The coprincipalship has been suggested as an organizational structure that addresses the increasing workload and time demands of the principal as well as the shortage of qualified applicants for the position. This article presents the findings of a qualitative study of coprincipals in public and private schools in California, Illinois, Massachusetts, Maine, Oregon, and Wisconsin. The participants describe the rationale for the model, its strengths and weaknesses and how it functions. The coprincipals expressed particular satisfaction at sharing workloads and decision making because they were not isolated as solo leaders. Though the coprincipalship model offers possibilities for making the role of principal attractive, additional information is needed to develop a sustainable model.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BellC., & ChaseS. (1993). The underrepresentation of women in school leadership. In MarshallC. (Ed.), The new politics of race and gender (pp. 141–154). Washington, DC: Falmer.
2.
BjörkL. (2000). Introduction: Women in the superintendency—Advances in research and theory. Educational Administration Quarterly, 36(1), 5–17.
3.
Boris-SchacterS., & LangerS. (2002). Caught between nostalgia and utopia. Education Week, 21(21), 34–37.
DassS. (1995). Inside the co-principalship: A naturalistic study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Oregon, Eugene.
11.
DiPaolaM., & Tschannen-MoranM. (2003). The principalship at a crossroads: A study of the conditions and concerns of principals. National Association of Secondary School Principals Bulletin, 87(634), 43–65.
12.
EckmanE. (2004). Similarities and differences in role conflict, role commitment, and job satisfaction for female and male high school principals. Educational Administration Quarterly, 40(3), 366–387.
13.
EckmanE. (2006). Coprincipals: Characteristics of dual leadership teams. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 5(2), 89–107.
FontanaA., & FreyJ. (2000). The interview: From structured questions to negotiated text. In DenzinN., & LincolnY. (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 645–672). Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage.
16.
GilbreathJ. (2001). The co-principalship as implemented in California Public Schools. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Pepperdine University, Malibu, CA.
GoodwinR., CunninghamM., & EagleT. (2005). The changing role of the secondary principal in the United States: An historical perspective. Journal of Educational Administration and History, 37(1), 1–17.
19.
GronnP. (1999). Substituting for leadership: The neglected role of the leadership couple. Leadership Quarterly, 10(1), 41–62.
20.
GronnP. (2002). Distributed leadership. In LeithwoodK., & HalligerP. (Eds.), Second international handbook of education leadership and administration (pp. 653–696). New York: Kluwer Academic.
21.
GronnP., & HamiltonA. (2004). “A bit more life in the leadership”: Coprincipalship as distributed leadership practice. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 3(1), 3–35.
22.
GronnP., & Rawlings-SanaeiF. (2003). Principal recruitment in a climate of leadership disengagement. Australian Journal of Education, 47(2), 172–184.
23.
GrooverE. C. (1989). Perceptions of the co-principalship as implemented in High Point, North Carolina. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.
24.
GrubbW. N., & FlessaJ. (2006). “A job too big for one”: Multiple principals and other non-traditional approaches to school leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 42(4), 518–559.
HelfandD. (2003, December 20). Co-principals: Divvying up a monster job. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved January 3, 2005, from http://ww.bridges4kids.org/phprint.php/
27.
HoustonP. (1998). The ABC's of administrative changes. Education Week, 17(38), 32–44.
28.
Institute for Educational Leadership. (2000, October). Leadership for student learning: Reinventing the principalship: A report of the Task Force on the Principalship.Washington, DC: Author.
29.
JacksonP. (1977, May). Lonely at the top: Observations on the genesis of administrative isolation. School Review, pp. 425–432.
30.
JamesonR. F.Jr. (2002). Understanding the co-principalship as a leadership model for large comprehensive high schools. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.
31.
KennedyC. (2002). The principalship: Too much for one person?Principal, 82(1) 28–31.
32.
KorbaW. (1982). The co-principal plan: Some insights and some cautions. NASSP Bulletin, 66(456), 57–63.
33.
LincolnY., & GubaE. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry.Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
34.
MatthewsL., & CrowG. (2003). Being and becoming a principal: Role conceptions for contemporary principals and assistant principals.Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
35.
MendenhallD. R. (1977). Relationship of organizational structure and leadership behavior to teacher job satisfaction in IGE schools (Technical Rep. No. 412). Madison, WI: Wisconsin Research and Development Center for Cognitive Learning.
36.
MertzN., & McNeelyS. (1990, April). Groundbreakers: Females who “succeed” in male dominated line administrative positions. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED320299)
37.
MuffsM., & SchmitzL. (1999). Job sharing for administrators: A consideration for public schools. NASSP Bulletin, 83(610), 70–73.
38.
NapholzL. (1995). Indexes of psychological well-being and role commitment among working women. Journal of Employment Counseling, 32(1), 22–32.
39.
NasoP. (2005, January/February). Principal: Creating conditions for collaborative school leadership.Wellesley, MA: Massachusetts Association for Curriculum and Development.
40.
NevillD., & DamicoS. (1974). Development of a role conflict questionnaire for women: Some preliminary findings. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42(5), 743.
41.
PatersonF. (2006, April). New models of headship: Co-headship.London: National College for School Leadership.
42.
PierceM., & FenwickL. (2002). Principal leadership: Maybe less is more. Principal, 82(1), 31.
43.
PounderD., & MerrillR. (2001). Lost luster: Redesigning the principalship could have a positive impact on the pipeline supply. School Administrator, 58(10), 18–20.
44.
ProtheroeN. (2001, April). Attracting and retaining high quality people for the principalship: Problems and possibilities. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA
45.
RiehlC., & ByrdM. (1997). Gender differences among new recruits to school administration: Cautionary footnotes to an optimistic tale. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 19(1), 45–64.
46.
RyanG., & BernardH. R. (2000). Data management and analysis methods. In DenzinN., & LincolnY. (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 769–802). Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage.
47.
SchneiderG. T. (1984). Teacher involvement in decision-making: Zones of acceptance, decision conditions, and job satisfaction. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 18(1), 25–32.
48.
ShakeshaftC. (1999). The struggle to create a more gender-inclusive profession. In MurphyJ., & SeashoreK. (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational administration (2nd ed., pp. 99–118). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
49.
ShockleyR., & SmithD. (1981). The co-principal: Looking at realities. The Clearing House: A Journal for Modern Junior and Senior High Schools, 55, 90–93.
50.
WestE. (1978, February). The co-principalship: Administrative realism. High School Journal, pp. 241–246.
51.
WeitzmanE. (2000). Software and qualitative research. In DenzinN., & LincolnY. (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 803–820). Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage.
52.
YoungM., & McLeodS. (2001). Flukes, opportunities, and planned interventions: Factors affecting women's decisions to become school administrators. Educational Administration Quarterly, 37(4), 462–502.
