Wynn Brown - National FORUM of Applied Educational Research Journal - , - William Allan Kritsonis, PhD - Editor-in-Chief (Founded 1`982)

7/28/2019 Wynn Brown - National FORUM of Applied Educational Research Journal - www.nationalforum.com, - William Allan …

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/wynn-brown-national-forum-of-applied-educational-research-journal-wwwnationalforumcom 1/37



4 NATIONAL FORUM OF APPLIED EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH JOURNAL

Introduction

These are difficult times for educators. These are even moredifficult times for school districts that are confronting the mounting

problem of filling both teaching positions and administrative postswith highly qualified professionals. No one would argue that it isessential to have both well-qualified teachers and administrators toconfront the growing complexities of public education. However,available evidence suggests that many school districts areencountering a paucity of applicants in the candidate pool for teacher and for administrator positions.

Researchers posit that 30% to 50% of teachers leave after five years in the profession (Ingersoll, 2003; Wilson, 2000).In fact, nine percent of new teachers do not complete their

first year (Black, 2001), and 14% leave after their first year (Ingersoll, 2002). According to American School BoardJournal, 30% of beginning teachers leave the classroomwithin three years. Nine percent of new teachers do notmake it through their first year of teaching (Black, 2001).Coupled with this sobering statistic is the fact thatenrollment in public schools is projected to grow by 4% between 1997 and 2009 (Olson, 2000). While enrollment is projected to grow, the teaching pool is shrinking. With theaverage teacher being 44 years old, school districts canexpect to face numerous retirements in the coming years

(Olson, 2000). These statistics raise some important issuesfor school districts already feeling the effects of thefederally legislated No Child Left Behind Act thatstipulates all schools receiving Title I funds must be staffedwith highly qualified teachers.

Indicators also point to a potential shortage of administrators, ashortage many states are already experiencing. Education Week

reported that out of 403 randomly selected districts, over 50% indicatea shortage of candidates for principalships (Olson, 1999). These



Susan R. Wynn & Kathleen M. Brown 5

shortages were reported in urban, rural, and suburban districts andwere true for elementary, middle, and high schools. A study conducted by the Educational Research Service (1998) under the auspices of the National Association of Elementary School Principals (NAESP) and

the National Association of Secondary School Principals (NASSP)reported that two out of every three principals surveyed indicated aconcern over whether or not school districts could attract high-qualityleaders. The Bureau of Labor Statistics predicted the demand for school administrators will increase 10 to 20% due to retirements( American School Board Journal , 1998).

One way to examine the teacher and administrator shortage isto explore the gendered nature of education. Women constitute 73% of the teaching force in the United States ( American School Board

Journal , 1998). Given the preponderance of women teachers, one

would expect women to occupy the majority of administrative positions as well. The percentage of women serving in leadershipsroles, however, clearly demonstrates their under-representation in thefield: women hold only 11% of school superintendencies, 9.9% of high school principalships, and 42% of elementary and middle school principalships combined ( American School Board Journal , 1998).These numbers illustrate what historically has been the case ineducational administration—men have traditionally heldsuperintendencies, principalships, and other positions of power, whilewomen have served predominantly as teachers.

The issue at hand is there is a growing shortage of qualifiedadministrators and teachers. This study sought to explore the perceptions of leadership-skilled women teachers who choose toremain in the classroom in order to gain insight into how theseteachers view school administration. In an effort to be proactive, it isimportant to understand why women teachers who possess leadershipskills choose to remain in the classroom rather than seek career advancement. A more comprehensive understanding of thiscircumstance could ultimately impact policies as they relate to issues




of job satisfaction for teachers, the job description of principals, and perhaps lead to an untapped source of candidates for schooladministrative positions.

Women and Leadership

The topic of women and leadership has received muchattention in recent years, in part because earlier research onorganizations was based solely upon men and their experiences.Androcentrism, the practice of viewing the world and shaping realitythrough a male lens, is evident in many areas and particularly so intheories about leadership and organizations (Shakeshaft, 1993).Traditional theories of leadership were based upon traditional maleexperiences and understandings (Brunner, 1997). Researchers assumed

that their findings were applicable, regardless of race and gender; thus,the theories used to frame research, such as contingency theory andTheory X and Theory Y, remained silent on issues of race and gender (Banks, 2000). This clearly presents a problem when this is consideredthe “norm” against which all others are measured. As Shakeshaft(1993) noted, “Studying male behavior, and more particularly whitemale behavior, is not by itself a problem. It becomes a problem whenthe results of studying male behavior are assumed appropriate for understanding all behavior” (p.94).

That said, the question arises, do women have their ownleadership style? To say that all women lead differently from men is torun the risk of over-generalizing and essentializing. Some womenexhibit leadership styles that can be described as authoritarian, whilesome men exhibit democratic leadership. The most apposite strategy isthe one proposed by Grogan (1999), who stated that it is important tooperate “on the understanding that there is no one set of experiencesthat can be labeled as women’s experiences, and that women may beas different as they are alike” (p.523). With this in mind, an overviewof the literature on women’s ways of leadership might be useful.




Shakeshaft (1995) argued that one explanation for difference instyle of women school administrators is attributable to language,stating that women administrators use language that can becharacterized as “power with” versus “power over” (p.12). For many

women school administrators, this language difference plays out inmany different arenas, including teacher relationships, instruction,community, and evaluation: “Women spend more time with people,communicate more, care more about individual differences, areconcerned more with teachers and marginal students, and motivatemore than do men” (Shakeshaft, 1995, p.12). Ozga and Walker (1995)added that women principals exhibit more effective communicationskills and foster a sense of community in their schools. Even thecommunication through body language by women administrators isconsidered less dominant.

In an Australian study, Blackmore (1993) discovered thatwomen principals “work against formal hierarchy, are morecollaborative, and tend to focus on students and curriculum” (p.50).Additionally, she found that women were focused more on instructionthan men and exhibited more knowledge of teaching methodology andinstruction techniques. Women principals also gave more feedback regarding instruction than did men, generally. In evaluation settings,teacher feedback from women principals was more collegial incomparison to the feedback given by their male counterparts. This wasevident by the fact that women principals asked more questions andused the pronoun ‘we’ as opposed to ‘I.’ “Males, more than females,

approached the task as expert and judge. Women principals interactedmore as facilitator and helper” (p.17).

Women may or may not bring something different to schoolleadership. As Shakeshaft (1999) noted, recent literature builds thecase that women administrators are “more democratic, caring, andreform-minded than their male counterparts” (p.115). She also puzzledthat if it is indeed true that women approach the job of administrationdifferently from men, the reason why this is true is less clear.




Women in School Administration

At a time when leading schools is growing more complex andchallenging, women have made some gains in assuming school

leadership roles, which were once considered the sole domain of men.The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) reported that the percentage of female principals rose from 21.4% to 34.5% from 1984to 1994. Among principals with less than five years of administrativeexperience, more than 38% were women (Zheng & Carpenter-Hubin,1999). In 1998 women held 42% of elementary principalships,indicating that women have certainly made progress at this level. Onthe other hand, at the middle school level women accounted for only24.8% of junior/middle school principalships. The disproportion waseven more evident at the high school level, where women retainedonly 9% of the principalships ( American School Board Journal, 1998).

Certainly the number of women school administrators hasincreased, particularly at the elementary school level. However, whencomparing the number of women school administrators with thenumber of women teachers, inequities clearly still exist. The researchdocumenting the barriers and constraints that women in schooladministration face is extensive. However, there is emerging interestin the area of women who have leadership skills but are saying no toadministration. Researchers examined the internal and external barriers that 92 women in Texas perceived constrained them fromactively seeking administrative posts (DeFelice & Schroth, 1999).

Internal barriers related to women’s perceptions of themselves, andexternal barriers referred to those over which women had little control.Similar studies conducted in 1977 and in 1992 had determined thatthere were internal barriers that women gave for not going intoadministration. These internal barriers ranged from lack of interest inadministration, unwillingness to relocate, and family/personalconstraints. Women in this Texas study reported external barriers aswell, including politics and the “good old boy” network, lack of support from colleagues and mentors, and sexual discrimination.Women also cited race, age and lack of experience as barriers to them




obtaining administrative positions (DeFelice & Schroth, 1999). Theresearchers concluded that not much had changed in the 20 years sincethe 1977 study.

Several possible conclusions can be drawn about womenteachers and their aspirations to administration. One conclusion is thatthere is at least a perception regarding external barriers that preventthem from considering administration. Secondly, there appear to beinternal constraints that women have that perhaps men do not.

Boulton and Coldron (1998) noted that many of the barrierswomen experience come from “the gendered nature of relationships”(p.160). In this study the researchers sought to demonstrate how whatappears to be choice is actually constraint. Recognizing the lack of generalizability, these researchers examined one case in which a

highly qualified woman did not apply for a management level positionin a school in England known for its concern with equality issues.What was first perceived to be choice on the part of the womancandidate to decline applying clearly became a case of constraints.These constraints were not the result of external barriers that have been well documented by the literature. Instead, they were a complexmixture of internal “feelings” that the candidate had, such as she didnot receive strong vocal support from her colleagues and shequestioned the impact her appointment would have on her workingrelationship with her male counterpart. “Most importantly, what isdemonstrated is that in an environment where commitment to equal

opportunities was genuine and widespread, it was still possible for anable and confident woman to feel isolated and disadvantaged by theactions of her colleagues” (p.159). The constraints revealed in this particular study were “less tangible though perhaps just as widelyexperienced as constraints associated with family role or those relatedto notions of promotability, with which we are more familiar” (p.160).These intangible constraints are what this current study on leadership-skilled women teachers sought to uncover and name.




Conceptual Framework

The combination of two theoretical approaches, post-structuralism and feminist theory, promotes an examination of the

institutional and social contexts in which women teachers withleadership abilities operate. This particular framework serves the dual purposes of giving voice to marginalized groups and at the same time,understanding these voices in a different way. As Lather (1991) noted,the coupling of feminism to poststructuralism includes the retention of practice with the growth of theory, the belief in human potential toimpact practice, and the desire to take a stand while engaging in self-reflection. Grogan (1996) proposed feminist poststructuralism as atheory “that identifies possibilities for social change by inquiring intothe origins and manifestations of both institutional knowledge and beliefs and individual knowledge and beliefs” (p.34). Scott (1988)

added that poststructuralism and contemporary feminism are bothmovements that “share a certain self-conscious critical relationship toestablished philosophical and political traditions” (p.34). The agenda afeminist postructuralism might consider includes an analysis of the patriarchal structures of society, with an emphasis on the relation between language, subjectivity, and power (Weedon, 1997).

Four features of poststructuralism were of central importancefor this research study: language and discourse, power, subjectivity,and common sense assumptions. These constructs were used as toolsto analyze the voices of the women who were interviewed for this

study. Feminist poststructural theories refer to the interactions andcontradictions among language, subjectivity, power and commonsense assumptions that are used to examine how power is exercisedand the potential for change. Capper (1992) explicated these four constructs and offered questions that can be used to effectively addresseach area.




Language and Discourse

Without doubt, language and discourse are at the heart of poststructrualist analysis (Scott, 1988). Weedon (1997) noted, “For

poststructuralist theory, the common factor in the analysis of socialorganization, social meanings, power and individual consciousness islanguage. Language is the place where actual and possible forms of social organization and their likely social and political consequencesare defined and contested” (p.21). Language must be understood asexisting within the context of historical discourses and also in terms of competing discourses. Language and discursive practices revealvarious conceptions of femininity and masculinity through which people live their lives (Weedon, 1997).

Scott (1988) explained that language is more than just words,vocabulary or grammatical rules, but is a “meaning-constitutingsystem,” a system “through which meaning is constructed and cultural practices organized and by which, accordingly, people represent andunderstand their world, including who they are and how they relate toothers” (p.34). Related to language is the concept of discourse, primarily developed in the work of Foucault. Scott (1988) defineddiscourse by first stating what it is not – it is not a language. Instead, adiscourse is “a historically, socially, and institutionally specificstructure of statements, terms, categories, and beliefs” (p.35).

Additionally, the power to control a particular field resides inclaims to (scientific) knowledge exemplified not only in writing, but

also as it relates to professional organizations, such as the NationalEducators Association (NEA), institutions such as schools, and socialrelationships, such as teacher/administrator. According to Capper (1992), the relevant questions to ask related to language and discourseincluded the following: “To what extent are particular values andinterests served, and which ones are silenced? What discourses arenamed and which are silenced” (p.200)?




Power

Power is thought of as located in the institution rather than inthe individual (Grogan, 1996). Power is related to knowledge and the

issue of power is a central concern of feminist poststructural theory.Borrowing from Foucault’s notion of power, power is relational. Inother words, the issue of power is not power over insuperordinate/subordinate sense, but more in terms of something thatis exercised by different people or groups of people at various timesdependent on the situation. In this sense power is also about points of resistance (Weedon, 1997). Johnston (1994) substantiated this point:“Foucault…suggests that power is exercised through discourse andthat the structure of discourse may serve either to silence or give voiceto subordinates and marginal members of an organization” (p.128).Furthermore, “…the central focus of language as the vehicle through

which knowledge is reified gives language the effect of power”(p.137). Grogan (1996) noted that through alliances that are formed bygroups sharing similar thoughts, they are able to marginalize thosewho have different views. Capper (1992) asked, “To what extent is thefocus on dissensus, resistance, contradiction, and conflict or onconsensus” (p.200)?

Subjectivity

Subjectivity, as it relates to poststructuralism, places doubt onthe stability of identity. Subjectivity, according to feminist

poststructural theory, is constructed and is not an innate part of a being. Weedon (1997) asserted that subjectivity is “not geneticallydetermined, but socially produced” (p.21). Grogan (1996) added, “…subjectivity is a changing process and often involves conflictingversions of the self made available as one grows older, moves indifferent circles, and even as the institutional discourses themselveschange over time” (p.36).




The idea of subjectivity allows us to understand how we areconstituted by our position in a discourse (Grogan, 1996). Withsubjectivity there is no one fixed identity. In fact, subjectivity “allowsfor the exploration of the shifting, contradictory, incomplete, and

competing interpretations of personal identity” (Capper, 1993, p.21).Capper (1992) asked: “How is identity manifested in terms of societaland institutional power? To what extent are subjective experiences of individuals considered important? Is identity presented multiply andas evolutionary, constantly in process” (p.200)?

Common Sense Assumptions

Common sense truisms are knowledge statements that are

accepted unquestionably because that is just the way things are perceived to be. Weedon (1997) explained, however, “Common senseknowledge is not a monolithic, fixed body of knowledge” (p.75). Asshe reminded us, the power of common sense lies in its claim to be“natural, obvious and therefore true” (p.75). Grogan (1996) added,“‘Common’ sense surely refers to knowledge shared by those whosevalues or beliefs are the same, and whose view of the work dominates by virtue of this sameness” (p.40). Capper (1992) asked, “What doesthe text reveal about culture or “the way we do things around here”(pp.104-105)?

Methods

This study sought to understand why women teachers withleadership skills choose to remain in the classroom rather than positionthemselves for administrative roles. The focus was on the discourse of teachers who have ignored the “tap on the shoulder” that indicatessomeone in power thinks a teacher should contemplate seeking anadministrative position (Marshall & Kasten, 1994, p.6). The women in




this study demonstrated to some degree that they have the potential to be successful school administrators, but for various reasons, haveresisted career advancement.

This qualitative research study, which is part of a larger research project designed to explore and further the knowledge baserelated to women in educational leadership, sought to understand thefollowing: Why do leadership-skilled women teachers choose toremain in the classroom rather than seek administrative positions?Two sub-questions emerged: (a) How do leadership-skilled womenteachers perceive the principalship role? And (b) What barriers relatedto school administration do leadership-skilled women teachersidentify? These guiding questions served as the foundation on whichthis study was designed and the interview questions were drafted.Feminist poststructural theory served as the underpinning for the

analysis of the data.

The researchers focused the study on one school district in asoutheastern state in the U.S. This district serves 31,000 students inschools that vary tremendously based upon their location. The districtconsists of 44 schools that serve students who are ethnically,culturally, and socio-economically diverse.

In the tradition of qualitative research, purposeful sampling(Patton, 1990) was the technique used. Purposeful sampling refers “tothe practice of selecting cases that are likely to be information-rich

with respect to the purposes of qualitative study” (Gall & Gall, 1996, p.231). For this research study, the goal was to select teachers whovaried in regard to level of school (elementary, middle, secondary,high), location of school (rural, urban, suburban) and years of teachingexperience. Principals of ten schools were asked to recommend two or three women teachers who, in their opinion, demonstrated leadershipin the school and had the capacity for school administration. For eachrecommended teacher principals completed two forms. The first formasked principals to identify the following: the assumption of additionalschool-related duties, participation in decision-making, and the




provision of instructional leadership. Principals also completed aLeadership Behavior Description Questionnaire (LBDQ) (Northouse,1997). The LBDQ is designed to measure two major types of leadership behavior, task orientation and relationship behavior. Task

orientation refers to the degree to which the person helps to establishstructure that aid in role definition and identification of expectations.Relationship behavior refers to the degree to which the person engagesin interpersonal actions that help to build positive relations. Consistingof 20 statements to which the principal replied how often therecommended teacher engaged in the described behavior, thequestionnaire provided a profile of leadership style.

Through this process a pool of 21 potential research participants was created. The selected teachers were mailed a letter explaining the study, an informed consent form, the LBDQ for self-

assessment, and a sample of the interview questions. Using maximumvariation sampling, the researchers selected and interviewed 12 participants who had been identified as possessing leadership skillssuitable for administration and who varied across school grade leveltaught, location of their school, and their years of experience (seeTables 1 and 2 for a summary of the participants’ demographicinformation and leadership roles). Note that pseudonyms have beenused. The leadership survey scores (both the principal’s assessment of the teacher and the teacher’s own self-assessment) also were used as atool to ascertain the final participants.

Interviewees were asked to share their thoughts and feelingsregarding their own role as teachers and teacher leaders, their perception of the principalship, and their reasons for choosing toremain in the classroom rather than positioning themselves for schooladministrative roles. The teachers were interviewed face-to-face intheir school settings for approximately one and a half hours. Theinterviews were semi-structured, tape-recorded and later transcribedfor purposes of analysis. A reflective journal and extensive field notesdocumenting body language, facial expressions, gestures and other non-verbal cues were kept throughout the process.




The conceptual framework, the sites, and the sample helped tofocus the data analysis. Miles and Huberman (1998) explained, “Thesechoices have a focusing and bounding function, ruling out certainvariables, relationships, and associated data, and selecting others for

attention (p.185). Following complete immersion in the data andreflection on the conceptual framework, themes and categoriesemerged, which were supported with thick description includingquotations and details. The data were triangulated and verified byusing multiple researchers and multiple data collection methods: thein-depth interviews, interview logs, document analysis, field notes,leadership survey scores, and reflective journals.

Findings

The data from this study were analyzed and then structured aroundfour key conceptual categories from feminist poststructural theory:language, power, subjectivity, and common sense assumptions. Fraser and Nicholson (1992) asserted that a primary aim of feminist theory issocial criticism. As this type of framework suggests, gender is a major focus and the purpose is to explore ways to alter the existing power relations between women and men in society (Weedon, 1997).

Under the construct of language the participants’ perceptionsof the principal’s role, in addition to the teacher’s role in the

classroom, are analyzed. In the section on power, points of resistanceare explored. The third section relates subjectivity to the participants’discussion on viewing themselves in the role of the principal. Finally,the last construct of common sense assumptions addresses generallythe topic of women as nurturers and specifically the career choices the participants in this study indicated they would make if they were giventhe opportunity to make different choices.




Language and Discourse

Borrowing from Foucault, Capper (1993) defined discursive

fields as “language that is specific to the culture of a particular discourse” (p.25). People are inclined to undergo conflict andfragmentation if the discourses within which they are engaged are notcongruent (Grogan, 2000). The discursive fields of the participants inthis study were primarily that of education and for many, family, parenting, and motherhood. These two discursive fields were, for themost part, compatible for the participants in this study. As the participants considered the discursive field of school administration,however, it appeared that this discourse was not congruent withteaching.

The language some of the participants used often gaveglimpses into their perceptions of the role of principal, a role theymore often than not viewed as one filled by a man. Dora Cobb, a highschool teacher, revealed that over the course of her 30 years ineducation, she had always worked for male principals. As sheconsidered the fact that women are underrepresented in theadministrative ranks, she commented that perhaps men felt “this lack of satisfaction” and that “there’s a hole that’s not being met in theclassroom,” a feeling that could be met by being “in control of theschool.” She handed the power over to men. “Maybe the women justdon’t need that, and that may be from society, the man of the house

type thing, the father is the one who has the final word. Let the principals and the assistant principals be the father.”

Her analogy of the principal to the father is both fascinatingand troubling, since this comparison suggests this participant believesthat women are still viewed in a subservient role, earning less moneyand held in less regard than the “father,” even though women aredoing the real work. In a patriarchal society, the father is the one incontrol, one who sets the limits, and establishes the boundaries.






At the elementary school level, teachers in this study tended tostress the importance of family as it related to building a sense of community. A teacher who had been a student at the school where shewas currently teaching, Celie Chaps, intensely cared for the

community and the school and her passion for the school was evident.Her school had experienced several administrative turnovers, inaddition to a change in student population. She wanted to return theschool to “a family” where the teachers knew each other andsupported one another. She took exception to the fact that manymiddle and high school administrators, who were all men, did their principal training at this particular school. “…men only want themiddle school and high school principals, or they’re going to use theelementary as a stepping stone only because they have to and have theattitude, ‘Get me out of here as soon as you can.’” She felt that school boards looked at “men first only because they feel like men are the

better administrators and better role models for those young men whodon’t have that many positive male role models. Women, I think, are probably last choice on this list.” The patriarchal discursive field of educational administration, along with hiring practices, is readilyapparent.

Kim Dorsey felt that little had changed in regard tostereotypical gender roles. She thought that men were much moreaggressive about pursuing administrative positions, even when theyonly had four or five years of teaching experience. “Very few femalesare ever going to be seen doing that. Someone has to plant the seed.”

However, she did not feel that this was the case for men. “…I think for a lot of male administrators, that’s when they start. That’s why theyclimb up the ladder and become principals of high schools. Year ten of the principalship, they’ve done the elementary, they’ve done themiddle school, they’ve done it all.” She felt that school administrationwas perceived to be a profession for men while teaching was a profession for women. “I would put it in the lines that doctors are maleand nurses are female. It’s the same. Bosses are male; secretaries arefemale. I don’t know where that chain breaks; I don’t know how it breaks.”






think she was “beneath” the principal. She elaborated, “I think youneed both parts to make a school work. I don’t think that being aclassroom teacher is necessarily less than anyone else.” She added thatindividuals “enable somebody to either look down on you or judge

you by what your profession is. I’m happier in the classroom than Iwould be as an administrator, so I choose to stay in the classroom.” Inthis case, Kim has tried consciously to place herself outside of thehierarchical nature of school administration.

Lana Adders shared a similar sentiment. She did not viewherself as subordinate to the principal, again viewing this person asmale. “I may be subordinate to him on the books and on the ladder, butI think that any principal that is worth his weight in cotton or anythingknows that you are only as strong as your faculty.” This quote,however, is in complete contrast to her earlier comments about fearing

the current male principal, whom she viewed in a parental role.

High school teacher Dora Cobb had a rather subversive pointof resistance in regard to the male-dominated principalship.

From my point of view, if the good teachers stay in theclassroom and the not-so-good teachers are the ones wholeave the classroom, then I can almost have a bias the other way and say the males who are in administration might nothave been cutting it as teachers, whereas the females whoare in the classroom may be very successful and feel

satisfied.

She felt that she got the “pluses and the minuses” by working with thestudents, and she could “still have a finger in the pie of the running of the school” through weekly meetings with the principal. In her opinion, this was much more preferable than having to be the one “totake all the phone calls.” Her statement revealed a possible point of resistance as she explained that the effective (“good”) teachers arereally the ones who experience job satisfaction in comparison to the principal.




These women have found points of resistance within the schooladministration discourse. Teresa Vrack, however, wanted to removeherself from the discourse completely by one day starting a charter school. “I kind of looked back on my first year of teaching and

thought about different ways that I wished the school were differentand then things I could control and things I could try to help with thatweren’t being successful in the school,” she stated. She did not seemany options for effecting wholesale change within the currentsetting, so she has decided starting a charter school is the most viablecourse of action.

The women in this study were often cautious in their commentsabout women as principals. Many of them stated they did not feel thatwomen were not as heavily represented in school administration because women couldn’t handle the job. However, they did make

comments that related to the “good old boys’ network that has malementors or men in leadership roles making decisions about positions based upon gender. Another teacher shared that if the majority of theteaching force consisted of men, “they would get more money becausefirst of all, men would mandate that men get more money.”

For the most part, the participants indicated they were notmotivated by money and through the discussion of financialcompensation it became clear that this was not a point of resistance for these participants. Patricia Cabby noted that she thought her salarynow was “decent” but she had had to work “100 years almost to get a

decent salary.” Although the majority of these teachers were notmotivated by money, they did lament the fact that their salaries wereincomparable to other fields.

When I graduated, I’d have done it for free, I was so readyto get in a classroom. I look at my brother-in-law, who usedto work for the Pic n Pay shoes home office, and he was incharge of teaching people how to sell shoes and wasmaking twice as much money as I was and benefits. I said,‘This is our future I am teaching, and you’re just teaching






In this discussion of financial compensation no mention of equity wasmade. The participants did not question the fairness of men earningmore money than women, nor did they raise the question of whyteachers made less money than administrators.

The participants acknowledged that the principal is in a position of authority and in this role wields power over people’s lives.Certainly this power is tempered by many factors, including policiesand law. Regardless, the participants in the research study did not viewthemselves as subordinate to the principal, even though theyrecognized that the principal was the person charged with providingleadership for the school. On the one hand, teachers indicated that theywere the ones doing the important work in the classroom and theycould have a voice without having to be the one to deal with thenumerous challenges that arise. On the other hand, with the exception

of one, the participants shared that they were not motivated by money,nor did they really question the fact that school administrators mademore money than teachers, which could be related to the fact thatmany of them believed they their role as teachers was more gratifyingthan the role of principal. Nonetheless, money was not a point of resistance for the majority of them.

Subjectivity

Subjectivity is socially produced and is a changing process.

Grogan (1996) states, “The point is that until individuals come to seehow they have been constituted by the discourse in which they have been immersed, they can only reflect upon their actions in those termsthe discourses make available to them” (p.37). As these teachers triedto imagine themselves in the role of the principal, they had difficultyconceptualizing a position that removed them from the classroom.This fact was apparent in the comments that many participants madeabout the possibility of moving into school administration. KimDorsey thought that she might consider school administration if she




didn’t have to give up the classroom, “because that’s the most positivecontact you can have with kids.” Likewise, Teresa Vrack said shewould want to teach at least one class if she were ever a principal.

Rhonda Waters said that she would probably consider schooladministration if she could still teach a couple of classes, noting thatthis would be the ideal situation. Patricia Cabby stated, “If I could be a principal, I would have to be in the classroom. I would probablyaggravate the teachers because I would be in the room helping with thestudents. I’m more hands-on with the children.” Patricia shared thatshe had been a summer school administrator and though she felt itgave her a better perspective of what school administrators actuallydo, the experience also solidified her belief that the classroom was the place for her.

Lana Adders somewhat supported this point by noting that shewould possibly consider going into administration “if I really got burned out in the classroom. If I just did not want to teach kidsanymore, if I didn’t want to be around them.” It is interesting to notethat she viewed school administration as far removed from children,indeed so far removed that school administration is a career option for teachers who no longer wanted to interact with children.

In comparing male and female principals, Kim Dorsey made aninteresting comment that shows the interaction of language,subjectivity, and power.

You can get a lot of things done with a male principal that

I think are tougher sometimes to get done with a female

principal…One of the things that I have learned is that youcan either use your femininity to stop something from

happening or you can use it to make something happen. I

think a lot of times we (women) shoot ourselves in the foot by using it to make something not happen.




She later elaborated that it was important to “remember that in societywe still play male and female roles.” She gave the example of “beingsweet and kind” and “letting them (male principals) come up with theidea themselves and planting the seed” for getting something done.

She added, “It’s not that you’re playing stupid; you’re letting them bein control. If we don’t do that, we don’t get what we wantsometimes…. I hate to say it, but if you stroke an ego, they’re going to perform for you.” She contrasted this with a previous female principal,stating that you didn’t have to “play the gender role” because this principal was a “straight shooter.”

The relationship between subjectivity and discourse is closelyintertwined because discourse shapes subjectivity. The participants inthis study indicated that their subjectivity was constructed around thediscourse of teaching and for the most part, they had difficulty

imagining themselves in roles that removed them from teaching andstudents. The consideration of gendered subject positions is especiallyimportant for this particular study in light of the fact that therespondents were all women teachers, and teaching was definitely a part of their own gendered subjectivity.

Common Sense Assumptions

The way language, power, and subjectivity interact lead tocommon sense assumptions about the way the world operates—the

way things are perceived to be by individuals. A common senseassumption shared by the majority of the participants (sometimesattributed to society) was that women are nurturers by nature. In thissense, personal style was ascribed to what are perceived to be innatequalities of women. This led many participants to the point thatwomen were perhaps better suited for working with children becauseof their possession of nurturing, caring qualities, while men were more“business-like,” more “driven,” more “logical,” making them more




suited for school administrative roles, especially at the middle andhigh school level. A feminist poststructural perspective seeks tochallenge the somewhat implied universality of these characteristics.

For the majority of these women, the discourses available tothem were the discourses of teaching, partnering, and mothering;therefore, these discourses contributed to their interpretations and perceptions. Grogan (1996) ascertained that women aspirants to thesuperintendency are constituted by conflicting discourses, leading to adisjuncture between the male-dominated school administrativediscourse and the discourse of motherhood and partnerships. The participants in this study did not face this conflicting discourse because they viewed the discourse of teaching compatible to thediscourse of home responsibilities.

Social meanings favor the interests of different social groups.This point is illustrated by the fact that these women, for the most part,did not conceive of themselves in different professions if they had theopportunity to make different career choices. Pat Riles, a relativelyyoung teacher, commented, “If I were to do it all over again, I’d beright here again…” However, she also pointed out that she did notknow that she would be in the classroom for 30 years, perhaps her owninternal point of resistance.

With the exception of two participants, career choices thatwere different from teaching were still care-taking careers, including

psychology/counseling in the school realm and health-related careerstargeting children. Although she stated that she would not go back toschool, Lana Adders commented that she would have really enjoyed acareer in a health field, but “it definitely wouldn’t be a money-maker;it would be something for kids to get involved in.”

Those who did reveal a totally different career preferenceshared their preference with a sense of wistfulness. Barbara Fitz,almost at the end of her teaching career, stated, “I probably would dosomething that’s quieter, a little more peaceful. I would want to do




something for somebody who cares about details and that isrespected,” such as the law. “That kind of thing would probably be agood profession for somebody of my temperament who likes thedetails, and this and this leads to this. That’s not something I ever

would have considered at the time I was out of school.”

One common sense assumption the participants revealed wasthe idea of women as nurturers and the appropriateness of nurturingfor women and for teachers. This point is exemplified by the fact thatthe majority of the participants stated that they would opt for the samecareer given the opportunity to make different choices. Of course, it isentirely possible that as teachers, the participants enjoyed a highdegree of job satisfaction; however, it is provocative to consider the possibilities that a feminist poststructural lens might offer. Teachingcontinues to be a field that is dominated by women and certainly it is

not a career that is financially well compensated. In many regards,teaching has not been recognized as a profession. Operating from thecommon sense assumption that teaching is “appropriate” for women,this decision to remain in teaching might indeed be related to the participants’ view of what is natural and fitting without consideringthe gendered hierarchy of teaching.

Discussion

In utilizing the constructs of language, power, subjectivity and

common sense assumptions within a feminist poststructuralframework, the data analysis revealed that leadership-skilled womenteachers saw a great divide in the role of teachers and the role of principals. This divide contributed to their reasons for choosing toremain in the classroom, rather than seeking school administrative positions. Grogan (2000) made a relevant point. “Teaching encouragesrelationship building; administration recommends keeping distance”(p.128). The participants in this study clearly believed that in their roleas teachers they were able to more positively impact the lives of students in a personal way.




In her discussion of the structuralist foundations of educationaladministration and leadership, Blount (1994) used the term “genderedhierarchies” to explain that those with the power to define leadership

have “traditionally served a key role in maintaining and reifyinghierarchies” (p.59). Men (white) have traditionally retained the power in the discourse of educational administration and in education ingeneral. In examining the discursive fields of the participants in thisstudy, it would appear that they are a part of the gendered hierarchy of teaching, and within this hierarchy, men are still associated with positions of authority.

Clearly, these teachers were at different points in their careersas well as in their thinking about their own position in the educationalhierarchy. Regardless of years of experience, age, and level, these

women had at some point reflected upon their relationship with their principal. Secondary teachers, unsurprisingly, had worked with male principals more than female principals while elementary principalswere more familiar with females. They also were aware that in manyways they were unique individuals in their respective school settings,due in part to their leadership skills, as well as their dedication anddevotion to the students and classroom.

A negative perception the participants in this study hadregarding the role of the principal revolved around the compromisethat school administrators must often make between their family/home

lives and their professional lives. The interviews with the participantssuggest that this is much more of a concern for women than for men.Weedon (1997) noted that the most powerful discourses in societyhave firm institutional bases in, for example, education and theorganization of family and work. Certainly these two conflictualdiscourses for women who do choose school administration lead manywomen principals to struggle with balancing these two discourses.Given the current expectations of the principal, this is not acircumstance that is likely to change in the near future. As a result, itmay be difficult to encourage women teachers with leadership skills




appropriate for school administration to even consider leaving theclassroom, unless some changes are made in the way the role of the principal is currently configured.

Based upon the interviews conducted for this research study,the demands and responsibilities of the principalship provide noincentive for qualified women to make a career move. In part thisdecision to remain in the classroom was rooted in the participants’ perception of the conflicting demands and expectations of the principal. This decision was also based upon the demands placed onwomen principals who often contend with the competing discourses of education and family. Grogan (2000) explained that in educationaladministration primarily men have had the power to define practices.

It is apparent that the way the principalship is currently defined

discourages qualified candidates to consider school administration.Indeed, Stover (2002) said, “Teachers look at the long hours,marginally better pay, and greater accountability of a principal anddecide an upward career track just isn’t worth it” (p.40). In examiningthe current status of education leaders, the Institute of EducationalLeadership (IEL) Task Force on Principal Leadership (2000)concluded that state and local education systems must reject theconventional model of the principal as a middle manager totallyresponsible for every facet of school operations and performance.They instead “must explore new arrangements of managing buildingoperations, such as through outsourcing and team leadership strategies

(p.19). This research study suggested that one possibility for recruitingleadership-skilled women teachers to school administration would beto restructure the job responsibilities, duties and expectations of the principal.

One option for restructuring the principalship that is gaining

attention but that has been practiced only in localized and isolatedcircumstances is co-principalships. This option has the potential toeffect change in the way the role of the principal is configured. Inarrangements such as this, two qualified administrators share the




principalship. Either all the responsibilities are evenly divided, or thereare two principals, one for instruction and one for management(Shacter & Langer, 2002). It is this latter configuration of co- principaling that would perhaps hold the greatest promise for

attracting qualified women teachers to consider upward career movement. As principals of instruction, leadership-skilled womenteachers could maintain their connection to students and the classroomand focus on impacting instruction.

Sharing the workload between two qualified principals would possibly make the position much more attractive to qualified teachers.Additionally, the two principals stand to be more effective leaders asthey work to carry out their delineated and minimized responsibilities.Dividing the responsibilities of academics and management wouldalso mean that the time demands of the position would be less

intensive, allowing principals to achieve greater balance in their personal and professional lives.

For women who are torn between the discourses of motherhood and career advancement, co-principaling would possiblylead to less conflict between the two. Indeed, this is exactly what twowomen principals found when they opted to co-principal anelementary school with 400 students (Brown & Feltham, 1997).Finding that it was impossible to balance the responsibilities of motherhood with the demands of running a school, both principalsagreed that co-principaling one school would be more compatible with

their present lifestyles and successfully worked out a plan to share the principalship.

Not only do arrangements such as this have the potential to aidin recruitment of candidates, they may also impact the retention of practicing principals. Although there are many questions yet to beanswered regarding women’s ways of leading, based on the currentresearch, it appears that co-principaling would also be an optionsuitable for leaders who practice distributive leadership.




In regard to the constructs of feminist poststructural theory, itis important to note that restructuring the principalship as a co- principalship would help to challenge the existing discourse of schooladministration. Issues of power are also relevant as one considers

Foucault’s notion that power is implemented through discourse andthe “structure of discourse may serve either to silence or give voice tosubordinates” (Johnston, 1994, p.128). If the structure of the discourseof school administration is ruptured by the implementation of co- principalships, it may serve to give more voice and agency to teachers.If the discourse of school administration changes, then there is also thelikelihood that the common sense assumptions that teachers haveabout the principalship might also change.

Conclusion

Is it valuable to look at restructuring school leadership througha feminist poststructural lens? This framework does indeed provide away to examine issues, but it is certainly not the only way, nor is it the“best” way. What this theory encourages is the questioning of established meanings, accepted values, and power relations, rather than simply presuming their truth (Weedon, 1987). For people whovalue looking at issues from multiple perspectives and disrupting the“way things are done,” all the while keeping in mind issues of power,then feminist postructuralism holds great promise for areconceptualization of the role of the principal.

The irony of research such as this study cannot gounmentioned. It is almost paradoxical to encourage the talentedteachers to opt for a career in administration when they are sodesperately needed in the classroom. However, it is perhaps relevant toconsider the career path of teaching. Lortie (1975) noted almost thirtyyears ago that teaching was “relatively ‘career-less’” in comparisonwith other kinds of middle class work (p.84). Despite changes insocietal perspectives about career conceptions in general, little haschanged in the field of teaching. Teachers are still expected to




complete their coursework, undergo preservice training, obtainlicensure and take a position that remains more or less unchanged for the rest of their career (Peske, Liu, Johnson, Kaufman, & Kardos,2001). By restructuring the role of the principalship, qualified teachers

may opt to remain in education and in the process enjoy moresatisfaction with additional challenges. Research that explores this possibility may provide an impetus for acknowledging the necessityfor the professionalization of teaching, as well as the need for encouraging leadership-skilled teachers to consider schooladministration as a career option.






DeFelice, M. & Schroth, G. (1999). Women in Texas who are

certified but not employed as administrators. Eric Issue:RIEJAN2001 Clearinghouse no: SPO39337 TexasED443787.

Education vital signs. (1998, December). The American School Board Journal, 184(8), A15, A28.

Educational Research Services. (1998). Is there a shortage of

qualified candidates for openings in the principalship? Anexploratory study. http://www.naesp.org/misc/shortage.html.

Fraser, N. & Nicholson, L. (1990). Social criticism without philosophy: An encounter between feminism and postmodernism. In L. Nicholson (Ed.),Feminism/Postmodernism. (pp.19-38). New York: Routledge.

Gall, M., Borg, W. & Gall, J. (1996). Educational research: An

introduction. London: Longman Group, Ltd.

Grogan, M. (2000). Laying the groundwork for a reconception of thesuperintendency from feminist postmodern perspectives. Educational Administration Quarterly, 36 (1), 117-142.

Grogan, M. (1999). Equity/equality issues of gender, race, and class. Educational Administration Quarterly, 35(4), 518-536.

Grogan, M. (1996). Voices of women aspiring to the

superintendency. New York: State University of New York Press.

Huberman, A. & Miles, B. (1998). Data management and analysismethods. In N.Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Collecting and

interpreting qualitative materials (pp.179-210). Thousand

Oaks: Sage Publications.Ingersoll, R. (2002). The teacher shortage: A case of wrong diagnosis

and wrong prescription, NASSP Bulletin, 86, 16-31.Ingersoll, R. (2003). Is there really a teaching shortage? (Document

R-03-04). Center for the Study of Teaching and PolicyConsortium and The Consortium for Policy Research inEducation, University of Washington.

Institute for Educational Leadership, (2000). Leadership for student

learning: Reinventing the principalship. http://www.iel.org.




Johnston, B. (1994). Educational administration in the postmodern

age. In S. Maxcy (Ed.), Postmodern school leadership:

Meeting the crisis in educational administration (pp.115-132). London: Praeger.

Lather, P. (1991). Feminist research in education: Within/against. Victoria: Deakin University Press.

Lortie, D. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study. Chicago:University of Chicago Press.

Marshall, C. & Kasten, K. (1994). The administrative career: A

casebook on entry, equity, and endurance. Thousand Oaks,CA: Corwin Press.

Merriam, S. (1988). Case study research in education: A qualitative

approach. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. National Association of State Boards of Education (2000). Recruiting

new principals. Policy Update , 8(9), 1-2.

Northouse, P. (1997). Leadership: Theory and practice. ThousandOaks: Sage Publications.

Olson, L. (2000, January). Finding and keeping competent teachers. Education Week , 19(18), 12-18.

Olson, L. (1999, March). Demand for principals growing, butcandidates aren’t applyin g . Education Week 18(28), 1, 20.

Ozga, J. & Walker, L. (1995). Women in educational management:Theory and practice. In B. Limerick & B. Lingard (Eds.),Gender and Changing Educational Management, SecondYearbook of the Australian Council for EducationalAdministration (pp.34-43 ). Australia: Hodder Education.

Patton, M. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods , 2nd edition. California: Sage.

Peske, H., Liu, E., Johnson, S., Kauffman, D. & Kardos, S. (2001).The next generation of teachers: Changing conceptions of acareer in teaching . Phi Delta Kappan , 83(4), 304-311.

Sarup, M. (1993). An introductory guide to post-structuralism and

postmodernism. Athens: The University of Georgia Press.Schacter-Boris, S & Langer, S. (February 6, 2002). Caught between

nostalgia and utopia. Education Week on the Web.

http://edweek.org/ew.




Scott, J. (1988). Deconstructing equality-versus-difference: Or, the

uses of poststructuralist theory for feminism. Feminist

Studies, 14(1), 33-50.Shakeshaft, C. (1999). The struggle to create a more gender inclusive

profession. In J. Murphy & K. Louis (Eds.). Handbook Of Research on Educational Administration (pp.99-118). SanFrancisco: Jossey Bass Publishers.

Shakeshaft, C. (1995). Gendered leadership styles in educationalorganizations. In B. Limerick & B. Lingard (Eds.), Gender

and Changing Educational Management, Second Yearbook

of the Australian Council for Educational Administration

(pp.12-22). Australia: Hodder Education.Shakeshaft, C. (1993). Gender equity in schools. In C. Capper (Ed.),

Educational Administration in a Pluralistic Society (pp.267-287). New York: State University of New York Press.

Stover, D. (2002, December). Looking for leaders. American School Board Journal , 189(12), 38-43.

Weedon, C. (1997). Feminist practice and poststructuralist theory. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.

Williams, G. (1999). French discourse analysis: The method of post-

structuralism. London: Routledge.Zheng, H. & Carpenter-Hubin, J. (1999). Exploring gender

differences in America’s school administrator workforce:

Statistical evidence from national surveys. Paper presented atthe annual meeting of the American Educational ResearchAssociation, Montreal, Canada.




Table 1: Participants’ Demographic Information

Pseudonyms Ethnicity Age

Bracket

Yrs. Of

TeachingExperience

Type/Level

Of School

Marital

Status

Children

Katie MillsAfrican-American 25-30 5 yrs

Urbanelementary Married No

Pat Riles Caucasian 25-30 5 yrsRuralelementary Married Yes

Teresa Vrack Caucasian 25-30 2 yrsUrbansecondary Married No

Lana Adders Caucasian 30-35 16 yrsUrbanmiddle Single No

Barbara Fitz Caucasian 55-60 28 yrsUrbanmiddle Married Yes

Celie Chaps Caucasian 45-50 17 yrsUrbanelementary Married Yes

Dottie Holt Caucasian 45-50 17 yrsUrbanelementary Single No

Patricia CabbyAfrican-American 40-45 23 yrs

Suburbanmiddle Married Yes

Dora Cobb Caucasian 50-55 28 yrsSuburbanhigh Married Yes

Kim Dorsey Caucasian 35-40 10 yrs Suburbanhigh Single No

Rhonda WatersAfrican-American 35-40 10 yrs

Suburbanhigh Married No

Jan Moore NativeAmerican 35-40 12 yrs

Suburbanhigh Divorced Yes




Table 2: Participants’ Additional Duties, Degrees, and Honors

PseudonymProvision of InstructionalLeadership

Mentor Site-BasedMember

Nat’lBoardCert.

GraduateDegree

Other Honors/Duties

Katie Mills Grade LevelChair

yes yes no yes Leadership Academy/Teacher of Yr.

Pat Riles Grade LevelChair

yes no no noStudy GroupLeader

TeresaVrack

Team Leader no no no noDistrict CommitteeMember/Coach

Lana Adders Co-Chair of Department

yes no yes In process

Coach

Barbara Fitz Co-TeamLeader

yes yes(sb

chair)

yes no n/a

Celie Chaps none yes Yes(sbchair)

no In process

Curriculum/ BudgetCommittees

Dottie Holt Chair of Curriculum yes yes(sbchair)

yes yes n/a

PatriciaCabby

Team Leader yes yes(sbchair)

no no After SchoolProgram

Dora Cobb DepartmentChair

yes yes(sbchair)

yes yes Teacher Council/Teacher of Yr.

Kim Dorsey DepartmentChair

yes yes yes no District CommitteeMember/Coach

RhondaWaters

none yes yes no noAfter SchoolProg./Coach

Jan Moore Team Leader yes no noIn

processDistrict CommitteeMember

Documents

Wynn Brown - National FORUM of Applied Educational Research Journal - , - William Allan Kritsonis, PhD - Editor-in-Chief (Founded 1`982)