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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2/05 p:lC|RCIDatoDue.indd-p.1

FROM

PRI'

jjl‘li“. I

FROM EXPERT TO NOVICE: UNPACKING THE FIRST-YEAR
PRINCIPAL’S JOURNEY FROM CLASSROOM TEACHER
TO ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PRINCIPAL
By

Barbara Hunt Meloche

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

2006

 

 

FR(

The pu
pnncipals' firs”
ofclassroom I:

The C0
msfomatiup
Were not mcar
Transfonnatiu
MSlIltm. I312”;
med 35 3 PII
Imupals.

In this
Were mph}
muted R,

and an Open _

“Meme.

 

ABSTRACT
FROM EXPERT TO NOVICE: UNPACKING THE FIRST-YEAR
PRINCIPAL’S JOURNEY FROM CLASSROOM TEACHER
TO ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PRINCIPAL
By

Barbara Hunt Meloche

The purpose of this study was to explore five women elementary school
principals' first year in the principalship to better understand their transition fiom the role
of classroom teacher to that of principal, and how they made sense of that experience.

The conceptual models used for this inquiry included theories of transition,
transformation, and sensemaking. They were considered to be permeable in that they
were not meant to confine phenomena to a sequential or predictable order.
Transformation and sensemaking were viewed as ongoing processes within the context of
transition, rather than as separate entities. This three-pronged conceptual framework
served as a probe into the experience of women as first-year elementary school
principals.

In this qualitative study, descriptive in nature, multiple forms of data collection
were employed. They included a biographical questionnaire, a series of three semi-
structured individual interviews, a timeline depiction of life events, an artifact collection,
and an open-ended written account using metaphors as a tool to uncover the first-year
experience.

A comprehensive portrait was written for each woman. Their stories were then

woven together by themes to develop and analyze the challenges and critical events the

Fromm f3
Fjflrdiis I
QOE’LTJSI it
laid it hi3
beruecn r
Their sun
roles as Is

Th
det‘eloping
their time.
What they?
Iheirmissit

Wh
thoughtful‘
transform 1]
the} “ETC It

511an ion

 

women faced in their respective schools and in their larger school organizations. The
portraits tell the story of how the relational leadership style of these women was in sharp
contrast to the status quo school environments they led. They led change at the building
level while they faced uncertainties at the district level that occurred during the angst
between relational leadership and the hierarchical power of the school organization.
Their survival depended on their families and their ability continuously to redefine their
roles as leaders, learners, wives, mothers and grandmother.

The women were resilient in their ability to meet complex challenges while their
developing leadership gave voice to identity shifts as they negotiated new demands on
their time and energy. Driven by a vision for teaching and learning, and capitalizing on
what they knew from the classroom, they kept the interests of children at the heart of
their mission to lead.

What has become evident as a result of research is the need for rigorous and
thoughtful teacher and principal induction. These women presented opportunities to
transform their schools from status quo quagrnires to vibrant learning organizations. Yet,
they were lefi to survive on their own, raising significant questions regarding the lack of

support for developing women leaders in school organizations.

Copyright by
BARBARA HUNT MELOCHE
2006

c .mrpers.
Lie dISSCl
Allermn
Dr
to persex't
women lea
hfipc‘d me
transcribed
CTCallVe SUI
“‘3 mm. A
wutinues to
M} c

The one Whr

  

dlfilCull c]-

If

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Appreciation is extended to the members of my doctoral committee--Dr. Maenette
Benham, chairperson; Dr. Randi Stanulis; Dr. Steven Wieland; and Dr. Gary Sykes--for
their insights that helped guide my research. In addition, the support of my committee
chairperson, Dr. Maenette Benham, provided the wisdom and care I needed to complete
the dissertation. My gratitude is also extended to Dr. Randi Stanulis and Dr. Janet
Alleman for their words of encouragement and their faith in my work.

Dr. Nancy Colflesh, my friend and mentor, provided the impetus that enabled me
to persevere. She directed my focus with wisdom and care. Marsha Chance and all of the
women leaders in Girl Gang played an important role as mentors and cheerleaders, which
helped me stay the course. A special thank-you is extended to fiiends for having my data
transcribed, particularly Rae Ziegler Conrad, during my mom’s illness. Without their
creative support, this degree would have been a lost dream. Particular gratitude goes to
my mom, Audrey Hunt, whose determination to recover, in the face of daunting odds,
continues to inspire my endeavors.

My close fiiends and family were consistent believers in my ability to succeed.
The one who truly shares the accomplishment of this doctorate is my husband, Ron
Meloche. His loving help was unfaltering. He walked me through the most anxious and
difficult challenges of the past four years. Appreciation is extended to our thoughtful
children, Angie and Ben, and their spouses Justin and Andrea.

Finally, this story about women is dedicated to my daughter, Angela Meloche

Church, who continues to inspire me through her wisdom and graceful leadership.

 

 

LiSl’C):
LlSl'CDJ

CHAPT
BHROI

(n'T!

CHAPTE.
LITEKAT

m:

ll 'h
Tm
Hm

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES .......................................................................................................... viii
LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................................................................... ix
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION TO STUDY .......................................................................................... 1
The Problem ........................................................................................................... 2
Purpose and Focus ................................................................................................. 2
Significance of the Study ....................................................................................... 4
First Year Principals in Transition ............................................................. 5
First year Principals as Sensemakers ......................................................... 5
Conceptual Framework .......................................................................................... 7
Model of Transition ................................................................................... 7
Model of Transformation ......................................................................... 10
Model of Sensemaking ............................................................................ 13
Research Questions .............................................................................................. 17
Organization of This Study .................................................................................. 17
CHAPTER II
LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................................................ 19
Introduction .......................................................................................................... 19
In What Ways Is the School Principal’s Job Messy,
Complex, and Filled With Paradoxes? .................................................... 19
What Is the Nature of the Transition From the Role of Classroom
Teacher to That of School Principal? ................................................................. 31
How Does the First-Year Principal Make Sense of Her Experience? .................. 35
Schema Theory ........................................................................................ 35
Situated Learning ..................................................................................... 37
Sensemaking ............................................................................................ 37
Reflection ................................................................................................. 38
Emotional Intelligence ............................................................................. 39
What Does It Mean to Be a Woman Novice Principal? ...................................... 41
Women Leaders in Transition .................................................................. 42
Sensemaking Tools ................................................................................... 44
Novice Principals ..................................................................................... 45
Preparing and Mentoring Novice Principals ............................................ 47
Summary .............................................................................................................. 49
CHAPTER III
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY AND DESIGN ........................................................... 52
Introduction .......................................................................................................... 52

Approach and Rationale for Applying Qualitative Research
Methodology ............................................................................................. 54

vi

CHAPTE
PRESEX
VVIDNIEI\

In

Tr.-

Jess:

 

Field Focused Study .................................................................................. 55
Phenomenological Interviewing .............................................................. 55
Research Design ...................................................................................... 56
Self as an Instrument in the Study ............................................... 57
Sampling ...................................................................................... 58
Reciprocity and Ethical Concerns ................................................ 60
Data Collection ........................................................................................ 61
Instrumentation: The Interview Process ...................................... 61
Veracity Using Multiple Forms of Evidence ............................... 62
Data Analysis ........................................................................................... 63
Expressive Language ................................................................... 64
Identification of Distinct Features ............................................... 64
Limitations and Delimitations ................................................................. 64
Presentation of the Data ........................................................................... 65
CHAPTER IV
PRESENTATION OF DATA: THE PORTRAITS OF FIVE FIRST-YEAR
WOMEN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PRINCIPALS ..................................................... 68

Introduction .......................................................................................................... 68
Women in the Study ................................................................................ 7O
Portrait Structure ...................................................................................... 71

Shelby: Dedicated Leadership for Learning:

The Quest for Authentic Influence ....................................................................... 72
Introduction—A High-Energy Leader Emerges ........................................ 72
Shelby’s First-Year Story Through Leadership
Challenges and Critical Events ................................................................ 79
Summary .................................................................................................. 92

Deborah: Ethical Leadership for Data Driven, Child-Centered Teaching and

Learning—A Compass for Change ........................................................................ 94
Introduction — Developing Directionality: From the Classroom to
the Principalship ...................................................................................... 94
Her First-Year Story Through Leadership Challenges and
Critical Events .......................................................................................... 95
Summary ............................................................................................... 108

Jesse: Leadership for the Construction of a School Community From a

“Status-Quo” Climate to a Culture of Child-Centered Learning ..................... 111
Introduction-Laying the Groundwork .................................................... 1 ll
Jesse’s First-Year Story Through Leadership Challenges and
Critical Incidents ................................................................................... 114
Summary: The Groundwork Is Laid: The Foundation Is Solid ............ 124

Meredith: Spirited Leadership for Improvement—From Complacency to

Competence ...................................................................................................... 1 26
Introduction: A Background of Strength-Three Critical
Life Incidents ........................................................................................ 126
Meredith’s First-Year Story Through Leadership Challenges
and Critical Incidents ............................................................................ 130
Summary ............................................................................................... 145

vii

Anne
Bun

CHAPTER
ANALYSIS
lIlII'L
The
““-

The

Sun

CHAPTER
COXCLL‘S
Intrt
Mai
Con

Refi
Abo

APPENDIC
A.h

L

B.h

C.N‘

DI)

BIBLIOGP

 

Anne: Leadership for Breaking Down Cultural, Political and Social

Barriers — While Building Bridges By Way of Relationships .......................... 148
Introduction — From the Classroom to Administration ......................... 148
Anne’s F irst-Year Story Through Leadership Challenges
and Critical Incidents .................... 152
Summary ............................................................................................... 165
CHAPTER V
ANALYSIS ................................................................................................................... 168
Introduction ....................................................................................................... 1 68
The Uncertainties and Complications of “What We Know,”
“Whom we Know,” and “Our Best Guess” ..................................................... 170
The Vulnerability and Value of Voices ................................................ 170
The Bridges That We Build Between Both/And .................................. 180
The Mysteries of Living a Life Between the Lines .......................................... 186
Summary ........................................................................................................... 190
CHAPTER VI
CONCLUSIONS, CONTRIBUTIONS, AND REFLECTIONS .................................. 193
Introduction ....................................................................................................... 193
Making Sense of a New Identify ...................................................................... 193
Contributions to Practice .................................................................................. 200
Professional Development for Principals and Teachers ....................... 201
Developing Visible Life Support Systems for School Principals .......... 205
Querying the Hegemony (Dominion, Power, Authority) of the
School Structure .................................................................................... 206
Reflections of a Former Elementary School Principal: What I’ve Learned
About Being a Scholar and Scholar Practitioner ............................................... 207
APPENDICIES
A. Informed Consent Letter .............................................................................. 213
UCRIHS Material ........................................................................................ 214
B. Interview Questions and Protocols ............................................................... 217
C. Methodology Tables ...................................................................................... 225
D. Profile Summaries of Principals ................................................................. 231
BIBLIOGRAPHY ........................................................................................................ 237

viii

LIST OF TABLES

B] First, Second, and Third Interviews ...................................................................... 61
B.2 Biographical Questionnaire .................................................................................. 61
B.3 Focus Group Interview Protocol .......................................................................... 62

ix

1.1

H
'4 J

.\lt

Th

.\1

Re

1.1

1.2

1.3

C4

C5

LIST OF FIGURES

Models of Transition ............................................................................................... .8
Six Guiding Principles of Transformation .............................................................. 11
Theoretical Properties and Actions of Sensemaking .............................................. 14
Methodology Summary .......................................................................................... 58
Research Project Timeline .................................................................................. 227

\\
pm. C‘ipl.
was the n
mil} onl}

elementa:

transition

have inter
EXperjena
and fiery

leadership
The €chn'
as a gl‘Kld-r

nature 0ft}

   
  

Principal 3.
me 10 film
the 13365"
C1353 00E

“Went

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY

When a veteran teacher walked into a familiar building in her new role as
principal, “Her arrival at Woodland . . . walking into her office—the principal’s office—
was the moment when her life would change drastically. Her journey, however, was
truly only beginning” (Daresh, 2000 p. 1). Like that teacher, women who travel from the
elementary school classroom into the role of elementary school principal stand at the
threshold of a unique transition that is filled with first-time leadership challenges, and
critical events that are filled with tensions, collisions, and contradictions.

Following a satisfying teaching career, I too stood at the threshold of this unique
transition when I walked into school as the principal for the first time. Subsequent years
have interrupted the crisp memories of how I made sense of those unique first-time
experiences. Still, I know the role of being a principal captured my undivided attention
and every ounce of energy I could muster. Yet I thirsted for the challenge of school
leadership. It was satisfying and mystifying, enjoyable and simultaneously threatening.
The experience was filled with challenges beyond my imagination and also was as easy
as a good-morning smile. My personal experience propelled my curiosity about the
nature of the transition fi'om the role of classroom teacher to that of elementary school
principal and how first-year principals make sense of their experience. This curiosity led
me to explore first-year elementary school principals, in particular women, who make up
the largest pool of elementary classroom teachers, as they transition from the role of
classroom teacher to that of elementary school principal and how they make sense of the

experience.

Ext
nature of th
principal (C
were teaehe
common SII
received lit‘.
“hen. and \
this study. t
elementan
Women. ant
teacher [ran
principal”? i
Swim talc
comprise a

this II‘aIlSlllt

better recm

 

The Problem

 

Even though most school principals have been teachers, little is known about the
nature of the transition from the role of classroom teacher to that of elementary school
principal (Gates, Ringel, & Santibanez, 2003). Because the majority of school principals
were teachers before entering the principalship (F iore & Curtin, 1997), the transition is a
common step in an educator’s career. Yet the transition from teacher to principal has
received little attention from educational researchers so “very little is known about how,
when, and why the transition occurs” (Gates et al., 2003). The identifiable problem for
this study, then, was the lack of knowledge about the transition from the role of
elementary classroom teacher to that of elementary school principal, particularly for
women, and how they make sense of their experience. How does the elementary school
teacher transition into the vital, complex, stressful, and often unyielding role of the
principal? In essence, how can school districts and universities identify, nurture, and
support talented women elementary school teachers (professional women) who may
comprise a pool of well-qualified principalship candidates? Understanding the nature of
this transition could support the development of principal induction programs in order to

better recruit, support, and sustain elementary school principals.

Purpose and Focus
My purpose in this study was to better understand the transition of five women
elementary school principals’ first year in the principalship in order to better understand
their transition from the role of classroom teacher to that of principal and how they made
sense of that experience. In other words, how did these women principals think about the

complexities of their experiences in their first year in the principalship? How had their

beliefs and 3“
And he“ did

the 1
mat-“3*“ b‘"
0mg first .“
experienceS I
leadérShlP- i
that are diffs
Challenges Is
entironment
(Dewhirst. l
pnncipalshi;
interacts wit
agency oftiC

\Vit
focused not
but on hon

classroom '

 

 

Of the com

 

M“ the\' 7
“hell III)

ClaSSIOon~
pnneipa] .,

beliefs and assumptions changed from their new vantage point as building principals?
And how did they make sense of their experiences?

The focus on the first-year experience of elementary school principals was
important because of its close relationship to the classroom experience. The uniqueness
of the first year was found in the opportunity for principals to think about their first-time
experiences before they honed their leadership skills through subsequent years of school
leadership. The first-year principalship holds a host of new opportunities and challenges
that are different from the classroom teaching experience (Wolcott, 2003). Three such
challenges for new principals are coping with the complexities of the learning
environment, dealing with people, and relinquishing the specialty of classroom teaching
(Dewhirst, 1991). Adding to the complexities involving classroom teaching and the
principalship, she faces scrutiny and demands from a wide array of people as she
interacts with school board members, local business leaders, union representatives, public
agency officials, and central office staff (McCall, 1994).

With the aim of unpacking the invisible experiences of transition, in this study, I
focused not only on the first-year experience of women as elementary school principals,
but on how they made sense of the experience. In other words, when she gave up
classroom teaching for the role of principal, how did the first-year principal make sense
of the complexities she faced? Exploring first-year women principals’ experience and
how they made sense of that experience, will answer a host of other questions, such as:
When first-year principals gain new responsibilities, how does the experience of
classroom teaching transfer (or not) into their new practice? How did first-year
principals reconcile their identity in a new role? What skills, experiences, and

assumptions did they take with them into the new role? What skills, experiences, and

 

flunpricn:
questions er
explorah‘r.‘
prepare. upl

the deVelop

The
particularl)
leaders for
According
fewer react
take on the
teachers ex-
reiireeg 19a.
mimbel’s to
are Of partj.

  
  
   

training pr

pTTTIijaL

assumptions did they leave behind? In light of the probing nature of this study, more
questions emerged throughout the investigative process. The findings from this
exploratory study were meant not only to uncover the kinds of supports that are needed to
prepare, uphold, and retain first-year principals, but to gather data that will contribute to

the development of principal induction programs.

S_ignificance of the Study

There is an urgent need to develop leaders for the role of the principalship,
particularly women. Ironically, at a time when there is a critical need to develop strong
leaders for the role of principal, there is a shrinking pool of contenders for the job.
According to (Cusick, 2003), “The pool of principal candidates is shrinking because
fewer teachers—who represent the vast majority of principal candidates—are willing to
take on the job” (p. 44), making the need to develop leaders from the pool of classroom
teachers even more urgent. The urgency is further highlighted by the large numbers of
retirees leaving the profession within a short time span because they Were hired in large
numbers to educate baby boomers (McGrevin & Schmieder, 1993). Furthermore, women
are of particular interest not only because they make up the largest pool of potential
candidates, but “because the proportion of female principals is low relative to that of
female teachers” (Gates et al., 2003, p. 19). Access to special funds, selection for
training programs, and selection for leadership-oriented conferences and meetings are
routinely limited for women elementary school teachers who aspire to the school
principalship (Fiore & Curtin, 1997). Typically, women do not have the necessary
information and experiences that provide stepping-stones to formal leadership roles.
Furthermore, they do not have the networks and mentors that are more fiequently

available to men (Edson, 1988). This study was undertaken to gain an understanding of
4

women
be help

:alente:

 

pfOCL‘S:
role of

initiate.
g0 and 1
things a:
chaotic 1
study? I
and new

F01' The p}

experienc:

 

women elementary school teachers’ transition to the role of principal. The findings will
be helpful to school districts and universities as they endeavor to support women who are

talented candidates for the principalship.

First-Year Principals in Transition

In this study, transition of first-year elementary school principals referred to the
process of relinquishing (letting go of) the classroom teacher identity and embracing the
role of principal. Theoretical views of change have indicated that a change in life
initiates a transition (Bridges, 1980, 2001; Evans, 1996; Moir, 1999). In between letting
go and taking hold again, there is a chaotic but potentially creative neutral zone when
things are not like the old way, but they are not yet new. How was transition, or the
chaotic period of change, manifested in the practice of the first-year principals in this
study? During transition, there are many possibilities for growth. A shift in perceptions
and new experiences serves to open the possibility of personal and professional growth.
For the purposes of this study personal growth related to identity and shifts in thinking
referred to the transformation that took place when principals made sense of their

experience and consequently shifted their thinking by using a new perspective.

First-Year Principalias Sensemakers

Sensemaking refers to the cognitive processes first-year principals used in
thinking about their experiences. Expert teachers leapt fiom the comfort zone of the
classroom into the uncertainties of the future as first-year principals. However, familiar
surroundings and predictable patterns support sensemaking (Caine, Caine, & Crowell,
1999; Kaufeldt, 1999; Weick, 1995). When the support falters or crumbles, making

sense of a situation becomes more complex. Quinn (1996) described the process by

 

folio“ t
and myt
year eler
and ch 1
organiza
the 12"?th
more apt

what to n

insignific;
PTocess oi
how they 1

Th

Emerging

 

enlisting the idea of old scripts versus new scripts for sensemaking. He stated, “In our
search for meaning and direction, we have a problem. Traditionally, our paradigms,
myths, or scripts have told us what to do. Quinn (1996) explained that “whenever we
follow them, we feel safe” (p. 46). In the case of first-year principals, many of the scripts
and myths are different than they are for expert teachers. Their paradigm shifts give first-
year elementary principals new points of view. Eisner (1991) suggested that it is difficult
and challenging to know what is important and why it is important in a complex
organization during the first year of practice: “The ability to see what counts is one of
the features that differentiates novices from experts” (p. 34). Novices are predictably
more apt to miss nuanced qualities and schema, as Eisner explained: “The expert knows
what to neglect. Knowing what to neglect means having a sense for the significant and
possessing a framework that makes the search for the significant efficient” (p. 34). For
first-year principals, what was significant as a classroom teacher may have become
insignificant as a building principal, bringing about confusions and complexities in the
process of sensemaking. There is much to be learned about how first-year principals and
how they made sense of their transitional experience.

The term emerging refers to novices -- in this case, first-year principals.
Emerging used as a descriptor is considered the unpredicted appearance of new
characteristics or phenomena in the course of social evolution (Morris, 1970). In other
words, the term emerging refers to the motion and fluidity of coming forth from the role
of classroom teacher to that of elementary school principal. It was the first-year
principals’ thoughts and reflections, as they emerged fiom the role of classroom teacher

to that of first-year elementary school principal that served to illuminate the

 

multi-pr.
merged i
element:
understai
amalgam
oftirst-yc

conceptu;

Models o1-
\

ln
bi Chance

transition,

mama:

characteristics and phenomena of the transitional experience of women as first-year

elementary school principals.

Conceptual Framework

Theories of transition, transformation, and sensemaking were used to formulate a
multi-pronged conceptual framework for this study. Four theories of transition were
merged into one model to support this inquiry into the complexities of first-year
elementary school principals’ experience (see Figure 1.1). The vantage points for
understanding the phenomenon of transition were broadened by utilizing an
amalgamation of theories rather than limiting the lens to one theory. To begin the inquiry
of first-year principals, four models of transition were firsed to formulate one prong of the

conceptual framework.

Models of Transition

In this study, stage referred to the phase or category of transition that was incited
by change. For consistency in this study, the term stage represented a segment of
transition. The five stages of transition were predicted to happen in different orders and
to span different periods of time. They had the potential to prompt a variety of responses.
Even though there appeared to be directionality to the stages of transition, they were fluid
in nature because they were not exclusive from one another nor were they bound to
happen in a particular order. The stages potentially repeated, overlapped, and varied in
intensity. For the purpose of this study I assumed that change precedes transition. The
change from the classroom to the principalship was the change believed to initiate the

transitional experiences of first-year elementary school principals.

 

Stage "

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Theorist Name Behavior Descriptor
Evans Unfreezing Increase the fear of not Appropriate anxiety and guilt
trying. Reduce the fear Psychological safety 7:
of trying 5
Kubler- Denial Recognize the loss One Action=many losses *5
Ross E
Stage Moir Anticipation Pre-service preparation Elation 9%
1 New beginning a
Bridges Ending Change initiates Something ends 5:
transition
Evans Moving from loss to Make change Continuity, time, personal _.
commitment meaningful contact a
c
Kubler- Anger Seek help Emotional response '5'
a
Stage Ross a
2 Moir Survival Keep head above water Consumed with job :9'
U!
Bridges Neutral Zone- Development by letting Chaotic but potentially creative 5
Reorientation go of the old self-image "neutral zone" [-
Evans Moving fi'om old Develop new (skills), Training that is coherent,
competence to new beliefs, and ways of continuous, and personal '3
competence thinking ‘5
Kubler- Bargaining Negotiate reality Thoughts of failure/depression E
Ross E
Stage Moir Disillusionment Confi'ont new events Thoughts of failure/depression a;
3 r:
Bridges Neutral zone- Inner world is jarred out Perceptions get out of touch with E
personal growth of reality external reality. Purpose and E"
focus are temporarily suspended
Evans Moving from Realign structures, Clarity regarding responsibility,
confusion to functions, and roles authority, and decision making ‘3
coherence g
Kubler- Acceptance Improved self-concept Develops new identity a
Ross E
Stage Moir Rejuvenation Improved self-concept Focus on student progress. New ,2
4 identity as the teacher a
a
:-
Bridges Neutral zone- Willing to express who Life takes a definitive new shape [-
authentication we really are
Moving from Generate broad support A critical mass, pressure _.
Evans conflict to for change Positive use of power 2
consensus .3
Stage Kubler- Hope Motivation Things will get better a
5 Ross :5
Moir Reflection Invigoration Revisioning E
Bridges New Beginning Satisfactory outcome to Open mind for opportunity 5

 

 

 

 

 

 

the change

 

 

 

Figure 1.1: Models of Transition.

(From Evans (1996) Model of Change, Kubler-Ross (1969) Model of Loss, Moir (1999)

Stages of First Year Teachers, Bridges (2001) Six Functions of Transition.)

 

 

thought
hopes it
proyidet
in the sir

this stud

perSpecti
lift“ chant
identify 5
mgarding
(201“ ') pg
Perspectit
COmplexit

0f Organiz

   
  
  

Mpecm
that first-J
”761' Sen 1
Separate
“m‘eil ti,

they r 8/;

Each theory was delineated with five stages but developed from different
perspectives. Each perspective supports the notion that transition is complex andmulti-
faceted. The seminal work of Kubler-Ross (1969) was born out of a medical perspective,
from the challenge to focus on terminally ill patients as human beings. Kubler-Ross
thought of her patients as teachers who helped her learn about the anxieties, fears, and
hopes in the final stages of life. The essential importance of this early model is that it
provided groundwork for firrther insights into transitional experiences. This is evidenced
in the similarities and parallels of the other three distinct models of transition included in
this study. I

Bridges (1980, 2001) and Evans (1996) developed transition models from the
perspective of psychology. Bridges’s model was developed out of his own experience of
life changes. His original intention was to make sense of changes in his life and to
identify specific details about the process. His model reflected significant detail
regarding the middle stages of transition, with emphasis on personal growth. Bridges’s
(2001) perspective was one of humanistic psychology whereas Evans’s (1996)
perspective was organizational psychology. Evans’s model was specific to the
complexities of school organization related to change for improving schools. His model
of organizational change paralleled that of Bridges (2001) and Kubler-Ross (1969). His
perspective highlighted tensions of the organization in transition and illustrated the notion
that first-year principals are simultaneously in transition with the organization in which
they serve. The dynamic of the organization in which the principal is practicing is not
separate from her personal experience of transition. My intention of this study was to
unveil the dynamic and complex experiences of transition of five first-year principals as

they related to the school organization.

 

T
educatior
teachers.
experii'n
time. .\
li‘u't‘tlgllt
sequene:
first-yea
purpose
of transit
element:
the natur
model To

{Tansition

hl‘inl i

T

In C0nccr‘t

 

The fourth model of transition was specific to the role of novice from an
educational perspective. Moir (1999) developed a model of transition as a support to new
teachers. She studied 1,500 novice teachers to better understand the novice teacher’s
experience. The unique quality of her model was that it followed a distinct pattern over
time. Novice teachers were described as traveling through transitional phases
throughout the school year. Not all novice teachers followed the same time line or exact
sequence of the transitional phases in the model. However, the model generally captured
first-year teachers’ experiences. The importance of the novice teacher model, for the
purpose of this study, is its relationship to novice status. Novice teachers served a period
of transition by leaving formal preservice programs and entering into the role of
elementary classroom teacher. We do not currently have an extensive understanding of
the nature of the experience of first-year elementary school principals. The transitional
model for novice teacher transition offers a lens to further the understanding of the

transitional experience of first-year principals.

Model of Transformation

The second prong of the conceptual framework was the theory of transformation.
In concert with the exploration of transition, this study was designed to provide deeper
insights into the nature of first-year principals’ experiences. Senge (2000) outlined six
guiding principles that describe the phenomenon of transformation (see Figure 1.2). The
addition of the principles of transformation to the conceptual framework was meant as an
invitation to discover deeper human changes in the experience of women as first-year
elementary school principals. These guiding principles helped focus, not only on

transition, but on fimdamental shifts in thinking, identity alterations, and understanding of

10

 

personal [I21

school print

/

F

 

. fandmenta
take place

TECTC is a 5%

See self as L‘
journey of c

 

. Commrtrner

QR
Surrender 1r

\
Committmei

A‘
.
L.

 

 

personal transitions experienced by the five women in this study as first-year elementary

school principals.

 

 

 

Process Belief Realization
Fundamental shifts of thinking Everything is in motion, The world is made primarily
take place including self of relationships
There is a shift in identity Every person is a legitimate Perpetual change is a gift

human being

 

 

 

 

 

See self as unfolding in the Life has meaning Changing is what it means to

journey of change be alive

Commitment Listen and wait Sometimes waiting and
listening has more value than
doing

Surrender into commitment Listening can be more Waiting and listening precede

valuable than doing doing the best thing
Commitment is in operation Flow of actions are produced Actions translate into meaning

 

 

 

Figure 1.2: Six Guiding Principles of Transformation.
(Adapted from Peter Senge in Synchronicity: The inner path of leadership by J.
Jaworski, 1996)

Another way to think about identity shifts is in terms of letting go of one identity
in order to embrace a new identity, as described in the theory of transformation. The
Transformative Learning Center at the Ontario Institute for the Study of Education
offered an inspiring definition of transformation: “A deep, structural shift in basic
premises of thought, feelings, and actions, a shift of consciousness that dramatically and
permanently alters our way of being in the world” (Morrell & O’Conner, 2002, p. xvii).
Such shifts in thoughts and feelings involve first-year principals’ understandings of self
and of relationships with other human beings. Transformation refers to the possibility of
understanding relationships of power in interlocking structures of class, race, and gender,
as well as creating alternatives to old realities. In this case, the old realities were from the

11

 

 

Changin

expiaine

Rithout
ransfor

IIIOtTlITCEi

Structure
Oll6‘5 Pd:
thahits

the lIltI‘ic,

they Were

 

perspective of elementary school teachers whereas the new perspective was from the
vantage point of elementary school principals.

The transformational model focuses on processes of thinking and appears to
simplify a complex phenomenon that raises many questions about the transformational
process. The six principles outlined in this conceptual framework suggest that change is
embraced as a gift and that transformation is a process of changing perceptions.
Changing perceptions occurs when habits of mind are changed, as Dirkx (1998)
explained: “It is not possible to understand the nature of adult learning or education
without taking into account the cardinal role played by habits in making meaning” (p. 1).
Transformation refers, not only to a shift in perspectives about change, but to the
modification of assumptions that were held while fulfilling the role of classroom teacher.

Dirkx & Kovan (2003) further explained that “meaning perspectives refer to the
structure of assumptions within which new experience is assimilated and transformed by
one’s past experience during the process of interpretation. They involve the application
of habits of expectation to objects or events to form an interpretation” (p. 3). In light of
the intricacies of interpretation of meaning, how did first-year principals come to realize
they were changing their perceptions, if indeed they were changing? What commonly
held assumptions did teachers take into their new roles as elementary school principals?
Were they open to listening, as described in the six principles of transformation? Were
first-year principals changing their frames of reference as they faced new experiences?

Dirkx and Kovan suggested possibilities of transformation related to work when
they explained that “when work brings a person in deep and intimate relationships with
the outer world, it also becomes a location of a form of deep learning and the realization

of inner meaning and change” (p. 101). Does this realization of inner meaning and

12

 

concept

comple.‘

in this C
rather it
another

wmen

Model 0

Study ( se
Women i
principal

fire tirst-

COUICT not

 

change happen in the first year of the principalship? What is the nature of transforming
habits of mind for first-year principals? The model of transformation included in this
conceptual framework supports the process of transformation but does not encompass the
complexities in the full sense of possibilities.

Both the synthesized transition model and the model of transformation included
in this conceptual framework were meant to help shape this exploration of transition
rather than to define it. The synthesized model of transformation was intended to add
another dimension of transition as a tool for probing into the depth of experiences of

women as first-year elementary school principals.

Model of Sensemaking

Sensemaking was the third and final prong of the conceptual framework for this
study (see Figure 1.3). This exploration was not only about the transitional experience of
women in the first-year of the elementary school principalship; it was also about what
principals thought about the experience and how they made sense of it. It was about how
five first-year principals processed information and brought meaning to it. Sensemaking
could not be separated from transition or transformation in the actualization of change.
In light of the complex nature of administration, the novice status of women as first-year
elementary principals created a situation of complexities. The routines and cues that the

women could rely upon as classroom teachers were no longer reliable.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Properties Visible Actions Examples

Identity Identify is the discovery of how and what the Who I am is indicated by the discovery
emerging leader thinks. of how and what I think

RetIOSpect The emerging principal makes sense after an To learn what I think, I look back over
action. what I said earlier.

Enactment The emerging principal produces part of the I create the object to be seen and inspect
environment he or she faces. when I say or do something.

 

l3

 

 

, Cmcrng

focused .
‘ and by

extracted
‘ :ues

Dru en by
plausibtizt
rather the;

' ECLIECV

 

 

 

 

 

 

Social 1. The emerging principal is a practical and What I say and single out and conclude
ethical author. is determined by who socialized me and
2. The leader is able to argue persuasively for a how I was socialized, as well as by the
“landscape” of next possible actions. audience I anticipate will audit the
3. The “positions” of all who must take part are conclusions I reach.
clear.
Ongoing 1. Past events are reconstructed in the present Talk is spread across time, competes for
as explanations. attention with other ongoing projects,
2. Events tend to be congruent with mood. and is reflected on after it is finished
(interests may already have changed
once embellished).
Focused on 1. Sensemaking is invisible. The “what” that is singled out and
and by 2. The product of the process of sensemaking is embellished as the content of the thought
extracted observable. is only a small portion of the utterance
cues 3. Sensemaking can be observed during that becomes salient because of context
puzzles, paradoxes, and dilemmas. and personal dispositions.
Driven by Sensemaking: In short, what is necessary in
plausibility l. Embodies past experience and expectations sensemaking is a good story.
rather than 2. Resonates with other people
accuracy 3. Can be constructed retrospectively

 

4. Can be used prospectively

5. Captures both feeling and thought
6. Allows for embellishment

7. Is fun to construct

 

 

Figure 1.3: Theoretical Properties and Actions of Sensemaking.
(Adapted from Sensemaking in Organizations, Weick, 1995)

The seven theoretical properties of sensemaking make it possible to shed light on

what is normally invisible thinking of first-year principals. The properties identified by

Weick (1995) are manifested in visible behaviors. The seven properties matched the

nature of this conceptual framework for the purpose of making visible the transitional

experience and complex thinking of women as first-year principals. There was a

possibility that women as first-year principals might have learned about their identities in

the context of the school organization by projecting themselves into the environment and

observing the consequences, as the sensemaking model suggests. The model helped in

learning what they projected and what consequences they experienced. With this in-

depth research, I was able to discover what women as first-year elementary school

principals thought about and how they made sense of it.

14

 

 

ln
capturing
Weick (1L3
think of ti
place. Th
This stud 3
elementar
the oppon
first-year
throughm
YEUOSpect
make sen:
OVers‘nadg
E:
organizati
exPlained

draw line;

    
  

emjmnm
School u.
element;
reSpOnSc

CXpen'c‘.

School .

In the sensemaking model, the word lived was in the past tense for the purpose of
capturing the idea that people can know what they are doing only after they have done it.
Weick (1995) explained that “to understand how specific meanings arise retrospectively,
think of the act of reflection as a cone of light that spreads backward from a particular
place. This cone of light will give definition to portions of lived experiences” (p. 26).
This study was designed to shine a cone of light on the first-year experience of
elementary school principals by using the model of sensemaking as a frame that offered
the opportunity to make their thinking visible. It created an opportunity for women as
first-year elementary school principals to consider the experiences they encountered
throughout the first year by responding to and talking about the experiences
retrospectively. This probe into their experiences gave them a further opportunity to
make sense of their first-year experience before the second-year experience
overshadowed the crisp memory of thoughts and feelings unique to their first year.

Enactrnent refers to the part of the environment produced by people in an
organization. In this case, the first-year principals were the enactors. Weick (1995)
explained that when “people enact laws, they take undefined space, time, and action and
draw lines, establish categories, and coin labels that create new features of the
environment that did not exist before” (p. 30). It follows that a first-year principal in a
school would enact new features in the environment. Not only was she in transition from V
elementary classroom teacher to the principalship, but also the school was in transition in
response to a new leader. The tensions engendered by parallel transitions also created
experiences that were unique to the first-year phenomenon.

The sensemaking model is a social process that supports the place of first-year

school principals in a social context. Weick (1995) explained how sensemaking is

15

 

connected 10 C
Others are ims
“sensemaking
others. EVert
monologue c'
elememm 5.
well Lfi indit‘
Soci
or ends. and
are filtered.
the activity
that there is
mommies (
Chl’at‘lefig
aetivitieg

how Worn

 

Classroor.‘

Ft.

 

and Sens,
phWOmtl
lieu-ed _,
are dim

COmpl-cr

Probin ,4

connected to others: “Conduct is contingent on the conduct of others, whether those
others are imagined or physically present” (p. 39). He further explained that
“sensemaking is never solitary because what a person does internally is contingent on
others. Even monologues and one-way communications presume an audience. And the
monologue changes as the audience changes” (p. 40). In this case of first-year
elementary school principals, the audience expanded to include an entire student body as
well as individual and group stakeholders in the organization.

Social process is embedded in sensemaking. The process never absolutely starts
or ends, and it has a focus on extracted cues for making sense of activities. The activities
are filtered, classified, and compared through interpretation. Interpretation, then, leads to
the activity of determining what the noticed cues mean. This notion stems from the idea
that there is always more to learn and another way to make sense of experiences. The
properties of sensemaking are converted into visible actions. The sensemaking
characteristics of visible actions give credence to the use of retrospective visible
activities, as well as discourse opportunities. They are viable catalysts for understanding
how women, as elementary school principals, make sense out of the transition from
classroom teacher to elementary school principal.

For the purpose of this study, the conceptual models of transition, transformation,
and sensemaking were considered to be permeable in that they were not meant to confine
phenomena to a sequential or predictable order. Transformation and sensemaking were
viewed as ongoing within the context of transition, rather than as separate entities. They
are dynamic and complex, just as the phenomenon of life experience is dynamic and
complex. This three-pronged conceptual framework was meant to serve as a guide for

probing into the experience of women as first-year elementary school principals.

l6

 

 

This
The overarel
sense of her
school orgar
communieat

her school“

patterns ant

Vantage poi

'JJ

TESOUICES. ;

pfinClpals

 

the StUd‘x

the Stud.‘

 

Research Questiogs

This study was guided by an overarching research question and four subquestions.
The overarching question was: How did the first-year elementary school principal make
sense of her new identity which require that she understand the dynamics of the whole-
school organization (not just the classroom setting), reconcile and redefine new
communication and relational norms (power and authority), and identify and articulate
her schoolwide (versus classroom) vision for the school? Subquestions were:

1. What was the nature of the transition year? That is, That is, what tensions,
patterns and lessons learned helped mediate the new role?

2. How did changing perspectives (from classroom vantage point to whole school
vantage point) challenge or transform previously held assumptions?

3. How did the new principal grapple with equity issues related to time,
resources, and support, due to the complexities of the school organization?

4. What are the implications of the experiences of women as first-year
elementary school principals for the preparation of classroom teachers for the
principalship?

Qrgan_ization of This Study
This dissertation is organized into six chapters. Chapter I was an introduction to
the study. The problem and significance of the study were explained, and the purpose of
the study was set forth. The conceptual fiamework used in the study was described in
detail. Exploratory questions posed in the study were stated. Chapter 11 contains a
literature review that served to underscore the rationale for studying the unique
phenomenon of first-year principals, particularly women, in transition from the role of

classroom teacher to that of elementary school principal and how they make sense of the

17

 

experience. R
cogtlth‘t \th
thinking nho
The

the “NRC?
their first }
thematic a
are (lt3\ elo
school pn
dtnarnies
redefine r
and mlCl
includes '

of the res

 

 

experience. Related literature includes the complexities of leadership, change theory,
cognitive theories for sensemaking, and empirical research that embodies current
thinking about the phenomenon of women as first-year elementary school principals.
The methodology for this study is described in Chapter III. Chapter IV reveals
five women’s experiences as elementary school principals through portraits that capture
their first year episode with leadership challenges and critical events. Chapter V is a
thematic analysis of the data. Three themes emerged from the women’s experiences and
are developed to respond to the research question: How does the first-year elementary
school principal make sense of her new identity, which requires that she understand the
dynamics of the whole-school organization (not just the classroom setting), reconcile and
redefine new communication and relational norms (power and authority), and identify
and articulate her schoolwide (versus classroom) vision for the school? Chapter VI
includes findings from the study, conclusions drawn from the findings, and implications

of the results of this study.

18

 

Th:
printipals.
elernentarj
texieii'ed l
cognitive 1
considers '
research 0
questions
SCllOOl pri;
the transit:
the first-yr
and appro.
her “ 0th \
“'38 mea
SCHSema‘k

 

l

Leadtf‘r.

CHAPTER II

LITERATURE REVIEW

Introduction

This study was focused on learning about the unique phenomenon of first-year
principals, particularly women, in transition from the role of classroom teacher to that of
elementary school principal and how they made sense of the experience. Literature
reviewed for the study centered on (a) the complexities of the principal’s role, (b)
cognitive theories that might engage principals in sensemaking, (c) change theory that
considers transitional experiences during the process of change, and (d) empirical
research on the phenomenon of women as first-year elementary school principals. Four
questions guided and framed this review. The first three questions (In what ways is the
school principal’s job messy, complex, and filled with paradoxes? What is the nature of
the transition from the role of classroom teacher to that of school principal? How does.
the first-year principal make sense of her experience?) guided the discussion of big ideas
and approaches used to understand how a professional practitioner thinks about and does
her work while transitioning from one role to another. Explorations of these theories
were meant to flame the complexities of principal leadership, transition, and
sensemaking. The fourth question (What does it mean to be a woman novice principal?)
brought to light empirical data from studies that attempted to explain the complexities of
women novices in leadership positions.

In What Ways Is the School Principal’s Job Messy.
Complex, and Filled With Paradoxes?
I used a set of model standards for school leaders drafted by the Interstate School

Leaders Licensure Consortium (ISLLC) to frame the discussion of the complex role of

19

 

[he princip
leadership
impot’mnCt
processes ‘
support pr
encourage
importanc
underscor
schools if
The No C
If follow
expected

complexi

Tl
EXamka
ParadoXc.
roles. the
descripti.
example I

Slander
all SUM"
”Wan,“
€0qu

 

Sense ('

the principal. Each standard called for a principal to have a deep understanding of
leadership and multiple technical skills. The principal needs to be committed to the
importance and implications of student achievement and understand how to facilitate
processes that lead to improvements. These standards were born out of the need to
support principals as leaders. The standards call for the highest integrity of practice; they
encourage thought and dialogue about quality educational leadership. In fact, their
importance has increased at a time when the relevancy of the principalship has been
underscored by federal legislation allowing for the removal of principals from their
schools if students fail to make adequate academic progress annually (Bloom, 2003).
The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 raised the stakes for principals across the country.
If followed, the ISLLC Standards are the proposed markers of outstanding principals
expected to meet the challenges of the No Child Left Behind Act, as well as all of the

complexities of the 21St century.

The following discussion fi'amed by six ISSLC standards, provides some
examples of ways in which the school principal’s job is messy, complex, and filled with
paradoxes. However, because the job has wide-ranging implications and multifaceted
roles, the discussion simply serves as a beginning conversation, not an all-encompassing
description of the principalship or the principal as a leader. Rather it is an overview, with

examples of the complexities of the principalship given for each ISLLC standard.

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.

To develop a vision with and among all stakeholders, the principal needs to make

sense of the organization and the larger community of stakeholders. Simultaneously, she

20

 

must u
the sch
stetk'aft‘
organiz
unders:
steti arc
The act
Greenti
COTTCTC‘II
own int.

rision.

the cultt
lhlorgan
not only
tholight c
Superimc

to make

  
  

”morn:

 

must understand the varied interpretations, deep beliefs, and expectations of members of
the school community. Facilitating the development, articulation, implementation, and
stewardship of the school vision can be messy because of the humanness of the
organization. Greenfield (1980) believed that, in order to lead, the principal must use her
understanding of human intention and meaning. A principal can act purposefiilly as the
steward of the school vision and paradoxically bring about an unintended consequence.
The action that flows from intentionality triggers the complexities of social reality.
Greenfield further made the point that changes in organizations are located in the
concreteness of individual actions, in this case, the principal’s. Everyone has his or her
own interpretation of the principal’s actions while she works to carry out the school
vision.

The shared vision of the school not only comes through the principal but through
the culture of the school. It can be identified through symbols, ceremonies, and stories
(Morgan, 1996). Sergiovanni (2001) recognized the complexity of guiding school culture,
not only through identifiable actions but also through the principal’s sensemaking. He
thought of a leader’s sensemaking ability as a guiding tool when he quoted
superintendent Cile Chaves as saying, "My role isn't so much to make things happen but
to make sense of things to show how things fit together" (p. 190). There are many ways
to lead the school vision, but "it is who she is, what she believes, and the messages she
communicates to others that matter the most" (Sergiovanni, 1994, p. 190). The leader's
messages, both verbal and nonverbal, regarding the meaning of the school vision, give
purpose and direction to the school. Even though principals and teachers often work

together to develop a shared vision and values, the divisions and individual factions

21

 

uifflln

\TSlOIl

ourr at
ofi‘erec
and get
person;
though
she is It
teacher.
Each m.
memori
pret‘eren
Consequ
does not

It.

 

within an organization underpin the tensions and complexities of carrying out the school
vision (Daresh, 2002).

The principal facilitates the shared vision related to learning by understanding her
own abilities to lead and how her leadership affects others. A theory that Harris (1994)
offered is known as the self-in-organization schema, which refers to individuals’ theories
and generalizations regarding aspects of themselves in the organizational context, such as
personality, values, roles, and behavior. The principal might imagine that she is
thoughtful, supportive, and interested when interacting with a teacher. She might think
she is reflecting the values of the organization and articulating the school vision. The
teacher, parent, or student, on the other hand, might think she is critical and intrusive.
Each meaning is framed within a particular context and interpreted through organized
memories, impressions, and learned expectations regarding traits, goals, behaviors, and
preferences of particular individuals (Harris, 1994; Schien, 1992; Weick, 1995).
Consequently, articulating a leadership style and a particular notion of a shared vision
does not ensure the principal’s success. Complexities of multiple meanings and
interpretations make the principal’s job of leading an intricate and complex endeavor.

In defining leadership, Lambert (1995) offered the idea of reciprocal relationships
as a means of making sense of ourselves and others in the school organization. The
principal’s goal should be to construct shared purposes that might facilitate the
development of a shared vision. Sergiovanni (2001) remarked, “Engaging in reciprocal
relationships is the way we make sense of our worlds, continually define ourselves, and
grow together” (p. 156). Not only is meaning created through interaction, some scholars
believe the principal actually helps create meaning for others through her actions (Harris,

1994; Thayer, 1988; Weick, 1995). Thayer explained, “A leader at work is one who

22

piles others 2
SLhOOl \TSlOI
3hr. Accotr
neate men:
imMno
laugh
mono
dependS'
sensema?
nmmo

mans

school i
Pfimar}
anicula:
athlete}
learners

leading ;

   
  
  
  

lfaming
Wmmo
Sustain:

the m 31'

gives others a different sense of meaning” (p. 50). She does this by “communicating the
school vision through a different form, or from a different perspective” (Thayer, 1988, p.
50). According to Weick (1995) and Harris (1994), the principal has the influence to
create meaning for others as she makes sense of her own role, her vision, and her
situation with each person in the organization. Articulating and implementing a vision of
learning that is shared and supported by the whole community is as complex as it is
critical to the school culture, Morgan and Smircich (1982) noted: “Effective leadership
depends upon the extent to which the leader’s definition of the situation (her
sensemaking) serves as a basis for action by others” (p. 262). So it is not only the shared
vision of the school organization that influences student success, but how the principal
makes sense of the shared vision in her daily leadership practice.

According to the first ISSLC standard, the principal must articulate the belief that
school is for the purpose of student achievement; this standard implies that she is the
primary coach and supervisor of the teaching staff. Her role as educational leader is to
articulate the nature of teaching, which depends on intended outcomes of student
achievement, standards-based curriculum, and assessment within a community of
learners. The scope of the principal’s role has grown from being a coach of instruction to
leading a professional community of learners (DuFour, 2002). By concentrating on
learning, today’s principal must shift both her own focus and that of the school
community from inputs to outcomes and from intentions to results. The standard of
sustaining a shared school vision for the purpose of student achievement goes far beyond
the managerial role. Principals must understand that the essence of their job is to provide
leadership that promotes student and teacher learning (Bransford & Johnson, 1972, p.

722).

23

 

her indii
relation:
at the bi
interpcr
explain:
conscie
implica
experie
learnin
examp
Ol‘her]
differs
the pri
30L ll'li
262),
face 0:
Stand,

all 5m
progn

Specif
mom,
OWH k

8: We

The principal is an ambassador of the school’s shared vision inside and outside of
her individual school. Because she is a middle manager, she has to make sense of her
relationship as a subordinate to central office administration and as a supervisor of others
at the building level. The principal is like a chameleon, changing colors to slide into
interpersonal engagements as she plays different roles. Morgan and Smircich (1982)
explained, “Actions guide the attention of those involved in a situation in ways that are
conscientiously or unconscientiously designed to shape the meaning” (p. 261). The
implication is that the principal’s actions can transform complex and ambiguous
experiences into discrete patterns of meaning that articulate the shared vision for the
learning community. When the principal communicates with the superintendent, for
example, she represents herself, consciously or unconsciously, in the flame of reference
of her position. When she interacts with a teacher in her building, she is situated in a
different frame of reference. Morgan and Smircich (1982) underscored the importance of
the principal’s actions in order to move the shared school vision forward: “When leaders
act, they punctuate contexts in ways that provide a focus for creation of meaning” (p.
262). It is the principal who projects the shared school vision through actions that put a
face on otherwise meaningless words.

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 stafl professional growth.

To nurture and sustain the school culture, the principal needs to engage people in
specific and clear ways. Because the principal is one leader in a context of leadership,
motivating others can be complex and messy work because not only is she developing her
own leadership, but she is also being called on to develop the leadership of others (Lave

& Wenger, 2001 p. 47). She needs strong interpersonal skills, which include motivating

24

 

 

teachers ii'hi l:
minions it
\lot
uhgteant
mdamhn
to protio
noneen
tohapp
hskto
petiole
throng

that is
orche

(Shin

Work. ;

all sink
2000i

her to b
bend.
Testing.»
inhibit
”35%,"

Under

 

teachers while coaching them, stimulating thought among faculty, creating positive
conditions for learning, and rewarding quality work.

Motivating others refers to the ability to create conditions for success. It includes
using teamwork, providing intellectual stimulation, recognizing effectiveness, coaching,
and acting as a role model. Sergiovanni (2002) described the principal as one who is able
to provide the leadership needed to achieve a basic level of competence and then to
transcend this competence to gain extraordinary commitment and performance. This has
to happen not only when rewards are available but also when they are not. It is no small
task to sustain commitment and performance; an approach to leadership that connects
people to their work in clear and specific ways is required. Gaining such commitment
through motivation is in itself a blustery business. It calls for interpersonal sensitivity --
that is, the principal’s ability to deal tactfully with emotionally loaded situations and to
orchestrate relationships with and among all of the stakeholders in the organization
(Skrla, Erlandson, Reed, & Wilson, 2001).

In the face of on-going complexities in her role and the demands of her daily
work, the principal must achieve the intricate balance between gaining compliance from
all stakeholders while advancing initiatives for the goal of student achievement (Senge,
2000). In light of the principal’s prodigious daily demands (Wolcott, 2003), it is easy for
her to be swept away by the notion that she has to do things the way they have always
been done. In reality, to comply with the second ISLLC standard, the principal is
responsible for moving the organization away fiom status-quo activities that prevent or
inhibit student achievement. But it is easy to be deterred because “the structure of school
reassures people that if they don’t look too closely, the world makes sense and things are

under control” (Weick, 1995, p. 170). When the principal institutes changes that affect

25

 

exam

Siam
GUS!
safe.

the perceived security of others, she creates tensions and uneasiness among the staff,
especially when former activities have been accepted without reflection and deep
understanding (Wolcott, 2003). In order to lead a culture of learning, the principal must
examine carefully what is being done and why. She needs to ask difficult questions that
will shift the organization into a culture of learning. To do that, she must be concerned
about every activity and decision by questioning the role they play in supporting a culture
of learning. In light of the demands on her time, the challenges of student needs,
complex staff relationship, and multiple stakeholders in the organization, intentionally
examining all school activity is a complex and challenging task.

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, efi‘icient, and eflective learning environment.

The principal’s job is filled with complexities because she must be steeped in
curriculum, instruction, and assessment in order to supervise a continuous improvement
process that measures student performance and achievement. Because managing the
school organization necessitates providing a safe and effective learning environment, the
principal has to be knowledgeable about how teachers teach and how students learn,
models of organizational development, operational procedures for the building and
district, principles related to school safety and security, and problem solving and conflict
resolution skills. She must have a deep understanding of principles of fiscal operation,
school facilities and space, and legal issues. To operationalize the principles of
management, she is required to be a decision maker and risk taker. She needs to have
trust and good judgment, and accept responsibility. And she has to lead these processes in

the face of on-going change (Glickman, Gordon, & Ross-Gordon, 2001; McCall, 1994).

26

 

 

 

new or:
to tale a scht
One .
leaming eni
elementary
speaking in
communic:
English he'.
that in ord
this pnncij
out of her
explained
and other
job: it is a
Standard

of all Sllu

Contendj

 

teacher.

 

Gewertz (2003) explained that, above all, “principals must be master diagnosticians: able
to take a school’s pulse, determine what it needs, and deliver” (p. 3).

One of many challenges and complexities related to managing an effective
learning environment is the influx of new demands on the principal. A Florida
elementary school principal was faced with new demands when only Spanish- or Creole-
speaking families joined her school community (Archer, 2002). To support home-school
communication, she began an adult literacy program. She hoped to provide enough
English help that the parents could lift themselves out of poverty. She soon discovered
that, in order for the parents to attend classes, they needed childcare support. As a result,
this principal found her school housing infants and adult learners in ways that thrust her
out of her expected realm of leadership into a place of new challenges. Another principal
explained his experience with meeting new demands: “Some days I am a shoe cobbler,
and other days I am a computer-system installer for a teacher. Being a principal is not one
job; it is a hundred jobs wrapped up into one” (Hopkins, 2003, p. 2).

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, and mobilizing community resources

As the principal works to promote success for all students, tensions arise among
contending stakeholders. For example, whereas the president wants no child left behind,
teachers are concerned about their work environment, parents are rallying around
playground safety, and the marginalized population of the school needs special attention.
The challenge and complexity for the principal lies in finding her leadership voice that
will move the school forward for the purpose of student achievement. Cusick (2003)

contended, “Sometimes conflicting obligations make the principal’s job more

27

 

burdensoir
principal ti

Tl
school \‘is
relationshi
communic
hare ditl‘e
managerie
classroom
required t
brought 3'
central of
Other stair
gmups in

Standard
ofall Slut

T
dmttcra

Deals ll

 

 

multidi:
demon

realm:

demon

Sln‘tlc

burdensome” (p. 4). Ironically, conflicting obligations also offer an opportunity for the
principal to clarify student achievement as a top priority. I

The complexities and messiness of leading multiple groups toward the shared
school vision of student achievement often call forth on the principal’s human
relationship skills as a listener, motivator, manager, and facilitator. She has to match her
communication styles and messages to the needs of multiple stakeholders because they
have different perceptions and expectations. The superintendent may praise her
managerial skills, whereas the teachers expect her to lead learning by visiting their
classrooms each day. Parents may want clear explanations of the annual progress report
required by the No Child Left Behind Act. And students may be suffering from anxiety
brought about by high-stakes testing (Casbarro, 2004). The principal must also adhere to
central office rules and mandates that may be in conflict with the beliefs and needs of
other stakeholders of her school. She must function within the complexities of multiple
groups in order to meet the fourth ISLLC standard.

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.

The principal needs to understand traditional and emerging perspectives of
democracy and uphold them in an environment of diverse beliefs and interpretations. She
needs to understand the role of education in a democratic society by upholding
multidimensional philosophical and cultural values. She is also expected to interpret how
democratic principles are incorporated into the daily operations of the school while
recognizing and valuing the different philosophical influences that operate within a
democratic society (Skrla et al., 2001).

“In a democracy, the last thing we need is a one-size-fits-all curriculum with one

single set of goals for everyone” (Eisner, 2000, p. 8). In a climate of standardization and

28

 

 

 

high-stub
demOCliill
needs and
height 10
readiness
Gregory
do" lP-
learners
thithms

help dist

related 1
progm
raise fur
and cm

threaten

“Mario

high-stakes testing (Thomas, 2004), people have varied beliefs about what students in a
democratic society should learn. The principal stands at the intersection of children’s
needs and a mandated curriculum that challenges fairness. Hi gh-stakes testing gives
weight to a standardized curriculum. Yet children come to school with a variety of
readiness levels, experiences, and background knowledge (Tomlinson, 2001). As
Gregory (2002) stated, “They don’t all learn the same thing in the same way on the same
day” (p. xi). One of the ways to think about the dilemma of meeting the needs of all
learners in a climate of standardization is that teaching “requires a discovering of the
rhythms of the learner’s constitution” (McCall, 1994, p. 194). The principal’s role is to
help discover the rhythms that create the best conditions for all learners.

Ethical challenges are a constant in the life of a principal. A current concern is
related to fund-raising. With shrinking resources, principals are looking for ways to fund
programs for children. It is not unusual for a school to partner with a private company to
raise funds. There are funding campaigns through grocery stores, soft-drink companies,
and cereal manufacturers (Molnar, 2004). Tensions occur because “critics are
threatening lawsuits, charging that certain sponsorship programs interfere with school
operations, instruction, or students’ health” (Molnar, 2004, p. 84). Some believe that
because people want lower taxes, schools should do whatever they can to raise funds.
The principal has to wrestle with health issues related to consumption of soft-drinks,
exclusive agreements to buy a sponsor’s products, and incentive programs that prompt
the use of children for marketing. The principal is situated between lack of funding and
issues of integrity related to using students for marketing in exchange for money. This
example illustrates how she must, in the spirit of democracy, wrestle with many ethical

issues, the needs of students, and the political climate of the day.

29

 

Standard i‘.
all student.
social. em
11 i

ham fill or]
the princi]
challenge
issues. T

Students

Series th

Pressed t

directior

the prim
3" Pllnc

Chm-01 ‘

”WIS l

 

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.

It is the principal who is held accountable for operating within the legal
framework of the school. Knowing policy and understanding political influences enables
the principal to make sense out of the school as a political system. It is no small
challenge to interact with other political systems in relating public policy to educational
issues. The principal plays a major role in ensuring that policy has positive effects on
students’ welfare. Given the competing political influences, making sure that policy
serves the welfare of children is a complex task. Goodlad (as cited in Goldberg, 2000)
pressed for a time “when educators will not be subject to the constant pushes in different
directions from politicians and business leaders” Q). 82).

The ISLLC standards served as a frame for discussing some of the ways in which
the principal’s job is messy, complex, and filled with paradoxes. People who have served
as principals are likely to be amused at efforts to paint the principal as a leader who is in
control of leading the development and articulation of the school vision, managing all
aspects of school culture, knowing all points of the law, initiating and maintaining strong
communication with all stakeholders, and ensuring that all members of the organization
are working for the success of all students. Heifetz & Linsky (2004) spoke of the myth
that leadership “means having the knowledge and expertise to provide the answers we
need to resolve the tough problems we face” (p. 34). Ironically, it is the problems that
experts cannot solve that signal the need for strong leadership. The principal finds
herself balancing being a noteworthy leader who is in charge of what goes on in the
school and being “a person who translates the directives of others—the central office and

the district’s school board—into action each day” (Daresh, 2002, p. 50). Schools are

30

 

made up of

perfonning

lt i
past 10 ye.
1999). Se
These cha
principal i
she has to
teacher to
faces the 1

ideas and

*

contains

   

etriectati

 

 

 

made up of converging systems that exist simultaneously. They make sensemaking and

performing leadership work a complex undertaking.

What is the Nature of the Transition From the Role of
Classroom Teacher to That of School Principal?

It is commonly believed that demands on the principal have intensified over the
past 10 years (Cusick 2003; Daresh, 2002; Fullan, 2001; McCall, 1994; Serg'ovanni,
1999). School organizations continually are faced with internal and external changes.
These changes can be wanted or unwanted and they are often incomprehensible, but the
principal is expected to lead the change. The paradox for the first-year principal is that
she has to lead the change while making her own transition from the role of classroom
teacher to that of elementary school principal. For the first time, as the principal, she
faces the tension of being in the middle of the relationship between teachers and external
ideas and people (Fullan, 2001). As a classroom teacher, she managed and led a
contained classroom. As the principal, she is in a new position of power with new
expectations and skills.

As the first-year principal makes the transition from classroom teaching to the
principalship, she is leaving behind her identity that was embedded in a position of
success and in many ways a comfort zone of known skills and experiences. She is
leaving the safety in numbers found in the camaraderie of classroom teacher colleagues
for a position that is unique in the school setting. The safety in numbers is diminished as
she finds herself on the other side of the precarious line between teacher and
administrator. With each decision she will be judged and juried by teachers, district
leaders, parents, community members, and board of education members. Her style and

message will resonate throughout the community. No longer will she work with a family

31

 

for just on
extended l
considerir
change th
tensions.
Ti
literature
teaching
process it
anticipati
and comr
Stated a t
hmhmo
(liloir. 1t
Situation
keep the
the sun-
cOmmir

the mo:

   
  
  

 

dining
is char

allda 1

for just one school year. She has traded in the one-year calendar of relationships for an
extended period of at least six or, seven years with each family (Bloom, 2003). In
considering this unique period of transition during the first year of the principalship,
change theory is useful in flaming and guiding the conversation about the possible
tensions, experiences, and awarenesses of the first-year principal.

Transition is a journey that often is characterized by chaos and uncertainty. In the
literature on first-year teachers, there is a consistent message that the first year of
teaching is difficult (Moir, 1999; Villani, 2002). Moir (1999) described the transitional
process by distinguishing five stages of transition during the first year of teaching. The
anticipation stage begins during preservice preparation. The new teacher’s excitement
and commitment to make a difference are evidenced in her enthusiasm and excitement.
Stated a first-year teacher, “I was elated to get the job but terrified about going flom the
simulated experience of student teaching to being the person completely in charge”
(Moir, 1999, p. 19). The second stage is marked by an overwhelming number of
situations and problems the teacher had not anticipated. Most new teachers struggle to
keep their heads above water during the survival stage. The disillusionment stage follows
the survival stage about eight weeks into the school year. The extensive time
commitment and the realization that things will not run as smoothly as anticipated affect
the morale of the first-year teacher. New teachers begin questioning their commitment
during the disillusionment phase. The rejuvenation stage generally begins in January. It
is characterized by a change of attitude when the early problems have become a memory
and a winter break provides the opportunity to rest. Having survived the first half of the
year gives the new teacher a sense of accomplishment. Finally, the reflection stage is

marked by a renewed sense of hope for the next year and reentry into the rejuvenation

32

 

in the tran
that noric
the pnnci
distinct st
change. 5
3001; Er
principal
transitior
usually e
mumps?
teacher.
Classroo

phncipa

CliiSmo

ltansiti

 

0t trap».

 

stage. The five stages of a first-year teacher are widely used in mentor programs to
support the process of teacher development.

Interestingly, even though first-year teachers experience a common set of stages
in the transition flom the preservice student to classroom teacher, there is no evidence
that novice principals experience a common set of transitional stages in their first year in
the principalship (see Strong, Barrett, & Bloom, 2003). Change theory is clear about
distinct stages of transition ignited by an occurrence known as a change. Theoretically,
change, such as the one flom classroom teacher to principal, ignites a transition (Bridges,
2001; Evans, 1996; Kubler-Ross, 1969; Moir, 1999). Yet recent work with first-year
principals has given early indications that they do not experience a distinct set of
transitional stages (Bloom, 2003). However, Marris (1986) contended that change
usually entails a sense of loss because life depends on continuity. F irst-year elementary
principals experience an interruption of continuity by leaving their role of classroom
teacher. They lose the security of their expert role and the familiarity of managing a
classroom of students. Expert classroom teaching status is traded for first-year novice
principal status.

Bridges (2001) believed that when a change occurs, like leaving the role of
classroom teacher to assume the role of elementary school principal, it ignites a
transitional experience that involves our understanding of ourselves and our self-location
or transformation. The first-year principal might discover that she is viewing herself and
her organization flom a new vantage point in the role of school principal. This new
vantage point might cause her to consider the shifts in how she thinks about school in her
new identity; her view of herself in relation to others; her place of power in the midst of

interlocking structures like class, race, and gender; and her sense of possibilities for

33

 

 

 

social jus
principle:

complexi

realizing

er’enthir

J

sense of
(1993ls;

another a

a meani
continua

ahte" (j

one of b,

“tithing

 

0fConn
TrErnst,

plllltir

 

leachC

 

social justice (Morrell & O'Conner, 2002 p. xvii). Senge (1996) underscored six guiding
principles of transformation which might help a first-year principal manage the
complexity of inner change she might experience:

1. Being open to firndamental shifts of thinking during life’s journey. This means
realizing the world is made primarily of relationships. It is a realization that absolutely
everything around us is in motion, including ourselves.

2. Shifting our thinking to realize the gift of perpetual change. There is a shift in
sense of identity. We begin to accept one another as legitimate human beings. J aworski
(1998) spoke of this shift as the meaning of love. That is the quality of seeing one
another as legitimate human beings.

3. Seeing ourselves as part of the unfolding journey of change. We see our lives
as meaningful. My life cannot help but have meaning, because everything in reality is
continually unfolding, and I am connected into the unfolding, “Its what it means to be
alive” (Jaworski, 1998, p. 12).

4. J oumeying with a sense of what it means to be committed. The commitment is
one of being, not of doing. “Sometimes the greatest acts of commitment involve doing
nothing but sitting and waiting until I just know what to do next” (J aworski, 1998, p. 12).

5. Surrendering to commitment by listening.

6. Committing to a flow of actions that translate into meaning. This is the flow
of conversation. The ancient meaning of dialogue is “flow of meaning.”

Transformation is integral to embracing the full sense of transition that a first-year
principal might experience in making the change flom the role of elementary classroom

teacher to that of elementary school principal.

34

Set:
make sense
sensema'sir
cognitise t'
Mmgm
organizati
describes
hmdbu
simation:
the situat

and mea

micron~
bargain
ldeOlOg
realizer

alltl def

 

How Does the F irst-Year Principal Ma_k_e Seénse of Her Experience?

Several cognitive theories are considerations of how a first-year principal might
make sense of her experience. They include schema theory, situated learning,
sensemaking, reflection, and emotional intelligence. In order to consider multiple
cognitive theories, I viewed the school organization as a collectivity to which employees
belong, rather than just a workplace comprising separate individuals. They work in the
organization with shared values, beliefs, meaning, understanding, and sensemaking that
describes the school organization’s culture. Culture is a process of reality construction
that allows people to see and understand particular events, actions, objects, utterances, or
situations in distinctive ways. These patterns of understanding help members cope with
the situations being encountered and also provide a basis for making behavior sensible
and meaningful (Morgan, 1996, p.178).

What principals often do not understand until deep into their experience is the
micropolitics of school organization. Micropolitics refer to the subtle, behind-the-scenes
bargains that teachers and principals strike over material resources, vested interests, and
ideological commitments. Morgan and Smircich (1982) believed that leadership is
realized in the process whereby one or more individuals succeed in attempting to flame
and define the reality of others. Schema theory offers a flame for considering the

principalship within the micropolitics of the school.

Schem_a TheoLy
Individual and group-level phenomena make up the complex school culture. '
Harris (1994) believed that individual dynamics of an organization have been neglected

in the study of organizational cultures. He provided a theory for addressing individuals’

35

 

org:
one
cuh
schr

€Xp

th
Will.
Undt

SChe

Olga:

deDer

sensemaking structures and processes and proposed that individual sensemaking is
revealed in the cooperation of a patterned system of organization-specific schemas.
Harris defined schemas as the cognitive structures in which an individual’s knowledge is
retained and organized. Schemas direct information acquisition and processing. They
guide the individual in answering the questions central to sensemaking efforts: What or
who is it? What are its implications? What does it mean? Harris theorized that conscious
and unconscious cooperation of schemas during the actual process of making sense of
organizational stimuli is flamed within a schema-directed, mental-dialogue perspective
on social cognition. He outlined several categories of schema whose titles relay meaning:
culturally relevant schemas (with context-specific variants), self-schemas, person
schemas, organization schemas, object/concept schemas, and event schemas. He
explained schema through the following example: The procedure is actually quite simple.
First, you arrange things into different groups. Of course, one pile may be
sufficient depending on how much there is to do . . . . It is important not to
overdo things. That is, it is better to do too few things at once than too many. In
the short run this may not seem important, but complications can easily arise. A
mistake can be expensive as well. At first the whole procedure will seem
complicated. Soon, however, it will become just another facet of life. (Bransford
& Johnson, 1972, p. 722)
What is the passage about? How much of it can be recalled? If the passage is reread
with the title “Washing Clothes,” a schema is evoked and the passage is more easily
understood. With a new title, “Organizing Receipts for Tax Purposes,” a different
schema is evoked and new meaning is derived flom the same passage.
Whereas schemas facilitate meaning, they can also blind people to features of the
organization. Schema theory helps to explain sensemaking; however, sensemaking

depends on our attention to the now, as Wheatley (1999) described it:

We must keep participating in the moment. We need to become curious about
what’s going on, what just happened. The present moment overflows with

36

 

‘
.

tnton
bx ur
WOTlt
Sirrated Lee
The
while promt
process of a
\l'enger. 20
\lewed as a
one kind of
aspect of al
Process tha
general 50c
Proposedb
entails leaf

p05lll0n 35

We role

 

information about our environment and ourselves. But most of those leamings fly
by unobserved because we’re preoccupied with our images of how we want the
world to be (p. 155).

Situated Learning

The principal is in the midst of sensemaking as an individual and a professional
while promoting learning in others. Learning is easily construed as an unproblematic
process of absorbing the given, as a matter of transmission and assimilation (Lave &
Wenger, 2001, p. 47). Lave and Wenger developed a social theory in which learning is
viewed as an aspect of all activity. It is a shift away flom the idea that situated learning is
one kind of activity, toward a theory of social practice in which learning is viewed as an
aspect of all activity. Learning is not merely situated in practice, like an independent
process that just happened to be located somewhere. Rather, it is an integral part of
general social practice in the lived-in world. Legitimate peripheral participation as
proposed by Lave and Wenger, is “a descriptor of engagement in social practice that
entails learning as an integral constituent” (p. 150). The principal holds a unique
position as a co-participant because in her work, the co-participants are not playing the
same role or operating from the same schema as students, parents, teachers, and support

staff.

Sensemaking

Weick (1995) considered the concept of legitimate peripheral participation as a
valid portrait of learning, but he further distinguished sensemaking through seven
characteristics that set it apart flom legitimate peripheral participation and other
processes such as understanding, interpretation, and attribution. The process of

sensemaking is grounded in identity construction, retrospective in nature, enactive of

37

 

sensible em”
plausibility r
sensemaking
People learr
actiiity and
(Senge. 30(1
reflecting 0

next action

Kn
that is pub
1997). L,-
precond’r

0fprzaicti

 

sensible environments, social, ongoing, focused on and by extracted cues, and driven by
plausibility rather than accuracy. Weick described the seven characteristics of
sensemaking as “crude” because they omit feedback loops and simultaneous processing.
People learn in cycles by moving naturally between action and reflection, between
activity and repose. This notion of learning sometimes is called single-loop learning
(Senge, 2000). A principal might make sense by observing a previous action and
reflecting on what she has done. The observation and reflection help her decide what the

next action will be. Sensemaking, then, lies in reflection.

Reflection

Knowing-in—action refers to the sort of knowing revealed in a principal’s action
that is publicly observable. It is practice that takes place without reflection (Schén,
1997). Learning flom experience must be intentional. Barth (2001) believed that a
precondition for having craft knowledge is based on reflection with intentional analysis
of practice. Furthermore, to reflect on practice, one must observe practice. A principal
might be able to move flom perplexity toward problem solution through reflection
(Barth, 2001).

It is important for principals to be sensernakers, not only to lead and drive change
but also to manage and sustain it. Golernan, Boyatzis, & McKee (2002) argued that great
leaders need emotional intelligence because they move and ignite others through this
quality. Sylwester (1995) explained that sensory-information patterns activate emotional
systems, which in turn activate brain attention and, most important, activate capacities to
construct understanding, solve problems, and make decisions. Emotion acts in
partnership with the cortex, not to resolve but to involve the processes of reflection and

sensemaking.

38

Emotional lntc

Sylyycy
system. Golcr
Wmmht
3”0W5 a mod
time ofloss.
and simultar.
another hm

attually be \

 

“mesons
We
managi’mci
lead“ fleet
reSearch a
in mean
Sum as it

Sl'SlemS l

1999),

 

Emotion_al Intelligence

Sylwester (1995) referred to the emotional center of the brain as an open-loop
system. Goleman, Boyatzis, & McKee (2002) further explained that the open-loop
system enables people to affect one another. For example, the open-loop limbic system
allows a mother to soothe her baby. It also allows a person to comfort a friend during a
time of loss. So, too, does the principal affect those surrounding her in the organization,
and simultaneously, they affect her. One person can actually lower the blood pressure of
another human being (Goleman, et al., 2002). The physiology, or brain activity, can
actually be affected by the actions, words, and moods of others in the organization. In
other words, the leader’s emotions resonate throughout the organization.

The four components of emotional intelligence -- self-awareness, self-
managernent, social awareness, and relationship management -- tell the story of what a
leader needs to implement the standards. Although educational applications of emotion
research are quite tentative, some general themes have been emerging that tend to support
an educational perspective that many educators have long advocated (Sylwester, 1995),
such as the ethic of care (N oddings, 1984), leadership capacity (Lambert, 1998), living
systems perspective (Wheatley, 2003), and administration as a moral craft (Sergiovanni,

l 999).

Self- 2_tw_areness. Self-awareness effects the leader’s emotions while she is
making critical decisions. Self-awareness is the key component of reflective practice. It
enables a leader to reflect in action as well as in retrospect of practice. Self-awareness
and the ability to understand one’s emotions enable the leader to be clear about her

purpose. From there flows the theme of self-management.

39

 

 

_S_el
focus on ti
lunchroorn
someone v
area of the
illuminate
to manage
oyerride e
adiersity i
intelligent
positiye er

&
circuitry i]
1998l “he
person‘s f
else feels
range of i
lllClI 8mg

OCClllTen

alllllopn

 

Self- management. Self-management of emotions is critical so that the leader can
focus on the needs of the organization. From choosing curriculum to monitoring the
lunchroom, how we feel usually is reflected in how we act. For example, a brain scan of
someone who is upset shows high activity in the amygdala and right side of the preflontal
area of the brain (Jensen, 1998). The technological ability to see the brain’s activity
illuminates the importance of emotions in leadership. The principal continuously needs
to manage her emotions. Indeed, a leader’s management of her emotions and ability to
override embarrassment, flustration, fear, anxiety, and other strong feelings in the face of
adversity is key to positive resonance throughout an organization. An emotionally
intelligent leader can manage turbulent feelings while allowing the full expression of .
positive emotions.

Socrjl Awareness. The ability to empathize stems flom neurons in extended
circuitry in the brain connected to and in, the amygdala (Goleman et al., 2000; Jensen,
1998) where social awareness resides. Brain action enables a leader to read another
person’s face and voice for emotion, continually tuning the leader in about how someone
else feels as he or she speaks. The circuitry attunes one’s own biology to the dominant
range of feelings of the person one is with. This happens when two people harmonize
their emotional states. The common phrase, “on the same wavelength,” describes the
occurrence of emotional connection. Empathy allows a leader to say and do what is
appropriate in a variety of situations flom calming fears to celebrating success. Empathy
also enables the leader to listen and take in the perspective of others in an organization
(Jensen, 1998; Goleman et al., 2000).

Relationship Management. The final component of emotional intelligent behavior

is relationship management. It is believed that relationship management enables a leader

40

 

 

 

to persuadt
ability to t
Th
experience
sensernalri
sent: as tl
qualitatiyt
make sens
actiiity th
nature of‘
study. ref;
researche:
perspectii
participar
because it.
SChool lez

PaIIlClpar

 

to persuade, resolve conflict, and collaborate. This component would support a leader’s
ability to build leadership capacity and co-create a community of learners.

The question of how the first-year principal makes sense of the transitional
experience led to the exploration of cognitive theories of schema, situated learning,
sensemaking, reflection, and emotional intelligence. Although these theories did not
serve as the flarnework for this study, they did support the nature of this study as
qualitative research. Situated learning, for example, explains that the principal does not
make sense alone, but rather within a community of learners. Reflection is a cognitive
activity that precedes sensemaking. The act of reflection is inherent in the qualitative
nature of this research. The first-year elementary principals, who participated in this
study, reflected on their practice. The schema of each participant, as well as the
researcher, affected the outcome of this qualitative research because of the unique
perspective each brought to the conversation. The emotional intelligence of the
participants and the researcher, especially empathy, affected the quality of the research
because it applied to the participants’ sensemaking. Not only is it the responsibility of
school leaders to use emotional intelligence, but I needed to stand in the shoes of the

participants to find the heart of their stories as first-year principals.

Mt Does It Mean to Be a Woman Novice Principail
The empirical studies reviewed in this section will help in understanding the
complex experiences and situations of women novice principals. The major descriptors I
used to locate empirical studies relevant to this topic included new principals, beginning
principals, novice principals, women in educational leadership, women elementary
principals, principals in transition, instructional leadership, women leaders in transition,

and sensemaking. After reviewing 110 studies and retrieving 69 of them, I categorized

41

 

 

15 studies ur
(c) novice pr
empirical sti

to women ti

Women Lea
Belc
themselyes
depth intery
derelopmei
external to
llITVale. ant
limiting ti
dei'eIOped
n01 absolu-
During th

Career an

 

in educat

With SUcl

 

 

25 studies under four main headings: (a) women leaders in transition, (b) sensemaking,
(c) novice principals, and ((1) training and mentoring novice principals. Just two
empirical studies (Duncan & Sequin, 2002; Nolan & Cascio, 1987), pertained specifically

to women first-year elementary school principals.

Women LeaLders in Transition

Belenky, Clinchy, Goldberger, and Tarule (1986) were interested in what women
themselves had to say about their development as leaders. The researchers conducted in-
depth interviews with 135 women. They identified five stages of epistemological
development, which included the silence of not knowing; knowledge and authority
external to themselves found in others; subjective knowing in which knowing is personal,
private, and based on intuition and feeling rather than on rational thought; procedural
knowing when techniques and procedures for acquiring and evaluating knowledge are
developed and practiced; and connected knowing when truth is contextual, knowledge is
not absolute, and the self is central to the knowing process (Belenky et al., 1986, pp. 3-4).
During the development of knowing, women administrators face challenges of balancing
career and home responsibilities (Villadsen, 1980). Once they become more established
in educational administration, they can be less preoccupied with performing their duties
with such intensity.

Duncan (1995) used narratives drawn flom one woman administrator’s
experiences when she was promoted to a role in central office. Her findings pertained to
socialization issues, indicating that women in new leadership roles should establish
contacts, networks, and mentors to learn all facets of the position. It seems that women
as well as men often experience a feeling of worthlessness and a fear of failure in a new

administrative role. Although Duncan’s study concerned the experience of one woman

42

—

 

entering a C
eridenced 5
skills and a
informatioi
Steward. 8
administra‘
can be left
of adminis
role. Inter
in transitic
At

the middle

studied in:

on leaders

derelopm

leadership

resllOItses

PTaCtice,

mmelbl r

 

Parts of
e"lithe:

leadersl

 

entering a central office position, a qualitative study of three elementary principals
evidenced similar implications for new principals. Because they need support for new
skills and are likely to experience loneliness, new principals should develop an extensive
information network and access a variety of support sources (Langston, McClain,
Steward, & Walseth, 1998). Furthermore, in an ethnographic study of a building
administrator, Duncan & Sequin (2002) found that without support and feedback, a leader
can be left to fail. Without networks and systems of support, novice leaders at all levels
of administration face challenges unique to the transitional situation of being in a new
role. Interestingly, there were no research studies specific to women first-year principals
in transition flom one role to another.

An ethnographic study of four women in transition captured their experiences at
the middle and end of their careers. Using the metaphor of quilting, Colflesh (1999)
studied four exemplary women in mid-life. She completed a rigorous review of literature
on leadership, women as leaders, educational administration, and the psychosocial
development of women that provided the basis for identifying feminist attributes of
leadership. The women in the study reflected qualities of leadership in their lifelines,
responses to questions, stories, journals, metaphors, and examples flom their leadership
practice. It would seem that the very process of participating in the study was an
immersion in sensemaking for both the researcher and the participants. Like the woven
parts of the quilt, the women’s personal journeys intersected with their leadership
experiences as they made sense of their role as leaders. This study affrrrned the strong

leadership qualities of women elementary school principals.

43

 

Ki
the ethica
indicated
teaching.
schools. r
research *1
tesponsil
that ether

of care ar

Connecte.
theory th
isolation
Si'parate
make sei
lnteniei
comm
e“Thom

Vleh'ed I

pnllcip

 

gtonng

desert?

Sensemaking Tools

Kropiewnicki and Shapiro (2001) explored leadership in an inductive study using
the ethical flamework of care as a leadership attribute. The comparative analysis
indicated that, in all three principals, an ethic of care was revealed in the areas of
teaching, learning, and dedication to students, as well as, efforts to create child-centered
schools, empowering others, listening, and resolving difficult conflicts fairly. The
research indicated that female leaders tend to use ethical perspectives of care and
responsibility, in varying degrees, in their role as elementary school principals. Themes
that emerged flom the interview responses indicated that women might use perspectives
of care and responsibility as a sensemaking tool.

Another sensemaking tool found to be unique to women administrators is
connected knowing or the investment in empowering others. Connected knowing is a
theory that focuses on process rather than outcomes, working within groups rather than in
isolation, and empowering others rather than supporting hierarchical relationships or
separate knowing (Belenky et al., 1986). Connected knowing is a way for women to
make sense of their work and their way of being in the work place (N oddings, 1984).
Interviews with 17 women who were new to higher education faculties evidenced their
concerns and flustrations with the struggle to remain connected knowers in an
environment of separate knowing. Without a context in which connected knowing was
viewed as favorable, the women evidenced a sense of isolation.

Taylor, (1986a; 1986b) investigated the language of 22 elementary school
principals and their strategic actions during school improvement programs. This
grounded-theory study elicited metasensernaking or organizational learning that

described motivating procedures and interpersonal negotiations. Taylor found that

44

principals used pragnatic experience to influence school improvement. The findings
drew attention to the notion that first-year principals most likely cannot depend on
pragmatic experience. Although there are no studies particular to the first year of the
principalship, Taylor (1986a) analyzed principals engaged in school improvement over a
period of three years. Her work suggested common knowledge that principals used to
create improvement. There were indications that first-year principals might lead change
differently flom more veteran principals because the principals in the study believed they
developed a capacity to lead change over time. They became skilled at sensemaking
through interactive thought with others as they used strategic dialogue (Taylor, 1986).
Principals not only are engaged in leading change, but they were immersed in
performance that is characterized by brevity, variety, and fragrnentations. This was
evidenced by Peterson (1981), who found principals might perform as many as 50

separate tasks per hour, making sensemaking difficult.

Novice priming

There is a particular uniqueness about being a novice. “Sometimes you can’t be
given an answer because you won’t understand it unless you’ve had to struggle with the
question and with each painful step that leads to the answer” (DeBlois, 2000, p. 25).
Perhaps for novice principals, “the process of learning is the learning” (DeBlois, 2000, p.
25). Surveys of 450 novice principals and 208 superintendents in California indicated
that skills needed to perform the duties require more in the way of human relationship
skills than technical skills (Daresh and Playko, 1989). Both groups agreed that people
skills were more important then technical skills. They concluded that conceptual skills,

self-awareness, and people skills were equally important.

45

Hudson and Rea (1996) supported the notion that people skills are at least as
important as technical skills. In their survey, they asked 479 participants for the desired
qualities of male and female administrators. Good communication skills, personableness,
and willingness to seek input were equal in importance to knowledge of curriculum and
instruction, good management skills, and the ability to solve problems. However, Nolan
and Cascio (1987) found, by interviewing three male and three female participants, that
issues of time management, politics, leadership, and power were the most significant
challenges in the first month of the school year for elementary school principals. Daresh
and Playko (1989) found the most important areas for new principals were related to role

clarification.

Duncan and Sequin (2002), explored the experience of a principal in an
ethnographic case study. The principal was selected upon completion of a master’s
degree program in K-12 administration at a Midwestern university. After data collection,
analysis, and interpretation, the researchers talked with the principal in an attempt to
make meaning of the emerging themes centering on her experience related to the

preparation program.

Judy, the principal, described herself as a match for the mission and vision of the
school. She developed a shared decision-making model with the staff and described
herself as the planter of seeds for further changes. She felt successful after her first year.

Judy’s description of herself, or self-schema (Harris, 1994), was in tension with
the organization’s schemas. Judy was focused inward, creating her own social reality,
unaware of the micro-politics of the organization. Duncan and Sequin (2002) found that
“eventually Judy’s one-way interjections of ‘I did this in my classroom,’ caused bile to

rise in throats of some staff members to the point of choking off responses and

46

 

more

méhh

'idar

'5

hdnf

the co

beginr
measu
admin:
increai
pros-id
novice
0f pm]

Pdhd

inclusj
(KEN
rellOIte
tdmm
tooth/C
exPeri

an,

opportunities for two way conversations” (p. 630). Eventually, Judy was fired. Given
the literature about organizational theory, schema theory, and sensemaking, the question
arises: Would the outcome for Judy have been different if she had had knowledge of and
guidance with sensemaking through feedback and reflection? Although this case study
did not address the experience of a successful first-year school principal, it did indicate

the complexities of the first-year principalship.

Preparing and Mentoring Novice Principals

Novice principals need support. Schmidt, Kosmoski, and Pollack (1998) tested 43
beginning principals over a period of three years to determine whether there were
measurable changes in blood pressure as an indicator of stress. All beginning
administrators, both building level and those in central office, demonstrated a significant
increase in diastolic pressure, suggesting that all novices are vulnerable. This finding
provides some evidence of a need for mentors and systems of support during one’s
novice years. Not only is support needed, but some evidence suggests that development
of principals needs to take into account particular gender needs (Schmidt, Kosmoski, and
Pollack, 1998).

“Missing from the human resource development is research that promotes
inclusion of women’s experiences” (Howell, Carter, & Scheid, 2002). Howell et a1.
(2002) conducted in-depth interviews with 60 men and 60 women executives. Men
reported that their leadership styles had evolved flom innate abilities and on-the-job
training. In contrast, women said mentors and formal training had influenced them. In
another study, respondents of both genders perceived men as relying on their past
experiences to solve problems, whereas they viewed women as being more emotional

than men and more apt to seek input flom others (Irby & Brown, 1995). Such findings
47

 

 

lentot
been git

pnndp:

cmnme
been
Thhln

thatnu

Wuhle
0l55s
\ahes
COUld j
Shared

Ucdht

boom
induc
Sch0(
Pfinci
meme

lead to the conclusion that “the gendered nature of work” (Howell et al., 2002) has not
been given enough consideration in mentoring or preparation programs for aspiring
principals.

Hudson and Rea (1996) interviewed women assistant principals after they had
completed their second year in the position. The researchers found that the practice of
these women, in relationships and decision-making, was grounded in the ethic of care.
This highlights a gender-specific notion that has implications for the kind of mentoring
that might be considered specific to women.

Gardner, Grogan, and Enomoto (1999) focused on women principals’ conflicts
with leadership and how mentoring can help in dealing with such conflicts. The sample
of 55 women mentors and their protégés wanted to preserve their personal priorities and
values in the face of conflict. Mentors were important in showing women how they
could successfiilly combine their professional and personal lives. The principals had a
shared value of wanting to make a difference, but they felt a lack of public support and
credibility as new public school administrators.

Newsom (2001) found that a shortage of qualified administrators had triggered a
boom in principal-preparation programs. Lovely (1999) described one innovative
induction program called “grow your own” leaders, developed in Capistrano Unified
School District in California. In this program, the administration actively recruits
principals from a pool of strong teacher leaders. The recruits enter the administrative
arena as elementary-teaching assistant principals. Typically, the preparation includes
classroom work, a full-time internship, and a network of on-line information.

Never before has the need for effective mentoring programs for principals been

more urgent (Malone, 2002). Strong et a1. (2003) studied 31 beginning principals, 27 of

48

 

 

Whom “
on relea
instructi
the rese:
discord
SIIL‘SSOFE
acceptar
significe
manager
not for tl

coach er,

 

 

whom were enrolled in a support program that provided mentoring by full-time coaches
on release fi'om their school district positions. They used a fiamework of managerial and
instructional leadership. Through interviews, questionnaires, and intensive case studies,
the researchers examined problems principals face in their first year. They wanted to
discover how coaches were able to support new principals. Strong et al. identified
stressors that included staff issues, time demands, district issues, student data analysis,
acceptance by parents and the community, and the legacy of previous administrators. A
significant finding was that principals said their coaches were helpful as they faced
managerial and instructional challenges. Several indicated they would have quit were it
not for the support of their mentors. The principals who did not have the support of a

coach encountered similar problems, but they did manage to survive (Strong et al., 2003).

Summary

There is little empirical evidence regarding the nature of the experience of first-
year principals, so the literature review did not shed much light on what it means to be a
woman first-year principal. Some studies focused on role expectations, whereas others
focused on women in leadership. However, the empirical studies did reveal other
important information pertinent to this study. First, women leaders in transition face
challenges of balancing career and home. There was an indication that some women
experience five stages of leadership development. Also first-year principals may be
susceptible to loneliness and could benefit from having an information network and
support sources (Langston et al., 1998), pointing to the need for induction programs.
Although no studies were focused on first-year principals in transition, ethnography of
four mid-career principals in life transition illustrated the complexities of life experiences

and raised questions about the kinds of challenges first-year principals might have in their
49

 

initial tr:
knowing
n25 mi
shonn p
for ll'OVli
need for
limited 1
findings
pnncipa
pnncipai
empiric:
and pier
aCCOum
on the jc
the succ
establisl

ne€dS to

kflflll'lq
“Dene
role of
“Omen

linden

 

hon ii

 

initial transition into a principalship (Colflesh, 1999). Second, women use connected
knowing and an ethic of care to make sense of their practice. However, little information
was available about the sensemaking processes of school leaders. Third, evidence has
shown people skills to be at least as important as technical skills, if not more important,
for novice principals. The two studies specific to first-year principals manifested the
need for more research into the experiences of first-year principals. One study was
limited to examining principals’ first month of school (Nolan & Cascio, 1987). The
findings provided little help in understanding the transitional experience of first-year
principals. The qualitative case study of Judy gave insight into an unsuccessfirl first-year
principal and illuminated the complexity of the first-year experience. Fourth, the
empirical evidence regarding novice principals pointed to the importance of mentoring
and preparation. It highlighted the need for strong induction programs that take into
account the uniqueness of novice status because new principals are vulnerable to stress
on the job. Prominent in the literature was the need for support and feedback to nurture
the success of novice principals. There are indications that induction programs are being
established in response to the need for qualified principals. But much more work still
needs to be done in this area.

Given the lack of empirical data about first-year elementary principals, the
knowledge base of empirical evidence needs to be expanded to better understand the
experience and the needs of women in transition from the role of classroom teacher to the
role of elementary school principal. Hence, my purpose in this study was to explore five
women elementary school principals’ first year in the principalship in order to better
understand their transition from the role of classroom teacher to that of principal, and

how they made sense of that experience. Understanding the nature of this transition. is

50

A /—1

 

mean! It
Sunni“

to learn

 

 

meant to support the development of principal induction programs to better recruit,
support, and sustain elementary school principals in the endeavor of transforming schools

to learning organizations.

51

In
through a
afrrst-yca
experiene
transition
being a cl:
novice prr
the role of
The limitc
Year prino
lhlS Study
Pfincipalg
What tr.
principal
Candideit

pnnClpd

 

 

CHAPTER III

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY AND DESIGN

Introduction

In the literature review, I attempted to capture the complexity of the principalship
through a discussion of tensions, expectations, and paradoxes. Several cognitive theories
a first-year principal might employ while trying to make sense of the first-year
experience were also explored. I discussed change theory, underscoring five phases of
transition that elucidate the process of change in order to explore the transition from
being a classroom teacher to being an elementary school principal. Research on women
novice principals has not touched on the unique experience of women transitioning from
the role of elementary classroom teacher to that of first-year elementary school principal.
The limited amount of available literature and absence of empirical research on the first-
year principal’s experience were the problems addressed in this study. My purpose in
this study was to explore five women elementary school principals' first year in the
principalship in order to better understand their transition fiom the role of classroom
teacher to that of principal, and how they made sense of that experience. Understanding
principals’ experience has the potential to help build and maintain a strong principal
candidacy pool, support and sustain new principals, and champion the development of
principal induction initiatives.

As the principals in this study were wrapping up their first year in the
principalship, but before they began their second year, they were afforded the opportunity
to engage in discourse related to their transition as first-year elementary school
principals. In doing so, they had the opportunity to “evaluate a situation from a fresh

perspective” (Quinn, 1996, p. 73). The following research question and subquestions

52

 

guided the
from the e
practice d

Hr
required 1
classroon
(power an

rision for

and lessc

I“)

Vantage '

resource

SChOOl I

employ
W0men
“Dene
emplo}
exPlOrc

guided the exploration of how five women first-year elementary principals in transition
from the classroom to the principalship created different maps to navigate their leadership
practice during their first year of practice and how they made sense of that experience.

How did the elementary school principal make sense of her new identity, which
required that she understand the dynamics of the whole-school organization (not just the
classroom setting), reconcile and redefine new communication and relational norms
(power and authority), and identify and articulate her school-wide (versus classroom)
vision for the school? Subquestions were:

1. What was the nature of the transition year? That is, what tensions, patterns,
and lessons learned help and mediate the principal’s new role?

2. How did changing perspectives (from classroom vantage point to whole-school
vantage point) challenge or transform the principal’s previously held assumptions?

3. How did the new principal grapple with equity issues related to time,
resources, and support, due to the complexities of the school organization?

4. What are the implications of the experience of women as first-year elementary
school principals for the preparation of classroom teachers for the principalship?

Led by the research questions and supported by the conceptual fi'amework, I
employed qualitative methods in this exploration of the transitional experience of five
women as first-year elementary school principals and how they made sense of that
experience. In the first section of this chapter I discuss the approach and rationale for ,
employing qualitative research methodology. The research design that I employed to
explore the experience of women as first-year elementary school principals is the focus of

the next section followed by data-collection and analysis procedures in the third and

53

 

lll'
—

 

 

fourth set

nith the r

Pr
research (
intermen-
inquiry. '
1995 ). an
traditiona
present re
in telling
school pr
Put Stimu
attribute.

A

("h Ckenn

explicit

 

fourth sections. Next, I explain the limitations and delimitation of the study concluding

with the presentation of data.

Approeg and RMe for Applying Ouafiative Research Methodology

Properties of Weick’s (1995) sensemaking theory and features of qualitative
research (Eisner, 1991), as well as Seidman’s (1998) process of phenomenological
interviewing, underpinned the methodology for this qualitative study using narrative
inquiry. The characteristics of qualitative research are inherent in sensemaking (Weick,
1995), and therefore were key to this study. The well-known phrase flame of reference
traditionally has meant a generalized point of view that directs interpretations. The
present research provided an opportunity for participants to use their frame of reference
in telling their stories fi'om the vantage point or perspective of the new role as elementary
school principal. The protocol provided stimulation for discourse because “when people
put stimuli into frameworks, this enables them to comprehend, understand, explain,
attribute, extrapolate, and predict” (Starbuck & Milliken, 1995 p. 51).

Although story is one of the most fundamental forms of communication
(Ackerrnan & Maslin-Ostrowski, 2002), it is not always easy‘to “leap from intuition to
explicit understandings” (Brrmer, 2002, p.5). 1 used phenomenological interviewing to
“get beyond implicitness and intuition” and “hoist the conversation up a notch” (Bruner,
2002, p. 4) by providing an opportunity for the participants to use their own narrative as a
dominant sensemaking tool (Ackerman, Donaldson, & Van der Bogert, 1996). By telling
a story, the participants gave meaning to their experience (Ackerrnan & Maslin-
Ostrowski, 2002). The educational puzzles and problems that first-year principals faced
posed the challenge of balancing inquiry and personal experiences. While it is

challenging to tell a story, the more difficult but important task is retelling life stories in
54

 

wdana
between 1
story (C12

first year

seteral m
concemir.
inten'ren'
all forms
(Eisner. 1
them pub
01‘ the inq

transform

 

 

 

 

such a way that it allows for growth and change. There is a reflexive relationship
between living a life story, telling a life story, retelling a life story, and reliving a life
story (Clandinin & Connelly, 2000), in this case, the narrative stories of women in their

first year of the principalship.

Field Focused Study

To carry out this qualitative research that was naturalistic and field focused, I used
several methods including interviewing, recording, describing, and interpreting data
concerning the experience of first-year elementary school principals. Tape-recording the
interviews made the principals’ experience public in nature, meaning that “language, like
all forms of representation, is constitutive of experience; it is not merely a conveyor of it”
(Eisner, 1991 , p. 29). Not only did participants make their stories public, but by making
them public, they made sense of their experiences in the telling (W eick, 1995). The focus
of the inquiry was shaped and directed by the participants’ stories while they were being

transformed in the process of making them public (Eisner, 1991).

Phenomenologifltl Interviewing

The process of phenomenological interviewing proposed by Seidman (1998)
fortified the data collection for this inquiry. This process provided a combination of life
history and focused in-depth interviewing and was informed by assumptions drawn from
phenomenology. Therefore, open-ended questions served as the primary approach for
data collection, and my main task was to build on and explore the participants’ responses
to those questions. I was aware that “at the root of in-depth interviewing is an interest in
understanding the experience of other people and the meaning they make of that

experience” (Seidman, 1998, p. 3). I made a concerted effort to explore issues in the

55

 

 

subject are

those expe

naturalisti
Three in-(
encompas
Cannell (
[sing int.
researche
immedial
interriett
lll titling
alltl €Xpe
SlOdes; '
People“
Of first:
lensing
llllllClp'C

reseam]

(1991‘

 

ObSEr‘.

 

 

subject area by examining the concrete experiences of the principals and the meaning
those experiences had for them (Seidman, 1998).

Phenomenological interviewing was my primary choice of methodology because
naturalistic researchers believe it provides the most accurate source of information.
Three in-depth interviews were held with each participant because personal narrative
encompasses large sections of talk and interview exchanges (Riesman, 2002). Kahn and
Cannell (1960) described interviewing as “a conversation with a purpose” (p. 149).
Using interviews as the primary source of data has the advantage of allowing the
researcher to obtain large amounts of data quickly and also firmishes opportunities for
immediate follow-up. In the spirit of phenomenology, while collecting data through the
interview process, I assumed that the principals made sense out of their experiences and,
in doing so, created their own realities. In my attempt to uncover principals’ perspectives
and experiences, the interview process served as a platform for the principals to tell their
stories; “stories are powerful research tools because they provide us with a picture of real
people” (Witherell & Noddings, 1991, p. 280). Therefore, in this study, stories and views
of first-year elementary principals were used to illuminate the women’s experience of
transition as they related their experience. Obtaining the subjective view of each
principal confirmed the choice of phenomenological in-depth interviewing as the major

research method for this study (Marshall & Rossman, 1996).

Research Design
Because my goal was to carry out a robust qualitative inquiry, I relied on Eisner’s
(1991) features of qualitative research to guide me in maximizing the strengths and

observing the cautions of qualitative research. The inquiry was field focused, and I was

56

 

immersed
Healthy u
regarding
belieya‘oif
1993). T
conceptu;
theories.
qualitarit

proyided

Sfilf as 21]

reSpend
that {tag}
mlique s
indryidL
factOr (l
our the
TCSeaR.

PIOCes

 

cautit.
a lice:
thIQU,

b) llt'

immersed in the study as an instrument bringing an interpretive character to the study.
Healthy use of expressive language marks the work, with close attention to specifics
regarding the phenomenon of the first-year experience. I endeavored to increase
believability of the work through coherence, insight, and instrumental utility (Leedy,
1993). These stated features, along with the research questions and a three-pronged
conceptual framework that included properties of sensemaking, a synthesis of transition
theories, and guiding principles for transformation, were compatible with the use of
qualitative methods for this inquiry. Eisner’s (1991) features of qualitative research

provided a rationale for why qualitative methods were best suited to this study.

Self as an Instrument in the Study

In this qualitative study, the self acted as an instrument by “the way we see and
respond to a situation, and how we interpret what we see” (Eisner, 1991, p. 34), given
that each person involved in the study, including myself, used her own signature. This
unique signature was a liability but also provided insight into the situations of the
individual principals (Eisner, 1991). I also considered my unique signature a positive
factor during the inquiry process. However, I needed to heed certain cautions in carrying
out the inquiry. Wolcott (1990) discovered from his own experience with qualitative
research that there are limitations on the researcher’s ability to objectively observe
processes in which she is deeply involved as a participant. Eisner (1991) further
cautioned that “appreciation for personal insight as a source of meaning does not provide
a license for freedom” (p. 35). Yet each researcher has an opportunity to see things
through the lens of background experiences. For this study, the researcher used caution

by not anticipating answers. Palmer (2000) suggested that, during inquiry, “The best

57

single mark of an honest, open question is that the questioner could not possibly
anticipate the answer to it” (p.153), supporting the notion that the researcher needs to

listen carefully to each participant.

Feminist researchers have seen themselves as an integral part of the research
process rather than standing outside looking in. They have applauded the complex
relationships involved in women researching other women (Calvert & Ramsey, 1992;
Dubois, 1983). Although gender was not the focus of this study, the participants and I are
women. In anticipation of relationship complexities, I gave careful thought to my role as
an integral part of the inquiry, given that Marshall and Rossman (1995) explained that the
researcher’s presence in the lives of the participants invited to be part of a study is
fundamental even if “relatively brief but personal” (p. 59). I entered into this process
with the intention to form collaborative and nonexploitive relationships with the
participants; this process was meant to be reciprocally transformative in nature (Creswell,
1998). In addition, I made every effort to establish a trusting relationship with each
participant, and to encourage fi'ank discussion with deep reflection to support what

Dubois (1983) called conscious partiality.

Sampling

Before selecting the sample, I sought approval for this study from the University
Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects (U CRIHS). That approval was
granted (see Appendix A.2). To avoid absolute categories, I chose five first-year women
elementary school principals for inclusion in the sample. I employed multiple methods of
interactive and humanistic data collection (see Appendix CA) in order to avoid absolute

categories. In Langer’s (1989) experience he found that, “The world is continuous and

58

dynamic, yet we keep resorting to absolute categories that ignore large pieces of
continuity, thereby entrapping us in misconceptions” (p. 27). Therefore, five individual
portraits of first-year principals, as well as a thematic analysis of the first-year
experience, served to elucidate the transition from the classroom to the principalship
during the first year of practice.

The fundamental criterion for participants in this study was their identification as
leaders, learners, experienced teachers, first-year practicing principals, and women. As
teacher leaders they led change that included school-wide initiatives. The initiatives
consisted of projects related to literacy, early childhood development, curriculum, and
parent involvement. The women volunteered for district level curriculum committees that
supported their endeavor to improve instruction. They often opted for learning
opportunities that were presented by their respective school districts. They not only
attended educational conferences, they were often presenters in their respective areas of
expertise. By selecting participants that were identified as teacher leaders, it seemed more

probable that the first-year principals would experience success.

All five of the women were active teacher leaders before they became elementary
school principals. Their pursuits of the principalship were supported by their proven
classroom teaching skills as well as their abilities to lead change. In their roles as
elementary school principals, they did not have the advantage of working with assistant
principals. Four of the five participants were employed in a different building or school
district from where they had taught. They found themselves in new settings without the

integral knowledge of a familiar school culture.

After several first-year principals were identified through recommendations of

professional educators, I made initial phone calls to inquire about their potential interest

59

 

in partici
criteria ti

the follo‘

[\J

(AJ

years of

experier

district

pml‘egg

 

 

in participating in the study. If the principal was interested, I asked whether she met
criteria for the study. The field consisted of five practicing first-year principals who met

the following criteria:

1. Female.
2. At least eight years of classroom teaching experience.
3. Evidence of no less than three school-related leadership roles held during the

years of classroom teaching.
4. Evidence of participation in at least three professional development
experiences during the past three years.

5. Currently practicing as a first-year principal in an elementary school building.
6. Employed in a building and/or school district different than the building or

district where classroom teaching occurred (four of the five met this criteria).

7. Working without an assistant principal.
8. Identified as an educational leader by at least three practicing educational

professionals.

Reciprocity and Ethical Concerns

Because participation in this study intruded on the valuable time of each
participant, I practiced reciprocity whenever possible (Marshall & Rossman, 1995). I
was sensitive to demands on the participants’ time, being aware that first-year principals
have overwhelming time commitments with their daily responsibilities. Within

reasonable time frames for the completion of this study, adjustments were made in

60

response

2611 fifOUf

(Marsha
in the pr
med 3

data col

(1993),
princip;

timelll‘ll

timelin

 

response to participants’ needs. I expressed appreciation to the participants for their

generous willingness to participate in the study.

The participants signed informed consent letters before this inquiry began
(Marshall & Rossman, 1995). To ensure anonymity, participants’ names were changed
in the presentation of data and specific personal details were excluded at their request. I
served as the only interviewer but had help with transcription due to the vast amounts of

data collected. Data collections were housed in a locked file cabinet in my office.

Data Collection
Instrumentation: The Interview Process

I conducted three separate interviews, adapted from Dolbeare and Schuman
(1992), with each participant (see Appendix B.1). Before the first interview, I asked each
principal to complete a brief biographical questionnaire (see Appendix B2) and to draw a
timeline of critical events or defining moments in her life up to the present time. The
timeline placed the principal’s career choice of leadership in the context of her life story.
The first interview gave each participant an opportunity to put her experience in context.
The conversation centered on the timeline created by the principal. To explore the
meaning of each participant’s experience, I posed questions that encouraged her to relate
life and educational experiences that had led her to become an elementary school
principal. At the end of the first interview, I asked each participant to collect three
artifacts that best represented her experience as a first-year principal, to be used in the
second interview. The second interview included a conversation about the collection of
artifacts representing the principal’s first-year experience. In preparation for the

interview, I asked each participant to review her calendar so she could recall specific
61

 

events f

prepare
assignm

story tel

first-ye:

colleen.
Semi-St:
artifact
Collect

mien-if
intern-if
telling

Rossm,
affect r
“'Cre C

(Seen

 

rather

 

 

events from the first year of the principalship. After thinking about her year, she was to
prepare a writing sample, using metaphors that best described her experience. This
assignment uncovered some of the unique experiences and deepened each participant’s
story telling. The third interview centered on the written reflections of the principal’s

first-year experience.

Veracity Using Multiple Forms of Evidence

In this qualitative study, descriptive in nature, I employed multiple forms of data
collection to add weight to the evidence. A biographical questionnaire, a series of three
semi-structured individual interviews, one visual timeline depiction of life events, one
artifact collection, and one open-ended written account using metaphors were used to
collect data for this study. A group interview was held following all of the individual
interviews (see Appendix B.3). lt served to support the initial data collection. In-depth
interviewing, the primary data source, required the full participation of each participant in
telling her story, retelling it, and reliving authentic personal experiences (Marshall &
Rossman, 1995). Coherence, insight, and instrumental utility are three elements that
affect the persuasiveness of evidence (Eisner, 1991). Because multiple forms of evidence
were collected, persuasive weight of evidence underlined the coherence of the findings
(see Appendix C.4). No statistical test of significance was run to analyze the results,

rather, the weight or strength of this work is derived from coherent judgment.

By collecting multiple forms of evidence, I addressed the need for coherence.
However, because of the emergent nature of this inquiry, the possibility of ambiguities
and alternative positions existed. My approach in this study of first-year elementary

school principals rested on accepting that the study itself has a dynamic and living quality

62

becaus:
The na‘

betnee

of \‘alir
tinting
particip
interyie
experie
inform:

(\l'olco

haS bee;

SC'lléiratr
losing t
this lie

PTOCec

 

Stud};

i“ten ;

Panic:

 

 

   

 

because the social situation of first-year elementary school principals is in constant flux.
The nature of constant change in the human experience created tension in the balance

between participants’ current experience and their retrospective reporting.

1 also followed Wolcott’s (1994) practical suggestions for satisfying the challenge
of validity in qualitative research by listening more than talking during the interviews,
writing journal notes while gathering data, and being candid during interactions with the
participants. I looked for congruence between the stories women told during the
interviews, their timelines and artifacts, and metaphors depicting their first—year
experiences as a means to validate the data. Taping the interviews and clarifying
information with the participants firrther supported the validity of the study findings

(W olcott, 1994).

Data Analysis

Seidman (1991) recommended postponing data analysis until the last interview
has been completed. Although the interview and analysis stages cannot be completely
separated, it is important not to impose meaning from one participant to another, thus
losing the most important features of the protocol. Other scholars have disagreed with
this view and encouraged researchers to begin analyzing the data as the interviews
proceed (Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Miles & Huberman, 1984; Wolcott, 1994). In this
study, I attempted to balance the two approaches by doing some analysis after each
interview was transcribed, reserving deep analysis until all three interviews with each
participant had been completed. To facilitate balance in the data analysis, I kept notes of
impressions, posed hypotheses, and identified ideas and facts following each interview,
considering information fiom each interview as it informed the next interview. I also

followed other scholars’ (Clandinin & Connelly, 2000; Marshall & Rossman, 1996;
63

Seidman.
protocol 1
the intery
this inqui
that surt‘a
Marshall
hunches.
explanati

chapters

 

 

 

Seidman, 1998) technique in pursuing responses that were not part of the original
protocol but seemed pertinent to the research questions. The right to modify aspects of
the interview protocol, as it evolved during data collection, was crucial to the success of
this inquiry. I was open to compelling questions, unusual responses, and nagging puzzles
that surfaced during data collection, and then responded to them. (Lincoln & Guba, 1985;
Marshall & Rossman, 1996) Categories and themes reverberated against emergent
hunches, discoveries, and meanings throughout the inquiry process. Alternative
explanations for'data meshed and interacted with findings as the outlines for the next

chapters emerged.

Ergnessive Langaage

Expressive language was considered an essential quality of this study. As Eisner
(1991) explained, “our signatures make it clear that a person, not a machine, was behind
the words” (p. 37). Because Eisner warned that “the need for objectivity leads to
camouflage” (p. 37), I made every effort to include the presence of the participants’ voice
by using expressive language as a means to understand the experience of first-year

principals.

Identificafion of Distinct Features

I paid close attention to findings that illuminated distinct features of the
phenomenon of first-year principals’ experience. Qualitative research depends on
researcher’s paying attention to particulars. Particulars convey the flavor of the unique

situations, identifiable individuals, events, and objects (Eisner, 1991). To fully reveal the

64

particul:

features

this stur
events a
particip
seyeral
present:
reaction
cOmplet
these lir

Particip

Percept
focused
(lilting ‘
Particip

finding;

Imatter

particular situations found in this study, the report of findings includes these distinctive

features.

Limitations and Delimitations

In-depth interviewing had the potential to impose limitations and weaknesses in
this study. Participants’ cooperation was essential, as was their ability to reconstruct
events and experiences. Also, it was possible that I might have misinterpreted what
participants said. Lincoln and Guba (1985) maintained that interview bias can occur in
several ways. It can occur in the development of the interview protocol, in the
presentation of questions to participants, and through the interviewer’s nonverbal
reactions to participants’ answers. It was also possible that participants were not
completely truthful in their responses (Marshall & Rossman, 1995). In recognition of
these limitations, I made every effort to establish a trusting relationship with each
participant by actively listening and giving the participant full voice.

This study was delimited to the collection of data concerning five women’s
perceptions of their experiences and practice as first-year elementary school principals. I
focused on the participants’ thinking, values, beliefs, and approaches to school leadership
during their first year, rather than observing their actual practice. The small number of
participants from a limited geographical area limited the generalizability of the study

findings.

Presentation of the Dat_a
The data presentation explained why something was taking place while
interpreting its meaning (Eisner, 1991). For qualitative researchers, motives and the

quality of experiences are as important as behavior. Weick (1995) contended that

65

meaning takes place after behavior occurs. The interpretive nature of qualitative research
coincided with the matter of first-year elementary principals’ making sense of their
experience; at the same time, it served as a means for me to make meaning of their
experience. In this case, I employed a conceptual fiamework that included theories of
transition, a model of sensemaking, and principles of transformation to support my
interpretation of the qualitative data. This framework did not constrict the findings,
however. Themes emerged that were not conceived within the boundaries of the
conceptual framework. The framework was designed as an initiation into the exploration
and served as an avenue for unfolding the phenomenon of the experience of women as
first—year elementary school principals. Because of the emergent nature of this work, the
framework was not meant to limit the findings but rather to aid in exploring and
investigating them. Indeed, I had to make it possible for many-layered stories to emerge
in the inquiry space, making room for the emergence of narrative threads.

Wolcott (1994) claimed that the real value of qualitative research lies in how the
data are used, rather than in the data gathering itself. Keeping that in mind, I endeavored
to bring order, structure, and meaning to the mass of data collected from the interviews. I
endeavored to make general statements about the relationships among categories that
surfaced in the data. Of particular interest in this endeavor was the finding from feminist
research that women’s story lines comprise multiple, intermingled, and woven-together
themes (Josselson & Lieblich, 1993). Identification of emergent themes in the data
helped in understanding the phenomenon of women’s transition from the role of
classroom teacher to that of elementary school principal. The literature I reviewed, and
more specifically, the conceptual fi'amework, served as a guideline for my initial note

taking and making sense of interesting data as the interview tapes were transcribed.

66

 

 

first-ye:
\" is a tl
year elc
underst
setting?
authori
school?

b€ginni

I painted narrative portraits in order to capture the stories of five women in their
first-year as elementary principals. These portraits are presented in Chapter IV. Chapter
' V is a thematic analysis in response to the primary research question: How did the first-
year elementary school principal make sense of her new identity, which required that she
understand the dynamics of the whole-school organization (not just the classroom
setting), reconcile and redefine new communication and relational norms (power and
authority), and identify and articulate her schoolwide (versus classroom) vision for the
school? Chapter VI presents conclusions drawn from the findings, implications for

beginning women principals, and significance of the study.

67

 

princip;
the role
CXpen'e
four sul
school I
dtnami
redefine
and am

Were:

Vantaé

res0m

CHAPTER IV
PRESENTATION OF DATA: THE PORTRAITS OF FIVE FIRST-YEAR
WOMEN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PRINCIPALS
Introduction

My purpose in this study was to explore five women elementary school
principals’ first year in the principalship in order to better understand their transition from
the role of classroom teacher to that of principal, and how they made sense of that
experience. This emergent study was guided by an overarching research question and
four subquestions. The overarching question was: How did the first-year elementary
school principal make sense of her new identity, which required that she understand the
dynamics of the whole-school organization (not just the classroom setting), reconcile and
redefine new communication and relational norms (power and authority), and identify
and articulate her schoolwide (versus classroom) vision for the school? Subquestions
were:

1. What is the nature of the transition year? That is, what tensions, patterns and
lessons learned help mediate the new role?

2. How do changing perspectives (from classroom vantage point to whole school
vantage point) challenge or transform previously held assumptions?

3. How does the new principal grapple with equity issues related to time,
resources, and support, due to the complexities of the school organization?

4. What are the implications of the experiences of women as first-year
elementary school principals for the preparation of classroom teachers for the

principalship?

68

denm
punch
hou'e
2000;
leader
3002;
couhi
honer

anhus

flhSph
“that
eXpofi
bilar

Conan

A way to begin unraveling the first-year experience of women in the role of
elementary school principals is by exploring the tensions and events they faced in their
practice as leaders. The leadership literature consistently has prescribed directions about
how a leader should lead (see Ackerrnan et al., 1996; Bolrnan & Deal, 1995; Elmore,
2000; Glickman et al., 2001; Lambert, 1998) and what principals should do in their
leadership role (see Cram & Gerrnanio, 2000; Daresh, 2002; De Pree, 1997; DuFour,
2002; Dyer & Carothers, 2000). As the five principals in this study told their stories, they
could not seem to articulate the kind of leader they were becoming. They could,
however, talk about “what” they led by relating their experiences with passion and
enthusiasm.

For purposes of this study, the portrait of each principal was meant to enhance
this phenomenological study by capturing the cognitive (sensemaking, transitions,) social
(tensions, interactions, collisions), and affect (self-identity, transformation, voice)
experiences of first-year principals through a portrait of each. Portraiture was developed
by Lawrence-Lightfoot & Davis (1997), who defined it as a methodology of inquiry that
combines science and art.

Portraiture is a method of inquiry that combines empirical description with

aesthetic expression. Portraits are designed to capture the richness and

complexity, and dimensionality of human experience in social and cultural
context. It is meant to convey perspectives of the people who are negotiating

those experiences (p. 3).

So it is that we come to experience each of the five principals — Shelby, Deborah,
Jesse, Meredith, and Anne -- through the endeavors they led, and the tensions and events

they bumped into while trying to lead. The portraits of the principals are characterized by

“what they led” which begin to shed light on how they unraveled the complexities of

69

their

teacl

\\_'o_r

for ;
OPP
prin
sch.

ina

imr

sch

hal
he

the

Cla
Set
Me

adj

their experiences, and how they made sense out of their travels from the role of classroom

teacher to that of elementary school principal.

Women in the Study

Shelby was thriving as an elementary school teacher when she decided it was time
for a change. While teaching, she was fortunate to have a principal that provided
opportunities for leadership. Shelby was left in charge of the school building during the
principal’s absence. She sought opportunities to participate on committees, engage in
school improvement work, and guide whole-school literacy events. When she was hired
in a neighboring school district as the principal of a K-2 elementary building, she was
thrilled. She walked into her new school environment with 269 students ready to
immerse herself in school leadership.

Deborah taught fourth and fifth grade for ten years after her own children entered
school. She became an expert in literacy and social studies education. During the final
two years of classroom teaching, she spent half of her time in the classroom and the other
half as a K-12 coordinator for social studies curriculum. When the superintendent from a
neighboring district visited her building, he found people throughout the school district
that admired her work. His findings reinforced his decision to hire Deborah. She became
the leader of a 2-5 elementary school building with 388 students.

Jesse, a devoted mother of two preschool children, seemed to thrive as a
classroom teacher. She enjoyed the collaborative teacher environment. Along with
several teachers, she engaged in study groups related to literacy then found herself
presenting the work at local and national literacy conferences. She gained a reputation as

a dynamic teacher leader. When the opportunity to lead a K-S elementary school, with a

70

populat

the pos

state. 1
teacher
daught
princip

eagerlj

circurr
impler
high 11
childl

Sluder

that
Prin.
ITO”

lnCir

population of 444 students, became available, she surfaced as the winning candidate for
the position.

Meredith left her elementary school teaching job when she moved from another
state. Following the move, she took time to assess her career. She supervised student
teachers for a local college, read leadership literature, and took care of her two preschool
daughters. Within one year, she found herself restless and began searching for a
principalship. She was surprised when she was hired following her first interview. She
eagerly took the helm of a rural K-S elementary school with 312 students.

Anne’s career began with two years as a high school French teacher. Life
circumstances led her into early childhood education where she learned how to write,
implement, and manage state and federal education grants. She became familiar with
high needs populations. It was not surprising when she was recruited for the early
childhood center principalship and community education director responsible for 621
students. Anne melded her professional work with her passion to be a supportive wife,

mother, and grandmother (See Appendix D] - D.5 for Principal Profile Summaries).

Pogait Structure

Each of the portraits presented in this chapter begins with an introduction of the
principal, providing a context for gaining insight into the principal as a person, as well as
a leader. The portraits lay out each principal’s first-year experiences through vignettes
that portray critical incidents and leadership challenges that often resulted in the
principal’s experiencing collisions or tensions. Critical incidents provoked responses
from the principal that led to change, decision making, or self-reflection. The critical

incidents and leadership challenges also provide an opportunity to hear the principal’s

71

emergi

role of

m

She \l'
elemer
candid
intent
with r]
becau:
had pt

out n]

the pr

her re:
and cl
her er
Sched
dropp
mum
into Or

a map

emerging vision, voice, and leadership style as she makes sense of her transition from the

role of classroom teacher to that of elementary school principal.

Shelby: Dediczged Leadership for Learning;
The Quest for Authentic Influence

Introduction — A High-Energy Leader Emerge_s

Shelby interviewed for the principalship 2 days after she delivered her first baby.

 

She was determined not to miss her second interview for an opening at the grade 3-5
elementary school building. She knew the stakes were high because the field of
candidates had been narrowed down to two people. “I was not going to miss that
interview.” So while her mother waited in the car with her newborn, Shelby proceeded
with the interview as planned. “I went into the interview not being able to sit at all
because I was in such pain.” In the end, the other candidate was given the position. He
had previous administrative experience and Shelby did not. But her determination played
out when the superintendent called her back and hired her the following school year for
the principalship of another building in the district.

When Shelby told me the story about her job interview, it was my first peek into
her tenacity. In her voice I could hear the determination to make a difference for teachers
and children. She had passion about her “school family,” and she was eager to talk about
her experiences. Her high energy style captivated my interest. The interview was
scheduled for an early summer morning in July, before Shelby’s work day began. She
dropped off her 2-year-old at child care before coming to my house. She planned to
return to school even though she was on vacation. “Right now they are unloading semis
into our gym.” Shelby had prepared for the deliveries to her new building. “I gave them

a map with a list of where each item goes.” She was still unpacking, taking inventory of

72

new in:
erampl
boxesj
probah
wanted
right. '
becaus
there.‘
the mo
a first-
Prepan

about t

Challer
SOmetl
burner
Shelby
reache
Princil
to be [
1311!)ch
Shelby
Work-Cc

home i.

new furniture and managing the move of her entire school to a new building. “For
example,” she explained, “when I was there on Thursday, there were a bunch of paper
boxes justsitting there.” There was so much work to be done. “I took all the paper out. I
probably emptied 20 to 30 boxes.” Although she was not required to be at school, she
wanted to be. “I have so much to do, I need to be there.” She wanted to get things done
right. The superintendent told her, “I can take care of it.” But Shelby wanted to be there
because “he may not know where certain furniture goes, or he may just say ‘Well, put it
there,’ and I’ll have to make up for it later.” As llistened, I realized that preparation for
the move to a new building had started the previous fall, when Shelby began her job. As
a first-year principal, she led the building to its final closing while she simultaneously
prepared for the move to a new building. But during our interview, she put aside thoughts
about the new building and reflected about the year that had just ended.

Shelby reflected on her motivation to become a principal. “I just wanted this
challenge—a different way to interact with kids and with staff members.” She wanted
something new, but she did not want to start a new career. “I think I also started to get
burned out with teaching, to be honest.” When thinking about leaving the classroom,
Shelby did not receive a lot of support from colleagues. “And it’s funny, the majority of
teachers you talk to would say, ‘Oh, I’d never want your job. I’d never want to be a
principal.’ And it really is true. Most teachers feel that way. I guess I just always wanted
to be [a principal].” She thought that her strong work ethic had helped prepare her for the
principalship. “I’d only taught for 8 years, but I had worked so hard my first 5 years.”
Shelby’s husband lived in another part of the state when she first began to teach. “I
worked until 8:00 o’clock at night, and it was not a big deal because I didn’t have to get

home to him.”

73

 

l1

Shelby described herself as a motivated person saying, “I have high expectations
for myself.” She wondered why she was so motivated to excel. “Maybe that’s because
that’s the way I was raised. And maybe that, too, is because of the atmosphere I was
raised in.” She also attributed her high expectations to “being around teachers all the
time.” She had been influenced by the expectations of others, especially her teachers. “I
had expectations to live up to.” Because Shelby’s father was a teacher, she grew up with
teachers, and most of their family friends were teachers. In high school and college, she
had been actively involved in academics, sports, and social activities. “I love being
involved in everything,” she told me.

When Shelby became a teacher, her pattern of involvement continued. She
volunteered for committees, curriculum work, and school improvement projects. She
expected quality work of herself. “I probably force myself to have those high
expectations because I’ve always been involved in things, and if I’m not, I feel like I
didn’t meet the expectations I have for me.”

m. Shelby’s vision evolved through her teaching experience and seemed to
gain clarity during her first year as a principal. She wanted a principalship at a young age
because “I guess I just saw from other principals the good and the bad.” She believed
things could be different. She saw “what I liked that they were doing and what I thought
maybe could be done differently.” She likedthe idea of having a broader influence. “I
felt like I’d be working with more students. I mean, I miss the small class, but working
with more students and getting to know more students and more parents and more
teachers [motivates me].” Shelby’s beliefs about her school seemed to grow out of her
experience of working with children as a classroom teacher. “Children come first, and

kids are the most important thing in our school, in every school; that’s why we’re there.”

74

She bi
chhdr
make
statlr

situat

miter
be a t
teachl
Settin
has b.
WhOh
induc
mint:
Stufi‘:
facilir

0“ he:

Care,

She believed that supporting teachers was the best way to bring to fi'uition the belief that
children come first. “I quite often think of my staff because they are what are going to
make the best atmosphere for those kids.” She envisioned the school that she and her
staff might create as one that would be inclusive of children of all socio-economic
situations.

I want it [my school] to be a warm, welcoming place for my students and
my parents. I don’t want them to be intimidated to come into my office. And I’ve
built a lot of relationships already in the year, so I feel good about that. I want it
to be a school where we’re doing innovative learning; we’re up to date with things
that are going on in the world as far as learning goes, and we’re giving our
students as many learning opportunities as we can. And in the district I’m in,
some of the students are poor and the only experiences that they get are at school.
I hope that we’re giving them lots of learning experiences, yet also fun, everyday
experiences they might not get at home.

From the classroom to the principalship: Becoming an insider. Shelby expressed
mixed feelings about leaving the classroom behind. She had always known she wanted to
be a teacher. “My dad was a teacher. I grew up around school, and I grew up around
teachers.” Understandably, she experienced a sense of loss when she left the familiar
setting of the classroom. “The idea of no longer having that small classroom family feel
has been hard to get used to, but the positive side is now having a central focus be the
whole school family.” After making the decision to leave the classroom, Shelby was
inducted into the principalship by the outgoing principal. “In June I went in to meet the
principal four times before he was done. And then he was done, and I started moving my
stuff in.” Induction into the new principalship included an introduction to the building
facility and being told some basic managerial responsibilities. Otherwise, Shelby was left
on her own.

The staff put her fears of entering a new school to rest when they greeted her with

care. “The biggest joy for me this year was being so warmly welcomed by my building

75

stat
The
wer

exp

nam
fron
read
and
Visit
in it.

bece

staff. They would come to me the first couple of weeks and ask questions just about me.
They’d literally take time to ask, ‘And your son’s name again, and how old is he?’ They
were just so inquisitive and wanted to know [about me].” The welcome flavor Shelby
experienced seemed to match her desire to be an integral part of a school family. “I feel
it’s extremely important to have a relationship with my staff members. Whether it’s
teachers, parapros, secretaries, whoever, I need to have a relationship with them.” So
when the staff held a welcome party in her honor, she began to experience the joy of
being a part of the whole school community. “It was a big honor for me.”

Shelby quickly gained knowledge about the staff, and she wanted to learn the
names of all of the children as soon as possible. Shelby used her connection to books
fiom her classroom experience as a way to come to know the children in her building. “I
read to the kids each month, to each classroom, once a month. I still go to my basement
and get out books.” Along with reading to all of the children in her building, Shelby was
visible in the hallways and greeted children every day. “I can name every single student
in this school, and it shocks people.” She was determined to know every child by name
because “building relationships with children” had been the centerpiece of her teaching.

Shelby’s teaching experience helped her identify needs in the classrooms. “You
know, my first-grade teachers do worksheets. I don’t want that.” Although she identified
the change, she was cautious. “I’m going to have to give it some time, I can’t rush into it.
Because of her experience as a literacy teacher, Shelby envisioned a higher quality of
learning for the first graders. “I want them to do literacy centers because quite often
when they’re doing reading groups and running records, they’ll give the kids worksheets
and I really want them to get away from that.” She clarified why she had not yet acted on

this desired change. “I gave my first year to learn and understand what was going on in

76

their classrooms, and no, I’m not going to go in my second year and say this is what I
expect.” She clarified her role. “I’m going to guide them, facilitate them, and give them
ideas how to get there. I’ve got to get some buy-in from them. So that’s the challenge.”

Even though Shelby had gone directly from the classroom to the principalship,
she had little knowledge of the Michigan Education Assessment Program, the state level
testing requirement. Because Shelby’s experience was in early elementary education, she
did not feel confident about her knowledge of the testing program. The test begins in
third grade, so the teachers in her K-2 building did not administer the test. This was a
challenge in Shelby’s first year of the principalship because she believed, “These K-2
teachers, they’re where it starts.” Shelby worked on the testing data with the principal of
the 3-5 building. “I typed up a big memo with all the percentages of their scores, and I
put them in all of the teachers’ mailboxes. They were shocked because they’ve never
been given that [information] before.” She understood that even though the teachers in
her building did not directly give the test, they needed feedback about student
achievement and so they could be held accountable for learning. She also used the test
data to begin a conversation with first-grade teachers about shifting their literacy
instruction to more meaningful learning.

Shelby described leaving the classroom and becoming a principal “like jumping
ahead from kindergarten to junior high school because of the demands and the new
knowledge that needs to be learned, responsibilities expected of you, and the mature
attitude that you must uphold at all times.” It was a difficult leap fiom the classroom to
the principalship, but Shelby believed her teaching background gave her credibility with
the teachers because they told her, “You always stick up for us because you’ve been

there.” She knew that teachers need breaks because “they are overstressed as much as we

77

 

r .
LP“
ICC!
cla

doi

hat
the
C01

pri

\l'
ea

Ch

t0

[principals] are. So I stick up for them. They’ve commented that they can tell I was just
recently in the classroom.” Teaching experience made it comfortable for Shelby to visit
classrooms. “I can go into a classroom and know what I’m looking for when they’re
doing guided reading groups or shared reading.” She held herself accountable. “I’m in a
K-2 building, I’d better know.”

Shelby saw herself as a resource to the teachers because of her literacy
background. “I do think that having been a teacher and knowing a lot about literacy with
the LIFT (informative assessment) training, it’s a benefit for me because the teachers can
come to me as a resource and ask me questions, where as they couldn’t with the last
principal.” She kept her finger on the pulse of classroom practice to keep herself
informed. “I was in every single room every single day.” Even in the face of criticism
fiom the other elementary school principal, she believed it was important to be visible in
classrooms. The other principal told her, “I don’t know how you do that. You’re nuts.
What do you mean, you get into the rooms every day?” Shelby replied, “I just do. It’s
easy. It’s a priority.” She held on to her desire not only to support teachers but to stay
close to what she knew best, teaching and learning in the classroom.

Shelby understood teachers’ practical needs and used empathy and understanding
to build a bridge between herself and the teaching staff. As a classroom insider, she
“never got to go use the restroom. I couldn’t make a phone call. So I’ve taken that into
consideration with my teachers.” She took pride in the classroom knowledge she brought
to the principalship. “I hope that I continue in supporting them [teachers] and knowing
that they need things other people don’t always see.” It was important to Shelby not to

lose her inside view of the classroom.

78

 

IO IVE

Shelby’s First Year—Story Through Leadership
Challenges and Critical Events

Self identiiy: Findinga comfortable place in her own skin. Because she had
sought out the principalship early in her career, Shelby saw herself as young compared to
her teaching staff. “Being a new principal who has taught only 8 or 9 years, they may
look at [me] as if to say ‘You don’t have 20 years [of experience]. What do you know?”’
To gain credible and have influence with her staff, Shelby worked hard to build
relationships. She believed that one cannot lead or accomplish change without
relationships. “It’s so important to build relationships first, so that they trust us and
respect us. I definitely feel that way, and especially being quite a bit younger than most
of my staff, a lot of my staff.” Shelby envisioned herself “as one of them [teachers]. I
try to be part of their team.” She made a point to spend time after school “talking with
them.” She believed her time with them was an asset because, “they feel I’m a part of
them.” But even though she felt like a part of the teaching staff, Shelby knew she also
had another role. “On one hand, I can be their fiiend. On the other hand, I have to be
their leader. But I do find time to stand and talk with them.” She thought that her
visibility helped establish her relationships with the teachers. “A lot of them will stand
around the hallways and talk about their day, share their ideas, and vent. I think what
helps is visibility.”

Shelby compared herself to the previous principal who had held that position for
19 years. He had raised his family in the community, and people trusted him. He was
older than Shelby, and people were used to his style of leadership. “I was fearful about
going into a staff that was older than me and accepting me and a change,” Shelby
confided. She anticipated their expectations of a new principal. “They were afraid I was

going to bring in all these changes, but it’s interesting how they come to me for advice

79

and they probably know better than I do.” Her position of power was a gradual
realization. She was surprised when the staff sought out her advice. “They’re much more
experienced in life than me. And I only have a 3-year-old. I’ve not even been a parent
that long.” She explained, “But they do, they come for advice, they value your opinion.”

Whereas the older staff helped Shelby begin to realize her positional power, the
younger staff challenged some of her professional standards.

I mean, I’m 32, and there are teachers who are coming in at 22 and 23 who

are 10 years younger than me, which is a lot. And you think of clothing

styles and personalities. There are some differences that I have to learn

and to accept of them, too. That bothers me when they say, like . . .

like . . . like . . . ‘all the time. It drives me nuts. Or, ‘you know . . . you

know . . . you know . . .” But maybe when I was 22 I did the same thing. I

think it’s gotten used more often. The other thing is, their dress code is

much more relaxed and that’s something that bothers me. It really does.

And I’m only 10 years older than them. Even 5 years older than some of

them.

Shelby thought about her position with the teachers and how she fit in
chronologically. At the same time, she compared her personality profile with those of
district administrators. During a central office staff development meeting, she took the
Myers-Briggs personality profile. The profile suggested she was intuitive, feeling,
judging, and an extrovert. “My feeling [score] was like 94% and I looked at them and I
said, ‘I’m so embarrassed, 94%!”’ The other administrators had the opposite profiles.
Their response to Shelby was, “That is such a good thing. That is why we need you on
our administrative team. We need someone who actually feels for teachers.” Although
this seemed to be a compliment, Shelby found herself questioning her ability to make
decisions when she compared herself to the other administrators. “I’m more of a ‘just
decide’ person, but I’ve learned that I can’t be that. Lots of times I really have to think

things through.” By the end of the school year Shelby was able to articulate her decision-

making style by comparing herself to the superintendent. “I’m so far opposite of him. I

80

can say to him, ‘Bill, you need to think about how this person feels.’ And he can say to
me, ‘But Shelby, I’m the business person and I have to think the logical way.’ So it’s
good?’

Finding a comfortable place in her own skin as a principal bumped up against age
differences with her staff and personality differences with other administrators. In the
face of tensions from age differences, criticism from colleagues, and having succeeded a
beloved principal, Shelby was emerging like a lizard with new skin. She was developing
interrelationships with teachers. She was also looking inside herself for her position of
power and listening to others (principals) to find her sense of leadership. By the end of
the year, she could feel herself becoming a stronger voice in the school district. “As a
new principal I had fought for the Reading Recovery teacher [and the program] and I
know Reading Recovery services only a small number of children. If it had been now,
this time of year rather than in October, I would have been able to fight more for it. I
mean, I was new.” Throughout the first year of her principalship, leadership challenges
and critical events helped Shelby begin to situate herself and locate her voice of
leadership inside the complexities of the organization.

Visibility: Whflas underneath Shelby’s ski—n? As Shelby was meeting the
challenge of influencing her new school community, she reflected on why visibility
might be important for her leadership. “I’ve worked with other principals who were not
[visible]. Rarely saw them. One principal, I don’t think I ever saw him except at my
evaluation time.” As a teacher, she remembered wanting to have support from her
principals, but rarely experienced it during her 8 years of teaching. “So I learned that was
something that was going to be important to me.” She was visible not only to teachers,

but to students as well. She wanted to know the students. “And that means me standing

81

in the hallway in the morning when students come in, greeting them.” She made it a point
to also be visible after school by “standing by the buses when they’re leaving at the end
of the day.” During the day she was visible by “going into the classrooms as much as I
can, into the lunch room, greeting parents when they’re in the office.” She considered her
practice of being present to the school community as one of the most important ways she
spent her time. “I think visibility is huge”, she asserted.

Furthermore, Shelby extended her notion of visibility beyond the school walls.
“Being in the community, going to community events, people get to know me that way.”
She not only wanted to know the community, she wanted the community to know her so
she could have broader influence on key stakeholders. “The other thing I think is great
for me is my enthusiasm. And I think that will have an effect on other people.”

Conversely, Shelby chose times to keep her feelings invisible so that she would
not affect people negatively. She believed her role included being an influence for a
positive climate. “Even on those days that I’m very stressed out, I try not to complain.”
She often kept her feelings hidden underneath her skin. “The teachers don’t
think . . . . A lot of the teachers will say, ‘We don’t know when you’re having a bad
day.”’ When Shelby was having a bad day, she made the decision to sound lighthearted
during stressful times. “I mean, there are days I will crack jokes about running ragged,
but I will not complain. They do not see the stress.” She wanted the people around her
to catch her positive energy. “Hopefirlly, it carries over to them.” She did not let stress
peel away the visibility of her positive influence.

flue: Shelby wa_s_l_iked but not necessarily valued by central office. While
identifying her position in the school district, Shelby bumped up against other

administrators. She longed for support and information, as well as affirmation of her long

82

hours of hard work. “We don’t even have a monthly administration meeting.” She
found little opportunity for collegial conversation. “He [superintendent] usually calls a
meeting every couple of months when he has budget issues. We don’t have a regular
meeting.” Although they did not meet regularly, when Shelby had uncertainties, she
found the administrators to be accessible by telephone. “It’s easy to call them.” Yet even
though she was free to call other administrators, she found limited support for her
particular building. “They don’t understand a K-2 building. They are so far away from a
K-2 building. And they think I don’t understand their high school.” Shelby found the
attitude toward her building troubling. “I’m the first to say I would never want to do a
high school position. Yet they think they can come into my building and do it like that!
They just don’t understand that we have difficult jobs, too.” Was her work as significant
as the work of the secondary staff? “For example, they have more weeks on their
contract than John [the other elementary principal] and I do. They get paid more money
than we do.” Shelby further realized that “one of the middle schools had the same
amount of grades as I do.” She concluded, “I wish they would stop and think what it’s
like in the elementaries. More than they do.”

Voice: Negotiating authority. Shelby’s determination kicked into gear when she
led the support for a reassigned teacher due to budget cuts. She grappled with the school
organization. Shelby’s special education teacher had been teaching in the same role for
27 years at the elementary school level. She was a part-time Reading Recovery teacher
and part time special education teacher. Even though this teacher had never taught high
school, she was going to be re-assigned to teach there. Shelby believed this “was
absolutely wrong.” She felt anger toward the administrators, especially the special

education director. During a budget cut planning meeting with the administrators, she

83

%——‘_ _

 

told them, “This just isn’t right.” She was told that “they had the right to assignment,
regardless of seniority,” because “the contract did not include that benefit for the
teachers.” Shelby fought back tears in the meeting and said, “You’re just not thinking
about someone else’s feelings.” She was told that “this work isn’t about feelings. In this
job you have to be clear about your decisions and do what is best for the whole district.”
Shelby’s response seemed to come naturally to her, “We’re not doing what’s best for her,
and we’re certainly not doing what’s best for kids because she is not going to want to be
at the high school. She’s not going to do her best job there.” Shelby’s drive back to her
building gave her an opportunity to let go of her emotions. “I bawled all the way back to
my school because I was so frustrated with it. And it ended up that’s where she got
placed.”

While trying to negotiate an alternative plan for the teacher, Shelby experienced
frustration. “That frustrated me, and the fact that the men in the group, the
superintendent also, they think a different way than I do. They’re logical thinkers and
I’m quite often a feeling thinker.” Shelby thought that she needed to become a more
logical thinker, more like the men. “I know I have to get over there [closer to their way
of thinking], but sometimes you’ve got to think about other people.” She wrestled with
her qualities, viewing her strengths of empathy and emotions as negative qualities of
leadership. She struggled with her decision-making skills.

I know I have weaknesses that I need to improve on, and this is something

I’ve said in interviews before, and it sounds silly, but really now as an

administrator it really is something I need to improve on—my feelings,

my empathy, my strength as an administrator. Because sometimes I feel

like I’m too empathetic or too understanding or too fiiendly and not

enough of a, ‘Well, this is the decision I made and that’s what we’re going

to stick with.’ But I don’t want to be that far the other way, either. I want

to be in between, or I want to be ‘I am strong.’ If there is something, a

decision I’ve made, I usually say ‘I’m sorry. There’s nothing I can do.
That’s a decision I made.’ Sometimes I can do that.

84

 

 

W

Voice of authority: Principal or secretm? Shelby chose to keep her feelings
invisible during stressful tensions with her secretary. After returning to the building
following a difficult central office meeting, she needed time to regroup. “Well, that day I
was crying so much. I sat in my car for a little bit before I went in the building because I
thought, I can’t go in the building like this. And then I just went right in my office.” She
did not want the secretary to see her unraveled. She asked her secretary whether “there
were any messages or anything, and she said, ‘No.’ so I said, ‘Okay, I’m going to be in
my office for a little bit,’ and I just closed my door and just stayed in my office. I just
needed time to be by myself.”

Shelby felt fi'ustrated with her secretary and did not feel flee to be herself around
the woman. It was not one tension or one event; it was a continuous fi'ustration that
Shelby faced. “There’s something about her. I don’t feel one bit of a problem if a
teacher comes to me and asks me something and I have to say no. I say no. With my
secretary, I can’t.”

Shelby bumped up against the tensions with her secretary over a difference in
work ethics. “It’s important to have a strong work ethic.” Referring to the secretary, she
said, “I’ve seen with this principal job people who don’t [have a strong work ethic], and it
drives me nuts. And I’ve learned from them, too.” Shelby’s high energy seemed to clash
with the style of the secretary, as evidenced by how she described Shelby. “When people
ask me about my new boss, I describe her as a flutter bug.” When Shelby asked what she
meant by that, Billie, the secretary, responded, “You’re just always busy. You’re just on
the go all the time, just doing this and that.” Shelby valued efficiency and a strong work
ethic. She was leading by example as she made her own work ethic visible. She thought

to herself, “I want to portray it [work ethic] to everyone else.” Trying to make sense of

85

her secretary’s remark, she said, “I think by working with me, she should realize I have a
strong work ethic and she doesn’t.” Instead of having a positive influence on the
secretary, Shelby was “burned” by the secretary when she was left with the secretary’s
workload. “She knows if it [the work] doesn’t get done, I’ll do it.” Shelby’s strategy for
“putting out the frre” was to do the work herself. “I’ll take things on if it doesn’t get
done, especially with my secretary.” It was not only taking on the extra work that
frustrated Shelby, but she questioned her own actions. “I think she just knows that if she
doesn’t do it, I’ll do it. It will get done. And I have to stop that. But it reflects on me. I
have to work on that. It’s definitely a criticism of me.”

When Shelby sought the superintendent’s wisdom, he made some suggestions.
For example, he suggested that she write down the goals she had for the secretary and
review them with her before the start of the following school year. He further suggested
that Shelby talk with the secretary in October of Shelby’s second year as principal and
review her progress. Shelby brought up the fact that the secretary had not been held
accountable for her work. “She had not been evaluated since 1997.” The superintendent
responded, “Yeah, I know. But if we start, all the secretaries are going to have to be
[evaluated] and all the administrators are going to have to do it.” His message was
counter to Shelby’s standard for a strong work ethic. She thought, “Well, they should.
Even people at McDonald’s are evaluated.” She was being squeezed in the middle
between the needs of her building, her own survival, an evasive response fiom her
superintendent, and judgment by her principal colleagues. She had a situation that was
impeding her leadership and her vision of a “warm, welcoming” climate. And her

superintendent told her to wait until the following school year, when she would be

86

opening a new building, to work on the problems with the secretary. So in the end, she
tried to figure out what to do on her own.

Shelby attempted to make sense of the situation with her secretary by observing
interactions of other building principals and their own secretaries. “In one building, the
principal said to the secretary, ‘I need you to do that when you can.’ And he [the
principal] doesn’t say please all of the time.” Shelby concluded, “I guess it’s just me. I
wish I could just get the strength to say, ‘I really need you to go do that for me.’ Instead, I
say, ‘when you can, please.”’ In the end, Shelby believed she was the one who needed to
change. “It is definitely a weakness of mine that I have to work on.” Because Shelby
was able to have positive relationships with her teachers, she could not understand why
she was not able to establish a relationship with her secretary. “I don’t feel that way with
my teachers. That’s what just boggles my mind. I’ve had the most amazing year, but it
would have been more amazing if I didn’t have to deal with that situation.”

Consistent with her vision of a “welcoming” school, Shelby expected the
secretary to be an ambassador and welcome people into the office. Someone reported to
Shelby that people felt uncomfortable going to the office in her absence. She tried to
effect change by being a welcoming model. “The smile, the welcome [are important]. I
am that type of person and she isn’t. And she probably doesn’t realize how friendly I am.
I’m going to be that way to anyone who comes in.” After exhausting ways she might
improve her relationship with the secretary, Shelby asked why she could not hire her own
secretary. The superintendent explained that school secretaries are unionized and
“There’s nothing we can do.” She told me, “I’ve come to the conclusion that most of it is

that she doesn’t do her job.”

87

Changing the way we do business: Now we have to think for ourselves. Shelby
based her practice on her beliefs that students come first and that teachers need support
because they directly affect the students. She wanted to be a different kind of principal
than her predecessor had been. She believed that her desire to influence teaching and
learning set her apart fiom the former principal. She explained that he had a physical
education background. “I mean, that’s what the principal before me was. He was a
decent principal, probably pretty good. But he never knew what it was like to try to
manage 25 kids and be a teacher with 12 different subject areas.” She was further
determined to be different from her predecessor because “he didn’t know much about
curriculum.”

Shelby began visiting classrooms at the beginning of the school year. She said the
teachers were uneasy about her regular visits. “When I first started wanting to visit
classrooms last year, the teachers didn’t know what to do. They were scared to death.”
She realized they were not used to having a principal who was visible in the classrooms.
It took most of the school year for Shelby to change the climate of visibility. However,
by the end of the school year, “they don’t stop what they’re doing, they’re in the middle
of their work. They just keep on going. And now it is just as normal as can be.” She
explained, “Before, they’d stop and look at me, thinking I was there to talk, and I would
just keep walking and talking to the kids. And they just kept looking at me. And finally
it was ‘keep going.’ And now it is just human nature. I just walk in, walk out, they
hardly even know I’m there.”

The teachers were used to asking the principal for permission regarding even
inconsequential matters. He was the head of the school. When the teachers began asking

Shelby questions like “Where do you want us to put the desks?” She found herself

88

replying, “Put your desk wherever you want to put your desk.” She realized the teachers
had relied on the former principal to make decisions for them. “I think that was the way
things were before, that they weren’t always given a choice.” The actions of the teachers
made Shelby think about her leadership in comparison. “I actually ask their opinions and
say, ‘What do you think?’ and they’re probably dumbfounded, thinking, ‘She’s actually
asking us what we want.”’

Shelby also realized that her practice concerning discipline was very different
fiom that of the previous principal. “The guy before me might say, ‘This is your
punishment and this is what happens.’ And there wasn’t any reasoning or talking about
what we could do to make it better next time.” Shelby was basing her discipline on
relationships with children and giving them an opportunity to learn fi'om their choices.
“At the beginning of the year, I remember my secretary gave me a yearbook and said,
‘Here you might need this when you want to look up faces.’” Shelby discovered that the
preceding principal had used pictures to identify children when they came to the office. “I
put it [yearbook] in my drawer. I never once pulled that out. I didn’t need to.” Shelby’s
belief that as a leader you have the best results when you have a relationship with the
people you lead extended into her practice. “I was just in the hallway and classrooms
enough that I got to build a relationship with those kids. And I was surprised at how
many relationships I was able to build.”

Leggiag one school while preparirgjor flew school. Shelby’s first year was
constructed under a backdrop of change by engaging in the preparation of a new school
building that was bound by managerial details: “I had deliveries that kept coming, and I
had to go and take care of and sign for and put them where they go.” As Shelby

maneuvered between the “now” of her building and leading the transition to a new

89

building, she verbalized her challenge: “I will combine the K-2 staff, so that’s a little bit
of a challenge but I only have to bring in two new teachers and their aides.” She realized
the change would be more difficult for the kindergarten teachers than for her current
staff. “The challenge will be that they were in a kindergarten building by themselves for,
I don’t know, 15 years with just them.” By the end of the school year, she was more
realistic about the complexities of combining staffs and preparing for the move. “There
is just so much you don’t know about opening a building until you actually do it.” The
preparation for the move to a new building created multiple-layers of change that
included her transitional experience as a first-year principal, the school’s transition of a
new principal, and the preparation to move the entire school community to a new
building.

Shelby found it difficult to be the principal she wanted to be. “I’ve had a hard
time balancing—balancing the management and the educational leadership part of it --
because of having to build this building.” She experienced some disillusionment when
she was unable to practice leadership the way she envisioned it. Still, she enacted many
creative ideas to support teaching and learning in her building. For example, once a
month she held “grade-level meetings so the teachers could plan together.” She had first-
and second-grade classrooms “buddy up and do buddy projects.” The first- and second-
grade teachers “alternated so they could take turns with grade-level planning.” Because
the planning took place during the school day, Shelby was able to be visible to the
teachers. “I always sit in on those grade-level meetings.” She practiced creative ways to
support collaboration among her staff members while maintaining visibility. Yet she

often felt like she was managing more than she was leading.

90

“I worked hard at it. I was in the classrooms every day and I knew what they
were teaching and what they were doing.” As a new and over-extended principal, Shelby
was physically present, but not always focused on the needs of her building. “There were
still so many days I was more focused on this darn [new] building than on my current
building that I was principal in.” The tension between managerial tasks and leadership is
not uncommon for principals (Peterson, 2001). Yet Shelby was determined to find her
way as an effective leader by being visible to her school community. “As a principal, I
think it’s extremely important to be in the hallway and let them see you.” The
preparation for a new building pervaded Shelby’s time. “The biggest challenge for me
this year was learning the roles of a building administrator while working on the building
project of a new school.” Shelby expressed the intensity of this leadership challenge. “It
was like swimming in an ocean and being pulled by undertows in all directions. The
demands I felt kept my mind reeling.”

Miraeuvering her style of leadership. Shelby wrestled with the messy task of
honoring parents, making the best decisions for teachers, and negotiating between teacher
abilities and student needs. “Right now I have four messages on the machine from
parents who want to talk to me about their teacher assignment.” By the end of the school
year, Shelby knew the strengths as well as the weaknesses of the teachers. “And three of
them [requests] are the same teacher. And I know why, because I know she has some
issues.” This was a moral dilemma with multiple complexities that included equal access
to quality instruction for all students. At the same time, she had to consider the effect on
students and teachers of honoring parents’ requests. “But the problem is if I just let one

or two of them change, then I have to let all of them and then, if they go spread the word,

91

‘Well she let me change this, call her, she’ll let you do it.’ Yeah, you’ve set the
precedent.”

The collision among parents, principal, and teachers motivated Shelby to work
with the staff to create a process for placing students into the next grade. “We started a
process where they could not request an actual teacher.” Shelby prepared a survey for
parents to fill out. The survey required parents to think about the kind of learning
enviromnent they wanted for their child. After placing the children, if parents wanted a
change, they would be asked to put their request in writing, citing an academic or
emotional need that supported their request. “So I have four calls I have to make today,
and I’m just going to tell them, ‘You know, our process is that you need to write a letter
to me. If you can give me academic or social reasons, that are legitimate, of why your

9”

child should be changed to another classroom, then I will consider it. While standing in
the middle of the collision and directing traffic around it, Shelby created a strategy to

meet the needs of all of the drivers: children, teachers, and parents.

Summag

Shelby wanted her school “to be an early childhood center that is a fun, hands-on
learning environment that’s caring, loving, and warm.” She found herself colliding with
the demands of her role while creating her vision for the school. Although she
discovered flexibility (“I found one benefit that we have is that we’re definitely more
flexible than teachers. I mean we can actually run to the restroom”), Shelby also found
that there were “many things going on every day as a principal compared to the
classroom.” She had described her life as a teacher as “very busy, with many evening

hours,” but still found it surprising that her new role took many more hours. “One of the

92

most amazing things to me is how much busier I am as a principal than I was as a teacher
and how many more meetings and places I have to be and attend to.”

Shelby’s work as a principal had decidedly changed her personal life. She
experienced a loss of time with extended family and fiiends. “I’ve walked out on not
getting in touch with fiiends anymore, and with my family.” Still, she gained satisfaction
from her work, even though it was challenging. She reiterated the difficulties she faced.
“You know I struggle.” On the other hand, the challenges of the first year were
motivating. “As an author of my first-year principalship experience, I know that I have
made the right career choice for me. My overall experience was completely satisfactory
and reassured me that it is what I was meant to do.” Shelby referred to an artifact, a
picture of the student body and staff: “The picture is the family I’ve made, the
relationships I’ve built, and the leader I’ve become of all of these people.”

Shelby’s determination to become a principal had been steadfast and unyielding.
She was ready to influence learning, using visibility and relationships as mediums for
change. Texturized within her first-year experiences were responses to her feelings that
bounced back and forth between elation and exhaustion. “My teachers are the most
amazing staff. Oh, my gosh! They are phenomenal. There’s not a day I don’t go into
their classrooms and they’re doing something phenomenal.” Coexisting with a sense of
satisfaction were feelings of strain and tiredness: “I’m so overwhelmed with this
building and being a principal.” Shelby’s words expressed multifaceted personal and
professional contradictions as she explored her identity in the face of decision making,
searched for her leadership voice couched in complex situations, and wrestled with

contradictions to find a comfortable position in her own skin.

93

Deborah: Ethicafleadershhr for DataéDriven. Child-Centered
Teaching and Learning" A Cormaass for Change

Introduction -- Developirg Directionality:
From the Classroom to the Principalship

Deborah’s father had moved her family to a farm when she was 15. Her father’s
background as an attorney gave him the knowledge to set up the farm as a working
business for her brothers. “They had cows, sheep, pigs, and there were 500 acres they
farmed. The boys would go to the bank, borrow money, put in the crops, and then sell
them.” The plan was for her brothers to earn money for college. Deborah did not help
with farm work because “it was not a girl thing. But I had to do all of the stuff in the
house and take care of the kids.” Deborah was the oldest of 11 children. “Being the
oldest of 11 kids, I think that has [had] a big influence on who I am. The kids were all a
year apart, and I had a ton of responsibility and took on the role of nurturer.” She
described her responsibilities: “1 ironed, babysat, fixed meals. There was pressure to ‘be
good’ because everyone looked up to you, and you were expected to set a good
example.” The experience of having so much responsibility brought positive feedback.
“I got a lot of positive kudos because my Mom would talk about what a good helper I
was. I was really on this pedestal because I was the one that helped maintain this huge
family.”

Following a childhood of taking care of her brothers and sisters, as an adult,
Deborah was attracted to the notion of helping children. “As a teacher, I was known to
be good with needy kids and parents. I had more of the special education kids or kids
that had ‘reputations’ as behavior problems or difficulty learning.” Reflecting on herself

as a teacher, Deborah realized, “I was always an advocate for the underdog.” Deborah

94

believed her life experiences, especially her family life, influenced her adult role as an
advocate. “If I look back on what kind of life experiences I had and go back to my
family of 11 children, we were really a microcosm of society.” Deborah’s middle brother
got into trouble with drugs. “He was a middle child. He was one of these kids that didn’t
have a lot of school success. My dad and I were always his advocates.”

When Deborah decided to leave the classroom, she did it gradually by teaching
half time and working as a district curriculum coordinator the other half of the time. “So
when I made the decision to only teach half-time and do [curriculum work] the other, that
was the letting go [of teaching] piece.” Her direction became clear. “I knew within the
next couple of years I’d get a principalship.” Deborah soon found a principalship in a
neighboring school district.

It was the fieedom of being let out of a cage and being able to reach for

those stars of working with teachers on curriculum which I loved! Of being

able to play a significant role with kids that were needy. And I’m not talking

about being the sole person that saved some, but being part of a collaborative

effort that really helps these needy kids.

Deborah set the course for her role as a first-year principal by having three sets of
files in her head. “The files that are the standard stuff like curriculum, best practice, the
MEAP (state testing program), how to do a specialist’s schedule, how to lead a staff
meeting, and write a memo” are referred to as ‘pretty common knowledge’ files.” She
described the second set of files as preparation for unpredictable situations. She
illustrated this file by asking complex questions. “What do you do about the fifth grader
that smokes in the bathroom? What do you do about the third-grade girl who hits kids
and says she wants to kill herself?” She described the third set of files as “how to build

relationships, how to communicate, turn weaknesses into strengths, and how to never,

ever quit.” These files are called “personality traits,” she said; “I don’t think a school can

95

teach you those and I don’t think a class can teach those. It’s just part of your
personality.”

Her First Year Story Through Leadership

Mmges and Critical Events

New direction begiangg in the front office. When Deborah was hired, she was
told that the school office needed to change. “It had a reputation of being very unfiiendly
to the kids, the parents, and I don’t know about the teachers.” The office had two
secretaries. The first secretary was a full-time position, and the second secretary was a
part-time position. One of Deborah’s first big decisions was to hire a new first secretary
because of a retirement. “I looked for somebody that was going to make the office
fiiendly but [also] somebody that’s going to have a connection with kids.” Deborah chose
someone who matched her vision of the office as “a safe haven for kids.” When she hired
Judy in August, they agreed on a message to the school community that said, “You’re
welcome here. We are fiiendly. We will drop what we are doing to help you. Whether
that’s a teacher, whether that’s a parent, whether that’s one of the kids.” Deborah wanted
to know that when the office was used as a break for kids with social and emotional
challenges and went to the office for a respite, the secretary could support her and support
the kids. “And if I wasn’t there in the day, Judy took care of those kids for me.”

The new principal and the new first secretary had a hard time convincing the
second secretary, Laurie, that things should change. In response to Laurie’s negative
attitude, Deborah, with the superintendent’s backing wrote a letter describing the verbal
warning she had given to Laurie. Deborah agreed with the superintendent that the
warning letter should be removed in order to have a working relationship with Laurie.

“We got our point across and we’ll see what happens now, if the office is friendlier.”

96

Deborah invited Laurie to her office for a conversation and told her, “I’m hoping we can
start at a new beginning. We got off to a rough start.” Deborah reviewed her
expectations with Laurie. “We drop everything when kids come in or parents come in.”
Laurie began dropping what she was doing and attending to children and parents as they
entered the office.

“We’ve even got toys in the office,” Laurie complained. Deborah explained why.
“We put some things in the office for kids to explore with when they came in. We had
some Legos, we had some things on the table that they could take and create.” Deborah
wanted the office to be child-centered. She also saw the office as a place of support for
children. “Sometimes teachers sent kids down because of discipline issues, but I’d
worked out with several teachers that kids would come to the office when they just
needed a time-out and it was not punitive.” She determined that special-needs children
might find their only safe haven to be the office. Deborah described a little girl with
emotional challenges whohad been sexually abused by her father. She often hit other
children when she became fi'ustrated, and even had threatened to kill herself. At times she
would have episodes. “By her body language you could tell that she was just kind of out
of it.” She could act out in the episodes up to 40 minutes. At the beginning of the school
year, once the child came out of it, “she would do stuff to her hair where by the end of it,
it kind of looked like a zombie, so we’d have to fix her hair back up.” This example
highlighted Deborah’s vision: “This is what I want the office to be about. We’re in the
kid business.”

When Laurie, the second secretary, complained about children being in the office,
Deborah replied, “If we don’t take care of the kids’ social and emotional well-being,

we’re never going to be able to educate them.” By the end of the year, Laurie hugged

97

Deborah and told her “I was a good leader and that she thought that I’d done a good job.”
Laurie gave Deborah several compliments that emphasized the principal’s leadership.
“I think you’re good at communicating, that you really helped the teachers this year.” By
emphasizing her vision and being explicit with Laurie, Deborah turned their relationship
around. Although they got off to a rocky beginning, by the end of the year Laurie hugged
Deborah and said, “Oh, you and the teachers have done such a good job this year.”
Turning the playground around. Deborah heard complaints from parents
regarding the playground. She collected information by listening to parent concerns,
surveyed the situation, and took action. She found that children sat on cars in the parking
lot, played close to apartment buildings, and wandered toward a busy road. During the
first days of school, Deborah changed the parameters of the playground by placing cones
as boundaries for play areas. She used her visibility by going back and forth between the
cafeteria and the playground during lunch periods. She worked with the playground staff
to devise new expectations for the playground. “It was so important to me that things
went better on the playground. Worrying about that, making sure it [my plan] was in
place, was that simple.”
Followinga different path: Holdig teacherflccountable for students’ success.

Looking back on her family life, Deborah commented, “I feel like I am a real
advocate for needy kids, no matter what the reason. She used a piece of paper with the
name David printed on it as an artifact that represented a meaningful experience of her
first year as a principal. “One of my artifacts is the story about one of my kids.” David
was a special education student who caught Deborah’s attention the first week of school.
“I got to know him because he was always getting into trouble or causing a problem. He

was the one that the adults really tried to help.” Deborah applied her belief that “you have

98

to capture the heart before you can capture the mind.” As she collected information on
David, she “got to know him and he was always in conflict with somebody in his peer
group.” She made several attempts to contact his parents. In the meantime, she
discovered that David, a fifth grader, had been smoking in the student coat room. She sat
down with the special education teacher and David’s social worker to formulate a plan.
“This is a collaborative effort.” She knew her next step. “Of course, I’ve got to suspend
him. But I want him to admit [to the smoking].” David was in the office for about an
hour. Deborah knew the cigarette was in his coat because of the smell in the coat room,
so she confronted him.

I’ve got your backpack. Your coat’s wrapped up in there. Before I open it,

is there anything you want to tell us? There was just silence. And we had

not preplanned this. And there was just silence at that table. I don’t know

whether 30 seconds, 60 seconds went by. All of a sudden he just broke

down and cried. He said, “I did smoke a cigarette. I wanted to do

something so bad that I’d get kicked out of school.”

Deborah realized that suspension would not address David’s needs, but the school
district policy, supported by law, required suspension. She learned that David had been
sexually abused by his mother’s boyfriend. “This boyfiiend having him and the brother
sit in a bathtub of water and this guy’s using cattle prods and things. So it’s a horrific,
horrific story.” She continued to be in contact with David’s father and also realized the
school could not address all of the issues. Not only was he abused, “we need medical
help. He’s very impulsive.” Community mental health became involved, but “it is a
slow, slow process. This happened early in the fall, and he was finally tested sometime
in the spring.”

Deborah learned that David had put the lit cigarette back in his coat pocket, so it

could have caused a fire in the classroom. She worried about the safety of all of the

students because the child’s irnpulsivity was extreme. Deborah considered all of the

99

information she had collected and in collaboration with other staff members initiated a
plan for David. They created a schedule to keep David and the other children safe. By
making a case for need with central office, funds were used to enlist the help of a full-
time aide. At the same time, Deborah explored other avenues to support David’s success.
“We came up with the idea of making him a second-grade mentor for a second- grade
student, which he loved. He reads to this student and does writing. So he’s practicing his
literacy skills in a real-world context. So we have some successes for this child.”

Deborah explained why she used David as an artifact representing her first year as
a principal. “It’s something that shows that we did take one of those hard-core kids and
really help him.” She verbalized her vision through her efforts, as well as the
collaborative work of the staff. “We’re an educational institution. That’s our job. And
you can’t educate if the social and emotional well-being of the child isn’t attended to
first.” Deborah’s work with David spoke of her beliefs about the purpose of school and
the importance of addressing children’s emotional, social, and academic needs. “That
represents a lot of effort to try to take care of this child’s emotional and social well-being.
We didn’t get it 100%, but I think that we did at least put him back on track.”

While Deborah led a collaborative effort to meet David’s needs, she also worked
to demystify the complexities of writing standards for fourth grade teachers. Referring to
the state-mandated writing test Deborah expressed her concern. “I became pretty
alarmed when they [the teachers] were talking about the kids writing one page.” Deborah
had first-hand experience as a classroom teacher with the standards and expectations of
student writing. “As a fifth-grade teacher, that was something we had worked very hard
on.” Deborah knew fiom her own teaching that “nobody passed with one page.” She

studied the school’s previous test scores to detect patterns and discovered that writing

100

proficiency had been declining over time. Speaking with the teachers, she found that
“they did not have a clear idea [of part one], and they were struggling with this part two
where it’s written response to readings.” Deborah discovered that the literacy leader of
the building was expected to support the teachers. “Part of the reason they [the teachers]
were struggling was because the literacy leader, who was like a reading consultant,
wasn’t clear herself. She was getting the two [parts of the test] mixed up.”

While meeting with the literacy leader and the fourth-grade teachers, Deborah
listened to the conversation while the literacy leader led the discussion. She learned that
“teachers don’t have a clear target in what the kids have to do. They don’t remember
what the MEAP [state-level testing program] looks like at all, which floored me.” The
meeting was a catalyst for change because the teachers were fi'ustrated. Some of them
began to cry because they believed the test was too difficult. They said, “There’s no way
fourth graders can write two pages.” One of the teachers was so upset she “went over to
the waste basket and kind of threw her lunch in the can.” In Deborah’s intentional
leadership style marked by “letting it be for now,” she explained to teachers later in the
day that she could help. She took time to assess each situation. Deborah saw this
situation as an opportunity to “establish myself as someone who could help them with
curriculum.” And so she did. She spent the week-end demystifying the expectations by
writing a one-page explanation. “I knew exactly what to do because I had had the prior
experiences as a teacher.” Deborah brought in writing samples fi'om her own classroom.
“I pulled out some really good ones and showed how the kids had taken the prompt and
they had written in different ways.” She used her resources by giving the teachers

classroom release time to construct writing prompts for student practice.

10]

The MEAP scores had been 47% proficient the previous year, “and this year we
got our MEAP scores back up with 87% proficiency. Thus, Deborah’s credibility as a
leader of curriculum in her building was established. By helping the teachers, she found
her voice as a leader of curriculum. “It was cool because they’d e-mail me or come to me
and say, ‘Do you have two pieces of literature that I could use for the kids to write as a
prompt?”’ and Deborah could provide resources. “I do know curriculum, and I know the
literacy piece.” The one-page explanation page of writing became an artifact that
represented Deborah’s work as a leader of curriculum, her work to improve student
achievement, and her work as a collaborator with staff. She wanted to be “right in there
with them with my sleeves rolled up.”

Deborah continued to guide her mission in the footsteps of the former principal.
He had been at the school 17 years and was “beloved” by the school community. After
collecting information about his work style, Deborah realized that her leadership style
and her vision as a leader were markedly different fi'om his. “He was a father figure. He
took care of them [the teachers].” When he evaluated teachers, he thought it best to make
the process painless. “He even typed their IDP’s [individual development plans] for
them.”

In contrast, Deborah described herself as a collaborative leader. “If it’s a decision
where we can discuss it and come up with the best solution for a child, then it would be
collaborative between the necessary parties involved, whether it’s the teacher and I or the
teacher, parent and myself.” She found that her teachers needed coaching about
collaborative decision making. They were used to [the former principal] telling them
what to do. “So many times teachers would walk into my office and say, ‘Just tell me

what to do.”’ Deborah made it a point to have them reflect by saying, “Let’s think about

102

it.” Yet, she realized there were times when she needed to make decisions. “And you
know, in situations where it’s clearly black or white, I can tell them what to do.” But
Deborah refiained from using a voice of authority when she wanted the teachers to find
their own voice. “I want them to be empowered to make their own decisions.”

Deborah worked to balance her voice of authority with the needs of a struggling
teacher. The teacher explained to Deborah that “Nobody has ever followed up or
watched what [I’m] doing.” Deborah responded, “That’s part of my responsibility. I’m
going to watch, and I will talk to you about it.” Deborah continued to collect information
through the year and found the teacher was not turning in required literacy assessments.
“They [teachers] have to do running records, and those scores are due in to me at a
certain time.” This was new to the teachers. “They didn’t have strict due dates. If they
didn’t turn it in, nobody followed up.” Deborah followed up because the data “drives our
practice.” Deborah’s tension with succession continued when the teacher said, “Tony [the
former principal] never talked to me about this.” Deborah’s voice of authority said, “It’s
going to be different; you need to adhere to the due dates.”

While collecting data from the teacher, Deborah bumped up against another
challenge of succession. The previous principal had been a hands-off administrator.
Even though he had hired the teacher, he had not supported her with observations and
feedback. So Deborah collected data by listening and observing. She found that the
teacher had established some behaviors that were difficult to change. Deborah decided to
talk with the teacher about literacy. “We had some good conversations about it.” But as
the year progressed, it did not seem that the situation was improving in the classroom.

“At the end of the year, her common writing scores were still very low.”

103

Several times throughout the year, teachers told Deborah, “But Tony [former
principal] let us do it.” When she discovered teachers had been borrowing from school
funds, she investigated the legality of the practice. She spoke with authority at a staff
meeting: “It is against the law. You do not want to borrow fi'om school funds. You
could get fired for doing it.” She offered them an alternative by setting up a petty cash
box with $10 of her own money. “Anyone could borrow from it and place an IOU note
in the box.”

Deborah’s vision for curriculum revolved around the notion of integration. She
used the school improvement team as a means to plan and progress toward an integrated
curriculum. As a beginning principal, she wanted to learn more about the school culture
and how teachers implemented the curriculum before she started to make changes.
“Well, you know how you get to know the curriculum? It takes you a while, and who’s
doing what and who’s helping who?” Deborah collected data throughout her first year.
“I just sort of sat back and just kind of watched and investigated for a while.”

During a school improvement meeting, the conversation was about music and the
opportunity to integrate music and social studies. Deborah clarified the intended work for
the meeting. “We’re trying to help the kids with social studies curriculum, and we all
know that one of the ways to do that is to teach kids through music and movement.”
Deborah’s teaching background gave her a solid foundation for supporting integration of
music and social studies. “There are a lot of songs that you can teach the kids about
economics and about civics. And if we think about fourth grade, the study of Michigan,
all the music fiom the state of Michigan and even American history in fifth grade [is

available].”

104

The music teacher did not accept the strategy of integrating music into social
studies. One of the teachers at the school improvement meeting said, “We could have
Katie teach some of these things through music, I know a great song.” At that point,
Deborah did not step into the conversation between Katie and the members of the school
improvement team. “I sat back, and the teachers nailed her.” They told her, “Curriculum
is like an amoeba. It doesn’t stay the same every year. We take what we’re weak in and
we keep trying to improve on it.” Deborah took time to prepare for a response. She
checked with other principals as well as the assistant superintendent. “My question that I
laid out on the table was, ‘Is there a reason why the music department can’t help us with
social studies?”’ She was told that there were no reasons why the music teacher could
not integrate the teaching of music with the social studies curriculum. Deborah had the
backing and support of the central office administration.

At the next school improvement meeting, Deborah welcomed the music teacher,
saying, “Oh, I’m so glad you’re here because we’re just talking about how you might be
able to help us with music and the social studies curriculum.” As the teachers were
giving Katie ideas, Katie said that she could only use high-quality songs. “The tension, it
was like lightning went across that table because there was absolute tension at that point.
I could see out of my peripheral vision, my teachers had their eyes down. They knew
there were going to be sparks.” She asked Katie, “Are you saying that we’re going to
have to bring every song to you and we’re going to have to debate whether it’s quality or
not?” Katie responded with a “yes.” Deborah told Katie that she could have a huge
impact on students’ learning of social studies. “The way you teach music, you could
have such a hand in helping these kids learn some of the economics and the civics that’s

hard for them. When it’s in music form, as you well know, a lot of kids learn through

105

music, musical intelligence.” Deborah realized that Katie was not buying into the role
that her colleagues were outlining for her. She chose to wait and invite Katie to the office
for a one-on-one conversation.

Deborah acknowledged to Katie that it seemed she did not want to integrate social
studies into the music program. When Katie did not respond, Deborah chose this
moment to continue establishing her voice of authority. “You need to know that I’m in
charge of curriculum here, and I report to [the assistant superintendent], and we all report
to the school board, and the school board wants us to teach the curriculum of the State of
Michigan. And our teachers, in order to teach that curriculum, have to integrate.” She
wanted Katie to understand that she could not make decisions about curriculum on her
own. At this point, Deborah realized that relationships, peer pressure, or clarification of
curriculum practice would not influence this teacher. She made her voice of authority
explicit. “The music curriculum is not Katie’s curriculum, it’s [the district’s], so you
need to make a decision whether you can stay here or not under those circumstances
because we are going to have social studies infiltrated into the music curriculum.”
Deborah spoke with confidence. She knew she had the support of upper administration,
as well as the backing of the district’s written curriculum policy.

A trail of principal integrity shifts the course of action.

When Deborah arrived at Maple River School, she discovered that the teachers
were completely on their own in preparing and administering the hi gh-stakes state-level
testing program. This discovery posed many challenges as Deborah tried to turn around
teachers’ attitudes about the importance of following testing procedures. “I met with

teachers by grade level.” To further ensure the integrity of the tests, she followed each

106

meeting with a memo to the teachers involved. “I wrote everything down so they had a
hard copy of it.”

Deborah realized that when children were absent on test days, no plan was in
place for them to make up the test. “If kids missed it [the test], they didn’t do make-ups.”
Deborah made certain that all of the teachers knew the plan to ensure accommodations
for special education students and make-up time for children who had been absent. She
enlisted the help of the special education staff and general education specialists. As
Deborah monitored the plan, she discovered that a student had been sent out of the
classroom for a make-up session with 'a Title I aide. Just as Deborah peeked in, she
found the aide ready to read the test to the student; she quickly asked, “What are you
doing?” The aide explained, “Well, I was just going to read the test to her.” Deborah
responded, “You can’t do that. I’ll take her.” Deborah took the student to a small group
in another part of the building. When the classroom teacher was free, Deborah spoke
with her: “Did you tell him [the aide] that he could read the test to the student?” The
teacher explained that she thought the student could receive accommodations because she
was receiving Title I support. Deborah was explicit in reiterating the conditions for
testing. “No, no, no, Title I [students] do not get those accommodations, special
education does.” Deborah began to find her voice as an ethical leader when she said, “If
I had been there a minute later, and he had started to read that test to her, I would have
had to report it as an unethical practice.”

Deborah spoke with a classroom teacher and a music teacher about the
practice of ordering supplies and charging them to the school district over the summer.
They used a purchase order number that the former principal had given them. Deborah

did some checking about the legality of such a practice. By talking with the district

107

financial director, her suspicions were confirmed. So although the fourth-grade teacher
stopped unapproved on-line summer ordering, the music teacher continued. The former
principal had allowed the practice. Deborah explained, “It’s like taking my charge card
and charging something on my Visa without my permission.” Deborah made it clear that
“all purchase orders have to be approved by me. Then it goes to the finance director for
his signature.”

As financial collisions continued to surface, Deborah proceeded to use her voice
of authority to hold teachers accountable. The music teacher ordered recorders for her
students and wanted money deposited into a classroom account. She believed that she
had ownership of the money, rather than understanding that she belonged to an
organization with accountability for all monies. This became apparent when the teacher
sold a recorder that had been a free sample to a student hoping she could add the profit to
her classroom account. The secretary explained to the music teacher that, as money was
received from students for their recorders, it had to be placed in a district account that
would keep track of spending. The teacher did not seem to understand that, as an
individual, she did not have free access to school monies. She continued to act as a free
agent with district money when she asked the secretary to write her a check for Krispy
Kreme doughnuts, which were to be delivered for a special event. Deborah had several
conversations with her about the matter. “It took me three times to sit down with Katie
and tell her we needed an invoice. She kept saying to me, ‘Well, Tony [the previous
principal] did it last year. He did it for me last year.”’ Not only did Deborah spend time
with Katie because she wanted the teacher to understand her ethical responsibility
regarding money, but she believed she could make real progress only when she had

established a relationship with her. “You really need a relationship before you can

108

educate children to their fullest potential. Same thing with teachers—not that you have to
be best fiiends, but you have to have that relationship.”

Deborah not only experienced interesting tension in her building, she also
wrestled with district curriculum issues. She and another elementary principal planned a
districtwide staff-development day devoted to writing. Deborah believed teachers needed
help with getting “these kids to get some of their thoughts on paper.” The district
required common writings that took up to 3 days. She believed the idea was not being
carried out as intended when students sat idle instead of writing. “What a waste of time it
is for little Johnny to sit there for 3 days because he initially didn’t get any ideas down.”
Deborah tried to answer the question, “What are we going to do for these kids who, after
the first day, don’t have anything down on paper?” She presented her idea to the
districtwide teaching staff. “They [the students] have to brainstorm ideas, and they can
do it for homework and have their parents help.”

Deborah’s idea was influenced by her vision of parents as partners. “I don’t look
at it as cheating; I look at it as a kid who for 3 days doesn’t write and a teacher who
doesn’t have time to get in a little corner to help him brainstorm.” She believed a viable
option was to involve parents in helping the students. “Send it home and here’s our
parent partnership, and the majority of our parents would help these kids. And so what if
it’s the parents’ ideas on what to write about? It’s just a brainstorm map.” A second-
grade teacher asked Deborah, “What if the parent gives him all the ideas?” She replied,
“Well, they’re not going to come in with a written paper, but so what if the parent gives
him some ideas? At least then you’ve got a child writing on the second and third day.”
Deborah’s voice of authority did not go beyond her own building, even though she had a

thorough understanding of what “cheating” on the test meant. The teachers did not know

109

how she had stood up to ethical issues regarding tests and money, or that she had served
at the state level as a teacher advisor to the testing program. “They just thought it was
cheating.”
Summary

Deborah found a strategy to make sense of the complex work she encountered
during her first year in the principalship. She realized that by going to her office on
weekends, she could reflect and plan for the following week. “Going in on the weekends
was the way that I really was able to make sense of it and relieve stress. It made me feel
like I was ready to go for the next week.” It provided time for her to think about her
decisions. “There were times when I’d have to make decisions just like that. But I never
felt bad if I had to tell a teacher I wanted to think, that I had to investigate this or that and
that I’d get back to them.”

Deborah described her experience as a first-year principal as being “euphoric
even when you go home bone tired at night.” She was in the middle of school life, like a
compass setting the direction of the school. She collected data, surveyed situations, and
took action. She held children’s best interests at the core of decision making. The school
improvement plan represented Deborah’s effort to use data as the driving force for school
improvement in a collaborative environment with the teachers. “The school
improvement team and I met several times to write goals based upon previous
assessments. I am particularly proud of the school improvement document. We created
it together.”

Deborah had the habit of assessing situations before making decisions. She
realized the data charts in the school improvement plan gave teachers information about

declining achievement scores that they had never seen before. They had never used data

110

to inform their school improvement process. “The teachers have no idea. They have no
idea that’s [declining achievement scores] the trend.” Her practice of using data to drive
decisions was exemplified in an artifact she chose to represent her work. She created a
graph for each goal and gave a visual presentation of the academic needs of the students.
“That’s the piece I’m excited about.”

Deborah’s belief that leadership depends on relationships with staff, students, and
parents was evidenced in her words, “Capture the heart before you capture the mind.”
Metaphorically, she described her experience as follows: “The stars were leading a
school of teacher-leaders. Helping those needy children and having a significant hand
shaping a learning community that adhered to curricular changes; dovetailing with the
latest research on best practice in order to prepare minds for the 21St century.”

Jesse: Leadership for the Construction of a School Commqu From a
“Status (110” Climate to a Culture of Child Centered Leamirg
Introduction-Layig the Groundwork

Jesse and I met for the first time in her office. Finding her was difficult because
the main entrance to the school was locked as the custodians had begun their task of
summer cleaning. Even though it was just a day after the last day of school, desks were
piled high in the hallway. When I entered the building, I found my way around the large
floor scrubbers that had been strategically placed for summer cleaning. Jesse’s office
was tucked inside the main office. Her secretary was preoccupied when I arrived,
making me think momentarily that I had arrived on the wrong day. But when I peeked
into Jesse’s office, her warm smile welcomed me. It was the first time we had met face

to face, and we talked easily with each other.

111

When I entered Jesse’s office, she was engaged in end-of-school-year tasks.
Boxes and piles of papers surrounded her desk. Jesse, small in stature, portrayed an
image of coming up for air after holding her breath during an overwhelming school year.
Next to her desk was a poster that children in her building had created; she described it as
the “most significant thing in my office.” She referred to her planner, which she
explained as “very important,” and glanced through it to find a time for our first
interview.

We decided to meet at a coffee house for our interviews. For Jesse, meeting
outside of school was important. The coffee house would serve as a neutral place for the
reflection and privacy she desired, giving her freedom to talk openly about the experience
of being a first-year principal. “I think this will be helpful having someone outside but
who understands. I talk with my family, but they don’t really understand.”

We met at a picnic table behind the coffee shop in a small town about 30 miles
from Jesse’s school district. The picnic table sat in a shaded gazebo next to the river.
This was a relaxing enviromnent for our interviews. Jesse had a full weekend to rest
since school ended. “I didn’t realize how differently I slept until I slept over the
weekend. My muscles and my little aches and pains, you know, in my knee, even my
hair looks better today.” Jesse hadn’t realized how much stress she had been feeling as
her first year of the principalship came to a close. “I feel like a different human,
physically, not just emotionally.” As I invited her to begin talking, she said, “I’m going to
enjoy being in this project. I consider myself a reflective person.”

Assessing the climfi. “I have done a lot of assessing my first year.” Jesse not
only assessed the climate of the school, she also assessed herself. “One of my hardest

personal feats was not moving too fast. I am a very much ‘get it done,’ ‘full force ahead’

112

[person].” She realized that as a teacher she could move at her own pace, but that “as a
principal, change takes much longer.” She took a reading of the teachers in her first
weeks. “The staff, not as a total group, but most are not risk takers.” She found the
staff’s general response to change was “Let’s do what we are doing,” in contrast to her
own fast pace for change, which was distinct from the pace of the staff. “I’m not like
that.”

Jesse found herself wrestling with the tension between her desire to create a
school community for learning and the school climate of complacency about change. “I
have done a lot of biting my tongue and just cringing and a lot of being angry at Joe [the
former principal] because there were things contrary to district directives.” She believed
some of the need for change existed because curriculum changes had been neglected
before her arrival. “The staff is very much oriented to the book being the curriculum
instead of the curriculum coming fiom the state and books being a resource that you can
use.” She referred to the former'principal as a catalyst for the climate of complacency.
“His last couple of years, he did not want to take it [change] on.”

Creatingfllueprint for change: A vision. Jesse had a blueprint for change, a
vision for constructing a culture of child-centered learning. “I want to have a school
where the entire community owns what’s happening every day. And the entire
community can speak to the practices in that school being the best known practices for
kids.” Jesse placed children at the core of her blueprint. “It’s about creating citizens who
have the sense of belonging, that they need to know how important it is to nurture each
other and inspire each other, not only as children, but as adolescents and adults.” She
believed “the vision speaks out through the children in the building.” Jesse expected the

school to be “a school that is ready for the kids, not always saying the kids need to be

113

ready for us because we want every child to grow and develop at his or her own rate.”
But she faced many challenges and critical incidents as she began her journey of leading
the construction of a school community from a status quo climate to a culture of child-
centered learning.
Every decision I make I try, if it is not time pressed, to really think about how it
will affect kids and then how it will affect the teacher and think about how I
would have received it and what would it have meant for learning in my
classroom. Would it have helped learning? Helped my teaching? Then, in turn,
would it help kids?
Jesse’s first year continued to be guided by her vision as she faced leadership challenges
and critical incidents in the daily practice of being a principal.
Jesse’s F irst-Year Story ThroughLeadership
Challenges and Critical Incidents
A new face of leadershij. When Jesse decided to apply for a principalship in her
own school district, everyone in the school district knew that she was interviewing. “One
of the things that made me really angry when I applied was a little scuttle about ‘What is
she even thinking, having two little babies? What kind of a mother would do that
[become a principal with two babies]?” Jesse explained that she had tried to shrug off the
comments (“You kind of just brush it off,”), but she found herself thinking, “Don’t pass
judgment on me. You don’t know my circumstances. You don’t know my family. You
don’t know how everybody’s life runs a little differently.”
Colleagues sometimes made comments like “You deserve time with your
children.” The tone of the words suggested to Jesse that she was not being fair to her
family by becoming a principal. “Well, yes I do deserve the time with my family, but

don’t make it sound like I neglect them.” Jesse experienced a struggle to balance family

and career, and the judgment she felt from other people complicated her feelings. One of

114

her fiiends, another working mother and principal told her, “They’re your fiiends, but
there’s just this little part of them that wants to see you not be able to do it because it
would make them feel better.” At first, Jesse did not quite believe her fiiend. “And I
almost denied it at that point, but I think she was right.” Jesse perceived judgment from
her own staff as well. She thought, “You see me every day. You should know better.”
Being judged as less of a leader because she was a mother aroused strong feelings in
Jesse. “It’s very frustrating. I feel it’s an injustice.” The suggestion that she was
compromising motherhood to have a career as a principal led her to keep some of her
challenges private. “Some of the hard times I’ve gone through this year, I haven’t shared
with them. I didn’t feel comfortable sharing, almost like it would be an ‘I told you so.’
Or see, you shouldn’t have tried that to begin with.” Jesse wrestled with this tension
throughout her first year as a principal, especially in the relationship with her secretary.
m in the structure interrapts pragess in the flu office. Fighting back
tears, Jesse said, “I never believed one person could make or break you. But now I do.”
The contentious relationship with her secretary was like a crack penetrating the
foundation of her work. She explained that her secretary was “so significant in [my] day-
to-day functioning, so significant.” The secretary’s attitude caused tension on an on-
going basis. Jesse wanted to know that her secretary would support her in her role as a
mother, as well as in her role as the principal. “I need someone who understands I’m a
mom.” When she needed to leave the building because of her maternal obligations, she
wanted “someone who will cover for me.” She worried about the secretary relaying
messages that would undermine her competence. “She had a hard time with me as a
principa .” Jesse wanted to know that “damage isn’t going to be done, even when you’re

somewhere else.”

115

Jesse explained that her secretary should be “somebody that I can trust and that
can be that confidante that I can vent to when I’m frustrated.” When Jesse faced
challenges and critical incidents, her secretary was not someone she could “bounce
something off of and know that it won’t go any further than her.” In private, Jesse “told
her that some things just needed to stay in the office and not get repeated.” She needed a
school secretary who “had loyalties to my vision, not necessarily to me.” Jesse explained,
“I did not have that.” She found that she was not able to leave the building freely for
district meetings. “It’s hard to be there mentally. You need support in your office
because when you leave that office, somebody else has to drive the helm of the ship . . . .
When it comes to the whole experience, the isolation (of the year) would have been a lot
better had I had that.”

Facing the unergrected: “My building is fallingapart and so a_n_r_l. A set of keys to
the building, one of Jesse’s artifacts representing her first year as a principal, emphasized
some of the tensions she experienced. “The keys represent the baggage that comes with
the job,” Jesse explained. Out of the description of her keys emerged the challenge of the
unexpected and the challenge to balance time between home and school.

I had all these pipes bursting, classrooms flooding, the refiigerator in the lounge

caught fire, and then I had a kindergartner I was restraining every day. It was my

third late-night meeting and I was feeling guilty as a mother and as a wife, and

Jackie [a principal colleague] and I walked to the parking lot and I just started

crying. I did not know if this [being a principal] was what I wanted. I did not

know who I was. I was running around plugging pipes. I had not spent time with
kids at school or my kids at home. It was awful. It was right before MEAP [high-
stakes state testing program] testing [and] I said we cannot have rooms flooding
when the kids are taking the MEAP test. I would be in a classroom and the kids
would be in the middle of something. You would be hearing hissing, smell
burning, and the gushing . . . . This was happening over and over and over again.

It was just this really hard time. It was about a month in length.

In retrospect, Jesse described her “meltdown” as “one particular time during the

year when my vision was so lost, and I was not only lost as a principal but was lost as a

116

mother and wife.” She reflected on how she had been able to emerge fiom her
disillusionment. “We had a midwinter break, and this was the first year our district has
done that—it must have been a gift from God. Those days fell right at the right time so I
could get back on track.”

Finding time for constructinLthe vision: A labor of love. “The atmosphere of
learning together is what I’m trying to create,” Jesse told me. But she was up against a
status-quo school culture that had preceded her. She found that “people did not even
know what school improvement really was.” The knowledge that the former principal
“never used data from the kids” solidified her assessment. She also found that teachers
did not engage in professional conversations. “I think people share ideas, but I don’t
know if they really share practice.” She also established that the climate did not support
the kind of learning she wanted for the teachers. “A lot of times my teachers didn’t feel
like they were treated like professionals.”

“1 had all these anxieties about whether they [teachers] were going to like me.
But there were all these little things that I had learned [as a teacher]: how good it felt to
be trusted and treated like a professional. That is what I wanted to do for them.” Jesse
determined that one of the reasons teachers were not treated like professionals was that
the former principal had given them limited access to resources. She decided to let the
teachers make their own copies. It would change the use of their time and use fewer
office resources, and “it was like this big ‘wild fire’ rumor among the staff that they were
going to be able to make their own COpies!” Before, they had not been allowed to touch
the copier. Jesse wanted the teachers to know she trusted them. “It starts with little
things like the procedural issues, like letting teachers have access to the supply room.”

When Jesse talked about the procedural issues at the first staff meeting, the teachers

117

applauded. “I was thinking, ‘this must be how the president feels.’ They had really
yearned for some kind of trust and the feeling of being a professional.” Jesse attributed
her understanding of the teachers’ needs for professional trust to her teaching experience.
“Those are probably the first things that came from being a teacher.”

Jesse continued to work to make management decisions that would free up time
for teachers to talk about children. She wanted to carve time out of staff meetings by
eliminating the sharing of information that could be put in writing. “We have to talk
about kids, so everything that I can put out in writing, I am trying to do.” She explained,
“I want it to go beyond the surface stuff, beyond the academic facade of what we have to
do, and get more into the process of teaching, the process of learning, and ourselves as
learners.”

Jesse thought that communicating with e-mail was essential in attempting to
create more time. “I had to get them checking e-mail.” But she faced a prevalent
negative attitude among teachers about technology. “Some teachers thought they were
too old to check e-mail.” To complicate the situation, “Joe [the former principal] was a
big memo king.” He used written memos to relay information to the staff. Jesse thought
about how to shift the status-quo culture regarding technology. So when she discovered
that her 81-year-old lunch assistant wanted to learn to use e-mail, she decided to use her
for a model for the rest of the staff. She told her, “You are such a model of lifelong
learning for everyone.” Jesse wanted the rest of the staff to see her using e-mail, so she
would “send her somewhere to check it where there were kids and staff to help her.”
Jesse explained that “it worked. She kind of became this ‘role model,’ and I did not hear
the ‘too old’ thing anymore. They quit asking about memos.” Jesse continued to make

small changes during the school year as she shifted the school culture to include

118

professional conversations. She said, “I am just getting to the point [end of first year]
where I can craft time to make it all about kids and professional development.”

Paralleling the shift to use school time differently, Jesse experienced challenges
about balancing time between home and school. “One of the principals said to me,
‘Don’t you ever feel like you’re taking care of everyone else’s kids but your own?’ I
didn’t put words on it, but there were a couple of times I felt that way.” When Jesse was
hired, she was certain central office staff knew her priorities. “My supervisors know I’ll
sacrifice for this position. But I won’t sacrifice my family.” Yet, there were times when
she sacrificed family time for school time.

A principal colleague Jesse depended on for support decided to leave the
principalship and go back to the classroom. Jesse’s eyes welled up with tears as she
recalled the reason her fiiend left the principalship: she couldn’t balance time. As Jesse
talked about the loss of her mentor, she thought outloud, “How many times have I told
my husband that I’d be home at 5:00 and not walk in until 5:30 or 6:00 because
somebody needed me?” She wrestled with balancing time throughout the school year. In
retrospect, she recalled, “The times that I felt overwhelmed or questioned can I really do
this job, was when my balance was not equal in all parts of my life.” Jesse recalled how
she tried to manage her time with family. “Now I say to myself, ‘You are getting sucked
into this job. You need to pull away.”’ Throughout the first year, Jesse continued to find
it difficult to balance time at school and time at home.

LeadinLthe school vision through the len_s of a teacher. Jesse’s vision began to
emerge when she shadowed the former principal to learn about the building. “I followed
a man who stayed in his office. Kids were afraid of him. The secretary liked him.

Teachers were afiaid of him. I’m totally different from the principal before me. We are

119

very different. When he introduced me as the new principal, I would stop and talk with
kids. I sat at the lunch table, and he was standing in the hall.” Jesse believed the
difference between her and her predecessor was striking and attributed it to her
background as a teacher. “That comes from being a teacher and learning how you need
to connect with kids to be able to get anywhere with them.”

Comparing herself with the former principal triggered reflection about her style of
leadership and how it came to be. “[There are] innate qualities that I have that I think
many teachers have.” She could not turn off the teacher in her. “It is a part of who you
are, that when you see kids at the grocery store, you talk with them and reach out to them,
make a lesson out of the little things they are doing.” Jesse described her innate teacher
qualities as “synonymous with the joy of what I do.” She drew a parallel between her
work as a kindergarten teacher and her work as a principal. “A kindergarten teacher has
to be a really good manager. They come [the children] not knowing any of the norms at
all. That helped me. I told my colleagues that [experience] helped me so much being a
principal. You sort of go from the aspect of assuming nothing.”

Jesse used her teaching background when there was talk of redistricting some of
the students. In response to changing school boundaries, the former principal had said,
“If I had any say in redrawing the district lines, I would give those Pine Grove and those
Cedar Square kids away to another school.” During the first weeks of school, Jessie saw
how these children “turned the whole place upside down.” But for her it was a positive
challenge. “They really shook things up, and I love that.” She realized others did not
share her vision. “Unfortunately, not everybody saw it as an opportunity.” The children
fi'om those two neighborhoods made up the majority of the students who were eligible for

free and reduced price lunch, about 25% of the student population. “I had all my free and

120

reduced lunch kids coming to breakfast. During this time “they were typically out of
control.” So Jesse drew on her experience as a teacher when she began talking with the
students about breakfast and “planted a seed about starting a club.” When the students
seemed enthusiastic about the idea, she responded. “We started a club and called it the
Breakfast Book Club.” She used her classroom teaching experience to choose literature
that would capture the children’s attention. “We put away all the cafeteria tables, and the
kids would lie on the blankets and I would be in the front.” She described how “a six-
foot-tall, ZOO-pound sixth grader was included in the Breakfast Book Club” and the
teachers “were amazed to see him so entranced.” The enthusiasm for reading was a
payoff for making the morning breakfast time meaningful to students. “Some of the kids
would ask to borrow the book [that was read during breakfast] to show their teacher.”
Jesse found the time with children valuable. “I would give the kids suggestions for
including this [book] in readers’ workshop. It was like teaching time for me,” and “it
really changed the culture.” Jesse knew the teachers’ attitudes about the children were
shifting when the teachers “started volunteering to read” to the children during breakfast
club.

Jesse’s teaching experience also was evidenced at the first all-school assembly.
“We had a couple of assemblies early in the year, and fi'om what I hear, my predecessor
used to kind of stand and wait until everybody’s quiet kind of thing.” She, on the other
hand, drew fi'om her experience as a teacher. “I got up in fiont and said, ‘If you can hear
my voice, clap once; if you can hear my voice, clap twice.”’ The 400 children in the
student body immediately became quiet, and Jesse set the tone for subsequent assemblies.

“I told them what I would expect when we listen to someone speak at an assembly.” The

121

teachers proclaimed, “Wow!” in response to her work with the children. Jesse interpreted
this to mean that “the teachers want another teacher [as the principal].”

Jesse believed that one way to help and support teachers through change was to
model behaviors similarly to how she had modeled appropriate behaviors to her students
as a teacher. She used modeling to help shift the school culture, and noted that “change
can be so painfirl for people.” She reflected that “some changes have occurred through
modeling, which I am thankfirl for. I think it is best that people ‘own it.”’

One teacher observed how Jesse talked with children individually in the hallway
and at student assemblies. “The teacher told me that she used to yell at her class, and she
always felt that it was okay because there was always somebody who yelled more than
her.” After Jesse modeled how to get the children’s attention by using a soft voice, the
teacher told Jesse that “she watched how I get control of the kids and she did not feel
right yelling anymore.” Furthermore, “I made a statement at the first staff meeting that I
would expect kids to be greeted.” Following this statement to the staff, Jesse modeled her
expectations. “I am out in the halls every morning. It has changed the climate, but it is
beginning to change the culture.”

Jesse not only used modeling to effect change, she also believed that it was
important to reinforce good behavior. “One of the most effective, authentic ways to do
so is just like you do with kids. You have this child who is totally misbehaving, and if
they just happen to sit in their seat because they are staring at something for 5 minutes,
you praise them and reinforce their good behavior.” Jesse transferred the principle of
reinforcement to her work with teachers. “It is doing the same thing to the staff in a more
adult way. [For example], I was passing by and I saw that your kids were all involved in

the science lab. Tell me about that.” Jesse modeled behaviors as a way to make her

122

vision observable. She explained, “Make your vision authentic to other people and make
them keepers of the vision.” She reflected about her strategies of modeling and
reinforcement to make her vision visible: “1 would say I have done a lot of that.”

S_tayr_'ng the course in the face of contrmtions and loneliness. Jesse explained,
“I’m a really, really sensitive person, and one of the reasons that I held off on becoming a
principal is because you had to have this really thick skin and be uncaring and
insensitive.” But she still wanted to be a principal. “When I realized that that fit wasn’t
happening and probably wouldn’t happen, I thought ‘That’s probably a good thing
because I wouldn’t want to work for somebody like that.”’ Even though she thought as a
teacher she would not want to work for a principal with “thick skin,” she wanted to
develop a kind of “toughness” to survive. “A little bit this year I’ve really had to toughen
up to survive. I’ve had to not let things bother me, and I’m so surprised that I’ve been
able to do that.”

The change Jesse was experiencing initiated self-reflection. “There is a little girl
part of you who wants to say, ‘That is not right.’ You are in tune to that, and so things
hurt more. If I was not that way, I could just say, ‘The hell with you,’ and barge
through.” She wrestled with the contradiction of who she was as a leader and who she
thought she should be. “I have had to in some ways become that way [thick-skinned],
and it is so uncomfortable and it is not who I want to be.” She tried to make sense of her
identity by asking herself questions. “On the flip side, I know I can do that when I have
to, but I don’t like it. I stop and think about if I did not have that strength, would I be the
principal that I want to be? Would I be a principal that I would want to work with? The

answer is no. It is a dilemma that I have not found a clear-cut answer to.”

123

Along with the contradictions about her identity, Jesse experienced isolation in
the principalship. In a conversation with her husband, they determined, “This part of the
journey we knew would be hardest for you.” When she reflected back on that
conversation she said, “And it is. And I think it will always be; just the alone part.
There’s just no other way to put it.” She did not find the loneliness surprising. “The
surprise was that I still expected there would be some collegiality, kinship between
principals, even though they weren’t right there.” She recalled her experience with other
principals in the district: “It’s very businesslike when principals sit down at the table.”
She spoke of committee work with teachers: “When you sit down with a group of
teachers, people talk about personal things first. Always. Always. And I mean
sometimes it’s even hard to shift them into the professional part of the whole thing.”
Drawing on her experience as a teacher, she said, “That has to happen for a group of

people to be healthy. And I wonder if principals, as a group, are healthy.”

Summary: The Groundwork is Laid: The Foundation is Solid

Learning_about being a principal means you have to become a principal. For
Jesse, being a first-year principal felt like “you’re in a dark, dark place and you just sort
of have to feel the wall and try to figure out where you’re at.” As she described the
darkness of the cave, and trying to find her way through its vastness, she added an image
of challenges, “a cave that’s got a bear in it.” She continued to reflect on the first year by
adding, “Or you know, flying bats” of the unexpected, “it’s so unknown.” She believed
learning about being a principal meant you had to become a principal; “Even if you have
someone who’s your coach, your mentor, your partner, there’s a certain amount of stress
that you have to go through. You just really have to feel your way through that first

time.”

124

Yet Jesse had times when she did not have to feel her way through cavelike
darkness. She knew how to support children. While describing one of her artifacts, a
book that represented a student, she described him as “obSessive defiant. He really has
trouble with authority; he is one that I bonded with right away.” Jesse gave him time in
the office when he needed a break from the classroom; his teacher would ask him to “go
borrow a book” from the principal. During these times, Jesse developed a relationship
with him. “We would plan when I would wear this red suit that he liked because his
favorite color was red. He would then wear his red sweater.” Jesse treasured the book as
an artifact that symbolized her child-focused work. She explained that when the bats, the
challenges, came flying out of the dark, like the broken pipes or exploding boilers, “I
keep this here [the book] because with all of that, it helps me remember what it [the job]
is all about.” Darkness described the part of the job that did not involve children. “I
never realized all of the other stuff that comes with being a principal. I can tell you more
on univents and boilers than ever. I don’t even like that stuff.”

The cracks in the foundation are patched: The first year ends with hope. Jesse
received a pocket knife in the mail, labeled with her school name. “This is to remind me
about control. So many things that people think you can control, you can’t. You just
have to accept that.” However, Jesse learned there were some things that she could
control. “It is all about choices. You can choose to get mad or you can choose to work
through the problem. She reflected on her meltdown during the first months of the school
year. “I should have taken my own advice during that meltdown.”

Rajuvenation. Jesse reflected on the opportunity to talk about her first—year
experience:

Talking with you is like . . . or. . . this experience as a participant in this study has
been like . . . I would say therapy. I really would. And healing. Because of the

125

hurt that you go through as a new person in this job and the loneliness. I mean,

for me, it’s just been therapy, and I feel rejuvenated. In the isolation of things,

you and your own feelings continue to isolate yourself because there’s not anyone
there to connect to. You just need not only to talk to somebody but to talk to
somebody that’s not involved in your district, and have a contact outside so that
you can unload. You know, with somebody who’s in the district there’s always
that string of connections that runs through everything you tell them.

Even though Jesse juggled her schedule and responsibilities, as well as time away
from her children to participate in the interviews, she said, “I so need to take the time
away from [my district], away from my family, away fiom my community and reflect on
this and search through this [first-year experience].” Referring to the challenge of
keeping a balance between family and school, she said, “Somehow I think we all have to
find a place where we can draw that line but still feel okay.”

At the end of the year, the personnel director told Jesse she “had done really well
this year and he knew of no one who has had so many different things happen in one
year.” When Jesse received a job offer from a neighboring school district that would pay
her $20,000 dollars more in salary, she refused the offer. She reasoned, “I have to go
back. I started a lot of great things, laid groundwork for some things to happen. I am sort
of just getting to the point where I can craft that time to make it all about kids and
professional development.” Jesse explained that being a principal was a mission, “not a
job. It’s a hard profession to live.”

Meredith: Spirited Leadership for Ingrovement --

From Complacency to Competence

Introduction: A Background of Strength —
Three Critiaal Life Incidents

Meredith chose the location for our first meeting, a cozy coffee shop. She had
been on vacation with her husband and daughters and was ready to begin her second year

as an elementary school principal. Time with her preschool-age daughters had been

126

Meredith’s first priority for the summer, so our talk together came at the end of her
vacation. She talked easily about her first year in the principalship and reflected on her
experiences. She shared with me three critical life incidents that provided a window into
her strengths, into the spirit of who she was as a person and as a leader. Listening to her
was a gripping experience because of her raw honesty. This introductory section offers
insight into the compelling, humble manner in which she led the process of learning fi'om
the inside of her spirit to the leadership of her school community.

Meredith played on the varsity volleyball team as a high school sophomore until
she broke a rule, a rule that did not make sense to her. She practiced and she played with
determination, but she refirsed to take a shower at school. She simply wanted to shower at
home. “I used to walk back there [shower room], close the door, turn on the shower and
leave. I never took a shower there. I honestly took one at home.” When one of
Meredith’s teammates told on her, she was kicked off the team. She went to her coach
and asked, “I understand that I’m off the team. But can I still come to practice and can I
still come and sit at the games and be a part of the team?” The coach let her stay, but
would not allow her to play in matches. “It was huge for me to stay on and continue even
though I couldn’t play.” She missed the opportunity to participate in a sport, so she tried
to join the softball team. The volleyball coach would not let her play in another sport,
even though technically she was not on the volleyball team. “Even though I was kicked
off, I was still a part of that team and it was my responsibility to be there, to stick it out.”
Meredith heard from the coach years later: “I really respected you for coming back.
Most kids would have left.” Meredith still believed that it was important to “never quit in

the middle.”

127

Meredith’s first job was teaching as a long-term substitute. She thought she had
clinched the firll-time position when the teacher she was replacing resigned. But instead,
she was denied the position. She was devastated. Her eyes filled with tears as she
recounted the superintendent’s words: “Meredith, the enthusiasm, and the passion you
have blows us away. The reason you were brought back in for a second interview is
because, as much as we wanted to hire you, we needed to listen to your language.” He
explained to Meredith that her use of slang, “like anythin’ instead of anything,” was a
problem. He made his position clear. “Our parents wouldn’t accept that. I know this is
devastating to you and I really think if you work on something like this, you will be
awesome. We want to hire you, but we can’t.” Meredith was distraught. “I cried for 3
days. I don’t think I left my house. It was devastating.” She had to look inside herself
and recapture the same kind of determination she had used in high school during the
volleyball experience.

Sometime after this exchange with the superintendent, Meredith was out with
fiiends one night and saw her friend Mitch. She had been working on her language and
thought she had improved. She said, “Hey Mitch, I seen you yesterday at the golf
course.” He responded, “And you’re teaching our kids at Main Street School, for god’s
sakes.” Meredith told me, “There were probably 20 people sitting at the table.” This
embarrassing experience was etched in her memory. “That was an awakening moment
when he said that in fiont of everybody.” She looked right at him and, in front of 20
people, asked for his help: “You have to point it out to me. I can’t hear it. I know that
sounds crazy, but I guess I don’t know how to use seen and saw. You have to really
work with me.” She had begun listening to her parents’ conversations and realized that

she had grown up hearing language misused. Meredith explained, “We worked through

128

it, and then I got my first job where I went to school and where I did my student
teaching.” She was hesitant to talk, worried she would misuse language. She “became
very, very gun shy talking in a group. Misusing seen and saw as an educator, that’s bad.”
She continued to overcome her challenges with language. However, she was not deterred
fi'om her goal to become a teacher or a principal. Her spirit was resilient and her thirst to
learn increased.

These three critical incidents laid the foundation for understanding why Meredith
was listening to audiotapes in her car on the way to our second interview. “I’m working
on building my vocabulary,” she explained. “I just don’t feel like I have a strong
vocabulary.” She identified a limited vocabulary as her “only reason for being nervous
of going into a new position or a new place.” As a first—year principal and mother of two
preschoolers, she did not have extra time for personal learning. “I listen on my way to
work, on my way to meetings.” She not only worked to improve her vocabulary, she
raised expectations for herself. “Gosh, why didn’t I know that word? Am I using it the
right way?” She fought back tears as she described her personal learning journey. “It just
feels like every night at 11:00 [I’m] going through books, listening to tapes. And not only
that, but I also know that I need to be reading books on leadership and things that are
going to help me. And parenting things. I should be doing that. I know. It does
sometimes feel like a lot.” When Meredith apologized for her tears she explained, “It’s
just that you understand. You know, my mom would never understand. My husband
does to a certain degree.” Even though her family listened to her, she did not sense a deep
acceptance of her experience. “They just really don’t understand.”

Meredith had transformed her life incidents into the qualities epitomizing an

exceptional teacher and educational leader. “Because of not being a really good student,

129

I think that’s part of what made me a good teacher, because I could sympathize with them
[the students].” Meredith saw how the lack of empathy affected students when she taught
with a very bright teacher. “She was really, really intelligent and if the kids didn’t get it,
she just couldn’t understand why, and it was fi'ustrating to her.” Meredith understood the
frustrations of learning. She believed that when the students did not “get it,” it was the
teacher’s responsibility to “break it down in different ways.”

Meredith’s Her F irst-Year Story Throgh Leadership

CMImges and Critical Incidents

Visibility, listenimd visioningguide the principalship. Meredith entered the
principalship knowing she wanted to be a principal who was visible to students, teachers,
and parents. She had learned about the importance of principal visibility when she was a
teacher. “I had five principals.” Out of the five principals, only one visited her
classroom. “She would sit down and talk to the kids, or she’d come over and just watch.
And I thought that was pretty amazing.” The building was very large, and Meredith was
just one member of a large staff. She thought, “Look at all these classrooms she has to go
into. And she did it.” The next principal was in the building for 2 years, and “he never
came in.” Meredith remembered one time when he entered her classroom. He stopped by
to tell her he was retiring. “That was the only time he was ever in there.”

When Meredith became a principal, she began visiting every classroom every
day. She realized that she would create a wave of change for the teachers by visiting the
classrooms frequently. “It was very difficult in the beginning for teachers.” She wanted
to establish herself with teachers as well as with children. She explained that “having
connections with the kids” is important. Thus, she increased her visibility to the children;

“I went into the lunchroom every day.”

130

Meredith’s determination to visit the classrooms remained consistent even though
“some days it was difficult to visit every classroom.” She put paperwork in the
background so that she could keep teachers and children in the foreground. “If it’s three
o’clock and my desk is like this [messy], I walk out and I spend 45 rrrinutes in the
classrooms.” She had to juggle her management tasks to make classroom visits a
priority. At times it meant returning to school at night. “I was back at school until 1 1 :00
last night.” Or it meant taking work home. Meredith did not like to miss visiting
classrooms. “It really bothers me. And the kids love it.”

Committed to her belief that visibility matters, Meredith made herself visible to
parents, both physically and through home-school communications. “1 make sure that I
send a newsletter home once a month.” She also invited parents to school on a regular
basis so she could make herself available to them. “I had the parent-principal chats.”
Furthermore, it became her normal practice to be visible whenever possible. “I try to
walk out in the hallway at the end of the day to talk to the parents while they’re waiting
for their Children.”

Consistent with her practice to seize opportunities for communication and
visibility, Meredith led the staff in a change for the fall school open house. “I made a big
change, and it was huge. It used to be parents walked around the classrooms and left.”
Instead, Meredith invited all of the parents to gather in the gym so that she could meet
them. She had also devised a plan with the teachers whereby they would prepare to
speak with the parents in their classrooms. For the first time, the open house was used as
an opportunity to talk about curriculum. “When [parents] went back to the classrooms,
they heard about learning expectations from the teachers, and the curriculum that was to

be covered.”

131

“I’ve never been in a real productive meeting with anybody,” Meredith stated.
She had worked for a principal who used a list of dates and events as the focus of each
staff meeting. “And it used to drive me crazy and would be our whole staff meeting.”
Meredith approached her principal about it. “We can read all this, and we will; we’re
responsible. We’ll take it back and read it.” But he did not change his practice. So
Meredith “vowed that I would never do that. Mine [staff information] is very brief. It’s
not up for discussion.” She wanted to reserve staff meeting time for discussion about
teaching and learning. “Your staff time is very valuable. You don’t have a lot of it.” She
also used staff time for community building. “I try to do something fun to get us together
at the beginning and end of meetings.” Although the approach was different, “some of
them [the teachers] love it.”

Meredith learned about the importance of listening when she was a classroom
teacher. “I was always a really good listener to my kids.” She learned about her students
by listening; “I found out about them personally.” As a principal Meredith continued the
practice, not only with children but with teachers as well. She found herself “listening to
their stories; I feel like I’m doing that all the time now.” She not only listened, but tried
to respond. “I’m trying to keep up with everybody’s life and make sure I ask about it.”

Meredith’s vision for her school grew out of her passion and love for children. “I
want to see all kids succeed, and they all can.” Looking back on her teaching Meredith
recalled, “I had built relationships with those kids and they respected me as much as 1
respected them. More than just respect, it’s that relationship. You’re willing to help
them and not make them look stupid.” Meredith explained that she also learned how
important it was to differentiate for students, “not just the instruction but the way they are

treated. There are some kids that need more.” Her vision seemed clear: “It’s all about

132

the kids. That’s why we’re here. We need to make sure that what we’re doing is what
makes sense for the children.”

Le_arning to be a Enema] by beirg a principal. Meredith laughed at her previous
lack of knowledge about how principals spend their time. When I asked how she had
envisioned a principal’s day during the hiring process she responded, “I don’t know
[chuckling]. Kick back in the office looking research up on the computer, and as far as I
know the secretary runs the school!” She explained that, fiom her teacher perspective, “it
looked like the secretary ran the school.” In the school where she had taught there were
1,000 students, and her principal was never around. “He wasn’t involved. So it was hard
coming from the classroom to envision what [my] days would be like.” On the other
hand, Meredith described the transition from her role as a teacher to that of principal as
being like “chewing gum, it was so natural. I guess I was ready for it.” By natural she
also meant she could simultaneously learn and lead. “I can walk and chew at the same
time!”

Although it seemed natural, Meredith’s experience of being a first-year principal
was full of challenges. “Learning the ropes of a new school, a new district, the
curriculum and establishing relationships with my staff, it was like finding water in the
middle of the desert.” Meredith wanted to support teachers, and she valued relationships
with her staff in the same way she had valued relationships with her students when she
was a teacher. “I’ve always done that. I’ve always built relationships.” As a teacher it
was for one classroom. As a principal, she said, “I feel like I need to create that
environment within the school.” But it was a much bigger challenge than she had

imagined it would be.

133

“I went in [to the principalship] with a mindset of a teacher, thinking I have to
take care of my teachers.” Meredith explained, “I truly wanted to back my teachers.”
She transferred the ability to be flexible from her experience as a teacher. “As a
classroom teacher you did need to be flexible, but yet you needed to stand your ground,
but in a very different light than now [as a principal].” She knew that being the principal
entailed different responsibilities. “The biggest change for me . . . is when I’m thinking
of managing a staff.” She initially thought of theprincipal as managing teachers without
realizing there was a large group of non instructional staff. “It’s my support staff, my
custodian, parents and students.” She knew that supervising a staff was a hefty
responsibility. “I knew that. But there are a lot of constituents out there that we have to
make happy.”

Working with varied staff members was challenging. Meredith found herself
working with a teacher who was having difficulty; “I’m trying to keep my eye on her.”
She was also working with parents whose children were in the classroom of the teacher
having difficulties. “I’m getting these phone calls from parents,” she explained. At the
same time, she had concerns about other nonteaching staff members.

“The custodian has not been cleaning the cafeteria floor. Every day I have to

check the floor. I have to go check the library. I check my office. I go find him.

I say, “Did you clean the cafeteria today?” ‘Yeah.” “Are you sure? Can you

come and take a look with me? I just want to show you a few things I noticed on

the floor. I’m really disappointed.” So I have to walk him around . . . It’s like
constant. I’m checking up.

She soon discovered that the bus drivers also needed her attention. “I walked out
to the bus drivers and I said, ‘I’m very concerned about the kids getting off the bus. Our
bell hasn’t rung. They’re [children] just standing in the parking lot.” After the bus driver

made some excuse, Meredith asked, “So are you telling me that you’re okay with the kids

being out here unsupervised?” When the bus driver tried to downplay the situation,

134

Meredith reiterated the problem: “I have 270 kids standing in the parking lot with
nobody [supervising them]. Are you okay with that?” Meredith then made a suggestion
that seemed obvious: “Keep the children on the bus . . . until the bell rings.” Indeed,
there were more people to lead and manage than she initially had realized.

Leading among the needs of teachers, children, and parents. I’ve had some
parents tell me, “I know you’re going to turn this school around.” But Meredith had
begun to realize there were some things she could not control. “There’s not always a lot
you can do,” she admitted. Things you could influence took time. For example, she
could not address the challenge of a kindergarten teacher who needed guidance as
speedily as parents had hoped. One of the parents told Meredith, “It’s so nice that I can
come in and talk to you because I couldn’t with Seth [previous principal] last year.”
Several parents informed Meredith that they had tried to speak with the former principal
about the kindergarten teacher. “There should have been some documentation about
her,” they said, but there wasn’t. Meredith knew that Seth, the former principal, had not
completed a formal evaluation for any of the teachers during the 4 years he was principal.
The teachers had not received any feedback about their practice. “He never did an
evaluation for four years.” Regarding the kindergarten teacher, Meredith began assuring
parents that she would listen to their concerns. “If I have any [parent concerns], this year
I won’t let it go.”

Meredith collected data from the parents about their concerns. She also observed
the kindergarten teacher and listened to the way she responded to children. In doing so
she learned that the parents’ concerns were valid. After her first observation of the
teacher, Meredith wondered, “Why does she have to be so belittling?” Yet it was difficult

to give the teacher specific examples of inappropriate actions. The problem was not

135

always visible because “she’s going to be more careful when I’m there. I know that.”
Meredith planned to talk with the teacher about her facial expressions. She wrestled with
what to say. “I’m getting these phone calls [from parents] that say ‘she makes mean
faces, and it’s not just one phone call.” With subjective information, Meredith was not
sure how to represent the parents’ concerns. The tensions increased for Meredith when
the parents did not want to be identified. In her words, “I’ve been in a quandary over
this.”

Finding herself with the tension of trying to do the right thing for children, as well
as for teachers and parents, Meredith asked herself several questions: “How do I speak
with the teacher about specific examples without using names? How do I respond when
the teacher tells me that, no matter what parents said, ‘Seth [the former principal] backed
me 100%?” So Meredith speculated about how to help the teacher change her
perception. “The perception is that she’s just being herself and she’s being okay in the
classroom. The children’s perception is that she’s mad all the time.” Meredith thought,
“I want to talk to her a little bit about maybe that’s not how you’re feeling, but this is how
the kids are feeling about it.” The heart of the issue was that the children “were not
feeling safe in there.”

I don’t know how. but I’m doing it anyway. Meredith talked about the inner
struggle she experienced in which she questioned her own competence. She thought
about how she had learned to be a teacher. “I learned to be a teacher from teaching.” She
recalled her path of learning: “I don’t know that it was from my education that I learned
how to teach, but through teaching and being with the kids. I felt like I was pretty
effective.” She realized that being a teacher was different than supervising other teachers.

“When it comes to working with teachers, I mean, it’s just like you’re evolving. I

136

haven’t had any background. And even though you could do it yourself [teach] in the
classroom, it’s very different.” While wrestling with her own doubts, Meredith was
supporting a fourth-year teacher who seemed to be struggling. She believed she could be
supportive because the teacher had specific needs that Meredith could address. “That one
was a little bit easier for me to help because when I went in, I was doing formal
observations.”

Meredith also collected informal information about another teacher. “The teacher
does everything whole group as far as reading.” Because Meredith knew how children
learn from her teaching experience, she could draw some conclusions. “They’re all
reading the same thing . . . Some of them need to remediate.” But Meredith was
apprehensive about stepping in; she said, “I don’t know how to approach something like
that. And even if I did, it may not be that [literacy].” Meredith worried about her
competence aside from literacy. “How do you approach something like that?”

Meredith tried to make sense of her apprehension about approaching teachers
regarding their practice. “I question myself.” Referring to teaching literacy to the whole
class as a group she said, “That’s not how I taught,” but “maybe this whole class thing is
okay.” She asked herself, “When do I step in?” As a teacher she was confident. She
realized her own strengths and weaknesses, but she had doubts about her judgment of
other teachers. “In my classroom I knew what I was comfortable with. I knew where I
took the kids from and where they were at. I knew that it was effective. But how do I
say to a teacher, ‘This is what I think is effective?’ Because maybe her whole class
[teaching] is effective.”

Meredith thought about the implementation of “best practice” in the classroom.

but she was not confident about the terminology. She confessed, “I’m confused by the

137

term. There’s so many [best practices] out there and so many different ways to do
things.” She sorted out her thoughts while she was talking. She claimed her own
definition from her teaching experience by asking the question and then answering it.
“What is best practice? Meredith believed the teacher should be able to say, “I put it into
practice. This worked. I liked it.”

Meredith’s apprehensions did not seem to hinder her ability to lead as she guided
a shift with regard to literacy instruction. Because Meredith believed that best practice
should be related to teachers’ experiences, she created time for them to learn from each
other. “I set it up where they could go in and observe each other this year. And I tried to
get them into those classrooms so that they could see [literacy groups].” She also created
study groups in which discussions centered on literacy. She found strategies that gave
teachers ownership, reflecting her definition of “best practice.” The staff began to shift
their literacy instruction out of their own learning and experiences. “Now both of my
first-grade teachers do literacy groups; both my second grades; one of my fourth and one
of my fifth. And third-grade is trying, and I’m really working with them to try to fit it in.”
She resiliently overcame her doubts in the face of leadership challenges as she continued
to wrestle with the meaning of “best practice.”

DiscoverinLher voice of leadership. Meredith found herself in the middle of a
controversy because she questioned the district’s process of implementing a new writing
program. At one of the first district administrative meetings, another principal informed
her, “I need money from all of your buildings because I’m going to send my team to a
Six Traits workshop [for teaching writing]. Meredith supported the staff development;
“I’m behind it,” she said. But she questioned the directive and asked, “So is that what

your group [district language arts committee] decided was the best way for us to go, and

138

is your team going to take it and try it out for a year?” The principal responded, “Oh, no.
They [the teachers] don’t even know about it.” To that Meredith retorted, “So you want
me to spend $600 dollars out of my budget, which is thin, to send these people? And
they’re not backing you?”

The other principal argued that her decision was sound because it was best
practice. “They [the teachers] don’t have time to research best practice. That’s my job
and that’s what I came up with.” Meredith was supportive of the work, but she was
challenged by the district’s process of implementing a new writing program. “And I’m
not even against it. I love it [Six Traits of Writing]. I use it. I have information about it.
I could share it with them.” But she was against the way the teachers were left out of the
decision. “Why didn’t they say, even if they don’t have time to research . . . say, ‘These
are the three [goals] that we’re looking at for writing, would you be interested in finding
out more? Try it in your classroom and then if you like it, become an expert and share it
with your colleagues?”’

Because Meredith was new, she questioned her voice of leadership and authority
in the face of the other principal. “She’s been there for 5 years . . . maybe I’d better just
keep quiet.” She questioned the way people were using the term best practice to make
their work sound credible. “When people say ‘best practice,’ I really kind of struggle
with that. What do they really mean? Who says? Where did the research come fiom? Did
we have our teachers try it, and did they say that it worked? Am I wrong about that? I
guess I struggle with that.” Surmising that she was being seen as a novice, Meredith did
not feel free to share her expertise.

Meredith caught a glimpse of the e-mails that followed the principals’ meeting.

The principal who led the writing initiative was upset that she had been questioned, and

139

wrote to other people about it. “This is what I was questioned on. Tell me what you
think about it.” Meredith did not respond to the e-mails. She said, “I’m just trying to get
a feel for how we do things.”

Leading the staff out of complacency. Meredith carefully considered how to
approach the staff regarding school improvement. They had not been encouraged to
reflect on their practice or student outcomes for at least 4 years. Referring to the previous
principal, Meredith said, “I mean they loved him because he let them go. He trusted what
they did. He backed them 150% no matter what.” She thought she might begin to
change the status-quo approach to teaching through the school improvement process.
“The part that I feel like I can [make a difference] with in my role is through school
improvement.” But in doing so, she had to step into unfamiliar territory because “the
prior principal to me was not involved whatsoever in school improvement. He didn’t do
anything. So I’m really trying to be careful.” The teachers were not used to having a
principal who was involved with teaching and learning. Meredith brought to the
principalship a new set of priorities, which was challenging because “they loved him.”
Although Meredith was fully aware that she was changing directions fiom her
predecessor, she noted, “I didn’t want to step in [and say], I’m going to do this.” When
she thought of how to begin leading through school improvement, she thought, “This is
really kind of a touchy role.” She realized that the former principal had abdicated his role
in the school improvement process.

When the teacher responsible for school improvement approached Meredith, she
was surprised to discover that her new principal wanted to be involved in the process.
Meredith tried to engage in school improvement activities and share the work load, but

the teacher would respond, “No, I’ll take that home and do it over the weekend.”

140

Meredith invited the teacher to a workshop about disaggregating data, and this provided
an opportunity to work together. However, the teacher saw herself as a solo player.
“She’ll pull the MEAP (high-stakes state test) scores apart. She does everything.”
Meredith realized the principal had abdicated his role in the school improvement process.

Without diminishing the teacher’s status, Meredith had to figure out how to
become involved in the process. She decided to meet with the teacher before each school
improvement meeting, in order to talk about the direction of improvement. “But then I
kind of let her run it because that’s what they’re [teachers] used to.” Meredith saw value
in promoting the teacher as the leader. “I think it would be more effective sometimes
coming from her rather from me.” Meredith found a voice of leadership and
simultaneously appreciated teacher leadership. “When we’re at school improvement
groups, I’m not real involved. I’m just sitting with them, but I don’t take on that role [of
facilitator].”

Meredith’s behind—the-scenes voice changed the face of school improvement. She
led her staff into the practice of using data in formative assessments. “After looking at
mathematics data, I encouraged them . . . just through conversation . . . to pull out their
base 10 blocks [and] start with basic computation.” Even after looking at the data to
discern the [students’] weak areas in mathematics, the third-grade teachers were not
convinced they needed to make changes. “My third-grade teachers didn’t think it was
important for them [students] to be able to do algorithms, like 23 plus 65, horizontally.”
The third graders calculated by stringing numbers together. Although this approach was
helpful in understanding number concepts, it did little for efficiency and accuracy.
“Okay,” Meredith asked, “what about when they get into fifth grade and they’re doing

hundred thousands, how are they going to string all those together?”

141

Meredith challenged the implementation of school improvement goals, as well as
previously unquestioned school practices. The staff was comfortable in tradition of
conferencing exclusively with parents of struggling students. “It was ridiculous that only
the parents who needed a conference could come in and talk,” Meredith said. She
imagined what the parents must feel like when they received a letter. They must think,
“Oh no, what’s wrong?”

Meredith introduced the idea of student-led conferences. Such conferences are
child centered, and they “require planning and preparation.” Meredith did not know how
her teachers would respond to her idea. “I just threw it out there and said, ‘If anybody’s
interested, come find out some information.” Student-led conferences included students
meeting with their parents to review their progress and goals. The students used
examples of their work when they talked about learning with their parents. The teachers
were visible and available during the conferences. Student led conferences are child
centered and they “require planning and preparation.” Meredith did not know how her
teachers would respond to her idea.

Everyone decided to try having student-led conferences except the kindergarten
and fifth-grade teachers. However, Meredith supported the idea, when the teachers
wanted to give up. “Everybody was grumbling about it, the time it was taking.” She gave
teachers planning time whenever possible and was “checking in with them all of the
time” to “make sure they were comfortable.” For Meredith, it was like “finding fresh
water after a long hike.”

The superintendent accepted her invitation to observe student-led conferences. “1
was nervous . . . because he said, ‘You know, on the way over here I’m thinking, what is

she doing?”’ He did not believe student-led conferences would be possible with

142

elementary-age children. “These kids are little.” Meredith’s superintendent “just had all
these negative feelings about it.” But he stayed and observed for 2 1/2 hours. “He was
amazed. He talked to parents. He talked to teachers.” When the superintendent left, he
told Meredith, “I just never pictured this. This is amazing.” He encouraged her to talk
about this type of conference at administrative meetings and wanted her to present to the
board of education. “I want you to share it with everybody.” Even though she had faced
grumbling and knew her superintendent did not have faith in her, Meredith felt satisfied
in the end. “It felt like after that long hike, we found a beautiful waterfall at the end.
And everybody loved it. They want to do it again next year.”

The surprise of positional power. Meredith thought of herself as a partner with
teachers, she said, “I’m thinking that we’re kind of servants to everybody. We’re like
this middle person and we’re servants to people.” So she was shocked when the school
counselor told her she should not be surprised that people followed her lead. She told
Meredith, “You have to remember that when you brought it [student-led conferences] to
the table, everyone felt obliged.” Meredith couldn’t believe it. “That was shocking to
me. I . . . had to step back and say, ‘Oh my gosh, that’s true.’ I really just felt like one of 1
them, and I was throwing out an idea just like I did when I was a teacher.” Meredith
thought her message was informal. “I didn’t feel like I was pushing anybody. I was
encouraging.” It was an “aha” moment for Meredith. “I just had a totally different
perception than what they did about how the whole thing went down. But it just turned
out really good.”

Meredith clarified her voice to the teachers. “I want them to know if I say
optional, I truly mean optional.” She wanted to be understood. “If there is something

that I expect from you I will let you know.” When Meredith brought in a guest to invite

143

the teachers to participate in an initiative called “The Big Lesson,” a week-long study at
an off-site location, she did not expect everyone to participate. “When I say it’s optional,
it means you don’t have to do it.” Again, she was surprised when “everybody in my
building participated.” Once the teachers became engaged in the week-long study trip,
they told Meredith, “This is awesome.” She explained the teachers’ response. “They
were so happy. They are gung—ho. They can’t wait to get the parents in. They can’t wait
to go to the [learning] site.”

Meredith clarified that learning to be a principal in the first year is a lot like a tree
bending in the wind. “A tree isn’t rigid. You have to be flexible and bend. It changes
with time, but it always remains upright and steady.” She described herself as “having to
kind of bend and flex, but you still have to stand your ground and be upright and together
all the time.” Although Meredith said she had “always been flexible,” as a teacher she did
not have to make “so many quick decisions.” Both leading a building and working with
other principals were new experiences. “Working with another group of principals, that’s
another whole ball game!” Meredith worked with five other principals. She explained,
“You don’t always believe the same thing.” Being flexible meant that even with
disagreements, “we have to stand together” and after a discussion, “when we walk out of
there, we obviously have to back that decision and stand behind it.”

Meredith asked herself whether the superintendent trusted her when he informed
the principals that he was not going to give them certain information because “he feels
like information is getting out when it shouldn’t. Maybe he doesn’t trust somebody.” To
Meredith, his words really made her wonder, “Is it me? Did I slip some information?”
She worried, “I certainly wouldn’t do it on purpose.” Then she began questioning her

own willingness to speak frankly to her principal colleagues. “I feel very comfortable

144

with all of them, expressing my opinion, and I do.” When the superintendent expressed
his mistrust of the group, Meredith tried to make sense of what it meant for her
leadership. “That’s kind of scary,” thinking “Does that get back to somebody?”
Reflecting about the tree, an artifact representing strength and flexibility, she said, “It’s

flexibility. I need to be flexible.”

Summafl

Lessons learned. Meredith learned that it was parents who had the real power.
Thinking of herself as a first-year principal, she said, “I don’t even know that it’s rookie
status. It’s that they’ve [parents] got power.” Meredith did not receive any backing
during the year about the contentious kindergarten situation, even when she directly
asked for help. “I’ve talked with the assistant superintendent. She can’t give me any
direction.” Then a parent wrote a letter to the superintendent, saying she intended to take
her child to another school district for kindergarten. “Then, of course, he calls me in to
talk to me and wants me to do an IDP [individual development plan] and really go
through this major process [to fire her].” Recalling that the former principal had never
worked with the teacher, Meredith said, “I feel like I need another year to be very direct
with her, very frank, to let her know.” It was awkward reconciling the superintendent’s
request when Meredith had struggled all year. She believed the teacher should be
included in the process of improvement fi'om the beginning of the school year rather than
receive a sudden message that she was about to lose her job.

Setting expectations as the new leader can be complex. In the beginning,
Meredith was excited about the open communication that she was establishing with
parents, but it became overwhelming. “It’s like I opened a can of worms.” Meredith was

not sure she could meet the expectations of the community. “They knew I was going to

145

make a change for the better. Like I was doing something marvelous, like I was
superwoman that was coming in.” She faced a double-edged sword, “which is great to a
certain degree.” On the other hand, “They act like I am literally the ruler of these teachers
and can make them [do anything].” She felt “scared” by parents’ expectations. “There’s
only so much that I can do as far as the teachers.” As Meredith tried to make sense of her
situation, she reflected on her leadership decisions. “It had to have been something I’ve
done.” Seth, the former principal, had been there for 5 years, and “he had never heard
one thing about a teacher.” Meredith asked, “Why are they all flooding to me?” She did
not question the practice of the former principal; rather, she assumed she had made an
error in judgment.

“There are all these little fires that I’m putting out that takes a lot of my time.
And I’m not saying they aren’t important.” One of the parents wanted their child
switched to a different teacher, without talking to the teacher. Meredith thought, “So you
want me to mysteriously 3 weeks, 4 weeks into school, dump him in the other fifth
grade? I mean, we have two. It’s very obvious.” Meredith felt conflicted. “I’m really
torn,” she lamented. She realized her actions and decisions resonated into the
community. “It’s hard because they just go out there and start talking and bad mouthing
you, and sometimes you can’t back yourself up.” While talking, Meredith identified the
challenge: “So there’s a fine line between [making the right decision] and trying to keep
the peace with the parents and letting them know that I do care what they’re saying.”

Meredith’s vision gained clarity as she reflected about her first year. She
described how the goal she had set out with changed over the year. In the beginning, the
goal was “doing the right things for kids.” She also “wanted to be able to support the

teachers.” In retrospect, she realized she had tried “to make everybody happy, to know

146

everybody. It was to do whatever I could do to help them.” She reflected about her first
year: “Now when I think about it, it’s not so much to make them [the staff] happy but to
make sure we’re doing the right things for kids.”

She explained that “sometimes it does feel overwhelming,” but she also wanted to
make it clear that feeling overwhelmed did not mean she was not happy. “Not that I
don’t love it all the time, because I do.” She also was confident that she could be a
principal. “I do feel pretty confident. I know that it doesn’t sound like it when I’m

talking to you, but I do,” even though “I still have that need to improve or that room to

9’

grow.

The shelf life ofmrincipals: How longwill I last? Meredith wrestled with time
management concerning everyone in her life. “You know, I get home at quarter to five
last night, pick up the girls, go home, eat dinner within two minutes. By quarter after five
we’re leaving again for dance. By the time we get home, it’s quarter after seven. Give
them a snack, get them in bed. It’s eight-thirty and I’m like, ‘Okay, I really have to run
to work now.”’ On the other hand, Meredith knew what she needed. “I’m pretty good
about getting my sleep. That’s pretty important. And my work out and spending time
with my girls.”

Meredith also thought about shelf life in terms of balancing family life with her
career. She explained, “I’m reading this article and trust me, I don’t know how I have
time in the morning after I was up until 11:00. It’s about the shelf life of principals.” The
article “talked about the duration of your peaks and about how when you make a change
you always make somebody mad. But if you’re not making change, you’re making
somebody mad.” The article basically gave the message that when “you get to the point

where you’ve made everybody mad in your school, then it is time to go.” The question

147

Meredith asked herself was not whether people were mad or not, but rather it was, “Is this
as far as my leadership can go with this group of people?” She hoped her shelf life as a
principal would last. “I want to be doing this for a long time.”
Anne: LeadershiLfor Breakiggjhwn Cultural,
Political and Social Barriers -- While Mding
Bridges by way of Relationshgrs
Introduction -- From the Classroom to Administration
I met Anne for the first time in her old classroom because her office was being
cleaned and painted. Unlike other principals, who enjoy a few weeks off in the summer,
Anne continued her work throughout the year. She not only was a principal but
concurrently served as the community education director and summer school coordinator.
As she guided me to her former classroom, she gently spoke with some preschoolers as
they maneuvered through the hall and around the summer cleaning tools. She spoke
briefly with one of the summer school teachers about a fieldtrip. We found a quiet space
for our first interview and settled in at some student desks. Anne took a moment to
reflect about the classroom where she had begun teaching in this school district. “This is
the stuff of mine that I just couldn’t part with.” She pointed to some packed boxes on a
shelf. “1 still have to take [those boxes] out of here.” Being in the classroom was a
reminder that it was difficult to leave her old teaching materials behind. She laughed
when she said, “Up there I see all my borders and stuff.” She was determined to part
with it. “I think, ‘I’m not taking that stuff homel’”
Anne had been taken by surprise when her predecessor interviewedher for an
early childhood teaching position in his building. “Honestly, he came in his coach’s

shorts, off the football field, long enough to interview me.” She thoughtfully prepared

148

for the interview. “I brought my books and all of my ideas and . . . I knew when I left
there that day they were going to offer me the job. And they did.” When Anne left her
old school district, she realized she would have to learn about her new school. “I walked
into a well-established program. I was definitely the new kid on the block, and that made
me a little nervous.” Her concerns melted away once she began working. “We met, and
it was a great fit.”

Anne decided that she “could not stay in her old school district” because “I am
just a by-the-book person.” She knew and understood the required standards for the State
School Readiness Preschool Program. It bothered her that they were not being
implemented. “I could see the expectations, and they [school personnel] were not
honoring those expectations.” Although Anne was willing to work to change the
situation, “they did not want to change.” So she pursued a new position.

The barrier of compensation. When Anne joined the new school district, it was an
unusual situation because she was hired under the conditions of the K-12 teachers’ master
agreement even though she did not belong to the teachers’ union. The school district
decided to offer the same compensation to the preschool staff “because they had a
‘revolving door’ of teachers and could not keep anyone in the position.” When they were
in the process of hiring, they thought, “We need to do something to hold on to
somebody.” Anne considered it “a great opportunity.” She was receiving the same wages
for teaching preschool as the K-12 teachers received for their work. “It makes you feel
like you matter, to be treated fairly.” Before coming to the district, she had taught
preschool with minimal compensation. “I guess I didn’t realize how much that was
weighing on me until my situation changed.” For the first time, she felt valued for her

work. “And then you can say, man, this feels so good to really feel like you’re valued.”

149

B_arriers of program differences. Although Anne joined an established early
childhood program, there were areas of weakness. She also discovered barriers between
the various programs. One preschool program had students who paid tuition. There was
a financial barrier in another preschool program with students whose eligibility depended
on the State School Readiness Program or MSRP. “They had tuition kids mingled with
MSRP” students and “it was kind of a mess.” The grant required an early childhood
specialist to monitor the program, so when Anne was hired, they named her to that
position. This did not change her teaching responsibilities but added a demanding
breadth of leadership. “So pretty much all of the reporting, all of the reapplying for the
grant, that all came to me.” Anne explained that she “was just totally happy to take that
on.” She began to undertake the challenges of implementing special programs, as well as
defining barriers caused by financial differences.

Anne wanted to support families, and grant funding assisted with that. “It was
what I believed in.” As the new teacher in the program, she found that “there were just a
lot of issues.” As people got to know her, they responded to her knowledge. “We’re glad
you know [about the grants].” She gradually put the required standards in place. “I think
that after I got my feet wet and they started to trust me . . . I could back up what I said.”
Her persistence paid off. “Within a couple of years we had it all straightened out.”

Eventually, Anne’s predecessor started to groom her for his position as principal
and director of community education. “He courted me and kept building me up.” At the
same time, she felt uneasy because he swore her to secrecy about his plan to leave the
district. She explained, “I hated [the secrecy] because people kept asking me [about him]
all summer long.” He was persistent. He told her, “You’re my recommendation.” He

wanted her assurance that she was willing to take the position. “When I finally tell the i

150

board that I’m going to move, I want to know that I can tell them you will be the interim
person” and that “you’re going to say yes.” Anne was not certain she was ready for an
administrative position. She shared her reservations with him: “I’ve never taken one
single administrative class.” Then she asked, “Why would you think that they would
even consider me?” Even though Anne had been a teacher when she “straightened out”
the early childhood program, the principal viewed her work as administrative. “You
don’t need it [administration course work]; you’ve been doing administration for years.”
Anne decided to take the position. However, before doing so, she did “lots of thinking,
lots of talking. I talked with my family a lot.” Anne tried to project the effect that her
decision would have on her family. “I just tried to think about what that would mean as
far as my time and be as honest with them [family] as I could about what that would
mean.” In the end she concluded, “Sometimes you just have to take that leap.”

Anne’s new position incorporated the leadership of 13 adult education programs,
enrichment classes and a senior center. Adult education included classes for adults and
alternative education for high-school-age students. Twenty-eight percent of the adults 18
years and older had no high school diploma or GED. The early childhood center included
kindergarten, as well as several preschool programs and the before-and-after—school
programs. Anne was responsible for the grant writing to secure resources for meeting the
needs of families and children in the community. “Part of adult education is Even Start,”
which Anne monitored and maintained. “It serves teen moms. It’s for any adult who
doesn’t have a diploma and has children under 8.” In Anne’s community, “our biggest
need is that young mom population.” Anne also assumed ownership of the paperwork for
the 21St Century Grant, “an after-school program that serves first through eighth graders.”

Her leadership position was far reaching with impact on many groups of students.

151

Anne’s First-Year Stog Through Leadership
Challenges and Critical Incidents

Beliefs about early childhood education provide a lens for leadership. “My vision
is just a sense of community at all levels.” For Anne, all levels included older adults
from the senior center, high school students in the alternative education program,
preschoolers, kindergarten children, and parents of early childhood learners.
Implementing her vision began with the staff as she tried to build a sense of corrrrnunity.

“Among the staff, that has been my biggest goal.” She worked throughout the
year to “develop that sense of community and team.” She believed her vision of
community would develop beyond the school walls. “And they [the teachers] just extend
that to the children who come into our programs.” The sense of community should
further broaden from the staff and students into the parent community. “I’ve always
thought that if you can’t impact the whole family, then you really [miss out].” The kind
of community Anne envisioned was not exactly like a home. “I won’t even say home
because home for a lot of our children is not that great. I just want this to be a safe and
fim and happy and a very stimulating environment.” Anne realized that she “hadn’t
touched on [the work] to make an impact on total families during the first year.” She
wanted to “get those parents to just plug in and buy into the school.” She believed that,
to make a real difference; the parents “cannot be absent participants. They need to
engage.”

Anne was also passionate about strong preschool education. “It’s been a long,
long, mission of mine to give preschool its due so people can recognize how significant it
is and the value of it.” Anne read and studied current research about early learning. “The
research supports it and encourages even younger involvement for families. That’s

where we’re heading, getting families involved in birth to 3-year-olds.”

152

Even though Anne’s “comfort level is with younger children,” her new position
called for work with high school students. “Once kids get to high school age, they’re
pretty shaped, and you can still have a positive impact on them, but it’s just a very
different impact.” On the other hand, with high-school-age students, the teacher “maybe
in some ways has a more lasting impact in their minds. You often hear kids talking about
their favorite teacher, and it’s rarely their preschool teachers.” Because the preschool
teachers are often forgotten as students get older, “it’s kind of an unsung-hero job.” Anne
believed that the younger the children, “the deeper the impact [of learning], but probably
not as remembered [as high school teachers].”

Locating_and breakgagdown barriers. The programs Anne directed were located
in two separate buildings, creating a type of physical barrier. The early childhood
building housed the before and after school care, the early childhood programs, and the
kindergartens. The other building housed adult education, the senior citizen center, and
the Even Start programs. Anne described the two buildings as “two different worlds,
even though we are all one staff.” Everyone seemed to think their program deserved
more of her time. “How do you let everybody understand that there is more than one
agenda?”

There were also attitudinal barriers. Anne’s predecessor told her that the
kindergarten teachers would need a lot of her attention. “They were by far the most
needy group.” So Anne was surprised when, through tears, the kindergarten staff told her
they “didn’t feel that I was giving them their fair time.” She tried to be responsive to
their needs. “I came in really sensitive to that. I knew that I was giving them

disproportionate amounts of my time, and yet they still felt slighted.”

153

Anne decided to have a heart-to—heart talk with the entire kindergarten staff. She
told them, “You guys don’t understand. I spend more time with you than with any of my
other groups.” Anne explained the situation about her responsibilities to all of the
programs with “an emotional, honest answer. It cleared the air.” She watched their
responses. “Their eyes just got huge. They didn’t understand.” Since then, “that’s the
only time we’ve had a conflict.” However, the work to create a climate of community
between the programs continued. “That was their little island, and they didn’t really want
to see anybody else’s island or visit. And who was Ito be their boss all of a sudden?”

The barrier of sharing time between programs also challenged Anne. Her vision
was to “create a sense of community between the groups.” Before becoming the
principal, she had observed that the loudest group in the organization got the most
attention. “The squeakiest, neediest group commanded how attention was given at
meetings.” She explained that staff meetings “centered around one little group.” As the
new principal, she wanted to make staff meetings more equitable.

Anne thought about the challenges of scheduling staff meetings. “It is just going
to inconvenience somebody because we have start times that vary from 5:00 am. to 8:00
am. to 8:30 am. We have a lot of programs that end at 2:30 pm.” Anne took into
consideration the kindergarten staff. “Kindergarten doesn’t get out until 3:20. That part
is very, very challenging.” She “mapped out” her approach. She invested in “one group”
by having “working lunches one day a week.” For the preschool staff, it would be “every
Monday.” She explained the purpose “at the table” during meetings was to “socialize,
but we’re going to deal with some business too.”

The challenge of providing equitable time did not seem to have an easy solution.

“I’m going to deal with each of my different little populations individually to kind of

154

eliminate the problem with time.” She thought of the comrrritrnent. “I’ll be saying a lot
of the same things five times, but at least it will be . . ..I think it will just help them feel
valued and that I appreciate each of their time instead of just catering to the one group.”
The challenge of leading varied groups “is a unique thing because of the different
programs I have to coordinate. There is no way to be equitable if you try to do whole-
group [staff meetings].” She puzzled more about equity as she thought out loud: “There
are just different needs and you get into the whole thing about ‘Well, she must think
higher of them because we always do it [meet] when it’s convenient for them.”’ Anne
questioned herself: “How can I really put some feet on the fact that I’m trying to value
each program equally?”

Bridging the garfiretween progr_ams and buildings and attitudes and resources.
Anne realized that the biggest difference between being a principal and a classroom
teacher was that “You know what’s going to happen this week, next week, and then you
do it.” As a principal, planning is not as easy because you have to consider other voices.
“Several times I would put something out on the table and just not really get the response
I was hoping for. Then I would just table it for awhile. She weighed her decisions after
listening to her staff. “It’s just trying to listen to what they’re saying with their words and
their attitudes.” She knew she could not respond to everything. “Don’t go places you
don’t need to go.”

As Anne listened to her staff, barriers between programs continued to surface. She
prioritized her time as she learned more about the programs and people under her
leadership as principal of the district’s early childhood center and as the community

education director. She made it a point to try to bridge gaps between programs and

155

buildings and attitudes and resources. The first barrier she wrestled with concerned the
kindergarten staff. It surfaced her first week on the job.

The kindergarten staff heard the bad news in the spring before Anne took over
the principalship: “Twenty-five parapros were being laid off.” The kindergarten teachers
“had always had full-time parapros in their classrooms.” To make the situation even
more difficult, “because of timing, the parapros hadn’t been given enough notice, so they
all got to come back for the 18 days they are allowed [following their lay-off notice].”
The situation was problematic for Anne. The parapros returned at the beginning of the
school year with Anne, once a fellow teacher, now as their principal. “It was bitter, a bad
place to be around, and that’s what I inherited.”

Tensions mounted because the teachers in the preschool program had been able to
keep their classroom aides (parapros). This created a barrier between the kindergarten
and preschool programs. “In preschool it is mandated [to have parapros]. It is not
optional. They can’t take those preschool parapros away.” Anne described the situation
as “nasty.” She responded by offering ideas. “Let’s just be proactive. Let’s get some
good parent volunteers.” When the teachers indicated that would not work because the
parents “weren’t trained.” Anne responded, “I’ll run a training program. I’ll give them
some skills and tell them what the boundaries are.” The teachers would not accept the
support Anne was offering. “No,” they responded, “we just can’t do that.”

The kindergarten teachers ran a campaign to stress their need for parapros. “They
just got so ridiculous about ‘Well, someone’s going to have to come down here. I need to

999

go to the bathroom. The kindergarten teachers were “constantly showing us how
inconvenient this was to not have someone in the classroom.” The messages to the office

continued through the first weeks of school. “Someone’s going to have to come down

156

here so I can go get the juice out of the refrigerator.” So Anne “bought them
refiigerators.” She was steadfast. “Every time they presented a problem, I tried to come
up with a workable solution.”

Anne continued to give the message, “We can do it. It’s different. I know it’s
hard. But we can do this.” She continued to acknowledge the change, but she also knew
it was more common for kindergarten teachers not to have parapros in their classrooms.
“Here’s other schools who’ve never had them, and they’re functioning just fine. I know
it’s an adjustment. It’s hard.” Although she acknowledged the teachers’ feelings, she
also wondered whether they would have treated the former principal the same way.
“We’ll never know if they [the teachers] would have been the same if he was still here.”

Anne wondered whether the teachers’ negativity was heightened because she had
taught in the preschool program. “I think it was magnified because there was a new
person, because it was me. Probably a total stranger would have been better than me.”
Anne tried to avoid the negativity of the problem. “What I wanted, above all else, was to
avoid this negativity. I just don’t want negative people in my life.” Eventually, her
problem-solving approach won over the teachers. “We ended on a positive note.” She
also heard positive things from the teachers. “I think pretty much everybody individually
has said something to me, [like] ‘You’re doing a great job’ and ‘Boy it’s so different here
now. We’re so happy you’re here.”’ The challenge turned into one of Anne’s joys from
“seeing [the teachers] grow and come around.”

Another barrier Anne faced was caused by physical distance. Anne and her staff
met with the first-grade staff and the principal of the first-and second-grade program
housed in another part of the school district. They discussed the possibility of creating a

transitional first grade. The kindergartners who were not meeting the district’s

157

expectations would go into a transitional classroom instead of a regular first-grade
classroom. Anne struggled with the idea. She thought they were “setting them up to fail,
the way that they’re approaching first grade.” She acknowledged that the matter was “so
driven by the district’s expectations and the state’s expectations. The political barriers
were evidenced within “a very complex issue.” The matter of a transitional first grade
did not match Anne’s beliefs. She hoped “they could change their approach to first grade
and recognize that you have to start where they start.”

In addition, Anne sought other ways to break down attitudinal barriers about early
childhood learning. She worked toward adapting a more developmental in collaboration
with the other elementary building. “We’re doing some things to try to make early
childhood [more like] early childhood, even though we’re in different buildings.” She
and her staff worked to bridge the curriculum by “converting to Zoo Phonics so we will
have some consistency [between buildings]” and “we all changed to a cohesive
handwriting program.”

Anne worked on these changes in the face of strain with the other principal. It
took her a year to clear the tensions. “I was able to tell her a lot of things and go back to
an incident that happened in the fall.” Anne had felt “railroaded” when the planning
between schools began. By approaching the other principal, Anne discovered that her
counterpart “didn’t realize that I was coming across abrasively and it’s like, it’s my way
or the highway or it’s not going to happen.” Since then, she said, “we’ve had pleasant
encounters.”

Anne found that she had “this incredible bubble of PPI children moving to
kindergarten.” (PPI classrooms are made up of children with developmental delays, as

classified by state special education mandates.) “We’ve never experienced that number

158

before, so we’re going to have to provide a teaming room for those children.” Anne and
one of her teachers learned about a phonics-based program that seemed to be successful.
“There’s a body movement that goes with every letter, so it involves the whole body. It
is cross-line and mid—line [movement]. Every letter is associated with an animal.” The
approach gave Anne hope for the primary special education student population. “It’s
wonderful. We’re excited about it.” She pulled out all of the stops to find resources. “I
have lots of pots of money.” The largest expense was training for the staff. “We really
need to send the special education teacher and the speech pathologist and the person that
does our specials, our music-in-motion [teacher] and our librarian.” Anne believed that,
for the children to make progress, everyone on the team should have the updated program
information. “I’m sending the preschool staff and I can pay for them out of MSRP, and
with kindergarten I can pick up the tab for five people and special education can pick up
the tab for a couple of them.” She figured out a plan “so everybody who touches those
children is going to have this training.”

At the same time Anne was contending with early childhood issues, she was
dealing with high school situations in another building. Although her title was director
for the high school program, her leadership resembled that of a principal. “I deal with the
parents. If there’s any fallout from anything that happens with kids, there’s a clear
understanding between the teachers and me that [it] comes to me.”

Anne worked with two high school teachers. One teacher, a woman, “went with
the flow.” Anne described her as a “sweetheart” to work with. The other teacher was “a
retired military man.” Anne found him to be “rigid and by the book.” This was a new
experience for Anne. “I’m thinking, ‘he’s going to eat me alive!”’ The teacher

“depended on Brad,” Anne’s predecessor. Ben could count on Brad to “be the bad guy.”

159

Anne knew that Ben could say to a student, “You’re out for the day. Go see Mr. Bagley.”
She believed that Brad “would have to deal with them [the student] and whatever, and I
just had to talk to him at the beginning of the year.” Anne tried to articulate her role.
“Ben,” she said. “I’m not Brad and I’m not a forceful person. I will support any decision
you make. If you feel a child needs to go home for the day, I will not question that.”
Anne wanted to make sure he understood: “I’m not the heavy. I am a nurturer, and I can
enforce your decision but do it in a nurturing way instead of an enforcer way.” Anne was
unsure “how that was going to go.”

It was not long until Ben sent a student to her. “He would call me, and by the
time they walked over here [fi'om the community education building] I kind of knew the
story.” She realized her approach was different. “Instead of shaking my finger and
reaming them out again, which is probably what he would have preferred, I could sit
down and say, ‘Do you understand what just happened?”’ Anne had an opportunity to
listen. “Do you know how to avoid this the next time?” She captured the opportunity for
teaching responsibility. “What can we do to help you with that self-control? How can
you make a better choice?”

Since Anne had begun working with the high school teacher, she was seeing “a
kinder and gentler Ben.” She noted that “he is still military oriented, but as the year went
on I saw a softer side and even a couple of times where he would say, ‘I was too hard on
that kid today.”’ By the end of the school year, Ben told Anne, “1 think we’re getting
along okay, aren’t we?”

Life lines grermeatedbfiarriers and kept Anne afloat. For Anne, teaching was “a
calling.” When teachers do not take their work seriously, Anne explained, “it’s just

painfirl because they’re missing it.” With teaching, “we’re actually shaping, we’re

160

forming character, we’re forming belief systems, and we’re impacting every aspect of the
inner person.” Anne described teaching as “affecting human life. That’s just a very
powerful thing.” She missed the “the daily contact with children and seeing the detail of
their progress, building that relationship. That’s a hard thing to give up.” She found
ways to preserve a connection with children by trying to “stay as involved with the kids
as much as I could. It’s just different when you’re dealing with all 300 of them as
opposed to just 36 in a classroom.” Anne realized that teaching “had a huge impact on the
kind of leader I tried to be. You know, the fact that I came from the teaching
perspective.”

One of Anne’s life lines to children was in the form of music. She held monthly
sing-alongs. “I loved that, planning and carrying those out.” She also “read in all of the
classrooms.” The teachers signed up for a convenient time slot on the days Anne freed
her schedule to read to children. “That was just the focus of my 2 days every few weeks,
just getting into everyone’s class.” And she celebrated birthdays. “Everyone that had a
birthday in that month got together and had a little celebration, just me and them.”

Anne described an artifact from her first year of the principalship to help illustrate
her experience. It was “a big piece of chart paper from a kindergarten classroom . . . a
thank-you note for the sing-a-long.” She explained the relevance of the artifact. “That
teacher was, by far, my biggest resistance. And that was just proof that I had her, that she
would initiate that [thank-you]; then I knew I had her.” The poster served as a life line.
“I hung it on my wall. It was there most of the year, actually, because it was really
special to me that she would do that.” The artifact was a celebration, and it helped Anne
remember “not to get bogged down in the little issues but just keep focusing on the big

99

picture. The thank-you note prompted Anne’s thoughts. “I guess helping people see

161

their greatness, I think sometimes that’s a big issue. People don’t understand their own
value, and I just want people to feel empowered and in charge.”

Life lines for Anne included finding connections with children. She used her gift
as a musician for monthly sing-a-longs. She found a personal connection to children by
celebrating birthdays. When she discovered that she had made a difference with a
particular teacher, like she did with the teacher who sent her the classroom poster, she
was gratified. Those proved to be life lines in Anne’s work. However, the biggest
challenge for Anne was between family and work.

A bairier between work and family: The liggest challenge of the first year.
Anne’s biggest challenge “involves the whole of my love, not just school.” It is “finding
balance both professionally and personally.” She compared herself, her work and her
family to a circus plate spinner and the plates. As the spinner, she was “ever vigilant,
never moving, lest that a new plate would come crashing down.” For Anne, success
depended on “focusing intently on each individual plate. Get it centered. Start
spinning.” At the same time, she “had an acute awareness of the big picture, the whole
row of plates. It doesn’t work to just sequentially work down the line, giving each plate
an extra spin and then starting over again.” Like family members and school staff and
students, “each plate has its own demands and idiosyncrasies, and some are quite high
maintenance.”

“Finding balance both professionally and personally” continually challenged
Anne. Her youngest daughter was a senior in high school and preparing to leave for
college. “It’s going to kill me. Oh, I’m going to miss her terribly. She’s just an amazing
kid.” Anne described how her daughter’s transition into college was affecting her. “I’ve

been so blue lately. It’s just going to be so different.” Throughout her daughter’s senior

162

year, Anne was not able to attend all of her events as she had done as a teacher. “When I
was a teacher, you know, a perfect job because I never had to miss girls’ sports,
especially right after school.” She described her new job as “a lot longer” because she
“could stay there around the clock and still never finish.”

“We live, me, my mother, and [my daughter], within a 2-mile triangle.” Her
oldest daughter was a young mother of three, with twin babies. Anne described her
feelings about her oldest daughter; she knew it would be “a rough year ahead for [her],
and I’m not going to walk out of here at 3:30 every day. That brings me guilt.”

Anne explained that although she was not always available to help her daughter
with the twins, her mother was accessible. “She helps out a whole lot. She’s probably
there three times a week, even if its just long enough for [my daughter] to go get
groceries.” Even though her daughter had help, Anne felt a pull to be more available to
her. “I’d rather be there more.” She explained, “that was really the biggest thing that
almost kept me fi'om taking this job. I just kept saying to them [the school district], ‘I
have so much happening this year. I don’t know if I can do this.’ I made it though.”

Relationships provide the foundaLtion fora solid brigga. “We have so many
different things happening at my school.” The programs were so varied that “there is that
feeling of isolation between those programs.” For Anne, the experience of having so
many varied programs was “just like dealing with each little pocket of people and yet at
the same time wanting all of them to realize that everybody mattered to me. I had to try
to find that balance.” The staff was coming to know their new administrator. “A female
was different.” She had a different style than her predecessor. “Dealing with someone

who was honest, even when they didn’t want me to be, was different.” Anne compared

163

her style to that of the previous principal: “I wasn’t going to say what was popular. I
was going to say what I really thought.”

At the same time, she wanted to know each of her staff members. “I had a lot of
relationship building to do.” One way she found to work on relationships was to visit the
teachers’ lounge. “I rarely eat in the teachers’ lounge, but I’d just sit down for 5 minutes
and chit-chat.” The teachers commented that “we’ve never had a principal who just came
in to be a part of us.” Anne spent time to “just talk about their families and whatever.”

Anne gave thought to her leadership position. “I just always cringe when people
say, ‘This is my boss.”’ She wanted to be seen as part of the staff. “I do not want to be
anybody’s boss. I would much rather be on your team.” Although she did not want to be
called a boss, Anne did not shy away from leadership. “I will even be your leader, but I
will not be your boss.” Anne viewed her staff as competent and told them her reaction
when they used the term boss. “You’re all capable. Sometimes we need someone to be
the spokesperson or whatever, but you don’t need a boss. You’re good the way you are.”
Anne believed her first year had been successful because “I can leave here for a week and
come back and things are still fine. It’s a good thing.” In retrospect she said, “I was
working for it and I was hoping for it, but I guess it really did surprise me how quickly
we did become a team.”

She thought about her work with mostly women. There were 48 adults on the staff
and “only three males, so you know a lot of women are here.” She affirmed that “by and
large, it is women that I know I will have the greatest communication with and impact
with.” At a pottery party she arranged for her staff, Anne created a piece of pottery that
summed up her thoughts about women. On her plate was painted, “Here’s to good

women. May we know them, may we be them, may we raise them.”

164

Summgy

Anne and I met for the final time on a late surmner afternoon. She explained, “My
mission was to make what happens here great.” She was continuously finding ways to
carry on her mission. She had been engaged in staff development during the day before
we met. In the workshop, emphasis was placed on student success. “No children fail.
You just keep doing. You test to objectives, not to whole units, and it’s just on-going.”
She thought of the range of students in her programs. “Basically, nothing below a B is
acceptable.” She wanted to improve teaching and learning. She had planned the
progression of learning for her staff for the following school year. She wanted the whole
staff on board with the vision that “no children fail.” She planned to begin with one
segment of her population and build from there. “My kindergarten staff and I are
attending [this summer]. So we are the forerunners [of this learning].”

While planning and learning, Anne was also assessing her first year. She was
facing an unresolved challenge that was striking in the face of her belief that parents are
integral to the process of educating children. “I have the kindergarten teachers who do
not want parents in their rooms.” This left Anne feeling unsettled. “That’s a piece of my
job, to convince them that I know it’s not easy. It does create its own set of problems, but
it’s so worthwhile.” Anne decided that, for the next school year, she would include
parents by inviting families to designated times for reading and social time. “I just think
it’s worth the hassle.” Referring to the teachers she said, “I’m not going to ask them if
they want to come at first. I’m just going to let it be known and see what happens.”
Anne believed it would not work to just “tell them they have to have parents in their

classrooms.” So she decided, “I’m just going to model it.”

165

As she spoke about her plans for the following school year, Anne also reflected
on her experience in this study. “It’s just kind of nice to even think for a moment that
you’re not alone. I guess I hadn’t thought of that, either -- that there’s other people who
went through similar things [in the first year], and we all survived.”

For Anne, the year was like “a white-water rafting adventure.” Like rafting, the
experience was “something I’ve never done, and I thought I would enjoy it.” Also like
rafting, “there was an element of risk involved on different levels.” She did not know
whether she “would enjoy it or do well.” When reflecting on the experience, Anne said,
“I wasn’t sure how the others in my boat would react to my presence.” She drew a
parallel between rafting and leadership. “It is just like rafting, the river is in charge. It’s
a force beyond my control.” Anne “was presented with an ever-changing current of
events and circumstances that were not created by me or my choosing.” Yet she “had to
respond and react appropriately to stay afloat.” Anne thought about the entire raft:
“Speaking of staying afloat, being a successfirl rafter or principal requires recognizing
that you are not in the boat alone.”

Like being a principal, with white-water rafting “there’s a time of calm when it’s
just enjoyment and people are talking and laughing and ‘Wow, we made it through these
rapids.”’ During the year, Anne had had some “great times like that.” Just when the
waters calm, you “gear up; you can hear the water churning.” Then you approach
another set of rapids. “You know you’re coming to another time when everyone just
needs to buckle down and pay attention and get through it, so you can have another
celebration!”

The five women in this study portrayed their everyday lives in the first year of

their principalship. The next chapter continues the story of their journey to the

166

principalship by analyzing their experiences. It is an attempt to unscramble the messages
about leadership of these women that takes place inside the complexities of school
organizations. Three themes act as threads that connect the experiences and voices of
their leadership in order to consider their impact on the recruitment and retention of
women elementary school principals in Chapter VI. The analysis attempts to characterize
their experience by capturing the nuances and tones of their stories in the midst of

competing messages about leadership.

167

CHAPTER V

ANALYSIS

Introduction

Suppose that you have a remarkable unscrambling device that will allow you to
sort out thousands of words (Casey, 1993) of the five women in this study. The device
will unscramble voices so that you can hear the competing noises that envelop their daily
leadership practice. You might sort out the millions of message spoken inside and outside
of the school organization that compete for school leaders’ attention. If you listen closely,
the device will distinguish nuances and tones of their experiences so that underneath the
dynamics of arguable progressive and authoritative debate, you can hear the discerning
voices of the five women in this study as they bring life to the complexities of leading a
vision in the shadow of a reverberating cacophony.

In this analysis chapter we will listen for the distinct features of each woman’s
voice and simultaneously hear the cadence of angst they share in the complexities of their
work. This analysis will include the voices of five women in leadership roles, allowing
us to experience their sensemaking about leading a vision in the shadow of larger voices.
Astin & Leland (1991) contend that “in spite of voluminous anecdotal and scholarly
work, leadership remains an elusive and perplexing phenomenon” (p. xv). To better
understand this perplexing phenomenon, this study was guided by an overarching
research question and four subquestions. The overarching question was: How did the
first-year elementary school principal make sense of her new identity, which required that
she understand the dynamics of the whole-school organization (not just the classroom

setting), reconcile and redefine new communication and relational norms (power and

168

authority), and identify and articulate her schoolwide (versus classroom) vision for the
school? Subquestions were:

1. What was the nature of the transition year? That is, what tensions, patterns
and lessons learned helped mediate the new principal’s role?

2. How did changing perspectives (from classroom vantage point to whole
school vantage point) challenge or transform the principal’s previously held
assumptions?

3. How did the new principal grapple with equity issues related to time,
resources, and support, due to the complexities of the school organization?

4. What are the implications of the experiences of women as first-year
elementary school principals for the preparation of classroom teachers for the
principalship?

With focus on the research question, the analysis in this chapter uncovers threads
of angst about the first year principalship, as well as contradictions that draw the stories
together with practical, everyday uncertainties and complications that illustrate the
realities of managing and leading. Complex situations and leadership challenges become
apparent when the principles of management and leadership (see Bransford & Johnson,
1972; Daresh, 2002; Lambert, 1998; Sergiovanni, 1999) collide with the human side of
leadership, including: transition, transformation, and the feminist perspective (see Barth,
2001; Casey, 1993; Edson, 1988; Goleman, et al., 2002; Noddings, 1984; Quinn, 1996) of
leading. That is, the voices of the women engaged in the endeavor of managing and
leading reveal the realities of life as first-year women elementary school principals. It is
within this terrain of conundrurns and collisions that we learn about the bridges that first-

year elementary principals must journey across, burn, or build anew. Their journey

169

through uncertainties and complications depends on what they know, whom they know,
and their best guess about their life work.

Because I am a former classroom teacher and elementary school principal, this
analysis, in some sense, is an analysis of my own experience. In this research, I was an
instrument by the way I saw and responded to situations and how I interpreted what I saw
(Eisner, 1991), given that each person involved in the study, including myself, used her
own signature. My signature was a way of providing individual insight into the situations
of the principals with the knowledge that there were limitations on my ability to
objectively observe (W olcott, 1994).

The Uncertainties and Corrgrlications of “What We Know,” “Whom we Know:

and “Our Best Guess”

Three themes are used to explore the uncertainties and complication of what the
women knew, who they knew, and their bust guess (intuition) during their first year of
the principalship. The first theme, vulnerability and value of voices, explores the
developing leadership voice of each woman. The second theme, the bridges that we build
between both/and serves as a metaphor used to flame a discussion about how the women
manage multiple and competing voices in the act of leadership. The third theme, the
mysteries of living a life between the lines, views organizational and personal
perspectives in a conversation about the contradictions and tensions of first-year

principals.

The Vulnerability and Value of Voices

 

The women in this study, Shelby, Deborah, Jesse, Meredith, and Anne, revealed
individual and unique voices that enabled them to articulate their visions (Astin &

Leland, 1991). Shelby was a leader for learning. She was passionate about finding ways

170

to influence others by modeling how to interact and be with children. Deborah, on the
other hand, provided a compass for change by the way she listened to and learned about
her community. Once she encountered a problem, she used data to inform timely
interactions. Jesse, energetic and vivacious, was impatient for change. She had passion
for moving the school fiom a status-quo culture to a vibrant center for teaching and
learning. Meredith brought spirit into her role as a principal. She stepped over
boundaries, both personal and professional, to make a difference in children’s lives as a
leader of learners. Finally, Anne brought a lifetime of mothering experience to her new
role. She crossed cultural, political, and social barriers to bring a sense of community to
separate programs and buildings. All of these women exhibited passion and desire to
promote a vision for a child-centered learning environment. They viewed their roles as
leaders among leaders in a collaborative effort to foster change.

Although the woman’s voices had unique qualities, the principals were woven
together by the nature of who they were as women. Regan and Brooks (1995) noted that
the “practice of leadership is uniquely influenced by our gender” (p. 69). Supporting
Ferguson’s (1984) claim, Casey (1993) found that women are grounded in particular
social relationships, and their activities are organized around specific connections to
others (p. 158). The feminine identity of connectedness with others is “at the heart and
development of human infants and is the recognition of the continued and fundamental
interdependence of self and others” (Ferguson, 1984, p. 159). The voice of the women in
this study, developed in the context of others, is consistent with Ferguson’s further
clarification that the influence of gender is “forthrightly and consistently defined in terms

of the contexts of social relationships” (p. 159).

171

Influenced by the notion that women find identity in connectedness with others,
Regan and Brooks (1995) conceptualized that idea in the context of leadership by
identifying five characteristics of relational leadership. The characteristics provide a
backdrop for hearing the voices of women in leadership as they enact a vision nestled in
their connectedness to others. They include, (a) collaboration marked by the ability to
work in groups and create a synergistic environment; (b) caring, identified as moral
commitment to others and often taking action on behalf of others; (0) courage, manifested
in the capacity to move ahead into the unknown while testing new ideas; ((1) intuition
informing the ability to give equal weight to experience of abstraction, mind and heart,
and (e) vision, the leader is visionary with a gift that frames and expresses original ideas,
which enables others to consider and express ideas so that options and new ways of
acting can be considered and fostered. These characteristics of leadership helped shape
the voices of the women in this study.

Voice, from a feminist leadership perspective, characterizes the women’s point of
view while enabling them to find ways to advance the complex endeavor of guiding a
vision for teaching and learning in a principalship. In addition to articulating vision in
the ways they listen to and interact with others, voice serves as a metaphor for experience
and development of values (Belenky et a1, 1986). The women embody relational
leadership (Regan & Brooks, 1995; Thayer, 1988) by the way they acted fi'om an ethical
and moral stance in the face of challenges.

Whereas their voices developed through relational leadership, the women’s
vulnerabilities became apparent in their endeavors to lead a vision within the context of a
school community with multiple and diverse stakeholders. Because of the complexities

of the principalship, it became essential for the women to hear multiple voices of others,

172

and at the same time be able to listen to their own voices. By revealing who they were
what they believed and the messages they communicated to multiple stakeholders (Astin
& Leland, 1991), the principals opened themselves to scrutiny and disharmony. It was in
face-to-face and group-to-group interactions that meaning was created (Casey, 1993;
Weick, 1995). It was when others’ actions and beliefs were in opposition to the
principals’ voices and visions that tensions and angst surfaced (Sergiovanni, 1994).

The complexity of voice for these beginning principals was inherent in the act of
making sense of multiple voices while they made sense of their own voices. The
complexity of guiding a school became clear through the principals’ acts of sensemaking
(Morgan, 1996). According to Clandinin and Connelly (2000), a leader’s sensemaking
ability is a tool for guiding the school vision. Sergiovanni (2001) made the point by
quoting a leader as saying that the primary role of a principal is “to make sense of things
to show how things fit together" (p. 190). The challenge for beginning principals is
making sense of the parts and the whole while showing others how they fit together.

So, how do first-year principals forward their vision and make sense of things to
show how they fit together, given the vulnerability of their own voices? Meredith used
her voice to “see all kids succeed” and believed they could. She put her vision into action
when she initiated student-led conferences. She shook up accepted past practice as she
pushed for student and parent participation in the face of her superintendent’s voice of
doubt. Meredith trusted what she knew about children, teachers, and parents. So, out of
her moral commitment to action on behalf of the children (Astin & Leland, 1991; Casey,
1993; Regan & Brooks, 1995), she took a risk to charter a new path of collaboration. She
made sense of student-led conferences so that all the pieces would fit together for the

teachers, students, and parents.

173

Deborah’s voice of collaboration resonated when she honored the voice of her
teachers by using reflective questions instead of telling them what to do. When she said,
“Let’s think about it,” she intentionally guided them into their own thoughts and ideas.
Underneath her talk, she knew she was in competition (Sergiovanni, 2001) with the
former principal. She understood that he had made decisions for teachers in a way that
diminished collaborative talk. Deborah wanted to extinguish his lingering voice while
she led the development of a new voice. She revealed herself in her messages, both
verbal and nonverbal, to give purpose and direction to a collective school vision. The
divisions, resulting fiom the former principal’s voice and the teachers’ old way of
interacting with him, underpinned some of the tensions and complexities of leading the
school vision (Daresh, 2002).

These new principals were not always able to make sense of how things should fit
together. For Shelby and Jesse, the situation was messy. They were caught between the
secretary’s ineptness and the superintendent’s nonsupport. They were making sense of
their values concerning relationships and accountability while they tried to make sense of
their superintendent’s authority. Daresh (2002) explained that the principal is “a person
who translates the directives of others,” the central office and the district’s school board,
“into action each day” (p. 50). In this case, the principals received a message of
indifference in the form of nondirectives from central office. The message of not being
heard was deafening. They seemed to question their ability to handle their jobs. Yet, they
knew intuitively that the continuation of the secretaries’ poor work ethic and negative
behaviors should be addressed. Like many new women administrators, they could not

make sense of the competing voices.

174

The women in this study encountered problems “when they saw discrepancies in
what [they] thought and felt, what they knew, and what they were supposed to think and
feel” (Regan & Brooks, 1995, p. 88). For example Shelby was unable to understand the
voices of the organization, which included old power structure-agreements between the
former principal and the secretary, the shared and unwritten agreements between the
superintendent and other administrators, and the perspective of not being heard. These
invisible conditions placed Shelby in the most vulnerable and tenable position by
compromising her success. In the face of Shelby’s strong work ethic, she could not
accept that it would take too much effort to have an established evaluation process in
order to hold secretaries accountable. In Shelby’s words, “Even the people who work at
McDonald’s are evaluated.” She did not know the dominant language and structures of
the organization (Ferguson, 1984). Her relational leadership voice left her vulnerable
amid the multiple voices of the organization.

The first-year principals were more vulnerable because of their identity as
teachers. “Teachers are commonly acknowledged as having had experience but they are
credited with little knowledge gained fiom experience” (Clandinin, 1986, as cited in
J alongo & Isenberg, 1995 p. 17 7). Their teacher voices gave them credibility in their
respective buildings because they could empathize with the teachers. However, their
teacher identity limited their voices at the district level of “hierarchical power.” Astin
and Leland (1991) described this situation as a problem because hierarchical power “can
create an attitude of worship by the followers” (p. 119). As the followers, the first-year
principals questioned their superintendents, but they did not push. They questioned the
competing voice of hierarchical power because it imposed “great expectations on what a

leader can and should be able to accomplish” (p. 119). For example, Shelby liked and

175

trusted her superintendent, but she was intimidated by his power of authority (Astin &
Leland, 1991). In her own voice of doubt she concluded, “I guess it’s just me.”

Quinn (1996) explained that when support (in this case from the superintendent)
falters, making sense of a situation becomes more complex. This increases the
vulnerability of the new principal. In Shelby’s case, support failed; yet support prevailed
for Deborah. Central office helped her articulate the secretarial problems. By formulating
a letter to her secretary, Deborah was able to solidify her voice and vision. When the
secretary went to visit the superintendent, the support continued. The secretary heard a
consistent message about the expectations for her work, and Deborah was able to move
on without self-doubt. Nested in the support of central office, Deborah was able to make
progress with her secretary and firrther her vision. Jesse and Shelby, on the other hand,
were left with contentious secretarial situations that permeated their daily lives and
engendered self-doubt in their leadership.

Given the vulnerabilities of the women in this study, what did it look like when
they were listening to their own voices, making sense of them, juggling contentious and
competing voices, and bringing to bear what they knew, whom they knew and their best
guess as they performed the role of the first-year principal? Jesse brought what she knew
about children, what she knew about the attitude of the former principal, and a strong
sense of justice (see Astin & Leland, 1991; Casey, 1993; Harris, 1994; Regan & Brooks,
1995). She prized every student. At the same time, she found the teachers agreed with the
former principal that the disfavored children should be bused to another school. The
competing voices of the teachers, the former principal, and the children placed Jesse in
the midst of competing voices that challenged her sense of moral obligation as an

advocate for voiceless children. As a result of turning around the breakfast program

176

Jesse’s actions undergirded her argument (Weick, 1995) that all children respond to
meaningful learning experiences. In the end, everyone owned the success of the children.
Through her actions, Jesse voiced a new way of thinking and being with children and
brought new meaning (Weick, 1995) to the school community. The whole staff began to
embrace the learning potential of all children, regardless of their economic status. This
made the principal’s job an intricate and complex endeavor, as was also seen when
Deborah fiamed expectations regarding accountability for one of the teachers.

Deborah brought what she knew about relationships and moral commitment to an
ethical problem with a teacher. The teacher was framing her own meaning about
Deborah’s message of accountability. Deborah’s voice of clarity was explicit in her
response to money issues with her staff. Yet she said, “It took me three times to sit down
with Katie and tell her we needed an invoice.” Deborah’s new language of expectations,
that was different than the former principal, confused the teacher. The way Deborah
made sense of the interchange was to apply what she knew about establishing
relationships with children and parents. She explained, “You really need a relationship
before you can educate children to their firllest potential. Same thing with teachers, not
that you have to be best friends, but you have to have that relationship.”

Although Deborah brought what she knew to the teacher situation, her
vulnerability was evidenced in what she did not know. Harris’s (1994) self-in
organization schema (see also Schien, 1992; Weick, 1995) refers to each person’s
theories and generalizations. The teacher’s meaning is framed within a particular
context and interpreted through organized memories, impressions, and learned
expectations (Thayer, 1988). In Deborah’s situation, the teacher did not understand why

she was expected to have an invoice for her school spending. Her understanding was

177

 

framed in past experiences with a different principal. While each principal was framing
the school vision, the multiple meanings and interpretations constructed by each person
underscored the complexities of the first-year principals’ important work of creating a
shared vision.

Anne brought what she knew, whom she knew, and her best guess when she faced
25 angry teachers because the paraprofessionals for each kindergarten class were laid off
after school started. The preschool teachers were able to keep their classroom
paraprofessionals, so the divide between the preschool staff and the kindergarten staff
became contentious. Every time the kindergarten teachers complained, Anne found a
workable solution. She led like other women leaders, by facing one challenge at a time,
recognizing it, and then dealing with it (Astin & Leland, 1991; Casey, 1993; Regan &
Brooks, 1995). Eventually, Anne’s voice resonated with “we can do it.” She managed to
create new meaning about what can happen in a classroom without a paraprofessional.
Her voice of influence was developing and being heard by the entire staff.

Like Anne, Shelby faced one challenge at a time. In the case of guiding a new
vision for the school improvement team, she found herself worrying about being liked
and accepted by her staff because she realized how much the teachers loved the former
principal. It was difficult to lead in his shadow because he had left the school without an
active school improvement team, plan, or goals. She knew the teachers “had not been
held accountable for school improvement for at least 4 years.”

While she faced this challenge, she lived in the complexity of her own identity
that was being compromised because she did not deem herself a strong enough leader.
Compared to the other administrators she thought she did not have “tough skin.” Yet,

when she faced a challenge, she was able to translate her moral commitment to teaching

178

and learning into action by being visible, building relationships, and initiating knew ideas
(see Astin & Leland, 1991‘; Casey, 1993; Regan & Brooks, 1995). The vulnerability of
her voice was positioned in her transforming identity as she tried to make sense of herself
as a leader.

According to Morgan and Smircich (1982), the principal has the power and
influence to create meaning for others as she makes sense of her role, vision, and her
situation with each person in the organization. Meredith brought her influence to bear on
the forwarding of her vision by coming to know all of the members of her staff. She was
surprised to learn how many members comprised her staff; they included General Motors
tutors, custodians, bus drivers, special education aides, lunchroom staff, and playground
supervisors. She believed it was important that each staff member was included as a full
participant. She led through inclusion by knowing them, listening to them, and inviting
them to school events. Her influence thus became far reaching.

Articulating and implementing a vision of learning that is shared and supported by
the whole community is as complex as it is critical to the school culture (Morgan &
Smircich, 1982). Yet these five women, in precarious situations filled with trap doors,
had the courage to step into positions that created complex challenges and changed the
way they lived their lives. Their success as building-level administrators and visionary
leaders depended on the extent to which they could clearly understand the school
organization. Also essential was the manner in which they were able to establish
relationships that helped others take action. In essence, making sense of their own
voices, while listening to competing voices, was critical to advancing a vision of teaching
and learning because a “leader at work is one who gives others a different sense of

meaning” (Thayer, 1988, p. 50). How the principals made sense of a shared vision in

179

daily leadership practice by using what they knew, whom they knew, and their best guess

determined their ability to survive.

The Brrdges That We Build Between Both/And

“A word is a bridge thrown between myself and another . . . it is territory shared
by addresser and addressee” (Bakhtin, 1981, as cited in Casey, 1993, p.166). Building
bridges between myself and another, by sharing words and ideas, creates an image for
understanding how these principals made connections by using both/and decision
making. McIntosh (as cited in Regan & Brooks, 1995) used a different metaphor to
broaden the understanding of both/and decision making that is typical of women
administrators. She conceptualized our culture as a broken pyramid with a fault line in
the middle to be “collinear with the accumulating ruptures between experiences of
women as school administrators and what they observed in the men around them” (p. 13).
Women on the pyramid were expressed as continuous with others, which translates into
being relational leaders.

The pyramid metaphor furthers the understanding of women’s experiences in
school administration by serving as “an expression of role differentiation in our culture”
(Regan & Brooks, 1995, p. 17). By understanding that men and women interpret the
world differently, it follows that men and women interpret the role of school leadership
differently. More than that, the “political consequences of male dominance (either/or) are
such that women learn the role of the subordinate, and that role can easily become self-
perpetuating” (Ferguson, 1984, p. 94). Shelby’s statement “I need to become stronger” or
Jesse’s message “I didn’t think I was tough enough to do this job” were comparisons of
themselves to male administrators. By making these assertions, they placed themselves at

the bottom of the pyramid. They gave their relational leadership perspectives less value.

180

Either/or and both/and represent two facets of leadership for decision making. The
two facets symbolize the idea of moving from the top-down-pyramid, where the top is
more valuable than the bottom, to a more balanced leadership style that manages both
perspectives. Life can be lived on both sides of the fault line, depending on the
circumstances the leader faces. Competent principals live in a balance by combining
perspectives into both/and (Regan & Brooks, 1995). The women in this study intuitively
worked to create bridges using both/and while they exhibited qualities of relational
leadership (whom they knew) that included vision and collaboration (what they knew)
and intuition and courage (their best guess). As relational leaders, they seamlessly
integrated both perspectives.

The women made connectedness central to their leadership with the integration of
both/and (Regan & Brooks, 1995). They believed that leading for change was grounded
in trusting relationships. Shelby sought connectedness by being available before and after
school for personal talk with teachers. She wanted to come to know them in ways that
would help her establish trusting relationships. Deborah explained that “connecting with
adults in trusting relationships was much like the relationships you build with children in
a classroom.” Jesse wondered what was wrong with the administrators in her district
because they did not take time to know each other outside of business-related discussions.
And Anne arranged social events for teachers outside of school. All five women spoke of
leadership as dependent upon relationships with others and acted as if being connected
was inherent in the school community. They reached out to others by eliciting and
offering support to members of the school community. They mirrored Regan and Brook’s
(1995) concept of relational leadership which they described as never being complete

because it is dynamic by nature. As relational leaders, these women approached problems

181

 

 

with dynamic perspectives, in relationship to the needs of others, which led to building
bridges between old and new knowledge. (p. 103).

The principals in this study built bridges by creating environments in which
people became the answer to the problem within the existing school structure. For
example, they mobilized the teachers to understand the relationship between data and
teaching, to use school improvement to drive instruction, and to communicate in new
ways with parents; They creatively opened space for staff development. They saw
themselves within a community of other leaders rather than as leaders who tell others
what to do. The interactive nature of the way the five women used decisions to build
bridges was transforming by the interactive synergy it created (Regan & Brooks, 1995).
Anne’s relationship with the high school principal, for example, developed when he saw
her positive influence on high school students. She brought a new perspective to
interactions with students by including them in conversations about their own life
choices.

Astin and Leland (1991) explained that change occurs when women principals
first see the problem. They capture a clear picture of the problem, as evidenced by
Deborah’s assessment of her unfriendly office, Meredith’s regret at the absence of
parents in school, Jesse’s awareness that the teachers did not have access to supplies, and
Anne’s snapshot of the tense relationships between programs and people. Out of a
relational leadership perspective, the women mobilized others by organizing a collective
effort to bring about desired change (Astin & Leland, 1991’). In Deborah’s case, she
enlisted the help of the superintendent and assistant superintendent and mobilized an
effort to make the office a fiiendlier place. Jesse’s reorganization plan to make resources

available to the teachers relayed a message of trust. Meredith mobilized the staff to

182

include teaching and learning information during open house events, while Anne held
whole¢school sing-along assemblies as a way to inspire school spirit.

Astin and Leland (1991) furthered the understanding of the both/and metaphor by
conceptualizing the way women make decisions [through empowerment rather than
through power. “Empowerment treats power as an expandable resource, that is, produced
and shared through interaction by the leader and followers alike” (p. I). Empowerment
was evidenced when Jesse’s breakfast club transformed the way in which the teachers
thought about and treated children in the before-school breakfast program. This
conception of empowerment views power as energy that transforms oneself and others. In
this case, Jesse transfonned attitudes as she became an authentic leader. As an effective
leader, she empowered others to act in their own interests and the interests of children.
Empowerment, in this case, created a bridge between ideas and attitudes, groups of
teachers and children, and the school organization. The synergy of her actions, to bring
marginalized children into the care of the teaching staff, created a bridge between the
former leader’s attitudes (either/or) about a vulnerable group of children and Jesse’s
sense of justice (both/and) for children.

The organizational bridge between the former and new principals was not
straightforward because each of them had walked into a status-quo situation that had been
perpetuated over a long period of time. Without a new perspective, it was easy for the
staff to be swept into the notion that this was the way things had always been done
(hooks, 2000). The status-quo mentality was evidenced by the undeveloped school
improvement process, the lack of knowledge about data-driven decision making, the lack
of teacher participation in decisions, the absence of parents’ voices, and the neglect of

teacher development. The women principals bridged the gap between either/or and

183

both/and by bringing balance through their vision of child-centered schools with voiced
participation from all of the stakeholders.

An essential element of relational leadership is connectedness. This was key to
the women in this study as they worked hard to build bridges between either/or and
both/and perspectives among ideas, people, social groups, and organizational structures
(Casey, 1993). However, their connected or relational way of leading, although it had
worked in the role of elementary teacher and in the role of elementary principal at the
building level, did not work in the male-dominated context of the larger organization.
Building bridges between central office (either/or) and the elementary school (both/and)
brought other challenges.

Situated in the context of the larger school organization, elementary schools have
been marginalized as less important entities. The elementary principals have the least
amount of authority at the district level. Ironically, this situation leaves individual
principals with a great degree of autonomy while existing in an overarching patriarchal
school system (Casey, 1993). For example, Meredith was able to lead her vision for a
collaborative community at the building level through school improvement, professional
reading groups, and a number of teacher development opportunities. Conversely, at the
district level, when she questioned the district’s decision-making approach, she was
silenced. Indeed, she was seen as an agitator when she questioned the district-level voice
of authority. Creating a bridge between central office (either/or) and the new elementary
school principal (both/and), situated in the larger school organization, proved to be
complex and challenging.

When Deborah took her knowledge of children’s writing to the district level, she

was accused of cheating. So that children would be equipped and ready to begin writing

184

on the day of the state-mandated test, she suggested that children brainstorm ideas for
writing topics with their parents the night before. Although the teachers in Deborah’s
building embraced the idea, the teachers in the larger school district were appalled,
equating this preparation to cheating. As a member of the state-level test committee,
Deborah was an expert on the topic. Yet she was not able to create a bridge between new
ideas and accepted practice in the school organization.

In the first year of the principalship, the women in this study built bridgesthrough
both/and relational, connected leadership that was characterized by caring, collaboration,
intuition, an ethical stance for action, and empowerment of others. They created bridges
with what they knew, whom they knew, and their best guess. Their actions voiced and
advanced their vision for child-centered schools with the purpose of teaching and
learning, while situated in the vulnerabilities of a new role. Yet they continued to take
risks to forward their vision in the midst of conflicting values. It became clear that these
women, leading fiom a place of vulnerability, stepped beyond reservations because their
passion was stronger than the uncertainties they faced. They were able to build bridges
between ideas, people, and groups from a both/and perspective, as well as between
either/or (past leadership) and both/and perspectives.

Yet the woman faced complex situations that caused self-doubt within conflicting
perspectives of either/or and both/and sets of values. By considering their experience
through the lens of a both/and perspective, it became clear that the women did not have
the language (Ferguson, 1984) to describe what actually happened when they faced issues
of silencing, and marginalization. To better understand the phenomenon of their first-year

experience, the next section is an exploration of the mysteries of their role that led to their

185

apprehensions and doubts. What are the mysteries of living a life between the lines of

either/or and both/and?

The Mysteries of Living a Life Between the lines

There are mysteries of living a life between the lines of complexity and
uncertainty as viewed through organizational and personal perspectives. There is a space
between the lines that creates gaps in knowledge and understanding. It is like the space
between flight take-off and being in the air, or the moment between inhaling and
exhaling. It is real, yet it does not fully belong to one side or the other, so it is not in
immediate view of understanding. The women in this study were no longer teachers, yet
they were not fully accepted as principals. The life between the lines refers to the
experiences of first-year principals that are difficult to name. These experiences include
marginalization, intuition and feelings, loneliness and camaraderie, motherhood and
professional career. To better know the experience of first-year women elementary school
principals, it is important to understand life between the lines so that “we can think and
rethink, so that we can create new visions” (hooks, 2000, p. 12) for transforming our
schools through effective leadership.

The principals could easily identify the between-the-lines spaces where others
lived, and thus they were able to find easy solutions. For example, Jesse uncovered old,
stereotyped attitudes toward a particular group of children. She solved the mystery by
defining the problem and mobilizing an action plan. Although she could uncover and
solve those uncomfortable dilemmas, she found it difficult to define the underlying
tensions that created the space within which she and her secretary were trapped.
Ironically, the principals could perceive life between the lines for the students they loved,

but they could not perceive their own lives between the lines as women leaders. i The

186

 

 

 

space between the lines in their own lives included unspoken norms (Schon, 1997) that,
as new principals, they could not see, much less unravel.

The mystery of living between the lines becomes apparent when we consider how
the women found themselves caught in the space between the role of a teacher and that of
elementary principal. The women in this study were teacher and principal, yet not fully
either one. At times, in order to make sense of their transition from one role to the other,
they identified more with teachers (Astin & Leland, 1991). These principals wanted to
stay close to what they knew best, teaching and children. They used visibility and
relational leadership as a way to belong with teachers rather than be separate. They did
not want to lose the experience of teaching because they believed it helped them
empathize and support teachers. However, this behavior did nothing to ingratiate them
with other building-level administrators. Staying closely tied to their teacher identity kept
them from finding commonality with other administrators.

The principals believed they were not fully welcomed as building leaders at the
district level. Shelby struggled for words to eXplain some of her experiences. She found
that high school principals “don’t understand a K-2 building. And they think I don’t
understand their high school. They just don’t understand that we have difficult jobs too.”
In the end, we saw the women living in between the mysteries of being a teacher and a
school principal by bargaining and negotiating their lived realities (see Bridges, 1980;
Evans, 1996; Kubler-Ross, 1969). They shifted identities in their own skin between the
lines of administrator and teacher while they increased their influence with staff and
parents at the building level.

Like Shelby, Jesse and Meredith struggled to find words to explain their

experiences. Jesse believed she was too sensitive to be a principal. She thought she had to

187

“toughen up.” But without sensitivity, would she have been able to advocate for
undervalued children in a collaborative, sensitive style that respected the dignity of all the
voices in her community? Whereas Jesse believed she did not have enough toughness,
Meredith wrestled with her position at central office meetings. When she asked questions,
her views challenged commonly held practices and placed her in an awkward position
with the other principals. Both Jesse and Meredith wrestled with their experiences of
confusing messages. Some of the confusion arose from not having the language to
describe their experience (Casey, 1993) which seemed to contribute to a sense of
loneliness.

The women experienced loneliness living between the lines. Deborah was the
exception. She, unlike the other four, had a collegial relationship with another woman
elementary principal. They talked on a regular basis. She also received support from
central office when she faced dilemmas. Because the other four women did not have the
same support system, they missed the camaraderie of belonging to the teaching staff in
ways that involved personal and professional-growth within a learning community. Some
of their loneliness stemmed fiom the lack of feedback about their leadership practice.
They were not afforded opportunities to reflect on their practice in ways that brought
understanding to their experiences. They assumed that if they did not hear complaints,
they were doing a good job.

Jesse described the hardest part of the job as “just the alone part. . . .There’s just
no other way to put it.” With teachers she found that “people talk about personal things.”
But with the other principals in the district, “it’s very businesslike.” She believed that
relationships were not only important for her school, but they were also important to

sustain a healthy school district. The principalship proved to be a lonely position that

188

 

these women had a difficult time resolving. They found that there was no one to talk
with about their challenges. They had staffing and parental issues that were bound by
privacy so they were left to make sense of them on their own. They also had personal and
professional growth needs that teachers could not understand. Nor could their families
fully grasp the complexity of their isolation. Astin and Leland (1991) contended that, in
administration, “the higher you go, the less you are able to admit that this [loneliness] had
you baffled, that you don’t really have a good answer for it, or you don’t even feel
competent and qualified to take that on” (p. 134). True to the notion that loneliness can be
baffling and difficult to take on, the principals did not talk to anyone about their sense of
loneliness or how to manage the way it was affecting their lives. Indeed, admitting
loneliness could be admitting failure in the principalship.

A lonely space between the lines that was difficult for the women to navigate is
the one between school principal/professional career and mother/wife. The most salient
example is Jesse’s story of the school secretary’s vocal concern, which other community
members shared, that Jesse’s role as the school principal would compromise her role as a
mother. Indeed, this harkens back to the notion that “teaching was seen as women’s
work, compatible with being a wife and mother” (Casey, 1993, p. 84), but a principalship
aligns more closely with the male gender. Reynolds (2002) explained that “women found
limitations by being positioned as mother. They ran into trouble when their individual
actions, which they saw as unrelated to gender, were viewed as gender related by others”
(p. 45).

Because the women in this study viewed the space between the role of mother and
that of principal as seamless (Astin & Leland, 1991), they struggled with the gender-

related issues of being a woman in a role perceived as more appropriate for men. They

189

 

would continue to wrestle with the complications of motherhood, family, and
professional life. They continued to work hard to live in the space where they could be

99 G6

passionate about work they viewed as a “way of life, a mission,” and “a joy” and their
commitment and responsibility to their family life as mothers, wives, and grandmothers.
Given the complexities of their lives, the women found joy and satisfaction in
their work. They wanted the professional growth and challenges inherent in school
administration (Edson, 1988). And they believed they could make a difference. They
intentionally entered into the role of principal with the goal of affecting student
achievement (J alongo & Isenberg, 1995). As Edson (1988) wrote, “They want to do
something positive for children in schools that is different than what they see” (p. 10).
They based their work on the sharp contradiction between the principals they had
followed and the principals they were striving to be. They each entered a status-quo
environment, and their mission was to transform it into a vibrant, child-centered, learning
community. All five women were clear in their belief that school could become a better

place. Jesse’s words sum up their vision: “The atmosphere of learning together is what

I’m trying to create.”

Summg

It was a challenge to sift through multiple voices and competing rhetoric in order
to hear the stories of five women in the first year of their principalship. This analysis
uncovered shared messages of women leading during a time of uncertainties in their new
role. They were drawn into the principalship because of their love for learning and they
were led by their vision for making school a better place for children. Their message of
leadership echoed their uncertainties in the overarching theme of what we know, whom

we know, and our best guess. The women’s shared voice set the stage for considering the

190

 

vulnerability and value of their voices, the bridges they created with between both/and
decision making, and the unspoken mysteries of living a life between the lines.

Seeing and hearing the vulnerabilities of first-year principals’ voices revealed the
particular tenor of connectedness that included caring, collaboration, courage, intuition,
and the ability to formulate and express ideas that enabled others to consider options
(Astin & Leland, 1991). The voice of relational leadership conflicted with the
hierarchical power of the organization, particularly, but not exclusively, in dealings with
central office. The conflict between relational leading and the organization placed the
principal’s voice of leadership in a vulnerable position. The women began to identify the
discrepancies between what they knew and how they felt with the realities of the
organization. Given their vulnerabilities, the vacuous lack of support was like a deafening
cymbal clanging through the first year of the school principalship.

The metaphor of building bridges illuminated the image of principals making
connections through relational leadership. Through the image of building bridges, it was
clear the principals were emerging leaders for change. They placed themselves in the
middle of their respective communities as catalysts for change and at the bottom of the
pyramid when facing challenges fi'om the top of a hierarchally based organization (Regan
& Brooks, 1995). In addition, they intuitively took the both/and course of action in
leadership and at the same time faced each challenge with a sense of caring in which they
worked to understand problems within the context of the school-community. They
searched tirelessly for win-win processes and solutions.

Finally, the mystery of living between the lines suggests that fundamental shifts
of identity were occurring. Each principal’s commitment was in operation, even while

they were so often torn between family and professional work. At times they were

191

 

wrapped in loneliness and confirsion. At other times they were challenged by puzzling
situations and complex events as they influenced the entire learning community with a
new vision for teaching and learning. Considering their potential for affecting student
achievement, their insatiable willingness for learning, their passion for working with
children, and their uncanny ability for garnering resources, the lack of support for their
growth and development constitutes an unconscionable loss of human resources that
could be used in renewing our schools and increasing student achievement.

Three robust themes that emerged from this chapter will serve to outline
conclusions in chapter VI. Following the response to the overarching exploratory
question that guided this inquiry, chapter VI will also serve as a platform to discuss the
implications of this body of work. A response to the conclusions offers a contribution to a

larger discussion regarding induction and sustenance for beginning principals.

192

 

 

CHAPTER VI
CONCLUSION, CONTRIBUTION, AND REFLECTIONS

Introdaction

A body of research is not complete without offering a set of conclusions,
contributions and reflections. This chapter offers reflections regarding the five women
principals in this study in response to the overarching research question, contributions of
this body of work to the practice and support of women in leadership. Like the women in
Casey’s (1993) story, the women in this study were “not content to live in outmoded
habits or in a structure that someone else had built” p. 63). Their stories grew out of their
determination not to perpetuate the status-quo environments they entered. They wanted
change that required a different perspective, new habits, and a fresh voice within the '

hierarchical organizations where they served.

Maflg Sense of a New Identity

My purpose in this study was to explore five women elementary school
principals' first year in the principalship to better understand their transition from the role
of classroom teacher to that of principal, and how they made sense of that experience.
Each woman told her first-year story in an informal conversation revealing the hopes,
disappointments, and accomplishments of her professional work. The overarching
question I asked in this study was: How did the first-year elementary school principal
make sense of her new identity, which required that she understand the dynamics of the
whole-school organization (not just the classroom setting), reconcile and redefine new
communication and relational norms (power and authority), and identify and articulate

her school-wide vision (vs. classroom vision) for the school?

193

In response to the overarching exploratory query, the analysis of the women’s
stories (presented in chapter V) shed light on the puzzles, challenges, and dilemmas of
their first-year experiences and brought to the surface three emergent and inter-connected
themes:

0 The first theme, “What they know, whom they know, and their best
guess,” concerns how the women worked to transfer their classroom knowledge and
experience to the work of the school principalship.

o The second theme, “Building bridges,” pertains to how the principals used
both/and decision making to build connections between people, which also served as a
means to articulate a vision of leadership for teaching and learning.

0 The third theme, “Living between-the-lines,” brings to light invisible
conditions that affected the women’s emerging identity. Each woman’s transformation
fi'om classroom teacher to school principal was a dynamic undertaking of self critique
and discovery as she redefined self, self in relation to others and self within the school
organization. This transformation was complicated by competing organizational norms
that valued hierarchical power and authority over collaboration and relational norms,
developing new habits of communication that required teachers and staff to behave
differently, and laboring to redefine and establish the multiple and equally valuable roles
of being both a professional and a mother/wife.

The women in this study were successful teachers who cared deeply about their
professional work. Irnpelled by their love of learning, they set out on a journey into the
unknown territory of the principalship. They were motivated by their desire to expand
their influence about teaching and learning. As Edson (1988) pointed out, “women

simply want the professional grth and challenges inherent in school administration”

194

(p. 9). They bundled up what they knew from their classrooms and filled their bags with
teaching proficiencies and leadership qualities that included collaboration, caring,
courage, intuition, and vision. They also carried the knowledge of whom they knew
which included teachers, children, and families. And they brought their best guesses into
play in relocating knowledge and experience from the classroom to the principalship.

The women seamlessly transported what they knew about student learning to the
practice of leading a school by connecting what they knew from the classroom to how
they re-cultured (Fullan, 2001) their school and forwarded their vision. They
collaboratively created goals based on teaching and learning outcomes. By combining
their knowledge about school improvement with classroom teaching experience, they
gained credibility as they initiated change toward a developing school vision. They
gained momentum for change by making classroom visitations a natural component of
their daily leadership practice.

The women increased their connectedness to the community by learning
children’s names and taking time for teachers as well as the noninstructional staff. They
used intentional strategies to become connected to their communities. They were visible
in the hallways before and after school and during lunch in a way that communicated
“We’re all in this together.” Their interactions with children provided a model for
teachers to honor and respect children in their classrooms. The principals further
increased the sense of community by leading assemblies, literature experiences, and
home-school communication strategies. At every opportunity, they listened to children in
the same way they had listened as classroom teachers. Their visibility with teachers, staff
members, parents, and students augmented their connectedness to the entire school

community, much like how they had been connected to the classroom community as

195

 

teachers. As Regan and Brooks (1995) explained,” The most successful educational
leaders maintain this connectedness to students and to their staffs when they move into
administering” (p. 26).

Although the women used different words, their visions were dependent on a
central belief that had transferred from the role of classroom teacher to the role of
principal. They believed school to be about teaching and learning for the sake of student
achievement while their actions voiced their vision with the same high energy featured in
their classroom teaching. As relational leaders they used both/and decision making and
practiced listening over telling. This was evidenced in the way they interacted and
connected with teachers by trusting the teachers’ thinking and encouraging them to
expand their ideas. They forwarded their visions by placing themselves in a position of
leadership that was in the middle of other leaders (teachers) by participating in decisions
rather than making decisions. They energetically pooled resources, collaborated, and
rallied around the needs of children. In the face of challenges they negotiated what they
knew, who they knew, and their best guess by offering new options in the way they built
bridges using both/and decision making that articulated their vision for teaching and
learning.

The principals’ leadership was situational. For example, they bridged both/and in
the way they acted as either participants or leaders of school improvement. In other
words, their actions were a response to the needs of their community (see Regan &
Brooks, 1995). If they were needed as leaders, the principal’s assumed that role. If others
needed support in their own leadership roles, the principals acted in a supportive

capacity. On the other hand, driven by an ethical responsibility, they made critical

196

leadership decisions that set boundaries for issues related to the safety of children and the
stewardship of resources.

In their new position, fresh from the classroom, the principals were able to read
the pulse of their building, develop their focus, and go about the work of changing their
school culture. The sharp contrast between their predecessors’ leadership which defined a
status-quo school culture, and their own vision for teaching and learning, created a deep
chasm between the past and present. The gap caused tensions, but at the same time, the
gap helped the principals define their own leadership. While they were learning about
their new school cultures, they listened carefully to others. They discerned the needs of
individuals, as well as the needs of the larger school community by listening from flesh
and multiple perspectives of classroom teacher, principal, and mother. As they listened,
they found little accountability for teaching and learning in their schools. They were able
to develop clear visions that focused on children by bridging between old habits of their
schools and their new perspectives of leadership.

The women confronted the complexities of forwarding a vision by bridging
intuition of mind and heart with masculine qualities of competence and rationality into
both/and decision making. Angst occurred when the new voices of these women
disrupted status-quo school cultures and triggered unwanted changes. Their way of
leading--that is, to build bridges (relationship) with visibility, listening, craft knowledge
(of teaching), and connectedness with others--forwarded their vision at the building level,
but it was in direct opposition to the power and authority of the larger school district.

In the face of these organizational challenges, the women also grappled with first-
year jitters. That is, they had little time and insufficient support to make sense of their

new identities as women in formal leadership roles. They were living between the lines of

197

 

invisible conditions and complications during the transformation from the role of
classroom teacher to that of elementary school principal. Engagement in leadership was
complicated for these principals because they were speaking with a woman’s voice in a
man’s world in a way that caused shifts in their identities.

The particular discourses with other building administrators, based on valued
hierarchical power and authority, limited the voices of these women as they grappled
with their new identities as school leaders. They wrestled with ways to be heard by
questioning their voice and comparing their ways of leading to those of other leaders in
the district. It was difficult to make sense of the space between what they knew and felt
(intuition) and what they were experiencing. So each time these women heard competing
voices, their identities shifted. For example, the moment Deborah received support from
her teachers about the way she helped them with curriculum, it situated her identity as a
dynamic leader because she knew she could make a difference. When Shelby could not
reconcile her voice with district administrators, she questioned her leadership by
negotiating her reality with thoughts of failure. This shift led her to believe she should
become more like male administrators. Jesse wrestled with her competence as a mother
when it was put in question by the community. It jarred her inner sense of peace as she
renegotiated her thoughts about being a loving mother and a committed school leader. In
other words, the principals’ identity shifts were connected to others as they constructed
and reconstructed their voices, views, and values of leadership and motherhood.

The five women in this study were engaged in fundamental shifts of thinking as
they transformed how and what they thought in the multifaceted roles of principal, wife,
and mother. It was their sense of justice and strong advocacy for children that guided the

way they reconciled their angst about demands of time between their professional/work

198

 

 

 

 

 

 

life and the responsibilities of being mothers and wives. Transformation, the process of
living in an organic, fluid, networked organization (as opposed to seeing the school
through the lens of an individual classroom) took place when everything was in motion,
including relationships, building dynamics, family circumstances, and self (see Senge,
2000).

On their journey, these women were challenged by cultural traditions, power, and
authority in hierarchical organizations as they negotiated new ways to communicate and
be heard. Still, they were committed to their vision as relational leaders. The generative
voice of the organization which was steeped in existing power structures created barriers.
The organization did not support the transformation fi'om classroom teacher to school
leader. It appeared that district leadership missed the opportunity to develop the strengths
and identities of these extraordinary women leaders in their endeavor to transform
schools into vibrant learning organizations.

In summary, the five women in this study were motivated to become principals by
their love of learning. They set high standards for leadership and were able to transfer
what they knew about teaching into their new role as elementary school principals. They
enacted their visions by facing one challenge at a time and using both/and decision
making. However, their relational leadership perspective was in sharp contrast to the
status quo school environments they led. They faced uncertainties at the district level that
occurred during the angst between relational leadership and the hierarchical power of
their school organization. Their survival depended on‘their families and their ability to
continuously redefine their roles as leaders, learners, wives, mothers and grandmother.

It appears that the five stories in this study support the “mythic” narrative about

successful teachers that enter patriarchal status quo school cultures. Inevitably, like the

199

women in this study, their relational leadership style persists and triumphs in the face of
difficult circumstances. Although it was not the intent of this study to identify and
support this myth, the absence of a deviant story casts doubt on the nature of the intent
and findings of the research. This is in part due to the selection process. The women in
this study were proven change agents before they became principals. Their participation
in professional learning opportunities, elementary teaching experiences, and their expert
knowledge in literacy and early childhood education set them apart fiom their
predecessors. In other words, they participated in and led school and district-wide
teaching and learning initiatives before they became principals.

It is also important to note that the findings of this study are based on a snapshot
of the first year of the principalship. There is little doubt that careful study of the women
in subsequent years of practice would offer different perspectives. Yet, the “mythic”
narrative of the women’s first year stories offers a powerful opportunity to learn about the
needs of beginning principals that might inform a discussion about induction. With little
or no support, it is probable the women would unknowingly perpetuate the myth by
eventually becoming like the status quo leaders they followed. Therefore, the larger and
more important learning from this study is the lack of support the women encountered for

their developing success as women educational leaders.

Contribution to Practice
In addition to the conclusions summarized in the first section of this chapter,
strong messages emerged from the women’s stories that contribute to the understanding
of principal leadership during the first year of practice. Reynolds (2002) wrote that “the
story of school leaders is a multifaceted puzzle that shifts even as we try to enact or study

it” (p. 46). Indeed, the women in this study were shifting their visions, their practices,
200

 

 

and their identities during the endeavor to study their transition fi'om the role of
classroom teacher to the role of elementary school principal. In the telling of their stories,
they discovered facets about their leadership that had not been voiced prior to our
encounter.

By telling their stories, they were making sense of their experience as first-year
principals (Mezirow, 1990). Therefore, the contribution of this study, to the practice of
leadership, lies in the use of these stories as catalysts for others to reflect and make sense
of their experiences. The stories are not only a support for discourse for beginning
principals but also for those who prepare and hire principals. Further, the stories yield
implications for supporting, and developing all elementary school principals.

The women principals in this study were situated in school settings occupied
primarily by women teachers while leading in male dominated organizations. The
gendered differences created perplexing situations for these principals. Their experiences
depicted in these stories offer an intricate path to conversations about gendered
differences in leadership. In essence, the stories offer multiple possibilities for general
discourse to increase understanding of women principal leaders in the context of school
organizations. The hope is that this body of knowledge might provide evidence to frame
concrete processes and tools to give this fluid and unstructured transition from teacher to

building level leader some structure.

Professional Develgment for Principals and Teachers

The stories of the women in this body of work provide evidence for
comprehension support during the development of their leadership. From the five
women in this study we learned that hiring begins in the classroom where school leaders

are being developed. The hiring process should include thoughtfirl discernment of
201

leadership candidates from a pool of developing leaders that have experienced leadership
roles as classroom teachers. There should be an attentive match of the incoming school
leader to the vision and values of the school organization followed by induction into the
organization that include opportunities for feedback and reflection on practice. To sustain
visionary leaders, opportunities for growth and development must continue in subsequent
years. In the case of the five women in this research, central office administrators had
been astute about hiring these women. However, they did not seem to know how to
engage the leadership qualities of women in a way that sustained the principals and
benefited their school organizations. This raises questions about what superintendents
and hiring teams should know about hiring women educational leaders. Women, as
catalysts for change offer hope for renewing schools. However, even strong educational
leaders have a limited impact without the support of the larger school organization. In
other words, would a strong hiring, induction, and retention process reduce the number of
status-quo leaders and increase the number of educational leaders?

The use of these stories as catalysts for discourse may contribute to the critical
endeavor of hiring strong educational leaders. Essentially, the case studies are tools for
educators to gain “insight of others, past, present, and future” (Jalongo & Isenberg, 1995,
p. 7) as a tool to examine the organizations readiness for hiring educational leaders. In
that endeavor, reading these narratives can lead to self examination. A hiring team for
example, would benefit from reading and discussing the case studies in response to the
kind of leader they want to hire and the conditions under which they are hiring. The
hiring team benefits in two ways. First, reading the case studies serves as an opportunity
for administrators to reflect and assess their own leadership practice. Most importantly,

the case studies provide a discussion base for administrative teams to define and

202

 

 

implement meaningful induction that supports the development of new principals and
enhances the vision of their respective school districts.

Although the belief that all children can learn has been unleashed, it has yet to
drive the purpose and activities of schools that includes the support and sustenance of
aspiring and beginning school leadership. Tackling the way we develop leaders is a small
step in the critical endeavor of transforming schools to learning organizations in which all
children and adults are learning. For example, the women in this study faced the dilemma
of choosing prevailing standards or continuing the new set of standards they brought to
their respective schools. Increasing the likelihood for principals to choose the prevailing
standards intensified in the absence of feedback and reflection on practice (Schdn, 1997).
The principals in this study offered the capacity to increase the quality of teaching and
learning with higher standards. Yet, their capacity for leadership was not acknowledged
during the initial development of their principalship.

Feedback and reflection are critical elements of induction. For example, the five
women in this study knew how to lead; however they did not always know why. They did
not know how their actions connected to the larger school organization. At the building
level, their roles and responsibilities included broad involvement and collaboration (see
Lambert, 1998). Yet they were not provided with intentional opportunities to reflect on
their endeavors to change the school culture or how their endeavors were connected to
the vision of the larger school organization. The situation of the five women in this study
leads to the question: Was the intention of the school organization, in hiring these
women leaders, to change the culture of their school organization? If so, it does not
appear that they had a plan to support the principals in such a complex endeavor.

Purposeful and meaningful induction, that guides beginning principals in the collective

203

endeavor of transforming schools into learning organizations, that is based on the belief
that all children can learn, offers hope for school renewal.

Beginning principals and teachers often find themselves in schools that do not
support adult learning. According to Barth (2001), “Life under the roof of the
schoolhouse is toxic to adult learning; the longer you reside there, the less learning is
likely to occur” (p. 23). School districts rurintentionally miss tremendous opportunities
when they fail to capitalize on the potential of beginning teachers and principals during
the initial years of their practice. Novices are informally inducted into status-quo school
norms when they are not given intentional induction opportunities (Feiman-Nemser,
1996). This situation perpetuates status-quo schools.

The lack of support for adult learning and development exists across school
organizations. To increase the pool of strong principals, strong teacher leaders must be
developed and sustained. Teacher leaders are sustained by vibrant learning organizations
in concert with guidance from strong educational leaders (Blase, 1991). Teacher
induction is needed to develop classroom teachers into professional leaders that become
potential principals. While teacher induction is imperative to develop and sustain teacher
leaders, principal induction develops and sustains leaders that create learning and
teaching environments that, in turn, retain teacher leaders. The synergy created from
interdependent induction for principals and teachers has the potential to transform status
quo schools into learning organizations. Subsequently, vibrant learning organizations will
provide environments that attract and sustain teacher leaders. Strong induction and
leadership development broadens the opportunity for school systems to transform into

learning organizations.

204

 

Developigg Visible Life Support Systems For School Principals

During the final interview with Meredith, she asked, “What is the shelf life of
principals?” She was referring not only to longevity, but to the energy it requires to lead
with passion and unwavering commitment. She, like the other women in this study, relied
on time with family to replenish her energy during the summer weeks of our interviews.
The stories of these women provide an opportunity for school leaders to consider the
needs of aspiring and practicing women principals by providing authentic life support.

To define life support, school districts must acquire consciousness for valuing the
development of women elementary school principals. The women in this study existed
alone within the larger context of the school organization. They were left to survive
rather than flourish with meaningful support. District lifelines for principals might
include, but not be limited to, engaging new principals in mentoring programs (as
opposed to assigning a go-to person for information), opportunities for discourse during
administrative meetings, and collaborative planning among principals. Unfortunately,
there seemed to be little intention to harness the potential of these women in a way that
communicated a message of “We value you, we value what you are doing, we

acknowledge the challenges you face, and we are here to support you.”

This work underscores the need for professional support groups for women with
opportunities for discourse, collegial support, reflection, and active communication
networks. Although school districts have an obligation to aid in the development of
principals, assistance from outside of the organization provides life support that connects
woman to the larger leadership community. Perhaps professional support groups could

be developed through partnerships with universities, intermediate schools districts, and

205

 

local school districts in collaboration to deveIOp women leaders. This is an important
endeavor because women inspire other women in ways that are energizing and sustaining
for the professional life of school leaders.

Queryingthe Hegemony (Dominion, Power, Authority)
of the School Structure

 

Reading and discussing the stories of the women in this study offers an
opportunity to engage in discourse about what it means for women to lead in male
dominated organizations. The lack of balance between voices elevated the masculine
voice and reinforced a system in which female values, experiences, and behaviors were
viewed as inferior (see Ferguson, 1984). By examining assumptions and beliefs about
women in leadership, the organization increases the potential for increasing learning and
leading capacity.

It is in the best interest of school organizations for district leaders to embrace
qualities of relational leadership. For example, in Shelby’s school district there was a
belief that improving practice (by holding secretaries accountable) would impose
additional demands on other administrator’s time and energy. In other words, the
message Shelby received fi'om the school district was, the better you perform, the more
work you will have to do (see Barth, 2001). School districts cannot afford to waste the
potential of women and the leadership ability they bring for the sake of forwarding
teaching and learning.

The stories from this body of research should help administrators think about
ways to develop an understanding of relational leadership, how to capitalize on balanced
leadership by looking for examples of relational attributes of leadership in a purposeful

and conscious undertaking, articulate collaborative visions that capitalize on the strengths

206

of both masculine and feminist models of leadership, and enhance mutual respect through
the understanding that comes from acknowledging multiple attributes of leadership.
Schools mirror a modern bureaucracy with traits that are in opposition to the feminist
perspective of leadership. Yet, in smart organizations, women bring hope for the
transformation of schools to become vibrant learning organizations.

We need to grow teacher leaders and aspiring principals that know how to impact
student achievement, are visionary and who believe that all children can learn. It begins
for teachers in school environments where they have opportunities for professional
development and support in the classroom (Moir & Bloom, 2003). The principal is
critical for the success of beginning teacher induction yet has not been inducted herself.
Until there is a cycle of induction that includes mentoring for beginning teachers,
principal development with reflection on practice, and teacher leaders that become
mentors for beginning teachers, principals and teachers will enter status-quo learning
environments that diminish the opportunity for schools to improve. The school
organization has the capacity to create, acquire, and transfer knowledge with meaningful
teacher and principal induction that reflects new knowledge and insights (Senge, 2000)

about student and adult learning. The women in this study offer hope to that endeavor.

Reflections of a Former Elementary School Principal: What I’ve Learned
About Beinga Scholar. Scholar Practitioner
This research enterprise has opened my mind and heart, as a scholar and
practitioner, to the importance of harnessing life experiences with words in a way that

they can be understood and shared. The attempt to hear multiple voices surrounding the

women and articulating their experience was a challenge for me. I listened for competing

207

 

 

llll

voices through an organizational, personal, and feminist perspective. My experience
seemed to mirror those of the five women in this study, because I, like them, did not have
the language to describe the experience of my principalship. The gift of this work was
the opportunity to reflect on the multifaceted experience of leadership that mirrored my
own journey. I saw and heard the interconnectedness of the women to each other and me
to them.

Research, course work, and my teacher-education assistantship have provided a
broad base of experience that has given me new insights into my current endeavor to
develop urban principals, women leaders, and teacher mentors. The work with urban
principals involves their understanding and support for teacher induction. Their
development began with informational meetings with little opportunity for reflection on
their practice. My experience with this research has transformed the way I plan and
facilitate the principals’ developing knowledge about teacher induction. It now requires
the principals to actively participate in constructing a knowledge base that will serve to
support their leadership for teacher induction. I now approach this work with deeper
understanding for the importance of principals to embrace teacher induction as an integral
element of their school vision. In the absence of their support, teacher induction remains
an isolated activity rather than a visionary endeavor that embraces school as a learning
organization.

Five years ago I left behind teacher leaders when I retired from an adnrinistrative
role. Concerned about the continued leadership development of the women; a colleague
and I began a professional reading and support group for women leaders. Girl Gang
remains active today with 17 members. The discourse is rooted in the women’s

exploration of complex situations and leadership dilemmas. Girl Gang serves as a forum

208

 

 

for reflection and feedback in connection with other women. While surrounded and
encouraged by other leadership voices, the women in Girl Gang have taken professional
leaps into formal leadership roles. This research has changed how I listen to the women’s
experiences, and informed the kinds of questions I ask. My coaching of aspiring
principals who emerge fi'om Girl Gang now reflects a deeper understanding of the
connections I have made between classroom teaching and the role of principal. Girl Gang
confirms the conclusions of my research, that women leaders want and need professional
development that is connected to others.

Conducting this research has changed the way I think about my work with teacher
mentors. Analyzing the experience of women principals from the feminist perspective of
relational leadership has increased my understanding of the complexities of women
leaders in organizations. My endeavors of mentoring, coaching, and teaching will always
be informed by growing understanding of gendered differences for the purpose of
increasing the capacity for teaching and learning in schools.

Finally, I am lefi with one haunting question: Will the women in this study, who
followed status quo principals, be influenced by the mainstream organizations they
entered, and become like their former principals? Or will they sustain their vision to
reculture their schools? Some of the principals from this research study have recently told
me they no long visit classrooms on a regular basis. While another one continues to visit
classrooms daily, she is questioning the impact of her visibility. We recently had the
opportunity to talk about her practice while she developed goals for visiting classrooms.
By asking her questions and listening to her thoughts, she was able to leave our
conversation with a new perspective about the importance of her visibility. By listening

to her, I realized, in her third year of the principalship, she continues to strive to be a

209

 

 

 

 

leader of learners. She is still thirsty for knowledge in the pursuit of her vision. If she
were in an organization that based leadership on the ISSLC standards for leading schools,
she would thrive in the company of other leaders of learning. Right now, in her third
year of leadership, in a status quo organization, she is managing to survive.

Given what was learned from the principals in this study, it appears the lack of
space in organizations for adult learning is like a vacuum that sweeps up potential
leadership. Indeed, it sweeps away the energy and dedication needed to reinvent school
organizations. This body of research has lefi me with a sense of meaning for my
professional work in the endeavor to support women educational leaders.

Wheatley’s (1999) words best describe the journey of this dissertation: “Life
demands that I participate with things as they unfold, to expect to be surprised, to honor
the mystery of it, and to see what emerges” (p. 153). The experience of this research has
been an endeavor of letting the women’s stories unfold, finding patience with my own
struggles with writing and learning, and having faith in the process. Encouraged by Girl
Gang to return to school, I took a leap of faith into the unknown. Then I walked beside

the women in this study as a novice researcher on a journey of discovery.

210

APPENDICIES

211

APPENDIX A

INFORMED CONSENT LETTER

UCRIHS MATERIALS

212

A.1 Informed Consent Letter

You are invited to participate in a research study entitled “From Expert to Novice; Unpacking the F irst-
year Principal ’s Journey From the Role of Classroom Teacher to the Role of Elementary School
Principal. ” By participating in this study you will contribute to a growing conversation about the
experiences that are unique to novice principals.

Your participation in this study is voluntary and confidential to the maximum extent allowable under
federal, state and local law. Feel free to skip any question that you do not want to answer during the
interview process.

The time commitment for this study will be approximately 20 to 25 hours. The data collection will take

place from the end of June 2004 through July 2004
One Questionnaire: There will be one questionnaire prior to the interview process.
Three Interviews: There will be three audio taped interviews, approximately 90 minutes each.
Three Interview preparations: There will be one informal writing assignment prior to each
interview including one lifeline of major events in your life, one written response to artifacts that
represent your first-year as a principal, and one open-ended response using metaphors to describe
your experience.

There may be informal follow up phone conversations as questions or puzzles emerge from the study.

All of the information gathered during this study will be kept confidential and stored in a locked file
cabinet. All of the participant writings will be returned at the conclusion of this study. Due to the small
number of participants, anonymity cannot be guaranteed. However, all data and results will be treated with
strict confidence. Neither subject names nor school names will be identified in any written report resulting
from this study.

If you have any further questions please contact Barbara Meloche, the doctoral candidate, or her advisor,
Dr. Maenette Benham. If you should have any questions or concerns regarding your rights as subjects and
the duties of the investigators, or are dissatisfied at any time with any aspect of the study, you may contact,
anonymously, if you wish, Dr. Peter Vasilenko, University Committee on Research Involving Human
Subjects at (517) 355-2180, fax (517) 432-4503, email: ucrihs@msu.edu or regular mail: 202 Olds Hall,
East Lansing, MI 48824.

Sincerely,

Barbara Meloche Dr. Maenette Benham

Doctoral Candidate, Michigan State University Advisor, Michigan State University
5651 Bayonne Ave. 419 A Erickson Hall

Haslett, MI. 48840 Michigan State University

(517) 339-2984 East Lansing, MI 48824
melocheb@msu.edu mbenh§m@msu.edu

 

 

General Agreement: Your signature below indicates your voluntary agreement to participate in this study.

Print Name: Date:

 

 

Signature:

 

Your signature indicates your voluntary agreement to allow the researcher to audio tape the interviews.

Signature:

 

213

 

OFFICE OF
RESEARCH
ETHICS AND
STANDARDS

University Committee on
Research involving
Human Subjects

Michigan State University
202 Olds Hail

East Lansing, MI

48824

517/355-2180
FAX: 51 ”432-4503

Web: www.msuetluluser/ucrilrs
E-Mail: ucritrsflmsuarlu

MSU is an alfirmntiw-aclirxi.
aunt-airman” finiiluir'rwi.

A.2 UCRIHS MATERIALS

MICHIGAN STATE
U N I V E R S I T Y
August 10. 2004

 

TO: Maenette K. BENHAM
419A Erickson Hall
MSU

RE: IRB# 04-467 CATEGORY: 2-6 EXPEDITED

APPROVAL DATE: June 18. 2004
EXPIRATION DATE: June 18, 2005

TITLE: From Expert to Novice: Unpacking the First-year Principal‘s Journey From the Role of
Classroom Teacher to the Role of Elementary School Principal

The University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects' (UCRIHS) review of this project is
complete and I am pleased to advise that the rights and welfare of the human subjects appear to be
adequately protected and methods to obtain informed consent are appropriate. Therefore, the
UCRIHS APPROVED THIS PROJECT‘S REVISION.

REVISION REQUESTED: July 21, 2004
REVISION APPROVAL DATE: August 9, 2004

Revision to include an addition of 2 to 3 observations of principals participating. in the
study. changes to the consent document. The new consent document is an addition

to the current one.

REVISIONS: UCRIHS must review any changes in procedures involving human subjects. prior to
initiation of the change. If this is done at the time of renewal. please use the green renewal form.
To revise an approved protocol at any other time during the year. send your written request to the
UCRIHS Chair, requesting revised approval and referencing the project's IRB# and title. Include in
your request a description of the change and any revised instruments, consent forms or
advertisements that are applicable.

PROBLEMS/CHANGES: Should either of the following arise during the course of the work, notify
UCRIHS promptly: 1) problems (unexpected side effects, complaints, etc.) involvrng human
subjects or 2) changes in the research environment or new information indicating greater risk to the

human subjects than existed when the protocol was previously reviewed and approved. . .
If we can be of further assistance, please contact us at (517) 355-2180 or we email:

UCRIHS@msu.edu.

Sincerely,

W

Peter Vasilenko, PhD.
UCRIHS Chair

PV: 1'“ ,,

Bar 'éloche
cc",56§t1ygayonrie Ave.
Haslett. MI 48840

214

 

 

 

OFFICE OF
RESEARCH
ETHICS AND
STANDARDS

University Committee on
Research involving
Human Subjects

Michigan State University
202 Girls Hall

East Lansing. MI

48824

5 I ”155-2100
FAX: 51 ”432-4211?

Web:
WWW Immaiirescarcii.msu.erln
[Mail ucritrsOmsuedu

MS( I is .m aliirmalneaclian.
amniormlmilv lrtsli'lrilion.

A.2 (cont’d)
Renewal
Application
Approval

MICHIGAN STATE

U N I V E R S I T Y
May'l6.2005

To: Maenette K. BENHAM
419A Erickson Hall

Re: iRB it 04-467 Category: EXPEDITED 2-6
Renewal Approval Date: May 14. 2005
Project Expiration Date: May 13. 2006

Title: FROM EXPERT TO NOVICE: UNPACKING THE FIRST-YEAR PRINCIPAL'S JOURNEY FROM
THE ROLE OF CLASSROOM TEACHER TO THE ROLE OF ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

PRINCIPAL

The University Committee on Research involving Human Subjects (UCRIHS) has completed their review of
your project. I am pleased to advise you that the renewal has been approved.

Revision to include a change consent. instruments and protocol. The new consent document is an addition to
the current ones.

The review by the committee has found that your renewal is consistent with the continuerl protection of the
rights and welfare of human subjects. and meets the requirements of MSU's Federal Wide Assurance and the
Federal Guidelines (45 CFR 46 and 21 CF R Part 50). The protection of human subjects in research is a
partnership between the iRB and the investigators. We look forward to working with you as we both fulfill our

responsibilities.
Renewals: UCRIHS approval is valid until the expiration date listed above. If you are continuing your project.

you must submit an Application for Renewal application at least one month before expiration. If the project is
completed. please submit an Application for Permanent Closure.

Revisions: UCRIHS must review any changes in the project. prior to initiation of the change. Please submit an
Application for Revision to have your changes reviewed. It changes are made at the time of renewal. please

include an Application for Revision with the renewal application.

Problems: If issues should arise during the conduct of the research. such as unanticipated problems. adverse
events. or any problem that may increase the risk, to the human subjects. notify UCRIHS promptly. Forms are

available to report these issues.

Please use the iRB number listed above on any forms submitted which relate to this project. or on any
correspondence with UCRIHS.

Good luck in your research. If we can be of further assistance. please contact us at 517-355-2180 or via email
at UCRIHS@m§u.edu. Thank you for your cooperation.

Sincerely.

Peter Vasilenko. PhD.
UCRIHS Chair

CI Barbara Meloche
5651 Bayonne Ave.
Haslett. Mi 48840

215

 

 

1‘.

APPENDIX B

INTERVIEW QUESTIONS AND PROTOCOLS

216

B.l FIRST INTERVIEW (TAPE RECORDED)

Introduction for thgiartignant: This school year you have been in transition from your
role as a classroom teacher to your role as an elementary school principal. Your
experience of change and how you’ve made sense of the first-year experience is the focus
of this study. During this interview we will talk about your lifeline and the stories that
surround the events you have chosen as significant experiences that led to this point in
your career.

Focus: Life story

Purpose:

1. To begin a trusting relationship through guided story telling and listening.

2. Probe the first year principals’ experience.

Interview Questions:
1. Many people speak of critical life moments/events/experiences that impacted them for
the rest of their lives. Talk about your lifeline. What are the significant markers or events
in your life?

Probes:
o What markers or events most affected your decision to become a teacher? A
principal?

0 Have the lessons or messages from these significant markers or events made a
difference for you as an elementary school principal? Explain.
2. How and why did you become a teacher? A principal?
Probes:
o What, fi'om your earlier life and educational experiences, informed these
decisions?
What were others’ responses when you made these decisions?
What do you miss from your role as a classroom teacher?
As a teacher leader?
Generate some examples of your experiences as a teacher leader that led you
to the principalship.
0 Talk about a person(s) on your lifeline that has made the biggest impact on
you.

Assignment for the next interview: For the second interview, we will focus on the
experiences of your first year as a principal. Please bring three or four artifacts from this
school year that represents experiences from this year. Write a brief paragraph explaining
the significance of each artifact.

217

 

B.1 (cont’d)
B.l SECOND INTERVIEW (TAPE RECORDED)

Introduction to the participant:
To make certain that we have adequate time to talk about your experience as a first-year
principal, we will divide this part of the interview series into two separate 90 minutes
sessions (Parts A and B) that build on one another. I am interested in exploring your
experiences as a first-year elementary school principal.
Focus: Stories and experiences around first-year artifacts
Purpose: To encourage each participant to relate incidents, tell stories and
uncover deeper thoughts about shifts of beliefs related to previously held
assumptions.
Interview Questions:
1. Tell me about the artifacts that depict your first-year experience as a school principal.
Probes:
How did you come to choose each one? Explain the significance.
How is the artifact connected to the teacher in you?
How is the artifact connected to the leader in you?
How does the artifact relate to your identity as a school leader?
How does the artifact reflect your beliefs?
How does the artifact reflect the changes you’ve made?
How does the artifact reflect your practice as a leader?
Which artifact best represents your biggest challenge? Biggest
accomplishment? Bi ggest joy?
2. Which artifact best represents the kind of leader you’ve become?
Probes:
I heard you say. . .tell me more about that.
What is another way you might. . .?
How was. . .different from. . .?
What criteria did you use to. . .?
How did you decide. . .?
o What criteria did you use to. . .?
3. Which artifact represents change? Tell me more about that.
Assignment: In preparation of the third interview, review your calendar as a way to
recall some of your experiences from the school year. Create a written metaphor or
metaphors that best describe your first-year experience. The following questions are
probes for your thinking. Feel free to use them as writing starters but they are not
requirements. The most important thing is to freely write about your experiences. Bring
your writing to the next interview.
1. As an author of my first-year elementary school principalship experience, I...
2. The experience of leaving the role of classroom teacher behind has been...
3. I would tell a classroom teacher aspiring to become an elementary school
principal that the experience is like. . .because. ..
4. The biggest challenge for me this year was .. .it was like...
5. The biggest joy for me this year was...it was like...
6. My experience as a participant in this study has been like...

218

 

B.1 (cont’d)

THIRD INTERVIEW (TAPE RECORDED)

Focus: Experiences told with metaphors
Purpose: To encourage each participant to relate incidents, tell stories.

Interview Questions:

1. What did you discover about yourself in your writing? About your leadership?
About your experience of change?

Probes:

Tell me more about...
How has. . .affected you?
What would you do differently?
What have you learned from. . .?
2. Knowing that the purpose of our work together is to explore the complexities of your
experience as a first-year principal and how you make sense of your experience, what
else can you tell me?
Probes:
Tell me more...
How do you think it will be different?
Why do you think it was important to talk about?
How has talking about it made a difference to you?
In your opinion, what was the most significant thing we talked about?
What do you think...?
Tell me more...
What has influenced your choice... decision... thinking. . .?

219

B.2 BIOGRAPHICAL QUESTIONNAIRE

Introduction for the participants: This questionnaire has been designed to provide us with
a solid starting point for our first interview. Please respond to the questions and open-

ended

statements with brief written answers and mail the questionnaire to me in the

enclosed self-addressed, stamped envelope prior to our first scheduled interview. At the
end of the questionnaire you will find an assignment for the first interview.

1.

2.

9‘39?"

99°89?!“

10.
. Do you have children? If yes, tell names, male or female, adopted or biological,
12.
13.
14.
15.
l6.
17.

18.
19.

Pmose:
To establish a starting point for the series of four interviews by obtaining basic

information.
To establish personal and professional background that led to the
principalship.

Questionnaire:

What is your full name?

Date of birth and place of birth:

Type of community in which you spent most of your growing-up years (farm or
rural area/small town/city suburb, etc.):

Place of parents’ birth and highest level of education attained by parents:
Mother and father’s occupations:

Birth order/number and names of siblings:

Did you attend public or private schools?

Provide a brief description of that experience:

Ways of spending leisure time:

Marital status:

Ages, and one or two descriptors of each child:
What is the highest level of education completed by your spouse?
What is the occupation of your spouse?
Describe a past or current professional mentor:
Describe your three most outstanding qualities as a classroom teacher:
Briefly tell (3 or 4 statements)
a. The things that brought you the most satisfactions as a classroom
teacher:
b. The things that brought you the most dissatisfaction as a classroom
teacher:
c. The top three things you miss about being a classroom teacher:
(1. Three qualities about yourself that most helped you in the first year of
e. your principalship:
Describe your three most outstanding qualities as a classroom teacher:
What prompted your choice to become n elementary school principal?

Assignment: Please sketch a lifeline of critical events or defining moments in your

 

life to the present time. (Examples: major educational experiences, accomplishments,
losses, and unique experiences). Bring it to the first interview.

220

 

B.3 FOCUS GROUP INTERVIEW PROTOCOL
(Video and Audio Taped)

Introduction for the respondents: You have just completed the second year of
your principalship. Today is an opportunity to reflect back on your experience and
compare it to your first year experience. We are going to explore your leadership around
the skills and experiences you brought to your position from your role as a classroom
teacher. We’ve had three individual interviews that resulted in rich stories about your
experiences. The distinctive feature of today’s focus group interview is that you get to
hear the experiences of others. The listening process is meant to prompt the memory of
your own experiences as you compare and contrast the thoughts and ideas of others.

Our work today will be audio and video taped affording me the opportunity to go
back and reflect about our work together. It will be used strictly for reviewing your
responses as I reflect on the data you’ve provided through this discussion.

Purpose:

1. Prompt an open discussion about the experiences of being a novice principal

2. Probe the process of transformation from the role of classroom teacher to the role
of building principal

3. Expert teacher leader to building leader

Setting the tone:

I have had the wonderful opportunity to hear your stories. You live in different
places and work in different schools. Yet your experiences as first and second year
principals give you a particular connection through common experiences on your journey
into the principalship. Take a moment and introduce yourselves by sharing your name,
your school and a moment of joy you’ve had as a principal.

Personal reflection:

You’ve been traveling through two years of leading as a principal. Take a few
moments and talk about the sketch you made for our discussion today. You might recall
that I asked you to sketch the journey you have taken as a leader. Highlight the
experiences and or influences that have had the most affect on you beginning with the
first year of your principalship and traveling through the second year of the principalship.
Consider your mode of transportation, your destinations, your arrivals, the bumps,
potholes, and storms you have encountered, the scenic surprises and perhaps a few
collisions that have made up your journey. (Detours in the second year)The purpose of
the sketch is to give you an opportunity to think and reflect about some of your
experiences before we begin our discussion. Briefly tell us what it was like making the
timeline or sketch. We will talk about the contents throughout the morning so save that
part for later.

221

B.3 (cont’d)

Thank you for your introduction and personal reflection sketch. Please feel free
to refer to your sketch any time throughout the interview. Let’s begin. I’ll ask a
question. Take a moment to think about it, and if and when you would like to respond,
go ahead. Since it is important to hear from everyone, I’ll check with you before moving
on to a new question.

1. You’ve been on a journey of discovery since you left the classroom. There have
been bumps in the road, peaks and valley’s, and a few collisions. Describe some
bumps you have had along the way? Some peaks? A collision? Perhaps a
detour?

Probes: (Use your timeline to help with your response.
0 What is the most significant experience you had as a teacher that has
transferred into your role as a principal? How?
0 When you left the classroom to become a principal, what did you leave
behind that you wish you had packed for the journey?
o What is the one most important thing you brought fiom your teaching
experience?

2. Let’s talk about your leadership as a school principal.
Probes:
0 Who or what guides your journey as a principal? Explain.
o What scares you the most about being a principal?
0 Tell us about your leadership style. What makes it work for you?

3. Leadership is connected to influence and different kinds of power.
What is the style of your leadership that most affects your influence and your
positional power.
Probes:

0 Compare a change you influenced as a teacher to a change you influenced
as a principal. What is different about the two experiences? What is the
same?

0 What have you learned about influence and power? Who do you believe
holds the most power in your school? (If it is someone else ask, how do
you manage your influence in relationship to that power?) Explain.

0 Does your leadership match the needs of your staff? Give an example; an
instance when your leadership style matched or clashed with a need you
identified.

0 How does your style fit with the rest of the administrative team? Use an
instance when you learned about your beliefs, your role, or your influence
in relationship to the central office administrative team including your
principal colleagues.

222

B.3 (cont’d)

3. Compare the first and second year of your principalship by describing which of the
two years was more challenging? In what ways?

Probes:

- Last summer you used our conversations as a means to think about your first
year. You were formulating your goals for the second year. Recall one of
those goals. How did it go?

What were the barriers or the enhancers of your goal? What’s next?
The principalship is challenging work. How is the experience transforming
you?
' As a teacher?
. As a leader?
' As a woman?
0 What are the satisfiers of this work?
5. How has today’s discussion affected your thoughts about yourself?
Probes:
o What statement or question do you have for the group?
0 What have you learned from the discussion about yourself?
6. What’s next for you?
Think about:

0 What are your aspirations for the next leg of your journey?

0 From your learning, what do you plan to do differently? What do you plan to
do more of?

0 Take a moment and add the next leg of your journey to your sketch (provide
more paper)

Probe: Talk about your sketch.

223

APPENDIX C

METHODOLOGY TABLES

224

C.1 MODELS OF TRANSITION

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Theorist Name Behavior Descriptor
Evans Unfreezing Increase the fear of not Appropriate anxiety and guilt
trying. Reduce the fear Psychological safety Ts
of trying 5
Kubler- Denial Recognize the loss One Action=many losses *5
Ross E
Stage Moir Anticipation Pre-service preparation Elation a?”
1 New beginning 5
Bridges Ending Change initiates Something ends a
transition
Evans Moving fiom loss to Make change Continuity, time, personal ....
commitment meaningfiil contact g
c
Kubler— Anger Seek help Emotional response '33
Stage Ross E
2 Moir Survival Keep head above water Consumed with job E
U)
. . . . . fl
Brrdges Neutral Zone- Development by lettrng Chaotrc but potentially creative a
Reorientation go of the old self-image "neuu'al zone" [—
Evans Moving from old Develop new (skills), Training that is coherent,
competence to new beliefs, and ways of continuous, and personal '5
competence drinking 5
Kubler- Bargaining Negotiate reality Thoughts of failure/depression E
Ross E
Stage Moir Disillusionment Confront new events Thoughts of failure/depression a;
3 r:
Bridges Neutral zone- Inner world is jarred out Perceptions get out of touch with 2
personal growth of reality external reality. Purpose and I-
focus are temporarily suspended
Evans Moving fi'om Realign structures, Clarity regarding responsibility,
confusion to functions, and roles authority, and decision making '3'
coherence 5'
Kubler- Acceptance Improved self-concept Develops new identity ‘5
Ross E
Stage Moir Rejuvenation Improved self-concept Focus on student progress. New .2
4 identity as the teacher “a
a
i...
Bridges Neutral zone- Willing to express who Life takes a definitive new shape [-
authentication we really are
Moving from Generate broad support A critical mass, pressure ...
Evans conflict to for change Positive use of power 2
consensus .3
Stage Kubler- Hope Motivation Things will get better g
5 Ross is
Moir Reflection Invigoration Revisioning E
Bridges New Beginning Satisfactory outcome to Open mind for opportunity 5

 

 

 

 

 

 

the change

 

 

 

225

 

C.2 SIX GUIDING PRINCIPLES OF TRANSFORMATION

 

 

 

 

 

Process Belief Realization
Fundamental shifts of thinking Everything is in motion, The world is made primarily
take place including self of relationships
There is a shift in identity Every person is a legitimate Perpetual change is a gift

human being
See self as unfolding in the Life has meaning Changing is what it means to
journey of change be alive
Commitment Listen and wait Sometimes waiting and

listening has more value than
doing

 

Surrender into commitment

Listening can be more
valuable than doing

Waiting and listening precede
doing the best thing

 

 

Commitment is in operation

 

Flow of actions are produced

 

Actions translate into meaning

 

226

 

C.3 THEORETICAL PROPERTIES AND ACTIONS OF SENSEMAKING

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Properties Visible Actions Examples
Identity Identify is the discovery of how and what the Who I am is indicated by the discovery
emerging leader thinks. of how and what I think.
Retrospect The emerging principal makes sense after an To learn what I think, I look back over
action. what I said earlier.
Enactrnent The emerging principal produces part of the I create the object to be seen and inspect
environment he or she faces. when I say or do something.
Social 1. The emerging principal is a practical and What I say and single out and conclude
ethical author. is determined by who socialized me and
2. The leader is able to argue persuasively for a how I was socialized, as well as by the
“landscape” of next possible actions. audience I anticipate will audit the
3. The “positions” of all who must take part are conclusions I reach.
clear.
Ongoing 1. Past events are reconstructed in the present Talk is spread across time, competes for
as explanations. attention with other ongoing projects,
2. Events tend to be congruent with mood. and is reflected on after it is finished
(interests may already have changed
once embellished).
Focused on 4. Sensemaking is invisible. The “what” that is singled out and
and by 5. The product of the process of sensemaking is embellished as the content of the thought
extracted observable. is only a small portion of the utterance
cues 6. Sensemaking can be observed during that becomes salient because of context
puzzles, paradoxes, and dilemmas. and personal dispositions.
Driven by Sensemaking: In short, what is necessary in
plausibility l. Embodies past experience and expectations sensemaking is a good story.
rather than 2. Resonates with other people
accuracy 3. Can be constructed retrospectively

 

4. Can be used prospectively

5. Captures both feeling and thought
6. Allows for embellishment

7. Is fun to construct

 

 

227

 

C.4 METHODOLOGY SUMMARY

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0
.2: o — N '0 M
Construct a g E If; 03) Egg 3 g";
o e: .. c... ... 4:: o "" o E
'5 ._i E "" E ‘3‘ o t " 8
a a .. a .. s a e 0 .
6 2 E: .5 2 m E: ""
Transition .
Stage 1, ending 0 o 0
Stage 2, neutral 0 e 0
Stage 3, new skill e e .
Stage 4, clarity . . .
Stage 5, hope
Sensemaking . .
0 Identity 0 0
o Retrospect ' 0 0
- Enactrnent ‘ 0 0
0 Social ' 0
0 Ongoing ' e ' 0
- Focused on
and by
extracted
cues
- Driven by ' '
plausibility
rather than
accuracy
Transformation . . .
o Shifts of
thinking 0 0 0 0
0 Shift in
identity ' 0 0
0 Self as
changing 0 0
Commitment
Actions

 

228

 

 

 

C.5 RESEARCH PROJECT TIMELIN E

 

 

 

 

 

 

May 2004 Proposal Defense

May-June 2004 UCRIHS approval
Consent forms

June-August 2004 Data collection

Fall-Spring 2005-2006 Write Findings, Conclusions, and
implications.

Spring 2006 Defense

 

 

229

 

APPENDIX D

PROFILE SUMMARIES OF PRINCIPALS

230

D.l PROFILE SUMMARY FOR SHELBY

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Shelby Dedicated Leadership for Learning: The Quest
for Authentic Influence
Education 0 Bachelor of Science - Major: Science Education
0 Master of Arts - Major: Early Childhood
Teaching 0 First grade - 2 years
Experience 0 Second grade - 3 years
0 Third grade - 3 years
0 Total = 8 years of teaching experience
Teacher Leadership 0 Mentor teacher and student teacher supervisor
Examples 0 Parent group representative
0 District technology committee
0 School improvement team
- Presenter: Literacy workshop for parents
0 Chairperson for: Family reading night, reading month
incentives, family holiday festival (and many others)
Family 0 Married
0 One child, age 2
School 0 Rural school district
0 Grades 2 and 3
c 269 Students
0 32 % Free and reduced-cost lunch
Self-Description 0 Dedicated, caring, and concern for others
0 Innovative and enthusiastic
- High expectations for self and others
0 Organized
Artifacts o Whole-school group picture represented work with different
representing the individuals and closing the doors on a long-standing
first year of the community school.
principalship 0 Map of the new school building represented the greatest
challenge on top of being a first—year principal, the process of
building and preparing a new school.
Palm Pilot representing a consistently fully booked calendar.
Poster created by Shelby that represents her thoughts. This
school year her brain was filled with information. . .questions.
Some she knew the answers and others were overwhelming.
Metaphors 0 Being in a zoo. The zoo keeper sets the lion free without
The first year of the guidance, just learning to survive without a keeper.
principalship is 0 Being a lion in a zoo, then being set out into the wild and
like: becoming the leader of the pack.

 

231

 

D.2 PROFILE SUMMARY FOR MEREDITH

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Meredith Spirited Leadership for Improvement: Leading from
Complacency to Competence
Education 0 Bachelor of Science Degree - Major: Elementary Education
0 Master of Arts in Early Childhood Education
0 ZA Endorsement
- Certificate in School Counseling
Teaching 0 Second-grade teacher - 7 years
Experience 0 First-grade teacher - 1 year
0 Total = 8 years of teachirg experience
Teacher Leadership 0 Team Leader for six teacher collaborative cohort
Examples 0 District Early Childhood team member
0 North Central Accreditation Co-chair
0 School Improvement team member
Family 0 Married
0 Two daughters, ages 5 and 2
School 0 Rural school district
0 Grades K - 5
o 312 Students
0 18% Free or reduced-cost lunch
Self-Description o Caring, consistent, and child-centered
0 Creative, patient, and flexible
0 Open communicator, community builder
0 Willing to listen and seek advice
Artifacts o A piece of chocolate because as a principal you feed and serve,
representing the like listening to children before and after school; their stories
first year Of the Books represent continued learning for Meredith.
principalship Folder of notes from teachers and students reminds Meredith
of her focus as a school leader.
Metaphors . o A tree because as a principal you have to be flexible and bend
like a tree. The tree changes with time, but you still have to be
The first year of the upright and steady. But you still need to be firm. It’s about
principalship is like: keeping your feet on the ground and reaching for the stars.
0 Balancing plates because you are just dangling around and not
able to get a hold of anything. The work is never ending.
0 A kite, always blowing in a new direction, always reaching
new heights. The kite’s wind directions represent the umpteen
2-minute conversations that require a follow—up.

 

 

232

 

 

D.3 PROFILE SUMMARY FOR JESSE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Jesse Devoted Leadership for School Community fiom Status Quo to
Child Centered Learning
Education Bachelor of Science - Major: Elementary Education
Master of Arts - Major: Curriculum
Currently working on Specialist of Administrative
Organizational Studies
Teaching 0 Sixth grade - 2 years
Experience 0 Fifth/sixth looping classroom - 2 years
0 Kindergarten - 4 years
0 Total = 8 years of teaching experience
Teacher 0 District Kindergarten Chairperson
Leadership 0 North Central Accreditation Chair
Examples 0 School Improvement Chair
0 Student Council Advisor
0 Young Authors Advisor
0 Presenter for district, county, and national conferences for
literacy-related topics
Family 0 Married
0 Son 4 years old
0 Daughter 1 year old
School of the e Grades K-5
principalship 0 444 Students
0 29% Free or reduced-cost lunch
Self-Description 0 Leader
0 Creative and organized
o Open-minded and child centered
Artifacts 0 Book: Gardening in the Minefield by Laurel Schmidt - Story of
representing the a principal and how she thrived through the demands of
first year of the leadership.
principalship 0 School keys: Represent the many facets and responsibilities of
leadership.
0 Pocket knife: Represents the paradoxes of leadership.
Children are suspended for having weapons, yet a knife is sent
to the school for a fund raiser.
o Planner: Represents organization for juggling the demanding
schedule.
Metaphors o A cave that has a bear in it or flying bats because it is so
The first year of the unknown. You have to feel your way through.
principalship is like: 0 Parenting because there is a certain amount of stress you have

 

to experience. No one can really tell you what it is like. You
have to learn it as you experience it.

 

233

 

D.4 PROFILE SUMMARY FOR DEBORAH

 

Deborah

Ethical Leadership for Data-Driven
and Child-Centered Teachig

 

Education

Bachelor of Arts - Major: Elementary Education
Master of Arts- Major: Literacy Instruction
Postgraduate course work in Educational Administration

 

Teaching
Experience

Fourth and fifth grades - 10 years Substitute teacher - 5 years
At-risk math teacher - 1 year Preschool teacher - 3 years
Total = 19 teaching years

 

Teacher Leadership
Examples

State-level Educational Review Committee for the state
educational testing program

State-and district-level curriculum development

School Improvement team member

Parentjroup teacher representative

 

Family

Oldest of 11 children
Married
Three children, ages 27, 22, 20

 

School

Suburban school district

Grades 2 - 5

388 Students

17.1 % Free or reduced-cost lunch

 

Self-Description

Builder of relationships and establisher of partnerships
Strong learner and strong communicator
Outstanding teacher

 

Artifacts
representing the
first year of the

principalship

English Language Arts Test explanation sheet designed by
Deborah. It represented the first time teachers began to
understand how to approach the state-level high-stakes testing
initiative.

School improvement document of graphs and visuals that
represented data-driven instruction. It was the first time the
staff looked at test scores to inform instructional decisions.
Nathan represented a collaborative approach (including parents)
to meet the needs of a high-risk student while keeping his
dignity and using all available resources.

The school budget represented the most difficult challenge for
Deborah as a first-year principal.

 

 

Metaphors

The first year of the

principalship is like:

 

Being a bird let out of a cage. Deborah was ready to fly. Her
work was overwhelming, but she never looked back. The
experience was fun and fulfilling. She never missed being in the
classroom.

Touching stars and making them shine brighter: Special needs
children, curriculum, the front office, and teachers.

 

234

 

 

D.5 PROFILE SUMMARY FOR ANNE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Anne Unwavering Leadership for Breaking Down Cultural, Political, and
Social Barriers
Education 0 Bachelor of Arts - Secondary Certification, French
0 Elementary Endorsement
0 Master of Arts - Major: Early Childhood Education
Teaching 0 High School French - 2 years
Experience 0 Preschool - 3 years
0 Title I teacher - 11 years
0 Total = 16 teachigg years
Teacher 0 Early Childhood Program Coordinator
Leadership 0 Even Start coordinator
Examples 0 District grant writer
Family 0 Married

0 Two adult daughters

0 Three grandchildren (1 set of twins)

Schools 0 Rural School District — Early Childhood Center and Community and
Adult Education

0 Preschool through kindergarten

o 318 students + 303 adult students = 62l total students

0 64% Free and reduced-cost lunch

0 Director of Even Start and Community and Adult Education
(alternative education)

Self- 0 Profession as a calling and seeks ways to improve
Description 0 Organized, well prepared, patient, and committed to the team
0 Available and honest
Artifacts 0 Story: “Honor the Greatness in Others” by Robert Cooper
representing represented internal goal to honor every person.
the fiTSt year 0 Plate Amy created in a pottery store. Crack in the plate
0f the represented Amy’s willingness to let go of perfection. The words on
principalship the plate represented her womanhood as a daughter, mother, grand-
mother, and work with primarily women colleagues:
“Here’s to good women. May we know them. May we be them.
May we raise them.”

0 A thank-you note from a class after holding a school-wide sing-a-
long. The chart size card represented a renewed relationship with the
teacher and hung proudly on Amy’s office wall.

Metaphor White-water rafting because it holds an element of risk. The river is in
charge, presenting an ever-changing current calling for an accurate
The first year response to stay afloat. Navigation requires every person to fulfill his or
of the her role for success. There are times of real calm and times you have to
principalship is pay attention and buckle down. “I’m excited about this, yet there is
like: danger.”

 

235

 

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

236

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ackerman, R. H., Donaldson, G. A., & Van der Bogert, R. (1996). Making sense as a
school leader: Persisting questions creative opportunities. San Francisco: J ossey-
Bass.

Ackerman, R. H., & Maslin-Ostrowski, P. (2002). The wounded leader. San Francisco:
Jossey—Bass.

Archer, J. (2002). Principals: So much to do, so little time. Retrieved August, 21, 2003,
from http:///www.edweek.org/ew/newstory.cfrn?slug=3 lnaesp.h21

Astin, H. S., & Leland, C. (1991). Women of influence, women of vision; A cross
generational study of leaders and social change. San Francisco: J ossey-Bass.

Barth, R. (2001). Learning by heart. San Francisco: Jossey—Bass.

Belenky, M., Clinchy, B., Goldberger, N., & Tarule, J. (1986). Women's ways of
knowing. New York: Basic Books, Inc.

Blase, J. (Ed.). (1991). The politics of life in schools; power, conflict and cooperation.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Bloom, G. (2003). Emotional intelligence and the novice principal. New teacher center
reflections: University of California, Santa Cruz, 6(3), 4-5, 18.

Bolman, L., G., & Deal, T., E. (1995). Leading with soul. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc.

Bransford, J. D., & Johnson, M. K. (1972). Contextual prerequisites for understanding:
Some investigations of comprehension and recall. Journal of Verbal Learning and
Verbal Behavior, 11, 717-725.

Bridges, W. (1980). Transitions: Making sense of life's changes. Cambridge, MA:
Perseus Books.

Bridges, W. (2001). The way of transition. New York: Perseus Publishing.

237

Brunet, J. S. (2002). Making stories: Law, literature, life. New York: Farrar, Straus &
Giroux.

Caine, G., Caine, R. N., & Crowell, S. (1999). Mindshifis: A brain compatible process for
the professional development and renewal of educators. Tucson, AZ: Zephyr
Press.

Calvert, L. M., & Ramsey, V. J. (1992). Bringing women's voice to research on women
in management: A feminist perspective. Journal of Management Inquiry, 1(1),
7 9-88.

Casbarro, J. (2004). Reducing anxiety in the era of high-stakes testing. Principal, 83, 36-
38.

Casey, K. (1993). I answer with my life: Life histories of women teachers working for
social change. New York: Routledge.

Clandinin, J. D., & Connelly, M. F. (2000). Narrative inquiry: Experience and story in
qualitative research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Colflesh, N. (Spring 1999). Piece-making: Women's lives and their leadership.
Association of Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Cram, H. G., & Germanio, V. (2000). Leading and learning in schools. Lindharn, MD:
Scarecrow Press.

Creswell, J. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five
traditions. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Cusick, P. A. (2003). The principalship? No thanks. Why teachers won't trade the
' classroom for the office. Education Week, 22(36), 34-44.

Daresh, J. C. (2000). New principals: New induction programs. Paper presented at the
Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New
Orleans.

Daresh, J. C. (2002). What it means to be a principal: Your guide to leadership.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

238

Daresh, J. C., & Playko, M. A. (October, 1989). In search of critical skills for beginning
principals. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the University Council for
Educational Administration, Phoenix, AZ.

De Pree, M. (1997). Leading without power: finding hope in serving community. Holland:
Shephard Foundation.

DeBlois, R. (2000). The everyday work of leadership. Phi Delta Kappan, 82(1), 25-27.

Dewhirst, H. (1991). Contemporary career development issues. In R. Morrison & J.
Adams (Eds.), Career patterns: Mobility, specialization, and related career issues
(pp. 73-107). Hillsdale: Lawrence Earlbaum.

Dirkx, J. M. (1998). Using groups eflectively in collaborative learning. Retrieved
September 12, 2004, from
http://wwwmsu.edu/~dirkx/collaborative%201earningpdf

Dirkx, J. M., & Kovan, J. T. (2003). "Being Called Awake" The role of transformative
learning in the lives of environmental activists. Adult Education Quarterly, 53(2),
99-118.

Dolbeare, K., & Schuman, D. (1992). Policy analysis education and every day life.
Lexington: Heath Publishers.

DuBois, B. (1983). Passionate scholarship: Notes on values, knowing and method in
feminist social science. In G. Bowles & R. D. Klein (Eds.), Theories of women 's
studies (pp. 23-69). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

DuFour, R. (2002). The learning centered principal. Educational Leadership, 59, 12-15.

Duncan, P. K. (1995, September). What does it take: Tales about socialization and a
woman administrator during her first year in district oflice. Paper presented at the
Annual Conference of Women in Educational Leadership, Kansas.

Duncan, P. K., & Sequin, C. A. (2002). The perfect match: A case study of a first year
woman principal. Journal of School Leadership, 12, 608-639.

Dyer, K. M., & Carothers, J. (2000). The intuitive principal: a guide to leadership.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

239

Edson, S. (1988). Pushing the limits: The female administrative aspirant. Albany, NY:
State University of New York Press.

Eisner, E. W. (1991). The enlightened eye: Qualitative inquiry and the enhancement of
educational practice. New York: MacMillan.

Elmore, R. (2000). What Is instructional leadership? Oxford: National Staff
Development Council.

Evans, R. (1996). The human side of school change: Reform, resistance, and the real-life
problems of innovation. San Francisco: Jossey—Bass.

Feiman-Nemser, S. (1996). Teacher mentoring: A critical review. Retrieved April 1,
2005, from http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Sharon+Feiman-
Nemser&btnG=Google+Search.

Ferguson, K. (1984). The feminist case against bureaucracy. Philadelphia, PA: Temple
University Press.

F iore, T. A., & Curtin, T. R. (1997). Public and private school principals in the Untied
States: A statistical profile. Washington, DC: US. Department of Education.

Fullan, M. (2001). Leading in a culture of change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Gardner, M., Grogan, M., & Enomoto, E. (1999). Women's conflicts as they are mentored
into educational leadership in public schools. Retrieved January 28, 2004, fi'om
http://www.askeric.org/plweb-
cgi/fstweb? getdoc+ericdb2+ericdb+1 09+96+wAAA

Gates, S. M., Ringel, J. S., Santibanez, L., Ross, E. R., & Chung, C. H. (2003). Who is
leading our schools: An overview of school administrators and their careers.
Santa Monica, CA: RAND Education.

Gewertz, C. (2003). Report probes nuances of principals' jobs. Education Week, 3.

Glickman, C. D., Gordon, S. P., & Ross-Gordon, J. M. (2001). Supervision and -
instructional leadership; A developmental approach. Needham Heights, MA.:
Allyn & Bacon.

240

Goldberg, M., F. (2000). Leadership for change. Phi Delta Kappan, 82-85.

Goleman, D., Boyatizis, R., & McKee, A. (2002). Primal leadership; Realizing the
power of emotional intelligence. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Greenfield, T. B. (1980). The man who comes back through the door in the wall.
Educational Administration Quarterly, 16(3), 92-119.

Gregory, G. (2002). Difierentiated instructional strategies: One size doesn 't fit all.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Harris, S. (1994). Organizational culture and individual sensemaking; A schema-based
perspective. Organization Science, 5(3), 309-321.

Heifetz, R. A., & Linsky, M. (2004). When leadership spells danger. Educational
Leadership, (18) 33-37.

hooks, b. (2000). Feminist theory: From margin to center (2nd ed). Cambridge, MA:
South End Press Classics

Hopkins, G. (August, 2003). If you had a choice, would you still be a principal?
Education World, (12)l-4.

Howell, 8., Carter, V. K., & Scheid, F. M. (2002). Gender and women's experience at
work: A critical and feminist perspective on human resource development. Adult
Education Quarterly, 52(2), 51-68.

Hudson, J., & Rea, D. (1996, September 29-30). T eachers' perceptions of women in the
principalship: A current perspective. Paper presented at the Annual Womens
Educational Leadership Conference, Lincoln, NE.

Irby, B. J ., & Brown, G. (1995). Constructing a feminist-inclusive theory of leadership.
Retrieved June 15, 2003, fiom http://www.askeric.org/plweb-
cgi/fastweb?getdoc+ericdb2+ericdb=1 0221 77+] 53+wAAA...

Jalongo, M., & Isenberg, J. (1995). T eachers' Stories. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
J aworski, J. (1998). Synchronicity: The inner path of leadership. San Francisco: Berrett-

Koehler.
241

Jensen, E. (1998). Teaching with the brain in mind. Alexandria, VA: Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development.

J osselson, R., & Lieblich, A. (Eds.). (1993). The narrative study of lives. Newbury Park,
CA: Sage.

Kahn, R. L., & Cannell, C. F. (1960). The dynamics of interviewing. New York: John
Wiley & Sons.

Kaufeldt, M. (1999). Begin with the brain. Tucson, AZ: Zephyr Press.

Kropiewnicki, M., & Shapiro, J. P. (2001, April 10-14). Female leadership and the ethic
of care: Three case studies. Paper presented at the American Educational
Research Association, Seattle, WA.

Kubler—Ross, E. (1969). On death and dying: What the dying have to teach doctors,
nurses, clergy and their own families. New York: Macmillan.

Lambert, L. (1998). Building leadership capacity in schools. Alexandria, VA:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Lambert, L., Walker, D., Zimmerman, D., P., Cooper, J. E., Lambert, M., D., Gardner,
M., E., et al. (1995). The constructivist leader. New York: Teachers College
Press.

Langer, E. J. (1989). Minding matters: The consequences of mindlessness-mindfulness.
In B. L. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 22, pp. 137-
173). New York: Academic Press.

Langston, R., McClain, G., Steward, B., & Walseth, J. (1998). An exploration of
strategies which elementary principals new to their schools use to learn about

their school culture, from http://www.askeric.org/plweb-
cgi/fastweb?getdoc+ericdb2+ericdb+8621 +2 14+wAAA+...

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (2001). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation.
New York: Cambridge Press.

Lawrence-Lightfoot, S., & Davis, H. J. (1997). The art and science of portraiture. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

242

Leedy, P. D. (1993). Practical research: Planning and design (5th ed.). New York:
Macmillan.

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Lovely, S. (1999). Deve10ping leaders from within. Retrieved October 4, 2003, from
http://ww.acsa.org

Malone, R., J. (2002). Principal mentoring: An update. Research Roundup, 18(2), 18-19.
Marris, P. (1986). Loss and change. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (1995). Designing qualitative research (2nd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

McCall, J. (1994). T he principal 's edge. Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education.

McGrevin, C. Z., & Schmieder, J. H. (1994). Keys to success: Critical skills for the
novice principal. Journal of School Leadership, 4(May), 272—293.

Mezirow, J. (1990). How critical reflection triggers transformative learning. In J.
Mezirow (Ed.), Fostering critical reflection in adulthood (pp. 1-46). San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Miles, M., & Huberman, A. (1984). Qualitative data analysis: A sourcebook of new
methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.

Moir, E. (1999). The stages of a teacher's first year. In A better beginning: Supporting
and mentoring new teachers (pp. 19-26). Alexandria, VA: Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Moir, E., & Bloom, G. (2003). Fostering leadership through mentoring. Association of
Superivison and Curriculum Development, 60(8), 58-60.

Molnar, A. (2004). Cashing in on the classroom. Educational Leadership, 61(4), 79-84.

Morgan, G. (1996). Images of organization. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

243

Morgan, G., & Smircich, L. (1982). Leadership: The management of meaning. The
Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 18(3), 257-273.

Morrell, A., & O'Conner, M. A. (2002). Introduction. In E. O'Sullivan, A. Morrell & M.
A. O'Connor (Eds.), Expanding the boundaries of transformative learning: Essays
on theory and practice, 95 -102. New York: Palgrave.

Morris, W. (Ed.). (1970). The American heritage dictionary of the English language.
Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Newsom, J. (2001). Leadership 101. American School Board Journal, 188(11), 30-33.

Noddings, N. (1984). Caring: A feminine approach to ethics and moral education.
Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Nolan, M., & Cascio, A. (1987). The first-year: Women in the principalship. Retrieved
July 23, 2003, fiom http://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal

Palmer, P. (2000). Let your life speak: Listening for the voice of vocation. San Francisco:
J ossey—Bass.

Peterson, K. D. (1981, April 13-17). Making sense of principals' work. Paper presented at
the American educational research association, Ins Angeles.

Peterson, K. D. (2001). The roar of complexity: A principal’s day is built on fragments of
tasks and decisions. Journal of Staff Development, 22(1).

Quinn, R., E. (1996). Deep change: Discovering the leader within. San Francisco:
J ossey-Bass.

Regan, H. B., & Brooks, G. H. (1995). Out of women's experience: Creating relational
leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Reynolds, C. (Ed.). (2002). Women and school leadership: Internationalperspectives.
Albany: State University of New York Press.

Riesman, C. K. (2002). Analysis of personal narratives. In J. A. Halstein (Ed.), Handbook
of Interview research: Context and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

244

 

 

Schien, E. H. (1992). Organizational culture and leadership (2nd ed.). San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.

Schmidt, L., Kosmoski, G., J ., & Pollack, D., R. (1998). Novice administrators:
Psychological and physiological eflects. Retrieved July 1, 2003, fi’om
http://www.askeric.org/plweb-cgi

Schén, D. A. (1997). The reflective practitioner: Toward a new design for teaching and
learning in the professions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Seidman, I. (1998). Interviewing as qualitative research: A guide for researchers in
education and the social sciences (2nd ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.

Senge, P. (1996). Introduction: Telling a story. In Synchronicity: The inner path of
leadership (pp. 1-14). San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

Senge, P. (2000). Schools that learn: A fifth discipline fieldbook for educators, parents,
and everyone who cares about education. New York: Doubleday.

Sergiovanni, T. J. (1994). Building community in schools. San Francisico: J ossey—Bass.

Sergiovanni, T. J. (1999). Rethinking leadership: A collection of articles. Arlington
Heights, IL: Skylight Training and Publishing.

Sergiovanni, T. J. (2001). The principalship: a reflective practice perspective. Needham
Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Skrla, L., Erlandson, D. A., Reed, E. M., & Wilson, A. P. (2001). The emerging
principal. New York: Eye On Education.

Starbuck, W. H., & Milliken, F. J. (1995). Executives; perceptual filters: What they
notice and how they make sense. In D. C. Hambrick (Ed.), The executive eflect:

Concepts and methods for studying top managers (pp. 35-65). Greenwich, CT:
J AI.

Strong, M., Barrett, A., & Bloom, G. (2003). Supporting the new principal; Managerial
and instructional leadership in a principal induction program. Paper presented at
the Annual Conference of the American Educational Research Association,
Chicago, IL.

245

Sylwester, R. (1995). A celebration of neurons: An educators' guide to the human brain.
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Taylor, B. O. (1986). Metasensemaking: How the eflective elementary principal
accomplishes school improvement. Retrieved June 29, 2003, from
http://.askeric.org/plweb-cgi/fastweb?getdoc+ericdb+91 6197+2+wAAA+%...

Thayer, L. (1988). Leadership/communication; A critical review and a modest proposal.
In G. A. Barnett & G. M. Goldhaber (Eds.), Handbook of organizational
communication (pp. 231-263). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Thomas, R. S. (2004). Aligning schools to state standards. Principal, 83(5), 16-20.

Tomlinson, C. A. (2001). How to dijferentiate instruction in mixed-ability classrooms.
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Villadsen, A. W. (1980). The balancing act of women administrators: Home and career.
Retrieved July 27, 2003, from http://www.askeric.org/plweb-cgi/fastweb?
getdoc+ericdb2+ericdb+812323+82+wAAA+...

Villani, S. (2002). Mentoring programs for new teachers; Models of induction and
support. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Wheatley, M. (1999). Leadership and the new science. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.

Wheatley, M. (2003). Turning to one another: Simple conversations to restore hope to
the future. San Francisco: Berrett-Kowhler.

Witherell, C., & Noddings, N. (1991). Stories lives tell: Narrative and dialogue in
education. New York: Teachers College Press.

Wolcott, H. F. (1990). Writing up qualitative research (Vol. 20). Newbury Park, CA:
Sage.

246

Wolcott, H. F. (1994). Transforming qualitative data: Description, analysis, and
interpretation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Wolcott, H. F. (2003). The man in the principal 's oflice: An ethnography (2003 ed.).
Walnut Creek, CA: Alta Mira Press.

247