Are Changing School Needs Reflected in Principal Job Ads?

Abstract

The roles of the school principal continue to evolve due to shifting demands as well as ever-changing organizational needs. As new leadership skill sets emerge, we might expect school systems to respond by actively seeking different credentials, experiences, and dispositions of their principal candidates. This study of 279 principal job advertisements from 7 states showed little reconceptualization of building-level leaders’ roles and responsibilities. The number of job advertisements that merely noted traditional, management-oriented responsibilities dwarfed those position announcements that mentioned more future-oriented job roles. Potential implications of the ubiquitous similarity of principal job advertisements include failure to adequately match candidates with organizational needs and an inability to sufficiently adapt to changing societal contexts.

Keywords

leadership hiring principals career

“There is a principal shortage! There is an administrator shortage! There is a school leadership shortage!” These rally cries are not new and continue to pervade school districts throughout the United States. Concerns about school leadership shortages increased in the 1990s and were solidified in a joint report from the National Association of Elementary School Principals and the National Association of Secondary School Principals (1998). In their report, about half of the surveyed school districts indicated that they had difficulty finding qualified candidates for principal positions in the past year.

In a project funded by The Wallace Foundation, Roza, Celio, Harvey, and Wishon (2003) investigated this school leadership shortage and found that the shortage was a matter of definition. In other words, although there were more people certified to be principals than principal vacancies, “some districts and areas [were] experiencing difficulties finding good school principals” (Roza et al., 2003, p. 7, italics added). Nevertheless, Roza et al. explained, “While human resource directors are quite satisfied with their new hires, superintendents continue to express dissatisfaction about inadequate leadership capabilities of new principals” (p. 9). Additionally, DiPaola and Tschannen-Moran (2003) found that nearly half of the superintendents surveyed in their study believed that current holders of principal licenses lacked the right dispositions while almost 40% of superintendents reported that current principal certification holders had poor judgment.

These dual concerns about principal shortages and the quality of new principal hires remain an issue. Pijanowski, Hewitt, and Brady (2009) remarked that superintendents often underestimate the applicant pool size because they tend to overlook younger, inexperienced candidates in their search for more qualified applicants. Recently, Hine (2013) analyzed various studies on the topic of the school leadership shortage and confirmed these findings. Hine noted that “with large numbers of individuals already leaving school administration, districts are experiencing difficulty replacing those leaving, and finding that the replacements often lack the necessary skills required for school administration” (p. 275). Having strong and applicable school leadership skills matters; these skills can have an impact on students’ lives. For example, the School Leaders Network (2014) calculated that a principal has the potential—through increased effectiveness and decreased turnover—to influence students’ future earnings by US$30024.07. Similarly, Marzano, Waters, and McNulty (2005) found that the principal contributes 25% to the total school influence on a child’s academic performance.

Shortages in both the quality and number of principal candidates have resurfaced in the current political climate. For example, the federal government recently attempted to address the needs of the lowest performing schools by allocating $3.5 billion for School Improvement Grants (U.S. Department of Education, 2009). One focus of these grants was an explicit need for turnaround principals. These principals are charged with replacing ineffective principals and quickly improving low-performing public schools. In response to this effort, McLester (2011) noted how “there simply aren’t enough qualified principals to replace those mandated to be fired under two of the four school improvement models” (para. 1). Thus, since both the transformational and turnaround federal models set a directive to replace the school leader, universities, nonprofits, and other organizations have begun to introduce new leadership training initiatives. It is unclear, however, if the qualities and skills emphasized by these new training initiatives are communicated in the job advertisement phase of hiring these new school leaders.

The role of school principals continues to evolve in other areas as well due to competing demands and changing organizational needs. School leaders are now called on to align curricula to national-level standards (Manley & Hawkins, 2013), have the ability to effectively integrate technology into the learning and teaching process (Richardson, Flora, & Bathon, 2013), establish standards-based grading and competency-based education systems (Guskey, 2008; Scriffiny, 2008), and facilitate changes that address the varied needs of diverse learners (Riehl, 2000). These are just a few of the many developments that require rethinking or expanding some aspects of building-level leaders’ work.

This type of rethinking, however, may not be occurring. For example, DeArmond, Denice, and Campbell (2014) surveyed superintendents in Washington state and reported that “game-changing principals are in short supply” and “many districts hire school leaders late and are unsatisfied with the results” (p. 3). The authors also found that superintendents “underinvest in hiring and are unhappy with the outcome” (p. 4). A strategy found to address the shortage of qualified school principals was to align “human resource strategies to find and hire strong principals” and use “screening practices that reflect the current demands of the job” (p. 9). One strategy is to improve how districts recruit at the onset through the job advertisement.

Corporations, nonprofits, government agencies, and nongovernmental organizations all acknowledge the need for their leadership to evolve (Johansen, 2012). Organizations must address rapidly changing external environments in which increased emphasis is placed on adaptability, maximizing workforce productivity in the face of global and technological competition, channeling organizational activity into previously unserved domains, and navigating complex local, global, and online spaces. In the corporate sector, for example, we see new job titles emerging such as Chief Innovation Officer, User Experience Manager, Director of Social Media, and Global Strategy Manager. The new roles and titles address organizational responsibilities that a decade ago were nonexistent (Hoyle & Wallace, 2005). However, when investigating the principal shortage issue, these shifts in leadership demands are not as evident.

Nevertheless, these modern shifts are affecting the principal shortage, decreasing tenure for principals, and increasing the complexity of the job of being a school principal. For example, stress, time, low pay, and increased accountability measures are reported as major deterrents to a principal’s tenure (DiPaola & Tschannen-Moran, 2003). Furthermore, principals often report feeling that they are pulled away from satisfying job tasks and asked to spend more time on less satisfying activities (DiPaola & Tschannen-Moran, 2003). Similarly, Gajda and Militello (2008) noted that stress, low pay, and time were some of the reasons why prospective school leaders in Massachusetts chose not to pursue principal positions.

The intent of the current study was to explore whether the shifts and increasing demands of the principalship are reflected in job advertisements for vacant principal positions. Much as noneducational sectors are rethinking job announcements, hiring criteria, induction and mentoring, and other human resources processes, and the assumption is that school systems will need to do the same. In this study, we set out to better understand the current principal job market through the content of job advertisements.

Conceptual Framework

This study is conceptually framed within the work of Bolman and Deal (2013). Bolman and Deal noted how organizations exist within an interplay of four frames: political, structural, human resources, and symbolic. Each frame offers advantages but each also has its limitations. Organizational change thus should be viewed from all four frames. Bolman and Deal’s four frames served as the lenses through which we analyzed our data and discussed our findings. The four frames are described by Bolman and Deal as follows:

Political Frame. Focuses on goals and decisions that emerge from bargaining, negotiation, and jockeying for position among competing stakeholders. The metaphor is the jungle. A leader’s agenda must be based on building a base of power.

Structural Frame. Focuses on goals, roles, policies, procedures, and formal relationships. Structures fit into the environment and the given technology. The metaphor is the factory. Leaders must align structures with the task and the environment.

Human Resources Frame. Focuses on individuals, feelings, skills, attitudes, and beliefs. The metaphor is the family. Leaders must align the organization with the human needs of its various stakeholders.

Symbolic Frame. Focuses on culture, rituals, and ways of doing things. The metaphor is the theater. Leaders must create meaning within organizations.

This conceptual framework is useful when thinking about what makes a principal effective. For example, according to Great Schools (2013), great principals have four characteristics in common. These characteristics directly align with this conceptual model. First, great principals take responsibility for school success. By focusing on the structural frame, principals must budget and develop innovative programs to support teachers and students. Second, great principals lead teaching and learning in their schools. By focusing on the symbolic frame, principals must demonstrate they too are focused on teaching and learning. Third, great school leaders hire, develop, and retain excellent teachers and staff. By focusing on the human resource frame, principals dedicate time to getting the right people in the right job and keeping them there. Fourth and finally, great building-level leaders develop a strong school community. Through the political frame, principals must be attuned to the needs of the school and students through the community environment.

Literature Review

Changes in P-12 education require that school leaders adapt to the symbolic frame by modernizing their visions for the future (Kurland, Peretz, & Hertz-Lazarowitz, 2010; Leithwood, Harris, & Hopkins, 2008; Rieckhoff & Larsen, 2012), be current on the structural frame by being up to date with current policies and innovations including technology developments in education (McLeod, Bathon, & Richardson, 2011), and stay focused on the political frame by implementing changes within and outside the school environment by working with a variety of constituents (Leithwood et al., 2009). Furthermore, leaders foster the human resources frame by hiring and developing passionate teachers with the qualities and skills that complement those of the existing teaching staff (Trimble, 2001). What follows is a discussion of relevant school leadership research literature categorized by each of the organizational frames proposed by Bolman and Deal (2013). It is important to note that Bolman and Deal (2013) stress that effective leadership involves using multiple frames to look at the same issue. As such, we use technology as an example of how one issue can and should be viewed through different lenses.

Structural Frame

The role of the building-level leader traditionally has revolved around understanding the intricacies of management and administration. These duties included mastering structures of finances, transportation systems, student testing, accountability, facilities management, as well as the management of data and personnel (Guthrie & Schuermann, 2010; Hallinger, 2011). Some researchers have focused on the structural role of school principals regarding organizational management as it relates to culture as well as climate (Tschannen-Moran & Gareis, 2015). Effective school leadership and structural management have been linked to numerous positive outcomes including school conditions and student learning (Day, Sammons, Hopkins, Leithwood, & Kington, 2008; Hargreaves, Moore, Fink, Brayman, & White, 2003; Leithwood, Aitken, & Jantzi, 2006).

Hess and Kelly (2005) found that “no less than 63 percent of superintendents report that raising student achievement is the biggest part of a principal’s evaluation” (p. 37). However, as Leithwood et al. (2009) noted, “Just ensuring that teachers adhere to state standards is not nearly sufficient; it is how those standards are implemented that will determine the richness of the curriculum experienced by students” (p. 612). The integration of Common Core Standards, No Child Left Behind policies, and a plethora of state-level mandates demand that school principals set up building-level structures that foster high academic achievement that adhere to these structural accountability demands (Goertz & Duffy, 2003; Manley & Hawkins, 2013; Spillane & Kenney, 2012).

Since the 1990s, the focus of technology integration has become an important, if often unrealized, duty of school principals (McLeod & Richardson, 2011). This focus on technology in schools requires that leaders address the needs of the infrastructure in the building and classrooms, set appropriate budgets, and develop plans, policies, and procedures for its effective use in schools. This focus on technology is predicated on a principal’s ability to foster a vision for school technology leadership (Richardson et al., 2013). Leonard and Leonard (2006) noted the need for technology leadership by stating that the “quality of technology integration in schools is likely to be determined largely through the caliber of the leadership to sustain it” (p. 223).

Political Frame

A variety of stakeholders must be involved in all school reform efforts. These stakeholders include teachers, students, parents, and the community at large. Principals must be politically savvy community builders who create partnerships between various stakeholders that have vested but competing interests in the success of their schools (Witt & Orvis, 2010). Moving schools in new directions requires the involvement of all stakeholders who invest in the business of education. Principals lead this political charge.

To meet changing external demands, principals must avoid perceived quick fixes that often do not align with larger societal and community schooling needs and desires. For example, building-level leaders may focus on getting so-called ‘bubble students’—those who are just a few points shy of the next higher level—to answer a few more questions correctly on the state assessment rather than investing their efforts in substantially improving classroom instruction. Similarly, a school’s focus may be on simply getting technology into classrooms rather than shifting pedagogy or altering learning experiences for students in ways that reflect the new affordances that digital learning tools bring. If new learning environments are to be created that better meet the needs of students and society, principals’ political leadership will be imperative.

An often forgotten voice within schools lies with the student body. Prensky (2005, 2008) and Keddie (2015) suggested that students should help design their own educational experience by integrating personalized instruction and focusing lifelong learning in an effort to aid school administrators in the way they think about education. When redesigning schools, Prensky (2005) suggested “encouraging decision-making among students, involving students in designing instruction, and getting input from students on how they would teach” (p. 10). Schools should utilize students’ input and perspectives to help reform educational processes (Christensen, Horn, & Johnson, 2011; Witt & Orvis, 2010). Incorporating student voice into decision-making requires principals to be actively engaged with the student body and to rethink power differentials and cultural norms within the school. This reassessment requires an expanded definition of who belongs in the political frame of the organization.

Technology initiatives often live or die in the political frame. Initiatives that provide for one computing device per student is a prime example of how school leaders need to be attuned to politics. Sauers, Richardson, and McLeod (2014) noted how implementing such technology initiatives requires ongoing communication with stakeholders where “creating a technology-rich environment can be seen like a political movement” (p. 1193). Richardson, LaFrance, and Beck (2015) also noted how politics was a leading challenge for principals who lead online schools and programs.

Human Resources Frame

All building-level change efforts must include partnerships with classroom teachers. Student exposure to information, tools, and learning environments requires teachers to figure out ways to use, build on, and strengthen the knowledge and skills that students already acquired before they enter school (Prensky, 2008). Teachers are now being called on to “be the explainers, the context providers, the meaning makers, and the evaluators of information that kids find on their own” (Prensky, 2008, p. 42). This type of teaching creates a dramatic shift from the way that educators have been prepared for their careers. Supporting these teachers requires school principals to have an open mindset as well as new skills. Hunter (2006) proclaimed, “Today, school administrators who desire to lead schools to achieve greater student success must learn to operate on the end of the continuum that point toward collaboration” (p. 289).

Principals must also be effective facilitators of professional learning. Helping classroom teachers gain necessary knowledge and skills is now a crucial domain of school principals’ instructional leadership (Gumus, 2013; Hunter, 2006; Urick, 2016). The success of educational reforms and their degree of influence on classroom practices are strongly dependent on the quality of teachers’ professional learning (Gumus, 2013). The importance of professional development has been noted in various studies related to leadership and technology in schools. For example, when researching school leaders and technology initiatives in Native American communities, Richardson and McLeod (2011) found that school leaders struggled with how to provide timely professional development for staff and teachers, but at the same time realized that this was a vital element to the success of any technology initiative. Thus, the leader needs be cognizant of the professional development needs of teachers and staff.

Symbolic Frame

The ability to effectively lead transformation and change is now a critical component of principals’ jobs. Creighton (2003) noted, “Effective principals function best with an appropriate and balanced blend of both management and leadership skills” (p. 78). Similarly, Marks and Printy (2003) found that a blend of instructional and transformational leadership practices is necessary for optimal school success. Today’s school principal is expected to be both a manager and a change agent, and there is ample evidence that leadership can play a critical role in implementing innovations that can significantly affect learning and teaching (Christensen et al., 2011; Davis, 2009). Having the principal serve as the face of change is a symbolic shift away from classroom innovation to organizational innovation.

In an era of state and federal accountability that is often linked to test scores and standards, one of the main duties of school principals continues to be a focus on academic achievement (Hess & Kelly, 2005; Spillane & Kenney, 2012). Thus, one of the increasing emphases for school leaders is in the area of instructional leadership (Leonard & Leonard, 2006; Prensky, 2005). Many studies have connected school leadership practices to student results on standardized assessments (Creighton, 2003; Leonard & Leonard, 2006; Leithwood, Louis, Anderson, & Wahlstrom, 2004; Leithwood & Riehl, 2003). Shifting the role of the school principal from manager to instructional leader is a cultural and symbolic gesture in that it places learning at the core of the function of both teachers and leaders.

Hunter (2006) noted that a school’s vision is “not just a dream but . . . is an ambitious view of what a school can become” (p. 289). Principals’ actions and belief systems should reflect both immediate and long-term student and societal needs. Thus, the symbolic frame holds the vision of the organization a cultural feature that guides instructional practices.

In recent years, the call for a focus on digital citizenship has been increasing. As technology becomes more suffused in teaching and learning, addressing this call is vital. Ribble (2015) recognized how the “the goal of digital citizenship is to provide a consistent message to students and education professionals so that they can become productive and responsible user of digital technologies” (p. 2). This added focus on digital citizenship requires the school leader to create real and symbolic gestures that foster these skills, dispositions, and ethics.

Summary of the Literature

Contemporary school principals are asked to facilitate shared, collective visions around learning, teaching, and leading (Murphy & Torre, 2014). Yet despite rapid changes in the way that we research, conduct business, and communicate, Witt and Orvis (2010) declared that “schools haven’t changed; the world has” (p. 6) and that “the only thing that has changed [in school] is the color of the chalkboards” (p. 14). With regard to alleged school leadership shortages, Roza et al. (2003) claimed that whatever shortages exist are related to qualifications rather than number of candidates. Furthermore, they suggested that school districts should realign and redefine “leadership responsibilities . . . to create positions that can be successfully executed by the current applicant” (Roza et al., 2003, p. 54). The task ahead is not to lower standards but rather to rethink building-level school leadership. Unfortunately, many administrators’ vision may be conscribed to historical forms of schooling. However, Roza et al. found that some school districts are experimenting with new leadership roles and are separating leadership responsibilities between a chief executive officer and an instructional leader, thereby indicating that change is afoot.

School principals are now asked to create strategic plans that bring their visions of schools into the 21st century, but they often struggle to understand what that means or how to enable different kinds of learning environments (Richardson et al., 2013). The Consortium for School Networking (2004) reported that there is a dire need for school leaders to be “change agent[s] and consensus builder[s]” (p. 40), affirming that restructuring schools often requires significant alterations in learner experiences, teacher roles, leadership roles, and curricula. As described in this review of the literature, changing schools require that school principals navigate and lead shifts in structures, politics, human resources, and the culture of teaching, leading, and learning.

Methodology

Harper (2012) noted that there is a long history of collecting and analyzing job advertisements. Harper found 70 such studies published between 2000 and 2010. Harper noted that “A major motivation for studies which use job advertisements as data is to examine the changing nature of skills which are required in the workplace” (p. 29). The current study replicates the basic methodology of Richardson and Hollis (2015), who looked at postsecondary faculty job ads in the field of educational leadership. Like that study, the current study was designed to capture data about the current job market for one field: P-12 school principals. We embarked on this study with the assumption that job ads for principals accurately reflect districts’ conceptions of the principalship. In doing so, we asked two research questions. First, what does the current job market demand of principal candidates? Second, are changing school needs (as noted in the literature) reflected in principal job advertisements? To collect these data, we relied on publicly posted job advertisements for school principals in seven states across the United States. To capture the ebbs and flows of school leadership hiring cycles, we collected job advertisements over the course of one calendar year, from October 15, 2011, to October 14, 2012.

The US REAP educational job posting service (EducationPlus, 2015) was chosen as the data source for principal advertisements. We randomly selected seven states that participate in US REAP: Connecticut, Iowa, Kentucky, Michigan, Missouri, New Mexico, and Ohio. The geographic diversity of these states allowed us to represent various regions within the United States. Each state’s REAP website was checked on a biweekly basis. Job advertisements were compiled into state-specific spreadsheets. Once all of the job postings were located and extracted by state, the documents were uploaded into Dedoose, a web-based qualitative software program that offered the researchers the ability to capture qualitative data and quantify the occurrences of those data by state. The online software allowed the researchers to work collaboratively to find themes and determine quantitative representations of those themes.

Three of researchers began the coding processes by collaboratively developing an initial codebook. The codebook included the code name, a definition, and examples. The codebook was refined through three rounds until all three coders reached a consensus. Once the codebook was well defined, we used the constant comparative method (as described by Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Patton, 1990; Strauss & Corbin, 1990) to code each of the principal job advertisements. To address interrater reliability, Researcher A individually coded each job advertisement. Researcher B confirmed or disconfirmed each of the codes. In a final coding round, Researcher C confirmed or disconfirmed the codes that were not agreed upon by Researchers A and B. At the end, 100% consensus was achieved across the three coders.

Results

Using Bolman and Deal’s (2013) conceptual framework, we analyzed the data around the four frames to determine how job ads describe the role of the school leader. Bolman and Deal noted how leaders who operate primarily in one frame might miss essential elements of organizational change. If a job ad focuses primarily on structural issues, the organization is essentially asking for a manager. Thus, not all aspects fit neatly into one of each of the four frames. For example, technology might be thought of in the structural frame when dealing with infrastructure and budgeting. However, it may also be situated in the symbolic frame if the goal is to change teaching and learning through digital technologies. Technology may also be a human resource issue if the school leader needs to provide professional development around its affordances and uses. Technology may also be a political issue if the leader needs to discuss initiatives like a one device per child initiative and gain community buy in. With that said, in this study we attempted to put crossover items such as technology within the context through which it was discussed in the corresponding job advertisement. We attempted to delimit this issue in the definition phase of coding, which allowed us to best unpack these terms.

We located 279 principal job advertisements from the 7 states during the 12-month collection period. We analyzed all of the data as a whole, by state, by elementary and secondary level, and as required or preferred elements. In this article, we report only those aspects where noteworthy differences emerged.

At the most basic level, job advertisements for principals required various application materials. School districts most often asked for an application form (23.39%) and a curriculum vitae or resume (27.60%). Most districts also asked principal candidates to submit a cover letter (21.51%) and references (20.79%). Other materials, such as university transcripts (17.56%), questionnaire responses (1.79%), or other supporting documents (5.73%) were less common.

Just more than one third of the job advertisements in our sample directly made note of a preferred or required educational degree. Most of those position announcements asked for at least a master’s degree (19.35% required, 2.15% preferred), with a few noting a preference for a doctoral degree (0.72% required, 6.45% preferred). About three in four job advertisements noted that administrative certification was required (75.27%). Since most states require licensure to be a practicing principal, the remaining school districts may have felt that this was an implicit requirement that did not need to be made overt. Of the job advertisements, 6.45% required a teaching certification.

Table 1 details the explicit responsibilities that the job advertisements said candidates for the principalship would be expected to perform as related to the structural frame. The most common responsibilities listed were administrative duties, community building, and evaluation. These responsibilities were described in numerous ways. For instance, administrative duties expected of principals included the following:

“develop school/teacher schedule(s),”

“ensure a safe and orderly environment for students and staff,” and

“plan, organize, direct, and control the operations and activities of the educational program at this site.”

Table 1.

Responsibilities of Principals.

Responsibility	n	%	Bolman and Deal frame(s)
Administrative activities	61	21.86	S
Community building	57	20.43	P
Evaluation	54	19.35	H, S, P
People	33	11.83	H, P
Program	15	5.38	S
Teaching effectiveness	16	5.73	H, S
Academic achievement	53	19.00	S
Manage personnel	45	13.98	S
Program implementation	39	10.75	S
Budgeting/financial	30	9.68	S
Conduct professional development	26	9.32	H
Hiring/recruiting	25	8.96	H
Extracurricular activities	14	5.02	S
Program development	14	4.66	S
Organize meetings	13	4.66	S
Prepare students for 21st century	13	4.66	C, H
Compiling/articulating reports	10	3.58	S
Promote/showcase school	10	3.58	P

Note. P = political frame; S = structural frame; H = human resources frame; C = symbolic frame.

Similarly, in the area of community building, principals were expected to:

“establish and maintain an effective learning climate,”

“help develop and implement effective strategies to build a positive school climate,” and

“build and maintain positive relationships with staff, families, local school districts, state agencies, and community resources, including ongoing effective communication.”

With regard to evaluation, principals were expected to:

“supervise the evaluation of teachers and classified employees,”

“supervise the guidance program to enhance individual student education and development,” and

“establish, implement, and evaluate instructional goals, objectives, and action plans.”

Other expected job responsibilities included conducting professional development, promoting the school, implementing policy, budgeting, and organizing meetings. Less than one fourth of the advertisements explicitly mentioned these responsibilities.

A few of the job advertisements noted the role of principals in preparing college- and career-ready graduates. Several others stated that the principal’s job was to:

“produce fully equipped global citizens,”

“prepare students with 21st century knowledge and skills,”

“ensure that instruction engages learners in tasks that require analytical and critical thinking and problem-solving,” and

“have an extensive understanding of what a 21st century classroom looks, feels, and sounds like.”

The job advertisements that mentioned more future-oriented job roles such as these were dwarfed, however, by those that merely noted traditional, management-oriented principal responsibilities.

In the tables in this article, we took effort to note if the table fit neatly into one of the four frames (see Table 4 and 5). If not, we did not label the table but rather labeled elements within the table (see Table 1, 2, and 3). In the later, we noted if an element could exist in multiple frames.

Table 2.

Experiences Requested of Principals.

Experience	Required, n (%)	Preferred, n (%)	Total, n (%)	Bolman and Deal frame(s)
Administrative	84 (30.11)	54 (19.35)	138 (49.46)	S
Building	6 (2.15)	8 (2.87)	14 (5.02)	S
Elementary	11 (3.94)	11 (3.94)	22 (29.89)	S
Secondary	19 (6.81)	13 (4.66)	20 (7.17)	S
Classroom teaching	82 (29.30)	15 (5.38)	97 (34.77)	C, H
School leadership (general)	65 (23.30)	5 (1.79)	70 (25.09)	S
Data-driven decision making	38 (13.62)	1 (0.36)	39 (13.98)	S
Federal and state standards/regulations	35 (12.54)	0 (−)	35 (12.54)	S
Student achievement	33 (11.83)	0 (−)	33 (11.83)	S
Special education	25 (8.96)	6 (2.15)	31 (11.11)	S
Professional learning communities	25 (8.96)	3 (1.08)	28 (10.04)	H
Professional development	27 (9.68)	0 (−)	27 (9.68)	H
Community building/service	26 (9.31)	0 (−)	26 (9.31)	P
Lead change/reform	17 (6.09)	2 (0.72)	19 (6.81)	C, P
Facilities renovation/maintenance	12 (4.30)	0 (−)	12 (4.30)	S
Personalized learning	12 (4.30)	0 (−)	12 (4.30)	C, H

Note. P = political frame; S = structural frame; H = human resources frame; C = symbolic frame.

Table 3.

Knowledge, Skills, and Abilities Requested for Principals.

Knowledge, skills, abilities	n	%	Bolman and Deal frame(s)
Curriculum and instruction	98	35.13	S
Communication skills	89	31.90	P
Interpersonal	52	18.64	P
Technology	47	16.85	S
Work with diverse people	32	11.47	H, P
Collaborative	31	11.11	H, P
Organization	31	11.11	S
Partnerships/community relationships	30	10.75	P
Pedagogy methods	29	10.39	C
Classroom management and discipline	26	9.32	S
Analytical abilities	15	5.38	P
Data management	15	5.38	S
Finance/budget	13	4.66	S
Law/rules and regulations	12	4.30	S

Note. P = political frame; S = structural frame; H = human resources frame; C = symbolic frame.

Experiences related to the structural frame that were either required or preferred are outlined in Table 2. Slightly less than half of the job advertisements requested that candidates have previous administrative experience. A little more than a third of the position announcements designated that principal candidates should have classroom teaching experience while just over a quarter requested that candidates have more general school leadership experience.

Unsurprisingly given the wide-ranging educational accountability mandates in the United States, many of the job advertisements asked for applicant experience with data-driven decision making; federal and state standards, regulations, and policies; and professional learning communities. Only one advertisement focused more on school transformation by stating that the new principal would be expected to lead “the process of transformational change into a new century model of education.” Beyond the expectations of previous classroom and leadership experience, no other experiences were listed in more than one-sixth of the job advertisements.

In addition to past experiences, most of the job advertisements listed particular knowledge, skills, and abilities desired of principal candidates that relate to the political frame (Table 3). The only skill areas listed in at least 30% of the position announcements related to curriculum and instruction and to effective interpersonal communication. Curriculum and instruction needs were phrased in a variety of ways, including the following:

“a knowledge of curriculum, instructional strategies, and the use of assessment,”

“an educational leader committed to curricular and instructional quality and ever-changing standards for secondary education,”

“the use of data to drive quality instruction,” and

facilitation of “a dynamic and rigorous curriculum.”

Examples of calls for communication and interpersonal skills included the following:

“demonstrated strength in public speaking to effectively communicate with students, staff, parents, and community members in a multicultural community,” and

“allows input and is willing to listen.”

“responsibility for communicating the mission of the school to parents, community members, and potential partners,” and

“is a good listener, consensus builder, [and] understands the school community dynamics.”

Desired knowledge, skills, and abilities that were stated less often included effective collaboration, organizational skills, ability to work with diverse people, data management, program development, and many others. About one in six job announcements requested some form of technology-related expertise. While some of those requests pertained to leadership skills or knowledge of technology integration in classrooms, others focused on the ability to use data management systems, fluency with basic productivity software, or using technology to assess student performance. All these skill areas were more likely to be listed as required rather than preferred.

Above and beyond past experience and desired skills, many of the job announcements articulated desired leadership styles and personality traits that relate to the human resources frame (see Tables 4 and 5). About 20% of the announcements noted that the school was looking for an instructional leader or a visionary leader. Less frequently stated was the need to be collaborative, student centered, innovative, or entrepreneurial.

Table 4.

Human Resources: Leadership Style Requested for Principals Positions.

Leadership style	n	%
Instructional	61	21.86
Visionary	54	19.35
For students	5	1.79
For school	8	2.87
Collaborative	46	6.49
Innovation/creativity	41	14.70
Student centered	39	10.29
Dynamic	30	10.75
Motivator	14	5.02
Intelligent	11	3.94

Table 5.

Symbolic: Personality Traits Requested for Principals Positions.

Personality traits	n	%
Passionate	24	8.60
High integrity/character	19	6.81
Team player	18	6.45
Energetic	11	3.94
Inspirational	10	3.58
Sense of humor	10	3.58
Strong work ethic	10	3.58

The vast majority of the principal job advertisements did not detail specific desired personality traits that related to the symbolic frame. For those that did, being passionate, having integrity, being a team player, having high energy, being inspirational, and possessing a sense of humor were most often noted.

Discussion

We undertook this analysis assuming that job advertisements for principals reflect how a district conceives the principalship. Through these advertisements, we assumed that a district signals its priorities through the hiring process. What we found is that there is a mismatch between what researchers and academics say is the job of the principal and what districts advertise that they want and need in a principal. This misalignment leads to some interesting questions about why the gap exists. Are districts using job advertisements to signal where they see principals failing? Or, conceivably, do districts disagree with conventional wisdom on the changing needs of the principalship? It is unlikely that districts are totally unaware that the role of the school leader is substantially changing. Perhaps the issue is that job advertisements are not the place where districts address specific needs. It may be that these issues are addressed during the interview process. These queries offer opportunities for further research.

Our first research question asked what the current job market demands of principal candidates. Examination of nearly 300 principal job advertisements leads to the conclusion that the principalship is primarily seen as a fairly interchangeable role with similar qualifications and responsibilities across diverse settings. Repeatedly, the same needs and phrases dominated these advertisements: instructional leader, strong communication skills, data-driven, evaluating educational programs and personnel, complying with federal and state accountability mandates, and so on. As noted in Table 6, the structural frame was predominantly noted when discussing responsibilities; experiences; and knowledge, skills, and abilities. The human resources frame was primarily discussed as a secondary frame. Occasionally, a position announcement had a unique need or desire such as bilingualism, “an interest in and affinity for the arts,” the ability to “coordinate off-campus instruction,” or the “capacity to establish rapport with the media.” With that said, most of the principal job advertisements that we analyzed could have been swapped with nearly any other position announcement in our data set with little loss of context or requirements.

Table 6.

Frames Requested in Principal Job Ads by Percentage.

Frame	Responsibilities	Experiences	Knowledge, skills, and abilities
Structural	66.67	62.50	50.00
Human resources	33.33	25.00	14.29
Political	22.22	12.50	42.86
Symbolic	5.56	18.75	7.14

This observation is not an indictment of either the school listings or the role of the principal, but rather a recognition that a principal is, in many instances, viewed as a classic middle-manager position with commonly delineated duties and responsibilities that vary little across school settings (Martin & Willower, 1981; Morris, Crowson, Hurwitz, & Porter-Gehrie, 1982; Spillane & Louis, 2002). The needs of most principals continue to be in the classic areas of day-to-day management and operations, instructional leadership, interaction with school personnel and local communities, and furtherance of the statutory and regulatory goals of state and federal policymakers (Catano & Stronge, 2007).

Notwithstanding, it might be beneficial to see greater articulation of local needs and wants within principal job announcements. Every school and community is a unique microcosm of individual needs, personalities, and history; yet, this diversity of locations was rarely reflected in the position openings that we inspected. Schools that subsume their unique needs and wishes within larger, more generic phrases such as “instructional leadership” run the risk of failing to get applicants with skills sets that would be particularly helpful to their schools and communities.

Furthermore, some of the principal job advertisements were incredibly vague or poorly written. It is difficult to imagine a successful school system that fails to align the right people with the right jobs. However, without clearly detailing the necessary skills, experiences, and dispositions for each unique circumstance, it is doubtful that powerful leadership alignment can occur. The reality might be that principal candidates do not apply for the principal position that best fits them but rather the position that best fits their needs (district reputation, geography, monetary benefits, etc.). This is a call for more research on why candidates choose to apply for certain posts and not others. Is it an issue of alignment with the call for positions, or is it a combination of other factors? Investigating this issue might address superintendents’ concerns noted in the aforementioned literature about principal candidates’ skills, dispositions, and preservice preparation.

In our second research question, we asked if changing school needs are reflected in principal job advertisements. Notable in Table 6 is that the symbolic frame was all but lacking in this set of job advertisements. In this frame, school leaders work to modernize visions for future, enable transformational change, serve as change agent, become the face of change, engage in instructional leadership, and focus on soft skills such as digital citizenship and 21st century skills. We found that most of the job announcements articulated few job demands or expectations different from those we might have seen decades earlier. While there clearly is a core of duties particular to the principalship across a wide variety of settings, a number of emergent needs were rarely reflected in the principal advertisements. For instance, despite digital technologies’ transformational impacts on nearly every aspect of society, only one out of every six job announcements in our database even mentioned the need for some form of technology-related expertise, and many of those were focused less on classroom- and systems-level leadership and more on data management or personal productivity. The absence of technology is particularly dismaying given its momentous role in knowledge economies and the societal need for schools to prepare graduates who can be fluent in technology-suffused information, learning, and economic landscapes. It might be that those responsible for writing job advertisements do not see technology as a role of the school leader but rather that of a designated “technology” person. This is an area worthy of future research.

Other school initiatives such as competency-based education, standards-based grading, inquiry- and project-based learning, blended and online instruction, individualized and personalized learning, open access and open educational resources, participation in and contribution to online communities, ubiquitous computing environments, and alternative certification models are just a few of the many educational movements that were essentially nonexistent in the principal job advertisements that we studied. Nevertheless, conversations around these issues are prevalent in academia and the mainstream media. Lumping some or all of these initiatives under a stated need for instructional leadership or a request for a visionary leader all but guarantees that these burgeoning needs will be subsumed by more traditional conceptions of the principalship.

This study is limited in that the 279 job postings that we examined were a small percentage of the actual openings available to principal job seekers during the year that we sampled. We drew our data from only seven states and, within those, only from those schools that utilized the US REAP database to list their principal openings. It may be that our sampling strategy did not capture the full range of geographic and schooling diversity. For example, of the states in the study, none had a major urban district in a city with more than 3 million people. Second, we only looked at job announcements for principals in the United States. It may be that international postings for school principals call for different skills, experiences, or qualifications. Nonetheless, we feel fairly confident making some generalizations and observations about the U.S. principal job market from our data due to the overwhelming similarity of most of the position announcements that we studied.

There is little doubt that the job of building-level administrators will continue to evolve in new directions, but a principal who is capable of fulfilling traditional instructional leadership and policy compliance roles are not necessarily able to facilitate newer, nascent needs of students and society. The Wallace Foundation (2016) indicated that “district leaders are largely dissatisfied with the quality of principal preparation programs” (p. 6). The Wallace Foundation concluded that university programs need to be redesigned to reflect the actual job of the modern principal. Additionally, Whitaker (2001) debated whether the principal shortage is a matter of diminished quality of candidates or if preservice programs simply are not preparing candidates for the reality of the job. Thus, preservice preparation programs have a responsibility to ensure that school leaders are trained for the job they will soon accept.

Schools that see leadership openings as both chances to target particular local necessities and signaling opportunities for desired transformation directions probably would be wise to be less generic and more specific and future-oriented in their job advertisements. Reenvisioning the principalship can help the field of educational leadership reconceptualize this role and its impacts on student and school success (Ylimaki, 2006). As the aforementioned literature review noted, school districts often indicate difficulty in finding “good principals” for their schools’ needs. Perhaps, this difficulty is a reflection of the underwhelming sameness of their principal advertising.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author Biographies

Jayson W. Richardson is an associate professor of Educational Leadership at San Diego State University and is a director of the Center for the Advanced Study of Technology Leadership in Education (CASTLE). His research focuses on school technology leadership, principal preparation, and international development.

Dana Specker Watts is a PhD candidate at the University of Kentucky in the Education Sciences. Her current research is centered on the implementation of professional development within the international school community and empowering teacher leaders. She works as a consultant for international schools and currently serves as the Curriculum Leader at the Hong Kong International School High School.

Ericka Hollis is a PhD candidate at the University of Kentucky pursuing an interdisciplinary doctorate in Education Sciences with a research area of focus on higher education technology leadership. Ericka has served as an instructional designer/developer and project manager for the past ten years both in academia and in the corporate sector. Her research interests include leadership, pedagogy of online teaching and learning, and professional development.

Scott McLeod, JD, PhD, is an associate professor of Educational Leadership at the University of Colorado-Denver and founding director of the UCEA Center for the Advanced Study of Technology Leadership in Education (CASTLE), the nation’s only academic center dedicated to the technology needs of school administrators. Dr. McLeod blogs regularly about technology leadership issues at Dangerously Irrelevant and is a frequent keynote speaker at regional, state, national, and international conferences. He also is the co-editor of the book, What School Leaders Need to Know About Digital Technologies and Social Media.

References

Bolman

L. G.

Deal

T. E.

(2013). Reframing organization: Artistry, choice, and leadership (5th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Catano

Stronge

J. H.

(2007). What do we expect of school principals? Congruence between principal evaluation and performance standards. International Journal of Leadership in Education: Theory and Practice, 10, 379-399.

Christensen

C. M.

Horn

M. B.

Johnson

C. W.

(2011). Disrupting class: How disruptive innovation will change the way the world learns. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Consortium for School Networking. (2004). Essential skills of the K-12 CTO. Learning and Leading With Technology, 32(4), 40-45.

Creighton

(2003). The principal as technology leader. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Davis

M. R.

(2009). The challenges of managing e-ed: It takes more than computers to make e-learning work. Education Week Digital Directions. Retrieved from http://www.edweek.org/dd/articles/2009/10/21/01e-learning.h03.html

Day

Sammons

Hopkins

Leithwood

Kington

(2008). Research into the impact of school leadership on pupil outcomes: Policy and research contexts. School Leadership and Management, 28(1), 5-25.

DeArmond

Denice

Campbell

(2014). Missing out on strong school leaders? A survey of principal hiring and support in Washington State. Seattle, WA: Center on Reinventing Public Education.

DiPaola

Tschannen-Moran

(2003). The principalship at a crossroads: A study of the conditions and concerns of principals. NASSP Bulletin, 87(634), 43-65.

10.

EducationPlus. (2015). Regional education applicant placement. St. Louis, MO: Author. Retrieved from www.usreap.net

11.

Gajda

Militello

(2008). Recruiting and retraining school principals: What we can learn from practicing administrators. AASA Journal of Scholarship and Practice, 5(1), 14-20.

12.

Goertz

Duffy

(2003). Mapping the landscape of high-stakes testing and accountability programs. Theory into Practice, 42(1), 4-11.

13.

Great Schools. (2013). What makes a great principal? Retrieved from http://www.greatschools.org/gk/articles/what-makes-a-great-principal-an-audio-slide-show/

14.

Gumus

(2013). The effects of teacher- and school-level factors on teachers’ participation in professional development activities: The role of principal leadership. Journal of International Education Research, 9, 371-380.

15.

Guskey

T. R.

(2008). Practical solutions for serious problems in standards-based grading. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

16.

Guthrie

J. W.

Schuermann

P. J.

(2010). Successful school leadership: Planning, politics, performance, and power. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

17.

Hallinger

(2011), Leadership for learning: Lessons from 40 years of empirical research. Journal of Educational Administration, 49, 125-142.

18.

Hargreaves

Moore

Fink

Brayman

White

(2003). Succeeding leaders? A study of principal rotation and succession. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Ontario Principals’ Council.

19.

Harper

(2012). The collection and analysis of job advertisements: A review of research methodology. Library and Information Research, 36(112), 29-54.

20.

Hess

F. M.

Kelly

A. P.

(2005, May). The accidental principal: What doesn’t get taught in schools? Education Next, 35, 34-40. Retrieved from http://www.educationnext.org/20053/pdf/34.pdf

21.

Hine

(2013). Are American schools facing a shortage of qualified administrators? Catholic Education: A Journal of Inquiry and Practice, 7, 266-277.

22.

Hoyle

Wallace

(2005). Educational leadership: Ambiguity, professionals and managerialism. Thousand Oak, CA: Sage.

23.

Hunter

R. C.

(2006). Superintendent leadership for technology integration in public education. In S. Tettegah Hunter

R. C.

(Eds.), Technology and education: Issues in administration, policy, and application in K12 schools (pp. 287-300). Boston, MA: Elsevier.

24.

Johansen

(2012). Leaders make the future: Ten new leadership skills for an uncertain world. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.

25.

Keddie

(2015). Student voice and teacher accountability: Possibilities and problematics. Pedagogy, Culture & Society, 23, 225-244.

26.

Kurland

Peretz

Hertz-Lazarowitz

(2010). Leadership style and organizational learning: The mediate effect of school vision. Journal of Educational Administration, 48(1), 7-30. doi:10.1108/09578231011015395

27.

Leithwood

Aitken

Jantzi

(2006). Making schools smarter: Leading with evidence. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

28.

Leithwood

Harris

Hopkins

(2008). Seven strong claims about successful school leadership. School Leadership and Management, 28(1), 27-42.

29.

Leithwood

Louis

K. S.

Wahlstrom

Anderson

Mascall

Gordon

(2009). How successful leadership influences student learning: The second installment of a longer story. In Hargreaves

Lieberman

Fullan

Hokins

(Eds.), Second international handbook of educational change (pp. 611-629). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.

30.

Leithwood

K. A.

Louis

Anderson

Wahlstrom

(2004). How leadership influences student learning. New York, NY: Wallace Foundation.

31.

Leithwood

K. A.

Riehl

(2003). What we know about successful school leadership. Philadelphia, PA: Laboratory for Student Success.

32.

Leonard

L. J.

Leonard

P. E.

(2006). Leadership for technology integration: Computing the reality. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 52, 212-224.

33.

Lincoln

Y. S.

Guba

E. G.

(1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

34.

Manley

R. J.

Hawkins

R. J.

(2013). Making the common core standards work: Using professional development to build world-class schools. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

35.

Marks

H. M.

Printy

S. M.

(2003). Principal leadership and school performance: An integration of transformational and instructional leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 39, 370-397.

36.

Martin

W. J.

Willower

D. J.

(1981). The managerial behavior of high school principals. Educational Administration Quarterly, 17, 69-90.

37.

Marzano

R. J.

Waters

McNulty

(2005). School leadership that works: From research to results. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

38.

McLeod

Bathon

Richardson

J. W.

(2011). Studies of technology usage are not enough: A response to the articles in this special issue. Journal of Research on Leadership Education, 6, 288-297.

39.

McLeod

Richardson

J. W.

(2011). The dearth of technology leadership coverage. Journal of School Leadership, 21, 216-240.

40.

McLester

(2011, May). Turnaround principals: New training models have emerged for preparing school leaders to transform low-achieving schools. Retrieved from http://www.districtadministration.com/article/turnaround-principals

41.

Morris

V. C.

Crowson

R. L.

Hurwitz

Jr. Porter-Gehrie

(1982). The urban principal: Middle manager in the educational bureaucracy. Phi Delta Kappan, 63, 689-692.

42.

Murphy

Torre

(2014). Vision: Essential scaffolding. Educational Management Administration & Leadership. Retrieved from http://ema.sagepub.com/content/early/2014/11/03/1741143214523017.full

43.

National Association of Elementary School Principals, & National Association of Secondary School Principals (1998). Is there a shortage of qualified candidates for openings in the principalship? An exploratory study. Arlington, VA: Authors.

44.

Patton

M. Q.

(1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

45.

Pijanowski

J. C.

Hewitt

P. M.

Brady

K. P.

(2009). Superintendents’ perceptions of the principal shortage. NASSP Bulletin, 93(2), 85-95.

46.

Prensky

(2005). Listen to the natives. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 63(4), 8-13.

47.

Prensky

(2008). Turning on the lights. Educational Leadership, 65(6), 40-45.

48.

Ribble

(2015). Digital citizenship in schools: Nine elements all students should know. Eugene, OR: International Society for Technology in Education.

49.

Richardson

J. W.

Flora

Bathon

(2013). Fostering a technology vision for school leaders. International Journal of Educational Leadership Preparation, 8, 144-161.

50.

Richardson

J. W.

Hollis

(2015). An analysis of the educational leadership faculty job market. UCEA Review, 56(3), 10-14.

51.

Richardson

J. W.

LaFrance

Beck

(2015). Challenges of virtual school leadership. American Journal of Distance Education, 29, 18-29.

52.

Richardson

J. W.

McLeod

(2011). Technology leadership in Native American schools. Journal of Research in Rural Education, 26(7), 1-14.

53.

Rieckhoff

B. S.

Larsen

(2012). The impact of a professional development network on leadership development and school improvement goals. School-University Partnerships, 5(1), 57-73.

54.

Riehl

C. J.

(2000). The principal’s role in creating inclusive schools for diverse students: A review of normative, empirical, and critical literature on the practice of educational administration. Review of Educational Research, 70(1), 55-81.

55.

Roza

Celio

M. B.

Harvey

Wishon

(2003). A matter of definition: Is there truly a shortage of school principals? Washington, DC: Wallace Foundation.

56.

Sauers

N. J.

Richardson

J. W.

McLeod

(2014). Technology-savvy school superintendents: Success and challenges. Journal of School Leadership, 24, 1177-1201.

57.

School Leaders Network. (2014). Churn: The high cost of principal turnover. Retrieved from http://connectleadsucceed.org/sites/default/files/principal_turnover_cost.pdf

58.

Scriffiny

P. L.

(2008). Seven reasons for standards-based grading. Educational Leadership, 66(2), 70-74.

59.

Spillane

J. P.

Kenney

A. W.

(2012). School administration in a changing education sector: The US experience. Journal of Educational Administration, 50, 541-561. doi:10.1108/09578231211249817

60.

Spillane

J. P.

Louis

K. S.

(2002). School improvement processes and practices: Professional learning for building instructional capacity. Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, 101(1), 83-104.

61.

Strauss

A. L.

Corbin

J. M.

(1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

62.

Trimble

(2001). The teacher applicant pool: What top administrators seek. Principal Leadership, 1(7), 44-47.

63.

Tschannen-Moran

Gareis

C. R.

(2015). Faculty trust in principals: An essential ingredient in high-performing schools. Journal of Educational Administration, 53(1), 66-92.

64.

Urick

(2016). Examining U.S. principal perceptions of multiple leadership styles used to practice shared instructional leadership. Journal of Educational Administration, 54, 152-172.

65.

U.S. Department of Education. (2009). Applications now available for $3.5 billion in Title 1 School Improvement Grant to turn around nation’s lowest achieving public schools. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/news/pressreleases/2009/12/12032009a.html

66.

The Wallace Foundation. (2016). Improving university principal preparation programs: Five themes from the field. New York, NY: Author.

67.

Whitaker

(2001). Where are the principal candidates? Perceptions of superintendents. NASSP Bulletin, 85(625), 82-92.

68.

Witt

Orvis

(2010). A guide to becoming a school of the future. Retrieved from http://www.nais.org/files/PDFs/NAISCOASchools.pdf

69.

Ylimaki

R. M.

(2006). Toward a new conceptualization of vision in the work of educational leaders: Case of visionary archetype. Educational Administration Quarterly, 42, 620-651.