An analysis of administrator attitudes toward tasks in school administration

Journal of Instructional Psychology, Sept, 2004 by Robin Rayfield, Thomas Diamantes

This study reports attitudes of current school administrators toward routine tasks in an attempt to offer insight into why the job may or may not be considered a wise career choice or even a desirable job. The research question for this study is: What makes the principal's position desirable and what makes this important leadership position less desirable? Researchers on the job of principal have discussed the increasing complex nature of educational leadership. Some have even suggested why the principal's position is one that fewer and fewer teachers seek to fill (Fenwick, 2000; Fenwick & Pierce, 2001). Survey results are reported indicating which tasks were rated positively and negatively by respondents as well as possible explanations for these results.

**********

There is research that suggests the educational community faces a crisis relative to the limited number of candidates for the position of principal. McAdams (1998) describes a pool of applicants for principal vacancies that continues to shrink. A recent report (Rayfield, 2002) suggests that the job of a principal is complex and difficult, and many duties of the principalship are not identified as positive factors in job satisfaction. In a paper presented at the University Council for Educational Administration annual convention Zellner, Jinkins, Gideon, and Doughty (2002) discuss the difficult nature of recruiting candidates to fill educational leadership vacancies. The notion that the principalship is a position that fewer and fewer educators aspire to is germane to the discussion (Fenwick, 2000; Fenwick & Pierce, 2001). Why would teachers choose not to become principals? Sergiovanni (2001, p. 17) reports on the ever-changing role principals are taking on. The duties of the principalship continue to expand (Portin, Shen, & Williams, 1998). This expansion has created a situation in which principals have to make choices relative to the duties that will consume their time. With a recent emphasis on educational leadership and a reduced emphasis on managerial duties, principal preparation programs are training administrators for the position of instructional leader (ISLLC, 1996). Portin, ct. al. (1998) provide evidence of building level administrators having to make difficult choices between instructional leadership and managerial tasks. What appears to be constant with regards to the principalship is that this role continues to expand (Sergiovanni, 2001, p.17). New responsibilities are added, however, no responsibilities are deleted. Sergiovanni's work on the complex and changing nature of the principalship may be frightening to many educators. The nature of the work a principal is expected to perform may also provide a clue as to why teachers are reluctant to become principals. Jenlink (2002) uses a metaphor of a bricoleur to describe the work of an administrator. That the successful administrator must use the materials available to lead the school might create apprehension in prospective administrators. The idea that administrators must be become "a jack of all trades and a master of all trades" certainly places pressure on the principals.

This study reports attitudes of current school administrators toward routine tasks in an attempt to offer insight into why the job may or may not be considered a wise career choice or even a desirable job. The research question for this study is: What makes the principal's position desirable and what makes this important leadership position less desirable?

The research design was quantitative, using survey research methods to collect data. The procedures included development of a random sample of schools in Ohio. This sample was selected from a list of all secondary schools belonging to the Ohio High School Athletic Association.

The design required development of a survey instrument. This was done with the assistance of a group of administrators. The experiences of this group of principals provided a background for development of survey items. Using survey research techniques, a random selection of secondary (grades 9-12) principals across Ohio was questioned relative to their perceptions of the duties they are required to perform. The study involved over 100 practicing secondary administrators. Urban, suburban, and rural principals provided a rich pool for data collection. Experience in educational administration ranged from 1 year to over 25 years.

Responding to statements using a Likert scale, participants provided answers to a survey developed by the researchers. Questions were posed that were directed at determining which duties of the principalship were reported as "satisfying" and which duties were reported as "not satisfying". Follow-up phone interviews with 33 of the participants allowed the researcher to clarify responses, and collect more detailed data. These results are not discussed in this report.

Survey Instrument

The survey came into existence after a discussion involving six principals at a roundtable discussion. Various "complaints" related to the duties each of the participants were required to perform were listed in a brainstorming session. The data collected at this initial session served to begin the development of the survey instrument. As a draft of the survey was made ready, additional administrators became involved. After a series of drafts, the final survey was developed. The survey included various duties principal must perform with participants indicating the degree to which they found various duties satisfying. The final survey instrument was pilot tested for ease of use using a small group of principals in the northwest Ohio area via email correspondences. In the second week of March 2002, 150 surveys were mailed to the sample across Ohio. 73 surveys were returned within two weeks. A reminder notice, complete with a second survey instrument was mailed out after the two-week deadline passed. The second mailing brought forth an additional 39 responses.

 

BNET TalkbackShare your ideas and expertise on this topic

Please add your comment:

  1. You are currently: a Guest |
  2.  

Basic HTML tags that work in comments are: bold (<b></b>), italic (<i></i>), underline (<u></u>), and hyperlink (<a href></a)

advertisement
advertisement
  • Click Here
  • Click Here
  • Click Here
advertisement
Click Here

Content provided in partnership with Thompson Gale