It’s Time to Upgrade to Principal Selection 2.0

Abstract

Education researchers have continually noted the importance of the principal in affecting student achievement and school success. Despite this importance, school districts seldom use reliable methods to select principals. The purpose of this study was to ascertain the selection processes used to select principals in California. Results indicate that public school principals were selected to their current principalship by the least reliable and least predictive methods of selection. Education stakeholders should make a concerted effort to improve principal selection methods.

Keywords

principal selection hiring procedures school administrators human resources student achievement

In the early 1980s, Baltzell and Dentler published an investigation into principal selection for the National Institute of Education due to “increasing concerns about the selection of principals and in recognition of the great gaps in the knowledge base” (Baltzell & Dentler, 1983, p. 1). They hailed their study as “the first national effort to inquire into the means by which school districts actually choose school leaders” (Baltzell & Dentler, 1983, p. 1). Despite the significant issues found nationally by Baltzell and Dentler, there has been little follow-up research of principal selection. Schmitt and Schechtman (1990) expressed exasperation at the lack of principal selection literature during the 1980s while simultaneously describing principal selection as “far from systematic” (p. 232). Other principal selection researchers have described principal selection as inadequate (Anderson, 1991, Blackmore, Thomson, & Barty, 2006), while Hooker (2000) declared principal selection to be “anecdotal, unpublished, and atheoretical” (p. 183). Of equal alarm are the problematic practices that arise from the minimal effort to select principals that has been reported by numerous researchers over the past 30 years (e.g., Baltzell & Dentler, 1983; Baron, 1990; Blackmore et al., 2006; Doyle & Locke, 2014; Gronn & Lacey, 2006; Palmer, 2016; Palmer, 2017; Palmer, Kelly, & Mullooly, 2016; Palmer & Mullooly, 2015). This minimal effort can translate to missed student achievement opportunities and should be of great concern to educational stakeholders.

The challenges that face today’s educational leaders in selecting principal’s is best exemplified by the Wallace Foundation’s Principal Pipeline Initiative (PPI), a $75 million initiative to provide training, evaluation, and support for new and aspiring principals in areas including selective hiring. Turnbull, Riley, and McFarlane (2015), the researchers tasked with reporting results of the PPI found that, “Leaders in other five districts praised the new principals’ [who had come up through the PPI] deep knowledge of instruction” (p. 52). However, one year later Turnbull and Anderson (2016) admitted that while “a majority of novice principals [within the PPI districts] received direction for improvement based on their evaluations . . . instructional leadership was the most common area cited for improvement” (p. iii). Top-level school district leaders involved in principal selection—even those with substantial funding to improve their practices—are unable to reliably assess principal candidates for characteristics that are paramount to the improving student achievement.

The Principal’s Effect on Student Achievement

The link between student achievement and school principals is well-established in the existing literature as relationships between the two have been found in numerous studies over the past four decades (e.g., Brookover & Lezotte, 1979; Hallinger & Heck, 1998; Leithwood, Louis, Anderson, & Wahlstrom, 2004; Mills, McDowelle, & Rouse, 2011; Osborne-Lampkin, Sidler Folsom, & Herrington, 2015; Waters, Marzano, & McNulty, 2004). In earlier literature, the principal was found to have a general relationship on school success where more recent literature as shown a measureable statistical effect.

Brookover and Lezotte (1979) found that schools that were improving had principals and staff that had high opinions of their students and conversely low-performing schools had principals (and staff) that had low opinions of their students. Hallinger and Heck (1998) indicate that a number of studies that indicate that a school principal has an affect on student learning. Leithwood et al. (2004) found that school leaders were the second most significant contributor to student achievement behind teacher quality. Mills et al. (2011) reviewed literature on school leadership and student achievement and found a principal’s impact on student achievement occurs through mediating factors; primarily school climate. As numerous researchers have established the relationship between the school principal and student achievement, how these school leaders are selected becomes salient. Waters et al. (2004) identified 21 leadership responsibilities correlated with student achievement through meta-analysis of 70 studies. This study found that principals not only have a positive effect on student achievement but also a “differential” effect. If a school principal put into practice any of the 21 leadership responsibilities described in the study the principal could statistically affect student achievement (Waters et al., 2004). Conversely, a principal could have a “marginal or—even worse—a negative impact on achievement” as well (p. 5). For example, if a principal focuses on the wrong classroom or school practices they could negatively affect student achievement.

Attributes of School Principals

The attributes for selecting school principals vary greatly depending on a large number of factors including school setting, context, and many other variables. However, whether the attributes sought in school principals are actually used during selection is debatable (e.g., Alkire, 1995; Baron, 1990; Palmer, 2016; Rammer, 2007; Wendel & Breed, 1988). Rammer (2007) established that superintendents do not use criteria correlated with student achievement. Doyle and Locke (2014) found that four out of the five districts within their study did not seem to ask the critical question: “is there solid evidence that this candidate has improved student outcomes in his past roles, and therefore reason to believe that he knows how and is apt to do it again” (p. 21). Correspondingly, Palmer et al. (2016) concluded that school districts often did not focus on candidates who can close the achievement gap. This suggests that on average school districts expend minimal effort and rely upon subjective procedures to select school principals.

Baltzell and Dentler (1983) found that those responsible for selecting principals do not necessarily use specific criteria to identify potential candidates. Rather, selectors have primarily used the notion of “fit” and haphazard procedures to assess principal candidates including: minimal recruitment efforts to establish candidate pools, utilizing unscorable interview questions, and selection decisions based on factors other than merit. Baltzell and Dentler (1983) argued that “fit” led to the systematic discrimination against women and minority candidates who applied to principal position. The use of the notion of “fit” has also been criticized by numerous other researchers for similar reasons (e.g., Baron, 1990; Blackmore et al., 2006; Gronn & Lacey, 2006; Palmer et al., 2016). Yet, while the literature is strongly suggestive that “fit” may promote the systematic discrimination of some principal candidates, empirical evidence remains limited (Palmer et al., 2016).

What Procedures Are Used to Select Principals?

The procedures used to select school principals remained largely unchanged since the 1950s (e.g., Mcintyre, 1974; Palmer, 2016; Rammer, 2007; Wendel & Breed, 1988). One focus of principal selection research has been continued reliance on the interview for decision making (Anderson, 1991; Baltzell & Dentler, 1983; Kwan, 2012; Palmer, 2016; Rammer, 2007; Schmitt & Schechtman, 1990; Walker & Kwan, 2012; Wendel & Breed, 1988). While researchers have indicated some value in using the interview to determine limited selection criteria such as communication (Baltzell & Dentler, 1983, Hooker, 2000, Rammer, 2007), the interview is well known for its weaknesses and is considered one of the most unreliable and least predictive procedures used in principal selection (Ash, Hodge, & Connell, 2013; Baltzell & Dentler, 1983; Hogan & Zenke, 1986; Walker & Kwan, 2012; Wendel & Breed, 1988). In one of the few national studies ever conducted on principal selection, Baltzell and Dentler (1983) found that 70% of the districts they surveyed in a national study had unanswerable interview questions in terms of evaluating selection criteria in candidates and that interviewers expressed concerns with the predictive value of interviews.

Problematic Practices in Principal Selection

Previous research strongly suggests that principal selection systems based on “who you know” continue to be pervasive throughout school districts. In at least one of the six schools receiving substantial funding to improve their principal selection and development systems within the PPI, an “old-fashioned system widely described as ‘who you know’” was in use within the very recent past (Turnbull, Riley, & MacFarlane, 2015, p. 43). Similarly, Palmer and Mullooly (2015) found “who you know” systems throughout California in a recent study and other principal selection researchers have also found or suggested this practice exists (e.g., Baltzell & Dentler, 1983; Baron, 1990; Blackmore et al., 2006; Gronn & Lacey, 2006; Kahl, 1980; Wendel & Breed, 1988). The persistence of these practices is perplexing given the principal’s known effect on student achievement and school success.

In addition to “who you know” selection systems, school districts have often been reported to engage in numerous other problematic practices (e.g., Baltzell & Dentler, 1983; Baron, 1990; Blackmore et al., 2006; Gronn & Lacey, 2006; Palmer, 2016; Palmer, 2017; Palmer et al., 2016; Palmer & Mullooly, 2015; Rammer, 2007; Schmitt & Schechtman, 1990). Baltzell and Dentler (1983) described some selection panels as “freewheeling” where any panel member could ask questions on any topic at any time. White and White (1998) participated in and observed numerous selection panels across the country and found some panels that were so incompetent they relied on the candidate to determine how to proceed through the interview process. Blackmore et al. (2006) found that selection panels were not competent to observe criteria they were looking for but in fact inexplicably used the very criteria they were looking for to dismiss qualified candidates. Furthermore, Blackmore et al. (2006) found high-ranking panel members who acted contemptuously by declaring their preferred candidate before the proceedings and manipulated the proceeding to that end. In a recent study conducted by Palmer and Mullooly (2015), participants described selection panels’ members who had close personal relationships with candidates that ensured the selection of their associates. Wendel and Breed (1988) asserted most school districts have untrained interviewers determining principal selection outcomes. It is highly questionable whether the most qualified principal candidates are being selected given the incompetent and nefarious actions of selection panels. Despite the persistence of problematic practices, school districts, governing bodies, or policy makers have done little to intervene in the processes by which school principals are selected.

Method and Results

Participants of this study included 221 public school principals in California. Demographics data are displayed in Table 1. Participants were asked which attributes they believed led to their selection to their current principalship and also which procedures were used during their most recent selection to their current position. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze results.

Table 1.

Participant Demographics by Percentage of the Sample (N = 221).

Variables	Percentage
Gender
Male	47.0
Female	52.9
Race-ethnicity
Caucasian	69.7
Hispanic	17.2
Asian	5.0
African American	3.2
Other	5.0
Highest level of degree
Master’s degree	70.1
Doctorate degree	23.1
Some graduate credits	6.8
Hiring status
From within district	60.2
From outside of district	39.8
Age range
56 Years and older	24.9
46-55 Years	36.2
36-45 Years	33.0
<35 Years	5.9
Years as principal
1-5	38.0
6-10	33.0
11-15	20.8
16-20	6.8
21 or more	5.9

The top three selection criteria noted by participant principals (N = 221) were leadership (58.5%, 130), ability to build relationships (52.9%, 117), and experience (41.2%, 91). Communication (36.2%, 80), and similar goals and values to district (34.8%, 77) were reported by just over one third of the participants. Accomplishments (31.2%, 69) was noted by just under one third of the participants with the remainder of the selection criteria noted by less than one fourth of the participants: already working in district, collaboration, innovation, and physical appearance. Table 2 displays results for the selection criteria responses.

Table 2.

Selection Criteria From Participants Most Recent Selection Experience.

Selection criteria	n	Percentage
Leadership	130	58.5
Ability to build relationships	117	52.9
Experience	91	41.2
Communication	80	36.2
Similar values and goals to district	77	34.8
Accomplishments	69	31.2
Already working in district	53	24.0
Collaboration	42	19.0
Innovation	38	17.2
Physical appearance	2	0.9

Most participants indicated they had participated in an interview (96.8%, 214) and submitted a résumés (90.0%, 199) during their most recent selection experience. A significant number of participants underwent reference checks (70.1%, 155) and a second interview (52.0%, 115). About one quarter of all participants had to submit an essay or written statements (24.9%, 55). All other procedures listed were noted by less than a quarter of the participants: site visit by district personnel, performance task, presentation, written tests. Selection procedure results are located in Table 3.

Table 3.

Responses to Selection Procedures From Participants Most Recent Selection Experience.

Procedure	n	Percentage
Interview	214	96.8
Résumés	199	90.0
Reference checks	155	70.1
Second interview	115	52.0
Essay or written statements	55	24.9
Site visit by district personnel	46	20.8
Performance task	42	19.0
Presentation	27	12.2
Written tests	2	0.9

Upgrading From Principal Selection 1.0 to 2.0

If Principal Selection 1.0 primarily relies on subjective antiquated methods such as interviews, résumés, and reference checks, Principal Selection 2.0 is a more scientific approach that aligns selection criteria with procedures and assessing for those selection criteria through rigorous procedures. There is a place for interviews, résumés, and reference checks in creating robust selection processes; however, school districts should seriously consider upgrading to Principal Selection 2.0 so they can hire the most qualified principals that can raise or sustain student achievement. These tools should support a more rigorous selection procedure that actually assess the desired criteria and have as much psychometric validity and reliability as possible. Unfortunately, principal selection research has scant best practice suggestions that have psychometric rigor.

The selection criteria established by Waters et al. (2004) should be considered when districts are developing or enhancing their selection methods. These 21 responsibilities, most of which served as a basis for Rammer’s (2007) research, are correlated with student achievement. The selection criteria should be developed prior to posting vacancies and should be used to evaluate principal candidates throughout the entire selection process from forming of the candidate pool until a final decision is rendered.

Interviews can be improved; however, the gains are minimal in terms of producing psychometric validity and reliability (Hogan & Zenke, 1986). Highly structured interviews with specific questions designed to assess selection criteria and scored with well-established rubrics can provide selection personnel with useful information to assess candidates, but the interview should not be heavily weighted as the primary mode of selection. Interviewing should be used in conjunction with other methods that are more reliable and predictive of a candidate’s abilities based on the desired selection criteria such as written tests or performance tasks.

Principal Selection 2.0 Procedures

In principal selection research during the 1970s and 1980s, assessment centers were noted as a viable method to test principal candidates on a variety of personal and professional traits. These assessments were known for having more psychometric validity and reliability than most other selection procedures but are absent from recent selection research and were one of the least common procedures reported by participants of this study. The use of assessments dates back to the early 20th century (Guest & Meric, 1989) and is still widely used by both public and private organization to provide selection personnel with valid and reliable information of job candidates. School districts would benefit greatly by using these types of assessments in principal selection because these tools can help assess the selection criteria districts are looking for in principal candidates.

In more recent research, Wildy, Pepper, and Guanzhong (2011) developed a performance task that was found to have psychometric validity and reliability. The task involved “real-world” decision-making scenarios such as the implementation of new curriculum, responses to personnel issues, and urgent situations requiring immediate and decisive action. Wildy et al. (2011) additionally developed a rigorous scoring system that mitigated bias to ensure fairness to all candidates. School districts should consider adopting methods such the one proposed by Wildy et al. (2011) or develop and experiment with their own similar methods.

School districts should also establish networks with other adjacent district to share, collaborate, and experiment with selection procedures in order to establish reliability and validity of current or new selection methods. Much like schools can establish professional learning networks for teachers to collaborate on best practices, local or state organizations can establish similar learning networks for school districts to this end. These networks should work to improve their use of selection criteria and establish valid and reliable predictive procedures because the benefits are substantial.

Conclusion

Selection of school leaders is a vital task of school districts and should not be left to chance. It is incumbent upon school district leaders, including school principals, who will be school district leaders in the future, to initiate changes to current selection practices to ensure that school site administrators are selected that can improve or sustain student achievement. Using criteria such as the 21 leadership responsibilities espoused by Waters et al. (2004) coupled with new innovative procedures such as the performance tasks developed by Wildy et al. (2011) can help ensure that schools have the best leaders that can raise or sustain student achievement.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Funding

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

ORCID iD

Brandon Palmer

Author Biography

Brandon Palmer is an Assistant Principal at the Antelope Valley Union High School District in Lancaster California. He is also an education writer and conducts education research at California State University, Fresno.

References

Alkire

(1995). Selection of beginning elementary school principals: Criteria used by Ohio school districts. ERS Spectrum, 13, 34-37.

Anderson

(1991). Principals: How to train, recruit, select, induct, and evaluate leaders for America’s schools (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED337843). Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED337843.pdf

Ash

Hodge

Connell

(2013). The recruitment and selection of principals who increase student learning. Education, 134, 94-100.

Baltzell

Dentler

(1983). Selecting American school principals: A sourcebook for educators. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Institute of Education.

Baron

(1990). A preliminary investigation of Superintendents’ perceptions regarding recruitment and selection of principals (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED327973). Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED327973.pdf

Blackmore

Thomson

Barty

(2006). Principal selection: Homosociability, the search for security and the production of normalized principal identities. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 34, 297-317.

Brookover

W. B.

Lezotte

L. W.

(1979). Changes in school characteristics coincident with changes in student achievement (Occasional Paper No. 17). Washington, DC: National Institute of Education (DHEW).

Doyle

Locke

(2014). Lacking leaders: The challenges of principal recruitment, selection, and placement. Retrieved from https://edexcellence.net/publications/lacking-leaders-the-challenges-of-principal-recruitment-selection-and-placement

Gronn

Lacey

(2006). Cloning their own: Aspirant principals and the school-based selection game. Australian Journal of Education, 50, 102-121.

10.

Guest

Meric

(1989). The Fortune 500 companies’ selection criteria for promotion to first level sales management: An empirical study. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 9(3), 47-52.

11.

Hallinger

Heck

R. H.

(1998). Exploring the principal’s contribution to school effectiveness: 1980-1995. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 9, 157-191.

12.

Hogan

Zenke

(1986). Dollar-value utility of alternative procedures for selecting school principals. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 46, 935-945. doi:10.1177/001316448604600413

13.

Hooker

(2000). Superintendents’ perspectives on the recruitment and selection of building level administrators. Planning and Changing, 31, 182-205.

14.

Kahl

(1980). The selection of teachers and school administrators: A synthesis of the literature (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED221917). Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED221917.pdf

15.

Kwan

(2012). Assessing school principal candidates: Perspectives of the hiring Superintendents. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 15, 331-349. doi:10.1080/13603124.2011.617838

16.

Leithwood

Louis

Anderson

Wahlstrom

(2004). Review of research: How leadership influences student learning. Retrieved from http://www.wallacefoundation.org/knowledge-center/Documents/How-Leadership-Influences-Student-Learning.pdf

17.

McIntyre

(1974). The way it was/is. Chautauqua ‘74: The remaking of the principalship: Viewing the selection process. National Elementary Principal, 53(5), 30-34.

18.

Mills

L. B.

McDowelle

J. O.

Rouse

W. A.

Jr. (2011). A meta-analysis of research on the mediated effects of principal leadership on student achievement. Southern Regional Council on Educational Administration, 20, 23-30.

19.

Osborne-Lampkin

Sidler Folsom

Herrington

(2015). A systematic review of the relationships between principal characteristics and student achievement. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED561940.pdf

20.

Palmer

(2016). Principal selection: A national study of selection criteria and procedures. AASA Journal of Scholarship & Practice, 13(3), 6-22.

21.

Palmer

(2017). A Renewed Call to Action: Update Principal Selection Methods. American Association of School Administrators Journal of Scholarship and Practice. 14(3), 11-27.

22.

Palmer

Mullooly

(2015). Principal selection and school district hiring cultures: Fair or foul? Journal of Education & Social Policy, 2, 26-37. Retrieved from http://www.jespnet.com/journals/Vol_2_No_2_June_2015/4.pdf

23.

Palmer

Kelly

Mullooly

(2016). What should be done with “fit” in principal selection? CLEARvoz Journal, 3(1), 26-38.

24.

Rammer

(2007). Call to action for superintendents: Change the way you hire principals. Journal of Educational Research, 101, 67-76.

25.

Schmitt

Schechtman

(1990). The selection of school administrators. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 3, 231-238.

26.

Turnbull

B. J.

Anderson

L. M.

(2016). Evaluating and supporting principals. Retrieved from http://www.wallacefoundation.org/knowledge-center/Documents/Building-a-Stronger-Principalship-Vol-4-Evaluating-and-Supporting-Principals.pdf

27.

Turnbull

B. J.

Riley

D. L.

MacFarlane

J. R.

(2015). Districts taking charge of the principal pipeline. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED555869.pdf

28.

Walker

Kwan

(2012). Principal selection panels: Strategies, preferences and perceptions. Journal of Educational Administration, 50, 188-205.

29.

Waters

Marzano

McNulty

(2004). Developing the science of educational leadership. ERS Spectrum, 22(1), 4-13.

30.

Wendel

Breed

(1988). Improving the selection of principals: An analysis of the approaches. NASSP Bulletin, 72(508), 35-38.

31.

White

(1998). Hiring the principal: Guidelines for the selection committee. NASSP Bulletin, 82(601), 119-122.

32.

Wildy

Pepper

Guanzhong

(2011). Applying standards for leaders to the selection of secondary school principals. Journal of Educational Administration, 49, 276-291.