The purpose of this Q-methodology study was to develop an understanding of the perceptions of assistant principals of their current and idealized leadership practices. Fifty-six current assistant principals sorted a set of leadership behaviors two times—first based on dispositions currently deployed in their practice and a second time based on dispositions that they wish to employ. The Mid-Continent Research for Education and Learning empirically developed the sorted statements. Three model factor arrays were derived from each sort. The findings indicate a unique perspective between current and idealized practices for assistant principals. Moreover the dispositions geared toward second-order change did not appear in the positive side of the distribution on both the current and the idealized arrays.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BirkyV., SheltonM., & HeadleyS. (2006). An administrator's challenge: Encouraging teachers to be leaders. NASSP Bulletin, 90(2), 87–101.
2.
BossiM. (2008). Six dimensions of leadership. Leadership, 37(3), 8–12.
3.
BrownS. (1986). Q technique and method. In BerryW. D. & Lewis BeckM. S. (Eds.), New tools for social scientists (pp. 57–76). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
4.
BrownS. (1993). A primer on Q methodology. Operant Subjectivity, 16, 91–138.
5.
BrownS. (1996). Q methodology and qualitative research. Qualitative Health Research, 4, 561–567.
6.
CantwellZ. (1993). School based leadership and professional socialization of the assistant principal. Urban Education, 28(1), 49–68.
7.
CeliktenM. (2000). The instructional leadership tasks of high school assistant principals. Journal of Educational Administration, 39(1), 67–76.
8.
DareshJ. (2004). Mentoring school leaders: Professional promise or predictable problems. Educational Administration Quarterly, 40(4), 495–517.
9.
ElmoreR. (2000). Building a new structure for school leadership.Washington, DC: Albert Shanker Institute.
10.
FusarelliB. C., & MilitelloM. (2012). Racing to the top with leaders in rural, high poverty schools. Planning and Changing, 43(1/2), 46–56.
11.
GentilucciJ., & MutoC. (2007). Principals’ influence on academic achievement: The student perspective. NASSP Bulletin, 91(219), 219–236.
12.
GoldenL. (1997). The secondary school assistant principal as education leader: The New York City experience. NASSP Bulletin, 81(588), 100–105.
13.
GreenfieldW. (1985). Developing an instructional role for the assistant principal. Education and Urban Society, 18(1), 85–92.
14.
HaleE. L., & MoormanH. N. (2003). Preparing school principals: A national perspective on policy and program innovations.Washington, DC: Institute for Educational Leadership.
15.
HallingerP., & HeckR. (1996). Reassessing the principal's role in school effectiveness: A review of empirical research, 1980–1995. Education Administration Quarterly, 32(1), 5–44.
16.
HatrickE. (2008). A climate for success. School Administrator, 65(9), 54.
17.
HausmanC., NebekerA., McCrearyJ., & DonaldsonG.Jr. (2001). The worklife of the assistant principal. Journal of Educational Administration, 20(2), 136–157.
18.
HoffmannF., & JohnstonJ. (2005). Professional development for principals, by principals. Leadership, 34(5), 16–19.
19.
KaplanL., OwingsW., & NunneryJ. (2006). Principal quality: A Virginia study connecting interstate school leaders licensure consortium standards with student achievement. NASSP Bulletin, 89(643), 18.
20.
KelleyR., ThorntonB., & DaughertyR. (2005). Relationships between measures of leadership and school climate. Education, 126(1), 17–25.
MacmillianR. (2000). Leadership succession cultures of teaching and educational change. In HargreavesA. & BasciaN. (Eds.), The sharp edge of educational change (pp. 58–71). London: Falmer.
29.
MarksH., & PrintyS. (2003). Principal leadership and school performance: An integration of transformations and instructional leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 39(3), 370–397.
30.
MarshallJ., & HooleysR. (2006). The assistant principal: Leadership choices and challenges.Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
31.
MarzanoR., & KendallJ. (1997). National and state standards: The problems and the promise. NASSP Bulletin, 81(590), 26–41.
32.
MarzanoR. J., WatersT., & McNultyB. (2005). School leadership that works: From research to results.Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
33.
MatthewsJ. L., & CrowG. (2003). Being and becoming a principal: Role conceptions for contemporary principals and assistant principals.Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
MilitelloM., GajdaR., & BowersA. (2009). The role of accountability policies and alternative certification on principals’ perceptions of leadership preparation. Journal of Research on Leadership Education, 4(2), 30–66.
36.
MilitelloM., RallisS., & GoldringE. (2009). Leading with inquiry and action: How principals improve teaching and learning.Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
37.
MurphyJ., & OrrM. (2009). Industry standards for preparation programs in educational leadership. Learning & Teaching in Educational Leadership, 17(1), 9–11.
38.
MooreB. (2009). Emotional intelligence for school administrators: A priority for school reform?American Secondary Education, 37(3), 20–28.
39.
O'DonnellR., & WhiteG. (2005). Within the accountability era: Principals’ instructional leadership behaviors and student achievement. NASSP Bulletin, 89(645), 56–71.
40.
OgawaR. T., & BossertS. T. (1995). Leadership as an organizational quality. Educational Administration Quarterly, 31(4), 224–243.
41.
OrrM., KingC., & LaPointeM. (2010). Districts developing leaders: Lessons on consumer actions and program approaches from eight urban districts.Washington, DC: Wallace Foundation.
42.
OrrM., & OrphanosS. (2011). How graduate-level preparation influences the effectiveness of school leaders: A comparison of the outcomes of innovative and conventional leadership preparation programs on principals. Education Administration Quarterly, 40(1), 18–70.
43.
PetzkoV. (2008). The perceptions of new principals regarding the knowledge and skills important to their initial success. NASSP Bulletin, 92(3), 224–250.
44.
PophamW. J. (2010). Everything school leaders need to know about assessment.Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
45.
PounderD., & CrowG. (2005). Sustaining the pipeline of school administrators. Educational Leadership, 62(8), 56–60.
46.
RammerR. (2007). Call to action for superintendents: Change the way you hire principals. Journal of Educational Research, 101(2), 67–76.
47.
RobinsonV. (2008). Forging the links between distributed leadership and educational outcomes. Journal of Educational Administration, 46(2), 241–256.
48.
RobinsonV., LloydC., & RoweK. (2008). The impact of leadership on student outcomes: An analysis of the different effects of leadership types. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44(5), 635–674.
49.
SchlueterK., & WalkerJ. (2008). Selection of school leaders: A critical component for change. NASSP Bulletin, 92(5), 5–18.
50.
SchmolckP., & AtkinsonJ. (1997). PQMethod. Version 2.11. Retrieved from http://www.qmethod.org
51.
Stainton RogersR. (1995). Q-methodology. In SmithJ. A., HarreR., & Langen-HoveL. (Eds.), Rethinking methods in psychology (pp. 179–195). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
52.
SykesG. (2002). Models of preparation for the professions: Implications for educational leadership. In TuckerM. S. & CoddingJ. B. (Eds.), The principal challenge: Leading and managing schools in an era of accountability (pp. 143–200). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
53.
ThorntonB., PeltierG., & PerreaultG. (2004). Systems thinking: A skill to improve student achievement. The Clearing House, 77(5), 222–227.
54.
TuckerM. S., & CoddingJ. B. (Eds.). (2002). The principal challenge: Leading and managing schools in an era of accountabilitySan Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
WattsS., & StennerP. (2005). Doing Q methodology: Theory, method and interpretation. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 2(1), 67–91.
57.
WellsC., & FeunL. (2007). Implementation of learning community principles: A study of six high schools. NASSP Bulletin, 91(141), 141–160.
58.
WilliamsH. W. (2008). Characteristics that distinguish outstanding urban principals: Emotional intelligence, social intelligence and environmental adaptation. Journal of Management Development, 27(1), 36–54.
