Secondary School Principalship

8/13/2019 Secondary School Principalship

1/31

This article was downloaded by: [University of Tasmania]On: 22 January 2014, At: 20:24Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Leadership and Policy in SchoolsPublication details, including instructions for authors and

subscription information:

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/nlps20

The Secondary School

Principalship in Australia and

New Zealand: An Investigation of

Changing RolesNeil Cranston , Lisa Ehrich & Jennie Billot

Published online: 09 Aug 2010.

To cite this article:Neil Cranston , Lisa Ehrich & Jennie Billot (2003) The Secondary School

Principalship in Australia and New Zealand: An Investigation of Changing Roles, Leadership

and Policy in Schools, 2:3, 159-188

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1076/lpos.2.3.159.16530

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information(the Content) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor& Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warrantieswhatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purposeof the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are theopinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed byTaylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon andshould be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor andFrancis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands,costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever causedarising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of theuse of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expresslyforbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditionshttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditionshttp://dx.doi.org/10.1076/lpos.2.3.159.16530http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/nlps20


2/31

Leadership and Policy in Schools 1570-0763/03/0203-159$16.002003, Vol. 2, No. 3, pp. 159188 # Swets & Zeitlinger

The Secondary School Principalshipin Australia and New Zealand:An Investigation of Changing Roles

Neil Cranston1, Lisa Ehrich1, and Jennie Billot21Faculty of Education, School of Learning and Professional Studies,Queensland University of Technology, Kelvin Grove, Qld, Australia,and 2Centre for Educational Management, School of Education,UNITEC, Auckland, New Zealand

ABSTRACT

It has been well-documented in the literature that the roles and workloads of principals in manywestern countries have intensified in recent years, due to a range of pressures emanating from achanging turbulent policy environment. This study investigated the roles and workloads ofsecondary school principals from Queensland, Australia, and New Zealand. These wereexplored to determine if there was any discrepancy between how principals view their currentpractice and how they would desire their current practice to be. The study data drew on a

specially developed questionnaire in addition to a small number of targeted interviews andfocus groups. The findings indicated that for principals in Australia and New Zealand (i)pressure in the role and hours worked per week had increased compared with previous years;(ii) role overload, role ambiguity and role conflict now characterised the job to some extent; and(iii) principals devoted most of their time to management/administration and staffing issues, yettheir ideal week was described as one where they would dedicate time to strategic leadership,curriculum leadership and parent/community issues. They were highly satisfied with their role,overall. The paper also provides a discussion of the skills and competencies required of theprincipalship and issues for the ongoing professional development of school principals in bothcountries.

Address correspondence to: Dr. Neil Cranston, Faculty of Education, School of Learning andProfessional Studies, Queensland University of Technology, Victoria Park Road, Kelvin Grove,Qld 4059, Australia. Tel.: 61 7 3864 3288. Fax: 61 7 3864 3981. E-mail: [email protected]

Accepted for publication: March 11, 2003.

Downloadedby[UniversityofTas

mania]at20:2422January2014


3/31

INTRODUCTION

The study is part of a collaborative project between researchers from theQueensland University of Technology (Australia) and UNITEC (New Zealand).

It reports on research into the role and workload of secondary school principals in

government schools in two large education systems New Zealand and the stateof Queensland in Australia. The paper begins by reviewing some significant

background literature that provides a context in which to understand the forces

that have impacted upon education and in turn shaped the role and workload of

the principalship. This is followed by a discussion of the methodology of the

study that drew upon questionnaire responses from principals as well as focus

group and interview data from principals and other stakeholders. The findings forthe two systems are presented separately, together with analysis of some of the

similarities and differences across the two sets of data. The paper also considers

the skills and competencies required for the principalship, particularly as

identified for the roles referred to above, as well as the emerging professional

development needs of principals in the current changing climate.

BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT

Since the 1980s, a multitude of reforms has taken place in education in

western countries including the United States of America, United Kingdom,

Canada, Australia and New Zealand and these have targeted mainly the

management of education (Beare, 1991; Whitty, Power, & Halpin, 1998;

Wylie, 1994). The reforms have been characterised by a strong interventionist

role of national governments in education; trends towards school based

management; extended forms of assessment; and new forms of accountability

for staff leaders (Beare, 1991; Whitty et al., 1998). A trend that has hadsignificant implications for the principalship in all of these countries has been

school based management. This is now briefly discussed with particular focuson Queensland, Australia and New Zealand.

School-based Management

New Zealands move to self-managing schools occurred in 1988 with theadvent of Tomorrows Schools (Minister of Education, 1988). This policy

introduced a radical change to school governance designed to abolish layers

of administration in order to locate decision-making as close to the point of

160 NEIL CRANSTON ET AL.




4/31

implementation and alter the balance of power between the providers and

clients of education (Education Review Office, 1994, p. 5). Central to the

reform was the importance of increasing the quality of partnerships betweenparents, schools and state. Up until the mid to late 1980s, Australian schools had

a very centralised and bureaucratic system. Around this time, individual states in

Australia began moves towards decentralising reforms. Focus on Schools (1990)

was the Queensland Department of Education (1990) policy that set a direction

for schools and their communities to have greater decision-making responsi-

bilities. Like their New Zealand school neighbours, government schools in

Queensland would now have greater control over resources such as operational

budgets and be accountable for education outcomes as well as be required to

involve parents and community members in school decision-making processes.However, the nature and degree of the devolution across the two countries has

not been the same. Unlike the reforms in New Zealand which have been

described as aradical experiment(Whitty et al., 1998, p. 21), the same cannotbe said for the reforms in Queensland in terms of the pace in which they were

introduced or their specific nature. In short, some of the differences between thetwo systems with respect to the extent of devolution enacted include:

New Zealand schools had a considerably longer and more intense

experience of school-based management models compared with Queens-

land schools, whose reforms, in comparison, have unfolded more slowly

and incrementally;

The extent of the devolution for New Zealand schools is considerably

greater, as Queensland schools still work within a structure of support from

districts and central office; such support is not as apparent in New Zealand.While Education Service Centres provide administrative and support

services to schools, they do so on a commercial basis only (Butterworth &

Butterworth, 1998); Bulk funding (i.e., the practice of managing the schools entire operating

resources, including teaching salaries) is optional for schools in New

Zealand schools, although not widespread. This has not been an option for

Queensland schools;

New Zealand schools operate with a Board of Trustees whereas a School

Council (with considerably smaller powers and responsibility) remain

optional in Queensland schools; and

Principals in New Zealand are employed on a limited term contract basis,

while those in Queensland have tenure.

CHANGING ROLES IN SECONDARY SCHOOL PRINCIPALSHIP 161




5/31

Of interest to this study is the extent to which a more devolved system might

impact positively or negatively on principal workload and satisfaction. This

issue is investigated later in the paper. Also discussed is how principals seetheir role in practice and how they conceive it might be in a more ideal sense.

That is, issues of role alignment between the real and the ideal become of

interest.

Increasing Accountability for Principals

Coupled with the greater decision-making powers for principals in Australia

and New Zealand has been enhanced accountability to the system (via the

implementation of policies, procedures) and to the community or Board of

Trustees in the case of New Zealand. The use of competency standards forschool leaders in Queensland, Australia (Standards Framework for Leaders,

1997) and New Zealand (Core Competencies for School Principals, 1995) for

the purposes of recruitment and appointment of school principals as well as

for professional development and training illustrates, from the systems

perspectives at least, the roles, responsibilities, expectations and account-

abilities inherent in the principalship.

The specific role of the principal as manager (Standards Framework for

Leaders, 1997) orcorporate manager(Department of Education, 1993) andChief Executive (Education Act, 1989 (NZ), Education Review Office,

1995) has been articulated in policy documents and reports in Australia and

New Zealand respectively in the 1990s and re-enforced the idea that principals

were those officers responsible for the day to day management of the schooland accountable for meeting systemic and community demands. Within a

policy environment characterised by demands for accountability and adher-

ence to policies and practices emanating from the Centre (or Department),

Webb and Vulliamy (1996) aptly noted that school principals are likely to

find themselves faced with competing interests. The challenge facing princi-pals to reconcile these contrasting expectations and demands is unlikely to

be straightforward. The issue of the competing roles of the principal is

explored next.

Role and Workload of Principals

To review thoroughly the empirical literature on the role of the principalship is

beyond the scope and possibility of this paper given the intense interest and

research undertaken in this regard across the last decade or so. Hence only a

limited discussion of the changing role and workload of the principal within a





6/31

school based management context as that relates specifically to this study is

provided.

A considerable number of studies have investigated the changing natureand role of the principalship within an environment of school reform and

restructuring (see Baker & Dellar, 1999; Boyle, 2000; Cranston, 2000; Harold,

Hawksworth, Mansell, & Thrupp, 2001; Wildy & Louden, 2000; Wildy &

Wallace, 1997; Wylie, 1997). An implication of the changing role has

inevitably resulted in an increased workload and tensions in the role (Baker &

Dellar, 1999; Boyle, 2000; Harold et al., 2001; Knight, 2000; Wylie, 1999a)

for principals in New Zealand and Australia. For instance, a qualitative study

by Harold et al. (2001) and quantitative study by Wylie (1999a) both

conducted in New Zealand found an increased administrative workload forschool principals due to school reform.

An increasing workload and changing role due to school reform was echoed

by principals in Australia. For example, Boyle (2000) found that principals

from the Australian Capital Territory noted an increased workload due to the

expanding role principals are now expected to play. Similarly in Knights(2000) study of 30 principals in Victoria, one of the common concerns raised

by principals was increased expectations of them and an increasing workload.

From his study of the principalship across a number of States in Australia,

New Zealand and elsewhere, Holdaway (1999) reported that the increased

stress and workload associated with the principalship explains in part, at least,

the reason for declining applications for the principalship. The principal

shortage in Australia is also due to the large numbers of principals who are

retiring and expected to retire over the next few years (Richardson, 2002).

Several studies (Cranston, 1999; Harold et al., 2001; Leithwood &

Menzies, 1998; Wildy & Dimmock, 1993) have highlighted that one of the

tensions facing principals is role ambiguity in terms of principal as leader or

manager. The findings from the abovementioned studies indicated that thedominant role played by principals was more managerial than oriented

towards educational leadership concerns or as participants in a study by

Harold et al. (2001) noted,a shift from professional leadership to managerial

roles(p. 2) for the principal. In their meta-analytic like study of 83 research

papers on school based management, Leithwood and Menzies (1998) noted

that under all types of school based management arrangements reported in the

sample, principals were taking on more managerial roles and less instructional

or curriculum leadership roles. The work of Beck and Murphy (1993) is worth

highlighting at this juncture. They remind us that the tension between the





7/31

leadership role and management role of the principalship is historical; and its

legacy is likely to continue to be felt into the new millenium.

In summary, what this review of the literature has highlighted is that the roleand workload of principals in Australia and New Zealand, as well as the other

English-speaking countries, across the last decade or so have become more

complex and diverse. Significantly, the literature points to principals beingrequired to draw on both leadership and management skills and competencies

in response to the raft of educational reforms that have led to enhanced

responsibilities and accountabilities for schools. For principals, it has meant a

greater need to consult with their communities regarding decisions affecting their

schools and an almost pragmatic imperative to delegate and empower others in

the school to share leadership responsibilities. This study investigates theseissues for principals of state secondary schools in Queensland and New Zealand.

The next part of paper discusses the methodology that steered the study.

METHODOLOGY

The methodology used in the two education systems (Queensland and New

Zealand) was similar, with a specially developed principal questionnaire

comprising the main data collection strategy, augmented by interviews and focus

groups. The use of a mixed-method approach (Greene, Caracelli, & Graham,

1989; Marshall & Rossman, 1995) was employed in an endeavour to collect rich

data on the key areas of interest as effectively and efficiently as possible. Thediscussion below provides details of the approaches used in the two systems.

Queensland

The Queensland data were drawn from interviews, conducted in 2001 with a

small sample of principals, district and system level education departmentofficers; and, questionnaire responses collected in 2001, from a sample of

principals from state secondary schools in Queensland.Interviewswere semi-

structured in nature, based around a number of items addressing issues such as

the main roles of and challenges for principals; skills and competencies

necessary for the principalship; and perceptions of others view of the role.

Copies of the schedule were provided to respondents before the interview to

allow time for consideration of issues to be raised. Interviews took about

45 min to complete. Interviewees were assured that they (or their schools)

would not be identified in any reporting of findings. Notes were taken at





8/31

interview with comprehensive summaries developed following the interview.

These summarises were returned to interviewees for their review and

endorsement as accurate records of the discussions. Theinterviewedsample ofsix comprised one female and two male principals; a district director (i.e.,

supervisor of principals); and two officers from Education Queenslands

Central Office engaged in facilitating professional development for principalsthroughout Queensland.

The instrument for this study, called the Role of Secondary Principal

(ROSP) questionnaire, was developed from a number of inputs. These

included the educational literature, the Standards Framework for Leaders

document (Education Queensland, 1997), inputs from the above interviews,

critical comments from the New Zealand research partner, and ideas andconcepts from a similar study into the roles of secondary deputy principals

undertaken by one of the researchers.

The final version of the ROSP questionnaire comprised 18 closed items,about half of which contain several sub-sections within each item and 3

general (optional) open-ended items. The main categories addressed in the

closed items included (1) background information (i.e., gender, years as a

principal, school band, type and location; and level of satisfaction in the role);

(2) aspects of the role and workload of principals, such as hours worked per

week; pressure in the role; variety and diversity of the role; time devoted to

work during a typical week, ideal week and ideal week from the point of view

of the system; (3) the degree of role ambiguity, conflict and overload in the

job; and (4) the degree to which a range of skills and competencies are deemed

very important or not important at all. The optional open ended items asked

principals to (a) indicate their strengths, (b) areas of skill or competency that

require development; and (c) any other comments they would like to make in

regard to their role as a principal.

No names of respondents or schools were required on the questionnaire. Itwas anticipated the questionnaire would take about 10 min to complete. The

questionnaire was provided to participants electronically via email. Of the

312 principals who received the ROSP questionnaire, 108 were returned,

representing a response rate of approximately 35%.

New Zealand

The New Zealand data were drawn from a focus group conducted in 2001 with

a group of eight principals; interviews with representatives from the New

Zealand School Trustees Association (NZSTA), Principals Council (PC), and





9/31

Secondary Principals Association of New Zealand (SPANZ); and, ques-

tionnaireresponses collected in 2001 from secondary school principals across

New Zealand using the ROSP questionnaire as described above.The focus group was used to obtain principals views on their role and

workload under Tomorrows Schools (Minister of Education, 1988), in an

environment where they could reflect and comment from within a group ofpeers. The focus group discussion was guided by several open-ended questions

focusing on issues such as the main responsibilities of being a principal, the

main challenges encountered, the skills and competencies necessary for the role

and their understanding of the expectations of the Ministry of Education. The

discussion lasted an hour and a half and was audio-taped. Consent was received

for use of material and quotes.The interviews were semi-structured and based on several questions that

were formulated from the research project objectives and informed by the

review of literature. All respondents received the interview questions in

advance to allow for reflection and interviews were audio-taped and later

summarised. Consent was received for use of material and quotes. The ROSP

questionnaire as above was used for data collection from principals.

Questionnaires were sent by mail to New Zealand secondary principals and

a stamped addressed return envelope was provided. There was a 59% response

rate (240 respondents) for the New Zealand questionnaires.

DATA ANALYSIS

Researchers from Queensland and New Zealand analysed their findingsindividually before executing the comparative analysis of the data. While

there was interest in how principals responded to each of the items and clusters

of items (e.g., the set of questions regarding skills and competencies), therewas also an interest in any statistically significant relationships across items.

For example, were there specific characteristics of principals, say, that werelinked to their satisfaction with being a principal? Relationships that proved to

be statistically significant are discussed later in the paper.

The qualitative data (i.e., interview questions and optional items on the

questionnaire) were analysed following the constant comparative method (i.e.,

Strauss & Corbin, 1990) that enabled key themes emerging from the data to be

identified. The responses to the survey item on overall satisfaction were cross-

tabulated with responses to the remainder of the survey time to explore





10/31

relationships among them. The Chi-square statistic was used to test the sig-

nificance of possible or apparent relationships. As overall satisfaction was mea-

sured using an ordinal scale, the Pearson and Spearman correlation coefficientswere used subsequently to investigate the strength of potential relationships.

FINDINGS

Thefindings are presented under a number of key headings using comments

from the interviews and focus group to illustrate and elaborate on issues

identified. Both similarities and differences among the data from the two

education systems are noted where appropriate. In particular, statisticallysignificant differences between the two sets of data on key items are highlighted.

School and General Characteristics of Respondents

Queensland

Fifty-four percent1 of respondents were located in city/urban schools, forty-

six percent in rural/remote schools. Respondents were located in schools of

various sizes and socio-economic environments. Administratively, schools are

allocated to a particular category, referred to as a Band, where the Band of a

school is based on a complex array of factors, including school size, socio-

economic status and other variables. Secondary schools are designated from

Bands 8 (smallest) to 11 (largest). Our findings indicated that respondents

were located in schools across the Band range, although those from Band 8

and 11 schools were smaller in number, reflecting their lower number in thepopulation of such schools across the state. The vast majority of respondents

worked in what might be termed typical secondary schools, i.e., those that

accommodated students from years 8 to 12. The remainder of respondentswere principals of P-10 or P-12 schools.

Sixty-four percent of participants were male and 36% of participants were

female. A significant majority of respondents have four or more years

experience as principals with a little under a third three or less years

experience. Almost half had nine or more years experience as principal. A

significant majority of respondents have been principal in their current schoolfor nine or less years.

1All percentages are rounded.





11/31

New Zealand

Like Queensland, the majority of respondents were located in urban areas as

against rural areas, with schools being represented in all decile categories (ameasure of the schools socio-economic standing). Fewer schools were in the

lowest decile category with the highest number of schools being in decile range

3 to 5.

A similar gender profile data to Queensland was evident in the respondents.

Only one-third of respondents have more than nine or more years experience

although only one-quarter have less than 3 years. Three-quarters of

respondents have been principal at their currentschool for more than 4 years

and most principals (95%) have been principal at 2 schools or less. This

indicates that the majority of the respondents have less than nine yearsexperience and have also remained principal at their first or second school.

In summary, Queensland principals tended to be more experienced than

their counterparts in New Zealand (in terms of years as a principal and number

of schools as a principal).

Satisfaction With Role and Views About the Role

(Interviews and Questionnaire Responses)

Over 80 percent of the respondents in both countries reported being satisfiedor very satisfied with their role of principal, with only 10 percent (Queensland)

and 7 percent (New Zealand) indicating they were dissatisfied. All three

Queensland principals interviewed indicated that the principalship was

rewarding professionally and personally. One of these principals said, Imglad to be able to say Im a principal. Other similar unsolicited positive

comments were provided by other principals in the open-ended items on the

questionnaire. These included statements such as: I like my job it is

challenging and interesting; and I love this job and dont want to do

anything else the variety of work is stimulating.Comments by New Zealand principals were similarly positive. One

principal from the focus group emphatically declared: I thoroughly enjoy therole of principal and it gives me a huge sense of satisfaction.The group as a

whole affirmed that being a principal allowed them tomake a differencefor

students, staff and the community. Unsolicited comments from the open-

ended questions in the questionnaire includedI love my job; anddespite the

workload it is a hugely satisfying job.

It is worth noting that although principals in both countries reported similar

high (over 80%) levels of satisfaction with their position, the ratio of very





12/31

satisfied to satisfied was 1:1 for New Zealand principals and 1:2 for

Queensland principals, suggesting that New Zealand principals generally

enjoyed higher levels of satisfaction than their Queensland colleagues. Whilethis difference was not statistically significant, it is notable in the light of the

differences between Queensland and New Zealand identified in this research

and the fact that New Zealand principals have had more time to adapt to and

accommodate the changes to their role brought about by school-based

management reforms.

Importantly, overall satisfaction was related to:

the overall difference between principals actual (REAL) and preferred

IDEAL time allocations; and, the overall difference between principals actual (REAL) and SYSTEM

(i.e., those of the education employing authority) PREFERRED time

allocations.

That is, satisfaction was related to how well aligned the REAL and

EXPECTED roles were; the greater the alignment the higher the levels of

satisfaction. Further discussion of these time allocations with respect to

specific roles undertaken is provided later.Role ambiguity (i.e., not being clear of what their role is about or the

expectations on them)role conflict(i.e., between what they think they should

be doing and what othersexpectations might be) and role overload(i.e., too

much to do) were identified by both Queensland and New Zealand principals

as being matters of concern. Fourteen percent of principals from Queensland

and 10% from New Zealand noted that role ambiguity existed to a great

extent, while around half of them (43% for Queensland) and (54% for New

Zealand) noted it occurred to some extent. Thirty-two percent of Queensland

principals and 34% of New Zealand principals noted that role conflict occurs

to a great extent. Again around one half of participants from both countriesnoted it occurred to some extent (48% for Queensland and 51% for New

Zealand). Role overload was said to occur to a great extent by principals in

both systems with 75% of Queensland principals and 76% of New Zealand

principals respectively reporting it occurs to a greatextent.

The interview data supported thesefindings from the survey as role conflict,

role ambiguity and role overload were identified as inherent in theprincipalship. One Queensland principal, for example, summed it up when

she saidsometimes I wonder how I manage it all.Another in the open-ended

items of the questionnaire observed that I cannot continue to keep pace with





13/31

all that is considered the realistic core of my role.Comments by New Zealand

principals were similar: The workload is relentless and it is a whirlwind

existence.Many principals from both systems expressed the concern that the

workload affected home and personal life and in one interview a principal

suggested that the incessant demands were creating tentacles of misery.Thispowerful image reveals the far reaching effects of an excessive workload on

this particular principals morale and general state of happiness. Another NewZealand principal blamed work overload on the lack of vision/strategy of the

Ministry of Education in their processes and hence the ambiguous demands

and constant moving sands.In general, the summation of comments indicated

that competing demands from the community, system/Ministry, and otherstakeholders often left principals feeling overwhelmed.

General Aspects of Roles and Responsibilities of Principals

Almost two-thirds of Queensland respondents indicated the number of hours

worked in their role as principal had increased compared with earlier, with

the remainder reporting them about the same. This was higher than for

New Zealand principals (46%). Similarly, 72% of Queensland respondents

indicated the pressure had increased in the past few years compared with 54

percent of New Zealand respondents. These differences between Queensland

and New Zealand could reflect the earlier and more extensive moves towards

school-based management in New Zealand, i.e., New Zealand principals had

experienced higher demands and workloads for longer than Queensland

principals.

Further, the vast majority of New Zealand principals (73%) indicated their

typical week workload was 60 hr or more, while most Queensland respondents

(49%) reported a typical workload of 5059 hr, with 43% reporting 60 hr or

more. Only 1% of New Zealand principals reported working 4049hr in atypical week compared with 8% of Queensland respondents. This may reflect

the more extensive degree of devolution in New Zealand than Queensland;

that is, there are greater responsibilities and accountabilities to be attended to

by New Zealand principals.

Over 80% of Queensland principals reported the variety and diversity of

what they did in their role had increased compared with earlier. One principal

noted that our role has become all encompassing. We are expected to be

financial wizards, counselling wizards, curriculum wizards, crisis manage-

ment wizards.While New Zealand principals reported increases in the variety





14/31

and diversity in their role, it was not to the same extent as their Queensland

colleagues, again possibly reflecting the differences in the extent of devolution

across the two systems noted earlier.Interview comments supported the questionnaire data that principals were

working longer hours and were facing greater pressures now than they did in

previous years. For example, while one Queensland principal claimed that he

spent between 7075 hr per week on his duties, several New Zealand principals

asserted that they work 80100 hr per week. A New Zealand principalprovided a powerful comparative statement regarding workload across the last

decade when he stated thatthe job is at least four times the job it was when I

started in 1991. It seems that some of the pressures in both systems were

attributed to the rate of change and the Government who constantly changesthe goal posts.

The real concern for many principals in both systems was the future

repercussions of the heavy workload. As one New Zealand principal stated,

many potential principals are being put off by senior management due to the

huge demands placed upon principals. As alluded to previously, some

principals in the study indicated that one of the major repercussions of an

excessive workload was the potential personal cost to their family and home

lives.

Specific Aspects of Role

The findings for a number of specific aspects of the role of principals are

provided. In thefirst instance,findings for each of the systems are considered

separately, followed by some relevant comparison across the two systems.

Data were collected via the ROSP questionnaire with respect to principals

views of their roles from three different perspectives:

how they actually dedicated their time in a typical week (the REAL);

how they would prefer to dedicate their time in an IDEAL week;

how they believed the SYSTEM would like them to dedicate their time in

an IDEAL week that is, what they think is expected of them. (Thesystem refers to the employing education authority and includes the views

of personnel such as District Directors and other senior officers within the

Department of Education).

Queensland

Table 1 summarises the role of principals in a typical (REAL) week.





15/31

This table shows the role of the principal in a typical week (REAL)dominated by management/administration, staffing issues; and parent/community issues, while strategic leadership (72%) and educational/

curriculum leadership (75%) both had less prominence, although still quite

high prominence. The interview data confirmed that principals play multiple

and diverse roles and two principals used the term, Chief Executive Officer(CEO) to define their role. Principals and other interviewees alluded to roles

which included working with staff, being accountable to the system and

dealing with change. A strong current through the interview data was the

huge juggling act principals engage in as they attempt to carry out the

leadership and management dimensions of their work.

At this juncture, it is important to point out that no operational definitions of

any of the categories (i.e., strategic leadership, educational leadership, and so

on) were provided to respondents. Thus, principals responded according to

their own conceptions of each of the categories. However, these conceptions

are expected to be based in Queensland for example, on those drawn from

documents such as the Standards Framework for Leaders (Education

Queensland, 1997) which delineates these categories in considerable detail.Of course there are overlaps across two such broad categories asleadership

andmanagementbut they do offer a convenient way to examine the roles ofprincipals. All principals would be very familiar with these concepts as

defined in the Framework, as they form the basis of selection for the

principalship as well as principal performance review. In addition, principals

in interview had no difficulties in distinguishing across the two broadcategories of leadership and management and the types of activities that might

be considered to belong to each.

Table 2 summarises the role of principals in a preferred (IDEAL) week.

Table 1. Roles of Principals in a Typical or REAL Week (Queensland).

In a typical (REAL) week, time

dedicated to these activities

Great deal

of time (%)

Some time

(%)

Total

(great some) (%)

Strategic leadership 31 41 72

Educational/curriculum leadership 19 56 75

Management/administration 72 25 97

Student issues 40 41 81

Parent/community issues 45 49 94

Staffing issues 47 47 94





16/31

The role of the principal in a preferred week(IDEAL) from a principalsperspective would see the situation for the real week effectively reversed so

that there would be a significant focus on strategic and educational/curriculumleadership and parent/community issues. There would be less focus on

student, staff and administrative matters.

Table 3 provides a comparison across three views of the principals role:REAL v IDEAL v IDEAL (system).

The final column in Table 3 shows the role of the principal in an IDEAL

week from a SYSTEM perspective (as seen by principals). As illustrated, there

is a strong focus on strategic and educational/curriculum leadership, parent/

community issues as well as management and administration. In sum, the

system, as seen by principals, expects them to have a focus on both leadership

and management. Reflective of these questionnaire data, the interviewed

principals indicated that the system perspective of principals role was being

strategic andaccountableto the system.

Table 2. Roles of Principals in a Preferred or IDEAL Week (Queensland).

In an IDEAL week from principal

perspective, time dedicated tothese activities

Great deal

of time (%)

Some time

(%)

Total

(great some)(%)







Table 3. Roles of Principals Compared REAL v IDEAL (Queensland).

Comparison REAL and IDEAL week REAL(%)

IDEAL

(principal) %

IDEAL

(system) (%)



Management/administration 97 47# 84

Student issues 81 36# 76


Staffing matters 94 59# 73#

Note. Positive difference >20%, i.e. MORE of this activity desirable.

#Negative difference >20%, i.e. LESS of this activity desirable.





17/31

Table 3 also indicates that principals reported their typical (real) role as

being somewhat different from both what they would like to see ideally, as

well as what they expected the system would like to see of them as principals.In general, respondents suggested they would like to see their role more

concerned with leadership, while the system expects both leadership and

management roles. At present, management and administration have a higher

prominence than principals would prefer. The earlier comments regarding role

ambiguity and role conflict are relevant here as is the earlier discussionregarding the overall satisfaction principals feel in their position. Noteworthy

is that how close their actual and preferred activities align is a key contributor

to their level of satisfaction. For example, overall satisfaction was related

(statistically significantly) to the actual time dedicated to strategic leadershipand to educational/curriculum leadership, preferred priorities as identified by

principals. That is, the greater the role alignment, the higher the level of

satisfaction.

New Zealand

Table 4 summarises the New Zealand data for a typical (REAL) week.

The role of the principal in a typical (REAL) week was reported as

dominated by management and administration and student and staffing issues.Community issues were also dominant. Notably, strategic leadership (65%)

and educational and curriculum leadership (71%) both had significantly less

prominence. From the comments offered in the questionnaire, one principal

summed up the challenge as the juggling of competing demands of paper andpeoplewhile several, like their Queensland colleagues, used the term CEO

to describe their position.

In contrast, in an IDEAL week (Table 5) the principals would almost

reverse the typical situation as outlined above.

Table 4. Roles of Principals in a Typical or REAL Week (New Zealand).

In a typical (REAL) week, time dedicated

to these activities

Great deal

of time (%)

Some time

(%)

Total(great some) (%)











18/31

The data, expressing similar trends to that from Queensland principals,

suggest that strategic leadership and educational leadership would have morefocus with a far less emphasis (64%) placed on management and admin-

istration and student issues.

Table 6 provides a comparison across the three views of the principals role:

REAL v IDEAL (principal) v IDEAL (system).

Thefinal column in Table 6 reveals that the role of the principal in an ideal

week from an ideal system perspective appears to be balanced, drawing on

aspects of both leadership and management. This is broadly similar to the

Queensland data. While management and community issues are still seen as a

priority, strategic, educational and curriculum leadership feature as the most

significant activities. The comments recorded in both questionnaires and

interviews also supported a more balanced role as being essential.

Broadly similar to the Queensland data, Table 6 also indicates that

principalsreal role was quite different from both what they would like to seeas an ideal, as well as what they expected the system would like to see of them

Table 5. Roles of Principals in a Preferred or IDEAL Week (New Zealand).

In an IDEAL week from principal perspective,

time dedicated to these activities

Great deal

of time (%)

Some time

(%)

Total

(great some) (%)







Table 6. Roles of Principals Compared REAL v IDEAL (New Zealand).

Comparison REAL and IDEAL week REAL(%)

IDEAL

(principal) %

IDEAL

(system) (%)



Management/administration 98 64# 87

Student issues 85 52# 57#

Parent/community issues 90 77# 85

Operational matters 95 72# 73#

Note. Positive difference >20%, i.e. MORE of this activity desirable.

#Negative difference >20%, i.e. LESS of this activity desirable.





19/31

as principals. In general, respondents suggested they would like to see their

role more concerned with leadership, while the system expects both leadership

and management roles.In summary, then, there are similar broad trends in the data for the two

systems. However, compared with the New Zealand respondents, Queensland

principals expressed greater preference for strategic leadership, and less

preference for management/administration and student issues. The Queens-

land system was seen to expect principals to spend more time on educational/

curriculum leadership than their New Zealand counterparts.

The next part of the discussion is concerned with the nature and importance

of the skills and competencies principals believe are required of them as they

undertake the roles as identified above. The findings reported draw on bothquestionnaire and interview responses. Importantly, they highlight what

capacities are required of principals in the dynamic changing context in which

they work.

Skills and Competencies Important to the Roles

and Responsibilities of Principals

Queensland

As can be seen from Table 7 Queensland principals identified inspiring and

visioning change for their schools andstrong interpersonal/people skillsas the

key skills in undertaking their role. These were supported bysound delegation

and empowerment skills.

Comments such as the following were typical of those offered by

questionnaire respondents with respect to inspiring and vision change:

Table 7. Skills and Competencies for Principals (Queensland).

Skills, competencies important to

role as principal

Very

important

(%)

Important

(%)

Total(very import

important) (%)

Inspiring, visioning change for school 92 8 100

Demonstrating strong interpersonal, people skills 95 5 100

Capacity to delegate, empower others 83 17 100

Managing uncertainty for self and others 51 45 96

Managing change for self and others 59 40 99

Capacity to develop networks 54 43 97

Effective and efficient manager, administrator 46 44 90





20/31

inspiring people to align to a shared vision and values of the school;andthe

ability to genuinely gather the hearts and minds of the entire staff and

community. With respect to interpersonal/people skills, the following wereelaborated,the ability to get people to work together, to resolve conflict; anddevelop meaningful trusting relationships with all key stakeholders. While

the other skills and competencies listed in the questionnaire were reported

as important, they were seen to be less important to their roles and

responsibilities. The interview data confirmed the trends in the questionnairefindings above in so far as it was leadership and people skills more so than

management skills that principals articulated as being particularly critical.

Similar to the survey response data, less attention was evident in the interview

data regarding management issues except that one principal mentioned theimportance of developing effective and efficient systems to make it all

happen.

Twofinal matters are noted in this section. Thefirst concerns the point thatsome aspects of principals management and administrative roles appear to

cause considerable frustration for them. In this regard, the perceived under-

resourcing of state secondary schools contrasted with similar schools from the

non-government sector was noted by some respondents. The second matter

identified by Queensland principals relates to some rather insightful commentsabout the need to do a good job and to be seen as a competent principal as well

as observations that principals need to be persistent, hard workers, achievers

with common sense, creative and have a sense of humour. Importantly, several

noted notions of ethical and moral leadership when they highlighted

characteristics such as integrity, honesty, the capacity to empathise with

others and fairness.

New Zealand

As identified in Table 8, New Zealand principals noted inspiring, visioningchange and strong interpersonal skills, supported by sound delegation and

management skillsas key skills necessary to undertake their roles.

The focus group principals echoed this emphasis on inspiring and visioning

and also reflected on the passion and the mission that they brought to the

role.

With respect to interpersonal skills, some commented as follows, indicating

like some Queensland principals, an emphasis on the ethical and moral

dimensions of the way they operated with others, It is a complex people-

intensive position (being a principal), demanding much; andIt is impossible





21/31

to please everyone, so all one can do is operate according to principle, be

constant as all need to trust you.While leadership skills are identified as very important, it is conceded that

management and administration skills are also highly relevant to the demands

of the principals role. One principal expressed that he saw his job asmanaging a business but, like some Queensland principals, added that

schools need more administration support.

New Zealand principals, perhaps reflective of the fact they have worked for

some years in a more devolved model of school based management than their

Queensland counterparts, highlighted the importance of, and time devoted to,

marketing of their school. That is, New Zealand schools operate in a more

competitive environment of self-management in which their schools

achievements need to be highlighted to attract potential students. Queensland

schools are generally less concerned with such matters at this time.

The need to market schools in the current competitive school environment

links with workload issues as one New Zealand principal explained:

I am very conscious of the large amount of time I spend on what wouldloosely be termed as marketing. There is an inequity between principal

workload in this respect; (especially for) lower decile, falling school rolls

where disproportionate amounts of time and money are spent on marketing

through necessity.

Although many New Zealand principals expressed concern and pessimism

regarding workload and the complexity of the demands placed upon them,

some optimistically indicated that they wished todo the right thingand feel

that they have the power to do so. Similar to the Queensland principals,

Table 8. Skills and Competencies for Principals (New Zealand).

Skills, competencies important

to role as principal

Very

important(%)

Important

(%)

Total

(very import important) (%)

Inspiring, visioning change for school 90 10 100

Demonstrating strong interpersonal, people skills 92 8 100

Capacity to delegate, empower others 72 27 99

Managing uncertainty for self and others 40 53 93

Managing change for self and others 50 46 96

Capacity to develop networks 41 55 96

Effective and efficient manager, administrator 66 32 98





22/31

observations were also made regarding strengths that principals need to

possess, namely being hard workers, keeping a sense of humour, being able to

speak their mind but also be trustworthy, honest and firm in order to achievecommon goals.

In sum, while there were many broad similarities in the findings for the

principals for the two systems, Queensland and New Zealand principals

differed significantly in terms of the importance they placed on being an

effective and efficient manager. Sixty-seven percent of New Zealandprincipals rated this as very important with another 32% rating it as

important. Queensland principals rated it 45% and 44% respectively. This

lesser emphasis for Queensland principals probably reflects the more

extensive levels of devolution in New Zealand compared with Queenslandand the accompanying higher levels of responsibility and accountability for

managing resources and budgets residing with New Zealand principals

compared with those in Queensland.

Despite this one significant difference, in both systems there were agreed

and strong views on what is takes in terms of skills and competencies to be a

principal in the changing context within which schools now operate. These

skills and competencies provide an important focus for professional

development of principals.

Professional Development

In Queensland, generally, principals identified leadership rather than

management skills as being critical to their role, where such leadership skills

are seen to encompass well-developed and expansive interpersonal skills. For

example, the two most frequently mentioned professional development areasindicated in this open-ended item were: leadership skills (including visioning,

change management, team building, interpersonal skills) and financial

management/business management. These two responses seem to reflectprincipalsperceptions of the systemsexpectations on them in terms of their

roles as both leaders and managers.

InNew Zealand, professional development opportunities were seen as vital

by the principals and stakeholders, with comments suggesting that it is essentialto attend PD opportunities and the principal network to reduce professional

isolation; andwe need training before starting the job and regularly throughthe first couple of years. However there was a strong consensus that

professional development is necessary at all stages of being a principal and

no less before the job begins. Such training would enhance skills identified as





23/31

handling public relations, financial management, property, resourcing, staff

management and change management. Such skills are identified in thefindings

of this research as underpinning the competencies required of principals.

DISCUSSION

A number of themes emerging from the questionnaire and interview data are

identified for further discussion. These are issues relating to principals

satisfaction with their job; the contrasts between the real or actual role

compared with the ideal or preferred role and the system-expected role;

leadership v management; and, the skills and competencies required byprincipals to undertake their roles.

Satisfaction Despite Role Ambiguity, Conflict and Overload

An important finding of this study was the high percentage of principals in

both Queensland New Zealand who reported satisfaction in the role. Over

80% of Queensland principals and 85% of New Zealand principals were either

satisfied or very satisfied with the position they held, despite the fact they

reported role ambiguity, role overload and role conflict. Pressure in the rolewas more pronounced for Queensland principals as 72% noted this had

increased in recent years compared with 54% of New Zealand principals.

Perhaps this difference may be explained by the fact that New Zealand

principals have experienced more intensive pressure in the role since the late

1980s and were becoming more accustomed to it, whereas for Queensland

principals the pressures had become to be felt more in recent years as the

system had moved more along the devolution continuum. The majority of

principals (73%) in New Zealand indicated they worked 60 hr or more in a

typical week compared with the 43% of Queensland principals who reportedworking 60 hr or more. As highlighted previously, the greater degree of

devolution experienced by principals in New Zealand may have accounted for

the greater numbers of principals reporting working 60 hr or more. Despite the

long hours worked, as indicated earlier, a majority of principals reported role

conflict, role ambiguity and role overload. That is, there are real tensions for

principals as they endeavour to not only keep on top of a significant andvaried workload, but also as they struggle to be comfortable with those

issues on which they should be spending their time. This is explored further

below in the discussion about role alignment for principals.





24/31

The findings expressed by principals in both systems pertaining to role

conflict, role ambiguity and role overload mirror research conducted on the

principalship under school based management (Boyle, 2000; Holdaway, 1999;Knight, 2000; Portin, Shen, & Williams, 1998; Wildy & Louden, 2000; Wildy

& Wallace, 1997). Similarly the increasing workload (e.g., over 50 hr per week)

and pressure in the role reported by principals in this study is not dissimilar to

principals in other States in Australia (Boyle, 2000; Knight, 2000) as well as in

New Zealand (Wylie, 1999a) and in the USA (Portin et al., 1998).

Real versus Ideal

It seems that principal satisfaction can be understood in a variety of ways.

Firstly, principals in both systems identified an ideal (or preferred) week asone that would focus mainly on three key areas, viz. strategic leadership,

educational leadership and parent/community issues. When contrasted with

their typical (or actual) week, principals spent some time on strategic

leadership and educational leadership but not as much as what they would

wish. That both New Zealand and Queensland principals saw the ideal week

as one where they could devote more time to leadership matters is not

surprising. For instance, Boyles (2000) research came to the same conclusion

as principals in her study saw that educational leadership in curriculum andpedagogywere the most important and satisfying aspects of their work.

While principals in both systems identified parent/community issues as

important, an ideal week would see them devoting less time to these issues

than they currently spend. The percentage difference between the total time

devoted to these issues in a typical week (real) and time devoted in an ideal

week (ideal), was minimal for Queensland principals, but considerably greater

for New Zealand principals. The percentage difference for New Zealand

principals may be a reflection of the formalised structures of school govern-

ance (via Boards of Trustees) that mandate a close and strong relationshipbetween the principal and parents and community groups and therefore

considerable time required to maintain these relationships and networks. Both

Wylie (1999b) and Harold et al. (2001) note that under New Zealands school

based governance model, parents have become more vocal, more involved and

more willing to voice their concerns and raise issues with either the principal

and or Board of Trustees than previously.

Another issue for consideration here is the possible contribution to

principal satisfaction by the increasing diversity and variety of activities

inherent in the role. While no statistical relationship was evident in this data,





25/31

principals in both systems, particularly Queensland principals, reported an

increase in the diversity and variety of the job. Holdaways comments about

the principalship did identify such a link between satisfaction and diversity:

The work of principals has become far more complex than it was when I

began teaching in 1955 but the challenge of dealing effectively with

stressors has the potential for generating more satisfaction than was

experienced by principals several years ago. (Holdaway, 1999, p. 8)

Thus, it may be that the diversity and variety in the role reported here by

principals is not seen as a negative. Rather, it may be one of the positive

manifestations of a highly challenging, complex and demanding position such

as that of the principal.

Leadership versus Management

As discussed previously, principals from both systems desired more time to

devote to leadership and less time for management and administration. Ideally

Queensland principals reported that they would prefer to spend half as much

time on management than they do currently, while for New Zealand

principals, an ideal situation would see them spending about one-third less

time on management and administration. Yet the reality for many of the

principals (and those interviewed) was that the role was like that of a Chief

Executive Officer charged mainly with management and administrative

responsibilities. Studies from Australia and elsewhere have highlighted that

one of the tensions facing principals is role conflict in terms of whether theirloyalties and energies should lie in either leadership or management

(Leithwood & Menzies, 1998; Wildy & Dimmock, 1993). Studies (e.g.,

Baker & Dellar, 1999; Cranston, 1999; Leithwood & Menzies, 1998; Wildy &

Dimmock, 1993) have found that the dominant role played by principals tends

to be more managerial than oriented towards educational leadership concerns.For instance, Wildy and Dimmock (1993) noted that principals tend not to be

involved greatly in instructional or curriculum leadership work, due to the

other demands on their time and load. Both Baker and Dellars (1999) and

Leithwood and Menzies (1998) commented that more managerial work

inevitably means less time on instructional and other leadership issues. A

study conducted by Brubaker and Simon (1987) 16 years ago in the United

States noted that principals preferred role was instructional leader while

their actual role was administrator. The tension which exists between the

educative role and the administrative role played by leaders seems to be a





26/31

perennial dilemma. It is possible that the current agenda of school based

management may in fact be exacerbating this tension, because of the heavy

administrative burden which characterises it.Noteworthy when one considers satisfaction of principals and what they do

during a week, is that those principals reporting higher levels of satisfaction

are those where what they do (typical, actual week) and what they would like

to do (idea, preferred) are similar and where this is also similar to what they

believe the system expects them to do. The important emphasis here is the

desired and expected role focus on aspects of leadership. This might be seen as

role alignmentand offers a particularly powerful concept for consideration in

future research into the principalship. While the findings from this study

suggest that there was evidence of role alignment due to high levels ofprincipal satisfaction, some of the qualitative data particularly from the New

Zealand principals highlighted a mismatch between principals expectations

of their role and the systems expectations. For instance, there was a strongsense of dissatisfaction from the New Zealand principals regarding the

continual interventions of the Ministry of Education (i.e., the system). These

interventions were manifested by the increasingly complex changes to

policies and practices and the demand that principals be able to manage new

requirements and tasks immediately.

That principals experience managerial challenges as well as dislocation,

change and uncertainty in their work has been documented in the literature

(Robenstine, 2000). Perhaps part of the answer to ensuring that there is role

alignment particularly in relation to principalsexpectations of their role andthe systems expectations of their role lies in the hands of Education systems.

There may need to be some strategic systemic responses in the form of

professional development of principals or enhanced school resourcing to

facilitate a shift from the current state to one more desired by both the

principals themselves and the system. This is not a necessarily easy to fulfil,particularly in these changing times. Furthermore, it would seem that any

mismatching of what principals actually do compared to what is viewed as

both appropriate (from a system perspective) and ideal (from the principals

perspective) demands further investigation if the principalship is to attract

quality educators in the future.

Skills and Competencies of Principals

The three most frequently noted skills and competencies both Queensland and

New Zealand principals identified as important for their role as principal were





27/31

inspiring, visioning change for schools; demonstrating interpersonal skills;

and the capacity to delegate and empower others. All of these skills point to

capacities related to leadership and working effectively with others. In termsof professional development needs, principals from both countries also

identified leadership related skills and abilities. Such findings are not

surprising when one considers the changing agendas facing schooling and

school leaders as they move into the twenty first century. Principals see the

possession of good interpersonal skills as vital for enhancing and building

collaborative relationships with staff, students and members of the wider

community. All of the skills that relate to vision building, strengthening

relationships and partnerships and gaining commitment from staff and

students are consistent with the key personal competencies documented in theStandards Framework for Leaders (Education Queensland, 1997) and Core

Competencies for School Principals (Education Review Office, 1995).

Of the seven skills and competencies principals were asked to rate,

Queensland principals rated management/administration as the least impor-

tant, whereas New Zealand principals rated it as the fourth most important

skill. The findings reported in the qualitative data mirrored this emphasis, as

very few of the Queensland principals made mention of management/

administration as a particularly important skill in contrast with New Zealand

principals who conceded that management/administration skills are highly

relevant to the demands of the principals role. As alluded to previously, a

reason to explain this difference might lie with the greater degree of

devolution experienced by New Zealand principals. Thus the greater degree

of the devolution, the greater the expectation that principals will play the

role of manager/Chief Executive Officer and the greater the need to havecompetent administration/management skills.

The Queensland findings which showed that principals were interested in

developing leadership rather than management competencies is consistentwith the findings of Baker and Dellar (1999). Principals in their study

identified priority issues as those which wereassociated with the substance ofschooling, namely quality teaching and learningwhereastypical managerial

tasks of an administrator (p. 20) were not given any mention. In regard to

Queensland principals, there was one exception to the general trend away

from management/administration and that was in the area of financialmanagement. In fact, principals from both Queensland and New Zealand

noted thatfinancial management was an area of need. This is understandable

because under school based management arrangements, the importance of





28/31

possessing competent financial skills has become increasingly important for

school leaders. This need has been identified by other researchers. As an

example, Boyles (2000) study of principals in the ACT, found that two-thirdsof them rated financial management as an important issue for professional

development.

CONCLUSION

The research reported here is part of the continuing journey of endeavouring to

understand the principalship in these times of rapid and unpredictable change

and challenge for schools and school leaders. For these secondary principals,there are tensions and dilemmas around the broad focus of their roles in terms

of theleadershipversusmanagementaspects. This is well summarised by one

of the Queensland principals:

the most frustrating aspect to me is the following paradox: the system says

it wants us to lead, and when we are with colleagues in networks, we talk

and plan a lot of leadership stuff, but when we are in school there is a huge

and actual demand that we participate directly in many managerial and

administrative tasks.

However, such comments should not be extrapolated to describe these

secondary principals as being unhappy in their role. In fact, most were

satisfied with it. Many of the comments made by principals during theinterviews reinforced the view that they were deeply commitment to the job

and to making a difference in the lives of students. That school principalshave altruistic tendencies because they put the concerns of others, such as

students and staff, before their own needs has been identified by researchers

across many countries (Baker & Dellar, 1999). While it is true that principalsare working long hours, feel pressure (and this is increasing), identify

increased variety and diversity in the demands of their role as well as reporting

some role overload role conflict it is also true and most significant that the

majority of them are satisfied in their role as principal.

What is particularly interesting in relation to this satisfaction is that is

derives in part from what might be seen as role alignment. That is, wheretheir actual role the one typical for them in a week aligns with what they

actually would like the role to be like and with what the system expects of

them. In this regard, what principals would like to see again in broad focus





29/31

terms is an enhanced leadership role and a lessened management role, that is

one that engages them in a major way on operational matters related to

students and staff. Lack of role clarity and consistency are issues of concernfor all the respondents, who expressed their frustrations at the continual need

to cope with often contradictory demands, while maintaining institutional and

visionary stability.

Generally for most principals involved in this study, one senses a group of

committed and able individuals, who like those in many other professions

struggle to make sense of, and respond to, changing demands on them. For the

system employing these principals, there are clear messages here as to what

contemporary research says about the role and workload of secondary

educational leaders. How the system might capitalise on the positivesidentified in this research, such as high levels of satisfaction among principals,

as well as how it might respond to the continuing role tensions faced by

principals and their on-going identified professional development needs arequestions for consideration in the future. The issue of adequate, timely,

effective, and ongoing professional development is critical not only for

principals currently in the position, but also for those aspiring to the

principalship as a way of preparing them for the multi-faceted demands of

the role. Given the current principal shortage in Australia and New Zealand,

the need for systems to prepare and nurture aspirant leaders is paramount.

Thefindings from this research have highlighted that professional support

via training and development in both leadership and management areas will

be required if principals are going to be able to continue to meet the challenges

inherent in their day to day work. Several authors (see Baker & Dellar,

1999; Boyle, 2000; Cranston, 1999; Holdaway, 1999) concur with this

point. The study underscored the urgent need for professional development

that focuses on broader educational leadership issues concerned with

empowering others and developing sustaining and meaningful relationshipswith those within the school community. Fundamentally, the study under-

scored the point that principals see themselves aseducationalleaders. Twoof the New Zealand interviewees summed this up well when they said, a

principal stands in the middle of it all with the task of bringing apedagogical understanding of whats appropriate in the modern day. Thus

professional development that enables principals to learn and/or build upon

their existing capacities so that they can bring ethical, moral and professional

dimensions to their role can only reinforce their identity as the rightful leaders

of schools.





30/31

REFERENCES

Baker, R.G., & Dellar, G. (1999). If its not one thing its another: Issues of concern to schoolprincipals. International Studies in Educational Administration, 27, 1221.

Beare, H. (1991). The restructuring of schools and school systems: A comparative perspective.

In G. Harman, H. Beare, & G.F. Berkeley (Eds.), Restructuring School Management

(pp. 1325). Canberra: Australian College of Education.Beck, L.G., & Murphy, J. (1993). Understanding the principalship: Metaphorical themes

1920s1990s.New York: Teachers College Press.Boyle, M. (2000). Thenew styleprincipal: Roles, reflections and reality in the self-managed

school.Practising Administrator, 22, 47, 22.Brubaker, D.L., & Simon, L.H. (1987). How do principals view themselves and others. NASSP

Bulletin, 71, 7278.

Butterworth, G., & Butterworth, S. (1998). Reforming education: The New Zealand experience,19841996. Palmerston North, NZ: The Dunmore Press.

Cranston, N. (1999). CEO or headteacher? Challenges and dilemmas for primary principals in

Queensland.Leading and Managing, 5, 100113.Cranston, N. (2000). The impact of school-based management on primary principals: An

Australian perspective. Journal of School Leadership, 10, 214232.Department of Education. (1990).Focus on Schools: The Future Organisation of Educational

Services for Students. Brisbane, Qld: Department of Education.

Department of Education. (1993).The professional development framework for principalship.

Brisbane, Qld: Department of Education.

Education Act. (1989). Wellington, New Zealand: Ministry of Education.

Education Queensland. (1997).Standards framework for leaders.Brisbane, Qld: Department ofEducation.

Education Review Office. (1994, Winter). Effective governance: School boards of trustees.National Education Evaluation Report, 7.

Education Review Office. (1995). Core competencies for school principals. Wellington, NZ:Ministry of Education.

Greene, J.C., Caracelli, V.J., & Graham, W.F. (1989). Towards a conceptual framework for mixed-

methods evaluation design. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis,11, 255274.Harold, B., Hawksworth, L., Mansell, H., & Thrupp, M. (2001). Self management: The

experience of New Zealand principals [On-line]. Available: http://www.icponline.org/

feature_articles/f10_00.htm (23.7.02)

Holdaway, E.A. (1999). The principalship: Observations and conclusions from severalcountries. International Studies in Educational Administration,27, 211.

Knight, S. (2000). The role of the primary school principal in a partially devolved system.

(Abstract). Unpublished EdD thesis, Monash University, Vic, Australia.

Leithwood, K., & Menzies, T. (1998). Forms and effects of school-based management: A

review. Educational Policy, 12, 325346.Marshall, C., & Rossman, G.B. (1995). Designing qualitative research (2nd ed.). Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage.

Minister of Education. (1988). Tomorrows schools. Wellington, NZ: Government Printer.

Portin, B.S., Shen, J., & Williams, R.C. (1998, December). The changing principalship and its

impact: Voices from principals. NASSP Bulletin, 14.





31/31

Richardson, J. (2002, March). Shortage of principals rings alarm bells.The Weekend Australian,

13.

Robenstine C. (2000). How school choice can change the culture of educational leadership.

Contemporary Education,37, 2630.Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory, procedures

and techniques.Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Webb, R., & Vulliamy, G. (1996). The changing role of the primary school headteacher.

Educational Management and Administration, 24, 301315.Whitty, G., Power, S., & Halpin, D. (1998).Devolution and choice in education:The school, the

state and the market. Camberwell, Vic: ACER.

Wildy, H., & Dimmock, C. (1993). Instructional leadership in primary and secondary schools in

Western Australia. Journal of Educational Administration, 31, 4363.Wildy, H., & Louden, W. (2000). School restructuring and the dilemmas of principals work.

Educational Management and Administration, 28, 173184.Wildy, H., & Wallace, J. (1997). Devolving power in schools: Resolving the dilemma of strong

and shared leadership. Leading and Managing,3, 132146.Wylie, C. (1994). Self-managing schools in New Zealand: The fifth year. Wellington, NZ:

New Zealand Council for Educational Research.

Wylie, C. (1997). At the centre of the web: The role of the New Zealand primary school

principal within a decentralised education system. Wellington, NZ: New Zealand

Council for Educational Research.

Wylie, C. (1999a). Ten years on: How schools view educational reform. Wellington, NZ:

New Zealand Council for Educational Research.

Wylie, C. (1999b). Choice, responsiveness and constraint after a decade of self-managing

schools in New Zealand. Paper given at AARE-NZARE conference, Melbourne, Vic,Australia [On-line]. Available: http://www.aare.edu.au/99pap/wy199264.htm




Secondary School Principalship

Documents

Transcript of Secondary School Principalship