Beginning the principalship - international views, Volume 44, Issue 4 : International Views 9781846630699, 9781846630682

Citation preview

jea cover (i).qxd

17/08/2006

10:15

Page 1

ISSN 0957-8234

Volume 44 Number 4 2006

Journal of

Educational Administration Beginning the principalship – international views Guest Editor: Allan Walker

www.emeraldinsight.com

Journal of Educational Administration

ISSN 0957-8234 Volume 44 Number 4 2006

Beginning the principalship – international views Guest Editor Allan Walker

Access this journal online __________________________ 295 Editorial advisory board ___________________________ 296 Beginning principals: balancing at the top of the greasy pole Allan Walker and Haiyan Qian ____________________________________

297

Complexity and the beginning principal in the United States: perspectives on socialization Gary M. Crow __________________________________________________

310

Sitting in the ‘‘hot seat’’: new headteachers in the UK Dick Weindling and Clive Dimmock _________________________________

326

Canadian perspectives on beginning principals: their role in building capacity for learning communities Larry Sackney and Keith Walker ___________________________________

341

New principals in Africa: preparation, induction and practice Tony Bush and George K.T. Oduro ________________________________

Access this journal electronically The current and past volumes of this journal are available at:

www.emeraldinsight.com/0957-8234.htm You can also search more than 100 additional Emerald journals in Emerald Fulltext (www.emeraldinsight.com/ft) and Emerald Management Xtra (www.emeraldinsight.com/emx) See page following contents for full details of what your access includes.

359

CONTENTS

CONTENTS continued

Asking the hard questions: being a beginning principal in Australia Terry Quong ___________________________________________________

376

Inner worlds and outer limits: the formation of beginning school principals in Hong Kong Robin Man-biu Cheung and Allan Walker____________________________

389

Moving towards, into and through principalship: developing a framework for researching the career trajectories of school leaders Howard Stevenson ______________________________________________

408

Book review_______________________________________ 421

www.emeraldinsight.com/jea.htm As a subscriber to this journal, you can benefit from instant, electronic access to this title via Emerald Fulltext or Emerald Management Xtra. Your access includes a variety of features that increase the value of your journal subscription.

Additional complimentary services available

How to access this journal electronically

E-mail alert services These services allow you to be kept up to date with the latest additions to the journal via e-mail, as soon as new material enters the database. Further information about the services available can be found at www.emeraldinsight.com/alerts

To benefit from electronic access to this journal, please contact [email protected] A set of login details will then be provided to you. Should you wish to access via IP, please provide these details in your e-mail. Once registration is completed, your institution will have instant access to all articles through the journal’s Table of Contents page at www.emeraldinsight.com/0957-8234.htm More information about the journal is also available at www.emeraldinsight.com/ jea.htm Our liberal institution-wide licence allows everyone within your institution to access your journal electronically, making your subscription more cost-effective. Our web site has been designed to provide you with a comprehensive, simple system that needs only minimum administration. Access is available via IP authentication or username and password.

Your access includes a variety of features that add to the functionality and value of your journal subscription:

Connections An online meeting place for the research community where researchers present their own work and interests and seek other researchers for future projects. Register yourself or search our database of researchers at www.emeraldinsight.com/ connections Emerald online training services You can also access this journal online. Visit www.emeraldinsight.com/training and take an Emerald online tour to help you get the most from your subscription.

Key features of Emerald electronic journals Automatic permission to make up to 25 copies of individual articles This facility can be used for training purposes, course notes, seminars etc. This only applies to articles of which Emerald owns copyright. For further details visit www.emeraldinsight.com/ copyright Online publishing and archiving As well as current volumes of the journal, you can also gain access to past volumes on the internet via Emerald Fulltext or Emerald Management Xtra. You can browse or search these databases for relevant articles. Key readings This feature provides abstracts of related articles chosen by the journal editor, selected to provide readers with current awareness of interesting articles from other publications in the field. Non-article content Material in our journals such as product information, industry trends, company news, conferences, etc. is available online and can be accessed by users. Reference linking Direct links from the journal article references to abstracts of the most influential articles cited. Where possible, this link is to the full text of the article. E-mail an article Allows users to e-mail links to relevant and interesting articles to another computer for later use, reference or printing purposes. Structured abstracts Emerald structured abstracts provide consistent, clear and informative summaries of the content of the articles, allowing faster evaluation of papers.

Choice of access Electronic access to this journal is available via a number of channels. Our web site www.emeraldinsight.com is the recommended means of electronic access, as it provides fully searchable and value added access to the complete content of the journal. However, you can also access and search the article content of this journal through the following journal delivery services: EBSCOHost Electronic Journals Service ejournals.ebsco.com Informatics J-Gate www.j-gate.informindia.co.in Ingenta www.ingenta.com Minerva Electronic Online Services www.minerva.at OCLC FirstSearch www.oclc.org/firstsearch SilverLinker www.ovid.com SwetsWise www.swetswise.com

Emerald Customer Support For customer support and technical help contact: E-mail [email protected] Web www.emeraldinsight.com/customercharter Tel +44 (0) 1274 785278 Fax +44 (0) 1274 785204

JEA 44,4

EDITORIAL ADVISORY BOARD Paul T. Begley Pennsylvania State University, USA Carol Cardno UNITEC Institute of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand

Joseph W. Licata University of Houston-Clear Lake, Texas, USA John McCormick University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia

296

Judith Chapman AM Australian Catholic University, Fitzroy, Australia

Nadine McCrea University of New England, Armidale, NSW, Australia

Pam Christie University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia Steve Dinham University of Wollongong, NSW, Australia Deirdre Duncan Australian Catholic University, Strathfield, NSW, Australia

W. Mulford University of Tasmania, Hobart, Australia Flora Ida Ortiz Formerly University of Riverside, California, USA

Patrick Forsyth Oklahoma State University, USA

Keith F. Punch University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia

Frances Fowler Miami University, Oxford, Ohio, USA

Dan Riley University of New England, Armidale, NSW, Australia

E.M. Hanson University of California, Riverside, USA Grant Harman University of New England, Armidale, NSW, Australia M.A. Howell AM Former Headmaster, Brisbane Grammar School, Australia Wayne K. Hoy Ohio State University, Columbus, USA Olof Johansson University of Umea˚, Sweden Gabriele Lakomski University of Melbourne, Australia Yee Lay Jack Lam Brandon University, Manitoba, Canada Terry Lane The British International School, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia

Journal of Educational Administration Vol. 44 No. 4, 2006 p. 296 # Emerald Group Publishing Limited 0957-8234

C. Moyle Unesco, Australia

Brian Roberts North Lincolnshire Council, UK Zehava Rosenblatt University of Haifa, Israel Dieter Sadowski University of Trier, Germany Bernadette Taylor Former Executive Director, CCEA, Victoria, Australia T. Velayutham University of the South Pacific, Fiji Allan D. Walker Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin NT, Hong Kong Charles F. Webber Faculty of Education, University of Calgary, Alberta, Canada

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/0957-8234.htm

Beginning principals: balancing at the top of the greasy pole

Beginning principals

Allan Walker and Haiyan Qian The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, People’s Republic of China

297

Abstract Purpose – This article aims to set the scene for this Special Issue on beginning principals and to inform one’s understanding of how new principals manage their work lives to make a difference in their schools. Design/methodology/approach – Based on recent literature on beginning principals, the paper draws together and analyses issues encompassing principals’ formal preparation, recruitment, licensure and socialisation. Findings – This article outlines the broader context that frames the lives of beginning principals across societies. It does this through focusing on three fairly general topics: the current expectations of principals and potential principals, which also touches on a shortage of principal candidates in some societies; the life of beginning principals, including strategies suggested by research for “surviving” those hectic first years; and issues related to principals’ preparation and learning. These topics encapsulate the focuses of the articles that follow. Originality/value – The paper contributes to the understanding that the quest for beginning principalship cannot be restricted by national or societal borders; it is one that calls for greater international cooperation and insight. Keywords Principals, Expectation Paper type Conceptual paper

Introduction In 1868, after 31 years in public office, Benjamin Disraeli began his first term as Prime Minister of Great Britain. Upon his appointment, he proclaimed, I have climbed to the top of the greasy pole.

The imagery used by Disraeli would not be unfamiliar to beginning principals the world over as they clamber, often uneasily, into their first principal post. As hard as it is to get there, however, even in these times when many potential leaders seem less willing to take on the job, the slipping, sliding and uncertainty associated with scaling the pole certainly does not end when the name is nailed to the new office door. The rigors involved in the climb not only continue but actually accentuate during the first few years of the principalship. The energy previously needed to climb must be transformed quickly to balancing atop an equally tenuous surface – a spot requiring new knowledge, skills and understandings. In too many cases, the experience of the climb has done little to prepare beginning principals for the balancing act they are asked to perform. The authors wish to acknowledge the support of the Research Grants Council of Hong Kong for its support through an Earmarked Grant (CUHK 4289/03H).

Journal of Educational Administration Vol. 44 No. 4, 2006 pp. 297-309 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 0957-8234 DOI 10.1108/09578230610674921

JEA 44,4

298

Given what is known about the impact of principal leadership in schools and its place in improving the learning and life of students, it is important that we understand where beginning principals are coming from (in terms of motivation and preparation), what they are expected to do and what they actually do (how effective they are), the problems they face, how to support them (professionally and psychologically) and how to turn them towards ongoing learning and improvement. Exploring such questions must be the joint responsibility of policy-makers, pre-and in-service providers and, perhaps most importantly, the profession itself. They should be addressed both within and across organisational, societal, cultural, ethnic, gender and structural milieus. Consequently, investigating issues related to the beginning principalship first and foremost requires an understanding of the multiple and many-sided contexts within which they work. These range, for example, in Western countries, from a crowded and increasingly standardised reform environment and the expectations this places on schools, the increasingly multicultural nature of societies, shifting conceptions of what leadership entails, how principals are attracted, selected, prepared and socialised and, indeed, what it means to take up a principalship. The context in non-Western developed and developing societies also incorporate similar elements but these are played out in quite different cultural contexts and structures and, often, without the luxury of even adequate resources and within an environment typified by severe poverty and inequity. It is impractical to cover each of these complex areas in any detail, but a number stand out as particularly pertinent at this point in time. These are introduced below and teased out in various ways by the articles that comprise this Special Issue. Three interrelated areas help set the context of beginning principals internationally. These include the expectations facing new principals and the shortage of potential principals, the “life” of beginning principals and preparation for the principalship. Although these relate to beginning principals, they are inextricably linked to broader expectations for schools and principals already ensconced in post. Expectations and shortage of potential principals The dominant modern myth portrays the school principal as an underpaid workhorse tangling with the conflicting demands of instructional leadership, bureaucracy, official mandates and adverse interest groups (Fenwick and Pierce, 2001; Howley et al., 2005). The rhetoric facing beginning principals in the twenty-first century is replete with images of rapid technological advancement and other demands, often related to globalisation. As Crow (2006) argues, the transition from an industrial to post-industrial society has not only exacerbated the already complex work environment confronting school principals but has also raised expectations of what they should achieve. Hess (2003) paints an even more frenetic picture when he notes that leaders are expected to “leverage accountability and revolutionary technology, devise performance-based evaluation systems, reengineer outdated management structures, recruit and cultivate non-traditional staff, drive decisions with data, build professional cultures, and ensure that every child is served” (p. 1). Furthermore, principals are expected to “restructure schools and implement new educational paradigms that focus on pedagogical findings, foster the ideals of a just and humane educational system and prepare the populace to make moral and ethical decisions in an ever-changing society” (Cline and Necochea, 2000, p. 157).

Too often, from day one, new principals are expected to hold absolute knowledge and expertise (Thomas and Horsey, 1991, cited in Hewitson, 1995), even though most have yet to actually work in the job. At the very least, they are expected to have a clear understanding of their role, including how to exercise power appropriately (increasingly in terms of distributing leadership), how to maintain and/or establish professional relationships and to design processes and structures to facilitate goal achievement (Hewitson, 1995). Stakeholders up, down and around formal and informal hierarchies assume the principal is responsible for all school rules and practices and for solving problems as soon as they arise (Tooms, 2003). We could go on, but the literature describing current expectations of principals around the world is common enough – it is one mostly accurately portrayed as fragmented, dilemma-ridden, and demanding (e.g. Leithwood et al., 1999; Schlechty, 2001; Uben et al., 2001). Vandenberghe (2003) captures the essence of the plentiful literature thus: Being a principal nowadays means being continually confronted with disconnected demands, with expectations of a very different nature linked to different aspects of the daily operation of a school and with conflicting demands of several external constituencies (p. 4).

Faced with the weight of such daunting imagery it is perhaps not surprising that many potential principals, especially in Western societies, are thinking carefully about whether they want to take on such a daunting role (Gronn, 2003; Pounder and Young, 1996). While discussing the quantitative shortage of educators wishing to move into the principalship it should be noted this is not a universal phenomenon. For example, in Hong Kong and Singapore, because of their unique governance and selection structures there appears to be no shortage of available candidates. This, however, says little about the quality, gender or ethnic background of candidates, all problems that, to varying degrees, may indeed be widespread internationally (Walker et al., 2003). Filling vacant principal positions has become problematic as the pool of educators qualified and/or willing to assume positions shrinks in Western countries (Young et al., 2002). In 2001 the National Association of Secondary School Principals (NASSP) in the USA reported a serious shortage of applications for vacant principal positions, claiming there was “only a trickle of qualified applicants, if any, willing to fill the positions” (cited in Dorman and D’Arbon, 2003, p. 27). A similar situation is apparent in the UK, where a report by the House of Commons Select Committee on Education and Employment (1998) found that “on average, primary schools in London received only five applicants for each post and only five percent of London primary schools received more than 10 applicants” (Item No. 155). It seems this problem has not diminished in recent years. Reasons given for the shrinking pool, although interrelated and somewhat confounding (Grogan and Andrews, 2002; Usdan, 2002), appear intimately connected to the “harsh realities of being school principals” (Browne-Ferrigno and Muth, 2001, p. 1). At least three reasons provide some insight into the shortage of principal candidates. These are obviously pertinent to understanding the role and place of the beginning principal. First, most principals spring from the ranks of teachers, but, at least in a number of Western countries, the number of people attracted to the teaching profession is declining (e.g. Preston, 2004). It is axiomatic that if there is a shortage of teachers, this will soon flow into a “pipeline effect” (Dorman and D’Arbon, 2003, p. 28), both quantitatively and qualitatively, to the principalship. Second, another side of the

Beginning principals

299

JEA 44,4

300

same coin is that teachers who do come into or are already in the profession are all too aware of the challenges confronting principals, and therefore are increasingly reluctant to embrace it. They therefore decide to stay in the classroom and so “still have a life” (Rutherford, 2005, p. 290). Research cited by Howley et al. (2005) into the distinctiveness of being a principal from the perspective of teachers in the US helps fill out this picture. They cite a 1994 study in Louisiana as identifying this distinctiveness. In rank order, these included: . the profession is growing significantly more complex and constraining; . it is a source of considerable stress; . principals lack the means and support for doing a good job; . the salary is too low; . daily and yearly hours are too long; and . family life suffers from the demands of the position (Howley et al., 2005; see also Cooley and Shen, 2000; Gewertz, 2000). Third, dysfunctional systems of recruitment, preparation, and induction have been held responsible for the failure to attract qualified applicants. In the US, and using a somewhat accusatory tone, Hess (2003) stresses the need for human resource systems to think carefully about how they recruit the leaders schools need, prepare them for their positions, reward them in line with responsibilities, and how they sometimes lock-out candidates with vital knowledge and experience. He also notes that many administrative licensure requirements make it costly and frustrating to seek educational leadership positions and this, consequently, dissuades potentially effective administrators from applying. A related line of study has explored the incentives potential candidates associate with becoming a principal. In the USA, Pounder and Merrill (2001) identified four key predictors of principalship desirability. These were: (1) expectations of being considered a viable applicant; (2) a desire to achieve and influence education; (3) additional time demands; and (4) salary and benefits. A similar study by beginning principals in Belgium found that the opportunity to develop a career, having a chance to implement a personal vision and to create opportunities for school improvement were the main reasons for becoming a principal (Vandenberghe, 2003). Vandenberghe’s study of beginning principals provides some key insights into their work and, as such, informs areas such as support, learning, security and well-being.

The life of beginning principals The difficulties associated with beginning principalship have been recognised for many years. For example, in the early 1990s, Daresh and Playko (1994) synthesised the main problems facing new principals. These included:

.

. .

problems with role clarification, or understanding who they were and what it meant to be a principal, and how to make sensible use of their newfound authority; limited technical expertise, or how to do the things they were supposed to do; and difficulties with socialisation to the profession and the system, or how to do things in a particular setting.

These insights provide a good starting point for understanding some of interrelated issues facing beginning principals internationally. First, beginning principals often face the subtle yet distinct message that they should not “make waves” (Rooney, 2000, p. 77). New principals have asserted that once they are appointed that little further interest is taken in them unless trouble occurs; thus, many feel abandoned by their employers (Draper and McMichael, 2000). Earley and Weindling (2004) in the UK and Legotlo and Westhuizen’s (1996) research in developing countries concur about the disappointment beginning principals feel because of the scant feedback, guidance or positive direction they get from those supposedly in support or management positions. Second, many beginning principals are faced with the “ghost/s of principals past” and their enduring influence on the school. Although normally invisible, the image of the last principal haunts many new leaders (Rooney, 2000). Research has found that schoolteachers often endow the previous principal with saintly virtues once they leave the school even though they noted their frailties while in post. Weindling and Dimmock (2006) introduce evidence about new principals working in the shadows of their predecessors. Their discussion supports Draper and McMichael’s (2000) finding that seven out of ten new principals reported on issues brought about by the previous principal’s style of management. These were variously described as “remote control”, and “tempestuous irascibility”, or “passivity” (p. 467). Third, and often closely linked to the enduring influence of the previous principals, is how beginning principals “fit” the culture already embedded in the school (and may well endure after they leave) (Deal and Peterson, 1990). The culture which guides the practices and expectations of staff leads to the all too common response to “why” questions with: “Because we’ve always done it that way” (Rooney, 2000, p. 77). Without cultural awareness, sooner or later, the principal will transgress a cultural code, and a rift may form between the principal and staff (Langston et al., 1998). Most new principals experience a form of culture shock during their transition to principalship (Daresh and Male, 2000). Fourth, a sense of isolation is one of the features of new principalship (Draper and McMichael, 2000; Rooney, 2000). The place of the principal within the school can be a very lonely one indeed, even in these days of distributed leadership and communities of learning. Given the competitive environment between schools, they can also feel isolated from their principal colleagues. Beginning principals may be increasingly reluctant to share ideas on common problems with their colleagues because of competition for students, resources, grades or high profile success (Draper and McMichael, 2000). Fifth, the beginning principal soon learns that the buck stops with them. Even today, teachers, parents and children often perceive the principal’s office as the touchstone of authority (and even wisdom) in the school – this appears common, if differently formed, across societies (Rooney, 2000; Leung and Chan, 2001). New

Beginning principals

301

JEA 44,4

302

principals are often surprised to find that they spend so much time on administrative matters and that educative aims seem difficult to pursue. Thus, monitoring classrooms and supporting teaching and learning are necessarily relegated to secondary roles and the beginning principals feel “bowled over” by the rush of work and the concern over balancing this with growing demands of accountability (Draper and McMichael, 2000, p. 467). Sixth, it seems that their work never quite gets done. New principals usually feel overwhelmed by the paperwork they have to do (Rooney, 2000). Furthermore, the life of a principal is usually characterised by a high degree of fragmentation and unpredictability, and many different unplanned and unexpected events are part of their daily life (Vandenberghe, 2003). A seventh set of issues facing beginning principals relates to the organisational socialisation process and so opportunities to learn the norms, values and beliefs of the school. Crow (2006) and Weindling and Dimmock (2006) note the dynamic and multifaceted nature of principal socialisation. Drawing upon data from a longitudinal study of British principals, the latter authors identify seven stages of socialisation. In line with discussion in these articles, the socialisation process for school administrators too often seems to “perpetuate the status quo by rewarding conformity, stability and complacency” rather than transformational behaviours (Cline and Necochea, 2000, p. 152). This appears true despite calls by current school reform initiatives for dynamic leaders who can drastically restructure existing systems. Being able to balance such conflicting demands makes it difficult for even the most seasoned school leaders to be innovative, much less for their raw colleagues. Finally, it should be noted that the difficulties facing new principals in developing countries may be very different from those in developed countries. For example, problems facing beginning principals in Kenya include students who cannot pay school fees and or even buy books, shortages of basic equipment and facilities, installing telephones, parental illiteracy, students travelling long distances, lack of playgrounds, use of English as a medium of instruction, problems in acquiring clean water and the inaccessibility of parents (Kitavi and Van der Westhuizen, 1997). Bush and Oduro (2006) illustrate that these are not problems restricted to Kenya, but are indeed common across most African countries. In China and some other East Asian societies, principals spend much time balancing political demands from outside the school with raising enough money to operate effectively. By necessity, the issues touched upon cannot claim comprehensiveness in terms of scope or depth, but they do provide a taste of the life of beginning principals according to research conducted in various settings, and they serve to introduce the papers in this Special Issue. A similar literature exists which offers a set of research-based strategies to new principals to help them during their first years in school. Four of these are introduced below, and others emerge from the articles that follow. Surviving the first years First is the importance of new principals clarifying and articulating their values – what is important to them in their role as principal (Walker and Quong, 2005). Tooms (2003) adopts the term of developing a moral compass. In other words, the suggestion is that a beginning principal must be clear about the values that they are willing to “go to the mat for” (p. 533). Such a compass can help the beginning principal to pick the “right” battles. Rooney (2000) notes that pressures to simultaneously accommodate

teachers, the superintendent and parents can obscure the view of such a compass and that the principal must have an inbuilt set of moral values and pragmatic intuition to decide if they are willing to invest energy in dealing with any ripples that their decision may generate. A second oft-repeated strategy from research findings is that beginning principals work with (good) veteran school leaders inside the school. New principals need to learn quickly to draw on the individual and collective wisdom of experienced, organisationally competent, and instructionally effective colleagues (Sorenson, 2005). The thinking is that it is better to keep powerful people on the new principal’s team rather than have them plot the principal’s downfall (Rooney, 2000). Furthermore, it seems that having a senior management team or a deputy who can be trusted with frank conversations is important to reduce the degree of loneliness of new principals (Draper and McMichael, 2000). Third, beginning principals are encouraged to work closely with students, teachers, and parents. Although it is a personal or career-related decision to become a principal, the actualisation of the job depends on recognition by others within the school community. Beginning principals must therefore create and make opportunities for dialogical relations and different types of cooperation and interactions (Vandenberghe, 2003). Time spent in “listening to staff concerns, hopes and ideas and in grasping the micropolitics of the school” is time well spent and helps increase accessibility and acceptability, win support and explore staff strengths and potential contributions (Draper and McMichael, 2000, p. 468). Many practising principals agree that their positive experiences relate to being appreciated by people inside and outside of the school (Vandenberghe, 2003). Fourth, research holds strongly that beginning principals continue to learn through multiple pathways, such as reading, attending professional meetings, and conversing with professional friends (Rooney, 2000). The key message here is the same as for experienced principals: the beginning principal should aim to be a lead learner in the school – principals who become what Sparks calls “sustained, visible learners” with the ability to unlock and maintain learning throughout the school community (cited in Sorenson, 2005, p. 63). Indeed Sackney and Walker (2006) hold that being a head learner is an inbuilt requirement for beginning principals working in a knowledge society. They also argue that building learning communities requires principals to engage in personal capacity building as well as those targeting the improved teaching and learning in their schools. While discussing such strategies it must be noted that they can fall easily into the realm of high-sounding rhetoric if not considered in context, especially across societal boundaries. As Bush (1998) reminds us, new principals still have to deal with the multiplicity and context-specificity of demands made upon individual schools. Likewise, Tooms (2003) suggests that there is no “playbook for rookies” and that each critical incident beginning principals face is different because each person, each school and each district has its own personality and approach to a challenge. The empirical study by Cheung and Walker (2006) in this issue is a case in point. The study illustrates how ten beginning principals in Hong Kong made adaptations to accommodate the inner and outer demands they faced during the first two years of their principalship. As a result, these principals played different leadership roles. Hence, even though structured preparation and openness are essential elements of any successful “honeymoon period”, they are highly context dependent and the

Beginning principals

303

JEA 44,4

304

majority of a beginning principal’s learning is “by doing” – or reflecting independently and collegially on both success and failures (Draper and McMichael, 2000; Tooms, 2003). For example, Quong (2006) reflects on his own experiences as a beginning principal and determined that, the biggest dilemma facing him “was when to act and when not to”. He learnt to deal with the issue by asking himself three hard questions: (1) “When should I intervene?” (2) “Am I ready to confront?” and (3) “What can I learn from the experience?” This leads us to what endures as one of the most contentious issues around the role of the beginning principal – that of how to prepare educators to become principals and continue this learning and support during their early years in post, or what can be called “crossing the bridge”. Preparation for the principalship Given that this Special Issue focuses on the beginning principalship it must unavoidably address principalship preparation and induction. Leadership preparation is obviously a huge area within itself and we touch upon it here only as it relates to beginning principals. New principals often express considerable frustration over the fact that they do not understand the nature of their leadership responsibilities before they get to “the hot seat” (Duke, 1988, cited in Daresh and Playko, 1994, p. 36); this is not a new phenomenon. New principal induction, however, too often consists of “the practice of sink-or-swim socialisation” (Hart, 1993, p. 18), such as being handed a building map and a key to the office door. Thus, the world of novice principals is filled with considerable anxiety, frustration and professional isolation (Browne-Ferrigno, 2003; Daresh, 1986; Weindling and Earley, 1987; Young et al., 2002). In many Western countries, graduate schools of education have enjoyed a monopoly in the preparation and certification of educational leaders for more than a half-century (McCarthy, 1999). However, changing demands from the field are challenging universities to reassess their contribution to administrative preparation and to examine the models of administrative preparation to which they subscribe (Murphy and Vriesenga, 2004; Hallinger and Snidvongs, 2005). Today, there are debates over universities’ monopoly in principal preparation, the need for principal licensure and the value added by preparation programs (Browne-Ferrigno and Shoho, 2002; Grogan and Andrews, 2002; Haller et al., 1997). The recruitment and selection processes for entry into educational leadership programs have been under particular pressure for change. The nominal entrance criterion since the middle of the twentieth century was a “B.A. and the cash to pay the tuition” (Tyack and Cummings, 1977, p. 60). This low entry requirement has led to the argument that “university preparation of educational administrators has fallen into a downward spiral dominated by low-prestige institutions, diploma mills, outmoded instruction and low expectations” (Guthrie and Sanders, 2001, p. 46). Many professors and practitioners agree that too many ineffective programs require drastic reform and restructuring (Murphy, 1992; Milstein, 1993; Young et al., 2002). The achievement of positive and substantial improvement, as pointed out by Young et al. (2002), depends on “commitment among key stakeholders to collaborate” (p. 142). In fact, Crow (2006) argues that traditional university preparation programs are far from adequate and

require greater conceptual understanding of socialisation and the complexity inherent in a post-industrial society. Crow’s voice echoes growing critique of principalship licensure structures in countries such as the USA, even as other societies (e.g. Hong Kong) have moved only recently to establish them. (Walker and Dimmock, 2006). The problem is complex, especially given the difficulty of keeping educators interested in the principalship. Although licensure is a device best suited to ensuring that the clearly incompetent do not prey upon an uninformed public, effective licensure requires clear standards of competence against which aspirants can be measured (Hess, 2003). However, as Hess points out, the problem with leadership licensure is that management and leadership are unavoidably context-bound, thereby what “good” leaders do across settings can be very different indeed. Furthermore, allowing new teachers to complete administrator certification requirements (which often requires little more than clocking requisite credit hours) early in their career results in excessive numbers of administrator-certified candidates who either remain in positions as classroom teachers or seek principalship several years after completing their licensure (Browne-Ferrigno and Shoho, 2002; Hess, 2003). The content of principal preparation programs is also open to question. For example, in a study of beginning principals in Queensland, Australia, half of the respondents reported that tertiary qualifications, training programs and other in-service activities had prepared them for their role as a principal to “little” or “no extent” (Hewitson, 1995, p. 24). A survey among aspiring and experienced principals in the USA uncovered major discrepancies in terms of the kinds of skills assumed to be important for effective job performance. Specifically, aspiring administrators placed much higher value on the demonstration of technical skills, while practising administrators ranked these issues as least important (Daresh and Playko, 1994). Such findings clearly show a gap in understanding as to what beginning principals need and how they can best attain it. Thus, the challenge exists to bridge this gap and tailor preparation programs to the actual needs of beginning principals, within context. In the USA, for example, Browne-Ferrigno and Shoho (2002) suggest that efforts to improve the effectiveness of such programmes should start with careful consideration of desired student outcomes and use of futurists’ perspectives to answer such questions as: what do graduates of today’s leadership preparation programs need to know and be able to do as successful leaders of tomorrow’s schools? What previous experiences, personal attitudes and dispositions, and career aspirations – that cannot be developed through professional training but can be measured – link to desired leadership ability? Responses to such questions may go a long way to improving how we prepare beginning principals and, subsequently, their meaningful transition into schools. Discussion of how to prepare beginning principals is at an interesting and potentially very influential stage. Peak government and professional bodies such as the National College of School Leadership in the UK (Hallinger and Snidvongs, 2005; Weindling, 2004) and the University Council of Educational Administration in the USA (Murphy and Vriesenga, 2004) are committing considerable resources to research what is needed, as well as supporting new developmentally oriented programmes. Similar resources are being allocated in Singapore, Hong Kong (Walker and Dimmock, 2005) and continental Europe (Wales and Welle-Strand, 2005), to name just some. By contrast, Kitavi and Van der Westhuizen’s (1997) study found that the means by which

Beginning principals

305

JEA 44,4

306

most principals in developing countries are trained, selected, inducted and in-serviced are ill-suited to the development of effective and efficient school managers. For example, in Kenya, deputy principals as well as good assistant teachers are traditionally appointed to the principalship without any leadership training at all. In addition, no pre-service training for principals is required and in-service training that is provided rarely addresses the needs of the future beginning heads. Bush and Oduro (2006) further illustrate this point: in Africa, principals are appointed for their teaching records rather than leadership potential, and once they are appointed there is usually limited induction and support for them. The situation in other developing countries may be similar, but unfortunately very few data are available in the area. This issue The preceding discussion barely scratches the surface of the complex montage faced by and surrounding beginning principals internationally; it proposes merely to set the scene for the collection of articles that follows. As indicated throughout this opening piece, each of the articles in this issue provides in its own way a richness that supports further investigation into what beginning principals do, need and feel. In combination they provide a snapshot of the status of beginning principals across and within a number of international contexts. Ideally, we would have liked to include more perspectives from around the globe, but this was not possible. As such, we hope they what we have included in this thematic issue will both enrich the work of others and encourage ongoing efforts not only to further understand beginning principalship, but also to drive strategies to attract, recruit and support the learning of principals. We hope that this challenge can be addressed internationally, much more so than we have managed in this issue, for it is here that we believe much of the knowledge and understanding for improving the lot of new principals can come. References Browne-Ferrigno, T. (2003), “Becoming a principal: role conception, initial socialisation, role-identity transformation, purposeful engagement”, Educational Administration Quarterly, Vol. 39 No. 4, pp. 468-504. Browne-Ferrigno, T. and Muth, R. (2001), “Becoming a principal: role transformation through clinical practice”, paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the University Council for Educational Administration, Cincinnati, OH, November. Browne-Ferrigno, T. and Shoho, A. (2002), “An exploratory analysis of leadership preparation selection criteria”, paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the University Council for Educational Administration, Pittsburgh, PA, November 5-9. Bush, T. (1998), “The national professional qualification for headship: the key to effective school leadership?”, School Leadership and Management, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 321-33. Bush, T. and Oduro, G.K.T. (2006), “New principals in Africa: preparation, induction and practice”, Journal of Educational Administration, Vol. 44 No. 4, pp. 359-75. Cheung, R.M.-B. and Walker, A. (2006), “Inner worlds and outer limits: the formation of beginning school principals in Hong Kong”, Journal of Educational Administration, Vol. 44 No. 4, pp. 389-407. Cline, Z. and Necochea, J. (2000), “Socialisation paradox: a challenge for educational leaders”, International Journal of Leadership in Education, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 151-8.

Cooley, V.E. and Shen, J. (2000), “Factors influencing applying for urban principalship”, Education and Urban Society, Vol. 32 No. 4, pp. 443-54. Crow, G.M. (2006), “Complexity and the beginning principal in the United States: perspectives on socialization”, Journal of Educational Administration, Vol. 44 No. 4, pp. 310-25. Daresh, J.C. (1986), “Support for beginning principals: first hurdles are highest”, Theory into Practice, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 168-73. Daresh, J.C. and Male, T. (2000), “Crossing the border into leadership: experiences of newly appointed British headteachers and American principals”, Educational Management & Administration, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 89-101. Daresh, J.C. and Playko, M.A. (1994), “Aspiring and practising principals’ perceptions of critical skills for beginning leaders”, Journal of Educational Administration, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 35-45. Deal, T.E. and Peterson, K.D. (1990), The Principal’s Role in Shaping School Culture, ERIC No. ED325914, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, Washington, DC. Dorman, J.P. and D’Arbon, T. (2003), “Assessing impediments to leadership succession in Australian Catholic schools”, School Leadership & Management, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 25-40. Draper, J. and McMichael, P. (2000), “Contextualising new headship”, School Leadership & Management, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 459-73. Duke, D. (1988), “Thoughts on preparation of principals”, unpublished paper, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA. Fenwick, L.T. and Pierce, M.C. (2001), “The principal shortage: crisis or opportunity?”, Principal, Vol. 80 No. 4, pp. 24-32. Gewertz, C. (2000), “Reader’s Digest grants will focus on school leadership”, Education Week, July 12, p. 15. Grogan, M. and Andrews, R. (2002), “Defining preparation and professional development for the future”, Educational Administration Quarterly, Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 233-56. Gronn, P. (2003), “A matter of principals”, Australian Journal of Education, Vol. 47 No. 2, pp. 115-17. Guthrie, J.W. and Sanders, T. (2001), “Who will lead the public schools?”, The New York Times, January 7, 4A, p. 46. Haller, E.J., Brent, B.O. and McNamara, J.H. (1997), “Does graduate training in educational administration improve America’s schools?”, Phi Delta Kappan, Vol. 79, pp. 222-7. Hallinger, P. and Snidvongs, K. (2005), Adding Value to School Leadership and Management: A Review of Trends in the Development of Managers in the Education and Business Sectors, National College for School Leadership, Nottingham. Hart, A.W. (1993), Principal Succession: Establishing Leadership in Schools, State University of New York Press, Albany, NY. Hess, F.M. (2003), A License to Lead – A New Leadership Agenda for America’s Schools, ERIC No. ED477346, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, Washington, DC. Hewitson, M.T. (1995), “The preparation of beginning principals in Queensland: an overview of findings”, Journal of Educational Administration, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 20-30. House of Commons Select Committee on Education and Employment (1998), “Headteacher supply and recruitment issues”, available at: www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/ pa/cm199798/cmselect/cmeduemp/725/72509.htm Howley, A., Andrianaivo, S. and Perry, J. (2005), “The pain outweighs the gain: why teachers don’t want to become principals”, Teachers College Record, Vol. 107 No. 4, pp. 757-82.

Beginning principals

307

JEA 44,4

308

Kitavi, M.W. and Van der Westhuizen, P.C. (1997), “Problems facing beginning principals in developing countries: a study of beginning principals in Kenya”, International Journal of Educational Development, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 251-63. Langston, R., McClain, G., Stewart, B. and Walseth, J. (1998), An Exploration of Strategies Which Elementary Principals New to Their Schools Use to Learn about Their School Culture, ERIC No. ED421769, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, Washington, DC. Legotlo, M. and Westhuizen, P.C. (1996), “Coming on board: problems facing new principals in developing countries”, Educational Management & Administration, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 401-10. Leithwood, K., Jantzi, D. and Steinbach, R. (1999), Changing Leadership for Changing Times, Open University Press, Philadelphia, PA. Leung, J.Y.H. and Chan, H.M. (2001), “The school of educational leadership preparation program”, in Cheung, B.L. and Lee, J.C.Y. (Eds), Public Sector Reform in Hong Kong into the 21st Century, The Chinese University Press, Hong Kong, pp. 229-60. McCarthy, M.M. (1999), “The evolution of educational leadership preparation programs”, in Murphy, J. and Louis, K.S. (Eds), Handbook on Research on Educational Administration, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, pp. 119-40. Milstein, M. (1993), Changing the Way We Prepare Educational Leaders: Challenge and Change, Department of Educational Administration, Edmonton. Murphy, J. (1992), The Landscape of Leadership Preparation: Reframing the Education of School Administrators, Corwin Press, Newbury Park, CA. Murphy, J. and Vriesenga, M. (2004), Research on Preparation Programs in Educational Administration: An Analysis, University Council for Educational Administration, Columbia, MO. Pounder, D.G. and Merrill, R.J. (2001), “Job desirability of the high school principalship: a job choice theory perspective”, Educational Administration Quarterly, Vol. 37, pp. 27-57. Pounder, D.G. and Young, I.P. (1996), “Recruitment and selection of educational administrators: priorities for today’s schools”, in Leithwood, K., Chapment, J., Corson, D., Hallinger, P. and Hart, A. (Eds), International Handbook of Educational Leadership and Administration, Kluwer, Boston, MA, pp. 279-308. Preston, B. (2004), Teacher Supply and Demand to 2004: 1998 Updated Projections, ERIC No. ED435588, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, Washington, DC. Quong, T. (2006), “Asking the hard questions: being a beginning principal in Australia”, Journal of Educational Administration, Vol. 44 No. 4, pp. 376-88. Rooney, J. (2000), “Survival skills for the new principal”, Educational Leadership, Vol. 58 No. 1, pp. 77-8. Rutherford, D. (2005), “Headteachers’ reflections on primary headship from 1988-2003: an exploratory study”, Journal of Educational Administration, Vol. 43 No. 3, pp. 278-94. Sackney, L. and Walker, K. (2006), “Canadian perspectives on beginning principals: their role in building capacity for learning communities”, Journal of Educational Administration, Vol. 44 No. 4, pp. 341-58. Schlechty, P.C. (2001), Shaking up the Schoolhouse: Show to Support and Sustain Educational Innovation, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA. Sorenson, R. (2005), “Helping new principals succeed”, American School Board Journal, Vol. 192 No. 4, pp. 61-3. Tooms, A. (2003), “The rookie’s playbook: insights and dirt for new principals”, Phi Delta Kappan, Vol. 84 No. 7, pp. 530-3.

Tyack, D.B. and Cummings, R. (1977), “Leadership in American public schools before 1954: historical configurations and conjectures”, in Cunningham, L.L., Hack, W.G. and Nystrand, R.O. (Eds), Administration:The Developing Decades, McCutchan, Berkeley, CA, pp. 46-66. Uben, J.C., Hughes, L.W. and Norris, C.J. (2001), Creative Leadership for Effective Schools, 4th ed., Allyn and Bacon, Boston, MA. Usdan, M.D. (2002), “Reactions to articles commissioned by the national commission for the advancement of education leadership preparation”, Educational Administration Quarterly, Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 300-7. Vandenberghe, R. (2003), “Beginning primary school principals in Belgium: how they deal with external influences and develop professionally”, paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL, 21-25 April. Wales, C. and Welle-Strand, A. (2005), School Management Training Country Report: Norway, Studies in Education Management Research, No. 16, CEM Centre for Education Management Research, Norwegian School of Management and University of Oslo Institute of Educational Research, Oslo. Walker, A. and Dimmock, C. (2005), “Developing leadership in context”, in Coles, M. and Southworth, G. (Eds), Developing Leadership: Creating the Schools of Tomorrow, Open University Press, Maidenhead, pp. 88-94. Walker, A. and Dimmock, C. (2006), “Preparing leaders, preparing learners: the Hong Kong experience”, School Leadership and Management, forthcoming. Walker, A. and Quong, T. (2005), “Gateways to international leadership learning: beyond best practice”, Educational Research and Perspectives, Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 97-121. Walker, A., Stott, K. and Cheng, Y.C. (2003), “Principal supply and quality demands: a tale of two Asia-Pacific city-states”, Australian Journal of Education, Vol. 47 No. 2, pp. 197-208. Weindling, D. (2004), Innovation in Headteacher Induction, National College for School Leadership, Nottingham. Weindling, D. and Dimmock, C. (2006), “Sitting in the ‘hot seat’: new headteachers in the UK”, Journal of Educational Administration, Vol. 44 No. 4, pp. 326-40. Weindling, D. and Earley, P. (1987), Secondary Headship: The First Year, NFER-Nelson, Windsor. Young, M.D., Petersen, G.T. and Short, P.M. (2002), “The complexity of substantive reform: a call for interdependence among key stakeholders”, Educational Administration Quarterly, Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 137-75. Further reading Crow, G.M. and Glascock, C. (1995), “Socialisation to a new conception of the principalship”, Journal of Educational Administration, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 22-43. Earley, P. and Weindling, D. (2004), Understanding School Leadership, Paul Chapman, London. Thomas, A.R. and Hornsey, A. (1991), “The first year as principal: a study of the arrival and settlement of NSW primary and secondary school principals”, report to the NSW Department of School Education, University of New England, Armidale. Corresponding author Allan Walker can be contacted at: [email protected] To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

Beginning principals

309

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/0957-8234.htm

JEA 44,4

Complexity and the beginning principal in the United States: perspectives on socialization

310

Gary M. Crow University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA Abstract Purpose – This paper aims to contribute to the literature and practice on beginning principal socialization by identifying the features of post-industrial work that create a more complex work environment for the practice and learning of the principalship in the USA. Design/methodology/approach – Based on recent literature on the changing nature of work, the paper applies those features of complexity to components of beginning principal socialization. Findings – The nature of work in post-industrial society and the changes in education, including a knowledge society, technology, demographic changes, and public accountability increase the complexity for US school principals. These features provide an important conceptual and normative basis for understanding and changing the content, sources, methods, and outcomes of beginning principal socialization. Originality/value – The paper contributes a set of conceptual and normative features that strengthens the understanding of how beginning principals learn the role. Keywords Principals, Socialization, Sociology of work Paper type Conceptual paper

Journal of Educational Administration Vol. 44 No. 4, 2006 pp. 310-325 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 0957-8234 DOI 10.1108/09578230610674930

Introduction The role of school leader in the USA has, in the last several years, taken on added significance in the educational reform and accountability movements. Although the relationship between the principal’s actions and student achievement is indirect, the importance of this role for developing and maintaining school culture, promoting a vision of academic success for all students, and creating professional learning communities has clearly been supported by research and theory (Hallinger and Heck, 1996; Leithwood and Jantzi, 2000). Along with this evidence of the importance of the principalship has come the recognition that the principal’s role has changed within an increasingly high stakes policy environment. In the USA, the advent of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) legislation, enacted by Congress in 2001, has clearly raised the stakes not only for schools but also for principals. The higher expectations for US principals in the area of instructional leadership, created among other things by the NCLB Act, increased public scrutiny of public schools, and the promotion of privatization as a public policy agenda, have significantly changed the role of school principal in the USA. In addition to these policy environment changes, US principals work in a societal context that is more dynamic and complex than in the past. Changing student demographics, the knowledge explosion, the larger web of roles with which the principal interacts, and the pervasive influence of technology are a few features of this complex environment. Many of these features affect school leaders in other national

contexts, but this paper focuses primarily on how these contextual features affect US principals. In response to these changes, a growing discontent in the USA with how principals are socialized, i.e., learn their jobs, is evident in the literature and policy debates. Reports and opinions have claimed that the preparation of principals, particularly in universities, is inadequate for the new policy and societal contexts (Levine, 2005; Hess and Kelly, 2005; Haller et al., 1997). A set of counter arguments has also been made that, although university preparation should be more rigorous, it is still the best model for principal preparation (Young and Petersen, 2002; Young et al., 2005). The attention in the US on improving principals’ socialization, with some exceptions, has tended to result in a piecemeal collection of strategies without a conceptual understanding of socialization. Furthermore, most of the attention has focused on the university level in terms of reforming this stage of learning without sufficient attention to a broader understanding of socialization that includes the induction period for new principals and a more relevant understanding of the complex environment in which socialization for these new principals occurs. This paper seeks to contribute to a more relevant conceptual understanding of US beginning principal socialization occurring in a complex work environment and to apply this understanding to various features of the practice of beginning principal socialization in this environment. The discussion will begin with a brief description of traditional principal socialization in the USA. Following this description, the paper will examine the nature of educational work in a complex society, identifying features of complexity in the larger work arena and applying these to educational work, in particular the work of school principals. Next the paper will identify a variety of conceptual and practical features of the socialization of beginning principals in complex, post-industrial society, specifically in the US. The paper concludes with a set of implications for research to inform beginning principal socialization. Traditional socialization of beginning principals The socialization of beginning principals is usually characterized by two broad types: (1) professional; and (2) organizational (Greenfield, 1985a). Professional socialization, which in the USA occurs primarily in university preparation programs, relates to the initial preparation to take on an occupational role such as school principal and includes the knowledge, skills, and dispositions necessary to enact the role regardless of the setting. Organizational socialization, in contrast, is context-bound and includes the knowledge, skills, and dispositions necessary to conduct the role in a particular setting. These two forms of socialization frequently conflict as professional socialization is focused on inculcating a conception of the role for newcomers and organizational socialization is focused on making these newcomers effective organizational members. In the case of US principals, professional socialization typically includes courses on topics primarily derived from management science and industrial psychology (Callahan, 1962; Crow and Grogan, 2005), e.g. finance, law, leadership, and organizational theory. In addition, university preparation programs include a field component, typically in the form of an internship (Milstein et al., 1991;

Complexity and the beginning principal 311

JEA 44,4

312

Browne-Ferrigno and Muth, 2004). The internship places the student in one or more educational settings that should enable the aspiring principal to gain experience in practical roles. Supervision from both the school site administrator and a college instructor is usually part of the design. In the US approximately 500 university preparation programs currently exist. As far back as 1987, policymakers were calling for a reduction in the number of university programs to ensure more rigorous standards of preparation (Griffiths et al., 1988). However, there has been little change in the number of programs. Evidence regarding the quality of university preparation programs is scant, and most arguments resort to anecdotal evidence or have questionable methodologies. Considerable opinion, however, exists that this stage of principal preparation needs to improve and rigorous empirical evaluations of leadership preparation need to be conducted (Orr, 2004). The organizational socialization of beginning principals is typically described as consisting of individual, informal, random, and variable learning (Greenfield, 1985a). Beginning principals essentially make sense of their roles by themselves or by using informal feedback from teachers, students, parents, and other administrators. Although principal evaluations occur, these are typically few and lack useful advice (Lashway, 2003). Some principals, especially at the secondary level, become assistant principals before becoming principals. However, the nature of the assistant principalship in the US has changed over time from being an apprenticeship to being narrowly focused on some area, e.g. student discipline. This narrow conception rarely provides the kind of socialization experiences to enable an individual to experience the full range of principal responsibilities (Greenfield, 1985b). Instead of a mediated entry, beginning US principals are immediately responsible for the full gamut of principal duties. Recently school districts and intermediary organizations (e.g. professional associations) are providing induction resources for new principals, including workshops, mentors, and coaches. These induction resources are frequently provided in a piecemeal way without an underlying conceptual understanding of principal socialization based on features of work in a complex society. Complexity and the world of educational work The societal changes that impact the nature of work in general and the practice of beginning principals in particular can be seen in the distinction between industrial and post-industrial societies. In describing these differences, it is important to acknowledge that these changes are still evolving and that in some occupations, notably education, not all the changes may be as apparent as in other occupations. Nevertheless, identifying the move from industrial to post-industrial society suggests a way to highlight the increasing complexity that exists both in work generally and in educational work particularly. Complex work in post-industrial society The phrase “post-industrial society” is usually attributed to Bell (1976) and others who emphasized “the movement from a society based on heavy industry to the age of information and high technology” (Hage and Powers, 1992, p. 2). The characteristics of this change have been described in numerous ways, but usually include the move to a

knowledge society (Toffler, 1981), the globalization of the economy and other sectors (Friedman, 2005), the importance of internet and digitization technologies, and the growing use of e-commerce (Cooper and Burke, 2002). Imbedded in this societal transformation is the recognition of increasing complexity. This change does not simply involve doing more of the same kind of work or in a more intense way. Rather, organizations, work, and life take on new dimensions that are unlike previous generations, thus increasing complexity. For example, the interaction between organizations and their environment is increasingly complex because of the dynamic, fluid nature of both the organization and the environment, which causes each to influence the other (Morrison, 2002). This movement to a more complex, post-industrial society has influenced workplaces in a variety of ways. Leicht and Fennell (2001, p. 3) identified six characteristics of the modern workplace: (1) flatter organizational hierarchies; (2) growing use of temporary workers; (3) subcontracting and outsourcing; (4) massive downsizing of the permanent workforce; (5) a post-unionized bargaining environment; and (6) virtual organizations. Morrison’s (2002) description of complex organizations expands this list to include: small organization, teamwork and matrix structures, multi-team membership, open, flexible boundaries, person-centered, consumerist, self-organizing, empowering, and unpredictable (p. 16). Thus, post-industrial workplaces are very different from the large, hierarchical, closed, self-contained, and predictable workplaces of the industrial era. These workplace features have major implications for how work is conducted and how individuals confront changing work dynamics. Hage and Powers (1992) argue that the nature of work changed in post-industrial society in fundamental ways that can be distinguished in terms of an emphasis on complexity in contrast to the rationality emphasis of industrial society. In industrial society, work was characterized by several factors, all of which contributed to increasing rationality: . the use of standard operating procedures to decrease ambiguity and discretion; . a de-emphasis on human activity in order to reduce uncertainty and ambiguity; . limited contact with other roles; and . efficiency and quantity of work as assessment criteria. In contrast, work in post-industrial society emphasizes the following characteristics that contribute to increasing complexity in work: . a preference for customized responses; . the importance of the individual in searching for new information to solve problems and customize responses; . intense and consistent contact with other roles; and . an emphasis on creativity and innovation as assessment criteria.

Complexity and the beginning principal 313

JEA 44,4

314

Several authors have argued that this increased complexity has produced unintended consequences for working conditions. Richard Sennett (1998), for example, argues that changes in the nature of work have brought with them such conditions as a loss of character, a loss of self-understanding, and a disengagement from work. Robert Reich (2000), former US Secretary of Labor, describes the personal and community costs of new work arrangements, including an end to steady work, the necessity of continuous effort, and widening inequalities. Robert Putnam (2000), in his study of community engagement, identifies the declining involvement of individuals in civic and community associations. Complexity in educational work Although educational work is undoubtedly different from manufacturing work, these societal changes from industrial to post-industrial put pressures on educational workers in general, and on school principals in particular. These changes warrant a new understanding of the socialization of beginning principals who enact their role in this complex, post-industrial society. Various societal changes in the USA have impacted schooling in dramatic ways. Gary Marx (2000, p. 3) identified ten trends that US educators face: (1) for the first time in history, the old will outnumber the young; (2) the country will become a nation of minorities; (3) social and intellectual capital will become the primary economic values in society; (4) education will shift from averages to individuals; (5) the Millennial Generation will insist on solutions to accumulated problems and injustices; (6) continuous improvement and collaboration will replace quick fixes and defense of the status quo; (7) technology will increase the speed of communication and the pace of advancement or decline; (8) knowledge creation and breakthrough thinking will stir a new era of enlightenment; (9) scientific discoveries and societal realities will force difficult ethical choices; and (10) competition will increase as industries and professions intensify their efforts to attract and keep talented people. Marx’s trends clearly point to a change in the role that knowledge plays in the society; social and intellectual capital have become dramatically important. Schools take on obvious and significant responsibility for building the capacity for this knowledge society and contributing to the accumulation of social and intellectual capital. The work of educators in a knowledge society involves more than simply recognizing the knowledge explosion. Educators must promote a more complex sense of knowledge, in which “knowledge is a flexible, fluid, ever-expanding, and ever-shifting resource” (Hargreaves, 2003, p. 16). This knowledge society puts new and increasingly complex demands on teachers and principals. They not only must keep up with a rapidly increasing knowledge base

but also must create school environments that are focused on continuous learning and building learning capacity. Such responsibilities are not simply a more intense work environment but a more complicated one in which capacity building, motivation, and the involvement of an increasing number of roles and people in the knowledge process are critical. These changes toward greater complexity in educational work also involve responding to new and expanding technology. The importance of technology for schools can be seen in the following features of the knowledge explosion: . every two or three years, the knowledge base doubles; . every day, 7,000 scientific and technical articles are published; . every two weeks, satellites orbiting the globe send enough data to fill 19 million volumes in the Library of Congress; . high school graduates have been exposed to more information than their grandparents were in a lifetime; . only 15 percent of the jobs will require a college education, but nearly all jobs will require the equivalent knowledge of a college education; and . there will be as much change in the next three decades as there was in the last three centuries (National School Boards Association, 2000, as quoted in Marx, 2000, p. 58). These features create a dynamic and complicated environment for principals in responding to the information needs of teachers and students, creating resources to acquire hardware and software, developing a professional learning environment to support the use of technology, and closing the digital divide between rich and poor students. Another factor contributing to the complexity of the principal’s job is the changing student demographics in schools. As Marx (2000) notes, the USA is becoming a nation of minorities – a term currently being debated, since the traditional white majority becomes the minority race. Recently in the state of Texas, one of the most populous states of the country, the number of people of color now outnumbers the number of whites. Several states, including Texas, California, New Mexico, and Hawaii, are “majority-minority” states and at least five other states – Maryland, Mississippi, Georgia, New York, and Arizona – are quickly joining this group. The latest estimate is that by 2050, the white race will be a minority race in the USA. Race, however, is only one factor of the changing demographics. Mobility, at-risk conditions, poverty, and language create a different clientele of students and parents than many teachers and administrators have previously experienced. For teachers and principals who were socialized in homogenous settings with students of the same race, ethnicity, socio-economic status, and language, these demographic changes demand culturally relevant sensitivities and knowledge of learning differences. Principals in most schools now encounter a vastly different and more challenging organizational setting, which demands community support in social, mental, and health services; professional development for principals and teachers in cultural sensitivities and learning styles; instructional monitoring and support for new kinds of educational services; and a commitment to ensuring that all students learn. These demographic changes also

Complexity and the beginning principal 315

JEA 44,4

316

present the opportunity for principals to use the resources of diversity for leadership and learning, but such opportunities must be recognized and valued. Along with more complex knowledge, technology, and demographic changes, US principals are also faced with a dramatic increase in public scrutiny of schools. The federal law, No Child Left Behind, passed in 2001, raises the stakes on student learning. The stakes can involve loss of federal funding, public embarrassment, and in some cases loss of jobs for teachers and principals. This high stakes pressure is also occurring simultaneously with a conservative political swing that advocates privatization initiatives, including vouchers to private schools, charter schools, and other strategies aimed at reducing the so-called monopoly of public schools. This dramatic increase in accountability and public scrutiny has added to the complexity of the principal’s job, requiring principals to be entrepreneurial, to be more focused on student outcomes and instructional processes, and to be more connected with their communities. While all three requirements are appropriate and critical, they create a more complex job for principals not only in the number of demands but also in the conflicting and dynamic nature of the demands. The changes in the principal’s role also bring unintended consequences. Hargreaves (2003) argues that the current changes in educational work within this more complex knowledge society have resulted in a variety of dysfunctional features, including a culture of dependency, divisiveness among staff, loss of integrity, an end of ingenuity, and emotional strain. Various writers (Ackerman and Maslin-Ostrowski, 2002; Lindle, 2004) have acknowledged the increased emotional strain and stress faced by contemporary US principals. Socialization of beginning US principals in a complex society The complex environment in which beginning US principals take on their positions and the changing nature of the principal’s role require new features of principal socialization. This section will identify four conceptual elements of socialization, based on the classic outline presented by Van Maanen and Schein (1979). The features of socialization described here include conceptual elements as well as some normative elements. The normative elements are based on the previous discussion of principals’ work in a complex society and the changes that have occurred in the role. The purpose of this description is not to develop an extensive conceptual model but to suggest conceptual features and some implications of these features for principal socialization in a complex society. Again, some of these features are relevant to other national contexts, but the discussion of socialization in the following section is focused on US principals. Content of socialization The traditional socialization of beginning principals as consisting of professional and organizational socialization content ignores that socialization is a complex and dynamic process that involves more than what occurs in a university and a school. In order both to understand the nature of beginning principals’ socialization and to enhance that socialization, we must begin before admission to a university principal preparation program. Anticipatory socialization. The large majority of principals have been teachers. The socialization that occurs during the teaching experience is a kind of anticipatory

socialization that is part of the leadership development process (Browne-Ferrigno, 2003; Hart, 1993). Some researchers encourage leadership development among teachers (Smylie et al., 2002), but this is not typically as a precursor for the principalship. However, as Browne-Ferrigno (2003) found, teachers’ leadership experiences in schools, districts, and professional associations contributed to the development of principals’ role conceptions. Crow and Glascock (1995) found that aspiring US principals identified three major sources of role conception: (1) witnessing principal work while they were teachers; (2) their own expertise as teachers; and (3) non-education work experience. A more intentional use of leadership experiences during the teaching career needs to be seen as part of the principal socialization process. Recognizing that beginning principals’ socialization begins with the teaching career provides the opportunity to understand how these beginning principals develop their instructional orientation, their understanding of the nature of knowledge, their cultural sensitivity to students, and their conceptions of instructional leadership. Professional socialization. Traditionally professional socialization in the USA focuses only on what happens in the university, through coursework and perhaps internships. However, a more rigorous form of professional socialization for new principals in a complex society engages districts and schools, as well as universities, working together as agents in the process of learning the role (Grogan and Andrews, 2002). Since leadership is context-specific, blending university and school/district context in the preparation protects against the university training being brushed aside as irrelevant and provides a stronger learning opportunity for aspiring principals to develop the context-specific knowledge, skills, and dispositions. Browne-Ferrigno (2003) found in her study of US principals that “the key socializing experience [. . .] was working directly with school administrators in real settings” during the professional socialization period (p. 486). She also found that these university-school experiences increased role clarity and technical expertise, changed role conceptions, and developed skills and professional behaviors (p. 495). Jackson and Kelley (2002) found in their study of innovative US preparation programs that one of the most common features of these programs was a strong collaboration between university and district. These kinds of knowledge, skills, and dispositions, important during professional socialization, should reflect the types of changes in a complex society identified earlier. For example, demographic changes and accountability requirements (Marx, 2000) confront beginning principals with the need to know culturally relevant learning strategies, to use data for assessment, and to monitor and enhance teacher instruction and student learning. For example, McKenzie and Scheurich (2004) and others (Scheurich and Skrla, 2003) have used the concept of equity traps and equity audits to prepare US school leaders to create schools that are equitable – particularly for students of color – and that respond to accountability demands. Additionally, individuals in a complex society work in networking webs rather than in isolation (Hage and Powers, 1992). Professional socialization for beginning principals should involve the skills necessary for teamwork and collaboration. Norris et al. (2002) describe US preparation programs that use collaborative learning

Complexity and the beginning principal 317

JEA 44,4

318

communities to prepare leaders to lead professional learning communities in their schools. In addition to coursework, professional socialization in the USA typically involves an internship where the leadership candidate is placed in a real administrative setting under the supervision of a practicing principal and a university faculty member. In order to prepare aspiring principals for a complex society, internships need to do more than simply provide the aspiring principal with an understanding of the rhythm and pace of the administrator’s day. They should provide these future principals with the opportunity to work with a variety of students, a variety of effective, culturally relevant teaching, and a variety of school and work settings in order to prepare aspiring principals for the kind of demographically diverse settings they are likely to encounter. In addition, effective internships include carefully screened and trained mentors (Crow and Matthews, 1998; Jackson and Kelley, 2002). Organizational socialization. During organizational socialization the new principal typically learns “how things are done here”. But such a weak and narrow notion of organizational socialization is ineffective for beginning principals in a complex society. Broadening the notion of organizational socialization to include not only a particular school, but also social, mental, and health agencies; community religious and governmental entities; and other schools with similar and different demographics, can strengthen the learning of beginning principals. Although in the USA such an extensive organizational socialization model is rarely provided, its usefulness for understanding and developing the skills to lead schools in a changing student demographic context is obvious. The typical organizational socialization of beginning principals in the USA follows a format in which the new principal is bombarded with all the responsibilities that a veteran principal has. The lack of mediated entry creates burnout, stress, and ineffective performance as beginning principals develop quick fixes and unreflective practices – responses that are counterproductive to the type of effective leadership needed in a complex society. Reinvigorating the assistant principalship position in the USA so that it provides a mediated entry by deliberately structuring the assistant principalship as a leadership development position (in a similar way to the deputy headteacher position in England) can remedy this problem and strengthen the organizational socialization for beginning principals, as well as contributing to the school’s learning capacity (Greenfield, 1985c; Matthews and Crow, 2003). Personal socialization. A fourth type of socialization is rarely identified in the literature. Personal socialization involves the change of self-identity that occurs as individuals learn new roles (Ortiz, 1982; Browne-Ferrigno, 2003; Matthews and Crow, 2003). For beginning principals, personal socialization can include identifying with the larger view of schools that goes beyond one classroom and with a different image of the role than a traditional, masculine or white image (Ortiz, 1982). Additionally, in a complex society, the personal socialization of beginning principals must include seeing the principal’s role in a societal perspective in which student learning is seen in the context of oppression and privilege in the larger society (Crow, 2006; Larson and Murtadha, 2002). Seeing oneself as an advocate for social justice-oriented schooling and learning is a different personal orientation than typically found with previous generations of beginning principals but is beginning to be viewed as a critical part of US principal preparation programs (Grogan and Andrews, 2002).

Learning content. In a post-industrial society in which complexity is key, the content of socialization must involve an orientation and openness to change – change in personal identity, change in the priorities of the principal’s tasks, and change in what constitutes an effective organization. Various reform initiatives in the US are currently calling for school principals who are transformational leaders dissatisfied with maintaining the status quo (Elmore, 2000; Leithwood and Jantzi, 2000). But not any change is appropriate in this complex context. The change required in a post-industrial society with the kinds of complexities we have identified previously includes an action orientation deliberately aimed at continuous learning for all students. This involves not only technical knowledge and skills, such as supervision, and the interpersonal skills, such as communication, to create learning environments that make it possible for all students to learn. This action orientation demands a set of dispositions and values based on cultural sensitivities and commitments to the learning of all students (McKenzie and Scheurich, 2004; Scheurich and Skrla, 2003). Until recently, principal preparation and professional development in the USA focused exclusively on knowledge and skills. But the values and dispositions that a beginning principal carries into the job and develops on the job are critical for the way the role is enacted. Peterson (2002) in his study of professional development programs in the USA found that cultural elements that helped develop values and dispositions were key factors in these programs, and these elements included linkages to organizational history, values, and community. Socialization content must include learning and internalizing these values (Feldman, 1976). Sources of socialization The traditional sources of beginning US principal socialization include teachers, veteran principals, and professors, i.e. educational agents. These traditional categories of agents restrict both the educational and non-educational sources for socialization. Certainly teachers and other principals have a tremendous amount of influence on the learning of beginning principals. These individuals present dilemmas for the new school leader, provide or hoard information, and test the new leader’s authority and values (Crow and Matthews, 1998). But students and parents also serve as socialization sources for the new principal. These individuals have traditionally been ignored in the descriptions of US principal socialization. Students, however, are major participants in the school who create problems, challenges, and opportunities that influence the beginning principal’s learning of knowledge, skills, and dispositions. The changing student demographics that contemporary US principals encounter are a major source of influence not only on the role but the learning of these new principals. Parents also are a major socializing source in the school by presenting problems, challenges and opportunities that help define the new principal’s learning content and by pressuring district office administrators in ways that may influence what values, knowledge, and skills are celebrated or rejected. Increased public scrutiny, divergent parental interests and the increasing power of local conservative lobby groups increases the pressures on the role conception, norms, and behaviors of US principals. Family members and friends also serve as socializing agents by valuing or de-valuing certain conceptions of the role (Crow and Matthews, 1998) that they may see as constraining their relationships with the beginning principal. The increasing

Complexity and the beginning principal 319

JEA 44,4

320

complexity and intensity of the role may also influence the level of support of these socialization agents for the beginning principal. In addition, in a complex society sectors other than education influence the learning of beginning principals. The business sector historically plays a significant, and perhaps overly influential, role in the learning process of beginning principals (Callahan, 1962; Tyack and Hansot, 1982). The pressure placed on schools by the business community to prepare current and future workers as well as the resources provided by this sector with their attached demands, influence the learning of beginning principals. Think tanks, business lobbies, and local business interests influence the principal’s role in terms of accountability, programs, and extracurricular activities. Social service agencies are currently more involved in schools as educators recognize the importance of responding to the whole child in the learning context and the need to collaborate with social, health, and mental health agencies in order to augment the school’s response to the unique and complex needs of contemporary students. Various approaches, such as inter-agency collaboration (Crowson, 2001) and community schools (Dryfoos et al., 2005), influence the role of the beginning principal by expanding the web of relationships and the demands for the principals to engage with a broader set of roles. Methods of socialization The classic typology of socialization methods is found in Van Maanen and Schein (1979), who identify several dimensions, including individual versus collective, formal versus informal, serial versus disjunctive, and investiture versus divestiture. US principals tend to be socialized individually, informally, by veterans, and with an emphasis on divesting of earlier, teacher experiences (Greenfield, 1985a). Obviously there are differences depending, for example, on district induction programs, where the socialization may be formal, in groups, and focused on using the new principal’s teaching experience. The use of veterans as mentors to socialize beginning principals is common and almost sacred in the US. Sometimes this is done without acknowledging the conservative bias of mentoring, in which the veteran passes on the learning to the newcomer (Crow and Matthews, 1998). Although mentoring can be an important and effective tool for socializing beginning principals, it must be considered in the context of the complexity of post-industrial society. A variety of trained mentors who provide experiences with diverse students in diverse settings and who encourage innovative, culturally sensitive leadership practices can be particularly influential and effective for beginning principals (Jackson and Kelley, 2002). The classic typology of socialization methods tends to overlook the more subtle cultural tactics that socializing agents use. Cultural modes, such as ceremonies, rites, rituals, songs, stories, and myths, are potent forms of socialization for all occupations, including educators (Trice, 1993). Teachers and veteran principals tell stories, for example, that relay special, critical messages to new principals that warn them against rocking the boat, making waves, and other possibly innovative strategies (Shackelford, 1992). Like most cultural modes, these can be more potent than the formal, overt methods. Crow and Pounders (1996) discovered several cultural methods used by faculty, students and supervisors in one US district to help aspiring principals “learn

the ropes”. These included rituals (early bombardment of responsibilities), rites (testing by teachers), and ceremonies (introduction to teachers and staff) that these aspiring principals say were powerful socialization tools. Socializing agents, as well as beginning principals themselves, must be cautious about the message of cultural tactics, which can contradict models of effective leadership needed in a complex society. In addition to these previously identified socialization methods, a frequently overlooked dimension of socialization method is variety versus similarity. The degree to which the beginning principal’s experiences take place in the same district, same school, and same demographic context versus taking place in different settings provides learning experiences that can constrain or expand, impoverish or enrich the experience and ability of the new principal to work in a complex, ambiguous, and diverse environment. In a post-industrial society where customized response is demanded, where individual agency is emphasized, where webs of networking are necessary, where student populations are culturally diverse, and where the criteria for effectiveness are creativity and innovation, variety of experience is essential. Karaevli and Hall (2004) point to the impact that career variety and diversity have on facilitating administrative learning in a knowledge society. Crow (1992) found that principals in Chicago suburbs who had experience in more than one district were more likely to risk conflict with district office administrators in order to maintain school independence and change. Outcomes of socialization Merton (1968) identifies a broad set of socialization outcomes including conformity, innovation, ritualism, retreatism, and rebellion. A traditionalist notion of effective socialization typically assumes a certain degree of conformity, where the new principal is socialized to conform to a conception of the role that is accepted by the socializing agents. This basically involves a “role-taking” outcome (Hart, 1993), where the new principal takes a role conception given by the school, district, university, or community. Such an outcome assumes a static notion of the role designed to fit all situations. However, in a post-industrial society where roles are dynamic and the demands are fluid, a conformity or role-taking outcome by itself is likely to be ineffective and even dysfunctional. In contrast, more innovative, perhaps even rebellious, outcomes may be more effective for beginning principals in a complex environment. At least, this calls for a “role-making” outcome where the new principal creates a role to meet the dynamic, fluid nature of the context. The current US political environment with its conservative swing creates dilemmas for US principals, e.g. where entrepreneurial marketing goals and achievement test score accountability demands may conflict with innovations, especially in terms of a progressive curriculum. Implications for research The conceptual and practical features identified in this paper for the socialization of beginning principals suggest several possible areas for research that could enrich the understanding of beginning principals’ socialization in the USA and perhaps in other national contexts. The post-industrial trend toward creating customized responses to problems versus the industrial model of standardization is a dilemma confronting contemporary

Complexity and the beginning principal 321

JEA 44,4

322

beginning principals. Principals in the USA experience a tension between building enriched learning communities that support innovation and creativity and responding to the standardization approach in most accountability initiatives. Examining how this tension influences the processes and outcomes of beginning principal socialization would be useful in informing such areas as administrator stress and leader effectiveness during the induction period. The anticipatory socialization of US principals has rarely been researched. A variety of factors of teaching experience (e.g. type of school, content area, and variety of experience with different student demographic groups) have possible implications for not only the way principals enact the role but the way they learn. Van Maanen (1984) argues that previous socialization experiences have an impact on subsequent socialization processes. Understanding the teaching experience of new principals may provide an understanding of and support for beginning principals’ socialization. Earlier in the paper, we identified variety versus similarity as an overlooked dimension of socialization methods. This dimension is currently being considered in some of the business literature on leadership in turbulent situations (Cooper and Burke, 2002). However, research on this dimension of socialization for beginning US principals is lacking. An understanding of how variety of work and life experiences support the learning of new principals who encounter the demographic diversity of contemporary schools would be useful for enriching beginning principal socialization in a complex, post-industrial society. In a similar vein, an examination of the types of socialization methods used to effectively prepare beginning principals to address the social justice and learning equity outcomes of schools would be beneficial. A growing body of literature exists on strategies for university professors to use in preparing leaders for social justice (Marshall, 2004; Marshall and Oliva, 2006), but very little on the larger socialization processes (e.g. induction) that facilitate this type of leadership. Learning how to do a job does not occur in the vacuum of a profession or an organization. The larger societal context in which roles are enacted impacts the socialization process. The dramatic changes of post-industrial society create an opportunity and a challenge for beginning US principals in learning their jobs. These principals themselves, as well as district leaders, professors and policymakers need to acknowledge how the complexities of these societal changes impact the socialization of this important group of school leaders. References Ackerman, R.H. and Maslin-Ostrowski, P. (2002), The Wounded Leader: How Real Leadership Emerges in Times of Crisis, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA. Bell, D. (1976), The Coming of Post-Industrial Society, Basic Books, New York, NY. Browne-Ferrigno, T. (2003), “Becoming a principal: role conception, initial socialization, role-identity transformation, purposeful engagement”, Educational Administration Quarterly, Vol. 39 No. 4, pp. 468-503. Browne-Ferrigno, T. and Muth, R. (2004), “Leadership mentoring in clinical practice: role socialization, professional development, and capacity building”, Educational Administration Quarterly, Vol. 40 No. 4, pp. 468-94. Callahan, R.E. (1962), Education and the Cult of Efficiency: A Study of the Social Forces That Have Shaped the Administration of Public Schools, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.

Cooper, C.L. and Burke, R.J. (2002), The New World of Work, Blackwell, Oxford. Crow, G.M. (1992), “Career history and orientation to work: the case of the elementary school principal”, Journal of Research and Development in Education, Vol. 25, pp. 82-8. Crow, G.M. (2006), “Democracy and educational work in an age of complexity”, UCEA Review, forthcoming. Crow, G.M. and Glascock, C. (1995), “Socialization to a new conception of the principalship”, Journal of Educational Administration, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 22-43. Crow, G.M. and Grogan, M. (2005), “The development of leadership thought and practice in the United States”, in English, F. (Ed.), The Sage Handbook of Educational Leadership, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 362-79. Crow, G.M. and Matthews, L.J. (1998), Finding One’s Way. How Mentoring Can Lead to Dynamic Leadership, Corwin Press, Thousand Oaks, CA. Crow, G.M. and Pounders, M. (1996), “The administrative internship: learning the ropes of an occupational culture”, paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York, NY, April 8-12. Crowson, R. (2001), Community Development and School Reform, JAI Press, Amsterdam. Dryfoos, J., Quinn, J. and Barkin, C. (2005), Community Schools in Action: Lessons from a Decade of Practice, Oxford University Press, New York, NY. Elmore, R. (2000), Building a New Structure for School Leadership, The Albert Shanker Institute, New York, NY. Feldman, D.C. (1976), “A contingency theory of socialization”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 21, pp. 433-52. Friedman, T. (2005), The World Is Flat. A Brief History of the Twenty-First Century, Farrar, Straus, and Giroux, New York, NY. Greenfield, W.D. (1985a), “Being and becoming a principal: responses to work contexts and socialization processes”, paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL, March. Greenfield, W.D. (1985b), “Studies of the assistant principalship: toward new avenues of inquiry”, Education and Urban Society, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 7-27. Greenfield, W.D. (1985c), “Developing an instructional role for the assistant principal”, Education and Urban Society, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 85-92. Griffiths, D., Stout, R. and Forsyth, P. (1988), Leaders for America’s Schools, McCutchan, Berkeley, CA. Grogan, M. and Andrews, R. (2002), “Defining preparation and professional development for the future”, Educational Administration Quarterly, Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 213-32. Hage, J. and Powers, C.H. (1992), Post-Industrial Lives. Roles and Relationships in the 21st Century, Sage Publications, Newbury Park, CA. Haller, E.J., Brent, B.O. and McNamara, J.F. (1997), “Does graduate training in educational administration improve America’s schools? Another look at some national data”, Phi Delta Kappan, Vol. 79 No. 3, pp. 222-7. Hallinger, P. and Heck, R. (1996), “Reassessing the principal’s role in school effectiveness: a review of empirical research, 1980-1995”, Educational Administration Quarterly, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 5-44. Hargreaves, A. (2003), Teaching in the Knowledge Society, Teachers College Press, New York, NY.

Complexity and the beginning principal 323

JEA 44,4

324

Hart, A.W. (1993), Principal Succession: Establishing Leadership in Schools, State University of New York Press, Albany, NY. Hess, F.M. and Kelly, A.P. (2005), “Learning to lead: what gets taught in principal preparation programs”, A Joint Program of the Taubman Center for State and Local Government and the Center for American Political Studies, Cambridge, MA. Jackson, B.L. and Kelley, C. (2002), “Exceptional and innovative programs in educational leadership”, Educational Administration Quarterly, Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 192-212. Karaevli, A. and Hall, D.T. (2004), “Career variety and executive adaptability in turbulent environments”, in Burke, R.J. and Cooper, C.L. (Eds), Leading in Turbulent Times. Managing in the New World of Work, Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 54-74. Larson, C.L. and Murtadha, K. (2002), “Leadership for social justice”, in Murphy, J. (Ed.), The Educational Leadership Challenge: Redefining Leadership for the 21st Century, National Society for the Study of Education, Chicago, IL. Lashway, L. (2003), Improving Principal Evaluation, ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Management, Eugene, OR. Leicht, K.T. and Fennell, M.L. (2001), Professional Work: A Sociological Approach, Blackwell, Oxford. Leithwood, K. and Jantzi, D. (2000), “The effects of transformational leadership on organizational conditions and student engagement with school”, Journal of Educational Administration, Vol. 38, pp. 112-29. Levine, A. (2005), Educating School Leaders, The Education Schools Project, New York, NY. Lindle, J.C. (2004), “Trauma and stress in the principal’s office: systematic inquiry as coping”, Journal of School Leadership, Vol. 14, pp. 378-410. McKenzie, K.B. and Scheurich, J.J. (2004), “Equity traps: a useful construct for preparing principals to lead schools that are successful with racially diverse students”, Educational Administration Quarterly, Vol. 40 No. 5, pp. 601-32. Marshall, C. (2004), “Social justice challenges to educational administration”, Educational Administration Quarterly, Vol. 40 No. 1. Marshall, C. and Oliva, M. (2006), Leadership for Social Justice. Making Revolutions in Education, Pearson, Boston, MA. Marx, G. (2000), Ten Trends. Educating Children for a Profoundly Different Future, Educational Research Service, Arlington, VA. Matthews, L.J. and Crow, G.M. (2003), Being and Becoming a Principal, Allyn & Bacon, Boston, MA. Merton, R.K. (1968), Social Theory and Social Structure, Free Press, New York, NY. Milstein, M.M., Bobroff, B.M. and Restine, L.N. (1991), Internship Programs in Educational Administration: A Guide to Preparing Educational Leaders, Teachers College Press, New York, NY. Morrison, K. (2002), School Leadership and Complexity Theory, Routledge/Falmer, London. National School Boards Association (2000), “Leadership and technology”, Present and Future Change, National School Boards Association’s Institute for the Transfer of Technology to Education, Alexandria, VA. Norris, C.J., Barnett, B.G., Basom, M.R. and Yerkes, D.M. (2002), Developing Educational Leaders. A Working Model: The Learning Community in Action, Teachers College Press, New York, NY.

Orr, M.T. (2004), “Conceptualizing research on the impact of leadership preparation for practicing graduates and their schools”, unpublished manuscript presented at the Annual Conference of the University Council for Educational Administration, Kansas City, MO, May. Ortiz, F.I. (1982), Career Patterns in Education: Women, Men, and Minorities, Praeger, New York, NY. Peterson, K. (2002), “The professional development of principals: innovations and opportunities”, Educational Administration Quarterly, Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 213-32. Putnam, R.D. (2000), Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community, Simon & Schuster, New York, NY. Reich, R.B. (2000), The Future of Success. Working and Living in the New Economy, Vintage Books, New York, NY. Scheurich, J.J. and Skrla, L. (2003), Leadership for Equity and Excellence. Creating High-Achievement Classrooms, Schools, and Districts, Corwin Press, Thousand Oaks, CA. Sennett, R. (1998), The Corrosion of Character. The Personal Consequences of Work in the New Capitalism, W.W. Norton and Co., New York, NY. Shackelford, J.A. (1992), “An uphill battle: socialization of a novice female elementary principal”, unpublished PhD dissertation, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK. Smylie, M.A., Conley, S. and Marks, H. (2002), “Building leadership into the roles of teachers”, in Murphy, J. (Ed.), The Educational Leadership Challenge: Redefining Leadership for the 21st Century, National Society for the Study of Education, Chicago, IL. Toffler, A. (1981), The Third Wave, Bantam, New York, NY. Trice, H.M. (1993), Occupational Subcultures in the Workplace, ILR Press, Ithaca, NY. Tyack, D. and Hansot, E. (1982), Managers of Virtue: Public School Leadership in America, 1820-1980, Basic Books, New York, NY. Van Maanen, J. (1984), “Doing new things in old ways: the chains of socialization”, in Bess, J.L. (Ed.), College and University Organization, New York University Press, New York, NY, pp. 211-47. Van Maanen, J. and Schein, E.H. (1979), “Toward a theory of organizational socialization”, in Staw, B.M. and Cummings, L.L. (Eds), Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 1, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 209-64. Young, M. and Petersen, G.T. (2002), “Ensuring the capacity of university-based educational leadership preparation: the collected works of the National Commission for the Advancement of Educational Leadership Preparation”, Educational Administration Quarterly, Vol. 38 No. 2. Young, M.D., Crow, G.M., Orr, M.T., Ogawa, R. and Creighton, T. (2005), “An educative look at ‘Educating school leaders’”, UCEA Review, Vol. 46 No. 2, pp. 1-4. Further reading National College for School Leadership (2001), Leadership Development Framework, National College for School Leadership, Nottingham. Corresponding author Gary M. Crow can be contacted at: [email protected] To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

Complexity and the beginning principal 325

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/0957-8234.htm

JEA 44,4

Sitting in the “hot seat”: new headteachers in the UK

326

Create Consultants, London, UK, and

Dick Weindling Clive Dimmock University of Leicester, Leicester, UK Abstract Purpose – This article aims to identify the main challenges faced by headteachers after taking up their first headship in the UK. It also compares how these challenges have changed over time. Other purposes include the setting of the initial phase of headship within a whole career model and how heads become socialised into the role. Design/methodology/approach – Based on evidence from empirical studies using longitudinal data over a period of 20 years, the paper reviews the challenges faced by new headteachers in the UK; it also advocates a stage model for studying the principalship. Findings – Many of the main challenges experienced by new headteachers remained the same over a 20-year period; most of the differences were accounted for by changes in government policy over the period. The main difficulties included catering with the legacy of previous incumbents, overcoming established school cultures and communication behaviours, coping with poorly performing staff, and countering a poor public image of the school. Originality/value – The paper uses the main longitudinal data set available on the challenges and difficulties experienced by beginning headteachers in the UK; it also contributes conceptually to the socialization of headteachers and suggests a stage model of headship, relating the beginning phase to a holistic perspective of headteachers’ career trajectories. Keywords Principals, Socialization Paper type Conceptual paper

Journal of Educational Administration Vol. 44 No. 4, 2006 pp. 326-340 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 0957-8234 DOI 10.1108/09578230610674949

Introduction and background to the appointment of UK headteachers Beginning a headship or school principalship for the first time is an exciting, exhilarating, but complex and difficult experience. These are the conclusions of several studies of new headteachers carried out in England over the last 20 years, and reported in this paper. In addition to summarising these findings, the paper aims to provide a longitudinal perspective of changes in newly appointed heads’ experiences over a period of 20 years between 1982/1983 and 2003. A further aim is to underpin the findings with two conceptual frameworks: the first centres on early socialisation experiences in the role – both professionally and organisationally; and the second is a model of phases or stages through which heads pass in their career trajectories. The paper focuses principally on headship in England; study of new headship in Scotland has been undertaken by Draper and McMichael (1998, 2000), and in Wales by Dunning (2000). In the UK until comparatively recently, people became headteachers by means of on-the-job training through an apprenticeship model. Unusually, compared with many overseas systems, there was no requirement for a headship qualification or national certification. After qualifying as a teacher, people applied for jobs which were

advertised in the Times Educational Supplement (TES). Following a number of years of experience teachers would apply for posts of responsibility either in their own school or in other schools. If they wished to continue up the career ladder, they became senior teachers or deputy heads and worked with the head as members of a senior management team (SMT) in the school. Then with an average of about five years’ experience as a deputy they could apply for headship posts, which were also advertised in the TES. Local school governors, with advice from their Local Education Authority, would appoint the person they saw as the best candidate. Changes to qualifying for headship after 1997: the influence of the National College for School Leadership This system operated for many years until the National Professional Qualification for Headship (NPQH) was introduced on a voluntary basis in 1997. One of the authors (DW) was part of a team that conducted an evaluation of the early years of the programme. Overall, about two-thirds of the participants rated the scheme highly. The primary deputies were generally more positive than those in the secondary sector. Following evaluation, the scheme was revised by the National College of School Leadership (NCSL) and became compulsory in April 2004. It was then mandatory for all first-time headteachers to hold the NPQH or to have secured a place on the programme. Overseen by NCSL and based on the National Standards for Headship, the programme is delivered by nine regional providers. In September 2003, NCSL introduced the Headteacher Induction Programme (HIP) to support new heads, who are given a grant of £2,500 for the scheme. The College has also produced another valuable programme called “New Visions” which assists heads in their first three years of headship. By 2004 there had been three cohorts of this programme with a total of 744 participants (for details of all these programmes see the College website at www.ncsl. org.uk). The NFER Secondary Heads project The first and largest project on newly appointed headteachers was conducted by Weindling and Earley (1987), at the National Foundation for Educational Research (see also Earley and Weindling, 2004, for the follow-up stages). During phase 1 all the 250 people who began their first headship in 1982/1983 in a secondary school throughout England and Wales were identified. After interviews with 48 headteachers during their first few months, 16 were chosen as case studies and initially followed over their first two years. During the site visits interviews were conducted with the new heads, the senior managers, and a cross-section of teachers in each of the schools (a total of over 300 interviews). The other new heads were surveyed by questionnaire in 1984 after two years in post. The research team realised that it was important to document headship over a longer period, so it was decided to follow the cohort. In phase 2 data were collected from all the heads after five years in post (nine out of ten heads were still at the same school), and then again in phase 3 after ten years in post when seven out of ten people were still at their first school. Finally, checks were made to see where the people were 20 years after starting their headships. The average age of the cohort when they took up their first headship was 42, so it not surprising that only five people were still in

Sitting in the “hot seat”

327

JEA 44,4

328

post after 20 years – most had retired. The large amount of data collected from this longitudinal study made it unique. The first years (1982/1983-1987) A key point is that new heads do not start with a clean slate (as some heads mistakenly believe). The new heads discovered that the shadow of “headteachers past” hangs over and influences them for longer than they expect. The previous head had often retired, having been in post for 15 to 20 years. They had “shaped the school in their image”, and while this might be apparent in the form of structure, it was much harder to see the school culture they had forged. New heads were often surprised when they confronted existing routines, to be told by staff, “That’s the way we have always done it”. They soon found that their approach differed from that of their predecessor and this affected the period of settling in and the kind of changes they made. Many teachers interviewed said that the new heads and their predecessors differed considerably – they were like “chalk and cheese”. The heads differed in their approaches to change. Some deliberately chose to make early changes, others moved cautiously, while some were delayed and hindered by a poor senior management team (SMT). Almost all the changes made in the first year were organisational. Curricular changes began in the second year and continued into the third year and beyond. A few of the changes to the pastoral system occurred in the first year, but these were mainly introduced in years two and three. The organisational changes made soon after the new head’s arrival were frequently concerned with communication and consultation. Another group of early changes was concerned with promoting a positive image for the school, something of particular concern to the new heads especially where the community held the school in low esteem or student numbers were falling. Today it is hard to remember the pre-National Curriculum and OFSTED (Office for Standards in Education) inspection period when these heads first took up their posts. One of their prime responsibilities was to initiate curricular changes. Timetable changes could not be implemented until the beginning of their second year, but much preparatory work was undertaken in the first year. This usually took the form of a curriculum review, where each department was required to set out its aims, objectives, schemes of work and, in some cases, methods of assessment. Of the 200-plus changes introduced in the first three years in the 16 case study schools, it was noticeable that only a handful did not originate with the new heads themselves. Once the decision to adopt a change had been made, day-to-day responsibility was usually delegated either to a deputy head or a head of department. Ten years on (1988-1993) The external changes produced by the Educational Reform Act and other legislation had only just begun when the second phase of the research was conducted in 1988. The following five years saw the heads attempting to cope with substantial changes imposed from outside. These included the local management of schools (LMS), whereby the school (the head and governors) controlled the large majority of the budget; a national curriculum and national assessment for all children; and a national inspection system.

One hundred of the original 1982/1983 cohort returned a completed questionnaire. Seventy-seven people were still in their first school, while 23 had moved to a second headship. We were not able to track down the fate of those (104) who did not return a questionnaire, but we believe that most had retired. To gauge their feelings after ten years, the heads were asked a set of questions about their current level of enthusiasm. Two thirds said they had the same enthusiasm as when they started as heads, but there were noticeable differences between those who were still at their first school compared with those who had moved to second headships. For example, 40 per cent of those still in their original school said they did not have the same enthusiasm as when they started, compared with only 14 per cent of those in second headships. One of the case study heads who felt he had plateaued said: Ten years in post is a long time. The prospect of another 10 in the same post is daunting, but it looks inevitable. It seems that the school, staff, governors and myself have come to an understanding, an accommodation. I am less interventionist and it is now the “young Turk” deputies who are pressing for change and I seem to be holding them back because of my perception of immense pressure on the staff with the implementation of the National Curriculum.In contrast, a head who had moved to take up a second headship and did not feel he had reached a plateau said:

Notwithstanding all the external pressure, headship remains as exciting now as it was in 1982.It is difficult to tell whether those who moved to a second school were more highly motivated people, or whether the challenge of a new school boosted their enthusiasm. It is most likely to be an interaction of the two. Problems perceived by headteachers. The main problems reported by new heads during their first years were: . difficulties caused by the style and practice of the previous head; . the school buildings; . communication and consultation with staff; . creating a better public image of the school; . coping with a weak member of the senior team; . dealing with incompetent staff; and . low staff morale. In order to explore how the problems changed over time a set of core questions were used in the first and last surveys. Table I shows the heads’ perceptions in 1984 and 1993 on the set of core questions where a direct comparison is possible. Most problems were perceived to lessen over time, e.g. getting staff to accept new ideas; creating a good public image of the school; dealing with poor staff morale; improving communication and consultation; managing staff development and INSET; establishing discipline; dealing with finance; and issues concerning non-teaching staff. However, a few problems seemed to have increased, e.g. managing time and priorities; working with the governors. Dealing with incompetent staff appeared to have continued over time. Working with LEA officers and advisers remained a very minor problem for most heads.

Sitting in the “hot seat”

329

JEA 44,4

330

Table I. Comparison of problems perceived by secondary heads in 1984 and 1993

Very serious or serious 1984 1993 Getting staff to accept new ideas Creating a good public image Dealing with a weak member of SMT Dealing with incompetent staff Dealing with poor staff morale Improving consultation/communication Managing staff development and INSET Establishing good standards of discipline Managing time and priorities Dealing with LMS and finance Issues concerning non-teaching staff Working with LEA officers Working with the governors Working with LEA inspectors

47 42 38 37 36 35 30 27 21 19 19 7 6 5

20 21 27 31 16 18 5 6 40 10 11 7 11 3

Percentages Moderate or minor 1984 1993 47 43 36 32 51 46 60 51 54 58 57 42 42 32

68 60 39 63 58 66 60 65 50 57 52 27 50 28

Not a problem 1984

1993

6 15 26 31 13 9 10 22 25 23 24 51 52 61

12 19 34 6 26 16 35 29 10 33 35 66 39 69

These findings are likely to be due to the interaction of several complex factors. With time, head and staff get to know each other’s strengths and weaknesses; the heads have made some key staff appointments; they have gained a deeper understanding of the school and have introduced most of their intended changes. But the world outside has also changed. During the ten-year period a large number of external changes occurred, such as Local Management of Schools, a more powerful role for governors, grant maintained schools, the National Curriculum, exam league tables, and external inspection by Ofsted. Subsequently, in 2003, the National College for School Leadership commissioned a systematic review of the research literature concerning the problems and support strategies for the early years of headship (Hobson et al., 2003). From the review the main problems identified were: . feelings of professional isolation and loneliness; . dealing with the legacy, practice and style of the previous headteacher; . dealing with multiple tasks, managing time and priorities; . dealing with the school budget; . dealing with ineffective staff; . implementing new government initiatives, notably new curricula or school improvement projects; and . problems with school buildings and site management. It is important to note that the problems were largely similar in different countries and to some extent consistent over time, although contemporary government initiatives might bring with them particular problems. The fact that most new heads and principals experience these problems can be explained by the process of socialisation which affects all new leaders (in school and in business), as they try to understand their new role and take charge of an organisation. The notion that heads are socialized into

the new role implies that they progress through different stages of socialization, and a suggested stage model is presented below. In the NFER study the heads were asked to outline how they thought the school had improved in the five years since the previous survey. It is interesting to compare these results with the heads’ replies to the same question in 1988 when they had been in post about five years. Half the heads reported improved national exam results in their first five years, while 29 per cent said the results had improved in the last five years. It seems possible that some sort of “levelling off” may have occurred. However, without more detailed information it is not possible to say exactly what has happened over the total ten-year period. In the 1988 study, half the heads also mentioned improvements in the curriculum. Not surprisingly, this again emerged as a focal area. In fact, the comments were very similar, usually describing a more relevant curriculum, but after ten years just over a quarter of the heads mentioned the curriculum. Approximately the same number – about a quarter – talked about physical improvements in the buildings and facilities in 1988 and 1993. At each point in the study very similar comments were also made about improvements in the main areas of staff, students, parents and the community. These heads were also asked what advice they would give to a new head. Their answers put the emphasis on interpersonal skills and relationships, political power, and team work – all factors embedded in the school context. While formal study during preparation programmes tends to emphasise technical skills, the advice these heads offered after ten years on the job emphasized the skills and processes that Gabarro (1987) argued differentiated success and failure patterns of the new business executives he studied. These were: . assessing the organization and diagnosing its problems; . building a management team focused on a set of shared expectations; and . bringing about timely changes that address organisational problems. In contrast, he found that failed managers tended to function as “Lone Rangers”: “Compared to the successful managers, they involved others – particularly superiors and subordinates – to a much lesser degree in the work of assessing and diagnosing organization problems”, resulting in a narrow focus and incomplete diagnosis. A sample of the heads’ advice in the NFER study illustrates these points: . assess school needs; . build an effective Senior Management Team but make sure it isn’t separated from the body of the staff; . delegated team management is essential for a successful school, allow all staff to be involved in the development of the school; . remember that the staff are your most important resource; . ensure a good working relationship with the chair of governors as quickly as possible: err on the side of over-informing your governors; . have a vision for the school; share it with colleagues and students: believe in others as well as yourself and consult widely;

Sitting in the “hot seat”

331

JEA 44,4

.

. .

332

.

have your vision, yes, but carry your staff, your governors, your parents and your children with you: keep in touch all the time; accept that change will be constant, some of it turbulent; make good use of your honeymoon period, but don’t arrive with too many preconceived ideas or make too many changes too quickly: don’t import too much from your last school; and be prepared to lead from the front.

The learning process that makes this flexibility possible requires adjustments and adaptations to the expectations of a school staff on the part of a new school leader. These adjustments make cooperative effort possible and construct an orientation toward common needs and goals. Through the adjustment process, people come to internalise the values, norms, and beliefs of others in the same school and to see things as others see them. As a school leader adapts and adopts the generally accepted explanations for events, he or she is “socialised” but not enslaved. School improvement, in all its forms, is clearly the major quest for all heads. From the longitudinal NFER research it seems that most of the groundwork is put in place during the first five years or so, and then further refinements are made. The process involves setting up a number of working parties, curriculum and organisational restructuring, modelling appropriate behaviour, and most crucially, appointing key staff (particularly at senior and middle management). The research on effective schools shows the importance of school culture. The main task for the head is to create a shared vision and provide the necessary leadership to shape the culture of the school. The link between leadership and culture is most cogently argued by Schein (1992), who claims:QUOTEOrganisational cultures are created by leaders, and one of the most decisive functions of leadership may well be the creation, the management, and if and when it becomes necessary, the destruction of culture. Culture and leadership, when one examines them closely, are two sides of the same coin, and neither can really be understood by itself. In fact, there is a possibility underdeveloped in the leadership research that the only thing of real importance that leaders do is to create and manage culture and that the unique talent of leaders is their ability to work with culture (p. 5).Changing the culture of the school cannot be done easily or quickly. The NFER research shows that the “class of 82” had continued this difficult task. They seemed intuitively to know that “School improvement is steady work, and there is no quick fix”. A recent picture of new heads (2003-2004) A study commissioned by the NCSL provides a recent picture of new heads (National College of School Leadership, 2004). Questionnaires were completed by 311 participants (a 46 per cent response rate), who attended a new heads conference in November 2003 and those who attended a New Visions programme in December 2003. About two thirds were primary heads: . The majority of the new heads were cautiously confident about their management skills and knowledge, with only 3 per cent doubting they were equipped to fulfil their role. Confidence levels rose substantially for those with 18 months or more experience of headship.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Just over a third of primary heads had a strong belief that their leadership has a direct impact in the classroom, compared with a quarter of secondary heads. For both groups this belief increases steadily with length of time in post. A majority of respondents were in agreement that they were able to respond effectively to the multiple demands made on their new role: confidence did not increase with length of time in post. Almost all the respondents agreed that they shared leadership responsibilities among their school staff. There was nearly universal agreement that respondents felt equipped to meet significant leadership challenges, with slightly more strong agreement among secondary heads: confidence rose strongly for those with more than 18 months in post. Most heads (79 per cent) were in firm agreement that they were able to direct their own learning about leadership. Nearly three quarters of the respondents were in firm agreement that the values of their school were clear to all the members of the school community, with primary heads slightly more likely to strongly agree. There was modest association with length of time in post. Just over half of the respondents (56 per cent) were clear that they had established a team capable of driving forward school development with 44 per cent agreeing only partially or disagreeing. The proportion in strong agreement rose steadily with time in post. Nearly 90 per cent of respondents felt sure they were able to operate strategically, with stronger agreement among those in post for two or more years. Just over two thirds said they had a mentor or other individual who offered them professional support. A total of 68 per cent “agreed” or “strongly agreed” that they were supported by a network of peers, with primary heads more likely to be in “strong agreement”. The large majority of heads agreed that they had established an effective relationship with their governors.

This study shows that most new heads were confident about their abilities as a leader and that this increased with the time in post. In the next section we look at the various stages that heads move through during their time at a school. Transition to headship: stages of socialisation People learn how to be heads throughout their careers from a variety of sources. A problem with much of the previous research in schools or businesses is the lack a sufficiently long time frame to see all the phases of development. Hence the value of the NFER study, which shows that the heads acquired their views of headship before they started, during the formative early years, and from their subsequent experiences. Dan Duke (1987) points out the developmental nature of becoming a school leader and the importance of socialisation: School leaders do not emerge from training programs fully prepared and completely effective. Their development is a more involved and incremental process, beginning as early as their

Sitting in the “hot seat”

333

JEA 44,4

334

own schooling and extending through their first years on the job as leaders. Becoming a school leader is an ongoing process of socialisation (p. 261).

A useful approach to understanding leadership and headship development derives from Merton’s (1963) socialisation theory. The stress here is on the two-way interaction between the new leader and the school situation (with each trying to change and influence the other). In this view of socialisation, which is prevalent in the North American research, there are two main overlapping phases: (1) professional socialisation, which involves learning what it is to be a headteacher, prior to taking up the role, from personal experience of schooling and teaching and from formal courses; and (2) organisational socialisation, which involves learning the knowledge, values, and behaviours required to perform a specific role within a particular organisation (Schein, 1968) after appointment. When school leaders enter a local education authority, district, or school as new members, they experience a form of organisational socialisation. Organisational socialisation differs from professional socialisation. It teaches a person the knowledge, values, and behaviors required of them in a particular role within a particular organization. These values and norms may be very different than those the head learned as part of his/her professional socialisation. Professional socialisation generally begins in the pre-appointment phase of a school leader’s education career and continues into early post-appointment growth and development. Pre-appointment professional socialisation includes: . management courses for certification (mandatory and voluntary); . first-hand experiences of leadership and management tasks; and . modeling and social learning (learning by observing both good and bad models, help form a notion of what is good and bad leadership, and deliberate mentoring by some existing school leaders who see importance in their role in preparing future leaders). Organisational socialisation begins upon appointment and is specific to the education context. This simple definition belies the complexities. For example, an insider (someone appointed from within the school) brings past experiences and knowledge to this process, even though socialisation to the headship or principalship in each school is fundamentally unique (Hart, 1993; Earley and Weindling, 2004). We contend that post-appointment processes, dominated by organisational socialisation, create the interactions that legitimate and validate a new school leader within a school, preparing the way for her or him to exert influence. Gabarro (1987) called this “the taking charge” process. This crucial period consequently warrants the careful attention of those committed to improving the quality and effects of school leaders. A key part of organisational socialisation during the post-appointment period sees the school leader trying to take charge and bring about school improvement. At the same time the school is changing the school leader. Even writers who focus on the cultural aspects of leadership sometimes emphasise ways in which the leader socialises the staff but not the reverse (Schein, 1992). The NFER study shows that effective new

leaders enter with a notion of what they want their school to be like. When they get to the school and begin to see where the school does or does not lend itself to the elements of their rough blueprint, they must go through the surprise and sense-making process laid out by Smircich (1983) and adjust their expectations. Smircich described a process through which new members of an organisation deal with the differences between their pre-arrival beliefs and expectations and actual experiences upon entering the organization. Surprise is the most common response, and negative surprises tend to outnumber positive surprises. As the new member makes sense of these surprises, she or he gains an understanding and eventually becomes integrated within the group. In summary, no matter how good the preparation programs and prior experience, a major transition occurs when a school leader takes on a new formal leadership role that requires tailor-made responses to that particular situation. Consequently, fixation on pre- or post-appointment training, formal and informal processes, and the curricula of programmes leaves new school leaders wanting. More attention to the induction or taking-charge stage is needed, because it invariably is problematic and requires careful analysis and action in situ. Gabarro’s (1987) work shows interesting parallels with the NFER study where the new heads attempt to “take charge”. The heads were more constrained than business managers in their ability to hire and fire, and the fixed nature of the school year and timetable delay major curricular changes. Nevertheless, the waves of changes described by Gabarro (1987) have great similarity to the way that the heads introduced change. Another common finding was that internally appointed heads/managers tend to make fewer changes and to move more slowly than external appointees. This raises the phenomenon of phases or stages in the professional lives and careers of heads. Day and Bakioglu (1996), who used a cross-sectional approach to look at the stages of headteacher development, suggested there was a final phase of “disenchantment”. In contrast, Ribbins (1997) and Woods (2002) offered the alternative of “enchantment” for some long-serving heads. The NFER data showed that some heads are enchanted and others disenchanted by their experience of headship. Weindling (1999) used the NFER results and the work of other authors to produce the following model to map out the stages of transition through headship. The timings are approximate. Stage 0 – preparation prior to headship Throughout their career people develop a conception of headship during their professional socialisation which is learned through both formal and informal processes. As the NFER and other studies (e.g. Ribbins, 1997) show, they learn from both good and bad headteacher role models. The NFER heads said they learned about headship throughout their career, but they particularly stressed the value of the following experiences prior to appointment: . the need for a wide variety of experience, especially as a deputy head; . the value of a period as acting head; . the importance of delegation by the head; . the rotation of deputies’ responsibilities; and . the need to work with heads who saw deputy headship as a preparation for headship.

Sitting in the “hot seat”

335

JEA 44,4

Some heads spoke highly of management courses that they had attended as deputies, but most agreed that off-the-job training and development complemented experiences gained as a deputy working with “a good practitioner”. The gulf from deputy to head was, nevertheless, seen as enormous: “no course or reading matter can really prepare you for the job”.

336

Stage 1 – entry and encounter (first months) The first few days and weeks are a critical period when the new head’s notions of headship meet the reality of a particular school. It is a time of “surprise” and the importance of sense-making is highlighted as organisational socialisation begins and the new head attempts to develop a cognitive map of the complexities of the situation, the people, the problems and the school culture. Stage 2 – taking hold (three to 12 months) The newcomer strives to “take hold” in Gabarro’s (1987) terms, and the new heads begin to challenge the “taken for granted” nature of the school. The NFER heads introduced a number of organisational changes. They develop a deeper understanding and their diagnosis of key issues during this stage is used to decide priorities. This stage is also part of the “honeymoon period”, when staff are more lenient and open to change. In the NFER study we found that all new heads had such a period, though some did not realise it! The length of time varied, from about a term to a year. It was often ended suddenly by negative staff reaction to an action of the new head, an example of which would be an internal appointment who the majority of the staff considered the wrong person for the job. Stage 3 – reshaping (second year) After a year in post most heads feel more confident and are beginning to feel that they can take off their “L” (learner) plates! They have experienced a complete annual cycle of school events and learned about the strengths and weaknesses of the staff. Conversely, the staff have also learned about their strengths and weakness, and their mutual expectations have become more realistic. The seeds planted in the previous stage now produce the implementation of major changes to reshape the school. This is the period of major change. Stage 4 – refinement (years three to four) After two years many of the structural changes are in place. But during this stage further curriculum changes are introduced and a number of refinements made. Previous innovations are fine-tuned and heads feel they are “hitting their stride”. Stage 5 – consolidation (years five to seven) After about five years a period of consolidation seems to occur after the heads have introduced most of their planned changes. However, in the NFER study this was affected by the introduction of legislative and external changes. These, as Gabarro (1987) found, required attention as their impact may hit the school during any of the stages. Stage 6 – Plateau (years eight and onwards) The NFER Heads suggested that about seven years in one school is sufficient to see through a complete cohort of pupils and to have initiated most of the changes they

want. This period corresponds with Day and Bakioglu’s phase of disenchantment or Ribbins’ enchantment. The NFER data shows that about a third of the cohort felt they had reached a plateau after ten years, but that this was far less likely if they had moved to a second headship. Those in their second headship would initially move back to Stage 1 and then perhaps move at different rates through some of the subsequent stages in their second headship. Motivating heads who stay in one school until the end of their career can be a problem. However, many of the NFER heads said they still enjoyed their work and, despite the changes to the role, considered it to be the “best job in education”. The model is in the form of an ideal type and some caveats are necessary. Clearly the time periods attached to each stage must be treated as approximations. If the school is in special measures following an Ofsted inspection, the head has an external mandate to change and will move much more quickly. In the “crisis” circumstances of special measures in particular, there is evidence that new incumbent heads will make major structural and procedural stages soon after appointment – partly because that is expected of them, and time is at a premium. Some evidence suggests that other heads prefer to “find their feet” and get to know the school before embarking on major change initiatives. Thus different heads may move at different speeds, depending on their preferences and the situations they face when appointed, as Parkay and Hall (1992) suggest. The situation in the UK has changed considerably due to the 1988 Education Reform Act and other legislation. Whereas the NFER cohort of heads were able to introduce almost all the changes internally, today’s headteacher has to manage major multiple initiatives which originate externally, while at the same time, attempt to integrate themselves and shape the culture of the school. It seems likely that primary heads can move through the stages more rapidly than secondary heads due to the smaller size and the less hierarchical structures of primary schools. Unfortunately, the NFER study had too few woman heads to make a comparison between male and female heads. This means that it is not possible to say how gender differences might affect the stages of headship. The model is offered as a means of helping headteachers and prospective heads to understand the likely phases they will experience during headship. Although the particular circumstances in each school make it unique, there are common patterns, knowledge of which can be used to improve the preparation and support for heads. For example, knowledge of the stages or phases, and especially those embracing the beginning phase of headship, might well enable those charged with appointing and supporting beginning heads – such as the NCSL, professional trainers, employers, and universities – to offer improved training and education, better networks, and mentoring -based on actual problems that we now know confront most prospective and beginning heads. The utility of stage models is their translation into more relevant and sequenced preparation for the challenges heads will encounter. Conclusion There is little doubt that newly appointed headteachers in England are nowadays more formally prepared for the role than they were 20 years ago. Formal training programmes available both prior to appointment and within the first few years of headship enable a better technical knowledge and awareness of the challenges,

Sitting in the “hot seat”

337

JEA 44,4

338

expectations and priorities to be gained. However, it is equally the case that no amount of experience or preparation – whether through formal training or through experience as a deputy – can provide a sufficient induction to what is a demanding and complex job. A major and essential part of learning to be a headteacher is acquired through living the experience. This has to be so. There are few, if any, shortcuts; and the most valuable learning is bound to take place through socialization while in the role. The ease and speed with which the head adapts to the new role is dependent on many factors and naturally varies for individual heads. On the one hand, and as reported in this paper, the role and significance of the headteacher as school leader has been considerably widened and deepened (Dimmock and O’Donoghue, 1997) through external changes, mostly instigated by successive governments. In England, these include the introduction in 1988 of the National Curriculum, greater empowerment of parents and governors, greater competition between schools, and accountability for academic results. These externally induced changes have altered the expectations of what heads should do, what it is to be a “good head”, and have in turn raised the profile of the role while making it more demanding, more complex and more publicly visible. On the other hand, newly introduced formal training programmes – while helpful – are challenged to keep pace with the rate of change taking place in the job itself. The studies reported in this paper highlight the difficulties encountered by newly appointed heads, particularly in the early months and years. These problems, and how heads tackle them, are an essential part of their socialization. It is largely through these experiences that their new professional identities as headteachers are forged. Hitherto, they have almost certainly formed professional identities as teachers, departmental heads, and deputies; but once they assume the position of headteacher, these former identities will not fit. Moulding a new professional identity as a head requires the formation of a new sense of status, image and self-worth in the role and in the career; it means establishing values, priorities and what one stands for – an “educational platform”. The findings reported in this paper reveal that the most challenging conditions facing new headteachers are the legacies of their predecessors – past and existent cultures, leadership style and communication, inadequate buildings, weak and incompetent staff, low motivation and poor public image of the school. Paradoxically, it appears somewhat perverse that at a time when the new head is trying to forge a new professional identity, s/he is often preoccupied with the previous incumbent’s legacies and identities. However, it is through adapting, changing, and often rejecting the status quo, that the new headteacher is socialized into the role, thereby acquiring his/her own distinctive identity. The longitudinal nature of the studies reported on here – notwithstanding significant changes in UK education policy affecting headteachers – reveal the enduring nature of the processes, challenges and ways of socialization experienced by new heads – almost as rites of passage into the role. Loneliness and isolation persist, even in contemporary times when heads are urged to share leadership responsibilities across teams. Unsurprisingly, given the exacting demands of the role today, managing time and priorities, and multiple tasks have become even more prominent in the challenges confronting heads. Identification of the stages of socialization in the headship, especially during the first few years – preparation, entry and encounter, taking hold, re-shaping and

refinement – is fruitful in providing insights into the processes over time by which headteachers establish new professional identities based on their socialization experiences in the role. Profiling stages in this way yields career profiles and trajectories for heads collectively and, by comparisons with the collective profile, deviations for individual heads. Although this paper reports illuminating findings for headteachers over the past 20 years in the UK, and despite there being a burgeoning literature about the principalship per se, the fact remains that there is still much to be learnt. Future research might focus, for example, on how new headteachers are inducted into the role, how they are socialized and changed through professional experiences, and how they progress through career stages and phases. Such research might valuably study comparisons between male and female heads, those in different school phases and comparisons between heads of different ethnicity in regard to role induction, socialization and professional experiences, and progression through career stages and trajectories. It should always take cognizance of the constantly changing context of education policy and the effects this has on the role of headteacher. Hence, new concepts and ways of studying headteachers – new and experienced – will, and should, remain high on the agenda. References Day, C. and Bakioglu, A. (1996), “Development and disenchantment in the professional lives of headteachers”, in Goodison, I. and Hargreaves, A. (Eds), Teachers’ Professional Lives, Falmer Press, London. Dimmock, C. and O’Donoghue, T. (1997), Innovative School Principals and Restructuring: Life History Portraits of Successful Managers of Change, Routledge, London. Draper, J. and McMichael, P. (1998), “Making sense of primary headship: the surprises awaiting new heads”, School Leadership and Management, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 197-211. Draper, J. and McMichael, P. (2000), “Contextualising new headship”, School Leadership and Management, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 459-73. Duke, D. (1987), School Leadership and Instructional Improvement, Random House, New York, NY. Dunning, G. (2000), “New heads in Wales”, in Bolam, R., Dunning, G. and Karstanje, P. (Eds), New Heads in New Europe, Waxmann Publishers, Mu¨nster, pp. 129-52. Earley, P. and Weindling, D. (2004), Understanding School Leadership, Paul Chapman/Sage Publications, London. Gabarro, J. (1987), The Dynamics of Taking Charge, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA. Hart, A.W. (1993), Principal Succession: Establishing Leadership in Schools, State University of New York Press, Albany, NY. Hobson, A., Brown, E., Ashby, P., Keys, W., Sharp, C. and Benefield, P. (2003), Issues of Early Headship – Problems and Support Strategies, National College of School Leadership, Nottingham, available at: www.ncls.org.uk Merton, R. (1963), Social Theory and Social Structure, The Free Press, New York, NY. National College of School Leadership (2004), Early Headship – How Is It for You?, National College of School Leadership, Nottingham, available at: www.ncls.org.uk Parkay, F. and Hall, G. (Eds) (1992), Becoming a Principal, Allyn & Bacon, Boston, MA.

Sitting in the “hot seat”

339

JEA 44,4

340

Ribbins, P. (1997), “Heads on deputy headship”, Educational Management and Administration, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 295-308. Schein, E. (1968), “Organizational socialization and the profession of management”, Industrial Management Review, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 1-15. Schein, E. (1992), Organizational Culture and Leadership, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA. Smircich, L. (1983), “Concepts of culture and organizational analysis”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 339-58. Weindling, D. (1999), “Stages of headship”, in Bush, T., Bell, L., Bolam, R., Glatter, R. and Ribbins, P. (Eds), Educational Management: Redefining Theory, Policy and Practice, Paul Chapman, London, pp. 90-101. Weindling, D. and Earley, P. (1987), Secondary Headship: The First Years, NFER-Nelson, Windsor. Woods, R. (2002), Enchanted Headteachers: Sustainability in Primary School Headship, National College of School Leadership, Nottingham, available at: www.ncsl.org.uk Further reading Bolam, R., McMahon, A., Pocklington, K. and Weindling, D. (1993), National Evaluation of the Headteacher Mentoring Pilot Schemes, mimeo, DfEE, London. Pocklington, K. and Weindling, D. (1996), “Promoting reflections on headship through the mentoring mirror”, Educational Management and Administration, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 175-91. Corresponding author Dick Weindling can be contacted at: dweindling@ blueyonder.co.uk

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/0957-8234.htm

Canadian perspectives on beginning principals: their role in building capacity for learning communities

Canadian perspectives

341

Larry Sackney and Keith Walker University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Canada Abstract Purpose – This paper sets out to posit that the new economy places a new set of demands on schools and those who lead. Mindfulness, intentional engagement of people and adaptive confidence are needed developmental features of beginning principal success. The paper examines how beginning principals in Canada respond to the capacity-building work of leading learning communities. Design/methodology/approach – The paper examines data from a number of Canadian studies of beginning principalship and makes sense of these data using learning community and leadership literature. Findings – Beginning principals must create a learning community culture that sustains and develops trust, collaboration, risk taking, reflection, shared leadership, and data-based decision making. Mindfulness, engaging people in capacity building and the development of adaptive confidence are key features of new principal maturation. Originality/value – Beginning principals need to first develop personal, then collective efficacy, as well as mindfulness of their own learning and the learning culture. Further, beginning principals must intentionally engage people in acts of capacity building, together with conveying adaptive confidence in order to effectively foster professional learning communities. Keywords Principals, Socialization, Learning processes Paper type General review

Introduction How does the beginning principal lead in a complex environment? The environment is ambiguous, lacks clarity or consistency in reality, causality or intentionality (Calabrese, 2002). Ambiguous situations cannot be coded precisely into exclusive categories and the outcomes are often fuzzy. In a modernist environment, our theories and assumptions were grounded in mechanistic, hierarchical, and bureaucratic views of the social and organizational systems. From this perspective, control and power resided at the top of the school organization and responsibilities, roles and decision-making structures were clearly delineated. In the contemporary school, the context within which the work of beginning principals unfolds is characterized by a global community, a pluralistic social order, a multi-textured goal set, accountability, new technologies, and a diverse student and teaching cadre (Sackney et al., 2005a). We are entering an era of profound change. Hartle and Hobby (2003) argued that our industrial age assumptions about schooling are being challenged. We are teaching for a knowledge economy (Hargreaves, 2003; Mitchell and Sackney, 2000). The growing importance of knowledge requires that schools need to be different from what they are at present. Hartle and Hobby (2003), paraphrasing the Demos study, stated:

Journal of Educational Administration Vol. 44 No. 4, 2006 pp. 341-358 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 0957-8234 DOI 10.1108/09578230610676578

JEA 44,4

342

Schools remain hierarchical, vertically organized institutions, which operate for about one-third of a day on five days each week. The ability of this kind of organization to sustain motivation and engagement for each individual learner and employee – fundamental demands for the acquisition of the complex skills demanded by the knowledge economy – is increasingly doubtful (p. 383).

Evans (1996) noted that there have always been chronic tensions in leadership: between managing and leading, and between resources and demands. This is, however, not new when one considers the increasing expectations being placed on beginning principals. What is new, Evans suggested, “is the extent and intensity” of the job (p. 152). These changing demands serve to decrease school leaders’ sense of efficiency and heighten their feelings of isolation, insecurity, and intensity (Portin and Shen, 1998). A study conducted by Daresh and Male (2000) revealed that principals have concerns in the support, or the lack thereof, they receive in their first year on the job. During the past decade, various reform efforts have attempted to change schooling, but have met with minimal success. Part of the reason is that most changes have not transformed the culture of the schools to align with or attune to both internal and external demands. Stoll et al. (2003) contended that in a fast changing world, “if you can’t learn, unlearn and relearn, you’re lost. Sustainable and continuous learning is a given of the twenty-first century” (p. xv). Many of the current reform strategies – inquiry, shared leadership, collaboration, collective responsibility – are elements of capacity building at the individual, interpersonal and organizational levels (Mitchell and Sackney, 2000). In this regard Newmann and Wehlage (1995) found that “schools with strong professional learning communities were better able to offer authentic pedagogy and were more effective in promoting student achievement” (p. 3). These recent initiatives have focused on transforming schools into learning communities (Barth, 1990; Huffman and Hipp, 2003; Mitchell and Sackney, 2000; Stoll et al., 2003). To build a learning community is to build capacity for learning. A learning community has been defined as “a group of people who take an active, reflective, collaborative, learning-oriented and growth-promoting approach toward the mysteries, problems and perplexities of teaching and learning” (Mitchell and Sackney, 2000, p. 5). Such a focus represents a fundamental shift in how teaching and leading are perceived. This alternative perspective of teaching and leading is grounded in a wholeness worldview, “which assumes that everything is intimately connected with and embedded in everything else, that different elements are unique manifestations of the same underlying reality, and that any change in one element eventually leads to some sort of change in other elements” (Mitchell and Sackney, 2000, p. 130). The learning community ideology is grounded in a constructionist and ecological perspective of learning. Purpose of paper Leading for a learning community is not an easy role for beginning principals. In essence, principals have to create a culture that sustains and develops trust, collaboration, risk taking, innovation, reflection, shared leadership and that is data sensitive. This article selectively reviews research pertaining to the beginning principalship; building learning community capacity; and teaching and learning for a knowledge society. Data from a number of Canadian studies on beginning principals is

used to show how principals are prepared, socialized and learn to build learning community capacity in their schools. The argument is made that beginning principals have a difficult task in the early years of their career without the support systems and leading learning community frameworks necessary to survive in the complex school environment. We conclude that beginning principals need to first develop personal, then collective efficacy, as well as a mindfulness of their own learning and the learning culture. Further, beginning principals must intentionally engage people in acts of capacity building, together with conveying adaptive confidence in order to effectively foster professional learning communities. Early experiences of the principalship In this section, we deal with the pre-appointment dispositions of beginning principals, their socialization and early learning, as well as their learning styles and reliance structures. Pre-appointment dispositions of beginning principals We were interested in what has influenced new principals to apply for this challenging position because, in our studies (Sackney et al., 2003b; Walker and Sackney, 2001a; Walker et al., 2003b), these initial dispositions and motivations tended to mark the nature and direction of their influence within the school learning community. Principals expressed a variety of reasons for applying for the position. For example, beginning principals indicated that they wanted to avoid “getting stuck in a classroom rut”, and “felt ready for the challenge after several years as a vice-principal”(transcript files). Some confessed to “always having aspired to be a principal” and others “wanted the opportunity to influence staff and students by putting theory and values into practice”. When interviewed, it was common for beginning principals to say they simply “wanted to work with committed teachers to provide excellent educational opportunities for students”, “to have opportunity to have more influence in making important decisions”, or “to work with a community of leaders (teachers) to put together a challenging and rewarding program for students” (transcript files). A consistent, but sometimes assumed, consideration for many principals was that they felt they had particular skills to offer. When beginning principals were asked how their initial experiences of the principalship compared with what they had anticipated, most indicated that they were not prepared for the pace of the job, the amount of time it took to accomplish the tasks, and the number of tasks that was part of the position (Walker et al., 2003a, b). A few principals indicated that the job was lonelier than they had anticipated. Another commented, “I didn’t realize the level of communication required for not only parents but for staff. You end up dealing with everyone’s problems”. Some principals expressed concern about the amount of time they devoted to dealing with student behaviour problems. The greatest concerns were, however, related to the demands of the position. Socialization and early learning experiences of beginning principals Early in their tenure, beginning principals experienced “culture shock” and nothing in their training prepares them for the “change in perceptions of others or the intensity of the job” (Daresh and Male, 2000, p. 95). Hargreaves (2003) contended that no matter

Canadian perspectives

343

JEA 44,4

344

how ready candidates think they were, “it’s always a shock to their system when they finally get into the driver’s seat” (p. 288). They quickly discovered that their job was one of brief encounters and multi-tasking. As a result, many principals floundered as they attempted to juggle the multitude of demands with little if any support. They were also haunted by a fear of failure and some found the work less rewarding than they had originally anticipated. Further, the long hours, excessive workload, increasing responsibility and great expectations from various quarters led to considerable stress. Davis (1998) found that principals were often faced with maintaining a semblance of order within an increasingly hostile, unpredictable and conflict-laden environment. Dwindling resources, increased paperwork, crumbling facilities, increasing numbers of special needs students and demand by stakeholders for participation in decision making “pose serious challenges to principals at virtually all levels and in nearly every area of the country” (p. 3). In addition, principals are faced with conflicts over personal, professional, and organizational values (Begley, 1999). The fundamental changes to the family structure also create tremendous pressures on the work of the beginning principal (Sackney et al., 1997, 2003b). The increase in the number of special needs and at-risk students has placed tremendous pressure on principals, and especially beginning principals. The relevance of these forces and complexities stems from the fact that merely surviving and maintaining oneself and the basic orderliness of a school provides the minimum platform upon which learning communities can be built. While “surviving” is prerequisite to flourishing, it is not sufficient for the transformation of schools into vibrant learning communities. Just as a person entering a new country must learn a new language and a different set of ways of doing things, beginning principals must also learn how to behave and how to get things done in a new organization. Sociologists call this process socialization. Brim and Wheeler (1966, as cited in Greenfield, 1977) described socialization as “the process through which one acquires the knowledge, skills, and dispositions needed to adequately perform a social role” (p. 2). Though there are various formal models of socialization, Greenfield (1977) posited that socialization to school administration is mainly random and informal and occurs over a variable time frame. Unfortunately, our studies (Sackney et al., 1997, 2003a; Walker and Sackney, 2001b) affirmed that this assessment has not progressed much further during the intervening 30 years. Socialization processes tend to perpetuate the existing administrative subculture and do not engender and sustain innovative orientations. Traditionally, socialization has been viewed as a static model with a beginning and end, both individually and organizationally. More recently, socialization has been viewed as transitional and transformational (Gorius, 1999; Nicholson, 1984). In essence, socialization is viewed as a “constantly evolving phenomenon; a continuous learning of oneself, of others, and of the organization” (Gorius, 1999, p. 2). At no point in time does the principal know everything about the school, as other individuals continuously impact on the principal’s environment and the principal continues to change his/her perception of the environment through the interaction process. Becoming a principal is an intricate process of learning that requires being socialized into a new community of practice and a new role identity (Browne-Ferrigno and Muth, 2004, p. 488). The principal’s socialization process entails role-taking and role-making (Mathews and Crow, 2003). Role-taking involves accepting the assigned

roles and responsibilities and role-making entails molding the job to fit the principal’s perspective, values and expectations (Mathews and Crow, 2003, p. 262). Stakeholders also hold strong expectations about how the role of principal should be enacted. For example, teachers expect principals to keep things running smoothly and buffer them from interruptions and irate parents. They also expect to be given voice in those decisions they care about. Another source of socialization is the predecessor (Mathews and Crow, 2003; Weindling and Earley, 1987). The school culture responds to everything that is different from the previous principal and informal influences play an important role in the socialization process (Duke, 1987; Hart, 1993). Further, there are external sources such as central office administrators, other principals and the community that impact on the principal’s socialization. Hart (1991) identified four themes in the socialization process of principals. First, socialization tactics involve the collective or individual socialization context in which the principal finds himself or herself (p. 454). Second, Hart (1991) delineated three socialization stages: (1) the encounter, anticipation or confrontation stage; (2) the socialization adjustment, accommodation, and clarity stage; and (3) the stabilization, role management, and location stage (p. 29). Third, the social structures facilitate beginning principal tendencies to increase their interactions with those similar to themselves and to decrease interactions with those whom they perceive to be dissimilar to them (p. 35). Fourth, the outcomes or effects are the cumulative effect of socialization experiences. Beginning principals have normally been expected to “sink” or “swim” on their own. They are usually judged through the same lens as that of their colleagues with many more years of experience. In many instances this sense of expected expertise negates their having contact with more experienced principals because it may be perceived as a sign of weakness (Sackney et al., 2003a; Walker and Sackney, 2001a). Early in their tenure principals were surprised by the number of personnel issues that they had to deal with. Sigford (1998) stated, “Dealing with staff issues is one of the most difficult parts of being an administrator” (p. 7). Much of what a principal does entails resolving problems. They are “victims of a constant barrage of negative comments, complaints and interactions” (p. 25). It is up to the principal to listen beyond anger and to resolve the issue in a calm fashion. They also quickly realize that they make hundreds of decisions every day and these decisions are made “through certain lens that the individual brings to the job” (Daresh, 2001, p. 96). Principals may experience loss of friendship with teachers who were former peers. The resultant behaviour on the part of some beginning principals is to depersonalize their job. Some principals may reject their role as administrator and strive to appear as part of the teaching staff. Another approach is to hide behind rules, regulations, policies, and procedures. One principal stated that you had to “think like an administrator not a teacher. Another principal spoke about needing a highly developed skill of diplomacy: “Whether it is a ‘job expectation’ or not, one of the hardest things to learn is being diplomatic . . . and keeping my mouth shut and some of my gut reactions to myself” (Walker et al., 2003b). This is consistent with Sigford’s (1998) view that new principals need to see themselves as administrators and not teachers (p. 14).

Canadian perspectives

345

JEA 44,4

346

How beginning principals learn Our studies (Carr-Stewart and Walker, 2003; Sackney et al., 2003a) of beginning principals have led us to conclude that most beginning principals learned about the school culture through observations, by asking questions and by talking less and listening more. “You learn through observations by watching teachers, students and parents. Talk to people but mostly quietly observe” (transcript files). Another principal offered that school culture is gleaned from a variety of sources: “present staff, students, parents, community members, former school alumni, school yearbooks, school display cabinets, school newsletters, and so forth. Changing school culture is an ongoing process, shaped daily by one’s actions and words” (transcript files). But mostly principals learned about the culture by observing and asking questions. They quickly became aware that culture had a large impact on what happened within the school. They also recognized that in order to make any change within the school they had to be cognizant of the culture. Many of the initial changes they made were small (Walker et al., 2003b). Beginning principals were asked about previous experiences that helped them to learn (Sackney et al., 1999, 2003a; Walker et al., 2003b). They responded in five basic ways: they learned through mentorship, graduate studies, experience as a vice or assistant principal, professional development, and through experience as a teacher. Numerous principals attributed their learning to working closely with a former principal, a vice-principal or a teacher. Beginning principals named many professional development events, programs or experiences that had helped them to learn the principalship (Walker et al., 2003a). Amongst these were: . principal association leadership institutes; . short courses; . conferences; . leadership modules; . leadership development programs; and . certificate workshop programs. As part of the learning process, beginning principals identified a number of technical and interpersonal skills that they needed to perform their work better. They desired better teacher supervision, conferencing and evaluation skills. In large part many noted that they lacked the skills to improve instruction. In addition, they needed better financial management and communication skills. A number of respondents felt that they lacked proper record keeping skills to do the job more efficiently. Another area that needed attention dealt with conflict management, and in particular how to deal with angry parents. Dealing with students with severe behavioural problems was also a big concern for principals. Beginning principals were asked how they managed to acquire the additional skills and knowledge needed for their role (Sackney et al., 2003a, b; Walker et al., 2003a). The most common sources of information were: . discussing issues with other experienced principals and superintendents; . taking graduate classes;

.

. .

.

networking with other administrators and working with central office administrators; forging alliances with the superintendent; taking advantage of numerous professional development activities, professional reading and observing other role models; and attending monthly principal meetings and through mentor relationships.

Principal reliance structures Principals take advantage of a variety of sources for their learning. In one survey (Walker and Sackney, 2001b), we posed the question: To whom do you turn for advice and what areas has good advice been difficult to find? Typically beginning principals sought advice from their superintendents and other school administrators. The majority of our respondents noted that they had no difficulty in finding advice on particular matters, given their network of relationships. Areas that principals found difficult to find advice included timetabling, budget and financial management, teacher preparation, and integrating students with special needs. In several of our studies (Sackney et al., 2003a; Walker et al., 2003b; Walker and Sackney, 2001b), principals were asked about the type of advice that they sought. Examples of advice sought were home-school communication, budget issues, legal issues, teacher morale, dealing with difficult parents and teachers, confirming procedures on student suspensions, teacher contracts and the code of ethics. A number of principals indicated receiving advice to “confirm their gut instinct or to cover their posteriors”(transcript files). Principals also asked teachers for advice. They particularly used this strategy if the decision had to be implemented by the staff. Emerging Canadian policy reality: capacity building for learning communities Considerable recent attention has focused on developing a particular type of culture: the learning community (Barth, 1990; DuFour and Eaker, 1998; Huffman and Hipp, 2003; Mitchell and Sackney, 2000). In a recent survey of Canadian provincial governments most provinces have made the learning community the centre piece of their school reform initiatives (Sackney, 2006). The goal of these improvement initiatives is to improve student learning and performance by fostering projects that reflect the unique needs and circumstances within the school districts and schools. The policy framework requires that a culture of continuous learning be implemented. As part of the improvement process, it was expected that schools, in consultation with their stakeholder groups, will develop improvement plans based on a variety of student achievement and school effectiveness measures. The improvement plans must be vetted by the district board and copies forwarded to the Ministry. At the end of the year schools must assess the goal outcomes and report to parents, the school district and the Ministry. These policy frameworks have a tremendous impact on the lives of beginning principals. We know that building capacity for a learning community is more complex than we previously thought. Principals require skills in communication, group process facilitation, inquiry, conflict mediation and dialogue, and data management. Considerable evidence exists that the principal is the pivotal person in securing high quality learning, continuous improvement, and system transformation (Fullan, 2001;

Canadian perspectives

347

JEA 44,4

348

Harris, 2002; Lambert, 1998; Mitchell and Sackney, 2000; Speck, 1999). Newmann and Wehlage (1995) found that leadership was central to building school-wide collective focus on student learning of high intellectual quality. By keeping issues of teaching and learning at the forefront of the dialogue, these leaders built organizational capacity by consistently expressing the norms and values that defined the school’s vision and initiating conversations about improving teaching and learning. To build capacity for a learning community requires “disturbing people at a rate they can absorb” (Heifetz and Linsky, 2002, p. 20). Heifetz and Linsky (2002) claim that “to change the way people see and do things is to challenge how they define themselves” (p. 27). Habits which are culturally embedded are hard to give up because they give stability. It is important that principals remember that building capacity will not happen without teacher leadership (Murphy, 2005). The focus on improved learning outcomes, or what Beck and Murphy (1993) called the “standards raising movement”, is transforming schools from control to empowerment and a focus on success for all students. The traditional focus on content coverage and rote learning is being replaced by the learning community focus on in-depth treatment of topics, higher-order thinking skills, and teaching for understanding. In essence, the new ideology calls for creating a “community of learners” (Mitchell and Sackney, 2000). This is a difficult task for beginning principals, but the language of reflection must be part of the talk of the school if quality teaching and learning is to occur. Beginning principals initially tend to be more inner- rather than outer-focused (Gorius, 1999; Walker et al., 2003b). Building a learning community is the most important and demanding responsibility of the beginning principal. Speck (1999) stated, “The essence of principalship is creating a collaborative school where learning really matters and the community of learners cares deeply about each student’s achievement” (p. 5). As such, the school learning community has to be a place of interdependency, mutual obligations, commitments and love of learning (p. 10). In developing learning communities, Speck contended that there are some essential questions that the principal and staff need to confront. What do we want students to know and be able to do? How will we know that students can do these outcomes? What does it take to transform schools into places where this happens? And who is responsible for ensuring the desired results are achieved? Speck (1999) stated that the principal “must be the reflective practitioner who is capable of continuous learning and reflecting on practice as opportunities for leadership and modeling throughout the school” (p. 34). In order to build a learning community a school staff needs to have a sense of shared vision and purpose. The vision needs to be based on cooperative learning relationships and the establishment of a caring, respectful environment based on trust. This focus on learning entails that beginning principals exhibit a number of leadership metaphors: principal as leader, principal as servant (enabling leadership), principal as architect (change agent), principal as social architect (redesigner of purposes and structures), principal as moral agent, and principal as relationship builder (Beck and Murphy, 1993; Lambert, 1998; Speck, 1999). However, the central focus of the principal has to be on teaching and learning. As Lambert (1998) stated, “It is what we talk about, struggle with, decide about, plan for” (p. 23).

Learning to lead learning communities Given that principals are expected to lead efforts to build learning communities as we have described, what are the required skills and frames of understanding? From past research, we know that beginning principals lack the skills of knowing how they are supposed to act, what they are supposed to know, and even what they are supposed to do in a given situation. Leithwood and Steinbach (1999) found that beginning principals are not good at delegating authentic leadership responsibilities and collaborative decision-making processes. They are also not good at developing systems and systemic thinking (Fullan, 2005). To lead learning communities principals need to be enthusiastic learners themselves. During the past three years we have been studying schools that build capacity as learning communities (Sackney et al., 2005a, b). We have concluded that a number of practices assist in building capacity for teaching and learning and that leadership plays a pivotal role in that process: . Shared understanding and responsibility – In the high capacity learning community schools, the staff had a shared understanding of teaching and learning by sharing their instructional strategies, by taking collective responsibility for student learning, by focusing the school vision on student learning, by taking risks and engaging in action research, and by taking generative leadership roles focused on enhancing student learning. . Reflective practices – It was commonplace in these schools for teachers to reflect on their practice and to examine educational alternatives. Their reflections and research efforts were informed by their tendency to collect a wide array of classroom and school-wide data. . Organizational resources – These schools had adequate technological, curricular and library resources, as well as numerous opportunities for professional development. . Currency – School staff kept current on the latest research on teaching and learning. They were active learners who constantly read new material and talked about what they had read. . Learning opportunities – In the high capacity learning schools there were greater opportunities for staff, students and parents to learn. Staff saw failed initiatives as learning opportunities and their learning was supported and encouraged by the principal. . Interactive instruction – Teachers collaboratively sought ways of improving teaching and learning. They made numerous uses of authentic curricula to enhance student learning. . Learner engagement – Student engagement (cognitively, behaviourally, and emotionally) in these schools was high. Students and staff in these schools experienced what Csikszentmihalyi (1990) referred to as “learning flow” – by getting better at learning. . Community of leaders – Leadership in these schools was distributed. The principals were the architects for the success of these schools. These leaders were good at obtaining consensus around the school vision and purpose, and on the desired culture. They were good at building trust and quality relationships.

Canadian perspectives

349

JEA 44,4

.

.

350

Parental and community involvement – These schools were able to obtain high parental and community involvement in the learning process. Leadership played a crucial role in this effort. Coherence – There was coherence to the work of these schools. The intensive emphasis on student learning kept teaching and learning at the top of the conversational agenda. These leaders were able to build coherence at the individual, interpersonal and organizational levels.

What does this mean for beginning principals? They need to focus their energy on teaching and learning and ensuring that there is coherence in what the school is trying to accomplish. One of the first tasks is therefore to build a sense of shared vision and purpose. Another task is to develop a culture that encourages learning at the individual, interpersonal and organizational levels. Beginning principals need to be the head learners and the ones to model the way. They need to develop a culture of collaboration and shared responsibility. The development of an interactive and supportive environment is crucial and trust is the foundational element. Another task is for the principal to ensure that the school has the resources necessary to do its work. Learning can only be supported if teachers have the time, materials and technology needed for growth. Further, an expectation of continuous improvement has to prevail. Beginning principals also need to develop learning teams and an appreciation of working together. They also need to encourage others to take on leadership roles. Many beginning principals tend to be reluctant to share leadership, which is unfortunate. Leveraging beginning principals as leaders of learning communities To build capacity for a learning community requires that principals function as learning leaders rather than merely instructional leaders. Unless principals make this transition, the ability to establish a collaborative, results-oriented learning community is extremely difficult. Fullan (2001) contended that the principal of the future has to be a cultural change person who is attuned to the big picture, a sophisticated conceptual thinker who transforms the organization through people and teams. Five essential components characterize leaders in a knowledge society: (1) moral purpose; (2) an understanding of the change process; (3) the ability to improve relationships; (4) knowledge creation and sharing; and (5) coherence making. Sharing one’s knowledge with others is the key to continual growth and beginning principals have to foster those relationships. Lambert (1998) viewed the learning of colleagues as the center of what constitutes leadership. She stated: Today’s effective principal constructs a shared vision with members of the school community, convenes the conversations, insists on a student learning focus, evokes and supports leadership in others, models and participates in collaborative practices, helps pose the questions, and facilitates dialogue that addresses the confounding issues of practice (p. 40).

This type of leadership requires skills that beginning principals are not likely to have. We contend that beginning principals need to be mindful of the school’s culture, enabled in their own learning processes, and intentional in their engagement of people in capacity building efforts. Further, beginning principals must be persistent in the development of adaptive confidence in themselves and other members of the professional learning community (individual efficacy towards collective efficacy). We elaborate on these attributes in the subsequent sections as frameworks for building the school’s capacity as a learning community through the acumen of the beginning principal. Mindful engagement of the school culture The beginning principal quickly discovers that the school has a culture that defines how things get done. By culture we mean “the stable, underlying social meanings that shape beliefs and behavior over time” (Deal and Peterson, 1999, p. 3). The culture of the school is grounded in the shared assumptions of individual participants. As such, school culture results from a complex web of traditions and rituals that build up over time and that is highly enduring. These cultural patterns have a powerful impact on performance, and shape the way staff think, act, and feel. The beginning principal needs to realize that the staff expects some things to change with the appointment of a new leader. How the staff view the leader is important because that involves making emotional investments. Powerful elites on staff will attempt to impose their assumptions on the new principal. Consequently, the beginning principal needs to realize that unless s/he takes a proactive approach to developing the type of culture s/he desires, others will do it for them. The advantage the beginning principal has is that during the transition phase the staff tends to be anxious and ready to be socialized to learn the assumptions, values, beliefs, and behaviours necessary to reduce anxiety (Ott, 1989). Staff often wants to be able to control its environment and cultural change that is too abrupt will not be readily accepted. (Deal and Peterson, 1999; Fullan, 2001). Beginning principals must make sense of the school culture and interact mindfully with the learning community membership. Weick (1995) identified seven properties of sensemaking. First, sensemaking is grounded in identity construction. The individual is constituted through an iterative process. It is the discovery of who I am and what I think. Second, retrospective sensemaking is derived from an analysis of the meaningful lived experience. Third, sensemaking is enactive of sensible environments; it is a process of creating environments and environments creating the individual. That is, individuals receive stimuli as a result of their own activity and that from their respondents. Fourth, sensemaking is a social process. Fifth, sensemaking is ongoing and the longer the search for meaning, the higher the arousal, and the stronger the emotion (p. 49). Sixth, socialization is focused on and by extracted cues. Context affects searching, scanning, and noticing (p. 51). Noticing is a more informal, involuntary beginning to the sensemaking process than scanning (Starbuck and Milliken, 1988). Seventh, socialization is driven by plausibility rather than accuracy. According to Weick (1995), what is necessary in sensemaking is a good story. Each of these sensemaking properties points to ways by which beginning principals can gain culture intelligence.

Canadian perspectives

351

JEA 44,4

352

In order to improve schools, Hoy (2003) contended that schools need enabling structures and mindfulness. Enabling structures include: . fostering trust; . valuing differences; . learning from mistakes; . anticipating the unexpected; . facilitating problem-solving; and . encouraging innovation and flexibility (p. 92). He claimed that individuals and organizations become “seduced by routine ways of doing things [. . .] indeed habit itself can become mindless” (p. 94). Mindfulness, according to Weick and Sutcliffe (2001), is: . . . the combination of ongoing scrutiny of existing expectations, continuous refinement and differentiation of expectations based on newer experiences, willingness and capability to invent new expectations that make sense of unprecedented events, a more nuanced appreciation of context and ways to deal with it, and identification of new dimensions of context that improve foresight and current functioning (p. 42).

Weick and Sutcliffe suggested that leaders need to be alert to the condition of mindfulness and the effort it takes to increase one’s “mindful moments”. Consequently, if beginning principals are to develop the learning community they have to be more mindful of the things they may have missed, of unforeseen vulnerabilities, of foreshadowing new consequences, and “seeing old things in new ways” (p. 42). When things are routinized and repeated there is no need for mindfulness but as we have described the work-world of the beginning principal, every moment is different and brings with it never before experienced challenges. Mindfulness and enabling structures are necessary if teaching and learning is to improve in school learning communities. Learning in the learning community Creating a learning community requires that processes be in place to engage in knowledge management, transfer and use. Knowledge management is a cyclical process that includes knowledge acquisition phases (creation or idea generation), a knowledge transformation phase (explicit/tacit), a knowledge-sharing phase (oral or electronic), and a creative destructive phase (knowledge evaluation and elimination). Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) noted the importance of knowledge creation in learning organizations. They found that extensive use of collaborative structures and procedures were capable of converting tacit knowledge, held by individuals, into shared knowledge. Teachers’ knowledge base is expanded through discourse and reflection and not solely from mandated practices. Although explicit knowledge is important, so too is a form of critical and creative knowledge that provides teachers with the appropriate foundations for being open to the ideas of others, being willing to share ideas, and maintaining a thirst for knowledge. Paavola et al. (2004) in examining innovative knowledge communities contended that cognition and knowing are distributed over both individuals and their environments, and that learning is situated in these relations and networks of

distributed activities of participation. The argument is that knowledge and knowing cannot be separated from situations where they are used or where they take place. In essence, learning requires networks, collaboration and reflection. Leadership for knowledge management is about learning together, and constructing meaning and knowledge collectively and collaboratively. As such, it involves providing opportunities for teachers “to surface and mediate perceptions, values, beliefs, information, and assumptions through continuing conversations; to inquire about and generate ideas together; to seek to reflect upon and make sense of work in the light of shared beliefs and new information; and to create actions that grow out of these new understandings” (Lambert, 1998, pp. 5-6). This type of leadership requires the principal to build capacity for learning at the individual, interpersonal and organizational levels (Mitchell and Sackney, 2000). True learning communities encourage educators to acquire the knowledge and skills they need from many different sources, within and without the learning community. They openly share their own knowledge and skills with others because they realize that they are all working toward achieving personal and school goals. There are a number of cutting edge methods of doing this. Aubrey and Cohen (1995) described learning as a journey. This is a powerful image and every leader concerned about learning within the school organization knows that it is often necessary to make the journey with the learner. They describe this as accompanying learning. Accompaniment has always been important in human development because it allows for growth. Parents know the value of accompanying their child in the early stages of their journey through life. Doctors accompany patients, lawyers accompany clients, and consultants accompany companies. To achieve accompaniment within an organization, they suggested the following: . make the commitment to travel the same road as the learner and to share your experiences in mutual dialogue; . be available to others, continually spell out your message, give clear support and expectations to staff, and provide resources that enable others to turn goals into reality; . acknowledge the dignity of work and recognize the need for staff to organize their own learning efforts; and . hang out, share stories, and show you care (Aubrey and Cohen, 1995, p. 54). Many educational organizations today are building a knowledge repository and network to enable employees to learn from one another. Tobin (1998) stated there are four major components to a knowledge network: . a repository, most commonly a computerized database, of specific system knowledge and experiences; . a directory of the specific knowledge, skills, and experience held by groups and individual employees throughout the system; . a directory of learning resources, within and without the system, that educators can access to help them plan their own learning activities; and . a set of tools, methods, and capabilities that enable educators to learn from each other and to learn together (pp. 98-9).

Canadian perspectives

353

JEA 44,4

354

Although a relatively recent idea, the knowledge repository provides access to information about people’s experiences. It is a deliberate effort to capture and record the wealth of tacit knowledge within an organization. In a flourishing learning community all are learners and all are educators, each member is encouraged to participate in the knowledge network. Leading the learning community is not merely about the school principal; rather, it is about building the confidence of those who constitute the learning community. Principals need to ensure that the strategies, structures, processes, and systems are in place so that educators are touched with inspiration and mobilized to form relationships and thereby transform the school into a learning community. Adaptive beginning principals are able to engage the entire learning community in transformative knowledge transactions and authentic learning, and do so with an infectious confidence. Kanter (2004) said that “confidence consists of positive expectations for favourable outcomes. [. . .] [It] influences the willingness to invest. [. . .] Confidence determines whether our steps – individually or collectively – are tiny and tentative or big and bold” (p. 8). Confidence entails having trust in the power of the group to do the right thing. When people believe in their ability then they can start to deliver. Quinn (2004) contended that “the practice of adaptive confidence means that we are willing to enter uncertain situations because we have a higher purpose and we are confident that we can learn and adapt as we move forward” (p. 148). Learning is about change, adaptation and transformation. These processes can be frightening and the challenge is “to be both adaptive and confident [. . .] because we have a higher purpose” (p. 151). Tschannen-Moran et al. (1998) connected confidence to self-efficacy. They said: .

Self-efficacy beliefs influence taught patterns and emotions that enable actions in which people expend substantial effort in pursuit of goals, persist in the face of adversity, rebound from temporary setbacks, and exercise some control over events that affect their lives (p. 210).

Tschannen-Moran and Gareis (2004) claimed that “a principal’s sense of efficacy is a judgment of his or her capabilities to structure a particular course of action in order to produce desired outcomes in the school he or she leads” (p. 573). They stated that “a robust sense of efficacy is necessary to sustain the productive attentional focus and perseverance of effort needed to succeed at organizational goals” (p. 574). Lyons and Murphy (1994) said that: . . . confronted with problems, high efficacy principals do not interpret their inability to solve the problems immediately as failure. They regulate their personal expectations to correspond to conditions, typically remaining confident and calm and keeping their sense of humor, even in difficult situations. Principals with higher self-efficacy are more likely to use internally-based personal power [. . .] when carrying out their roles. (cited in Tschannen-Moran and Gareis, 2004, p. 574)

Professional understandings arise from conditional confidence (Torbert, 1987). We act as if we are in control when everything is within our comfort zone. Unconditional confidence arises by our unwillingness to discard inaccurate assumptions and strategies that do not work. For beginning principals this is not easy. They begin to demonstrate adaptive confidence when they are humble enough to learn from their mistakes and failures and when they let others in the learning community learn as well. As Quinn (2004) stated, “Adaptive confidence is the capacity to walk naked into the

land of uncertainty and build the bridge as we walk on it” (p. 153). Beginning principals need to serve as role models of adaptive confidence if they are to create the conditions for a learning community to develop.

Conclusion In this article we have argued that the work of beginning principals is complex given the Canadian emphasis on building capacity for the learning community. Leadership for the learning community requires skills and understandings that beginning principals are not likely to have. Our contention has been that beginning principals need to be mindful of the school’s culture, and intentional in their engagement of people in their capacity building efforts. Furthermore, beginning principals must be persistent in the development of adaptive confidence in themselves and other members of the professional learning community. As such, they need to develop first individual efficacy and then focus on collective efficacy. Because leadership for a learning community entails knowledge management work, beginning principals need to ensure that the strategies, structures, processes and systems are in place so that educators are touched with inspiration and mobilized to form relationships that transform the school into a learning community. Leadership is also about culture building that allows educators, students and parents to be part of a team that learns together. This is a large task for beginning principals but one they must undertake if teaching and learning are to improve in twenty-first century schools. We know from our work, and that of others, that leaders provide the synergy, influence and role modeling for others to follow.

References Aubrey, R. and Cohen, P. (1995), Working Wisdom, Jossey Bass, San Francisco, CA. Barth, R. (1990), Improving Schools from Within: Teachers, Principals, and Parents Can Make the Difference, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA. Beck, L.G. and Murphy, J. (1993), Understanding the Principalship: Metaphorical Themes 1920s-1990s, Teachers College Press, New York, NY. Begley, P. (1999), “Value preferences, ethics, and conflicts in school administration”, in Begley, P. (Ed.), Values and Educational Leadership, State University of New York Press, Albany, NY, pp. 237-54. Browne-Ferrigno, T. and Muth, R. (2004), “Leadership mentoring in clinical practice: role socialization, professional development, and capacity building”, Educational Administration Quarterly, Vol. 40 No. 4, pp. 468-94. Calabrese, R.L. (2002), The Leadership Assignment: Creating Change, Allyn & Bacon, Boston, MA. Carr-Stewart, S. and Walker, K. (2003), “Research to build on the images of leadership success: an appreciative inquiry”, Management in Education, Vol. 17, pp. 9-14. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990), Flow: The Psychology of Discovery and Invention, Harper & Row, New York, NY. Daresh, J.C. (2001), Beginning the Principalship: A Practical Guide for New School Leaders, 2nd ed., Corwin Press, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Canadian perspectives

355

JEA 44,4

356

Daresh, J. and Male, T. (2000), “Crossing the border into leadership: experiences of newly appointed British Headteachers and American principals”, Educational Management and Administration, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 89-101. Davis, S. (1998), “Superintendents’ perspectives on the involuntary departure of public school principals: the most frequent reasons why principals lose their jobs”, Educational Administration Quarterly, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 58-90. Deal, T. and Peterson, K. (1999), Shaping School Culture, Jossey Bass, San Francisco, CA. DuFour, R. and Eaker, R. (1998), Professional Learning Communities at Work, National Educational Service, Bloomington, IN. Duke, D. (1987), School Leadership and Instructional Improvement, Random House, New York, NY. Evans, R. (1996), The Human Side of School Change, Jossey Bass, San Francisco, CA. Fullan, M. (2001), Leading in a Culture of Change, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA. Fullan, M. (2005), Leadership Sustainability, Corwin Press, Thousand Oaks, CA. Gorius, P. (1999), “Sensemaking during the induction phase of socialization of a neophyte principal: a researcher’s reflections”, unpublished PhD thesis, The University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon. Greenfield, W. (1977), “Administrative candidacy: a process of new role learning – part I”, The Journal of Educational Administration, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 30-48. Hargreaves, A. (2003), Teaching in the Knowledge Society, Teachers College Press, New York, NY. Harris, A. (2002), School Improvement: What’s In It for Schools?, Routledge/Falmer, London. Hart, A. (1991), “Leader succession and socialization: a synthesis”, Review of Educational Research, Vol. 61 No. 4, pp. 451-74. Hart, A. (1993), Principal Succession: Establishing Leadership in Schools, State University of New York Press, Albany, NY. Hartle, F. and Hobby, R. (2003), “Leadership in a learning community: your job will never be the same again”, in Davies, B. and West-Burnham, J. (Eds), Handbook of Educational Leadership and Management, Pearson-Longman, Toronto, pp. 381-93. Heifetz, R. and Linsky, M. (2002), Leadership on the Line, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA. Hoy, W. (2003), “An analysis of enabling and mindful school structures: some theoretical, research and practical considerations”, Journal of Educational Administration, Vol. 41 No. 1, pp. 87-108. Huffman, J. and Hipp, K. (2003), Reculturing Schools as Professional Learning Communities, Scarecrow Education, Lanham, MD. Kanter, R. (2004), Confidence: How Winning Streaks and Losing Streaks Begin and End, Crown Business, New York, NY. Lambert, L. (1998), Building Leadership Capacity in Schools, ASCD, Alexandria, VA. Leithwood, K. and Steinbach, R. (1999), Changing Leadership for Changing Times, Open University Press, Buckingham. Mathews, J.L. and Crow, G.M. (2003), Being and Becoming a Principal: Role Conceptions for Contemporary Principals and Assistant Principals, Allyn & Bacon, Boston, MA. Mitchell, C. and Sackney, L. (2000), Profound School Improvement: Building Capacity for a Learning Community, Swets & Zeitlinger, Lisse.

Murphy, J. (2005), Connecting Teacher Leadership and School Improvement, Corwin Press, Thousand Oaks, CA. Newmann, F.M. and Wehlage, G.G. (1995), Successful School Restructuring: A Report to the Public and Educators by the Center on Organization and Restructuring of Schools, Center on Organization and Restructuring of Schools, Madison, WI. Nicholson, N. (1984), “A theory of work role transitions”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 29, pp. 172-91. Nonaka, I. and Takeuchi, H. (1995), The Knowledge Creating Company: How Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation, Oxford University Press, New York, NY. Ott, S. (1989), The Organizational Culture Perspective, Brooks Cole, Pacific Grove, CA. Paavola, S., Lipponen, L. and Hakkarainen, K. (2004), “Models of innovative knowledge and communities and three metaphors of learning”, Review of Educational Research, Vol. 74 No. 4, pp. 557-76. Portin, B. and Shen, J. (1998), “The changing principalship: its current status, variability and impact”, The Journal of Leadership Studies, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 93-113. Quinn, R. (2004), Building the Bridge as You Walk on It: A Guide for Leading Change, Jossey Bass, San Francisco, CA. Sackney, L. (2006), “History of the school effectiveness and improvement movement in Canada over the past 25 years”, in Teddlie, C. (Ed.), Handbook of School Effectiveness and School Improvement, forthcoming. Sackney, L., Hajnal, V. and Walker, K. (1997), “Variables for successful and unsuccessful school improvement initiatives”, paper presented at the International Congress for School Effectiveness and Improvement, Memphis, TN, January. Sackney, L., Mitchell, C. and Walker, K. (2005a), “Building capacity for learning communities: a case study of fifteen successful schools”, paper presented at the Annual Conference of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, April. Sackney, L., Walker, K. and Gorius, P. (2003a), “The socialization of beginning principals: the search for meaning and connections”, paper presented at the American Educational Research Association Conference, Chicago, IL, April. Sackney, L., Walker, K. and Hajnal, V. (1999), “Principal and teacher perspectives on school improvement”, Journal of Educational Management, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 45-63. Sackney, L., Walker, K. and Mitchell, C. (2003b), “Factors that build capacity for learning communities”, paper presented at the Canadian Association for the Study of Educational Administration Conference, Halifax, May. Sackney, L., Walker, K., Mitchell, C. and Duncan, R. (2005b), “Dimensions of school learning communities”, paper presented at the Annual Conference of the International Congress for School Effectiveness and Improvement, Barcelona, January. Sigford, J.L. (1998), Who Said Administration Would Be Fun?, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA. Speck, M. (1999), The Principalship: Building a Learning Community, Merrill/Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ. Starbuck, W. and Milliken, F. (1988), “Executives’ perceptual filters: what they notice and how they make sense”, in Hambrick, D. (Ed.), The Executive Effect: Concepts and Methods for Studying Top Managers, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 35-65. Stoll, L., Fink, D. and Earl, L. (2003), It’s about Learning [and It’s about Time], Routledge/Falmer, London.

Canadian perspectives

357

JEA 44,4

358

Tobin, D. (1998), The Knowledge-enabled Organization, Amacom, New York, NY. Torbert, W. (1987), Managing the Corporate Dream: Restructuring for Long-Term Success, Dow-Jones Irwin, Homewood, IL. Tschannen-Moran, M. and Gareis, C. (2004), “Principals’ sense of efficacy: assessing a promising construct”, Journal of Educational Administration, Vol. 42 Nos 4/5, pp. 573-85. Tschannen-Moran, M., Hoy, A. and Hoy, W. (1998), “Teacher efficacy: its meaning and measure”, Review of Educational Research, Vol. 68 No. 2, pp. 202-48. Walker, K. and Sackney, L. (2001a), “The professional induction of beginning principals”, paper presented at the American Educational Research Association Symposium, Seattle, WA, April. Walker, K. and Sackney, L. (2001b), “International beginning principals’ studies: international comparison (Canadian results)”, paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA, April. Walker, K., Anderson, K. and Sackney, L. (2003a), “Unexpected and strategic learning: factors related to success of first year principals in rural schools”, paper presented at the American Educational Research Association Conference, Symposium on Leaders for Global Society, Chicago, IL, April. Walker, K., Anderson, K., Sackney, L. and Woolf, J. (2003b), “Unexpected learning by neophyte principals: factors related to success of first year principals in schools”, Managing Global Transitions, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 195-213. Weick, K. (1995), Sensemaking in Organizations, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA. Weick, K. and Sutcliffe, K. (2001), Managing the Unexpected: Assuring High Performance in an Age of Complexity, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA. Weindling, D. and Earley, P.I. (1987), Secondary Headship: The First Years, Nelson, Philadelphia, PA. Further reading Brim, O. and Wheeler, S. (Eds) (1966), Socialization after Childhood: Two Essays, Wiley, New York, NY. Corresponding author Larry Sackney can be contacted at: [email protected]

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/0957-8234.htm

New principals in Africa: preparation, induction and practice Tony Bush

New principals in Africa

359

University of Lincoln, Lincoln, UK, and

George K.T. Oduro University of Cape Coast, Accra, Ghana Abstract Purpose – This paper aims to examine the challenges facing new principals in Africa. Design/methodology/approach – Based on recent research and literature, the paper analyses the experience of principals and proposes an induction model for principalship in Africa. Findings – School principals in Africa face a daunting challenge. They often work in poorly equipped buildings with inadequately trained staff. There is rarely any formal leadership training and principals are appointed on the basis of their teaching record rather than their leadership potential. Induction and support are usually limited. Originality/value – The paper provides an overview of the limited literature and research on new principals in Africa and develops a grounded conceptualisation of their role. Keywords Principals, Selection, Induction Paper type Literature review

Introduction Principals in Africa face a daunting challenge. They often work in poorly equipped schools with inadequately trained staff. There is rarely any formal leadership training and principals are appointed on the basis of their teaching record rather than their leadership potential. Induction and support are usually limited and principals have to adopt a pragmatic approach. Learners are often poor and hungry and may also be suffering the consequences of HIV/AIDS. In this article, we examine the challenges facing new principals in Africa, drawing on the limited research and literature on this topic, which both determine and constrain the countries that can be included in the discussion. Most of the available literature relates to sub-Saharan Africa and this is also the main focus of this paper. The close relationship between successful leadership and effective schools is widely recognised (Commonwealth Secretariat, 1996; National College for School Leadership, 2001; Bush, 2003). There is also increasing understanding that “leaders are made not born” and that management development is essential if schools are to have the high quality leadership that their learners, educators and communities deserve. The Commonwealth Secretariat (1996) stresses the importance of the principalship in Africa and also points to the difficulties of managing in such difficult contexts: The head [. . .] plays the most crucial role in ensuring school effectiveness [. . .] without the necessary skills, many heads are overwhelmed by the task.

Journal of Educational Administration Vol. 44 No. 4, 2006 pp. 359-375 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 0957-8234 DOI 10.1108/09578230610676587

JEA 44,4

360

Kitavi and van der Westhuizen (1997) refer to the problems experienced by school leaders in Kenya: Beginning principals in developing countries such as Kenya face problems that differ drastically from problems faced by their counterparts in developed countries such as the USA, UK and Australia. [. . .] The most serious problems facing beginning principals in developing countries like Africa include: students who cannot pay school fees and buy books; shortage of school equipment; shortage of physical facilities; lack of staff accommodation; lack of playgrounds; students travelling long distances; and use of English as a medium of instruction (p. 251).

These authors add that “entering the principalship is an emotion-laden situation and the school principal is the key ingredient for success in school”. They note that little is known about school principals in developing countries and are critical of the current limited arrangements to support school leaders: Despite the importance of the principalship, the means by which most principals in developing countries like Kenya are trained, selected, inducted and in-serviced are ill-suited to the development of effective and efficient school managers (Kitavi and van der Westhuizen, 1997, p. 251).

Africa is unique in that almost every country can be categorised as “developing”. Even South Africa, the most advanced country in this continent, has thousands of schools without power, water, sanitation or telecommunications. Oplatka (2004) provides a definition of developing countries: These countries were ruled by Europeans for a long time, their economy is more agriculture-based, and they are usually characterised by high mortality rates, high birth rates, high levels of poverty and large gaps between rich and poor (p. 428).

Despite these common features, there are inevitably significant differences in the colonial and post-colonial experience, and the wider social, political and economic context, of the various countries in this vast continent. These differences also influence the preparation and induction of school principals. Harber and Davies (1997) provide an overview of the educational context in developing countries, focusing on six dimensions: (1) demographic; (2) economic; (3) resource; (4) violence; (5) health; and (6) culture. The discussion below also includes insights from other authors. The demographic context In most African countries, many children do not receive education. In 2001/2002, only 62 per cent of children were enrolled in primary education (The Guardian, 28 June 2005) and in Ethiopia the figure is only 40 per cent (Tekleselassie, 2002). The problem is particularly acute for girls “where the traditional view that a girl does not need an

education to be a wife and mother still persists” (Harber and Davies, 1997, p.11). In most Ghanaian communities, parents following a traditional gender role stereotype still prefer educating their male children at the expense of the female child (Inkoom, 2005). As Brew-Ward (2002) puts it, “most parents have low aspirations for their daughters as far as academic endeavours are concerned. Most of them wish their daughters to marry and become good wives” (p. 89). The problem is exacerbated by high drop-out rates, caused by an inability to pay fees and teenage pregnancy. In Ghana, rural headteachers encounter difficulty in obtaining fees from parents because most of them are peasant farmers and fishermen whose sources of income are seasonal. Failure of headteachers to collect fees promptly resulted in the Ghana Education Service (GES) laying an embargo on the payment of headteachers’ monthly salaries (Oduro, 2003, p. 125). Drop out rates are particularly high for girls. In Ghana, 84 per cent of males and 81 per cent of females attend primary school. Participation rates in secondary schools are 83.3 per cent for males and 76.8 per cent for females, a doubling of the gender gap (Girls’ Education Unit, 2002; Osei, 2003). The economic context Harber and Davies (1997) point out that, in 1990, expenditure per student in OECD countries was 40 times that of countries in sub-Saharan Africa: “The economies of developing countries are also particularly fragile and exposed to global economic changes” (p. 12). In Ghana, as in many other African countries, child labour is often seen as a necessary evil for the survival of poor families (Agezo and Christian, 2002, p. 139). The resource context Harber and Davies (1997) paint a bleak picture of the human and material resources available in developing countries. They refer to Lulat’s (1988) view that the Zambian education system faces “wholesale systemic decay”. They say that most children in certain African countries have no textbooks, while school buildings are often inadequate with overcrowded classrooms. In the Oyo State of Nigeria, Fabunmi and Adewale (2002) report that “most secondary schools lack the basic educational resources that can make instruction effective and productive [. . .] Adequate furnished classrooms are often not available in schools [. . .] This accounts for classroom congestion in most secondary schools” (p. 47). Similarly, Owolabi and Edzii (2000) report that headmasters in Ghana who participated in their study “confessed that they had quite insufficient quantities of books and stationery” (p. 7). Harber and Davies add that, in parts of Sudan, 20 per cent of schools have no water and 57 per cent have no latrines. The majority of schools in rural areas in Africa do not have electricity. Schools often have to function with unqualified or under-qualified teachers. In ten sub-Saharan countries, the majority of primary school teachers had not completed secondary education (pp. 15-16). The context of violence Much of Africa has been plagued by war and violence, and children are often directly affected by the conflict. The genocide in Rwanda in the 1990s (Hammond, 2004) provides one stark example of the horrific impact of conflict on adults and children, but

New principals in Africa

361

JEA 44,4

362

Harber and Davies (1997, p. 17) note that women and children account for 92 per cent of war-related deaths in Africa (Harber and Davies, 1997, p. 17). These problems often result in school closures. The health context Millions of African people live in absolute poverty. Thirty three per cent are living with hunger (The Guardian, 28 June 2005) and “children cannot learn effectively if they are weak from hunger” (Harber and Davies, 1997, p. 19). Millions of children and teachers also suffer from killer diseases, including malaria and HIV/AIDS. In Zambia, the number of primary school teachers who died from HIV/AIDS in 2000, “is equivalent to 45 percent of all teachers that were educated during that year” (Nilsson, 2003, p. 6), while about 30 per cent of teachers in Malawi are reported to be infected (World Bank, 2002). There is also the threat of drought in many countries, leading to malnutrition. In the West African country of Niger, the Integrated Regional Information Network (IRIN) reports serious drought leading to a food crisis: “Some 3.6 million people, including 800,000 children, are facing acute malnutrition, which at any moment could turn into a famine” (AlertNet, 2005). The cultural context In developing countries, the values and beliefs of traditional cultures coexist, often uncomfortably, with imported Western ones. One example relates to the widespread corruption and nepotism in developing countries. Many teachers also have more than one job, leading to frequent absence and lateness. School management may also be affected by cultural politics. Oduro (2003) notes that the management of Ghanaian schools is influenced by the “Ghanaian cultural orientation towards the exercise of authority and power, the value for old age and language” (p. 203). This overview gives a flavour of the difficult yet diverse contexts within which school principals exercise their leadership roles. The situation is immensely challenging for many principals. They also rarely receive appropriate preparation for this demanding role. Preparation for new principals Level of provision Throughout Africa, there is no formal requirement for principals to be trained managers. They are often appointed on the basis of a successful record as teachers with an implicit assumption that this provides a sufficient starting point for school leadership. In Kenya, for example, “deputy principals as well as good assistant teachers are appointed to the principalship without any leadership training [. . .] good teaching abilities are not necessarily an indication that the person appointed will be a capable educational manager” (Kitavi and van der Westhuizen, 1997, pp. 251-2). Similarly, headteachers in Ghana are often appointed without any form of preparatory training. “The Ghana Education Service seems to be working on the assumption that a successful classroom teacher necessarily makes an effective school administrator” (Amezu-Kpeglo, 1990, p. 5). The appointment of headteachers is largely based on a teacher’s seniority in “rank” and “teaching experience”. Oduro (2003, p. 310)

notes that “commitment to the provision and maintenance of facilities, salaries and others were given priority over headteachers’ professional development” (p. 310). This problem is not confined to Africa. Bush and Jackson (2002, p. 408) observe that “training in many countries is not a requirement for appointment as a principal and there is still an (often unwritten) assumption that good teachers can become effective managers and leaders without specific preparation”. Oplatka (2004) points out that even teaching experience may not be necessary. “In some African countries (e.g. Nigeria, Botswana), principals are not even appointed on criteria of quality regarding their own performance in teaching. Many of them have never been in a classroom, since political connections may be a dominant factor in their appointment” (p. 434). Herriot et al. (2002) make a similar point in respect of Kenya. “Many headteachers had been identified as leaders in schools on the basis of dubious qualifications often of a personal nature rather than relevant experience and proven skills in the field of management” (p. 510). This is not the case in Ghana where Oduro (2003) notes that teaching experience, or acquisition of a professional qualification in teaching, is a necessary condition for one’s appointment to leadership positions in basic and secondary schools. Even where political pressures influence the appointment of a headteacher, the appointee must necessarily be a trained teacher. Kitavi and van der Westhuizen (1997) make the wider point that: The means by which most principals in developing countries are trained, selected, inducted and in-serviced are ill-suited to the development of effective and efficient school managers [. . .] neither the old nor the new educational system [in Kenya] gives attention to either formal training or induction of beginning school principals (p. 251).

This argument also applies in South Africa: In many instances [. . .], headteachers come to headship without having been prepared for their new role... As a result, they often have to rely on [. . .] experience and common sense [. . .] However, such are the demands being made upon managers now, including headteachers, that acquiring expertise can no longer be left to common sense and character alone; management development support is needed (Tsukudu and Taylor, 1995, pp.108-9).

Subsequent research in the Gauteng province (Bush and Heystek, 2006) shows that 66 per cent of principals “have not progressed beyond their initial degree while almost one third are not graduates”. Similar findings arise from van der Westhuizen et al.’s (2004) enquiry in the Mpumalanga province. “Wide-ranging changes in the education system have rendered many serving school principals ineffective in the management of their schools. Many of these serving principals lack basic management training prior to and after their entry into headship” (p. 1). Bush et al.’s (2005) systematic literature review, for the Matthew Goniwe School of Leadership and Governance, concludes that “most school principals have not received adequate specialist preparation for their leadership and management roles” (p. 13). One significant exception is the Seychelles, where the Ministry of Education has entered into a partnership with the University of Lincoln (UK) to provide training at Master’s level for up to 100 principals and senior managers over a five-year period (2004-2008). This is a significant step for a small education system with only 33 schools and reflects its wider interest in leadership for school improvement (Bush, 2005a).

New principals in Africa

363

JEA 44,4

364

Quality of provision Because preparation for new principals is limited, there is inevitably little literature on the nature and quality of provision. One exception is the work of Tekleselassie (2002) in Ethiopia. He reports on a “major focus on the professionalisation of educational management” (p. 59). However, most principals attend only a one month in-service course on school management. Such short-term training “has never been popular among principals [. . .] short-term training has less impact and is less motivating to trainees since such training does not lead to certification and salary improvements” (p. 59). The limitations of the training are perceived to be (Tekleselassie, 2002, p. 60): . irrelevant and repetitive curriculum; . unresponsive and ill-prepared trainees; . incompetence of trainers; . lack of nexus between the training and the kind of profile the Ministry of Education seeks; and . short duration of training and thus undue strain on trainees’ time. An additional weakness is that the training occurs after appointment, leaving new principals unprepared for their responsibilities. This is also the case in Ghana where the training is “in service” and usually provided by international agencies for selected schools, mostly drawn from urban and semi-urban areas. These agencies, including the World Bank, Unesco, DFID, USAID and CIDA, often determine the number and category of schools to be involved. Oduro (2003, p. 309) notes that “the training programmes cease once the project is accomplished because the Ghana Education Service complains of lack of money to sustain them”. All 30 participants in Oduro’s (2003) study complain that the training was not organised at the right time and should have preceded their appointment as headteachers. Herriot et al. (2002) report on the development of headteacher support groups in Kenya. Such groups emerged as part of an in-service training programme for primary schools (PRISM). These groups were seen as “central to the sustainability of good management in schools” (p. 514) and their main purposes are (Herriot et al., 2002, p. 518): . a forum for sharing ideas; . the development of school materials; . addressing and solving management problems; . generating income; . staff development and sensitisation for heads, committees, teachers and the community; and . improving the delivery of education and examination performance. These authors conclude that “the networking that is beginning to develop has had a ‘rippling effect’ across schools and clusters but there is a long way to go” to ensure its continued success. There is more evidence about the quality of leadership and management development in South Africa. Bush and Heystek’s (2006) survey provides detailed perceptions from the 34 per cent of principals who have taken specialist honours or

Master’s degrees in educational management. They give positive ratings to several aspects of their courses, notably “management of teaching and learning”, “learner management” and “human resource management”. They are less satisfied with “the management of physical facilities” and “management of finance”. This latter point is particularly significant, as the post-apartheid government has decentralised many responsibilities to the school level, including budgeting, fund-raising and fee setting. The majority of principals without specific qualifications in management have limited opportunities for leadership development. Most attend short in-service events, lasting only a few days, organised by the provincial departments of education. McLennan’s (2000) assessment of training in the Gauteng province is that such workshops are “often poorly organised and irrelevant” (p. 305). Bush and Heystek (2006) conclude that training should be extended and recommend that “management development for principals should take place before appointment”. Bush and Heystek (2006) advocate an expansion of university provision but caution that knowledge-based programmes need to be modified to ensure that they are directly relevant to participants’ schools. The Government’s Task Team on Education Management (Department of Education, 1996) was critical of much university provision. “Management development practices [. . .] have tended to focus on the collection of qualifications and certificates with little attention being paid to actual ability to transfer this newly acquired knowledge to the institutions in which managers work” (p.24). Van der Westhuizen et al. (2004) make a similar point in concluding their evaluation of management training in the Mpumalanga province: The design and content of training programmes should be geared towards developing requisite skills and knowledge to enable trainees to transfer their skills and knowledge [. . .] to the school situation (p. 717).

Selection and induction In the absence of formal requirements for leadership qualifications or training, administrators and/or communities require alternative criteria for recruiting and selecting principals. As we noted earlier, these are often related to the length of teaching experience, sometimes coupled with candidates’ perceived competence as teachers. While a management qualification would provide a sound starting point for the appointments process, the criteria used in Africa are varied and unreliable. We noted earlier that personal considerations often influence the appointments process. These personal factors often include gender, and males dominate in Kenya with 93 per cent of primary school headteachers being male: A gender dimension in education management in Kenya is a subject that has not attracted many studies. It has been established nevertheless that women are not well represented in senior positions [including] headteachers. There are many factors which contribute to low representation of women in key positions, not least patriarchy (Herriot et al., 2002, p. 512).

Bush and Heystek’s (2006) research shows that 66 per cent of Gauteng principals are male. Buckland and Thurlow (1996), referring to South Africa generally, say that “serious [. . .] gender distortions in the management cadre place [. . .] women at a significant disadvantage”. In Ghana, women are acutely under-represented in school headship, especially in rural areas. This is largely attributable to the cultural context. Women are considered

New principals in Africa

365

JEA 44,4

366

to be weak and are discouraged from taking up teaching posts in deprived areas. This “has wider effects on girls’ attitudes to learning. Some girls felt that it wasn’t worth studying hard or even coming to school because the female role models they encountered in the villages were either farmers, seamstresses or fishmongers and housewives who ‘give plenty birth’” (Oduro and MacBeath, 2003, p. 445). Tekleselassie (2002) reports on a change in the “placement” process for new principals in Ethiopia. Before 1994, “the assignment of principals was largely conducted on the basis of the applicants’ degree or diploma in educational administration” (p. 57). The new process involves teachers electing principals from among the teachers at the school. Initially, this is for two years and a re-election must be preceded by “performance evaluation. Colleagues, students, parents and the district office will assess the principal biannually to determine re-election for the second term. Then the district office must approve the election” (p. 59). Tekleselassie (2002, p. 59) concludes that “elected school principals are the ones who are either outstanding in their teaching assignments, or those who are popular among colleagues or their superiors”. The process appears to include bureaucratic, democratic and political aspects, leading to unpredictable outcomes. Oduro (2003) identifies two main strategies employed by the Ghana Education Service (GES) in the appointment of headteachers. The first is appointment through direct posting, which involves appointing newly trained teachers to lead schools, especially in the rural areas. The unattractiveness of rural life appears to have made working in rural schools non-competitive among teachers, who might otherwise have had aspirations to be appointed as headteachers. The second strategy is appointment through selection interviews, which is largely associated with the appointment of urban school headteachers. Candidates for interviews are selected through recommendation. The selection, according to the headteachers in Oduro’s (2003) study, is largely influenced by a teacher’s seniority in “rank” and “teaching experience”. Harber and Davies (1997) say that headteachers in Africa “are chosen because they are good at one thing (teaching) and then put into the managerial role which can demand quite different skills” (p. 77). They also report on the appointments process in Botswana where heads are allocated to schools by the “Unified Teaching Service”. They add that heads also face “frequent and compulsory” transfer which “could happen at very awkward times, thereby creating extra workloads for those left behind” (p. 67). Induction There is only limited literature on the induction of principals in Africa. This is almost certainly because there is little evidence of formal induction occurring in almost all African countries. As Kitavi and van der Westhuizen (1997, p. 260) put it, “too often, and without consideration, principals in developing countries like Kenya are tossed into the job without pre-service training, without guarantee of in-service training, and without support from their employers”. They report that most experienced principals overcame their problems through trial and error. However, “beginning principals in developing countries like Kenya need well-structured induction strategies that will make them effective and efficient educational managers. Without special attention to the entry year problems of beginning principals [. . .] other attempts at improving the quality of education in developing countries may yield few results” (p. 260).

These authors advocate eight induction strategies for new principals (Kitavi and van der Westhuizen, 1997, pp. 261-2): (1) assign a veteran principal to assist the new appointee; (2) provide manuals for new principals; (3) ensure a smooth transition by involving the outgoing principal; (4) orient the new principal to the school and its community; (5) encourage networking with other principals; (6) encourage principals to allow their deputies to “shadow” them to gain experience; (7) visits to other schools; and (8) provide courses in educational management. In Ghana, Oduro (2003) reports that it is common practice, especially in rural schools, for headteachers to be left unsupported after appointment. Most headteachers assume duty with little or no knowledge of their job descriptions. One comments that: I was appointed all of a sudden to be the head, which I wasn’t expecting. I didn’t know many things involved in it. For instance, I didn’t know keeping financial records or preparing for auditing was part of the headteacher’s job (p. 298).

The result is that headteachers tend to depend principally on experiential learning in carrying out their leadership tasks. The experience of new principals It is evident from the discussion so far that, when new principals take up their posts, they have not been adequately prepared for their responsibilities and cannot expect any meaningful induction. Tekleselassie (2002, p. 60) refers to the “overload” affecting principals in Ethiopia. Requiring principals to embark on such a demanding career without specific preparation “is a recipe for personal stress and system failure, and also has serious ethical implications” (Bush and Heystek, 2006). Kitavi and van der Westhuizen (1997, p. 253) describe the world of novice principals “as one filled with considerable anxiety, frustration and professional isolation [. . .] an increasingly clear picture shows new principals who cannot serve as instructional leaders, who tend to seek moral and ethical identities and suffer from feelings of stress associated with their new roles”. These authors surveyed 100 new principals from all eight Kenyan provinces and achieved a 65 per cent response rate. One question related to the “most serious problems facing beginning principals”. The main responses are shown in Table I and indicate that the problems facing new principals are primarily to do with practical issues related to students, parents, resources and staff. Only the issue of “English as a medium of instruction” relates to the school’s supposedly core function of teaching and learning. This suggests that the new leaders are preoccupied with these obstacles rather than focusing on their educational role. These issues are similar to those facing more experienced leaders but “beginning principals seemed to experience them with greater intensity” (p. 260).

New principals in Africa

367

JEA 44,4

368

Table I. Most serious problems facing beginning principals in Kenya

Rank

Item

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Students who cannot pay school fees Shortage of school equipment Students who cannot buy books Shortage of physical facilities Staff residential accommodation Installing telephones Parental illiteracy Students travelling long distances Lack of playground Use of English as a medium of instruction Clean water problem Locating suitable social club Inaccessibility of parents

Source: Adapted from Kitavi and van der Westhuizen, 2002, p. 255

The expectations of principals in Ethiopia are similar to those indicated for Kenya. Table II summarises the responsibilities delegated to the school principal. The activities indicated in Table II are prescriptive statements and may not represent the incumbents’ practice. Tekleselassie (2002, pp. 60-1) notes that “the roles assigned to the principal portray the ones in bureaucratic and traditional organisations in which rules and procedure, rather than collaboration, teamwork and shared decision-making, govern action”. Despite this critical comment, the activities seem to provide for a more substantial instructional leadership role than that indicated in the Kenyan research. Oduro (2003) explains that, in Ghana, the workload of primary headteachers depends on whether they are attached or detached. Attached headteachers are obliged to teach and handle all subjects on the school timetable alongside administrative and management tasks, while detached headteachers perform only administrative and management tasks. His study of 20 new headteachers in the Komenda-EdinaArea of responsibility

Number and type of responsibilities

Planning

Eight activities relating to planning, budgeting, teacher performance and the organisation of learning Twelve activities relating to teaching and learning, finance, staff deployment and monitoring, parental links and teaching Eight activities relating to instructional leadership, student records and teacher assessment One activity relating to research on teaching and learning Three activities relating to the evaluation of school objectives, teacher performance and the school curriculum One activity concerning reports to parents, teachers and the district education office

Leading Controlling Research Evaluating Table II. Responsibilities delegated to the school principal in Ethiopia

Reporting

Source: Adapted from Tekleselassie, 2002, p. 61

Eguafo-Abrem district shows that all attached headteachers complained about a heavy workload. In rural areas, a shortage of teachers compelled some headteachers to handle more than one class. One headteacher notes that: I have 231 pupils in my school with only four teachers. I’m handling Primary 3 and Primary 5. Quite recently, one of the teachers fell sick and I had to handle that class too. So one person handling three classes and doing administration at the same time . . . how can I be effective? (Oduro, 2003, pp. 122-3).

New principals in Africa

369

Oduro (2003) identifies four clusters of competences that headteachers require to accomplish their leadership tasks. Table III ranks these competences. The “professional capacity” cluster includes several items related to instructional leadership but these are normative constructs and do not necessarily represent leadership practice. The South African Task Team on Education Management (Department of Education, 1996) stressed that management is important because it provides a supportive framework for teaching and learning: Management in education is not an end in itself. Good management is an essential aspect of any education service, but its central goal is the promotion of effective teaching and learning [. . .] The task of management at all levels is ultimately the creation and support of conditions under which teachers and their students are able to achieve learning [. . .] The extent to which effective learning is achieved therefore becomes the criterion against which the quality of management is to be judged (p. 27).

Despite this authoritative comment, which would be echoed in many other countries, there is only limited evidence of principals being developed for instructional leadership. Oplatka (2004, p. 434), for example, states that “in most developing countries [. . .] instructional leadership functions are relatively rare in schools, and principals are likely to adopt a stance in favour of administration and management”. Bush and Heystek’s (2006) research shows that most principals want training in finance and human resource management. Only 27.2 per cent of their respondents Rank

Cluster

Competence indicators

1

Administrative capacity

2

Professional capacity

3

Personal capacity

4

Interpersonal capacity

Ability to keep school records, e.g. maintaining school finance records, keeping admission records, the log book, filing documents, etc. Ability to manage pupil assessment, knowledge of teacher appraisal techniques, knowledge of pupil teaching techniques, skills for teaching adults, ability to vet teachers’ lesson notes, knowledge about leadership, skills for managing people, acquisition of higher academic knowledge, ability to counsel Fairness and firmness, tolerance, patience, commitment to work Ability to relate well with staff, pupils, parents, the School Management Committee (SMC), circuit officers. Ability to promote teamwork, ability to conduct successful staff meetings, and possession of lobbying skills

Source: Adapted from Oduro, 2003, p. 211

Table III. Main clusters of competences required by headteachers in Ghana

JEA 44,4

370

identify the management of teaching and learning as a development need. These authors conclude that: Principals are not conceptualising their role as “leaders of learning”. Given the radical changes in school governance and management, it is understandable that principals wish to give priority to financial and staff management, and to relationships with school governing bodies. However, school improvement ultimately depends on school leaders accepting their responsibility for developing learning.

Kogoe (1986) claims that headteachers in Togo “need to adopt leadership roles by closer instructional leadership” but he adds that, while teachers expect leadership, “heads may prefer to see themselves as just administrators”. The emphasis on educational leadership is also noted in the National Policy document for education in Botswana: The heads as the instructional leaders, together with the deputy and senior teachers, should take major responsibility for in-service training of teachers within their schools, through regular observations of teachers and organisational workshops, to foster communication between teachers on professional matters and to address weaknesses (Republic of Botswana, 1994, cited in Pansiri, 2006; emphasis added).

As noted above, policy prescriptions are not always fulfilled in practice. Pansiri’s (2006) research with 240 teachers shows that 70 per cent say that they receive constructive feedback on their teaching but 71 per cent add that SMT members do not give demonstration lessons or provide coaching on how to handle certain topics. He concludes that “there is an urgent need for MoE to develop an in-service module for SMTs and teachers on instructional leadership”. Conclusion: a new approach to school leadership in Africa The evidence presented in this article shows that school principals in Africa lead and manage their schools in very difficult circumstances. Almost every country can be classified as “developing”, with severe economic, social, health and educational problems. Principals are usually appointed without specific preparation, receive little or no induction, have limited access to suitable in-service training and enjoy little support from the local or regional bureaucracy. There are many reasons for this unsatisfactory situation. Most countries have very limited educational budgets and headteacher preparation is seen as a low priority. Donor countries and international agencies have introduced training initiatives but these are rarely sustained beyond the initial funding period. While the need for principalship training is widely recognized (e.g. Commonwealth Secretariat, 1996), translating perceived need into effective provision has proved to be elusive. Another problem is the lack of capacity amongst those responsible for appointing, training and supporting headteachers. Many of these officials are no better qualified than the principals and they are also handicapped by limited resources. The long distances, and inadequate infrastructure, mean that principals in rural areas are rarely visited, increasing their sense of isolation. Shortages of teachers and material resources exacerbate this problem. It would be easy, but facile, to advocate improved processes based on models in developed countries. What is more likely to succeed is a set of recommendations firmly grounded in the realities of African education. Even then, such prescriptions could be

achieved only through meaningful and long-term partnerships with governments, international agencies and universities in Western countries. A recent (2005) G8 African initiative provides the possibility of generating sufficient resources to address the many problems set out in this paper. The recommendations below are based on the assumption that funding would be provided to ensure effective implementation and long-term development.

Preparation It is evident that preparation for school principals is inadequate throughout Africa. Most heads are appointed without any specific management training and few receive appropriate in-service training following appointment. While pre-service provision is highly desirable, this is inevitably more expensive because it is not always possible to identify those who are likely to be appointed as principals. Targeting the limited resources at newly appointed heads is much more cost-effective. This can also be seen as an important part of their induction, this is explained further in the next section. The other advantage of in-service provision is that it can relate directly to the specific context facing the beginning principal. Crow (2001) distinguishes between professional and organizational socialization. The former relates to preparation to enact the role of principal while the latter concerns adaptation to the particular school context. In-service preparation enables these two phases to be linked. There is an emerging consensus on the content of leadership development programmes in developed countries: The content of educational leadership programmes has considerable similarities in different countries, leading to a hypothesis that there is an international curriculum for leadership preparation. Most courses focus on leadership, including vision, mission and transformational leadership, give prominence to issues of learning and teaching, often described as instructional leadership, and incorporate consideration of the main task areas of administration or management, such as human resources and professional development, finance, curriculum and external relations (Bush and Jackson, 2002, pp. 420-1).

These elements are often contained within formal programmes delivered by universities, governments or other agencies, are usually sustained over many months or years, and typically lead to an academic or professional qualification. There are several problems in applying this approach to Africa. Budgets are unlikely to be sufficient to fund such a lavish model at an appropriate scale to meet the need. There is also limited capacity to develop, lead and facilitate such programmes. It would be sensible, therefore, to aim at more modest provision for the new principals accompanied by a “train the trainers” course at a higher level. The training should include an element of “instructional leadership” as it is clear that this is desired in many African countries even if they have experienced difficulty in turning aspiration into reality. Linking the training to a qualification is likely to motivate participants (Tekleselassie, 2002) and to raise the status of principals in their communities. A proposal under consideration in South Africa is for an Advanced Certificate in Education (Management) (Bush, 2005b). A similar approach could be adopted throughout Africa with a core component and customized elements to meet local requirements.

New principals in Africa

371

Variable but often leading to an academic or professional qualification Government and/or candidate funding Based on formal qualifications

Induction

Often linked to further specific preparation and may include mentoring

Variable but usually no accreditation

Variable but increasingly pre-service

Nature of preparation for principals Qualification

Funding Appointment

Limited and usually in-service

Good

Preparation capacity

Very limited, ad hoc and episodic Based on teaching experience and competence plus political and/or cultural factors Little formal induction

Very limited

Very limited

Good

Africa (current)

Educational budgets

Table IV. A model for leadership preparation in Africa Western countries

Long-term donor funding Based on teaching experience and leadership potential assessed by trained principals To include in-service preparation (see above), networking and mentoring from an experienced principal

Certificate in school leadership

Limited but to be augmented by systematic funding Limited but to be developed through a “train the trainers” programme Coherent in-service preparation

Africa (proposed)

372

Component

JEA 44,4

Selection and induction In the absence of a pre-service management qualification, the recruitment and appointment processes cannot be underpinned by formal prerequisites. Developing a clear job description, and linking candidates’ experience to these requirements, provides a useful starting point. As more principals experience training, they may also be able to nominate suitable candidates based on job-related practice in their current schools. As we noted earlier, however, such rational processes are often affected by political and cultural factors. One of these relates to gender and it is important that women have equal opportunities for promotion to senior posts, including headships. The in-service training suggested above should make a valuable contribution to principals’ induction. It also provides the potential for networking that could be sustained beyond the life of the course. Developing effective networks for both experienced and beginning principals may reduce their isolation. Towards a model for leadership preparation and induction in Africa The ideas and recommendations discussed in this paper provide a starting point for the construction of a model for leadership preparation and induction in Africa. Table IV presents a normative model alongside an overview of the current position in Africa and in Western countries. The normative model in column three of Table IV is underpinned by the twin assumptions that schools are more likely to be effective if they have good leadership and that leaders are “made not born”. Specific preparation is required if teachers, learners and communities are to have the schools they need and deserve. The model assumes that international funding will be made available for the development of a preparation programme grounded in the realities of African schools, that such funding will be sustainable, and that capacity will be developed by a “train the trainers” programme. The model also assumes that the appointment of principals will be based on a systematic assessment of leadership potential linked to judgments about “acceptability” within local communities. Appropriate training, recruitment and induction do not ensure that principals are equipped with the requisite skills, attitudes, knowledge and motivation to lead their schools effectively, but the model provides the potential for a significant improvement on the current position in most African countries. Further support from their superordinates, and their local communities, is essential if their schools, and the students they serve, are to succeed and help their countries to compete in an increasingly challenging global economy. References Agezo, C.K. and Christian, G. (2002), “The impact of economic environment on primary school attendance: a case study of Elmina in the Central Region of Ghana”, Journal of Educational Management, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 137-43. AlertNet (2005), “Niger: free food needed now as millions teeter on the brink of famine”, available at: www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/IRIN Amezu-Kpeglo (1990), Educational Administrator Preparation: Survey of Training Needs of Headmasters, Institute for Educational Planning and Administration (IEPA), University of Cape Coast, Accra.

New principals in Africa

373

JEA 44,4

374

Brew-Ward, M. (2002), “Parental attitudes towards girls’ education and its implications for community action: the case of selected communities in the central region of Ghana”, unpublished MPhil thesis, University of Cape Coast, Accra. Buckland, P. and Thurlow, M. (1996), An Audit of EMD Needs and Resources in South Africa, Department of Education, Pretoria. Bush, T. (2003), Theories of Educational Leadership and Management, 3rd ed., Sage Publications, London. Bush, T. (2005a), “School leadership in the 21st century: Seychelles and international perspectives”, keynote paper presented at the First School Leadership Conference, Victoria, 19 May. Bush, T. (2005b), “Educational management, leadership and governance since 1994: South African and international perspectives”, keynote paper presented at the Education Management Association of South Africa Conference, Johannesburg, 18 March. Bush, T. and Heystek, J. (2006), “School leadership and management in South Africa: principals’ perceptions”, International Studies in Educational Administration, forthcoming. Bush, T. and Jackson, D. (2002), “Preparation for school leadership: international perspectives”, Educational Management and Administration, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 417-29. Bush, T., Bisschoff, T., Glover, D., Heystek, J., Joubert, R. and Moloi, K.C. (2005), Desk Research on School Leadership and Governance in South Africa: First Interim Report, Matthew Goniwe School of Leadership and Governance, Johannesburg. Commonwealth Secretariat (1996), Managing and Motivating Teachers under Severe Resource Constraints: Training Headteachers to Face the Challenges, Commonwealth Secretariat, London. Crow, G. (2001), “School leader preparation: a short review of the knowledge ase”, NCSL Research Archive, available at www.ncsl.org.uk Department of Education (1996), Changing Management to Manage Change in Education, Department of Education, Pretoria. Fabunmi, M. and Adewale, J.G. (2002), “A path-analytic model of schooling situations and secondary school students’ academic performance in Oyo State, Nigeria”, Journal of Educational Management, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 46-59. Girls’ Education Unit (2002), National Vision for Girls’ Education in Ghana and Framework for Action: Charting the Way Forward, Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports, Accra. Hammond, P. (2004), Holocaust in Rwanda, Frontline Fellowship, Cape Town. Harber, C. and Davies, L. (1997), School Management and Effectiveness in Developing Countries, Cassell, London. Herriot, A., Crossley, M., Juma, M., Waudo, J., Mwirotsi, M. and Kamau, A. (2002), “The development and operation of headteacher support groups in Kenya: a mechanism to create pockets of excellence, improve the provision of quality education and target positive changes in the community”, International Journal of Educational Development, Vol. 22, pp. 509-26. Inkoom, E.A. (2005), “Impact of community support towards the education of girls in the Sissala East and West Districts, Upper West Region, Ghana”, unpublished MPhil thesis, University of Cape Coast, Accra. Kitavi, M. and van der Westhuizen, P. (1997), “Problems facing beginning principals in developing countries: a study of beginning principals in Kenya”, International Journal of Educational Development, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 251-63.

Kogoe, A. (1986), “Perceived administrative needs of school executives in Togo”, Comparative Education, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 149-58. Lulat, Y. (1988), “Education and national development: the continuing problem of misdiagnosis and irrelevant prescriptions”, International Journal of Educational Development, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 315-28. McLennan, A. (2000), “Education governance and management in South Africa”, unpublished PhD thesis, University of Liverpool, Liverpool. National College for School Leadership (2001), First Corporate Plan: Launch Year 2001-2002, National College for School Leadership, Nottingham, available at www.ncsl.gov.uk Nilsson, P. (2003), “Teacher demand and supply in Africa”, Working Paper No. 12, Education International, Brussels. Oduro, G.K.T. (2003), “Perspectives of Ghanaian headteachers on their role and professional development: the case of KEEA district primary school”, unpublished PhD thesis, University of Cambridge, Cambridge. Oduro, G.K.T. and MacBeath, J. (2003), “Traditions and tensions in leadership: the Ghanaian experience”, Cambridge Journal of Education, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 442-5. Oplatka, I. (2004), “The principalship in developing countries: context, characteristics and reality”, Comparative Education, Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 427-48. Osei, J. (2003), “Assessment of causes of dropout among basic education girls”, The Ghana Teachers’ Journal, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 33-51. Owolabi, S.O. and Edzii, A.A. (2000), “Teacher management and support systems in Ghana: the case of Cape Coast Municipality”, Journal of Educational Management, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 1-14. Pansiri, N. (2006), “An assessment of the quality of instructional leadership for quality learning since the introduction of the primary school management development project in Botswana”, Educational Management, Administration and Leadership, forthcoming. Republic of Botswana (1994), The Revised National Policy on Education, Government Printers, Gaborone. Tekleselassie, A. (2002), “The deprofessionalisation of school principalship: implications for reforming school leadership in Ethiopia”, International Studies in Educational Administration, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 57-64. Tsukudu, P. and Taylor, P. (1995), “Management development support for head teachers of secondary schools in South Africa”, in Johnson, D. (Ed.), Educational Management and Policy: Research, Theory and Practice in South Africa, University of Bristol, Bristol. Van der Westhuizen, P., Mosoge, M. and van Vuuren, H. (2004), “Capacity-building for educational managers in South Africa: a case study of the Mpumalanga province”, International Journal of Educational Development, Vol. 24, pp. 705-19. World Bank (2002), Education and HIV/AIDS: A Window of Hope, Executive Summary, World Bank, Washington, DC. Corresponding author Tony Bush can be contacted at: [email protected]

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

New principals in Africa

375

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/0957-8234.htm

JEA 44,4

Asking the hard questions: being a beginning principal in Australia

376

Millner Primary School, Darwin, Australia

Terry Quong Abstract Purpose – The paper aims to provide insights into the work of beginning principals in their first year through the experiences of one beginning principal during his first year in post. Design/methodology/approach – In order to illuminate the problems of beginning principals the paper sets out to answer the personal question: “What can I say about my experiences that can benefit other beginning principals?” To this end, it details a personal exploration of a beginning principal’s first year in post using an action learning methodology. Findings – The paper describes some of the major problems faced and asserts that the key issue which emerged was how much or how little change beginning principals should implement in their first year on the job. The paper also suggests a personal generic framework for dealing with this and other issues in situ. Originality/value – This paper provides a unique insight into the work of beginning principals and their work problems. It also contributes a model that may stimulate reflection on key issues faced by a beginning principal. Keywords Principals, Action learning, Schools, Leadership Paper type Case study

Journal of Educational Administration Vol. 44 No. 4, 2006 pp. 376-388 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 0957-8234 DOI 10.1108/09578230610676622

Introduction While reflections on professional and personal experience and learning cannot be generalised, they can provide important insights into how beginning principals see the world of education and build understanding of what constitutes important knowledge (Anderson, 1997). This paper is a brief account of my personal experience as a beginning principal in Australia in 2004. The purpose of telling my story is to respond to the question: “What can I say about my experiences that could benefit other beginning principals?”. The article has four main sections. After a brief review of some relevant literature, the first section outlines the methodology employed – or how I set out to frame my learning during my first year on the job. I employed an action learning approach involving two critical friends and also formally interviewed a group of fellow beginning principals. The second section sketches the context of the study; this comprises three parts – the beginning principalship in Australia, the school context, and my personal context. The third section outlines some of the major problems faced during my first year as principal and comments on their accord with the experiences of other beginning principals. As this section explains, my experience suggests that finding a balance between doing too much and too little forms the beginning principal’s most stressful dilemma. In the final section I introduce a tentative model, built around three “hard questions”, which I have found useful when coping with this multifaceted problem. The model emerged through action learning and is outlined in the hope that it may be useful to other beginning principals and those involved with their preparation.

Literature There is little recent research literature relevant to the concerns of beginning principals in Australia; however, some useful work has emerged over the last decade or so. This research has sought greater knowledge of the working lives, professional development and sources of support of new principals in the principalship (Beeson and Matthews, 1992; Harvey, 1988; Matthews et al., 1992; Su et al., 2003), their preparation and succession needs (D’Arbon, 2002; Hewitson, 1995) and their ongoing professional concerns (Bowman, 1996; Dunshea, 1998). A recent comprehensive study in the Australian context examined the socialisation experiences of beginning principals and developed a hermeneutic framework for use in the planning and development of future principals (O’Mahony, 2003). In my scan of the literature I was looking specifically for research into the issues or problems dealt with by beginning principals as they developed their leadership. A study by Thomas and Hornsey (1991) of stressors on beginning principals in New South Wales (NSW) noted that financial management (40-45 per cent of beginning secondary principals) and administrative overload were the major problems reported. This overload was attributed to excessive meetings, paperwork, interviewing applicants for employment and a lack of clerical assistance. The study also stated that another important source of concern was the unrealistic expectations presented by the community. Recent research from the UK also promised to shed some light on the issue. For example, Hobson et al. (2003, p. 14) identified a set of problems faced by new head teachers in England and Wales which included feelings of professional isolation and loneliness; the difficulties of implementing new government initiatives (notably new curricula or school improvement projects); problems with school buildings and site management; dealing with the legacy of previous head teachers; managing multiple tasks, time and priorities; dealing with the school budget; and coping with ineffective staff. While these were interesting, to me, as a beginning principal in Australia, they seemed uninformative. A number of them are problems faced by any organisational leader, regardless of context. As such, they did not reflect in any but the most general way the problems that have most concerned me in my first years as a principal and in developing my leadership in the first year of my job. Methodology When I decided to investigate my personal experience as a beginning principal I held an initial understanding of action learning and action research models as ways to address organisational issues and solve practical problems. Such models have been used successfully in both principal and teacher development programmes (Martin and Robertson, 2003; Silins, 2001). I had incorporated similar approaches into my own development and found them useful vehicles to guide learning. Action learning takes place when people are engaged in managing real problems. “The process of action learning helps participants learn how to learn by dealing with real problems in the workplace” (Silins, 2001, p. 3). Action learning as a methodology was initially attributed to Revans (1997), who developed it as a staff development activity for managers in industry. However, its popularity and increased sophistication are largely attributable to the work of Argyris (1982, 1993), which has been the major influence on the development of action learning as a management style.

Asking the hard questions

377

JEA 44,4

378

As an approach to research and ongoing learning, the action learning model has been used to shed light on the work of school principals (Silins, 2001; Martin and Robertson, 2003). While discussing its use in principal development, Martin and Robertson (2003) stated: “In an action learning and research process, individual action plans allow for clear objectives to be planned, implemented and reviewed. We believed that this was the only way we would be able to effectively monitor principals’ progress towards goals and the achievement of better learning and teaching within the school community” (p. 3).

During my first year as a principal I adopted an action learning methodology and kept a detailed daily journal which focused on the problems with which I engaged. This involved setting action plans, attempting to implement them and then reflecting on both the process and the actions. In other words, I followed an action learning plan-act-reflect cycle in concert with others, with varying degrees of success. I focused on “problems” based on Pedler’s (1997) use of the terminology of “puzzle” versus “problem”. Pedler describes a “puzzle” as “an embarrassment to which a solution already exists, even though it may be hard to find even for the most accomplished of experts. A ‘problem’, on the other hand, has no existing solution, and is amenable (or not) to many different courses of action” (Pedler, 1997, pp. 32, 34). Action learning was chosen as an appropriate methodology for dealing with problems rather than simpler “puzzles”. A vital element in the learning process was discussing my reflections with critical friends through e-mail, phone conversations or face-to-face meetings in a configuration called a “tripod”. The tripod was in essence a formal learning arrangement between two experienced primary school principals and myself – this has been essential to my professional learning. A key element in action learning is that it not be done in isolation and that critical and pragmatic feedback is available and elicited regularly throughout the process. I discussed my plans, problems and actions with my tripod and received regular and, I believe, open and constructive comment. To support the outcomes of my ongoing action learning I also decided to interview six other beginning primary school principals in similar contexts near the end of my first year in post. The principals were aged between 40 and 51 years and two held Master’s degrees; one was male and the others female. I decided to interview these principals for a number of reasons. First, I was interested in whether my experiences were unique to me or shared by others. Second, I hoped it would allow me additional critical feedback with regards to what I was doing in dealing with problems, and third, I believed that it would help me build networks with other new principals for ongoing support during the years ahead. I interviewed the principals two months before the end of my first year. During the interview I asked them a set of loosely structured questions about their work as beginning principals. For example, I asked them what were the most pressing issues and/or critical incidents they had experienced during their first year as principals. Each interview lasted for approximately one hour and was taped and then transcribed. I then analysed the data in terms of its accord with my own recorded experiences. During this process I contacted all the principals again with follow-up questions. After identifying my own list of problems through action learning I compared these with a common list of issues distilled from the interviews. In reflecting on the similarity of these lists, I discovered that we shared one very similar issue or problem – when to

act and when not to act. This problem, as well as the framework developed to help cope with it, is addressed later in this article, following a brief description of the context of my beginning principalship.

Asking the hard questions

Context This section provides a description of the multifaceted context within which I began my first principalship. This includes a very broad snapshot of the Australian education system in relation to beginning principals, a brief description of my school, and some personal background information.

379

National context In Australia, public education is delivered and regulated at the state or territory level through either a Department or Ministry of Education. There is no all-powerful national educational authority and no overarching principal preparation or certification programme. Rather, each state or territory determines its own approach and content (mostly in-service programmes) but none has a prerequisite programme or licensure arrangement. This makes Australia different from countries such as Singapore or the UK, which have national qualification structures. However, in late 2003, a national body called the National Institute for Quality Teaching and School Leadership (NIQTSL) was established, and this may well be an important first step in the development of national professional standards and a national approach for new principal development in the years ahead (Australian Secondary Principals’ Association, 2004). The public education system provides directly for the education of approximately 70 per cent of the young people of Australia. In August 2004, there were 9,615 schools, of which 6,938 (72.2 per cent) were government schools and 2,677 (27.8 per cent) were non-government schools (predominantly Catholic schools). School attendance is compulsory between the ages of six and 15 years (and between six and 16 years in South Australia and Tasmania). In 2004, there were 3,331,964 full-time students, 67.5 per cent of whom attended government schools. From 1994 to 2004, the number of full-time students attending government schools grew by 1.6 per cent (from 2,214,938), while the number attending non-government schools increased by 22.4 per cent (from 884,442). In 2004, there were 130,447 indigenous full-time school students in Australian schools. Primary schooling in most states and territories begins with a preparatory or kindergarten year, followed by six or seven years of primary education. Most children start primary school at around five years of age. Secondary schooling involves a further five or six years to complete a full course of school study. The final two years of secondary schooling generally fall outside the compulsory stage of education (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2005a, b). While available statistics do not provide an age range for beginning principals, Scott (2003) found that the mean age of Australian principals was between 50 and 52 years old. This is older than the average age of principals in the USA, reported by the National Association of Secondary School Principals (NASSP) to be around 48 years old (National Association of Secondary School Principals, 2001, pp. 2-3). In terms of formal qualifications, Su et al. (2003, p. 44) reported that about 17 per cent of Australian principals have less than a bachelor’s degree, 45 per cent hold bachelor’s degrees, 34 per cent have Master’s degrees and 2 per cent have doctoral degrees.

JEA 44,4

380

Across Australia (with few exceptions) school principals are appointed based on the merit principle. This is closely linked to the implementation of school-based management (SBM) in the late 1970s and early 1980s (Gamage, 1996). Before the establishment of SBM, principals were normally appointed on the basis of system-wide seniority lists (Su et al., 2003). These lists were maintained by the system using information from comprehensive evaluations conducted by the school inspectors. As the lists only identified people “bureaucratically entitled” to become a principal, interested parties often had to wait many years until an appropriate vacancy arose. As in the UK and USA, there are signs in Australia that there is a shortage of candidates wishing to become principals. Thomson et al. (2002) noted numerous media representations of this supply problem: “No takers for the hottest seat in the school house” (The Australian, 2002c); “Shortage of principals rings alarm bells” (The Australian, 2002b); “Principal’s job a turn-off” (The Australian, 2002a); “Top job no longer a principal aim” (The Advertiser, 2002); “Why top job gets low marks” (The Age, 2002a); and “Swamped principals’ bid for help” (The Age, 2002b). Such popular sentiment is also reflected in formal reports. For example, Kwong Lee Dow (2003) wrote in Australia’s Teachers Australia’s Future: “It is of great concern that there is evidence of a growing shortage of positional school leaders and the possibility of a declining pool of candidates for school principal positions” (p. 226). A recent ASPA report confirmed this assertion but added a concern about the quality of available applicants. The report stated: “Consistent anecdotal evidence from school leaders indicates that when a leadership position is advertised under the local state/territory jurisdictions, there are increasingly fewer applicants and the overall quality of those applicants has become noticeably lower” (Australian Secondary Principals’ Association, 2004, p. 2). School context My school is part of the public system and opened in 1969. It serves a middle to low income community in a suburb of a capital city. The school caters for transition to Year 7 (ages 5-12 years), with a separate pre-school unit (children from 3.5) situated three blocks away. There are 280 students (of which 43 per cent are indigenous Aboriginal Australians) and a staff of 16 qualified teachers and nine non-teaching staff. In addition, we have 12 tutors and Inclusion Support Assistants (ISA) who work various proportions of full time depending on their responsibilities. There is an Assistant Principal, one Senior Teacher, an Administration Manager (Business Manager), and two leading teachers (Teachers of Exemplary Practice) on the leadership team. Personal and selection context I was appointed to my first principalship in January 2004. I was 48 years old and had been working for the same Department of Education for 26 years. I therefore considered myself a latecomer to the principalship. I had earned my PhD the previous year, but this was not important in getting the job because the position description for the post did not list a higher degree qualification as essential and my doctorate was not, therefore, included in the selection process. I was one of 22 applicants drawn from across Australia. The incumbent principal was retiring, so the School Council advertised in both the local and national media, as well as on the internet. I submitted a written application that argued my case within

the framework of “essential selection criteria”, was shortlisted and eventually selected by the School Local Selection Panel following an intensive interview. The panel comprised the General Manager for Schools for the “school cluster” (similar to a superintendent in the USA), the Chairperson of the School Council, a teacher’s union representative and a staff member of the school. With this context in mind, in the following sections I recount some of the problems I faced as I navigated my beginning principalship. I then attempt to describe a model which has begun to emerge from how I coped with these problems. The question guiding my exploration through action learning was: “What can I say about my experiences as a beginning principal that could benefit other beginning principals?” Problems As noted earlier in the article, I focused my action learning on “problems”. These were defined as situations, incidents or issues which appeared to me to have no simple solution. During the course of my learning I faced many such problems, but a number of these stood out as defining my initial principalship life and development as a school leader. In no particular order, these are briefly noted below (extracted from my action learning journal): . How can I deal with a police complaint of assault made against me by a mother of a trespassing boy after I had taken him by the arm to remove him from the school grounds? . What is the best way to get the whole staff to engage in finding ways of improving the behaviour of students? . In terms of promoting shared leadership, is it worthwhile engaging key staff in writing the school’s annual report, a job traditionally carried out by the principal alone? . What are we going to do about Aaron (a high needs student with Asperger’s Syndrome)? . How can we get more parents to volunteer to help out with the school’s fund raising events? . How can I manage a complaint of harassment made against me by a teacher as a direct result of having informed her that four other teachers on staff have complained about her behaviour? . Where can we get the money to pay for a mini-bus so that a group of indigenous children can get to school each day? . How can I demonstrate that over this year or under my leadership the school has enhanced the students’ literacy and numeracy outcomes? . What do we need to do to build student enrolments? We need ten more to keep a teacher! . How do I respond to a parent who tells me that she can’t cope with her daughter’s behaviour at home anymore? . What am I going to do about the Year 2/3 class that has had three different teachers in one semester? . Is there a solution to our school canteen which loses money each year?

Asking the hard questions

381

JEA 44,4

.

. .

382

.

What am I going to do to stop the constant bickering between the manager of our Outside School Hours Care (OSHC) programme and her permanent assistant? Should we continue with our programme of swimming lessons? What can we do to increase the percentage of parents who pay school fees (currently only 41 per cent)? What am I to do with the school administration staff member who has been at the school for many years and who refuses to accept change to front office procedures?

When I juxtaposed the problems I faced with those of my six beginning principal colleagues, I discovered that they too could separate puzzles and problems in their work. In basic terms, this differentiation, like mine, separated the day-to-day issues (which can be very stressful) from the “big” problems they faced. However, while each could generate his or her own list of problems, and these certainly bore a general similarity to mine, there was no immediately apparent set of problems that I could determine that impact on the early development of the beginning principal. Similarities could only be determined in some areas and in very broad terms. These problem categories included: . improving student behaviour; . conflicts between staff; . parent complaints and critical incidents; . achieving improved literacy and numeracy results; and . enrolment and attendance figures. My original intention in the interview process was to seek commonalities between the problems I was facing and the experiences of other beginning principals. My assumption was that I could distil a list of problems that we as a group of beginning principals needed to be better prepared to deal with – problems that were instrumental in framing our leadership development. However, beyond the very general categories noted, this did not happen. What emerged instead was that the biggest problems facing beginning principals could not be satisfactorily classified in terms of content, detail or even form; rather, they appeared to boil down to a short but complex question: “when to act and when not to act?” Related comments from the principals I interviewed included the following: The staff rejected my ideas; this caused me some concern – clearly my change management practices were not as good as they might have been, or I had rushed it and they were simply not ready to listen to my ideas (P2). Principals have no real power at all. I can’t get teachers to do anything they don’t want to. I don’t know whether to force the issue or not (P3). One of the first things I did was to put an A4 diary in the staff room and I told everyone that they had to write important messages and information for staff in this communications book. Six months later I was still the only one writing in the diary and I suspect the only one reading it each day. I then didn’t know if I should make a big deal out of this or just accept that the staff didn’t like my communication book idea (P1).

Be prepared to make and live with the hard decisions which may not be popular BUT don’t try to change anything or everything at once; first listen to what people are saying to you (P5).

These quotes from my colleagues demonstrate that they shared my basic dilemma. As a beginning principal I found myself full of ideas and excitement about how I would like to shape my new school. I could see situations that I believed could be readily addressed and (in my eyes) improved. At the same time I could see that the school culture might not be ready for the changes I envisioned. As one of the beginning principals said: When I won this position [principal] it brought home to me all my hopes and dreams about what I could do for children. It rekindled the spark I had about making a real difference to a school. A year later I STILL believe my dreams and aspirations can be fulfilled but I also now know that it’s not going to be easy (P2).

I was also conscious of being a new leader and even though I knew my leadership was flawed, I believed that I had to come up with the “answers”. I believed that my teachers expected their principal to know what to do. My journal confirms that I spent many nights worrying that I would not come up with the solution that I believed staff expected of me. Further reflection confirmed that I had moved too quickly toward some such solutions and not at all on others. While reviewing my action learning journal entries and reflecting upon the issues I faced and how I had sought to deal with them, I decided that I had been so keen to make my mark, to bring about change and improvement, that in some cases I had rushed ahead and alienated staff. For example, this had happened with regards to my concern for the low percentage of payment of school fees. To deal with this I had put forward my solution of implementing the sale of “bookpacks”; this caused resentment amongst administration staff which quickly passed to parents. While I had made some critical positive differences, the downside of moving too quickly with change was that I began to lose support in the school. This was brought home to me in June when the principal of a neighbouring school (a very experienced principal whom I have known for many years) invited me to lunch and told me that the reason for the lunch was to quietly warn me that I was moving too fast and that there was unrest amongst my staff. This came as a shock to me since I didn’t think that I had instigated too much change at all. It was also a shock that a fellow principal had heard about it and was worried enough to tell me. In my journal I later concluded that achieving a balance between doing too much and too little is the beginning principal’s most stressful dilemma. This dilemma began, and continues to drive, my action learning. Through discussion with critical friends and reviewing transcripts of interviews with fellow beginning principals, I decided that this was what best described my life as a beginning principal and that an examination of how I come to deal with it may be of benefit to others, including those involved with principal preparation. The next section does not attempt to recount a particular story or critical incident, rather, it presents an exploratory framework or process which is built around three “hard questions” which I have used to help me shape my development as a beginning principal.

Asking the hard questions

383

JEA 44,4

384

Figure 1. Y-chart

What can I tell others about being a beginning principal? In confronting and coping with the general dilemma of too much and too little change, I posed myself three questions. I then arranged these questions into a three-part Y-chart format (Figure 1). As a way of coping with this dilemma, the framework is very much a work in process and is based upon my assumptions and informed by my critical colleagues. The three questions are: (1) Judge: when should I intervene? (2) Confront: am I ready to confront? (3) Learn: what do I need to learn in order to deal with this, and what can I learn from this experience? Judge The first category is based on my assumption that beginning principals have to make judgement calls. In other words, they have to choose whether to do something about each problem as it arises or not to do something about it. In other words, they need to tussle with the question: “When should I intervene?” For inexperienced leaders this is a very difficult call. Early popular leadership literature gives voice to the belief that a key trait of effective leadership is knowing when to act and when not to act (see, for example, Roberts, 1987). The issue of “decisiveness” was made more difficult for me as a beginning principal, because the school had been operating without my help for some time. For example, the Outside School Hour Care (OSHC) manager and her assistant had been arguing for at least 12 months before I came along and tried to deal with it. The judgement that beginning principals need to make is whether or not they should tackle a particular issue early in their tenure. They need to ask themselves if these are real problems that need to be addressed or minor issues which have

been accentuated through the inexperience and enthusiasm of their first year as principals. The decision of whether or not to intervene in an issue in the principalship can be guided by the CII framework. This framework suggests that beginning principals refer to three elements when facing a problem – the context, their own stage of influence, and their professional intuition (Quong et al., 1999). These headings are expanded below: . Context – The individual must consider whether he has the skills, knowledge and experience needed to actually make a difference within the context of the issue at this particular stage of his principalship. The answer is obviously different for each beginning principal depending on a multitude of factors; consideration of the context guards against the easy acceptance of a “checklist” of standards-based types of solutions to problems. . Influence – The beginning principal has to ask himself if he has the “right” to say that these are issues of concern which must be addressed. In other words, is he yet accepted as leader in these spheres of influence? Does he have the moral right to make the decision? . Intuition – This refers to a personal “gut reaction” about how popular a particular judgement will be. For instance, what will the impact on the principal’s leadership be if he does not do anything about these issues, or he succeeds in making the changes needed – will these changes alienate his staff? Intuition is about the professional insight which beginning principals need to develop in concert with others. Confront The second question in the Y-chart is: “Am I ready to confront?”. Or, is the beginning principal ready and able to confront the people involved in the problem? In my case, this might mean confronting people, such as the Assistant Principal or the school’s Business Manager, who have allowed a particular problem to be perpetuated, as well as the people who actually like the existing arrangement and are “old friends” with current practices. One case I faced was whether my senior staff would see helping me to write the school’s annual report as extra work or as a form of collaborative leadership sharing, the latter being what I intended. Should I confront them on this issue? As well as “people” aspects, beginning principals must determine whether to confront structural and systemic issues associated with problems. Examples may include confronting systemic resistance such as due process, departmental guidelines and tradition. It might be structural resistance, such as contract law and legal obligation and it might be relationship resistance. One such issue I had to face was whether or not to confront departmental structures which offered little support for beginning principals, especially in the face of community conflict. One set of questions I recorded in my journal and which elicited considerable involvement from my critical colleagues was: “Do I rock the boat and demand some help from the General Manager (Superintendent)? Will this be seen as weakness? Is there anything he can do anyway?” Learn The third segment of the Y-chart is about learning. This involves a two-part question. The first part asks what the individual principal needs to learn to address the problem

Asking the hard questions

385

JEA 44,4

386

sensibly. The second asks what the beginning principal can learn from the experience. Both of these questions are related to ongoing learning and the beginning principal’s lack of experience. In terms of the first question, for example, I had only limited experience in dealing with Aboriginal parents and in how to encourage their involvement in school life. I found I needed to learn more about the cultural values underpinning their perceptions about school. This was difficult as it involved trying to find out what “I didn’t know I didn’t know”. The second question is about building what I called my “principal’s toolkit”. That is, learning based on experience which I could store to inform dealing with later problems. This is predominantly a reflective question which I tried to ask through the action learning process. A framework: judge, confront, learn I do not know if it is only beginning principals who struggle with these three “hard questions”; perhaps experienced principals also have to deal with them. However, I suspect that given my learning (which was often stressful) over the first year of my principalship, it would make sense that successful experienced principals must have built a bank of leadership credits with staff (knowledge and skills they have learned and earned from their school community and stored over time) that they can draw upon when needed. Experienced principals must have a deeper knowledge of their school’s capabilities than beginning principals who have not been in the post for long. For example, they would have a greater sense of what support they can expect from their staff, as well as the expertise they have to offer. This simplistic framework developed throughout my first year as a principal (in concert with critical friends and beginning principal colleagues) is definitely a work in progress, but it is one which I find helps me face the problems I need to face. Based on my experience to date, most, if not all, beginning principals struggle with finding a balance between doing too much and too little, but this dilemma manifests itself in almost innumerable forms. Therefore, facing these problems is not simply a matter of “learning” defined knowledge, but rather a process of questioning and reflection – driven by some hard questions. Although largely undeveloped, the framework developed through my action learning may provide, at least for me, a worthwhile grounding for further investigation into my practice. Conclusion Beginning principals are not learner drivers. They are often over 40 years old and have years of school experience to draw upon, often including that of being a successful assistant principal. In framing this paper I asked myself whether there was anything useful which I could tell others about my experience of being a beginning principal in Australia. During my first year as a beginning principal I applied an action learning methodology to my leadership. This mainly involved keeping a detailed journal of my day-to-day practice. From this journal I determined a list of the major problems that I faced during the year that were instrumental in shaping my development as a school leader. In reflecting with others on my experiences I discovered that perhaps the most telling issue faced was not one event or even a collection of detailed incidents, but the dilemma of when to act and when not to act. In other words, how to achieve a balance between doing too much and too little is among the beginning principal’s most stressful dilemmas. In this article I have briefly described a basic model which makes

sense to me as a way of dealing with this dilemma. The model is predicated around answering three questions based on what I call a “judge, confront and learn” framework. Hopefully this can promote some worthwhile discussion among beginning principals and those involved in their preparation.

Asking the hard questions

References (The) Advertiser (2002), “Top job no longer a principal aim”, The Advertiser, 23 February. (The) Age (2002a), “Why top job gets low marks”, The Age, 2 September, p. 6. (The) Age (2002b), “Swamped principals’ bid for help”, The Age, 10 October, p. 4. Anderson, L.W. (1997), “The stories teachers tell us and what they tell us”, Teaching and Teacher Education, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 131-6. Argyris, C. (1982), Reasoning, Learning and Action, San Francisco, Jossey-Bass, CA. Argyris, C. (1993), Actionable Knowledge, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA. (The) Australian (2002a), “Principal’s job a turn off”, The Australian, 23 February, p. 4. (The) Australian (2002b), “Shortages of principals rings alarm bells”, The Australian, 23 March, p. 8. (The) Australian (2002c), “No takers for the hottest seat in the school house”, The Australian, 3 May, p. 8. Australian Bureau of Statistics (2005a), Australia Now Year Book, Australia, Education and Training Primary and Secondary Education (1301.0-2005), AGPS, Canberra. Australian Bureau of Statistics (2005b), Schools, Australia, Education and Training Primary and Secondary Education (4221.0-2005), AGPS, Canberra. Australian Secondary Principals’ Association (2004), “Press release: National Institute for Quality Teaching and School Leadership”, available at: www.aspa.asn.au/Pressrels/ pressrels Beeson, G.W. and Matthews, R.J. (1992), “Beginning principals in Australia”, in Parkay, F.W. and Hall, G.E. (Eds), Becoming a Principal: The Challenges of Beginning Leadership, Allyn & Bacon, Boston, MA. Bowman, R. (1996), “First year principals: a study of needs and concerns”, The Practising Administrator, Vol. 2, pp. 20-3. D’Arbon, T. (2002), “Future principals for schools of the future”, paper presented at the National ACEL Conference Thinking about Tomorrow, Sydney, 29 September-1 October. Dunshea, G. (1998), “Beginning principals and the issue of gender in rural and regional areas”, Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 203-15. Gamage, D.T. (1996), “Institution of school-based management in New South Wales”, in Gamage, D.T. (Ed.), School-Based Management: Theory, Research and Practice, Karunaratne & Sons, Colombo, pp. 125-48. Harvey, M.J. (1988), The Professional Development Needs of Newly Appointed Principals. Report of the International Institute for Policy and Administrative Studies, College of Advanced Education, Perth. Hewitson, M.T. (1995), “The preparation of beginning principals in Queensland”, Journal of Educational Administration, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 20-30. Hobson, A., Brown, E., Ashby, P., Keys, W., Sharp, C. and Benefield, P. (2003), Issues for Early Headship – Problems and Support Strategies, National College for School Leadership, Nottingham.

387

JEA 44,4

388

Kwong Lee Dow (2003), Australia’s Teachers Australia’s Future: Advancing Innovation Science Technology and Maths, DEST, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra. Martin, J. and Robertson, J.M. (2003), “The induction of first-time principals in New Zealand – a programme design”, International Electronic Journal for Leadership in Learning, Vol. 7 No. 2, available at: www.ucalgary.ca/ , iejll. Matthews, R., Beeson, G., Baker, J. and Mallia, M. (1992), “The beginning principal: needs, concerns and professional development”, paper presented at the Joint Conference of the Australian Association for Research in Education and the New Zealand Association for Research in Education, Geelong, 22-26 November. National Association of Secondary School Principals (2001), “The principal shortage”, Federal Relations report, January, available at: www.nasp.org/services/frr/06120frr_prin_short. html O’Mahony, G.R. (2003), “Learning the role: through the eyes of beginning principals”, unpublished PhD dissertation, Deakin University, Geelong. Pedler, M. (Ed.) (1997), Action Learning in Practice, Gower, Aldershot. Quong, T., Walker, A. and Bodycott, P. (1999), “Exploring and interpreting leadership stories”, School Leadership & Management, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 35-41. Revans, R.W. (1997), “Action learning: its origins and nature”, in Pedler, M. (Ed.), Action Learning in Practice, Gower, Aldershot, pp. 3-14. Roberts, W. (1987), Leadership Secrets of Attila the Hun, Warner Books, New York, NY. Scott, G. (2003), Learning Principals Leadership Capability and Learning Research in the New South Wales Department of Education and Training, NSW Department of Education and Training Professional Support and Curriculum Directorate, Sydney. Silins, H. (2001), “Action learning: a strategy for change”, International Education Journal, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 79-95, available at: http://iej.cjb.net Su, Z., Gamage, D. and Mininberg, E. (2003), “Professional preparation and development of school leaders in Australia and the USA”, International Education Journal, Vol. 4 No. 1, available at: http://iej.cjb.net Thomas, A.R. and Hornsey, A. (1991), The First Year as Principal: A Study of the Arrival and Settlement of NSW Primary and Secondary School Principals (A Report to the NSW Department of School Education), University of New England, Armidale. Thomson, P., Blackmore, J., Sachs, J. and Tregenza, K. (2002), “High stakes principalship – sleepless nights, heart attacks and sudden death accountabilities: reading media representations of the US principal shortage”, paper presented at the Australian Association for Research in Education Annual Conference, Queensland, December 1-5. Corresponding author Terry Quong can be contacted at: [email protected]

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/0957-8234.htm

worlds and Inner worlds and outer limits: Inner outer limits the formation of beginning school principals in Hong Kong Robin Man-biu Cheung

389

Tsung Tsin College, Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China, and

Allan Walker The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China Abstract Abstract – Purpose – This paper aims to contribute to one’s understanding of how beginning principals in Hong Kong exercise leadership by exploring the concurrent influence of their inner worlds and the external contexts on their leadership within a reforming environment. Design/methodology/approach – Based on a study of the work lives of beginning principals in Hong Kong, this paper discusses a number of findings which attest to the complexity of the role of principals in a reforming environment and how this is influenced by an amalgam of personal and other contextual factors. Findings – These include a set of categories and sub-categories which help to frame an understanding of the work lives of beginning principals, and a rough typology of beginning principals. Originality/value – The paper contains original data about secondary school beginning principals in Hong Kong, illustrating how their personal characteristics interact with other contextual features to shape their leadership. Keywords Principals, Research, Leadership, Educational innovation, Hong Kong Paper type Research paper

Introduction As in many societies in the region, the role of the school principal in Hong Kong is undergoing tremendous change. Constant reforms, inconsistent political agendas and unprecedented socio-cultural shifts continue to assail established beliefs and ways of working. The changing contexts and the accompanying demands for reform have an impact on everyone involved in and with schools, including those formally charged with the responsibility of implementing change at the school level. Recent research has established that the success of an educational reform is dependent on whether school principals can exercise effective and persistent leadership in accordance with the tenets of the reform (West et al., 2000). As a result, expectations of both enhanced and differently shaped sets of leadership capacities confront the principals at different stages in their careers. These constantly changing expectations oblige principals to adopt a myriad of roles, many of which take them into previously uncharted and, often, uncomfortable territory. While external pressure is exerted to shape the work of the principals, the latter will inevitably find that their deeply entrenched personal values, histories and beliefs are challenged. Traversing such a multifaceted terrain is difficult enough for even the most seasoned leaders, and even more so for those taking their first steps into the principal’s office.

Journal of Educational Administration Vol. 44 No. 4, 2006 pp. 389-407 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 0957-8234 DOI 10.1108/09578230610676596

JEA 44,4

390

This article draws on qualitative data collected from a group of Hong Kong secondary school principals navigating through their first two years in the job. It discusses how their personal “inner worlds” combine with the “outer limits” to shape their leadership roles and behaviours, and how this affects the way they manage their first years in their post. In the context of this paper, “inner worlds” includes the beginning principal’s expectations, emotions, psychological state, ideological inclinations and value system, while “outer limits” refers to both the organizational and the broader system environment. The latter consists predominantly of the educational reform environment but it also touches upon ingrained governance structures. Within this reform environment two features of reform are targeted. These are the management of people and curriculum reform. These features emerged from the research as the most pressing contextual features influencing the work of beginning principals. This was perhaps unsurprising given that the current system is moving towards large-scale curriculum reform and devolution to and within schools through school based management (SBM) (Walker, 2003). The focus of this article is the relationship and struggle between the inner and the outer forces that have an impact on the way the beginning principal functions. The topic was seen to be important for a number of interrelated reasons. First, except for some very initial work (Cheng et al., 1997), there have been no systematic studies of beginning principals in Hong Kong. This neglect has endured despite serious concerns about the success of recent reform initiatives, the quality of new principals and, increasingly, the quantity of applications for the post of principal. Second, in the absence of any research into the context, the training of principals, and their development and preparation (including programmes built around socialization mechanisms) tends to be based either on decontextualised knowledge and skills or on diffuse and anecdotal evidence. This paper describes the results of a study which investigated a group of newly appointed secondary school principals to examine how their personal “inner worlds” combine with a set of “outer limits” to shape their leadership. The paper consists of five main sections. The first presents a brief review of some of the relevant international and local literature used to inform the study. The second describes the methodology used in the study to collect and analyze data. The third introduces the major findings of the study. This includes a description of the major categories that emerged from the data and introduces a rough typology of beginning principals. The fourth section focuses on how the how the identified inner worlds of the beginning principals interact with a number of important contextual features to shape their leadership roles and behaviours. The fifth section discusses a number of implications arising from the study for an increased understanding of the lot of beginning principals and their training and development. Literature The first two years in office of a school principal is a period of great transition. Daresh (2001, p. 116) labels this period as the “coming on board phase” and points out that it is often a time when beginning principals are more concerned about their own survival than about the needs of the school. Learning to be a principal is already a formidable enough task for a beginner in Hong Kong. But with the onset of the swathe of recent education reforms it has become even more challenging. Principals now face an

ever-shifting array of pressures from both external and internal sources from the day they begin. How they cope with the demands associated with their personal expectations, psychological state, ideological inclinations and value system, and then balance these with the external pressures for reform and the unique context of their own school, has implications not only for their professional development and personal wellbeing, but also for the implementation of the prevailing education reform. This subject deserves a careful study. In their longitudinal study of head teachers in England and Wales for the National Foundation for Educational Research (NFER), Weindling and Earley (1987) found that school heads go through a number of transitional stages. Integrating the results of their study with theories advanced by other scholars, the writers developed a model that mapped out the various stages of transition that school heads went through. These were: . Stage 0 – preparation prior to headship; . Stage 1 – entry and encounter (first months); . Stage 2 – Taking hold (three to 12 months); . Stage 3 – Reshaping (second year); . Stage 4 – Refinement (years three to four); . Stage 5 – Consolidation (years five to seven); and . Stage 6 – Plateau (years eight and onwards) (Weindling, 1999, pp. 98-9). Weindling (1999) also found that personal conceptions of headship, available role models, and experience prior to appointment, especially that of serving as a deputy head, as well as management courses taken, were factors influencing the process of preparation. He also observed that “the gulf from deputy to head was, nevertheless, seen as enormous” (Weindling, 1999, p. 98). Stage 1 is a critical one, marked by surprise and sense-making on the part of the new head as they, “attempt(s) to develop a cognitive map of the complexities of the situation, the people, the problems and the school culture” (Weindling, 1999, p. 98). Weindling (1999) described Stage 2 as a “honeymoon period”, the length of which depends on the performance of the head as they attempt to introduce organisational changes in line with their growing understanding of the school’s priorities. During this phase, the staff are more or less cooperative. Stage 3 is a period of major change – a time when both the head and the staff have come to know each other’s strengths and weaknesses, and therefore have more realistic expectations of each other. As the head becomes more confident of the “change seeds” sown in the previous stages they can begin to introduce changes “to reshape the school” (Weindling, 1999, p. 99). Ribbins (1999) proposed a natural history approach to the study of the lives and careers of head teachers. His model sought to explain the pathways taken by school heads. He labelled these stages as: “Formation, Accession, Incumbency [initiation, development, autonomy, disenchantment/enchantment] and Moving on [divestiture/reinvention]” (p. 84). According to Ribbins (1999), the initiation phase “normally takes at least three years before a head feels fully initiated” (p. 85). During these first years, principals generally experience, “initial elation and enthusiasm” and later “a growing sense of realism and adjustment to what the real parameters of the job will be” (p. 85). Many find the job to be full of uncertainties, difficulties and demands

Inner worlds and outer limits

391

JEA 44,4

392

for which they are ill prepared. The differences between those who can cope well and those who cannot reflect a host of factors, such as: . . . self-confidence and belief; scope and relevance of previous experience; the ability to transfer previous experience; the scope and relevance of prior preparation and training; the ability to transfer prior preparation and training; the ability to learn from working with appropriate and inappropriate role models; ability to learn on the job; and, the quality of the institutional and local support structures in place (p. 85).

Ribbins called for more research into the accession and incumbency stages of headship, and the testing of the above model “in a variety of international contexts” (Ribbins, 1999, p. 87). North American research into the development of principals often focuses on socialization processes. This is divided into professional and organisational socialization (Weindling, 1999). Hart (1993) summarized the discussion about the organisational socialization of principals by determining three categories: (1) encounter, adjustment, stabilization; (2) anticipation, accommodation, role management; and (3) confrontation, clarity, location. Weindling (1999) adapted these categories to build a three-stage model to explain the organisational socialization of school heads. The first stage consists of the processes of encounter, anticipation, or confrontation. In this stage, new heads have to learn to make sense of their new schools, and the people who work in them. Hart found that such learning is both “cognitive and affective” (p. 29) and includes coping with stress and encountering feelings (p. 29). The second stage is characterized by adjustment, accommodation and clarity. During this stage, “fitting in” is the main concern of the new heads. “They look for role clarity in this new setting and may face resistance from established group members” (Weindling, 1999, p. 91). New interpersonal relations with school stakeholders emerge and the newcomer learns to handle ambiguity. The last stage is stabilization, in which some stable patterns emerge, although for some heads this stage may not occur. Parkay et al. (1992) reported that demographic variables such as “size of school, school location and prior experience as an assistant principal” (p. 37) all account for differences among principals. Roberts (1992) examined the role of new principals in building a school culture. He found that even though they were committed to quality service and building a culture to promote effective instruction they had minimal success because they were reluctant to take risks or to challenge the status quo too quickly. Task overload and time constraints were other factors which interfered with goal achievement. This provides some insights into perhaps the greatest problem facing beginning principals, that of “realizing their educational goals” (Parkay et al., 1992, p. 38). Whereas the principals perceived themselves as instructional and curriculum leaders it was often difficult to focus on this because “a staggering array of problems deter[red] them from devoting continuing attention and energy to this task. Furthermore, these difficulties appear[ed] to affect principals about equally, regardless of gender, age, race, and level of education” (Parkay et al., 1992, p. 38). Parkay and Rhodes (1992) also reported that beginning principals experienced stress from six major sources: “professional inadequacies; management tasks; faculty, staff, and

administrative team; politics; students; and parents” (p. 108). To cope with the stress, principals resorted to functional coping strategies that included physiological strategies, socio-psychological strategies and management skills. Very little research into the lives of beginning principals has been done to date in Hong Kong, but there are some exceptions. For example, Cheng et al. (1997) found that principals moved through different developmental stages. Those in the first phase of their incumbency demonstrated greater leadership strength than those in the second. This was because they appeared to be basking in the delight of their promotion during the first year. When they were new to their job, they tended to “concentrate mainly on maintaining the internal daily routines and observing the school traditions and existing conditions” (p. 70). They also thought that “handling incompetent teachers, developing [a] good learning atmosphere, raising teachers’ morale and seeking extra resources” (p. 68) were the most difficult tasks. In his study of five newly appointed Hong Kong secondary school principals, Lau (2000) found that they were dissatisfied with the timing and quality of the induction programme provided by the government; and also by the lack of long-term and systematic development programmes for aspiring, newly-appointed and serving principals (see also Walker and Dimmock, 2005). Expanding responsibilities, increased accountability, heavy teacher workloads, lack of trained staff to implement educational reform and a lack of time for reform were cited by the principals as major problems. Lau’s (2000) study, though limited, signalled the coming of the “tug-of-war” that many new principals in Hong Kong now seem to experience. In sum, while research focusing on the experience of beginning principals has recently become more common and sophisticated in some countries, very little research has been conducted into this important area in Hong Kong. This study thus aims to extend the knowledge base concerning the experience of beginning principals in Hong Kong and to shed light on how new principals can be helped to perform more effectively within the current reform environment. Methodology The purpose of this paper is to discuss how the “inner worlds” of a group of beginning principals combine with the “outer limits” to shape their leadership roles and behaviours, and hence how they manage their first years in office. As such, it draws on a larger study into the work lives of beginning principals in Hong Kong and how their leadership is constructed. The larger study, informed and sensitized by the literature, posed preliminary questions about various facets of the experience of beginning principals. These included: . their personal qualities and perceptions; . the contexts in which they functioned; . the issues and problems they encountered; . the coping strategies they adopted; and . the impact of their efforts on school governance. A qualitative methodology, set within the theoretical framework of Blumer’s (1969) symbolic interactionism, was adopted for the study. As such, the beginning principals were perceived as actors in a social context, whether this be the school or the broader

Inner worlds and outer limits

393

JEA 44,4

394

educational community. They interacted with themselves, with others, and with a multitude of ideas, derived meanings from the interactions, and acted on such meanings. These interactions and actions in their first two years in office constitute the phenomenon of the functioning of the beginning principals in a reform environment. Grounded theory methods were used to collect and analyze data because they were considered most suitable to unveil the multifaceted and changing phenomenon of the functioning of the beginning principals. Data collection methods included interviews, participant observation (this was labelled as such given that the researcher was also a serving principal and attended many of the same events as the beginning principals involved) and personal records. Interviews formed the chief data collection method. These included formal interviews, focus group interviews and informal interviews with the beginning principals. Formal interviews were those designated specifically for the research, and these were conducted in the schools. These interviews were driven by a set of semi-structured questions (depending on the phase of the interview) according to an interview protocol. Informal interviews were held during various social occasions and were driven by questions raised by the participants themselves. Ten beginning principals were selected through a form of purposive sampling. The strategy of maximum variation was adopted in the selection (see Table I). The first cohort consisted of six principals who were in their second year as principals when the interviews started. In the second cohort, there were four principals who were in their first year as principals. “Beginning principals” were defined as persons appointed to their posts as secondary school principals in Hong Kong for the first time in their educational careers. As such, beginning principals here refers to principals during their first two years in office. “Principalship” includes all aspects of the work lives of the beginning principals; that is, everything they do to try to lead their schools together with their personal attributes, including their perceptions, emotions and other feelings, as well as their knowledge and skills. Data collection was done over a 12-month period. Before the interviews commenced, the personal records of the beginning principals, drawn from their personal needs assessment documents[1], were studied and analyzed to obtain some initial data on the principals. Within the data collection period, the principals were each interviewed twice individually and once in a group setting. Individual interviews were separated by an interval of three to four months. The interviews were conducted at the schools of the principals where the researcher could also observe the school settings and collect necessary data about the schools themselves. Informal interviews were conducted over the telephone and on more casual occasions during the year. The focus group interviews were conducted in the first term of the second or third year after their appointment. The principals were observed during the group interviews and at various other social occasions involving school principals. These occasions included conferences of principals, professional meetings outside the school and at other development events. During the year, the principals were asked to fill in critical incidents logs and send them to the researcher. The data collected from the various sources were first sorted and filed. These included recorded tapes, tape transcripts, interview notes, field notes, principals’ needs assessment documents and critical incidents logs. Open and axial coding methods as advocated by Strauss and Corbin (1990) were used to break down and categorize the data, as well as to establish their relationships and inter-relationships. Colour codes,

M M F F F M F F M F

Second Second Second Second Second Second First First First First

N.A. I I O O I I O O O

CMI CMI EMI CMI CMI CMI CMI EMI CMI CMI

Non-religious Non-religious Religious Religious Non-religious Religious Religious Religious Non-religious Religious

Nil Nil Catholic Protestant Catholic Nil Protestant Protestant Nil Protestant

Religious/ I/Oa EMI/CMIb non-religiousc Religiond 41 35 53 45 49 39 43 41 41 46

Age 18 12 30 18 29 16 19 11 17 21

Years Edu. 9 N/A 4 N/A 7 8 10 6 10 10

Years VP Yes No No Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes

Higher degrees No No No No No No No No Yes Yes

Educational administratione

Notes: aI: promoted from inside school, O: appointed from outside school; bEMI: school used an English medium of instruction, CMI: school used Chinese as the medium of instruction; creligious (a religious school), non-religious (a non-religious school); dpersonal religious affiliation; ewhether higher degree specialized in educational administration

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Year as No. Gender principal

Inner worlds and outer limits

395

Table I. Basic (selected) background characteristics of the principals involved in the study

JEA 44,4

396

code notes, research notes, diagrams, and tables were used as aids to facilitate the process of data analysis and theory development. As a result of the data analysis, five major categories and a typology of the beginning principals emerged, as did some thinking on a rudimentary theory of adaptive role-playing. Overview of major research findings The study yielded five major categories describing the life of the beginning principals. The categories were developed inductively using axial coding of detailed profiles constructed during the first stage of analysis. The categories were identified as being important for analysis and presentation because they appeared repeatedly in the data. Information organised within the five categories was discovered to have affected the way that beginning principals handled their function. The final categories were the following: (1) preferred leadership orientations; (2) strength of heart; (3) managing people; (4) approach to curriculum reform; and (5) contextual influences. (Details of these categories can be found in Table II.) “Preferred leadership orientations” combined role perception, or what the principals believed they needed to do to fulfil the requirements of the job; and role preferences, or the role the principals chose for themselves based on their personal preferences for the behaviour they associated with the role. These preferences were held at different levels of complexity and intensity. “Strength of heart” captured the interaction between a principal’s self-perception and sense of efficacy. For example, those who perceived themselves as having strong characters were more likely to have a stronger sense of efficacy. On the other hand, those who experienced high levels of self-doubt were less likely to perceive themselves as being confident. “Management of people” captured a set of issues uppermost in the minds of the beginning principals. “Management” referred to the way in which the principals tried to achieve school tasks through the various kinds of people with whom they lived or worked in the school. In living with them, leading them, or resolving problems arising from the inter-relationships with them, the principals displayed different styles, inclinations and focus in their ways of handling people. These were divided into sub-categories such as management style, display of assertiveness, political astuteness, emphasis on values in leadership, orientation to tasks and people and efforts to build the capacity of the staff for self-management and evaluation. The category “Curriculum reform” emerged as one of the main concerns that the beginning principals had to manage in their first two years in office. “Curriculum reform” refers to the reforms being implemented for all schools in Hong Kong. The sub-categories included the principal’s attitude to and implementation of the reforms, their efforts to envision the reforms, standard-setting and long-term planning, use of teams, timing of implementation, finding resources, the manner of problem-solving, attention to programme coherence, curriculum leadership styles, and kinds of change pursued. “Contextual influences” captured the additional factors that affected the school leadership of the beginning principals. Some of these factors were

Professional and experiential strength: Skill level Ability to conceptualize Educational background Work experience and administrative experience as a VP Pre-job affiliation with the school

Psychological strength: Personality Personal values and strength of character Perceived fitness or readiness Nature of decision to take up the post of principal Ability to handle stress Age

Types of roles: Change Leader Cultural Leader Curriculum Leader Administrative Leader Standard-bearer Gatekeeper/custodian

Role preferences: Intensity Complexity

2. Strength of heart (self-perception and sense of efficacy)

1. Preferred leadership orientations (role perceptions and role preferences) Change strategy: Attitude to curriculum reform Vision Standard-setting and long-term planning Use of teams Timing of implementation Finding resources

4. Approach to curriculum reform

People factors: Influence of predecessor Support of SMC Capacity of staff to handle change

System factors: Imposed curriculum reform Developmental stage of the school

5. Contextual influences

Approach to reform Initial successes and/or barriers: failures on the job Problem solving Attention to programme Handling practical people issues: coherence Curriculum leadership Handling staff incompetence style and indiscipline Handling staff differences and Nature of curriculum conflicts reform: Relationship with VP Originality and depth of change

Management focus: Focus on tasks and people Building staff’s self-management and evaluation capacity Building good relationships with school stake-holders

Proclivity: Management style Display of assertiveness Emphasis on values in leadership Political astuteness

3. Managing people

Inner worlds and outer limits

397

Table II. Overview of major categories and sub-categories

JEA 44,4

398

environmental forces that had an impact on the principals’ inner processes, such as the way that they perceived their role. Others acted as intervening forces that affected the way the principals carried out their role in the previous two categories – management of people and approach to curriculum reform. The contextual influences could be sorted into six factors, namely: (1) imposed curriculum reform; (2) the developmental stage of the school; (3) the influence of the principal’s predecessor; (4) the support of the SMC; (5) the capacity of the staff to handle change; and (6) the initial successes that the principals experienced on the job. Interaction and variation within and between the major categories and sub-categories were mapped and this led to the identification of a typology of beginning principals. The four types of beginning principals were identified as Shaper-Founders, Shaper-Changers, Moderator-Tinkerers, and Inheritor-Maintainers. This typology, however, was not static and movement within it was relatively common. For example, the initial successes or failures experienced by beginning principals could result in a shift within the typology, as could the ways they adapted their leadership roles and behaviour in response to contextual changes. The final stage of the analysis resulted in the formulation of a rudimentary theory, labelled “adaptive role-playing”, that is proposed as the basis for further research. Inner worlds and outer limits This section focuses on the interaction between what we have called the “inner worlds” and the “outer limits” of the beginning principals. The first two major categories (“Preferred leadership orientations” and “Strength of heart”) are taken as constituting the inner worlds of the beginning principals. These were found to interact to varying degrees with contextual influences – or what we have called the beginning principals’ “outer limits”, and affected the way in which they managed people and approached the curriculum reform. These were identified as the two key leadership functions by the group of principals. The basic relationship between categories is shown in Figure 1, which shows that elements of the first two categories interacted with each other to affect the beginning principal’s role adoption. Some principals tended to be more proactive and reform-minded and, as such, gravitated towards more demanding leadership roles such as change leaders or curriculum leaders. Others, who were less confident or were less ambitious, appeared inclined towards less controversial roles, preferring to serve as custodians or gatekeepers. As such, the inner worlds of the principals influenced their predisposition to adopt a particular leadership style or course of action. However, the principals’ inner worlds were not the only thing that shaped their role adoption; they were also subject to a set of “outer” factors or constraints. Some of these came from outside the school, while others resided within the organisation. Among the most dominant outer forces identified by the principals were the current curriculum reforms bombarding their schools and the developmental stage of the school. Both had an impact, to varying degrees, on the role adopted by the principals. For example, one

Inner worlds and outer limits

399

Figure 1. The paradigm model of the beginning principalship

principal, Candice, was appointed to a school that had a long history and deeply entrenched values that favoured the status quo. Although Candice personally would have preferred to adopt a dynamic “change leader” role, she was forced by the existing structures and norms to refrain from instituting major changes and had to confine herself to “tinkering” with existing practices and making minor policy adjustments “here and there”. Once they had adopted their preferred leadership roles, the principals acted on these roles – a process which was termed “role enactment”. However, during the process of role enactment, other contextual influences continued to exert an influence, pulling the principals in one direction or another, often against their will. These included the influence of the principals’ predecessors, the support of the School Management Committee (SMC), and the capacity of the staff to handle change. These interacted with the inner world of the principal, and so affected the outcomes of the role enactment efforts of the principal. For example, Tracy found that she had to live in the shadow of her predecessor. Even though he was deceased, his “memory” and “ways of working” were so respected by the staff that for many months Tracy could not move to even moderate some of the entrenched yet ineffective measures he had instituted. At the same time, as the principals worked through the careful act of balancing their inner voices and the outer limits, some principals experienced some initial success, while others faced a series of failures. These initial successes or failures were found to produce a shift in their leadership orientations and strength of heart and this, in turn, could lead to them adopting different roles and influenced their subsequent actions. For

JEA 44,4

400

example, one principal, who began in quite a self-assured and proactive manner, began to launch a series of initiatives for change. However, as these initiatives suffered setbacks the principal tended to lose confidence and to adopt less “risky” or change-oriented roles. Such a change was termed “role change”. Figure 1 uses Strauss and Corbin’s (1990) paradigm model to map the complex phenomenon outlined above. The figure shows the interplay among the five major categories that appeared to affect the role adoption, role enactment, and role change of the beginning principals. From the perspective of the beginning principals, in the course of exercising school leadership they had to make ongoing adaptations to their own perceptions of their office and their inner strengths, as well as to their contexts, which included the policy environment and the school community in which they had to function. In many ways, they were caught in a tug-of-war between the inner and outer forces. For example, Carol was so determined to change what she saw as the “pathetic” culture of her school that she launched a range of reform initiatives in her first year in post, paying little attention to the active tribalism that existed before her tenure. With the staunch support of the SMC, she made impressive progress, including giving the school a “face-lift”. However, in her second year, she became exhausted and somewhat disillusioned with her attempts to achieve change. She began to worry also about her staff’s ability and motivation to make the changes work, so she pulled back from her change agenda to rethink and regroup. The different ways in which the beginning principals reacted to or coped with the tension between their inner worlds and the outer limits can be illustrated through the shifting typology of beginning principals. Although four major types of principal were identified, for purposes of illustration we focus on the Shaper-Changers and the Inheritor-Maintainers (see Tables III and IV). Shaper-Changers were distinguished by their dynamism, and they played multiple leadership roles. They were ready and eager to assume leadership in administrative, curriculum and cultural matters. They were often dissatisfied with the status quo and worked to change the practices and traditions in the school right from the start – they were change leaders. Inheritor-Maintainers, on the other hand, had a strong preference for the role of gatekeeper/custodian and standard-bearer. They saw the leader as being someone who kept things as they were, or as they should be, in accordance with prescribed rules. Maintaining the status quo was the central theme of their work. This included the maintenance of standards of performance in areas that were treasured by the school. When viewed through the tug-of-war metaphor – that is, the struggle between the inner worlds and the outer limits – the Shaper-Changers appeared to be more readily swayed by their inner voices. They were willing to face the contextual influences head on and to try to make changes to fit their perceptions of the purpose of school education. Lillian, for example, inherited a school bereft of basic systems and structures, one plagued by loose staff discipline and a middle management that was staunchly resistant to changes introduced by the new principal. Lillian faced the context head on, and was not ready to back off. She explained her stance thus: Things will get tougher for me as time goes by. I have passed the point of no return and am not fond of looking back. We are going through a difficult period of mutual adjustment and accommodation. If my deeds are consistent with my words, I can build trust little by little. I believe we can accommodate one another very soon.

Roles and preferences: Administrative leader Curriculum leader Cultural leader Change leader: dissatisfied with school’s conditions; working to change school climate, practices, traditions and culture from day one

Preferred leadership orientation Proclivity: Management style: more collaborating and empowering High assertiveness Strong emphasis on values in leadership High political astuteness

Psychological: Optimistic and confident Strong personal values and generally great strength of character Post of principal a well-considered personal choice and decision High ability to cope with stress Age makes little difference: but more older principals display it Management focus: Balance between task and people orientations Vigorous efforts to build teachers’ self-management Professional and experiential: capacity Vigorous efforts to build High ability and good good relationships with training other school stakeholders Advanced degree in curriculum Handling practical people development/educational issues: Forceful and direct administration High ability to conceptualize approach to cope with staff incompetence and Substantial administrative experience as VP to serve as indiscipline Direct and collaborative reference Some or no prior knowledge approach to cope with staff differences and conflicts of school Reasonable working relationship with VP

Management of people

Strength of heart System factors: Curriculum reform in progress School still developing

Contextual influences

Nature of curriculum reform: Introducing change: both emulating and innovating; planning for deep change – working on reculturing the school

People factors: Influence of predecessor generally not great Strong SMC support Change capacity of staff Approach to reform barrier: average to low Noticeable initial successes Resolving problems: both – pace of change moderate to “fire-fighting” and “fire fast; extent of influence – prevention” within and outside school Working on programme coherence Both directive and consultative leadership styles

Change strategy:Attitude to reform positive Strenuous efforts in setting vision, standards and long-term planning Teams often used Implementation early and followed through Active resourcing

Approach to curriculum reform

Inner worlds and outer limits

401

Table III. Qualities of the Shaper-Changers

Table IV. Qualities of the Inheritor-Maintainers

Roles and preferences: Strong gatekeeper/custodian mentality Standard-bearer of school traditions – to maintain the status quo Administrative leader

Proclivity: Management style: some or little degree of collaborating and empowering Average to low assertiveness Strong to average emphasis on values in leadership Average to low political astuteness

Psychological: Not very confident or optimistic Moderate to strong personal values and average strength of character Post of principal not particularly a personal choice or decision (“forced upon” him/her) Average to low ability to cope with stress Relatively young age Management focus: Lack of balance of attention between people and tasks Low efforts to build teacher Professional and experiential: self-management and Average ability and training evaluation capacity Some efforts to build good Average ability to relationships with other conceptualize school stakeholders No advanced degree in educational administration Handling practical people Some or no administrative experience as VP to serve as issues: Mild approach to cope with staff incompetence and reference Some or no prior knowledge indiscipline Mild approach to cope with of the school staff differences and conflicts Average to good working relationships with VP

Management of people

Strength of heart

Nature of curriculum reform: Some emulation Introducing change: sees the need for deep change and culturing or re-culturing the school; can only prepare the ground for future change

Approach to reform barrier: Resolving problems: “fire-fighting” most of the time Few programmes, let alone coherence More laissez-faire than consultative leadership style

Change strategy: Attitude to reform more passive Generally little vision, setting standards or long-term planning Teams seldom used Implementation mostly deferred Little resourcing

Approach to curriculum reform

People factors: Influence of predecessor predominant SMC support not very certain in some cases Low capacity of staff to handle change Very few or no initial successes

System factors: Impact of curriculum reform felt School fully fledged and with a long history

Contextual influences

402

Preferred leadership orientation

JEA 44,4

She likened the principal’s role to “a captain steering the ship on open seas” or “a driver who has to choose the right lane”. All three of the Shaper-Changers identified in the study (Victor, Lillian and Carol) operated in unfavourable school environments, but made notable progress. This appeared to be due mainly to the sheer conviction of their inner worlds and, to a lesser degree, to support from their SMC. The Inheritor-Maintainers, on the other hand, appeared to be much more influenced by what we have termed “outer limits”. They felt that these factors placed them in a type of “straitjacket” which restricted their actions. For instance, Laura dared not move quickly on curriculum reform. She worried that “change can lower the exam scores and ruin the school’s heritage”. She was also unsure of the SMC’s stand on such reform. When powerful external demands are combined with diminished inner strength, the negative effects of the outer limits become even more evident. Philip presented a clear case of this. He had been promoted to principal from within the school, where he had worked for many years. Through his first years as principal he became rather frustrated when faced with incessant educational change, being unable to effect any meaningful reform or resolve many of the inter-personal conflicts that existed in the school. His comments sketched a picture of a principal who was seriously lacking in self-belief. “I lack training in educational theories and leadership to do the job”. “Instructional leadership is the area I am least prepared for”, he lamented. “If given a fair choice, I would go back to teaching”. He actually avoided thinking about his future, openly stating that, “[I] dare not think about it because there are such massive changes”. His goal in the school thus became one of maintenance. Interestingly, in spite of his inability to forge worthwhile changes, he was viewed positively by the school community for upholding the caring ethic of the school. The data also showed that after the initial months in office the location of the principal in the typology could shift. This shift was the result of the initial successes or failures the principals experienced on the job. These successes or failures subsequently had an impact on their role adoption and role enactment. Principals could be emboldened by their successes to adopt and enact the more difficult roles. This resulted in some principals either “shifting” to a different type or within the type where they were originally located. On the other hand, principals who were intimidated by initial failures, afraid to branch out, or sought to make their role easier, tended to shift in a different direction. This again shows the adaptation of the beginning principals to the realities that they faced. The Tables V and VI indicate where the principals were located on the typology in both the first and second years in their post. In view of the adaptations the beginning principals made in order to accommodate their inner and outer demands, a rudimentary theory of adaptive role-playing has been

Typology Shaper-Founders (S-F) Shaper-Changers (S-C) Moderator-Tinkerers (M-T) Inheritor-Maintainers (I-M)

Inner worlds and outer limits

403

Principals Colin Lillian

Carol

Victor Lewis

Philip

Tracy Candice

Laura

Sally

Table V. Location of the first-year beginning principals in the typology

JEA 44,4

404

advanced to try to explain the phenomenon of the beginning principals in Hong Kong. The theory suggests that principals adopt leadership roles with which they are comfortable, as the result of an interactive process between their perceptions of the function and of the changing realities. It is necessary to recall that these results are based on a small sample of Hong Kong beginning principals and that further research is necessary to substantiate this rudimentary theory. Nevertheless, the findings of the study have implications for theory, research and practice. Implications This study supports the pivotal role of the principal in a reform environment (Wallace and Weindling, 1999; Fullan, 2001). But perhaps more importantly it adds credence to the oft-repeated assertion that, as a result of education reforms, the role of the principals – inevitably including beginning principals – has become more fluid and complex. The study shows that personal leadership role preferences and strength of heart lead to the fluidity of the beginning principals’ leadership orientation and behaviour. The category “Strength of heart” has pointed to potential areas of research, such as the role of emotional intelligence in school leadership and the importance to the principals of self-leadership and self-management. The identification of the category “Contextual influence” confirms the significance of the context for the beginning principals (Eraut, 1999; Rossow and Warner, 2000; Sergiovanni, 2001) and also adds to our understanding in this area. The trajectory of the beginning principals’ role-adoption identified in the study serves to unveil the intricate forces that work to shape the way they carry out their role. It also helps to explain the complexity and difficulty of the position of the beginning principals in a reform environment. The identification of the five main categories of the life of the beginning principals and their inter-relationships provides a dynamic representation of the leadership orientations and leadership behaviour of beginning principals. It should enrich the understanding of the fluid phenomenon of the nature of the function of the beginning principal. The typology of principals represents an initial attempt to understand the general patterns of the leadership values, qualities and behaviour of beginning principals in a context of change. This signals the need for further research into the phenomenon of the beginning principal that moves beyond simply defining the developmental stages or phases of the function, and thereby can place a beginning principal at the appropriate point in the progression. The typology presents a multi-dimensional product in that it combines the inner and the outer worlds, the cognitive and the

Typology Shaper-Founders (S-F) Shaper-Changers (S-C) Table VI. Location of the second-year beginning principals in the typology

Principals Colin Lillian

# Carol

Moderator-Tinkerers (M-T) Candice " Inheritor- Maintainers (I-M)

Philip

Victor Tracy "

Lewis " Laura

Sally "

affective, the personal and the professional, the private and the social lives of the beginning principals, as well as the school and the policy environments. The shifts within the typology further confirm the fluidity of the function of the beginning principal. Beginning principals do not necessarily progress from one stage to the next, as asserted by some writers (Cheng et al., 1997; Weindling, 1999; Ribbins, 1999). In fact, the findings suggest that can stagnate or even regress in response to inner feelings, such as perceptions of success or failure, or external circumstances, such as the influence of the previous principal or the reform environment. The theory of adaptive role-playing, which emerged naturally as the sophistication of the abstraction increased, is considered to be rudimentary at this stage and to be an avenue that would merit further investigation. This study also has implications for the training and development of beginning principals. To help them to cope better with tensions between their personal feelings and ambitions and the outer constraints, the government, universities and service providers may need to enhance a number of components in the training programmes. These may well include, for example, ways to manage or cope with the dilemmas and paradoxes particularly associated with following a well respected but perhaps ineffective principal, and ways to build resilience in the face of setbacks or failures. This seems particularly important given the influence that these exert on the “inner voices” of beginning principals, and how relatively minor setbacks can push them to seek the safety of conformity. These appear to combine to reveal a need for beginning principals to clarify their own values and ethics and also to develop the skills necessary for reading and coping with macro- and micro-political environments that are outside their immediate control. The findings also reinforce the ongoing need for beginning principals to understand what is involved in curriculum leadership and, the most enduring issue of all, how to deal with “people issues” in their schools. These needs may suggest that traditional modes of delivery such as lectures or workshops ought to give way to modes more suited to adult learning. These may include mentoring, learning sets, field observation and analysis, school visits, case studies, and focus group meetings. In short, training programmes need to continue to address ways to better meld practice with theory, and to pursue this both prior to and during the principals’ first years in office.

Conclusion This article has shown how a group of beginning secondary school principals in Hong Kong cope with the tension between the psychological and experiential forces and the contextual factors that shape their daily lives at work. As a result, the complexity and fluidity of the phenomenon of the function of the beginning principal has been further illuminated. The study was undertaken in response to calls to conduct more research into the accession and incumbency stages of headship in a variety of international contexts. Given that it represents a first attempt to do this in Hong Kong the article will contribute to the knowledge base of the phenomenon of beginning principalship itself. As such, it exposes a range of research possibilities into both the external and internal worlds of beginning principals and how these form, reform and interact to shape what the incumbents do.

Inner worlds and outer limits

405

JEA 44,4

406

Note 1. All principals involved in the study went through a personal, intensive needs analysis process. All newly appointed principals went through this process as part of a formal government programme. Details of this can be found at www3.fed.cuhk.edu.hk/eldevnet/ NAFPhk_NAP.asp References Blumer, H. (1969), Symbolic Interactionism: Perspective and Method, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Cheng, Y.C., Kwok, M.L., Lo, S.K. and Ng, M.B. (1997), “New and experienced secondary school principals: leadership, management difficulties, confidence, efficacy, and satisfaction”, Educational Research Journal, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 60-72. Daresh, C. (2001), Beginning the Principalship, 2nd ed., Corwin Press, Thousand Oaks, CA. Eraut, M. (1999), “Headteachers’ knowledge, practice and mode of cognition”, in Bush, T., Bell, L., Bolam, R., Glatter, R. and Ribbins, P. (Eds), Educational Management: Redefining Theory, Policy and Practice, Paul Chapman, London, pp. 114-26. Fullan, M. (2001), Leading in a Culture of Change, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA. Hart, A.W. (1993), Principal Succession: Establishing Leadership in Schools, State University of New York Press, Albany, NY. Lau, K.Y. (2000), “Professional development for secondary school principals: a qualitative study of perceptions and needs”, Master’s dissertation, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong. Parkay, F.W. and Rhodes, J. (1992), “Stress and the beginning principal”, in Parkay, F.W. and Hall, G.E. (Eds), Becoming a Principal: The Challenges of Beginning Principals, Allyn & Bacon, London, pp. 101-22. Parkay, F.W., Rhodes, J., Currie, G. and Rao, M. (1992), “Beginning principals: who are they? What are their priorities?”, in Parkay, F.W. and Hall, G.E. (Eds), Becoming a Principal: The Challenges of Beginning Principals, Allyn & Bacon, London, pp. 19-47. Roberts, J. (1992), “Building the school culture”, in Parkay, F.W. and Hall, G.E. (Eds), Becoming a Principal: The Challenges of Beginning Principals, Allyn & Bacon, London, pp. 85-102. Ribbins, P. (1999), “Understanding leadership: developing headteachers”, in Bush, T., Bell, L., Bolam, R., Glatter, R. and Ribbins, P. (Eds), Educational Management: Redefining Theory, Policy and Practice, Paul Chapman, London, pp. 77-89. Rossow, L.F. and Warner, L.S. (2000), The Principalship: Dimensions in Instructional Leadership, 2nd ed., Carolina Academic Press, Durham, NC. Sergiovanni, T.J. (2001), Leadership: What’s in it for Schools?, Routledge Falmer, London. Strauss, A. and Corbin, J. (1990), Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques, Sage Publications, London. Walker, A. (2003), “School leadership and management”, in Keeves, J. and Watanabe, R. (Eds), The International Handbook of Educational Research in the Asia-Pacific Region, Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp. 973-86. Walker, A. and Dimmock, C. (2005), “Developing leadership in context”, in Coles, M. and Southworth, G. (Eds), Developing Leadership: Creating the Schools of Tomorrow, Open University Press, Buckingham, pp. 80-94. Wallace, M. and Weindling, D. (1999), “Overview of a group of research projects with relevance to school management”, in Bush, T., Bell, L., Bolam, R., Glatter, R. and Ribbins, P. (Eds),

Educational Management: Redefining Theory, Policy and Practice, Paul Chapman, London, pp. 206-17. Weindling, D. (1999), “Stages of headship”, in Bush, T., Bell, L., Bolam, R., Glatter, R. and Ribbins, P. (Eds), Educational Management: Redefining Theory, Policy and Practice, Paul Chapman, London, pp. 99-101. Weindling, D. and Earley, P. (1987), Secondary Headship: The First Years, NFER-Nelson, Windsor. West, M., Jackson, D., Harris, A. and Hopkins, D. (2000), “Learning through leadership, leadership through learning: leadership for sustained school improvement”, in Riley, K. and Louis, K. (Eds), Leadership for Change and School Reform: International Perspective, Routledge Falmer, London, pp. 30-49. Corresponding author Robin Man-biu Cheung can be contacted at: robinb@ netvigator.com

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

Inner worlds and outer limits

407

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/0957-8234.htm

JEA 44,4

408

Moving towards, into and through principalship: developing a framework for researching the career trajectories of school leaders Howard Stevenson Centre for Educational Leadership and Management, School of Education, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK Abstract Purpose – The paper seeks to develop a conceptual framework capable of informing future research into beginning principalship in diverse cultural contexts. Design/methodology/approach – Based on recent literature, and specifically drawing on contributions to this Special Issue, the paper explores the relationship between externally generated pressures and tensions facing beginning principals and their influence on principal socialisation and development. Findings – The paper identifies tensions between increasing pressure on schools to meet a diverse range of social objectives and a context of high-pressure accountability, limited resources and increasing institutional and systemic complexity uncertainty. Beginning principals face the difficult task of having to reconcile these tensions and in some contexts there is emerging evidence of this impacting on a crisis in principal supply. The paper argues that if systemic problems of supply are to be addressed educational researchers need to develop more sophisticated ways of understanding what factors shape individuals’ career paths as they move towards, into and through principalship. One such approach is discussed that integrates the concepts of personal socialisation, professional identity and career trajectory and links these to wider contextual issues. Originality/value – The paper presents a conceptual framework to underpin future research into the early years of principalship. Keywords Principals, Career development, Work identity, Socialization Paper type Conceptual paper

Journal of Educational Administration Vol. 44 No. 4, 2006 pp. 408-420 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 0957-8234 DOI 10.1108/09578230610676604

Introduction Interest in the early years of principalship inevitably focuses on the specific nature of the role that teachers assume as they make the key transition from teacher, possibly with substantial experience of whole school management and administration, to principal. It is clear from the papers in this Special Issue just how significant and complex are the changes in the principal’s role. Pressures on school leaders are increasing substantially (Leithwood et al., 1999; Gronn, 2003), and in many countries, particularly in Western societies, there is strong evidence to suggest a looming crisis in principal supply. Within the UK there has been evidence for some time of a shortage of those willing to take on, and/or remain in the post of headteacher/principal. The imbalance between demand and supply is forecast to worsen, with predictions of a long-term, systemic crisis (Howson, 2003, 2004; Hartle and Thomas, 2003). Many

existing headteachers are choosing to take early retirement or leave the profession. Howson (2003) reports that the ageing of the profession has reduced the number of teachers in the key 40-49 age group, from which two-thirds of new headship appointments are made, compared with a decade ago. In 2006 more than half the teaching profession is over 50; and one-third of those not retiring have indicated their intention to leave within the next five years (Hartle and Thomas, 2003). This situation is echoed in many countries outside the UK with instances cited in contributions to this issue (see, for example, Quong, 2006). Even in international contexts where there is no apparent crisis of principal supply, there is strong evidence of similar pressures and tensions confronting those who take on the role of leading schools. Only the contextual specificity of differing labour markets, in Asia or Africa for example, prevents problems arising. Overwhelming evidence points therefore to the increasingly difficult nature of the role we expect principals to undertake. Although this may be experienced differently in different international contexts, and pressures and tensions will certainly manifest themselves differently, it is clear that a number of common issues are combining to make the principal’s role an increasingly challenging one. However, if ambitions for system-wide reform and improvement are to be met, principalship has to be seen as an appealing and sustainable career capable of attracting, retaining and motivating the highest calibre teacher leaders. There can be no benefit from deterring able potential leaders from taking on the role, or rapidly burning out and discarding those who choose to take the risk. Consequently, there is an imperative to better understand the career trajectories of teachers as they potentially move towards, into and through principalship. The need is to do more than explain the processes of leadership; rather, it is to begin to understand the experiences and motivations of teachers as they progress through their careers. As Earley and Weindling (2004) conclude, “There is little information available on heads’ career paths – either before or after they become headteachers” (p. 31). Put simply, we know little about why teachers decide to move up, stay put or even bail out. Such understandings necessitate a complex appreciation of the fine detail of career transitions and hence a focus, for example, on the distinctive issues relating to key phases in the preparation for, and undertaking of, principalship (see Weindling and Dimmock, 2006). To date, the early years of principalship as a focus of study have been relatively neglected. However, the contributions to this Special Issue, and the studies on which they are based, testify to a growing research base on which it is important to build and develop an increasingly rich and sophisticated understanding of the specific issues relating to early phase principalship. This paper has two key aims. First, it seeks to map the terrain of current debates and to make the case for further study of early phase principalship by exploring the global social, demographic, economic, cultural and political trends that are impacting on education and, by definition, the role of principalship. Second, it aims to construct a framework for research into career pathways towards, into and through principalship that capture existing approaches and methodologies, and suggests future directions. A common theme of the papers in this Special Issue is that becoming a principal involves assuming a key professional leadership role at a time of rapid social change and considerable uncertainty. It is over 20 years since Scho¨n (1983) highlighted the implications for professional practice of increasing uncertainty in relation to both

Career trajectories of school leaders 409

JEA 44,4

410

means and ends within a given field. Since then the pace of change has hastened and uncertainties and insecurities have grown exponentially (Hargreaves, 2003). Such circumstances generate pressures and tensions that are endemic at system level, but which need to be addressed, and indeed reconciled, at institutional level. This paper draws on contributions to this Special Issue and wider studies to distinguish between systemic pressures and tensions, and suggests the dissonance between the two represents a key problem for those presently leading educational institutions and others moving towards, and into, principalship. Pressures are identified as arising from the expectations, from diverse sources, placed on those working in schools. Tensions, in contrast, refer to those contextual conditions that are often in conflict with meeting societal expectations. Identifying the context – growing pressures Many of the papers in this Special Issue highlight, in their different ways and contexts, the rising expectations placed on educational systems to deliver key societal objectives (see in particular the contribution by Crow, 2006). In recent years such expectations have grown in both scale and complexity. These stem from a number of interdependent developments in global society. In particular it is important to highlight the following issues around which societal expectations have placed particular pressures on educational institutions. This is not intended as a definitive list but rather the identification of a number of broad headings that frame the context in which schools, and school leaders, function. Human capital and the pressure for “productivity” Global economic pressures confront all societies in different ways. The advanced economies of the West have for a long time struggled to come to terms with increasing competition from Southeast Asia. These economies in turn are now threatened by the comparative advantage being developed by China and India, not only in manufacturing, but in services, too. Almost regardless of an economy’s relative maturity, investment in human capital is seen as the key to future growth and prosperity. Developed economies see this as the only way to maintain added value in their high-cost economies, whilst developing countries see access to the knowledge economy as a pre-condition if they are to emerge from poverty-wage mass production and low-return agriculture. The consequence of this has been to elevate education policy as a pivotal element of supply-side driven economic policy (Bell and Stevenson, 2006). With this rise in the importance of education has come a rise in expectations. There is now a global orthodoxy that places relentless pressure on educational organisations to increase “productivity”, manifested in both quantitative and qualitative terms, to increase rates of participation and simultaneously to raise “standards” (both narrowly and broadly defined). Ethnic diversity and the pressure for social cohesion Trends associated with globalisation are not restricted to increasing movements of capital, but of people, too. Such developments are of course linked. Global inequalities in wealth, coupled with the changing labour needs of the advanced economies, drive increasing population flows around the world. The impact of these population movements is enlarged as war and political persecution compels increasing numbers to

seek refuge and asylum in apparently safer environments. The outcome in many countries, predominantly in the West but by no means exclusively, is an increase in ethnic diversity that brings both opportunities and challenges. Opportunities are provided by the increasingly rich social composition of host communities. Changing populations, however, challenge traditional notions of national identity, and such challenges are often perceived as threatening. The consequence is to increase expectations on schools to promote social cohesion, and to help reinforce a sense of national identity (Dimmock et al., 2005). Examples can be provided from around the world, but illustrations from diverse contexts are provided by the UK (Qualifications and Curriculum Authority, 1998), Israel (National Task Force for the Advancement of Education, 2004) and Rwanda (Rutayisire, 2004). Social alienation and the pressure for inclusion A third pressure derives from the expectations placed on schools to address a diverse range of complex social problems that frequently generate feelings of disengagement and alienation, particularly amongst the young. The specific nature of these issues varies enormously across countries, but a common feature is that as many of these problems become more acute, the infrastructure available to address them is simultaneously diminishing. As a result, additional pressures are placed on schools to fill the void. For example, development in sub-Saharan Africa remains blighted by the AIDS pandemic. Schools not only have a major role in promoting AIDS education, but in supporting children orphaned by the illness. Elsewhere problems of social exclusion and alienation, especially amongst young people, may present themselves very differently. However, in many contexts a background to these pressures is an apparent decline in the ability of traditional institutions to offer convincing solutions. Given this vacuum, there is often an increasing expectation that those working in schools will somehow fill the gap. It is clear that the pressures on schools are considerable. They derive from global economic trends, complex demographic developments and the growth of social problems that are themselves often rooted in economic and social inequalities. The pressures, however, are accompanied by an increasing expectation that schools will be able to offer a societal response to these issues. In turn, the spotlight is switched to those who lead schools, not least because the rising tide of expectations placed on schools and their leaders is counter-balanced by a corresponding range of tensions that seem to militate against developing a successful response. Identifying the context – managing tensions Tensions are identified as those factors that can, in a given set of circumstances, make it more difficult to provide effective schooling and provide a response to the expectations set out above. They are not problematic per se (few would disagree with the need for accountability, for example) but in the way, and in the specific form, they are experienced by those working in schools they can present particular challenges for school leaders. They frequently pull in a contrary direction to that indicated by the weight of societal expectations. Again, the following set of factors is not exhaustive, but it is helpful to highlight the factors below.

Career trajectories of school leaders 411

JEA 44,4

412

Accountability Expectations for system-wide improvements have often been matched by corresponding expectations of increased accountability (see most recently the policies associated with the “No Child Left Behind” legislation in the USA). A feature of developments in many societies has been a loss of confidence in traditional professions to meet societal expectations, and this has often been particularly pronounced in education. Increased pressures for accountability have become a common feature of education systems with a combination of centralised state control, buttressed by powerful inspectorates, and the introduction of decentralised management arrangements often accompanied by quasi-market forms of organisation. The consequence has been to subject schools, and particularly principals, to huge accountability pressures as leaders seek to meet the demands of both the state apparatus and the local market. Resources There is of course nothing new about schools lacking sufficient resources, and as is graphically illustrated by Bush and Oduro (2006), there are parts of the world where such shortages are so acute that the ability to meet even basic targets are apparently unrealisable. However, even in more generously resourced environments, under-funding of public education is likely to continue as global economic constraints place pressures on governments to contain public spending. The need for advanced economies to compete with low tax/low spend public welfare systems elsewhere in the world exerts a permanent downward pressure on public investment. The consequence for schools is that expectations of increased performance unlikely to be matched by corresponding increases in resources. Where resources are forthcoming, they are increasingly inclined to come from the private sector, with corresponding consequences for a loss of democratic control and the need to demonstrate return on investment (Whitfield, 2000). Uncertainty A feature of the post-modern world is an increasing sense of uncertainty (Lash and Urry, 1987; Beck, 1992, 2000). As education systems become ever more linked to economic imperatives and structures the environment in which schools function will increasingly resemble the rapid and volatile market that drives the commercial world. This generates uncertainty in a number of important respects. Most obviously the policy environment is likely to become increasingly unpredictable as governments seek solutions to rapidly changing economic and social conditions. The substantial restructuring that has characterised global education in recent years is likely to shift from reform to permanent revolution. At the same time, consensus about the core values of education, in so far as this has ever existed, is likely to diminish further. The rising expectations placed on schools, and discussed earlier in this paper, will increasingly challenge, and come into conflict with, those values that have traditionally dominated educational discourses (Bottery, 2000). Dissent will not be contained within a debate about means, but will increasingly embrace ends. Economic utilitarianism, aspirations for social justice and traditional educational values will all come into growing conflict. Principals have to navigate this uncertainty, working within their

national policy context, whilst simultaneously trying to make sense of an environment in which less and less can be taken for granted. Complexity Finally, we are asking principals to step into a role bounded by ever-increasing complexity. The break-up of Fordist structures in many societies is already creating school organisations that are quite different to those that have gone before. This process of diversification (both in terms of organisation and ownership) is likely to continue apace, and is illustrated very clearly in the UK by the twin, and linked, initiatives associated with workforce reform (Department for Education and Skills, 2003) and the “Every Child Matters” agenda (Department for Education and Skills, 2004a). The changing role of “extended” schools (Department for Education and Skills, 2004b), and the increasing diversity of roles of those who work within them, is likely to make the task of those who lead such schools significantly different. Principals will increasingly be taking on responsibility for organisations that contain a diverse range of service professionals (and “para-professionals”), from a number of different agencies (health and social services as well as education), operate for long hours every day of the week, and may engage in much of their work “off-site” (either at community locations or in students’ homes through online learning). In short, we are asking principals to take on the leadership of schools that are more diverse and more complex than has ever been the case. This will increasingly require school leaders to become leaders within their communities, as well as within their schools. Beginning principalship – developing a research framework All of these issues – especially when taken together – point to the enormous challenges expected of those who assume the role of principalship (Bottery, 2004). Indeed the challenges may seem almost insurmountable. At the heart of the problem is an expectations deficit that is never likely to disappear. We shall always want schools to deliver more than is realistic for them to do so. Political expediencies, fuelled by media hype, make this almost inevitable. This deficit is likely to worsen therefore as structural pressures push societal expectations inexorably upwards, whilst economic and other constraints ensure that the resources sufficient for the task are rarely available. At the same time, trust in those professionals charged with delivery appears also to be ebbing away. It is into this high expectation/low trust vortex that we expect new principals to step. As indicated earlier, there is already evidence of unwillingness on the part of many teachers to take on this role, a phenomenon that threatens to undermine even further the possibility of securing system-wide improvement. It has been argued thus far that the positioning of schools, and the roles of school leaders, are best understood against a complex background of social, political and economic trends, operating both simultaneously and interdependently on a global, national and local scale. As has been indicated, there is strong evidence emerging that in some specific contexts the interplay of these factors as experienced by teachers is contributing to a growing crisis in the supply of potential school leaders. There is therefore a strong case for better understanding the phases within which teachers’ careers develop as they make crucial decisions about whether or not to move towards, into and through principalship. Focusing the research spotlight on the early phase of

Career trajectories of school leaders 413

JEA 44,4

414

principalship is thus crucial for more than one reason. First, it can reveal why certain teachers have followed a particular career path and opted for the principalship, thereby adding to the supply of principals. Second, it can also help clarify their early experiences in the role itself which have direct relevance for their immediate and longer-term development as principals, and which might also exert influence on their subsequent retention. Given demographic developments in many countries that point to principals taking on the role at younger ages, but potentially having to work until their full retirement age, then issues of retention and sustainability become crucial. Contributions to this Special Issue point to the interconnectedness of the issues requiring further study and therefore the need to develop a research framework that is able to combine a robust conceptual and theoretical perspective relating to beginning principalship with a broad range of methodological approaches. It must also be capable of making connections between the apparently individualised decisions of beginning principals and the wider context within which these decisions are made. Detailed analysis of the various approaches contained in this Special Issue point to the need to develop a conceptual framework that seeks to link and integrate three core concepts – individual career trajectories, personal socialisation processes and developing professional identities and set these against a backdrop of external pressures and tensions discussed earlier in this paper. In setting out a rationale for focusing on these areas it is essential to recognise the interdependence of each with the other. While each factor may be studied in isolation, it is the iterative way in which each single factor both shapes, and is shaped by, the other factors that can help provide a comprehensive perspective on what beginning principals “feel, need and do” (Walker and Qian, 2006). This relationship is best illustrated by the overlapping circles presented in Figure 1 and their relationship to the background issues of pressures and tensions that will reflect a mix of global homogeneity and specific cultural context. The concept of career trajectory refers to the historical sequence of past, present – and possible or intended future – roles and positions. Ball and Goodson (1985) distinguish two components of career and career trajectory – an objective, social element, influenced by economic and political conditions, and a subjective element, as seen and influenced by the individual. This distinction highlights an important tension between the influence of structural factors on career trajectories and the potential for individual agency in the shaping of career paths. As individuals’ career trajectories develop powerful processes of learning take place and this highlights the need to recognise the importance of personal socialisation processes. In this Special Issue, Weindling and Dimmock (2006) draw on Merton’s (1963) distinction between professional and organisational aspects of socialisation, whilst Crow’s (2006) contribution adopts a similar distinction based on the work of Greenfield (1985). The former refers to the process of learning about a role or roles that develop through personal experiences of schools, teaching, and leadership, and from formal courses. In contrast, organisational socialisation comes from the learning and experiences gained from a particular role in a specific organisation. Identity is how we perceive ourselves – our self-image – in relation to specific contexts and roles in life and work (Giddens, 1991; Jenkins, 2004). Personal identity relates to how a person sees the private informal self; professional identity derives from their self-perception, their self-image, and their self-efficacy in relation to their work and career (Goodson and Walker, 1991). There may be tensions between self-image and social role. Identities are a product of both

Career trajectories of school leaders 415

Figure 1. A possible framework for researching the career trajectories of school leaders

structure and agency, and the interplay between them; they are in a constant state of flux, shifting and changing over time. Moreover, some argue (Holquist, 1990; Holland and Lave, 2001) that professional identities may be dialogic and multiple, that more than one identity may exist for different roles and situations. Socialisation processes help explain how identities are formed and re-formed over time. Discussion The studies in this Special Issue illustrate the nexus and interrelationships between the concepts of socialisation, professional identity and career trajectory, and provide a

JEA 44,4

416

potential framework for developing a much richer understanding not only of beginning principalship, but of how that experience then develops as principals’ careers unfold. Several of the papers highlight the need to understand the central role of socialisation processes as teachers move into and through their principalship. Teachers experience a range of professional socialisation processes both before and during their careers as teachers, but it is clear from the studies in this Special Issue how these become qualitatively different once the position of principal is assumed. Organisational socialisation processes come strongly to the fore as the organisation learns to adapt to the leader, but also as the leader learns to adapt to the organisation. This is when leaders must face the beginning principal’s most difficult dilemma – “finding a balance between doing too much and too little” (Quong, 2006). Nor are principals free agents as they consider when, or to what extent, they should make their intervention. It is the pressures and tensions identified previously that provide the outer world (Cheung and Walker, 2006) within which beginning principals function. Principals are forced to reconcile competing and conflicting expectations that are generated both within and without the organisation. In each of these situations the institutional circumstances are unique – the expectations and anxieties of school stakeholders; the long shadow, for better or for worse, of the previous incumbent; and the context provided by levels of resourcing, local market conditions and the demands of the wider policy environment. There is no manual to provide an answer, while others can only offer advice – they cannot take responsibility. What then is the relationship between these socialising factors and the professional identities of school leaders? Several of the contributions to this Special Issue highlight the role of school principals as “educational leaders” (Cheung and Walker, 2006) and leaders of learning communities (Sackney and Walker, 2006), but it is clear that there are tensions between the pursuit of these aspirations and the pressures of a performativity culture. To what extent are these tensions then influencing and shaping the professional identities of beginning principals? How are professional identities shaped by the transition from teacher to principal? Evidence from the studies in this Special Issue, and from the research they draw on, highlight that this transition is distinctive and decisive. But how do principals make sense of their move into “the hot seat”? To what extent do professional identities change and how far are such changes consonant with past aspirations as an educator? To what extent do the pressures to perform conflict with educational ideals? Are principals forced to surrender their identity as teacher when they assume the role, and identity, of leader? A number of previous studies (Gewirtz and Ball, 2000; Gewirtz, 2002) have highlighted the extent to which the pressures of policy centralisation, combined with operational decentralisation, have created tensions that have challenged the educational values of school leaders, and which in turn have presaged a “new managerialism” (Pollitt, 1992). Gewirtz (2002) acknowledges that this is not a crude cause and effect relationship, but argues that pressures and tensions within the system create conflicts that principals must confront: The shift in values and language associated with marketization – and the construction of the post-welfarist settlement more generally – is contested and struggled over. In trying to respond to pressures created by the market, headteachers [. . .] find themselves enmeshed in value conflicts and ethical dilemmas, as they are forced to rethink long held commitments (p. 49).

Wright (2003) asserts that school leaders may have “second order” values (such as staff participation decision making) that can stand in contrast to the dominance of the culture of performance, but that they are unable to challenge “first-order” values. First-order values, in the form of system aims and outcomes, are determined elsewhere and reinforced by powerful control mechanisms that render them effectively unchallengeable. Second-order values may appear attractive, but they are cosmetic and superficial, restricting discussion to means rather than ends – the ends remain beyond debate. More recently Wright (2004) has argued that: . . . principals are [not] necessarily unprincipled people, far from it, but [. . .] the system in which they have to operate stipulates the overall framework, values direction and often the detail of what they have to do (pp. 1-2).

If it is the case, as Wright (2001) has suggested, that systemic pressures and tensions identified earlier in this paper, inevitably produce “bastard leaders”, it should come as no surprise that intensification of the physical and emotional pressure on school principals is resulting in a crisis of supply. However, the nature of this relationship is not so clear. The “outer world” described by Cheung and Walker (2006) may be powerful and unfriendly, and it may often challenge educational values that have placed a premium on the value and development of all students. However, as studies in this Special Issue (Quong, 2006) and elsewhere (Day et al., 2000; Gold et al., 2003) demonstrate, there are spaces within which school principals can assert their agency and can promote the values that underpin their identities as both educators and leaders of learning communities. What is now required is to develop a better understanding of the link between principals’ professional identities and their career trajectories. What is clear is that changing conditions are making the principal’s role more challenging, and labour market evidence in some contexts points to it being correspondingly less attractive. This presents a major obstacle to system reform and improvement, as it seems likely that schools will find it increasingly difficult to either attract, or retain, high-quality leaders. In many cases these recruitment difficulties will be experienced most acutely in precisely those communities in greatest need. This is already the case in some contexts, and is likely to become increasingly apparent in others. All of this points to the need to better understand the career trajectories of teachers. This cannot be restricted to labour market data of demand and supply trends, vital as it is, but must extend beyond this to include a rich understanding of the factors that shape career trajectories and why. What is it that makes a teacher decide to move towards, into and through principalship? It is also vital to develop a better understanding of why many capable teachers choose not to take this path. The studies in this Special Issue highlight a particular need to deepen this understanding at the point when individuals assume the role of principal for the first time. This is the moment when school leaders really have to confront the difficult questions, but they often do so without the experience, the networks of support and the reservoirs of loyalty that more established principals can draw on. This can also be the point at which educational values are most tested by management imperatives and the pressures created by a culture focused on high stakes accountability and a permanent revolution of policy initiatives. Confronting such challenges, and the ethical dilemmas they generate, has always been, and always will be, one of the defining features of principalship (Begley, 2004;

Career trajectories of school leaders 417

JEA 44,4

418

Law and Walker, 2004). However, if what we ask of those who take on the role is asking too much, then longer-term objectives for improvement are jeopardised. In recent years considerable emphasis has been placed on leadership at school level to drive and deliver improvement. The success of this approach necessitates creating realistic and sustainable career pathways for school leaders. If as a consequence of unrealistic or inappropriate expectations we burn principals out physically, or demoralise them professionally, whatever the desired system outcomes are, they are unlikely to be achieved. Contributions to this Special Issue highlight the need to develop a research framework capable of better illuminating the relationships between these complex factors and thereby having the potential to influence policy that not only seeks to develop beginning principals, but ensures that bright and capable teachers are enthusiastic about becoming beginning principals. References Ball, S. and Goodson, I. (1985), Teachers’ Lives and Careers, The Falmer Press, Lewes. Beck, U. (1992), Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity, Sage Publications, London. Beck, U. (2000), The Brave New World of Work, Polity Press, Oxford. Begley, P. (2004), “Understanding and responding ethically to the dilemmas of school based leadership”, International Studies in Educational Administration, Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 1-3. Bell, L. and Stevenson, H. (2006), Education Policy: Process, Themes and Impact, Routledge, London. Bottery, M. (2000), Education, Policy and Ethics, Continuum, London. Bottery, M. (2004), The Challenges of Educational Leadership: Values in a Globalized Age, Paul Chapman, London. Bush, T. and Oduro, G.K.T. (2006), “New principals in Africa: preparation, induction and practice”, Journal of Educational Administration, Vol. 44 No. 4, pp. 359-75. Cheung, R.M.-B. and Walker, A. (2006), “Inner worlds and outer limits: the formation of beginning principals in Hong Kong”, Journal of Educational Administration, Vol. 44 No. 4, pp. 389-407. Crow, G.M. (2006), “Complexity and the beginning principal in the United States: perspectives on socialization”, Journal of Educational Administration, Vol. 44 No. 4, pp. 389-407. Day, C., Harris, A., Hadfield, M., Tolly, H. and Beresford, J. (2000), Leading Schools in Times of Change, Open University Press, Buckingham. Dimmock, C., Stevenson, H., Bignold, B., Shah, S. and Middlewood, D. (2005), “School community perspectives and their leadership implications”, Effective Leadership in Multi-Ethnic Schools, National College of School Leadership, Nottingham, pp. 26-46. Department for Education and Skills (2003), “Raising standards and tackling workload: a national agreement”, available at: www.teachernet.gov.uk/docbank/index.cfm?id ¼ 3479 Department for Education and Skills (2004a), Every Child Matters: Next Steps, The Stationery Office, London. Department for Education and Skills (2004b), Department for Education and Skills: Five Year Strategy for Children and Learners, The Stationery Office, London. Earley, P. and Weindling, R. (2004), Understanding School Leadership, Paul Chapman, London. Gewirtz, S. (2002), The Managerial School: Post-welfarism and Social Justice in Education, Routledge, London.

Gewirtz, S. and Ball, S.J. (2000), “From ‘Welfarism’ to ‘New Managerialism’: shifting discourses of school headship in the education marketplace”, Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 253-68. Giddens, A. (1991), Modernity and Self-Identity, Polity Press, Cambridge. Gold, A., Evans, J., Earley, P., Halpin, D. and Collarbone, P. (2003), “Principled principals? Values-driven leadership: evidence from ten case studies of ‘outstanding’ school leaders”, Educational Management and Administration, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 127-37. Goodson, I. and Walker, R. (1991), Biography, Identity and Schooling: Episodes in Educational Research, The Falmer Press, Basingstoke. Greenfield, W. (1985), “Being and becoming a principal: responses to work contexts and socialization processes”, paper presented at the Annual Conference of the American Education Research Association, Chicago, IL. Gronn, P. (2003), The New Work of Educational Leaders: Changing Leadership Practice in an Era of School Reform, Paul Chapman, London. Hargreaves, A. (2003), Teaching in the Knowledge Society: Education in the Age of Insecurity, Open University Press, Buckingham. Hartle, F. and Thomas, K. (2003), Summary Report. Growing Tomorrow’s School Leaders: The Challenge, National College for School Leadership, Nottingham. Holland, D. and Lave, J. (2001), “History in person”, in Holland, D. and Lave, J. (Eds), History in Person: Enduring Struggles, Contentious Practice, Intimate Identities, School of American Research Press, Santa Fe, NM, pp. 3-30. Holquist, M. (1990), Dialogism: Bakhtin and His World, Routledge, London. Howson, J. (2003), The State of the Labour Market for Senior Staff in England and Wales, 2002-2003, Education Data Surveys, Oxford. Howson, J. (2004), “The labour market for senior staff”, SHA Penned, Vol. 64, December, pp. 22-3. Jenkins, R. (2004), Social Identity, 2nd ed., Routledge, London. Lash, S. and Urry, J. (1987), The End of Organised Capitalism, Polity Press, Cambridge. Law, L. and Walker, A. (2004), “Different values, different ways – principal problem solving and education reform”, International Studies in Educational Administration, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 62-78. Leithwood, K., Jantzi, D. and Steinbach, R. (1999), Changing Leadership for Changing Times, Open University Press, Buckingham. Merton, R. (1963), Social Theory and Social Structure, Free Press, New York, NY. National Task Force for the Advancement of Education (2004), Summary of the Report of the National Task Force for the Advancement of Education (The Dovrat Report), National Program of Education, National Task Force for the Advancement of Education, Tel Aviv. Pollitt, C. (1992), Managerialism in the Public Services, Blackwell, Oxford. Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (1998), Education for Citizenship and the Teaching of Democracy in Schools (the Crick Report), Qualifications and Curriculum Authority, London. Quong, T. (2006), “Asking the hard questions: being a beginning principal in Australia”, Journal of Educational Administration, Vol. 44 No. 4, pp. 376-88. Rutayisire, J. (2004), “Education for social and political reconstruction: the Rwandan experience from 1994 to 2004”, paper presented at the British Association for Comparative and International Education Conference, University of Sussex, Brighton, 3-5 September.

Career trajectories of school leaders 419

JEA 44,4

420

Sackney, L. and Walker, K. (2006), “Canadian perspectives on beginning principals: their role in building capacity for learning communities”, Journal of Educational Administration, Vol. 44 No. 4, pp. 341-58. Scho¨n, D. (1983), The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action, Ashgate Publishing, Aldershot. Walker, A. and Qian, H. (2006), “Beginning principals: balancing at the top of the greasy pole”, Journal of Educational Administration, Vol. 44 No. 4, pp. 297-309. Weindling, D. and Dimmock, C. (2006), “Sitting in the ‘hot seat’: new headteachers in the UK”, Journal of Educational Administration, Vol. 44 No. 4, pp. 326-40. Whitfield, D. (2000), “The third way for education, privatization and marketization”, Forum: for Promoting 3-19 Comprehensive Education, Vol. 42 No. 2, pp. 82-5. Wright, N. (2001), “Leadership, ‘bastard leadership’ and managerialism: confronting twin paradoxes in the Blair education project”, Educational Management and Administration, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 275-90. Wright, N. (2003), “Principled ‘bastard leadership’? A rejoinder to Gold, Evans, Earley, Halpin and Collarbone”, Educational Management and Administration, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 139-44. Wright, N. (2004), “Intelligent accountability: a beginning of the end for ‘bastard leadership’?”, paper presented at the British Educational Leadership and Management Association Standing Conference for Research on Educational Leadership and Management Research, St Catherine’s College, Oxford, 8-10 July. Corresponding author Howard Stevenson can be contacted at: [email protected]

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

Book review Understanding School Leadership Peter Earley and Dick Weindling Paul Chapman Publishing London 2004 196 pp. ISBN 0-76194371-4 Paperback; US$29.95 Keywords Schools, Leadership Review DOI 10.1108/09578230610676613 This is an ambitious book in that it draws on the extensive research background of the joint authors to analyse first the changing role and nature of headship, and second the different facets of “distributed leadership”, a modern-day mantra for one characteristic of effective leadership, linking this to school improvement. The work is helpfully organised into two such sections. This book stands apart from many on the subject because of its empirical bases. The authors have succeeded in making research findings on school leadership readable, partly through the use of case study but also because of significance they place on values and ethics in shaping leadership. This is well illustrated by a chapter on failing and dysfunctional leadership, manifested in “failing” schools, using the parlance favoured by Ofsted, the central inspection agency in England. The book’s readability level is high. Each chapter is prefaced by a short overview of the coverage, and the use of subheadings will help the student as well as the more experienced, selective reader. It will appeal to those studying educational leadership, as well as those reflective practitioners keen to look towards an empirical basis for their ideas. The work is up-to-date, drawing in particular on the UK experiences of the two authors, notably but not exclusively at the National Foundation for Educational Research (NFER). Interestingly, Earley and Weindling explore notions of “leadership” and “management” from the outset of the book, pointing out that the issue is not a semantic one, but that the two functions overlap and inter-relate. Dominant foci, developed during the latter chapters, are the effect of leadership on the led, rather than on over-emphasis on the qualities of the individual, and the need for leadership to be demonstrated at all levels and not just at the top. They conclude that the current view of school leadership is that it focuses strongly on the leadership of learning and that demonstrated by the CEO or headteacher/principal is crucial. A further analysis of the role of “headteacher” vis-a`-vis the principal, or even CEO, would be fascinating. The authors draw on the British distinctions between leadership, management and governance in describing how organisations are shaped. Drawing on longitudinal studies such as the stages “enjoyed” by headteachers over more than a decade, chapters are usefully illustrated. The authors state what is felt by many, clearly, amusingly and always empirically. Any newly appointed headteacher/

Book review

421

Journal of Educational Administration Vol. 44 No. 4, 2006 pp. 421-423 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 0957-8234

JEA 44,4

422

principal will recognise the finding that new heads do not start with a clean state, seeing the “shadow” of one or more predecessors in much of what they do or want to do. “Reculturing” the school, fighting the “that’s the way we have always done it” mentality is a challenge facing many school leaders. The intelligent questions asked in the NFER survey, as well as the answers to them, are illuminative. After ten years in post, for example, headteachers surveyed were very ready and able to articulate what worked and what did not, giving important lessons to pre-service qualifications which tend to emphasise the technical rather than the socio-political challenges. Serving headteachers will also value these chapters, as they, perhaps, struggle in the loneliness of self-relfection. The changing role, as well as the changing appeal of headship is well treated. The question “why become a headteacher?” is not the approach of this book. Rather, let’s look at an evidence base and ask why people have chosen to become headteachers, what motivates them and what do they find demotivating. Interestingly, given the seas of change in education at school level, the reasons aspiring heads give for wanting to take on the headship role are similar to those given in the 1980s, according to Earley and Weindling. Aspirant heads talk of perceiving headship as “making a difference”, or “having an influence” or “implementing their own vision”. The factors that motivate and demotivate heads are also found to be much the same over the three decades. The authors found the factors of “people management” most motivating “for heads”, especially the interactions with staff and students (parents and other stakeholders are not mentioned). A further important motivator was school success, expressed by many in terms of harmonious relationships as well as academic and other successes. The demotivators cited have a distinctively English resonance, sadly, such as bureaucracy and paperwork, government interferences, constant change, low status, and negative media image. By 2001, change and innovations were seen as manageable by some heads, who saw the government-driven initiatives as a means towards fulfilling the aims and objectives they had set for themselves. Such schools had seemingly established a “virtuous circle”, a phrase coined by the authors to describe the cycle of resource injection, low staff turnover and high morale engineered by high-quality leadership. The notion of “specialist school” leadership is alluded to but the concept could be analysed further, along with the head’s role as marketer, entrepreneur and manager of funding proposals. The authors do not extend to making judgements on the effects of the post-1988 government education reforms in England and Wales, although they point to some heartening trends. As Alison Wolf (2002) points out, education in Britain is big because it is seen on the engine of economic growth. Hence, during the first three years of the first Blair administration, the equivalent of one educational initiative or set of instructions was issued for every single day of the year. Governance demands attention and receives appropriate emphasis in the text, reflecting the research background of the authors in the state (i.e. government) sector of England and Wales. The headteacher’s relationship with the governing body was cited as a conically important internal factor influencing the role of the head. Much more time became spent on governance matters following the Education Reform Act of 1988. The increased workload on headteachers, including that concerned with “managing” the governing body is reported as contributing to a change in the distribution of responsibilities. By the mid-1990s, the authors report, headteachers

were more confident and relaxed in distributing significant responsibilities, and operating less hierachically. Heads were found to delegate some functions more readily than others: those more likely to be retained included budgetary management and appointment of staff, and one in five felt they needed to retain responsibility for staff and student discipline. Teaching commitments of headteachers are considered, and although time spent in the classroom remains important to many, teaching commitments seem to be reducing through the 1980s and 1990s. The research yielded some interesting insights into why headteachers wanted to teach including, from one, “therapy on bad days”. Much depends on the lesson. I suppose. Earley and Weindling contribute valuable chapters on outstanding leaders, accountability, ethnically responsible school leadership and images of leadership. The meat of the book, for me, is in Part 1, in their analysis of headship, and Part 2 builds on this by considering distributed leadership and school improvement. Governors as leaders are considered, as is the crucial role of middle leaders in the context of distributed leadership. Linked to school improvements, the role of leadership is, for me, over-egged in the context of “failing schools”, and the socio-economic context of housing and social policy is under-emphasised. Again, however, valuable research data are used to explain in-school influences and outcomes. In the final chapter on “Developing Leaders”, a good overview of leadership development programmes is linked to the previous research findings on school improvement and school leadership. Overall, this is an excellent, well-written, extensively referenced, empirically based contribution to school leadership thinking. Although drawing heavily on the government sector in Britain, Earley and Weindling offer valuable insights for all of us: serving headteachers/principals, advisory and distinct-wide policy makers and aspiring headteachers. Graham Ranger English Schools Foundation, Hong Kong Reference Wolf, A. (2002), “Does Education Matter?” Myths about Education and Economic Growth, Penguin, London.

Book review

423