English Writer 13 | - Freelance Writer
Nov 27, 2017 | #1
INTRODUCTION
In this review of the literature, all of the major topics pertinent to principalship will be discussed. Both the positive and negative aspects of principalship support will be included along with the current roles of the principal and the expectations of the principalship in the 21st century. There will be a look into the principalship both prior to and during No Child Left Behind along with a discussion of principal mentoring compared and contrasted with coaching. Also included is a complete overview of the principalship support systems in North Carolina school districts.
The majority of the literature approaches support in the principalship from one of several points of view. Principal support can be viewed from the perspectives of the principal, the school district administrators, teachers, parents, students, state Departments of Education and the bigger system of the United States Department of Education. Each of these entities has their own view of what support for school principals should look like and what it should be trying to accomplish.
This review will take two perspectives, the perspective of the principal and of the school district. When necessary, legal and historical perspectives will be discussed as well.
For purposes of this paper, principal support consists of formal or informal approaches available to principals, especially those new to a district, but not new to the profession. The objective of principal support is to give principals the information and resources they need to do the best job possible, leading ultimately to increasing student academic performance. These approaches include mentoring, coaching, networking, professional development, and new principal cohorts.
Prior to No Child Left Behind being enacted, principals still expected students to learn and had goals for high achievement. There were still assessments to ensure students were learning, these were called teacher-made tests. Some schools even used standardized assessments before they were required just to look for student growth and learning levels.
Principals could hire who they though were best for the job. There was not the requirement for teachers to be highly qualified. This meant that if a really talented person, who could teach exceptionally well, but who lacked a specific set of classes, but still had a teaching degree, the principal could hire them to teach in their school. There was not careful analysis of transcripts to determine if a great teacher meets the standards of the law. Principals could decide who to hire instead of having the law limit their choices.
Principals could also work with teachers to make sure that students truly learned what they needed to know. The term, "teach to the test" was not used in schools. Students would move onto the next learning goal when they mastered the previous one. While this is the standard for high quality education, this does not always take place under No Child Left Behind. It is important under this act that student be exposed to all the information that could possibly be covered on the test. It is a hurry up and learn method that principals have to enforce throughout their buildings.
Before NCLB, principals had a lot more control over what took place in their buildings. They were not mandated when, where, what and how students were to be tested. There was no special testing pep rallies and other events to get students motivated to do well on their state assessments. Principals could actually focus on the job of helping teachers ensure students were learning what they need to.
The purpose of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 is to, "ensure that all children have a fair, equal, and significant opportunity to obtain a high-quality education and reach at a minimum, proficiency on challenging State academic achievement standards and state academic assessments" (United States Department of Education). One of the key words to come out of this Act is, "accountability." The requirements of the Act require all those working with students to be accountable for the student's achievement. This includes principals. Principals are accountable for the academic success of the students in their buildings. This is usually achieved by working with teachers and holding teachers accountable for teaching high-quality lessons based on assessment data.
One of the major outcomes of No Child Left Behind for principals is the idea of principal mobility. Effective principals have many choices of which they can work. A component of No Child Left Behind is that underperforming schools can be labeled. This leads high-performing principals to move to higher performing schools. This leaves low performing schools with less effective principals. This is not to say the principals do not want to or cannot handle the challenge of low and underperforming schools. It simply says that they do not want to be labeled and risk the school district overtaking their school for low performance. The No Child Left Behind Act did a huge disservice to schools when they created a system in which the most effective principals work at the schools where they are needed the least. It is the low performing schools that need the exceptional leaders.
Another significant issue for principals with No Child Left Behind is the expectations placed for student achievement, yet nothing has changed in terms of resources. There are schools that cannot afford to have a textbook for every student, or if they do, the textbooks are very outdated. There are buildings that are in disrepair with missing ceiling towels, malfunctioning heat and air conditioning, overflowing plumbing and other inadequate facilities. Yet, the principal is required to meet the designated academic improvement goals and make adequate yearly progress towards those goals until they are met. While principals do not argue that the standards set in No Child Left Behind are good for students, they do believe that meeting these standards are extremely difficult when their schools do not have the necessary supplies they need to get the job done. Once a school is labeled as needing improvement, then they may be eligible for some additional funding for improvements. Lance Fusarelli from North Carolina State University describes the issue this way, "The promise of NCLB to enhance equity and opportunity by reducing the achievement gap will likely remain unfulfilled due to insufficient funding and an overly simplistic definition of the achievement gap" (2004, p. 71). Unfortunately, this is another example of how No Child Left Behind sets schools up for failure. A principal can only get monetary help if their students are failing to learn.
A study of the No Child Left Behind Act revealed that, "There is growing evidence that the law's strategy for improving schools may, paradoxically, reduce access to education for the most vulnerable students" (Darling-Hammond).
Similar to the issue of principal mobility is the issue of teacher mobility. Many school districts have moved to a performance based pay structure where teachers will get either merit pay lump sum bonuses or salary increases based on the performance of their students. This causes teachers to want to move to higher achieving schools in order to ensure more money in their pocket for their own families. This leads to the most effective teachers teaching at the highest performing schools and the schools that need the top talent are left without the highest performers. Principals have the task of hiring teachers, so even if a high performing principal chose to stay at a low performing school, the principal still has to hire many teachers to fill the spots of those that left. Now there is the issue of an principal, struggling to find effective teachers who are willing to work in a low performing school. This is yet another responsibility placed on principals as a direct result of No Child Left Behind.
To overcome this, some school districts are adding incentive pay to teacher salaries for teachers who are willing to work in low performing schools. However, this incentive pay has not yet found its way into the contracts of school principals.
As mentioned earlier, it is a requirement that principals hire only highly qualified teachers. This can be a real problem for certain rural areas where teachers are difficult to come by. No Child Left Behind states, "To be highly qualified, teachers must have, 1) a bachelor's degree, 2) full state certification or licensure, and 3) prove that they know each subject they teach" (United States Department of Education). While to most these requirements seem reasonable, this can lead to difficulties in hiring. For example, a small rural town needs a wood shop teacher as one semester of wood shop is a high school graduation requirement set forth by the school district. The principal has difficulty finding someone who meets all of the requirements that wants to come to the country to live and teach. However, there is a local furniture maker, who the principal knows makes the best quality furniture and wood furnishings around. The man is willing to teach the part-time class and has experience in teaching classes at the local recreation centers to the young people of the town with great success. Yet, the principal cannot hire him as he does not have a bachelor's degree or a teaching license even though he can do a better job than almost anyone. No Child Left Behind has taken this hiring ability away from principals. If the principal cannot find a teacher for this class, he/she will be forced to use a long term substitute who has a teaching license and a bachelor's degree, but who probably knows little about wood shop.
However, No Child Left Behind has not been all bad. Principals have never before been so involved in student learning. They have moved well behind just being a disciplinarian to truly working with teachers and students to meet student achievement goals. Principals lead teacher teams to evaluate student learning data and determine how to best teach and meet the needs of each individual student. Principals learn curriculum and assessment measure right along with teachers and spent a significant portion of their day in classrooms as opposed to their office. This has been a positive change as a result of NCLB.
The principalship of the 21st century has many new challenges that previous generations of principals have not had to contend with. While is used to be teachers focused on reading, writing and arithmetic, and principals focused on misbehaving and school supplies, now the principal is integral to the academic progress of students. Gail Connelly, Executive Director of the National Association of Elementary School Principals, stated that the 21st century principal is dealing with terms such as, "Improvement, accountability, investment and impact." These concepts lead to leaders being involved with, "data systems, student interventions, and embedded professional development" (Connelly, n.d, p. 1).
The 21st century has brought the principal out of the office and into the classrooms. As Connelly states, "principals are the primary gatekeepers of both the process and the outcome" (n.d., p. 1). They work alongside teachers to develop effective practice, they create meaningful professional development based on data, the allocate resources effectively and the keep the focus on student learning (Connelly, n.d.).
Student data is also a new and primary component of the principal's job in the 21st century. It is difficult to find any current educational research without mentioning data. Principals can be considered the data leader of their schools. In a study published by Anderson, Leithwood and Strauss, it was discovered that schools that use data effectively have principals that emphasize the connection between data use and student performance. Effective principals expect the consistent use of data for teachers, provide opportunities for data discussions and professional development and ensure follow-up. The drawback to this research is that the statistical evidence was only able to correlate data use to increased achievement test results in elementary schools. It is anticipated that middle and high schools will use the approaches that elementary schools employed in order to also use data to increase the academic success of their students.
In addition, school principals have a new focus on school safety that was undoubtedly never anticipated by principals in previous centuries. With the school shootings at Columbine High School Sandy Hook Elementary and Arapahoe High School, principals must consider safety at a higher level than ever before. Principals must ensure that proper emergency procedures are in place and that they are practiced to the point of automaticity by both staff and students.
There is also the new challenge of the vast number of students who do not have English as their first language. The numbers of students who speak a language other than English and are attending schools in the United States rises every year and schools still have the responsibility of teaching them at a high level. This adds another responsibility onto the role of the 21st century principal in terms of how best to teach them when they cannot speak the language of the school. This also affects principals in that schools with a high percentage of ELL (English Language Learners) students typically have lower performance ratings. As discussed earlier, principals do not like to be at schools with low ratings as it reflects negatively on them as a school leader.
When teaching ELL students there are a number of factors that the school cannot control that directly affect student performance. According to a study of over 30,000 students conducted by the National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Teaching (CRESST), factors such as parent education levels, parent connection to the school and focus on education, and socioeconomic status all outweigh any school programs for ELL students.
The role of the principal is to lead, facilitate, teach and support teacher, families and students. There are also responsibilities to the school district that a principal must comply with, making the job of principal one of the most stressful around.
The Wallace Foundation is a group committed to improving leadership within public schools. They have participated in over 70 research studies and have participated in projects in 24 states. This being said, it can safely be assumed that they are an expert in the field of school leadership. This being said, the Wallace Foundation has found that there are five key functions that a school principal needs to do. These functions are:
- "Shaping a vision of academic success for all students.
- Creating a climate hospitable to education.
- Cultivating leadership in others.
- Improving instruction.
- Managing people, data and process to foster school improvement" (The Wallace Foundation).
In terms of shaping an academic vision, principals are responsible for ensuring that the entire school community is focused and committed to the achievement of high academic standards. This focus must be consistent and must have everyone on board heading the same direction. To do this, the principal must create buy in and belief in the academic vision. It is about leading others to have the same belief in the high standards.
The next function is for principals to create a climate where learning is the primary activity. This does not meet that students have no time away from the books, but it means that the entire school is an environment for learning. It is a community in which all staff is responsible for all students and their learning. There has to be an atmosphere of trust so that students will take risks. There has to be an orderly and safe environment so that student's basic needs are taken care of so that they are capable of learning. Through their research, The Wallace Foundation has discovered that the most effective principals create an environment in which every person within the school environment is respected. These principals create, "an upbeat, welcoming, solution-oriented, no-blame, professional environment" (The Wallace Foundation).
Cultivating leadership in others is also a prime role of the modern principal. This is a component of creating a professional community. Research from the University of Minnesota and the University of Toronto has shown that principals who were successful at creating a strong focus on instruction also were successful in terms of cultivating leadership within the school community. Cultivating leadership increases teacher motivation and creates an atmosphere in which all are valued.
As aforementioned, principals have the main role of ensuring that instruction improves so that students can meet high academic standards. Effective principals do this by focusing on continued professional learning for teachers. Principals also keep the focus on high academic expectations and the facilitate discussions about instruction and learning. This is referred to as the, "technical core" of instruction. This is also accomplished by using the leadership style known as "management by wandering around as developed by Larry Frase and Robert Hetzel. In this style of leadership, the principal is in classrooms and wandering around the school observing what is taking place. He/she looks for strengths and weaknesses, problems, solutions, and questions. The authors describes management by wandering around as the principal being, "off his seat and on his feet looking and listening for better way to do things - wandering with a purpose."
The last major role of principals is to manage people, data and processes. It is important to recognize the word, "manage." Managing is different than leading. Most of a principal's role is leading, but there does have to be some managing involved as well. Effective principals make good use of what they have in terms of resources. This includes both human resources and material resources. It means hiring well, budgeting effectively, completing required paperwork, handling issues, resolving conflict, and meeting any requirements as dictated by the school district or state board of education (The Wallace Foundation).
Current support systems for principals are few and far between and those that do exist are typically informal groups of principals creating their own discussion groups. There is not data as to the effectiveness of these groups, although it is assumed that they are beneficial.
Eric Parsloe from the Oxford School of Coaching and Mentoring defines mentoring as a way to, "support and encourage people to manage their own learning in order that they may maximize their potential, develop their skills, improve their performance and become the person they want to be" (Parsloe).
In the field of mentoring, the literature has focused more on the relationships involved in mentoring rather than the determining the nature of what mentoring really is. The research has discovered that there is naturally occurring mentoring and mentoring that is purposefully created.
In terms of mentoring, a literature review by Hansford and Ehrich discovered that there were more positive than negative outcomes when it came to mentoring programs for principals. The most common outcomes listed in the literature are sharing ideas, professional development and support. These were the outcomes for those being mentored.
There were also positive outcomes for the mentors. These were networking, professional development and the opportunity to reflect on their own practice.
The negative outcomes were the same for both groups, which were a lack of time for mentor and mentee to work together and a mismatch in terms of personality or expertise.
In a literature review by Yirci and Kocabas, focusing on principal mentoring it was discovered that principals who participated in mentor programs benefited greatly and that the benefits mostly occurred during the most troublesome times of their principalship.
Similar to the above listed findings, Yirci and Kocabas found the following benefits for mentees: increased competence, appropriate goal setting, motivation, satisfaction, mental support, increased creativity and confidence, improved communication skills, better use of time and increased employability.
For mentors, the research by Yirci and Kocabas found that their benefits included: personal reflection, credit for license renewal, a learning experience and value and satisfaction.
In addition to these two areas, Yirci and Kocabas' research also led them to the creation of a third benefit of mentoring programs, that being a benefit to the organization.
Mentoring benefits the organization by becoming more organized and effective as a whole. In addition members of the organization are more motivated and more satisfied with their jobs. There is more effective recruitment and increased staff retention. As a school there is a more positive culture, a focus on time efficiency, organizational learning and evidence of strategic success planning.
In another study by Rhodes and Fletcher, it was discovered that coaching and mentoring programs for school principals' increases self-efficacy. This increase helped principals perform better at all of their essential roles. In addition, the study found that when a principal's self-efficacy was increased they were apt to stay in their principal role for a longer period of time. In addition, principals that have the potential to be very good are not lost due to lack of support. This study did not differentiate between programs that focused on mentoring and those that focused on coaching.
The partial implications for these findings are the in order to make mentorship programs effective, there has to be adequate time built into the program for the mentoring to take place. In addition, mentors have to be appropriately trained and it is essential that there is an appropriate match between mentor and mentee.
Coaching, also defined by Eric Parsloe, is, "a process that enables learning and development to occur and thus performance to improve. To be successful, a coach requires knowledge and understanding of process as well as the variety of styles, skills and techniques that are appropriate to the context in which the coaching takes place" (Parsloe).
Most research tends to focus on mentoring or will consider mentoring and coaching as one in the same. However, a study by Houchens, Hurt, Stobaugh, and Keedy, focused specifically on coaching school principals. The researchers investigated principals' self-perceived capacity for reflection and their capacity for effective instructional leadership.
Similar to the research studies discussed earlier, the study by Houchens, et. al. also discovered that this method of principal support was beneficial. Principals reported that they valued the coaching structure and appreciated the feedback from the coach. They also liked that the program required them to be reflective regarding their work. In addition, the principals that participated in the coaching study had increased levels of confidence regarding instructional leadership and problem solving. They also stated that they gained knowledge and confidence regarding supporting and assisting teachers in terms of pedagogical practice.
As with all the states North Carolina wants to ensure the academic success of all of its students. As a result, The Center for School Leadership Development at the University of North Carolina applied for and was awarded a grant from the United States Department of Education to develop a mentoring program for new principal, which includes principals new to the area, but experienced in the job from another location.
This program is 18 days long and covers almost the complete span of a school year going from September to March. Each session has a different focus of the prinicpal's job such as ethics, instruction, school culture, legal issues, change management, and use of data. The sessions are led by nationally recognized experts along with education leaders within North Carolina. This program has become one of the premier principal instructional courses in the United States with people attending from all over the U.S.
However, North Carolina school districts, even though this program is readily available to its school leaders, does not take advantage of this program by sending their school leaders through this program. Of course, school principals could choose to participate in this opportunity on their own, but at a cost of $1,000.
In addition, North Carolina has the North Carolina Center for Educational Leadership. Principals who participate in this program focus on leadership assessments, are assigned a leadership coach for on site development and they participate in an annual leadership institute during the summer where they develop individualized action plans and professional development plans. Former attendees of the program have said that this program was, "a life-changing experience" and "the best professional development I have participated in" and "an opportunity to get in the heart and mind of leadership."
The only training that North Carolina school districts provide for their principals is training to understand the principal evaluation process. For this training, principals get a manual with all of the necessary forms and explanations and they take a brief online course which explains the process. Again, this is not a mandatory program for principals. It is an option for principals if they chose to go and pay for it themselves.
There are no mentorship or coaching requirements for principals to get their administrator license nor is a support program a component of the job requirement. This is truly unfortunate as the literature has demonstrated that these support programs can greatly benefit the principal, the students and the school as a whole.
In short, principals in North Carolina are left to sink or swim. Many will meet other principals and begin to network on their own finding support that way, but there is nothing formal in place to help ensure principal success and retention.
CONCLUSION
A review of the literature has indicated that mentor and coaching programs for principals are successful for the mentee, the mentor and the school organization. There are many benefits from these programs from increased retention rates to the ultimate goal of increased academic performance for students. It has also been shown that the focus state of North Carolina does not provide their principals with any of these positive programs even though there are two very good principal programs within their state.
In North Carolina, it is up to the principal to find their own support system through networking with other principals and school district administrators. Effective principals recognize the importance of having a mentor or at the very least a support person to help them through time of difficulty or to just answer a simple question about the inner workings of an unfamiliar school district.
North Carolina school district officials should read this review of the literature to get an understanding of just how powerful and productive mentoring or coaching programs can be for the principals in their district.
Works Cited
Abedi, J., & Dietel, R. (2004). Challenges in the no child left behind act for english language learners.
Allen, Tammy D., and Lillian T. Eby, ed. The blackwell handbook of mentoring: A multiple perspectives approach. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons, 2011. Print.
Anderson, S., Leithwood, K., & Strauss, T. (2010). Leading data use in schools: Organizational conditions and practices at the school and district levels. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 9(3), 292-327. doi:10.1080/15700761003731492
Connelly, G. (n.d.). The 21st century principal: leading, learning, building. Retrieved from National Association of Elementary School Principals website.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2007). Evaluating no child left behind. The Nation, 1-7.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2004). From separate but equal to no child left behind: The collision of new standards and old inequalities. In Many Children Left Behind (pp. 3-32). Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
Fusarelli, L. D. (2004). The potential impact of the no child left behind act on equity and diversity in american education. Educational Policy, 18(1), 71-94. doi:10.1177/0895904803260025
Hansford, B., & Ehrich, L. C. (2006). The principalship: How significant is mentoring. Journal of Educational Administration, 44(1), 36-52.
Houchens, G. W., Hurt, J., Stobaugh, R., & Keedy, J. L. (2013). A coaching protocol for enhancing principal instructional leadership. Qualitative Research in Education, 1(2), 135-178.
Frase, L., & Hetzel, R. (2003). School management by wandering around. Lanham, MD: R & L Education.
Li, D. (2012). School accountability and principal mobility: How no child left behind affects the allocation of school leaders.
North Carolina New Schools (2014). NC center for educational leadership.
Parsloe, Eric. "What are coaching and mentoring." The Coaching and Mentoring Network. N.p., 2013. Web.
Parsloe, Eric. "What is mentoring?" MentorSET. N.p., 2008. Web.
Public Schools of North Carolina (2013). Education effectiveness model.
Rhodes, C., & Fletcher, S. (2013). Coaching and mentoring for self-efficacious leadership in schools. International Journal of Mentoring and Coaching in Education, 2(1), 47-63. doi:10.1108/20466851311323087
The Wallace Foundation. The school principal as leader: Guiding schools to better teaching and learning. The Wallace Foundation.
United States Department of Education (2001). The no child left behind act of 2001. Retrieved from U.S. Department of Education website.
Villani, S. (2006). Mentoring and induction programs that support new principals. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Yirci, R., & Kocabas, I. (2010). The importance of mentoring for school principals: a conceptual analysis. International Journal of Educational Leadership Preparation, 5(2).
In this review of the literature, all of the major topics pertinent to principalship will be discussed. Both the positive and negative aspects of principalship support will be included along with the current roles of the principal and the expectations of the principalship in the 21st century. There will be a look into the principalship both prior to and during No Child Left Behind along with a discussion of principal mentoring compared and contrasted with coaching. Also included is a complete overview of the principalship support systems in North Carolina school districts.
The majority of the literature approaches support in the principalship from one of several points of view. Principal support can be viewed from the perspectives of the principal, the school district administrators, teachers, parents, students, state Departments of Education and the bigger system of the United States Department of Education. Each of these entities has their own view of what support for school principals should look like and what it should be trying to accomplish.
This review will take two perspectives, the perspective of the principal and of the school district. When necessary, legal and historical perspectives will be discussed as well.
For purposes of this paper, principal support consists of formal or informal approaches available to principals, especially those new to a district, but not new to the profession. The objective of principal support is to give principals the information and resources they need to do the best job possible, leading ultimately to increasing student academic performance. These approaches include mentoring, coaching, networking, professional development, and new principal cohorts.
HISTORY OF PRINCIPALSHIP PRIOR TO NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND
Prior to No Child Left Behind being enacted, principals still expected students to learn and had goals for high achievement. There were still assessments to ensure students were learning, these were called teacher-made tests. Some schools even used standardized assessments before they were required just to look for student growth and learning levels.Principals could hire who they though were best for the job. There was not the requirement for teachers to be highly qualified. This meant that if a really talented person, who could teach exceptionally well, but who lacked a specific set of classes, but still had a teaching degree, the principal could hire them to teach in their school. There was not careful analysis of transcripts to determine if a great teacher meets the standards of the law. Principals could decide who to hire instead of having the law limit their choices.
Principals could also work with teachers to make sure that students truly learned what they needed to know. The term, "teach to the test" was not used in schools. Students would move onto the next learning goal when they mastered the previous one. While this is the standard for high quality education, this does not always take place under No Child Left Behind. It is important under this act that student be exposed to all the information that could possibly be covered on the test. It is a hurry up and learn method that principals have to enforce throughout their buildings.
Before NCLB, principals had a lot more control over what took place in their buildings. They were not mandated when, where, what and how students were to be tested. There was no special testing pep rallies and other events to get students motivated to do well on their state assessments. Principals could actually focus on the job of helping teachers ensure students were learning what they need to.
PRINCIPALSHIP DURING NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND
The purpose of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 is to, "ensure that all children have a fair, equal, and significant opportunity to obtain a high-quality education and reach at a minimum, proficiency on challenging State academic achievement standards and state academic assessments" (United States Department of Education). One of the key words to come out of this Act is, "accountability." The requirements of the Act require all those working with students to be accountable for the student's achievement. This includes principals. Principals are accountable for the academic success of the students in their buildings. This is usually achieved by working with teachers and holding teachers accountable for teaching high-quality lessons based on assessment data.
One of the major outcomes of No Child Left Behind for principals is the idea of principal mobility. Effective principals have many choices of which they can work. A component of No Child Left Behind is that underperforming schools can be labeled. This leads high-performing principals to move to higher performing schools. This leaves low performing schools with less effective principals. This is not to say the principals do not want to or cannot handle the challenge of low and underperforming schools. It simply says that they do not want to be labeled and risk the school district overtaking their school for low performance. The No Child Left Behind Act did a huge disservice to schools when they created a system in which the most effective principals work at the schools where they are needed the least. It is the low performing schools that need the exceptional leaders.
Another significant issue for principals with No Child Left Behind is the expectations placed for student achievement, yet nothing has changed in terms of resources. There are schools that cannot afford to have a textbook for every student, or if they do, the textbooks are very outdated. There are buildings that are in disrepair with missing ceiling towels, malfunctioning heat and air conditioning, overflowing plumbing and other inadequate facilities. Yet, the principal is required to meet the designated academic improvement goals and make adequate yearly progress towards those goals until they are met. While principals do not argue that the standards set in No Child Left Behind are good for students, they do believe that meeting these standards are extremely difficult when their schools do not have the necessary supplies they need to get the job done. Once a school is labeled as needing improvement, then they may be eligible for some additional funding for improvements. Lance Fusarelli from North Carolina State University describes the issue this way, "The promise of NCLB to enhance equity and opportunity by reducing the achievement gap will likely remain unfulfilled due to insufficient funding and an overly simplistic definition of the achievement gap" (2004, p. 71). Unfortunately, this is another example of how No Child Left Behind sets schools up for failure. A principal can only get monetary help if their students are failing to learn.
A study of the No Child Left Behind Act revealed that, "There is growing evidence that the law's strategy for improving schools may, paradoxically, reduce access to education for the most vulnerable students" (Darling-Hammond).
Similar to the issue of principal mobility is the issue of teacher mobility. Many school districts have moved to a performance based pay structure where teachers will get either merit pay lump sum bonuses or salary increases based on the performance of their students. This causes teachers to want to move to higher achieving schools in order to ensure more money in their pocket for their own families. This leads to the most effective teachers teaching at the highest performing schools and the schools that need the top talent are left without the highest performers. Principals have the task of hiring teachers, so even if a high performing principal chose to stay at a low performing school, the principal still has to hire many teachers to fill the spots of those that left. Now there is the issue of an principal, struggling to find effective teachers who are willing to work in a low performing school. This is yet another responsibility placed on principals as a direct result of No Child Left Behind.
To overcome this, some school districts are adding incentive pay to teacher salaries for teachers who are willing to work in low performing schools. However, this incentive pay has not yet found its way into the contracts of school principals.
As mentioned earlier, it is a requirement that principals hire only highly qualified teachers. This can be a real problem for certain rural areas where teachers are difficult to come by. No Child Left Behind states, "To be highly qualified, teachers must have, 1) a bachelor's degree, 2) full state certification or licensure, and 3) prove that they know each subject they teach" (United States Department of Education). While to most these requirements seem reasonable, this can lead to difficulties in hiring. For example, a small rural town needs a wood shop teacher as one semester of wood shop is a high school graduation requirement set forth by the school district. The principal has difficulty finding someone who meets all of the requirements that wants to come to the country to live and teach. However, there is a local furniture maker, who the principal knows makes the best quality furniture and wood furnishings around. The man is willing to teach the part-time class and has experience in teaching classes at the local recreation centers to the young people of the town with great success. Yet, the principal cannot hire him as he does not have a bachelor's degree or a teaching license even though he can do a better job than almost anyone. No Child Left Behind has taken this hiring ability away from principals. If the principal cannot find a teacher for this class, he/she will be forced to use a long term substitute who has a teaching license and a bachelor's degree, but who probably knows little about wood shop.
However, No Child Left Behind has not been all bad. Principals have never before been so involved in student learning. They have moved well behind just being a disciplinarian to truly working with teachers and students to meet student achievement goals. Principals lead teacher teams to evaluate student learning data and determine how to best teach and meet the needs of each individual student. Principals learn curriculum and assessment measure right along with teachers and spent a significant portion of their day in classrooms as opposed to their office. This has been a positive change as a result of NCLB.
21ST CENTURY PRINCIPALSHIP
The principalship of the 21st century has many new challenges that previous generations of principals have not had to contend with. While is used to be teachers focused on reading, writing and arithmetic, and principals focused on misbehaving and school supplies, now the principal is integral to the academic progress of students. Gail Connelly, Executive Director of the National Association of Elementary School Principals, stated that the 21st century principal is dealing with terms such as, "Improvement, accountability, investment and impact." These concepts lead to leaders being involved with, "data systems, student interventions, and embedded professional development" (Connelly, n.d, p. 1).
The 21st century has brought the principal out of the office and into the classrooms. As Connelly states, "principals are the primary gatekeepers of both the process and the outcome" (n.d., p. 1). They work alongside teachers to develop effective practice, they create meaningful professional development based on data, the allocate resources effectively and the keep the focus on student learning (Connelly, n.d.).
Student data is also a new and primary component of the principal's job in the 21st century. It is difficult to find any current educational research without mentioning data. Principals can be considered the data leader of their schools. In a study published by Anderson, Leithwood and Strauss, it was discovered that schools that use data effectively have principals that emphasize the connection between data use and student performance. Effective principals expect the consistent use of data for teachers, provide opportunities for data discussions and professional development and ensure follow-up. The drawback to this research is that the statistical evidence was only able to correlate data use to increased achievement test results in elementary schools. It is anticipated that middle and high schools will use the approaches that elementary schools employed in order to also use data to increase the academic success of their students.
In addition, school principals have a new focus on school safety that was undoubtedly never anticipated by principals in previous centuries. With the school shootings at Columbine High School Sandy Hook Elementary and Arapahoe High School, principals must consider safety at a higher level than ever before. Principals must ensure that proper emergency procedures are in place and that they are practiced to the point of automaticity by both staff and students.
There is also the new challenge of the vast number of students who do not have English as their first language. The numbers of students who speak a language other than English and are attending schools in the United States rises every year and schools still have the responsibility of teaching them at a high level. This adds another responsibility onto the role of the 21st century principal in terms of how best to teach them when they cannot speak the language of the school. This also affects principals in that schools with a high percentage of ELL (English Language Learners) students typically have lower performance ratings. As discussed earlier, principals do not like to be at schools with low ratings as it reflects negatively on them as a school leader.
When teaching ELL students there are a number of factors that the school cannot control that directly affect student performance. According to a study of over 30,000 students conducted by the National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Teaching (CRESST), factors such as parent education levels, parent connection to the school and focus on education, and socioeconomic status all outweigh any school programs for ELL students.
PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP (THE ROLE OF THE PRINCIPAL)
The role of the principal is to lead, facilitate, teach and support teacher, families and students. There are also responsibilities to the school district that a principal must comply with, making the job of principal one of the most stressful around.
The Wallace Foundation is a group committed to improving leadership within public schools. They have participated in over 70 research studies and have participated in projects in 24 states. This being said, it can safely be assumed that they are an expert in the field of school leadership. This being said, the Wallace Foundation has found that there are five key functions that a school principal needs to do. These functions are:
- "Shaping a vision of academic success for all students.
- Creating a climate hospitable to education.
- Cultivating leadership in others.
- Improving instruction.
- Managing people, data and process to foster school improvement" (The Wallace Foundation).
In terms of shaping an academic vision, principals are responsible for ensuring that the entire school community is focused and committed to the achievement of high academic standards. This focus must be consistent and must have everyone on board heading the same direction. To do this, the principal must create buy in and belief in the academic vision. It is about leading others to have the same belief in the high standards.
The next function is for principals to create a climate where learning is the primary activity. This does not meet that students have no time away from the books, but it means that the entire school is an environment for learning. It is a community in which all staff is responsible for all students and their learning. There has to be an atmosphere of trust so that students will take risks. There has to be an orderly and safe environment so that student's basic needs are taken care of so that they are capable of learning. Through their research, The Wallace Foundation has discovered that the most effective principals create an environment in which every person within the school environment is respected. These principals create, "an upbeat, welcoming, solution-oriented, no-blame, professional environment" (The Wallace Foundation).
Cultivating leadership in others is also a prime role of the modern principal. This is a component of creating a professional community. Research from the University of Minnesota and the University of Toronto has shown that principals who were successful at creating a strong focus on instruction also were successful in terms of cultivating leadership within the school community. Cultivating leadership increases teacher motivation and creates an atmosphere in which all are valued.
As aforementioned, principals have the main role of ensuring that instruction improves so that students can meet high academic standards. Effective principals do this by focusing on continued professional learning for teachers. Principals also keep the focus on high academic expectations and the facilitate discussions about instruction and learning. This is referred to as the, "technical core" of instruction. This is also accomplished by using the leadership style known as "management by wandering around as developed by Larry Frase and Robert Hetzel. In this style of leadership, the principal is in classrooms and wandering around the school observing what is taking place. He/she looks for strengths and weaknesses, problems, solutions, and questions. The authors describes management by wandering around as the principal being, "off his seat and on his feet looking and listening for better way to do things - wandering with a purpose."
The last major role of principals is to manage people, data and processes. It is important to recognize the word, "manage." Managing is different than leading. Most of a principal's role is leading, but there does have to be some managing involved as well. Effective principals make good use of what they have in terms of resources. This includes both human resources and material resources. It means hiring well, budgeting effectively, completing required paperwork, handling issues, resolving conflict, and meeting any requirements as dictated by the school district or state board of education (The Wallace Foundation).
CURRENT SUPPORT SYSTEMS FOR PRINCIPALS
Current support systems for principals are few and far between and those that do exist are typically informal groups of principals creating their own discussion groups. There is not data as to the effectiveness of these groups, although it is assumed that they are beneficial.
PRINCIPAL MENTORING VS. COACHING
Eric Parsloe from the Oxford School of Coaching and Mentoring defines mentoring as a way to, "support and encourage people to manage their own learning in order that they may maximize their potential, develop their skills, improve their performance and become the person they want to be" (Parsloe).
In the field of mentoring, the literature has focused more on the relationships involved in mentoring rather than the determining the nature of what mentoring really is. The research has discovered that there is naturally occurring mentoring and mentoring that is purposefully created.
In terms of mentoring, a literature review by Hansford and Ehrich discovered that there were more positive than negative outcomes when it came to mentoring programs for principals. The most common outcomes listed in the literature are sharing ideas, professional development and support. These were the outcomes for those being mentored.
There were also positive outcomes for the mentors. These were networking, professional development and the opportunity to reflect on their own practice.
The negative outcomes were the same for both groups, which were a lack of time for mentor and mentee to work together and a mismatch in terms of personality or expertise.
In a literature review by Yirci and Kocabas, focusing on principal mentoring it was discovered that principals who participated in mentor programs benefited greatly and that the benefits mostly occurred during the most troublesome times of their principalship.
Similar to the above listed findings, Yirci and Kocabas found the following benefits for mentees: increased competence, appropriate goal setting, motivation, satisfaction, mental support, increased creativity and confidence, improved communication skills, better use of time and increased employability.
For mentors, the research by Yirci and Kocabas found that their benefits included: personal reflection, credit for license renewal, a learning experience and value and satisfaction.
In addition to these two areas, Yirci and Kocabas' research also led them to the creation of a third benefit of mentoring programs, that being a benefit to the organization.
Mentoring benefits the organization by becoming more organized and effective as a whole. In addition members of the organization are more motivated and more satisfied with their jobs. There is more effective recruitment and increased staff retention. As a school there is a more positive culture, a focus on time efficiency, organizational learning and evidence of strategic success planning.
In another study by Rhodes and Fletcher, it was discovered that coaching and mentoring programs for school principals' increases self-efficacy. This increase helped principals perform better at all of their essential roles. In addition, the study found that when a principal's self-efficacy was increased they were apt to stay in their principal role for a longer period of time. In addition, principals that have the potential to be very good are not lost due to lack of support. This study did not differentiate between programs that focused on mentoring and those that focused on coaching.
The partial implications for these findings are the in order to make mentorship programs effective, there has to be adequate time built into the program for the mentoring to take place. In addition, mentors have to be appropriately trained and it is essential that there is an appropriate match between mentor and mentee.
Coaching, also defined by Eric Parsloe, is, "a process that enables learning and development to occur and thus performance to improve. To be successful, a coach requires knowledge and understanding of process as well as the variety of styles, skills and techniques that are appropriate to the context in which the coaching takes place" (Parsloe).
Most research tends to focus on mentoring or will consider mentoring and coaching as one in the same. However, a study by Houchens, Hurt, Stobaugh, and Keedy, focused specifically on coaching school principals. The researchers investigated principals' self-perceived capacity for reflection and their capacity for effective instructional leadership.
Similar to the research studies discussed earlier, the study by Houchens, et. al. also discovered that this method of principal support was beneficial. Principals reported that they valued the coaching structure and appreciated the feedback from the coach. They also liked that the program required them to be reflective regarding their work. In addition, the principals that participated in the coaching study had increased levels of confidence regarding instructional leadership and problem solving. They also stated that they gained knowledge and confidence regarding supporting and assisting teachers in terms of pedagogical practice.
SUPPORT IN NORTH CAROLINA SCHOOL DISTRICTS
As with all the states North Carolina wants to ensure the academic success of all of its students. As a result, The Center for School Leadership Development at the University of North Carolina applied for and was awarded a grant from the United States Department of Education to develop a mentoring program for new principal, which includes principals new to the area, but experienced in the job from another location.
This program is 18 days long and covers almost the complete span of a school year going from September to March. Each session has a different focus of the prinicpal's job such as ethics, instruction, school culture, legal issues, change management, and use of data. The sessions are led by nationally recognized experts along with education leaders within North Carolina. This program has become one of the premier principal instructional courses in the United States with people attending from all over the U.S.
However, North Carolina school districts, even though this program is readily available to its school leaders, does not take advantage of this program by sending their school leaders through this program. Of course, school principals could choose to participate in this opportunity on their own, but at a cost of $1,000.
In addition, North Carolina has the North Carolina Center for Educational Leadership. Principals who participate in this program focus on leadership assessments, are assigned a leadership coach for on site development and they participate in an annual leadership institute during the summer where they develop individualized action plans and professional development plans. Former attendees of the program have said that this program was, "a life-changing experience" and "the best professional development I have participated in" and "an opportunity to get in the heart and mind of leadership."
The only training that North Carolina school districts provide for their principals is training to understand the principal evaluation process. For this training, principals get a manual with all of the necessary forms and explanations and they take a brief online course which explains the process. Again, this is not a mandatory program for principals. It is an option for principals if they chose to go and pay for it themselves.
There are no mentorship or coaching requirements for principals to get their administrator license nor is a support program a component of the job requirement. This is truly unfortunate as the literature has demonstrated that these support programs can greatly benefit the principal, the students and the school as a whole.
In short, principals in North Carolina are left to sink or swim. Many will meet other principals and begin to network on their own finding support that way, but there is nothing formal in place to help ensure principal success and retention.
CONCLUSION
A review of the literature has indicated that mentor and coaching programs for principals are successful for the mentee, the mentor and the school organization. There are many benefits from these programs from increased retention rates to the ultimate goal of increased academic performance for students. It has also been shown that the focus state of North Carolina does not provide their principals with any of these positive programs even though there are two very good principal programs within their state.
In North Carolina, it is up to the principal to find their own support system through networking with other principals and school district administrators. Effective principals recognize the importance of having a mentor or at the very least a support person to help them through time of difficulty or to just answer a simple question about the inner workings of an unfamiliar school district.
North Carolina school district officials should read this review of the literature to get an understanding of just how powerful and productive mentoring or coaching programs can be for the principals in their district.
Works Cited
Abedi, J., & Dietel, R. (2004). Challenges in the no child left behind act for english language learners.
Allen, Tammy D., and Lillian T. Eby, ed. The blackwell handbook of mentoring: A multiple perspectives approach. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons, 2011. Print.
Anderson, S., Leithwood, K., & Strauss, T. (2010). Leading data use in schools: Organizational conditions and practices at the school and district levels. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 9(3), 292-327. doi:10.1080/15700761003731492
Connelly, G. (n.d.). The 21st century principal: leading, learning, building. Retrieved from National Association of Elementary School Principals website.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2007). Evaluating no child left behind. The Nation, 1-7.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2004). From separate but equal to no child left behind: The collision of new standards and old inequalities. In Many Children Left Behind (pp. 3-32). Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
Fusarelli, L. D. (2004). The potential impact of the no child left behind act on equity and diversity in american education. Educational Policy, 18(1), 71-94. doi:10.1177/0895904803260025
Hansford, B., & Ehrich, L. C. (2006). The principalship: How significant is mentoring. Journal of Educational Administration, 44(1), 36-52.
Houchens, G. W., Hurt, J., Stobaugh, R., & Keedy, J. L. (2013). A coaching protocol for enhancing principal instructional leadership. Qualitative Research in Education, 1(2), 135-178.
Frase, L., & Hetzel, R. (2003). School management by wandering around. Lanham, MD: R & L Education.
Li, D. (2012). School accountability and principal mobility: How no child left behind affects the allocation of school leaders.
North Carolina New Schools (2014). NC center for educational leadership.
Parsloe, Eric. "What are coaching and mentoring." The Coaching and Mentoring Network. N.p., 2013. Web.
Parsloe, Eric. "What is mentoring?" MentorSET. N.p., 2008. Web.
Public Schools of North Carolina (2013). Education effectiveness model.
Rhodes, C., & Fletcher, S. (2013). Coaching and mentoring for self-efficacious leadership in schools. International Journal of Mentoring and Coaching in Education, 2(1), 47-63. doi:10.1108/20466851311323087
The Wallace Foundation. The school principal as leader: Guiding schools to better teaching and learning. The Wallace Foundation.
United States Department of Education (2001). The no child left behind act of 2001. Retrieved from U.S. Department of Education website.
Villani, S. (2006). Mentoring and induction programs that support new principals. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Yirci, R., & Kocabas, I. (2010). The importance of mentoring for school principals: a conceptual analysis. International Journal of Educational Leadership Preparation, 5(2).