Educational Management Administration & Leadership 2014 Reames 40 60

8/18/2019 Educational Management Administration & Leadership 2014 Reames 40 60

1/21

Article

Factors influencing principals’retirement decisions:

a southern US perspective

Ellen H. Reames, Frances K. Kochan and Linxiang Zhu

Abstract

This study, conducted in one state in the United States, replicated similar research from over a

decade ago to compare principal demographics and reasons for remaining or leaving the profes-sion. Demographics have trended with the nation. Principals are older, more diverse and arelargely eligible for retirement within the next five years. Similar demographics are noted inAustralia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom. The reasons for retiring have changed drama-tically since the first survey. External mandates were the number one reason for retirement.Another reason included spending more time with their family. Around the globe, other countriesare considering national initiatives, such as accountability and high-stakes testing or nationalcurriculum standards. This study may provide a cautionary note regarding the impact onprincipal role and retention. Thus, while the study occurred in the United States, the policiesthat influenced principals’ reasons for choosing to retire or stay in the profession appear to have

global implications.

Keywords

Administrator diversity, instructional leader, principal retention, retirement, southern UnitedStates

Introduction

The role of the school leader has become increasingly complex in our global society (Townsend,

2009). Since this is such a vital role in teacher and student success, it is important to understand the

things that cause people to remain and leave this position. This study presents information about

this issue from the perspective of school leaders in Alabama, a southern US State. It also examines

the demographic make-up of these individuals. The research is unique in that it compared results

with findings of a study implemented over a decade ago. Although the research occurred in a single

state in the United States, it is relevant to a broader audience as it captures the changing dynamics

of the school leadership role.

Corresponding author:

Ellen H. Reames, Assistant Professor, 3074 Haley Center, Auburn University, AL 36849, USA.Email: [email protected]

Educational Management

Administration & Leadership

2014, Vol 42(1) 40–60ª The Author(s) 2013

Reprints and permission:

sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/1741143213499254

emal.sagepub.com

40

at Uni Politehnica on March 30, 2016ema.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://www.sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.navhttp://emal.sagepub.com/http://ema.sagepub.com/http://ema.sagepub.com/http://ema.sagepub.com/http://ema.sagepub.com/http://emal.sagepub.com/http://www.sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav


2/21

The manuscript begins with background information related to the global economy in which we

live and its impact upon schools and schooling. This is followed by a literature review dealing with

the issue of principal shortages in the United States. This section provides a backdrop for the pur-

poses and scholarly significance of the study. Methods and findings are then presented. The manu-

script concludes with a discussion and implications section that connects the findings to studiesfrom countries throughout the world.

Overview

The emergence of a global economy in the 1980s brought with it a change in the economic balance

of world powers; an international communications network; and an increased focus on the role of

education in assuring the economic success of nations (Townsend, 2009). This, in turn, led to an

expanded emphasis upon student learning and school success resulting in national initiatives

geared toward educational and school improvement in many nations. Examples include the pas-

sage of No Child Left Behind , a law enacted in the United States, charging schools with achievingspecific standards and eliminating achievement gaps between student subgroups; a movement

toward self-managing schools in New Zealand, Britain and Australia (Bush, 2009; Townsend,

2009); and the proliferation of tests used to make comparison of student achievement on a global

scale. These developments have also led to increased research on school factors related to student

success (Hoy and Miskel, 2001; Jacobson and Bezzina, 2010; Robinson and Timperley, 2007).

School-related factors and student success

Student demographics have been found to be related to student success and failure and there is

large body of literature that demonstrates the teacher is a critical factor in the equation of studentsuccess (Darling-Hammond, 2000; Hattie, 2003; Robinson and Timperley, 2007; Rowe, 2003).

The culture of the school and the school leader are also of major importance (Hoy and Miskel,

2001; Leithwood et al., 2004; Murphy and Myers, 2008). In fact, research has identified compel-

ling linkages between educational leadership, teacher development, school improvement and

student achievement (Bush, 2009; Dinham, 2007; Seashore-Louis et al., 2010). The importance

of this link has led to extensive research on the preparation of leaders in the United States US (Mur-

phy and Datnow, 2003; Southern Regional Education Board, 2006, 2007; Young and Grogan,

2008) and in other countries throughout the world (Anderson et al., 2008; Leithwood and Riehl,

2005; Lumby et al., 2009). In addition, this leadership link to learning has initiated international

calls to redesign leadership preparation programs to ensure that they are meeting the needs of thosewho will be filling this important role (Cowie and Crawford, 2009; Hallinger, 2003; Hean and Tin,

2008; Ingvarson and Anderson, 2007; Kochan, 2010; Reames, 2010; Walker et al., 2007).

The types of approaches to redesign vary. In Singapore, educational leadership programs have

incorporated the notion of a conceptual focus on the future (Hean and Tin, 2008). In the United

States, many programs have adopted the Interstate School Leaders Licensure Standards (Interstate

School Leaders Licensure Consortium, 2008) as their basis for curricular change. In England, the

National Professional Qualifications for Headship (NPQH) is being used and in Scotland, they have

adopted the Scottish Qualifications for Headship (SQH; Cowie and Crawford, 2009). In Australia

standards are being developed by all states and territories as well as professional groups. For exam-

ple, New South Wales (NSW) Department of Education and Communities (2011) and the AustralianCouncil for Educational Leaders (ACEL, 2013) have both developed leadership benchmarks

Reames et al.: Factors influencing principals’ retirement decisions 41

41


http://ema.sagepub.com/http://ema.sagepub.com/http://ema.sagepub.com/http://ema.sagepub.com/


3/21

(Anderson et al., 2008). These initiatives provide standards upon which to build curriculum and

engage in program development. All of them appear to accept the notion that the role of school lead-

ers has and will continue to be complex and preparation programs must be structured differently in

order to prepare potential leaders to lead schools of the 21st century effectively.

School leadership role

Research on the role of the school leader indicates that issues facing them will continue to expand,

increasing demands on their time and energy (Cantano and Stronge, 2007; Kochan et al., 1999;

Lugg et al., 2002). In addition to expanded accountability measures and increased media attention

(Thomson, 2008), school leaders must deal with a wide variety of pressures which at times seem

insurmountable (Tucker, 2010). Although these pressures may differ across national borders, there

are many that appear to be common across cultures and contexts (Bottery et al., 2008). Among the

most prominent are fiscal shortages (Ginsberg and Multon, 2011; Thomson, 2008); mandated

external bureaucratic policies and increased scrutiny (Bottery et al., 2008; Chaplain, 2001); inter- personal relationship problems (Tsiakkiros and Pashiardis, 2002); lack of support, multiple respon-

sibilities and extensive workload (Englezakis, 2002; Tsiakkiros and Pashiardis, 2006; Thomson,

2008). All of these elements appear to result in a decline in one’s quality of life often leading

to ill health and in decisions to give up the profession or retire from it (Thomson, 2008; Tucker,

2010). Dealing with this issue, related to head teachers, Thomson (2008) notes,

It appears that structural changes have increased headteachers’ responsibilities, with them being held to

account through testing, league tables, and published results, all forms of measurement which have

been designed to increase competition between schools and to improve their efficiency . . . Head teach-

ers are left shouldering concerns and anxieties on behalf of the wider community and professional net-work. Schools appear to have been colonised by a whole series of functions which were previously

assigned to other institutions, including families. (p.73)

Principal shortages in the United States

In the United States, where this research occurred, it appears that demands upon principals,

coupled with an aging workforce and high rates of retirement, may cause the demand for new prin-

cipals to explode (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2005; Educational Research Service, 1998; Kersten

and Kersten, 2006). In fact, over a decade ago, the Educational Research Service (1998) found that

47% of urban districts, 45% of suburban districts, and 52% of rural districts reported shortages of qualified candidates. National attrition rates were at 42% for elementary principals in 1998 and they

were expected to remain at least as high throughout the first decade of the 21st century (Doud and

Keller, 1998; Ferrandino, 2001). Approximately 60% of the principals across the nation reached

retirement age before the year 2000 (Educational Research Service, 1998). Indications are that the

trend of eligible retirees in the principalship in the United States will continue. For example, in the

New York City public school system more than 50% of the 1400 principals left their jobs between

2000 and 2006 (DeLeon, 2006). Demand may be greatest in states and school systems with high

concentrations of poverty, limited resources and persistently low-performing schools (Roza, 2003).

Although urban, high-poverty districts may have difficulties in filling principalships, states with

rural school districts are also faced with unique circumstances and challenges relative to schoolleadership. A great deal of research has been conducted on the needs of low-performing urban

42 Educational Management Administration & Leadership 42(1)

42




4/21

schools in the United States, but the challenges facing rural low-performing schools and districts

create conditions where it can be ‘‘difficult or even impossible for rural districts and schools to

attract new principals and teachers’’ (Kutash et al., 2010: 15) and to participate in turnaround prac-

tices. Geographic isolation, high poverty levels and lack of extensive human capital resources

when engaging in school reforms and particularly when attempting to turn failing schools around are among the most challenging of these (Chalker, 2002). Alabama, the state in which this study

occurred, is primarily rural and is ranked as one of the top five Level IV Poverty (extreme poverty)

states (United States Census Bureau, 2011). In addition, of the 67 counties in the state only 11

counties have more than 25,000 citizens. In 2000 Alabama was 71% White, 26% Black, 3% His-

panic and 1% other (United States Census Bureau, 2000).

In Alabama, as in much of the nation, population declines in mostly rural high-minority coun-

ties reflect their economic disadvantage. Changing the trend of leaving high-poverty rural areas

takes concentrated effort to increase economic opportunities and the quality of life, which will,

of course, include the schools. Since these rural school systems are poor, it is difficult for them

to recruit and retain highly qualified teachers and school leaders. In fact, The Principal, Keystoneof a High-Achieving School: Attracting and Keeping the Leaders We Need (2000) report, which

was conducted by the Educational Research Service (ERS) reported in the United States, shortages

of principals in rural areas was higher than those for suburban or urban areas. Given the dire reality

of recruiting and retention in Alabama, the state is also hindered by options aimed at improving

rural areas. School closures are not a choice, since schools are physically far from one another.

Thus, capacity building seems to be the only choice for rural schools (Kutash et al., 2010). More

interventions need to be developed specifically for rural, high-poverty schools in need of improve-

ment (Murphy and Myers, 2008). Among these interventions must be a focus on recruiting and

retaining the most promising leaders. This study was designed to assist the state in that effort and

to provide information that might be of value to others as they deal with these and similar issues inthe United States or in other parts of the world.

Purpose of the study

In 1999, Kochan and Spencer conducted a study to determine Alabama principals’ reasons for

retiring. A secondary purpose of the study was to examine demographic data related to principal

placement. This study was undertaken by the [Institute] in the College of Education at [state uni-

versity] as a follow-up to that study. The purposes of the study were to determine: (a) the demo-

graphic status of the principals in the state and its relationship to past data and regional and national

trends; (b) the reasons principals have for retiring; (c) whether reasons were similar or dissimilar tothose in the Kochan and Spencer (1998) study; and (d) reasons principals choose to remain in their

positions.

Scholarly significance of the study

Related studies from school reform literature in the United States and countries throughout the

world suggest high-performing schools are led by effective leaders (Dinham, 2007; Gurr et al.,

2005; Hoy and Miskel, 2001; Jacobson, 2010; Leithwood and Riehl, 2005; Wong, 2005). Thus,

it is essential that all schools need good leaders. This is especially true of low-performing schools

and schools with high percentages of poverty (Jacobson, 2010; Leithwood and Strauss, 2009; Mur- phy and Myers, 2008). It is well documented that for school reform to be meaningful, it must part


43




5/21

of a holistic, systemic reform (Fullan, 2005; Murphy and Myers, 2008 ) that takes place at the

school level and involves changing the school culture (Hall and Hord, 2001; Murphy and Myers,

2008). This requires highly qualified principals with longevity of service and the proper skill sets to

move schools forward.

The challenges principals face, the standards they must adhere to and their personal character-istics as well as district and student demographic data can play an important role in determining the

likelihood of success as a principal (Fuller and Young, 2009). If external and internal pressures,

politics and time constraints for meaningful organizational goals exist, and personal/family goals

cannot be met, frustrations may become too great and plans for leaving the profession may become

enticing (Weiss, 2005). Thus, in a state such as Alabama, with high levels of poverty, where it is

imperative that school leaders succeed, understanding the stresses principals face so that mechan-

isms can be implemented to help minimize them, is of particular importance. Demographic data

were examined to help determine if there might be issues related to recruitment and placement

of individuals into the principalship that might be related to longevity issues. Although the study

occurred in a single state, the findings and implications will add to the literature and should haverelevance for others who are seeking to assure that school leaders have the support they need to be

successful so that they will remain in the profession.

Methodology

The Survey of Leadership in Alabama (SOLIA) was used to collect data. The population for this

study was all currently employed principals throughout the state. The State Department of Educa-

tion provided the researchers with a mailing list. The survey was mailed to Alabama’s 1356 prin-

cipals. A follow-up mailing was conducted approximately six weeks later. Both mailings included

a cover letter guaranteeing anonymity and a postage paid self-addressed return envelope. The sur-vey data was held until supporting 2010 US Census reports and National Center for Education Sta-

tistics (NCES) data could be used to compare with the collected SOLIA data.

Instrumentation

Principal and school district demographic data such as gender, age, ethnicity, education level, cur-

rent position, experience, geographic origin, retirement eligibility, school district and community

classifications—that is, urban, suburban and rural—were collected in Part I of the survey. Part II of

the survey included questions related to issues that might influence a principal’s decision to retire

or not retire. Those items were: (1) obtain a position out-of-state and begin a second career; (2) burnout; (3) political conflicts in the local community; (4) financial inadequacies and uncertainty

in the district; (5) obtain another position in Alabama; (6) time requirements of the position; (7)

need more time with family; (8) frustration with barriers and inability to accomplish goals; (9)

external mandates or requirements from national, state or other sources; (10) internal mandates

from the district; (11) opposition from teacher’s organizations; and (12) system politics or political

stress. These factors were measured using a 1–5 Likert scale (from No Influence to Great Influ-

ence) and included all items from the Kochan and Spencer (1999) study. Part III included three

open-ended questions aimed at gaining a richer understanding of how the new Alabama Instruc-

tional Leadership Standards might affect the (1) quality of the leadership pool, (2) the quantity

of the leadership pool, and (3) how these same standards might influence the principal’s decisionto remain in the profession, retire or change professions.


44




6/21

To ensure the questions developed by the researchers accurately measured principals’ self-

perceived factors, which influence their decision to retire or continue, the researchers took several

steps to have the questionnaire examined for content and face validity. Firstly, the demographic

section and the factors influencing retirement section were based on the survey in the Kochan and

Spencer (1999) study. Secondly, a panel of experts in survey research methods and educationalleadership examined the content validity of the survey. The questionnaire was revised based on

the feedback from these experts. Finally, the survey was field tested with eight principals and

superintendents to examine the face validity. Format, phrasing of questions and clarity of purpose

were revised based on the feedback of the field-testing participants.

The data generated from the study were coded and analyzed using the Statistical Package for the

Social Science (SPSS V 17.0). Descriptive statistics were the primary method used to analyze the

demographic data collected (Hair et al., 2009). Descriptive statistics (frequencies, means, standard

deviations and percentages) were used to compare the Kochan and Spencer (1999) and the SOLIA

study.

Cronbach’s coefficient alpha was used to assess the internal consistency reliability of the four scales: the factors influencing retirement scale (FIRS), the factors influencing administrators to

stay scale (FISS), the principal skills scale (PSS), and the importance of principal skills scale

(IOPSS). Usually, an internal consistency estimate of .70 or greater suggests that items are intern-

ally consistent (DeVellis, 2011). The scale scores for the domains of FIRS, FISS, PSS and IOPSS

showed internal consistency reliability. The respective alpha scores were: factors influencing retire

(a¼ .855, n ¼ 246); factors influencing stay (a¼.775, n ¼ 242); principal skills (a¼.906, n ¼ 247);

and importance of skills scale (a ¼.935, n ¼ 245).

Results

Changes in gender

Two hundred fifty-eight principals (20%) responded to the survey (see Table 1). One hundred fifty-

one respondents or 59% were male and 106 or 41% were female. In the previous study, Kochan and

Spencer (1999) reported 59% males and 35% females with 6% not responding. While the study’s

sample only represented a 19% response rate, Alabama school administrator demographics were

42% female and 58% male, or a close match to the previous sample. It appears that the state has

increased the number of female principals and decreased the gender inequities and these percen-

tages fall within national gender averages. Battle (2009) reports women held 59% of public ele-

mentary positions and 29% of public secondary positions for an average of 41% of public

school principal positions. The 6% missing data from the 1999 Kochan and Spencer study cannot be assumed to be female. If half were included this would put the SOLIA gender for female prin-

cipals at the reported NCES national average of 44%.

Ethnic identity of principals

Comparing data from the Kochan and Spencer (1999) study to the SOLIA study, it would appear

that the racial composition of principals has not made significant change toward a more racially

balanced picture as compared to state ethnic data (see Table 2). Seventy-five percent of the prin-

cipals were White, non-Hispanic, 17% were African American, 4% were Hispanic and 4% were

Native American. Nationally 83%

of public elementary and secondary schools were led by White principals, while 10% of elementary and secondary schools were led by African American


45




7/21

principals. Nationally, Hispanics led 5% of public elementary high schools (Battle, 2009). The per-

centage of White, non-Hispanic principals in Alabama (75%) is larger than the state’s census report

on White, non-Hispanic percentages (68%). Disparity is also apparent in [state name]’s African

American principalships when comparing to state census figures (United States Census Bureau,

2011). For example, while 17% of schools from the study were reported to be led by African Amer-

ican principals, the state population for this racial group is 26 %. Hispanic principals were virtually

equal to the state population. Schools were led by a Hispanic principal 4% of the time and the state

Hispanic population was 3%. Comparing the trends from 1999 there is a small decrease of White,

non-Hispanic, and gains in other minority groups such as Hispanics and Native Americans, butvirtually no gains in the African American principal ranks.

Principal age. There is a dramatic change from data in the Kochan and Spencer (1999) study to the

SOLIA study. In this study there were 15% more principals age 50 and above than in the Kochan

and Spencer (1999) study. Also the under 40 and 40–49 combined percentages of 42% as compared

to the combined 57% suggest today’s school principals are older than those in the Kochan and

Spencer (1999) study. This is in line with national trends. Eighty-six percent of principal respon-

dents were 40 years of age or older. Fifty-seven percent of principal respondents are between the

ages of 50 and 69. Twelve percent of these are between the ages of 60 and 69. Nationally, 85%

of the principals were over the age of 40 and 56% of principals are over the age of 50 (Battle, 2009).

Table 1. Comparison of national principal characteristics: gender – Kochan and Spencer/Survey of Leadership in Alabama (SOLIA).

Gender NCESSOLIA

FrequencySOLIA

PercentKochan & Spencer

Percent

Male 56% 151 59% 59%Female 44% 106 41% 35%Missing 0% 1 0% 6%

Total 258 100% 100%

NCES: National Center for Education Statistics.

Table 2. Comparison of national principal characteristics: ethnicity – Kochan and Spencer/Survey of Leadership in Alabama (SOLIA).

Ethnicity NCESSOLIA

FrequencySOLIA


Percent

White 83% 194 75% 84%African American 10% 45 17% 15%Native American 1% 10 4% 1%Hispanic 5% 7 4% 0%Other 1% 2 1% 0%

Total 100% 258 100% 100%



46




8/21

Principals’ educational preparation. Data related to educational preparation indicated 39% of princi-

pals had a master’s degree, 17% had a specialist degree, 22% had graduate credit towards a doc-

torate degree and 19% had an earned doctorate degree. Table 3 displays the educational degree and

post-degree levels of the principal respondents for both studies. These figures suggest almost 3/5 of

all principals in the state have education beyond a master’s degree and 1/5 of all principals have an

earned doctorate degree. Nationally, Battle 2009 reports that 60% of public school principals have

master’s degrees, 31% have educational specialist degrees and 9% have doctoral degrees. Our sam-

ple appears disproportionately more educated than the national average. Nationally, only 10% of

principals have earned doctorate degrees. In 2010 19% or twice the national average of principals

in the state had earned doctorate degrees. Fifty-nine percent of principals in the Kochan and Spencer (1999) study had degrees and coursework beyond the master’s degree. Since both studies

align it seems reasonable to conclude principals in this state continue to have higher educational

levels than the national average.

Principal certification. The findings related to principal certification, reported in Table 4, indicate

that the percentage of master’s degree certification has not changed from the Kochan and Spen-

cer (1999) study but ‘AA’, that is, educational specialist (EdS) has trended downward while doc-

torate certification has trended upward. This suggests that principals in this study sought higher

certification levels at about the same overall percentage rate as their Kochan and Spencer (1999)

counterparts. In general, there appears to be less appeal for the EdS but slightly more appeal for doctorate-level certification.

Table 3. Comparison of national principal characteristics: educational level of principals – Kochan andSpencer/Survey of Leadership in Alabama (SOLIA).

Educational level/degree NCESSOLIA

FrequencySOLIA


Percent

Earned master’s degree 58% 100 38% 40%Educational specialist degree 31% 43 17% 30%Graduate credit towards doctorate N/A 56 22% 17%Earned doctorate 10% 48 19% 11%Other 1% 11 4% 2%

Total 100% 258 100% 100%


Table 4. Comparison of certification levels of principals: Kochan and Spencer/Survey of Leadership in

Alabama (SOLIA).

Certification levelsSOLIA

FrequencySOLIA


Percent

‘A’ master’s degree 92 36% 36%‘AA’ specialist degree 137 53% 59%Doctorate 20 8% 1%Missing 9 3% 4%

Total 258 100% 100%


47




9/21

Previous positions of principals. Principals were asked to report previous positions that they had held

and how many years they had been in previous positions. Table 5 indicates that, as in the Kochan

and Spencer (1999) study, principals served in traditional roles as assistant principals 52% of the time

prior to becoming a principal. They served as teachers (15%) or principals in other schools 16% of

the time prior to becoming the principal in their present assignment. Two respondents served as ath-

letic coaches/administrators, two served as superintendents, three as assistant superintendents and 13

or 5% in some other supervisory role prior to becoming the principal of their present school. Slightly

more had been principals and slightly less assistants with fewer going from teacher to principal than

in the earlier study. Most interesting were findings that 5%

more went from the superintendency tothe principalship and 12% more went from other positions in the Kochan and Spencer (1999) study.

Apparently traditional pathways to the principalship are important in Alabama.

Principals and their years in previous positions. Most principals served in their prior position for less

than 10 years. Eighty-one percent or 208 principals indicated they served in a prior position to their

present role as principal for less than 10 years. If we combine the above information with informa-

tion from Table 6, it seems evident that principals were assistant principals or teachers prior to

becoming principals and most served in these positions for less than 10 years. Said another way,

principals are likely to be administrators for the majority of their career and are appointed to these

positions rather early in their career. Percentages are very similar to what was found in the Kochanand Spencer (1999) study.

Table 5. Comparison of position prior to principal at current school data: Kochan and Spencer/Survey of Leadership in Alabama (SOLIA).

Previous positionSOLIA

FrequencySOLIA


Percent

Principal 41 16% 20%Assistant principal 133 52% 47%Teacher 38 15% 19%Assistant superintendent/superintendent 20 7% 2%Other 26 10% 22%

Total 258 100% 100%

Table 6. Comparison of principals years in previous position data: Kochan and Spencer/Survey of Leadershipin Alabama (SOLIA).

Years in positionSOLIA

FrequencySOLIA


Percent

0–4 118 46% 48%5–10 90 35% 28%Subtotal 208 81% 76%11–19 31 12% 19%20–30 15 6% 4%Missing cases 2 0% 1%

Total 258 100% 100%


48




10/21

Origin of principal: current or other school system

When principals were asked if their prior position was in the same system they currently served in,

196 or 76% indicated they were serving in the same system (see Table 8). Fifty-nine or 23 % came

from another system to the present system. Internal mobility and job advancement seem to primarily

come from internal advancements. Less than 25% of administrators are appointed from outside the

system. However, that percent has increased somewhat since the Kochan and Spencer (1999) study.

Level of school principalship: elementary, middle or high school. One hundred ten or 43% of principal

respondents indicated they served pre-Kindergarten and/or elementary schools (see Table 9). Six-

teen percent or 39 principals were administrators in middle schools while 16% or 40 principals

were administrators in high schools. In addition, 12% or 32 were principals of K–12 schools and

37 or 14% were principals of other types of schools.

School community: rural, urban or suburban. Fifty-five percent or 141 principals reported they led

rural schools while 17% headed urban schools and 24% headed suburban schools (see Table 10).

Principals and retirement plans

Retirement eligibility. When asked what year they were eligible for retirement, 50% of respondents

indicated that they were eligible within one year of the survey distribution. Seventy-one percent

were eligible to retire by 2013 or 3 years from the time of the survey. By the year 2015, 82%

of the principals in this state will be eligible to retire. Many more are eligible to retire within the

year than were able in the Kochan and Spencer (1999) study, but those being able to retire within

Table 7. Comparison of national principal characteristics: age – Kochan and Spencer/Survey of Leadership inAlabama (SOLIA).

Age of principal NCESSOLIA

FrequencySOLIA


Percent

Under 40 13% 37 14% 10%40–49 30% 72 28% 47%50 and above 57% 149 58% 43%

Total 100% 258 100% 100%


Table 8. Origin of principal: current or other school system – Kochan and Spencer/Survey of Leadership inAlabama (SOLIA).

System origin prior to appointmentSOLIA

frequencySOLIA

percentKochan & Spencer

percent

Current system 196 76% 83%Another system 59 23% 17%Missing cases 3 1% 0%

Total 258 100% 100%


49




11/21

5 years is substantially more at 82%. These data are consistent with the data reported in Table 7,

which indicated that principals in the SOLIA study are older than those in the Kochan and Spencer

(1999) research. Responses to this question are detailed in Table 11.

Year planning to retire. The year a principal plans to retire differs from the year that they are eligibleto retire. This question is suggestive of when the principal is actually planning to leave the school

system regardless of eligibility to retire. In 2012, 63% planned to retire. In the year 2015, 75% are

planning to retire. These figures are less than the year eligible for retirement, but still suggest a high

rate of retirement for principals in this state by the year 2015. Interestingly, the percent of princi-

pals who planned to retire when they could was higher in the Kochan and Spencer (1999) study

than the SOLIA study. Eligibility to retire and plans to retire do not always match. Some of this

may be related to the economic conditions of the time. Some of these principals may stay longer

than the eligibility to retire year and others may leave earlier due to health or family problems.

However, whatever changes are made in the individual’s decisions, it appears that there will be

a staggering number of school leaders who can and are planning to leave the profession within thenext few years. These data are reported in Table 12.

Factors influencing principals to retire

In both surveys, Kochan and Spencer (1999) and SOLIA, principals were asked to indicate what

factors might influence their decision to retire as a principal. The data for the follow-up survey is

described in Table 13. Factors are listed in priority order along with a comparison with the selec-

tion order of principals in the Kochan and Spencer (1999) study. The most important factor influ-

encing the decision to retire in the SOLIA study was external mandates from national or state

sources (mean ¼

3.48). The top reason in the Kochan and Spencer (1999) study was obtaininganother position. The second most important factor was a need to spend more time with their

Table 9. School principalship: current position – Survey of Leadership in Alabama.

Level of school Frequency Percent

Pre-K through 6th grade 110 43%

Middle school 39 15%High school 40 16%K through 12th grade 32 12%Other 37 14%

Total 258 100%

Table 10. School community: rural, urban, suburban – Survey of Leadership in Alabama.

Community served Frequency Percent

Rural school 141 55%Suburban school 61 24%Urban 45 17%Other 11 4%

Total 258 100%


50




12/21

family (mean ¼ 3.19) and closely associated to this was the third most important factor influencing

retirement: time requirements of the position (mean ¼ 2.98). Principals in the Kochan and Spencer

(1999) study found political issues as the second reason they would retire, while for principals in

SOLIA, these issues were ranked as seventh or ninth. Principals ranked frustration with barriersand the inability to accomplish goals (mean ¼ 2.91) as their fourth reason to consider retirement.

Their counterparts in the Kochan and Spencer (1999) study ranked this as fourth. Internal or district

mandates and requirements was the fifth most reported reason for considering retirement. The fac-

tor causing the least influence on the decision to retire was opposition from teacher organizations

such as the Alabama Educators Association (AEA) (mean ¼ 1.87). It should be noted that Alabama

is a non-union state, so although there is a strong teacher association, they do not have the right to

strike, nor do they engage in school district contract negotiations.

The top five reasons for retiring in SOLIA and in the Kochan and Spencer (1999) studies appear

dramatically different. Principals in the Kochan and Spencer (1999) study stated that they would

leave their positions primarily to get a job somewhere else, whereas principals in the SOLIA studydid not even seem to consider that as something they might want to do. It appears that external

mandates and job expectations are taking their toll on these principals and their families.

Factors influencing principals to remain in their current position

Principals were asked to consider factors that might influence their decision not to retire. This

question was new to the survey so there are no Kochan and Spencer (1999) comparative data.

These data are reported in Table 14. The most important factor influencing the decision not to retire

was ‘‘I can make a difference in student lives’’ (mean ¼ 4.38). Support from the community and

colleagues (mean¼

4.16) and enjoying the work of principal (mean¼

4.13) were also importantreasons to stay. Another significant reason to stay was the support principals expressed they had

Table 11. Comparison of year principal is eligible to retire: Kochan and Spencer/Survey of Leadership inAlabama (SOLIA).

Year eligible toretire SOLIA data

(based on 25 yrs)

SOLIAcumulative

frequency

SOLIAcumulative

percent

Kochan & Spencercumulative

percent

Year eligible to retireKochan & Spencer

(based on 25 yrs)

2010 126 51% 17% 19972013 (3 yrs out) 152 71% 70% 2002 (5 yrs out)2015(5 yrs out) 205 82% 87% 2008 (10 yrs out)2032 258 100% 100% 2022

Table 12. Year principal planning to retire Survey of Leadership in Alabama (SOLIA) data.

Year planning toretire SOLIA

(based on 25 yrs)

SOLIAcumulative

frequency

SOLIAcumulative

percent

Kochan & Spencercumulative

percent

Year eligible to retireKochan & Spencer

(based on 25 yrs)

2010 33 32% 40% 19972012 111 63% 79% 20022015 142 75% 100% 20082032 258 100% —— 2002


51




13/21

from their family (mean ¼ 4.08). Personal finances (mean ¼ 3.73) was the fifth most important

reason to stay. In relation to other factors, one that did not appear to be an important consideration

for staying was being worried about what to do after they retired (mean ¼ 2.50). These questions

were not asked in Kochan and Spencer (1999) and so comparisons cannot be made. The support

principals receive from the community, family and faculty and the accomplishments that come

from working with children seem to be important factors for principals to remain in their positions.

Discussion and implications

A demographic view of the principalships

There are four main issues that should be addressed in regards to the demographic data garnered

from the study. Firstly, gender and racial make-up of the present administrative force appears to be

trending towards a more equitable balance with women, but not with all ethnic minority groups.Women in Alabama make up the majority, 75%, of the teaching ranks in this state but only hold

Table 13. Factors influencing the decision to retire: Kochan and Spencer/Survey of Leadership in Alabama(SOLIA).

Factor influencing retirement

Mean

SOLIA

Standarddeviation

SOLIA

Top 5reasons

SOLIA

Top 5 reasonsKochan &

Spencer

External mandates or requirementsfrom national, state or other

3.48 1.35 X

Need for more time with family 3.19 1.40 XTime requirements of the position 2.98 1.42 XFrustration with barriers 2.91 1.36 X 5Internal mandates 2.85 1.24 XBurnout 2.74 1.41 3System politics 2.73 1.35 2 tieFinancial inadequacies in school

System2.35 1.26

Political conflicts in localCommunity

2.32 1.41 2 tie

Obtain other position in state 2.27 1.42 1Obtain position outside state 2.21 1.43 4Opposition from teacher

organizations1.87 1.04

Table 14. Reasons NOT to retire – Survey of Leadership in Alabama.

Reasons NOT to retire Mean Standard deviation

I can make a difference in student lives 4.38 .899Support by community and colleagues 4.16 1.04Still enjoy principals work 4.13 1.12Support from family 4.08 1.06Personal finances 3.73 1.26Not sure what will do if retire 2.50 1.36


52




14/21

41% of the principal positions. In addition, half of the state population, 51 %, is female. Students,

and especially female students, need to see their gender in leadership roles. While Alabama has

made a positive trend in female principals during the last decade, moving from 35% to 41%,

researchers would be willing to speculate most of these positional gains have been made at the ele-

mentary school level. For example, nationally only 26% of women hold secondary principal posi-tions while they held 56% of the elementary positions for a national average of 41%. Further

research should be conducted in the state and on a national level as to why secondary school prin-

cipalships have persistently been a barrier for women.

A huge area of concern arises when looking at the trend for African American principals. They

are lagging behind their White counterparts in principal positions and have not made a significant

gain since the last study was done over a decade ago. While Alabama appears to have more African

American principals, 17%, than the NCES (2010) national average of 10%, it does not represent

the state’s overall racial composition of 26% nor does it represent the state’s non-White student

population of 41%, a statistic that has been on the rise during the last decade (Singleton-

Rickman, 2010). In addition, recent data indicates that for the first time in history, public schoolsin the south are serving more poverty-stricken minority students than any other population group.

Those that can afford private schools are continuing to leave and thus the balance has now shifted

to public schools serving poor and minority populations in this part of the country (Suitts, 2010).

Hispanics appear to be keeping pace in 2010. Even Native American principals have

increased. In relation to all of these changes if one looks at the percentage of White principals

it appears to have declined by 9%. That 9% decrease in White principals is largely explained

by the 4% Hispanic and Native American principals and the meager 2% increase in African

American principals. If these numbers are representative of what is going on in the state, then

African Americans, who represent the second largest group in Alabama, are not keeping pace

with other minority group principals.Diversity is an important concept for all school personnel and especially those in leadership

positions (ALSDE, 2010; Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium, 2008; University

Council of Educational Administration, 2010). There is a growing recognition that the students

attending schools will best be served by adults who can understand their diverse backgrounds

(Howard, 2006; Leithwood et al., 2010; Murphy and Myers, 2008). In addition, these students

deserve to have role models in the community. Superintendents and community leaders in the state

should investigate why this situation continues to exist.

The state could address this issue in a number of ways. Firstly, there should be an examination

as to whether African Americans are entering master’s programs to receive certification in the state

and if they are not, reasons should be investigated. If funding is an issue, scholarships or forgive-ness loans might be considered for minorities and females to encourage their entry into the prin-

cipal realm. In addition, mentoring programs should be considered as a means of encouraging

minorities and women to enter administrative avenues. If minorities and women are gaining their

degrees but not entering the administrative realms, the reasons should be examined.

A third factor for this state is to address the aging of the principal population. In Alabama the

majority of principals are 50 years or older. This is a large increase in comparison to the Kochan

and Spencer (1999) study. If we compare the aging principal data with eligibility to retire and plans

to retire data (Tables 11 and 12), the state numbers become almost overwhelming. By the year

2015, 82% of principals in Alabama are eligible to retire and 75% of them plan to retire. It is very

likely there will be a tremendous shortage over the next several decades. With the principals becom-ing older and planning to retire, the issue of who will replace them becomes paramount.


53




15/21

Some research has suggested extensive mentoring programs (Educational Research Service,

2000), especially for systems that face critical shortages, that is, rural and poverty-stricken areas,

as strategies to deal with the issue of replacing retiring principals and assuring that they will stay in

their positions. However, with present economic conditions professional development funds from

state sources have been completely halted. School systems that do mentor are doing so with noresource support.

In Alabama, principal development and mentoring continues to primarily be addressed through

higher education institutions. This is not a bad thing. A recent redesign of state college and univer-

sity educational leadership programs in 2007–2008 has been geared to assure that school systems

are receiving better leadership preparation. Some of these institutions are beginning to track their

graduates, but it is still too early to tell their impact. Since most of the principals come from the

ranks of the assistant principalship, the state may wish to address policy changes that permit addi-

tional funding for schools to hire more assistant principals during the next five years to assure a

more well-trained principal pool. A few years ago, the state was considering funding more exten-

sive internship programs for those gaining graduate leadership degrees. Although funding is tight,funding full year internships would strengthen the principalship program, provide extra help to

schools, and assure that as principals retire, there will be individuals in place who can replace them

more easily and more successfully because of their internship experiences. A policy that needs to

be addressed by Alabama is mentoring assistant principals. There is no formal mentoring program

sponsored by any branch of state government. Some more affluent local systems may have such

programs, but it is doubtful that any exist within rural school systems.

The final demographic to be considered is that principals in Alabama appear to be more edu-

cated than their national counterparts. In the last decade master’s degrees have remained stable

at 40%. Specialist degrees have decreased from 30% to 17%, but graduate credit towards a doc-

torate degree and earned doctorates have increased from the Kochan and Spencer (1999) 28 % fig-ure to 41% in the SOLIA study. These findings are supported by comparing the Kochan and

Spencer (1999) and SOLIA study certification levels of principals. This is an interesting finding.

It does not match the demographics of the rest of the state, which has a lower percentage of college

graduates than the nation and there is no indication as to why this higher education level exists.

This would be an area for further study. In addition, it might be of value to determine what types

of schools these individuals serve and whether their student performance levels are higher than

those of principals without doctoral degrees.

Results from our study indicated that 55% of school districts in the state are rural. This is sup-

ported by census data (United States Census Bureau, 2011). In addition, most school systems pro-

mote administrators from teaching or assistant principal ranks (Table 5). In addition, the principalsreported that they were promoted to their current position after serving in another capacity within

the same system 76% of the time.

It might be advantageous for Alabama school systems to determine it this method for selection

of principals is somehow excluding minorities and women. It might be of value for school systems

to identify and groom minorities, particularly African Americans and females, within their com-

munity to take the school leadership positions. Grow-your-own programs such as Georgia’s Lead-

ership Institute for School Improvement (www.galeaders.org) or the Australian Central Territory

(ACT) School Leadership Framework (2011) (http://www.det.act.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/

0011/64298/SchoolImprovementFramework.pdf ) might be considered as models. The Alabama

State Department of Education should consider working with the legislature to put policies in placeto foster similar initiatives in Alabama.


54


http://www.det.act.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0011/64298/SchoolImprovementFramework.pdfhttp://www.det.act.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0011/64298/SchoolImprovementFramework.pdfhttp://ema.sagepub.com/http://ema.sagepub.com/http://ema.sagepub.com/http://ema.sagepub.com/http://www.det.act.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0011/64298/SchoolImprovementFramework.pdfhttp://www.det.act.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0011/64298/SchoolImprovementFramework.pdf


16/21

Principal retention or principal attrition: why do they choose to stay or go?

In 1999 Kochan and Spencer found that the most critical reasons principals chose to leave was to

take a position elsewhere in the state, political conflict in the local community and the school sys-

tem, burnout, leaving to take a position outside the state and frustration with barriers. The only one

of these that made the top five in the SOLIA study was frustration with barriers and it was ranked

fifth. The five top reasons in the SOLIA study were directly or indirectly related to external man-

dates from the national and state level or internal mandates from the school system. Time, as the

Educational Research Service suggested in 2000, has become a major problem for principals. They

are spending more and more time on school issues and less time at home with their families. Given

the same choices, the time since the Kochan and Spencer (1999) study showed a dramatic trend for

principals in Alabama. Research suggested this trend would occur, and it did (Educational

Research Service, 2000). No doubt the age of accountability and No Child Left Behind has taken

its toll on educators.

One of the most powerful findings from the SOLIA study, and an area that is not widely exam-

ined, was exploring why principals might stay in their positions, rather than choosing to retire. The

top five reasons why they might stay all focused on positive relationships with the community, col-

leagues, students and families (Table 14). Principals understand the need for relationship building.

Research informs teachers and administrators of the importance in establishing positive relation-

ships with stakeholder groups. In fact, most national organizations associated with instructional

leadership web the concept of relationship building in their standards by suggesting collaboration,

collegial relationships, involving community stakeholders, defining leadership as shared, and

recognizing the diversity and needs of students and their families (ALSDE, 2010; Interstate School

Leaders Licensure Consortium, 2008). Principals appear to have this part of the message right and

they obviously feel if they can do this, then it is worth staying. After all, making a difference in

student’s lives is their number one reason for staying.

States and school systems need to find a way to combine these reasons for leaving and reasons

for staying and find solutions to the factors for leaving and foster the reasons for staying. This is

especially important in poverty-stricken communities, rural communities or schools with high

numbers of minority students. Schools with multiple disadvantages such as those described above

have a difficult time retaining their leaders (Papa, 2007). Since principals are being held respon-

sible for just about everything, it will be important to find ways to support the relationship building

principals see as critical to their success.

A study by Bottery et al. (2008) indicated that while school leaders in Great Britain viewed

external mandates as oppressive and adversarial, head teachers in Hong Kong had few com-

plaints about these mandates and had a favorable attitude toward them. They propose that someof this difference may be related to the greater flexibility of the implementation of these man-

dates and the differences in how procedures were monitored by outside agencies. It might be use-

ful for the State Department of Education to meet with the state principal association and state

superintendents to address whether there are external mandates that might be reconsidered and

whether there are ways to make the principalship less controlled by the state, while still meeting

the accountability needs established by the legislature. Perhaps a review of all policies would be

a good starting point.

Tucker (2010) found that one of the greatest causes of stress for school leaders was a lack of

systems of support. One way to provide such support systems is through mentoring programs

within school leader support networks (Silver et al., 2009). Another more comprehensive strategy


55




17/21

is to change the role of the school leaders. There is a growing consensus that today’s complex, rap-

idly changing global world may require school leadership models that rely on seeing the principal

not as the person in charge of the school, but rather as a ‘‘facilitator, collaborator and as a team

player’’ (DeLeon, 2006: 4). Spillane (2006) explains that the important part of distributive leader-

ship is the ‘‘joint interactions’’ (p.3) and ‘‘collective actions’’ (p.4) of the leader and followers. Hesuggests that leadership is best done through relationship building. Others suggest a democratic

brand of leadership that calls for high levels of participation from members in the organization

(Begley and Zaretsky, 2004; Kensler, 2010; Kensler et al., 2009; Murphy, 2002). The state of Ala-

bama has already begun the process of creating this type of leadership model. It recently mandated

the use of school leadership teams comprised of teachers and school leaders to work as a team in

fostering student learning and school success. Research on the perceptions of principals regarding

this initiative should be conducted over the next few years to see if their reasons for contemplating

retirement and the percent that wish to retire changes.

Thomson (2008) suggests that principals and educational leaders initiate strategies to use the

media to tell their story in terms of the stresses they are living with to gain public support for thelessening of demands upon them and their schools. He suggests that such initiatives might foster an

increase in responsibility from the broader community for dealing with the contextual elements in

the broader community that add to school failure. He further proposes that such actions may foster

public support and in turn make the job of school leader more tenable.

Concluding thoughts and reflections

The SOLIA study captured information related to the demographic make-up of principals in

Alabama and presented a snapshot of the stresses they are under, the things that keep them going,

and their reasons for considering leaving the profession. In several respects, Alabama is facing the

same issues and concerns expressed across the nation and world in terms of attracting and retaining

qualified leaders in our schools. The voices from this study mirror those of other national and inter-

national studies and add some important knowledge to our understanding of the perceptions and

feelings of school leaders. We hope these voices help to stimulate dialogue and encourage the

development of strategies to support and develop school leaders in Alabama and in similar situa-

tions and locations throughout the world, dealing with issues of principal stress, retention and

recruitment. It is also our hope that additional studies into reasons why principals leave and stay

in their positions and strategies to support them will be implemented throughout the world.

FundingThis research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit

sectors.

Acknowledgment

We extend our appreciation to Frances K Kochan and William Spencer for allowing us to compare SOLIA

data with those collected in their 1999 study.

References

Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE) (2010) Available at: http://www.alsde.edu/html/home.asp(accessed 1 March 2010).


56


http://www.alsde.edu/html/home.asphttp://ema.sagepub.com/http://ema.sagepub.com/http://ema.sagepub.com/http://ema.sagepub.com/http://www.alsde.edu/html/home.asp


18/21

Anderson M, Kleinhenz E, Mulford B, et al. (2008) Professional learning of school leaders in Australia. In:

Lumby J, Crow G and Pashiards P (eds) International Handbook on the Preparation and Development of

School Leaders. New York, NY: Routledge.

Australian Council for Educational Leaders (ACEL) (2013) The ACEL leadership capability framework. Avail-

able at: http://www.curriculum.edu.au/leader/introducing_the_acel_leadership_capability_framewo,27729.html?issueID=11775 (accessed October 26 2013).

Battle D (2009) Characteristics of Public, Private, and Bureau of Indian Education Elementary and Secondary

School Principals in the United States: Results From the 200708 Schools and Staffing Survey (NCES 2009-

323). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S.

Department of Education.

Begley PT and Zaretsky L (2004) Democratic school leadership in Canada’s public school systems: profes-

sional value and social ethic. Journal of Educational Administration 42(6): 640–655.

Bottery M, Ngai G, Wong PM, et al. (2008) Leaders and contexts: Comparing English and Hong Kong per-

ceptions of educational challenges. International Studies in Educational Administration 36(1): 56–71.

Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLB) (2005) Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2006–2007 . Washington, DC:U.S. Department of Labor. Available at: http://stats.bls.gov/oco/ocos007.htm (accessed 5 July 2009).

Bush T (2009) Leadership development and school improvement: Contemporary issues in leadership devel-

opment. Educational Review 61(4): 375–389.

Cantano N and Stronge JH (2007) What do we expect of school principals? Congruence between principal

evaluation and performance standards. International Journal of Leadership in Education 10(4): 379–399.

Chalker DM (2002) Leadership for Rural Schools: Lessons for all Educators. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press.

Chaplain RP (2001) Stress and job satisfaction among primary headteachers: A question of balance? Educa-

tional Management and Administration 29(2): 197–215.

Cowie M and Crawford M (2009) Headteacher preparation programmes in England and Scotland: do they

make a difference for the first-year head? School Leadership and Management 29(1): 5–21.Darling-Hammond L (2000) How teacher education matters. Journal of Teacher Education 51(3): 166–173.

DeLeon AG (2006) The school leadership crisis: Have school principals been left behind? Carnegie Reporter ,

4(1): 1–5.

DeVellis RF (2011) Scale development: Theory and development . 3rd ed. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

Dinham S (2007) How schools get moving and keep improving: Leadership for teacher learning, student

success and school renewal. Australian Council for Educational Research 51(3): 263–275.

Doud JL and Keller EP (1998) The k-8 Principal in 1998: A Ten-year Study. Alexandria, VA: National Asso-

ciation of Elementary School Principals (NAESP).

Educational Research Service (1998) Is there a Shortage of Qualified Candidates for Openings in the Prin-

cipalship? Washington, DC: Author.Educational Research Service; National Association of Elementary School Principals; and National Associ-

ation of Secondary School Principals (2000) The Principal, Keystone of a High-achieving School: Attract-

ing and Keeping the Leaders we need . Arlington, VA: Authors.

Englezakis D (2002) Occupational stress, job satisfaction and coping actions among Cyprus headteachers. In:

Baldacchine G and Farrugia CJ (eds) Educational Planning and Management in Small States: Concepts

and Experiences. London: Commonwealth Secretariat, pp.119–134.

Ferrandino VL (2001) Challenges for 21st-Century Elementary School Principals. Kappan 82(6): 440–442.

Fullan M (2005) Leadership and Sustainability. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Fuller E and Young M (2009) Texas High School Project Leadership Initiative Issue Brief 1: Tenure and

Retention of Newly Hired Principals in Texas. Austin, TX: University Council for Educational Adminis-tration &Department of Educational Administration, The University of Texas at Austin.


57


http://www.curriculum.edu.au/leader/introducing_the_acel_leadership_capability_framewo,27729.html?issueID=11775http://www.curriculum.edu.au/leader/introducing_the_acel_leadership_capability_framewo,27729.html?issueID=11775http://stats.bls.gov/oco/ocos007.htmhttp://ema.sagepub.com/http://ema.sagepub.com/http://ema.sagepub.com/http://ema.sagepub.com/http://stats.bls.gov/oco/ocos007.htmhttp://www.curriculum.edu.au/leader/introducing_the_acel_leadership_capability_framewo,27729.html?issueID=11775http://www.curriculum.edu.au/leader/introducing_the_acel_leadership_capability_framewo,27729.html?issueID=11775


19/21

Ginsberg R and Multon KD (2011) Leading through a fiscal nightmare: The impact on principals and super-

intendents. Kappan 92(8): 42–47.

Gurr D, Drysdate L and Mulford B (2005) Successful principal leadership: Australian case studies. Journal of

Educational Administration 43(6): 539–551.

Hair JF, Black WC, Babin BJ, et al. (2009) Multivariate Data Analysis: Global Edition. 7th ed. Upper SaddleRiver, NJ: Pearson Education.

Hall GEand Hord SM (2001) Implementing Change: Patterns, Principles and Potholes. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Hallinger P (2003) School leadership preparation and development in global perspective: Future challenges

and opportunities. In: Hallinger P (ed) Reshaping the Landscape of School Leadership Development .

Lisse: Swets and Zeitlinger, pp.289–300.

Hattie J (2003, October) Teachers make a difference: What is the research evidence? Paper presented to

Australian Council research annual conference, Melbourne. Available at: http://www.educationallea

ders.govt.nz/Pedagogy-and-assessment/Evidence-based-leadership/Measuring-learning/Teachers-Make-a-

Difference-What-is-the-Research-Evidence (accessed 14 September 2011).

Hean LL and Tin LG (2008) Envisioning in school leadership preparation and practice: The case of Singa- pore. International Studies in Educational Administration 36(1): 72–80.

Howard G (2006) We Can’t Teach What We Don’t Know: White Teachers, Multiracial Schools. 2nd ed. New

York: Teachers College Press.

Hoy W and Miskel C (2001) Educational Administration: Theory, Research, and Practice. New York: Random

House.

Ingvarson L and Anderson M (2007) Standards for leadership: Gateway to a stronger profession. Australian

Council for Educational Research (ACER). Available at: http://research.acer.edu.au/research_confer-

ence_2007/2 (accessed 30 November 2011).

Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium (2008) Educational Leadership Policy Standards: ISLLC

2008. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers. Available at: http://www.ccsso.org/publications/details.cfm?PublicationID¼365 (accessed 29 June 2009).

Jacobson S (2010) Leadership effects on student achievement and sustained school success. International

Journal of Educational Management 25(1): 33–44.

Jacobson SL and Bezzina C (2010) Effects of leadership on student academic/affective achievement. In:

Lumby J, Crow G and Pashiards P (eds) International Handbook on the Preparation and Development

of School Leaders. New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 81–103.

Kensler LAW (2010) Designing democratic community for social justice. International Journal of Urban

Educational Leadership 4(1): 1–21.

Kensler LAW, Caskie GIL, Barber ME, et al. (2009) The ecology of democratic learning communities: Faculty

trust and continuous learning in public middle schools. Journal of School Leadership 19(6): 697–734.Kersten T and Kersten J (2006) Development: Have you considered school administration. Kappa Delta Pi

Record 42(3): 120–123.

Kochan F (2010) The dean’s role in educational leadership program redesign: The Alabama perspective.

Journal of Research in Educational Leadership 5(12.8): 507–530.

Kochan F, Jackson B and Duke D (1999) Voices from the Firing Line: A Study of Educational Leaders’

Perceptions of their Job, the Challenges they Face, and their Preparation Programs. Columbus, MO:

University Council for Educational Administrators.

Kochan F and Spencer WA (1999) Preparing Leaders for Tomorrow’s Schools: The Practitioners’ Perspec-

tives. Research in the Schools 6(1): 9–16.

Kutash J, Nico E, Gorin E, et al. (2010) School turnaround: A brief overview of the landscape and key issues.FSG Social Impact Advisors. Boston, MA: FSG Social Impact Advisors.


58


http://www.educationalleaders.govt.nz/Pedagogy-and-assessment/Evidence-based-leadership/Measuring-learning/Teachers-Make-a-Difference-What-is-the-Research-Evidencehttp://www.educationalleaders.govt.nz/Pedagogy-and-assessment/Evidence-based-leadership/Measuring-learning/Teachers-Make-a-Difference-What-is-the-Research-Evidencehttp://www.educationalleaders.govt.nz/Pedagogy-and-assessment/Evidence-based-leadership/Measuring-learning/Teachers-Make-a-Difference-What-is-the-Research-Evidencehttp://research.acer.edu.au/research_conference_2007/2http://research.acer.edu.au/research_conference_2007/2http://www.ccsso.org/publications/details.cfm?PublicationID=365http://www.ccsso.org/publications/details.cfm?PublicationID=365http://www.ccsso.org/publications/details.cfm?PublicationID=365http://ema.sagepub.com/http://ema.sagepub.com/http://ema.sagepub.com/http://ema.sagepub.com/http://www.ccsso.org/publications/details.cfm?PublicationID=365http://www.ccsso.org/publications/details.cfm?PublicationID=365http://www.ccsso.org/publications/details.cfm?PublicationID=365http://research.acer.edu.au/research_conference_2007/2http://research.acer.edu.au/research_conference_2007/2http://www.educationalleaders.govt.nz/Pedagogy-and-assessment/Evidence-based-leadership/Measuring-learning/Teachers-Make-a-Difference-What-is-the-Research-Evidencehttp://www.educationalleaders.govt.nz/Pedagogy-and-assessment/Evidence-based-leadership/Measuring-learning/Teachers-Make-a-Difference-What-is-the-Research-Evidencehttp://www.educationalleaders.govt.nz/Pedagogy-and-assessment/Evidence-based-leadership/Measuring-learning/Teachers-Make-a-Difference-What-is-the-Research-Evidence


20/21


21/21

Southern Regional Educational Board (2007) Schools Need Good Leaders Now: State Progress in Creating

Learner-centered School Leadership System. Atlanta, GA: Author.

Spillane JP (2006) Distributive Leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Suitts S (2010) A New Diverse Majority: Students of Color in the South’s Public Schools Southern Education

Foundation Research Report . Atlanta, GA: Southern Education Foundation.Thomson P (2008) Answering back to policy? Headteachers’ stress and the logic of the sympathetic interview.

Journal of Education Policy 23(6): 649–667.

Townsend T (2009) Third millennium leaders: Thinking and acting both locally and globally. Leadership and

Policy in Schools 8(4): 355–379.

Tsiakkiros A and Pashiardis P (2002) Occupational stress of schools’ teachers, and headteachers: A qualita-

tive approach. Pedagogical Review 33: 195–213.

Tsiakkiros A and Pashiardis P (2006) Occupational stress among Cyprus headteachers: Sources and coping

strategies. International Studies in Educational Administration 34(2):100–114.

Tucker S (2010) An investigation of the stresses, pressures, and challenges faced by primary school head

teachers in context of organizational change in schools. Journal of Social Work Practice 2(24): 63–74.University Council of Educational Administration (2010) Values, Vision and Goals. Austin, TX: University

Council of Educational Administration. Available at: http://www.ucea.org/values-vision-goals/ (accessed

1 April 2010).

United States Census Bureau (2000) Unites States Census Bureau Report . Washington, DC: United States

Census Bureau. Available at: http://www.census.gov/census2000/states/al.html (accessed 15 July 2009).

United States Census Bureau (2011) American FactFinder . Washington, DC: United States Census Bureau.

Available at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2011pubs/acsbr10-17.pdf (accessed 28 February 2010).

Walker A, Hallinger P and Qian HY (2007) Leadership development for school effectiveness and improve-

ment in East Asia. In: Townsend T (ed.) International Handbook of School Effectiveness and School

Improvement . Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer, pp.659–677.Weiss S (2005) District and school leadership. The Progress of Education Reform 6(2): 23–28.

Wong K (2005) Conditions and practice of successful principalship in Shanghai. Journal of Educational

Administration 43(6): 552–562.

Young MD and Grogan M (2008) Leadership preparation and development in North America. In: Lumby J,

Crow G and Pashiards P (eds) International Handbook on the Preparation and Development of School

Leaders. New York, NY: Routledge, pp.303–324.

Author biographies

Ellen H. Reames is an Associate Professor and Educational Programme Coordinator at AuburnUniversity, USA.

Frances K. Kochan is Wayne T Smith Distinguished Professor in the Department of Educational

Foundations, Leadership and Technology, Auburn University, USA.

Linxiang Zhu is an assistant professor at Georgia Southern University, USA.


60
http://www.ucea.org/values-vision-goals/http://www.census.gov/census2000/states/al.htmlhttp://www.census.gov/prod/2011pubs/acsbr10-17.pdfhttp://www.census.gov/prod/2011pubs/acsbr10-17.pdfhttp://www.census.gov/census2000/states/al.htmlhttp://www.ucea.org/values-vision-goals/

Documents

Educational Management Administration & Leadership 2014 Reames 40 60