The Saskatchewan Educational Leadership Unit was contracted by the SSTA early in 1998 to conduct, with direction from an interagency steering group, a study of these issues and to develop a report, with recommendations for boards of education and other partners.  The responsibility of the steering committee was to provide guidelines for the parameters of the study: what it was to include, what methodologies were to be used and who would be involved.
    The purposes of the study were to identify the current concerns, issues, and challenges for ensuring effective school-level leadership, and to identify what school boards can do to ensure effective school level leadership.  The following questions were the basis for extensive consultation with a variety of groups during the course of the study, using focus groups, written responses and surveys:

1. What motivates individuals to select the principalship?
2. What are the most serious issues facing the principalship in Saskatchewan?
3. How well are individuals prepared to assume the principalship?
4. What is the current level of interest among teachers in assuming the role of principal?
5. If interest is seen to be low; why is this the case?
6. How might the quality and quantity of aspirants to the job be enhanced?
7. What can be done to enhance the quality of support for those in the position?
8. What policy alternatives should be considered as the education system in this Province addresses the needs of school-based leadership in the 21st century?
9. What are the implications of these policy alternatives for school boards and other educational partners?

    Chapter 1 provides a brief perspective on the background to the problem which gave rise to the study.  It outlines the terms of reference of the study, including the role of the steering committee, and the major conceptualization and related questions upon which the investigation was based.  It describes the major methods of data collection and timelines employed in gathering data.
    Chapter 2 contains a brief review of recent literature on the principalship, providing a vision of contemporary school leadership based upon research and learned opinion.
    Chapter 3, frames the issues in terms of their perceived impact upon the decision of individuals to assume the role.
    Chapter 4, presents the action priorities identified by each sub-group, and examines the responsibilities of key actors in the principal’s support system.
    Finally, Chapter 5 outlines the major courses of action for boards and other partners in the form of an “agenda for action” concerning the Saskatchewan Principalship.

The major issues emerging from the various data sources are organized for each of the major research questions as follows.

What is the current level of interest in applying for the principalship?

There was a fairly high and consistent level of agreement across groups that the level of interest, among teachers, in pursuing the principalship is low, and that the lack of interest is particularly strongly felt in small rural communities.  Principalship positions in rural K-12 schools are most difficult to fill.

Data from a variety of sources suggested that the most common motivations were: opportunity for new challenges; opportunities to help children and make a difference, opportunity to positively influence school effectiveness; “shoulder-tapping”/ encouragement by administrators; and the opportunity for career advancement.

By far the most frequently identified reason as to why teachers are not coming forward relates to the perception of the overwhelming overload which characterizes the job, and the “hassle” that goes with it.  Other reasons, in order of frequency of mention across groups, were: poor remuneration, incommensurate with the responsibilities, expectations and demands of the job; location/relocation problems in rural schools; lack of support; and reluctance to take on parental and community issues.

Perceptions varied significantly on this question, reflecting very prominent disparities between rural-based and urban-based principals in their opportunities for access to pre-service and in-service training.  Many felt that the removal of the vice-principalship in smaller schools has had a negative impact on the levels of experience/preparation for the principalship.

Each group of respondents had its own set of issues and concerns associated with the principalship, and these reflected the unique perspectives and interests of some sub-groups.  However there was a remarkably high level of consensus as to the broader issues confronting the role.  These issues, in order of frequency of mention within and across groups, related to:  the proliferation of expectations for the role; administrative time; compensation; community politics; support; recruitment and training; and the role of women in administration.

    At each stage of this study, individuals and groups identified a variety of possible strategies for addressing the major issues.  Once again, several sources of data were tapped: focus groups, individual interviews and surveys.
    The point of departure was the trustee-director survey, which had the two-fold purpose of determining levels of agreement, and specific suggestions regarding six broad issues.  It was administered at trustee branch meetings during the Fall of 1998.  The issues related to:

1. Clarifying who is responsible for ensuring effective leadership;
2. Defining roles and expectations for principals;
3. Clarifying opinions regarding principal compensation;
4. Defining responsibilities regarding principal support and training;
5. Clarifying issues and priorities regarding the challenges of rural contexts;
6. Examining alternatives related to the promotion and the presentation of a positive image of the principalship.

Issue #1: Who is Responsible?

    While trustees and administrators indicated that the board is ultimately responsible for ensuring effective leadership, many saw a shared responsibility as the emerging model, with responsibilities assumed by several partners.
    There was a strong recognition among discussion groups that the “partners” in the educational enterprise have not really got their act together very well in relation to school leadership.  From preservice, through selection and induction to compensation, supervision and evaluation, the ‘significant actors’, including principals themselves, have been operating on a broken front.  This led numerous respondents in this study to call for better collaboration.
    Some respondents noted that we should not lose sight of the fact that principals and vice-principals have a continuing responsibility for assessing their own leadership performance and making adjustments, with board and administration in a support role.

Issue #2: Defining Roles and Expectations

    All groups made a strong call for clarity and early transmission of expectations – through experience of vice-principalship or ‘coordinator’ roles, and through the education of all staff as to what administrators do.  Several individuals recommended the practice, already followed in some systems, of holding seminars for ‘aspiring administrators’, with the goal of enhancing the quality and quantity of knowledge about the principalship before the job is taken.  The impression, upon reading the comments of participants on the issue of expectations, was that it is a critical issue – widespread enough to demand action across school systems and agencies.
    Finally, some trustees, and directors referred to the logical tie between expectations and evaluation.  Such evaluation, they pointed out, needs regular attention of senior administration, based upon common principals, commonly developed.

Issue #3: Compensation

    There was a strong feeling across all groups that administrative time and compensation arrangements for in-school administrators are in need of revision.  Calculations based upon numbers of professional staff in the school were deemed to be inadequate for the realities of small schools.  Rural-based principalships were considered difficult to fill because, at least in part, incentives for relocation, training, professional development, and housing were minimal or non-existent.  Specific provisions for these issues through additional financial allotments and bursaries, would, it is believed, go a long way toward drawing more, and better qualified, individuals to the job.

Issue #4: Support and Training

 The point was reiterated that the major partners should be offering a joint program that is clearly and effectively articulated.  However, limited time and financial resources constitute a significant barrier to good preservice and inservice education.  Strategies suggested commonly across groups included making professional development funds available to prospective principals; providing allowances and training opportunities to educate teachers as to the administrative role; retaining the vice principalship as a training ground for the principalship; providing structured, accessible sharing and mentoring arrangements for female administrators; supporting funded opportunities for leaves and courses relevant to the job, and making university graduate programs more practical and accessible.  Strategies by which all the partners can improve the quality of support provided to the principalship were identified.

Issue #5: Accommodating Rural Contexts

The most frequent action suggestion related to rural contexts related to the need for rural housing issues to be addressed, by incorporating teacherage or housing allowances to encourage good candidates to move to rural areas.  In addition, the provision of relocation support was identified as a worthwhile consideration.  Strategies relating to small schools included revisions to the principals’ allowance formulas to reflect the realities of small school situations.
In regard to community politics, training in public relations, working with local boards, and with parents and communities, was identified as an important prerequisite for rural principals.  Mentorship arrangements, and slotting time for “sharing meetings” and planned retreats were strategies suggested to alleviate the isolation of rural based principals.

Issue #6: Promoting a Positive Image

    The most common suggestion on this issue in the trustee/administrator survey related to the need for teachers to see that administrators are supported and appreciated and that the job has many positive features.  Some respondents wrote of the need for recognition, of principals and vice principals by boards and senior administrators.  Others advocated celebrating successes a little more while dealing with the negative.  The “promotion” and “profiling” of the work and role of school administrators was seen by some as a collaborative effort involving the major partners.
    Respondents strongly emphasized that “nothing will change until role and support are addressed...”  Suggestions included the need for certification, practicums, greater profiling of school leadership by major partners (including government), capitalizing on the opportunities for sharing the very tangible ‘positives’ associated with being a principal in Saskatchewan, particularly in rural Saskatchewan.

    The final chapter of the in-school leadership study consists of an action plan with recommendations, particularly for school boards.  These are organized around eight aspects of the support system, with each recommendation associated with an identification as to who the responsible stakeholders are.
    The areas pertain to preservice education; recruitment and induction; professional development; community and parent partnership; role expectations; rewards and compensation; professional affiliation; and mentorship arrangements.  In addition, several general recommendations pertaining to the coordination of school leadership matters in this province are identified.
    The mandate of this study was to identify issues and strategies around which there is some clear consensus among the various actors in our educational system.  That level of consensus as it emerged in this study is recorded for each of the recommendations.

Recommendations having direct relevance for boards of education pertain to:

• giving active support to the Principals’ Short Course and other P.D. modules;
• clarifying expectations for the work of the principals in the division;
• examining leadership recruitment activities with a view to enhancing the process;
• inviting other boards to share, occasionally, in leadership development sessions;
• developing measures to improve public relations skills among principals;
• actively supporting the role of principals;
• encouraging the development and maintenance of an interagency group to advise agencies on the changing demands on school level leadership;
• providing for occasional seminars to teachers on the nature of school leadership;
• encouraging and providing for vice principalship positions and other formal means for teachers to experience administration;
• providing greater administrative release time and monitoring its use within the schools of the division;
• providing for an effective system of administrator evaluation (including individual self evaluation)
• reviewing and encouraging allowance levels in keeping with rural realities;
• providing a structure for mentoring/support of new principals;
• providing formal opportunities for networking/mentoring among female principals;
• encouraging planned retreats and sharing sessions for the division administrators;
• encouraging a positive profile of the principalship in the schools and the community.

    The cooperation and assistance provided by many individuals during the various stages of this study are gratefully acknowledged.  In particular, trustees, directors, teachers, principals and members of other agencies supplied a considerable volume of information through focus group discussions, verbatim comments and surveys.  School boards were also very generous in their own participation in the study, and in allowing their personnel to participate in activities such as invitational seminars and focus groups.

    The guidance provided by Barry Bashutski and the interagency steering group in setting the parameters for the study and assisting with data collection provided very useful direction and occasional refocusing at several key stages.

    Finally, the technical assistance and manuscript development work of Sue Piot was invaluable in the preparation and completion of this report.
 

Interagency Steering Group      Chris Sarich  Superintendent of Education   St. Paul’s R.C.S.S.D. #20 Art Shepherd  Principal   Dundonald Elementary School Paulette Van der Linde  Faculty of Education   University of Regina Pat Renihan  College of Education   University of Saskatchewan  David Hawley  Saskatchewan Educational Leadership Unit   University of Saskatchewan  Barry Bashutski   Saskatchewan School Trustees  Association

    The quality of In-School administration is vital to school success.  For over fifteen years, the developing body of research on effective schools has consistently pointed to the part played by responsible, assertive and visible school-level leadership in school success (Sergiovanni, 1991; Austin and Reynolds, 1990).  This is one reason why the effective schools movement relies so heavily on the notion of leadership development.  As Hawley and Eckman (1997) point out:

“A terrific school principal can dramatically change what happens in a school.  Among educators, it’s common knowledge: to make a bad school better, change the principal for the better” (p. 91).

    School systems everywhere are finding out that just as difficult to find are candidates willing to assume leadership positions, particularly, those at the school level.  People are not coming forward to apply for school level administrative posts.  McAdams (1998) poses the question, “Where have all the aspiring administrators gone?”  He notes that education publications are reporting a growing national concern in the US over the apparent lack of qualified  new school administrators despite an increase in the numbers of people with relevant credentials (p. 37).
    Additionally, the demand for school level administrators appears to be rising. National surveys conducted in the US have consistently shown that within the next few years, more than half the principals in the United States (and in many countries around the world) will be able to retire and leave the principalship (Daresh and Playko, 1997).
    The same scenario holds for several Canadian provinces, and it has emerged as a serious source of concern among senior officials, teachers and trustees in Saskatchewan.   For some years now, many systems have been experiencing difficulties in appropriately staffing school-based administrative positions.  As is the case in US systems, this has been occurring despite an increase in graduates from university-based administration programmes, and despite a significant increase in the quality and quantity of leadership development opportunities with the Province since 1985.

Terms of Reference

    The Saskatchewan Educational Leadership Unit was contracted by the SSTA early in 1998 to conduct, with direction from an interagency steering group, a study of these issues and to develop a report, with recommendations for boards of education.  The responsibility of the steering committee was to provide guidelines for the parameters of the study: what it was to include, what methodologies would be used and who would be involved.  The purposes of the study were to identify the current concerns, issues and challenges facing school boards in their task of ensuring effective school level leadership.  The general conceptualization for the study is reflected in Figure 1.

The following questions were the basis for extensive consultation with a variety of groups during the course of the study:

1. What motivates individuals to select the principalship?
2. What are the most serious issues facing the principalship in Saskatchewan?
3. How well are individuals prepared to assume the principalship?
4. What is the current level of interest among teachers in assuming the role of principal?
5. If interest is seen to be low; why is this the case?
6. How might the quality and quantity of aspirants to the job be enhanced?
7. What can be done to enhance the quality of support for those in the position?
8. What policy alternatives should be considered as the education system in this Province addresses the needs of school-based leadership in the 21st century?
9. What are the implications of these policy alternatives for school boards and other educational partners?

Methods of Data Collection

Data collection for this study involved two major activities:
a) interviews/consultations with groups representing various partners in the education system. These were held with: trustees at SSTA branch meetings; participants of the executives of LEADS, SCEA, and SSTA and SASC; principals and vice-principals at two in-school administrator conferences; parents at one parent conference, superintendents/directors at the LEADS Summer Short Course; teachers/principals’ at the Saskatchewan Principals’ Short Course and aboriginal teachers and administrators involved in band-controlled and provincial systems.  In addition, a one-day invitational seminar was held in May, 1998, involving 45 principals representing a stratified grouping of various types of schools and school systems in the province.  Copies of worksheets and discussion forms are contained in Appendix A.
b) surveys requesting written responses on key questions and numerical responses to a checklist form. These were conducted with 93 teachers, principals and vice-principals at the Principals’ Short Course in July, 1998, and with 298 trustees and senior administrators at SSTA Branch meetings in the Fall of 1998.  Copies of these surveys are contained in Appendix B.

Organization of the Report

    This Chapter has provided a brief perspective on the background to the problem which gave rise to the study, adding a perspective as to how widespread the problem is.  It has outlined the terms of reference of the study, including the roles of the steering committee and the major conceptualization and related questions upon which the investigation was based.  It has described the major methods of data collection and time lines employed in gathering data.
    Chapter 2 contains a brief review of recent literature on the principalship, providing a vision of contemporary school leadership based upon research and learned opinion.
    In Chapter 3, the issues as perceived by various groups are framed in terms of their perceived impact upon the decision of individuals to assume the role.
    Chapter 4, presents the action priorities identified by each sub-group, and examines the responsibilities of key actors in the principal’s support system.
    Finally, Chapter 5 outlines the major courses of action for boards and other partners in the form of a strategic plan for the Saskatchewan Principalship into the 21st Century.

    Much of the literature on school leadership in recent years has made a clear and emphatic reference to the fact that the school contexts, and therefore the role of the principal, have been undergoing significant changes.  While legislative changes and educational reforms have had their impacts upon structures and processes either within and among schools and school systems, significant sociological changes (Portin and Shen, 1998) have brought with them a diversity of student needs and interests which have placed new demands upon schools (Murphy, 1992).  Principals themselves are in the forefront of those who report that the roles of school level leaders are undergoing significant change.
    However, the reality of change itself is nothing new to those who have studied the nature and content of school leadership over the past thirty years.  Forces which exert considerable influence on the principal’s role today, did so thirty years ago.  Egnatoff pointed out in 1968 that significant developments in social and economic conditions, research in educational psychology, changes in curriculum and instruction all had their impact.  Renihan (1985) reported twenty years later that these factors were still prevalent.  The significance of contemporary studies of the principalship, then, is not so much in the fact of change itself as it is in the new impacts they are exerting upon the work of school leaders.  In addition, there have been significant changes in approaches to leadership and these have very different things to say about effectiveness in the work of principals than did the theories of thirty years ago.  According to Kaiser (1995) there seems to be a general consensus of opinion that much of what was considered fundamental practices of the principalship in the 1980's will be evident.
    In this brief literature review, contemporary literature is examined in order to provide perspectives on the issues of principal recruitment and socialization; leadership effectiveness and its implications for principals’ competencies; the realities and constraints of the job; and the means by which school level leaders receive support
 

What Kind of Leadership is Desired?

    Several relatively recent views of leadership and learning, within schools and organizations in general, are bringing about some significant changes in the way in which people work with one another in schools.  One noteworthy development has been the move, in schools, from a predominantly hierarchical/authoritarian model of leadership to one characterized by a sharing relationship.  According to Barth (1990) the model of the principal who unilaterally “runs” a school no longer works very well.  He describes the responsibility of the principal as developing a ‘community of leaders’ through:

• articulating the vision of the school;
• sharing authority with teachers;
• involving professionals in decisions;
• clarifying responsibilities;
• sharing responsibility for failures;
• giving teachers credit for success.

“A community of leaders in an intriguing concept, but an effective community must have purpose, high expectations and direction.” (p. 64)

“In the root of the principal’s role responsibilities we find the roots of school leadership – a commitment to administer to the needs of the school or an institution by serving its purposes, by serving those who struggle to embody these purposes, and by acting as a guardian to protect the Institutional integrity of the school.” (p. 88).

“Teachers must continually refer to their own personal purpose, values, vision and courage.  They must deal not only with the external threat of competitive failure, but also with the even greater internal threat of lack of leadership integrity, because in the twenty-first century self-leadership in the ultimate leadership challenge – a survival skill.” (P. 192)

“Most principals of isolated schools, when confronted by teachers’ myriad classroom problems, appeared to use only one method to carry on their workday lives – total bland pretense that nothing is ever wrong.” (p. 57)

• building trust throughout the organization;
• developing the communication necessary for people to feel empowered;
• risk-taking;
• problem-solving; and
• building commitment and support for change (p. 183).

“Individuals forever both follow and lead one another in whatever combination works best for the task at hand.  In those moments when some are following, they do so neither as saints nor serfs, but as human beings trying to make a difference.” (p. 207)

“The constantly ringing telephones the unending flow of people with problems, the feeling of uncertainty and approaching deadlines, was the reality of school administration – which can only be fully appreciated by on-the-job experience.” (p. 115)

    In this chapter, the perceptions of various groups as to what motivates individuals to assume the principalship are examined.  Closely related to this is the question as to the current level of interest in the job among teachers.  The question is posed: if interest is low, why is this the case?  The perceived levels and adequacy of preparation of principals in this province is also examined, following which a fairly extensive examination of the major issues confronting the principalship is provided.
 

What is the Current Level of Interest in Applying for Principalships?

    There was a fairly high and consistent level of agreement across groups that the level of interest, among teachers, in pursuing the principalship is low, and that the lack of interest if particularly strongly felt in small, rural school situations – predominantly K-12.  Table 1 presents the relative proportions of each group according to their perceptions of level of teacher interest.  Figures are based upon tabulations made from transcripts of focus groups, work-sheets and surveys.
 

Table 1: 
Perceived Levels of Teacher Interest in the Principalship

Group	High	Level of Teacher Interest  Moderate	Low/Waning
Teachers/Principals	13%	43%	43%
Principals	10%	20%	70%
Directors/Trustees	8%	38%	54%

    Among rural boards and directors, the perception was fairly common that many might want administrative positions, but are not necessarily willing to relocate.  Many respondents noted that the issue of interest in the role is a contextual one, and that larger centres tend to experience higher levels of interest.  Among those who believed interest to be high, there was a perception that many more young and less experienced people are coming forward for the job.  There was also a feeling that interest is increasing among female teachers – particularly in the urban areas.
    In regard to quality, once again it was noted that the quality of applicants is good in urban areas, but that in rural areas it is much more difficult to attract good candidates.  The most frequent concern reported by directors and trustees related to the motivation behind some applications:

“We seem to get ‘borderline’ teachers.  Many are so young and naive” Noticeably lacking have been the 10+ years of experience, with graduate degrees and personally settled.”     (Director)

“Some are available because they can’t keep their job as a teacher.  That happened at our school three times.  Some come to (the position) unaware of how huge the job has become.”    (Trustee)

“Some teachers trying to ‘keep their foot in the door’ and stay away from being redundant.”
(Principal)

The quality is good, but too many people lack experience in both elementary and high school administration.  Schools are looking for older, more experienced people.  (Trustee)

“There are fewer candidates for secondary principalships.”    (Trustee)

    The following responses typify the above motivations:

"I saw it as a new challenge in my career, and an opportunity to put into the forefront positive attitudes toward teaching...attitudes that I had long felt were important for teachers and principals."

"I look forward to a leadership role in education.  I feel I am ready for a new challenge in my career.  I am able to stay in my school.  No move for my family....yet!"

"I had completed my Diploma in EdAdmin., and an opportunity presented itself.  Originally, I got into administration because I was tired of seeing incompetent people at the helm - and people who refused to show leadership.  I also thought our local high school needed a female administrator - so I applied."

    The opportunity to correct a negative model was also a motivation for several other principals.  It is related to the general motivation to influence school effectiveness, and probably relates to a high level of pride in and commitment to a school, on the part of the new incumbent who has a strong desire to “set the record straight.”
    Numerous principals noted that their motivation arose from encouragement and support from an administrator and/or colleague.  In many of these cases, the individuals had not previously devoted much serious thought to assuming the role:

“I was approached to think about the possibility of an administrative role, while retaining a decent class-load assignment.  During the time prior to accepting the position I received lots of support and was able to discuss the duties and responsibilities of the role.  This was not a career ambition for me prior to accepting the position.”

“The vice-principalship was a newly created position in a school that I had been teaching in as a resource room teacher for three years.  I had no previous aspiration to administration.  My principal at the time was the best of five principals I had had during a varied 18-year teaching career.  I felt I would enjoy working with her.  I knew that she needed a supportive V.P. within the school and I was ready for a new challenge.

“I was ‘anointed’.  The Division wished for an inside person to be principal.  I was one of three suggested... and then the anointment.”

“Why would anyone want to take on the added pressure to an already very demanding profession?”  (Teacher)

“I think teachers in general don’t want the extra responsibility, as they have seen/heard about too many situations of the principal being ‘hung out to dry’.”(Principal)

“I suspect some folks are a bit apprehensive due to the workload: parents, policy, payments, staff, students etc.    (Vice Principal)

“You have to have expertise in so many cases: T.A. supervisor, social worker, special education expert, politician, bus patrol, hot lunch coordinator, community volunteer, janitor, chair mover, computer consultant, family planning expert, disciplinarian, career expert, teacher, speech therapist.”     (Sub-group, Principals’ Invitational Seminar)

“Remuneration is minimal for added responsibilities: Compensation does not make it worthwhile.”    (Director Discussion Group)

“The need to supervise non-professional staff is not reflected in remuneration.”     (Director)

“Many teachers perceive the principalship as an undesirable position where the stress and responsibility are not adequately compensated by the increase in salary.”  (Principal)

“From  my experience with my system, we are well screened prior to, and after that given a mentor to get us through our first couple of years.  They look after us well also in making available many professional development aspects for us to learn from.”

“Good, for myself, I was given the opportunity to job-shadow and question the past administrator.”

“I believe most of the individuals going into administration are very prepared and competent.  Some are better prepared than others.  I think it helps to be vice principal first and then principal.  There needs to be courses like the short course to help new principals see what they are getting into.  However there is no substitute for experience.  What is needed is additional support, for the new principal, during the year and beyond.”

“With the amount of professional development available, the large number of applicants who have post-grad classes,  I believe they are even more prepared than in the past.”

“I don’t think there is enough preparation.  Just in talking to people in this course, many people are assuming the role of Principal with little or no training (other than this course) and without having experience as vice-principal first.  The last two principals I’ve worked with had no training when they began.”

“Not prepared, educated or experienced.  Directors are having difficulty hiring somebody for the position, therefore hiring unprepared, uneducated, inexperienced individuals just so the position is filled.”

“Among the principals I have worked with in the last 26 years very few have any training specific to principalship.”

    Several groups, predominantly principals and teachers, emphasized the need to retain the vice-principalship as a means of administrator development.  Directors while agreeing with this argument, made a strong case for the vice principalship as a source of support, a sounding board, for the existing principals.  On the other side of the coin, some beginning principals made a strong case for making the best “training” use of the vice-principalship.  They noted that, where the individual is receiving no mentorship and is totally involved in narrow or mundane aspects of school life, the educative value is lost.
    All groups expressed levels of satisfaction with the existing variety of preparation and professional development opportunities available to principals.  However, some respondents noted that, even with those mechanisms, some aspects of the work are difficult or impossible to prepare for.  Numerous comments pointed to a feeling that experiencing the job itself is the best preparation:

“I believe most of the individuals going into administration are very prepared and competent.  Some are better prepared than others.  I think it helps to be a vice principal first and then principal.  There needs to be courses like the (Principals’) Short Course to help new principals see what they are getting into.  However, there is no substitute for experience.”

The Proliferation of Expectations

    Directors noted that this is a very valid issue, adding that these are different kinds of demands today - for example, demands created by a perceived trend on the part of a parents toward great indulgence toward their children, thereby placing additional time-demanding issues upon the school.  Principals, they noted, spend much more time counselling and mediating with students than they used to.  Principals too have more duties placed upon them by changes in administrative philosophy and approaches within systems.  Instructional leadership, supervision and, in some cases, teacher orientation – to be done well, require devotion of considerable time.
    Principals pointed to what seems to be an increased pressure to meet with more “partners” who are assuming a much more substantive role in the school than they had in the past.  Philosophies of inclusion, curricular change and interagency cooperation bring with them some challenging demands for the principal’s work.  One group of principals (an urban high school group) suggested that the consequent increase in involvement in too many different areas leads to a lack of clarity and, ultimately, frustration in the job.
    The trustee perspective on this issue was commonly addressed in terms of this observation that the role is “ever changing and demanding.”  There was a very high level of agreement that expectations held for principals are growing.  Some made the point that this phenomenon is “putting more and more upon the shoulders of principals, making them more managers than leaders.”  Consequently, trustees saw principals being drawn away from critical educational and curricular issues.
    Typical comments from teachers and principals on their survey reflected some of the above sentiments:

There has been an increase in demands on school responsibility in terms of what the school is to provide as part of society.  What is the most critical is the extreme amount of information required to survive in the day-to-day world of the school.”

“Increased responsibility for duties... being accountable for finances, having to do more with less, accommodating cut-backs, counselling work.  Serving as baby-sitters, mediators, care-givers.”

“There are multitudinous expectations, with very little time to prepare for them.”

Administrative Time

    Many respondents made explicit the clear relationship between the proliferation of expectations and the consequent time pressures of the job.  Principals and teachers pointed out the obvious deterioration in effectiveness when insufficient time is available for the performance of critical tasks.  It was noted that the amount of formal administrative time made available, particularly in rural schools, is insufficient to adequately meet expectations.  As one principal observed: “Time restraints are problematic.  I do not have enough administrative release time to properly attend to everything that a principal must do.’
    Directors, in addition to reinforcing some of the aforementioned points added that, many of the ‘new’ expectations for the principal’s role involve collaboration and consultation:  activities which inherently demand significant commitment of time.  They, too, pointed to the lack of administrative time for principals to do an effective job, particularly in rural schools.  Though trustees did not mention the issue of time as frequently as did the other groups, several did concur with the view that principals just do not have enough time to be able to live up to expectations... and that they are “spread too thinly.”  Others expressed a concern that it is becoming more difficult for boards to be able to provide the support necessary for principals to do their jobs effectively (e.g. administrative time).  Directors concurred observing that declining enrolments results in decreased administrative release time.  There was, however, a high level of consensus across groups that this constitutes a significant issue.

Rewards and Compensation

    For many, aspects of the foregoing discussion relating to the proliferation of expectations, work intensity, the multiplicity of tasks and concomitantly limited time in which to accomplish them, served as their major rationale for reviewing the compensation of principals in terms of approaches (alternative methods) and levels.  Numerous individuals and groups addressed the issue in terms of the relatively low economic return for the inherent risks and pressures.  This is illustrated in the following comments from the teacher/principal survey:

“In this job, there is an inconsistency between the salary and the time and effort spent.”

“Training and pay scales for administrators in small rural schools, who have a large teaching load are inadequate.”

“There is not enough to gain. It’s not worth it. Rural attractions for working families do not exist.  Compensation does not make it worthwhile.  There are other avenues for people to pursue for more gain with less hassle.”

“No one wants to make a commitment to small-town Saskatchewan to purchase a home with no assurance they’ll be able to sell it.  Then there are family blockers ... family adjustment.”

Saskatchewan compares well to other provinces when examining the administrative allowances for large schools of 40 teachers or more.  When small school of 7 teachers of less are considered, Saskatchewan stacks up very poorly in comparison with others.  Moving to rural areas may create a financial burden for families, thus salary can be another complicating factor in terms of attracting people to administration in rural Saskatchewan.

Community Politics

    All groups alluded to an emergent concern about the “political” side of the principalship, occasioned by the increased demand for continuing interaction with a variety of groups – the roles and expectations of which have undergone significant changes.  As one director group commented:

“There is a political component to the job which is relatively new.  It demands leadership, but if principals are predominantly managers, it can get them in trouble pretty easily.”

Local politics can be a deterrent to those interested in assuming an administrative position in a small community.  The extremely public nature of the role and the fact that a principal is never allowed to be a “private citizen” can make it very difficult from a family perspective to be an administrator in a small community.  In addition, some communities have competing factions that can create a tumultuous situation for a school administrator.  I can relate one story from experience where a community had a strong fundamentalist faction as well as a strong liberal faction.  While one group advocated for progressive education, the other endorsed traditional instruction.  The role of the administrator in such a community becomes one of a balancing act whereby he or she tries to satisfy the various community desires, while still fulfilling the student-centred vision of the school.

“General role expectation – by the public.  Often we are seen to have “the” answer.  It is often not the answer that Joe Public wants to hear.  We are often left alone to endure the criticism or harassment of parents.  Often we are not directly responsible for decisions made, but must frequently be responsible for answering to them.”

Support

    The principalship is a lonely job. This point was emphasized in the 1985 study of the principalship in Saskatchewan and from the observations of individuals and groups in tis study, it is no less a concern today.  Understandably, principals themselves were most vocal in the expression of this phenomenon.  It seems that all the expectations and business of the job, the time constraints, and the already busy load of other school professionals and support staff, exacerbate the loneliness of the job.  Interestingly, the issue of isolation was one which was mentioned across groups, and expressions of the need for mentoring relationships, networking with other administrators in the system and elsewhere, and the professional support of a vice-principal came from urban and rural-based individuals.
    However, declining enrolment in certain areas, combined with down-sizing of division office staff has had the impact, in some rural schools, of reducing support in two ways:  one in the form of less contact from senior administration, and the other in the form of the removal of vice-principals.  The fairly high incidence of the latter among small rural schools was mentioned as a source of concern across all groups.  Not only is there less ‘training ground’ for prospective principals, collegial support is removed from principals who badly need it.  This was the tenor of discussion which predominated when the issue of support was broached.  Dray (1998) captures the issue well:

The virtual elimination of the vice principal in rural Saskatchewan has increased the isolation of the small school administrator.  Without a vice principal, the principal not only assumes all administrative duties, but is often required to make important decisions without the counsel or support of another school based administrator.  Support from a division office administrator may not be readily available to a principal due to the downsizing of division office staff in rural school divisions.  This lack of administrative support may contribute to a feeling of isolation of the principal in a small rural school.

“Principals have to be supported in preparation for their roles and given opportunities to become more effective in priority areas, eg. having to deal with scarce resources to meet the wider range of needs and programs.”

Recruitment and Training

    These two themes were so commonly connected in discussions with groups and individuals, that they naturally emerged as an issue to be treated in tandem.  While the training aspect was examined earlier under preparation issues, some sub-issues relating to professional development need discussion at this point.
    As those responsible for recruitment, trustees and directors will be given first comment.  It is hardly surprising that recruitment and selection was one of the most commonly identified issues among trustees, particularly those in rural systems.  The underlying concerns regarding level of interest in the job, and ability of candidates to do the job – the genesis of this study – where never far from the surface.
    Many identified the need for more professional development prior to a principal assuming the job, and several trustee groups identified specific areas of background seen to be critical prerequisites, especially knowledge of curriculum changes; supervisory skills; budgeting; and community relations.  One group made the suggestion that principals should be out-of-scope when in a management position.  Although that option was also raised by one group of principals, it came up rarely and didn’t constitute a commonly-held sentiment.  One principal’s group noted, “Principals don’t really want to leave the STF.  They want the STF to respect the role of the principal.”
    As with trustees, directors saw a critical need for a focused, deliberate professional development plan for school-based administrators.  They saw a need for up-front provision for training, and recognition of the relative difficulty, among rural-based principals and prospective principals, in accessing graduate programs.  In regard to recruitment, directors saw a need for improving the ‘marketing’ of the job among teachers, noting that it is not currently well done among systems:

“We’re not shoulder tapping any more (which seems to be the traditional mode) but we’re not doing anything else to encourage the teachers into administration.  We need to foster P.D. for promising teachers.”

Women in the Principalship

    At the directors meetings, data were shared which indicate that, though 63% of the province’s teachers are women, only 17% of the principals are women (Saskatchewan Education 1998).  While this represents a moderate increase in the proportion of women in the principalship since 1985, it is still regarded as low.  As one interview participant noted:  “The stereotype of ‘male, middle years teacher and coach’ no longer fits the needs.”  Principals, particularly during the invitational seminar, agreed that women in the principalship remain relatively rare, and shared the perception that the role is a tougher one for females.  Some of the issues raised by groups of principals concerned difficulties experienced in balancing family and work-life.

    At each stage of this study, individuals and groups identified a variety of possible strategies for addressing the major issues which were outlined in the previous chapter.  In this chapter, the suggested strategies will be discussed with the purpose of identifying the points of consensus.  This will serve as the focal information for the presentation of the “agenda for action” which comprises chapter five.
    The trustee/senior administrator survey, which had the two-fold purpose of determining levels of agreement and specific suggestions regarding six broad issues emanating from this study, was administered at trustee branch meetings during the Fall of 1998.  The issues which framed this survey related to:

1. Clarifying who is responsible for ensuring effective leadership;
2. Defining roles and expectations for principals;
3. Clarifying opinions regarding principal compensation;
4. Defining responsibilities regarding principal support and training;
5. Clarifying issues and priorities regarding the challenges of rural contexts;
6. Examining alternatives related to the promotion and the presentation of a positive image of the principalship.

“A committee of members from all levels should be established to address the issue of school-level leadership.”

“There are varying opinions and outlooks regarding the role of the principal.  Therefore, there is a great need for a concerted effort on the part of all stakeholders to clarify the role and expectations of the principalship.”

“We need a definition of the role of the principal (in more detail than the Act).  We all need to be on the same page.  An ideal policy would be developed by the board in collaboration with the administration.”

“We need to clarify roles within the system.  We had a wonderful principal that resigned because she felt she couldn’t do justice to all the expectations.  Our next one – equally wonderful, is delighted to retire to get away from the stress.”

Many tied the compensation issue to the stresses of the job, as did the following trustee survey respondents:

“It seems like potential principals would prefer to choose their current lifestyle (i.e. be free of stress) rather than pursue an administrative career.”

“It is very demanding to act as liaison between teachers, parents, board members, central office, TA’s, maintenance, students .... and teach.”

“Housing issue needs to be addressed!  Incorporate a teacherage or housing allowance to encourage good candidates to go to rural schools.”

“Increase the value of paraprofessionals in calculating allowances.”

“Initiate incentives to encourage principals to move to small communities; e.g. moving expenses.”

“Provide paid administrative time to attend courses.”

“Make educational leave incentives more attractive.”

“Initiate province-wide bursaries for training and upgrading in areas related to school administration.”

“Funding should be taken from a separate administrators’ P.D. fund so that it does not impact negatively on staff P.D. funds.”

About professional development:

“Make more professional development funds available to educate the aspiring principals.”   (Trustees)

“If only we could encourage more sabbatical opportunities for in-school administrators.”    (Trustees)

“SSBA modules are not supported by boards.” (Principal)

“There is not a lot of extra P.D. money for principals.” (Principal)

“The Principals’ Short Course idea is good, but it is too late for aspirants .... those not yet appointed to the job.” (Director)

“Obtaining a master’s degree does not necessarily make you an effective principal.”   (Parent Councils)

“We need a provincial fund accessible for personnel to take administrative training.  This makes it available for candidates in all areas of the province.”    (Principal)

“Universities need to go out to Communities to offer graduate classes.”      (Principal)

“Keep them informed; offer more opportunity for seminars for aspiring administrators.  More training workshops (specific rather than general) to enhance the quantity and quality of knowledge before the job is taken.” (Principal)

“Principals going out should, as the year goes on, share their knowledge of the system rather than keeping some things a secret.”      (Principal)

“Development should be increased for principals and vice principals.  Increase experience: assisting, then acting (under supervision) then take a position [mentorship]. (Trustee)

”Directors should take the responsibility for enhancing opportunities for networking and mentorship among principals.”     (Director group)

“Create sharing opportunities, communiques, job mentoring/ shadowing.  More opportunities for networking for ideas other than just the courses.  Also, provide the person in this position with a team of people who can help with issues.” (Principal)

“Encourage participation by female principals in a support group similar to ‘WILL’ (Women in Leadership).  (School councils group)

“It is important for principals to have an opportunity to confide in someone and bounce ideas off them.  With the non-existence of VP’s and the separation of school from central office, it can be a very lonely position in a small rural community.”      (Principal)

“There needs to be help for people in remote areas, e.g. to get university courses, paid leave, independent work modules etc.”       (Principal)

“The ‘fit’ of the individual to the community is critical.  This needs attention when candidates are recruited/interviewed.”      (Parent councils group)

“Well run schools attract principals.  Poorly run ones have more trouble getting people.”

“Strong administration in a school will encourage others.”

“Many teachers wish to be teachers; that’s why they are not applying.  They don’t think of it as a promotion, it is a different job.”

“Incentives and rewards could also promote the position, using examples of current administrators who do good things.”

The key to positive image, according to trustees in particular, seems to be the effective performance of administrators within their roles.  If this can be enhanced, then the profile of the position and, probably, the desirability of the job will develop accordingly.

    The mandate of this study was to examine perceptions regarding school level leadership in this province, and to identify issues and strategies around which there is some clear consensus among the various actors in our educational system.  A related goal was to identify strategies which can guide school boards in their task of structuring for effective in-school leadership based upon a clear vision of the demands of 21st Century schools.
    In this final chapter, an action plan with recommendations for boards is presented, with a view to identifying important courses action and an identification of major responsibilities.
    The one theme which recurred throughout this study, and which emerged constantly from focus group and verbatim transcripts, was that of support.  The discussions seemed to continually return to the question: given the realities of complexity, uncertainty, overload and resource limitations within which many principals much work, how can they best be supported so that they and their fellow professionals can meet these challenges effectively?
    Examination of the considerable data informed us initially of two very comforting facts:  a) that there is a very great level of interest, among our educational stakeholders, in school-level leadership, and b) that there is an equally great level of commitment to enhancing the quality of leadership provided to the schools of this province.
    Eight areas were consistently represented in the strategies which were identified, and these are represented in Figure 2 as components of a broader support system for in-school leadership:

    As illustrated in Figure 2, the areas pertain to preservice education, recruitment and induction; professional development; community/parent partnership; role expectations; rewards and compensation; professional affiliation; and mentorship.  The action recommendations are presented below as they relate to each of these support components in turn.  An important aspect of the initial mandate of this study was that it should identify issues and strategies around which there is some clear consensus.  Consequently, the level of that consensus is clarified as much as possible regarding key action recommendations, as is the general frequency with which actions were identified.

Arnold, R. (1995).  Leadership Effectiveness and the Small Rural School.  Unpublished Mentors Project.  Saskatoon, University of Saskatchewan.

Austin, G. and Reynolds, D. (1990).  Managing for Improved School Effectiveness: An International Survey.  School Organization.  10:2, pp. 167-178.

Barth, R. (1990).  Improving Schools From Within.  San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Crow, G. and Matthews, L. (1998).  Finding One’s Way: How Mentoring Can Lead to Dynamic Leadership.  Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

Daresh, D. and Playko, M. (1992) The Professional Development of School Administrators.  Toronto: Allyn and Bacon.

Dufour, R. and Barkley, T. (1995).  The Principal as Staff Developer.  Journal of Staff Development.  16(4), pp. 2-6.

Evans, R. (1996).  The Human side of School Change.  San Francisco, Jessey-Bass.

Fullan, M. (1997).  What’s Worth Fighting For in the Principalship.  Toronto: Ontario Public School Teachers’ Association.

Fullan, M. and Hargreaves, A. (1991).  What’s Worth Fighting For: Working Together for Your School.  Toronto: Ontario Public School Teachers’ Federation.

Goleman, D. (1998).  “What Makes a Leader?”  Harvard Business Review.  November-December 93-102.

Henderson, N. and Milstein (1996).  Resiliency in Schools.  Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Hesselbein, F. et. al. (1996).  The Leader of the Future.  San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Howley C. and Eckman (1997).  Sustainable Small Schools.  Charleston, West VA: ERIC Clearing House on Rural Education.

Leithwood, K., Jantz, D. Silins, H. and Dart, B. (1993).  Using the Appraisal of School Leaders as an Instrument for School Restructuring.  Peabody Journal of Education.  68:2, pp. 85-109.

Little, J. (1987).  Teachers as Colleagues.  In: Richardson-Koehler, V (ed.) Educators’ Handbook pp. 491-518.  White Plains: Longman.

Kaiser, J. (1995).  The 21st Century Principal.  Mequon, WI: Stylex Publishing.

McAdams, R. (1998).  “Who’ll Run the Schools?  The Coming Administrator Shortage.”  The American School Board Journal.  August (pp. 37-39).

McEwan, E. (1998).  Seven Steps to Effective Institutional Leadership.  Thousand Oaks, CA:  Corwin.

Murphy, J. (1992).  The Landscapes of Leadership Preparation: Reforming the Education of School Administrators.  Newburg National Association of Secondary School Principals (1992).  Developing School Leaders: A Call for Collaboration.  Reston VA:  NASSP.

Muskego, P. (1995).  Leadership in First Nations Schools: Perceptions of Aboriginal Education Administrators.  Unpublished Masters’ Thesis.  Saskatoon: University of Saskatchewan.

Peebles, W. (1994).  The Principal’s Dilemmas in an Urban High School.  Unpublished Master’s Project.  Saskatoon: University of Saskatchewan.

Portin, B. and Shen, J. (1998).  “The Changing Principalship: Its Current Status, Variability and Impact.”  The Journal of Leadership Studies (5:3) pp. 93-113.

Renihan, P. (1985).  The Saskatchewan School Principalship.  Regina: SSTA.

Rosenholtz, S. (1989).  Teachers’ Workplace: The Social Organization of Schools.  New York: Longman.

Sametz, D. (1996).  Determining Effective Leadership for Effective Schools.  Unpublished Master’s Project.  Saskatoon: University of Saskatchewan.

Senge, P. (1990).  The Fifth Discipline.  N.Y.: Doubleday.

Sergiovanni, T. (1991).  The Principalship: A Reflective Practice Perspective (2nd Ed.)  Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Short, R. and Greer, J. (1997).  Leadership for Empowered Schools.  Columbus, Ohio: Merill.

Sigford, J. (1998).  Who Said School Administration Would be Fun?  Thousand Oaks, California: Corwin Press.

Smith, D. (1996).  The Following Part of Leading, in Hesselbein, F., The Leader of the Future.  San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Snyder, Karolyn (1998).  Managing Productive Schools.  Orlando, FL: Harcourt Brace Jovannovich.

Sutton, H. (1994).  Perceived Real and Ideal Use of Rural Saskatchewan School Principals.  Unpublished Master’s Project.  Saskatoon: University of Saskatchewan.