This article presents data from a study of superintendents on their perceptions of the quality and quantity of principal candidates in one state. Through a survey, superintendents were asked to provide information about the quantity and quality of candidates for the principalship, level of satisfaction with mentoring/induction programs, and level of satisfaction with professional preparation programs. The respondents were also asked to provide responses to the factors discouraging applicants for the principalship, and suggestions to increase the pool of candidates for the principalship. Follow-up interviews were conducted with 10 superintendents in the state for more in-depth information about the quantity and quality of candidates for the principalship. Recommendations are offered about methods to increase candidate pools and retain quality individuals in principal roles.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BarkerS. (1997). Is your successor in the schoolhouse? Finding principal candidates. NASSP Bulletin, 81(592), 85–91.
2.
BowlesB., KingD., & CrowG. (2000, April). Viable principal candidates: Superintendents’ perspective. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
3.
BredesenP. (1993). Letting go of outlived professional identities: A study of role transition and role strain for principals in restructured schools. Educational Administration Quarterly, 29(1), 34–68.
4.
CaldwellW. (1986). Equity in principal salaries—A model. NASSP Bulletin, 70(488), 67–71.
5.
CarriganJ., BrownC., & JenkinsK. (1999, March). Principals’ salaries: Incentives or deterrents to professional advancement. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Education Finance Association, Seattle, WA.
6.
Educational Research Service. (1998, January). Is there a shortage of qualified candidates for openings in the principalship? An exploratory study. Prepared for the National Association of Elementary School Principals and the National Association for Secondary School Principals, Arlington, VA.
7.
Educational Research Service, National Association of Elementary School Principals, National Association of Secondary School Principals. (2000). The principal, keystone of a high-achieving school: Attracting and keeping the leaders we need. Arlington, VA.
8.
GalvinP., & SperryD. (1996). Educational leadership in Utah public schools: Results of the Utah school administrator survey.University of Utah: Utah Consortium for Educational Leaders.
9.
GoetzJ. P., & LeCompteM. D. (1984). Ethnography and qualitative design in educational research.Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
10.
JordanD. W., McCauleyH. S., & ComeauxJ. B. (1994). The supply and demand of public school principals and administrators in southwestern Louisiana: 1993–1997, 1–12. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 375 525)
11.
KellerB. (1998, May 15) In age of accountability, principals feel the heat. Education Week, 1(1), 16.
12.
LashwayL. (1999, Spring). Preparing school leaders. Research Roundup, 41(4), 1–4.
13.
LortieD., CrowG., & ProlmanS. (1983). The elementary school principal in suburbia: An occupational and organizational study.Washington, DC: National Institute of Education.
14.
MaloneB., & CaddellT. (2000, January–February). A crisis in leadership: Where are tomorrow's principals?Clearinghouse, 73(3), 162–164.
15.
McCormickK. (1987, December). The school executive shortage: How serious is it?Education Digest, 52(8), 2–5.
16.
Montana School Boards Association. (1999). A study of the shortage of school administrators in Montana.Helena, MT: Author.
17.
MurphyJ. (Ed.) (1993). Preparing tomorrow's school leaders: Alternative designs.University Park, PA: University Council for Educational Administration.
18.
MurphyJ. (1994). Transformational change and the evolving role of the principal: Early empirical evidence. In MurphyJ., and LouisK. S. (Eds.), Reshaping the principalship: Insights from transformational reform efforts (pp. 20–53). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
19.
National Policy Board for Educational Administration. (1990). The preparation of school administrators: A statement of purpose.Fairfax, VA: Author.
20.
OlsenL. (1999, April). Help wanted: A shortage of principals could threaten schools. Teacher Magazine, 10(7), 11–13.
21.
OlsenL. (2001, January 10). Grant program aims to nurture school leaders. Education Week, 20(16), 1, 17.
22.
PetersenK. D., & WarrenV. W. (1994). Changes in school governance and principals’ roles: Changing jurisdictions, new power dynamics, and conflict in restructured schools. In MurphyJ., & LouisK. S. (Eds.), Reshaping the principalship: Insights from transformational change efforts (pp. 219–236). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
23.
PortinB. S., ShenJ., & WilliamsR. C. (1998). The changing principalship and its impact: Voices from principals. NASSP Bulletin, 82(602), 1–8.
24.
PounderD. G. (1994). Educational and demographic trends: Implications for women's representation in school leadership. Advances in Educational Administration, 3, 15–19.
25.
PounderD. G., & MerrillR. J. (2001). Job desirability of the high school principalship: A job choice perspective. Educational Administration Quarterly, 37(1), 27–57.
26.
SandhamJ. L. (2001, April 4). California faces shortage of administrators, report warns. Education Week, 20(29), 25.
27.
SteinbergJ. (2000, September 3). Nation's schools struggling to find enough principals. New York Times, A1, A4.
28.
TirozziG., & FerrandinoV. (2000, October 18). The shortage of principals continues. Education Week, 20(7) 1, 15.
29.
WeissC. H., & CamboneJ. (1994). Principals, shared decision making, and school reform. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 16(3), 287–301.
30.
WhitakerK. S. (1995). Principal burnout: Implications for professional development. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 9(3), 287–296.
31.
WhitakerK. S. (1998). The changing role of the principal: View from the inside. Planning and Changing, 29(3), 130–150.
32.
WhitakerK. S. (2000). Executive summary of superintendent perceptions of quantity and quality of candidates for the principalship. Unpublished manuscript.
33.
WhitakerK. S., & BarnettB. G. (1999). A partnership model linking K–12 school districts and leadership preparation programs. Planning and Changing, 30(3/4), 126–143.
