had to strengthen my knowledge of

instruction and school leadership” (B. Johnson, personal communication, February 12,

2013).

While serving as a teacher, Bruce positioned himself to learn about other aspects

of the school. In order to realize his dream of becoming a principal, he knew he had to get

involved in activities outside of his work as a teacher. Bruce believed that the informal

experiences he gained, as a teacher leader, strengthened his knowledge of instructional

leadership and contributed to his conceptualization of his role. He explained, “I was

lucky enough that I had a lot of that experience during my teaching career, and that I was

involved in a lot of professional development which I had to turnkey” (B. Johnson,

personal communication, February 12, 2013).

93
 Allison’s trajectory to the principalship was cumulative. During each experience,

she gained additional knowledge and skills. She served as a teacher for 17 years prior to

becoming a supervisor, vice principal and principal. She said she garnered many of her

experiences while serving in each of those roles. While a teacher, she remembered the

strong leadership skills that her principal exhibited. She said her principal prioritized

instruction by visiting classes frequently. In addition, she said he allowed her to get

involved in leadership activities as a teacher. She said she carried those memories of his

leadership when she became a supervisor and principal and tried to emulate the same

practices in her school.

Allison believed the informal mentoring she received from her principal provided

her with many opportunities to exhibit her leadership throughout the school. She stated,

“As a teacher, he [her principal] allowed me to make decisions on a daily basis in

operations, management, instruction and discipline; he put me on the spot to see if I was

able to be the leader of a building” (A. Miller, personal communication, February 14,

2013).

While Allison’s longevity in teaching probably contributed to her understanding

of teaching and learning, she also believed that her master’s degree and her experiences

as a supervisor strengthened her conceptions of her role as a school leader. With

Allison’s master’s degree in teaching, she was able to receive a supervisor’s certificate.

She said, “Eleven years ago, when I became a supervisor, I learned how to supervise

instruction. It was hard then because we had to script everything. Those experiences have

helped me in my role as a principal” (A. Miller, personal communication, February 14,

2013).

94
 Allison’s path to the principalship led her to engage in practices that would

ultimately strengthen her ability to effectively lead a school. Participation in the

certification process was a formality, since she had gained so much of the knowledge she

needed through her path to the principalship.

Michael served as a teacher, supervisor, and vice principal prior to becoming a

principal. He had very limited experiences in teaching and instructional leadership (see

Table 11). I believe his fast track to teaching limited him from gaining effective

pedagogical skills; the non-standard route that he took to teaching prevented him from

gaining the formal experiences that teachers generally receive during teacher training. He

obtained all of his teaching knowledge while concurrently receiving training and

performing in the teaching role.

Although Michael served as a supervisor prior to becoming a principal, because

his role as a supervisor was primarily over an alternative education program for high

school students, he was not positioned to learn about effective school leadership during

those experiences. Further, while he conceptualized his role as an instructional leader, his

limited experiences in pedagogy and effective instructional practices probably affected

his ability to enact his conceptions in his role as a school leader.

Randy, a seasoned administrator, took the traditional route to teaching. However,

he also had limited experiences in teacher and instructional leadership. His only

leadership experience was service as a grade-level chair during his last year of teaching

(see Table 11). Like the other principals in this study, Randy conceptualized instructional

leadership as one of his primary roles yet, during his experience as a teacher, he did not

95
position himself on a path where he could effectively learn about effective leadership

practices.

Overall, the varying routes to the principalship led these school leaders to enact

their conceptions in different ways. As was revealed in Chapter Four, each of these

principals believed that instructional leadership was a pivotal role in their conceptions,

but they all enacted their conceptions at different levels.

Analysis of these individuals’ pre-principal preparation experiences suggest that

the experiences the principals received prior to entering a principal preparation program

had a large impact on how they enacted their conceptions as school leaders. Allison, the

most seasoned educator, believed that her primary role was to focus on instruction. The

longevity of her career in education, coupled with her master’s degree and experiences as

a supervisor, most likely contributed to her ability to implement many of her conceptions.

Allison spent 71% of her week on instructional leadership practice. The percentage of

time Allison spent on instructional leadership practices was much higher than any of the

other participants’ percentage of time spent on instructional leadership.

Analysis of Bruce’s prior preparation experiences show that his experiences as a

teacher leader should have led him to his conceptions of his role as an instructional

leader. However, the percentage of the day that he actually spent on instructional

leadership practice was only 49%. While Bruce’s actual practices were higher than the

instructional leadership practices of Michael and Randy, they were not completely

congruent with his pre-preparation experiences. The assumption is that Bruce’s prior

preparation experiences should have led to a higher level of practice in instructional

leadership.

96
 Both Randy and Michael had limited leadership experiences as teachers. An

examination of Randy and Michael’s prior preparation experiences revealed that their

limited experiences were aligned with their actual instructional leadership practices.

Randy and Michael’s instructional leadership practices were 26% and 37%, respectively.

While the evidence was not conclusive, it appears that the principals, who

engaged in stronger teacher leadership practices, were more engages in instructional

leadership practices as principals. The next section includes a review of the principals’

preparation program and their perceptions of those programs.

Principals’ Perceptions of their Principal Preparation Programs

In this section, I discuss how the principals’ perceptions of their preparation

programs. During the interviews, each participant was asked to share how the preparation

programs prepared them for the work they are doing now. The overarching theme was

that the principals believed that their programs should provide opportunities to put theory

into practice and greater opportunities to connect with leaders in the field. A careful

review of the data revealed that, for the most part, principals believed their preparation

programs were successful in theoretically preparing them for the role.

According to Darling-Hammond et al. (2007), “relatively few programs have had

strong clinical training that have allowed prospective leaders to learn many facets of their

complex jobs…” (p. 5). The authors also noted that the pre-service programs have failed

to adjust their programs to meet the needs of the varied student populations in schools.

Similar to the findings of Darling-Hammond et al. (2007), the principals in this study

indicated that the principal preparation programs they attended should be improved.

Here is what Allison had to say, “I would highly recommend that besides all of the

97
theory..., I think that there has to be a rigorous internship program that …gives them the

opportunity to solve daily situations. I think that’s extremely important” (A. Miller,

personal communication, February 14, 2013). Other principals in the study echoed

similar sentiments. Bruce believed that internships should be taken in conjunction with

courses. He believed participating in field experiences while taking courses like

budgeting and law, would have better prepared him for the principalship.

Three of the four principals believed that the theoretical knowledge they gained

from the courses was important; however, the principals also believed that the integration

of the theory into actual practice should occur. Allison said,

I think the theory courses on school law, school finance, supervision and
curriculum were good, but I think that there has to be a rigorous program, such as
an internship in which students receive specific hands-on experience in these
areas … not only to shadow someone, but also to have a mentor who allows them
or gives them the opportunity to solve daily situations like creating actual budgets
or curriculum plans or communicating with parents in different situations. I think
that’s extremely important (A. Miller, personal communication, February 14,
2013).

Bruce also believed that programs should provide more opportunities to

understand the application of theory to practice. He believed the coursework should

include opportunities for students to learn from practitioners. He shared the following:

More of the actual coursework should include actual leaders interviewing leaders
… if it’s a school finance course, a curriculum and instruction course, or a school
law course, rather than wait for your internship to get the bulk of that work, more
of it should be based on actual interviews and experiences in schools versus
studying theory (B. Johnson, personal communication, February 12, 2013).

Similar to Allison and Bruce, Randy believed that the theoretical aspect of his

program was good. Randy said, “Theoretically, it prepared me very well” (R. Green,

personal communication, February 28, 2013). Randy believed his program assisted him

in understanding the leadership theory. He wished he had more opportunities to apply

98
that theory. He said he was able to complete the classroom assignments in his program;

however, it was much more difficult to map what he had learned in the classroom to real

experiences.

A second recommendation made by principals for the preparation programs was

to increase and strengthen their time participating in field experiences. While all four

principals participated in a field experience, they each expressed the opinion that the

internship aspect of the work represented an area of their program that should be

strengthened. The principals believed that these internship programs provided minimal

support in preparing them for the role of principal.

Michael indicated that the experiences during his internship did not provide him

with access to the situations, issues, and activities that were necessary to increase his

understanding of the role. He believed that the access he received through his internship

was minimal. He explained:

Districts are not going to give you the kind of access that you would need to really
get some real-life experience. The advice I would give colleges and universities is
to make sure they have relationships with school districts so it is easier to get the
candidates the kind of experiences they need … now a lot of the experiences are
not as in-depth as they could be when you talk about real-life experiences in the
roles that they are preparing themselves for (M. Jones, personal communication,
February 27, 2013).

Bruce also believed that a stronger internship program would have provided him

with the skills necessary to effectively manage the day-to-day operations of the school.

He believed he was unprepared to juggle critical operations in the school when he began

his tenure as principal. He was particularly concerned with the questions he possessed

about budgets, school schedules, and personnel management, as well as the lack of

support he received from those around him. He said, “A stronger internship program

99
would have given me better access to situations involving these areas … or even talking

to people in the field about real situations” (B. Johnson, personal communication,

February 12, 2013).

While Allison did appear to have a valuable field experience, she also highlighted

it as a weak aspect of her program. When asked to elaborate on her preparation, she

shared that her field experience was adequate, but would have been stronger if she had

the real-life experience of creating and adjusting actual school budgets or conducting

observations and providing follow-up action plans to help struggling teachers. She

believed those critical areas were missing from her field experience.

A final theme that emerged through analysis of the interview data was what

principals described as a lack of instructional leadership focus in their preparation

programs. All four of the principals uttered dissatisfaction with their preparation in this

area. They believed that the schools’ programs did not completely prepare them well for

managing or leading instruction. When asked to offer specific recommendations for

improvement, they all indicated that, in addition to providing a stronger internship

component, a key element that was missing from the programs was training in the areas

of managing and supervising instruction.

These principals believed that the programs should offer courses dedicated to

effective teaching practice. They also believed the courses should incorporate ways to

respond to teacher observations and provide ways to assist teachers with improving their

practice. Although Bruce was the only principal who believed his program offered some

support in managing instruction, he also believed that this was an area that could be

strengthened. He said,

100
 I think a lot of principal preparation programs can do a little more in teaching
principals how to teach teachers. I was lucky enough that I had a lot of that
experience during my teaching career but that is definitely an area that should be
strengthened (B. Johnson, personal communication, February 12, 2013).

Allison also believed the that preparation programs should train future principals

to help struggling teachers in the form of teacher professional development:

I think that there is not enough training for administrators in how to go into the
classrooms and really evaluate instruction. And, when there is not good
instruction going on, being able to come up with whatever it is that a particular
teacher needs for improvement. I also feel that principal preparation programs
should really provide solid examples of how to conduct teacher observations …
.as a leader, what can we do to groom someone and really train someone to be an
effective classroom teacher? I had difficulties initially when I started as a
supervisor (A. Miller, personal communication, February 14, 2013).

Michael offered similar suggestions around improving principals’ understanding

of teacher effectiveness and practice. He shared:

I think colleges need to spend a lot more time on effective teaching … the college
is expecting us to go out there and lead and monitor effective teaching practices
… we need assistance in looking at different ways we can impact students and
achievement … we need more training in that area (M. Jones, personal
communication, February 27, 2013).

Randy added the following:

I think the universities should probably pay more attention to effective teaching
practices in the classroom. I also think there needs to be a more succinct
vocabulary … so it does not matter whether you went to University A, B, or C,
you come away with the same understandings of effective teaching (R. Green,
personal communication, February 28, 2013).

Overall, principals did not feel adequately prepared for the instructional

leadership aspects of their role. Over time, they have realized that some components were

lacking in their preparation. As I pressed further to understand more deeply, I heard each

express different criticisms of their preparation. They indicated that, at the conclusion of

their studies, they had limited understanding of the key skills that were necessary to

101
effectively manage and lead their schools. In summary, the common themes that emerged

from the data were narrow applications of theoretical concepts, weak internship

programs, and limited preparation in the area of instructional leadership.

The findings from this section link to the findings associated with the principals’

conceptions and practices of school leadership. Given the fact that these principals

believed their principal preparation lacked key programming to enact effective school

leadership, it is not surprising that they did not learn instructional leadership from their

principal preparation programs.

As principals shared their recommendations on strengthening their preparation

programs, they also discussed other ways they learned about school leadership. The next

section provides some insight into how the principals say they developed the

competencies needed to serve as leaders of schools.

Learning on the job

As principals shared information on how they were prepared to lead schools, the

theme of learning on the job emerged. Throughout the analysis, it was clear that one of

the ways principals learned about school leadership was by doing “school leadership.”

All four of the principals believed that they learned most of what they needed to know

while operating in the role of principal. The following context for learning emerged

across the four principals:

• Learning from doing the work

• Participation in professional development and conferences

• Learning from mentoring

102
Learning from doing the work

Learning from doing the work was a theme that emerged from the principals.

While each principal’s learning was different, they all garnered experiences while

actually doing the work.

Unlike other principals in the study, Michael became a principal with minimal

experience as an instructional leader. He did not have the experience of supervising

instruction in an area in which he taught or previously supervised. His current role as an

elementary school principal is completely new. In his previous leadership roles, he

served as a supervisor of a high school alternative education program and as a high

school vice principal. In these roles, his primary responsibility was managing discipline

and alternative education structures.

Because Michael had obtained his standard principal’s certificate prior to taking

on the role of principal, he was not eligible for supports that newly hired principals

received. As a result, he credited his on-the-job experiences as his most powerful

learning. He believed he learned the most about his position while serving in the role of

principal. He explained, “I’ve had to rely on staff members to assist me … after going

through several district instructional walk-throughs and receiving feedback from

colleagues and supervisors … I’m starting to get it” (M. Jones, personal communication,

February 27, 2013).

Michael offered the most critical explanation when he surmised that his program

had only provided him with about 30% of the training he needed to do his job well. When

asked to explain the extent to which his preparation program prepared him, he said,

“Actual practice, realistically, I would say 30%. I would say most of my experience came

103
from just doing the actual job” (M. Jones, personal communication, February 27, 2013).

The 30% of Michael’s training that he considered beneficial was related to the required

policy courses (e.g., school finance and school law).

Randy also believed that he learned about the role while serving in the role. He

stated that the experiential learning he received while serving in the role far exceeded any

learning that took place in his college classrooms. He credited the actual completion of

organizational charts, budgets, and reports while serving as principal with strengthening

his understanding of the role. He said,

I think the experiential learning that takes place, as you actually are doing the job,
overshadows anything you went over in a classroom and so there are things
regarding budgets and school finance and managing people and organizations that
were taught, but the real life experience has been a stronger teacher (R. Green,
personal communication, February 28, 2013).

Participating in professional development

Bruce and Allison both believed that they learned a lot about school leadership

while serving in the role. However, they credited ongoing professional development and

participation in conferences as key factors in their development. In this section, I discuss

how professional development and conferences assisted these principals in gaining an

understanding of their jobs.

Allison considered herself a lifelong learner. She said she regularly attends the

Association of Supervisors and Curriculum Development (ASCD) and National

Association of Secondary School Principals (NASSP) conferences, which she said has

helped her to stay current on best practices in teaching and effective leadership strategies.

Allison believed that, as the educational leader, she needed to understand the latest

research on teaching and learning. She also believed these workshops helped her to

104
provide instructional guidance to her teachers, a role that she believes is central to her

leadership.

Bruce also credited his participation in professional development opportunities,

specific to effective teaching practices, as being critical to his on-the-job development.

He said, “I’ve been attending workshops and institutes with a university-sponsored

reading and writing project. These workshops have helped me to learn about what my

teachers are supposed to be doing in the classroom” (B. Johnson, personal

communication, February 12, 2013). He also credited his participation in the Children’s

Literacy Program workshops as supportive in strengthening his understanding of

effective instruction.

Learning from mentoring

In addition to the on-the-job experiences, these four principals sought advice from

veterans in the field or adopted mentors to help them to better understand their roles.

Bruce cited a two-year, state-required mentoring program as critical to his development

as a principal. He believed that the state’s required mentoring program helped by filling

in the gaps that existed in his principal preparation program. Here is what he had to say:

I learned a lot from the state mentoring programs after I graduated. I felt that the
Leader-to-Leader program and some of the other state programs filled in the gaps.
I wish I had gotten some of those things from my master’s program. My mentor
from the Leader-to-Leader was very helpful in helping me to manage and
prioritize my responsibilities as an instructional leader (B. Johnson, personal
communication, February 12, 2013).

As Bruce elaborated on his experiences in preparing for leadership, it was clear

that the knowledge he received from his mentor, while serving as principal, was much

more valuable than his graduate school experience. Allison also participated in the

105
Leader-to-Leader program; however, she did not specify it as critical to her development

as a principal.

Randy also cited informal mentoring as being helpful in understanding his role.

Although he had been a vice principal for several years, he needed additional support in

understanding his role. As with Michael, he had received his standard certification prior

to the principalship and was not required to participate in New Jersey’s Leader-to-Leader

program. He said:

Although I was a vice principal for several years, those experiences were very
different from what’s required of a principal and I’m also in a different district …
so, when I have questions around particular practices or procedures, I find myself
emailing veteran principals in the district (R. Green, personal communication,
February 28, 2013).

Summary

Overall, the four principals did not feel that they were adequately prepared for

school leadership. Through on-the-job experiences, these principals realized that

components were lacking in their preparation programs. While each principal’s on-the-

job experiences were different, they all agreed that a large portion of learning the job of

the principal was gained primarily by serving in the role.

The overall findings in this chapter suggest that much of what principals learned

about school leadership occurred outside of the college classroom. The principals in this

study took varying routes to their principalships. According to the participants, their

principal preparation programs did not offer the specific learning needed to perform in

their roles and did little to contribute to their future development as instructional leaders.

The findings from this chapter suggest the following:

106
 • Principals with significant leadership experiences as teachers demonstrated

the most success as instructional leaders.

• Principals’ ongoing involvement in professional learning contributed

significantly to their development as instructional leaders.

• Longevity as a classroom teacher may have had an impact on principals’

instructional leadership practices.

• Master’s degrees that focused on teaching, appeared to contribute to

principals’ development as instructional leaders.

• Principals’ experiences, before and after principal preparation, significantly

contributed to their development as school leaders.

• Principals’ conceptions of their roles as school leaders conflicted with their

actual practices.

• While principals understood the components of instructional leadership, the

enactments of instructional practices were limited due to lack of training.

Overall, the principal’s reflection on their experiences outside of the classroom

provided a level of support in understanding their roles. In addition to learning about the

principalship while serving in the role, the principals discussed experiences they had as

teachers that also assisted them in their roles as school leaders.

Michael and Randy both credit on-the-job experiences as supporting their

development as school leaders. Bruce credits his experiences as a teacher leader and

mentoring on the job with strengthening his understanding of his role. Allison’s

experiences as a master teacher, supervisor, and continuous learner provided evidence in

understanding how instructional leadership is learned and enacted in schools.

107
 All of these accounts illustrate my assertion that principals’ experiences before

and after their principal preparation provides important support to school administrators

as they develop into effective instructional leaders.

108
 CHAPTER SIX

DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This qualitative study explored how four early-career principals conceptualized

their roles as school leaders. It further explored the relationship between principals’

conceptions and practices. A final exploration examined how principal preparation

informed the conceptions and practices of these principals.

The study was driven by the research on principal leadership. The constructs that

guided the theoretical framework of this qualitative study were principal leadership

practices, instructional leadership, and principal learning. These theoretical frameworks

provided a lens for understanding the roles, responsibilities and practices of principals

engaging in principal leadership. The literature on principal preparation for effective

school leadership also supported my understanding of this phenomenon.

Four early-career principals from a single urban district in the Mid-Atlantic region

of the United States participated in this study. Principals shared their perceptions,

practices and views on the programs that prepared them for school leadership. Each

principal was interviewed via semi-structured open-ended interviews, which served as the

primary basis for understanding the principals’ conceptions of their roles, as well as their

views on the training they received from principal preparation programs.

In order to understand participants’ actual practices, each principal logged the

leadership activities they engaged in daily for one week. In an effort to observe

principals practicing in their natural setting, site visits occurred at each school. Field

notes were taken to record what was happening in the participants’ schools. While at the

participants’ schools and via email, documents and artifacts were gathered to assist in

109
understanding the practices of each principal. The triangulated data provided insights

into the participants’ conceptions, practices and preparedness.

This study sought answers to the following research questions:

RQ1: How do early-career K-8 principals conceptualize their roles as school

leaders?

RQ1a: What role does instructional leadership play in this broader conception?

RQ2: What practices does the principal engage in on a regular basis?

RQ3: How have these principals learned about their roles as school leaders?

RQ3a: What did they learn about instructional leadership in their principal

preparation programs?

RQ3b: What other opportunities have they had to learn about school leadership?

This chapter explores the relationship between findings, existing research and

lessons learned. It reflects on information obtained to answer the research questions,

identifies areas for future research, as well as implications for school districts and states.

The chapter concludes with thoughts and reflections. In the following section, I discuss

how the four principals in this study understood their roles. I also discuss the varying

conceptions of the principals and offer possible explanations for the differences.

Principals’ Conceptions of their Role as Instructional Leader

The findings suggest that the principals had a broad range of conceptions of their

roles. In addition to the broad conceptions of their roles, the principals' definitions of

instructional leadership were mostly aligned to what many scholars have defined as

instructional leadership. Similar to the research of several scholars (Robinson et al., 2008;

110
Wallace, 2013), the four principals primarily defined instructional leadership as the

ability to see teaching and learning as their primary role.

Although the principals believed that instructional leadership was an important

role, they also had very specific conceptions and priorities. Bruce was very explicit in his

belief that instructional leadership was his primary role. Throughout the interview, the

discussion was primarily focused around instructional tasks that he believed were

important. Allison had many conceptions of her role; she believed that her overall role

was to be an educational leader. Embedded in Allison’s belief was the idea that teaching

and learning was her number one priority. Although, Michael’s espoused beliefs were

situated in instructional leadership, his actions appeared to be more connected to the

managerial aspects of school leadership. He believed that his role as principal was

equivalent to the role of a CEO. Randy also believed that instructional leadership was a

central role, however his overall conception was dominated by his belief that effective

communications and establishing relationships were critical in his role as principal.

In addition to instructional leadership and other articulated conceptions, the

principals also believed they were responsible for everything. All study participants

uttered these beliefs, as they described the many responsibilities of their role as school

principals. Everything ranged from managing the school buildings’ operations to the

delivery of instruction and everything in between. Castle and Mitchell (2005) also

explored the many responsibilities that principals engage in daily. In examining the

instructional roles of elementary principals, Mitchell and Castle (2005) studied 12

elementary principals and found their roles to be complex. They argued, “As we worked

with these principals to understand how they viewed and carried out their instructional

111
role, we saw that the role was complex, located within a number of competing and

opposing demands” (p. 417). Similar to the principals in the Mitchell and Castle (2005)

study, the principals in this study viewed their roles as complex; they believed they were

responsible for many things, with instruction sometimes taking a back seat to other

responsibilities.

Overall each principal had a range of conceptions. The roles voiced by the

principals were all roles that required attention in schools. The participants discussed the

need to attend to budgets, paperwork, reports, discipline, parent meeting and more. They

also emphasized that the role of instructional leadership was critical.

While Allison did not mention instructional leadership specifically as a role, her

conceptions were mostly aligned with instruction. In Billy Jenkins’s (2009) article on

What it takes to be an instructional leader, he stated, “inherent in the concept of

instructional leadership is the notion that learning should be given top priority” (p. 36).

As suggested by Jenkins (2009), all of the principals believed that instructional leadership

should be given a top priority.

The multiple roles expressed by the participants were mostly aligned with the

literature on effective school leadership. For example, the participants’ perceptions of

their roles, as listed in Table 5, were similar to Seashore-Louis et al.’s (2010) key

findings of principals’ leadership. Seashore-Louis et al.’s (2010) found that the following

practices were associated with effective school leadership:

• Shaping a vision

• Creating a climate hospitable to education

• Cultivating leadership in others

112
 While all of the principals in the study mentioned shaping a school’s vision and

roles similar to creating a climate hospitable to education, only two of the four principals

mentioned or provided evidence of how they cultivate leadership in others. Studies have

found that cultivating leadership in others to be a factor in effective schools. Seashore-

Louis et al.’s (2010) study found that effective leadership from all staff members,

including staff without formal leadership titles, was associated with increased student

achievement in literacy and math.

The concept of sharing leadership amongst all school faculty members was also

researched by Spillane et al. (2001). He argued, “While individual leaders and their

attributes do matter in constituting leadership practice, they are not all that matters. Other

leaders and followers also matter in they help define leadership practice” (p. 27).

Although the principals in this study had broad conceptions of their roles, the

findings suggest that their overarching belief of being responsible for everything limited

their ability to focus their attention on all the needs of the school. The findings also point

to the idea that the principals were mostly involved in all leadership efforts in the school.

Only two of the four principals engaged in practices related to distributed or collective

leadership; Bruce and Allison both believed that teachers and others should be a part of

the school’s decision-making process. They both disclosed that, as teachers, they were

allowed to take on leadership roles. The practices afforded them as teachers, most likely

influenced their ability to engage in this practice in their schools.

Many scholars (Spillane et.al, 2004; Seashore et al., 2010) have argued that there

are benefits to collaborative, distributive and shared leadership. In addition, the evidence

from this study points to the idea that solo leadership does not provide the greatest

113
learning outcomes for students. In order to increase learning outcomes for students, I

think principals should engage in practices that cultivate leadership in others. As we

have learned from the literature, leadership is broader than one person; effective school

leadership requires input from multiple stakeholders. The following section connects the

principals’ practices to instructional leadership and existing research.

Principal Practices and the Role of Instructional Leadership

While the participants in this study believed that instructional leadership was

important, the evidence revealed that three of the four principals spent less than 50% of

their week on instructional leadership practices. Only one principal was able to dedicate

a significant part of their day to instructional leadership. The findings support the notion

of conflicts between actual and perceived practices.

Throughout the interviews, three of the four principals mentioned instructional

leadership practices, which they believed, they engaged in regularly about 20 times.

Bruce mentioned instructional leadership practices more than twice the amount of any

other principal. He mentioned instructional leadership practices 56 times. Surprisingly,

while Allison named a similar number of practices as Randy and Michael, other data

indicated that her instructional leadership practices far exceeded all principals in the

study.

Despite the principals’ understandings of their role as instructional leaders, the

reality of being responsible for everything in the school took precedence over many other

perceived responsibilities. This belief of being responsible for everything may have

contributed to principals’ inability to effectively implement instructional leadership

114
practices regularly in their schools. This finding was glaring as principals discussed the

many demands of their position.

The findings in this study also supported the idea that administrative, managerial

and instructional tasks were all competing for the principals’ attention. These competing

tasks made visible the unrealistic requirements of the principals being responsible for

everything, resulting in principals prioritizing instructional responsibilities with

insufficient frequency. In addition, the selected priorities varied from principal to

principal, with many key responsibilities attended to less frequently. This phenomenon

resulted in the idea that performing multiple complex tasks with the same level of rigor and

commitment is impracticable.

Other researchers, (Mitchell & Castle, 2002; Doyle & Rice, 2002) also supported

the notion of conflicts in principals’ roles and responsibilities. They discussed the

balancing act that principals engage in daily, they argued, “The principal’s challenge is to

free himself or herself from the bureaucratic tasks and embrace leadership of the schools’

primary aim and purpose” (Doyle & Rice, p. 52). An article published by the United

States Department of Education (2005) also supports the idea of prioritizing instructional

leadership. They argue that instruction and knowledge must be at the top of a principal’s

list of priorities. The principals in this study appeared to have conflicts between

perceived and actual leadership practices; principals had difficulties prioritizing their

responsibilities, which prevented them from implementing instructional leadership

practices more frequently.

Allison and Bruce’s experiences as teacher leaders appear to have assisted them in

prioritizing instruction. These two principals were also able to use teacher leaders to

115
assist with decision-making and leadership activities. Allison and Bruce both discussed

how they used teachers to lead and turnkey professional development activities.

While Bruce and Allison’s experiences as teacher leaders most likely assisted

them in better enacting leadership in their schools, another possible explanation for their

ability to take on more instructional leadership activities may be related to the type of

leadership they experienced with other principals. Both principals indicated that they

gained knowledge from working with other principals.

Bruce indicated that participation in his state’s mentoring program provided him

with school leadership guidance. Bruce was assigned an experienced principal as a

mentor during his first year as a vice principal and principal. He maintained that

experiences with his mentor provided support during his beginning years as a principal.

While Allison, did not consider the state’s mentoring program to be a critical factor in her

development as a principal, she did indicate that strong leadership from her former

principal provided her with examples of effective school leadership. She explained how

her principal modeled effective practices and allowed her to take on leadership roles as a

teacher.

Bruce and Allison had experiences that augmented their roles as school leaders.

Through their experiences, they understood that collaborative leadership was necessary

for effective schools. In order to make a difference in schools, I believe that all principal

should have experiences similar to Bruce and Allison. The findings indicated that both

Michael and Randy were limited in their implementation of instructional leadership

practices.

116
 The principals in this study had many conceptions of their roles. The leadership

practices that each principal engaged in were related to how they were prepared to take

on the role of school leader. The following section connects the principals’ conceptions

and practices to how they were prepared for school leadership.

Connecting Principals’ Preparation to Conceptions of their Role

At the study’s inception, I hypothesized that study participants’ primary

perceptions of their roles, as school leaders would be formed through participation in

their principal preparation programs. I was curious about how different programs’

curricula would allow the principals’ understandings of their roles to formulate.

A key finding in this study was that the trajectory towards the principalship was a

career-long path. Two of the four principals in this study had prior experience with

instruction and leadership prior to entering a principal preparation program. Both

principals’ conceptions of their role were deeply connected to their experiences as

teachers and teacher leaders prior to becoming principals. As a result, these principals

had a stronger understanding of their roles and responsibilities, as evidenced by their

leadership practices.

Allison and Bruce both served as teacher leaders in their schools prior to

becoming principals. These experiences appeared to have strengthened their

understanding of instruction, which most likely contributed to their strong conception of

their roles as instructional leaders. While both Michael and Randy served as teachers,

they had limited or no experience with teacher leadership. Their limited experience with

instructional leadership, prior to entering the principalship, most likely contributed to

their narrow understandings of their roles.

117
 There have been studies on the principal pipeline and on identifying potential

principals (Anderson, Arcaira, MacFarlane, Riley, & Turnbull, 2013; Bierly, C. & Shy,

E., 2013). These studies have found that the path towards the principalship must be

identified and nurtured early in a teacher’s career. Chris Bierly and Eileen Shy are

partners at Bain & Company and lead their K-12 Education practice. In Bain’s study,

Bierly and Shy (2013), found a strong connection between teacher and principal

leadership. They argued, “leadership should not be left to chance” (p. 3). These authors

argued that teacher leaders must be identified early in order to put them on the path

towards the principalship. In the Bain study (2013) Bierly and Shy cited one

principal’s path to principal leadership:

At Osborne Elementary in the Houston Independent School District, for instance,

one longtime teacher-turned-principal helped lead a four-year turnaround that
boosted third grade math and reading scores by 42 and 28 percentage points,
respectively, turning a below average institution into an outstanding one (p. 8).

Allison’s trajectory was similar to the longtime teacher from Osborne Elementary.

Unlike the other three principals in this study, she accumulated many more years as a

classroom teacher and had earned a master’s degree in teaching, prior to preparing for the

principalship. As a principal, she organized her practices around supporting instruction.

It is likely that her years of experience and study as a teacher strengthened her

understanding of effective instruction and supported her ability to serve as an

instructional leader in her school.

Although Bruce’s strength as an instructional leader was not as robust as

Allison’s, he was more instructionally oriented than Randy and Michael. As was noted

previously, Bruce also served in a teacher leadership role prior to becoming a school

118
principal. As a teacher, he involved himself in several instructional activities. His

primary teacher leadership role was serving on his school’s leadership team. In that

capacity, he had access to the nuts and bolts of his school’s instructional programs. His

experiences as a teacher leader most likely contributed to his understandings of his role as

a school leader.

Both Randy and Michael, on the other hand, had limited experiences with teacher

leadership. Randy spent much of his career as an assistant principal with limited access

to instructional leadership responsibly. Michael’s fast track towards school leadership

limited his opportunity to build capacities to effectively lead schools instructionally.

These two new principals understood the tenets of instructional leadership, however they

were missing key elements that could have strengthened their capacity to lead schools

effectively.

The finding that a principal’s trajectory towards effective school leadership may

have formed prior to entering a principal preparation program is particularly important

since we now know that a principal’s path towards the principalship varies and depends

on the principals’ experiences as teachers or experiences in other leadership

responsibilities in schools.

These findings offer new considerations about how we identify and develop

effective school leaders. Each principal in this study believed they were inadequately

prepared to lead schools by their preparation programs. They cited the need to strengthen

the programs’ intern program to ensure a focus on instruction. These findings are also

supported by the research on principal preparation programs. The Wallace Foundation,

2007; Levine, 2005; Reams, 2005 all outlined strategies for improving principal

119
preparation programs. In addition, the Wallace Foundation has begun to fund projects to

correct the underprepared and newly prepared principals. These studies support the idea

of strengthening programs by focusing on instructional leadership practices.

While the small sample is not sufficient to make strong correlations, the strength

of Allison’s practices shows that Allison’s perceptions of her practices were probably

formed while serving as a teacher, teacher leader and supervisor. Bruce’s path to the

principalship also emerged while serving as a teacher leader. Given the strength of

Allison’s practices and the increased emphasis on principals as instructional leaders, the

requirements to the principalship should be revisited, once again.

In addition, the fast track to the principalship might facilitate a principal’s ability

to manage a school, however, the evidence from this study supports the idea that there are

preparations that should take place before, during and after a principal’s formal

preparation for school leadership, with the strongest impact occurring before and after a

principals prescribed training in school leadership. The fast track to the principalship

does not afford future principals the opportunity to gain those experiences. The

experiences can only be gained through longevity in teaching or other school

experiences.

Current literature supports the idea that principal preparation programs should be

strengthened (Darling-Hammond et al., 2007; Levine, 2005). In New Jersey, the current

requirements allow educators to become principals after a successfully completing 5-

years as a certified educator, with a master’s in curriculum and instruction; just one of the

possible options towards certification. Allison served in a teacher’s role for 17 years,

prior to becoming a principal. Her master’s in teaching degree focused primarily on

120
effective teaching, not leadership. Allison’s background and experiences, as well as her

path towards the principalship, may provide insights towards the future preparation of

principals.

Other Opportunities to Learn About Instructional Leadership

While the principals identified instructional leadership as the primary role of the

principal, all of the principals felt unprepared to enact their role effectively. Each

principal believed principal preparation programs needed to provide more meaningful

experiences, such as real school experiences, during the internship. This belief was also

articulated by Levine (2005) in his study of principal preparation programs.

Levine published a study similar to the Wallace Foundation’s 2007 study on

exemplary programs in 2005. He examined the principal training programs of several

universities and colleges. In his 2005 report, Educating School leaders, he found clinical

instruction to be inadequate. Levine (2005) argued, “We found clinical instruction to be

well respected in name only. Clinical experience tends to be squeezed in while students

work full time and generally occurs in the school where the student is

employed…students described the experience as something to be gotten out of the way;

not as a learning opportunity” (p.40).

The statements outlined above by Levine (2005), were also articulated by

participants in this study. While they all completed an internship as part of their Master’s

program, the evidence supported the fact that principals did not believe the internship

provided sufficient opportunities to adequately prepare them for the job. Thus, the

principals in this study gained most of their experiences through on the job or other

learning experiences. In one case, a principal credited his involvement in a state run

121
Leader-to-Leader mentoring program with much of his development. The remaining

principals participated in workshops and conferences in and out of the district, with most

of the opportunities being self-initiated or learned on the job as they performed the job,

often calling on colleagues to assist with their limitations.

This chapter discussed key findings and conceptual underpinnings. The findings

of this study linked principals’ perceived conceptions, practices and preparations to the

participants’ actual leadership practices in schools. The conceptual framework provided a

lens towards understanding the correlations between principals’ perceived versus actual

practices. The chapter also provided connections to current literature to support this

study’s findings. This study contributes to the current literature on instructional

leadership and offers new learning as it relates to a teacher’s trajectory towards the

principalship. In the following sections, I provide recommendations and reflections on

the study.

Recommendations

Given the significant focus on student achievement and the need for principals to

prioritize instruction, several changes are needed. As was noted throughout this study,

the principal’s role is complex. In order to function in this complex role, principals must

draw upon knowledge gained from principal preparation programs, professional

development and experiences. Hence, the following recommendations are necessary:

• The findings from this study pointed to the idea that Allison’s extensive

experience as a teacher and her instructional orientation seems to have set her up

to serve as an instructional leader. On the contrary, Michael’s fast track to the

principalship may have contributed to his limited understanding and

122
 implementation of instructional leadership. Given this conclusion, states should

consider reviewing the criteria for becoming a principal.

• The findings from this study, as well as the extensive studies by Levine (2005)

and Darling-Hammond et al. (2010) pointed to the idea that principal preparation

programs should be strengthened. The clinical practices that principals participate

in must allow students to have real experiences that will assist them in leading

schools.

• Only two of the four principals in this study provided evidence of consistent

instructional leadership practices. Given this finding, preparation programs

should ensure there is a strand in their curriculum that focuses on instructional

leadership practices. This strand should also provide students the opportunity to

engage in these practices prior to the principalship.

• The findings from this study, as well as literature on collaborative leadership,

indicated that lone principal leadership does yield the best learning outcomes for

students. Hence, districts should ensure that there is a structure to cultivate

leadership in others and allow these leaders to participate in school decisions and

leadership.

• This study’s findings demonstrate that there are gaps in how principals were

prepared and execute instructional leadership. Hence, districts should ensure that

in-house professional development programs address these gaps by providing

professional learning opportunities that supports principals’ ongoing learning.

123
Reflections

This study emanated because of my interest in learning about how principals

navigate the many roles they have as school leaders. In order to make a difference in

schools, I think that principals should exhibit strong leadership skills. I see strong

leadership as the ability to engage others in the vision and mission of the school. Strong

leaders are able to solicit support from teachers and other staff members in leading

instructional and managerial tasks in schools.

Spillane et al. (2004) also discussed principals’ ability to engage others in

leadership practices. They believed that principals’ practices should be distributed over

multiple characters in a school. Spillane et al. (2004) argued, “Our distributed

perspective focuses on how leadership practice is distributed among positional and

informal leaders as well as their followers” (p.16). They further added, “A distributed

perspective presses us to consider the enactment of leadership tasks as potentially

stretched over the practice of two or more leaders or followers” (Spillane et al., 2004, p.

16).

MacNeill et al. (2007), believed that principals should have a general idea of

effective leadership practices. I also believe that principals should have a general idea of

effective teaching practices. While it is not necessary for principals to be experts in

specific curriculum areas, I believe principals should keep instruction as a central focus.

Hence effective principals should ensure that there are structures in place to analyze

student work, as well as opportunities for teachers and principals to discuss best practices

in teaching and learning.

124
 The completion of this study has fulfilled a strong desire to understand

instructional leadership and its connection to effective schools. As a researcher, teacher,

and administrator, the process of exploring and collecting data on instructional

leadership, principal preparation and effective leadership practices has had a profound

impact on my understandings of effective leadership in schools. The study has further

increased my interest in assisting principals, districts and institutions in strengthening the

leadership practices of principals.

I was compelled to embark on this journey to uncover how principals perceived

their roles as school leaders. An underlining wondering was to ascertain how effective

leadership impacts student learning. The literature on student achievement suggests there

is a correlation between principal leadership and learning outcomes for students. The

literature further suggests that a principal’s impact is connected to the support and

monitoring of teachers. The literature and findings of this study resonated with me and

validated my drive to continue to incorporate effective leadership strategies in my own

practice.

In my personal and professional experiences in a variety of districts (affluent,

suburban & urban), I have witnessed the varying levels of school leadership. I have also

witnessed the disparities that exist because of ineffective teaching and leadership. My

journey through this process has confirmed and strengthened my desire to ensure that all

students are provided with access to highly effective teachers and administrators who

understand, value and implement effective teaching and leadership practices.

My study’s findings also illuminated the notion of the principal’s complex role;

hence, some principals may not be functioning at optimal levels. Since principals are

125
critical in the success of students, strengthening the practices of principals should be a

state and national priority. While the idea of instructional leadership was originated over

thirty years ago, this study has highlighted the need to revisit the process of preparing

candidates for school leadership. In addition, the selection and retention of highly

qualified principals is paramount to effective schools.

The study further highlighted the need for future research on alternative routes to

certification, mentoring, and professional development for principals. This research is

needed to ensure that principals receive strong training prior to becoming school leaders.

It is further recommended that future research be done to better understand how principal

leadership is monitored in schools.

I believe this study has provided answers to my research questions. It has also

provided a path to further expand the body of literature on effective schools and

instructional leadership. As a reflective practitioner, I have also gained valuable insights

that will assist me in my practice and future research. However, due to the relatively

small sample size, further analysis of how principals spend their day is needed. Although

the findings appear to be consistent with the literature on instructional leadership and

principal preparation, the added literature around a teacher’s path towards the

principalship requires further exploration.

126
 APPENDIX A

In-depth Open-ended Interview Protocol

This interview will take approximately 45 minutes. The findings will also be

shared with my dissertation committee, with the use of pseudonyms or otherwise reported

so that no individuals can be identified. You can refuse to answer any of the questions

and you can ask me not to use your responses at any time during or after this interview.

With your permission, I will tape the interview with a digital recorder. The

interview will be transcribed by a professional transcription service. If information from

this interview is published or presented at research conferences, then your name and other

personal information will not be used.

In addition to the questions listed on this protocol, follow-up questions may be

asked or additional questions may arise as a result of your answers.

1. Where are you the principal now? How long have you been there?

2. Where and when did you get your principal certification?

3. To what extent did your certification program prepare you to do the work

you are doing now?

4. What recommendations would you give to universities preparing students

to become school leaders? What areas should they devote more time to?

Why?

5. In your opinion, what are the most important tasks of a school principal?

6. What three activities do you spend the most time on in any week?

7. To what activities do you wish you could devote more time?

127
8. How do you ensure that teaching and learning is happening in your

school?

9. How often do you meet with teachers and for what purpose?

10. How would you describe your role as principal?

11. Thinking about your role as principal, how would you prioritize your

responsibilities?

128
 Appendix B

Principal’s Background Information

Name: Sex: Age:

Number of years teaching: Number of years as vice/assistant principal:

Number of years as principal: Level of education:

School type: Urban Suburban Rural

School size: Level of school: K-5 K-8 Middle

Undergraduate school attended: Graduate school attended:

129
 Appendix C

Principal’s Leadership Log

Time Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday

130
 Appendix D

Document Summary Form

Site:

Document:

Date Received:

Name/description of document(s):

Event/contact, if any document associated with:

Significance of the document:

Brief summary of the contents:

131
 Appendix E

Contact Summary Form

Contact type: Site:

Visit Contact date:

Phone Today’s date:

With whom:

1. What were the themes that struck you in this contact?

2. Summarize the information you got (or failed to get) on each of the target questions.

3. Anything else that struck you as salient, interesting, illuminating, or important in this
contact?

4. What new or remaining questions do you have in considering the next contact with
this site?

132
 REFERENCES

Anderson, L.M., Arcaira, E.R., MacFarlane, J.R., Riley, D. L., Turnbull, B.J., (2013).
Six Districts
Begin the Principal Pipeline Initiative.
http://www.policystudies.com/studies/?id=79. New York, NY: The Wallace
Foundation.

Bierly, C. & Shy, E. (2013). Building pathways: How to build the next generation of
transformational leaders. Boston, MA: Bain & Co, Inc. Available at
http://www.bain.com/Images/BAIN_REPORT_Building_pathways.pdf

Boykin & Noguera (2011). Creating the opportunity to learn. Alexandria: ASCD.

Chenoweth, K. (2007). It’s being done. Cambridge: Harvard Education Press.

Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research Design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods

approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Darling-Hammond, L. (2010). The flat world of education. New York: Teachers College
Press.

Darling-Hammond, L., LaPointe, M., Myerson, D., Orr, M. T., & Cohen, C. (2007).
Preparing school leaders for a changing world: lessons from exemplary leadership
development programs. http://www.wallacefoundation.org/knowledge-
center/school-leadership/key-research/Documents/Preparing-School-Leaders.pdf.
Stanford University. Stanford: Stanford Educational Leadership Institute.

Davis, S., Darling-Hammond, LaPointe, M., & Meyerson, D. (2005). School leadership
study: Developing successful principals. Stanford: Stanford Educational
Leadership Institute.

Dyer, K. (2008). When principals learn, everyone benefits. The Journal of the National
Staff Development Council, 29 (2) pages.

Edmonds, R. (1979, October). Effective schools for the urban poor. Educational
Leadership, 37 (1). 15-24.

Evans, P. M., & Mohr, N. (1999). Professional development for principals. Phi Delta
Kappan, 80(7), 530-532.

Frick, W., & Gutierrez, K. (2008). Those moral aspects unique to the profession:
Principals’ perspectives on their work and the implications for a professional ethic
for educational leadership. Journal of School Leadership, 18(1), 32 61.

Goldring, E., Huff, J., May, H., Camburn, E. (2008). School context and individual
characteristics: what influences principal practice. Journal of Educational
Administration, 46(3) 21-34.

133
Grissom, J., Loeb, S., & Master, B. (2013). Effective instructional time use for school
leaders: Longitudinal Evidence from observations of principals. Educational
Researcher, 42(8), 433-444.

Hancock, K. (2001). Closing the achievement gap. Educational Leadership, 58(6), 6-11.

Heck, R. H. (1992). Principals’ instructional leadership and school performance:

Implications for policy development. Educational Evaluation and Policy
Analysis, 14(1), 21-34.

Hess, F. & Kelly, A. (2007) Learning to lead: What gets taught in principal-preparation
programs. Teachers College Record 109, 1, 244-274.

Jenkins, B. (2009). What it takes to be an instructional leader. Principal, 67(9), 34-37

Levine, A. (2005). Educating school leaders. New York: Teachers College, The
Education Schools Project.

Leithwood, K., Seashore-Louis, K., Anderson, S., & Wahlstrom, K. (2004). How
leadership influences student learning (learning from leadership project executive
summary). New York, NY: The Wallace Foundation.

MacNeill, N., Cavanagh, R. F., & Silcox, S. (2003). Pedagogic principal leadership.
Management In Education (Education Publishing Worldwide Ltd),17(4), 14-17.

Maxwell, J. A. (2005). Qualitative research design an interactive approach. Thousand

Oaks: Sage Publications.

McCay, E. (2001). The learning needs of principals. Educational Leadership, 5(8), 75-77.

McLaughlin, M. W., & Talbert, J. E. (2006). Building school-based teacher learning

communities. New York: Teachers College Press.

Mitchell, C., & Castle, J. B. (2005). The instructional role of elementary School
Principals. Canadian Journal of Education, 28 (3), pp. 409-433.

Orr, M. T., & Orphanos, S. (2011). How graduate-level preparation influences the
effectiveness of school leaders: A comparison of the outcomes of exemplary and
conventional leadership preparation programs for principals. Educational
Administration Quarterly, 47(1), 18-70.

Reams, E. (2010) Shifting paradigms: redesigning a principal preparation program’s

curriculum. Journal of Research on Leadership Curriculum, 5(12), 436-459.

Rebell, M. A., & Wolf, J. R. (2012). Educational opportunity is achievable and

affordable. Phi Delta Kappan, 93(6), 62-65.

134
Robinson, V., Lloyd, C. A., & Rowe, K. J. (2008). The impact of leadership on student
outcomes: An analysis of the differential effects on leadership types. Educational
Administration Quarterly, 44(5), 635-674.

Scarborough, H. A. (2008). A winding path: Tucson follows circuitous route towards

professional learning for principals. The Journal of Staff Development, 29(2), 21-
23.

Seashore-Louis, K., Leithwood, K.,Wahlstrom, K. & Anderson, S. (2010). Investigating

the links between improved student learning: Final Report of research findings.
New York, NY: The Wallace Foundation.

Spillane, J. (2001). Distributed Leadership, The Educational Forum, 69(2), 143-150

Spillane, J.P., Halverson, R. & Diamond, J.B. (2004). Towards a theory of leadership
practice: a distributed perspective. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 36(1), 3-34.

United States Department of Education. (2001). U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved

August 12, 2012, from U.S. Department of Education:
www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/index.html.

Wallace Foundation (2007). The School Principal as Leader: Guiding schools to better
teaching and learning. New York, NY.

Waters, T., Marzano, R. J., & McNulty, B. (2003). Balanced leadership: What 30 years of
research tells us about the effect of leadership on student achievement. Aurora:
Mid-Continent Regional Educational Lab.

135