1

______________________________________________________________________________

Vol. 12, No. 3 Fall 2015 AASA Journal of Scholarship and Practice

Fall 2015/Volume 12, No. 3

Table of Contents

Board of Editors. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Sponsorship and Appreciation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Research Articles

Principal Preparation—Revisited—Time Matters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

by Daniel Gutmore, PhD

Principal Concerns and Superintendent Support During Teacher Evaluation Changes. . . . . . . . . . . . .11

by Mary Lynne Derrington, EdD and John W. Campbell, PhD

Commentary

School Administrator Quality in Minority-Serving Institutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23

by Mariela A. Rodriguez, PhD; Carol A Mullen, PhD; Tawannah G. Allen, EdD

Mission and Scope, Copyright, Privacy, Ethics, Upcoming Themes,

Author Guidelines & Publication Timeline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .36

AASA Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

2

______________________________________________________________________________

Vol. 12, No. 3 Fall 2015 AASA Journal of Scholarship and Practice

Editorial Review Board

AASA Journal of Scholarship and Practice

2012-2015

Editors Christopher H. Tienken, Seton Hall University

Ken Mitchell, Manhattanville College

Associate Editors

Barbara Dean, AASA, The School Superintendents Association

Kevin Majewski, Seton Hall University

Editorial Review Board Albert T. Azinger, Illinois State University

Sidney Brown, Auburn University, Montgomery

Gina Cinotti, Netcog Public Schools, New Jersey Brad Colwell, Bowling Green University

Sandra Chistolini, Universita`degli Studi Roma Tre, Rome

Michael Cohen, Denver Public Schools

Betty Cox, University of Tennessee, Martin

Theodore B. Creighton, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University

Gene Davis, Idaho State University, Emeritus

John Decman, University of Houston, Clear Lake

David Dunaway, University of North Carolina, Charlotte

Daniel Gutmore, Seton Hall University

Gregory Hauser, Roosevelt University, Chicago

Jane Irons, Lamar University

Thomas Jandris, Concordia University, Chicago

Zach Kelehear, University of South Carolina

Theodore J. Kowalski, University of Dayton

Nelson Maylone, Eastern Michigan University

Robert S. McCord, University of Nevada, Las Vegas

Barbara McKeon, Broome Street Academy Charter High School, New York, NY

Sue Mutchler, Texas Women's University

Margaret Orr, Bank Street College

David J. Parks, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University

George E. Pawlas, University of Central Florida

Dereck H. Rhoads, Beaufort County School District

Paul M. Terry, University of South Florida

Thomas C. Valesky, Florida Gulf Coast University

Published by

AASA, The School Superintendents Association

1615 Duke Street

Alexandria, VA 22314

Available at www.aasa.org/jsp.aspx

ISSN 1931-6569

3

______________________________________________________________________________

Vol. 12, No. 3 Fall 2015 AASA Journal of Scholarship and Practice

Sponsorship and Appreciation

The AASA Journal of Scholarship and Practice would like to thank AASA, The School

Superintendents Association, in particular the AASA Leadership Development Office, for its ongoing

sponsorship of the Journal.

We also offer special thanks to Christopher Tienken, Seton Hall University, and Kenneth Mitchell,

Manhattanville College, for their efforts in selecting and editing the articles that comprise this

professional education journal.

The unique relationship between research and practice is appreciated, recognizing the mutual benefit to

those educators who conduct the research and seek out evidence-based practice and those educators

whose responsibility it is to carry out the mission of school districts in the education of children.

Without the support of AASA, Christopher Tienken and Kenneth Mitchell, the AASA Journal of

Scholarship and Practice would not be possible.

4

______________________________________________________________________________

Vol. 12, No. 3 Fall 2015 AASA Journal of Scholarship and Practice

Research Article ____________________________________________________________________

Principal Preparation—Revisited—Time Matters

Daniel Gutmore, PhD

Faculty Associate

Department of Education Leadership, Management and Policy

Seton Hall University

South Orange, NJ

Abstract

There has been both a historic and continuing interest in the preparation process for school

administrators (principals and vice principals). Much of the literature has been critical of how school

administrators are prepared (Achilles, 1991; Hale and Moorman, 2003; Levine, 2005; Hallinger and

Lu, 2013). Although the length of time from graduation to hiring was explored, little attention has

been paid to the satisfaction of graduates from principal preparation and the number of years that

transpired from graduation to job placement. An unknown outcome in the literature on principal

preparation programs is the impact of satisfaction in relation to the length of time in securing an

administrative position. This article attempts to provide some insight into the relationship.

Key Words

principal preparation, career satisfaction

5

______________________________________________________________________________

Vol. 12, No. 3 Fall 2015 AASA Journal of Scholarship and Practice

Introduction

There has been both a historic and continuing interest in the preparation process for school

administrators (principals and vice principals).

Much of the literature has been critical of how

school administrators are prepared (Achilles,

1991; Hale and Moorman, 2003; Levine, 2005;

Hallinger and Lu, 2013). In instances where the

process has been identified as positive, it has

been characterized as an outlier under the

definition of “exemplary programs” (Orr and

Orpanos, 2011; Taylor, Pelleties, Kelly,

Trimble, Todd and Ruiz, 2014).

An interesting phenomenon of the

preparation process that has not been examined

is the elapsed time from being prepared to

become a school administrator and satisfaction

with the preparation process. Unlike many

other professions, being prepared does not

necessarily result in securing a position.

Gahungu (2008), studying an Illinois

preparation program, noted that, from 1995 to

2005, of the 503 students graduated from the

program, only 168 of the certified candidates

had held administrative positions in public

schools by 2007. Bathon and Black (2010)

found in their study of Indiana principal

placement that 59% of all graduates find

employment as either principals or assistant

principals (soon after graduation).

Although the length of time from

graduation to hiring has been explored, little

attention has been paid to the satisfaction of

graduates from principal preparation and the

number of years that transpired from

graduation to job placement. An unknown

outcome in the literature on principal

preparation programs is the impact of

satisfaction in relation to the length of time in

securing an administrative position.

Literature Review For the last twenty-five years, there has been

the realization that effective principals are an

important variable in school improvement

(Spillane, 2003).

In spite of that assertion, until relatively

recently little attention has been paid to the

preparation process and how schools of

educational administration have designed their

preparation programs (Achilles, 2004; Hale and

Morman, 2003; Levine, 2005). The focus has

been directed at four aspects of that process;

licensure, certification and accreditation,

principal preparation and professional

development (Beck and Murphy, 1996).

There has also been a concern that

preparation programs are too theoretical and

not grounded in administrative and leadership

reality (Murphy, 1992).

Another study identified several major

concerns: the admission process for prospective

students with some among the lowest standards

in the nation; the lack of clarity of purpose; the

absence of systematic self- assessment; the

absence of a coherent curriculum; a poorly

equipped professorate; a lack of attention paid

to clinical education and mentorship; research

that is detached from practice; and insufficient

funding (Levine, 2005). These areas are

similar to the observations of Achilles (1991);

Hale and Moorman,(2003) and Elmore (2000)

who added to the litany of concerns, the lack of

an agreed – upon knowledge base to guide the

preparation of school administrators.

6

______________________________________________________________________________

Vol. 12, No. 3 Fall 2015 AASA Journal of Scholarship and Practice

On a parallel and connected path, there

has emerged a more substantive research base

regarding effective leadership practices related

to the principal.

One of the more compelling works is

that of Waters, Marzano and McNulty (2003)

who examined thirty years of research on the

effects of leadership on student achievement. In

their meta-analysis they identified two primary

variables that determine whether or not

leadership will have a positive or negative

impact on achievement: the focus of change or

whether there is a focus on improving practices

directly related to student achievement with an

understanding by the leader of the magnitude or

order of the change. They further identified 21

leadership responsibilities and associated

practices connected to student achievement and

organized them into a taxonomy of four types

of knowledge: experiential knowledge

(knowing why it is important), declarative

(knowing what to do), procedural (knowing

how) and contextual (knowing when).

Another theme has been to review

what principal preparation programs are doing

in response to the external criticism. Hallinger

and Lu (2013) found that the influence of

business practices has become more

pronounced with specific alignment to the role

of case studies and mentoring programs.

Peck and Reitzug (2012) identified

three management concepts that tend to

permeate many preparation program designs:

management by objectives, total quality

management, and turnaround restructuring.

There has also been greater focus on field

experiences and a direct connection to

authentic inquiry (Perez, Uline, Johnson,

James-Ward, and Basom, 2010). Providing

more direct in- school experiences, where

prospective candidates could apply the skills

and concepts learned in a classroom setting,

became a pivotal focus.

Recently there has been an attempt to

connect the role of the principal and their

preparation to student outcomes (Orr and

Orphonos, 2011; Donmoyer, Donmoyer and

Galloway, 2012)). Although much of the work

was focused on so-called "exemplary

programs" and the results were mixed, the fact

that there is now an attempt to determine if

there is a connection to student outcomes and

principal behaviors in connection with their

preparation program is a significant shift in the

direction of focus on principal preparation

programs.

There has also emerged a collective sense

that principal leadership is distributed and its

foundation rests on a base of expertise rather

than hierarchical authority (Camburn, Rowan,

and Taylor, 2003; Kochan and Reed, 2005).

Leadership is viewed from the vantage point of

interdependence and operates within both a

vertical and horizontal continuum depending on

the context organizational circumstances. The

implications of the new insights emerging

regarding leadership are that the profession is

nearing the foundation level for agreement on

what constitutes a knowledge base for the

preparation of school level administrators and

the potential for a unifying approach to that

process (Brown and Flanary, 2004).

Although much has been written about

principal preparation, it has focused on

satisfaction as determined by graduates or those

who retrospectively evaluate their programs

once they acquire an administrative position.

Other thematic areas are what programs are

doing to "better" prepare their candidates.

There has also been an attempt to connect

preparation to student outcomes. Missing from

the analysis is the relationship between the

7

______________________________________________________________________________

Vol. 12, No. 3 Fall 2015 AASA Journal of Scholarship and Practice

length of time that elapses from exiting a

preparation program and acquiring an

administrative position and satisfaction by

graduates with the preparation process. An

unknown outcome in the literature on principal

preparation programs is the impact of

satisfaction and length of time in securing an

administrative position.

The Study To determine if there was a relationship

between satisfaction with principal preparation

programs and the number of years that elapsed

from completing a preparation program and

securing an administrative position, a

structured questionnaire was developed and

sent to 1,583 principals in a northeastern state.

The list was from a database developed

by the state education agency and was current

for the school year 2014. The survey consisted

of a limited number (3) of questions asking

respondents to rate their satisfaction with their

leadership preparation program using a 5 point

Likert rating scale with 5 indicating

exceptionally prepared and 1 not prepared at

all. Respondents were asked to indicate the

length of time that elapsed from receiving their

degree and receiving an administrative

appointment with choices ranging from

immediately on graduation to more than five

years later. Respondents were also asked to

indicate the institution or program granting

them the degree. Two hundred sixty-seven

principals responded to the survey representing

fifty-seven universities and colleges providing

principal preparation programs.

The Results Although 267 principals responded, the

response rate represents only 16% of the

population. Caution needs to be taken in the

conclusions that are drawn, given the low

return rate. Two hundred and sixty-seven is a

number that allows statistical analysis but may

represent a population that is not representative

of the study group. To determine the

significance of the relationship between

satisfaction and the number of years elapsing

between completion of a preparation program

and receiving a principal position, Spearman

rho (r) was applied to the tabulated results.

There are many cases where

dependency between two variables can be

observed but where the distribution is unknown

(Yamane, 1967; Creswell, 2012).

Nonparametric correlation coefficients provide

the ability to determine statistical significance

in such instances and, therefore, Spearman rho

(r) was the appropriate application. The

outcome revealed a .181 statistical significance

between satisfaction and appointment to an

administrative position either immediately on

graduating or 1 to 2 years later. The outcome is

statistically significant but relatively weak in its

strength.

Discussion This study reveals a connection with

satisfaction with the preparation process and

the number of years it took actually to receive

an administrative position.

The sooner an administrative position

was secured, the greater the satisfaction.

Although caution is needed in generalizing

beyond the scope of this study, there are

implications for both future research and the

designs of principal preparation programs. In

terms of future research, a much wider survey

of graduates of principal preparation programs

would indicate the broader significance of time

as a variable in program satisfaction.

More importantly there is a policy issue

that needs to be addressed immediately. If there

are significant gaps between preparation and

8

______________________________________________________________________________

Vol. 12, No. 3 Fall 2015 AASA Journal of Scholarship and Practice

administrative placement and graduates feel

less prepared, as a result, what can programs do

to address the issue? The response to this

question includes both ethical and social

responsibility implications.

Principal preparation programs within

this context need to go beyond just preparation

and graduation but meet the social

responsibility to address their graduate’s needs.

One possible solution is to allow all

graduates to attend any classes they feel a need

to attend as a refresher in developing skills

introduced in previous classroom settings.

These ‘refreshers’ should be at no cost to the

students but become a part of the social, ethical

and professional responsibility of the program

provider. The idea of “no cost” is not the

financial burden it may appear to be. The

refresher could be offered when existing

classes are in session. Students who need to be

refreshed sit in on the classes and participate in

the scope and demand for their specific needs.

A second programmatic response would

be to schedule low cost or no cost seminars in

areas that improve the management and

leadership skills of graduates and keep them up

to date on the research on best practices.

These seminars could be scheduled on

weekends to allow maximum participation.

Another implication of the study is the need to

provide counseling and support to graduates as

they enter the administrative marketplace. It is

not enough to merely graduate students but to

also facilitate the employment process.

Author Biography

Daniel Gutmore is a faculty associate at Seton Hall University. He was a teacher and practicing school

and central office administrator for over 30 years, all in an urban school setting. His areas of interest

are organizational theory, supervision of instruction, ethical decision making and principal preparation

process. E-mail: [email protected]

9

______________________________________________________________________________

Vol. 12, No. 3 Fall 2015 AASA Journal of Scholarship and Practice

References

Achilles, C. M. (2004). Change the damn box. In Educational Leadership: Knowing the Way,

Showing the Way, Going the Way, edited by C. Carr and C. Fulmer. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow

Education.

Achilles, C. M. (1991). Reforming educational administration: An agenda for the 1990’s.

Planning and Changing 22: 23-33.

Bathon, J., & Black, W. (2010). Where do our graduates go? A five-year exploration of the

regional distribution of principal preparation graduates. NCPEA International Journal

of Educational Leadership Preparation, 6 (1), 1-22.

Beck, L. & Murphy, J. (1996). The four imperatives of a successful school. Thousand Oaks,

CA: Corwin Press.

Brown, F., & Flanary, D. (2004). How many principal preparation groups does it take to

screw in the light bulb? NCPEA Educational Review, 5, 2-3.

Camburn, E., Rowan, B., & Taylor, J. E. (2003). Distributed leadership in schools: The case

of elementary schools adopting comprehensive school reform models. Educational

Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25, 347-373.

Donmoyer, R., Donmoyer, J., & Galloway, F. (2012). The search for connections across principal

preparation, principal performance, and student achievement in an exemplary

principal preparation program. Journal of Research on Leadership Education, 7 (5),

5-43.

Elmore, R. (2000) Building a new structure for school leadership. The Albert Shanker Institute.

Gahungu, A. (2008). Is a principal certificate a passport to salary enhancement or to

administrative positions in schools? NCPEA Connexions Module. 1-16.

Hale, E., & Moorman, N. A national perspective on policy and program innovation.

Washington DC: Institute for Educational Leadership; Edwardsville, IL: Education

Research Council, 2003.

Hallinger, P., & Lu, J. (2013). Preparing principals: What can we learn from MBA and MPA

Programs? Educational Management, Administration and Leadership, 41, (4), 435-452.

Kochan, F. K., & Reed, C. J. (2005). Collaborative leadership, community building and

democracy in public education. In The Sage Handbook of Educational Leadership, Advances in

Theory, Research and Practice, edited by Fenwick W. English. Thousand Oaks, California:

Sage Publication.

10

______________________________________________________________________________

Vol. 12, No. 3 Fall 2015 AASA Journal of Scholarship and Practice

Levine, A. (2005). Educating school leaders. New York: The Education Schools Project.

Murphy, J. (1992). The landscape of leadership preparation. New York: Teachers College.

Orr, T., & Orphanos, S. (2011). How graduate level preparation influences the effectiveness of school

leaders: A comparison of the outcomes of exemplary and conventional leadership

preparation programs for principals. Educational Administration Quarterly, 47 (18), 18-70.

Peck, C., & Reitzug, U. C. (2012). How existing business management concepts become school

leadership fashions. Educational Administration Quarterly, 48 (2), 347-381.

Perez, L. G., Uline, C. L., Johnson J. F., James-Ward, C., & Basom, M. R. (2011).

Foregrounding fieldwork in leadership preparation: the transformative capacity of authentic

inquiry. Educational Administration Quarterly, 47 (1), 217-257.

Spillane, J. P.(2003). Educational leadership. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 25,

343-346.

Taylor, R., Pelletier, K., Trimble, T., & Ruiz, E. (2014). Urban school district’s preparing new

principals program 2008-2011: Perceptions of program completers, supervising principals and

senior levels district administrators. NCPEA International Journal of Educational

Leadership Preparation, 9 (1), 1-13.

Waters, T., Marzano, R. J., & McNulty, B. What 30 years of research tells us about the effect of

leadership on student achievement. MCREL, 2003.

11

______________________________________________________________________________

Vol. 12, No. 3 Fall 2015 AASA Journal of Scholarship and Practice

Research Article ____________________________________________________________________

Principal Concerns and Superintendent Support During Teacher

Evaluation Changes

Mary Lynne Derrington, EdD

Assistant Professor

Department of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies

University of Tennessee

Knoxville, TN

John W. Campbell, PhD

Director of Curriculum and Instruction

Alcoa City Schools

Alcoa, TN

Abstract

Teacher evaluation is a major reform initiative in public education’s high accountability policy

environment. Principals’ effective implementation of this high-stakes reform is challenged by time

management, policy coherence, communication with teachers, district support, and staff development

imperatives. Effective implementation requires moving beyond time and management concerns

towards collaborative leadership with supervisors. Although teacher evaluation policies are often state

initiated, local level superintendents and district leaders must understand principals’ challenges to

provide useful guidance and support.

Based on a three-year study of a southeastern state’s Race to the Top driven implementation of

redesigned teacher evaluation policies, this article examines principals’ concerns and need for support

plus superintendent strategies for addressing gaps that state and federal policymakers may leave during

such mandated reform. The Stages of Concern framework from the Concerns-Based Adoption Model

(CBAM) was used to examine principals’ concerns and superintendents’ support. Lessons learned and

implications for superintendents are described.

Key Words

teacher evaluation, leadership, CBAM

12

______________________________________________________________________________

Vol. 12, No. 3 Fall 2015 AASA Journal of Scholarship and Practice

Principals, Reform of Teacher

Evaluation, and Need for Support

Implementing a new and more rigorous teacher evaluation system presents new challenges to a

principal’s already complex job, particularly in

states and districts with redesigned

accountability policy mandates. Juggling

multiple demands and expectations (Honig and

Hatch, 2004; Leithwood, Strauss, & Anderson,

2007) principals are responsible for interpreting

and implementing policy designed from afar

and making it applicable, relevant, and

effective for their teachers (Datnow, Hubbard,

& Mehan, 2002; McLaughlin, 1987; Park &

Datnow, 2009; Spillane, Diamond, Burch,

Hallett, Loyiso, & Zoltners, 2002).

Consequently, principals are the critical link for

successful policy implementation (Datnow et

al., 2002). However, they require support as

they learn the details of new, more complex

policies and more demanding accountability

driven expectations.

This article, based on a longitudinal

study (Derrington & Campbell, 2015),

describes principals’ concerns during the

implementation of a new reform-driven teacher