According to recent data, the pool of principal candidates is shrinking. How is the role perceived and what can school districts do to make it more attractive in recruiting and retaining highly qualified administrators? This open-ended, qualitative study sought to uncover the underlying reasons leadership-skilled women teachers choose to remain in the classroom rather than seek administrative positions. Analysis of the data revealed a complex mix of individual choice and institutional constraint. The participants’ strong sense of personal teaching efficacy, commitment to family, and satisfaction derived from nurturing (and mentoring) their colleagues combined with their negative perception of the principalship contributed to their reasons for saying “no” to the principal's role.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AshforthB. E. (2001). Role transitions in organizational life: An identity-based perspective.Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
2.
BanksC. (2000). Gender and race as factors in educational leadership and administration. In The Jossey-Bass reader on educational leadership (pp. 217–250). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
3.
BarkerS. L. (1997, November). Is your successor in your schoolhouse? Finding principal candidates. NASSP Bulletin, 85–91.
4.
BirdC. (1979). The two-paycheck marriage.New York: Pocket Books.
5.
BlackmoreJ. (1993). In the shadow of men: The historical construction of administration as a “masculinist” enterprise. In BlackmoreJ. & KenwayJ. (Eds.), Gender matters in educational administration and policy (pp. 27–48). London: Falmer
6.
BlountJ. (1998). Destined to rule the schools.New York: State University of New York Press.
7.
BoultonP., & ColdronJ. (1998). Why women teachers say “stuff it” to promotion: A failure of equal opportunities?Gender and Education, 10(2), 149–161.
8.
BrunnerC. C. (1999). Sacred dreams: Women and the superintendency.Albany: State University of New York Press.
9.
ChristensenG. (1992, April). The changing role of the administrator in an accelerated school. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational research Association, San Francisco.
10.
CoplandM. (2001, March). The myth of the superprincipal. Phi Delta Kappan, 528–533.
CusickP. (2003, May 14). The principalship? No thanks. Education Week, 34–44.
13.
DealT., & PetersenK. (1994). The leadership paradox: Balancing logic and artistry in schools.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
14.
DeFeliceM., & SchrothG. (1999). Women in Texas who are certified but not employed as administrators. (ERIC issue RIEJAN2001 Clearinghouse SPO39337 Texas ED443787)
15.
DonaldsonG. (1997, Fall). On being a principal: The rewards and challenges of school leadership. New Directions for School Leadership, 5, 2.
Educational Research Service (ERS). (1998). Is there a shortage of qualified candidates for openings in the principalship: An exploratory study.Arlington, VA: Author.
18.
EvansP., & BartolomeF. (1984). The changing pictures of the relationship between career and family. Journal of Occupational Behavior, 5, 9–21.
19.
GlesneC. (1999). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction.New York: Longman.
20.
GoodladJ. (1983). A place called school: Prospects for the future.New York: McGraw Hill.
21.
GroganM. (1996). Voices of women aspiring to the superintendency.New York: State University of New York Press.
22.
HallD. T. (1976). Careers in organizations.Glenview, IL: Scott Foresman.
23.
HallD. T. (1985). Project work as an antidote to career plateauing in a declining engineering organization. Human Resource Management, 24, 271–292.
24.
HallD. T. (Ed.) (1986). Career development in organizations.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
25.
HarrisS., ArnoldM., LoweryS., & CrockerC. (2000, Spring). Deciding to become a principal: What factors motivate or inhibit that decision?ERS Spectrum, 40–45.
26.
HurleyJ. (2001, May 23). The principalship: Less may be more [online]. Education Week on the Web. Retrieved October 15, 2004, from http://www.edweek.org/ew.
27.
JonesB. A. (2001). Supply and demand for school principals: A nationwide study.Columbia, MO: Consortium for the Study of Educational Policy.
28.
KramK. E. (1985). Mentoring at work.Glenview, IL: Scott Foresman.
29.
LondonM., & StumpfS. A. (1986). Individual and organizational career development in changing times. In HallD. T. (Ed.), Career development in organizations (pp. 21–49). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
30.
MarshallC. (1985). The stigmatized woman: The professional woman in a male sex-typed career. Journal of Educational Administration, 23(2), 131–152.
31.
MarshallC. (1994). The administrative career: A casebook on entry, equity, and endurance.Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
32.
MatthewL. J., & CrowG. M. (2003). Being and becoming a principal: Role conceptions for contemporary principals and assistant principals.Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
33.
McAdamsR. (1998). Governance: Who'll run the schools?American School Board Journal, 185(8), 37–39.
34.
McCormick, (1987, December). The school executive shortage: How serious is it?Education Digest, 55, 2–5.
35.
MerriamS. (1988). Case study research in education: A qualitative approach.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
36.
MurphyJ. (1994). Transformational change and the evolving role of the principal: Early empirical evidence. In MurphyJ. & LouisK. S. (Eds.), Reshaping the principalship: Insights from transformational reform efforts (pp. 20–53). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
37.
MurphyJ., & BeckL. (1994). Restructuring the principalship: Challenges and possibilities. In MurphyJ. & LouisK. S. (Eds.), Reshaping the principalship: Insights from transformational reform efforts.Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
38.
National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). (1997, February). Programs for aspiring principals: Who participates?Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, OERI.
39.
NorthouseP. (1997). Leadership: Theory and practice.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
40.
OlsonL. (1999, April). Help wanted: A shortage of principals could threaten schools. Teacher Magazine, 11–13.
41.
OrtizF.I., & MarshallC. (1988). Women in educational administration. In BoyanN. (Ed.), Handbook of research on educational administration (pp. 123–141). New York: Longman.
42.
PattonM. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
43.
PetersenK. (1982). Making sense of principals’ work. Australian Administrator, 3(3), 1–4
44.
PortinB. S., ShenJ., & WilliamsR. C. (1998). The changing principalship and its impact: Voices from principals. NASSP Bulletin, 82, 1–8.
45.
RossJ. (1994, June). Beliefs that make a difference: The origins and impacts of teacher efficacy. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Canadian Association for Curriculum Studies, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
46.
ScheinE. H. (1986). A critical look at current career development theory and research. In HallD. T. (Ed.), Career development in organizations (pp. 310–331). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
47.
ShakeshaftC. (1989). Women in educational administration.London: Sage.
48.
ShakeshaftC. (1995). Gendered leadership styles in educational organizations. In LimerickB. & LingardB. (Eds.), Gender and changing educational management: Second yearbook of the Australian Council for Educational Administration (pp. 12–22). Rydalmere, Australia: Hodder Education.
49.
ShakeshaftC. (1999). The struggle to create a more gender inclusive profession. In MurphyJ. & LouisK. (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational administration (pp. 99–118). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
50.
StoreyW. D. (1976). Career dimensions I, II, III, and IV.Croton-on-Hudson, NY: General Electric.
51.
Van MaanenJ., & BarleyS. R. (1984). Occupational communities: Culture and control in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 6, 287–365.
52.
Wallace Foundation. (2003). Beyond the pipeline: Getting the principals we need, where they are needed most.Washington, DC: Author.
53.
WhitakerK. (1995). Principal burnout: Implications for professional development. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 9, 287–296.
54.
WulffK. (1996). The changing role of the principal. Project report, Executive Summary. Olympia, Association of Washington School Principals and University of Washington.
55.
YerkesD. M., & GuaglianoneC. L. (1998, November-December). Where have all the high school administrators gone?Thrust for Educational Leadership, 10–14.
56.
ZhengH., & Carpenter-HubinJ. (1999). Exploring gender differences in America's school administrator workforce: Statistical evidence from national surveys. Paper present at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Canada.
