: :1
.w 1.1V 5.“
Eflx? ..

a
any
1. .IL-
mwth. 2...»!
.arwwﬁmn"
ﬁnnﬁﬁzxxgr
9."... :. .33.»:
._
,

5:541. 141!
vb:f¢...1.1

 

 

g. I.

. Hung. a u. we... u.“
.- 443.“ .5.

v...- l-“Qoﬁ. .3... ‘gs ; .I'It' ‘
uzvnf ”tak‘ ”A.“
223?“???

5.. .5}. 2“!
$5.50.. I... 9%....
. ‘1‘ ﬂ - - Uri u, I
.. :1. a: 4—- ‘1:
1 4'17,5".Ii
1.9.3.32.

1.1.

tin—535.125..

Kane“ 2.. ’ahnnc:

.\{=nsuxul.m\.nw..llu5£:
z: I.

Ii...
Juan-G-EI-ES‘: l
.. .. 1.5.3.2.? ,
ix; $25....cai :hmm.

1“- I.“§ ‘13

a {.11. .5

. 07.3,..- ‘3 ‘0‘

(£"$‘.‘Il

593‘
1"“!
.51: sir?
l. 3.5::
. . 0%.... ,
.it...
1.153.? .3 sitinf
tail: bu..’.3..:.§!) zt‘...ul.§:ual
sat-I. .f..znl.. {if}
-.i.. 0.57 2‘ .

4|...
.lioxtltv‘vz
2i 1‘..sii.t.
in 3. .5 i}:
«In... I I tt‘l: ‘
It . . n . .4 . .
3"... 5515.35.5513J

‘h 3.352!§31.i ,

I 5.94.: '11?l:.2: i
.. 3.32.10.1ll 9.7.3..
Ill. 4,:‘~.!‘:zlr
10.6.3.0 (ll: 1i“-.n.l.v«l
I .. 4ft}: 326tl 9
I...»

 

Hi: 5 is

2007/

This is to certify that the

dissertation entitled

SMALL TOWN SECONDARY PRINCIPALS
THEIR PERCEPTION OF THE ROLE
2000-2001

presented by

Mary Elaine Kazmark Stephen

has been accepted towards fulﬁllment
of the requirements for

Ph . D . degree in Educational Administration

 

 

 

Date icy-“3'“ 07?

MS U is an Afﬁrmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0- 12771

 

 

LIBRARY
Michigan State
University

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6/01 c:IClRC/DateDue.p65-p.15

 

SMALL TOWN SECONDARY PRINCIPALS
THEIR PERCEPTIONS OF THE ROLE
2000-2001
Volume I

By

Mary Elaine Kazmark Stephen

A DISSERTATION
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Department of Educational Administration

2002

ABSTRACT
SMALL TOWN SECONDARY PRINCIPALS
THEIR PERCEPTIONS OF THE ROLE
2000-2001
By

Mary Elaine Kazmark Stephen

The purpose of the study is to describe and explain the small-town public
secondary principals’ perception of the role today. Changes in society in general and
communities in particular, research that establishes best practices in education and
leadership, continuous developments related to learning and information access, and
legislative mandates have contributed its complexity. Role theory provides insight into
the underpinnings of the principal’s role and structural signiﬁcance of the position.
Social systems within which roles exist and function are defined, norms governing social
systems are explained, and the types of ambivalence, conﬂict, and ambiguity that arise
are investigated.

The literature review for the study framed an historical perspective of the
pn'ncipalship by decade, beginning with the 19008. This review, when considered in light
of the theoretical construct and juxtaposed on the transcriptions of interviews conducted
in 1973 with principals of small town secondary schools, brought the following
exploratory questions to the forefront for consideration:

0 How did small-town principals perceive their role in the mid-19703?

0 How do present-day, small-town secondary principals perceive their role?

0 What is the structure of the social system within which the principal
performs the role?

o What are the norms governing the role performance of the principal?

o What are the personal costs to the principal as a result of role performance?

0 What legislated mandates impinge on the principal’s role performance?

Using non-probability sampling, the researcher selected a sample of twenty
principals from small towns in Michigan whose communities are served by one high
school. One semi-structured, tape-recorded interview was conducted with each principal.
Tapes were transcribed, and the data collected in those interviews and from a brief
survey ﬁlled out by the subject at the end of the interviews were analyzed. The
researcher followed the Michigan State University Committee’s Research Involving
Human Subjects (UCRIHS) guidelines as well those in published works advising the
planning, data collection, and analysis for qualitative studies on educational topics.
Data collected in 1973 interviews revealed the primary role of the principal

to be the public servant who monitors diverse elements of the school for community
acceptability and organizational stability but who left the issues of teaching and learning
to teachers. The 1973 expectations are still in place, but teaching and learning are now
everyone’s cause. Special interest groups, the state, and society in general have taken
advantage of the school’s open system to make increasing demands upon public
education. The principal must deal with the same and more elements on the periphery of
the organization as well as attend to and be accountable for teaching and learning. The
result is a more dense, busy, complex and scrutinized school, and a principal’s role that is
almost impossibly overburdened. The principal’s work requires constantly shifting
priorities, dealing with conflict and ambiguity in balancing role expectations, and

understanding that the only certainty in the work is that it is never ﬁnished.

Copyright by
MARY ELAINE KAZMARK STEPHEN
2002

To my mother and father
who exemplified the importance of education

and

To my husband
who sustained me through this effort

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Over the years between the start and ﬁnish of this project, many friends and family
members offered their encouragement, and I thank them all for their positive words.

I especially thank Dr. Philip Cusick, my advisor at Michigan State University, for

his excellent assistance, his reassurance, and for not giving up on me, Dr. Barbara Markle
for starting me on this journey, and Robert Rilley, for pressuring me to ﬁnish it. I thank
Dr. Wayne Peters for loaning me the transcribed notes of his interviews, a most
generous act which convinced me that I would, indeed, ﬁnish this project. I thank the
twenty principals who contributed their knowledge to this project, and my friend

Janet DeMartelaere for her quality transcriptions of their taped interviews. I thank my
colleagues for their assistance and support, especially Janice Settlemoir, Ken Cucchi,
and Kathi Maas during these last two years, and Dr. Linda J arkey for reading through
the ﬁnal document and offering her encouragement and suggestions. I thank my

MSU dissertation committee, Drs. Philip Cusick, Janet Alleman, Suzanne Wilson,

and Christopher Dunbar for helping me focus on signiﬁcant aspects of my work.

I thank my daughter and son-in-law, Leigh and Rob Wilson, for their patience and
support. Most of all, I thank my husband, Harry Stephen, for keeping me during those

times when I would have thrown me away.

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES x

CHAPTER I: DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY
Part I - Overview 1
Purpose 1
Background 2
Conceptual Framework 3
Exploratory Questions 5
Method 8
Sample 9
Significance 9
Part II - Conceptual Framework 12
Introduction 12
Role Theory 15
Social Systems 22
Norms 32
Ambivalence and Conﬂict 39
Summary of the Theoretical Construct 48

CHAPTER II: LITERATURE REVIEW

Part I -— Historical Perspective of the Principalship 53
Part II — Current External Perceptions of
Principal Role Expectations 129
Summary of the Historical Perspective and
Current Expectations 156

CHAPTER III: METHODOLOGY

Part I - Theory of the Method 159
Perception 159
Selection and Theory of the Method 161
Assumptions 167
Research Design 169
Sampling 172

Researcher Responsibilities 176

vii

Validity, Reliability and Generalizability 177
Ethics 1 82
Part II - Actual Method 184

CHAPTER IV: DATA PRESENTATION

Introduction 195
Part I — The Role of the Principal: 1973 196
Principal/Community Relationships 196
Superintendent/Board of Education Relationships 203
Staff Relationships 207
Student Relationships 213
Conflict, Ambivalence, Ambiguity 216
Control 219
Perceptions of the Role in 1973 220
Costs 223
The Future 225
Part II — The Role of the Principal: 2000-2001 227
Principal in the Community 228
Superintendent/Board of Education Relationships 233
Student Relationships 236
Parent Relationships 238
Staff Relationships 240
Perceptions of Challenge and Change in the Leadership Role 242
Conﬂict, Ambivalence, Ambiguity 247
Control 250
Costs 251
Composite Role Perceptions 254
CHAPTER V: FINDINGS, REFLECTIONS AND CONCLUSIONS

Introduction 256
Revised Answers to Research Questions 259
Findings and Reﬂections — 1973 269

The Community 269

Superintendent/Board of Education Relationships 271

Staff Relationships 272

Student Relationships 273

Conﬂict/Control 274
Findings and Reﬂections — 2000-2001 276

Perceptions 276

Student Relationships 277

Parent Relationships 278

Superintendent/Board of Education Relationships 278

Staff Relationships 279

Social Systems and Organizations 281

viii

Legislative Mandates
Conﬂict, Ambivalence, Ambiguity

Costs
Conclusions

Limitations of the Study
Implications and Suggestions for Further Study

APPENDICES

Appendix A:
Appendix B:
Appendix C:

Appendix D:
Appendix E:
Appendix F:
Appendix G:
Appendix H:

Appendix J:

Appendix K:

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1917 Principal Rating Scale

Posting Notice for High School Principal

Examples of School Safety Measures
Necessitated by 9-11-01

ISLLC Standards for School Leaders

Interview Guide

Invitation Letter to Principals

Informed Consent Statement

Revised Interview Guide

Perspectives Survey

Listing of Individual Educational Plan Forms

ix

284
288
291
294
299
301

305
307

309

‘312

321
325
327
329
333
337

339

LIST OF TABLES

Table I
Three Decades of Metaphors
Impact on Principals’ Work 296

Chapter I

Description of the Study

Part I

Overview

Purmse

The purpose of the study is to describe and explain the small-town public
secondary school principal’s perception of the role today. The role of the secondary
principal has never been a simple one. Changes in society in general and communities in
particular, research that establishes best practices in education and leadership, continuous
developments related to learning and information access, and legislative mandates have
contributed to the complexity of the job and the increasing difficulty of feeling personally
and professionally fulﬁlled in the position. This study explores how the principal
perceives the role in relation to expectations of various constituent groups within the
structure of the social system, in relation to norms that govern the social system, with
regard to personal and professional costs in the performance of the role, and with regard
to social and professional changes in the last twenty-ﬁve years.

The following pages will provide a brief overview of the entire study. In the
second part of the chapter, a detailed account of the conceptual framework, or theoretical
construct, is provided, followed by an historical walk-through of the principal’s role from
the late 18005 to the present day. The exploratory questions will be repeated and

explained at appropriate points in Part II.

Background

Books and articles prescribing the behavior of school administrators have been
around since the mid-18003. The early prescriptions for the role of the principal, except
for the changes in language usage to reflect more modern syntax, sound very much like
today’s. The necessary qualifications are daunting in their stated and implied
expectations. As early as the start of the 20‘h century, the enormous impact of external
inﬂuence on public school practice and decision-making was evident. Whatever the
popular business/industrial practices, social and political movements, scientific
discoveries and technological developments, psychological theories, and societal
problems of the day might be, education has been impacted — slow to respond,
sometimes, but impacted nonetheless. Some phenomena have resulted in legislative
mandates which have changed the nature, and along with it, the administration of the
educational system. This study includes an overview of the role of the secondary school
administrator from the time the position was separated from teaching and recognized as a
separate profession to the present. A close look is taken at the secondary principal’s
perception of his role in small Michigan towns in the early 19708, based on ﬁeld notes of
interviews conducted in 1973. Notes from parallel interviews conducted in 2000-2001

have been studied to learn how the principal perceives the role today.

Conceptual Framework

In order to describe and explain the principal’s role perceptions, it is necessary to
establish a conceptual framework within which to examine them. The concept of role
will be examined from the perspective of various theorists. Role theory will provide
insight into the underpinnings of the principal’s role and structural significance of the
position. Next, the social systems within which roles exist and function will be explored,
norms that govern them will be explained, and the types of ambivalence and conflict that
arise will be articulated.

The deﬁnitions of role put forth by sociologists, psychologists, and social
psychologists are similar, for the most part, in that there are sociological and
psychological components to a given role. The individual who takes on a role (role
incumbent) has perceptions of it, which are internalized and acted upon. Personality
traits may have an effect upon the behaviors exhibited by the individual in carrying out
speciﬁc role behaviors that are either internally or externally defined. Internally deﬁned
behaviors would be those that the individual perceives to be expected of him in the role,
based on his values and beliefs about the role. Externally deﬁned behaviors would be
those that the individual believes others expect of him, and he strives to meet those
expectations.

A social system can be two actors, or persons occupying roles which require them
to interact in some way, or it can be a complex system made up of many subsystems,
each of which is comprised of two or more actors. Each functional subsystem of a larger
system is itself a system. It is actually the structure of the relationships that comprises

the structure, or the system. The most signiﬁcant basic unit of the system is the social

act, which is based in part on the role status of the individual in the system, i.e., where he
is in relation to others in the system. In a system, specific roles interact in concrete and
prescribed ways.

A social structure is based on patterns of orientation of action within the system,
and elements of the situation around which the action is oriented. Several structures, or
subsystems, may exist within the same social system. Cultural and situational elements,
in combination with individual personality traits, make social systems very complex and
diffuse. Established patterns of role interaction within the system can contribute to its
stability, and can become institutionalized.

Some social systems are highly formalized and are oriented to specific goals.
These are referred to as rational, or rational-legal systems. An ideal type as described by
Max Weber is similar to what we know as a bureaucracy. A natural system is a
collectivity in which members are not much affected by formalized structure or ofﬁcial
goals, but who are interested in the survival of the organization and work together toward
that end. An open system is one which is strongly inﬂuenced by factors external to the
system, and whose activities are negotiated according to specific demands made upon it
by speciﬁc groups.

Social systems are governed by norms, which are patterns of value orientation
established as the individual is exposed to the attitudes of others in the social interaction
process. Norms are related to an individual’s motivation. As he becomes dependent on
the reactions of others for his own successful role performance in the attainment of
system goals, his behavior is governed by norms that allow that to happen. Norms also

reflect the culture in which the interaction is found. The culture provides standards from

which the norms develop. Norms are the legitimate requirements for behavior within a
system. They reinforce role requirements within a system, and provide stability in a
highly differentiated social structure. They communicate the “shoulds” in a social
system. Norms are reﬂected in an incumbent’s role perception, the collection of
normative ideas held by the person occupying the role. Different norms guide behavior
in each role, which raises issues of ambivalence and conﬂict.

Conﬂict is inherent in the concept of role, and there are many types and sources of
conﬂict. Several are considered here. Conﬂict and ambivalence arise from the normative
structure of relationships and affect the individual’s role behavior. Conﬂict and
ambivalence refer to the performance of roles within the social structure, and not to the
feelings of individuals or to personality issues.

Even this basic statement of the theoretical construct points to the complexity and
inextricable linking between role, social systems, norms, and ambivalence and conﬂict.

A role incumbent such as a secondary principal seeks to balance the demands of his
status in the social system — a school in a small town — to both internal and external

demands, and is bound to be faced with ambivalence and conﬂict in so doing.

Ex lorato uestions

Describing and explaining the principal’s perception of the role in a small town
requires the identification of speciﬁc areas of concern. The study of the theoretical
construct as well as the literature reviewed for the historical overview have brought the
questions below to the forefront for consideration. The genesis of the questions will be

discussed in more detail at appropriate points in the second part of this chapter.

o How did small-town principals perceive their role in the mid-1970s?

In 1973, thirty-four small-town principals were interviewed in order to ﬁnd out

their perceptions regarding the principal’s role. Interviews focused on these questions:
What were the principals’ expectations of the role going into the principalship? How did
the principal perceive the district’s (i.e., superintendent’s, Board of Education’s)
expectations of him in his role? How did the principal perceive his relationship with the
teachers in his building? How did he perceive his relationship with the students in his
building? How did the principal perceive his community and their expectations of him in
his role as principal?

o How do present-day, small-town secondary principals perceive their role?

By interviewing principals in the same communities or those similar in size to the
ones where principals were interviewed in 1973, the researcher hoped to learn what, if
any, changes have impacted the role of the principal in the small town in the past quarter-
century. In order to discover this, principals were asked the same types of questions
asked of principals in 1973: What perceptions did the principal have of the role upon
entering the job? What are the principal’s perceptions of the district’s (i.e.,
superintendent’s, Board of Education’s) expectations of him in his role? How does the
principal perceive the teachers’ expectations of him in his role? How does the principal
perceive the students’ expectations of him in his role? How does the principal perceive
the community’s expectations of him in his role?

0 What is the structure of the social system within which the principal performs
his role?

The preceding question seeks the perceptions of the principal of his district’s and his

community’s expectations. This question will focus on the perceptions of today’s

principal as they relate to his role as part of the educational organization. In order to
describe and explain it in terms of role and social systems theories, the following
questions will be explored: How does the principal describe the organization (system) of
which s/he is a part? What is the principal’s relationship to the organization? What is the
principal’s role set within the organization (i.e., students, teachers, parents, etc.)? What is
the principal’s professional role set external to the organization? What is the principal’s
personal role set external to the organization?

0 What are the norms governing the role performance of the principal?

Norms arise from a variety of sources. This study will attempt to ascertain the
sources of the norms governing the role behavior of the small town principal in the 19705
and in 2000-2001. What normative expectations did the principal hold for his
performance in the role? After some time in the position of principal, what did he
discover the dominant norms to be that govern day-to-day work?

0 What are the personal costs to the principal as a result of role performance?

There are bound to be consequences related to the complexity of the principal’s
role in the small-town secondary school. Role and systems theorists acknowledge that
conﬂict is inherent in the individual’s performance of any role, and that there are many
types and sources of conﬂict. How does the principal experience role ambiguity? What
types and sources of conﬂict affect the principal’s role? How is ambivalence manifested
in the demands placed upon the principal? What examples of role overload does the
principal experience? How does the principal address time management concerns and

time constraints?

0 What legislated mandates impinge on the principal’s performance of his role?
Legislated mandates are a relatively new phenomenon. Ever since the publication
of A Nation @isk in 1983, states have focused on measures to improve the quality of
education. This initiative has become a political hot potato, and recent threats of
professional and ﬁnancial sanctions have upped the ante in terms of meeting standards.
How has Michigan’s PA25 affected the principals’ role performance? How have PA335
and 339 impacted their work? What effect has PL 94-142 and recent updates had on their
day-to-day performance of the principal’s role? How has the implementation of MEAP
testing impacted their role? How has recent legislation related to expulsion for school

violence impacted their role as secondary school principals?

MM

Because of the complex and demanding nature of the role of the principal, there
have to be some very personal aspects to the individual’s decision to enter and then
remain in the position. The researcher sought to describe and explain the principal’s
perception of the role. It is believed that these aspects, as well as perception, would be
difﬁcult to capture in answers to survey questions, and that a signiﬁcant richness in the
quality of the responses would be lost. For that reason, extended interviews were
conducted in an effort to understand the principal’s perception of the role. Donmoyer
(1985) believes that examining the way people talk about “their world of experience”
(p. 32) in response to “description-oriented” (p. 36) questions generates knowledge about

how they construe it (p. 32).

male

In 1973, Wayne Peters, then a graduate student in Educational Administration at
Michigan State University, interviewed 34 secondary principals in small Michigan towns.
He decided to pursue another course of study, but not before he had had his ﬁeld notes
from his interviews transcribed. This researcher was fortunate enough to obtain the ﬁeld
notes, along with permission to use them in a study of the secondary principal’s
perception of the role today. Twenty small-town principals were interviewed, focusing
on questions described earlier in this proposal. In some cases, the small towns of 1973
are no longer small. The study was ideographic, with locations chosen on the basis of
size as well as accessibility. Appointments were made with principals and the study was
explained prior to conducting the interview. Field notes were transcribed and studied to
find the domains that describe and explain the small-town secondary principal’s

perception of the role today.

Simificance

The purpose of the study is to describe and explain the principal’s perception of
his role in a small-town secondary school. Education has been going on as long as there
have been human beings. Administration has been practiced as long as there have been
work projects of any size and significance to demand organization for their
accomplishment. Over the course of this century, educational institutions have become
large and complex enough to warrant the consideration of educational administration a
signiﬁcant and distinct area of practice within the ﬁeld of education. It has been subject

to scrutiny through the lenses of numerous disciplines, including philosophy, history,

anthropology, psychology, sociology, social psychology, industry, and business
management. Attempts have been made to develop theories of educational
administration, but it is nearly impossible to identify “pure” theories in the field, i.e.,
theories that are exclusive to educational administration. The authors of A History of
ThoughLand Practice in Educational Administration (Campbell et al., 1987) point out
that, until the 1950s, educational administration was “taught by anecdote and
prescription” (p. 4). They believe the field is an applied one, rather than an academic
discipline, and does not “draw upon a single body of literature nor use a single set of
scholarly tools. . . [it] must maintain a vital concern not only with the extension of
knowledge but also with the improvement of practice. . . [an applied field] must be
concerned with problems in their totality—drawing on the methods of many disciplines”
(Campbell et al., pp 5-6). They go on to recommend that, “Because the ﬁeld of
educational administrative (sic) has entered an era of challenge, imposed from within as
well as from without, it seems especially timely and important that its members
understand, consider, and build upon their professional heritage” (p.16). Crowson and
Porter-Gehrie (1980) discuss the need for research to “determine the organizational
structure, pressures, and constraints that affect the principal’s policy implementation

role” (p. 46).

Kmetz and Willower (1982) believe that the importance of considering how small
samples of principals perceive their role lies in the cumulative effect. Each study “can
contribute to a portrait of the work of educational administrators” (p. 77), although they

caution that information collected should be used in combination with studies using other

10

methods to arrive at theory. It is hoped that this study will contribute to that end by
describing and explaining the principal’s perception of the role at the start of the

21St century.

11

\7

“IL.

Part II

Conceptual Framework

Introduction

According to a recent article in The Bulletin, the newsletter of the Michigan

 

Association of Secondary School Principals, “The Secondary Principal Shortage Is Real
But the Reasons Have Changed” (Ballard, 1998). Jim Ballard, Executive Director of the
MASSP, believes the profession is changing and that the changes have complicated the
role of the principal.

What are the changes in the principal’s role? Raymond E. Callahan, in Education
an_d the Cult of Efﬁciency (1962), cites a principal rating scale published in a 1917 issue
of the American School Board Journal which lists characteristics under the headings,
“Personal Equipment”, “Social and Professional Equipment”, “Management”, and
“Technique of Supervision” (See Appendix A). Personal Equipment includes such
attributes as health, general appearance, capacity for leadership, integrity and sincerity,
and tact. Social and Professional Equipment addresses the principal’s academic and
professional preparation, his understanding of and interest in students and the
community, “Use of English”, and “Ability to interest patrons in the school.”
Management involves facilities, activities, discipline and “Definiteness and Clearness of
Aim”; Techniques of Supervision, is related to teacher supervision, meetings, visits to
classrooms, and setting the tone of the school (Callahan, pp. 106-107).

Recently, a posting appeared for the principal of a high school in a Detroit suburb.

The “Preferred Qualiﬁcations” (Birmingham Public Schools, 1998) for the candidate

12

included advanced academic preparation (a Master’s degree or beyond) and such
professional preparation as training and experience in school administration and
qualiﬁcation for a Michigan secondary administrator’s certiﬁcate. The candidate should
also have shown “evidence of ability to provide quality leadership”, which included
communication, supervisory, and personnel evaluation skills, and the demonstration of
“skill and sensitivity in working with all members of a diverse school and community.”

The “Preferred Characteristics” for a principal in 1998 included integrity and self-
conﬁdence, high performance and behavioral standards, visibility and accessibility, and
an understanding of facilities renovation and construction. The phrasing has changed
somewhat, but the basic skills and attributes expected of the principal in 1917 and
principal of today are very similar; in some respects, they are exactly the same.

Ballard (1998) cites changes in professional status, complexity of tasks, time
demands, and accountability for results as examples of deterrents to choosing a career in
school administration. It does seem that the language used to list the characteristics of
the 1917 principal implies a lofty status: “Industry”, “Sense of Justice”, “Interest in the
lives of pupils”, and “Moral Inﬂuence” are words which sketch a respected position. The
1998 list of preferred characteristics includes the necessity of being “aware of emerging
trends in secondary education” and being capable of promoting the ones “which will
make a substantive difference in opportunities for students.” This principal should also
“understand change process” and be “knowledgeable regarding technology and. . . how to
effectively infuse it into a comprehensive high school curriculum.” The standards
requirement mentioned above includes the setting of these standards for not only the

candidate, but also the expectation that high standards will be set for teachers and

13

students, and that “those responsible for achieving these standards [will be held]
accountable for doing 30” (Birmingham Public Schools, 1998).

Both page-long lists of necessary qualifications are daunting in their stated and
implied expectations, but the 1998 list is clearly indicative of a more complex and
demanding job. Not that the principal’s role was easy in 1917; Callahan’s history of the
demands on educators in the early years of this century makes that evident. Frederick
Taylor’s principles of Scientific Management and the sanctity of industrialization left
their imprint on education in much the same way that business has affected it since the
19308, and more recently, the 1980s. The idea that if certain practices and attitudes are
good for production in the factory, then they must be good for schools is not a new one.
Callahan’s study also describes in painful detail how powerful the media was in the early
years of this century in deni grating public schools. The enormous impact of external
inﬂuence from business and industry, science and technology, psychology and social
science, and from societal trends on public school practice and decision-making is long-
standing. Legislative mandates have changed the nature of education, and most recently,
have changed the nature of school administration as principals and superintendents race
to meet them.

It would follow that there would be consequences to such felt demands.
Principals work long hours; at times, the demands for professional development or
visibility or being in touch with their communities require their efforts in the evenings
and on weekends. Although there are glimmers of hope from time to time in the form of
positive press for public schools, the effect of bad press on school administrators is

deleterious, especially when it is speciﬁc to a principal’s school. A negative article

14

v
1

>1:

(_ A

which quotes an ill-informed community member can have long-lasting effects, both
personally and professionally. Ballard points out the notoriously lean financial gains
administrators make when they enter or advance in the profession and the difﬁculty of
uprooting a family when the administrator’s spouse has a career. The heavy demands of
the job, in terms of both time and energy, can take their toll on the administrator’s self-
image and personal relationships.

In order to describe and explain the principal’s perception of the role today, it is
necessary to establish a conceptual framework within which to examine it, and to place it
in an historical perspective. The next part of this chapter will investigate the concept of
role from various perspectives. Role theory will provide insight into the underpinnings of
the principal’s role and structural significance of the position. Next, the social systems
within which roles exist and function will be explored, norms that govern them will be
explained, and the types of ambivalence and conﬂict that arise will be articulated. In
Part 111, an historical overview of the role of the principal will be presented. The
principal’s role will be examined starting in the late 19th century; then, beginning with
the turn of the 20th century, the role will be described decade by decade. Finally, a
detailed review of the current role of the principal, based on an external perspective, will
be presented in an attempt to complete the background for a description and explanation

of the principal’s perception of the role based on the research conducted for this study.
Role Theory

Role is actually a term borrowed from the stage. Dramatists have always

recognized the importance of roles as they relate to real life. Shakespeare, for example,

15

depicted the ages of man through his characterizations. Dramatic productions reﬂect
reality through masked performances, plays within plays, and people pretending to be
other than what or who they are. Even earlier in history, Bushmen and Native American
tribes distinguished one tribesman from another and treated some with deference because
of their tribal roles. Structural traditions established the legitimacy of their roles within
society, dramatic traditions emphasized the human side of the concept of role, and
psychologists, social psychologists, social anthropologists and sociologists added their
interpretation to the variances in social organization related to the criteria for giving a
particular role to one individual rather than another.

The deﬁnitions put forth by sociologists, psychologists, and social psychologists
are similar, for the most part, in that there are sociological and psychological components
to a given role. The individual who takes on a role has perceptions of it, which he
intemalizes and acts upon. Personality traits may have an effect upon the behaviors
exhibited by the individual in carrying out specific role behaviors that are either
internally or externally deﬁned. Internally defined behaviors would be those that the
individual perceives to be expected of him based upon his values and beliefs about the
role. Externally deﬁned behaviors would be those that the individual believes others
expect of him, and he strives to meet those expectations.

Max Weber would call this action based on perception, “social action”
(Eisenstadt, 1968, p. xxxv). Actions by individuals take into account the actions of
others, and are oriented in those terms. He explains social relationships by describing the
actions of a “plurality of actors” (p. xxxv) and refers to types of social relationships in

major institutional spheres of society. Weber’s descriptions of charismatic authority,

16

legitimacy of position, and bureaucracy are powerful descriptions of role behavior and
role relationships, although he doesn’t use the term, “role.”

Emile Durkheim puts forth a model which is stated in almost exclusively
sociological terms. He sees the individual as only acting in a social milieu, and in that
way contributing to a collective consciousness. Durkheim believes that the social being
is “richer, more complex and more permanent” (1958, p. 123) than the individual being,
and that the physical, intellectual and moral aspects of the individual are actually
constraints, underscoring his belief that the society is superior to the individual.
Everything is geared to the common life. In Durkheim’s model, consideration of an
individual role would imply emphasis on individual behavior. Durkheim sees persons
and their behaviors as social segments, rather than individual phenomena, and they all
fuse and mingle to become action factors comprising the social system.

Georg Simmel, also, sees the individual in terms of the social structure. The
group to which the individual belongs is the determining factor in the ways he feels and
acts. Simmel recognizes the psychological components of “membership” in a group
when he states that multiple group afﬁliations can strengthen an individual in terms of his
personality integration. An individual’s occupation in a highly specialized position can
take over his thinking because his consciousness is conﬁned to that particular job.
Simmel also refers to the psychic energy drain from the individual who has an occupation
which is not specialized and which requires rapid adjustment in attention from one idea to
another. Whatever his position in society, Simmel believed that the individual’s
emotional identification with his work allows little mental energy to be left for other

aspects of his life.

17

Talcott Parsons has a more psychologically-oriented perspective on role, relating
aspects of it to the ego and alter-ego, and ﬁnding aspects of role behavior that represent
and/or satisfy both. However, Parsons also saw role in terms of others in the social
system; role is the basic unit of a social system, according to Parsons, and the actor and
the social system are inextricably intertwined. The psychological view rests on an
understanding of society that is based on independently determined traits. The individual
intemalizes standards of behavior, and conformity to them has personal signiﬁcance; for
example, an individual has a “disposition to conform to the expectations of others or be
alienated from them” (Parsons, p. 32). Parsons’ sociological view is one in which
mechanisms and modes of organization determine role behavior, and conformity with the
standards of behavior is a means of avoiding unfavorable reactions and optimizing
favorable ones.

Parsons deﬁnes role as a part of a “total orientation system of an individual actor
which is organized around expectations in relation to a particular interaction context”
(1951, p. 38). In other words, it is integrated with a particular set of value standards
which govern interaction in complementary roles. Roles can deﬁne and legitimize
personal interests, or they can obligate the individual to pursue the common interests of
the system, or collective. Roles can be specific, where the relational context is
speciﬁcally defined, or diffuse, where no relational aspects are seen as irrelevant unless
they conﬂict with a higher obligation. Roles have cultural elements, which can affect the
nature of communication and other aspects of the interaction processes. Roles can

conﬂict on a variety of levels.

18

4%

Va

”A“

Role expectations are structured around speciﬁc interaction contexts. There is a
strong personality component in this facet of Parsons’ role theory. The motivational
signiﬁcance of a standard of behavior will not be the same for all personalities involved
in the social system or subsystem. For each role occupant, the role ﬁts into a different
total system of role expectations. Since different roles are interdependent in individual
motivational systems, the permutations of motivational elements which lead to a
standard, or uniform behavior in a given context will be different for each individual
(Parsons, p. 44). Despite this definite acknowledgement of the psychological aspects of
role interrelationships, Parsons is clear that the greater emphasis must be placed on
motivational categories as the central part of sociological theory as it pertains to role
relationships. Every role an individual occupies, believes Parsons, “must provide both
provision for pursuit of private interests and ensure the interests of the collectivity”

(p. 60).

Robert Merton (1976) writes that sociological explanations of role are often far
removed from the reality of everyday functioning, and that the deﬁnitions of the
sociological theorist are often “more like the chemical formula of water than like the
painting of the waterfall” (pp. 14-15). He presents the concept of role and attendant
problems in role relations in pragmatic terms, focusing on patterns of behavior as they
relate to organizational functioning and in the context of role-relationships. Not one role,
but several, are associated with a given status. This comprises a role set. He writes
extensively on ambivalence in role relationships and its effect on role performance.
These tie in closely with the concept of norms and normative behavior, which will be

addressed in a later section.

19

Daniel Katz and Robert Kahn (1966) define role in organizational terms. They
see role as a set of recurrent activities and behaviors which combine to produce
organizational output. Like Parsons, Katz and Kahn see role as the “building block of the
social system” (p. 171). Roles are inextricably linked with the subsystems in which they
exist, and they exist within a single “office” (p. 173) within the subsystem. The
behaviors deﬁned by roles are associated with specific tasks, and are actually originally
developed from task requirements. In their pure form, roles are “standardized patterns of
behavior required of all persons playing a part in a given functional relationship” (p. 37)
and are completely separate from the “role incumbent” as a person. Role behaviors are
based on the expectations of the role, and are standardized and institutionalized, not
personalized. They are deﬁned in terms of “yield” and “predictable outcome” (p. 174).

Katz and Kahn have an entire vocabulary to describe their theory of role and role
behavior, which they freely admit, is based largely on Talcott Parsons. Although their
fundamental orientation toward the concept of role is Parsonesque, their extension and
elaboration of it seems much more utilitarian and mechanical. They define role set; but
before this can be explicated, another definition is necessary: office. Ofﬁce is a
particular point in the organizational space that is defined not in terms of a facility, but in
terms of the structure of interrelated offices, or roles, and patterns of activities associated
with them. It is a relational concept. A role set is a group of offices associated with the
individual occupying a particular role. Role expectations are those “prescriptions and
proscriptions” (Katz & Kahn, p. 175) held by the role set as well as their conception of a
person’s ofﬁce and his ability. These, Katz and Kahn point out, can include a lot of

“shoulds” (p. 175). Role readiness, legitimacy of role, received role, and sent role all

20

pertain to role episode, which is a sequence involving those aspects of role. Katz and
Kahn distinguish between intrasender and intersender, interrole, and person-role types of
role conﬂict, which occurs when there is a “simultaneous occurrence of two or more role
sendings such that compliance with one would make it difficult to comply with another
(p. 184). Conﬂict can occur in varying degrees, from one that produces mild discomfort
to one that results in mutual exclusivity of the meeting of role expectations. Role
overload and ambiguity are two other important issues related to role expectation and
behavior in Katz and Kahn’s description.

Many aspects of role, role behavior, and role relationships are discussed in the
writings of these social scientists. What stands out in all the models is the fact that role is
always deﬁned in relationship to something or someone else. Whether social system,
subsystem, office, organization, or collective, role performance does not take place in a
vacuum.

This study used data collected in 1973 to determine how small town secondary
principals perceived their role. From field notes of interviews conducted in that year,
expectations of the role going into the principalship, principals’ perceptions of the
district’s expectations of them in the role, perceptions of teacher expectations, role
behavior in relationships with students, and perceptions of community expectations are
described and explained.

Then, field notes from interviews conducted in 2000-2001 were also studied and
analyzed to determine how secondary principals in the same and similar-sized towns
perceive their role today. Role expectations, perceptions of district and teacher

expectations, role performance in student relationships, and perceptions of community

21

an
...

r

expectations are described, illuminating the connections of aspects of role theory to the
role of the secondary principal today.

Next, it is useful to look at the social systems within which roles exist and
function, consider the norms that govern the actors in them, and the ambivalence and

conﬂict which arise as a result.

Social Systems

Max Weber was a German sociologist whose interest was analyzing
administrative systems in light of traditional, patrimonial systems. He defined social
action as behavior on the part of an individual that is oriented in some way to the
behavior of others. This constitutes a social relationship. The behavior can also be
oriented to past, present, or future expected behavior of other individuals or groups, or of
what Weber terms an “indeﬁnite plurality” (Eisenstadt, p. xxxv) of which the individual
knows no one. In this sense, an individual might be said to be acting on the basis of role
expectations. “Associative social relationships” are based, in Weber’s framework, on “a
rationally motivated adjustment of interests or a similarly motivated agreement”
(Eisenstadt, p. xxxv). Order, in Weber’s theory construct, is a system of “determinate
maxims or rules” (Spencer, p. 123) toward which behavior is oriented. A legitimate
order is a system, which the individuals acting within it believe is right. These systems of
rules of conduct are also referred to as norms, and provide for an orderly system of
interaction between and among individuals when their behavior is oriented around them.
Weber’s model also includes three types of authority: charismatic, in which the leader of

the system establishes the norms; traditional authority, in which the norms or customs

22

identify a leader who is then constrained by the norms, and legal rational authority, in
which the norms govern the “sphere of jurisdiction” (Spencer, p. 125) of a position within
the system. External inﬂuences can shape and modify the norms.

Legal rational authority is found in bureaucracies. The ideal bureaucracy would
exhibit a ﬁxed division of labor among its participants, a hierarchy of offices, a set of
general rules for governing performance, separation of personal from official property
and rights, selection of personnel on the basis of technical qualifications, and
employment within it viewed as a career by the participants (Scott, p. 68). Looking at
these characteristics in light of earlier administrative systems, Weber saw each of them as
a way of solving some defect of those systems. Bureaucratic structures, Weber believed,
have permanence. He outlined the way in which “modern ofﬁcialdom” (Eisenstadt,
p.76) was to function. In essence, according to Weber, these are the principles upon
which bureaucracies are founded and upon which they operate:

There are administrative rules which govern particular areas within the system
There is a hierarchy of “super- and subordination”

The documents which describe the operation and management of the system
are maintained in the ofﬁces of the bureaucracy

Management is expected to be trained

Bureaucratic officials are expected to give their offices their full attention
Rules which govern the bureaucracy are “stable, more or less exhaustive,

and. . .can be learned.
(Eisenstadt, pp. 66-68)

Weber describes the strength of the bureaucratic system: “Under otherwise equal
conditions, a ‘societal action,’ which is methodically ordered and led, is superior to every
resistance of ‘mass’ or even of ‘communal action.’ And where the bureaucratization of
administration has been completely carried through, a form of power relation is

established that is practically unshatterable” (Eisenstadt, p. 75-76).

23

Weber describes the inﬂexibility of the individual’s place in a bureaucracy:
“In the great majority of cases, he is only a single cog in an ever-
moving mechanism which prescribes to him an essentially ﬁxed
route of march. The official is entrusted with specialized tasks
and normally the mechanism cannot be put into motion or arrested
by him, but only from the very top. The individual bureaucrat is
thus forged to the community of all the functionaries who are
integrated into the mechanism. They have a common interest in
seeing that the mechanism continues its functions and that the
societally exercised authority carries on.”

(Eisenstadt, pp. 69—70)

Social relationships take on certain properties as the actions around which they
are oriented are repeated. These role interactions form a system. Talcott Parsons deﬁnes
social system as a system of processes of interactions between and among the individuals
in it. It is a set of interdependent elements that has an identity and draws upon resources
in its environment.

A social system can be two actors, or it can be a complex system made up of
many subsystems, each of which is comprised of two or more actors. Each functional
subsystem of a larger system is itself a system. It is actually the structure of the
relationships which comprises the structure, or the system. The most signiﬁcant basic
unit of the system is the social act, which has a positional aspect based on the role status
of the individual in the system, i.e., where he is in relation to others in the system.
Parsons holds that the role of each actor, or individual, is oriented to others, so an
individual status role is the unit both for his personal action system and that of the
collectivity. The collectivity is the system to which the individual belongs in a given
role, a system in which speciﬁc roles interact in deﬁned and prescribed ways. Status

classes involve members in a collectivity who are classed together based on

commonalties of place in the social structure.

24

Parsons identiﬁed five pattern-variables of role-deﬁnition which categorize the
way roles within a social system relate to one another. They apply to the value
orientation and the cultural traditions of the social system. Parsons’ names for the
pattem-variables give some insight to the tensions created within a social system, which
must be resolved in order for the system to achieve stability, and for the individual to
experience harmony between self and role:

I. The Gratification-Discipline Dilemma

Affectivity vs. Affective Neutrality

The Private vs. Collective Interest Dilemma
Self-Orientation vs. Collectivity Orientation

The Choice Between Types of Value-Orientation Standard
Universalism vs. Particularism

The Choice Between “Modalities” of the Social Object
Achievement vs. Ascription

The Deﬁnition of Scope of Interest in the Object
Speciﬁcity vs. Diffuseness

Fl

‘25

(Mayhew, 1982, p.67)

In order for a social system to function in an orderly manner, the needs of the
individuals in the system must be met. Parsons terms this, “adequate motivation” and
means by it that the needs of the actor must be satisfied (1951, p. 29). This is analyzed
in terms of consequences, and is manifested in the orderliness of the system. Personality
traits of individuals are intricately bound up in the social system, and account for the
great variability in individual approach to action within a role, and thus in the
characteristics of relationships in the collectivity. Social systems are thus differentiated
systems.

Parsons identified four basic systems problems, and developed what Scott (1981)
termed a “schema” (p. 31) to analyze social systems. All organizations face the problem

of Acquiring adequate resources, and must undergo adaptation to accomplish this

25

.1

'0

"l.—

.K.

3’3
h s

l
I,‘

acquisition. goal attainment addresses the problem of setting and implementing systems
goals. Integration deals with the problem of coordinating the various subsystems of a
social system and maintaining itself as a cohesive unit. Latency is the term Parsons uses
to deﬁne the way a social system creates, preserves, and transmits its unique culture and
values. These descriptors can be used to analyze any social system, according to Scott.
He sees educational institutions as “pattern-maintenance” organizations, which would
therefore place them in the latency category. However, Parsons’ AGIL model also
applies to the fact that within a social system, differentiation occurs along the divisions
designed to address those particular problems. Scott explains: “Various functional needs
are somewhat in conﬂict [within an organization] so efforts to satisfy one may interfere
with another. The structural ‘solution’ is to develop roles and subsystems designed to
address the problem areas” (p. 95).

A social structure is based on patterns of orientation of action within the system,
and elements of the situation around which the action is oriented. Several structures may
exist within the same social system, and one of the majorproblems of institutionalizing
patterns in a system is the integration of the structures and the establishment of a central
focus. Cultural and situational elements, in combination with individual personality
traits, make social systems very complex and diffuse. Established patterns of role
interaction within the system can contribute to its stability (Parsons, p. 41).

Georg Simmel proposed that group affiliations are formed according to objective
criteria which form a superstructure over the groups. He thought that one of the most
complex group afﬁliations is education. He deﬁned education as an “intellectual and real

association of persons who join in the pursuit of knowledge,” which he believed to be a

26

very general goal (1955, p. 135). In addition to their association with their educational
group, educators usually belong to highly varied groups. Multiple group affiliations
requires personality integration, and results in the strengthening of the individual. A type
of multiple group afﬁliation is “concentric membership” (p.146) , such as an individual’s
citizenship, social position, occupation, specific role within the occupation, etc. Thus, the
individual might have a speciﬁc niche within an occupational field; this may result in his
occupying a certain social position, or he may occupy it independently of his
occupational status. Concurrently, he is a citizen of a town or city, state, and nation and a
member of the human race. Simmel would hold that all contribute to the individual's
perception of self.

Unlike Simmel, whose model of the social system acknowledged the individual
personality’s imprint on social interaction, Emile Durkheim focused on the primacy of
the social structure and the collective conscience. He believed that the substance of
social life cannot be explained by purely psychological factors. The collective has a
reality of its own, and there are ways of thinking and acting that are apart from the
individual. His theory of the division of labor, which serves the collective, plays out in a
social structure in which the actions of the individual are dependent upon that structure.
He believed that the division of labor is a necessity to the well-being of the collective, as
are the institutions surrounding the divisions which keep them healthy. Organic and
mechanical solidarity result from this state of affairs. Organic solidarity refers to the
integration of the units that carry out various functions within the social system, and
mechanical solidarity refers to the commonly held beliefs and values of the conscience

collective.

27

Robert Merton, in SociologicaliAmbivalenceand Other Essays (1976) describes
the social system almost entirely in terms of social roles and the conﬂicts and
ambivalence which interaction of these roles within the system create. He describes a
changing theory of democracy. The early theory assumed that every person was as
competent as every other, and that everyone had equal access to information relevant to
the work one did. It assumed also that an organization, peopled with equally competent
individuals with an equal access to information, was undisturbed by the outside
environment in which it existed. A more modern system is one which demonstrates
“organizational realism” (p. 92), a democratic organization which maintains a “process of
dynamic adaptation for coping with its environment, in part responding to that
environment, in part controlling it, in order to acquire and use the resources needed to
attain the organization’s goals” (p. 93). He draws a distinction between behavior and
conduct; he deﬁnes the latter as purposive social action within the system. Purposive
action encompasses motives and choice, and can have unanticipated consequences which
impact the organization as well as the individual.

Consideration of a theoretical construct of social systems as it applies to
educational institutions would not be complete without mention of open systems. Katz
and Kahn’s model of a social system is an open one (1966). There is a close relationship
between the structure and its environment. The environment is a supportive one, which
provides input in the form of energy and maintenance.

One source of energy is human effort and motivation, thus establishing
relationships as an integral part of the social system. Human behavior “carries” the

system, furnishing “sustaining input” (Katz & Kahn, p. 174). This input, in the form of

28

role behavior, is utilized by the system to produce some outcome that is of use to a group
outside the system. The behavior occurs in a single subsystem and within a single ofﬁce,
although an individual can be part of several organizational subsystems, and one office
can be part of a number of role subsystems. In spite of the seemingly simple concept of
exchange upon which this model is based, the overlapping of roles, offices and
subsystems results in a complex and dynamic model.

W. Richard Scott deﬁnes three categories of social systems in his book,
Organizations: Rational, Natural and Open Systems (1981). Rational systems are highly
formalized social structures, or collectivities, and are oriented to the accomplishment of
fairly speciﬁc goals. A natural system is a collectivity whose participants are interested
in the survival of the system and who work together toward that end, but are little
affected by formal structure or official goals. The natural system is informally structured.
An open system is “a coalition of shifting interest groups that develops goals by
negotiation; the structure of the coalition, its activities, and its outcomes are strongly
inﬂuenced by environmental factors” (Scott, p. 23). Scott states that these basic
deﬁnitions can be used to describe organizations or parts of organizations. Thus, they
can also be used in combination to describe organizations. A rational system, to further
simplify the deﬁnition, is a consciously-designed, mechanistic system, epitomized in
Weber’s bureaucracy. It is an administrative system designed to be effective and
efﬁcient. A natural system is more spontaneous in its development, and evolves through
natural growth. It takes into account the participant’s attitudes and activities, which may
affect his work behavior. Further, the participants’ other roles actually become resources

for the organization (p. 183).

29

Open systems as social organizations are seen to be loosely coupled systems in
that the system contains elements that are only slightly interrelated with other parts of the
system; each part is capable of autonomous action. Even though open systems are
dependent upon their environments for resources, they are not “passive recipients.”
“Organizations are active, capable of changing as well as responding to their
environment. Administrators have to manage the environment as well as the
organization” (Scott, p. 116). The concept of open systems emphasizes the complexity
and variability of the individuals and subgroups within the system and the looseness of
the connections between them. Relationships between the parts of the system are
conditional, and the “parts are capable of semiautonomous action” (p.119). Individuals
and parts of the system come and go, creating ad hoc coalitions. Scott sees the
coordination and control of open systems as “problematic.” System boundaries are
“amorphous” and organizational roles and relationships are constantly changing
depending upon the situation. The focus is on organizing rather than organization
(p. 119). The organization is a dynamic system. There is interdependence between the
organization and its environment. “Reciprocal ties bind and interrelate the organization
with those elements that surround and penetrate it.” The environment is “the ultimate
source of materials, energy and information” (p. 119).

Scott explains the ideas of several other theorists, all of whom suggest that the
idea of a closed system, when compared with an open system, is limiting. However,
most agree that some combination of rational, natural and open systems makes the most
sense in describing and explaining organizational structure. Although organizations often

strive to be rational, according to theorist James D. Thompson, they are natural and open

30

systems just trying to be efficient and effective. He believes, according to Scott, that all
three models can be applied to all organizations, but not equally, and not at all locations
within the organization. The “technical core” of the organization, where the work is
done, may be closed and bureaucratic in nature, but in terms of the behaviors and “life
chances” (Scott, p. 131) of the organization, it needs to be open to its environment.

Social systems are the context in which role performance takes place. They can
be made up of two people whose roles require them to interact, or they can be highly
complex systems made up of numerous interrelated subsystems. The role of the principal
exists in a system. In many ways, an educational system is bureaucratic in nature, even
though it is one that interacts with and is affected by its environment. At its technical
core, where work actually takes place, the system could be said to be bureaucratic, and
relatively insulated from the environment. Schools are run according to highly
formalized rules, especially at the district level, where policies are established and where
procedures are developed to ensure compliance with state laws and governmental
mandates. Individuals are hired in school systems on the basis of their technical
competencies, and officials have authority that is legitimately conferred by their position
in the hierarchy.

School systems are in many respects affected by the communities in which they
exist, and it is often the principal who is most vulnerable to “input” from the system’s
environment. In addition, there is an exchange of “inputs” and “outputs” based on the
ﬁnancial resources provided to the organization by the larger environment in which the
system exists, and the resulting “products” in the form of educated students the system

produces. Scott’s model of an open, rational system is possibly the model which most

31

accurately depicts an educational system; certainly no 9113 theory of social systems
exactly serves that purpose. Each theory of social systems has elements which apply to
educational communities at both the building and district levels, and there are
components of the school system which are well-described by one model or another. It is
certainly true that the role of the principal exists within a system, and that the social
relationships to which his role is oriented largely determine his role behavior.

This study seeks to describe and explain the principal’s perception of the social
system within which he performs his role as secondary principal in a small town.
Questions will be asked related to the role of the principal as it relates to the organization
and community within which it exists. By examining how the principal describes the
organization, or system, of which s/he is a part, how the principal perceives his
relationship to the organization as a whole, the role set within the system, and the
principal’s personal and professional role sets external to the system, a description and
explanation of the structure of the social system within which the principal’s role exists

will be provided.

Norms

The concept of norms and normative behavior is one of the fundamental bases of
social organizations and of organizational behavior. It is inextricably linked to the
concepts of roles and social systems. Norms have psychological and sociological
underpinnings. The individual constantly strives to articulate the motivational system of
the personality with the structure of the social system. Value orientation patterns are

established and accepted as the individual is exposed to the attitudes of others in the

32

social interaction process and becomes dependent on the speciﬁc reactions of others in
that process. Norms are patterns of value orientation as they relate to the motivational
system. They are a function of the conforming vs. non-conforming interests of the
individual (Parsons, 1951, pp. 33-36).

Norms also reﬂect value standards that govern role behavior in certain interaction
contexts. They are the “institutionalization of role expectations” (Parsons, p. 38) based
on shared value orientation patterns and motivational orientations, or the commitment to
fulﬁll certain “relevant expectations” (p. 38). The structure of normative patterns is
intricate. All social action, according to Talcott Parsons, is normatively-oriented. The
actors in the social system must share the values embedded in the norms in an
institutionally integrated interactive system. The norms of action to which the individual
adheres are norms of rational action, in that the action is voluntaristic. There are means
(I do this) and ends (this results). The ends, then, are factors in the action, in that the
actor can choose to bring them about or offer resistance to them. Individuals share a
common system of ends which helps to define their relationships with one another.
Norms determine the nature of the relationships as well as what ends should or should not
be sought, the means to the ends, and the standards of effort in achieving them.

There is inherent moral authority in norms. People adhere to them because they
believe in the ends from which the norms are derived. Normative structures can also
provide opportunities for individuals to achieve personal ends within the structure of
institutional goals. Parsons describes this as occurring either because of positive
advantages the situation offers, or the avoidance of consequences of non-conformity. He

believes that a meaningful description of an action specifies an end, the means to it, the

33

conditions in which it occurs, and the norms that govern it. He further states that “action
always involves a state of tension between the normative and the conditional elements.
Action is the process of altering the conditions toward conformity with norms” (Mayhew,
p. 7).

Norms reﬂect the culture in which the interaction system they govern is found.
Cultural elements mediate and regulate communication and other aspects of the
interaction process. The culture provides the standards from which norms develop.
Norms are the legitimate requirements for behavior within a system. They reinforce role
requirements in a system, and provide stability in a highly differentiated social structure.
Norms provide explicit direction for appropriate behavior and communicate the
“shoulds” of the system.

System norms may not reﬂect the values held by an individual. These norms
reﬂect the standard of behavior deemed to be relevant for the system. They tie people
into the system by providing a “cognitive map” (Parsons, p. 46) for members by making
their work easier or facilitating their adjustment to the system. Norms also provide moral
and social justiﬁcation for work done by the organization both for those in the system and
those who deal with it externally.

System participants tend to hold common beliefs about the system and what it
does. When members believe these are relevant or appropriate, they are group, or system
norms. These must fulfill three criteria, according to Parsons: They must be beliefs about
appropriate and required behavior for group members as group members; most members
must agree with them; individuals must understand that there is group support for a

particular belief. All three of these criteria are necessary to define a norm that develops

34

around a function of a social system. The type of activity determines the norm. Norms
derive their support from the activity of the system, and not from the motivation of
individuals to adhere to them.

Merton (1976) states that systems of norms and values are organized in two major
respects: Each norm has at least one coordinate norm that is either different or
inconsistent; norms are deﬁned by how they are to be implemented. In the latter sense,
they become requirements. Thus, norms govern self-image; they govern relationships
among members of the role set; they govern relationships in the workplace and the
community. An occupation has its own “normative subculture, a body of shared and
transmitted ideas, values and standards toward which members of the profession are
expected to orient their behavior. Norms codify the values of the profession.” (Merton,
p. 65) Merton also says that “The ability to blend sometimes conﬂicting or inconsistent
norms into a stable pattern of professional behavior must be learned, and it is a difﬁcult
task” (p. 69).

On the individual level, norms are criteria for choice; they keep action from being
random. They can be said to regulate choice in socially relevant ways. Parsons (1951)
believes that the normative element of action is a primary social element because of its
“integrative function in relating actors to one another” (p. 251). Norms give guidance to
human interaction, and provide a basis for examining dilemmas faced in the course of it.
They outline the distinctions between the actor and his external situation, and
differentiate between means and ends. According to Parsons, although they are the basis

of social structure, they are not rules for conduct. They provide a framework for

35

exchange, allowing individuals to create, adjust to new conditions, solve problems, and
pursue their own interests.

There is a psychological component, according to Parsons: the individual
intemalizes a standard, or value pattern, to which conformity holds personal significance.
But there is also a sociological component: conformity may be a means of avoiding
unfavorable reactions of significant others and optimizing favorable reactions. If the
norm meets both these criteria, it can be said to be institutionalized. Norms thus are seen
as institutionalized role expectations, based on “shared value orientation patterns and
motivational orientation or commitment” to fulﬁll relevant expectations (Parsons, p. 38).

More contemporary sources of thought about the concept of norms include Haas
and Drabek and Bates and Harvey. In Complex Organizations: A Sociological
Perspective (1973) Haas and Drabek deﬁne norms as “speciﬁc interaction sequences and
interrelationships” which explain why patterns occur over time. Norms address
persistence and change in behaviors, when change occurs, why it happens, and why it
happens the way it does. Norms may be written or unwritten, ofﬁcial norms; both are
usually accepted and supported by the person occupying the role as well as the
organizational ofﬁcials. Sometimes they are unwritten and unofﬁcial; attempts to enforce
them are made by those other than heads of the organization. Norms seldom can be all-
encompassing. As groups establish the expectations for members’ behavior,
opportunities arise for unofﬁcial norms to arise to ﬁll gaps that official norms do not
cover. Further, Haas and Drabek deﬁne a “well-developed” role as one composed of a
large number of norms; some of them are broad and general, and some are detailed and

speciﬁc. “There could be dozens of them” (p. 132). This is certainly the case in the role

36

of the principal, especially when all the sources are considered. Norms governing
interactions with members of each constituent group must be balanced in order for the
principal to fulﬁll their varying expectations of him in his position.

“Position” is deﬁned by Has and Drabek (1973) as a clustering of roles, defined
by relationships. A principal would have a significant cluster: Principal-teacher,
principal-principal, principal-central ofﬁce administrator, principal-student, principal-
community member, and so on, until all relationship-deﬁnin g roles have been named. An
incumbent enacts a position by behaving in certain ways while interacting with other
position incumbents, in accordance with a set of norms that govern the particular role
relationship (p. 112), thus emphasizing the link between role, social system, and norms.

Bates and Harvey (1975) deﬁne norms in ﬁve dimensions:

1) the function to which they are attached

2) the physical location regarded as appropriate for the performance
of the behavior
3) the temporal context within which the behavior is appropriate
4) the actor [role incumbent] who is expected to perform the behavior
5) the actor or object toward which the behavior is to be performed
(11 92)

Where do norms originate? Some have their origins in role conception,
mentioned earlier and deﬁned by Haas and Drabek as “a reﬂection of the general culture
of the larger society in which the individual is a member, and of any institutional settings
experienced” (p. 135). From these experiences, individuals “carry in” norms to the group
as “generalized role conceptions” (p. 135) they held before they became members of the
group. For example, a new principal mentored by a very experienced one will bring to
his new position many of the role conceptions developed in the mentorship; these may

conﬂict with role conceptions held by the teachers in the building where he holds his new

37

position. Bates and Harvey believe that norms learned by an individual are stored in his
personality, and view the actions of the individual as a combination of situational,
personality and interactional variables.

The group to which the incumbent belongs is also a source of norms. Sometimes
the process is official, involving the appointed or recognized head of the group; other
times the head may be intentionally left out of the process; at still other times, the process
may be unofﬁcial and simply reﬂective of a minor procedural norm. Group norms are
actually operational norms in the system. Since everyone has more than one role, not
everyone adheres to all the norms all the time, or all the norms in exactly the same way.
Some norms appear in all the roles represented in the group; some appear in no other
roles, some in several. Intragroup roles exist when an individual is involved in several
different units of social interaction within the group. For instance, a principal has varying
roles in her building. Intergroup roles exist when the incumbent is involved in units
outside his group. Different norms guide the behavior in each role.

Norms are reﬂected in an incumbent’s role perception, the collection of normative
ideas held by the person occupying the role. Role consensus is the degree of congruence
in the role conception held by one incumbent and that held by other incumbents. The fact
that someone holding a position rrright be involved in intergroup roles raises the issue of
outside sources of norms. Examples impinging on the role of the principal are legion. A
partial list includes:

Laws enacted by local, state and national governments
Interpretations of laws by the courts

Regulatory agencies (OSHA, EEOC, OCR)

State and Federal Departments of Education

State high school athletic associations
Parent organizations

38

Subsystems within the organization (e. g., the district’s Business
or Human Resources Departments)
Top management (Superintendent, Board of Education)

This study seeks to describe and explain the small-town secondary principal’s
perception of the norms that govern his role performance. Field notes from 1973
principal interviews were examined to determine the dominant norms governing principal
behavior in that time period. Principals interviewed in 2000-2001 were asked questions
which attempt to identify norms that govern principal behavior today. What did the
principal perceive the norms governing performance of the role to be as he entered the
role; i.e., what norms were “carried in” to the office? What were the sources of these
norms? What did he discover after some time in the role of principal in terms of the
dominant norms governing the day-to-day work? What changes in principal behavior, if
any, were necessary as a result?

As stated earlier, norms are inextricably linked to roles and the relationships they
have to one another. The principal’s role behavior is governed by norms related to the
role and the system of interactions within which the role is performed. In the next

section, aspects of conﬂict, ambivalence, ambiguity, and other elements of dysfunctional

role relationships are discussed.

Ambivalence and Conﬂict

Robert Merton’s (1976) sociological theory of ambivalence refers to the social
structure, not to the feelings of the individual or to personality issues. His focus is on the
idea that ambivalence is inherent in the deﬁnition of social roles and statuses and in the

structure of the relationships and activities associated with them. Structural sources of

39

ambivalence result from the normative structure of the relationships and affect the
behavior of parties involved in the relationship. Merton describes several types of social
ambivalence. One he terms a “core-type” (p. 8). It puts contradictory demands upon the
occupants of a status in a particular social relationship. Adherence to the norms
governing the behaviors related to the demands cannot be simultaneously met, and so the
individual vacillates between behaviors such as detachment and compassion, discipline
and permissiveness, or personal and impersonal treatment. (Merton speciﬁcally uses the
physician-patient model to provide examples for his theory. The parallels to educational
situations are remarkable.)

Individuals occupy statuses, or roles, in what Merton terms a status set. There can
be conﬂicts between or among the statuses in a status set. For example, an individual can
be an administrator, student, teacher, consultant, spouse and parent. These positions
comprise a status set. Role expectations for the various statuses can pull people in
different directions.

A third type of conﬂict is that between or among the several roles which are
associated with a particular status. In other words, an individual may be expected to
perform many duties in the role. Constraints placed on the individual as a result of one
demand inhibit or prevent the fulfilling of other demands. Still another type has to do
with cultural values held by a society, or the social system of which the individual is a
part. Merton uses this example: Members of a society may hold the normative belief that
everyone should be successful. But: The kind of person you are is more important than

how successful you are.

40

Still another type of sociological ambivalence rests in what Merton terms,
“disjunction between culturally prescribed aspirations and socially structured avenues for
realizing them” (p. 11). The individual adheres to cultural values, but has no access to
achieve them, or act on them. Finally, there exists ambivalence concerning situations in
which individuals have lived long enough in two cultures to have internalized conﬂicting
values of both, and have an orientation to what he terms the “non-membership group”

(p. 12). He uses the example of how a woman who grows up in mainland China, attends
college and works for a time in the United States and then returns to China to live might
experience this type of ambivalence. A principal who returns to teaching after several
years of administrative work might experience this type of conﬂict.

Merton (1976) describes several structural sources of ambivalence which are
found in the normative structure of relations between the professional and the client (for
example, the educator and the student, or between the educator and the parent.) There is
an ongoing relationship with the professional that depends in part upon how long one
must wait for a satisfactory outcome of the relationship. Merton terms this the “attribute
of continuity” (p. 24). There is also an attribute of “professional authority” (p. 25). The
professional has authority because of a special competence that the client does not
possess. Use of this authority for the professional’s gain is even a source of ambivalence,
both for the client, and, at times, for the professional. Role performance evaluation
differs between the professional and the client; The client is looking for an outcome.
The professional may evaluate it in terms of what is accomplished in relation to

something else. There may be discrepancies between the quality of the role performance

41

and the outcome, or in the criteria used to solve the problems that are the focus of the
professional/client relationship.

Merton describes the phenomenon of the social diffusion of ambivalence: hostility
in speciﬁc cases is aggregated and generalized to hostility against a profession.
Individual reports, usually the “dramatic and the dismal” (p. 30), spread ambivalent
attitudes toward professionals, and reinforce other stories heard. At the least, tension is
generated by inconsistency.

Merton also describes the leaders of organizations as beleaguered by ambivalence
and contradictions of their status, and notes that these contradictions can become “public
victuals” (p.73) as the media get wind of the dilemmas. There is organizational
ambivalence which stems from the leader’s vision and that of his followers; there can be
conﬂict between the leader’s vision and the organization, if it doesn’t conform closely
enough to organizational norms. The superior-subordinate relationship is a complex of
interactions which can be a source of conﬂict. Special interest groups both internal and
external to the organization, which have legitimate or not-so-legitimate claims on the
resources of the organization, can create enormous conﬂict:

He faces with fearsome regularity the need to assess conﬂicting
interests, conﬂicting sentiments, and conﬂicting convictions
Within the organization. In this regard, there can be no rest for
the sometimes weary leader. He is structurally located at the
very node of conﬂicting wants and demands within the organi-
zation. His role requires him to acknowledge and work on
these conﬂicts, not to deny them or to cover them over with

the rhetoric of feigned consensus. He has the task of alerting
others to the sources of the conﬂict, to deﬁne and redeﬁne the
situation for them, to have them acknowledge in turn that

decisions gauged in the light of the organization as a whole
must often override the particular concerns of its parts.

(p. 84)

42

Merton makes the point that the leader must be oriented to his organization and to the
world outside it, balance the two, and maintain a moral commitment to the larger society.

His observation regarding the potential for conﬂict within the social structure is
not a new one. Max Weber observed that there is continuous tension between the
“constrictive and creative aspects of institutions and social organizations” (Eisenstadt,
p. xvii). In fact, according to Weber, any time action (in a social system) is oriented to
carrying out an individual’s will against the resistance of other parties there is tension.
The tension Parsons describes in The Social System (1951) is broad in scope. When an
individual recognizes the obligation to accept discipline instead of manifesting expressive
interests which would be seen in the role context as disruptive, there is conﬂict. Parsons
sees the dilemma in relation to the pursuit of any private interest. In deﬁning roles as the
primary mechanisms through which the critical functional prerequisite of a social system
are met, Parsons details the conditions an individual must meet in combining a given set
of roles in his own activity: time, geographic location, psychological compatibility. The
individual has a “plurality of roles” (p. 280), so Parsons believes that conﬂict is
inevitable. The individual is going to be exposed to conﬂicting sets of role expectations,
fulﬁllment of which is realistically impossible. Some of each may be sacriﬁced, or one
sacriﬁced in favor of others, resulting in negative consequences or internal conﬂict. The
individual will redeﬁne his situation, withdraw from it, or evade it.

Private interest can be inextricably linked to the social system within which the
individual ﬁnds himself and the norms which govern his role behavior. For instance, if
an individual has a compulsive need to excel in his job, it may upset the balance in his

role set, leading to failure to meet the role expectations of, say, his spouse or his children.

43

Parsons also describes role conﬂict that comes about as a result of “malintegration of the
social system” (p. 281). Sometimes these conﬂicts are situation specific, allowing the
individual to evade having to choose between conﬂicting expectations; at other times,
insecurity or incompletely gratiﬁed needs are the result.

Georg Simmel’s view of role conﬂict as it relates to occupations is broadly stated
in terms of demands of the job. He sees entrance into an occupation posing the potential
for “association or isolation, equalization or particularization, disagreement or
competition” (1955, p. 155). Although common interests unite a group quite closely,
individual interests can cause dissention. He describes the possibility that the
individual’s thinking can become consumed with the occupation. He describes the
individual’s probable response to an occupation that is not specialized as a rapid
adjustment of ideas requiring “ a great deal of psychic energy, and other interests suffer.
Absorbing, emotional identiﬁcation with the occupation permits only a small amount of
mental energy to be invested in other aspects of life” (p. 185). This type of occupation
becomes the central interest in a person’s life, which is certain to result in conﬂict.

Katz and Kahn (1966) describe conﬂict in terms of their model of role behavior,
which includes role sending as the central action in a role episode involving members of
a role set. Role conﬂict occurs when there is a “simultaneous occurrence of two or more
role-sendings such that compliance with one would make more difﬁcult compliance with
the other” (p. 184). There are varying degrees of difﬁculty, all the way to mutually
exclusive. Intrasender role conﬂict occurs when the expectations from a single member
of a role set are incompatible; intersender, when the expectations of one sender are in

conﬂict with those of another. Interrole conﬂict places the sent expectations for one role

in conﬂict with those for another role played by the same person. All three of these types
represent conﬂict in the content of the role.

Person-role conﬂict occurs when the role requirements violate the needs, values,
or capacities of the focal person, or role incumbent. Role overload occurs when the sent
expectations of the various members of the individual’s role set are legitimate and not
logically incompatible, but the focal person ﬁnds it impossible to meet the expectations
within time or quality limits.

Still another source of stress in role relationships is role ambiguity. The focal
person lacks information from superiors about expectations, the nature of the work, the
scope of responsibilities, and opportunities for advancement. Parsons (1951) elaborates:
The actor is expected to live up to the expectations of his role, but first he must ﬁgure out
what they are. In some social systems there is a “proliferation of highly generalized
rules” and differences in their interpretation. Thus, the actor is confronted with an
“unstructured situation in which he must take responsibility for an independent solution.”
An “adequate performance is not clearly deﬁned” and the normative expectation pattern
is thus difﬁcult to ascertain (pp. 269—271). The effects of role ambiguity are comparable
to those of role conﬂict, but include a sense of futility about the work.

Katz and Kahn (1966) state that the prevalence of role conﬂict is a fact, and
further state that the amount of felt conﬂict is almost linear in relation to the size of the
organization. The individual’s location and position in the organization determine the
degree of conﬂict or ambiguity experienced. The closer to the “skin” (p. 192) of the
organization, the greater the likelihood conﬂict will be felt. An individual’s own

personality characteristics are also mediating factors in how role expectations and role-

45

sendings are perceived, and determine the degree to which intensity of role conﬂict will
be experienced by the individual as strain.

Bates and Harvey (1975), Gordon (1987), and Etzioni (1964) also discuss role
conﬂict. Bates deﬁnes role conﬂict as a situation in which two or more norms deﬁning a
role call for behaviors which are mutually exclusive or morally or legally inconsistent.
This experience is felt by the incumbent as “a punishing set of internal stimuli” (p. 218)
which affect the individual in such a way that he works to avoid the experience in the
future or attempts to change the role expectations (redefines the norms) so that it is not
repeated. Gordon defines role conﬂict as “differing expectations or pressures about how
the role holder will perform” (p. 186). Compliance with one set of pressures makes
compliance with a different set more difﬁcult. This pressure is inherent within a single
role, but multiple roles invariably create diverse expectations.

Etzioni (1964) states that role conﬂict results in an increase in the level of
dissatisfaction and personal strain. There is a corresponding strain in work relationships.
Role strain is generated when [the leader] tries to carry out two partially incompatible
leadership roles simultaneously, usually falling into the categories of meeting
organizational goals vs. maintaining professional values (pp. 82-83).

Gordon (1987) also discusses role ambiguity. This occurs when the role
incumbent lacks sufﬁcient information to perform activities associated with the role.
Gordon cites Kahn as specifying six types of information necessary to avoid role
ambiguity:

1) expectations of others
2) activities the individual has to perform and interpersonal

interactions the individual should demonstrate to show they
have been completed

46

3) consequences of performing or interacting, or not doing so

4) kinds of behaviors that will be rewarded or sanctioned
5) likelihood of receiving rewards or sanctions
6) the kinds of behaviors and attitudes that will frustrate personal
needs
(p. 188)

Gordon and Etzioni offer two final sources of dysfunction in role dynamics.
Etzioni (1961) defines role adaptation: changes in a person which occur after he is
assigned for a long period to a role which initially did not meet his needs or disposition.
This characteristic describes adaptation t_o the role, and not adaptation o_f the role (p. 278).
On the other hand, Gordon’s (1987) role innovation relates to new ways of perceiving,
thinking, feeling and acting in the role which produce automatic changes (i.e., adaptation
9f the role, in Etzioni’s terms). The inherent question, Gordon suggests, is: Are new
elements of this segment of role theory actually new assumptions, or are they new
artifacts based on old cultural assumptions? (p. 713) Any principal who has been in the
position long enough to want to change the way things are would see the potential for
dysfunction no matter what the answer, as traditional norms and perceptions are called
into question when considered against the principal’s perceived demands of the current
role.

This study seeks to describe and explain the personal costs to the small-town
secondary principal as he works to perform his role. Are ambivalence and conﬂict
evident in the role in 1973? In 2000-2001? How are they experienced? What are the
types and sources? How does the principal manage role conﬂict and ambivalence?
Questions related to issues of ambivalence and conﬂict were included in questions asked

of principals when interviews were conducted to learn their perceptions of their role.

47

Summary of the Theoretical Construct

The purpose of the study is to describe and explain the perception the small town
secondary principal has of the role today. In this section of the study, the concepts of
role theory, social systems, norms, and ambivalence and conﬂict have been explicated. It
is necessary to have a conceptual framework within which to examine the principal’s
role, its position in the social system, the norms which govern the role, and the types of
ambivalence and conﬂict which arise in carrying out the demands of the role.

The concept of role has psychological and sociological components. An
individual has perceptions of any role he takes on, which he intemalizes and acts upon.
These perceptions are based upon his values and beliefs about the role. In addition, he
has perceptions of expectations he believes others hold about his performance in the role.
Thus, there are internally and externally deﬁned role expectations perceived by the
individual. These expectations are oriented around social relationships, or relationships
within a social system.

Various theorists consider role from different perspectives. Max Weber
emphasized the concept of authority in social relationships and within social systems. He
focused on various types of authority, namely, charismatic, traditional, and legal-rational
and the means by which role is determined within the system. Emile Durkheim saw the
importance of the social being as superior to that of the individual being; individuals and
their behaviors are simply social segments in a larger system. Individual behavior,

according to Georg Simmel, is always determined by the group to which he belongs, and

48

emphasized the speciﬁcity of an individual’s role as a key factor in personality
integration.

Talcott Parsons defines role as part of a total orientation system for the individual.
Not only does there exist a strong personality component that determines
the individual’s behavior within a role in a given situation, there is also a social
component: occupying a role can obligate the individual to pursue the common interests
of the system, or collective. The two are intertwined; conformity to standards of behavior
in the interests of the collective has personal significance to the individual.

Robert Merton acknowledges the practical aspects of role and role relationships,
and focuses on role behavior as it pertains to organizational functioning and role
relationships. Katz and Kahn also define role in organizational terms, and have a lexicon
of relationship terms to extend it.

Each of these social scientists discusses aspects of role, role behavior, and role
relationships that underscore the fact that role performance does not exist in a vacuum.
Role is always deﬁned in terms of someone or something else, such as social systems.
Role interactions in the context of social relationships form a system.

A social system can be two actors in their roles, or it can be a highly complex
system made up of many subsystems. The structure of the relationships comprises the
system. The social act is the most basic unit of the system; it has a positional aspect
based on the role status of the individual in the system, i.e., where he is in relation to
others in the system. Roles within a system relate to one another in a variety of ways,
based on the patterns of orientation of action within the system, according to Parsons.

Simmel’s construct is based on the concept of multiple group afﬁliations, which means

49

that an individual occupies several roles within a system. His particular role combination
impacts each role he holds in the system, and has a determining inﬂuence on personality
integration. Durkheim’s focus was on the primacy of the social structure and the
collective conscience. Although the individual has a role in the structure of the
collective, there is no substance to social life apart from it, no purely psychological
explanation for it.

Katz and Kahn and Scott present models of open systems. They believe that the
social system exists in concert with its environment. There exists a close relationship,
based on inputs and outputs. Role behavior is one source of input; the output is deﬁned
in terms of goal attainment, impact on the environment, and maintenance of the system
through consumption of outputs. Open systems are deﬁned by the complexity and
variability of their component parts, which come and go. The emphasis in an open
system is on organizing rather than on the organization.

Closely linked with the concepts of role and social systems is that of norms.
Norms reﬂect value standards which govern role behavior in certain interaction contexts.
Parsons believes that all social action is normatively oriented. Norms determine the
nature of the relationships within a social system. There is an inherent moral authority
imbedded in norms, which also reﬂect the culture in which the interaction system they
govern is found. They are the legitimate requirements for behavior, and reinforce role
requirements in the system. They are the “shoulds” of the system.

Norms do not necessarily reﬂect the values held by an individual. They reﬂect
the standard of behavior deemed to be relevant for the system. They provide moral and

SOCial justiﬁcation for the organization’s work, and guide those who deal with the

50

organization. On an individual level, norms are criteria for choice, and guide role
behavior. Parsons believes the normative element of a social structure is its primary
social element because of the way it binds individuals in the system together. Norms can
be ofﬁcial or unofficial, and can arise from the group or as a result of generalized role
conceptions. Norms are inextricably linked to roles and relationships within the system.
Conﬂict is inherent in the concept of role. Merton outlines several types. Core-
type ambivalence keeps the individual from adhering to the norms governing conﬂicting
demands of the role. Conﬂict can arise between or among an individual’s various roles in
his status set (i.e., administrator, student, teacher, consultant, spouse and parent are all
roles one individual might occupy). Another type of conﬂict arises from conﬂicting
demands within a role. Cultural values can clash with role expectations. Conﬂict can
occur between culturally prescribed aspirations and available means of reaching them.
Ambivalence between two culturally proscribed roles can cause strain for the individual.
There are as many sources of conﬂict as there are types. There are structural
sources based on relationships within the system. Aggregated and generalized hostility
can occur. Contradictions within the status can cause role strain. Organizational
ambivalence arising out of discrepant organizational vision, superior - subordinate
relationships and conﬂict with external parties can occur. Weber identiﬁed tension
between constrictive and creative aspects of the institution. Parsons believed that
because of the plurality of roles occupied by an individual, conﬂict is inevitable. Private
interest can upset the balance an individual experiences in his social system. Parsons also
identiﬁed malintegration of the social system as a potential source of conﬂict, depending

upon the situation and the individual’s relationship to it. Simmel saw simply entering

51

into an occupation as having the potential for conﬂict. Becoming too absorbed in one’s
job, having an extreme degree of emotional identification with the role could give rise to
conﬂict. Katz and Kahn observed varying degrees of difficulty with role compliance as
a source of conﬂict. Role overload is an example of role requirements violating the
needs, values or capacities of the role incumbent. Role ambiguity occurs when role
incumbents lack needed information about the role, leading to feelings of conﬂict and
futility.

Role conﬂict can lead to a variety of responses on the part of the role incumbent.
These are determined by the individual’s personality characteristics as well as his
position in the organization. The individual may experience strain, attempt to change his
work situation, or withdraw from the situation. Or, the individual may adapt to the role
and its conﬂicts. This occurs when a person undergoes changes in role behavior such
that, after a period of time, the initially dissatisfying role does meet his needs.

This summary points up the complexity and inextricable linking between role,
social systems, norms, and ambivalence and conﬂict. A role incumbent such as a
secondary principal seeks to balance the demands of his status in the social system, a
school in a small town, with his personal and professional needs, and is bound to
experience various types of ambivalence and conﬂict in so doing.

This study seeks to utilize the construct of role and social systems theory,
including the application of the concept of norms, to the work of the small-town
secondary principal. By analyzing field notes from interviews conducted in 1973 and
2000-2001 and applying the theoretical construct, the researcher will describe and explain

those principals’ perceptions of their role.

52

Chapter 11

Literature Review

Part I

Historical Perspective of the Principalship

In order to provide a comprehensive explanation and description of the small
town secondary principal’s view of his role, it is necessary to place it in an historical
perspective. In this chapter, the principal’s role will first be examined starting in the late
19th century; then, beginning with the turn of the 20th century, the role will be described
decade by decade. The following portion of the chapter will be a detailed review of the
current role of the principal, based on an external perspective, in an attempt to complete
the background for a description and explanation of the principal’s perception of the role
based on the research conducted for this study.

In the glare of the often negative reviews of public education, today’s school
administrators feel particularly vulnerable to the criticism of those from “the outside,”
those non-educators whose mission it seems to be to expose what they believe to be the
incompetence of the institution charged with preparing today’s youth for their uncertain
future. A look into the past, however, shows that today’s administrators are not the ﬁrst
in education’s history to feel the pressure of outside inﬂuences.

Principals through time have held Thomas Jefferson’s belief that education should
prepare individuals for citizenship in a country free from religious and government

oppression. Jefferson thought that the citizenry should be educated and informed, able to

53

reasonably and peacefully challenge attempts to undermine freedom. There was no
compulsory system of education in his day; rather, opportunities were provided to learn
from the classics those lessons that were of interest and use. Leaming to read, write, and
do simple mathematics was the aim of what was, for that time, universal education.
Administration of such a system was more a function of overseeing it, and, since much of
the education of that period took place privately, it was likely to be a parent, landowner,
or churchman who made whatever decisions were necessary to further or enhance the
educational process.

As the desirability of education increased and schools formed, the British model
of the school overseen by the “headmaster” evolved. In most cases, the headmaster was
also the head teacher, and shared teaching responsibilities with other teachers in the
school setting. The ideal of universal education was the foundation for such schools, but
simply augmented what a student might learn at home or at church. Even though the
purpose of education in these times was not to prepare an individual for a certain job or to
be trained for the workplace in more general terms, or even to simply receive a certiﬁcate
proving attendance, the idea that school was a place that would teach one something was
starting to take shape in the public consciousness. Dutton and Snedden’s lengthy
explication of The AdministraLion of Public Education in the United Stiles (1909)
emphasizes over and over the purpose of public education: educate the populace to
maintain the democracy, increase the standard of living, and educate against negative
inﬂuences that threaten the public good. They point out the value that people placed on
education from the early years of the republic. By the late 17008, municipal charters

provided land for the establishment of schools and required that libraries exist in certain

54

relationship to the size of communities. The earliest state constitutions laid the
foundations necessitating school legislation, which in its early forms was more a
formalization of existing conditions than laws that created new systems. Later state
constitutions, such as Michigan’s, were more speciﬁc in their demands for public
education. By the time it became the foundation for law in this state, school was required
to be in session in each school district for a minimum of three months of the year, or state
funds would be withheld.

Between 1865 and 1900, students began staying in school longer, and a system of
public education began to take shape. By 1900, educational opportunities were available
to all white Americans. In addition, fourteen million immigrants had found their way to
the United States, providing successful industrialists with a ready labor supply. Almost
ready, that is. Concern about the fact that, because most of these immigrants could not
speak English, they would naturally seek support in their ethnic groups caused the
industrial community to look to the public schools to serve them. The schools were the
only institution common to all, and surely they could inculcate the values and language
training necessary to refocus this workforce from their native nationalistic perspective to
one which would best serve their employers. Thus was one of the first major demands
placed upon what would become the beleaguered public school administrator. Teach
common American values, and get people ready to become productive members of the
workplace. This was just the beginning of a pattern of crisis and response which drives
public education to this day.

Lynn G. Beck and Joseph Murphy, in Understandingthe Principalship:

Metgphorical Themes 1920’s — 1990’s (1993) state that the Common School Report of

55

Cincinnati (1835) was the first place where the word, “principal” was used to refer to the
head of the school. Horace Mann also referred to this title in his writing as early as 1841.
The duties of principals were largely minor administrative tasks. Many principals, prior
to the professionalization of the role near the beginning of the 20th century, were lay
persons, unless teachers were carrying out the duties.

According to Button (1966), “Teaching of Teachers” was the guiding principle of
educational administration from 1870 - 1885. It was the administrator’s responsibility to
teach pedagogy, and thereby improve instruction. The ideals put forth by William H.
Payne provided a basis for the earliest expectations of the school administrator’s role.
Payne was, by his own description, “Professor of the Science and the Art of Teaching,
University of Michigan” and author of School Supervision, published in 1875. He stated
that, “A school system requires direction by one responsible head” (p. 17). Payne went
on to explain that “the work of instruction” should be organized in the same way as all
other “industries in that there should be differentiation, classification, and a system”

(p. 17). The “responsible head” would arrange courses of study, oversee the exarrrination
and classiﬁcation of students, take charge of discipline, oversee the teachers, and
maintain records. Payne believed this person should comprehend a science of education
in addition to possessing the practical skills necessary to run a school system. He pointed
out that “in the West” where graded school systems were established, superintendents
were appointed to carry out these responsibilities when the school population exceeded
1200 students. In smaller schools, it was the “principal teacher” (p.29) who acted as
superintendent. In these schools, this person’s legitimate title was “Principal,” and he

was held responsible for the same list of duties as those mentioned above for the

56

superintendent. From this point on in his book, Payne used the titles of superintendent
and principal interchangeably, although he also observed that a principal was still the
teacher of teachers, and in schools of less than 1000 students, he would still be teaching
classes. “Should the principal of a school which numbers 1000 pupils spend his entire
time in ‘superintending,”’ he wrote, “it is likely that his employers would soon become
disgusted with a system which needed so much watching” (1875, p. 31).

Payne commented upon the fact that teachers depended upon the principal for
reinforcement in the area of discipline, and that weakness in this area would be reﬂected
in the school. Payne charged principals with the “orderly movements of pupils
throughout the buildings and on the grounds” (p. 59). The appearance of the school, also,
was an indication of the management ability of the principal.

The supervision of teachers and instruction was a major focus of Payne’s
philosophy of school management. As the teacher of teachers, the superintendent/
principal was responsible for the hiring and ﬁring of instructors, and he believed that
skillful supervision would result in teachers who were successful in the classroom.
However, he cautioned against over-involvement in classroom matters. “A school should
be a republic, not a despotism; an organic whole, animated by self-active centers, not a
dead machine, kept in motion by external force” (p.71). He described “ esprit de corps”
as a “unity of purpose and of method. . .indispensable to success” (p. 77) and a feature of
well-managed schools. This could be brought about by the principal’s communication to
teachers in regular teachers’ meetings, “the only known means of giving harmony and

pr0per efficiency to a system of instruction” (p. 76).

57

Payne emphasized that “schools belong to the people” (p. 84) and thus should
meet the needs of the communities. He stated that although schools should respond to the
wishes of the public, they should not be driven by “the caprices of public opinion”

(p. 84). The purpose of the high school, which he believed was the “most democratic of
our public institutions,” was to “reinforce the community by accessions of cultivated
society, so that in the course of a few years the whole tone of society may be elevated”
(p. 114). The high school was the source of the “teaching force needed to perpetuate the
graded system” (p. 113) of instruction. Thus, it was the fundamental resource in
maintaining a “self-sustaining system of public instruction” (p. 113). He acknowledged
that not all students would go on to university study, and wondered if the German models
of the real-schule, which offered students the opportunity to participate in practical
studies, and the gymnasium, which prepared them for further academic study should be
considered for American high schools. The seeds of inﬂuence of university thought upon
administrative decision-making in the realm of curriculum were thus planted.

Payne also addressed the more administrative tasks for which the superintendent/
principal was ultimately responsible, even offering forms for attendance summaries,
enrollment reports, ages of students enrolled in various grades, and charts of text work.
He suggested uniform reporting of the cost of educating students per capita. In
referencing a meeting held by the National Teachers’ Association in Detroit in 1874, he
advised that a lengthy report, based at least in part upon information supplied by the
principal, be adopted as a means of “giving shape to our national system of education”

(p. 174).

58

In concluding his book, Payne recommended that there be public demonstration
of the results of instruction. He suggested that on certain days, the schools be “thrown
open” to the public so they could witness “ the actual conditions of the school” as they
appear in “everyday dress.” This, he felt, was “one of the surest means to create and
sustain a public opinion favorable to our public school system. The schools belong to the
people, and they will prosper just in proportion as the people feel a confidence in their
utility and in the honesty of purpose and general success with which they are conducted”
(p. 207). The public would have to see it to believe it.

Button (1966) characterizes the period from 1885-1905 as an era when
administrators were philosophers. The emphasis was on “eternal wisdom” and “moral
judgment” (p. 219). School administrators were held in the same high regard as
clergymen, and were charged with discovering eternal truths, presumably as they related
to education.

By 1905, industrial magnates such as Andrew Carnegie, John D. Rockefeller,

J .P. Morgan, and Edward R. Harriman and their philosophy of free enterprise had taken
America by storm. Since 1865, McGuffey readers had institutionalized the belief that
success — material success, that is - results from honesty and hard work, and these men
proved it. During the early years of industrialization, schools responded to the demand
for more and better trained workers by including specialized courses designed to prepare
workers in their secondary curricula, and by organizing their structure so that teachers
taught and administrative and business details were handled by people placed in positions
to attend to those matters. Schools had now stepped into the role of assisting society with

the labor supply, and were making the attendant decisions in order to do so successfully.

59

Given the nature of educators, who tend to enter into education for the larger good, one
can imagine the early twentieth-century teachers and administrators approaching this new
task with the desire to fulﬁll their civic duty. Little could they have known what was in
store.

It wasn’t long before the problems of rapid industrial growth reared their
unattractive heads. Callahan (1962) names them: consolidation of industry and
concentration of wealth; ruthless exploitation of the country’s natural resources;
corruption and inefficiency in government; growth of cities; a ﬂood of immigrants which
created social and political problems in urban areas; and fear among the middle class that
the United States would react in an extreme or radical way (e. g., turn to socialism as a
way to solve social problems). Public mandates placed on the schools required raising
taxes to meet them. Add to this list of woes the fact that inﬂation ran as high as 30%, and
it becomes evident that the public needed a scapegoat.

Public education became that scapegoat. The ability of the media to inﬂame the
public is not a new phenomenon. Jefferson’s ideal of a literate citizenry had succeeded to
the extent that the journals (magazines, today) and newspapers of the time were read by a
large and responsive segment of the population. Such publications as McClure’s,
_S_aturday Evening Post, mes Home J oumal, and Alantic Monthly launched incredible
and ill—informed attacks on public schools, most of them demanding that public schools
adopt business ﬁnancial and organizational practices as a way to more efﬁciently respond
to societal needs. In 1900, the President of the National Education Association stated,

“the real educational leaders of the age whose inﬂuence will be permanent are those who

60

have the business capacity to appreciate and comprehend the business problems which
are always a part of the educational problem” (Button, 1966, p. 218).

As a result of this pressure, by 1907 most schools had added vocational courses,
at least. Some districts established vocational schools, and the numbers of students
enrolled in programs of strictly classical studies were declining. Andrew Carnegie,
America’s darling at the time, even went so far as to say that young men were hurt by a
classical education. The emphasis in education must be practical in order to maintain the
prosperity of American industry. Dutton and Snedden (1909) pointed out the “new and
pressing demands on schools from industry, politics, science, art, domestic improvement,
health, and human culture” (p. 4), and offered this lofty description of the ofﬁce of school
administration:

School administration is not merely a description of machinery,

it is primarily a study of human evolution and the progress of
communities toward a more highly civilized life. In its modern
conception it knows no barriers and no restrictions. It invokes

the aid of the past and the present; it draws upon the great treasure-
houses of culture; it summons to its service men and women of

generous hearts and consecrated faith; its emoluments are growing
and its satisfactions are greater year by year.

( p- 10)

By the time this book was published, there were already increasing functions of
public education legislated and overseen by state departments of education. Dutton and
Snedden saw this as a sure sign that these aspects of public education were so widely
accepted and supported by the people that such laws and systems of enforcement
represented the “crystallization of public opinion that [laws and systems were] conducive
to the general well-being of the state” (p. 63). Legislation, they felt, “consists to a certain

extent in simply recording conclusions which have already been reached among those

61

who are best informed as to educational needs” (p. 63). Thus was a great deal of
responsibility placed upon the educational leaders in communities in the areas of
reporting and compliance. Centralization of educational functions was seen as the best
way to beneﬁt students and bring about administrative efﬁciency. State control would
result in good teachers, careful inspection of schools, and the prevention of educational
neglect by parents or the populace.

The principal was seen as the “arm of the state” (p. 112), responsible for not only
recognizing and meeting the demands of local sentiment, but also for creating favorable
public sentiment. Dutton and Snedden’s lengthy chapter entitled, “The Schoolhouse”
discussed in excruciating detail the responsibilities of the principal. First, he needed
specialized training in heating and ventilation. “Until they have had education for this
function, even the best of intentions in those who erect school buildings will be largely
brought to naught” (p. 198). (Sad, but true.) The principal was also responsible for the
“true ﬂexibility” (p. 200) of the furniture in the school, and would do well to accept
specialized training in this arena, as well. He must recognize that texts are tools, and do
everything possible to develop teachers in the use of textbooks as their primary tool. He
needed to grapple with the dilemma of co-education and its impact on the development of
manly men and womanly women. He would be responsible for the formulation of school
policies, arranging courses of instruction, recommending the selection of teachers,
working with parents to properly “locate” a student in a course of study, coordinating
departments competing for students to see that students were given a balanced course of
study, and “to effectively adjust the pupil to the work which he is to take in the high

school. . .should be one of the large functions of the principal” (p. 374). In addition to the

62

responsibilities outlined by Payne thirty-five years earlier, the principal was also
responsible for developing a program for social education; Dutton and Snedden
recognized the principal’s responsibility for coordinating a program which aimed at the
physical, vocational, social and cultural development and well-being of the student. Of
course, he would work with the superintendent in the necessary reporting functions to
ensure cost-effectiveness of the programs being offered. He should “court publicity”, and
“procure the cooperation of intelligent citizens who generally create the public opinion
which others follow” (p. 533).

Dutton and Snedden recognized that “the ﬁeld of educational administration is
extensive and many-sided” (p. 559). At the close of the first decade of the 20th century,
they advised that the ﬁeld should be expanded to ensure that administrators were capable
of overseeing the education of society, and not just of the individual. It was necessary to
guard the general good health of the public; the school grounds should stand to beautify
the community in which they existed; victims of poverty should be looked after. Parents
and community members should be welcomed into the school. On the local level, the
“implementation of domestic science, to include the building, establishment, and
maintenance of all aspects of the household for the purpose of elevating the standard of
living” (p. 562) would demonstrate the effectiveness of the school in the community.
The results of the work of the school would be “seen in well-ordered, thrifty, tasteful
homes, where health, economy, and courtesy are visible. . .The work of the school is not
merely scholastic achievement, but improvement of personality and the uplifting of

human life throughout the community” (p. 572). On a more global scale, the school

63

should show a tendency to introduce “lessons of peace and international good will in an
appeal to a larger patriotism” (p. 582). Such were the expectations in 1909.

More would soon be added. Schools in the major cities were becoming very
large, and were expensive to operate. Enter Frederick Taylor and his system of Scientific
Management. Taylor’s name and system made their way into public awareness during
Interstate Commerce Commission hearings on proposed increases in railroad freight
charges. By 1912, Scientific Management principles had been applied worldwide, and its
experts were eager to apply the system to education in an effort to bring about the same
beneﬁts the system had reportedly wrought upon the railroad industry.

The tenets of the system required that a “science” be developed for each element
of a task; that the worker be trained in that method in order to standardize the job; that the
manager “heartily cooperate” (Callahan, 1962, p. 27) to motivate workers to follow the
plan; that there be an equal division of work between worker and manager. (By this,
Taylor meant that the manager would carefully think through the plan, and that the
worker would do what he was told.) Analogies abounded, comparing the teacher to
factory worker, and the administrator to management, or the student to worker, and the
teacher to manager.

Along with the popularization of this universal panacea, the media created an
obsession about the existence of wastefulness everywhere. Taylor’s system had given
rise to the ideal of “management based on measurement,” and now such writers as Simon
Patten were demanding that schools demonstrate their contribution to society or have
their budgets cut. Callahan deemed Patten’s criticism an “intemperate, anti-intellectual

attack in which he both misunderstood and grossly oversimplified the educational

process” (p. 48) by demanding quantitative results, the use of schools as vocational
training grounds, and the making of cuts regardless of the consequences. (Sound
familiar?)

The criticism went on and on. Callahan quotes an article written by
Maude Redford Warren entitled, “Medieval Methods for Modern Children” and

published in the Saturday Evening Post in 1912. Warren charged that, “At present, there

 

is an inefﬁciency in the business management of many schools such as would not be
tolerated in the world of offices and shops” (p. 50). Articles blamed the schools for
everything: divorce, crime, lack of self-control, “the use of illicit means to gain political
positions” (p. 52), inefficient individuals unable to make a living, even the driving of
boys “into the saloons from discouragement” and the girls “into the brothels to save
themselves from starvation” (p. 51). Administrators around the country jumped to
respond. Since education had no scientiﬁcally established standards, “experts” were
called in to create them. Annual meetings of such groups as the NEA offered numerous
sessions on efﬁciency. Talks given to various educational groups exhorted administrators
to stop talking, and start acting on the desire to become more efﬁcient. Addressing
superintendents in 1913, Paul Hanus, a Harvard educator, stated that he was encouraged
by the fact that educators were “no longer disputing whether education has a scientiﬁc
basis; we are trying to ﬁnd that basis” (p. 67).

Unfortunately, laymen, not educators, were the experts called in to establish the
practices by which schools could be run more efficiently, most of them from the business
sector. Additionally, school boards of the time were often business cronies of politicians,

so the pressure to conform to business procedures was relentless, and the standards for

65

education were not established as complex art, but rather as simple and mechanistic.
Scientiﬁc Management principles were applied to financial and procedural aspects of
administering schools. Critics were not interested in genuine, long-term, costly research,
which would have been necessary to establish the scientiﬁc basis for education. What
was important to the public was the reduction of taxes and the assurance that they were
getting the most for their money. By 1913, the tide of criticism had ebbed, and some
attention was being given to a more reasoned statement of the problems facing education
and even some consideration of possible solutions.

Ironically, it was the Saturday EveningPost, in an editorial entitled
‘Poverty-Stricken Schools,’ written in October of 1913, which pointed
out the complete lack of funds provided for the careful study of educa-
tion. The schools, said the Editor, were ‘like the farmer who sees
clearly that he can never make more than a bare living unless he fertilizes,
buys efficient machinery and gets better—bred stock; yet he cannot for
the life of him scrape up a spare dollar for lime, a sulky plow or a
thoroughbred cow.’ As an example, the P_os_t reported that Thomas
Edison had demonstrated his moving picture machine to a group of
educators, including John Dewey, who were much saddened. Dewey
was reported to have remarked regretfully upon ‘the immense advantage
a great commercial enterprise has over the greatest of our educational
institutions in the matter of systematic experimenting with a new
proposal before putting it into general practice,’ and to have asked,
‘Where is there a school system having at its command a sum of money
with which to investigate and perfect a scheme experimentally before
putting it into general operation?’ Then the editorial concluded with
these insightful and pathetic words: ‘The Steel Trust, the oil companies,
and a thousand and one business concerns do that very thing day in and
day out as a matter of course — because they know it pays in the end.
But the poor out-at-elbows public has not a dollar for experimental

investigation in education.’
(Callahan, p. 94)

In spite of this glimmer of reason, the obsession with efficiency in the
administration of schools continued. Although there was an occasional voice in the

wilderness to call out that there were variables extant in education that did not apply to

66

factory situations, the powerful analogy between schools and factories was here to stay.
Research efforts were being made, but most of them were geared toward measuring what
students could do in an effort to correct inefficiencies in classrooms and schools, and not
all the research used good research techniques or was interpreted accurately, in spite of
claims to the contrary. As a result, ﬁndings were presented which ultimately
misrepresented the educational community and especially the administrators of schools,
who were responsible for their efficient operation. Even those few individuals who could
not apply Scientiﬁc Management to teaching in a wholesale manner would not come out
and say so, for that might be interpreted as saying that education had no scientific basis.

As might be expected, the efficiency applications were applied to individuals as
well as to procedures and decision-making. In the July, 1917 issue of the American
School Board Journal, a principal rating scale appeared. Teachers could rate their school
administrators on items in four categories: personal equipment, social and professional
equipment, management, and technique of supervision (See Appendix A). Teacher
rating scales had been published earlier; and efforts to rate other school personnel and
students grew out of the belief that every aspect of the educational community had to be
examined for efﬁciency. These early scales became the foundation for later evaluation
instruments, but the constant plea to present findings of efﬁciency studies in terms the lay
person could understand implies the complexity of not only the process but of the
ﬁndings.

With every individual under careful scrutiny, it followed that the next step in
gathering information would be to allow the community its opportunity to evaluate the

schools. Naturally, the media exploited the data, creating controversy where an honest

67

effort to seek information in order to improve schools had motivated the process. The
efﬁciency- and economy-minded public made much of trivial matters where cost was
concerned. Cost accounting, personnel record-keeping, marketing, preparation of annual
reports, conducting surveys, standardized tests, analyzing results and reporting to the
public became the most important tasks of the administrator. Any weakness apparent that
went uncorrected was seen as a weakness on the part of the administrator, and job
security was tenuous at best. Still, administrators embraced the idea that educators were
servants of taxpayers, and that it was the duty of the principal to give the community the
best possible return on its investment in the schools. Meek acquiescence and enthusiastic
response to demands were the norms.

The early leaders in the ﬁeld of educational administration were almost all
university men, many of whom had served as administrators in large school districts
around the country, and who had earned their stripes with on-the-job training. They won
the business community’s respect by responding to their demands and agreeing that
school administrators needed to be prepared to meet those demands. They wrote articles
and textbooks, spoke at conferences and before educational and business groups, and
taught the early university classes for administrators. These men were earnest in their
belief that the use of business principles could improve American education, and they
worked to incorporate these ideas into courses that school administrators would take to
prepare them for leadership positions in public schools. They fashioned case studies and
research opportunities as well as internships in the field of educational administration.

One of these men was Frank Spaulding, Superintendent of the Newton, Massachusetts

68

schools, who had never taught nor taken a university course in educational

administration. He stated:
‘This is the great lesson which every school administrator who
would do constructive work must thoroughly learn before he can
make any real progress; he must learn that the American school
is a creation of the people; that the people control, and will
continue to control, the administration of it. He will do well to

resign himself to this situation; he will do still better to accept
it with hearty approval.’

(Callahan, p. 192)

Spaulding went on to recommend that the school administrator also learn a second
fundamental principle: he should develop the habit of the “simple, business principle of
efﬁciency” (p. 192). Button (1966) quotes Spaulding from a speech at the NEA
proceedings in 1913 on ”The Application of Principles of Scientiﬁc Management” as
saying,

I know nothing about the absolute value of a recitation in

Greek as compared with a recitation in French or in English.

I am convinced, however, by other very concrete and quite

and logical considerations, that when the obligations of the

present year expire, we ought to purchase no more Greek

instruction at the rate of 5.9 pupil recitations per dollar. The
price must go down, or we will invest in something else.

(pp. 219-220)

William Burris, Dean of the College for Teachers of the University of Cincinnati,
disagreed with Spaulding’s wholesale capitulation to public pressure for efﬁciency. In
response to Spaulding’s simplistic philosophy of education, that it should come out of the
administrator’s own experience and be a simple, ten-word working philosophy: “He
projects an idea ahead, then works up to it” (p. 192), Burris disagreed. He stated that
ﬁrst of all, an educator had to be a philosopher, for one could not have a philosophy of

education if he had never studied philosophy. Other leaders of the time believed that

69

administrators needed to possess energy, intelligence, a capacity for constructive
leadership, and the ability to bring order out of chaos. They needed to have “strong
character, broad sympathies, high purpose, fine culture, courage, exact training, and
executive skill. . . [be] willing to take the time and spend the energy necessary to prepare
themselves for large service. . (Callahan, p. 218). Burris’ philosophical stance, quoted
in a time when many educators had moved from what Button (1966) termed
“Administration as Applied Philosophy” into the era of “Administration as Business
Management” (p. 219) demonstrates the conﬂicting role expectations of the principalship
as long ago as 1910.

Still, as the profession grew and courses at universities multiplied, the emphasis
was on the mechanical: school ﬁnance, school law and business procedures dominated
the newly developed training for this emerging profession. Ellwood P. Cubberley of
Stanford wrote an important textbook for coursework, Public School Administration,
published in 1916. This book, as well as The Principal and His School (Cubberley,
1923), strongly emphasized the business model. Eaton (1986) describes Cubberley’s
1923 tome as “authoritative and prescriptive” (p. 32). Reading it, one can imagine
phalanxes of identically-trained school administrators marching out of class with the
word according to Cubberley and his incredible ledger systems under their arms,
returning to their workplaces to establish what they believed to be the state-of-the-(not
art!) school district operations and the grinding bureaucracies still operative today.
School administration was now a bona fide profession, separate from teaching, and there

were courses and textbooks to prepare people for it.

70

Administrators, now more comfortable in their roles as school executives,
persevered in their efforts to cut costs and publicize an efficiently run organization to
their communities. The thrust of the role shifted from efficiency expert to include public
relations and advertising, and added a new dimension to the administrator’s role. Their
efforts to demonstrate cost-effectiveness brought about some practices that underscored
their separation from children and the demands of classroom teaching. So-called
“scientiﬁc” studies substantiated their decisions to extend the length of the school day to
an unhealthy extent, to increase the size of classes to 60 and 75 students, and to build
schools which would house up to 5000 pupils. The unit system of 40-50 minute periods
which had been established just as the Scientiﬁc Management movement was starting,
coupled with extremely complex formulas for equalizing teacher loads developed in the
19308, established the factory-like model of education still in use today, and further
entrenched the school administrator in the role of manager rather than instructional
leader.

Meanwhile, back at the universities, administrators seeking advanced degrees in
the early years were ﬁnding themselves mired in minutiae, and were writing dissertations
about it. This was allowed to happen because the ﬁrst professors believed that any
practical problem was worth investigation. The acceptance of a preponderance of trivia
for thesis topics was supported even by the U. S. Commissioner of Education,

William John Cooper, who, according to Callahan (1962), published Economy in
Education in 1933. Ignoring the substance of education, he wrote extensively about cost-
cutting measures such as increasing class size to economize on teacher salaries and

buying supplies such as paper fasteners and thumbtacks co-operatively and researching

71

the possibility that rolled paper toweling might be cheaper than folded. In 1933, Callahan
points out, “the very existence of the free world was in danger” (1962, p. 243), the United
States was deep in crisis, and this was how men in key positions in the country’s schools
were being encouraged to spend their time.

Educational values took a distant second place to business efficiency in the minds
of educational administrators in the early part of the 20‘h century. The emphasis was not
on producing the ﬁnest product at the lowest possible cost, but solely on the lowest cost.
This is a mindset that has been sustained through nine decades of the American public
seeing a need for reform of some description in public education. The vulnerability of
the profession at a time when the ﬁrst reform forces assaulted the educational system
caused the response pattern of capitulation to public demand to become institutionalized.
There seemed always to be a stronger voice in the community than the educational one,
and the prerogatives of the education professionals were almost always overridden by
their constituents’. The universities’ warm embrace of these early reformers contributed
to the acceptance of not only the business model of efficiently run schools, but the
inherent belief that someone outside the school community always has the better idea.

In their extensive research, Beck and Murphy (1993) found that “conceptions of
the principalship have evolved over time, resulting in dramatically different role
expectations in each of the last seven decades” (p. 4). They discovered that changes in
the role were largely reactive rather than proactive, and occurred in response “to political
and social events, to trends emanating from universities and research centers, to

ideologies of organizing, and to public opinion” (p. 4). Certainly the overview to this

72

point underscores the impact of public opinion upon the expectations of school
administrators.

Further, Beck and Murphy discovered that the literature they reviewed, which
included textbooks, unpublished dissertations, articles from educational journals and
yearbooks and other notes from professional educational organizations, showed there
were “metaphors” which governed the principalship, and they were different from decade
to decade. As evidenced in the works already cited, the principalship of the ﬁrst two
decades was characterized by a zealous commitment to work in the ﬁeld of education
which was almost a calling. (Recall Button’s (1966) comparison of school administrators
to clergymen.) Beck and Murphy (1993) found that the dominant metaphors for the
principalship in the 19208 included the idea that the work of the principal reﬂected

,, 66

“absolute, spiritual truths and values, energized by a zeal for education and guided by
the principles of Scientiﬁc Management” (p. 13). The principal was also expected to be a
“social leader in the community” (p. 13) who reﬂected and guided the values of that
community. The tone of what was written to this point was forceful and positive, and
focused on the personal growth that could come from the role if the principal answered
these calls.

Relationships with others in the profession were characterized, according to Beck
and Murphy, by the important position the principal held. He was a team player with the
superintendent. Cubberley (1923) pointed out that it was the superintendent’s role to do
the thinking and planning, and the principal’s role “to execute the plan, to follow and to

support” (pp. 19-20) the superintendent. The principal was a guide and authority to

teachers; he needed to organize the curriculum and develop his teachers, supervising

73

them in every respect. Beck and Murphy quote Callahan and Button as characterizing
school administration of the 19208 as “benevolent authoritarianism” (p. 21). The
principal modeled high moral values for, and maintained discipline and control among
students. In the community, he was a respected public servant, well-schooled in social
graces who could inspire conﬁdence in the ability of the school to inculcate community
values in its students. Certainly the principal had to accept the importance of his role, so
responsible was the school for perpetuating the democracy. Cubberley (1923) likened the
principal of this era to the parish priest. (Apparently, the principles of the spiritual leader
and the principles of the scientiﬁc manager were complementary.)

Interestingly, none of the books cited to this point deals with the frustrations and
conﬂicts that must have been part of the work of the principal. Callahan’s (1962) account
of the attacks of the media on principals in the early 19008 implies their existence, but the
emphasis in the writings of the ﬁrst, second, and third decades focuses more on the
opportunities for personal growth and the positive aspects of the job.

Although in the 19308 there was some de-emphasizing of school administrators as
spiritual leaders, there was increasing attention paid to schools as businesses. The
successful principal saw himself as an executive, and his primary tasks were
administrative rather than instructional. The principalship was a separate profession
within education, separate from, but related to teaching. This coincided with the
establishment in the 19308 of a separate group for school administrators within the
National Education Association. University professors, such as Payne, Cubberly, Dutton
and Snedden, and George Kyte all contributed through their works to the ideal of the

principal as manager. Kyte’s work, The Principal at Work, was ﬁrst published in 1941,

74

and thus must have appeared as a summary of what were regarded as best practices
through the 19308 for the aspiring and practicing administrator. Beck and Murphy (1993)
identiﬁed the separate profession aspect, as well as the necessity for the principal to have
a plan of organization for his building, and the implementation and supervision of it, as
the dominant metaphors for the thirties (p. 24). Men who had devoted themselves to the
most exact applications of Scientific Management in the second and third decades of the
20th century had earned advanced degrees by investigating trivia and now held important
positions in education; the clear mandate was that good management was the key to
success. The emphasis was on the practical side of the work, with focus on what Beck
and Murphy termed, “minutiae” (p. 23). They cite an article from a 1931 issue of
School Executive Magazine entitled, “Buying Supplies on Scientiﬁc Lines” (p. 28) in
their discussion about the principal’s efforts to maximize resources. Callahan (1962)
refers to the “vulnerability factor” (p. 179) which must have driven the willingness with
which school administrators set aside the focus on the traditional values that had driven
educational practices to accept the encroachment of business practices on educational
organization. The shift in emphasis could hardly have been harmed by President Calvin
Coolidge’s earlier pronouncement (in 1925) that, “The business of America is business”
(Callahan, p. 2).

In terms of relationships with others within the educational community, Beck and
Murphy found some differences from the decade of the 19208. The relationship with the
superintendent depended on the person in that office; the superintendent could make the
principalship whatever he wanted it to be. It was still the superintendent, and not the

principal, who made policy, and the principal who was responsible for executing it and

75

who was held accountable for it (p. 21). Kyte (1951) held that, “The principal should
consider his own activities in connection with the activities of every other school
employee” (p. 6). His role was analogous to the superintendent’s, in that he was the
“expert head of school” (p. 8). He needed to have a “defined, comprehensive, well-
organized plan of work. . (p. 10). Cubberley (1923) had earlier seen the relationship of
the principal to the superintendent as

...analogous in the business world to that of a manager of a town

branch of a public utility to the general superintendent of the business;

to that of the manager of a single department to the general manager

of a department store; to that of the superintendent of a division of a

railroad to the president of the company; or to that of the colonel of
the regiment to the commanding general of an army.

(p. 18)
In his relationship with teachers, supervision was still an important part of the principals’
role. Kyte ( 1951) advised a democratic approach, but one which left no question as to
who was in charge. The principal must utilize his “scientiﬁc knowledge” as well as his
skills, and be kind and understanding (p.11).

Principals of the 19308 were dealing with huge increases in school size.
According to Parker (1986) the average size of a high school in 1918 was 124 students;
by 1932 it had nearly doubled to 233, and by 1940, there were high schools as large as
4,000 students. He describes growth of schools so rapid that their functions and purposes
were neither clearly understood nor universally‘accepted. Administrators were grappling
with such issues as secondary education at public expense, common curriculum vs.
differentiated offerings, the need for vocational education, responsibility for teaching life

skills, and attitudes and ideals (pp. 48-50).

76

Beck and Murphy (1993) identiﬁed as a value of this decade the discovery of
“truth” through research, but did not discuss research methods or subjects (p. 27).

Kyte (1951) recommended that the principal’s work should include “extensive research”
and “experimentation” in an effort to discover the best practices which would ensure the
best outcomes (p. 11). The truth discovered should then be applied through Scientific
Management practices to every aspect of teaching. The principal’s relationship with
students was not extensively explored in the literature of this decade, but what is evident
is the belief that use of principles of Scientiﬁc Management and having the school
properly organized through careful planning and implementation of the plan would result
in desired student achievement (p. 30). Kyte (1951) lists the responsibilities of the
principal to his students as including their safety and welfare, the marshalling and
utilization of all available resources and auxiliary services for students, and the consistent
promotion of their best interests (p. 12). The role of the principal of the thirties shifts to
that of a “middle manager in an educational bureaucracy modeled on business” and away
from the “broker values of the 19208” (Beck & Murphy, p. 31). Cubberley had predicted
this model in his 1923 book, and now the prediction had become the accepted standard
for the person in the role of principal.

In the 19408, war and post-war values and norms placed different demands on the
principal. He was expected to embody the principles for which Americans were ﬁghting
overseas and to present himself as a democratic leader who would promote peace and the
democratic way of life. Parker (1986) cites Koopman, Miel and Miesner in Democracy
in School Administration (1943) as defining democratic administration through

“12 Imperative Considerations” put forth at the end of their book:

77

1) group control rather than individual

2) implementation of purposes through appropriate internal organization

3) utilization of group reactions in educational administration

4) the facing of social studies

5) building an organization broad enough to ensure ﬂexibility

6) building an organization functional enough to protect the teacher’s energies

7) provision for the needs of all groups simultaneously

8) continuous appraisal as a guarantee of progress

9) cooperation as a residue of a great variety of group activities

10) participation as an aid to learning

11) community improvement through a dynamic functional curriculum

12) abolition of administrative vetoes, reservations, and sacred prerogatives.

(Parker, pp. 60-61)

Although the principal was still expected to utilize sound business principles, the
focus was more on personnel than on the minute detail espoused in the twenties and
thirties. Actually, according to Button (1966) businessmen and business management
had fallen from their pedestals following the Great Depression and the resulting burdens
placed upon society. More attention was now being paid to the human condition.
Research was developing ideas related to human resources, to which educational
organizations began to pay attention. The war brought about a refocusing on social
purposes, something that had been set aside in the thirties. The school was seen as a
change agent, a place where important values of the larger society were imparted to
students. Parker (1986) cites Jesse Newlon, a professor at Teachers’ College at Columbia
University and former Superintendent of Denver schools as identifying the purposes of
public education in the United States: the transmission of culture, education for
citizenship, social control, and vocational efficiency (p. 59).

Now, the principal was called upon to be knowledgeable about research in the

social sciences, business practices, and accept and model beliefs about democratic

leadership. The language about the need for the principal to embrace democratic values,

78

non-discrinrination, and morality was nearly as lofty as that of the spirituality of the work
in the twenties. According to Button (1966), the guiding doctrine was now “Educational
Administration as Social Policy” (p. 221). The principal had a key position in the
promotion of democracy and equality. Kyte’s (1951) chapter on the need for the
principal to develop a sound educational philosophy is ﬁlled with references to
democratic ideals, the Constitution, and books about the relationship of education to the
preservation of democracy. (Interestingly, his book, ﬁrst published in 1941 and revised
in 1951, contains no references to World War II or the special demands placed on the
principal because of it.)

The principal of the 19408 was also involved in curriculum development,
coordination of groups, and teacher supervision. In this decade, the curriculum was seen
as needing to go beyond traditional form and develop in the realm of social issues. The
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD) grew to prominence
in this decade, and administrators were expected to demonstrate their technical expertise
as curriculum planners and supervisors (Button, 1966). Hands-on courses, with a life-
skills orientation, were the order of the day. Teachers, parents and students were to be
involved in decision-making. The principal was what Beck and Murphy (1993) termed
the “key liaison” between the school and the community, and was expected to implement
all sorts of group activities. Teacher supervision changed from the authoritarian,
inspection-like process to one which was more guided and managed. As a democratic
leader, the principal would conduct supervision in a facilitative manner, and act more as a
consultant to the developing teacher (p. 33). In this way would classroom teaching

improve.

79

Part of the reality of the job must have been frustration, which is seldom
mentioned in the literature of the forties. Resources were scarce, and, indeed, the
principal was expected to exercise the same restraint in the name of national sacrifice as
everyone else during the war. In fact, the schools’ contribution to the wartime effort was
adherence to the norm of wise use of limited resources, and a principal’s ability to assist
in this regard was part of the evaluative process. Principals were even encouraged to
promote rationing, and probably model it, as well. Campbell et al. (1987) noted
John Dewey’s belief that democratic leadership was evidence of good administrative
ability, and quoted him as saying, “‘In the degree to which the administrator achieves the
integration of the educational phase of his work with the human and social relations into
which he necessarily enters, he will treat the school itself as a cooperative community’”
(p. 51). This would prove that “‘his leadership [is] that of intellectual stimulation and
direction. . . give and take with others. ..”’ (p. 51).

Relationships with others in the school community during this decade were
generally cooperative and collegial. With the superintendent, there was a sense of shared
responsibility in meeting the social demands of the times. Teachers and principals
worked together on curriculum and policy issues, and principals shared control of the
school as a resource with students, parents, and the community. After the war, there was
an increased concern with public relations.

The pressure was now on school administrators to educate the masses and to
deliver high-quality programs which were equally accessible to all students, and a

democratic leader would surely deliver. In fact, however, minority children, immigrant

and ﬁrst-generation children, and children from low socio-economic backgrounds were

80

not given equal educational opportunities, and the circumstantial stage was being set for
Brown v. Board of Education just a few years away.

Beck and Murphy refer to the 19508 as a decade of great change for the principal.
There was an increasing advocacy for educational researchers to test theories in the same
way that scientists do. This movement had begun after the war ended, and continued
through the ﬁfties. Also, the school and its community were once again (as in earlier
decades) seen as inseparable. The school’s environment had a distinct impact upon its
operation, and this could be seen on a national as well as a local level (e.g., as with the
effect of Brown on the school and its community). Campbell et al. (1987) called the
decision a “‘. . .watershed event’ spawned in a political and social environment that could
have helped to produce the open systems approach to administration” (Beck & Murphy,
1993, p. 50).

Further, university courses in administration “proliferated” (p. 50) during this
time. Other changes which impacted school administration during the ﬁfties were
“linkages between professionals from different locations and disciplines, the
centralization of society and the role of the United States in international relations, the
rapid advancement of technology, the development of more complex and crowded school

9

systems, and the continued interest in the human relations side of business and schooling’
(p. 50).

In spite of the potentially enormous impact of these changes upon American
education, the metaphors of the principalship described by Beck and Murphy in the ﬁfties
reﬂect a low-key stability. The principal is an administrator, a “straightforward role

label” (p. 51). However, the literature of the fifties suggests that the principal must

81

derive the essence from social science research, and identify and apply the appropriate
principles to what is going on in schools. As an example, Phenix (1959) wrote that poor
student motivation “is a consequence of the disparity between academic assumptions and
the realities of concrete social existence” (p. 7). Research should be used to develop
theory and an effective practice of school administration. Principals should be “broadly
educated in a variety of disciplines” (Beck & Murphy, p. 54) and should be able to use
what they know to assist classroom teachers in instructional improvement and in dealing
with educational problems.

The principal was also seen as a defender of educational practice. This seemed to
be a restatement of the administrator aspect of the role; it was a category of activity that
required the principal to be familiar with current research, to answer criticism with it, to
use it support their decisions, and to manage the connection between school and
community. Conant (1958) allowed that, “Those in charge of each high school have the
responsibility for carrying out a most difficult task: namely, providing education for all
the youth of the community” (p. 50).

Another metaphor identiﬁed the principal of the ﬁfties as an efﬁcient manager of
time. The principal should analyze all aspects of his job, practice good planning and
organizational skills, and delegate. Time studies were the order of this day, and efﬁcient
time management was seen as evidence of effective administration. The need for
awareness of management and organizational theories was inherent in this aspect of the
principalship. Delegation was seen as a sign of shared decision-making and democratic
leadership, rather than an effort to get out from under the actual demands of the job. The

principal still had to cope with minutiae (Beck & Murphy, pp. 56-59).

82

And, a final portion of the metaphor of the principalship of this decade was the
principal as overseer of minute details. This focus was surely helped along by authors
such as Kyte (1951), who offered in their manuals such speciﬁcs a8 ideas for statements
to be made to students in introducing the custodian, or for notes the custodian could leave
on the blackboard in a classroom to thank students for their tidiness. Kyte’s focus is the
scientific study of the specifics of administration. Scholarly principles are espoused, but
they are lost in the rnish-mosh. Principals are supposed to develop a broad base of
theoretical knowledge, but it is juxtaposed on details that are so precise as to belie the
possibility that the individual digesting this could possibly grasp the concepts of
theoretical knowledge.

Beck and Murphy (1993) suggest that perhaps this is a sign of the times. The
Eisenhower era, they propose, was a quiet time when principals may have had time to
reﬂect on past practices. Or, perhaps principals, in attempting to deal with the changing
nature of their work due to rapid social change and the knowledge that the future was
uncertain, were trying to hang onto “some sense of normalcy by focusing on small details
that gave them a sense of stability” (p. 61). Or, these early authors of texts on
educational administration might have grasped the principles of the theory movement, but
were unable to see how they might make the job look different. “They [might have been]
content simply to include the ideology of the emerging theory movement within the
prescriptions of an early era, even when the two areas make strange bedfellows. This
phenomenon may represent the root of the theory-practice gap that has characterized

educational administration for the last 40 years” (Beck & Murphy, 1993, p. 61).

83

Principals needed both theory and practical training (Glass, 1986, p. 94) in order
to manage human and ﬁscal resources. The decade of the 19508 was a time described as
a “transitional phase between orthodoxy of implementation of a set of principles
elucidated in ‘bibles’ and a base of theoretical inquiry regulating the organization of the
school” (p. 95). Administration at this point in time was “a mix of the traditional and the
emerging” (p. 102), the latter based on social sciences. Glass refers to Sergiovanni and
Carver’s use of the term, “school executive,” calling it a “synthesis of social psychologist
and management scientist” (p. 102).

The tone of the metaphors of this era is objective, academic, detailed and specific.
They were objective to the point of mathematical analyses of principals’ work. They
were academic in that the principal should demonstrate his academic orientation to his
staff and his community whenever possible. Principals were expected to use concepts of
social science, and then use scientific methodology to analyze and solve problems. Beck
and Murphy quote Hunt and Pierce (from The Practice of School Administration,l958):

‘Administrators too frequently depend on experience, descriptions
of practices, or the following of particular patterns for solving
problems that develop suddenly or difficulties that they encounter
in the course of their work. They should strive to sense problems
in advance and through the use of principles develop and carry
through appropriate procedures for their solution. These principles

should be discovered through analysis and interpretation of
functional relations. . . ’

(p. 63)
Metaphors were detailed and specific in that the academic and theoretical existed
side by side with mundane detail. Kyte, (1951) for example, presents an incredibly
detailed schedule for the custodian. The layout for the principal’s office (with and

without secretarial help) comprises another entire chapter. There is nothing in Kyte’s text

84

that a principal doesn’t need to know. There is nothing left for the principal to ﬁgure out
for himself. Kyte and other authors of his time were leaving nothing to chance.

The dominant educational values of the 19508 centered around the theory
movement. Educational administration needed social science research, needed to
understand it, understand its process, its application, and its value. The best place for
administrators to gain this understanding was in university programs. Scientiﬁcally-
developed university programs could teach administrators what they needed to know to
be effective leaders. Beck and Murphy (1993) observe that the literature of the 19508
showed a “search for the substance of administration and the theory which binds it
together” (p. 66). There was a resurgence of interest in Weber’s view of organizations as
rational bureaucracies during this time. This type of organization was seen as a model of
decision-making that could ensure rationality and objectivity, and thus, equality.

Principals of the 19508 were expected to be scholars as well as school leaders. In
their relationships with superintendents, principals were characterized as equals with
different responsibilities. Cooperative relationships seemed to be commonplace. This is,
in Beck and Murphy’s estimation, more an ideal than real, for the school systems of this
decade were decidedly hierarchical in nature. Principals were expected to carry out the
policies of the district. They were less partners and more middle managers who worked
within the framework of Weberian bureaucracies.

Just as research and theory guided administrative practice in the fifties, it guided
teaching. Principals were expected to be supportive and democratic in relationship to
their teachers, but they were also highly concerned with instructional technique, and

expected excellence in teaching. The late 19508 and early 19608 did see some curriculum

85

emphasis, but in response to the USSR’s Sputnik project. The conservative curriculum
established in the post-World War 11 years was expanded to offer more science and math.
The principal is the “supportive academician” (Beck & Murphy, p. 75), but he is also the
principal as manager who oversees the myriad details of the day-to-day operations of
classrooms within schools. To illustrate, Beck and Murphy quote Rich, from an article
entitled, “Clerical Help for Principals” (from an NBA publication, Time for the Job,
1954):

‘. . .school management, organizational problems, instructional

improvement, curriculum building, orientation of teachers new

to the staff, guidance, school-community relations, self-improvement,

discovering the untapped resources among the staff, knowing the

culture in which the children spend their out-of-school time,

guiding parent and teacher study groups, arranging materials for

publication, maintaining a sense of humor and a continuing

personal vigor and vitality’
are all part of the principal’s responsibilities in the ﬁfties (p. 76).

Principals in the fifties continued in the forties’ tradition of involving parents. In
the forties, this involvement was ideological in nature, and was indicative of democratic
leadership. In the fifties, the practice is based on social science theories that parental
involvement is in the best interest of children. The principal, the literature of this decade
shows, must set the tone. He must be a leader in promoting it.

The principal is ultimately responsible for developing the whole child. He should
develop friendly, personal relationships with students. Kyte (1951) makes a case
indicative of the inﬂuence of social science. School control is brought about by

understanding “the many circumstances and conditions which have contributed to the

development of each child’s personality” (Beck & Murphy, p. 81).

86

The principal has a new relationship in his role set in this decade: the academic
community. Authors of the ﬁfties encourage principals to be “learning from scholarship,
applying research instruments and principles, and testing theories and hypotheses in their
schools” (p. 82). Grifﬁths (1959) is conﬁdent that if a theory of educational
administrative behavior can be developed, it will improve practice. Kyte (1951), too,
advocates research. “Sound procedure in the future depends upon carefully planned and
executed research with respect to every phase of the principal’s work. Principals are in
strategic positions to make the investigations and to facilitate the research of other
persons” (p. 369).

Standards of evaluation of the day tended to focus on candidates for the
principalship, rather than on practicing administrators. It seemed that as long as the work
of the principal “demonstrated congruence with the values” (Beck and Murphy, p. 83) of
his school’s culture, his work was seen as effective. Many of the authors of evaluation
standards were professors, who only viewed the role from the side of preparation. The
focus was on prescriptives, with the belief that successful performance in university-
based, academic programs could be used to predict future success.

In the late 19508 the emphasis was still on finance and facilities management.
According to Callahan (1962), a textbook published in 1957 (Administering the People’s
ma) had only one section on instructional leadership. In 1958, a publishing
company pitched a new book to school administrators by saluting “a true ‘Captain of
Industry’” in terms of the importance of his product, the size of his plant, the number of
employees, the number of consumers, and the social, economic, legal and political

aspects of his operations — the Principal in the American Public School” (Callahan,

87

p.253). This promotion went on to enumerate the many roles of the principal:
“Employment Manager, Purchasing Agent, Accountant, Payroll Supervisor, Ofﬁce
Manager, Personnel Counselor, Building Counselor, Building Superintendent, Chief
Clerk, Head of the Library, Consultant on Construction Design, Methods Expert,
Research Analyst, Interpreter of Educational Law, Specialist in Public Relations — and
Head of the Complaint Department” (p. 253). The absence of any mention of
Instructional Leader is a glaring omission. It would be comforting to think it was a sign
of the times, but the demands of a principal today are much the same. The same year,
according to Callahan, 50M magazine based its claim that the product of the
educational industry had declined solely on per-pupil costs.

Beck and Murphy (1993) sum up the 19508 as a “transitional phase in terms of
role deﬁnitions” (p. 86) for principals. The principals themselves were uncertain about
where to focus their efforts, so diverse were the expectations they perceived of their role.
The fact that they appeared to fall into two major categories, of principal as academic and
principal as overseer of details, did little to clarify or streamline their work. Numerous
professional organizations were founded during the 19508: Council for Professors of
Educational Administration (CPEA) in 1950-51, Committee for the Advancement of
School Administrators in 1955, University Council for Educational Administration
(UCEA) in 1956 are examples of organizations which promoted the application of
behavioral sciences and the theory and research movement in educational administration.

Ralph Graves, in the preface of a special edition of am: magazine in the 19608,
remembers the assassinations of the Kennedys and Martin Luther King, Jr., Vietnam,

civil rights upheavals, the Beatles, radical clothing styles, man’s ﬁrst walk on the moon,

88

rock concerts, public nudity, oil spills, the environmental movement, sexual freedom,
heart transplants, marijuana, as adding up to a “whole new way of American life” (Beck
& Murphy, p. 87). Glass (1986) saw schools at the center of the “social revolution”
which occurred during the sixties, and their structure changed with the changing social
philosophies (p. 93). Jean Hills, ﬁrst editor of Educational Administration Quarterly,
wrote in the ﬁrst issue of the journal that educational administration was a ﬁeld in
transition (1965). Human relations was guiding principal training, and there was a shift
away from emphasis on the practical. Tyack and Hansot (1982) discuss a study by
Arthur J. Vidich and Charles McReynolds of twenty-three New York City principals in
the “tumultous school year 1967-68. They found the schoolmen

‘on the defensive, confronting an educational world they

neither made nor anticipated; it is not surprising that their

model for the future as well as their defense against the

present is their vision of the past. . . .They thus become

defenders of the status quo at the very time that the

maintenance of their claims to professional expertise

and educational leadership requires them to respond

creatively to the crisis that continually confronts them.”’

(p. 238)

In the 19608, Beck and Murphy (1993) identify the metaphors of the principalship
as solid and staid. As school districts and schools grew in size, there was increasing
interest in Weber’s ideas about bureaucracy. More and more, images of the principalship
leaned toward the principal as bureaucrat. Although the bureaucracy was not the pure
type put forth by Weber himself, the fundamentals were a springboard for writings about
schools and their leaders during this time. Principals were seen as needing to possess

“professional competencies” related to the “technical aspects of educational

administration” (p. 92), reﬂecting Weber’s view of the technical competencies necessary

89

for maintaining a position in the bureaucracy. Although the ideal of democratic
leadership is not absent, writers tend to typify principals as leaders who have authority
because of their hierarchical status.

Not only is the principal a bureaucrat, he is a “protector of the bureaucracy. They
are expected to protect their own authority, to respect the position of superiors, and to
guard against injudicious appropriation of power by teachers” (Beck & Murphy, p. 93).
Other writers, noting that teachers demand more and more of a voice in the governance of
schools, state that principals should be responsible for the decisions having to do with
administrative issues, and teachers have a part in the “supervisory advisory structure.”
Principals “employ power and inﬂuence networks to protect and support the
bureaucracy” (p. 95).

Another metaphor of the principalship of the sixties is the “principal as user of
scientiﬁc strategies” (p. 95) for the purpose of achieving measurable goals. This is a
continuation of the ﬁfties’ emphasis on the use of theory and scientiﬁc principles in the
principal’s work. Beck and Murphy observe that articles with scientiﬁc-oriented
vocabulary abound: standards, research base, qualitative judgment, quantitative data,
professional interpretation, are just a sample from the lexicon of the decade. Button
(1966) saw the principal at this time as an “Administrative Scientist” (p. 222). Much of
the administrative role was based on social science. He saw the incorporation of
knowledge of behavioral sciences as an important step in “professionalizing” the status of
educational administrators (p. 222).

Beck and Murphy’s stated purpose is to summarize writing and research on the

principalship by decade. For the most part, their presentation is very objective, but they

90

do imply in setting forth some of the “scientific” articles about the principalship that
perhaps some of the research is questionable. They pointedly mention the “surety” with
which authors state their conclusions, such as in the case of one study, whose author
claims to have “captured the essence of the principalship” (Beck & Murphy, p. 98).
Findings are reported in “quantitative, empirical language” (p. 98). (But by whose
deﬁnition?) The effort, however, underscored Button’s (1966) belief that educational
administrative doctrines of the future should focus on “‘pure’ knowledge of education:
schools, administrators and politics” in order to “lessen the gap between doctrine and
reality” (p. 223).

The principal of the sixties is also an accountable leader. There is now an
expectation that principals will be accountable for the results and events in their school,
including student progress. There is a growing belief that “educators’ actions can have
measurable effects” (Beck & Murphy, p. 99). Testing and management of testing and
“mitigating negative effects” of results are topics of articles. Rather than the principal
conducting the study and applying the principles, it is the principal who is now the
subject of investigation.

And so, the principal is “the inhabitant of a role in conﬂict” (p. 99), the final
metaphor of the principal in the sixties. Button (1966) characterizes changes in education
at this time as “sudden and unpredicted, radically different from the old [traditions]....not
evolved” (p. 223). Beck and Murphy (1993) state that principals experience a great
amount of role conﬂict because of the widely varied groups to which they are
accountable. The principal is responsible for four categories of management within his

building: instructional program, students, housekeeping, and teachers. It is expected that

91

the principal will handle the attendant tasks, keep others informed and satisﬁed, and meet
everyone’s demands. They sum up by stating that effective leaders experience stress.
Stress also arises from “conﬂicting expectations from various stakeholders” (p. 99).

Beck and Murphy quote Jones, from Secondary School Administration
(1969): “one of the stern realities facing the principal and his school [is that] many
demands are made on his time and attention. . .demands to meet pressing social and
economic needs” (p. 100). These demands come from higher education, business, and
government. Perhaps the “government” is the catch-phrase for such demands as Brown,
poverty, or collective bargaining, but Beck and Murphy note there is an absence in the
literature of references to these issues, even though their impact has left an indelible mark
on schools and the work of school administrators.

The dominant tone of the literature of the sixties is technical. Beck and Murphy
call the tone prior to the mid-ﬁfties an “interesting admixture of the lofty and the trivia ”
(p. 101). The sixties’ metaphors draw from the factory and the laboratory for “technical”
and “mechanistic” terminology. “These images convey implicitly what many authors
were beginning to claim explicity: If the proper parts were in place and functioning,
principals could and should function with the effectiveness of well-oiled machines”

(p. 101). They quote Jones: “‘Persons with the proper professional training and with the
requisite personal qualifications can guide, tutor, lead, manage, and maneuver the human,
physical, and social resources of the community toward the solution of a problem’”

(p. 102). They observe that the format of administrative reports in the sixties use tables
and graphs to describe administrative data. Terms such as “principal components factor

analysis” (p. 103) suggest discrete, perhaps even unrelated tasks of the job.

92

Bogue (1969) “synthesizes” (p. 59) ideas related to organizational behavior for
educational administrators, underscoring the idea of a technical and mechanistic tone. He
felt there were implications for educational administrators in the “array of literature on
organizational theory” (p. 59). He mentions several recognizable authors and
summarizes their lessons for the administrator, stating that utilizing their various
approaches will allow “ﬂexibility in management style” and show off a “broad
knowledge base” that bespeaks “greater competency” than does staying with a single
approach (p. 62). He even quotes John Kenneth Galbraith from The New Industrial State
(1967) in his deﬁning of the “technostructure” as “organized intelligence found in the
various groups of highly trained specialists providing the motivational power in modern
organizations” (p. 61). Bogue thinks “a professional approach to administration begins
with awareness, which is then translated into action.” (p. 62). Since this article was
written for school administrators, the implication is clear.

According to Beck and Murphy (1993), the dominant values of the 19608 are
uniformity and standardization. This is not surprising when they are considered in light of
the view that “schools are bureaucracies that function effectively when persons in clearly
differentiated roles utilize proven techniques and technologies to effectively fulfill
assigned tasks” (p. 103). They quote authors such as Oakes (Keeping Track: How
Schools stragture Inequality, 1985) and Powell et al. (The Shoppm Mall High School:
Winners and Losers in the Educmonal Marketjﬂa_ca, 1985) as suggesting that the value
placed on conformity and uniformity may have been a response to the increasing
complexity of issues of diversity, equity, and quality as they related to schooling.

Glimmers of the movement toward centralization of standards at the state level show in

93

the writings of the sixties. The authors of the 1960 Yearbook of the America
Association of School Administrators recommended developing standards in programs
for principal preparation. Structured, even “programmed” instructional strategies were
also a popular topic. Principals were advised to become familiar with them and to seek
ways to use them in their schools. Studies were being done on textbooks and content of
secondary school courses. Principals were expected to know the results of these studies
to guide their decision-makin g.

Principals’ relationships with others in their role set could not help but be
impacted by the popular view that schools were “Weberian bureaucracies” (Beck &
Murphy, 1993, p. 105). A new relationship in this decade was with state policy makers.
Principals should be guided by expectations set by the state, even more than by local
control. They should order their work in order to fulﬁll these expectations. The principal
of the sixties was viewed as the “lieutenant of the superintendent of schools” (p. 107).
The principal’s authority was delegated by the superintendent. The relationship was one
of cooperation, but with the understanding of the chain of command. Their roles possess
deﬁnite and distinct spheres of authority with the superintendent in control and the
principal at the lowest level of management in public education. Any democratic aspects
of the relationship were authorized by the superintendent (pp. 107-108).

The bureaucratic framework also impacted the principal’s relationship with
teachers. The principal was responsible for teachers’ performance and morale. The
relationship could be democratic, but not too much so. Principals should “carefully
control and limit expressions of teacher autonomy” (p. 107). Within the school,

principals have the greatest amount of responsibility and authority. They are responsible

94

for passing along their store of pedagogical knowledge in order to provide students the
best educational opportunity. The role of educational leader is a major one. Jones sees
the principal as the one responsible for improving the instructional program in the school
through the improvement of teaching methods and involvement in curriculum
development. Instructional supervision is also part of this effort which, to some authors
(according to Beck & Murphy) borders on “surveillance”, with consequences applied to
teachers who do not meet expectations (pp. 108-109). Bogue (1966) summarizes Victor
Thompson’s view, expressed in Modern Organizations (1961) that, “in modern
organizations there is a growing imbalance between ability and authority” (p. 66). He
describes Thompson’s observation that “the vitality of an organization depends on the
vitality of each of its components” (p. 66); perhaps that explains the “surveillance.”

Principals deal with teachers, and teachers deal with students. There is very little
written regarding principal/student relationships. One author, (Douglass, cited by Beck
& Murphy) even goes so far as to advocate against the principal’s direct contact with
students. Their main connection with students has to do with evaluating grades and the
grading system, about which the principal should be very interested (p. 111).

Writers of the sixties consider parents to be outside the school hierarchy. The
principal’s main connection with parents is to engage in public relations in order to
maintain a harmonious relationship with the community which the school serves. The
principal must study the community, and he is to use “hard data” to defend the school
against criticism. Bogue (1966) noted “overt and covert power structures in the
community” (p. 68). It is the principal’s responsibility to “know what is visible and what

lies ‘under the surface’” (p. 99).

95

In a bureaucracy, there is the idea that the performance of those in authority can
be measured by the output of those below them in the hierarchy. Therefore, principals
could be evaluated on the basis of the accomplishments of students and teachers in their
schools. Douglass (cited by Beck & Murphy, p. 112) believes there is a clear link
between the school and the principal; therefore, the evaluation of the school’s
performance is an evaluation of the administration. He outlines ways state-level agencies
can use evaluative information to give or withhold accreditation, with resultant rewards
and punishments based on this assessment.

Evaluation is a source of stress for the principal. This could be a strain because
there are so many people, or groups, evaluating him. The role expectations of parents,
teachers, students and other administrators may be different, but all are in a position to
judge the principal. Dodd, in the National Principalship Study (1965), reports that
principals experience “conﬂicting expectations and role conﬂict because of multiple
evaluators” (p. 113).

Beck and Murphy see the decade of the sixties as one of “constancy and change,”
borrowing, they acknowledge, from Cuban (How Teachers Taught: Cgrsgancy an_d
Qrange in American Classrooms, 1890 - 1980). Constancy is the “continued faith in
rational thought, planning, social science, and technology capable of providing school
leaders with answers to pressing questions. The prevalence of bureaucratic, technical,
categorical language and the tendency to discuss the principalship in terms of clearly
deﬁned responsibility and authority bear witness to the impact of this faith on

conceptions of the principalship” (p. 113). As for change? They say, “The seeds of

96

discontent had been planted.” Everything was not as those who were supposed to know
said it was.

Also, the lofty language of the twenties, thirties and forties has dimmed into the
past. The principalship is a job which can be taught and learned, according to the
literature. Principals are driven from above, but not as far above, as previously. Now it
is the state and directives from the superintendent, and not spiritual ideals, patriotic
beliefs, or community norms which impact the role. Theory is the framework within
which the principal must perform, and outcome will be evaluated.

There were riots in cities in the sixties. There was unrest on college campuses,
which spilled over into high schools. Writers appeared not to have noticed. Just apply
these theories, and you can run your school successfully. Acknowledgement of complex
social problems seemed almost non-existent in the writings on school administration in
the sixties. The means of administering schools were emphasized, with a basis of rational
motivation that was almost sterile, in terms of its application to the realities of the job.

In 1972, Campbell suggested that, “Perhaps never since the Civil War have we
been so unsure of ourselves, our institutions, and our direction. ...Since education and its
administration is part of the warp and woof of the total social order, we must participate
in the reappraisal of the larger society as well as of our own field and its relationship to
the bigger world” (p. 15). A review of topics of articles in the issues of the NASSP
Bulletin from the 19708 reveals an array of information covering the gamut of traditional
principal responsibilities. The topics lament time restraints, and exhort principals to
become more politically astute, more innovative in their approaches to almost everything

they do (the list of one principal’s tasks for the year, generalized and categorized to a

97

degree, covered four pages of the journal), more aware of the issues facing young people
such as the need for vocational education, the problems of drug abuse and smoking,
student dress and student rights, more humanistic in their approach to creating positive
school climate, and more skilled in dealing with the effects of teacher negotiations. The
May, 1974 issue summarized some topics from the National Convention: dealing with
the energy crisis, secondary reform, individualized learning, Asia and education,
organizational development. The National Institute of Education in that year deﬁned
major problems as analyzing whether or not education really was improving, diverse
needs, improving relations between education and the workplace, and the effectiveness of
federal efforts. Curriculum planning, counseling, teacher evaluation, discipline, race
relations, desegregation, and articles about the complexities of school leadership were
addressed in issue after issue. In an article in the NASSP Bulletin entitled, “Upheaval in
School Law” (George, 1973), the author documented a period of revolutionary transition
in the relationships of administrators, teachers, and students. The effects of court
decisions in the late sixties and early seventies regarding matters of due process , freedom
of speech, married students, sex discrimination, student dress, and corporal punishment
changed the principal-student relationship. Militant teacher organizations changed the
principal-teacher relationship. George concluded the article by stating that the principal
was “the focal point of disenchantment on one hand and rising expectations, hope and
leadership on the other — in short the principalship is symptomatic of the conﬂicting and
often contradictory demands of a society confused about its values, laws, and direction”

(p. 125).

98

In 1974, John W. Porter, then Superintendent of Public Instruction in Michigan,
wrote in “Task Force ’74: Recommendations for Better Schools” that the areas of
concern that needed to be addressed if significant change at the secondary level was to be
effected were citizen involvement, educating for student responsibility, alternative
programs, and teacher negotiations. These were four of 32 recommendations made by
the National Commission on the Reform of Secondary Education and the four chosen by
Task Force ’74, which is not explained in the article. Porter suggested that the mission of
the secondary schools for the remainder of the century should include ﬁve basic
functions: custody, socialization, selection, instruction, and placement. He felt the role of
the principal should be to provide students with an education which would relate to adult
life. His recommendations to the NASSP were that the organization should push for job
counseling and guidance, federal public and private employment opportunities for youth
as an integral part of the educational process, and focus on the transition of youth to the
world of work. Other than referencing “instruction” in the ﬁve basic functions, there is
no mention of academics anywhere in this article.

In what they term the dominant tones of the metaphors of the principalship in the
19708, Beck and Murphy (1993) noted a deﬁnite shift toward a humanistic tone (p. 127).
The principal should facilitate “holistic, human development” (p. 127). The role of the
principal should be one of leadership, rather than authority. The enormous social
problems of the day underscored the need for the school leader to have a democratic
philosophy of education. With this kind of a philosophy to guide decision-making, the

principal could ﬁnd relevant curriculum meaningful to students, new ways of leading the

99

school organization which would model changes necessary to cure racism and gender
inequity and align it with the “changing nature of society” (p. 129).

The metaphorical themes of the principalship for the 19708 cast the principal as a
leader of teachers, students, and the “larger community” (p. 115). The principal was
responsible for the connection between school and community. The principal was also
the “imparter of meaning” (p. 119). To accommodate the anti-establishment
counterculture, the principal was responsible for providing students with a school
experience that was meaningful, both socially and academically. Beck and Murphy’s
research revealed that authors believed that developing the personal side of the individual
was important, and that administrators needed to “link the rational and systematic with
the human dimensions” (p. 121). A principal who engaged in positive interactions with
those in the school community and exhibited “love, empathy and good will would lead a
school virtually free from conﬂict,” and in so doing, fulﬁll the metaphor of the principal
as “facilitator of positive relationships” (pp. 121-22). (“And peace will guide the planets,
and love will steer the stars”)

Of course, as ever, the principal was still the “juggler of multiple roles” (p. 124).
Beck and Murphy recall that Mintzberg’s classifications are categorized “under three
broad headings: ‘interpersonal facilitator,. . .information manager,. . . [and] decision
maker’ ” (p. 124). The label “school executive” crept into the literature in this decade.
Sergiovanni and Carver use the term in the introduction to their book, The New School
Executive (1973) and then throughout the volume, but do not explain its origin except by
implication in the explanation of its organizational dimension. They define the role of

school executives as “human links in the complex organizational chain” (p. 148) who

100

“have functional responsibilities which come from legal requirements and from decisions
of the work group of which they are members” (p. 151).

The dominant values that provide the foundation for the principal’s work in the
19708 are affective in nature. According to Beck and Murphy (1993) one of these values
is self-actualization. Sergiovanni and Carver (1973) offer Abraham Maslow’s Third
Force Psychology as the preferred foundation for the school executive’s value system.
The central goal of administrative work should be the “intellectual, social and emotional
self-actualization for youngsters” (p. 49), but it is only likely to be accomplished if the
members of the educational community are self-actualized themselves, “self-motivated,
responsible, dedicated. . ..requiring little or no supervision or regulation” (p. 63). They
detail several pages of Maslow’s “Eupsychian Management Assumptions” as “the basis
for a humanly oriented applied science of educational administration” (p. 45). These are
implicit in Beck and Murphy’s second dominant value, “the cultivation of an emotionally
supportive school climate” (1993, p. 130). They note a theme expressed in the
Association of Supervision and Curriculum Development’s (ASCD) 1977 Yearbook:
“the belief that schools not only can, but also should foster individuals’ emotional growth
and development and that principals should be the leaders in this process” (p. 131).

“Societal transformation” (p. 130) follows as the third value identiﬁed by Beck
and Murphy as dominant in the literature of the 19708. It is linked with self-actualization
in that people who achieve this state can accomplish great things for society. Sergiovanni
and Carter (1973) note that “Maslow coined the word ‘Eupsychia’ and deﬁnes it as “‘the
culture that would be generated by 1,000 self-actualizing people on some sheltered island

where they would not be interfered with’” (p. 51). The implication in the literature is that

101

schools should be like these sheltered islands; the part about not being “interfered with”
is inherently problematic.

Principals’ relationships with others in their role set in these years moves more
strongly in the direction of emphasizing the need for good interpersonal skills. Poll
(1976) stresses “the importance of communication and involvement with all persons who
interact with, observe, and judge [the principal’s] behavior and personality” (p. 1). An
article in the January, 1974 NASSP Bulletin details the “full sweep of the
communications task of a secondary school” of 2,000 students in an area of “medium
population density” thus:

160 Staff
3,000 Parents
25,000 Citizens in attendance area
250 Community agencies, groups, churches
100 University and other post-high school institutions
200 Local employers
2,000 Students
5,000 Alumni
4,000 Students in feeder schools
(Unidentified Author, p. 18)
The application of interpersonal skills doesn’t stop at the schoolhouse door.

Beck and Murphy (1993) state that the principal is now expected to lead “by
suggestion and persuasion rather than by mandate” (p. 135). They do not refer to the
effect of the strengthening role of teachers’ unions, but Poll ﬁnds it changing the nature
of the principal’s relationship with teachers. Wagstaff (1973) puts forth a plan for
principals to use in dealing with the negotiations process, and warns, “ As teachers gain
more decision-making power through collective bargaining, principals will lose power

and the confusion of the role, particularly role-relationships with teachers, will intensify.

He recommends that “Principals, superintendents, and academicians need to join

102

together and deﬁne and describe the ‘principalship’ in terms generally agreeable to each
in order for preparation programs and performance expectations to achieve greater
congruency” (p. 47). Beck and Murphy find that the relationship is more egalitarian, but
the principal still has “positional authority.” In spite of the tension created by this
changing relationship, the principal has the responsibility “to cultivate a positive
organizational climate in which educational processes and human needs can be fostered
and in which environmental changes are noticed and responded to” (p. 139). Nygren
(1973) also expressed concern about the principal’s “professional authority and security”
and observed the paradox of conferred responsibility and the problem of “possessing less
authority and inﬂuence to make decisions and control the complex, interrelated processes
of the high school organization” (p. 27).

Principals act on behalf of students rather than interacting with them in the 19708,
according to Beck and Murphy (1993). They see the emphasis on innovation that
principals are encouraged to promote as a move away from the bureaucratic structure of
school curriculum. Interestingly, however, during this decade such federal legislation as
Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, PL 94-142 (the Education for All
Handicapped Children Act (EHEA) of 1975) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of
1973 and the ensuing state and district rules and regulations increased the bureaucratic
structure of schools and districts. Compliance had deﬁnite curricular implications which
stood in contrast to the ideal of innovation. A four-page checklist for principals to use to
check their buildings’ compliance with Title IX is exhaustive and time-consuming, but
necessary (Bomstein, 1979). “The power to nourish sex fairness or to impede it rests

with the principal” (p. 41). Likewise, “leadership is the necessary ingredient” (Rebore,

103

p. 27) if mainstream education of handicapped students is to be successful. He calls for
the principal to develop participatory planning and decision-making, and acknowledges
that the “entire process places a tremendous responsibility on the principal who must
ensure that the goals of the institution are not lost in participation, but rather integrated
with the goals of the staff” (p. 28).

During this decade, principals are also called upon to make a stronger connection
with the community. They are expected to keep their community members involved and
informed. Increased outside inﬂuence on schools is noted, and Beck and Murphy (1993)
observe that “educating critics avoids challenge” (p. 141). The literature of the decade
implies and instructs that principals must provide “all members of the community with
ways to deal with social issues relative to their own life situation. . .especially the poor
and disenfranchised” (p. 142). The community provides resources which the principal is
expected to fully utilize in order to provide the best possible opportunities for students.
Campbell et al. (1987) believes that social forces such as civil rights, collective
bargaining, the women’s movement and the increasing demands from state and federal
government “helped set the stage for the open-systems view of administration” (p. 145).
Beck and Murphy’s point that the principal is expected to utilize community resources
supports the open-systems view.

Campbell et al. identify some of the myriad interest groups exerting pressure on
the schools in the 19708: the PTA, unions, administrator and school board associations,
racial groups, white ethnic groups, women’s groups, religious groups, parents of the
handicapped, various curriculum supporters, the Chamber of Commerce; many of these

groups operate on a local, state and national level (p. 146). Wolcott (1973) identiﬁed the

104

“complexities of the multi-client operation: stress. . .anxiety...inequity” (p. 309). These
responses are understandable in light of the principal’s belief that it is necessary to be
responsive to this “complex system of constituents” (p. 307). “Much of what the
principal does is done not because the principal wants to do it, but because others expect
it” (p. 318). The sheer number of inﬂuential groups supports Cuban’s (1975) assessment
of public education as “organized anarchy” characterized by “ambiguous goals, unclear
technology, and ﬂuid participation” (p. 25). The ﬂuid participation of so many interest
groups leads to the formation of coalitions, which results in compromises and causes
goals to be unclear. The boundaries of public schools are “soft, easily penetrated by
those determined to participate in the decision-making”

(p. 27). The principal’s political skills are as important as his personal skills in this
decade.

In light of these enormous social changes and the resulting changes in how the
public viewed its schools, how did principals perceive their role in the 19708? What were
principals’ role expectations upon entering the ﬁeld of educational administration? How
did principals perceive the school district’s expectations of him in his role? How did the
principal perceive his relationship with teachers? Students? How did the principal
perceive his community and their expectations of him in his role as principal? The
cumulative effects through the 19708 of enormous social changes and the emergence in
response to them of groups which quickly established themselves as constituencies of
public education may have contributed to John Goodlad’s observation in the opening

statement of his 1984 work, A Place Called School:

105

American schools are in trouble. In fact, the problems of
schooling are of such crippling proportions that many schools
may not survive. It is possible that our entire public education
system is nearing collapse. We will continue to have schools,
no doubt, but the basis of their support and their relationships to
families, communities, and states could be quite different from
what we have known.

(p. 1)
A bleak picture, indeed. Around the same time, Paul V. Bredeson (1985) conducted a
study whose purpose was to describe the metaphorical images of the principalship
reﬂected in literature of the times and derived from the “images existing in the
statements, beliefs, values, and daily routines of a sample of ﬁve principals, and to
“examine the implications of the metaphorical perspectives on the role of the school
principal” (pp. 29-30). He concluded with this statement:

There is evidence in this investigation that the
principalship has become the dumping ground for all of the
maintenance responsibilities of the school. . . .due in part to the
evolution of the principalship from principal-teacher to manager
and facilitator of any and all events within the school. More and
more complexity has been added to schools, and consequently,
to administration.

Increased responsibility for the totality of school
operations, the maintaining state curriculum standards, and
the maintaining the special educational needs of all children
have added to this role complexity. In addition, the increasingly
litigious nature of schools, the assumption of responsibilities
and activities previously assumed by other agencies and
institutions in society, the expansion of extra-curricular
programs, the professionalization and credentialism of school
staffs, and proliferation of mandates that cause schools to try
to ameliorate many social and cultural problems, which the
larger society has been unable to resolve, have all added to the
burden of the constellation of role expectations of the school
principal. With no clear sense of who should assume all these
responsibilities, the principalship has become a catch-all for
all of the tasks not accepted by other administrators, teachers,
or the community.

(p. 46)

106

The dominant metaphorical themes discovered by Beck and Murphy (1993) could
be said to include the above responsibilities, but the picture they paint of the principalship
in the 19808 is a much different one:

The principal is expected to serve as an instructional leader,
guiding teachers and students toward productive learning
experiences.

Central to the concept of instructional leadership is the idea

that the principal is to solve problems and provide resources.

The principal of the eighties is frequently asked to be a visionary,
developing and communicating a picture of the ideal school.

The principal is expected to go beyond painting a portrait of a
good school and is charged with functioning as a change agent.

(p.148)

The discrepancy between the two portraits brings to mind a chapter from an NASSP
research summary published in 1982. In it, the authors give examples of literature which
they ﬁnd represent “two world views — a choice [that] inﬂuences subsequent thoughts
and actions” (Barth and Deal, 1982, p. 39). These authors found major differences
between literature written by academics, and that written by principals which tended to be
reﬂective of their practice. Principals emphasize

concrete, nitty-gritty everyday experiences, while academics
emphasize theory, research, and abstract concepts drawn heavily
from the social sciences. ...Principals. . .share their experience
through examples, metamorphosis, and stories. Literature by
non-principals is analytic and introduces models and the

language of science to help principals organize their experience

into understandable pieces. . . .principals [call] attention to the

limits of rationality, recognizing that action often precedes
understanding. . ..non-principals [tend] to advocate a more

rational approach, using the scientiﬁc method to deﬁne problems
before moving ahead. ...Principals. . .portray schools as human

and emotional settings. . ..Textbooks written for principals are

more impersonal and neutral, emphasizing generalizations over

the quirks or idiosyncrasies of a particular school. ...Principals are
reluctant to give advice to others. Literature written about principals
is often critical and prescriptive. . .. Principals see leadership as a
matter of luck and persistence. ...acadernics emphasize the principal’s

107

role as instructional leader — someone who can and should make a

signiﬁcant difference. ...Principals see schools as ambiguous, chaotic,

and diverse. Textbooks convey an image of rationality, continuity,

and orderliness.

(pp. 3 1-34)

Barth and Deal believe there is value to both types, but that principals, in selecting their
reading material, should be cognizant of the differences, and writers should seek to
convey a balance between theory and practice.

Beck and Murphy (1993) contrast the image of the 19808’ principal as
instructional leader with the principalship of previous decades, when the principal was
only indirectly involved with teaching and learning. Now, they point out, the principal is
more directly involved in improving the “technical core” (p. 149) of education, which
they present as the teaching and learning process. This requires focus on student
achievement and the understanding of a “complex constellation of forces affecting
administrative wor ” (p. 150). One of the primary requirements is that the principal
possess an orientation to the classroom; the principal must develop leadership skills in
teachers as they relate to teaching. Beck and Murphy note the image of leadership as a
craft which requires “understanding of desired outcome, knowledge of available
materials, skills and techniques, the ability to use judgment, and discern a variety of
styles” (p. 151).

The metaphor of principal as problem-solver and resource provider is a
euphemistic way of expressing the summary of Bredeson’s (1985) ﬁndings. Beck and
Murphy point out that these images are considered together because often the solutions to

problems brought to the principal involves the provision of time, materials or money.

This image also includes that of the principal as “power broker in a conﬂict ridden

108

situation of collaborative activity” which calls upon the principal to use group process,
interpersonal communication, and motivational skills. Bredeson (1985) sees the principal
in this way, also, especially in terms of the linkage of the principal’s role to the external
environment. He adds “gamesman” and “politician” to this set of labels. He sees conﬂict
as a “natural and necessary part of the process of politics and decision-making” and the
individual (the principal) and the organization (the school) as “players and actors in a
game, bounded by rules, with divergent stakes and interests in the outcome and decisions
that are made as the ‘game’ is played” (p. 36). Bargaining and negotiating solutions are
“key aspects” (p. 36) of this metaphor. In forging coalitions, realizing trade-offs,
principals are change agents who must “assume a variety of roles including those of
ombudsman, advocate, orchestrator, persuader, and mediator. . .principals are portrayed as
consummate decision makers, value-based jugglers, brokers, catalysts for action, and
politicians” (p. 36).

Sergiovanni et al. (1987) identify four views, three established and one emerging,
of educational administration and the metaphors of these predominant concerns. The ﬁrst
is efﬁciency, which they explain as the rational and mechanistic view of the work.
Rational refers to the work of teaching within the school, and mechanistic refers to the
actual organizational structure of the schools (p. 115). Bredeson (1985) calls these
“custodial management functions: scheduling classes, business operations, classiﬁcation
of jobs, differentiation of position” (pp. 34-35). The administrator seeks to maximize the
efﬁciency of organizational outputs, and so comes up with performance objectives,

competency testing, and applies Management By Objectives (MBO), Management

109

Information Systems (MIS), Planning, Programming, Budgeting Systems (PPBS) and
relies on “norms of rationality as [he] pursues accountability, control, and efﬁciency”
(p. 35).

The second view is an organic one; the principal must consider the school to be a
living entity. Bredeson sees the human relations aspect of this view as taking into
account that people within the school have social needs; the human resources aspect
focuses on the integration of human needs and organizational needs, which he sees as
“inherently conﬂicting” (p. 34). The third view, the political decision-making view of
administration, was discussed on the previous page. This is the bargaining, negotiating
aspect of the principalship. Sergiovanni et al. (1987) see this as a major paradigm shift in
thinking about administering schools. This view is primarily concerned with the school’s
relationship with the external environment, rather than with internal organization. It
focuses on policy development instead of policy administration. It recognizes conﬂict as
“natural and necessary” (p. 116) instead of something to be smoothed over or avoided.

The fourth, emerging view of educational administration is that of the concern for
culture. The authors believe that culture does not exist separately from individuals, and
that a group’s culture is characterized by shared understandings which are tacit among
and relevant to its members and which are distinctive to the group and important enough
to them to be passed on to new members (p. 125). In this decade, there was much written
about organizational culture; these authors suggest that rather than consider whether
“particular kinds of organizations have cultures or are cultures, a metaphorical view asks

one to adopt the perspective that organizations are like cultures” (p. 124). Sergiovanni

110

et al. believe that “Underlying the cultural perspective is the concern for community and
the importance of shared meanings and shared values” (p. 125). These considerations,
related to Beck and Murphy’s (1993) metaphor of the Principal as Problem-solver and
Resource Provider, underscore the complexity of this aspect of the principal’s role in the
19808.

The Principal as Visionary is another metaphor of the 19808. This requires
“imagination and perceptual skills” and an “orientation to the future” (p. 153). The
principal must translate values and beliefs into instructional goals which focus on student
achievement (p. 155). Bredeson (1985) deﬁnes vision:

Broadly conceived, vision is the principal’s ability to
holistically view the present, to reinterpret the mission of
the school to all its constituents, and to use imagination and
perceptual skills to think beyond accepted notions of what
is practice and what is immediate application in present

situations to speculative ideas and to, preferably, possible
futures.

(p- 43)

In addition to vision, Bredeson also identifies metaphors of maintenance and
survival. His research showed that the principal’s daily work routine stressed the
maintenance functions of the job, and that there was a sense of total responsibility for
“keep[ing] the school doors open and the process going” (p. 39), rather than to create new
functions and purposes (p. 47). He observed that “. . .the overwhelming dedication to
continuance of the curricular processes in [the schools of the principals studied] was less
a matter of personal choice or characterization and more a matter of community,
organizational, and professional role expectations.” Bredeson found among the

principals that a “sense of futility is linked to what is and its acceptance and

continuation” (p. 47). He noted Sergiovanni et al.’s (1987) categories of responsibilities

111

for principals: goal attainment, internal maintenance, maintenance of the school’s culture
patterns, and external adaptation, and he wondered, “If maintenance takes up the majority
of the principal’s time, then are the responsibilities of goal attainment and external
adaptation being met?” (p. 41)

The survival metaphor focuses on meeting needs and accessing resources to do
so. Survival takes on the look of “crisis-based management” (p. 41), in that it includes
responses to problems which have a sense of urgency or immediacy. It is not decision-
making focused on the future in terms of broad educational issues. Bredeson mentions
ﬁnancial survival as exerting “heavy inﬂuence on the principal’s priorities, activities and
decision-making” (pp. 42-43).

The ﬁve principals Bredeson studied “shared a common culturally standardized
image of the principalship. . ..[and found that] parameters of role expectations are set by
teachers, administrators, students, parents and professional training institutions, and they
determined the maintenance metaphor” (p.45). Attempts on the part of the principal to
deviate from these parameters resulted in “serious role conﬂicts for the principals”

(p. 45).

Still, Beck and Murphy’s (1993) final metaphor for the principalship of the 19808
was that of Principal as Change Agent. They remind us that much of the literature of the
decade portrays schools as failing and dysfunctional, and it exhorts the principal to lead
change, revolution, reform, or restructuring (p. 157). The primary literature topics they
identified in this decade are school change, school improvement, staff development, the
administrator as an instructional leader, and school effectiveness. All suggest the need

for change. Principals are expected to set the goals and find the means to attain them.

112

They are to be held accountable for doing so. The change process in search of
effectiveness and the accountability factor are dominant values of the 19808.

The tone of much of the literature is a sense of crisis, according to Beck and
Murphy (1993), as reﬂected in Goodlad’s opening to A Place Called School (1980).
Grant (1988) enumerates “the ﬁfteen-year downward slope of the SAT scores, low levels
of performance revealed in the National Assessment of Educational Progress, reports of
drugs and disorder in public schools, and international comparisons of educational
achievement” (p. 216). He points out that Theodore Sizer, presenting his thoughts in
Horace’s Compromise: The Dilemma of the American High School (first published in
1984) felt that “the superficial encounter with learning and incoherence of the American
high school was the real root of the problem” (Grant, p. 217). President Reagan’s focus
on excellence in education, and the publication of A Nation at Risk and three other
reports issued in 1983 were all responses to what was believed to be looming disaster.
Beck and Murphy believe that the crisis brought on the concentration on corporate-like
strategies as administrators struggled to stay in control using tried and true business
practices. The metaphor of survival emerged naturally from that response. To meet the
challenge for survival, school leaders adopted a businesslike tone, “reminiscent of the
early years of the century” (p. 160) and of the 19508, when Scientiﬁc Management
practices were seen as the panacea to education’s problems. Implicit in the connection
between educational problems and corporate solutions is the implication that it is the
principal who will ﬁnd and implement them.

By the late 19808, site-, or school-based management was gaining popularity.

Superintendents and Boards of Education controlled the resources. Principals had to

113

know what they needed and how to access the resources, implying a good working
relationship with their superintendents and Boards based on knowledge and trust. Beck
and Murphy saw principals as having both decision-making and policy-making power,
but in conjunction with those in control of the resources. Relationships with teachers
were based on the ideal of the principal as instructional leader. Principals were expected
to facilitate staff development and monitor the work of their teachers in order to be sure
good education was being delivered. Beck and Murphy stated that writers of this decade
believed the principal is the “chief motivator of teacher performance” (p. 167) and
advocated that principals spend a good deal of time in the classroom. They also saw
evidence in the literature that writers thought an effective principal would take a personal
interest in individual students, both in their academic performance and their outside
activities. He was responsible for “creat[ing] a climate of high expectations in the
school” (p. 172), for communicating a “vision of how students should look, act and
learn” (p. 172), and for setting norms relative to academic performance by setting
standards of performance for teachers. In short, student success depended on the
principal’s setting the conditions for it.

There still remains the question of what principals actually do. Martin and
Willower (1981) wrote an extensive description of principal tasks in which they stated
that what they observed principals doing closely paralleled private sector managers’ daily
activities. They found that a signiﬁcant portion of principals’ managerial role
performance occurs in response to on-the-job demands rather than in a planned fashion.
They saw a high volume of tasks and hectic performance rate; principals were changing

tasks every three to four minutes, and were constantly interrupted. Principals accept this

114

pace, which Martin and Willower named “The Busy Person Syndrome” (p. 82). They
commented on the “widely heralded” role of the principal as instructional leader which
brings to mind “visions of innovative curriculum and novel teaching practice” (p. 82), but
found that the active instruction and curriculum innovation is left largely to teachers.
Principals showed “a marked preference for Live Action” (p. 80) and invested very little
time in what Martin and Willower termed, “reﬂective planning.” They observed that
principals “adhere to planned routine only as livelier issues fail to materialize” (p. 80).
Their “contact networ ” was limited; Martin and Willower observed that 92.6% of the
contacts made by principals occurred within the school they administered. They saw that
principals exercise sectional control; i.e., they administer without having full
organizational control. They saw the work as cyclic in nature, and observed that the
degrees of stress felt by the principal varied from situation to situation.
Following Mintzberg, Martin and Willower (1981) identiﬁed ten roles in three

categories in studying the work of school principals:

Interpersonal roles: leader, ﬁgurehead, liaison

Informational roles: spokesman, monitor, disseminator

Decisional roles: disturbance handler, resource allocator, entrepreneur,
Negotiator

(p. 87)

Although Martin and Willower’s description of the principal’s role at the
beginning of the 19808 seemed deﬁnite and tidy, Blumberg and Greenfield (1980) found
from surveying research prior to conducting their own suggestions that “the principalship
is a highly ambiguous role characterized by much face-to—face interaction with diverse

others having multiple and often conﬂicting expectations for what principals should do

115

on the job” (p. 43). They concluded from their own research that the principalship is not
only “highly ambiguous [but] normative [in] character, mediated primarily through face-
to-face interpersonal interaction” (p. 197). “The principal’s general work situation is
ambiguous and as such is likely to produce much psychological stress for the individual
and, in some instances, may severely impair the principal’s ability to perform to the level
of his/her expectations” (p. 198).

In addition to ambiguity, Blumberg and Greenﬁeld found that the principal’s role
is characterized by isolation in terms of contacts with other principals. This corresponds
with Martin and Willower’s observation about the principal’s contact network being
limited, in spite of the position of the role in the midst of the organization. The role of the
principal is also characterized by a sense of powerlessness, which Blumberg and
Greenfield see as deriving from and relative to the degree to which they can inﬂuence the
larger system (p. 234). Because the principal’s view of the school “tends to be oriented
toward interpersonal relations and not toward the organization as a whole. . . .the
principal’s concerns for change and development move him/her in the direction of
improving communications with individuals and not with organizational norms and group
problem solving. The principal tends, from this point of view, to be an organizational
manager who has only a limited view of the concept of the organization” (p. 243). This
“dyadic nature” of the principal’s role has implications for Beck and Murphy’s metaphor
of the principal as change agent. Blumberg and Greenﬁeld characterize those who would
lead an organization — a school — to change and improve as “having a marked tendency to

test the limits of both the interpersonal and organizational systems that they encounter”

116

(p. 247). They understand the nature of loosely coupled systems, which schools are, and
the discomfort engendered in the process of change.

The idea of principal as visionary and the businesslike tone of the writings of the
19808 suggest the image of the principalship was “reforming” based on earlier, rather
than new understandings. The recommendation that principals focus more on classrooms
recalls the idea of the principal as “teacher of teachers.” Their role in this respect is
reformed; now they are leaders of learning communities. The metaphor of the visionary,
Beck and Murphy suggest, recalls the spiritual, religious tones of the early 19008, and the
businesslike emphasis brings to mind the strong belief held decades ago that if something
was right for business, it would be right for schools. These ideas suggest an expanding,
rather than changing role of the principal at the beginning of the ﬁnal decade of the
century.

The November, 1990 issue of the N ASSP Bulletin was devoted to articles about
principal preparation programs. The articles tackled such issues as commitment and
leadership, vision, technology use, culture and climate, resource allocation decisions,
communication, staff development, and the law. An article by Beckner (1990) in that

issue listed a “common core of knowledge and skills. They include:

Social and cultural considerations
Psychology and learning theory

Ethical and moral dimensions
Organizational theory

Curriculum and instruction

School culture and climate

Legal and resource management concerns
Use of technology

Commitment and leadership skills
Change process

117

0 Organization and staff development
0 Communication and political skills”

(pp- 2-3)
The list is just that — a list, a compilation of broad categories of administrative
responsibility reﬂective of decades of administrative practice. Campbell and Williamson
(1991) describe secondary school principals’ perceptions of the importance they attach to
the tasks which make up their day-to-day work. They identified task categories as
follows: school climate, school improvement, instructional management, personnel
management, administration and fiscal facilities management, student management,
professional growth and development, school community relations (pp. 114-115). “In
the ‘908, superintendents and principals are expected to do it all” (Brubaker, 1994).

The metaphors of the principalship of the 19908 are more reﬂective of thought
about administrative practice, and encompass the items on the list. The first metaphor
Beck and Murphy (1993) present is that of the “Principal as Leader.” In the 19808, the
principal was expected to be an instructional leader. Now the image of the leader is
broader, encompassing every aspect of the school community in order to achieve the goal
of educat[ing] all children well” (p. 190).

Greenﬁeld (1995) deﬁnes leadership as “a special form of inﬂuence associated
with inducing others to voluntarily change their preferences (actions, attitudes, premises,
etc.)” (p. 75). The challenge is “to develop and sustain an effective level of normative
inﬂuence with teachers. ...norms rooted in the ethos and culture of teaching as a
profession provide the most effective basis for leadership in a school...” (p. 75). Duke
(1998) discusses the normative context of leadership, and concludes that leadership “is

situated. It cannot be understood. . .apart from context” (p. 182). Further, members of the

118

organization help to shape the normative context through beliefs they hold about
leadership, namely: “a) beliefs about the conditions that necessitate leadership, b) beliefs
regarding the presence or absence of these conditions, c) beliefs concerning what leaders’
intentions should be, given certain conditions necessitating leadership, and d) beliefs
about how leaders should conduct themselves as they try to realize their intentions”

(p. 183). The inextricable linkage of role relationships, norms and organizational
structure is again underscored.

Bolman and Deal (1994) believe that leadership has to be redeﬁned in “human,
moral, and spiritual terms” (p. 95). “Competent management will not be enough to lead
schools to a new age,” claim Beck and Murphy (1993, p.189). However, as Cusick
(1992) states, “schools have to have a routine” (p. 99). It is the principals who establish
the routine by organizing people and events and handle the disruptions to the routine. A
principal who is not a good manager is not going to have an opportunity to try his hand at
leadership, because the system will not tolerate the chaos that results when the routine is
not established or managed.

The principal is also a servant (Beck & Murphy). Greenﬁeld (1995) identifies
“inﬂuence” as a primary aspect of leadership; Beck and Murphy state that the basis of
that inﬂuence must be “professional expertise and moral imperative” (p. 191). It is
“enabling, empowering leadership” which comes from the “nexus of a web of
interpersonal relationships” instead of from the “apex of the organizational pyramid”

(p. 191). This aspect of the principalship is related to the 19808 vision of the principal as
problem-solver and resource provider. Cusick (1992) uses Wolcott’s (1973) Ed Bell as

an example of the person who can solve the problems that upset the routine by providing

119

the necessary resources. The principal “is the logical choice to solve problems. He has
freedom of movement; he knows where things are and where they are supposed to be; he
knows whom to see, about what. And he carries the authority needed to get. ...whatever
is broken, working. He is the staff member least specialized, least role-bound, least
conﬁned by space, and most open to going wherever there is a problem” (p. 102). In
addition to the lofty description of the principal as servant offered by Beck and Murphy,
there is a practical side to this metaphor; the principal serves his constituents by solving
problems and providing resources.

The principal of the 19908 is an organizational architect, according to Beck and
Murphy (1993). They recognize the need for a “different form and function of schools”
(p. 191) as a result of the challenges placed upon them by their changing environments.
Principals must be “proponents of change,” and will have to “reconstruct their schools” to
reﬂect the environments in which they exist (p. 191). This metaphor of the principal as
proactive is in stark contrast to the image portrayed by a principal quoted by Brubaker
(1994): “Crisis and demand drive us as principals.”

The principal does, however, need to have “some abstract sense of the school as
an entity,” to have “an overall idea of the school as an organization” (Cusick, 1992,

p. 105). Principals “spend their days making minor adjustments in the coming and going,
correcting discrepancies and conﬂicts, prodding, admonishing, encouraging, always in
accord with that abstraction. . ..That air of quiet industry that school visitors like so much
to ﬁnd is not the result of students being left alone to pursue their inclinations, but the
result of constant planning, vigilance, and monitoring by staff” (p. 109) who are

admonished and encouraged by the principal to assist in maintaining the architecture of

120

the organization. “Operationalized, school adrrrinistration is the taking of one of the
innumerable elements that is or threatens to be out of kilter with the others and putting it
back into the routine, or even ﬁtting something new into the routine” (p. 124). This view
has more depth and meaning than Martin and Willower’s (1981) superficial description
of the “Busy Person.” Organizational architecture requires maintenance, renovation, and
creation.

It also requires care. Weick (1996) likens building an effective organization to
effective firefighting, and offers ﬁve propositions for careful and successful
ﬁreﬁghting/administrative practice:

0 ...people [must] appreciate the complexity of small events and mobilize

complex systems to sense and manage them.

0 ...people [must] know what they do not know and simultaneously trust and

mistrust their past experience.

0 ...people [must] have a model for the origin of rogue events.

...people [must] strive to manage issues rather than solve problems.

...people [must] improvise after ﬁrst putting into place a system of lookouts,
communication, escape routes, and safety zones.

(p. 567)

Each one of these propositions offers a building block for a successful organization. The
analogy is useful in that every practicing administrator has, in all probability, experienced
a metaphorical ﬁreﬁghting experience, and one can see the logic in utilizing these ideas.

Principals are not only organizational architects, they are social architects. The
difference between metaphor and reality is again reminiscent of Barth and Deal’s (1982)
observation of the theoretical vs. practical portrayal of the literature about the
principalship. Beck and Murphy (1993) see principals as having responsibility for
acknowledging the “total conditions” (p. 192) of children and for making education fit

each child. They see education as “only one part of an effort to improve. . .students’

121

lives” and the need for the principal to assist in the design and construction of “an
integrated agency network to address the conditions confronting many of their pupils and
their families” (p. 192). Of course, the school might be the “hub of this network”

(p. 192). The “purpose and structure” of institutions must be “redesigned” to better
serve the changing population (p. 192).

The reality of social architecture is that principals have to be able to get along
with people (Cusick, 1992, p. 104). The reality of the metaphor of “making education fit
each child” is that “The administrator’s task is to protect and propagate the school’s
coherence and to align students’ behavior with that coherence. The coherence includes
both the school’s internal routine and a notion of the world outside the school, for which
students are being prepared” (p. 108). Although principals care about students and the
quality of their lives, “their solicitousness ends when the students’ actions fall outside
what the school’s abstract notion can tolerate” (p. 109). Social architecture has an
institutional, as well as human, dimension.

In the 19908, the principal is expected to be an educator. “There is a growing
awareness that in order to be educators principals need to be well educated themselves”
(Beck & Murphy, p. 193). They need to be involved with “the core technology of
schools.” Beck and Murphy cite Barth as noting that “the head teacher in the past is now
called upon to be the head learner in the organization” (p. 193). Hoy (1994) describes
seven “domains of knowledge” which encompass not only “what is” in educational
administration, but also “what will be” (p. 180). These domains, by now, are familiar:

o Societal and Cultural Inﬂuences on Schooling
0 Research on Teaching and Learning and Its Implications for

Educational Administration
0 Organizational Studies

122

0 Leadership in Educational Administration:
A Sociological Perspective

Policy and Political Studies

Law and Ethics for Educational Leaders

Economic and Financial Dimensions of Schooling

(pp. 179-192)

Hoy sees this “ambitious agenda” (p. 192) as a shift away from a micro-level of analysis
of educational administration that focuses on speciﬁc teaching and learning skills.
Rowan (1995), on the other hand, makes a case for the inclusion of instructional
management issues in educational administration preparation programs. If educational
administrators are not knowledgeable about new ideas about instruction, how can they be
effective instructional leaders? He recommends that “graduate programs in educational
administration should include course work on curriculum design, teaching strategies, and
educational assessment” (p. 127). These areas need to be studied in conjunction with a
“pressing practical problem — how to improve instruction in schools” (p. 128). He notes
an “already prevalent tendency for practicing educational administrators to devote little
attention to issues of learning and teaching” (p. 128).

Sykes (1995) supports this view of the principal as educator, and takes it to
another dimension. Sykes refers to studies such as Martin and Willower (1981) as
ﬁnding that administrators spend little of their time on issues of instruction. Sykes sees
Rowan’s argument for the need for administrators to study teaching and learning as an
inherently moral one “about the goals of schooling, that academic learning must become
far more central. Administrators must study teaching and learning not only to manage

the production processes of the organization more effectively but to exercise the

leadership in insisting what the schools are for” (Sykes, p. 146).

123

As educators, principals also teach institutional values, such as good attendance,
punctuality, and “accept[ance] of the school’s abstract coherence” They teach “one of
life’s important lessons, compliance with the institution” (Cusick, 1992, p. 111). Control
is an important aspect of this aspect of learning, for without it, learning these life lessons
cannot take place. Control, which Cusick deﬁnes as “the imposition of collective norms
onto a social microcosm” constitutes proof that students are following the rules and that,
when this situation exists in the school, “all students are equal” (p. 111). When these
conditions are in place, the school can demonstrate and fulﬁll its “commitment to
egalitarian ideals” (p. 111). The principal as educator will then have fulﬁlled one of his
primary purposes as a public school educator.

Beck and Murphy (1993) see the growing interest in the importance of values in
education and the recognition of the “moral dimension of schooling” (p. 194) as evidence
that yet another metaphorical description of the principalship in the 19908 is “Principal as
Moral Agent” (p. 193). They believe that “values and value judgment are at the core of
everyday work and the heart and purpose of education.” The daily work of principals
often deals with “critical ethical issues in schools” (p. 194). Duke (1998) suggests that
not only are there ethical issues and a moral dimension of schooling; he believes that “the
current interest in the moral and ethical dimensions of leadership, business ethics and the
character of individuals in leadership roles suggests that how leaders achieve their
mission may be almost as important as the mission itself” (p. 190). He cites a study
which found the assessment of leadership behavior related “not only with the proﬁciency
of leader behavior, but with its ethical and moral quality as well” (p. 190). Greenﬁeld

(1995) points out that the work of a school administrator requires him to make judgments

124

about policies and programs and to “use leadership to inﬂuence the actions and
orientations of teachers and students” (p. 69). He discusses the complexities of moral
values and normative standards of the school and the community, and concludes that
“Because the school is a uniquely moral organization, school administrators have a
special responsibility to be deliberately moral in their conduct, that is, to consider the
value premises underlying their actions and decisions as administrators” (p. 69). Cusick
(1992) discusses the close relationship between how the principal conducts himself and is
perceived by the community and the transference of that value judgment to the school.
“The trust that the principal engendered through his personal life transferred to positive
relations for the school. If the principal remained above reproach, the school could be
trusted and the citizens would keep a respectful distance.” In this way, the principal
could be said to personify the community’s moral ideal (p. 123).

Heslep (1997) describes moral actions as being characterized by interaction,
knowledge, freedom, purpose, judgment, deliberation, and decision (p. 75). He sees
these ideas about moral agency as “embedded” in educational leadership, and that anyone
occupying such a position would be logically committed to their implied principles
(p. 74). The characteristics listed above “are action guides for each and every moral
agent.” Heslep details a cogent philosophical description of the action of moral agents
and their perspective of the moral agency of others. He draws the parallel between the
actions of moral agents and those of educational leaders. Since what they do is “marked
by interaction, knowledge, freedom, purposefulness and the other generic traits of moral
agency, they are moral agents” (p. 77). Since educational leaders logically and by virtue

of their work are “committed to the principles of moral value, moral rights, and moral

125

duty as the fundamental standards for their judgments” (p. 77), they must act in
accordance with them. They must also facilitate the development of students as moral
agents.

The metaphor of principal as moral agent has implications for the final metaphor
Beck and Murphy (1993) set forth for the 19908: Principal as Person in the Community
(p. 194). This view differs somewhat from that of principal as community leader. By
exhibiting a caring, nurturing ethic “to guide decisions and actions” the principal allows
all individuals to act as “colleagues, partners, co-leamers, and friends working together to
build a ‘community of learners’ in which all can ﬂourish” (p. 195). Sergiovanni (1994)
advocates changing the metaphor for the school from organization to community
(p. 217). In so doing, beliefs and commitments about the school and the people in it are
changed. “Instead of being tied together and tied to purposes by bartering arrangements,
this social structure bonds people together in special ways and binds them to concepts,
images and values that comprise a shared idea structure. This bonding and binding are
the defining characteristics of schools as communities” (p. 217). Shared norms guide
behavior.

Sergiovanni (1994) calls on Tonnies concept of gemeinschaft and gesellschaft to
explain the shift in values and orientation in social change. His model holds that as
collectivities move away from community values, they are replaced by contractual ones.
The decision can be made to reverse the shift, and replace the focus on rights, discretion
and freedom with focus on commitments, obligations and duties that people feel toward
one another and toward the collectivity, in this case, the school (p. 217). Sergiovanni

describes Tonnies three forms of community: community by kinship, community of

126

place, and community of mind. All three are factors in considering school as community;
“community of mind emerges from the binding of people to common goals, shared
values, and shared conceptions of being and doing. Together the three represent webs of
meaning that tie people together by creating a sense of belonging and a common identity”
(p. 219).

Sergiovanni uses Parsons’ pattern variables to explain how individuals within a
system of role relationships, such as a school, make decisions about how they will relate

to one another. The pairs, named earlier in the theoretical construct, are:

Affective — affective neutrality
Collective orientation - self-orientation
Particularism — universalism
Ascription — achievement

Diffuseness - speciﬁcity

(p. 220)
The examples he gives for each variable are food for thought:

Teachers have to decide: Will relationships with students

be more that of a professional expert who treats students as

if they were clients (affective neutrality)? Or, will relationships
be more that of a parent with students treated as if they were
family members (affective)? Will students be given equal
treatment in accordance with uniform standards, rules, and
regulations (universalism)? Or, will students be treated more
preferentially and individually (particularism)? Will role
relationships and job descriptions narrowly deﬁne speciﬁc
t0pics for attention and discussion (specificity)? Or, will
relationships be considered unbounded by roles and thus

more inclusive and holistic (diffuseness)? Will students

have to earn the right to be regarded as “good” and to maintain
their standing in the school (achievement)? Or, will students
be accepted completely, simply because they have enrolled

in the school (ascription)? Do we decide that a certain
distance needs to be maintained in order for professional
interests and concerns to remain uncomprorrrised (self-
orientation)? Or, do we view ourselves as part of a student-
teacher we that compels us to work intimately with students

127

in identifying common interests, concerns and standards for
decision making (collective orientation)?
(pp. 220-221)

Gemeinschaft and gesellschaft and Parsons’ pattern variables represent ideal types.
Schools will have characteristics of both sides of the models. Beck’s (1999) research
showed that community can take many forms and can have many dimensions, among
them functional, psychological, and political (p. 18). A community of whatever type has
a sense of identity and communicates its values to its members, usually through language
and conversation. Beck quotes John Dewey from Democracy and Education (1916):

There is more than a verbal tie between the words common,

community, and communication. Men live in a community

in virtue of the things which they have in common; and

communication is the way in which they come to possess
things in common.

(p. 25)
Gerald Grant (1988) refers to what people share that makes them a community as
“ethos.” “It is the configuration of attitudes, values and beliefs that members of the
community share” (p. 133).

Although the principal is a person among persons in the community, he must still
have a “coherent view of his obligations” (Cusick, 1992, p. 115) to the school and its
students and staff, or to the community and its members. In this open system, someone
still has to manage the inputs and the outputs, access the resources, and facilitate the

keeping of school. It is the role of the principal so to do.

128

Part II

Current External Perceptions of Principal Role Expectations

Most school districts have job descriptions for any position for which an
individual signs an employment contract. The high school principal’s position generally
requires that the applicant for the position meet teacher qualifications for the state.
However, the shortage of administrator candidates and the availability of an individual
for a principalship who had demonstrated leadership capabilities within the district ranks
resulted in the policy statement regarding this requirement to be changed in one Michigan
district. Now, individuals having “such other certification or qualiﬁcations promulgated
by the Michigan Department of Education for employment in the public school setting”
can be considered for the building principalship. Five years of experience is commonly
expected. This can vary from a specific requirement related to high school administration
for someone applying for a high school principalship to having had successful experience
in “the educational ﬁeld”. The principal is also expected to meet requirements for a State
of Michigan Administrator’s certificate. A Master’s degree is required in most cases;
some districts require that it be from an accredited institution with a major in Educational
Administration or its equivalent. Finally, most candidates would be expected to meet
“other qualifications as determined appropriate and desirable by the Board of Education”
(Quotes in this paragraph from Utica Community Schools, 1999).

In addition to credentials, the principal is expected to have a range of general
abilities to lead a school community. A principal must be able to motivate staff and

students to achieve at levels that meet community expectations. One district expects that

129

a principal will demonstrate a “respect for tradition, combined with the wisdom to
advocate changes that benefit the students” (Birmingham Public Schools, 1998). This
rather benign—sounding statement belies the importance of the requirement that the
principal have an active role in preserving and shaping school culture. Deal and Peterson
(1999) make this emphatic statement: “ The culture of an enterprise plays the dominant
role in exemplary performance. . . Highly respected organizations have evolved a shared
system of informal folkways and traditions that infuse work with meaning, passion, and
purpose” (p, 1). They quote Willard Waller from his 1932 book, Sociology in Teaching:

‘Schools have a culture that is definitely their own.

There are, in the school, complex rituals of personal

relationships, a set of folkways, mores, and irrational

sanctions, a moral code based upon them. There are

games, which are sublimated wares, teams and an

elaborate set of ceremonies concerning them. There

are traditions, and traditionalists waging their world-
old battles against innovators.’
(p. 2)

Anyone who has spent any time in any school would recognize this description as
relevant today.
What is the principal’s part in respecting this tradition and advocating change?
Deal and Peterson believe that everyone in the school community can participate in
reinforcing the positive aspects of the school’s culture, resolving problematic ones, and
giVing “toxic ones strong antidotes” (p. 87). Although they believe that the “formal
leadership of the principal “sustains and continuously reshapes culture,” they believe that

“[d] eep, shared leadership builds strong and cohesive cultures” (p. 87). In most schools,

it WOuld, in all likelihood, fall to the principal to lead this important work.

130

Deal and Peterson describe eight major symbolic roles that school leaders take in

shaping a school culture:

Historian: The social and normative past of the school must be identiﬁed and
communicated. “Leaders perpetuate an understanding of where the school
has been as a key factor in interpreting present practices and ways.”
Anthropological Sleuth: The school’s present rituals, norms, values and
beliefs reﬂect “deeper features of the culture.”

Visionary: The leader has a constantly-evolving and deeply-focused picture
of the future for the school, based on a clear sense of what it can become.
The school’s purpose and mission are undergoing evaluation and reﬁnement
at all times. The shared vision for the school promotes the common good.
Symbol: The leader afﬁrms the values of the school. The interests and
actions of leaders “send powerful messages” about what is important in the
school

Potter: Leaders shape school culture much as a potter shapes clay by
infusing shared values and beliefs into every aspect of the culture; by
celebrating the best role models of the beliefs of the school community; by
observing rituals “as a means of building and maintaining esprit de corps,”
and perpetuating “meaningful, value-laden traditions and ceremonies.”

Poet: Leaders use language to “reinforce values” and perpetuate the school’s

“best image of itself.”

131

0 Actor: The leader recognizes that events taking place within the school
constitute “social drama,” and uses opportunities to improvise and innovate in
ways that “reaffirm or redirect the values and beliefs of the school.”

0 Healer: The leader oversees minor and major changes occurring in the
school by recognizing and dealing with natural transitions, culturally
important events, and important transitions and critical events in the lives of
members of the school community

(pp. 87-99).

An emphasis on collaborative decision making in recent years requires that a
principal be able to involve others in the decision-making process, and respond to every
situation as a team player. The principal is expected to collaborate with other
administrators in enforcing school and district policies and articulating curriculum.
Depending upon the decision-making strategies decided upon by the school’s
improvement committee or the district’s negotiating team, the principal may defer to
consensus or majority vote in deciding the direction the school will take in significant
changes, such as moving to block scheduling or changing an attendance policy.
Although Boards of Education have the ﬁnal say on many issues, a principal often ﬁnds
himself in the role of key communicator in trying to inﬂuence Boards to approve new,
teacher-driven initiatives, whether directly or through the Superintendent or designees.

Principals must also have the “ability to handle assertive individuals and
conﬂicting opinions” (Troy School District, 2000). Parents and staff members more and
more frequently challenge principals when they do not agree with decisions the principal

has made or communicated to them from other sources. Most principals have had the

132

unfortunate experience of dealing with enraged, irrational, hysterical, or even physically
threatening or drunk individuals. One session at the National Association of Secondary
School Principals’ 2001 conference was entitled, “Discipline Without Anger” and
included the following in its description: “. . .identify the destructive physical responses to
anger and explore ways to disengage emotionally. Further, we will enumerate ways to
recognize bodily changes that indicate anger is elevating and list ways to practice
control. . .plan ways to discipline students without getting the student, their parents, or
you angry” (NASSP 2001 Annual Convention Program, p. 50).

Workshops are offered through local and intermediate school districts to prepare
principals to respond safely and appropriately to physical aggression and to deal with
challenging individuals. Principals regularly function as mediators between individuals
with conﬂicting opinions, such as parents and teachers who do not agree on grading
policies. Parents also appeal to principals to mitigate disciplinary consequences applied
by their assistants, and can become extremely upset during such conferences. Possessing
the skill to pacify emotionally charged situations is a necessity in the role.

A further extension of this aspect of the principalship is the recent focus on safety
and security in schools. The recent spate of school shootings and weapons violations in
schools has placed principals in the impossible role of primary provider of physical
safety. Principals are expected to have security and crisis response plans in place, with all
staff members aware of the roles they are expected to play depending upon the time
during the school day that a breach of security or safety might occur. Students are

schooled in response plans to ﬁre, weather, and security emergencies, and principals are

133

expected to have communicated with neighboring facilities such as other schools and
churches to provide a safe haven in the event of an incident requiring evacuation.

The NASSP listed six sessions in its program for the 2001 Convention related to
school violence. Their titles offer a glimpse of the enormity of the problem and the level
of concern associated with this issue: “Assessing the Impact of a Statewide School
Violence Prevention Initiative” (p. 30); “Can We Ever Know Enough About School
Safety and Security?” (p. 60); “Threats at School — An Interactive Role Play” (p.38);
“Living Through School Crises” (p. 24); “From Tragedy to Triumph - The Story of
Heath High School, Paducah, Kentucky” (p. 22); “Responding to Catastrophic Events:
The First Crucial Hour” (p. 20). Only three of the aforementioned sessions were led by
school administrators, and one of them is now also the N ASSP’s “Resident Practitioner
for Safe and Orderly Schools.” One presenter is the Director of the Crisis Management
Institute in Salem, Oregon; another is a Research Associate at the Prevention Research
Center at Penn State University. Thus, higher educational institutions and the private
sector have begun to establish themselves as experts in crisis prevention and management
in the school setting.

The focus of all of these sessions was on the preparedness of the school to
respond to extreme crisis. Principals must know what to have in place “ahead of time”
(p. 20). They must know “effective ways to deal with the media. . .risk reduction
solutions and climate improvement strategies. . .how to deploy a crisis management
response team, set up counseling areas, and use community resources” (p. 24). They
must have knowledge of what schools around the country are doing, “. . .from classroom-

based curricula to metal detectors and video cameras — and how schools are going about

134

deciding what equipment or programs are best.” They must be able to identify and deal
with “[b]arriers to implementing a comprehensive school safety strategy” and be ready to
improve “the process of school safety planning” (p. 30). Principals must think about the
“potential legal issues around such threatening behaviors as student-to-student e-mail
threats, student work that is threatening or violent, and bomb threats,” and align their
responses with district and state mandated discipline procedures, due process and free
speech, “as well as distinctions that must be recognized between special education and
other students in such situations” (p. 38). Although incidents requiring such knowledge
and response are few, and most schools will never have to implement a response plan,
increasing “incidents of vandalism, physical and verbal assaults, hostile intruders,
weapons in the building and increased gang activity” (p. 60), increased media attention
on them and the underlying absolute that the principal is responsible for a safe and
orderly place for teachers to teach and students to learn make the importance of
preparation paramount. Each time an incident of school violence is reported, the tension
and anxiety around this issue resurface in every school and must be managed — by the
principal. The national tragedy of September 11, 2001 and the “second wave of
terrorism,” as President Bush has described the anthrax scare, has opened a whole new
volume of crisis response issues and procedures (Appendix C).

Principals must be willing to hear all sides of an issue, be able to make a
decision, explain it, and, sometimes, generate support for it. Disciplinary situations that
are appealed to the principal or to a higher level are only one example. Students will
bring their concerns about district policy or school or classroom practice to the principal

in an effort to effect change. Teachers will make decisions they believe to be the best

135

ones under the circumstances; sometimes these have unanticipated social consequences,
and the principal must then determine whether or not to support the teacher’s action, and
then help the teacher to understand the reasoning behind the decision. Parents often
believe that their perceptions of how schools or classrooms should operate are ﬂawless
and complete, and must sometimes be convinced that their view represents only part of
the situation.

Principals are also expected to have “a comprehensive knowledge of teaching and
learning theory,” and “refined skills in evaluation and the ability to validate exemplary
teaching, as well as supervise remediation” (Troy School District, 2000). For principals
who are several years removed from having taught, or from having taken any sort of
methods class, this is a daunting expectation. It not only requires craft knowledge as it
pertains to classroom teaching and the supposition that a secondary principal is going to
be able to identify superior, adequate and unsatisfactory teaching performance in a
multitude of disciplines, but also the fundamental understanding of enormous issues
related to learning.

Principals draw on this knowledge in leading instruction in their schools. A
significant part of this important aspect of their work is teacher evaluation. Although the
procedures may vary somewhat from district to district, the principal is ultimately
responsible for its being done. Each evaluation requires multiple classroom visits and a
post-observation conference for each formal observation. Some districts incorporate a
pre-observation conference, as well. Probationary teachers are required to have
Individual Development Plans (IDPs), which state goals for improvement of teaching

practice against which teachers are evaluated in future observations. The goals are

136

mutually agreed upon by the teacher and the administrator. The principal must find the
balance in this process between setting high expectations for performance and
establishing a climate of trust and encouragement within which both beginning and
experienced teachers have the opportunity to grow professionally.

A brief glance at the Spring 2001 J ossey-Bass Education Catalog provides an
overview of what an educational leader needs to know. Books are available on a host of
important topics, such as teaching in multicultural classrooms, parental involvement,
fund-raising and winning grants to expand scarce resources, the impact of technology on
learning and the integration of technology into curriculum, mentoring of teachers, critical
thinking, cooperative learning, assessment strategies, teaching at-risk students, The New
Literacy (by Paul J. Morris and Stephen Tchudi), current research on teaching reading in
secondary schools, motivating students, setting, measuring and reaching standards,
gender differences in learning, behavior management, making real-world connections,
and character education.

Day-to-day responsibilities are also comprehensive in nature. A list of one

district’s stated building principal responsibilities follows:

0 Organize and direct the instructional program of the school

0 Devote major effort to educational supervision with emphasis on the constant
improvement of teaching and learning

0 Assist in a planned program of curriculum development in the school where
assigned

0 Maintain an educational climate conducive to maximum learning
0 Organize faculty meetings to provide maximum beneﬁts for teaching and learning

0 Provide, support and facilitate opportunities for School Improvement/professional
development of staff

0 Advise, supervise and evaluate the teaching staff in the building

137

Advise, supervise and evaluate all other building personnel, both instructional
and non-instructional, based on the function and duties as stated in job descriptions

Be responsible for assisting substitute teachers in the performance of their duties

Maintain such records that are necessary for the effective operation of the
educational program

Organize, direct and provide supervision for extra curricular activities
Assist in the organization and direction of parent organizations

Be responsible for the operation of the school plant, including the activities
of non-instructional personnel, within the framework established for such operations

Review, evaluate and channel to the appropriate department all budget item
requests by the instructional and non-instructional staff, and process

recommended purchases in a timely manner

Administer all funds and keep accurate records of deposits and withdrawals relating
to school accounts

Maintain good public relations within the community and utilize the school
and community resources to improve and enrich the school’s instructional program

Be responsible for the in-service training and mentoring of any intern assigned
to the building

Maintain active participation and leadership in professional activities
Support and facilitate all school district policies, goals and learning standards

Perform such other duties as assigned

(Utica Community Schools, 1999)

Even these comprehensive lists of qualifications, expectations and responsibilities

do not represent a complete picture of the principal’s work. Other than a general

statement regarding the instructional program of the school, which could be said to be all-

inclusive, one major area of responsibility missing from both schools’ requirements is the

responsibility for compliance with state mandates. Two enormous and time-consurrring

areas are School Improvement (PA25), including the Michigan Educational Assessment

Program (MEAP), and Individuals with Disabilities in Education (PA94-142), or Special

Education. A third mandate, connected to the MEAP, is the accreditation program. The

138

qualifications and responsibilities lists hint at the requirement that a principal must be
knowledgeable enough about technology to lead its integration with the curriculum. Yet
another area of major concern to school districts and individual school principals is that
of marketing their particular schools to offset often negative publicity about public
schools.

Public Act 25, passed by the Michigan Legislature in 1990, contained a broad set
of education reform ideals, including requirements for school improvement plans, core
curriculum for all students, published annual reports to the public, and a plan for building
level accreditation. Districts would lose funding if they failed to comply. Since proof of
compliance would come from the building, this mandate immediately placed pressure on
the building principal. A school improvement committee, or team, had to be organized.
In some districts, there has been tremendous resistance on the part some staff members,
who see this as top-down imposition of school reform, however needed it might be.
Parent and student involvement, required under PA25, is not usually a problem, but
building politics sometimes make participation on the team problematic for teachers.
Veteran teachers are not always interested in reform, and probationary teachers are not
always willing to risk their relationships with their new colleagues by involving
themselves in the life of the school in this manner.

The ante was upped in 1993 when the Michigan Legislature passed PA 335 and
PA339, which further reﬁned PA25 and added the use of MEAP scores as the
performance measure for individual school accreditation. In 1995, Michigan’s State
Department of Education began the controversial practice of publishing MEAP scores for

all schools. In that year, there were only 163 summary, or fully, accredited schools,

139

2,762 interim-accredited, meaning that enough of their students’ scores were in the
proﬁcient range to keep them from being unaccredited, as 93 schools in Michigan were.

The pressure was on. Principals have been beseeched, exhorted, and sometimes
threatened by their district superiors and their communities to raise test scores. Many
classroom teachers, in spite of the State’s best efforts to tie the MEAP assessment to
meaningful educational standards through such works as the Michigan Curriculum
Framework, published in 1996, look upon the test as an intrusion into their instructional
program. Districts are expected to align their curricula with the Framework, and
principals are expected to convince teachers to align their instructional delivery with the
objectives and benchmarks contained therein, rather than focusing their lessons in the
same fashion they had in the past. Some teachers still resist the idea that modiﬁcation of
their content delivery and expansion of their assessment strategies are necessary to allow
students the best chance for successful performance on MEAP tests, and thereby
purportedly demonstrating mastery of state standards.

However, as tales of the State’s role in contacting and “offering” assistance to
unaccredited schools make their way into the public schools, educators are taking notice.
Revised (more challenging) versions of some tests and the introduction of the Social
Studies MEAP tests in 1999 have underscored the idea that the MEAP, as a means of
assessing not only student achievement but also schools’ instructional competence, is
here to stay. The initiation of the Michigan Merit Award Program (PA 94 of 1999) gave
students a monetary incentive to do their best on the tests and parents a reason not to
capitulate to their students’ position that the tests are “meaningless” and taking them is a

waste of time.

140

In May, 2000, the newly-formed Michigan Accountability Task Force met for the
ﬁrst time. This committee was made up of representatives from the Michigan State
Board of Education, the Michigan Department of Education and various constituencies
within the Michigan public education system. These individuals pursued a shared
approach to improve Michigan’s public schools and worked on the problem of
developing a more powerful and thereby more effective accountability system. Their
ﬁrst report, published in August, 2000, described a framework for this system. It deﬁned
accountability as “a set of commitments, policies and practices that deﬁne the distribution
of responsibilities within Michigan’s public school system in ways that support
continuous improvement in the performance of the education system and the achievement
of all students.” (From the MDE Report, “Accountability Based Accreditation”)
Although their goal was a fresh approach, the emphasis in the system is still on student
achievement as evidenced by performance on MEAP tests.

The proposed new accreditation system, called “An Accreditation System for the
New Decade,” had ﬁve components:

Assessment of All Students (participation in the assessment system)
0 High Academic Achievement (percentages of students scoring well on
MEAP tests)
Improvement in Student Performance (Adequate Yearly Progress)
High Achievement for All Students (progress in minimizing
achievement gaps)
0 School Improvement Results (reports on implementation of local
plans)
From “Accountability Based Accreditation”
Michigan Department of Education Document
05/19/2000 ed.mde.state.mi.us/system

In May, 2001, the newly appointed Superintendent of Public Instruction for the

State of Michigan placed the implementation plan for this accountability program on hold

141

pending further evaluation, indicating his reluctance to impose a plan that focused
exclusively on one measurement device. Most recently, districts have been notiﬁed of
changes in the MEAP tests due to funding considerations. After years of effort on the
part of principals and School Improvement teams to convince teachers to change their
methods of instructional delivery and assessment practices so they more closely reﬂect
MEAP standards and tests expectations, those portions of tests which have called for
demonstrations of these skills are being changed or deleted to reduce costs to the state.

Principals are left unsure of what the future will hold with regard to state
assessment and accountability. The principal must submit a form that serves as a “self-
assessment review and rating of the building-level School Improvement Plan according
to the ten State Board of Education Standards for Accreditation.” Although the School
Improvement Team in a building might share this responsibility, the principal must sign
the form verifying its accuracy. In any event, the responsibility for implementation and
reporting on the progress of a standardized state version of accreditation will rest
squarely on the shoulders of the building administrator.

Special education is another area of enormous concern to principals today.
Building administrators (namely, the principal, in any school where there is only one
administrator) sit on all Evaluation Review Team (ERT) meetings, where the decision is
made to test a student to determine eligibility under the Individuals with Disabilities in
Education Act (IDEA). The principal is usually part of the Multidisciplinary Evaluation
Team (MET), which gathers information from a variety of sources about the student. The
MET determines the student’s eligibility to receive special services under one of 13

categories in IDEA, such as Learning Disabled, Autistic, Emotionally Impaired, Speech

142

and/or Language Impaired, Hearing Impaired, Educable Mentally Impaired, Physically or
Otherwise Health Impaired, etc. The IEPT, the Individual Educational Program Team,
decides the program of special education services that will best meet the student’s needs.
Although the IEPT usually meets annually for that purpose, any part of the team can call
for a meeting in the interim when circumstances require it. The Team is composed of a
building administrator, the parent, a special education teacher, a regular education
teacher, the student’s counselor, and such other special services personnel as required by
the IEP (e. g., speech pathologist, social worker, occupational or physical therapist). The
student is invited if s/he is old enough to understand the process and/or contribute to the
meeting. The school psychologist might attend if the meeting is held for the purpose of
determining initial eligibility under the law, or if a legally-mandated three-year re-
evaluation of the student’s eligibility is being conducted, 80 that testing results used in the
determination can be explained in terms the parents will understand.

During these meetings, the team discusses the academic, social, and if
appropriate, physical needs of the student, and determines the extent of the special
services needed. Resources from the regular education program are considered. Separate
facilities may be considered, if they are more appropriate and available. The decision is
always guided by the concept of LRE, Least Restrictive Environment. If the student’s
needs can be met in the regular education setting with support from special services, that
is the preferred means of delivering the IEP. Potentially harmful effects of placement in
either setting are considered. If recommendations are made, they must be recorded along
with the rationale for the recommendation; if recommendations are not made, reasons for

not doing so must be included. The building principal is named, and usually signs the

143

IEP, as the person who will be responsible for delivering the program agreed upon by the
IEPT. Once signed by the administrator and the parent, the IEP is a legally binding
document. If the parent does not agree with the program set forth by the [EFT and no
resolution is reached through this process, a hearing can be requested, and parties are
bound to accept the decision of the mediator after the hearing has taken place.

The IEP process is legally defined and cumbersome, even though it is designed to
function in the best interest of the student. The ramiﬁcations for failure to deliver the
agreed-upon services can be even more time-consuming than the process itself. The laws
governing the delivery of special services within the school setting are detailed and rigid,
and the consequences for non-compliance can include the withholding of funding to the
school district. Special education teachers are the gatekeepers to delivering FAPE, Free
and Appropriate Public Education. The pages and pages of IEP forms (Appendix K) are
designed to speciﬁcally delineate the time spent in special education program and the
results anticipated. Forms are continually being added, such as a recent progress report
designed to track the progress of the student toward instructional goals specifically
spelled out in the IEP. This form is to be used in addition to the school’s regular progress
reports and report cards. Transition planning for 8“’-12th graders is a relatively new
addition to the IEP, and there are forms for that.

Once the IEP is implemented, the student is to be monitored carefully by the
special education staff. If a special education student frequently engages in disruptive
behavior, the principal must be sure that Functional Behavioral Assessment
Planning (FBAP) takes place to determine if a Behavior Intervention Plan (BIP) is

needed. Although this plan is not a formal part of the IEP, reference must be made to it if

144

the student has been suspended for repeated disruptive behavior. Principals are
continually stymied by legal restrictions on the discipline of special education students,
which have served to establish a double standard for discipline. If the behavior in which
the student engages is a manifestation of the disability recorded in the IEP, different
disciplinary approaches have to be used than those for students who are regular education
students. For example, if a special education student verbalizes a bomb threat in school,
the principal will be part of a team that ﬁrst determines whether or not the action is a
manifestation of the disability, and which then determines the appropriate disciplinary
consequences. If the behavior is a manifestation, the consequence can be a suspension
followed by alternative educational placement of up to 45 days. If the behavior is
determined not to be a manifestation, the consequence can be the same as it is for regular
education students, which is expulsion from school for up to 180 school days. However,
the school district must still provide an educational opportunity for the special education
student who ﬁnds himself in this position.

School principals in communities or counties where there are no provisions for
severely impaired students must facilitate the delivery of the services needed by the
student in the home school. These demands place a strain upon the principal to provide
the resources to meet the needs of the student as established in the IEP. In these cases,
the response of the regular and special education faculty members as they struggle to
meet these needs in the school setting will also have to be managed by the principal.

The principal is also responsible for making sure that adequate staff members are
available to deliver the programs agreed to in IEPs. Special education teachers are hard

to ﬁnd, as are ancillary staff members such as school social workers, speech therapists

145

and para-professionals for students who need constant supervision. The principal must
have at least enough knowledge to lead the decision-making as it pertains to scheduling
special education classes, determining a continuum of services (study skills classes, co-
taught classes, special education classes) to special education students, and providing
grading options based on modifications in regular education classes. Reporting special
education FT Es (full-time equivalencies) in the official pupil count is exacting work, and
requires careful execution of state pupil accounting rules.

Closely related to providing FAPE to special education students is providing it to
students who are eligible for consideration for accommodations under Section 504 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973. This law covers students who are seen to have a
handicapping condition which impacts their learning, but who do not meet eligibility
requirements set for special education services. The Building Team that meets to
determine the reasonable accommodations for these students includes the principal, who
is then responsible for seeing that teachers accept the Section 504 plan as a legal
document and implement the accommodations mutually agreed-upon by parents and
school personnel. Failure to meet the obligations of the Section 504 Plan can result in a
complaint being ﬁled with the Ofﬁce of Civil Rights. If the OCR investigates the
complaint and ﬁnds violations, sanctions can be placed on the school district. As with
the implementation of IEPs, principals are also responsible for the implementation of
Section 504 plans.

Principals must be familiar enough with instructional technology to facilitate its
integration into the teaching and learning process in their schools. In addition to having a

working knowledge of basic systems, principals must know what training their staffs

146

need in order to ensure that progress is being made. In many cases, students are entering
secondary schools with more technological skills than many teachers. Use of technology
is expected, and the principal must be sure students have access to it in order to continue
to develop the skills that will prepare them for post-secondary education and the
workplace. They must be part of the strategic planning for the acquisition, installation
and utilization of increasingly sophisticated technological systems and equipment. They
must set the expectations for teacher performance that will ensure the delivery of an
educational program that fully utilizes available technology, both as an instructional tool
and as a means of accessing information.

In addition to instructional technology, principals must be able to use
management technology. Most schools today have computer systems for scheduling,
attendance, and grade reporting. As the ones responsible for creating the master
schedule, reporting official attendance, and maintaining student records, principals have
to have a working knowledge of the systems that make these things happen. Although
there may be other individuals who are given the responsibility for the data input and
maintenance, the principal has to understand how they work, and be able to assign the
responsibilities in an organized and timely manner. School districts are making efforts to
be “paperless,” which places even more demands on the principal and the school support
staff, as they grapple with electronic submission of purchase orders, work orders, time
sheets, and personnel attendance data. These systems aim for increased efﬁciency, and a
building’s part in the district’s progress toward it depends largely on the principal’s
efforts and leadership of staff members who are anxious about and sometimes reluctant to

use technology.

147

Although principals have always functioned as cheerleaders for their schools and
their students, this is taking on new dimensions as competition with public education
becomes a way of life. Many school districts are ﬁnding charter schools located within
their boundaries, offering what parents perceive to be options at no cost. Private
educational companies are emerging. Certification requirements for teachers are
changing to accommodate shortages in certain areas of instruction. Private foundations
are supporting alternative educational programs and academic support centers. Parents
are choosing to home school their children. Distance learning and virtual schools are
ﬁnding their niche in the educational ﬁeld.

As these changes occur, principals are facing increasing demands to market their
schools. Many are uncomfortable with the idea of blowing their own horns; they would
rather just be allowed to do what they perceive to be their jobs. Mel Vende Gevel,
Director of the School Community Relations Office for the Grand Rapids (Michigan)
Public Schools, offers this perspective on marketing: “. . .most people think that
marketing is something you do to promote a product. . . ..Unfortunately, that’s incorrect.
Marketing is not just something you do. Marketing is ‘everything’ we do! Developing
new programs and services to meet identified student needs is marketing. Publicizing the
programs we offer is marketing. Treating people with respect and dignity is marketing.
Making our schools inviting and friendly places to be is marketing. ....We must re-
examine everything we do to ensure that we are addressing all of the needs of our clients
(students and parents) and that we are doing everything we can to make their experiences

in our schools as enjoyable as possible” (1999).

148

Principals have taken much of what is good and sound about their schools for
granted. It is a matter of professional pride that they run safe and orderly schools with
comprehensive, up-to-date curricula and have certified teachers to deliver it. It is just the
way things are done. The competition is now marketing many of these same features in
an effort to entice parents away from their local schools. Not only are non-public schools
competing for students, public school districts with declining enrollments are launching
aggressive advertising campaigns as schools of choice, offering parents an option to their
local districts at no cost, as long as they are residents of the same county. Marketing
seminars for principals are assisting them in identifying strategies to reach their
consumers. Tri-fold brochures describing the best about the school, packets for new
families, substitute teacher packets, communication plans, video tapes shown on the local
cable channel are just some of the ways principals are now expected to reach out to the
community. It isn’t enough just to do the right thing; principals now must create a plan to
ensure that the perception the community has of their schools is positive. As in the
19208, the public must see it to believe it.

This positive perception is based upon careful communication. Principals are
encouraged to ﬁnd ways to celebrate learning in their schools, publicize their schools’
response to the demands for change, address issues and adverse situations, and create
school communities that welcome participation. They are told to analyze their
environments, identify their priority populations and their points of contact and develop
strategies based upon what they learn. Although most principals would probably have

some innate sense of all of these components of marketing, and many can communicate

149

easily about the good things happening in their schools, the idea that the process must
now be formalized, and they will be held accountable for results, is new ground.

In the February, 2001 issue of The Bulletin, the MASSP newsletter, Jim Ballard,
Executive Director, wrote about “personal promotion,” and made a comparison between
promoting oneself and being self-promoting. Principals, he stated, often “can’t verbalize,
in a positive way, what a principal does” (p.1). Ballard deﬁned ﬁve aspects of the
principal’s role, and urged principals to take advantage of opportunities to spread the
word about what a principal really does:

“You are responsible for FIVE things in a school:

1) A safe environment — you’re judged by the number and type of critical

incidents and the way you administer the policies developed to assure

such an environment.

2) Parent involvement — you’re judged by parent participation in all
activities of the school.

3) Instructional leadership — you’re responsible to have high test scores.
4) Teacher evaluation — you’re responsible to document and give feedback.
5) Improvement process — you’re responsible to develop and document
measurements demonstrating improvement.”
(p. 1)

These broad categories of the principalship only hint at the complexity of the role today.
Ballard’s point in the article was not so much to deﬁne the role as to promote the role.
The public perception of the role of the principal is based largely upon the collective
recollection of individuals’ experiences with their own principals when they were
students. Just as principals must market their schools, they must market their role as
principal. The information they share about their role must meet the needs of the

audience. In most cases, a basic description is all the audience desires.

150

A recent professional development opportunity for educational leaders held at the
Macomb Intermediate School District was entitled, “Thinking in the Future Tense.” This
presentation by Dr. Jennifer James, cultural anthropologist, proposed that the skills
needed for the future include:

o Perspective . . . seeing with new eyes

0 Pattern recognition . . . recognizing the future

0 Cultural Knowledge . . . harnessing the power of myths and symbols

- Flexibility . . . speeding up response time

0 Vision . . . understanding the past

0 Energy . . . doing more with less

0 Intelligence . . . mastering new forms of intelligence

0 Global Values . . . proﬁting from diversity.

(MISD Management Training Department
Program Brochure, 1998)

The Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium (ISLLC), established in
1994, is described on the Chief State School Ofﬁcers’ website as “a consortium of thirty-
two education agencies and thirteen education administrative associations that have
worked cooperatively to establish an education policy framework for school leadership.”
The consortium’s belief is that “the criteria and standards for the professional practice of
school leaders must be grounded in the knowledge and understanding of teaching and
learning.” ISLLC’s goals are to “raise the bar for school leaders to enter and remain in
the profession, and to reshape the concepts of educational leadership.” To date, thirty-
five states have either adopted or adapted the ISLLC standards in an effort to reform

educational leadership.

151

The ISLLC standards for school leaders are broadly stated; each is reinforced by
components under the following headings: knowledge (“The administrator has
knowledge and understanding of:”), dispositions (“The administrator believes in, values
and is committed to:"), and performances (“The administrator:), which are more
specifically stated. Each of the six standards begins with the phrase, “A school
administrator is an educational leader who promotes the success of all students by...” and
then is ﬁnished in bold type as follows:

Standard 1: facilitating the development, articulation, implementation,

and stewardship of a vision of learning that is shared and supported by the

school community.

Standard 2: advocating, nurturing, and sustaining a school culture and

instructional program conducive to student learning and staff professional

growth.

Standard 3: ensuring management of the organization, operations, and
Resources for a safe, efficient, and effective learning environment.

Standard 4: collaborating with families and community members,
responding to diverse community interests and needs, and mobilizing
community resources.

Standard 5: acting with integrity, fairness and in an ethical manner.
Standard 6: understanding, responding to, and inﬂuencing the larger

political, social, economic, legal, and cultural context.

(The full context of the ISLLC standards, downloaded from the Council of Chief State
School Ofﬁcers’ website, is found in Appendix D)

While much of the principal’s work is learned “on the job,” principal preparation
programs can provide opportunities to learn about issues surrounding the principalship
and teach a body of knowledge that serves as a basis for future learning and decision-

making. It is impossible to fully prepare the principal for the specific realities of the day-

152

to-day work. Some believe certain traits set the best leaders apart: visionary, good
listener, risk taker, positive, loyal, collaborative, diplomatic, supportive, progressive,
well-organized, good communication skills, passionate, ethical, hard-working, dedicated,
patient, strategic thinker, understands change, resilient. Few of these are learned traits,
and certainly the spontaneous decision-making called for in their application cannot be
learned.

At the 2001 NASSP conference, Marc Tucker, President of the National Center
on Education and the Economy in Washington, DC, outlined “A New Approach to
Training the Next Generation of School Leaders.” The convention program described the
session:

In the fall of 1999, Carnegie Corporation of New York, the
New Schools Venture Fund, and the Broad Foundation asked
the National Center on Education and the Economy to design
a new national institution to train school principals. At this
session, the project directors will present their ambitious design
for a dramatic new approach to the professional development of

school principals and describe the impressive array of resources
being marshaled to implement that design.

(1)- 64)
This ambitious design, according to Tucker, is not meant to be in competition with
graduate schools of educational leadership. Rather, it requires a school district to send a
team of three practicing administrators, preferably in their ﬁrst ﬁve years of practice, one
or two people from the district’s Human Resources department, and a professor or two
from a local college or university’s department of education. This team would spend four
weeks in two consecutive summers at the headquarters in Washington, DC, and return

for three 3-day workshops each year. In addition, team members would participate in six

153

three-hour sessions during the school year, most likely in some web-based or distance
learning activity. The NCEE staff would make two on-site, two-day visits.
The pedagogy is problem-based, and incorporates case studies, simulations, action
learning and web-based interactive learning. The program’s design has drawn from
models in business, the military, and the ministry. Organization is in study groups, or
cohorts, and employs self-directed learning, tutorial assistance, and constant feedback
from coaches. The vision of the program is to create a “cascading community of
learners.” (session notes) The cohort that goes through this program is trained for the
coaching role, and can then mentor other administrators who go through an abbreviated
program. In this way, administrators in a district go through an intensive training and
emerge with a shared approach to school leadership, which would then (in an ideal
world) serve to unify the teaching staff in meeting goals of increased student
achievement.
The program is arranged in four series:
Series 1: Short Series: Educational Challenge; Principal as Strategic
Thinker; Principal as School Designer (not School Keeper); Standards-
Based Instructional Systems

Series H: Focus on Teaching and Learning: From Learning Theory to
Classroom Practice; Leadership for Excellence in Literacy; Leadership
for Excellence in Mathematics; Coaching in Classroom Supervision

Series III. Developing Capacity and Commitment: Principal as Creator of

Culture; Principal as Team Builder; Principal as Moral Leader; Principal

as Motivator

Series IV: Driving for Results: Principal as Decision-Maker; Principal as
Driver of Change; Principal as Driver for Results

154

What this ambitious program did not address, at least in the session, is the
enormous cost involved in sending four or ﬁve school employees to Washington, DC.
for four weeks. Scarce resources is one of the constraints that principals constantly
balance. Unlike business, the military or the ministry, schools are still, just as they were
in 1913 (see p. 67) hard-pressed to spend tens of thousands of dollars on the professional
development of their leaders. A session like the one Tucker described would be difficult,
if not impossible, for a district to finance or to justify to those who believe they are
footing the bill.

But the time has come, on the cusp of the new millennium, to consider the new
realities for school principals. Gerald Tirozzi (2001) writes:

The political environment, the shortage of highly qualiﬁed
candidates desiring to become principals, and the call for
increased accountability have provided a window of
opportunity for advocates of school leadership. The level
of effort dedicated to filling these roles with well-qualiﬁed
principals will determine the status of school leaders in
school reform—either as a cadre of collective leadership

genius or as the managers of a process that leads to more

of the same.
(p. 439)

155

Summary of the Historical Perspective and Current Expectations

The purpose of the study is to describe and explain the small town secondary
principal’s perception of the role at the start of the 21S‘ century. The role of the principal
is inﬂuenced as much by its history as it is by pressures external to the setting in which it
exists. This segment of the study has attempted to depict the evolution of the role of the
secondary principal from the late 18008 to the present. In this historical overview, the
discussion has been framed by metaphors of the principalship in each decade, and a
review of the literature has supported the metaphors in topic, if not in orientation.

The metaphors have pointed up a diversity of images of the principalship, and the
literature reveals a cumulative deﬁnition of the role. The ideal of the spiritual leader of
the 19203 echoes in the 19408 view of the principal as soldier and democratic leader and
in the person among persons in the community of the 19908. In the aftermath of the
September 11‘”, 2001 national tragedy, a new and even more commanding metaphorical
description of the principalship may emerge. The business/industry orientation of the
ﬁrst decade reappears in the 19308, again in the 19508, and yet again in the 19808. The
principles of Scientiﬁc Management, although more focused on industrial application,
provided the framework for the theoretical, science-of—administration orientation of the
19508. Response to rapid industrialization in the first decade, the social unrest of the
19608, and the educational crises of the 19808 brought out administrators’ best efforts at
centralization and rnicro-managing. Bureaucracy took hold, ﬂourished, and remains
today as the undergirding of educational institutions. Educational leaders were portrayed

as community leaders in the 19708, when they added the role of public relations expert to

156

their repertoire. Instructional leadership dominated the lexicon in the 19808; as the 19908
closed, litigation and school safety were dominant concerns.

Beginning with Brown vs. Board of Education in 1954, court decisions and
federal laws and initiatives have had significant effects on the work of administrators.
The end of segregation, the introduction of collective bargaining into the teaching ranks
in the mid-19608, and the passage of equal opportunity laws changed the face of public
school administration. So did the passage of special education laws at the federal and
state levels and the recession in the 19708. High rates of inﬂation led to severe limits on
school spending.

The Baby Boomers made themselves known in the 19808, and the focus was
ﬁnally on academic excellence. The senior George Bush wanted to be known and
remembered as “the education President.” Business once again expressed concern for
education, but this time, the focus was not on the nuts and bolts efﬁciency but on the
preparation of individuals for their future, and the future of the country in a global
marketplace. This concern did not diminish in the 19908; the business/organizational
model still provides a powerful thrust in providing solutions to educational issues.

Coalitions and constituents have been, are, and probably always will be the
undergirding of public education, and the fact that this is true shapes the work of the
public school administrator. Principals have to balance the managerial aspects of running
a school with overseeing what goes on in classrooms. Except in a facilitative sense, the
role of instructional leader is not, has never been, and probably will never be seen as
comprising the major part of what school administrators do. As Cusick (1992, p. 228)

points out, principals co-ordinate what is going on, and oversee the setting in which it is

157

happening. The decisions about what happens within the school setting are made, or
forced, by special interest groups, coalitions, and markets outside the school.

The purpose of the study is to describe and explain today’s small town secondary
principal’s perception of his role. What were the perceptions of the principal’s role upon
entering the job? What are his perceptions of the district’s expectations of him in the
role? What are his perceptions of the teachers’ expectations of him in his role? Student
expectations? What are his perceptions of community expectations?

By placing these principals’ stated perceptions into the framework of role and
systems theory and looking at them in the context of the historical perspective, further

understanding will be added.

158

SMALL TOWN SECONDARY PRINCIPALS
THEIR PERCEPT IONS OF THE ROLE
2000-2001

Volume II
By

Mary Elaine Kazmark Stephen

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Department of Educational Administration

2002

Chapter III

Methodology

Part I

Theory of the Method

Perception

The purpose of the study is to describe and explain today’s small-town secondary
principal’s view of the role. Everhart (1983), in speaking of the need to examine
students’ experience from their perception, states, “We need to understand the life of the
student from the perspective of the student, rather than from the perspective of someone
studying them. Understand it as they live it. Then it can be understood as a process,
rather than as a study of an objective product” (p. 20). The same can be said of
principals, or of any other group within a school setting. It is their perception, their
conscious awareness of their experience, which gives them their perspective, or point of
view, about their work and their environment and which thus governs their actions.
Homans (1967) describes the effects of perception on behavior as grounded in behavioral
psychology. The actor engages in action in response to certain conditions, which in the
past have led to a positive outcome (reward). The recurrence of the response under
Similar conditions is what Homans terms a “rational choice model.” The individual

Chooses a “course of action which he perceives as a way to a valued reward” (p. 37).
Cusick (unpublished class notes, 1991) describes perception as “our construction

Of What happens to us, our interpretation of stimuli, and our ensuing belief regarding the

159

expected response.” Perspective, he states, is a useful construct for thinking about
people’s perceptions, the meaning they give to events. He quotes Tamotsu Shibutani’s
deﬁnition of perspective: “an ordered view of one’s world; what is taken for granted
about the attributes of various objects, events and human nature. It is an order of things
remembered and expected as well as actually perceived, an organized conception of what
is plausible and what is possible” (from Tamotsu Shibutani, 1967).

Meehan (1968) presents “rules” that are used to organize human perception:

They are human creations, not natural entities
They identify the entities we think about
They classify entities into related sets

They relate entities

They deﬁne attributes

In short, they organize experience (p. 35).

Since the purpose of the study is to describe and explain principals’ perceptions, a
research method must be used which addresses the meaning principals attach to their
work and which allows that meaning to be revealed. Cusick (1983) points out that “the
job of the researcher is to select a method. . . .compatible with the logic of the question”
(p. 131). Homans (1967) writes, “In social science, principles do not have to be
discovered, but rather recognized for what they are” (p. 73). The goal of this research is
not to discover fundamental principles, or to uncover cause and effect relationships. It is
not possible to separate or manipulate variables that are inherent in the work of the small
town secondary principal; indeed, it is hardly possible to even identify them all. The
purpose is to characterize the work of the principal as he or she sees it, as it is to that
individual. The researcher has to take things as they are, analyze them, and try to make

sense of them and present them in a way that will make sense to others. The goal in the

160

presentation and analysis is not to quantify, or to transform collected data into numerical
form. The goal is to describe and explain.

For these reasons, quantitative research was not thought to be the logical method
for exploring the questions of role expectations, role relationships, and external factors
impacting the work of principals. Merriam (1988) describes the traditional, or scientiﬁc
research paradigm as one for which “there is a single, objective reality” explained by
speciﬁc laws. The nature of the reality remains constant (p. 16). There is an interest in
prediction and control (Eisner, 1981, p. 8).

There are multiple social realities. The world is not objective, but rather a
function of one’s individual response to perception, to the ideas one constructs and
applies in diverse circumstances. Social science research explicates. It is “heuristic, not
algorithmic” (p. 8). Therefore, qualitative traditions were explored for a philosophical

approach and a method which would best enable this inquiry.

Selection and Theory of the Megrpg

Qualitative research draws from many disciplines, including psychology, social
psychology, sociology, and anthropology. Each in some way informs qualitative
research, and in some research situations, such as this one, multiple disciplines inform it.
Role and systems theories, the foundations of the theoretical framework of this study, are
based in those disciplines. Cultural and social traditions add to the complexity of that
framework. History, also, informs this research. Homans (1967) states that, in addition
to inﬂuencing its present character, “The past affects the very way in which the future

comes into being” (p. 91-92).

161

Jacob (1987), in her review of qualitative research traditions, concluded that they

“offer researchers a richer and fuller understanding of education” (p. 38). Eisner (1981)
almost poetically describes an artistic, as opposed to scientiﬁc, approach to qualitative
research which creates meaning rather than discovering “true and certain knowledge,” or
“the Greek episteme” (p. 9).

Truth implies singularity and monopoly. Meaning implies

relativism and diversity. Truth is more closely wedded to

consistency and logic, meaning to diverse interpretation and

coherence. . . .Each approach to the study of educational

situations has its own unique perspective to provide. Each

sheds its own unique light on the situations that humans
seek to understand.

(p. 9)
Miles and Huberman (1994) describe natural qualitative research as that which is
designed to “capture data on the perceptions of actors isolate common themes and
expressions. . . .[and whose] main task is to explicate the ways people in particular settings
come to understand, account for, take action and otherwise manage their day-to-day
situations” (p. 6).

Bogdan and Biklen (1982) enumerate the research method traditions which give
qualitative research its “roots.” These include, among others, ﬁeld study, ethnography
(holistic and sociocultural), phenomenology, symbolic interaction, case study (including
historical organizational case study), descriptive and interpretive (p. 3). Eisner (1981)
would add “artistic” to the list as an all-encompassing category. Heck and Hallinger
(1999) identify a “research strand in the investigation of school leadership: one of them
is the study of the nature of the leader’s work, and the social construction of leadership”

(p.157).

162

This research study is rooted in all of these traditions. It is natural qualitative
research in that it sets out to capture principals’ perceptions of their roles. It is a ﬁeld
study in that the researcher gathered data in the settings in which the research subjects do
their daily work. (A subsequent section on research design will detail what the researcher
actually did.) The study is holistic ethnography in that the subjects will be described in
terms of the nature of the aggregate (Jacob, 1987). It is sociocultural ethnography in that
the impact of community values and norms on the work of the principal are explored.
Ethnographic research “selectively records certain aspects of human behavior in order to
construct explanations of that behavior in cultural terms” (Wolcott, 1973, p. xi). The
researcher pays attention to the context in which the behavior being studied occurs, and
to complex interrelationships. The emphasis is on social, rather than psychological
aspects of behavior.

It is a phenomenological study in that it explores what Durkheim (1938) refers to
as social facts, or things; the perceived role relationships that comprise the principals’
role sets and community and other external issues impacting the principal’s role are the
phenomena to be studied. Durkheim described sociological method as seeking to
describe and interpret. It is not feasible, he wrote, to separate the components of
sociological phenomenon and “thereby strip them of their proper nature.” He explained
them as so complex as to be “inhospitable to science” (p. 145). Here, Durkheim was
referring to models of scientiﬁc study which reduce the facts under investigation to their
most elemental nature. In Durkheim’s view, sociology is a science because its facts are
not reduced to their simplest form, and are thus not studied by other sciences. Social

facts are ways of acting or thinking with the peculiar characteristic of exercising a

163

coercive inﬂuence on the individual consciousness. These facts are to be treated as

9’ ‘6

“things, objects of knowledge which must be construed from observations and

experiences” (p. xliii).

This knowledge can only be explained by other social facts. Although Durkheim
believed that social phenomena are external in that they can be separated in their
treatment from mental representation, he realized that they are actualized by individuals
through their ideas, and through the application of these ideas in “diverse circumstances
involving the relations of men” (p. 27). The perception that small town secondary
principals have of their role is the phenomenon to be studied, the meaning that a group of
ordinary people construct around the events and interactions they experience in their
daily work lives. The goal is to understand from the subjects’ own point of view; thus,
“point of view” is a research construct, the careful use of which avoids distortion of the
subjects’ experience. “Reality is understood by human beings only as it is perceived”
(Bogden & Biklen, 1982, pp. 31-32).

Symbolic interaction, particularly, frames this research, since it is “a way to study
naturally occurring human behavior and perceptions” (Jacob, 1981, p. 37). Individuals
apply their perceptions in “diverse circumstances,” as suggested by Durkheim (p. 27).
Given the same environment, Durkheim postulated, each individual adapts to it according
to his own disposition and his own way. Simmel (1950) seems to have built on
Durkheim’s concept of symbolic interaction when he explains that every relationship
between individuals “gives rise to a picture of each in the other, and this picture,
obviously, interacts with the actual relation. This relation constitutes the condition under

which the conception, that each has of the other, takes this or that shape and has its truth

164

legitimated. On the other hand, the real interaction between the individuals is based upon
the pictures they acquire of one another.” The relationships individuals have with one
another are based on “reciprocal knowledge,” which in turn is based on actual relations;
both are “inextricably interwoven” (p. 309). Blumer (1962) describes his theory of
symbolic interaction as a “way to study group life” (p. 98). According to Blumer,
behavior is the result of individuals’ reﬂective interpretations of socially derived
meanings. An individual’s interactions with others are not simply reactions, but are
based on the interpretation of the others’ actions. The individual attaches meaning to the
interaction. Blumer calls this a “process of interpretation” which takes place between
stimulus and response. The purpose of this study is to describe and explain the
principals’ perceptions of their work in terms of relationships in their school communities
and larger communities. Jacob (1987) suggests that symbolic interactionists would study
“a group of individuals who share the same position in a social organization, and look at
the subjective perceptions and behavior patterns that the group members develop to adapt
to their position” (p. 36).

Each principal studied is an instance drawn from the class of small town
secondary principals. This social group is a “bounded system,” and it is the focus of the
study. The deﬁnition of a bounded system is required in case study research in order to
limit its scope. Thus, the group to be studied is limited, or bounded, by the criteria
established by the researcher, in this case, “small town” and “secondary.” Case study
research is designed to provide in-depth understanding of the phenomenon and its
meaning for those involved. Case study research provides “rich, thick description”

(Merriam, 1988, p. 27) of the phenomenon under investigation. Merriam explains

165

“thick” in this sense as an anthropological term, which completely and literally describes
the phenomenon of the bounded system and interprets the data in terms of cultural norms.
Durkheim (1938) suggests that research should be used as a supplement to
historical data. He emphasized the importance of history: “One cannot explain a social
fact of any complexity except by following its complete development” (p. 136). This
study has elements of historical organizational case study in that the historical perspective
of the literature review informs the questions and data analysis. Merriam (1988) points
out that the elements of historical research and case study often merge or overlap, and
that case study is “preferred in examining contemporary events when behavior cannot be
manipulated” (p. 8). Bogden and Biklen (1982) identify historical organizational case
study as a means of tracing the development of an organization or a group within it. It is
meant to “supplement the contemporary scene” (p. 59). They describe a group as a
“collection of people who interact, who identify with each other, and who share
experiences” (p. 59). Their career histories are organized around various positions within
an organization and their ways of thinking about them as they pass through them. In
Bogden and Biklen’s view, these ways of thinking shape their deﬁnitions of themselves
and the perspectives they have on their work. Thus, historical and career path study also
informs the study of the role of the principal in today’s small town secondary schools.

Finally, the qualitative research report is a descriptive and interpretive narrative.
A narrative of this type is the natural result of case study research that presents and
analyzes the perceptions of a group. The purpose of the study is to describe and explain,
to contribute to verstehende, Weber’s term for the broad, interpretive understanding of

human interaction. It is only through completely rendered research data that this can

166

come about. Heck and Hallinger (1999) mention Grifﬁths’ new theoretical school of
metaphor as a theory of research. It is this school which seems to have shaped the
analysis of research into the role of the principal through the 20th century presented by
Beck and Murphy (1993) in Understanding the Principalship: Metaphorical Themes
19208-19908. This perspective framed the review of literature presented in the second
chapter.

Thus, the research method selected for this study is a natural, qualitative case
study of a phenomenon. Symbolic interaction and a historical, metaphorical perspective

frame the method.

Assumptions

Certain assumptions are made when the research method and design are
established. Cusick (1983) suggests that one such assumption is that people are
reasonable, and that what they do in given situations is defensible. The researcher has an
obligation to the readers to present the situation in such a way that they can see the
abstractions of the situation through the narrative provided. In field situations, Gorden
(1980) believes that the assumption can be made that people are friendly, rather than
hostile, and that most settings where research is done are “open,” as opposed to closed, to
the researcher (p. 129).

Eisner (1981) believes that “methodological pluralism” (p. 9) is the best way to
approach research. The researcher is going to use whatever method gets him to his
ultimate aim. The qualitative researcher is going to be “immersed” in the phenomenon of

interest, and the instruments used will reﬂect that. In qualitative research, the researcher

167

is the main instrument of measurement. The researcher assumes that ambiguity is the
order of the day. Sensitivity to information and to the situation, especially as it pertains
to researcher or subject biases, is assumed. So is the ability to communicate well,
including the capacity to listen.

In qualitative research, reality is socially constructed through the individual’s and
the bounded group’s collective definition of the situation. Shared cultural meaning and
shared rules and norms by members of the bounded group are assumed. Research is
based on a phenomenological paradigm rather than the positivist one that characterizes
quantitative research. Phenomenology assumes a different method of expression and
presentation of results. The researcher, too, has a different role in qualitative than
quantitative research. In doing ﬁeld work, the researcher puts him/herself into the data
collection process. That analysis occurs simultaneously with data collection is inherently
unavoidable. Categories and abstractions are developed as research is collected, and
“grounded theory” emerges from the data: themes are identiﬁed and hypotheses might be
developed from categories as the data suggest them, and the study seeks to support or
change them as it progresses. It is thus assumed that there are no a priori hypotheses.
Data is analyzed inductively; abstractions are created as the researcher groups particulars
together. It is assumed that everything has potential signiﬁcance; no data are assumed to
be without value. Every detail is considered. It is important to the subject in his
interpretation of the situation. In a sense, nothing is extraneous. It all potentially shapes
the perspective of the subject. Durkheim (1938) instructs, “Rise to the general only after

having observed the particular in its entirety” (p. 78). He acknowledges that this is

168

impossible. Thus a system of classifying, or categorizing, is assumed to be useful, and

will be discussed further in the next section.

Research Desim

The researcher concluded that qualitative case study of a group of small town
principals using data collected from individual interviews would be the appropriate
method to systematically investigate the phenomenon. Merriam (1988) deﬁnes
qualitative case study as “an intensive, holistic description and analysis of a bounded
phenomenon such as a program, an institution, a person, a process, or a social unit.” The
end product of such a study is a “descriptive, narrative, interpretive account (p. xiv).

Small towns are deﬁned here as those having a municipality (such as a village,
town, or city and its environs) which is served by a single high school. The unit of
analysis is the principal of that school. Patton (1980) is quoted by Merriam (1988) as
deﬁning a unit of analysis as “what you want to be able to say something about at the end
of the study” (p. 94). Merriam states that, in most studies on the “educational enterprise,”
the unit of analysis is reﬂective of some aspect of it. It can be an organizational position,
and it may contain a “diverse number of instances” (p. 94). Blumer (1962) calls them
“acting units” who, through previous interactions in their particular situations, have
acquired “common understandings and deﬁnitions of how to act in this or that situation”
(p. 101). In Blumer’s view, it is not the organization that determines the acting units’

action, it is the action of other acting units with whom the acting unit being studied must

interact in his particular situation (i.e., role relationships).

169

According to Merriam (1988), in case study research in the educational ﬁeld,
“some, and occasionally all of the data are collected through interviews,” which this
author deﬁnes as a “person-to-person encounter with the researcher eliciting information
from the participant.” It is a “conversation with a purpose,” which is to gather a speciﬁc
kind of information, and to ﬁnd out what someone else is thinking about those speciﬁcs
(pp. 71-72).

Gorden (1980) describes interviewing as a “basic mode of collecting data on
human behavior.” Compared to ordinary conversation, it is “modiﬁed to maximize the
ﬂow of relevant information” (pp. 64-5). He deﬁnes structured, serni-structured, and
unstructured interviews and scheduled and non-scheduled interviews. The most
structured interviews are those in which the exact wording and order of questions asked
are determined in advance. Those with the highest degree of structure are actually an oral
form of a written survey. The interview schedule in a highly structured interview is a list
of questions, all of which are asked of respondents in the same order and using
predetermined, exact wording. The purpose of such an interview is to glean the same
information from each respondent.

A serni-structured interview is used when a certain category or type of
information is desired from each respondent. Questioning is done using an interview
guide, rather than an interview schedule. This instrument might be a list of questions, or
it might be a list of topics to guide the discussion. Exact wording and order are not
determined prior to the interview. Gorden observes that this allows the researcher to
respond to each interview situation individually, attending to the “emerging worldview of

the respondent, and to new ideas on the topic” (p. 74).

170

In an unstructured interview, there is no predetermination of either questions or
topics. The interview is entirely exploratory. The researcher uses this interview, usually
a preliminary one in the research process, to learn enough about the situation under
investigation to formulate questions appropriate for the study. Gorden points out that this
method is seldom used as the sole means of data collection.

What happens in many research situations is the combination of all three methods
of interviewing. This researcher was interested in gathering some standardized
information: What perceptions did the respondents have of the principal’s role prior to
being placed in the position? What are their perceptions of their relationships with their
various constituent groups (students, teachers, parents, superintendents and Board
members, and members of the larger community)? What major issues impinge upon their
day-to-day work as principals? In order to accomplish this, it was determined that the
same open-ended questions would be used in each interview. The questions were
designed to collect the same categories of information from a number of respondents.
From their responses, it was anticipated that categories would be established,
comparisons drawn, commonalties established. Observed differences would be due to
the respondents’ particular perceptions and/or circumstances, and not to the questions.

Scheduled interviews are those which specify that questions are asked in the same
sequence. Interviews in this study were designed to be nonscheduled; although the
researcher planned to use the same questions, she wanted to have some choice regarding
wording, order, and the use of what Gorden (1980) describes as “neutral probes” (p. 46).
These probes are techniques such as the use of silence in making sure the respondent has

no more information to offer about a topic, phrases of encouragement related to the

171

response, and questions about specifics of the topic. The researcher relates them to the
initial question in an effort to maximize the ﬂow of information about it. Gorden views
the best sequence of questions as a “natural order” (pp. 52-53), in which the questions
ﬂow easily from one topic to the next.

Just as interviews can be structured to varying degrees, so can they be scheduled
to varying degrees, depending on the purpose of the interviews. In this study there was
no need to statistically summarize the comparison of one set of responses with another,
only to describe and explain them. Therefore, a nonscheduled, serni-structured interview
format was planned, using an interview guide which includes topics related to the
research questions outlined in Chapter I (See Appendix G). Gorden (1980) emphasizes
that interviewing is a process of discovery. It uses multiple informants, and its purpose is
to gain “a new consciousness of certain qualitative aspects of a problem.” It is important
to interview more than one person, he believes, because the researcher is able to access
more details, different perspectives, and cross-check the accuracy of what respondents

are saying about the situation under investigation (pp. 51-52).

Sampling

One of the major steps in planning the research project is the selection of
participants. Who is to be questioned in the interview process of data collection? Why
were they chosen? How does the researcher get to them? These are major questions to
be answered in establishing the research design.

Gorden (1980) describes types of respondents as key informants, who give the

researcher information about the process of data collection; special respondents, who

172

occupy unique positions within the research situation and are thus able to provide the
researcher with speciﬁc information related to the objectives of the study; and
representative respondents, who, like the other respondents in the study, belong to a
certain population or category.

In qualitative case study research, the researcher identiﬁes the criteria necessary
for inclusion in the sample. Thus, in this study, the researcher had to find principals in
communities that were representative of the small town definition presented in an earlier
section. To define the ﬁeld, the researcher would contact principals of high schools in
communities in which principals were interviewed in the mid-19708, since the data
collected by another researcher will be presented and analyzed as part of the description
and explanation. One requirement of members of the sample is representativeness. Thus,
an individual who is the principal of a high school in a municipality and its environs
served by just one high school would be an instance of the case. Principals of high
schools in communities selected for the 1973 study would further deﬁne the sample.

Gorden (1980) holds that the purpose of selecting the appropriate respondents is
to maximize the ﬂow of relevant information. In order to do 80, four questions must be
asked:

Who has the relevant information?

Who is physically and socially accessible?

Of those having information, who is most willing to give it?
Who is most able to give an accurate accounting of the relevant
information?

(p. 147)
In this light, each respondent is what Cusick (unpublished class notes, 1991) describes as
an “explanator.” The respondent is adding to the body of information sought about a

certain topic. In a study in which this is the purpose, random sampling is not necessary.

173

Random sampling allows the researcher to state statistically the probability that an
instance of the case will be included in the sample. It thus allows the researcher to
generalize to the larger population. This is also referred to as probability sampling.
Qualitative case study research does not require probability sampling and, in fact, cannot
utilize it, since there is no way, according to Merriam (1988), of estimating the
probability of inclusion of a case in the sample, or to assure that every instance of the
case has a chance of being included. In non-probability sampling, it is only necessary
that the participant is an instance of the case. The purpose of the study is not to
generalize; it is to describe and explain. When a participant meets the criteria set by the
researcher, s/he becomes an instance of the case, one who can contribute to the body of
information sought. Accessability, willingness, and the ability to provide information are
criteria which can be evaluated by the researcher only after an attempt is made to include
a prospective subject in the study.

Sampling in this study is purposive, which Merriam describes as a “sample from
which you can learn the most.” The idea behind this sampling is not to ﬁnd an
“average” opinion, but the opinion of those having speciﬁc experience relative to the
problem under investigation (pp. 47-48).

Theoretical sampling is also a technique that will be utilized in this study.

Theoretical sampling is the process of data collection for
generating whereby the analyst jointly collects, codes,

and analyzes his data and decides what data to collect next
and where to ﬁnd them, in order to develop his theory as it
emerges. This process of data collection is controlled by

emerging theory, whether substantive or formal.
(Glaser & Strauss, 1967, p. 105)

174

The basic questions are, “What’s next?’ and, “Why?” The answers to these questions are
based on the data collected, and not by what Glaser and Strauss call “a preconceived
theoretical framewor ” (p. 105) of hypotheses. The early data collection is based on the
researcher’s perspective of the problem and the questions driving the research.
Subsequently, data collection is driven by what the researcher is ﬁnding out, and by
whether and how those discoveries need to be reinforced or refuted.

Glaser and Strauss also argue that theoretical sampling can be done with
previously collected data, although it requires “a large mass of data” (p. 114). The
transcriptions of interviews conducted in 1973 number 324 typed pages, and thus afford
the opportunity to develop “theory of some density” (p. 114) based on categories and
properties evident in that mass of data. In Glaser and Strauss’ terms, this “amounts to
collecting data from collected data” and then going to “other groups to ﬁnd additional,
relevant, comparative data” (p. 114). In this study, the “other groups” were today’s
principals in several of the same communities.

The researcher was open to this method of sampling the current population,
whereby sampling would be done in conjunction with data collection. In this study, it
was anticipated that grounded theory would guide the research and that categories of data
might emerge from what was collected, which would then guide subsequent data
collection. Thus, although the plan called for certain principals to be contacted and
interviewed based on the earlier data collection, in so doing, if other instances of the case
were identiﬁed, or other important topics of questioning became apparent, the researcher

would pursue them in order to investigate emerging theory.

175

Researcher Responsibilities

The researcher followed the Michigan State University Committee’s requirements
for Research Involving Human Subjects (UCRIHS), including the use of informed
consent and assurance of protection of privacy to the maximum extent allowable by law.

This is just a part of the researcher’s responsibility in the research process. As an
interviewer, the researcher must be sensitive to the meaning the respondent gives to the
information being provided, and must be capable of developing the sort of relationship
with the respondent which will maximize the ﬂow of information. This is
operationalized in the interviewer’s accepting, non-judgmental and appropriately
encouraging attitude toward the respondent and the information being provided. The
researcher must be able to communicate a shared understanding of the respondent and
his/her situation in order to phrase questions in such a way that the respondent wants to
answer them. Eisner (1981) characterizes the researcher as an important part of the
communication process. He points out the fact that in scientiﬁc research, the personality
of the researcher is “neutralized” (p. 7). In presenting research from the artistic
perspective, however, the researcher’s personality is “a signiﬁcant part of the content of
the communication” (p. 7).

In addition to obtaining information, the researcher must clearly communicate the
study’s purpose and the need for the interview to the participant. Questions, too, must be
clearly communicated, and must be seen by the participant as related to the purpose. In
the interview setting, the researcher must be able to correct the respondent’s
misunderstandings of questions and use both verbal and nonverbal techniques to

encourage the respondent to provide information. The researcher must be able to identify

176

and appropriately respond to potential inhibitors to communication and detect resistance
to or inaccuracy in response. S/he must not be regarded as pressuring the respondent, and
must be ready to modify as the interview situation warrants by exercising topic control
and putting the subject at ease. In the presentation and analysis of data, the researcher

must make every attempt to be unbiased and objective.

Validity, Reliability and Generalizability

In order to present data in the most accurate manner possible, the researcher tape
recorded interviews with the principals in the sample. Bogden and Biklen (1982) point
out the heavy reliance on the researcher as the instrument of data collection. In the
interview process, it is important for the researcher to be able to fully attend to the
respondent, without the distraction to either researcher or respondent of taking
comprehensive notes which capture every nuance of the interview, if that can even be
thought to be accomplished. Thus, this part of the research design is seen to be directly
related to the study’s validity and reliability.

Validity is deﬁned by Gorden (1980) as the “extent to which data conform to
fact” (p. 39). In other words, do the data capture the reality of the situation under
investigation? In scientific research, validity is assured in the random sampling process
and in the demonstrations of the reliability of the instrument: Does it measure what it is
supposed to, and would another researcher using the same instrument come up with the
same results?

In qualitative research, validity has to be viewed from a different perspective,

since sampling is not based on statistical procedures and the research instrument is not

177

testable in scientific terms. Merriam (1988) offers some different questions to ask
regarding validity, based on the concept of the extent to which the researcher can trust the
study’s ﬁndings. First, she deﬁnes internal validity in terms of the interpretation of the
what the investigator experiences, instead of a literal matching of reality. In qualitative
research, the research setting is often difﬁcult to describe with scientific accuracy.
Merriam suggests this alternative question: Would the participant agree with the
researcher’s rendering of his perspective (p. 166)? Eisner (1981) would say that validity
is determined by the reader’s view of the study’s credibility: Does it conform to the
reader’s experience? Becker (1958) points out that the problem of analysis is to make a
“coherent presentation of conclusions which convinces others of their validity” (p.399).

One strategy identiﬁed by Merriam (1988) for ensuring internal validity is peer
examination, which calls for colleagues to comment on ﬁndings as they emerge. The
researcher shared findings with the primary investigator named in the Michigan State
UCRIHS application in an effort to validate them. Gorden (1980) concurs with Merriam
on the need to use methods of data analysis and interpretation which take bias into
account in an effort to address the issue of validity.

Merriam (1988) holds that there is no universal way of guaranteeing validity in
qualitative research. There are only “notions of it What m true is more important
than what i_s true The researcher is interested in perspectives rather than the truth per
se.” It is the researcher’s obligation to present an “honest rendering of how informants
actually view themselves and their experiences” (p. 167). Cusick (unpublished class
notes, 1991) points out that the researcher doesn’t know if the data collected is truthful;

the question to ask is, “18 it plausible?”

178

Eisner (1981) offers the view that the utility of validity “is determined by the
extent to which it informs What one seeks is illumination and penetration. The proof
of the pudding is the way in which it shapes our conception of the world or some aspect
of it.” (p. 6)

The expectation that experimental findings can be replicated is based on the belief
that there is a single reality, and on what Merriam refers to as the “positivist view” that
speciﬁc behavior is governed by universal laws (p. 170). Qualitative research does not
seek to isolate such laws. Instead, as this study does, it “seeks to describe and explain the
world as those in the world interpret it” (p. 170). There are multiple interpretations and,
therefore, no benchmark upon which to even attempt to replicate ﬁndings and establish
relationships (p. 170). Merriam discusses the contention that it is impossible to have
internal validity without reliability. Therefore, according to some researchers, if internal
validity is demonstrated, reliability is demonstrated. Repeated observations in the same
study producing the same results indicate reliability.

As with validity, reliability can be seen to lie with the reader. Cusick asks: “Does
it happen again and again?” (unpublished class notes, 1991). Merriam (1988) suggests
that reliability should actually be thought of in terms of “dependability and constancy of
results obtained from data.” Rather than the requirement that outsiders obtain the same
results, the question should be, “Does it make sense to outsiders?” (p. 172) To ensure
sense-making, the researcher must explain relevant assumptions and theory, any bias
regarding the group being studied, the basis of selection of the participants and a

description of them, and the social context from which the data are collected. Although

179

Merriam believes triangulation (the use of other research instruments which produce the
same results) strengthens reliability, another means is to establish an “audit trail.”

In order to accomplish this, the researcher must describe how and where data were
collected, how categories were devised from the research, and how decisions were made
throughout the inquiry. The methods description should be an “operating manual to
replicate the study” (p. 172).

Even with these measures, Merriam (1988) believes that achieving reliability in
studies related to education is impossible because replication will never yield the same
results. She cites several reasons: education is in a state of ﬂux; it is multi-faceted; it is
highly contextual; the information collected is a function of who gives it and how skilled
the researcher is in collecting it; the emergent design of qualitative research precludes
the a priori controls that would lend themselves to replication by another researcher;
several interpretations of the same data could be made (pp. 171-72). Bogden and Biklen
(1982) conclude that this complexity requires that the goal should be to limit researcher
bias, not eliminate it. The researcher will always be confronted by subjectivity (p. 42).
Merriam believes that the best way to approach the issues of validity and reliability in
qualitative research in education is through “careful attention to a study’s
conceptualization and the way in which the data [are] collected, analyzed, and
interpreted” (p. 165).

The study’s purpose was not to generalize or to test hypotheses. The goal is to
conceptualize the view that principals have of their role. The sample studied is a group
of principals from communities whose principals were interviewed in 1973 for the

purpose of ﬁnding commonalties in their perceptions of their work as it related to their

180

school communities’ expectations of them. It was anticipated that no principal
interviewed for this study would be the same individual who occupied the position in that
community in 1973. The goal was not to solve problems that these principals face in
their work, but rather to illuminate them, “to unravel and explain [their]complexity. . . .so
that others who share similar circumstances may ﬁnd ways to express and understand
their world” (Cusick, 1983, p. 143). This goal pertains to Parsons’ (Mayhew, 1982)
observation that not everything in the world can be explained scientiﬁcally; there is a
“state of affairs outside the realm of empirical observability” which is very real to those
in it and which represents “transcendental ends” in terms of their relationships (p. 83).
Merriam (1988) advises some “reconceptualizations of generalizability.” Instead
of hypotheses, researchers should focus on perspectives. In studying the particular,
“concrete” universals can be discovered, rather than abstract ones. The general can be
found in the particular (p. 174). Cusick (1983) quotes Max Weber: “In the cultural
sciences, the knowledge of the universal and general is never valuable in itself” (p. 133).
Instead, speciﬁc information about speciﬁc sites, or instances of the case, is what
communicates the real world. Cusick holds that “men are more alike than they are
different, and what is reasonable behavior for one human being in a given situation will,
at least in some way, be reasonable behavior for others given the same situation”
(unpublished class notes, 1991). It is up to the researcher to present information about
speciﬁc sites in enough detail that the reader finds it intelligible and applicable to his or
her own experience. In this study, if readers who are familiar with the work of the
principal in the small town high school ﬁnd that the descriptions presented herein are

similar to their experience, then, according to Cusick (1983), “some level of

181

generalizability has been reached.” “It is the obligation of the reader to determine if the
descriptions presented in the account match his experiences in similar places” (p. 134).
Merriam (1988) agrees: “Generalizability is ultimately related to what the reader is
trying to learn from the case study.” This, she goes on, is common in law and medicine.

Here is the information. You, the reader, determine how to use it (p. 176).

134113

It was this researcher’s goal to contribute to the understanding of the principalship
through this study. In working to do so, the researcher has tried to be mindful of
potential ethical dilemmas.

The researcher recognized the complexity of the interaction with each subject,
even though interviews were relatively brief in terms of research situations. It is also
acknowledged that both the researcher and the subject brought perceptions into the
interview situation that could affect both interaction and data, and, as explained in an
earlier section, the researcher recognizes her responsibility relative to that issue. It was
the researcher’s goal to act in the interview situation, and in the subsequent data
presentation and analysis, in ways that were non-judgmental, sensitive, and respectful.
Respondents have been acknowledged by the researcher as major contributors to the
knowledge base of the principalship through their thoughtful responses.

The researcher was aware that the project is guided by professional codes and
federal regulations. The researcher has used every means at her disposal to protect the
privacy and conﬁdentiality of the subjects. Procedures of informed consent were

followed. The researcher’s plan was to focus on the sample as an aggregate, using

182

individual responses only as supporting examples of categories and concepts which arose
from the data. In such instances, identifying details have been disguised or eliminated in
order to maintain subjects’ anonymity.

Every effort has been made to present data honestly, accurately and separately
from the researcher’s interpretation, which is part of the analysis and of the conclusions
drawn from the research. Deception has been scrupulously avoided in every phase of the
research and reporting process. It has been an assumption underlying this project that the
descriptions are ultimately filtered through the perceptions of the researcher, but every

effort has been made to present data accurately and formulate plausible explanations.

183

Part 11

Actual Method

The researcher began by doing extensive reading around the topic, beginning with
books written as far back as 1875 having to do with the work of school administrators.
As the project progressed, it became apparent that some way of organizing the vast
amount of material would be necessary. Beck and Murphy’s work, UnderstandinLthe
Principalship: Metaphorical Themes 19208 - 19908 (1993), which is itself a literature
review concerning the principalship, offered a way of shaping this researcher’s literature
review and a framework within which to view the data.

Reading done by the researcher included some 324 pages of typed transcriptions
of interviews done with secondary principals in 1973 as previously mentioned. Cusick
and Peters (1979) describe their sample:

Of these thirty [principals], all but one were men; their ages ranged

from twenty-eight to sixty-two, with most of them in their mid-thirties

to mid-forties. Of the thirty, twelve had been coaches, six had

been science-math teachers, one had taught agriculture and one

had come directly from the ministry. To describe the group

further, eighteen had come into their principalships from outside

the system, and eight of those had been principals in other districts.

It is also of note that these interviews were conducted in [1973],

and, in 1977, eighteen of those were still principals in the same

districts, ﬁve were principals in larger districts, two in smaller
districts, two were superintendents, and of three we have no record.

03- 23)

Interviews were taped, transcribed, and the transcriptions placed in individual folders.

This researcher read and reread them several times and analyzed them to ﬁnd themes

184

related to the work of principals at that time. This data is presented and analyzed in
Chapters IV and V of this dissertation.

Selection of the current sample was based upon the principle that being an
instance of the case made the subject eligible to be included in the sample. However, the
researcher chose to return to some of the communities where interviews were conducted
in 1973 to talk to principals. Some sites were selected based on proximity to the
researcher’s workplace. Others were selected in an attempt to accomplish geographical
diversity. All 20 of the 2000-2001 interviews were conducted in Michigan, two in
northern Michigan, four in the western part of the state, two in the south central area, four
in the center, four in the thumb area, the rest in areas from which residents could
commute to the Detroit metropolis.

The subjects in the current sample ranged in age from late 208 (one) to early 608
(two), with four in their 308, ﬁve in their 408, and eight in their 508. Eighteen of the
subjects are men; two are women. Their individual total years of principal experience
range from one year to 32 years. The ﬁrst year principals, of course, have had principal
experience only in the one high school, while others had spent from two to over 30 years
in their current schools. Thirteen had held the position only in their current school. Five
were leading their second building; one was leading the third, and one had been an
administrator in several districts throughout his long career. Two principals were in their
ﬁrst year in the building, three were in their second, four, in their third; two, in their
fourth; one, in the ﬁfth; two, in their sixth; one, in the ninth; three, in their tenth; one,

in the ﬁfteenth, and one had been the principal of the same school for over 25 years. The

185

combined total experience of the 20 principals at the time of the interviews was 190
years.

In addition to readings about the principalship summarized in the preceding
chapter and about the theory of the method explicated in the ﬁrst part of this one, the
researcher also read about interviewing techniques. This proved to be helpful in
preparing for the type of interview needed to gather data for this study. The interviewer
experienced some trepidation in terms of acceptance by the subjects of the importance of
the study relative to their willingness to contribute the time to participate, especially since
the researcher was acquainted with only one of the twenty subjects. However, Gorden’s
(1980) belief that the assumption can be made that people are friendly and that most
settings where research is done are “open” as opposed to closed to the researcher (p. 129)
proved to be the case. Individuals selected as subjects seemed more than willing to
participate, with the exception of one, whom the researcher did not pursue when she
concluded that his not being available when she arrived for a scheduled interview, his
canceling a second scheduled interview by leaving a message at her ofﬁce after hours,
and not responding to a message left by the researcher offering two alternate times was
indication enough that he had changed his mind about being interviewed.

The researcher added days to her regular work calendar and received permission
for necessary time away from her work as a secondary principal to complete interviews.
She made sure her administrative and ofﬁce teams were informed about and comfortable
with her absence. Days selected to be away were those when no events requiring the

researcher’s presence were scheduled.

186

The researcher began the interview process by sending the prospective subject a
letter (Appendix F) identifying herself as a secondary principal working on dissertation
research, brieﬂy describing the purpose of the study, and inviting the principal to
participate. The letter stated that the researcher would be contacting the principal by
telephone to set up a time to meet for approximately an hour to conduct a taped
interview. The letter included a statement that the principal could withdraw from the
study at any time, that conﬁdentiality and anonymity would be provided to the fullest
extent allowed by law, and that the principal would be asked to sign an informed consent
document at the time of the interview. Follow-up calls were made from one week to one
month following the mailing of the letter to set the date and time for the meeting, get
directions to the school, and answer any questions the principal had about the study. The
researcher left her telephone number and told the principal to feel free to call if that day’s
events prevented the interview from taking place. Except for the one prospective subject
who ultimately did not participate, no one rescheduled, and everyone set aside ample
time to complete the interview.

Upon arriving at the school where the interview was to be held, the researcher
announced herself to the secretary, who then let the principal know she was there. In
most cases, the principal was waiting, and ushered the researcher into his/her ofﬁce or
conference room and instructed the secretary that we would be about an hour. We were
rarely interrupted, and then only brieﬂy. In those cases, the researcher turned off the tape
recorder until the principal had finished what needed to be done.

The researcher began by reviewing the purpose of the study and answering any

questions the principal wanted to ask. The principal was told that the reason s/he had

187

been selected for inclusion was that s/he was the secondary school leader in a community
served by one high school. Further, it was explained that an interview had been
conducted with the individual who had been the principal of the school in 1973, and that
the researcher had determined this to be a way of narrowing the potential sample for the
study. It was anticipated that no principal interviewed would be the same person
interviewed in 1973. This was true in all but one case. In re-reviewing the 1973 data, the
interviewer realized that one interview had been arranged with a principal whose school
was not a part of the initial study; this was a result of the researcher’s confusing two
communities not far apart geographically and beginning with the same three letters.
Fortunately, the community was ideographically matched, and therefore was an instance
of the case: it was a small community served by one high school, and the primary
investigator and researcher both felt that the data collected fulﬁlled the criteria for
validity and reliability.

After initial introductory conversation and questions, the researcher explained that
the University required that each subject sign an informed consent document, and at this
point it was offered to the subject to read and sign (Appendix G). While s/he did so, the
researcher set the tape recorder in a location that would allow clear recording. Prior to
every interview, fresh batteries and a new tape were inserted and the recorder tested for
proper functioning. A second tape was ready to exchange in the event that the interview
lasted longer than an hour. Although the researcher had thought perhaps some subjects
would question or be put off by the tape recorder, no one seemed bothered by it. Subjects

were very patient with the tape needing to be turned over or exchanged, usually pausing

188

to continue for the moment it took to accomplish this. A few of the subjects offered
comments such as, “I remember what this was like,” or, “I know, I’ve been through this.”

Because the researcher used the earlier data as a guide to determining the
questions to be asked, preliminary, exploratory interviews to determine the topics to be
addressed were not deemed to be necessary. The use of the 1973 data began the
theoretical sampling process, whereby the researcher collected data from collected data
and used the theory that emerged to guide the 2000-2001 data collection. Categories of
questions were devised based on the 1973 data and discussed with the primary
investigator, who continually asked, “What do you want to know?” The researcher
decided to continue with a similar line of questioning, because it appeared from the
responses that principals were comfortable answering. This proved to be true. After the
ﬁrst ten interviews, the interview guide used for those (Appendix E) was revised
somewhat to elicit more detail in terms of examples which illustrated the responses, and
to get closer to the feelings principals have about the issues by which they are challenged
(Appendix H).

Merriam (1988) calls the sort of interviews carried out in this study,
“conversation[s] with a purpose,” designed to gather specific information and to learn
what someone else is thinking about those speciﬁcs (pp. 71-72). This is an apt
description of what took place. The interviews turned out to be semi-structured, with the
use of the interview guide remaining fairly consistent in format and wording (See
Appendices E and H). Questions were open-ended, often starting with a statement and
then continuing with prompts such as “Tell me about...” or “What do you think

about. . .?” Most principals had stories to tell, related observations to share, and

189

occasionally strayed from the question, but for the most part, they provided very direct
responses to the questions. Sometimes they would cover topics in response to one
question that more directly related to another topic of questioning, and the researcher
would take her cue for the progression of questioning from that. In reading the
transcriptions, it occasionally seemed as if the researcher had jumped from one area of
questioning to another, but the subjects in these instances had clearly communicated to
the researcher through body language or facial expression that s/he had completed the
response to that particular question.

Probes were rarely necessary. Occasionally the researcher used silence as a
means of encouraging the subject to continue, or a prompt such as, “Tell me more about
that,” or “How interesting,” or, “Can you give me an example?” Subjects gave very
complete responses, and seemed very willing to share their experiences. It seemed
almost, at times, that they had a need to talk.

The most difficult part of the process for the researcher was to just listen. The
topics of questioning were areas of great interest to the researcher, and in the interest of
guarding the subject’s time and maintaining the purpose of gathering data, the researcher
chose not to engage in discussion. The temptation was certainly there to do so, but the
researcher did little more in the way of responding to the subject than nod and encourage
the respondent to keep talking by way of appropriate, brief, verbal cues. Occasionally the
subject would be asked to give an example to support his response, but that was rarely
necessary. Stories and examples were forthcoming, usually simply prompted by the

question.

190

The researcher concluded each interview by asking the subject to respond to a
series of statements based on the metaphors describing the work of principals that Beck
and Murphy (1993) had identified in their extensive review of the literature surrounding
the principalship. The researcher read the statements to the first subject, asking him to
respond “agree” if the statement bore any connection whatsoever to his work as principal,
and “disagree” if it bore no connection whatsoever. The subject could make whatever
comments he wanted to as the researcher stated the theme.

This method of gathering this part of the data proved to be very awkward. The
subject seemed ready to be through with the interview, and when the researcher remarked
that he could make comments if he chose, he stated, “I’m going to try to be as brief as I
can.” The researcher, in consultation with the primary investigator, decided to present
these questions as a brief survey (Appendix J) in a true-false format that the subject
would complete while the researcher packed up materials used in the interview and
prepared to leave. This method worked well in terms of logistics of interview format and
data collection, but the true-false format proved unwieldy for a few subjects who
suggested a continuum of responses would have helped them determine how to respond.
The researcher felt in retrospect that some respondents had lost the instruction to respond
“true” if the statement had anything whatsoever to do with his or her work, and “false” if
it had nothing whatever to do with it. Overall, however, this instrument yielded some
interesting data, and interesting verbal responses from some of the subjects when they
had ﬁnished.

Upon completion of the survey, which took subjects five minutes or less, the

researcher and subject exchanged pleasantries, the researcher thanked the subject once

191

again for taking the time to participate, and offered to send a copy of the study’s
conclusions when it is completed.

Another task related to the process of gathering data was arranging for
transcribing the tapes. The researcher happened to mention to a friend that this needed to
be done; the friend related that her job at one time had been transcribing medical data.
She agreed to try; the researcher purchased a dictaphone machine for her to use, and
results of the ﬁrst tape transcription were very successful. This person did all but four of
the transcriptions; the researcher did those four. In all, 330 typed pages of transcriptions
were generated from approximately 25 hours of interviews.

The researcher believes that shared understanding of the topics being explored
was an important aspect of the interview process. The researcher was immediately
accepted by the subject, seemingly on the basis of that shared understanding. Subjects
would comment, “You know, you’re a principal,” or, “You know as well as I do that...”
Although the position taken by the researcher during the interview process was neutral
and non-judgmental, the apparent assumption on the part of the respondent of the
researcher’s understanding of the expectations of the role seemed to get each interview
off to a good start in terms of the researcher/subject relationship.

One responsibility of the interviewer is to clearly communicate the purpose of the
interview, and to correct the respondent’s misunderstandings of the purpose. In one
instance, the subject reﬂected that the responses he was giving to the researcher about his
school must have seemed to her to be very negative. The researcher reassured the subject
that the purpose was to gain a better understanding of his perceptions of his role, and not

to place him in a difﬁcult position related to his work. The researcher reiterated that the

192

data presentation and conclusions would protect his anonymity, and that information
would be presented in the aggregate.

To ensure validity, the data presentation in the next chapter will be, for all intents
and purposes, simply a setting forth of the responses. Thus, the perspective is rendered as
objectively as possible. It is a collating of participants’ responses related to a particular
topic and the deﬁnition of them in some cases by the use of individual responses as
examples, such that the participant’s perspective is presented as accurately as possible.
Another measure of validity will be the degree to which other educators who read this
study ﬁnd that its conclusions match their experience.

As transcriptions of the taped interviews were prepared, copies were made and
provided to the primary investigator, who read them and commented on them. He made
suggestions regarding subsequent lines of questioning, such as requesting that the
subjects be asked for more examples of the issues they found troublesome in their
practice. Although Merriam (1988) suggests that colleagues comment on ﬁndings as
they emerge, the researcher felt strongly that considerations of privacy and
confidentiality, especially because the principals interviewed had been so open and
honest in their responses, limited the sharing of the transcriptions to the primary
researcher. However, discussion of ﬁndings and some appropriate examples, shared in
such a way as to keep individuals anonymous, took place in cohort meetings. In those
cases, cohorts were asked, “Is this reasonable?” or, “Does that sound right?” in an effort
to establish whether the rendering of the perspectives is plausible.

The participants impressed the researcher as reasonable people who would have

no reason to misrepresent themselves. Indeed, in almost every instance, the respondents

193

shared such intensely personal and even emotionally charged experiences that the
researcher could not question the integrity of their responses.

Reliability, too, lies with the reader in evaluating qualitative research. Cusick
asks, “Does it happen again and again?” (unpublished class notes, 1991) and Merriam
(1988) suggests that reliability is determined by the “dependability and consistency of
results obtained from data” (p. 172). Time and again, in response to questions asked, the
researcher heard the same responses from principals, sometimes using the same wording.

It is true that the researcher is a principal who wanted to study principals’
perceptions of their role, but to avoid bias, she chose a group different from her work
cohort, a middle level group in a large suburban area. The sample studied was a number
of high school principals from communities where one high school, rather than the four
in her own experience, served the community. It was believed that these two factors
would create a signiﬁcant difference in the work of the principal from her own and would
alleviate bias.

The purpose of the study is to describe and explain the secondary principal’s
perceptions of the role today. The intent is to focus on perspectives, and to identify from
those perspectives some commonalties about the role. From the particular principal’s
perceptions, taken in the collective, some statements can be made which communicate
characteristics of the secondary principal’s real work. The next chapter will reveal the
abstractions, or generalizations emerging from the concrete examples presented by the

principals.

194

Chapter IV

Data Presentation

Introduction

As emphasis upon school improvement and accountability for student
performance has intensiﬁed, the role of the principal has come under increasing scrutiny.
The literature review and description of the current external perceptions of the principal’s
role presented in Chapter H provide an overview of the evolution of the principal’s role to
what it is today. The purpose of this study is to describe and explain the small town
secondary principal’s perception of the role at the start of the 21" century. The
description presented in this chapter will be drawn from data collected from interviews
with small town principals in 1973 and with principals from some of the same towns in
2000-2001. The description will be organized from the vantage points of principals
regarding certain aspects of their role which were explored based on research questions.
From these perspectives it is hoped a better understanding of the role can come about, as
the properties of its various aspects are developed.

The starting point for the description will be the presentation of the 1973 data,
followed by the 2000-2001 data. Abstractions will be drawn based on the research
questions. The researcher’s goal was to ﬁnd commonalties in the work, but it was also

anticipated that differences would have appeared in 27 years.

195

Part I

The Role of the Principal: 1973

(Note: All uncited quotes in this section are from transcriptions of interviews
conducted in 1973 by Wayne Peters, who gave the researcher these data to use in this
research project.)
Principal/Community Relationships

In 1979, Wayne Peters and Philip Cusick set out to describe the view that small
town secondary principals had of their role. Using data from interviews that Peters had
conducted in 1973, they set out to formulate a “conceptualized view of the norms that
constituted the small town principal’s role” (Cusick & Peters, p. 22). They deﬁned a
small town as an identiﬁable political entity of fewer than 15,000 people, not adjacent to
a metropolitan area, having its own school district with a single secondary school. They
believed that in small towns, the high school was “the one element in which all of the
area’s citizens [had] a common share and a common interest,” a place that gave “the only
semblance of community to a given geographical area,” and whose events were
“frequently the major source of binding community pride.” “Of course,” they go on to
say, “the high school is also the place where the conﬂicts in a community can most
clearly be seen. Conﬂicts across generations, family problems, social class differences,
varied and diverse expectations that parents have of the school and of their children all
show up in the high school. And what criminal activity that takes place in these towns is
frequently perpetrated by the adolescents so that, too, shows up in the high school.” They
stated further that they did not believe that they were “engaging in hyperbole when we
say that the high school is the most important communal element and the scene of more

conﬂicting emotions and values than any other locale in a small town” (p. 22).

196

It was left to the principal to manage this focal point of the small town. Cusick and
Peters organized their description of the role of the principal by identifying the norms that
governed the role. They defined role as “a cluster of norms,” and a norm as “a mutually
agreed upon expectation that one will behave in a certain way under certain
circumstances” (Cusick & Peters, p. 22). Their approach was to identify elements
common to all the principals they interviewed, elements about which most of the
principals interviewed agreed, and those about which the principals held mixed views.
One component that every principal interviewed expressed in some fashion was that
of working within the confines of a conservative community. Their responses to
describing their communities varied only in exemplifying the nature or degree of
conservatism. “They are conservative, but they really are for the schools.” “We are
getting a couple of elements; we have ultra conservatives and some other people [so]
maybe now we can do something curriculum wise.” “I tell my teachers that they are not
to require readings that are or perhaps would be offensive to some of our people. They
know what not to do necessarily to create problems.” “This is a small town and very
conservative. If I had a kid leave here today and walk downtown, I could very easily get
a call from the drug store saying what are you doing up there, why haven’t you got your
kids in school?” “I think we’re one of the few districts in the entire state that doesn’t
permit girls to wear slacks in school.” “The people in my community want the high
school run in an orderly manner.” “There’s only one bar in town and about eight
churches. The principal doesn’t go near the one bar in town. You drink out of town if
you are going to drink. They don’t even like to have teachers down there.” “Discipline

,9

is one of the prime things that they are interested in. “We were going to sing the three

197

songs from ‘Jesus Christ, Superstar,’ at one of our sophomore shows and the community
went up in arms when they found out about it.” “They want basic education and they
want their students to behave.” “They accept some of the current concepts of education
as frills and not necessities.” “It’s a Polish, rural, Catholic community which is very
conservative; the older Polish families feel that the girls’ place after she finishes high
school is back in the home.” “They’re conservative in terms of education. There seems
to be a high degree of value in terms of sports. We have quite a few people in our
community who have not received their high school diploma; they remain in the
community and this perpetuates the situation. We try to provide a program that they will
be able to have to graduate from high school.” “The community is very much oriented in
the German background, German values, very conservative, very custodial in their
attitude toward the children, the school and meeting of problems. They want to
perpetuate the values that they have held to all the years.” “They want their students to
conform to establishment kinds of rules in general.” “We have an Amish settlement. It is
a conservative community and there are things that would probably not go in a
community like this that other communities wouldn’t give it a second thought.” “The
people are very, very conservative. Anything that goes on in the schools usually attracts
the people because that is where their interest lies and you get a lot of feedback one way
or the other. The schools are the center of the community. The school is doing its job if
no one makes waves. I would say they would judge the effectiveness of the school more
upon if it’s a smooth tight job than if it’s a good education agency.” “I think the kids are
conservative kids.” “The community basically wants a controlled atmosphere.” “It’s

conservative. Rural, but changing. The Board and people in the community were born

198

here, raised here, lived here all their life, and they don’t really know what is going on
around them.”

Beck and Murphy (1993) see the decade of the 19708 as a time when schools
became more open to outside scrutiny and governance. A new theme for the
principalship in this decade is the principal as community leader, one who is expected to
lead persons within the larger community. The principals interviewed by Wayne Peters
saw themselves as operating in a conservative environment, and having to build the trust
necessary to convince the conservative community that what was happening in their
schools was a reﬂection of their conservative values. Many of the principals saw this
environment as restrictive and their communities as wary of what was going on in the
schools. As long as nothing happening at the high school challenged the community
norms, the principal was doing his job. Conservative, to the principals, meant a
restricting of behavior, not only as it applied to students and teachers, but also to the
principals themselves. Operationalized, it meant demonstrating to the community that
the school and everything that went on in it was of paramount importance to the
principal. He was, in a sense, setting himself forth as the guardian of community values
by being visible. “They like to see you at all the school functions.” “My day starts at
6:30 when I have to call the subs, and, since I’m athletic director, it doesn’t end until after
whatever event we have that evening.” “It’s a small town and I work here. I live at my
home and walk a straight line between those two buildings, and I don’t go downtown and
into a local bar and dance in the street. You just don’t do that and survive in a small
town.” “It seems like every night it is something I’ve got to go to as part of the job or is

part of the community involvement.” I work on hundred and eighty-two days and one

199

 

hundred and ﬁfty-two evenings.” “I have to go uptown and patrol at noontime. If the
public doesn’t see me up there, they question whether I’m doing my job.”

Not only is the school under the watchful eye of the community, so is the
principal himself. Their professional environment is restricted, and so is their personal
behavior, both in and out of school. Beck and Murphy (1993) would see this as evidence
of the challenge to principals to “view their work in the context of the larger culture as
they strive to contribute, in countless ways, to their communities” (p.146). Principals are
also expected to uphold the moral and cultural values of their communities. Although the
focus shifts through the decades, in the 19708, principals need to be concerned about “the
overall well-being of individuals and their communities” (p.146).

Principals could choose to follow the guiding principles Beck and Murphy
distilled from the literature, but the principals Peters interviewed felt they were under
constant surveillance and believed the expectations of the community were part of the
role of the principal. “My family life is about zero; I average three or four nights a week
working at school. I’m here from seven in the morning until ﬁve and back at night as a
rule.” “At home, the phone calls you get go all the way from the extreme, gross type of
words to the police department at 3:00 in the morning, ‘Come on down; the school is
open; let’s check it out,’ or from a parent, to complaints and obscene phone calls. My
family accepts it.” “It’s more of an informal thing. Like, I’ll be mowing my lawn at
home and someone drops over. There is someone in and out of my house all the time,
either some kid or some parent calling here in the evening or sometime during the day.”

Principals did not express displeasure at these demands from the community; they

did not complain that they were constantly on call in the community, or were expected to

200

 

be so visible to their watchful community. They accepted the role as including the norm
that the principal personalized and epitomized conservative community values, and was
expected to do whatever was necessary to see that the students’ behavior was directed in
such a way as to perpetuate those values. In fact, some principals even reﬂected that they
were conservative themselves, that they had come from small towns, that they had chosen
to work in these communities, and/or that they preferred to be in these small towns and
not in a larger community.

Principals were less patient with the evidence they saw that parents expected them
to take on a more parental role with their students, that parents were abdicating areas of
responsibility to the school, and speciﬁcally, to the principal. Sometimes, the parents
themselves speciﬁcally passed on the parental role to the principal. “They want me to tell
him to get a haircut.” “They call the school and want us to do something” about the fact
that the kids had a beer party. “The parents don’t want to police the attire of their kids,”
so schools have dress codes. “A girl who has never done anything wrong in her life falls
in love and takes off with some guy, [and the parents ask] ‘What in the world is
happening to my life?”’ “A lot of times we get a call, and they say, ‘Here is a problem;
what am I going to do?’ when they have some kind of crisis with their kids.” “The
parents have lost control of their kids; they want us to do it.” “Some parent comes in the
ﬁrst time he catches his kid drunk and says, ‘Hey, what have you people done with my
kid?”’ “Parents just wash their hands of their kids; they want us to do it.”

Principals seemed to accept the time demands necessary to fulﬁll their roles, but
they did express resentment at the infringement on their personal and professional time

when parents refused to fulﬁll their responsibilities as parents and expected the principal

201

to take over. “I send her kid home for smoking, and she comes in and throws up her
hands and says, ‘I don’t know what to do with him.’ We have more conﬁdence in her kid
than she does.” “They would call and say, ‘Well I’m glad you told Johnny to get a
haircut; I didn’t like his hair, but I didn’t do anything abOut it.”’ Occasionally, principals
would try to hand the responsibility back to the parent: “I told her, ‘Why don’t you call
the house where the beer party is and tell those people you don’t want your kid at a beer
party?’” “Why don’t you tell him to get a haircut?” None of the principals indicated that
these attempts had resulted in fewer conversations of this nature, or that parents
responded in such a way to indicate that they would try to regain their authority with their
children.

Principals in the 19708 were also expected to exercise their political and personal
skills to develop humane, affectively oriented schools, according to Beck and Murphy
( 1993). The way they accomplished this was by facilitating positive relations with and
between constituent groups. The preceding description of the principal’s relationships
with parents and the community at large is evidence of how the principal views his
position with those groups. The focal point of the principals’ relationships with students
and parents is directing student behavior in such a way that community values are upheld.
The principal personifies community values by being visible to the community at times
when events are happening that affirm the community’s trust in the school as a place that

reﬂects community values.

202

Superintendent/Board of Education Relationships

While principals were unanimous in characterizing their communities as
conservative, they were mixed in their assessments of supportive relationships with their
superintendents and Boards of Education. “Like a lot of small districts, they [the Board
members] are really involved in the running of the school. By involvement, I mean if
Mrs. Jones calls a Board member about her son then this kind of thing is usually brought
up at the Board meeting.” “They don’t actually want to run the school, they think I
should be held accountable for the high school but no matter what you do, you are
exposed to the community and there are so many activities I have just accepted [their
involvement].” “Board meetings in small towns are pretty much, ‘Hey, did you know so-
and-so was late for work?’ Every rumor that’s going around town you can pick up at a
Board meeting.” All of the principals expressed a high degree of involvement and
interest on the part of their Boards. “They are very concerned, very dedicated, very
conservative. On given points of view you have to consider them narrow-minded. Other
times I think they are too liberal. What they project to me is concern.”

Principals were frustrated, however, when Board members tried to run their
schools or were not consistent in dealing with them. “The Board is concerned with kids
in the halls.” “The people downtown want the kids off the streets, and they call the
Board members and they pressure me.” “I’m still on a honeymoon here and on extremely
good relations with the board, but the junior high principal has caught a lot of static. He
painted the doors of the old junior high some pretty loud colors and that wasn’t taken too
well by a couple of members.” “They gave me just a one year contract when I had been

on a two-year contract for several years. When I said “Why?’ they pointed at discipline,

203

and I said, ‘Discipline is better than it has ever been, come in and look at the records and
I can show this to you.’ Not one Board member would come in. Then they pointed out
an instance in which they thought I had made a bad decision. I had it approved by the
superintendent and I had it approved by the Board and then they held me responsible for
making the wrong decision that they had approved.” “Every once in awhile they’ll crop
up and try to encroach on the system and tell the teachers, for instance, what they should
do. At Board meetings something will be brought up, but if there is a problem, there is a
problem of communications and how and when to communicate, and this has been our
biggest problem.” “I’ve been told by my Board that I can be replaced.”

A few principals reported difﬁcult relationships with their superintendents. “His
attitude is very much custodial. His relationship to me is completely vertical. There is
really very little team effort.” “The other day the kids were selling candy in the halls. It
has been established for a number of years that this is not to be done and I didn’t know
anything about it. I traced it back to the yearbook staff. The yearbook advisor said, ‘Oh,
yes, Mr. S. approved this several months ago.’ I never knew a thing about it and yet he
held me responsible for the fact that they were selling candy during noon hour when they
shouldn’t be.” “He does yank the reins a little more often than I would like him to,
particularly when it comes to budget items.” “I let some of the administrivia, as I choose
to call it, slide for the sake of dealing with some of the more educational aspects of the
job. The only problem is, you can get ﬁred and get a lot of people mad by not attending
to simple little things like calling back on phone calls and responding to umbrage over
cheerleading tryouts, honors cords, that whole peripheral ballgame. That’s given me

some personal aggravation because he’s very sensitive to public relations, and if the word

204

gets back to him that maybe I didn’t respond quickly or in a nice manner to an irate
parent because I was working with a couple of kids that had emotional problems, might
have had an hour or so with a teacher, he will bring things like that to my attention.”
“My dealing with the superintendent is through chain of command and in fact is mostly
non-existent, except he gets panicky when a Board member gets panicky and he forgets
all about the chain of command.” “Unfortunately, his ofﬁce is here in this building, in
fact, right next door. It causes him by nature to interfere with the day to day operations at
times, and I don’t appreciate it.” “I said something to him about [not having a key to the
custodial closets] and he said, ‘Do you have a key to your ofﬁce?’ and I said, ‘Yes.’ ‘Do
you have a key to the building?’ I said, ‘Yes.’ He said, ‘That’s all you need.’ The fellow
who’s in charge of the custodians is a good friend of the superintendent.”

Most principals, however, reported good relationships with their superintendents,
stating that if they kept them informed about what was going on in the schools, the
superintendents gave them free rein to run their schools. “I think he feels I have done my
job.” “If we disagree, we sit down and talk about it. With the prior superintendent, the
teachers would have to go to the superintendent for permission without consulting with
the principal. This is one thing the superintendent should not let happen, and he has stuck
by that pretty well. After three years, the teachers know that if they want something, they
have to come to me ﬁrst.” “Whatever I want to do is o.k. with him. All he wants to
know is that I’m doing it so that if he gets a phone call, he’ll know exactly what is
happening.” “I couldn’t have better working relations than I have with the superintendent
and with the school board. I make decisions and let him know in case there might be

repercussions; other things I make decisions about and never call him. Maybe it’s

205

because from the beginning I just seized the authority and things have gone well and he
has let me go ahead and do things.” “My ﬁrst school district was rotten. I felt like a little
reporter and I’d run down and sit across the desk and report to my boss every day on
what was happening, and I resented it very strongly.” “Usually, I make the
recommendations and let him know afterwards, and I can’t think of anytime he hasn’t
backed me. He backed me all the way; it’s my high school, and I run it.”

Principals appreciated superintendents who gave them autonomy to run their
schools and the opportunity to use the superintendents as sounding boards for their ideas
and solutions to problems. They also appreciated Boards of Education who did not try to
insert themselves into the day to day operations of schools and used the chain of
command for communication and resolution of problem situations. “I know every Board
member as a friend and as a person. They feel they can call me and ask to take care of
some problem, and I will report on it at the next Board meeting. Most of the contact or
questions would be with the superintendent. If the members stepped out of the chain of
command, I and all the other principals would discourage it.” “Our Board is content not
to become involved in the operation of the school. They have faith in the administrators
and are happy to accept our recommendations.” “You have to be prepared to answer
some pretty tough questions. If you can sell them on why you want to do this or what it
will do, you will probably get it.” “Once in a while a person called a Board member and
he called the superintendent and he called me, so I took care of [the situation]. It is just a
matter of keeping them abreast of everything.”

The principals interviewed in 1973 expressed their desire to have autonomy in

their work and to have positive working relationships with their superintendents and

206

Boards of Education. They wanted to have a clearly established chain of command as it
pertained to the Board of Education, superintendent and principal communication system.
They were willing to accept their superintendents as their superiors if they were informed
about the decisions they made. The principals wanted the trust of their Boards and their
superintendents that would allow them to make decisions pertaining to their schools and
would result in Boards and superintendents accepting and endorsing recommendations
they made concerning their schools. They wanted to have the sort of collegial
relationship with their superintendents that would invite discourse rather than

intervention.

Staff Relationships

Teacher relationships comprise another signiﬁcant segment of the principal’s set
of role relationships. The principals interviewed in 1973 described varying relationships
with their teachers. Many principals expressed their frustration at being asked to handle
disciplinary problems for the teachers that they believed the teachers should have handled
themselves, or that they believed the teachers had created through mishandling of their
own relationships with their students. “I wish I could get them to handle their problems.
I feel half the problems that are sent here could be handled by the teacher. In fact, I have
sent a couple back — not the youngster back to the teacher, but I’d drop notes in their
boxes and tell them I would like a record of how they tried to handle this because it’s
their job, not mine.” “You have to be supportive of staff members, yet staff members at
times are so stupid, they back themselves into comers and I tell them, ‘Don’t back

yourself into the comer, because if you tell that kid the next time he spits on the ﬂoor

207

he’s going to be out of school, then you’d better be sure you have the authority to put him
out of school.”’ “I get the impression that they (the teachers) say, ‘Well, I’m not going to
take care of it; let the principal take care of it, like discipline; send them all up to him.”’
The principal perceives that some teachers think of him as the disciplinarian so they can
be the “good guys.”

Principals in 1973 seldom communicated a perception of a cohesive staff. They
tended to separate their faculties into groups, such as the “conservative teachers,” “the
radicals,” “the mercenaries” (those who just drive in for the money), “the older faction.”
Sometimes they characterized staff members by their individual positions, such as “the
football coach,” “the band director,” “the drama coach,” “the science teacher.” They
attributed these individuals or groups with characteristics such as excellence, mediocrity,
sluggishness, or recalcitrance. “My cantankerous band director,” “weak links,” “doers”
were terms used by the principals to describe them. “I have the whole spectrum, from the
excellent teacher to the one I’d like to see out of teaching.” As they talked about the
individuals and groups on their staffs, it was apparent that the principals saw their schools
not as entities, but as places made up of “diverse and isolated people and groups”

(Cusick & Peters, p. 31) engaging in equally diverse activities. The principals viewed
themselves as trying to keep the peace, to “keep the harmony of my staf ,” as one
principal expressed it. In order to deal with this diversity, the principals developed
diverse strategies and behaviors.

“Well, I work with them in small groups. I very seldom have a school wide
faculty meeting; I meet by departments and I try to work with them at the departmental

level, those individuals who are really bucking it; I’ll call them in and have a private

208

H

conversation. “The groups are ﬂuid; there are a number of individuals that have been in
the system a long time that harbor resentment and old wounds do not seem to heal over.”
“We have little pockets of cooperation here and there.” “There are a few I would say that
are somewhat removed from reality. I’ve got quite a few who have a deﬁnite impact; but
in the English department, if I could just get to one of them, I could do things with that
department.” “I think you have to use diplomacy on some people. I probably have one
on my staff that the board, superintendent and everyone knows that the only person who
can handle her is me.” “Some bought it [a new program], some didn’t; it depends on the
initiative of the particular teacher. I hate to use the word ‘professionalism,’ but I found
my older teachers bought it most easily.” “I would say that about 80% of them are ﬁne;
20% bother me sometimes because I think they are teaching for nothing but the money.
One of the things that irritates me is that at 3:00 they are standing at the door ready to run
out. You ask them to do anything extra at all, assisting or so on, and a segment of them
gets upset.” “There’s a certain group of people on the bottom of the staff that I would
like to replace, but I have to live with these people.” “The younger members are usually
receptive to new ideas. The older staff members, older in the sense that they have maybe
had 8-10 years of experience, have a tendency to be a little more critical and, ‘Oh, hell,
that’s been tried before and here you’re going to try the same thing again.” “I think you
have to come at them a whole lot of different ways.” “If there is something that I really
want him to do and I think he will balk, I simply say it’s an order and it’s going to be
done that way and you have no choice and he’ll do it because he is a very professional
person. With others, it just takes a little bit of constant prodding and kidding. With those

who I feel are the teachers that I count on, it simply takes a statement that this is the way

209

this will be done.” “They are very receptive [to something new] if it is presented in a
manner that they feel they have a little bit to do about implementing the thing.” “They
know when I say something, I mean it. They also know if I ask them to do something,
they better do it. I do get compliance.” “You get different people moving in different
ways. Usually when I get into something new, I try and make a presentation or show a
film; maybe I’ll write a paper on it to present for their reaction. I start out by asking them
to think about something and then follow it up by asking if there is any reaction to this.
Sometimes in the meantime, I’ll go in and talk to individual people. When I come around
and ask individual questions or bring it up two meetings later, when they see that I’m
going to move ahead on something, they say, o.k., he means it, so we better start reading
this.” “First of all, I do a little lobbying with individuals and talking with them, and I
guess my main objective would be to get them to think it was their idea in the ﬁrst place.”
“I usually feel other people out and toss it out to them and ask them how they feel about
it and get their feedback before we go to a departmental representative meeting. Then
most of your department representatives have already had some time to think about the
situation, they have had time to talk with other teachers and when they come to the
meeting, they will have thought it through fairly well.” The principal has to use his skills
of diplomacy and strategic planning in dealing with the diverse elements of his staff.

The diversity extends to the ways in which the staff regards the principal. Their
expectations are just as diverse as they are. Principals say, “They see a lot of things that
the principal should be, I guess. I’m sure they would feel this person has a great deal to
do with curriculum and the organization. They think I should be an evaluator, control the

building, control staff and students. If someone is out of line, they think I should step

210

in.” “I don’t think the good Lord Himself could come down here and make everybody
happy. And, of course, I don’t come down here to win a popularity contest. I didn’t
come here to be a good Joe and that’s part of the price you pay as an administrator.” The
principal of the 19708, in Beck and Murphy’s (1993) metaphorical framework, juggles
multiple role conceptions; these are the principals’ perceptions of how others view him in
his role.

The principal appears to be an individual who feels compelled to “develop a
variety of methods to approach and deal with a diverse, somewhat isolated and usually
tenured staff” (Cusick & Peters, p. 32). This is borne out in the principals’ descriptions
of their attempts to implement new ideas in their schools. They see themselves as
responsible for moving their schools ahead, but they recognize the complexity of the
process to bring this about. They must move slowly and carefully. “The ﬁrst biggest
thing I’ve got to do is get myself fully informed and really convinced. If I’m not fully
convinced on it or even been able to start challenging myself with questions, I’m not
going to be able to convince anyone else. And then I start working with some people just
in general discussion, what they think about it, and when you can tell you have certain
individuals that do see some value and aren’t afraid to work, you have to hand pick a few,
then that person can also start touching another person. It has to be a time process; you
can’t expect it to happen overnight.” “They are not highly motivated to do things
themselves and yet they are quick to go along to do things they are asked to do.” “The
only way they are going to get a fresh view or get anything done is if I can take the time
and spend it working with the staff and educating them as to what some of the beneﬁts

might be for us.” “You more or less have to feel your way with each individual. Usually

211

the old timers have their own way of doing things and if they are getting results, even if I
don’t approve of their method of teaching, I can see no reason for my stepping in and
telling them what to do . . . I’d rather make suggestions and discuss the matter with
them.” I think what I try to do is to be humanistic in my approach to all individuals and
recognize each individual’s differences. . . It’s difﬁcult, though, to get at the total staff, a
unified front for a common goal. . . I can work a little stronger individually, so I approach
it that way.” “People will do things under pressure, I guess, with as little cooperation as
possible and you might get the task completed but they certainly wouldn’t have their
heart in it and you probably wouldn’t get the kind of results that you would really be
after.” “When you are trying to get something through, you have to kind of know the
staff . . . I could pick about four people and find out what way they are going to go — I
don’t have any problems. So you pretty much have that set up.” “I can bring staff in on a
one-to-one basis, and it’s a beautiful relationship. I can talk to them on a departmental
basis and have a good relationship and get nice interchange and ideas kicking back and
forth and so on. I can talk to them as a total staff and have 27-28 stone faces staring at
me. I just never have been quite able to ﬁgure the thing out.” “One of the problems I’ve
run into is that they are not always willing to communicate their ideas. They tend to sit
back and rather than contributing such that we come up with a philosophy of action that
they may feel more willing to support, they tend to sit back and just let it happen.” “First
of all, I’d do a little lobbying with individuals and talking with them, and I guess my
main objective would be to get them to think it was their idea in the first place.” “I hate
to admit it, but I manipulate people. I have one person in particular who exerts a lot of

leadership and quite frankly, I manipulate him.” “ On most occasions before we make

212

any decisions, we get a feel for it first and try to gain some kind of co-existence before
we come out with an announcement of the decision . . . occasionally we strike out and
have to start over again.” The principal in 1973, then, could govern only with the consent
of the governed. His inﬂuence was based on his interpersonal skills as they were borne
out in the personable, dependable personiﬁcation of community values. The principal

saw his role as monitoring and managing diverse groups in order to effect change.

Student Relationships

Although the principals interviewed in 1973 cared deeply about students, most
saw themselves as being removed from much interaction with them outside of
disciplinary situations or those dealing with procedural problems. They wished they
could do more for students. “I look at the average C student and the average all around
good kid; when you say good kid he causes no problem in school and makes an adequate
attempt to do his studies, he has adequate intelligence - we don’t do a damn thing for
him. The only time we do anything for him is when he does something bad, or where he
is going to be a valedictorian or a top A student or generally excel as an athlete.” This
same principal tried to get his faculty to implement a schoolwide positive reinforcement
program: “I tried to open (a discussion) and I threw out a couple things I thought would
be controversial and would get people upset so we could at least be open. It bombed. . .
We talked on that point for 40 rrrinutes, that damn trivial problem of kids in the hallway.
At that point I closed the staff meeting. I said we can’t even generate a conversation, we

talk about the damn classroom and control problem.” The principal’s vision for the

213

students in his school was dependent in its implementation on an often-reluctant staff, or
one that was focused on their own particular problems.

“It is often said you spend 90% of your time with 10% of the kids and I think that
could happen if you let it happen. I don’t get preoccupied with a lot of problems from the
classroom but I do have a share of them. As far as the makeup of the students, they are
the only kind of students that I have ever dealt with, I guess, small town farm kids. I
guess the reason that I enjoy working with them is because my own background is pretty
much the same. I enjoy working with them because I feel I understand them and when it
comes to the problems that you work with, you feel like there are solutions to the kind of
problems that you run into in a school like this.” “’Too many of (the graduates) settle in
this area. Too many of them are way too narrow and don’t get out and expose
themselves.” “My attitude here is, we have in the past and we are now promoting the
idea of look, if you go to a trade school or tech school or learn how to be a good
mechanic or I don’t care if a person might work at a ﬁlling station, if he can be the best in
the business and this is in line with his ability and his interest, I think we have a winner.”

Principals wanted to provide for their students both while they were in school and
for the future. They realized that their small town location and the values supported by
the community constrained the opportunities their students would have, but their vision
was to give them as much as they could: “I think we have a dream and we never see that
dream. . . We have better than 56% of our students involved in one or more co-curricular
activities. . . If you look at our intramural program, our drama program, the music
program, the athletic program, some kids (travelling) today for the Vocational Industrial

Club. We have a group in Stratford today; in fact I’ve got nine substitute teachers here

214

today because I’ve got teachers with kids doing something. We had an exchange concert
with a group out of Canada. Our band was in Canada over spring vacation.” “I could
talk with a kid in this office and I’m still fortunate enough to do that. I can try to show
him that I love him and that we care, but I can’t go back out there and hold the hand of
six other inﬂuences. I guess that is the dream that really frustrates me. . .”

Principals saw the larger system as frustrating their dealings with students, also,
especially when it involved working out a reasonable solution to a seerrringly simple
situation. “I find frustration in being able to explain why they have to do the things they
do. For example, we have a board regulation that requires students to be in school
seventy days a semester, yet we have two students who didn’t have the required days so
they are in school today (seniors, after graduation has taken place). Now, they aren’t
learning anything, and it’s hard to explain that to a kid.” “The bad thing is, I see their
point of view, and I react exactly the same way. The class dues are money their class
earned, and it doesn’t belong to the district. ‘O.K., we will have a beer party.’ Well, it’s
your money, but it’s not your money. You can do anything you want with it. ‘Good, we
will have a beer party.’ Well, you can do anything you want, but you can’t have a beer
party. Now, how can I get through to a bunch of teenagers with that kind of answering?”
“So what we effectively did was to create an unofficial smoking area where the
administrators never happened to go and neither did the staff (in order to end smoking in
the lavatories).” “The board came down hard on me because of smoking going on
outside the building, and I simply thanked them for their information and let it go at that.”

Principals saw themselves as constrained by district rules and community values, but did

what they could to acknowledge the students’ almost-adult status.

215

Principals believed that they had good relationships with their students: “[My
relationship with the kids is] Real good. This is my strongest point as a principal. I
always felt that there would never be a walkout or strike as long as I was there because I
would listen to them.” “I think I have good rapport with my kids. I have kids who let me

,9 6‘

know right away if something is going on. . . . the kids who probably give me the

most hassle, if I can get with him outside the ofﬁce, I can have a great conversation with

9’

him. The principal’s skills of communication and diplomacy were needed with all the
groups in his role set. “I have 385 kids here; I know them all by name, grades 9-12. I
pretty much know all their parents. If there has been any kind of difﬁculty whatsoever, I
know their parents and either I go to the home and find the parents or the parents come
here before they can get back into school. I’d say that they are a group of students that
you have to keep happy because they are the messengers to the home in this community
and the parents are really on top of what is going on at school.” The students were
conduits to their parents for information about school. By talking to and working with

students to provide them with experiences that reﬂect the values of home and community,

the principal in 1973 was able to keep the peace.

Conﬂict, Ambivalence, Ambiguity

In spite of their best efforts, however, principals felt conﬂicted in the carrying out
of their responsibilities. They saw rules and regulations, mainly related to attendance,
smoking, dress codes, open vs. closed campus, and athletic participation, as constantly
placing them in conﬂict with one or more of their constituent groups. “You have your

student group, your parent group, your teacher group, your Board group, and of course,

216

your boss. So if you drew a little diagram with six little circles on the outside and one
circle on the inside, and that’s me. Now those six circles don’t always pressure you at
one time, but you can expect pressure at any one time.” “There is a certain futility to any
amount of rule setting in a high school organization when you are dealing with kids in
any large numbers. Kids will defy you, they will beat you — there is no way you can
devise a rulebook that you can operationalize at a secondary school of any size that won’t
be replaced with loopholes. For every rule that you make, you will spend twice as much
time policing it and then eventually wind up with the idea that the rule doesn’t work very
well anyway.” “I think we all ﬁnd ourselves in compromising situations at one time. I
try to set up rules and regulations that are ﬂexible enough to cover most situations and
hope that it doesn’t pin anybody down to black and white. I don’t feel even disciplinary
situations can be handled in black and white; I think there has to be an awful lot of gray
in there.”

No matter how good the principal’s intentions, they saw their decision-making
role as placing them in conﬂict with someone. “When you make decisions, you are the
one that is saddled with the responsibility of administering those decisions. You are the
one that has to answer for it. Regardless of the conﬂicts in the school, they have to be
resolved to something that the principal can live with because he is the one who is going
to have to take the ﬂack on whatever reactions there may be to that decision.” “You have
to listen to what everyone has to say. You do sit in the judgment seat many times with
groups and you do the job similar to what a judge in a courtroom would do — you try to
hear anyone out and then make the best decision you can and hope everybody will stick

by the decision and respect it and the way that you made it. I don’t know of any other

217

way to do it.” “We finally got [the dress code] fixed up so that the girls could wear jeans
legitimately instead of our having to harass them all the time. Well, the mores of our
community are such that this was a pretty big deal, and so the principal, in presenting this
to the Board, had the option of being ridiculed by them and confronted possibly with the
accusation — what are you doing over there — anything? Another thing, for example, is
permitting kids to go across the street to smoke. The way I look at this, many of the
students smoke at home and for sure they smoke and I don’t want them smoking around
the building and have to threaten them with expulsion. Currently I’m going to have three
seniors in the line who have beards and this is something the rules say you should not
have. I’m not going to let a damn beard interfere with something this important to these
kids (commencement). This may be an interesting commencement.” “Our Board of
Education feels that as long as everyone is a student here, all rules shall be enforced — no
drinking, no smoking at any activities. We had a prom a couple weeks ago and the kids,
if they were drinking, had to be thrown out. I’m not condoning kids that are smoking or
drinking even though the state says they can at the age of 18, but I’m saying that there are
some rules, ifI was a kid 18 years of age, I might look at a little differently. Legally, I
can drink. Then why can’t I drink at a school function, what difference does it make?”
“I don’t feel I have to uphold any Board policy that is unconstitutional, and I won’t do it.
My number one priority has to be my responsibility to kids, and I guess that has to
supercede what the Board wants.” As it pertained to students, principals felt conﬂicted
by the expectations they perceived from various constituent groups which they saw as

keeping them from fulﬁlling their role as provider for the students.

218

Control

The conﬂicts were elements in the principal’s perspective of the degree of control
he had, not only in carrying out his responsibilities, but of the school in general. Their
responses varied to the question of the extent to which they felt they could control all the
forces and events they faced. “I have to have control of all things. Everything that goes

’9‘

on in the building, I’m responsible for, regardless if I’m in charge or not. “The way we
are set up in a public school, I don’t think it’s really a controlled situation. I don’t feel
like I have control of my staff when it comes to an issue with the contract . . . I really
think in public education, especially in a high school situation, you don’t know what is
going to happen from one day to the next . . . you have to be able to roll with the punch if
one is thrown at you and you have to be able to react and think on your feet kind of thing
and hope by the end of the week you have made the right decisions.” “I would hope [that
we have control]. Most of the events that we control, though, are from the defensive
area. All of a sudden something happens; then we have to make a decision to correct the
situation. We would hope that we look far enough in the future and we are making some
changes that are going to meet needs. We try to read into the events that are coming up;
we try to react and maybe plug in ahead of people that are setting up one course of action
or another. Basically the same way with kids — things happen with kids — we want to be
ahead of them, if we can.” “I think you’d like to feel that you control everything; but this
is impossibility. I think, hopefully, it’s a group effort in controlling what goes on in the
school. The principal could not control the student body by himself, nor everything that

went on, nor could he control the staff by himself.” “I’m not in charge. A lot of things

are out of your control, and I guess a lot of things really ought to be.”

219

Perceptions of the Role in 1973

When asked speciﬁcally how they saw their role, most principals included
“instructional leader” in their summary description of their work. “I personally have to
get into the instructional process itself and have an impact on it if I’m to be an effective
principal.” “I wear a lot of hats. My job is by no means singular. Human relations — I
guess I’m a mediator as much as anything. I look to myself as the instructional leader,
leader in curriculum development. My job is to put as many different resources in front
of the teacher as I possibly can.” “I’m completely, on paper and in reality, responsible
for everything that comes out of this building. I’m responsible for personnel, students
and everything else.” “PR is a principal’s job. You’ve got to get response from the
people in the community; you’ve got to get them active in the school and you have to get
this kind of participation so they can go out in the community and let [others] know what
is happening.” “I’m the one who has to keep things moving. Number one is getting it
organized and going so that when September rolls around, the staff is ready; we are
prepared for the students, the program is set. My job is to organize that and get it ready,
and that includes adding new programs, adding new staff, adding curriculum changes,
scheduling, all of these things. I guess you are kind of a jack-of-all-trades in a system
such as this, in the sense that you not only have to keep the staff moving, progressing
with the kids, working on them; janitors, cooks, everything that goes along with the
building when you are the one that is responsible for it. You have to be on top of it.” “I
see myself as the person responsible that the overall program works as well as possible.
It is broad.” “I quite often ﬁnd myself trying to hold the thing together rather than going

forward with it. I should be spending a lot more time in terms of curriculum and

220

programs and activities for kids, contact with kids, too, because sometimes the only
contact I get with kids is when I have to substitute. [1 do] Virtually nothing [with
instructional leadership]. I simply haven’t got enough hours in the day, or the schedule is
such that I can’t sit down and talk to [teachers]. I feel pretty bad about that.”

Teacher evaluation was another issue that was mentioned by most of the 1973
principals as an important aspect of their role as instructional leader. “The biggest
problem with evaluation is the time element. The Board this year insisted that I evaluate
probationary teachers three times. When you have [as many teachers as I do], if you
spent an hour in the classroom to observe and then an hour to sit down and talk about it
and write it, it becomes quite time consuming. Unfortunately, I think the problem is that
it is something that can be put off, where discipline is an immediate problem, and you
have to take care of it right now. I think this is another frustrating part about this job: I
come to work with a list of things I want to do by the end of the day, and I get to the end
of the day and I haven’t even hit number one yet because something happened that had to
be taken care of right away.” Principals saw themselves as responsible for staff
performance: “IfI said the staff was lazy, I’d have to say that this is an evaluation too of
my ability to stimulate them or demand that the job get done.” This principal also was
wary of abusing his right to ask teachers to assist with committee or student supervisory
work in light of contractual constraints. “When it comes to evaluation, I think we get
bogged down in evaluation of non-tenured people and I spend quite a bit of time with this
and not enough time with teachers that are on tenure. This is an area where I just have to
get better organized and spend more time on. I think time becomes a real problem to

anyone.” “I feel that I’m an education coordinator instead of the old-line principal per se.

221

I look at the principal, the assistant principal, the counselors, the secretaries, cooks and
custodians as service people to the students and the staff to make sure that all the
extremities of the program are taken care of and providing and helping them with the
service. Not to be walked on, but to make sure we can do the best possible job that we
can do for our staff and for our students so they can function properly and teachers can
teach and students can learn.”

The positive perceptions centered on personal growth. “I don’t think I’m as quick
to judge now as I was, even as a coach.” “I think now I have more of a tendency to
weigh my decisions than I ever used to, and I suppose this has changed my personality
more than anything else, the fact that I’ve tried to be as fair as I can.” “I’m grateful for
the years of high school principalship that I’ve had, and I’m grateful for the experience
and the knowledge that it has given me in working with not only young people, but also
with adults.” “I have probably gained more self conﬁdence than anything else. You start
out, you are always leery about doing this or that. I feel I’ve gained a tremendous
amount of confidence, and I am more positive.” “I think I solve problems better. I think
my whole thought process has changed. I’ve become a lot more calm.” “I like secondary
principalship, and I think this is where the action is. I really do. I think if there is a good
job to be done, by God it’s at this level, and I do want to be where the action is.”
Principals who felt positive about their work looked at it in terms of opportunities for
increased problem-solving and decision-making capabilities, and felt confident about

those abilities.

222

Costs

The enormity of the role and the pressures inherent in it affected the principals’
perceptions of themselves. Some principals reported positive changes and personal
growth; most believed the changes had negatively impacted them and their families. “My
wife, on several occasions, has said I’m a little more autocratic. It takes me awhile to
unwind at the end of a day, some days. It’s the inability of, you didn’t cause the
[problem] and you really can’t solve it.” “I’m not as relaxed a person. I have less time to
relax. I have less time for myself and less time for my family. I’m much more uptight
than I was. I think this is only natural with the added responsibility that goes with the job
and the added effort and time you put in.” “I think when I made the jump, especially
being in the same system, there were some barriers that I try especially hard to keep from
growing. Some did between the staff and myself.” “In this type of community, your
phone is available all hours and, by golly, you get calls at all hours. A guy comes home
from a late shift and he will call you up and if he has questions, he’ll complain.
Vacations are a problem, because you really can’t get away — even if you are home
painting on your house and someone stops and wants a transcript made up for college and
needs it the next day — you are on tap to do it; you can’t just say no.” “I control myself; I
force myself to, if I have a problem, I try to keep my voice in a moderate tone and never
really scream at a kid, and then I yell at my own kids when I get home. If I’ve had a bad
day here and I walk in the house and they know it, they go upstairs right now.” “The
principalship has dulled my sensitivity to all people. I think I’ve narrowed my scope of
concern.” “I’ve had people tell me it’s changed me. I may be a little more pessimistic. I

was a total optimist before.” “It makes it harder at home. I ﬁgured out for eleven days in

223

a row I’m not really going to be with my family at home. I rrright be home one evening
out of those eleven days, but you are so darn tired then, you just want to take it easy and
watch TV because you aren’t really interested in doing anything else.” “I’m a little bit
like a volleyball. The open door policy is the one I use, and so when people see that I’m
not busy, they are apt to come in with a complaint or a request or so on, and so I
sometimes feel like I’m battered around quite a bit.” “There are a lot of pressures that
come (with the job) that I feel are unnecessary pressures, and I carry those inside of me.”
“When you become principal, you have to worry about everybody and every teacher and
every student and the whole school and the whole atmosphere in the school and how it is
going to be run, and I think then you become, like after two years, I was becoming very
negative.” “In my mind, to really do the job, it’s kind of a lonely thing, in that I have
really nobody. I ﬁnd myself pretty much isolated.” “My family life is about zero. 1
average three or four nights a week working at school. I was kind of easy-going, and
now I’ve become very uptight at times, not from the yelling, screaming standpoint, but
that if it’s one thing I want to do, it’s to do the best job I can.” “We (family) can be
sitting there eating dinner together, the phone rings, I talk on the phone during dinner,
dinner gets cold; a parent comes over, then I leave my dinner and sit and talk to the
parent.” “I would like my children to go to another school.” “One of the biggest things
is the amount of time that I don’t have anymore. I tend to feel that I married this
building. I’m much less understanding of my wife and her problems and family
problems, because when I get home the feeling is, by God, I’ve put in my day, and I don’t

want to have to listen to a bunch of stuff when I get here. I ﬁnd myself being very

unreasonable at home, going out of my way being reasonable all day to put up with

224

whatever or whoever wants to chew my head off.” “I think the school has changed me
more than I’ve changed it. I don’t know whether that’s good or bad.” Principals felt
guilty about all the time they spent away from their families, but seem resigned to it as a
demand of the job. Their descriptions of what the job took out of them is reminiscent of
Simmel’s observation that the work of a generalist leaves an individual little energy for

anything outside of his job because of the stress of constantly having to change focus.

The Future

As for their futures, the principals indicated a wide range of possibilities. Nine of
the principals said they would consider a career move away from administration. One
was interested in career education; another indicated that when he had completed twenty-
five years of service in education, he would contemplate another career outside the
educational ﬁeld. Two indicated they were considering returning to the classroom, two
others, to counseling. One stated a preference for being athletic director in a large high
school, a quasi-administrative position. Two more were working on advanced degrees
and planned to teach at the college or university level. Approximately one-third of these
principals were contemplating a job change away from school administration. All cited
the tremendous time demands, pressures and strain on family relationships as reasons for
either leaving the principalship or not continuing their career paths in educational
administration.

Five principals said that, in spite of the challenges of the job, they would finish
their careers in the principalship. Fourteen indicated that they would consider a

superintendency. Of these, five speciﬁed an assistant superintendency as their next

225

career move. Only one principal stated that he believed the principal’s job was a
steppingstone to a higher position; others deemed it the most demanding job in the
educational field.

In this section, data collected in 1973 have been presented and examined to glean
the principals’ perceptions of their role as it pertained to relationships with constituent
groups in their role set, their dealings with issues related to rules and regulations,
conﬂicts that arise in their work, and their perceptions of how their work as principals has
affected them personally. In the next section, recent data will be presented and examined

in light of the same questions.

226

Part II

The Role of the Principal: 2000-2001

(Note: All uncited quotes are from transcriptions of interviews conducted with principals
by this researcher in the fall of 2000 and January of 2001.)

The purpose of the study is to describe and explain small town principals’
perceptions of their role today. The researcher selected twenty of the small towns in
which Wayne Peters conducted interviews with the secondary principals in 1973,
contacted the current secondary principals, and set out to deﬁne a conceptualized view of
the norms that govern the work of those school administrators today. The assumptions
going into this project were that many of the norms governing the work of the principals
in 1973 would be extant; that there would be some changes brought about by external
forces which were not in existence in 1973, and that teaching and learning comprise the
technical core of the educational process which the principals oversee. The previous
section of this chapter described the perceptions the principals had of their role in 1973.
This section will describe how present-day, small town secondary principals perceive
their role. The structure of the social system within which the principal administers will
be described, and the norms governing the role performance of the principal will be
conceptualized. The effects of legislated mandates on the principals’ work will be
described, and the personal costs of working as principals at the start of the 21" century

will be explored.

227

Principal in the Community

The principals in the 2000-2001 sample could describe their communities quite
specifically. Many principals described their communities as having “haves” and “have-
nots.” Most described communities where farmland has been sold off and people are
moving in from larger towns and cities within commuting distance. New residents are
building large homes in order to provide their families with what they consider to be a
better lifestyle. “We have a relatively afﬂuent population mixed in with the rural poor.
We have an awful lot of people who have left the city, bought their 10 acres, put their
quarter million dollar house on it, put up their pole barn for their horses and what not.”
“This is a small world type community. At one time this was just a little community that
was sort of by-passed by everyone. We’re close enough that the commute is worthwhile.
They want to get away from the hustle, so they’re moving into our area. You’ve got
people that are worldwide travelers and people that their longest trip was over to the
[named a grocery store].” “We are growing tremendously. It’s a very old community,
and we have a lot of community members that do not want us to grow.” “There’s a real
difference between the haves and the have-nots. Some of the people are pretty well off.
We don’t have a whole lot of middle housing. We’re in declining enrollment right now
and part of that is because some of these manufacturing jobs, people just can’t afford the
housing, so they’re moving to smaller districts. So the housing is either kind of really
expensive or it’s very low income housing.” “It’s in a good spot. You can go north,
south, east or west and there is a lot going on [employment]. They have moved away to
get out into a country setting, but yet still are close enough to get to the hustle and bustle

of the suburban setting or the city setting. They can get a quarter of an acre of land to put

228

a home on, or two, three and four acres of land to build a home for their children.” “We
are somewhere between 35 and 40% agricultural and the rest of it is pretty much urban
ﬂight. There’s a good deal of turnover on an annual basis. We are a changing
community.” “We have the highest percentage of high SES students and the highest
percentage of low SES students in the same district. It’s really two communities that you
serve. Initially it was somewhat difficult to pinpoint the real values of the community.”
“We used to be a farm community, but now it’s a bedroom community.” “The
community was predominantly rural and blue collar. Now we are rapidly becoming a
bedroom community of professional people. It’s a very conservative community, with
what I’d call a conservative progressive climate.” “We have something of everything.
I’d say half of our population would be from poor to very poor, and then we have a few
afﬂuents.” “It’s an island of liberalism in the sea of the Michigan militia. We have very
little diversity, [but] it’s a very accepting place.” “We’re a landlocked, low middle-class,
blue collar, urban community. The community is very traditional in a lot of ways, but it’s
also changing. We have over 20 languages spoken in this building.” “It’s a nice place to
raise families. There’s a lot of pride; people are very community service minded. When

you’re new in town, you’re new for a long time. People consider me new, and I’m in my

,9 ‘6 ,’ 6‘

[beyond 10“] year.” “Changing, conservative, traditional” were the words most
principals used to describe their communities.

In addition to the demographic aspects of their communities, principals are very
much attuned to what their communities expect of the schools, and the relationship of

demographics to expectations both of their schools and of them as principals. They tend

to see their communities as having a strong inﬂuence on how the school serves the

229

community. “The school is the center of [the community’s] activity. Athletics, of course,
is king with football being at the top. It’s the crowning glory of the community when it
does well.” “I’d say they’re very conservative, yet in some ways, we’re very progressive.
They want the school to be the center of activity. People want to see the media center
open until nine o’clock at night. They want computer classes for adults. The community
uses the auditorium, uses the pool.” “Here, the community’s expectations change from
time to time. In the last couple of years, the expectation, the demand from the
community, just like it is every place else, is that you do everything you can to keep their
kids safe.” “When you go in [a] building, you can see what the community’s priorities
are. I think we have just about the right emphasis on [athletics], a lot of emphasis on
academics, on art, on music, a lot of support for that from the community and from the
school board.” “The school is the beacon of the community.” “They all expect when
their student leaves here they’ve had a quality experience and they are either ready to go
on and further their education or go into the workforce.” “It’s very small, very German,
and very Catholic. There is a tremendous emphasis on work ethic. There is a large
emphasis on doing the best that you can, working very hard and kids are expected to do

H 6‘

well, both athletically and academically. [The community is] very proud of their
school and they expect us to be on the highest level we can be for education.” “People
want a quality education and our MEAP scores reﬂect that. “Our MEAP scores are
always high. We run a pretty tight ship discipline wise. I prefer being in a small school
because I think you can be on top of situations and know your individual students a lot

better and I think the community is satisfied in that aspect.” “We do a lot of the old

fashioned things. We run a Christmas Program with our elementary school. They come

230

up to the high school gym and it’s so packed that you would have to walk from Main
Street, you can’t park here. We run a Grandparents Day in the elementary, you can’t get
in. Friday night football, Friday night basketball is the center of attraction. This building
could run seven days a week.” “People have stayed here, generation after generation
after generation. If I want to do something different, it gets stopped. A lot of progressive
people live here now, but sometimes it is very tough, very conservative.” “Our clientele
has changed, and we have moved from an industrial based economy to an information
based. We are serving now a predominantly professional community. People have higher
expectations. If you can convince the parents that whatever you’re going to do is going
to help the child succeed in higher education or in the workplace, that’s what they’re
after. It doesn’t matter if you’re liberal, conservative, or moderate, that’s what they want
from education. They’re passionate about their kids, and wanting the best for them.” “I
think [the community] expects the building to be run efﬁciently. I think they expect me
to hire and work with quality teachers. I think they expect a great deal of caring and
concern for their children. I don’t think the community or we expect enough from our
students. I think our challenge here in this building is to raise the bar in terms of
academic work ethic and the quality of work that is being done.” “A lot of things center
around the schools.” “I think [the community] wants the kids to get a good education and
I think they want them to be prepared for many different options.” “The school is the
center of everything. This is it. For example, our cafeteria gets rented out for weddings.
There is no hall, and so the high school cafeteria gets rented out.” “The school is what
ties everybody together. What happens here is very much like living in a ﬁshbowl. It

doesn’t take long for people to find out how good you are, how bad you are, whatever.

231

There aren’t a lot of people here, but the pressure is there to perform, to do what people
want.”

The attitude of the community is still very much a factor in the principals’
assessments of their schools. Most of the principals see the community as watchful and
demanding. The principal feels the pressure to deliver according to the community’s
expectations. The school belongs to the community. It is their resource. They want it
utilized in ways that reﬂect their values, and they want access to it. The principals are
very aware of the community just outside the door, and they go to great lengths to stay in
touch with it, to let the community know they want the school to be perceived as an
active partner in the community. “We have a daily paper, which also does help us. They
cover us if we have any news about the schools now. They also cover us positively and
they also can cover us negatively. Our parents like reading about whatever it may be —
our debate team, our forensics team, our athletic teams, our Chorale, our band.” “Our
superintendent’s involved in Rotary, we have an assistant superintendent involved in
Chamber. We have a Govemor’s breakfast put on by the Chamber of Commerce. We
have Rotary Exchange. We have Rotary Interact Club, a service organization.” “I think
a community really can invest in a person who is going to become a vital member of that
community. The people here trusted me because I was vested in this community.” “I
belong to the Rotary Club. A lot of community leaders and small business owners are
there and that helps solidify your credibility.” When the principal is an active member of
the community, or supports relationships between school and community, the community
can trust the principal, and be reassured that the direction of the school reﬂects what the

community believes to be important. The community has a means of giving input into

232

the school, thus defining the schools in these small towns as open systems. Principals are
visible and active in the larger community, staying in tune with it in order to “buffer the
operation from the pressures of the larger environment,” not so much to protect it as to

help it adapt (Beck & Murphy, p. 191).

Superintendent/Board of Education Relationships

Principals operate from within a set of overlapping role relationships. In addition
to sustaining the trust of the larger community through positive social relationships,
principals must maintain positive relationships with students and their parents, teachers,
their superintendents and their Boards of Education. Most of the principals reported
good relationships with their Boards, although several mentioned occasional board
“involvement.” “Since I’ve been here, I’ve had Board members call and come in. They
give me autonomy to run the building, but they are quick to recommend, to suggest.”
“Our board really has been a policy making board, a goal-setting board. We get very
little micro-managing from them, ever.” “My ﬁrst two or three years here were kind of
rough. There was a lot of criticism, people going to the school board, people writing
letters to the editor, but over the last three years there’s been a great improvement. I
don’t think that I’ve changed, I think that people have come to see who and what I am.
And I think that over time, if you can survive that, that people will see that you mean
well.” “The Board of Education tends to be supportive, although sometimes they go
places that maybe they shouldn’t. Fortunately, those are few and far between, but you
have people on the board that have certain agendas and they represent their certain

constituents.” “I don’t ever feel like they are coming in and looking over my shoulder.

233

They hired a professional to do the job and I feel that’s what they have. If there is an
incident, they follow the proper channels; they go to the superintendent and the
superintendent then makes a contact with me.” “I do receive phone calls at home from
my board members. And a lot of it is FYI stuff.” “I try to keep them well informed. I
think that’s the key.” “A school board is made up of people with a wide variety of
attitudes and agendas, and it behooves you to know what those attitudes and agendas are.
That helps you determine which approach is likely to be successful, and what words you
use to make your case with the various individuals.” “We’ve been through a phase where
there was some micro-managing. I let the board know that they hired me to run this
school. If they don’t like what I’m doing, then ﬁre me. If folks come to the board
meeting and they are upset about something, the board will listen but never act. They
understand that chain of command. They understand where the problem is supposed to
go and are pretty supportive.” “School board, it’s a chain of command and people adhere
pretty close to that. We don’t have people on the board micro-managing. If they have a
problem it usually trickles down through. I’ve only had one case this year of somebody
calling a board member and then having me hear about it.” “This Board gives me a lot of
autonomy. They always ask for an explanation, which I expect, but they have never said
no to anything that we have asked for or attempted to do. They view themselves, I think,
correctly, as a policy making group. [The Board has] basically told me, ‘You run the
building, we’ll make the policy and you keep us informed and don’t do things that we
don’t know about. As long as you tell us, we’re going to say yes, as long as you can
justify it.”’ Principals saw the Board’s involvement in the day-to-day running of

schools as micro-managing, and preferred board members who had concerns to follow a

234

chain of command in expressing them. They saw their relationship with their boards as
important in terms of receiving their support, and worked in such a way that they could
structure the type of environment they desired. The chain of command feature is
reﬂective of Beck and Murphy’s observation that traditional schools are stable entities
with mechanisms in place that buffer the school from the larger environment.

Principals desired the same relationships with their superintendents. Most of the
principals acknowledged the relationship of the superintendent with the Board as having
an impact on their work. “He feels he has got to jump many hoops with the board of
education and with a lot of the community before he can move on things. I tend to move
quicker than he would want to move.” “We have a superintendent that shapes the board
very well. He brings the board along in how they should behave.” “The superintendent
[sat in this chair] for [a long time], and he even says that there have been times that he
had to force himself to stay out of here. He has never interfered. He stays informed and
is on all my e-mail lists so that he knows what’s going on. His ofﬁce is right down [the
hall].” “We have a tremendous team. We all have the same vision. He lets me run the
building. He is a resource.” “He lets me run my building and I keep him informed of
any issues. Sometimes ask for advice, even. I think the key is communication.” “We
have a superintendent who is open to meeting with administrators, supporting both the
administrative and the teaching staff, who confronts issues. I think he does a good job.”
When the superintendent was supportive, was content with being informed about the
goings-on of the school and stayed out of the way, and kept the board of education at bay,
the principals felt their relationship with the superintendent was a good one. Only a few

reported superintendents who were overly involved in what they perceived to be their

235

work. “A few years ago the superintendent shut the central office down and moved his
office here. It is not a good thing. It is too easy for people, kids, teachers, parents — my
role, I think, has been weakened by having the superintendent’s ofﬁce here. I think it
puts more pressure on him, because people will immediately go to him and not me.” “He
is very quick to make decisions, very reactionary. Power is important to him. I inform
him when he needs to be informed.” “He has his own vision and he wants to move the
district to where he wants to and he is going to do it no matter what. There are decisions
being made that are not in my hands that should be. It appears to the staff that I made
those decisions because I’m the one that had to carry them through.” Principals saw their
positional authority compromised by the involvement of the superintendent in building
decisions. This seemed to be more likely when the superintendent’s ofﬁce was in the
high school building. In those instances, the chain of command could more easily

develop some kinks, compromising the principal’s position as organizational architect.

Student Relationships

All the principals reported that they get along well with their students. “I don’t
have as much contact with kids anymore, but I think that I’m quite approachable with
kids. When I became a high school principal I had no idea how much I would ﬁnd out
about personal lives, about how much crisis there is in families.” “I have a great
relationship with my students.” “I eat lunch with the kids. I’ll sit down with one of my
teachers who does lunchroom duty and some kids. I try to be as accessible to my
students as I possibly can. I’m a kids’ person.” “I’m a people person, and that’s helped

me. You’ve got to be. We’re (principal and assistant) not what we call ofﬁce principals,

236

we’re in the halls, we’re out there with the kids, we’re joking with them, we’re watching
them.” “I like to talk to them and socialize as much as I can. I attend their sporting
events and I think by doing that you do get closer to a lot of kids and that helps
tremendously, but I think they look at you still as an authoritarian figure.” “I attend all
school activities at home and quite a few away activities.” “The kids respect me and I
respect them for what they are and what they do. I try to support them in all their
endeavors, whether it’s band, football, student council, whatever it is, I try to support
them.” “[My relationship with students is] a very friendly relationship. I can walk the
halls and know most kids by name. I’ve done some coaching, which helps my
relationship with the kids a lot. That gives the kids the chance to know you in a different
setting. I would say at this time that my relationship with the students is excellent.
Excellent.” “I think they perceive me as a very visible building administrator. They
always see me in the halls, in classrooms, at events. They see me as a very approachable
person; my door is always open. They see me as a person who is always willing to listen
to their point of view.” “I’m out among the kids a lot, class exchanges I’m in the
hallways, I’m walking through the lunchroom, sitting down at a table, I’m talking with
them, so kids feel that if they have a gripe or something they can talk to me about it.
Sometimes they just want someone to listen; you don’t have to do anything.” “I talk to
them; they’re just people. They want to know that you are there [at their events]. I think
that’s what they want to see.” “The kids have seen a visible principal. They see me in
the hallways, they see me in classrooms for no reason other than to drop by and see

what’s going on. You can’t always address every kid individually in a school, but you

237

can try to put a blanket over the student body to try to say that this is our concern and our
care for everybody.”

Principals see themselves as open and approachable to their students, supportive,
accessible, visible, and providing a sense of nurturing. They use their people skills to
reduce conﬂict and bring about change. “When I came here, kids were wearing chains.
Some people said, ‘What are we going to do about it?’ I said I didn’t want chains. 1
don’t think in this atmosphere we can have kids walking around with chains. They said,
‘That’s going to be hard to do.” My approach was, I called in about nine young men who
wore chains. I said, ‘I don’t want people to think I am pointing ﬁngers at you guys. I
want you to know why I’m looking at this from a safety standpoint.’ I had one problem
with a chain after that, and that was with a special needs young man who did get it taken
care of. I tried to talk to all the kids.” Approach them calmly, be personable,
acknowledge who they are, to get cooperation. Build social capital, reduce conﬂict, and

bring about change.

Parent Relationships

Principals acknowledge parents as an important part of what they do, although
occasionally they are frustrated by the encounters they have with them. “With parents,
I’m at the athletic events, the concerts. I was able to make some positive connections
with parents who were potentially ‘yes’ voters in the bond election. I’m also on the
curriculum council; there’s a parent rep on that. There’s a parent on the school
improvement committee, and there are a lot of community members on the technology

committee.” “[Parents are] very involved. Very involved. I have a parent advisory

238

committee that meets five or six times a year. We discuss school issues, we’ve rewritten
the dress code. They like to have their input.” “We have a very active parent group. We
have a Parent Advisory Board. They are a very, very important group to me. I bounce
ideas off of them, they give me input on ideas about things like dress code, changes we’re

9’ 66

going to make. [With] smaller parent conferences, you learn the families. We’ve
driven kids home who are sick. It makes you feel that you are so much more than just a
principal, you know. They give you the trust to move their student educationally in the
right direction, but they are giving you the trust to also be a part of, a friend to the
family.” “I meet with [the parent advisory committee] every couple of months and we go
over the issues of school and talk about them. We tell them what we are doing here and
give them better understanding so they can go out and spread the truth. Sometimes
rumors start in a small district; they can dispel rumors if they do occur. We listen to them
if they think there are areas we could work on, and we have an open forum kind of thing.
If I need help, parents are usually here to help.” “A lot of times our parents will be our
helping hands if we need coaches. They go on ﬁeld trips with us, and put on team
dinners.” There is a mutually supportive relationship between the principal and the
parents. The principal earns the trust of the parents, and they respond by giving the
principal and the school their support.

One of the keys to establishing this trust is to communicate with parents. “We
only catch hell when a cheerleader doesn’t make it or a boy gets cut from the athletic

team. Nobody raises Cain when you ﬂunk English. Last year we did not graduate seven

kids, and we didn’t have any complaints, because we notify each for two weeks. Parents

239

were totally aware of it.” “I’d like to parents to be more involved. Not screaming-yelling

involved, but more informed.”

Staff Relationships

Principals also use their people skills with teachers. “I have to sit down and try to
motivate teamwork.” “I need to be there for them if they need to talk. They are human
beings, they have all the problems that other people have and we sometimes forget that
they are trying to solve other people’s problems.” “The relationship [with the teachers] at
first was to prove to them ﬁrst that they had a principal that was going to work for them.”
“I am absolutely a defender of what teachers do in their classrooms. They know if they
send me a problem, I deal with it. I drop everything and deal with it.” “The staff takes
tremendous ownership of what happens here. And part of what I do is to make sure that
I’m trying not to wrest that from them, but to reassure them.” “You have to involve them
in the decisions, and at ﬁrst they didn’t know how to take that. They didn’t know what to
do. And my approach with them is, ‘I can’t do it all. There is no way; I can’t do it. I
need your help in order to do that.’ And I’ve done what I said I was going to do. So, I
think we have built some trust.” “I have some excellent partnerships [with staff]. And
they have been wonderful. First of all, buying into what it is we are doing and secondly,
helping to facilitate it. I can’t say enough about the good works those people have done.”
“I’ve relied on my people and I think they’ve done a nice job.” “They feel very conﬁdent
in terms of how they’re supported. That any time they send a kid to the office, that the
consequence is going to be more severe for that student than if they didn’t.” “They

perceive me as a fair person, one that is willing to be ﬂexible and help them out all I

240

can.” “I would describe this staff as veteran, and they needed some stability. I think I’ve
demonstrated that stability.” “1 have a great staff. I think for the most part they like me
because they know I’m going to support them, that I’m going to help them do the things
that they think are important to do.” “I would perceive my relationship with them as
being very strong. It’s very professional. I treat them with respect; they in turn return
that to me. It’s a good relationship.” “I’ve dealt with all kinds of situations with my
staff, things that I never thought I would be dealing with. I have staff members that I get
along very well with, and staff members that would probably be glad to see me leave.”

In the constellation of principal-teacher role relationships, principals have to juggle
different approaches. They primarily see themselves as supporting and facilitating the
important work that teachers do. The support is both personal and professional. They
work to keep the teachers on an even keel so that the work of the school can be
accomplished. They interact with their teachers in positive ways, boosting their self-
conﬁdence and their self-esteem, getting along with them, building trust between teacher
and administrator as a basis from which to address the technical core of the school, which
is assumed to be teaching and learning.

Principals, then perceive the need to have good interpersonal and communication
skills in order to carry out their responsibilities. Their job involves constant interaction
with people who are members of the principals’ role set: members of the community,
their superintendents and Boards of Education, the teachers in their schools, and the
students and their parents. They perceive a large part of their work as supportive and
facilitative, and believe that to accomplish the supportive facilitator role they must be

present and visible to a watchful and demanding school community.

241

Perceptions of Challenge and Change in the Leadership Role

When asked what they perceive their role to be, how they would describe their role as the
principal of their school to someone asking them what they do as principal, they were
unanimous in stating or directly implying that a signiﬁcant part of their role was that of
instructional leader. Their means of operationalizing that aspect of the role varied. “I
don’t know anything about chemistry, so what I’ve tried to do is to make my departments
responsible, to be sure that we are on top of curriculum.” “You have to be unafraid to put
people out there to discover what you know. If what you think is true and right, it will
happen.” Sometimes being an instructional leader means making hard decisions. “Last
year I had to let a teacher go, and it was the hardest thing I’ve ever done. But that’s my
job. I need excellence in the building, I need excellence in the classroom.” “In a small
school, it’s different. I am expected to be able to help people teach, and that scares the
heck out of me. [There’s] this excruciating light on the principal in this little place that,
o.k., Wednesday morning meetings (we have them every week) have to be meaningful or
we’re going to have mutiny here. So, every Wednesday, it’s showtime. And you’ve got
to be bringing us along, and you’ve got to be helping us establish what we want. You
have time to read and look down the road; we don’t. And that’s very much the view.
And it’s very intimidating because the people I have are very good.”

Beck and Murphy (1993) describe the principal as “the head learner in the
organization,” a person who learns and shares “in order to guide substantive educational
issues” (p. 193). “Their job is to teach the kids. My job is to help them teach the kids.”
“Our teachers’ meetings are primarily inservice, for discussion. We will have occasional

departmental meetings, and teachers make recommendations and then I approve or

242

disapprove of them. What’s a good, legitimate reason for changing, and is it going to
serve the kids better?” “[As the instructional leader], it’s my job to to make sure that the
cuniculum that each [teacher] has and the benchmarks are being taught in the
classroom.” “I serve as an instructional leader both for the staff and for the kids. I work
with various committees, school improvement committee, high school curriculum team,
adding extra courses. We are a very small school so we are limited to what we can do,
but we try to come up with more opportunities for the kids as far as course selections.
We really encourage professional development.” “[A big part of being an instructional
leader] is working with your classroom teachers. You have to be much more active with
some of the new requirements with IDPs and the obligations you have for mentoring. I
have 15 probationary teachers, and that’s a challenge. I try to, when we are taking on
new goals or new direction, to be really current with best practice. I’ve been an I’TIP
trainer. We are doing some things with some brain-based stuff. We are deﬁnitely
working to make sure that the standards and benchmarks in our core curriculum are
taught.” Principals felt they needed to be on top of new trends and new demands related
to instruction, reﬂecting the metaphor of Principal as Educator. They felt responsible for
communicating this information to their teachers, and ensuring it was being used in
classrooms in their schools. Several of the principals viewed part of their role as
instructional leader as being an instructional leader in for the community. “I think
another thing I need to do is market my school, and be an instructional leader to my
parents and my community.”

Convincing teachers to change the way they deliver instruction was seen by many

of the principals as a challenge. All the principals interviewed discussed how they

243

worked to effect change. “I’ve used committees over the years to review things, make
changes, and what I ﬁnd is you come out of that with some good ideas. If I have
something that I ﬁrmly believe, I can usually inﬂuence that process to bring it about.
Once in awhile, you have to say, we’re not going to do that.” “I supplied them with the
information they needed, gave them the time, paid subs, facilitated the meetings, but they
made the decisions. [This way,] they are buying into it.” “90% of the time if you really
want this to happen and think that’s the right thing and can show the research, you can
make [it] happen.” “You are open to their suggestions. One assumption that I want to
make is that all of us want our school to be successful, we want our kids to learn. And
only by working together are we going to make that happen. I think that openness does a
lot to make that happen.” “They have to understand that we’re changing not just for
change. We try not to have bandwagons.” “The state core cuniculum has changed,
forced people, forced this district who never really worked at their curriculum very hard,
to use it as a device to get us to go in the right direction.” “I think you have to work with
people and be part of them and not necessarily the dictator type of person. You have to

9, “

work together; it’s a cooperative type of thing. [You have to] show them how the
change is going to benefit them. I let them know [the change] is inevitable, and this is
how it’s going to beneﬁt you, this is the way it’s going to be accomplished the most
easily, and try to get them on board.” “If I know I’ve got to get somewhere, I go to key
players. I bring them in. I empower my staff a lot. The one thing I was never going to
be is a dictator. We build the agenda together. [I ask my key players], ‘How would you

do this? How should I go about doing this?’ Then they buy into it; it’s now their idea

and they talk about it in the teachers’ lounge. If I know I have to get the staff to a certain

244

place, by the time I even bring it up, the majority of the staff knows this was coming. It’s
not a surprise, and the hemnring and hawing is already done before it even happens.”
“Basically I work with those that want to work, and the ones that don’t, you just let them
go.” Principals do not want to be seen as dictatorial. They want to involve their teachers
in making change, and they work at being collegial and bringing people along. They
want teachers to take ownership of change so that its implementation will be complete
and effective. In Beck and Murphy’s terms, they work as social architects to redesign
their schools to meet the needs of their changing populations.

Several principals saw the North Central Accreditation process and the state
curriculum frameworks objectives and benchmarks as tools which have forced change.
The MEAP tests and special education are other state mandates that have caused
principals to struggle with changes in instructional delivery and resource allocation.
“There’s so much emphasis on the MEAP. We have an expectation from the Board of
Education and the superintendent that our students will earn this. I think it’s tough that
everything is based on that one criteria. I don’t particularly agree with it, but that’s
basically what our goal efforts are focused on, the four curricular areas.” “I really like
the idea that the State has been strong in core curriculum. The MEAP test, I think, is a
fair assessment. 1 really do.” “We are not teaching to the MEAP. Rather, we are trying
to integrate some of the actual concepts that need to be taught so the kids can achieve on
the MEAP.” “I’m still terribly frustrated with the MEAP program. I just have a
tremendous amount of difficulty with the fact that the state is using MEAP as the only
instrument to measure progress.” “If you’re going to be measured out in the public then

they need to make the measurement fair and they need to make the reporting different.

245

The intent, I think, is good, but saying that we don’t do a good job is not good, not true.
In a school like this, you’re never going to be on the top of the list.” “We all say, ‘Maybe
MEAPs are needed, and it’s a good thing,’ but when you can’t get feedback on how the
kids did on their test and what they did wrong because it’s not released information,
that’s a frustrating part.” “I’m concerned about the new State accreditation system. I’m
really apprehensive about this adequate yearly progress. Probably 95% of our kids will
take the MEAP, and the ones who don’t take it will be legitimate. But this 10%
improvement — I think somebody’s living in a whole different world. It’s not going to
happen here; and it’s not going to happen anywhere else.” “We are not going to ﬁght the
MEAP, we are going to do it; we’re going to get on board and do it right.” “The MEAP
test — which I am 100% opposed to — I don’t even think we should have it. To me, it has
no productive end. It’s more about power and control than it is about education, and in
my opinion it’s a test written by amateurs. It’s inconsistently graded, it’s erratically
administered, it’s constantly changing, so if they left everything the same for one year, I
think they’re afraid we might ﬁgure it out. Actually, it’s very political.” Even for the
principals who view the MEAP in positive terms, it is something imposed upon the
system, something to be faced and overcome. The time and energy invested in dealing
with it is still seen by many as separate piece of the educational endeavor of the school.
“Special education is probably one of the most cumbersome tasks. Just from the
standpoint of IEPs and the time that is needed to try to work out development plans for
the students, and then to see them followed through. You have to make sure you are
keeping up-to-date on that. And then [it has] an impact as to what type of cuniculum our

special education students are getting.” “One of the [big frustrations] is the special

246

education student who acts out inappropriately, who knows right from wrong, but
because of the law is allowed to disrupt the education of others, to harass other students,
to harass teachers, and the process of finding appropriate placement allows him to disrupt
school. And the inequity of how you treat students who are being disciplined and having
to explain that to parents. And the amount of money that is spent on the education of

,9 ‘6

those students, to the detriment of students at the other extreme. [The State comes] up
with rules and regulations, like special ed, but [doesn’t] mandate funding for it. I think
my predecessor got to the point where he was tired of dealing with it.” “The amount of
time that you spend with special ed students and special ed laws, accommodations and
everything else [is enormous].” “Sometimes we get very frustrated with special ed laws.
If it’s related to the disability, that’s one thing. It’s when they do things and we know it’s
not and our hands are tied and there are two standards, and try to explain that to parents.”
The difﬁculty of having to deal with challenging students assumes broader proportions
when the amount of money spent on their programs is compared to the rest of the
students. Principals are also conﬂicted by the need to acknowledge their special needs

and the idea of a double standard of expectations for academic and behavioral

performance.

Conﬂict, Ambivalence, Ambiguity

These are not the only conﬂicts principals experience in their work. The
principals talked about many aspects of their work which resulted in experiencing
feelings of frustration. “Sometimes you just say to yourself, ‘I really wish I knew what

was the best for everybody.”’ “I’m working very hard to convince central office to let

247

me do this [schedule parent-teacher conferences the way the building wants to].”
Sometimes the principal is mediator, as when disputes between teachers must be settled.
Sometimes they have to make difficult decisions, such as when they let a staff member
go, or doing more with less. Often, they struggle with seeing what needs to be done and
being able to do it. “This year I threw away our teacher meetings, and instead asked for
volunteers to present a lesson that they had done and was really successful. Two people
volunteered, two people who I knew would volunteer, and I haven’t had anybody
volunteer since. 80 we ﬁll that time with really meaningless discussions. It’s the kind of
thing you have to do, but I could do it in a memo just as easily.” “I’m torn between
supporting the superintendent’s decision, which I should as an administrator, but not fully
believing it with my heart.” They experience a sense of futility related to the
ambivalence and ambiguity of their role expectations.

Teachers know the union protects them from having to do anything more than
their contractual responsibilities. “It’s still not a team effort. It’s ‘You keep the kids in
control (when you’re looking at my ofﬁce). We’ll teach in our rooms, and we want
nothing else to do with the building.’ And it can’t be that way. I think it hurts the kids
tremendously when they know that teachers don’t care enough to step out in the hall
between classes and kind of watch and make sure that everything is going right.”

There is a conﬂict between vision and reality. “I think we are still teaching to that
median to just below and trying to draw the rest up to at least higher than what they are.
Teachers are afraid to challenge those kids because it would be reﬂected in their grades
and then somebody has to answer questions. And I think schools in general are petriﬁed

for some reason of being accountable.” “Many of those things I do don’t allow me to get

248

to the big vision that I once had. Now the reality of my position is, I put out a lot of
fires.” “So many teachers are so inﬂexible, so rigid. They have tunnel vision, or polar
vision. They look straight ahead, and don’t see the bigger picture. They don’t see how
what they are doing fits into the bigger picture and impacts the things that are
happening.”

Principals oversee programs that vie for scarce resources. “You know, the
problem we run into is financial. We would like to offer more, but ﬁnancially right now,
we can’t.” Cutting programs puts stress on others. “This is the ﬁrst time in 37 years we
have a chorus. Right now, we have 52 kids in it. One reason we have so many — there
would probably be 3540 if we had the art program.”

Goals are not always attainable. “We all have the idea and protest the philosophy
that all students can learn, and sometimes I don’t think they [teachers] really believe that.
I think it becomes more problematic in a secondary level where teachers are seeing 150
kids a day. I don’t know that it’s reasonable, that you could really know every kid and
work individually with those kids that need the extra help. And I don’t know how we
solve it.”

What makes good educational sense is not always accepted by colleagues or
parents. “We’ve adopted the Kent County Curriculum in our district. They’ve even gone
to a standards-based report card at the K-5 level. My superintendent asked me just the
other day, ‘When do you think you’ll be going to that?’ I said, ‘You and I won’t see it.’

The colleges won’t let you do it; parents won’t let you do it. They want a grade.”

249

Control

The source of most of this frustration and sense of conﬂict has to do with issues of
control. Principals feel that they lack academic control. “Where I lack the control, and
it’s the scariest thing, is that we talk about, and work on the core curriculum, and we
work on the delivery; we work on assessments, and everything, but I can’t be in every
classroom in every comer of every day.”

The lack of control is felt from above, as well. “I think the state needs to set
guidelines, but the micro-management can’t work. It just can’t work. Principals need to
be given authority to run things.”

For other principals, issues of control had to do with their time. “I’ve learned you
have to be pretty open about your agenda. You come in with two or three things you
want to do, and you just have to be real ﬂexible.”

Sometimes control is related to school environmental issues. “You’re never in
control of what goes on. You only hope that you have people in the building, including
adults and children, that have enough self-control to be in control.” “Most of our kids
know what’s appropriate and what isn’t. They know the rules and regulations.” “1 don’t
care if I feel like it or not, I don’t have total control. This building is two blocks long. It
has all these little legs that come off. We have an open lunch, where students can go
uptown, but I’m the only person that watches lunch. I just walk from one end of the
building, and change [where I’m going next]. I’m out in the parking lot, and I’ll be down
there watching the lunch line first, and I’ll change it. I know there are kids who skip.
There’s no way I’m going to catch everything.” “You have to be visible, conscious of

what’s happening around you all the time, other events, other kids, other schools. I’m

250

very safety conscious. We’ve had three students expelled this year, three for weapons,
two knives and one bb gun, but the bb gun looked like a semi-automatic 9mm. Ninth
grader, and you saw that thing, you’d swear it was heavy metal. I caught him right out
here, right after school.” The principal does everything he can do to maintain control in a
situation he cannot possibly control.

Principals also see a relationship dimension to control. “Lack of control is one of
my greatest fears. I think that’s where the relationship I have with my staff is vital.
Whether it’s a teacher, a parapro, a cafeteria worker, they know my door is always open.
The more I know in advance, the better I’m able to handle what’s going on.” “It’s real
important to me that I know all these kids’ names. We stand outside every day and greet
the kids as they come in. I want them to know that I am here and that I’m out there.”
“Control for me is that I have had the respect of the parents. Kids do have a right, if
they’re hot, to come in here and say anything they want, as long as it is in here with me
alone. I think trust is a key. I think trust is very important.” Control is knowing who the
kids are, and their knowing that the principal knows them. The feeling of control, that
you know what is going to happen and can direct the course of events, is based on the
principal’s relationships with people in the system. The principal builds trust and relies

on that trust as a means to keep the school on an even keel.

Costs

Principals shared their thoughts about the personal costs related to their positions.
“If you have your own kids in the system, sometimes they get picked on.” “Socially, you

have to be very careful what you do, very careful. If I’m going to have a drink, I’ll do it

251

at home.” “I never take issues of school, I never take them home. I don’t like to discuss
them; it eats you up inside. Emotionally, you better learn to deal with it.” “Divorce after
[a long marriage]. Not much time at home.” “You don’t socialize with teachers, because
if you have a problem, you can’t take care of the problem because you socialize.” “I’m
one of those people that, if this is the job I’m doing, I want to be the best there is at it, and
I think it took a toll on my family. My marriage fell apart. I’m not sure that wouldn’t
have been the case no matter what kind of work I did.” “My younger daughter went to a
different school than I [was in], and I deﬁnitely found that the ability to be part of her
interests was much more limited. I wish that hadn’t been the case, because she grew up
before I noticed.”

Time is an enormous issue to principals, as it relates to both their work and their
families. “The biggest thing is time. How can I make my day longer?” “A lot of times I
don’t get to see [my daughter] in the morning, and when I come home she is already
sleeping.” “I’m learning to say, ‘O.K., I’m going to that basketball game for the ﬁrst
quarter so everybody sees me, but then I’m going to go home and read books with my
son.” “I sometimes feel guilty that I don’t spend enough time with my children and my
wife.” “Just take a time machine and just make time for the things that you’d like to get
done.” “You are just inundated. You could never go home. You never catch up. It just
never ends and something is always popping up.” Principals are conﬂicted by impossible
time demands of their jobs and the demands of their role relationships as spouses and
parents.

Principals related how isolated they feel in their positions. “This job is much

more lonely than I had ever expected it to be. I’m a social person. For me not to talk

252

about a lot of things to staff members is very hard.” Although principals claimed they
weren’t in the job for the money, several principals mentioned it as a cost to them., both
personally and professionally. “You are never going to get rich in administration. That’s
the first thing you have to understand. You’re not here because of the money, you are
here because you enjoy what you are doing in being with young people.” “If you had a
whole bunch of money you could solve a bunch of problems.” “I have friends in
business, and they are making much more than I am, and maybe not doing half the job I
am. I work, depending on the sport season, 55-60 hours a week.”

The stress of the seemingly unending variety of tasks principals have to do also
takes its toll. “I’d like to wear less hats. Any more, there’s something every minute.”
“You can have every appointment set up, and you say, ‘This time is sacred,’ and
something happens and you can’t do that. So the frustration of not being able to go on a
project and do it and get it done is tough.” “It’s stressful, knowing that people would like
to see you ﬁred, and this is your career, your livelihood, and you’ve invested twenty or
twenty-ﬁve years in it.” “I think there’s a cost in having to make decisions. Harry
Truman said the President’s job is to make decisions, and he never made a decision that
he had a second thought about. He made the decision, and he moved on. If you make
decisions as a principal, which it is your job to do, some people are not going to like the
decision. No one likes to be disliked.” “It’s taken a toll on my health. I became an
asthmatic, something I’ve never been before. I’ve got the inhaler in my pocket. This job
can kill you, it really can, if you let it.” “I think there are a lot of personal costs, and most
of it is just unpleasantness. Time, stress, sometimes having to deal with things that no

one likes to deal with, and that takes it out of you sometimes.” “The stress is a whole

253

different ballgame. . .1 figured I had gotten into something, so I went to the doctor and

they did all the testing, and they said it is just stress.”

Composite Role Perceptions

The composite of the small town secondary principals’ perception of the role in
2000-2001 reﬂects all aspects discussed in this chapter. An enormous part of the role is
related to solving problems for other people in order to facilitate their work. “You are a
problem solver from the minute you walk in until the minute you leave. Everybody, if
you walk down the hall, somebody wants to stop you and everyone has something to ask
you because to them the most important thing is that, and you continually try to solve
problems.” “There isn’t any magic to it. It’s just work; you choose where you put your
energy.” “I think all administrative jobs are self-created. You can do as much or as little
as you want to.” “Some days you never know what is going to happen. It seems that
everybody needs a little piece of your time. Everybody wants a little chunk. And that
took awhile for me to get used to. I have had to learn to be a little more patient and
understand what may not seem like a big deal to me is a big deal to them.” “You have to
make sure your attitude is, I take one day at a time, I do the best I can, and we’ll get it
done one way or another. And if you don’t have that attitude, you don’t stay in the job
very long.” /

“I can remember wondering when I was teaching what those guys did, what the
principals did. And I couldn’t explain it, no one could have explained what the job is.
They still couldn’t, until you do it. I really believe that. And it’s not just working with

curriculum stuff. The discipline is there, and that sort of thing, but the crazy things that

254

come in the door. No one could prepare you for that. You never know what is going to
happen. And the biggest thing, and I’m sure it’s in every generation of principals that’s

happened, but no matter what it is, it’s the principal’s responsibility.”

255

Chapter V

Findings, Reﬂections, and Conclusions

There is a distinction between the patience required in the
eternal search for an ideal role and the prudence necessary
to survive in the real one.

(Wolcott, 1973)

Introduction

The purpose of the study is to describe and explain the perceptions that small
town secondary principals have of their role. The increasing complexity of the job and
the changing context within which principals work have made personal and professional
fulfillment from the work fragmented and elusive for many principals. Although most
principals love their work and some even regard it as a calling to serve that they are
willing to answer, the expectations and demands of their constituent groups present
ongoing challenges the principal must work tirelessly to meet. It was the goal of this
researcher to investigate the perceptions these principals have of their role in order to add
to the body of knowledge about the principalship as it is at this point in time.

In the first chapter, a statement of purpose and background were presented in
Part I. In Part H, an explanation of the theoretical construct followed, including the
concepts of role theory, social systems, norms, and ambivalence and conﬂict. These
concepts guided the researcher in the investigation, directing the examination of
previously collected data as well as the collection of new data. The theoretical construct
also framed the questions explored in the data collection and examination.

Because the role of the principal is seen as being 80 significantly impacted by its

history, the review of literature is organized as an historical perspective of the

256

principalship from the late 18008 to the present in the first part of Chapter H. The review
was framed by metaphorical themes drawn from another literature review, published by
Beck and Murphy in 1993. They organized their study by decades, and identiﬁed
metaphorical themes of the principalship and dominant tones of the literature for each
ten-year period. Chapter II closed with a description of the current principal’s role
according to external expectations. Various sources were used to formulate this
description of the role of today’s principal.

The research methodology was described in Chapter IH. Part I of that chapter
explored the theory of the method, beginning with a discussion of the concept of
perception, since it is the principals’ perceptions that form the basis of the data collected
for this investigation. An explanation of the reasons for selecting a qualitative research
method, which is informed by multiple disciplines, followed. The research method was a
series of natural, qualitative case studies of the phenomenon, which is the perception that
today’s small town secondary principals have of their role. Symbolic interaction and a
historical, metaphorical perspective framed the method.

Part I also addressed the assumptions that the researcher made and described the
research design. The sampling technique was explained. Researcher responsibilities as
they pertain to the research subjects, the University, and to the goals of research were
acknowledged. Validity, reliability and generalizability were discussed. Part I closed
with a brief statement about the ethics of research.

Part II of Chapter HI described in complete detail the actual method used in the

completion of the research for this project, attending to Merriam’s (1988) instruction that

257

this part of the methodology presentation should be so comprehensive as to be a manual
for replication for the study. The researcher tried to accomplish this charge.

Chapter IV of this study presented the data and a preliminary analysis. Part I
presented salient points of the data collected by Wayne Peters in 197 3. The researcher
drew upon Peters’ and Cusick’s analysis (1979) of this data and added further analysis
based on Beck and Murphy’s (1993) metaphorical themes. The Peters data was
important because it described the role as it was in 1973 and shaped the current research.
It contributed to the researcher’s insight into the evolution of the role, and abstractions of
it set the stage for the presentation and analysis of the current data in Part H.

The present chapter revisits tentative conclusions presented in Chapter IV as
abstract conceptualizations of the role based on speciﬁc statements made by the
principals in response to interview questions. Revised answers to research questions are
offered, based on analysis of all data gathered. General ﬁndings are summarized and
reﬂected upon, and conclusions based on the ﬁndings are presented. Beck and Murphy’s
metaphorical themes (1993), which framed the review of literature, are revisited, and
pertinent themes from the 19708 and 19908 frame a reﬂection on both the current and
1973 ﬁndings. Finally, limitations of this study are discussed, and the research ﬁndings
and those limitations are used to generate suggestions for further research.

Research questions were generated from the data collected from the 1973 interviews.
Some of the questions asked in 2000-2001 are the same as, or very similar to the
questions asked in those interviews. As abstractions drawn from the data are revisited, a

more conceptualized version of the role of the principal can be created.

258

Revised Answers to Research Questions
0 How did small-town principals perceive their role in the mid-19708?

The principal was a true community leader in 1973. He accepted the fact that
schools were open to outside scrutiny and governance. Wayne Peters found that the
principals felt they needed to build the trust necessary to convince the conservative
community that nothing was going on in their schools that would challenge or negate
their values. The principal had to be visible in order to prove to the community that he
was committed to carrying out this guardian aspect of his role. They were willing to
subject their schools and themselves to scrutiny, and to make the sacriﬁces necessary in
their personal lives to fulfill the role as they perceived the community expected them to
fulﬁll it. Even though they gave examples from their own lives from which one could
conclude that the principals found the conservatism of their communities personally
restrictive, they accepted this as a part of the job.

Principals in 1973 also described their role in terms of relationships. The focal
point of their relationships with students and parents was to direct student behavior in
such a way that community values were upheld and perpetuated. The principal was a
ﬁgurehead in the school and in the community, and built the trust of the students and the
parents that he would do the right thing for them. Sometimes, the principal felt he was
expected to assume the parental role to ensure that this would happen. Principals wanted
to support their students, even though they saw their role relationships with them as
related mostly to discipline and procedure.

They also had to build the trust of their superintendents and their Boards of

Education. This seemed from the descriptions of the principals to be a more difﬁcult

259

task. Some felt that Board members had their own agendas and their own ideas about
how things should be done, and felt constrained and inhibited by their interference.
Chain of command was important to them, and they expected to be given autonomy to
run their buildings. They wanted to have the sort of collegial relationship with their
superintendents that would invite discourse rather than intervention.

Another significant set of role relationships that the principal managed was that of
principal/teachers. Cusick and Peters (1979) found that the principals, in their efforts as
instructional leaders, developed diverse strategies to manage a diverse group of people
engaged in diverse activities. A principal seldom talked about his staff as an entity.
Principals had to use tact and diplomacy and strategic planning to move staff members in
any direction they wanted them to move. Principals saw themselves as responsible for
moving their schools ahead, but realized that they had to move slowly and cautiously in
order to accomplish this complex task. Their inﬂuence was based on their interpersonal
skills, rather than anything academic in terms of instructional leadership, and was borne
out in the personable, dependable personiﬁcation of community values. They presented
their role as monitoring and managing diverse groups in order to keep things on an even
keel and in order to effect any change at all. The principal could only govern with the
consent of the governed.

Although principals wanted to be seen as instructional leaders, they presented
their communities as caring more about continuity of community values through the life
of the school than what was happening academically. Thus, ensuring continuity of
prevailing community mores could be said to be the technical core of the school, rather

than issues associated with teaching and learning, which Cusick and Peters assumed at

260

the outset of their study to be the technical core. Principals assured the community of
this continuity by embodying community values themselves. There was no certainty
about teaching and learning when it came to the diverse elements of the teaching staff.
The principals monitored these elements, and occasionally used their best diplomatic
efforts to change or unify their direction. Mostly, they left teachers alone, and
concentrated on the buffering and personiﬁcation elements of their role, which depended
largely on the principals’ ability to build trust between himself and his various constituent
groups.

Principals frequently felt conﬂicted in their role relationships. Their decisions
often placed them at odds with someone. They saw themselves as the ones responsible
for resolving what were sometimes irresolvable situations, at least for one of the parties
involved. A primary role was as “buffering agent,” spanning boundaries between school
and community, student or teacher and Board of Education, and protecting the school
from what Cusick and Peters (1979) termed “the potentially disruptive community
inﬂuences” and “environmental uncertainty” (p. 35). They concluded that there were
“two major norms that govern the principal’s role in the small town secondary school:
the norm that the person will embody the ethic of a responsible public servant, and the
norm that he will monitor the diverse elements of the school for community acceptability
and organizational stability” (p. 35).

o How do present-day, small-town secondary principals perceive their role?

Today’s principals believe they have to keep the school running smoothly in order
to accomplish the work of the school. They see themselves as operating within a network

of relationships that they describe as mostly positive, most of the time. The key to

261

successful relationships, principals noted, is good communication. When relationships are
good, the school runs smoothly. Every principal made a statement about the need to
establish trust as the foundation to positive relationships, and either stated or directly
implied that it was incumbent upon them, in the carrying out of their principal
responsibilities, to establish this trust.

They all see themselves as open, approachable and friendly, especially with their
students. They also unanimously reported good relationships with their parent
communities. Principals welcome the parents’ involvement, and regard their positive
involvement and communication as a sign of trust. They all emphasized the importance
of being visible to students and the community as a sign of caring and comrrritrnent.

Principals also need interpersonal skills in working with their teachers.

Nearly all of the principals named “instructional leader” as a key facet of their role. Most
saw themselves as facilitators of the teaching and learning process, and one referred to
himself as lead teacher in the school. They all see themselves as conduits of information
to their teachers, especially as it relates to information and research about teaching and
learning, which seems to take an equal place alongside perpetuating community values at
the technical core.

Convincing teachers of the need to change their instructional methods is another
facet of instructional leadership. Principals see the change process as something they are
mandated to lead in order to meet new demands of accountability, and described their
efforts to bring about change in the same way as principals did in 1973. They see their
teacher populations as diverse, and believe they have to take various approaches with

various individuals or groups within the teaching ranks, especially when it comes to

262

 

 

leadinj
cautle
instru
pater
acco
govt
addr

mar

pri

B0

{/1

leading change. J ust as in 1973, current principals also described having to move
cautiously and slowly, using tact and strategy in motivating change. Many stated they are
instructional leaders in the community, as well, and stressed the importance of informing
parents and other community members of what is happening at the school in order to
accomplish acceptance of change and innovation. Thus, as in 1973, a norm which
governs the principal’s work is that of monitoring diverse elements of the school, but in
addition to the goals of community acceptability and organizational stability, there is a
mandate to maximize the student outcomes for which the principal is held accountable.
The principals’ relationships with their superintendents and Boards vary. The
principals work at keeping their Board members and their superintendents informed. The
Boards of Education generally do not micro-manage. Superintendent relationships were
better if the ofﬁce was in a different building, and better yet if it wasn’t in close
proximity to the high school. All principals desire and/or experience autonomy in
running their buildings, and seek a relationship based on trust, and especially value a
collegial relationship with their superintendents. Many principals interviewed indicated
that their superintendents are the only other educators in their school communities with
whom they feel they can have an honest discussion about issues facing them in their role
as principal and find the support they need in carrying out their responsibilities.
Principals named compliance with teacher tenure laws and policies, special
education law, and MEAP testing as issues that consume a great deal of their time. They
were particularly concerned with accountability issues associated with state accreditation.

Several mentioned the idea of trying to hit a moving target as it pertains to accountability.

263

In fact, the newly appointed State Superintendent of Schools shelved the target in the
spring of 2001, no doubt leaving principals wondering what form it will take when it is
re-introduced.

Aside from the accountability issue, principals have varied perceptions of the
degree of control they have over their educational operation. Their responses revealed
differences in interpretation of the concept of control. Control was, for many of the
principals interviewed, a source of conﬂict within their role. Other sources include the
conﬂict between vision and reality, conﬂicts arising from the fact of scarce resources
(including time), unattainable goals, academic issues, and relationship conﬂicts.
Increasing numbers of special interest groups gather at the periphery of the open
educational system. Their norms impact education in ways that place almost impossible
demands on the principal as s/he strives to fulﬁll the expectations that others hold for
performance. The role is carried out from what Beck and Murphy term “the nexus of a
web” of complex and overlapping relationships, further complicating work.

0 What is the structure of the social system within which the principal performs
the role?

Nearly all of the 1973 principals viewed their communities as conservative. They
could cite speciﬁc examples to support this view, and many principals expressed that this
conservatism was ﬁne with them. They themselves, some stated, either saw themselves
as conservative and/or came from similar communities. They were comfortable with the
context within which they worked, and seemed willing to take on the role of conservator
of the community’s values. Some were proud of the fact that the community saw the
principal as the person in the school community who epitomized the community’s values

and that the community could count on the principal to carry on their traditions. The

264

principal demonstrated this trust by supporting families in their efforts to raise their
children with the same values.

Several of the principals interviewed in 2000-2001 see their communities in
transition, as people ﬂee cities and large suburban areas to seek a better lifestyle for
themselves and their families. However, along with “changing,” they also described their
communities as “conservative” and “traditional.” The schools are generally the center
of the community’s activity. The principals see their communities as watchful and
demanding of high levels of performance from everyone in the school. The building is to
be well-maintained. Students are to behave both in and out of school, and engage in
activities that positively represent the community. Teachers are to teach in ways that will
ensure high levels of student achievement, especially as reﬂected on the MEAP tests. The
football and basketball teams should win. The community exerts a strong inﬂuence on
how the school operates, and wants the school utilized in ways that reﬂect its values. The
principal feels pressure to deliver according to these expectations. Principals are very
much attuned to the community outside the school. Like their predecessors of the 19708,
they work to buffer the school from the pressures of the special interest groups at the
periphery and the community outside the door, but they realize that the open systems
nature of the school means that the ever-increasing number of constituent groups will
have inﬂuence on the school as an organization, groups whose norms, in addition to the
community’s, will govern the principal’s work.

Principals tended to view the organizational aspects of their schools in terms of
relationships with constituent groups, rather than describing the school as an

organizational entity, or as part of a larger bureaucracy. Without exception, the

265

principals interviewed saw themselves as carrying the burden of responsibility for
everything that occurs within the school, even if they could not completely control the
conditions that precipitated events. Principals take the issue of control very seriously. It
has several significant aspects for them, which will be discussed in future pages.

0 What are the norms governing the role performance of the principal?

For the small-town secondary principals interviewed both in 1973 and 2000-2001, it
was evident that the reality of their work as principals did not entirely match the
expectations they carried into the role. Most indicated the expectation that instructional
leadership would take the major portion of their time. They entered into the role of
principal because they had positive feelings of success in their previous work as teachers,
coaches, and administrators. They believed they had the passion and the capacity to
make a difference to students, teachers, and their school communities. They knew the
role required hard work, but most admitted to having little insight into the actual work of
the principal when they entered the profession.

The primary norm that guides their work as principals in a small town is the belief
that the school is the center of community activity and must reﬂect community values,
and that their role is to protect those values and provide not only for the students, but for
the community. They feel a huge responsibility to earn, establish and maintain the trust
of the entire school community. If community members believe their norms are being
supported and addressed in the daily goings-on of the school, they support the principal.

Principals also are very keenly aware of workplace norms. They see these as
governing their relationships with their constituent groups within the school. They work

carefully to manage the diverse groups in their school communities, seeking to balance

266

their role relationships in ways that will ensure a positive school climate, success for
students, a satisﬁed staff, and parents and community that trust the principal and the
school

In 1973, the principal’s perspective was oriented in the community. The principal
had to manage diverse groups in his school in such a way that the community’s
perception of the school was that of a stable entity which reﬂected its values and norms.
The principals interviewed in 2000-2001, while still oriented to a watchful and
demanding community, also perceive their work to be goverened by the norms of a wide
variety of constituent groups, including the larger society in which the school community
exists, special interest groups both internal and external to the school community, and
state and federal agencies, such as Departments of Education, OSHA, and the Ofﬁce of
Civil Rights.
0 What legislated mandates impinge on the principal’s performance of his role?

None of the principals speciﬁcally mentioned PA 25, 335, or 339, but they referenced
the key points of this legislation in talking about their work as principals. In the years
since these laws have passed, the language of their mandates has passed into the lexicon
of school-keeping. Quality, school improvement teams, annual reports, core curriculum,
equity, mission statements, goals, outcomes, staff development, building-level decision
making, curriculum alignment, student achievement, accreditation, and disaggregation of
data are part and parcel of what principals do, and of what they talked about in response
to interview questions.

What takes principals’ time and attention in large share are issues surrounding MEAP

testing and PL94-142. Special education students and programs demand an inordinate

267

amount of administrative time, and for the small-town secondary principal with limited
ﬁnancial and personnel resources, implementing and overseeing the speciﬁcs of
individual cases can be overwhelming. MEAP testing produces little more for many
principals than frustration and anxiety. Although principals agree with the concepts of
accountability in public education the need for comprehensive, standardized achievement
testing, they believe they are held ultimately responsible for students’ performance on a
test that is currently mired in vagary and whose results are plagued by inconsistency and
misuse.

Teacher evaluation is also a time-consurrring task for principals, although all believe
it is a critical part of the work they do. Many small-town principals interviewed for this
study spoke of the difﬁculty of teacher retention. They believe it is difﬁcult for a young
teacher to leave the hi ghly-charged atmosphere of a college town and ﬁnd a satisfying
and fulﬁlling social life in a small community. This is especially true when community
norms are seen to place restrictions on such teacher behaviors as drinking in public places
and result in such a degree of watchfulness that dating is even difficult. The degree of
teacher turnover that results poses difficulties for the principals in both time management
and long-term educational planning. One principal reported having “17 or 18”
non-tenured teachers who require multiple evaluations each of their four years of
probation. More recent legislation related to weapons and assault have impacted
principals’ autonomy in decision-making, and have added to their already substantial
burden of paperwork because of increased reporting requirements.

The net result of legislative mandates is increased burden on already burdened

principals, as they try to ﬁnd the means to stay on top of mounting demands.

268

0 What are the personal costs to the principal as a result of role performance?
Every principal interviewed identiﬁed time as the issue that is central to most of the
conﬂict they experience, resulting largely from the continually increasing demands
related to fulﬁlling the role expectations of the ever expanding number of special interest
groups and meeting compliance requirements. They also cited stress, related health
problems, dealing with unpleasantness, feelings of never being able to accomplish
everything that needs to be done, and damage to both professional and personal
relationships as resulting from the demands of the job. Every constituent group has its
agenda, goals its members believe are critical for the success of the public education
system. It falls to the principal to meet these goals and fulﬁll these agendas, a
relentlessly mounting burden which principals ﬁnd difﬁcult, if not impossible, to meet.

Several described the job as requiring them to wear too many hats. They relate
their experiences of being pulled in too many directions, and they worry that their own
children are growing up without enough time and attention from them. Although they all
ﬁnd satisfaction in working with and on behalf of students, some of their stories,

assessments and predictions are dire.

Findings and Reﬂections - 1973
The Community

The Peters data revealed that principals saw themselves in 1973 primarily as
conservators of community values. Although they accepted this role which had been
more or less thrust upon them, they saw it as restrictive. “Parents in this community look

at me and say, ‘You are everything a person ought to be’; when it comes to their kids,

269

they want someone who walks a pretty straight line.” “I have to more or less guard my
ﬂank and defend every move I make as a high school principal.” Beck and Murphy
(1993) saw the 19708 as a time when schools were more open to outside scrutiny, and
community members began taking a more active role in the governance of schools. They
found that the literature of that decade pointed to the principal as the person responsible
for preserving the community through the communication of its moral and cultural values
to students. This sometimes meant the principal had to take on the role of the parent, or
to at least be prepared to support or model parenting skills for the parent when that job
became challenging. “‘My son or daughter ran away; can you help us out?”’ “I had a
call from a mother at 12:45. Her son had come home drunk, and she wanted me to come
right over, so I got dressed and went out.” Dress codes were created to assist parents in
setting rules for their students’ appearance.

By supporting parents and directing the development of students in ways that
upheld community values, principals were able to create and maintain schools that were
humane and affectively-oriented. Positive role relationships provided the foundation for
this. A principal who refused to get up in the middle of the night to assist with a runaway
or drunk child would not be promoting this community perception of a principal who was
running the school in an appropriate way. Telling a mother that she should tell her own
son to get a haircut rather than expecting the principal to do it would not be regarded as
supportive of community values. The principal was the embodiment of community
values, and functioned as a responsible public servant (Cusick & Peters, 1979).

Beck and Murphy point out that the principal has to juggle multiple role

conceptions. They refer to Mintzberg’s (1973) broad headings of Interpersonal

270

Facilitator, Information Manager, and Decision Maker and their sub-roles as illustration
of this description of the principal’s role. As interpersonal facilitator, the principal
fullﬁlls the responsibilities of figurehead, leader, and liaison. As information manager,
the principal monitors, disseminates, and acts as a spokesman. A8 a decision maker, he is
an entrepreneur, disturbance handler, resource allocator, and negotiator. The data quoted
above, as well as much of what is presented in Chapter III, reinforces the principal’s role
as interpersonal facilitator. As ﬁgurehead, he exercises his personal and political skills to
build relationships with students, parents and community that engender trust in the
school. He is a leader in upholding community values. He is a liaison between home and
school and between school and community in supporting and sometimes assuming the
parental role. Visibility at school events, which in small towns are often community

events, builds the community’s trust in the school.

Superintendent/Board of Education Relationships

Building trust with superintendents and Boards of Education was also seen as key
to a smooth running operation in 1973. “Like a lot of small districts, they [the Board of
Education] are really involved in the running of the school.” “They are very concerned,
very dedicated, very conservative. On given points of view you have to consider them
narrow-minded. Other times I think they are too liberal. What) they project to me is
concern.” “The people downtown want the kids off the streets, and they call the Board
members and they pressure me.” Descriptions of relationships with superintendents
ranged from friendly and supportive to difficult and adversarial. “If I go to him and just

want to talk over a problem, he makes the decision instead of letting me make the

271

decision and it’s just a constant thing of his getting involved with what is really my job.”
“He was never a high school principal and he can really and truly not conceptualize the
problems of the high school principal.” “I don’t always agree with everything and he
does at times use the privilege of rank to keep me from doing some things that I would
like to do, but we have a real good relationship.” “He does not interfere. Whether he
agrees with me or not, he lets me make my mistakes and of course I live with them and
that’s what I want.” “Most weeks I don’t even see the [superintendent]. Then we will
have three or four meetings in a couple of days. He and I can talk about business, and
there is a good feeling there.” Principals in the 19708 emphasized the value of autonomy.
They believed that their being allowed to be in charge of their schools was an expression
of mutual trust among the Board of Education, the superintendent, and the high school

principal.

Staff Relationships

Role relationships with teachers comprised another significant part of the
principal’s role set in 1973. They wanted to be able to work collegially with them on
important educational issues, but found the reality of their daily work with teachers often
focused on discipline and management issues. Principals did not present a picture of a
unified staff; they described their faculty members in terms of separate and opposing
factions or as resistant individuals. Their leadership efforts tended to take on the purpose
of keeping the peace, maintaining harmony. This made change difﬁcult. “They are all
individuals pretty well; we’ll reach maybe a third of them by general contact, a third

depending on the issue, maybe even up to half that will just take it. The others will want

272

some individual prodding or individual understanding.” “Mass meetings with the staff
don’t always precipitate too much. I can get more out of them individually or in small
groups and if I can convince them that it’s an idea that they thought of...” The principal
had to play the political role, strategizing and manipulating the diverse elements of his
staff.

Principals recognized the importance of being an instructional leader, but also
recognized the complexity of the change process. “I look to myself as the instructional
leader, leader in curriculum development. My job is to put as many different resources in
front of the teacher as I possibly can.” In this way, the principal fulﬁlled his role as
resource allocator. They recognized the scope of the responsibility: “. . .adding new
programs, adding new staff, adding curriculum changes, scheduling, all of these things.”
The principal was responsible for having school as well as for keeping the peace while
doing 80. “You’ve got to give people the opportunity to come to the decision that you
already said they should have along time before. Then it is their decision and not yours
and they can respond to that much easier.” Principals had to be politically adroit in

managing the diverse elements of their staffs in order to effect change.

Student Relationships

In the 19708, principals saw their relationships with students in terms of providing
for students by preparing them for the future. They wanted students to know they had the
students’ best interest at heart, but felt that they were not meeting the needs of every
student. They recognized parents’ dreams for their children, but also recognized reality.

“The counselor and I have discussed many times, we really wonder if we should continue

273

to attempt to get students to look at what is elsewhere or just concentrate our efforts in
preparing them to live right here in this area because so many of them have done that."
“If I started telling you everything that is going on, I’d say, ‘Hey, we are doing a fantastic
job,’ but I don’t feel we are still getting to that 20%; we are not touching the kid that
doesn’t want to play ball, be in the band and too often we are willing to say, and this is
reﬂected from the top down — we are too willing to say, tough, if they don’t want the
other things we have to offer, go [elsewhere].” Communication was seen as vital to
positive relationships with all constituent groups. “If we can talk, we’ll get along; if we
can’t talk, we are going to have some problems and I think that’s the way I will ﬁnd most
of my staff, too. The same way with parents.” “[Students] are the messengers to the
home in this community and the parents are really on top of what is going on at school.”
The opportunities the principal provided to the students and the relationships he
established with them had to reﬂect community values in order to keep harmony, build

trust, and ensure community acceptability.

Conﬂict/Control

That goal was not without its setbacks in the 19708, however. Principals realized
that most decisions they made would place them in conﬂict. “1 find myself quite often
standing as a buffer, kind of my being put in each camp, so to speak. You negotiate.”
Conﬂict and negotiation are often related to the issue of control, which will be discussed
in a later section. As negotiators and disturbance handlers, principals believed that much
of the action they took in situations was reactive, rather than proactive. “I don’t think

that any one person can sit up in an ivory tower and say I control this or that.” “I think

274

most of us just respond to just the way things happen.” Principals felt uneasy about the
loose handle they had on the goings-on at the school at any given moment. Even those
who felt conﬁdent offered caveats, such as this: “The control you have is like steering a
big boat. It is not a very quick or positive response, but sure you can control the big and
cumbersome thing. You just don’t turn quick, and there are a lot of different ways you
have to do it.”

The issue of control was just one aspect of feelings of conﬂict. Principals were
unanimous in their assessment of time being at the root of conﬂict. “1 think time
becomes a real problem to anyone [in school administration].” Less time to spend with
family, less time to spend on what they considered signiﬁcant educational issues, less
time to relax were at the source of some of the conﬂicts in which principals found
themselves. “If I have any conﬂicts with administration, it would be my family and the
job. I’m in the process right now of trying to change the job to ﬁt around my family,
which is difficult, because an administrative position is demanding in a community like
this where you are the one and you are responsible for all the activities. If it’s going to
get done, you are going to do it.” Principals felt they were on call twenty-four hours a
day, seven days a week, and that the community expected it. They found it difﬁcult to
take vacation time without being interrupted. “I’m more concerned with the kids of the
school when I should be more concerned about my family and myself than anything
else.” “As long as you are going to have people involved and centered around something
as valuable as daughter or son is, you are going to have conﬂicts. So, I see my position
or my own perception now is changing, and I see it more as a full-time troubleshooter

more than I see it as an educator, and that I don’t like.” They reported feelings of

275

pessimism and negativity, internalization of pressure, feeling lonely and isolated in the
job, and the need to be constantly shifting gears in order to accomplish what they
perceive is expected of them. The generalist is drained by the work, according to

Georg Simmel (1955). There is little mental energy left after making the effort to meet
the demands of the job. Still, some principals felt they had grown in the position,
developing decision-making skill and self-confidence. Nearly one-third of the principals
interviewed in 1973 were contemplating leaving school administration at the time they
were interviewed, citing time demands, pressures, and strain on family relationships as

reasons.

Findings and Reflections — 2000-2001
Perceptions

Principals interviewed in 2000-2001 found their perceptions coming into the role
of principal to be different from the reality of the work. Principals admitted to not being
sure of a precise deﬁnition of the role, but expected they would have more time “to be
able to be out and about and doing, seeing hands-on, seeing what is going on.” “Just take
a time machine and just make time for the things that you’d like to get done.” Their
perceptions were built upon what they had been able to observe from the vantage point of
assistant principal or athletic director, or perhaps from their memories of their own high
school principals. “When I became a high school principal I had no idea how much I
would ﬁnd out about personal lives, about how much crisis there is in families. . .I watch
‘Boston Public.’ That’s a lot packed into one week, there, but the situations that are on

there, happen.” “I didn’t really know [what the job would be]. I think all administrative

276

jobs are self-created. . .I don’t know if I can tell you my expectations, but I can tell you

9,

my desire. ..[which is] not to be off-campus going to meetings. Although principals
recognize the need to keep up with current educational trends and ideas, they also feel the

need to be connected to their buildings, to be visible to their constituents.

Student Relationships

Beck and Murphy describe the principal of the 19908 as a servant who leads
“from the nexus of a web of interpersonal relationships” (1993, p. 191). As parts of a
web, the constituent groups are connected, and the principal’s relationships with them do
not exist in isolation. The relationships the principal has with his students impact the
relationship with parents. The relationship with the staff impacts the students. His
relationship with both will impact the community, which will impact his relationship with
his Board of Education and his superintendent. “It’s the work with the kids that’s most
important.” “I can walk the halls and know most of the kids by name.” “I make myself
available [to students]. I’m always in the hallway, I’m always at functions, I’m always in
classrooms, because I want them to view me as being approachable. I have a lot of fun
with them.” “They see me as a very approachable person; my door is always open.”
The positive feelings about students that led principals into a career in education are
evident in their responses about their students. They seek the same positive relationships
they enjoyed as teachers and coaches, but find themselves removed from students unless

they make a special effort to connect with them.

277

Parent Relationships

The principal’s role in 2001 is largely about relationships. “You’re dealing with
parents daily. You’re dealing with students, staff, you’re a mediator between staff,
students and parents.” “[Another thing that has] been helpful would be the parent
advisory group, getting to know a core group of parents well. The evening activities that
we spend as high school principal helps, too; you are in touch with parents. That’s all
part of the relationship building, becoming a part of the community.” “Sometimes
rumors start in a small district; [parents] can dispel rumors if they do occur. We listen to
them if they think there are areas we could work on, and we have an Open forum kind of
thing. If I need help, parents are usually there to help.” Principals need parents to be
informed and supportive of what is going on in the school. In this open system, parents
have the opportunity to communicate their beliefs and values and to witness the principal
providing for their children in ways that reﬂect community norms. Parents comprise
important special interest groups from which principals must receive input, and whose

expectations of maximizing student outcomes they must continually strive to meet.

Superintendent/Board of Education Relationships

Not much that the principal does is separated from relating to individuals or
groups. “A school board is made up of people with a wide variety of attitudes and
agendas, and it behooves you to know what those attitudes and agendas are. That helps
you determine which approach is likely to be successful, and what words you use to make
your case with the various individuals.” The principal must be able to identify the nature

of role relationships with the Board of Education as a whole and with individual Board

278

members. “This Board gives me a lot of autonomy. They always ask for an explanation,
which I expect, but they have never said no to anything that we have asked for or
attempted to do. They view themselves, I think, correctly, as a policy making group.”
Autonomy is important to all principals, and they experienced it in varying
degrees when it came to relationships with their superintendents. They expected a chain
of command in their relationships with superintendent and Boards of Education. This
feature is reﬂective of Beck and Murphy’s observation that traditional schools are stable
entities with mechanisms in place that buffer the school from the pressures of the larger
environment. The chain of command tended to develop kinks when the superintendent or
a Board member inserted him/herself into a situation that the principal felt belonged in
his domain. This seemed to be more likely to happen when the superintendent’s ofﬁce
was in the high school building. “He may be walking down the hall, sees something,
writes me a note; he wants it handled immediately. I don’t think it’s a healthy situation,
but it’s not so unhealthy that I would want to leave.” Most principals felt that when the
superintendent was satisﬁed with the level of communication provided by the principal
and was able to manage the Board of Education, the principal/superintendent relationship

was a positive one.

Staff Relationships

Principals recognize the signiﬁcance of positive role relationships with their
faculty members. It is what creates the climate for student success, and ultimately, for
community support of the school. “In our most recent meeting the preface was, you are

the emotional and educational leaders of this community. We are the center of this

279

community’s universe.” “I have a great staff. I think for the most part they like me
because they know I’m going to support them, that I’m going to help them do the things

9’ “

that they think are important to do. [Staff perception] just depends on the kind of role I
have to take with them. With some of them, I’m colleague and friend. With some of
them, I’m a mentor; with some of them, I’m a boss. It’s different with each person.”
Principals know that they have multiple role relationships with staff members, and the
role relationship can change with an individual depending on the situation. As the
instructional leader, the principal is called upon to guarantee excellence in teaching.
“Last year, I had to let a teacher go, and it was the hardest thing I’ve ever done. But
that’s my job.” Beck and Murphy describe the Principal as Educator as “the head learner
in the organization,” a person who learns and shares in order to guide “substantive
educational issues” related to the technical core of teaching and learning (1993,

pp. 192-3). “We have to train our teachers a little differently. We can’t just stand there
and lecture anymore, and we have to be able to write. I think my role as instructional
leader is to stay on top of that information and continually feed the information to the
staff and get them to change.”

Getting them to change presents an enormous challenge to the principals
interviewed in 2000-2001. The change process requires principals to lead their staffs
when they don’t always want to be led. “I start talking to some of the teachers that I
know are going to be very resistant to some of the possibilities. I try, in a personal
conversation with them, try to show them why these things may be needed or why we

need to at least address them. And I may already have a plan in my mind how I’m going

to attack that issue with the whole teaching body. But I try to get some teachers to start

280

thinking about it and try to start addressing the issue maybe themselves. I even try to get
to them more and say, ‘What do you think we should do? How do you think we can do
this?’ And a lot of times they will bring in some ideas. I try to integrate some of those
possibilities that they bring to me into that plan so that they start to take some ownership
of it. It is a very slow process.” The principal has to use tact, diplomacy, strategic
planning and patience to bring about necessary change. In addition to the challenges of
the change process experienced by principals in 1973, many changes managed by
today’s principals are mandated by district policy or state legislation. The principal is
held accountable for bringing about changes that must be made by a recalcitrant staff.
This is an extension of Beck and Murphy’s (1993) view of principals as social architects.
Their description of this metaphor has to do with social changes that require schools to
adapt their programs to meet the needs of changing populations, but the principal must
also carefully attend to workplace norms to design an environment in which change can
take place. In the end, it is the principal’s ability to use role relationships to motivate
staff members to make changes that brings it about. The principal must monitor and
manage the diverse elements of his staff in order to effect necessary change, and must do

it in a way that results in community acceptance and maintains organizational stability.

Social Systems and Organizations

The 1973 data demonstrated the complexity of the role relationships in which the
principal found himself, and that the secondary principal’s role could not be described
and explained separate from the community. Parsons’ definition of role as a “total

orientation system” for an individual that is “organized around expectations in relation to

281

a particular interaction context” provides the basis for this conclusion. He thought that
roles have cultural elements, which define the nature of relationships. Patterns of action
develop within a social system, but social systems are made complex by the combination
of cultural, situational, and individual personality elements. The fact that certain patterns
of role interaction are established makes an institution stable (Parsons, 1951, p. 41).

So it is with schools. The school is an organization, which in Merton’s terms is
dynamic, coping with its environment by adapting its use of resources to achieve its
goals. Katz and Kahn’s description of open systems also can be used to deﬁne schools.
There is a close relationship between the organization and the environment in which it
exists. The environment supports the organization by providing input in the form of
energy and maintenance. The communities the principals describe in both 1973 and
2000-2001 are dynamic and mostly supportive in their input. Further, they ﬁt Scott’s
(1981) deﬁnition of an open system, which features the development of goals by
negotiation. The structure of the organization is strongly inﬂuenced by environmental
factors, and is active and capable of responding to its environment.

Social systems are the context in which role performance takes place. The school
and its community comprise the social system, and its complexity varies depending on
the situation at hand. Two people, such as the principal and a student, teacher, parent, or
school board member may interact in a relatively simple role relationship. In other
situations, such as in an instance of interpretation and application of district policy or
state law as it relates to a disciplinary situation, numerous, interrelated subsystems may
be involved, making role interactions highly complex. In either type of situation, it is

most likely the principal who will be the closest to the external inputs from the open

282

social system, and the person who will most likely be responsible for the resolution of the
situation. Inputs are sometimes perceived rather than directly communicated. A student
who violates a community norm by appearing drunk at a Friday night football game must
be dealt with in such a way as to communicate that the principal recognizes that a norm
has been violated. Further, the consequence must be such that it clearly communicates to
the student and the entire school community that such violation of norms will not be
tolerated. The principal in this situation recognized that the community held certain
expectations for his response, and he responded in a way that upheld the community
norms regarding the taboo of public alcohol abuse by students. In this particular case, the
principal stated that “I chose a longer suspension than I would have in [his previous
position], where the bigger ﬁsh to fry would have been marijuana.”

Another norm governing principal behavior is that relating to commitment
demonstrated by visibility. “By virtue of my job, I have to be at all home football games,
all home basketball games. . .I’ve got to show up at a soccer match, I’ve got to go to
baseball/softball, got to hit volleyball once in awhile. Tonight’s basketball game, it’s
over in [a community a long distance away]. I’d be hung if I wasn’t there.”

Parsons believed that all social action has its basis in norms. The individuals
engaged in role relationships in the social system share the values embedded in the
norms. Therefore, social action is voluntaristic, designed to bring about a desired end.
The shared desire for certain ends deﬁnes individuals’ relationships with one another.
Principals want their communities to be satisfied with their smooth-running schools.
Community members believe the school is running smoothly when students are

demonstrating behavior that reﬂects community values. Principals generally share those

283

values, and accept the responsibility for perpetuating them by setting and enforcing
apprOpriate expectations for students’ academic and behavioral performance. Thus, the
participants in the open system have shared beliefs about appropriate and required
behavior, most of the members agree with them, and everyone in the system understands
that the community supports the belief. These criteria deﬁne a norm developed around a
function of a social system. The principal represents the school and the community as the
embodiment of their norms, functioning as a public servant who manages all the diverse
elements both internal and external to the school in such a way that the organization

achieves stability and balance with its environment.

Legislative Mandates

The State mandate for higher test scores as a measure of student achievement
results in a tremendous amount of principal time devoted to trying to accomplish it.
“At the high school level, [the MEAP has] been a moving target for such a long time.
You never know what’s going to be expected. I’ve had teachers work diligently on
things that turned out to be not of any value when we were all done because the whole
program changed. And now it’s changed again.” The MEAP is an example of the
change in the model of schooling from one that emphasizes minimum levels for many to
the post-industrial model of educating all students well. While most principals buy into
the need for standards and express a willingness to standardize the process to reach them,
they are distressed by the mismanagement of test data by the press and the singular focus
on the MEAP as the only means of measuring student achievement. “We put all this time

and energy into MEAP testing and we get back useless data. . .I have so much trouble

284

justifying in my own mind the time, energy and money that goes into that program and
what we get back in return.” “There should be a connection between the testing and what
the kids are going to be expected to do when they get out of school. Students had to read
three passages about being a victim and then write their own piece about being a victim.
Two hours. I asked the question, [in a state level focus group] ‘When have any of you
ever had to write about being a victim for your employer?” “. . .the MEAP is not a true
assessment because you don’t have access to how you did.”

Compliance with special education laws is another unwieldy task. “They send all
these rules out but don’t mandate funding for it. We deal with it, but it’s hard to do.”
“We don’t have any county programs [for severely impaired students] so those students
come here. We don’t have the facility, the people to deal with some of these kids. We
have to protect all our kids, and what do you do? I think we’re trying to manage
everything, and we can’t do it.” Principals feel conﬂicted by the recognition of the
special needs of these students, on the one hand, and by what they perceive to be the lack
of equity on the other. “[One of the big frustrations is] the amount of money that is spent
on the education of those students, to the detriment of students at the other extreme.”
Principals are also dismayed by the inequity of disciplining students who have a special
education label when their misbehavior is claimed to be a manifestation of their disability
and “having to explain that to [regular ed] parents.” Principals are ultimately legally
responsible for the provision of FAPE, free and appropriate public education, for these
students. “. . .something has to be done to help regular ed teachers understand how to
accommodate [special ed students]... the perception of how special ed can work for some

students, the general population of teachers have no idea, none.” It is up to the principal

285

to see that the appropriate program is delivered. Although the principal is part of a
committee which determines what that will look like, the parent voice is a powerful one,
and dissenting opinions about what constitutes an appropriate program can lead easily to
time-consuming and costly mediation hearings.

MEAP scores, special education laws, and control issues are not the only conﬂicts
that principals experience in their work. They are constantly faced with the scope of their
responsibility. In one interview, the principal talked in detail about the curriculum work
in which he had been involved in the effort to align what they teach with the state’s
cuniculum frameworks and thus better prepare students for their MEAP assessments. In
one breath, he stated, “I do everything from MEAP and now is the ﬁrst time to really heat
the building and there’s the machines and they haven’t been ﬁred up since last April, or
March, and we’ll probably spend a lot of time on that.” He also cited having to deal with
personnel issues, trying to keep a band teacher, and the football coach’s lack of
connection to educational issues in response to the question of what he does as the
principal of his school, what his work is, day-to-day. Another related, “I do everything.
We no longer have an assistant principal. . .Teaching staff, curriculum revision or review,
discipline. . .I’ve picked up the mop, I’ve pushed the broom. . .I’ve taken kids to the
hospital” as all in a day’s work. Still another responded by referring to the time he
spends on special education cases and teacher evaluation, and the need to juggle
priorities: “1 can have ten things going at once. . .there are 1000 of those pieces [to the
job].” “You are a problem solver from the nrinute you walk in until the nrinute you
leave. . .everything is a problem.” “You’re everything from a friend to a psychologist to a

teacher to an evaluator. You’re a friend at some point, but you’re a boss at another point.

286

Your demeanor affects the whole atmosphere. You get into crisis situations, a knife
found at school, or a parent dying at home. I just had a young teacher diagnosed with
cancer. All those things are what you do. You try to do all those things, and amongst all
that you have to try and keep thinking about, ‘Where are we going? What is our goal?’
and, ‘What are we trying to do here? What things can we get better at to get there?”’

Safety is a major concern, and a major responsibility. The entire school
community wants the school to be safe. “What I usually do in the moming, I get here
between 7: 15 and 7:30. Students start arriving 7:30 - 7:45. My assistant stays in the
ofﬁce and I walk. I check the halls. We have Nextels, to stay in communication. After
the bell rings, I check the bathrooms. Then I walk the whole building, check the doors to
make sure they’re locked. Only one door is open, that’s the one [in front]. I go around to
the back of the building where deliveries are made. There’s a deadbolt on that door, and
I make sure that’s locked. I come back here about 8: 15 and I’m set for whatever is going
to happen that day. Everything happens. You just deal with it.” Safety is a monumental
control issue.

There are other challenges to fulﬁlling the leadership role. With increasing
legislation related to student behavior, decision-making has been taken out of the hands
of school administrators. “Ten years ago, when I started, some kids in the hall got in an
argument, had a fist ﬁght, and said “I’m going to kill you,” you’d send them home for
three days and they would be cooled off and come back, but now it is a whole different
problem.” Now legal authorities must be called; a full investigation of the situation must
take place, the incident is reported through the superintendent’s office to the state, reports

must be written, meetings must be held, a recommendation for expulsion may be made,

287

and, depending on the parent’s response, the case may wind up in court. What took the
principal ﬁfteen minutes to sort out ten years ago now takes hours over a period of days,

weeks, or even months to resolve.

Conﬂict, Ambivalence, Ambiguity

Conﬂict and ambivalence are to be expected when an individual has what Parsons
called a “plurality of roles” (1951, p. 280). Principals are no exception. Those
interviewed in 1973 as well as those who participated in the 2000-2001 study shared
personal and professional situations which placed them in conﬂict with other individuals
in the social system, or which were examples of interrole conﬂict, where the norms
governing one role’s relationships were in conﬂict with those of another role held by the
principal. One major source of conﬂict for principals in both studies was the difference
between vision and reality. Principals want to do a good job, to be in control of their
school situations at all times. “You are directly responsible for, but not able to control
the behavior of 600 kids and 30 teachers. . .you are responsible for all of these — or
supposed to control these things, but you can’t, and you really don’t have any control
over those.” . .the relationship I have with my staff is vital. Whether it’s a teacher, a
parapro, a cafeteria worker, they know my door is always open. The more I know in
advance the better I’m able to handle what’s going on. . .Lack of control is one of my
greatest fears.” For other principals, the issue of control was related to acaderrrics.
“. . .when that door gets shut and that classroom starts and that teacher starts to teach, they
will have to make the decision, and I know, even though I could show you charts and

data that shows that we’ve increased our students’ outcomes a lot, there is still some crap

288

going on. There is some bad teaching going on and that’s out of control. . .Like you can
control the football compound, the football team, I don’t worry about that, it’s no big
deal. But I don’t know what some of those teachers are teaching.” “Do I have control?
Yes and no. I think I have control because kids know my expectations. . .Teachers close
their doors. . .Do I have control? No, because that door is closed and that teacher is up
there and they can do whatever they want.” Principals can set the expectations; the State
can mandate higher scores on MEAP tests. In the end, what happens in the classroom is
in the hands of the teacher, but the principal is ultimately responsible.

Other conﬂicts arise over utilization of scarce resources. “I would like to get
more money per kid so we can do some more things. . .We have all the equipment for [an
applied course]. I wanted to run it with 12 kids, but I couldn’t. And if we had more
money, yes we could have.” We [had] a half time art teacher who resigned and we’re not
able to ﬁll the position. . . [this is] the first time in 37 years we have a chorus. Right now
we have 52 kids in it. Now, one reason why we have so many, there probably would be
35-40, if we had the art program. . .the problem we run into is ﬁnancial. We would like to
offer more, but ﬁnancially right now we can’t.” “Teachers stay two or three years, and
they are gone, they move.” Principals ﬁnd themselves constantly trying to find new
teachers, often for positions that are not attractive to new teachers because of their
location or the schedule.

Contractual issues also cause conﬂicts not of the principal’s making. “We went
well over a year without a contract. . .it really exacerbated some problems. . .if we had had
to go another year like that, oh, man people were getting surly and that’s part of why I

had so much staff turnover.” Tenure laws are seen as restricting the principals’ ability to

289

make stafﬁng decisions in students’ best interests: “I would change the system in a
heartbeat. A lifetime guarantee because you can perform and that’s what it is, in some
cases, is a performance for four years and playing the game of, ‘Oh, you told me don’t do
it this way, so I’ll do it your way until we get to tenure, then we’ll go back to doing
whatever I want to.”’ The principal is conﬂicted in that he can identify this potential
situation, but feels powerless to do anything about it.

Principals often ﬁnd themselves in the position of taking a stand on an issue and
then being challenged for the decision. “Any time you choose to take a stand for
something, and ﬁght a popular opinion, you will be under attack. And also, when you are
always trying to achieve excellence, there will always be what I call unintended negative
consequences.” Principals think they are doing the right thing, but are challenged from a
direction they had not anticipated. “1 think the toughest thing you have to do as a
principal is you always are having to weigh the welfare of the group against the welfare
of the individual.” In many situations, there is no one right thing to do, there are two, or
more. The principal must decide, and live with the decision.

Ambiguity is often offered as a challenge to leadership in the same breath as
conﬂict. “There are a lot of unknowns. Sometimes I wish I had a crystal ball. I used to
talk about ﬁve years from now, but not any more. Now I say three years from now, and
when I look back two or three years, it’s changed so much. And when I look back to
when I started [x] years ago, there’s no comparison. It’s not even the same thing. It’s a
whole different system.” What has changed? For this principal, communicating with
Nextels, keeping all the doors locked, coping with enormous ethnic diversity in his

school, managing technological change.

290

Another principal stated, “If I were to design a school for the future, I don’t know
if I could or not, because I could design with the present day technology or what’s going
to be here in a couple of years, but what’s going to happen in ten years, I have no idea.”
The nature of the classroom is changing. Even these small town secondary principals
talked about distance learning opportunities for exceptional students. The classroom of
the future, as suggested in the September, 2001 issue of the Phi Delta Kappan, may be at
home, in a museum, or in cyberspace. For the principal, this prospect creates tremendous
ambiguity. They are held accountable for preparing students for a future they cannot
begin to describe, and which today is more uncertain than ever.

“I wish I could learn to be the ultimate principal. We read these articles that we
get in the mail from all these different educational periodicals. There are so many
wonderful things happening in education, and I don’t know how to implement them.”
Even if they did, principals would be hard-pressed to ﬁnd time and resources to do so in
any systematic, meaningful way. Principals are called upon to ensure that what they are
providing for their students will prepare them for the future, but they cannot conﬁdently
conceptualize their students’ future because of the exponential rate of change in the

nature of the workplace.

Costs

Unanticipated consequences of social action extended to principals’ personal lives
in every instance of the case. They entered into the principalship to make a difference, to
accept a challenge, to change situations for the better, to further the promise of young

people, to lead educational enterprise. In spite of their frustrations, they all indicated that

291

they have experienced success, in relationships with their constituent groups, in specific
situations that challenged them, in establishing themselves as leaders in their
communities. But their successes have come with a price in every instance, as well. The
stress principals experience takes its toll on their health. “It eats you up inside...
Emotionally, you’d better learn to deal with that.” “I became an asthmatic, something
I’ve never been before.” “I hadn’t been that stressed out before, and all the skin fell off
my hands.” One principal had had heart surgery, which he attributed to stress. Still
another shook his head and said, “This job can kill you, it really can, if you let it.”

The challenges of the job also affect their role relationships. Because of the
decisions principals make, “you’re not going to please everybody,” and the result is
“enemies that you normally wouldn’t make.” “A lot of unpleasantness. . .” “You are just
inundated. You could never go home. You never catch up. It just never ends and
something is always popping up.” Some principals feel isolated in their positions, which
is one reason they desire a collegial relationship with their superintendents. “Sometimes,
I think, in this job, especially in this type of community, you can kind of be on an island,
and if you have no support that can be pretty lonely.” Some principals feel removed from
the students: “My role is more related to clearing hurdles for the staff, and it’s more
teacher-directed and staff-oriented. . . [I have] very little day-to-day contact with kids.
That is a down side. . .there are still times when I think when I retire I’m going to go back
to teaching.”

Families suffer. “You’re virtually never home.” Principals’ wives and children
have been threatened and harassed. “I wished my children could have gone to a different

school.” “My house was vandalized several times; I had numerous death threats. . .they

292

set my house on fire. They vandalized my car.” “I sometimes spend more time with
other people’s kids than my own.” “. . .I’m one of those people that, if this is the job I’m
doing, I want to be the best there is at it and I think it took a toll on my family. . .You can
have your family, your career, but something’s got to give. . .We do people a real
disservice when we give them the impression that you can have it all and balance it all
and it’s never going to be a problem to your [spouse]. And in my case, to a great degree,
I think my family gave more than the profession.” “Not much time at home. Your
family is all you’ve got.”

Every principal saw positives, too. “I love my job.” “The job has had its rewards,
too.” When they feel overwhelmed by the negatives, they seek out the students. “I eat
lunch with the students.” “If I’ve had a bad day, I’d go down to our jazz band class. . .and
just listen to them play a little bit.” “. . .there are things that take place that just wrench
your soul, but you know you have had an impact on kids’ lives.” “I went to a wedding
and saw some young people that I had coached and had in school back in the early ‘808.
One is an attorney, one is an executive with an insurance company. . .you wish they could

all turn out like that. . . you do the very, very best that you can.”

293

Conclusions

Teaching and learning were more or less taken for granted in 1973 when Wayne
Peters interviewed small-town secondary principals around the state of Michigan.
Principals operated at the periphery of the instructional program. They became involved
in it only as disciplinarians, facilitators, and resource providers. The major impact on
principals’ work came from the external environment, the community served by the high
school. Principals’ major responsibilities were to function as a community leader,
conserving community norms and to provide a humane school environment based on
role relationships that managed the needs of constituent group members in a way that
built trust in a smooth—running operation. The principals’ primary norms were to embody
the ethic of a responsible public servant and monitor the diverse elements of the school
for community acceptability and organizational stability (Cusick & Peters, 1979, p.35).

Those norms still govern principals’ work today. In fact, principals’ work cannot
be separated from the position of the school in the community, the position of the
principal as a community leader, and the climate created in the school that protects
community norms and allows students and teachers to focus on teaching and learning.
The mandate of accountability, however, has thrust teaching and learning into a place of
primary importance alongside preservation of community norms at the technical core of
the educational organization. This elevated visibility of teaching and learning has had an
incredible impact on the role of the principal, resulting in its being a more knowledge-
based position than it was in the past. This is borne out by a final piece of the research
conducted for this study, which demonstrates that the mandates imposed by external

inﬂuences through the decades, as formulated by Beck and Murphy (1993) based on their

294

review of literature surrounding the principalship in the 20‘h century, still impact the
principal’s work.

Principals were asked to respond to a brief survey, which restated metaphors of
principals’ work through the 20‘h century. The metaphors were actually summary
descriptors of principals’ work developed by Beck and Murphy based on their extensive
review of the literature related to the principalship. They found the trends in the literature
for each decade, and developed from three to seven metaphors to describe the major
facets of the role for that decade. Principals interviewed for this study were asked to
indicate by marking “T” for true or “F” for false if the statements described their work in
any way.

A summary table of the principals’ responses to the impact of the metaphors from
the 19708 through the 19908 appears in Table I on the next page. (For a description of
the method of this part of the research, see p. 191 of this study, and for a complete listing

of the metaphor restatements, 19208 — 19908, see Appendix J.)

295

Table I

THREE DECADES OF METAPHORS
Impact on Principals’ Work

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1970s ' % True % False
Principals are expected to lead not only teachers, but also members of

the larger community. 85 15
One of the responsibilities of principals is assuring that educational

efforts are “meaningful.” 95 5
The principal must relate well to everyone and facilitate positive

interactions in the school. 100

The principal is expected to juggle a number of roles, even if those roles

require very different traits or abilities. 95 5
19808 % True % False
The principal is an instructional leader, guiding teachers and students

toward productive learning experiences, solving related problems and

providing necessary resources. 100

The principal is expected to be a visionary, developing and

communicating a picture of the ideal school. 90 *
The principal is expected to be a change agent. 95 5
19908 % True % False
The principal is a leader, rather than a manager. 75 25
The principal is a servant who leads by empowering others rather than

controlling them. 95 5

As an organizational architect, the principal is expected to educate

others about the changing context within which schools must function. 95 5

As a social architect, the principal is expected to place the school at the

hub of a network of services for a changing student population and their

families. 90 10
The principal must be the “head learner” in his organization. 75 25
The principal is a “moral agent” who deﬁnes the school as a caring and

nurturing educational community. 95 5

 

 

 

* n= 18 for this item; n=20 for all other items

296

 

What these findings indicated to the researcher is that the role of the principal has not
changed as much as it has expanded. Not one of the items on the instrument was marked
“false” by more than 50% of the respondents. Most were marked “true” by the majority
of the respondents, indicating that the metaphors describe some aspects of their work. As
trends developed in education and principals took on the responsibility of delivering the
best and latest, or assumed a share of the responsibility in doing so, nothing was left
behind. What principals were doing in the 19208 is still a part of the work today, and, in
fact, according to Beck and Murphy, is coming full circle to assume a dimension of
significance in the role (See Appendix J). In particular, they cite the work of the
principal as being “linked with absolute, spiritual truths and values” in the 19208 (p. 14),
and list the “Principal as Moral Agent” as a key component of the principalship of the
19908 (pp. 193-94). In fact, since this book was published, the issue of “Character
Education” has assumed a prominent role in public schools.

Principals were unanimous in their assessment of the work as placing inordinate
time demands upon them, and the metaphor of “wearing too many hats” appeared again
and again in their description of their work. They felt “stretched.” The researcher
detected notes of wistfulness and regret in such statements as “I wish I could be the
ultimate principal,” and “Just give me a time machine. . .tum back the dia ” so the
principal could do all the things perceived as needing to be done. The emphasis on the
more generalized “shoulds” in the literature does not acknowledge the enormity of the
role expectations placed on the principal, nor the weight of the responsibility the principal

feels to meet them.

297

Teaching and learning has become everyone’s cause. Beginning with the first
decade of the 20‘h century, when the parties outside education always seemed to have the
better idea, the pressures relative to the inputs into the open system of the school have
intensiﬁed through the decades.

Wayne Peters’ 1973 data reveals the role of the principal as embodying the public
servant who monitors the diverse elements of the school for community acceptability and
organizational stability but who left the issues of teaching and learning to teachers. The
1973 expectations are still in place. For the past quarter century, however, special
interest groups, the state, and society in general have taken advantage of the school’s
open system and made increasing demands upon public education. The principal of 2001
is expected to deal with the same and more elements on the periphery of the organization
and at the same time attend to and be accountable for teaching and learning.

The result is a more dense, busy, complex and scrutinized school, and a principal
role that is almost impossibly overburdened. Richard P. DuFour (1999), a superintendent
in Lincolnshire, Illinois, and author of The Professiomrl Learning Community at Work:
Best Iﬁctices for Enhapcing Student Achievement, states:

Principals must live with paradox — competing demands
that seem to pull them in opposite directions. They must
have a sense of urgency about improving their schools
that is balanced by the patience to sustain them over the
long haul. They must focus on the future but must also
remain grounded in current reality. They must see the
big picture while maintaining a keen, up-close focus on
details. They must encourage autonomy while at the
same time demanding adherence to shared vision and
values. They must celebrate successes but perpetuate

discontent with the status quo. They must be strong
leaders who give away power to others.

(p. 17)

298

Principals manage this seemingly impossible job by making a firm commitment
to the work, living out what Goldberg (2001) describes as a “bedrock belief” (p. 758) in
the potency and usefulness of their work. They are grounded by a “social conscience”
(p. 759), guided by the norm that all students deserve to receive an excellent education.
They; maintain their “seriousness of purpose” (p. 760) through perseverance, integrity and
the sheer rigor of the work. They demonstrate “situational mastery” (p. 760), finding
within themselves the skills needed to do the work that needs to be done in the particular
context in which they are located. Principals possess the courage to “swim upstream”
(p. 758), accepting and standing up to the challenging elements of the role: It requires
constantly shifting priorities, dealing with conﬂict and ambiguity in balancing role
expectations, and understanding that the only certainty in the work is that it is never

ﬁnished.

Limitations of the Study

The purpose of the study is to describe and explain the perceptions that today’s
small-town secondary principals have of their role. A qualitative method of study was
selected in order to access the richness of the descriptions principals presented of their
perceptions of their work. One of the limitations of this study is the size of the data set.
Twenty principals were interviewed, from which role characteristics were summarized
and generalized. Another limitation was the narrow deﬁnition of the case: a small town
was deﬁned as a community served by only one high school. Most of the schools range
in size from 250 — 600 and are in rural settings, but a few are larger and are in

communities within commuting distance from larger population centers; one school

299

serves what the principal described as a “land-locked, urban community.” In spite of
these limitations, however, the researcher found consistency in the responses given by the
principals to the interview questions.

Another limitation of the study is that the data used to describe and explain the
principal’s role comes largely from the principal’s perspective. Other perspectives might
yield different perceptions of the principal’s role, such as those of students, parents,
teachers and central ofﬁce administrators.

Still another limitation is that this study gathered data using only interview and
short survey techniques. While rich examples were collected which describe and explain
the principal’s work, other methods such as more detailed questionnaires or participant
observation would add to the body of knowledge about the role of the principal and
contribute to the validity and reliability of the data presented in this study.

The nature of the study placed a burden of restraint on the part of the researcher.
Although occasionally the researcher engaged in short conversations with the respondents
regarding an issue brought up in a response, the researcher’s primary role was to listen.
The purpose of the study was to describe and explain, not to discuss solutions to
problems presented by the respondents. More detailed discussions about some of the
issues presented in responses would have yielded even more in-depth information to be
used in the description and explanation, but there would then be a risk of “data overload”
(Miles & Huberman, p. l).

Qualitative research, as Miles and Huberman point out, is “time consuming and
labor intensive” (p. 1). There are enormous time demands in collecting, transcribing, and

then organizing the data for a cogent analysis. Time limitations impacted both the

300

amount and nature of data collected. There were many more questions to be asked,
which will be addressed in the next section. Although the principals interviewed were
welcoming and were open, honest and sincere in their responses, a 60 — 90 rrrinute
interview does not provide an opportunity to establish a relationship which can be
assumed to make the respondent feel totally confident in sharing thoughts about the work.
In spite of these limitations, however, the researcher had the opportunity to gain
“insight and understanding from the perspectives of those being studied,” which, in
Merriam’s (1988) estimation, “offers the greatest promise of making signiﬁcant
contributions to the knowledge base and practice of education” (p. 3). The purpose of the
study was to describe and explain today’s small town secondary principal’s perception of
the role. The researcher hopes that this description and explanation will contribute to the

body of knowledge about the role of secondary principals.

Implications and Suggestions for Further Study

The literature surrounding the principalship presents an idealized view of the role.
This study’s aim was to describe and explain, from the principal’s perspective, what the
work actually is. One suggestion for further study might be to juxtapose the “shoulds”
reﬂected in the most recent literature against the principal’s perceived knowledge of the
work in order to determine the exact nature of changes that need to be made and how to
go about making them. When role expectations are as institutionalized as those of the
principal appear to be, changing them is difﬁcult. It might even be necessary to consider
changing the conﬁguration of school leadership, separating the management and

educational leadership components of the role so that the work principals yearn to do can

301

be done. The Institute of Educational Leadership in Washington, DC. has published a
report entitled, “Reinventing the Principalship” (2000). It suggests that today’s school
leaders are more specialized in their approach to their leadership roles, focusing on
instructional, organizational and public/community leadership in order to better meet the
increasing demands of the principalship.

Another study mi ght address the specifics of constraints placed by teacher
contracts on instructional change and the principal’s role in effecting that change.
Principals seem to be well aware of the change process, but many indicated they feel
stymied in actually bringing about change. Schools where substantive educational
change has taken place could be studied to determine what the principal’s role was in the
process, what contractual constraints are seen to exist, and how the principal managed
them.

Finally, many principals made statements about the future of administration in
terms of the people wanting to enter into it. “There’s a desperate need for
administrators.” “I’ve got two or three young people in my building who would [make
good administrators]. They want no part of it.” Why? This is an important question, and
needs to be addressed — soon. It may have some signiﬁcant political overtones, and
require some unique ways of restructuring the role. There is no shortage of people who
gr; do the work of the principal; there is a shortage of people who M.

The principalship is not a job for the faint of heart, nor for someone who is
reluctant to make sacriﬁces, nor for anyone whose personal support system will not allow
the level of sacriﬁce necessary to fulﬁll the demanding role expectations of the

principal’s constituent groups. Principals are often remembered as people who stood in

302

the halls chatting with teachers and students as classes changed, or who said a few words
at graduation. Virtually no one, even principals’ closest work associates, unless they
have been principals themselves, completely comprehends what the real work is.

The researcher hopes this effort to describe and explain the role of the small town
secondary principal can add to the understanding of the new realities of their work

at the start of the 218‘ century.

303

APPENDICES

304

APPENDIX A

1917 Principal Rating Scale

305

I.

II.

III.

IV.

1917 PRINCIPAL RATING SCALE

Personal Equipment
1. General Appearance
. Health
. Initiative
. Enterprise
. Capacity for leadership
. Accuracy
. Industry
. Enthusiasm
. Integrity and sincerity
10. Self- control
1 1. Promptness
12. Tact
13. Sense of Justice

\OOO\IO\UIJ>UJN

Social and Professional Equipment
14. Academic Preparation

15. Professional Preparation

16. Understanding of children

17. Interest in life of school

18. Interest in life of community

19. Ability to interest patrons in school
20. Interest in lives of pupils

21. Co-operation and loyalty

22. Professional interest and growth
23. Use of English

Management

24. Care of light, heat and ventilation

25. Neatness of buildings and grounds
26. Care of routine

27. Handling of discipline

28. Management of play and athletics

29. Definiteness and Clearness of aim

Technique of Supervision

30. Follow-up work in supervision

31. Helpfulness to teachers in supervision

32. Helpfulness to teachers in discipline

33. Value of teacher’s meetings

34. Value of visits to rooms

35. Moral inﬂuence

36. Spirit and tone of school (Callahan, 1962)

306

APPENDIX B

Posting Notice for High School Principal 1999

307

P L E A S E P O S T
“TEACHING FOR LEARNING THROUGH THINKING”
UTICA COMMUNITY SCHOOLS '
January 28, 1999

Applications are being accepted through Until Filled for the following position:

 

 

 

 

". "I .‘|»‘
r. ' f'v'? .-~a
, t >
"i . A . ’1‘,’ \ 1‘ III

 

 

Qualiﬁcations:
A. Meet teacher qualiﬁcations ofthe State of Michigan.

13. Taught successfully for a period of at least ﬁve (5) years, with a minimum
of three (3) years at the certiﬁed level they are to administer.

C. Hold a State of Michigan Administrative Certiﬁcate (permit acceptable).

D. Hold a Master’s Degree in Administration and Supervision from an
accredited institution with a major in Education Administration, or its
equivalent, in the area in which they are certiﬁed

E. Manifest the ability and desire to work with students, teachers, and parents.
F. Present indications of a sincere interest in curriculum and community problems.
G. Present evidence of active participation and leadership in professional activities.
General Information: Administrative Classiﬁcationl
Work Week: 52 weeks
Salary & Beneﬁts: Based on Board of Education Policy # 2600

Job Description: Board of Education Policy # 2211.10

Application Procedures:
Applicant should provide the following.
Candidate Information Form

* Letter of application including a review of experience
appropriate to the position
* Transcript of Degree and graduate credits
Up-to-date credentials including letters of recommendation
* Resume of other information to aid the selection committee

Pleas; mark your letter of application “Carpﬁdenﬂal” and submit to:

, Assistant Superintendent for Human Resources
Utica Community Schools
1 1303 Greendale
Sterling Heights, MI 48312

It is the policy of the Utica Community Schools that no person on the basis of race, color,
religion, national origin or ancestry, age, sex, marital status or handicap shall be discriminated
against, excluded from participation in, denied the beneﬁts of or otherwise be subjected to
discrimination m any program conducted by this educational agency

01/99

308

APPENDIX C

Examples of School Safety Measures
Necessitated by 9-11-01

309

CONFIDENTIAL MEMO

TO: All Administrators
FROM:
DATE: October 16, 2001

RE: Mail Handling Protocol

just as our nation is heightening security, 50, too is the school district. We are asking that
you exhibit due care and caution when dealing with mail.

I want to emphasize that we are taking this action as a precautionary measure. \Ve have not
received any type of speciﬁc (or implied) threat to our school safety but we want to be
proactive in our approach to the way we are reacting to the national events.

For those of your staff whose responsibility includes opening mail, some protocol should be
followed:

First and foremost, mail should not be opened until after school is dismissed for the
day. Students should NOT be allowed to handle mail.

In addition, the US. Postal Service offers information about parcels and packages that can
be of assistance.

According to postal inspectors, there are some common and suspicious characteristics
to look for:

0 Bears no return address or one that cannot be veriﬁed as legitimate

Is unusual in weight, given its size; or is lopsided

Marked with restricted endorsements, such as "personal" or "conﬁdential"

Exhibits wires, strange odors or stains

Exhibits a city or state in the postmark that doesn't match the return address

If you receive a suspicious parcel in the mail, the recommended procedure is as
follows:

0 Don't try to open it, as they are usually designed to become problematic when they are
opened or when an item is removed

0 Isolate the parcel/ letter

0 Notify the building administrator immediately

0 Call the police at 911 and the district hotline

310

Please share this information verbally with your staff as soon as
necessary.

Last evening, while making a routine evening perimeter check, a custodian at
[name] High School found a brown paper bag of a suspicious nature outside

the building.

Following the protocol we have established with the Police Department,
appropriate departments were notified. Police, fire and the city's hazardous
materials team responded to our call and removed the bag. The safety and
security of students, staff and community were not compromised in any way.

The school has sent a letter to parents outlining the event.

While there is NO reason to believe there is any biological threat to any one in
our community, the Metro Detroit area has experienced "events" of this nature
over the past several days.

Please be assured that [district] staff has met with local experts, including police
and fire, as well as hazardous materials and emergency management
coordinators, to establish the following protocols in the event that a suspicious
package or substance should be found:

1. Do NOT move or transport the package or substance. The area should be
isolated.

Anyone who has come into contact should remain in the isolated area.

Call 911.

The building should be "locked down" to prevent any additional exposure.
Contact the [district] emergency line.

The Administrative Response Team will work with you and local authorities
at all times.

P‘P‘PP’N

Please be assured that we are not sharing this information to alarm you or your
staff. However, it is important that we all understand that the district has
established procedures in cooperation with experts in the field. If you or any
member of your staff has a question or needs more information, please contact
[name, phone #].

311

APPENDIX D

ISLLC Standards for School Leaders

312

 

[The Qantas! 53f Chief State Salami. (immerse

 

STANDARDS FOR SCHOOL Wilts

 

Standard 1: A school administrator is an educational leader who promotes the success of all
students by facilitating the development,

articulation, implementation, and stewardship of a vision of learning that is shared and
supported by the school community.

 

 

Knowledgg - a 3
The administrator has knowledge and understanding of:

 

* learning goals in a pluralistic society

* theprinciples of developing and implementing strategic plans .

* systems theory

* information sources, data collection, and data analysis strategies -
* effective communication

* effective consensus-building and negotiation skills ’

[Dispositions

The administrator believes in, values, and is committed to:

* the educability of all

* a school vision of high standards of learning

* continuous school improvement

"‘ the inclusion of all members of the school community

* ensuring that students have the knowledge, skills, and values needed to become successful
adults

' * a willingness to continuously examine one’s own assumptions, beliefs, and practices
* doing the work required for high leggy. of personal and ogganization Erfonnance

"Performances

1

 

 

The achninistrator facilitates processes and engages
in activities ensuring that:

 

* the vision and mission of the school are effectively communicated to staff, parents, students,
. community members

* the vision and mission are communicated through the use of symbols, ceremonies, stones, -'
similar activities
* the core beliefs of the school vision are modeled for all stakeholders
' * the Vision is developed with and among stakeholders
* the contributions of school community members to the realization of the vision are recogniz¢ '
and celebrated
* progress toward the vision and mission is communicated to all stakeholders
* the school community is involved in school improvement efforts
* the vision shapes the educational programs, plans, and actions

313

* an implementation plan is developed in which objectives and strategies to achieve the vision an
goals are cleariy articulated
* assessment data related to student learning are used to develop the school vision and goals
* relevant demographic data pertaining to students and their families are used in developing the
' school mission and goals
* barriers to achieving the vision are identiﬁed, clariﬁed, and addressed
"‘ needed resources are sought and obtained to support the implementation of the school mission
and goals
* existing resources are used in support of the school vision and goals
" the vision, mission, and implementation plans are regularly monitored, evaluated, and revised

 

 

Return to top

 

Standard 2: A school administrator is an educational leader who promotes the success of all
students by advocating, nurturing,

and sustaining a school culture and instructional program conducive to student learning and
staff professional growth.

[Knowledge

The administrator has knowledge and understanding of:

 

 

 

  

* student growth and development

"' applied learning theories

* applied motivational theories .

* curriculum design, implementation, evaluation, and refinement
* principles of effective instruction

* measurement, evaluation, and assessment strategies

* diversity and its meaning for educational programs

* adult learning and professional development models

* the change process for systems, organizations, and individuals
* the role of technology in promoting student learning and professional growth
* school cultures

 

 

Dispositions

 

 

The administrator believes in, values, and is committed to:

* student learning as the fundamental purpose of schooling

* the proposition that all students can learn

* the variety of ways in which students can learn

* life long learning for self and others

* professional development as an integral part of school improvement
* the benefits that diversity brings to the school community

* a safe and supportive learning environment

I“ preparing students to be contributing members of society

Performances

 

 

 

314

The aaininistrator facilitates processes and engages in activities ensuring that:

* all individuals are treated with fairness, dignity, and respect
* professional development promotes a focus on student learning consistent with the school '-
and goals
* students and staff feel valued and important
* the responsibilities and contributions of each individual are acknowledged
* barriers to student learning are identiﬁed, clariﬁed, and addressed
* diversity is considered in developing learning experiences
"‘ life long learning rs encouraged and modeled
* there IS a culture of high expectations for self, student, and staff. pérfonnance
* technologies are used in teaching and leaming
* student and staff accomplishments are recognized and celebrated
* multiple opportunities to learn are available to all students .
"‘ the school is organizedand aligned for success
* curricular, co-cunicular, and extra-curricular programs are designed, implemented, evaluated,
and refined
* curriculum decisions are based on research, expertise of teachers, and the recommendations of
learned societies
"‘ the school culture and climate are assessed on a regular basis .
* a variety of sources of information is used to make decisions .'
* student learning is assessed using a variety of techniques
* multiple sources of information regarding performance are used by staff and students
* a variety of supervisory and evaluation models rs employed
*uudl ersonnel m . . s are developed to meet the needs of students and their families

Return to top

 

Standard 3: A school administrator is an educational leader who promotes the success of all
students by ensuring

management of the organization, operations, and resources for a safe, efficient, and effective
Ieaming environment.

 

 

The administrator has knowledge and understanding
. of.

"‘ theories and models of organizations and the principles of organizational development
* operational procedures at the school and district level
* principles and issues relating to school safety and security
* human resources management and development
* principles and issues relating to ﬁscal operations of school management
*principles and issues relating to school facilities and use of space
"' legal issues impacting school operations
* current technolo es that su . ort mana ement functions

    

Dispositions

315

The administrator believes in, values, and is committed to:

* making management decisions to enhance Ieaming and teaching
* taking risks to improve schools

* trusting people and theirjudgments

* accepting responsibility

* high-quality standards, expectations, and performances

* involving stakeholders in management processes

* a safe environment

 

 

 

Performances

 

 

The administrator facilitates processes and engages in activities ensuring that:

* knowledge of Ieaming, teaching, and student development is used to inform management
decisions
* operational procedures are designed and managed to maximize opportunities for successful
Ieaming
* emerging trends are recognized, studied, and applied as appropriate
* operational plans and procedures to achieve the vision and goals of the school are in place
* collective bargaining and other contractual agreements related to the school are effectively
managed
* the school plant, equipment, and support systems operate safely, efﬁciently, and effectively
* time is managed to maXimize attainment of organizational goals
*potential problems and opportunities are identiﬁed
* problems are confronted and resolved in a timely manner
* ﬁnancial, human, and material resources are aligned to the goals of schools
* the school acts entrepreneurally to support continuous improvement .
* organizational systems are regularly monitored and modiﬁed as needed
* stakeholders are involved in decisions affecting schools
* responsibility is shared to maximize ownership and accountability
* effective problem-framing and problem-solving skills are used
* effective conﬂict resolution skills are used
* effective group-process and consensus-building skills are used
* effective communication skills are used
* a safe, clean, and aesthetically pleasing school environment is created and maintained
* human resource functions support the attainment of school goals
* conﬁdentiality and privacy of school records are maintained

 

 

 

 

 

Return to top

 

Standard 4: A school administrator is an educational leader who promotes the success of all
students by collaborating with

families and community members, responding to diverse community interests and needs, .
mobilizing community resources.

 

“Knowledge

316

The administrator has knowledge and understanding of'

* emerging issues and trends that potentially impact the school community

* the conditions and dynamics of the diverse school community

* community resources

* community relations and marketing strategies and processes

* successful models of school, family, business, community, government and higher education

"partnerships
‘ Dispositions *-

' The administrator believes in, values, and is committed to:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

* schools operating as an integral part of the larger community
* collaboration and communication with families
* involvement of families and other stakeholders in school decision-making processes
* the proposition that diversity enriches the school
* families as partners in the education of their children
* the proposition that families have the best interests of their children in mind
* resources of the family and community needing to be brought to bear on the education of
students
* an inform‘ed public

]_———-—_-___* 1 x ---
Performances

 

The administrator facilitates processes and engages in activities ensuring that:

* high visibility, active involvement, and communication with the larger community is a priority
"‘ relationships with community leaders are identiﬁed and nurtured

"‘ information about family and community concerns, expectations, and needs is used regularly

"‘ there is outreach to different'business, religious, political, and service agencies and
[organizations

* credence is given to individuals and groups whose values and Opinions may conﬂict

* the school and community serve one another as resources

* available community resources are secured to help the school solve problems and achieve goals
L“ partnerships are established with area businesses, institutions of higher education, and

 

community groups

0 strengthen programs and support school goals

* community youth family services are integrated with school programs
"‘ community stakeholders are treated equitably

"‘ diversity is recognized and valued

* effective media relations are developed and maintained

* a comprehensive program of community relations is established

* public resources and funds are used appropriately and wisely

* community collaboration is modeled for staff

, * ogﬂrtunities for staff ‘2. develop collaborative skills are provided

 

 

 

 

 

 

317

 

Standard 5: A school administrator is an educational leader who promotes the success of all
students by acting with
integrity, fairness, and in an ethical manner.

 

 

v

Knowledge
The administrator has knowledge and understanding of:

 

 

* the purpose of education and the role of leadership in modern society

* various ethical frameworks and perspectives on ethics .

* the values of the diverse school community

* professional codes of ethics

* the philosophy and history of education j

[Dispositions

The administrator believes in, values, and is committed to:

 

 

 

* the ideal of the common good

* the principles in the Bill of Rights
‘ * the right of every student to a free, quality education

* bringing ethical principles to the decision-making process

* subordinating one’s own interest to the good of the school community

* accepting the consequences for upholding one’s principles and actions

* using the inﬂuence of one’s ofﬁce constructively and productively in the service of all students
and their families

* development of a caring school community

 

 

 

 

   

Performances

 

The administrator:

* examines personal and professional values

“ demonstrates a personal-and professional code of ethics

* demonstrates values, beliefs, and attitudes that inspire others to higher levels of performance
* serves as a role model

* accepts responsibility for school operations

* considers the impact of one’s administrative practices on others

"' uses the influence of the office to enhance the educational program rather than for personal gair
* treats people fairly, equitably, and with dignity and respect

"‘ protects the rights and conﬁdentiality of students and staff -

* demonstrates appreciation for and sensitivity to the diversity in the school community

* recognizes and respects the legitimate authority of others

"‘ examines and considers the prevailing values of the diverse school community

* expects that others in the school community will demonstrate integrity and exercise ethical

 

ehavior
* opens the school to public scrutiny
* fulfills legal and contractual obligations

 

318

II‘ applies laws and procedures fairly, wisely, and considerately

Return to top

 

Standard 6: A school administrator is an educational leader who promotes the success of all

students by understanding,
responding to, and influencing the larger political, social, economic, legal, and cultural
context.

 

Knowledge 3 3
. The administrator has know ledge and understanding of:

 

* principles of representative governance that undergird the system of American schools
* the role of public education in developing and renewing a democratic society and an
economically productive nation
* the law as related to education and schooling
* the political, social, cultural and economic systems and processes that impact schools
* models and strategies of change and conflict resolution as applied to the larger political, social,
ilcultural and economic ' '
contexts of schooling
"‘ global issues and forces affecting teaching and learning
* the dynamics of policy development and advocacy under our democratic political system

* the importance of diversify and equiﬂ in a democratic socie_ty

Dispositions

 

The administrator believes in, values, and is committed to:

* education as a key to opportunity and social mobility
* recognizing a variety of ideas, values, and cultures
* importance of a continuing dialogue with other decision makers affecting education
' * actively participating in the political and policy-making context in the service of education

:_ using [egal systems to protect student rights and anrove student opportunities

Performances

 

 

 

 

 

The administrator facilitates processes and engages in activities ensuring that:

"‘ the environment in which schools operate is inﬂuenced on behalf of students and their families
"‘ communication occurs among the school community concerning trends, issues, and potential
changes in the

environment in which schools operate

"‘ there is ongoing dialogue with representatives of diverse community groups

* the school community works within the framework of policies, laws, and regulations enacted by '
local, state,

and federal authorities

 

319

* public policy is shaped to provide quality education for students
* lines of communication are developed with decision makers outside the school community

——

Return to top

 

320

APPENDIX E

Interview Guide

321

Interview Guide

Career history: Please take me through the career steps that brought you to this
position in this community.

Tell me about the community your school serves — demographics, prevailing social
and political attitudes.

What do you think the community expects from you as the principal of this school?
Describe an incident or two that have caused you to believe that.

I’d like you to think back to the time you entered the principalship. What did you
expect the job to be? How did you anticipate spending your time?

Please describe what you perceive your role as principal to be, as it is right now.

Tell me some stories that illustrate your relationships with

students

- teachers and other staff

- parents (level of involvement with their children and in the school)
- superintendent and Board of Education (autonomy)

- others in the community

that illustrate how they perceive your role as principal?

322

Every principal sees being an instructional leader as a major part of the role. Give me
some specific examples of things you do in that role - operationalize the concept for
me, based on things you’ve done here.

How about other aspects of leadership — for instance, getting your staff on board to
bring about change? Give me some examples of what you do to bring that about.

Let’s talk about “rules and regs” and how they impact your work as principal. What

comes out of district and state policy, initiatives and mandates, that take up your time
and energy? Any changes that have caused a struggle for you in any way in the time

you’ve been a principal?

Let’s discuss the issue of control. To what extent do you feel you are in control of all
the events that go on in your school?

As principals, we have a philosophy of educating students. Tell me about the
problematic elements, the inconsistencies between the beliefs you hold and what you
encounter

- happening in the classroom

- occuning in the school community

- coming from the state

What are the issues with which you wrestle?

How do you View your school in organizational terms? How do you think your staff
views it (in those terms)?

If you could change anything you wanted to about your job as it is, what changes
would you make?

323

Tell me about the effect that being a principal has had on your life: personally, as
much as you’d like to share, and professionally — perhaps you could describe an
incident or two to illustrate?

What are your professional plans for the future?

324

APPENDIX F

Invitation Letter to Principals

325

(Date)
Dear (Principal’s Name):

I am a secondary principal preparing to do my doctoral study, the purpose of which is to
describe and explain the principal’s role in the year 2000. The study will focus on how
principals perceive their role in relation to the expectations of various individuals and
groups with whom they come in contact, what guides and drives their work, and what
personal, social and professional costs and changes related to the role have occurred in
their experience. The purpose of this letter is to invite you to participate in this study.

I propose to gather the information stated above by conducting one taped interview,
approximately 60 minutes in length, with each participating principal. Principals invited
to participate will be from communities such as yours, where one high school serves the
community. Participation is voluntary and may be discontinued at any time before,
during or after the interview. The information collected in the interview will be held to
strict standards of confidentiality, and your privacy will be protected to the maximum
extent allowable by law. Prior to conducting the interview, I will ask you to sign an
informed consent form, which details this information for your protection.

This letter of invitation to participate will be followed by a telephone call in the next
week to ten days to arrange a mutually convenient time and place to hold the interview.
I realize the constraints on your schedule, but I hope you can ﬁnd an hour to contribute
your perceptions about our complex and demanding work.

If you have questions related to participation in this study, please call me at

(810) 781-0400 during the day, or at (248) 693-8234 in the evening or on weekends; you
may also call the Principal Investigator of this study, Dr. Philip Cusick, at Michigan State
University (517) 355—4539. If you have questions about your role or rights as a subject of
research, please call Dr. David E. Wright, Chairperson of Michigan State’s University
Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects (UCRIHS) at (517) 355-2180.

I look forward to talking with you soon about including you in this project.

Sincerely,

Mary Stephen

326

APPENDIX C

Informed Consent Statement

327

INFORMED CONSENT

You are invited to participate in Mary Stephen’s doctoral study, the purpose of
which is to describe and explain the small town secondary principal’s role in the year
2000. The study will focus on how principals perceive their role in relation to their own
expectations and those of various individuals and groups with whom they come in
contact; what guides and drives their work; what personal and professional costs they
have experienced in their performance of the role; and what social and professional
changes related to the role have occurred in their experience.

You will be asked to participate in one interview of approximately 60 minutes in
length, during which you will be asked questions related to the above-stated purpose.

The interview will be taped for purposes of accuracy in data collection and
transcription.

All information collected in the interview and prepared in transcription will be held
to strict standards of security and conﬁdentiality, and your privacy will be protected to
the maximum extent allowable by law. Subjects and schools involved or named in data
collection will remain anonymous in any written or published reports.

Upon request and within the restrictions stated, you may have results of this study
made available to you.

Your participation is voluntary, you may refuse to answer any questions asked of
you, and you may withdraw from participation at any time before, during or after the
interview, all without penalty or loss of beneﬁt.

If you have questions or concerns related to this study, you may call
Mary Stephen at (810) 781-0400 during the day or (248) 693-8234 in the evening or on
weekends. You may also call the Principal Investigator of the study, Dr. Philip Cusick, at
Michigan State University, at (517) 355-4539.

If you have questions about your role or rights as a subject of this research study you
may contact Dr. David E. Wright, Chairperson of Michigan State’s University Committee
on Research Involving Human Subjects (UCRIHS) at (517) 355-2180.

You will be provided a signed copy of this informed consent form.

My signature in the space provided below conﬁrms my consent to
participate based on the above information and conditions.

Signature Date

 

Printed
Name

 

328

APPENDIX H

Revised Interview Guide

329

Revised Interview Guide

0 Career history: Please take me through the career steps that brought you to this
position in this community.

0 Tell me about the community your school serves in terms of its geography,
demographics, social and political attitudes.

o What do you think the community expects from you and your school? What makes
you believe that?

0 I’d like you to think back to the time you entered the principalship. What did you
expect the job to be? How did you anticipate spending your time?

0 Please describe what you perceive your role as principal to be, as it is right now.

0 Tell me some stories that illustrate your relationships with

students

- teachers and other staff

- parents in terms of their involvement with their children and the school
- superintendent and Board of Education (autonomy)

- others in the community

0 How would you say each of these groups perceives your role as principal?

330

Let’s talk about “rules and regs” and how they impact your work as principal. What
comes out of district and state policy and legislative mandates and initiatives that take
your time and energy?

Are there any changes that have caused you to struggle in any way in the time you’ve
been a principal?

Every principal sees being an instructional leader as a major part of the role. Give me
some specific examples of things you do in that role - operationalize the concept for
me, in terms of what you do.

How about other aspects of leadership? For example, how do you go about getting
your staff on board to bring about change? Give me some examples of what you do.

As principals, we have a philosophy of educating students. Tell me about the
problematic elements, the inconsistencies between the beliefs you hold and what you
encounter happening in the classroom between teachers and students, mandates
coming from the state — what are the issues with which you wrestle?

Let’s discuss the issue of control. To what extent do you feel you are in control of the
events that go on in your school?

How do you view your school in organizational terms? How do you think your staff
members see themselves as part of it?

331

If you could change anything you wanted to about your job as it is, what changes
would you make?

Tell me about the effect that being a principal has had on your life: personally, as
much as you’d like to share, and professionally — perhaps you could describe an
incident or two to illustrate?

What are your professional plans for the future?

332

APPENDIX J

Perspectives Survey

333

Perspectives Survey

Please check the following true or false, depending upon your experience as a principal.

I. The work of the principal is linked with absolute truths and values.

2. The principal is expected to be a social leader in the community.

3. The principal’s primary tasks are administrative.

4. Organization and supervision are the key dimensions of a principal’s work.

5. The principal is wxpected to demonstrate democratic leadership to teachers
and students.

6. The principal is a curriculum developer.

7. The principal is the school’s public relations representative within the
community.

_ 8. The principal’s work combines practical skills and theoretical insights.

_ 9. When practices are challenged, principals must be able to answer critics with
empirical data that demonstrate the effectiveness of those practices.

_ 10. Principals are concerned with the effective and efficient use of time.
11. Principals are often focused on minute details of school operation.

12. The principal is expected to function as a member of a well-developed
educational bureaucracy.

l3. Principals are expected to be able to discuss, select, and employ specific
management strategies.

14. Principals are held accountable for their decisions and activities because of a
prevailing belief that appropriate instructional methodologies will produce
expected outcomes.

15. Pressures of this acountability and the political demands on school leaders

make principals feel vulnerable and sometimes confused about
role expectations.

334

16.

17.

l8.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

26.

27.

28.

Principals are expected to lead not only teachers, but members of the
larger community.

One of the responsibilities of principals is assuring that educational efforts
are “meaningful.”

The principal must relate well to everyone and facilitate positive interactions
in the school.

The principal is expected to juggle a number of roles, even if those roles
require very different traits or abilities.

The principal is an instructional leader, guiding teachers and students
toward productive learning experiences, solving related problems and

providing necessary resources.

The principal is expected to be a visionary, developing and communicating
a picture of the ideal school.

The principal is expected to be a change agent.
The principal is a leader, rather than a manager.

The principal is a servant who leads by empowering others rather than
controlling them.

. As an organizational architect, the principal is expected to educate others

about the changing context within which schools must function.

As a social architect, the principal is expected to place the school at the hub
of a network of services for a changing student population and their
families.

The principal must be the “head learner” in his organization.

The principal is a “moral agent” who defines the school as a caring and
nurturing educational community.

335

APPENDIX K

Listing of Individual Educational Plan Forms

336

Listing of Individual Educational Plan Forms

Required for all special education students
Required depending upon special education student’s program needs

Invitation To An Evaluation Review Team Meeting — This document indicates the
purpose of the meeting, the names and titles of all individuals who have been invited
to the ERT, and is signed by the building principal.

A statement of Parent Rights M Due Process Information - This document,
published by the Intermediate School District, informs parents of special education
students to be evaluated what their rights are pertaining to the referral process,
notification, evaluation procedures, their rights to independent evaluation, the
Individual Educational Planning (IEP) Committee meeting process, due process
hearings, due process mediation, complaint process, and education records; it also
summarizes the programs and services available through the ISD for impaired
students. This statement must be provided to parents prior to the start of the initial
IEP process, along with a handbook describing their rights and programs and services
in more detail.

Notice of Intent to Conduct a MET (multi-disciplinary evaluation team) meeting —
This includes directory information about the student and parents, the reason for the
special education referral, and a deﬁnition of the evaluation team. The parents must
sign the form, giving their permission for evaluation and indicating receipt of
information about parent rights.

Student Status Report - This form is filled out by regular education classroom
teachers to provide input for the IEP meeting. It requests information about the
student’s strenghths, anticipated needs, general progress toward general and IEP
goals, how the student’s disability affects progress, and identiﬁcation of deﬁcit areas.
Permission for Re-evaluation — The format is the same as the Notice of Intent
described above. It is used for students previously identified and served.

Invitation to an IEPC Meeting — This form indicates the date, time and location of the
[EPC meeting. It indicates the purpose of the meeting (determine or review eligibility
for services or programs, change in status, transition planning, etc.), names those
invited to attend, indicates parents’ right to invite someone to accompany them to the
meeting, includes a copy of the parents’ rights described above, and is signed by the
superintendent or designee, usually the principal.

Record of the Individualized Education Program (II-1P) Committee [or Team] Meeting
of (gate) — These pages are used to record information from initial, annual
evaluation, and three-year re-evaluation IEP meetings. Directory information is
recorded, along with the purpose of the meeting, parent contact, space for participants
to sign in, student eligibility, a summary of the information contained in the Student
Status Report described above, present levels of educational performance in the areas
of academic achievement, communication/speech and language, medical,
socio-emotional/behavioral, perception/motor/mobility/adaptive skills, prevocational/
vocational, and other pertinent information.

337

*

Annual goals and short-tenn instructional objectives for areas related to academic
(each area of study is listed), vocational, affective and psychomotor, and articulation
and language are listed, with evaluation procedures and criteria described.

The least restrictive environment is described, and supplementary services are
indicated. Whether or not the student will participate in state/district assessments is
indicated, reasons for not participating stated and a description of how the student
will be alternatively assessed included. If the student is graduating or changing
levels, that information is indicated.

A page is included for other information, such as additional parent input,
behavioral intervention plans, dissenting IEP team opinions, positive intervention
strategies, program modifications, and other agency responsibilities.

A page describing the least restrictive environment (LRE) and considerations/
recommended programs and services states the nature of the services to be provided
and whether they are direct or consultative, the number of sessions and frequency
(day, week, month), the minutes per session, and the dates the services are to be
provided. Whether the student will have instruction in the regular education
classroom, in the special education resource room or in a categorical classroom
setting is indicated, along with location (home school, a different school in the
district, or a special program located elsewhere).

Pre-vocational and transition services are described on yet another page, along
with plans to use other agencies and how communication will take place, and the
direction that students will receive information about the transfer of rights from their
parents to them upon age 18. This process must start one year prior to the student’s
18‘h birthday.

Annual Goals and Short Term Objectives — This form is available to itemize goals,
short term objectives, performance criteria, and evaluation procedures and schedules
for the special education student in a particular instructional area.

Progress Report — This form is used to supplement the regular progress reports and
report cards used by the school. It indicates the instructional objectives indicated on
Annual Goals and Short Term Objectives form described above, and whether or not,
on a given date, the student is meeting them.

The ﬁnal page of the IEP records the district’s consent, the parent’s consent, and
whether or not a dissenting opinion is included in the report. The building principal is
listed as the person responsible for implementing this IEP, and is usually the
individual whose signature appears to affirm that.

A Functional Behavior Assessment Plan (FBAP) and Behavior Intervention Plan (BIP)

are included in the IEP for students who need them to assist them in functioning in the
school setting. The BIP is used in determining whether a special education student’s
behavior which violates school rules or policy is a manifestation of his/her disability,
and thus whether or not the student is subject to disciplinary action under school/
district guidelines. The principal is a key participant in the manifestation
determination process.

338

BIBLIOGRAPHY

339

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ballard, Jim. “The Secondary Principal Shortage is Real But the Reasons Have
Changed.” Bulletin of the MASSP. Vol. 40, No. 4. November, 1998. p. 4.

Banton, Michael. Roles: An Introduction to the Study of Social Relations.
New York. Basic Books, Inc. 1965.

Barth, Roland and Terrence E. Deal. “The Principal: Views from Within and

Without.” In The Effective Principal: A Resegch Summary. Reston, VA.
NASSP. 1982.

Bates, Frederick L. and Clyde C. Harvey. The Structure of Social Systems.
New York. Gardner Press, Inc. 1975.

Beck, Lynn G. “Metaphors of Educational community: An Analysis of the
Images That Reﬂect and Inﬂuence Scholarship and Practice.” Educational
Administration Quarterly. Vol. 35, No. 1. February, 1999. pp. 1345.

Beck, Lynn G. and Joseph Murphy. Understanding the Pﬁncipalslm):
Metaphorical ThemesLI 9203 - 19903. New York: Teachers College Press. 1993.

Becker, Howard S. “Problems of Inference and Proof in Participant Observation.”
In American Sociological Review. Vol. 23, December, 1958. pp. 652—660.

Beckner, Weldon. “Professional Development of School Leaders.” NASSP
Bulletin. Vol. 74, No. 529. November, 1990. pp. 1-3.

Birmingham Public Schools. Posting Notice, Vacancy Announcement for High
School Principal Position. 1998

Blumberg, Arthur and William Greenﬁeld. The Effective Principal: Perspectives
on School Leadership. Boston. Allyn and Bacon, Inc. 1980.

 

Blumer, Herbert. “Society as Symbolic Interaction.” In Humgr Behavior and
Social Processes. Arnold M. Rose, Ed. Houghton Mifﬂin. 1962.

Bogden, Robert C. and Sari Knopp Biklen. Qualitative Research for Education:
An Introduction to Theory and Methods. Boston. Allyn and Bacon, Inc. 1982.

Bogue, E. G. “The Context of Organizational Behavior: A Conceptual Synthesis

for the Educational Administrator.” Educational Administration Quartem.
Vol. 5, No. 2. Spring, 1969. pp. 58-75.

340

Bolman, Lee G. and Terrence E. Deal. “Looking for Leadership: Another Search
Party’s Report.” Education Administration Quarterly. Vol. 30, No. 1. Winter,
1994. pp. 77—96.

Bomstein, Rita. “ The Principal’s Role in Title IX Compliance.” NASSP
Bulletin. Vol. 63, No. 426. April, 1979. pp. 40-45.

Bredeson, Paul V. “An Analysis of the Metaphorical Perspectives of School
Principals.” Educational Administrrgion Quarterly. Vol. 21,No. 1. Winter,
1985. pp. 29-50.

Brubaker, Dale L. “How the Principalship Has Changed: Lessons from
Principals’ Life Stories.” NASSP Bulletin. Vol. 79, No. 574. November, 1994.

Button, H. Warren. “Doctrines of Administration: A Brief History.” Educational
Administration Quarterly. Vol. H, No. 3. Autumn, 1966. pp. 216-224.

Callahan, Raymond E. Education and the Cult of Efficiency: A Study of the
Forces That Have Shaped the Administration of the Public Schools. Chicago.
University of Chicago Press. 1962.

Campbell, Lloyd P. and John A. Williamson. “Do Principals Have Time To Do It
All?” NASSP Bulletin. Vol. 75, No. 539. December, 1991. pp. 114-117.

Campbell, Roald F. “Educational Administration: A Twenty-Five Year
Perspective.” Educational Administration Quarterly. Vol. VIII, No. 2.
Spring, 1972. pp. 1-15.

 

Campbell, Roald, Thomas Fleming, L. Jackson Newell and John Bennison.
A History of Thought and Practice in Educational Administration. New York.
Teachers College Press. 1987.

Conant, James B. “Some Problems of the American High School (A Preliminary
Report of the Conant Study)” Phi Delta Kappan. Vol. VXXXX, No. 2.
November, 1958. pp. 50-55.

Crowson, Robert L. and Cynthia Porter-Gehrie. “The Discretionary Behavior of
Principals in Large City Schools.” Educational Administration Quarterly.
Vol. XVI, No. 1. Winter, 1980. pp. 45-69.

Cuban, Larry. “Hobson v. Hansen: A Study in Organizational Response.”
Educational Administration Quarterly. Vol XI, No. 2. Spring, 1975. pp. 15-37.

Cubberley, Ellwood P. The Principal and His School. Boston. Houghton Mifﬂin
Company. 1923.

341

Cusick, Philip A. Inside High School: The Student’s World. New York. Holt,
Rinehart and Winston, Inc. 1981

Cusick, Philip A. The Egalitarian Ideal and the American High School: Studies
of Three Schools. White Plains, New York. Longman, Inc. 1983.

Cusick, Philip A. The Educational System: Its Nature and Logic. New York.
McGraw-Hill. 1992.

Cusick, Philip A. and Wayne L. Peters. “The Secondary Principal in the Small
Town.” Secondary Education Today. Vol. 20, No. 2. Winter 1979. pp. 22-36.

 

Cusick, Philip A. “Introduction.” Educational Administration Quarterly.
Vol XXIII, No. 4. Fall, 1987. Special Issue: Organizational Culture and Schools.
pp. 5-10. '

Deal, Terrence E. and Kent D. Peterson. Shapigg School Culture: The Heag of
leadership. SanFrancisco. Jossey—Bass Publishers. 1999.

Donmoyer, Robert. “Cognitive Anthropology and Research on Effective
Principals.” Educational Administration Quarterly. Vol. XXI, No. 2.
Spring, 1985. pp. 31-57.

DuFour, Richard P. “Help Wanted: Principals Who Can Lead Professional
Learning Communities.” NASSP Bulletin. Vol. 83, No. 604. February, 1999.
pp. 12—17.

Durkheim, Emile. The Rules of Sociological Method. Glencoe, Illinois.
The Free Press. 1938. Reprinted 1958.

Dutton, Samuel Train and David Snedden. The Administgation of Public
Education in the United States. New York. The MacMillan Company. 1909.

Eaton, William. “1915-1933: From Ideology to Conventional Wisdom.” In
An Analysis of Texts on School Administraton: 1820-1985. Thomas E. Glass,
ed. Danville, IL. The Interstate Printers and Publishers, Inc. 1986. pp. 26-32.

Eldridge, J. E. T., ed. Max Weber: The Interpretation of Social Reality.
New York. Charles Scribner’s Sons. 1971.

Eisenstadt, S.N., ed. Max Weber: On Charisma and Institution Building.
Chicago. University of Chicago Press. 1968.

342

Eisner, Elliot W. “On the Differences Between Scientific and Artistic
Approaches to Qualitative Research.” Educational Researcher. Vol. 10, No. 4.
April, 1981. pp. 5-9.

Etzioni, Amitai. A Comparative Analysis of Complex Organizations. New York.
The Free Press. 1961.

Etzioni, Amitai. Modern Organizartions. Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Prentice-Hall.
1964.

Everhart, Robert B. Reading, Writing and Resistance: Adolescence and La_b_gr in
a Junior High School. Boston. Routledge & Kegan Paul. 1983.

George, Thomas W. “Upheaval in School Law.” NASSP Bulletin. Vol. 57,
No. 373. May, 1973. pp. 118-126.

Glaser, Barney G. and Anselm L. Strauss. “Theoretical Sampling.” In
The Discovery of Grounded Theg. Chicago. Aldine Publishing Company.
1967.

Glass, Thomas E. “Factualisim to Theory, Art to Science: 1955-1985.” In
An Analysis of Texts on School Administraton: 1820-1985. Thomas E. Glass,
ed. Danville, m. The Interstate Printers and Publishers, Inc. 1986. pp. 93-119.

Goldberg, Mark F. “Leadership in Education: Five Commonalities.” Phi Delta
Kappan. Vol. 82, No. 10. June, 2001. pp. 757-761.

Gorden, Raymond L. Interviewing: Strategy, Techniquesand Tagtics.
Homewood, IL. The Dorsey Press. 1980.

Gordon, Judith R. A Diagnostic Approach to Organizational Belgrvior. Boston.
Allyn and Bacon, Inc. 1987.

Grant, Gerald. The World We Created at Hamilton High. Cambridge, MA.
Harvard University Press. 1988.

Greenﬁeld, William D., Jr. “Toward a Theory of School Administration: The
Centrality of Leadership.” Educatiopal Administration Owerly. Vol. 31, No. 1.
February, 1995. pp. 61-85.

Griffiths, Daniel E. Administrative Theog. New York. Appleton-Century-
Crofts, Inc. 1959

343

Griffiths, Daniel E. “Administrative Theory and Change in Organizations.” In
Organizations and Human Behavior. Fred D. Carver and Thomas J. Sergiovanni,
eds. New York. McGraw-Hill. 1969. pp. 369-375.

Haas, J. Eugene and Thomas D. Drabek. Complex Organizations: A Sociological
Perspgctive. New York. MacMillan and Co. 1973.

Heck, Ronald H. and Philip Hallinger. “Next Generation Methods for the Study
of Leadership and School Improvement.” In Handbook of Research on
Educational Administration, Second Edition. Joseph Murphy and Karen Seashore
Louis, eds. San Francisco. Jossey-Bass Publishers. 1999. pp. 141-162.

Heslep, Robert D. “The Practical Value of Philosophical Thought for the Ethical
Dimension of Educational Leadership.” Educational Administration Quarterly.
Vol. 33, No. 1. February, 1997. pp. 67-85.

Hills, Jean. “Educational Administration: A Field in Transition.” Educational
Administration Quarterly. Vol.1, No. 1. Winter, 1965. pp. 58-66.

Homans, George C. The Nature of Social Science. New York. Harcourt, Brace
& World, Inc. 1967

Hoy, Wayne K. “Foundations of Educational Administration: Traditional and
Emerging Perspectives.” Educational Administration Quarterly. Vol. 30, No. 2.
May, 1994. pp. 178-198.

Institute of Educational Leadership. Leadership for Student Learning;
Reinventing the Principalshiy). School Leadership for the 21St Century Initiative.
A Report of the Task Force on the Principalship. Washington, DC. Institute of
Educational Leadership. 2000.

Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium. ISLLC Standards for School
Leaders. Washington, DC. Council of State School Officers. 1996.
(Downloaded from CSSO website: http://wwwccsso. org/isllc.html)

Jacob, Evelyn. “Qualitative Research Traditions: A Review.” Review of
Educational Research. Vol.57, No. 1. Spring, 1987. pp. 1-50.

Katz, Daniel, and Robert L. Kahn. The Social Psychology of Organizations.
New York. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 1966.

Kmetz, John T. and Donald J. Willower. “Elementary School Principals’ Work

Behavior.” Educational Administration Quarterly. Vol. XIII, No. 4. Fall, 1982.
pp. 62-78.

344

Kyte, George C. The Principal at Work, Revised Edition. Boston. Ginn and Co.
1951.

Martin, William J. and Donald J. Willower. “The Managerial Behavior of High
School Principals.” Educational Administration Quarteiy. Vol. XVII, No. 1.
Winter, 1981. pp. 69-90.

Mayhew, Leon H., Ed. Talcott Parsons: On Institutions and Social Evolution.
Chicago. University of Chicago Press. 1982.

Meehan, Eugene J. Explanation in Social Science: A System Paradigm.
Homewood, IL. The Dorsey Press. 1968.

Merriam, Sharan B. Case Study Research in Education: A Qualitative Approach.
San Francisco. Jossey-Bass Publishers. 1988.

Merton, Robert K. Sociological Ambivalence and Other Essays. New York.
The Free Press. 1976.

Michigan Department of Education. “Accountability Based Accreditation.”
(Downloaded from ed.mde.state.mi.us/system. 5/19/2000)

Miles, Matthew B. and A. Michael Huberman. Qualitative Data Analysis: An
Expanded Sourcebook, Second Edition. Thousand Oaks, CA. Sage Publications.
1994.

Mintzberg, H. The Nature of Managerial Work. New York. Harper & Row.
1973.

MISD (Macomb Intermediate School District) Management Training Department
Program Brochure. “Thinking in the Future Tense.” 1998.

National Association of Secondary School Principals. NASSP Annual
Convention Program. 2001.

Nygren, Burton M. “The Suburban High School Principal.” NASSP Bulletin.
Vol. 57, No. 376. November, 1973. pp. 24-29.

Parker, James C. “From Conventional Wisdom to Concept: 1935-1945.” In
An Analysis of Texts on School Administration 1820 — 1985. Thomas E. Glass,
ed. Danville, IL: The Interstate Printers and Publishers, Inc. 1986. pp. 39—74.

Parsons, Talcott. The Social System. Glencoe, Illinois. The Free Press. 1951.

Payne, William H. School Supervision. New York. American Book Company.
1875.

345

Phenix, Philip H. “John Dewey’s War on Dualism: Its Bearing on Today’s
Educational Problems.” Phi Deltﬂappan. Vol. XLI, No. 1. October, 1959.
pp. 5-9.

Porter, John W. “Task Force ‘74: Recommendations for Better Schools.”
NASSP Bulletin. Vol. 59, No. 391. May, 1975. pp. 19-24.

Purkerson, Ray. “Wasted Days and Wasted Nights: Role Perceptions of
Principals.” NASSP Bulletin. Vol. 61, No. 413. December, 1977. pp. 26-29.

Rebore, Ronald W. “Public Law 94-142 and the Building Principal.” NASSP
Bulletin. Vol. 63, No. 426. April, 1979. pp. 26-30.

Rowan, Brian. “Research on Learning and Teaching in K-12 Schools:
Implications for the Field of Educational Administration.” Educational
Administration Quarterly. Vol. 31, No. 1. February, 1995. pp. 115-133.

 

Scott, W. Richard. Organizations: Rational, Naturamd Open Systems.
New Jersey. Prentice Hall. 1981

Sergiovanni, Thomas J. and Fred C. Carver. The New School Executive:
A Theory of Administration. New York. Dodd, Mead and Company. 1973.

 

Sergiovanni, Thomas J ., Martin Burlingame, Fred S. Coombs and Paul W.
Thurston. Educational Governance and Administration (Second Edition).
Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Prentice-Hall. 1987.

Sergiovanni, Thomas J. “Organizations or Communities? Changing the
Metaphor Changes the Theory.” Educational Administration Quarterly.
Vol. 30, No. 2. May, 1994. pp. 214-226.

Simmel, Georg. The Sociology of Georg Simmel. Glencoe, IL. The Free Press.
1950.

Simmel, Georg. Conflict and the Web of Group Afﬁliations. Glencoe, IL.
The Free Press. 1955

Spencer, Martin E. “Weber on Legitimate Norms and Authority.” Class
Handout, 1991.

Sykes, Gary. “Leaming, Teaching, and Administering: A Response to Rowan.”

Educational Administration Quarterly. Vol. 31, No. 1. February, 1995.
pp. 143-150.

346

Tirozzi, Gerald N. “The Artistry of Leadership: The Evolving Role of the Secondary
School Principal.” Phi Delta Kappan. Vol. 82, No. 6. February, 2001.
pp. 434-439.

Troy School District. Posting Notice, Invitation to Applicants for the Position of
Principal, Athens High School. 2000.

Tyack, David and Elisabeth Hansot. Managers of Virtue: Public School
leadership in America, 1890-1980. (US) Basic Books. 1982.

Unknown Author/Title. NASSP Bulletin. Vol. 58, No. 378. January, 1974.

Utica Community Schools. Posting Notice and Job Description, High School
Principal. 1999.

Vende Gevel, Mel. “What is Marketing?” MSPRA MEMO. Michigan School
Public Relations Association News. March, 1999. p.1.

Wagstaff, Lonnie H. “Unionized Principals — You May Be Next.” N ASSP
Bulletin. Vol. 57, No. 376. November, 1973. pp. 40-47.

Weick, Karl E. “Fighting Fires in Educational Administration.” Educational
Administration Quarterly. Vol. 32, No. 4. October, 1996. pp. 565-578.

Wolcott, Harry F. The Man in the Principal’s Office. New York. Holt, Rinehart
and Winston, Inc. 1973.

General References

Abramowitz, Susan. “The Principal of the Eighties: The Manager of Decline.”
NASSP Bulletin. Vol.63, No. 431. December, 1979. pp. 11-18.

Ashbaugh, Carl R. and Katherine L. Kasten. Educzﬂonal Leadership: Case
Studies for Reﬂective Practice. New York. Longman. 1991.

Bidwell, Charles E. “The School as a Formal Organization.” In Handbook of
Organizations. James G. March, ed. Chicago, Rand McNally & Co. 1965.

 

Carver, Fred D. “A Return to Rhetoric: 1946-1955.” In An Analysis of Texts on
School Administration: 1820-1985.” Thomas E. Glass, ed. Danville, IL.
The Interstate Princters and Publishers, Inc. 1986. pp. 75-92.

 

347

 

Cohen, David K. “Policy and Organization: The Impact of State and Federal

Educational Policy on School Governance.” Harvard Educational Review.
Vol. 52, No. 4. November, 1982. pp. 474-499.

Chubb, J. and Terrence Moe. Politics, Markets, and America’s Schools.
Washington, DC. The Brookings Institution. 1990.

 

Davis, Stephen H. “Climbing the Administrative Ladder: Who Goes Up Might
Come Down.” NASSP Bulletin. Vol. 82. No. 602. December, 1998. pp. 49-59.

Duff, Anna Bray. “Teachers, Principals or Lawyers: In an Era of Lawsuits, Who’s
Running Your Kid’s School?” Investor’s Business Daily. Vol. 16, No. 112.
September 16, 1999. p. l.

Firestone, William A. “Meaning in Method: The Rhetoric of Quantitative and
Qualitative Research.” Educational Researcher. Vol. 16,.No. 7. October, 1987.
pp. 16-20.

Haas, Jim. “2001: A School Odyssey -— Cardinal Principles for the Twenty-First
Century.” NASSP Bulletin. Vol. 78, No. 565. November, 1994. pp. 47-59.

Halpin, Andrew W. “How Leaders Behave.” In Organizations and Human
Behavior: Focus on Schools. Fred D. Carver and Thomas J. Sergiovanni, eds.
New York. McGraw-Hill. 1969. pp. 287-315.

 

Krug, Samuel E. “Instructional Leadership: AConstructivist Perspective.”
Educational Administration Quarterly. Vol. 28, No. 3. August, 1992.
pp. 430-433.

 

Labaree, David. The Making of An American High School: The Credentials
Market and Central High School of Philadelphia 1838-1939. New Haven.
Yale University. 1988

Marshall, Catherine, Jean A. Patterson, Dwight L. Rogers and Jeanne R. Steele.
“Caring as Career: An Alternate Perspective for Educational Administration.”
Educational Administration Quarterly. Vol. 32. No. 2. April, 1996.

pp. 271-294.

Mason, Robert. “From Idea to Ideology: 1820-1914.” In An Analysis of Texts
on School Administration 1820-1985. Thomas E. Glass, ed. Danville, IL.
The Interstate Printers and Publishers, Inc. 1986. pp. 3-32.

Marshall, John E., ed. Developing Leaders for Education: A Report of a Work-
Conference of Professors of Educational Administration at Endicott, New York,
August 20-30, 1947.

 

348

McNamara, E.T. “All in the Principal’s Schedule.” NASSP Bulletin. Vol. 61,
No.4l3. December, 1977. pp. 66-69.

McNeil, Linda. Contradictions and Control: School Structure and Knowledge.
New York. Routledge & Kegan Paul. 1988.

Morris, V. C. et al. Principals in Action: The Reality of Managing Schools.
Reviewed by J osephy Murphy in Educational Administration Quarteryly.
Vol. XXH, No. 1. Winter, 1986.

Nisbet, Robert A. The Sociolggical Tradition. New York. Basic Books, Inc.
1966.

Ogawa, Rodney T. and Steven T. Bossert. “Leadership as an Organizational
Quality.” Educational Administration Quarterly. Vol.31, No. 2. May, 1995.
pp. 224-243.

Perry, Charles R. and Wesley A. Wildman. The Impact of Nggotiations in Public
Education: The Evidence from the Schools 1964-1969. Reviewed by Richard C.
Williams in Educatiopal Administration Quarterly. Vol. VII], No. 2.

Spring 1971. pp. 74-77.

P011, Dwayne C. “The Interpersonal Relationships of the Principalship.” NASSP
Bulletin. Vol. 60, No. 403. pp. 1-10.

Portin, Bradley S., Jianping Shen and Richard C. Williams. “The Changing
Principalship and Its Impact: Voices from Principals.” NASSP Bulletin. Vol. 82,
No. 602. December, 1998. pp. 1-9.

Price, H. H. Perception. London. Methuen & Co. 1932.

Pugh, D. S. “Modern Organizational Theory.” In Organizations and Hum
Behavior: Focus on Schools. Fred D. Carver and Thomas J. Sergiovanni, eds.
New York. McGraw-Hill. 1969. pp. Ill-129.

Ripley, Dale. “Current Tensions in the Principalship: Finding an Appropriate
Balance.” NASSP Bulletin. Vol. 81, No. 589. May, 1997. pp. 55-64.

Seidman, Irving. Interviewing as Qualitative Research: A Guide for Researchers
in Education and the Social Sciences. Second Ed. New York. Teachers College
Press. 1998.

 

Smith, Ralph. “Human Values, Modern Organizations, and Education.” In
Organizations and Human Behavior: Focus on Schools. Fred D. Carver and
Thomas J. Sergiovanni, eds. New York. McGraw-Hill. 1969. pp. 404-410.

349

Sweitzer, Robert. “An Assessment of Two Theoretical Frameworks.” In
Organizations and Human Behavior. Fred D. Carver and Thomas J. Sergiovanni,
eds. New York. McGraw-Hill. 1969. pp. 167-180.

Van Meter, Eddy J. (Reviewer) Prepariryg Tomorrow’s School Leaders:
Alternative Designs. Joseph Murphy, Ed. University Park, PA. UCEA. 1993.

Vetter, Eric W. “Role Pressure and the School Principal.” NASSP Bulletin.
Vol. 60, No. 403. November, 1976. pp. 11-23.

Weber, Max. The Interpretation of Sociaa Reality. J .E.T. Eldridge, ed.
New York. Charles Scribner’s Sons. 1971.

Weintraub, Daniel J. and Edward L. Walker. Perception. Belmont, CA.
Brooks/Cole Publishing Company. 1966.

Wolff, Kurt H., ed. The Sociology of Georg Simmel. Glencoe, Illinois.
The Free Press. 1950.

350