The purpose of this qualitative study was to explore the connections between principal succession and professional learning through the analysis of the current practices in leader development, support, and retention in two Georgia state school districts. The findings of the cross-case analysis were summarized in five major themes: First, a key component to the overall success of principal professional learning and succession is a visionary superintendent. Second, planning for principal succession, school districts strongly favor local applicants. Third, building leaders from within the district is an effective way to ensure leader continuity. Fourth, developing future principals, school districts express strong preference for the nonuniversity leader preparation programs, designed to address their specific needs. Finally, leader professional development and succession are tightly connected. Implications for research and practice are offered.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AuerbachC. F., & SilversteinL. B. (2003). Qualitative data: An introduction to coding and analysis.Boston, MA: Pearson.
2.
BartyK., ThomsonP., BlackmoreJ., & SachsJ. (2005). Unpacking the issues: Researching the shortage of school principals in two states in Australia.Australian Educational Researcher,32(3), 1–18.
3.
BengtsonE. (2010). Examining principal succession: Perspectives of principals and central office leaders (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from http://dbs.galib.uga.edu
4.
BengtsonE., ZepedaS. J., & ParyloO. (2013). School systems’ practices of controlling socialization during principal succession: Looking through the lens of an organizational socialization theory.Educational Management, Administration and Leadership,41(2), 143–164.
Browne-FerrignoT., & MuthR. (2004). Leadership mentoring in clinical practice: Role socialization, professional development, and capacity building.Educational Administration Quarterly,40(4), 468–494.
7.
CardnoC. (2005). Leadership and professional development: The quiet revolution.International Journal of Educational Management,19(4), 292–306.
8.
CardnoC., & FitzgeraldT. (2005). Leadership learning: A development initiative for experienced New Zealand principals.Journal of Educational Administration,43(3), 316–329.
9.
CatanoN., & StrongeJ. H. (2006). What are principals expected to do? Congruence between principal evaluation and performance standards.NASSP Bulletin,90, 221–237.
10.
CooleyV. E., & ShenJ. (2000). Factors influencing applying for urban principal- ship.Education and Urban Society,32(4), 443–454.
11.
CowieM., & CrawfordM. (2007). Principal preparation—Still an act of faith?School Leadership and Management,27(2), 129–146.
12.
CranstonN. (2008). The use of cases in the leadership development of principals: A recent initiative in one large education system in Australia.Journal of Educational Administration,46(5), 581–597.
13.
CranstonN., TromansC., & ReugebrinkM. (2004). Forgotten leaders: What do we know about the deputy principalship in secondary schools?International Journal of Leadership in Education,7(3), 225–242.
14.
CrottyM. (1998). The foundations of social research: Meaning and perspective in the research process.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
15.
CrowG. M. (2006). Complexity and the beginning principal in the United States: Perspectives on socialization.Journal of Educational Administration,44(4), 310–325.
16.
DareshJ. (2004). Mentoring school leaders: Professional promise or predictable problems?Educational Administration Quarterly,40(4), 495–517.
17.
DavidsonB. M., & TaylorD. L. (1998, April). The effects of principal succession in an accelerated school. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.
18.
DavidsonB. M., & TaylorD. L. (1999, April). Examining principal succession and teacher leadership in school restructuring. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Canada.
19.
DempsterN., & BerryV. (2003). Blindfolded in a minefield: Principals’ ethical decision-making.Cambridge Journal of Education,33(3), 457–477.
20.
DenzinN. K. (1992). Symbolic interactionism and cultural studies: The politics of interpretation.Oxford, England: Blackwell.
21.
DuncanH. E. (2011, April). Supporting and developing school leaders: Do gender and experience levels affect areas of need? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
22.
EllerJ. (2010). An evaluation of a development program for new principals.Qualitative Deport,15(4), 956–965.
23.
EvansP. M., & MohrN. (1999). Professional development for principals: Seven core beliefs.Phi Delta Kappan,80(7), 530–532.
24.
FenwickL. T., & PierceM. C. (2002). Professional development of principals.Washington, DC: ERIC Clearing House on Teaching and Teacher Education.
25.
FinkD. (2005). Leadership for mortals: Developing and sustaining school leaders.Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
26.
FinkD. (2010). The succession challenge: Building and sustaining leadership capacity through succession management.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
27.
FinkD. (2011, April). Leadership succession in three countries. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
28.
FinkD., & BraymanC. (2004). Principals’ succession and educational change.Journal of Educational Administration,42(4), 431–449.
29.
GriffithJ. (1999). The school leadership/school climate relation: Identification of school configurations associated with change in principals.Educational Administration Quarterly,35(2), 267–291.
30.
GrissomJ. A., & HarringtonJ. R. (2010). Investing in administrator efficacy: An examination of professional development as a tool for enhancing principal effectiveness.American Journal of Education,116(4), 583–612.
31.
GroganM., & AndrewsR. (2002). Defining preparation and professional development for the future.Educational Administration Quarterly,38(2), 233–256.
32.
HaarJ. (2004). The role of professional development in the principalship.Catalyst for Change,33(2), 20–24.
33.
HaleE. L., & MoormanH. N. (2003). Preparing school principals: A national perspective on policy and program innovations.Washington, DC: Institute for Educational Leadership.
HartA. W. (1991). Leader succession and socialization: A synthesis.Review of Educational Research,61(4), 451–474.
38.
HessF. M., & KellyA. P. (2007). Learning to lead: What gets taught in principal preparation programs.Teachers College Record,109(1), 244–274.
39.
HippK., & WeberP. (2008). Developing a professional learning community among urban school principals.Journal of Urban Learning, Teaching, and Research,4, 46–56.
40.
HoffmannF. J., & JohnsonJ. H. (2005). Professional development for principals, by principals.Leadership,34(5), 16–19.
HonigM. I., CoplandM. A., RaineyL., LortonJ. A., & NewtonM. (2010). Central office transformation for district-wide teaching and learning improvement.Washington, DC: Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy.
43.
HouleJ. C. (2006). Professional development for urban principals in underperforming schools.Education and Urban Society,38(2), 142–159.
44.
JohnsonB. (2001, January). The dynamics of succession: A qualitative study of principal succession in four elementary schools of the Toronto Catholic District School Board. Paper presented at the 14th Annual International Congress for School Effectiveness and Improvement, Toronto, Canada.
LichtmanM. (2010). Qualitative research in education (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
47.
LincolnY. S., & CubaE. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry.Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
48.
MacmillanR. B., MeyerM. J., & NorthfieldS. (2004). Trust and its role in principal succession: A preliminary examination of a continuum of trust.Leadership and Policy in Schools,3(4), 275–294.
49.
MarshallJ. C., PritchardR. J., & GundersonB. H. (2001). Professional development: What works and what doesn't.Principal Leadership,1(6), 64–68.
50.
MerriamS. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case studies applications in education.San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
51.
MestryR., & SchmidtM. (2010). Portfolio assessment as a tool for promoting professional development of school principals: A South African perspective.Education and Urban Society,42(3), 352–373.
52.
MillerT. N., DevinM., & ShoopR. J. (2007). Closing the leadership gap: How districts and university partnerships shape effective school leaders.Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
53.
MohnC., & MachellJ. (2005). Reconceptualizing school leader learning: Blurring the lines between staff development and university-based principal preparation programs.Planning and Changing,36(1-2), 120–127.
54.
NiescheR. (2010). Discipline through documentation: A form of governmentality for school principals.Leadership in Education,13(3), 249–263.
55.
NormoreA. H. (2004a). The edge of chaos: School administrators and accountability.Journal of Educational Administration,42(1), 55–77.
56.
NormoreA. H. (2004b). Leadership success in schools: Planning, recruitment, and socialization.International Electronic Journal for Leadership in Learning,3(10), Special Issue.
57.
NormoreA. H. (2010). Historical context of graduate programs in educational leadership. In Jean-MarieG., & NormoreA. H. (Eds.), Educational leadership preparation: Innovation and interdisciplinary approaches to the EdD and graduate education (pp. 7–33). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
58.
ParyloO. (2013). Collaborative principal preparation programs: A systematic review and synthesis of qualitative research.International Journal of Educational Leadership Preparation,8(2), 177–191.
59.
PattonM. Q. (2001). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (3rd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
60.
PetersonK. (2002). The professional development of principals: Innovations and opportunities.Educational Administration Quarterly,38(2), 213–232.
61.
PetzkoV. N. (2004). Tailoring professional development for a better fit.Principal Leadership,5(3), 16–21.
62.
PounderD., & CrowG. (2005). Sustaining the pipeline of school administrators: A systems approach cultivates leadership in schools and supports both novice and experienced administrators.Educational Leadership,62(8), 56–60.
63.
PynesJ. E. (2004). The implementation of workforce and succession planning in the public sector.Public Personnel Management,33(4), 389–404.
64.
ReynoldsC., WhiteR., BraymanC., & MooreS. (2008). Women and secondary school principal rotation/succession: A study of the beliefs of decision makers in four provinces.Canadian Journal of Education,31(1), 32–54.
65.
RieckhoffB. S., & LarsenC. (2011, April). The impact if a professional development network on leadership development and school improvement goals. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
66.
RothwellW. J. (2005). Effective succession planning: Ensuring leadership continuity and building talent from within (3rd ed.). New York, NY: American Management Association.
67.
RowanB., & DenkC. E. (1984). Management succession, school socioeconomic status, and basic skills achievement.American Educational Research Journal,21(8), 517–537.
68.
RozaM. (2003). A matter of definition: Is there truly a shortage of school principals?Seattle, WA: Center on Reinventing Public Education.
69.
SalazarP. (2007). The professional development needs of rural high school principals: A seven-state study.Rural Educator,28(8), 20–27.
70.
SeidmanI. (1998). Interview as qualitative research: A guide for researcher in education and the social sciences.New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
71.
ShumateB. T., MunozM. A., & WinterP. A. (2005). Evaluating teacher-leaders for careers as administrators: Effects of job attributes, teacher leader role, and teaching assignment area.Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education,18(1), 21–38.
72.
SorensonR. (2005). Helping new principals succeed.American School Board Journal,192(4), 61–63.
73.
StakeR. (2010). Qualitative research: Studying how things work.New York, NY: Gilford Press.
74.
StineD. E. (1998, April). A change of administration: A significant organizational life event. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.
75.
Wallace Foundation. (2003). Beyond the pipeline: Getting the principals we need, where they are needed most.New York, NY: Author.
76.
Wallace Foundation. (2012). The making of a principal: Five lessons in leadership training.New York, NY: Author.
77.
Wallace Foundation. (2013). District matter: Cultivating the principals—Urban schools needed.New York, NY: Author.
78.
WalkerA., & KwanP. (2009). Linking professional, school, demographic, and motivational factors to desire for principalship.Educational Administration Quarterly,45(4), 590–615.
79.
WhitakerK. S. (2003). Principal role changes and influence on principal recruitment and selection: An international perspective.Journal of Educational Administration,41(1), 37–54.
80.
ZepedaS. J. (2011). Professional development: What works (2nd ed.). Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education.
81.
ZimmermanJ. (2007). School leader succession: A description of transitional experiences.ERS Spectrum,25(4), 33–44.
